Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Herausgegeben von
John Barton Reinhard G. Kratz
Choon-Leong Seow Markus \Xfitte
Bond 412
De Gruyter
De Gruyter
ISBK 978-3-11-022684-3
c-ISBN 978-3- 11-022685-0
ISS~ 0')34-2~73
2010 \~ '.ahcr de Gtu~'ter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/ New Yo1i:
Priming: Huben & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, GOuingcn
~ ])cimt d on ;~ cid~frtt p:tp<'f
Printed io Germ:my
W\1,'\\,dcgtU)'IC!.COm
To My Beloved Mother
and in Loving Memory
of My Father
The Patriarch Jacob's shuggle with the angel at the ford o f Jabbok (1855),
portrayed by the French artist Gustave Dore (1832- 1883)
Preface
As fa r back as I can rernernber 1 ha ve been fascinated by the in triguing
sto ries o f the Bible. This naturally made me interested in how these
text' have been in te rpreted, u nderstood ,m d applied throughout history. Since the Bible originated on lsraeliteflewish soil, the Jewish relig
ion and culture attracted my atten tion in a spedal way. AH these factors
resulted in my decision to begin LhCQlogical studies at Uppsala Univer
sity.
At the end of my u ndergrad uate education l had the p rivilege to
receive a scholarship from the Church of Swed en Mission in order to
study at the Swedish Theologic..1l Institute in jerusalem. I a m very
grateful for this grant and also w ish to express my sincere appreciation
to my teachers a nd co~students w ho made my spring te rm in Jerusalem
an unforgeH.."'ble experien ce. The semester in Je rusalem gave me a
glimpse of the t reasure that lies h idden in Jewish biblica l exegesis. The
study o f Mid rash was like the opening o f a different \VOrld and gave
me many new insights. I discovered that the Scripture has indeed 70
faces, as in the famous Ra bbinic saying.
Thus, my semester at the Swedish T11eological Institute had a decisive impact on my life a nd contributed to my decision to pursue postgraduate studies in Old Testament Exegesis. The first ste p o n this jo u r
ney w as to prod uce a Master thesis in this field a nd r chose to write
about the binding o f Isaac in early Jewish interpretation, the Aqedah
(Gen 22:1 -19). It was later pu blished in a shortened version in Swt~.sk
Exegetisk Arsbok, vol. 62. 1997. In this context, I wish to thank Professor
Dr. Stig Norin for accepting me as a doctoral student in O ld Testament
Exegesis.
Sin ce my first extended stay in Israel had been such a great experi
ence, I \'lrished to re turn. Grants from T1tartks to Sc(md;uavin, Friends of
lite Hebrew University in Sweden, and Sveu Linder's scllolnrsltip made my
dream come tn1e, and I spent my first academic year as a postgraduate
student at the Hebrew Universily of Je rusalem. D uring my year in Is
rae), I studied ancient a nd modem Hebrew, biblical studies, Midrash,
&<:ond Temple literature, a nd the historical geography of jerusalem. It
w.1s an invaluable period o f my life, and I wL'5h to express my sincere
gratitude to all of my teachers at the Hebrew University.
Preface
\'Vhen the tirne came for me to select a topic for my d octoral d isser
tation. I wished to deepen my studies in Je\vish exegesis a nd decided to
w rite about the angel/messenger of the Lord in early Je\''"ish interpreta ..
tions of Genesis. An ad ditional reason for my choice was that the ambiguity Qf these biblical texts in tTigued me, i.e., the ambivalence between
God and His angel/messenger. I have always been in terested in how
the relationship between God/the divine sphere and h umankind is
portrayed a nd perceived in different religions and their sacred scrip-tures.
In my book, I have included the illustration of Jacob's struggle at
the ford o f Jabbok.- porLTaycd by Gustave DorC. Since Ge nesis 32 is one
of the main narrat ives discussed in rny dissertation, I fi nd this illustr-a
tion by Gustave Don~ apt, but this is not the only reason. As the pat ri
arch jacob/Israel represents the jewish people, h is combat with God/U' c
angel at jabbok may be interpreted symbolica lly as depicting the early
jewish sages' grappling with 'the a ngel of the lord-texts'. Additionally,
the process of w riting a nd finally comp leting this d isserta tion has been
a long joum ey and in many \\rays a struggle.
Since no scholarly author is a n isla nd, there are many persons who
have contributed in d ifferent ways to rny project, a nd J wish to thank
a ll o f them.
First a nd foremost, I would like to express my d eep gratitude and
appreciation to rn y supervisor, Associate Professor Dr. Tord Fomberg.
without w hose support and commitmen t this book would never have
been completed. He has he lped me immensely by his reading of and
constructive comments on rny manuscript. His e nthusiasm, enoour~
agement, a nd patience during this long journey have been mo.5t impor
tant, a nd I thank h im from the d epth o f my heart for never having
dou bted my potential and ability to reach my goal and complete the
project I had begun.
When J presented my licentiate thesis at the Higher Serninar of O ld
Testament Exegesis in june 2006, Professor Dr. Staffan Olofsson was the
opponent. I \vish to thank him sincerely for his constructive sugges
tions a nd comments, w hich have been very valuable in completing this
d issertation. Moreover, I wish to thank ._,II the p ..uticipant.c; of the
Higher Semin a r a nd especially P rofessor Dr. Stig Norin. Professor
emeritus Dr. Lars Hartman has been a frequent participant a t my pres
entations in the Higher Seminar, and his constructive comments have
proved very useful. (n thic; context, I a lso wish to than k all the partici
pants o f the joint Uppsala- Abo-Helsingfors Semin ars. TI'e present
study would not have been possible without the people w ho taught me
Heb rew, Ar-amaic and Greek, thus I a m indebted to all my teachers of
xi
these languages. I v,rould also like to thank rny stude nt~ in the course
entitled The Hebrew Bible from a Jewish Perspective - Introduction to Jewish
Exegesis fo r stirn ulating d iscussions.
Associate Professor Dr. LarsOlov Erikss.on was referee at the collo
quium where I presented a p reliminary draft of my d issertation a nd I
wish to expres....c; my gratitude for his helpful remarks. Over the years
there have been many schola rs, both in Sweden an d abroad, w ho have
contributed to my work with this book in various ways, a nd I am grateful to them all. ,\Jnong those, I especially \'ltish to mention Professor Dr.
Rein hard Kratz (University of GOttingen) who recommend ed my
monograph for pub lication in the BZAW series. Thus, the p resent book
is a slig htly revised version Qf my dissertation publicly examined at
Uppsala University the 15" of December 2008 for u,e deg ree of Do<tor
of Theology.
I also wish to express my appreciation to rnany friends o utside the
academic world w ho have been a great help over the years by their
support a nd encouragement as well as to Monique Fedcrsel a nd Gullvi
N ilsson for proofing my manuscript
Natur~11Iy, fi nancial sup port in a d issertation project is o f decisive
importance, a nd in this context I wish to mention the foiiO\'I.'ing founda
tions: Ohms Petri Stifle/sen, Lnrs Hierlns lvfitme, Berti/ oc/1 Kilj Mnlers
Minrte, a nd Fredrikn Bremer FOrbrmdet, as well as a scholarship from the
Church o f Sweden for higher theological stud ies, in ~1ddition to several
scholarships granted by u,c Swedish House of Nobility a nd Uppsala
University during my years of study, fo r example, Bauers, Bielke.s, and
Jul>elfe.sl.
Last. but not least, fro m the d epth of my heart, I w ish to express my
profoundest gratitude and ap preciation to my beloved parents, Ulla
and Richard von Heijne. They have always believed in my potential
and their constant support a nd encouragement have been o f the utmost
importance. For this I remain forever grateful. 1 dedicate this lx.>ok to
my parents with deep love.
Contents
1.
1.1
12
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.4
2.
2.1
2.1.1
2.12
2.1.3
2.1.4
22
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
3.
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.22
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
15
15
15
18
21
22
26
26
32
36
xvi
32.6
3.3
3.3.1
3.12
3.3.3
3.4
3.4.1
3.42
3.4.3
3.5
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.7
4.
4.1
4.1 .1
4.1 .2
4.1 .3
4.1 .4
4.2
42.1
42.2
42.3
42.4
4.2.5
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
Conl enL<~
Conclusions ...................................................................................... 95
1l1e Rest of d1e Pentateuch and the Books of the Fom1er
Prophets .................................................................................................. %
Exodus .............................................................................................. 96
1l>e Books of Joshua a nd Judges and Od>erTexts .................. 101
ConclusiOJ>S ....................... ............. ................................................ 105
The Book.< of the L1tter Prophets .................................................... 106
Isaiah ............................................................................................... 107
Hosea ............................................................................................... 108
Conclusions .................................................................................... 113
1l>e Writings ........................................................................................ 113
Attempl< at Explan.1tion in Modem Exegesis ............................. 114
Introductory Remarks .................................................................. 114
The Interpolation Theory ............................................................ 115
1l>eories d>at Focus on the Function of d1e Angel .................. 117
1l1eories d1at Focus on the Nature o f the Angel ..................... 119
Conclusions ........................................................................................... 119
1l>e Angel of the Lord - Early Jewish Interpretations of
Genesis .....................................................................................
1l1e Book of Tobit and Wisdom of Solomon and the Gospel
of Luke ...................................................................................................
Introduction ...................................................................................
1l1e Book of Tobit a nd d1e Gospel of Luke - Type-scenes ....
1l>eWisdomofSolomon - AIIusions ........................................
121
121
121
126
141
150
156
159
166
4.l4
4.3.5
4.3.6
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
Conhml$
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.5
4.5.1
4.52
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.5.5
4.5.6
4.6
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
5.
5.1
5.2
xvii
............................. 365
Introductory Remarks ....................................................................... 365
C<mduding Discus:;;ion ..................................................................... 369
3
4
In"'>' iln.llysis of the biblical texts, I follow the Jewish division of the Hebrew Bible-:
Torah, (the Pentateuch) Nevi im (the former P'Ophet$! Josh - 2 KingS-. the Iauer
Prophers: Isaiah - Malaki), .and Ke nwim (the Writinss: Ps.1lms- 2 Chr011ide..'l, including Daniel), d.,. Luke 24 ~14 . I U$e the Hebrew Masoretic text (t>.IT) of Biblia Hebaica Stung<~ tens.i a, 1990, and the New Revised St.lndatd Version (NRSV), 1989, if
nl')( othel"\' 'ise ..'lt<Ued. Since the thesis concern.<J je\,.rish re<:eption histoty, the term
'"Bible' generalt) refe1'S to the Jewish Can Ol\. i.e., the Hebrew Bible, if not othe1'Wi..'le
staled.
For the !i.ilke of simplk-ity. I w ill generally use the terms 'the .1ngel of the Lord' or
1K'7DYHWHf;;;;;.
See illso Meie1995a. 87-88.
Even if the figure ' the .1ngel of the Lord' is not mentioned in Josh 5:13-15, it seent.<~
apparent that the "man" who Joshua encounters is a d ivine emisso'll'y of a similar
kind, i.e., an implicit reference to 'the angel of the lord'. See section 1.3.1, and d l apter 3 below. Cf., Rev 22:8-9.
1 use lhe term 'ong~l ology' \\' ilh some r~sen.<alion. !'inc~ v1e carulol lalk abo-ut an}'
unifo1m systematic doctrine 11f ang~ls in th e various foms of e.11'1y Judaism . See.
'~S Ol)'<lll 1993, I. and Hurlado 1998. 2425.
The1>e are alSlO texL" in which he app~a rs lobe distinct /rom Cod, e .g . 2 Sam 24:1516.
and 2 Kgs 1 9>~15.
R~~mnrks
9
lO
intermediary divine agent at God's side,u and the possible roots and
pmp<>nents of the heresy. Segal's study has shown that the cryptic p<>r
trayal of God in some texts in the Bible, including the ambivalence IJe..
tween God and His angel in, for example, Exodus 23... was considered
problematic by the early Rabbis, since these texts were useti by heretics
as support for their standpoint. One Rabbinic res ponse '"'as to list those
passages as dangerous. 12 Thus, the issue discussed by Segal has rnany
aspects in common vllith my own work but we differ in our approach .
Segal's investigation may be described as a thematic study of a p hcno
menon in early Ju daism, v~lhile I analyze the early Jewish interpreta
tions of a specific samp le of b iblical texts.
Charles G ieschen and Larry Hurtado,u among others,s.a have writ
ten about the Je\".rish religious background in relation to the develop
ment o f early Christology, a nd the present author feels i ndebted to
them. However, they are New Testament scholars and thus approad1
the issue fro m .l diffe re nt perspective. My purpose, however, is to make
a systematic analysis of the various early Jewish interpretations of the
Gen esis pcricopes in question.
Thllt is. a belief in hO/O complementary heavenly pohers, God illld His vice--egenl
who had a$sisted Cod in crea ti~tg the wotld. Thu s.. the he-esy dtd not neces.ii!l'ily include dualis m. someth ing which WiiS <tl<ill considered herelical by the Rabbis. See
Segal 1977. 3-73. and 12l 155. ~e ,l lso Fos ..o1un\ 1985, 307-33S.
12 Segel! 1977, 33~, and 121-I.S3. The problema lic pa...<>s.l gts include, e.g., te>:L'i .,...here
ve.rb..'i .ue used in the plural in referenct'S to lhe Cod of ls:rael. e.g., Gen 1!26-27, and
Gen 35:7 (sic!}. See also b. SaullotriuJSb.
13 See Gieschen J99fl. and Hurf.ldo 1998.
l4 See for example B<Wker 1992. Stu ckenbuck 1995, H.mnah 1999, and Newma n e l al.
(ed.) 1999.
15 To\' 20!13, 243.
ll
5
sions are crucial but issues of tradition history such as source-criticism
a re beyond the scope of this thesis.
The Jewish interpre te rs d id not regard Genesis as an isol..1ted book
bu t read it in the light of the rest o f the Bible, w hich they u nderstood as
a unity, in which everything belongs together.'" Genesis will therefo re
not be treated in isolation. The Bible itself contains examples o f texts
w hich allude to each o ther: Hos 12:4~ (in NRSV vv. 3-5) refers to Ja
cob's struggle in Genesis 32 and lsa 63:9-10 alludes to Exod 23:20-2;1,.
and JJ:14. The accoun t o f the visit of 'the angel of the Lord' in Judges
13 may be infl uenced by Genesis 18 and 32, and/or vice versa.17 As the
reader of this thesis will discover, ' the a ngel o f the Lordtexts' a re close
ly interrelated in early Jewish interpretation. Therefore, in the analysis
of the in te rpretations of Gen 16:714 the reader will find refe re nces to
other biblical texts, e.g., Genesis 18i judges 13, and so on.
The ' angel of the Lord texts' in Genesis may be divided into h,m
categories. Firstly. those that explicitly mention ' the a ngel o f the Lord '.
These pericopes, with o ne exception, display the above mentioned
merged identity bchveen the angel and God. The texts in question arc:
Gen 16:7-14; 21 :1 7-20; 22:1-19;,. 24:7, 40; 31 :10-13, and 48:15-16. In Genesis, chapter 24 contains the o nly reference to an angel in the sing ula r
w here the d istinction between God a nd His angel seems d ear. The text
is nevertheless includ ed in my study because of il'i exceptional characte r. As it constitutes a n exception to the rule~ the q uestion arises as to
w hether it is treatet.i diffe rently to th e othe r pcricopes by the interpre.
ters.
Gen 16:7-14 and 21:17-20 will be studied together, as they are pa rallel texts. Since the angel of God who appears to Jacob in Gen 31 :10-13
iden tifies h imself as the God o f Bethel who spoke to him in Gen 28:10
22, this periCQpe w ill also be take n into consideration. The same applies
to Gen 35:115, a text also connected to Jacob's dream at Bethel in Gene
sis 28. In Gen J5:1, God says to Jacob: "Arise, go u p to Bethel, and settle
there. Make an altar there to tile God ,.,ho ap peared to you, when yo u
fled from your brothe r Esau". God is thus talking about 'the God of
l6
17
l8
In Genesis there are two such pericopes, Genesis 1$, the account of
the visit o f the three "men" to Abraham and Sara h, and the struggle of
Jacob with an un known ''man'' at the ford of Jabbo k in Genesis 32.
Contextually, Genesis 18 and 19 belong together. Two of Abraham's
guests are depicted in Gen 19:1, l 5 as angels/messengers but the leader
of the company seems somehov~.r to be an appearance o f God in person;
Gen 18:9~ l S. The ''man" who confronl'i Jacob at Jabbok is a nonymous,
simila r to the 'angel o f the Lord' . The " man" refuses to reveal his name,
Gen 32:29}1 cf., Judg 13:17-18, a nd has the pm"rer to b less and rename
Jacob, o ne o f the patriarchs. Moreover.. the meaning of his ne\v name
'Israel' is said to be that Jacob had indeed striven wi th God Himself.:!z
In the S<-'l mc way as Hagar, Jacob appears to iden tify the d ivine c mis
sary as God in person; Gen 32:30:!3, cf., Gen 16:13.:!' The patriarch's e n...
counte r with the " man" is connected to Hos 12:3-5 (MT vv. 46):
I H()~
12:3) In the womb he Uacob) tried to ~uppl ant his b rt)ther? and in his
manhl'>t..xl he struve with Cud. (41 He s tn)ve with the angel and pre vailed,
he wept and sought hi$ fa\or; he met him at Bethel_ and there he spoke
with him {51The LORD th~ God of hosts, the LORD is his name!
19
20
21
22
23
24
An a l h~l'flati \'e interpretation of \..en 28:13 is that Cod is said to be stand ing in front
of o beside Jacob.
See also Gieschen 1998,57-69.
Verse30 in lher..rr.
See also KOckerl 2007, 52.. and Eynikel 2007. 113114.
Verse3 Jin the r..rr.
~ealso ju d g 6:22-23, and 13 ~2123.
7
he does not mention jabbok as the site of the confrontation b ut refers to
Bethel as the location of the divine en counter, the 1X;~{'a nge l' is said to
be the one who spoke to Jacob at BeU1el, i.e., God Himself. Thus, the
"angel" is equated with God, cf., Gen 48:15-16, w here U1e design ations
'God' a nd 'angel' also are used synonymously and in pamllel. Different
strands of the Jacobtradition appear to have been fused in this state
menl. The passage is also related to Gen 28:10.22; 31:10 13, a nd 35:115
by the referen ce to Bethel.
In the presen t thesis I have d1osen to focu s primarily o n the first
category o f texts, i.e., the so-called explicit references to 'the angel of
the Lord ' but Genesis 32 is a n exception to t-his rule. It is included as a
main text in my study for hvo reasons. Firstly, it constitutes an insepar
able part of the Jacobsaga as a \"thole, as all the Jaoob pericopes are
closely interrelated. Secondly, although strictly speaking the designa
t ion 'the angel o f the Lord' does not occu r in Gen esis 32, the prophet
Hosea explicitly identifies Jacob's opponent as an a ngel, \\1ho in tu m
appears to be equated with God:u However, the narrative of the visita..
t ion o f the three "men" in Genesis 18 and its interpretations will not be
focused upon in the study, although references to the perioope a re u navoidable.., sin ce all ' the a ngel o f the Lord texts' in Genesis are intercon
nected.
Some persons in Genesis, e.g.... Melchizedek,.:u. Enoch, and Ja
cob{lsrae)2' have bt."en endowed with a kind of angelic character in early
Jewish legends.~ and it could be assumed that, for example, the
Enoch/Metatron tTaditions of early Ju daism would be includ ed in my
study. However, although the disappea rance of Enoch in Gen 5:24 is
indeed mysterious a nd served as the starting poin t for many of the
Enoch/Metatro nspeculations~. there is no ambivalence between God
and Enoch in the biblical text as such, and the same applies to Melchi
zedek. However, because of the connection "vith Genesis 32, the tradi~
t ion of Jacob's a ngelic id enti ty/coun terpart will be take n into considera
t ion.
25
26
27
28
A" will be s hown below, !here <~re sdlol.lrs who even Cl"'nside the word 116.~ in
Ho.,.ea 12 as a g~a. and in refe1-ence to Ge1\el>is 32, they interprel this JMS!>age in
Hosea to mean tlwat jacob had struggled with God.
In 11 Q~1ech ( IIQ13), Mekhizedek is identified as the leade.r of lhe hea\enly <~rnlies.
See illso 2 Et~(/l'll 69-73, a1ld WaR,.en 2007. 503-505.
See. e.g., the l'raJ~~t of/l)seph. ilnd chapter4.2 below.
See, e.g., 1 nocl1 70-71; 2 Ent,dl 22. lit .1 Emh:ll. th~~se Enoch-specutntions re.lCh their
d imax and Enocll is explicitly identified as the angel Metatron. Sl.>e al"-l"' Seg.ll 1977,
60-73, FllS!ium 1985, 307-314, and Gieschen 1998, 146, 156-158.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
\.VI~ n quoting biblical 1\'!fe renres and other primary sources, I will sometimes place
dlosen \oJords in italic..o;; in order to emphaJ'i.ze them. However, il not othewise
s.t.lted, in quotillions from the T<w gun\.'1 the wotds in italics a1-e not m)' own but the
system used by lhe English ~rnnsla tors. l n lhLo;; manner the largu mic deviations are
hig.hlighced in oo..'Ordance with their policy. s..~~. . for exa mple Till! Aramaic Bible, wl.
6, the Editors' Foreword, 1988, \iii. Regard ing Ge'INSi.o;; R,t11bitll, lhe translatMs ha\e
ch(:.$el\ to rende1 the cdmmented verse in ques.tion in capilal l eller~. while it.:llics are
used for the suppmring biblicall'e fe -ences.
Here I ta ke the ~ame position .1s Kugel {1998. 29-30).
See e.g., lllmaVI-Iarviilincn 1993, 14, 94. and Jaffee 1997, 20. See also chapter 2 below.
It is genemlly aclmowledged rhar this Tarsum COI\tains earl)' 1\Mte.i.ll. Sec clMplers
2.2.3. and 45. 1 bekn..-.
E.g., Lunt introduction in OTP, vol. l. 1985, 40.t and Kugel 1995, 2092 10.
Friedla nder 19 16. introdu~.-'l ion to Pir~ de Rabbi 1i~-ut, )(h:lv. Bowker 1969, 85, Maher
1992. introduction to T.ugum P:>md.,.}mulllum, 5-12. and St:rac};JStemberger 1991, 357.
The Targums in quc.."Stion are Om~t!;)S, Nt'fiJiti 1. PStlldtt}oJia/Jiall, the C.euizah frtJg
mmls, and lhe FragmelllT1trgmm; .
9
sian times.3f> I
Philo.
my stud y. Firstly, there are sources that explicitly " translate'', comment
on, o r rewrite the biblical narratives, e.g., the Targums, the works of
Philo, Gwesis Rabbah, Jubilees, and the Judean Antiquities by Josephus.
Second ly, we have sources that share the same motif(s), theme(s) and/or
literary structure as our texts, connected to the role of ' the angel o f the
Lord'. By the use of a biblical theme or motif familiar to the reader, the
36
37
38
Th~
reason for omitting the SamaritaJt Targwu is that the split beh"een J~ws and
S."lmarit<l llS is so ancient. Snm.a1'il:H\ history go~s back to the de.<1truction l)f the l\l)f1h
~m kingdom l)f lo;rael and i L<~ capit.ll Samaria in 721!722 B.C.E. 11le :\S.'I)' I'i<ms then
depmted !tOme of Uu~ population and in thei place brought in alie1\ people. In the
~yes of the people of Judah, tlle inhabitants of lh~ north were becoming )Mgan {cf., 2
Kgs 17:24-41). During the time of Ezra th~ returning Jews thus consider~d the Sama
ritans a mixed pet,ple. The Sanuui t<uts, howe\~r. d a imed h) be the d~ndants of
the north~m Israelill'S. In e<>ntras.t to the Jews, the Sam.:Uit.l ns d<~ imed that the prop
er pl.loe to worship God was Bl Mt C.el'izim a nd no Jerusalem. This conflict even
tually resulted in .a final break between Jews B1\d Samaritan.'! w he n the Hasml':mean
khlg john H)' I'Canus de.o;lroyed the Temple on t\11. Ge1izim in 128 B.C.E. Howeve1,
the "dhorce" between the l\\'O poopfe.o; and their religious tradition$ is in practice
much older, well before the pe1iod oove1-ed in lhis study. The Samadtoms only con
sider the Tl)mh Ol' PenMteuch as Holy Scripture, a fae1 \"hkh indicate.<~ rhat th is p.ut
of the Hebrew IJible was ....canonized"' ar the time of the schis m between jews and
S.1mariblns. Since the pati:ng of Jews a1\d SamariMns goes so far back in ti me, the
Samarilom T1rrgum represents an (Will\, perhBp.<~ lsr.lelite but not Jewish. tl\ldition of interpretation. The conflict between Jews and Samaritan.o; is a llested in the book l)f ben
Sira..:h (50:25). and the NT, e.g.,. Johl\4:~22. See .1lso Jaffee IW?, 135-138. The Sm11ari+
lau Til'811tll is generally discussed separ<llely by schobws.
Psctfdo+PIIilo or Libt'r Auliquiltllllm BiNicm'ltm (L.A. B.) has onl) a short s ummay of
Genesis 12+50 in ch.apte-1 8. where nothing of relevance to the present s tudy is men
~ioned, .although the1>e are some scBuered references to ow texts in other chapters.
Boo,luse tll e forus of th ;s d;s.<ertarion ;, eariy )ew;sh ....:eptH>n h;story. the deHOlh;on
'po$t+bibHc.ll sourct~s' refers to SftU!'I:E'S outsid e the Jewis h Canon.. i.e ., the Hebre\'1
Bible. l n contrast to the SamaritaJt Targum. the NT originated in a Jewish 001\ text,
tong <lfter the split between Jews and Sanuritan.'l, see, e.g .. John .J: 19-22.
10
author invi tes the audience to u nderstand his/her story in the light of a n
already well~knm"m biblical text. Robert Alter tem 1s this lite rary method
a use of type-scenes. For example, a common fu nction of 'the angel of
the Lord' is to announce the birth of a child, e.g., Gen 16:7-14, and
judges 13..-w Th is motif ~1nd the literary stmctu rc of these texts recur in
the NT, Luke 1:8-20, 26-38. As will be shown in the following. despite
the fact that the book of Tobit is not a n explicit comrnenta ryon a specific
bib lical text, the p lot seems to have been modeled on Gen esis 24, where
an angel is also said to accompany the traveler, although this a ngel does
not play such a n active part in the narrative as Raphael. whose role in
Tobit is reminiscent o f other b iblic..1l ' angel of the Lord~tcxts'.
A third in terpretative method comprises explicit allusions or refer
enccs to b iblical events? circumstances or persons. \Visdom of Solomon
ch apter 10 and john 1:51 may be seen as expressions of tl1is kind of
biblical interpre ta tio r1. ~ 1
In two excurses, I will also take a look at th e portrayal o f the 'a ngel
of the Lord-motif' in early Jewish liturgical poems a nd art.
11
12
I. Defining th e Issue
is sent' .-'2 The noun is used in the Bible to refer to both human and su
pernatural messengers, and it is sometimes unclear w hich meaning is
in tended.43 The sender can likewise be either hu man or divine. The
same applies to the Greek word ciyyu\o.;, the most common tr-anslation
of 1N;71l in the L>..'X.44 However, while d:yytAo.; in th e LXX can denote
both h uman and heavenly agents, the word 1tQECJt3u.; is often used for
human messengers.45 The te rms ciyyu\o.; and 1~7/:) were not originally
used to denote Cherubs a nd Seraphs, d ue to the fact that they are not
messenger$.~ In contrast to Cherubs and Seraphs, the heavenly LP:n\:7i:>
'angels' are depicted as similar to h u mans in appearance, and w ithout
w ings. Sometirncs they a rc simply called 'men', e.g ., Gen 19:5, 10; Ezek
40:3; Josh 5:13; Zech 1:ll-12, and Dan 10:5, 1518." However, in the later
texts o f the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryp hal books, a nd the NT, 1~'>n and
O.yyeAo:; became gen eric terms fo r a ny of God's supcmatural ser
42
4..1
Meier J995a, 81. Bol mberger 1971,957, a nd \101\ Rad 1964, 7&;7i.
In, e.g . I Sam 19:20, Hag I:13. o~e Wl'U'<I is clea tf)' used for human$, vJhile other texts
are more <~ mbigu ous. e.g.. Judg 2:1: lsa 44:26; l\1al 3:1. n 1e referen<:e is undLc;putedly
to angels in. e.g., Gen 28: 12. The di"ine mes!ienge rs are often termed messen
gersJangel<~
~ealso
44
45
46
47
of Cod {or YHWH), alth11ugh thllt l<~ not always th e case, e.g., Gen 48:16.
Eynikel2007,
11 ~11 2.
alread)' in the LXX ltJlgdo:; W ll.'i beginning to t.\ke on the quasi-technical meaning of
heavenly being . . .''
E.g., Cen 3:24; I Sam 4:4; P:<~ 18:11: Isaiah 6, 111\d E.ttkiel 1 omd tO. The Jiving ,~re-a
rures' of Ezekiel I are in 10: 1.), 20-22 identifi ed as CIU!1'Ubs.. See Meier 1995,,, 83-84
and Newsom 1992. 251. There are also othe r designations for ' a ngelic being.<~"' in the
Bible; ' son.c; of God' (Satan is mentioned among them), e.g., job 1:6: 'sons of
gods'fdivine beings' e.g., rs. 29!1: 89:7 {NRSV 89':6): 'gods', e.g., Ps 82:1; ' holy '' nes'.
e.g . Ps 89':6, 8 (NRSV 89:5. 7); 'spiiLo;', e .g... I Kgs 22:21; Ps IObt ' ministe rs' is used
parallel to o~K';.) /mes..<~e nges in Ps 103:20-21. In the LXX. the de..c;ignatiml ' sons of
God' is often transla ted by the term t.\yycAo~ N,~wsom 1992. 218249. See also
J<&kert 2007, 53. BecalLo;e of the "'scru\dal" that angels could be Sp<)ken of in the Bible
as mingling in the flesh \''ith human women, the a ngelic interpretation of the sons
of C'.od' in Gen 6: 1-'1 ha...<1 be>en rejected ln some andent jewish $0Utces. Th.ill ange ls
might be capable of s..~xual rei.:Uion.c; was amside1-ed repulsive (d., Matt 22:30). Fo1
example, in Targum Ot~iJI!Ic~ a nd NtVJjifi 1 to Genesis.. th e 'sons of God' are depicted
as human..; descended from impotcant familie$. This text in Genesi$, hllWever, is the
sowce of th e ll ldest legend conoo1'fling the fa llen angels (1 Enodt 6) and the inh~p-e
talion al<~o has mode1'fl supporte1"S, see e.g . von Rad 1985, 114. It Lc; noteworthy.
hc)wever, that the pericope itself d oes n01 contain an> deill' d enouncement of ' the
son$ o f God' marTying the women. See a lso Ma rmorstein 1971. 966, Hogeterp 2007.
37938 1, a nd Wassen 2007, 500-501.
See <~ lso von Rad 1964, 80, and Kt'Kkert 2007, 51-52. Female '<~ ngelic beings' are m en~
fill ned oni>' '' nee in the Bible.,. in Zech 5!9 11.
13
vanLc;.45 Du ring the Second Ternple era, the supernatural status of the
heavenly servants o f God became more significant, w hile Lheir role as
messengers recet.i ed into the background. The angels are o ften named,
and appear as independent individuals, sometimes even in opposition
to God.
The word 1X?;:J; eventually ceased to be used fo r human messengers
and postbiblical Hebre\\' ernploys other terrns.sn In the Vulgate, the
distinction between h uman and heavenly mes.,<;engers is d ear; tmgelus is
used to designate the supernatural ones, \''"hile JJWtlius refers to hu r:nan
agents.s This differentiation can also be fou nd in Targuttt Joualhan and
the Syriac Pes h i tta .~
Angels appear as theologically important creatures and are 1nen
tioned mo re often in Lhc later religious literature of Israel, from the
third century B.C.E. and onward. Thus it seems that God's transccn
d ence increased in this later stage, and the angels' roles as med iators
were emphasi7..ed; God prefers to send subordinate emissaries to com
municate \Vilh hu mankind.:U This does not necessarily imply that an
gels in earlier times of Jewish history d id not play a part in the popular
4S
49
50
51
52
53
rv1eier 1995a, 84, 89. Newsom (1992. 251) writes: "'Liller tradition inte1-p1-eted both
seraphim and d'k!1'Ubim as classe.c; l)f a' sels." According to KOclc~t (2007. 54) the
ideas M a heaven1) council and that of a messenge we~ fused. In the NT the Greelc
word dyyr,\o:: is used only three times hw humal\ messengers sent by other me n;
tulce 7:24: 9-52, and ]as 2:25. John the Baptist is 1-efered to by Je..c;us in Matt 11!10
(Mark 1:2) as "the me.c;senger of the coven.anr" {d., Ma1 3:1). Other\''i.')e tiyyv\o.: is
used exclusively to refer to angels in the supematural sen.c;e of the ward. Humal\
n\essengers in the NT are generally refe>ed to by other \'lords, s uch a!' oi
nq.tQ9fvu.; (Lulce 7!10), etc. See Kittel1964, 83.
Meier 1995a. 89-90, News..Jm 1992.. 25 1233, and E)'ll ikel 2007, 110--116. See also Gut
maM /Edih)rial sttlff 1<171, 961-966.
E.g., rr?v. Ban\berger 1971.957. Divine messengers do not appear in ail se.:lions of
the Hebrew Bible. Fot ex.1mple. the}' are not mentioned in the P .md D sections of
the Penblteuch. at least not in the MT, see a lso Meier 1995<1, $4. However, even if the
word 1X'7ll d oes not appear in the MT of Deutemnomy. Deut 33:2 says !hilt God c-ame
wi th ....my-ri.ldJ~ of holy ones (i.e ., angels?} ..... d ., the LXX rendering: of the same verse
and Ps 89:6, 8. Jn addition to the reference in Deut 33:2,. ,mgelc; are mentilW~ed the
LXX version 1\f Deut 32:8. Acoordil\8 to this verse. \...od set the bound..c; of the nation..<!
acclwding to the number <If His ange ls. All nations thus have their own appoillted
guardian angel. In r-.n the bound.<; .ue set according to the nu mbe of the Israelites.
In both the LXX and the 1<.1T it is stated tha t the JX"'ple of l sr~l .we the Lord'!-! own
pl)l'tion: v. 9. See also Hannah, 2007. 422-123.
Me ier 19933, 82.. omd K1':kker1 2007,. 51. See <~ ISO Eynikel2007, 110-112.
~~:1:.11\ is nomally used for human messengers in Tatgum /onallum, while 10161.l desis
nlltes hea venly agents. see a lso Kashe 2007. 555-S56. However, the1-e are a few exception.c; hl this I'Uie, see Smelik 1995, 349.50.
Meier 1993a, 84, v.1n Henten 1995a, 90-94. Gutmann./Edihwi.l l sMff I<Jil, 961-962.
14
mythology among the people but it was not until the Hellenistic period
that the conditions for a more d eveloped angelology were present.!'"
During the Second Temple period, the dominant view was that it was
only the great prophets o f long ago who had been given the privilege of
d irect contact with God, w hile in later generations God used angels as
intermedia ries.55 However, the vie\"' tha t the development of the belief
5<1
SS
56
Si
58
59
2
3
4
5
A" Holt;.-. {1984b, 181) st.ues: "Without knowing the rabbis' interpretation of the
Bible, one doe." not understand either Jewis.h Uloug.ht or JewL"h pactice." See also
Adania 2002. 20-21.
Trebolle BarTera 1998, 2 I 22. an d Signc 1994, 6667.
The main focu.." i$ on !io."".ICillled 'Rabbinic Judaism', but the term 'midrash' is used in 3
b1'0ad sense, thus encompassing 3 wide spectrum of early Jewish biblical i nh~p-eta
~ion in \'ariQUs sources, e.g.,. ftbil~>tS. and not only as 3 designation of the Rabbinic
Midras him. Philo and ]n.<lephus as inte'PI't'ters of ~he Bible will be discus!ied in their
respt.~ i ve chapters.
Holtz 1984b. 183- 184.
Adania 2004, 14.
16
According to traditional Orthodox Jud aism, the Bible is eternall)'
relevant and in fallible, ins pired by a perfect a uthor, God himself. ., He
has e ntruste<l his v.mrd to Israel, and all possible Jev,,ish interpretations
are inherent in the bib lical texts. T11e Bible is full o f hidden implica
tions.7
Sinn:! !he m ore libeal foms of Judais m,, lhe ConseMuttive and Refmm m ovements,
are relatively recent phe.lomen,,, the>' wi ll no! b..~ considered in my survey.
7
Holt1. 1984.il, 12-17, 185.
8
Jllman/Harviainen 1993, 9293.
9
The reference is tom. Abot 5.22 (Eng. tr<ms. Neusner 1988, 689). See abo Holtz 1984b.
185.
lO 1\l.~croby 1988, 6..o\s I undets tand Macooby, the pllint is that neither Putim nor
Hanukkah is me ntio ned in the Penta!euch. Purim, hov/e\er, is mentioned in the Hebl~\\' Bible, while Hanukkah is not.
ll }.lffee 1997, 78-80.
12 Steinsahz 1976, 47 and -m -275. Adania 2002. 19, Holtz L9~1 a, 1129, and 18 1-185.
13 Bm'lker 1969, 1213. See also Levine 1988, 143.
17
Secret lo re."" The natio ns will ask: "And what i.s Thy
w i11 reply: " It i~ thl! Mishnah."W
~ecret to n~?"
Cud
This teaching \',as partly connected to the popularity of the LXX among
the early Christians.~>The lXX therefore g radually gained a bad reputation in Jud aism, and new Jewish-Greek translations v~.rere made1 such as
the o ne by Aqvila.
A main characl'erl'itic of the oral Torah is that of discussion; there
may be more than o ne interpretation of the same biblical text." In con..
trast to the written Torah (and the n ucleus mentioned below), another
characteristic of the oral Torah is its fallibility. The oral trad itions are
not regarded as inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Bi ..
ble. The oral Torah is consid ered a process, as opposed to a fixed reve
lation.17 God has entrusted His word to Israel. Rabbinic disputes are
solved in a d cmocrat"ic way; the majority is right.
According to the Rabbinic interpretation of Deut 30:12-14, tl1e w ritten Torah is indeed fro m heaven, but its practical application, the o ral
Torah, is earthly and as such subject to h uman irnperfection.' 11 Th us, the
status of the NT in Christianity and the oral Torah in Rabbinic Jud aism
is not comparable. Both constitute in terpretations of the Hebrew Bible
but, according to Christian belief, the NT is part o f the Bible itself, and
most 0 1ristians consider it to be of greater importance than the OT. The
"cano nical" works of the o ral Torah, the Mishnah and the Babylonian
Talmud, are not regarded as d ivinely ins pired in the same way as the
Bible. As a Ch ristian coun terpart, Hyam Maccoby mentions the status
of the works of T11o mas Aq uinas in the Catholic Chu rch.I-t It is clear,
however, that the Mishnah has a high authority o f its 0\~t.'n and its laws
can be taught independently o f the Bible.?A,
In Christianity, Christ is the centre of the d ivine revelation, while in
Judaism the Torah occupies this position. Jews and Christians thus
study the Hebrew Biblc/OT from d ifferent paradigms of in terpretation.
For Jud aism the Torah is the centre, w hile Ouistians tend to read the
18
Scriptures from a Christological perspeclive.z Jews and Christia ns ha ve
d ifferent "eycglas.<es," u,e o ra l tradition o f the Rabbis a nd the NT respectively . "'
19
Rabbis. In this chain of transmission' a group called ' the rnen of the
Great As..-c;embly' is mentioned... an institution probably found ed d uring
the Persian period :n
M u~s received the (o ral) To rah at Sinai and handOO it on to Joshua; Joshua
to the elder$, and elders tu the prophels. And prophets handed it on to the
men of the great assembly. They said three things: & prudent in judgement. Raise up many d isdple..:;. M<lke a fence fo r the lwritten) To rah.!ii
This passage from J'vfislmall Abol actualJy mentions /roo kinds of Toralt.
According to the Rabbis, it is the oral Torah, i.e., the orally transmi tted
tradition that constitutes the " fence" around the written Torah, the
Bible. The o ral Torah contains the authen tic in terpretation and applica
tion of the biblical revelation.!i lt is probable that the origin o f the Torah"'()riented branch of Jud aism, which later became known as Rabbinic
Judaism, is to be traced to the Persian peri0l1.211 According to jewish
trad ition, the priest and scribe Ezra, the religious lead er d uring the
retun1 from Babylon, played a prominent role in this development.~
However, it is a misunderstanding to assume that the early Rabbis
really claimed that all of the oral Torah had been given once and for all
on Sinai. The relationship betv,een the w ritten \\'Ord of God and the
oral traditions is complex. The Rabbis thought that the rmcleus of the
Oral Torah was given to Moses by God . These traditions arc called
halakl10t le~!V!oslu~ mi~Sinai (laws o f Moses from Sinai) and are considered
equal in authority to the written Torah. The rest o f the oral traditions
are thus regarded as being of lesser authority, aiU,ough the total development of the o ral Torah throughout the centuries may have been in
the mind of Moses;, poteulia:"ff
After the Babylonian exile, the Jews w ho retumed home found
themselves in a totally ne\v situation. They had to rebuild the Temple,
25
26
27
28
29
30
20
and the world around them had altered con~iderably, both culturall)
and politically. All this gave rise to new biblical applications and inter~
pretatlons..~t
Maccoby compares the destmction of the First Temple and the Ba
bylonian exile with the s ituation after the fall of the Second Temple in
70 C.E. Each of these national disasters led to a oonsotidation of the
Jewish religion~ and if the first resulted in the "cn.nonization" of the
Hebrew Bible, the Rabbinic literature (e.g., the Talmud) was the prod
uct of the second .:u
More<.>ver, at the beginning of our era, the biblical canon was not
yet completely fixed. Many books claiming divine inspiration \"'ere still
being written, for example at Qumran. Thus the initial Rabbinic reluc-tance to write down the o ral tTadition..~ was grounded in an atternpt to
protect the status of the biblical books. \\'hen the biblical canon \Vas
fim1ly established, it becn.me easier to allow the publication of other
religious works.33
The origin of the Mishnah is debated among scholars, and some
claim that it is not a commentary on the Bible but an independent col~
lection of rules.J.~ Gary Porton uses this as an argument to prove that
the Pharisaic Judaism of the Second Temple era was not excJusively
centered on the Bible.JS On the o ther hand, it has been poin ted out that
although the Mishnah rarely quotes the Bible, its laws derive from the
written Torah.Jl> Both positions have supporters.l.i' Daniel Patte con
dudes that there are two sources fo r the oral Torah: cultural customs
and traditions and biblical interpretation. Revelation has two loci;. the
Bible and the cultural changes of history."'
31
J2
3:3
34
35
36
37
38
21
39
40
41
42
43
44
4.1)
46
47
Alit. 13.297. Josephus wilt be d iscu~Sied in hi~ own right in dl.:l pter4A.
Stein~allz
22
Rabbis gradually took the place o f the prophets as the spiritual leaders
of lsracl.'-11 By study ing the written \ovord of God in the lig ht of con tern~
porary circumstances, they explored the v,riJI of God for His people, i.e.,
the 'oral Torah'. God did not, however, leave Israel, and the Rabbinic
sources often speak o f the bat!J qol/ 'daughter o f His voice' and the She
kinah/ 'the d ivine presence':''<~
According to Bm"'' kerl the tem1 bn/11 qol represents the Rabbinic belief that God remains in communication v~.rith humanity but not in the
same imrnediate sense as prophecy. It sign ifies divin e inspiration and is
in many ways an equivalent to 'the Holy Spirit'. However, the secta
rians' (e.g., early Christian.~ and the Qumran community) use of the
latter concept " ... explains why the Pharisees/Rabbis increasingly re~
stricted the fu nclions of mall ltaQodes!J and '"'h}' they tended to substi
tute o ther terminology."!W
centre o f the je\vish people after the Babylonian exile-. It is t rue that the
Scriptures were important, but as long as the Temple stood the cult and
the priesthood were equally important, perhaps even more so. The
Temple rult and the Tora h constituted two ways to God.~ The High
priest Shimon the Righteous (about 200 B.C.E.) is said to have been o ne
of the last of the members of 'the Great Assembly.' In m. Abot 1.2 we
have a saying attributed to him:
He [Shimon) would say: "On th~ thin&~ does thL> wurld stand:
I. On the Torah,
2. and on the Temple service
3. and <m deed.s of loving kindne.s...:o." :;2
48
49
50
51
52
l){ficially canlln ized. Jaffee (1997, SS) wriles lhal ben Sirah has a 'lUI\..'>i-s.:riptural St<l
tus nnd isoflen cited by lhe RabbL'I. See also Kugel 1998, :l233.
Kugel 1998, 9-14, ilnd Paue 1975, 118- 119. As long as the Temple stood, the p riests
retained their po.<~ition as spiritual leade rs alonsside the Rab b-inic sages. Besides their
rultic fUil(Cion., many priests were l i!Ocl tea<:hers of the Bible.
Bcn'lker 1969, 14 .
BO\'Iker 1969, 44-.JS.
Plll'lon 1979, 112114.
Eng. !l'il.ns . NelL<~ner 1988, 673.
23
T here wa s most certainly a diffe rence between Jews living in the Diaspor-a a nd those in the land o f Israel conccming the importance of the
Temp le in Jewish religious life.n
Porton cla ims that it is doubtful that the Tora h \ovas read in the syn
agogues before 70 C. E." Th e origin and fu nction of the first synagogues
are disputed. Most sch olars, however, agree that the read ing o f the
Tora h in the synagogue was a well established custom before the fa ll of
the Second Tern ple.r.G From pas....,ages in the NT/ it is quite clear that the
synagogue institut ion h ad this fu nction d uring that period . Synagogues
a re mentioned many times in the NT, both in the gospels a nd in Acts.st.
At Masad a.., fo r examp le, the remains o f a S}magogue that was in use
before u,e fall of the fortification in 73 C.E. have been fo und."' josephus
and Philo also refer to the existence of synagogues.~ Th e Th eodotus
inscription, dating from before 70 of our era can a lso be mentioned.5"
T he earliest proofs o f syn agogues arc Egyptia n in54.:rip tions and papyri
from the third century B.C. E."'
Until the 1970s, the general view among sch olars was tha t the syn *
agogue institution originated d uring the Babylonian exilc.M Today, the
trend is to date Lhe o rigin o f the in stitution to the Hellenistic e ra, b ut
the traditional view has not been totally abandoned .eu The reason for
modem d oubts abou t Babylonia n o rigin is lack o f evidence.., even if the
theory seems h isto rically plausible.MAnders Runesson dates the begin
nings of the synagogue to the Persian period but admits that a major
53
In st.lti ng tltat the Bible and the Temple cult were equall> impon.ant.. Porton refers to
the reJig~ms life of '"P.llestinian Jews;; 1979. 114. Since 'Pale$tine' was a n.ame given
to lhe land b)' the Romans in 135 C. E., I will het-e Se.JH!r.lll}' use the jewi.'\h term...<~ for
the region.,. i.e ... 'the land M l:wael or j udea. Sama ti.l, and Galilee'. a .. Matt 2:20. See
also lllman/1-huviainen 1993, 7576.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
vol. 2, 424427. The part coru::erning the school and the synagogu e ltas been revised
byCa\'e. Seealw L. l. tevine2003, 121.
E.g., luke4: 16-22; Matt 13:54; Mark J:21; John 6:59: Acts 15:21. .and 18:4.
See <~ lw Tov 2003, 217-255.
Philo. Fl!tCCIIS .J7. a nd On lht' EmlltJS.iY fl) C'..aius 132-135; josephus . Tite Witrs cif JJtc Jews
7.3.3.- L. I. levine 2003. 6, and 18. Philo will be d i.c;cus..c;ed ill his own righl in chap1er
4.3 .
Perrot 1988. 137.
Claussen 20!lJ, 147-148.
Cf.. Moore 1927, vol. 1, 281307. See a lw Rune.'\SOil 2003. 63.
See Rune.'\SOil 2003. 6364.
Runesson 2003, 63. &--e also Claussen 20ro, 147.
24
development o f the institution probably took p lace during the Hellcn is
tic er._-,.64 The synagogue was still an evolving institution d uring the first
centu ries C.E.65
In addit ion to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, two other bib lical
texts may be mentioned in connection "'!ith the d ebate on the origin of
the synagogue institution. The first is Psalm 74, which probably da tes
from exilic t imes:M
(Ps ?4:7J Tiwy set your sanctuary o n fi re; thl!y deSt:!crated tJw dwe11ing
place of yuur name, bringing it to the ground. fSJThe)' ~a id tu the mselve$,
" \<Ve will utterly subdue them"; they bumed fill fht! mcding pltrt.c'S tif Cod ( ?:~
;.x ,,~.,t>) in the land.
l11e old King ja mes Version tra nslates 7~ ,,111~ ; , as "all the synagogues
of God." This in terpretation is also fou nd in the ancien t Greek Aqu ila
and Symmae:h us transla tions. Th e New International Version is more
imprecise a nd says "every place where God was worshipped." Th e
Swedish translation from 1917 says "alia Guds forsamlingshus" [all
God's houses of assembly], a nd the version from 2000 has "alia gudshus" [all houses of God] (my tra nslations)." It is noteworthy that 'l:>
?x ~ilil:O:: refers to something in the plurnl, \'l!hich cannot be the Temple,
since it is mentioned in v. 7: "you r sanctuary/ the dwelling place of
your name.'' Is this perhaps a n early reference to syn agogues? l n his
d is.c;ertation Runesson refe rs to J. Mo rgenste rn, w ho dates the origin of
the synagogu e institu tion as fa r back as the Josian ic reform and uses Ps
74:8 in support of pre-exilic "syn agogues.""' In the revised English version o f Ernil SchUrer's handbook it L'i stated that ' " ,,.~\1::> refers to syn
agogues.&.J The a rguments fo r a Josianic o rigin are u nconvincing.. a)..
though the Psalm may ind icate the existence of some kind of "syn ago
gues'Tin exilic times.
However, o ne quite \~t.reighty counter argument is tha t the LXX
d oes not understand the expression as 'synagogues' but translates
;~ ~1:1~ in Ps 74:8 as 'til:<; EO(YtCu; KuQiou/"the feasts of the lord." This
rendering of the verse is also fo un d in the Targum to Psalms, Peshitta,
61
65
66
67
25
The LXX translates o~" tropa as ciyiaal-'a lllKQOv. According to both the
Babylonian Talmud and the Targum to this verse, this is an exilic reference to the synagogue institution.'.; This may of course be a later retrojection but the text is used as an argu ment by scholars who support the
exilic origin o f the synagog ue institution."
As mentioned above.. most scholars consider that the reading of the
Tor-ah in the synagogues was a well established custom during the
Second Temple era but their liturgical fu nction d uring that time is a
more controversial matter. According to Bowker, the origin o f the syn~
agogue was closely associated with the reading ~1nd study of the Torah.
As long as the Temple s tood, the synagogue in Judea was not a 'house
of prayer'. II developed this fu nction only a fter the e nding of the Temple cult. In the Diaspora.. 'houses of prayer' may have existed but, according to Bowker.. they were originally distinct from synagog ues. 7t. He
derives the origin of the synagogues i n the land o f Israel to the socalled ma'amaddtll.n Bowker writes:
The mn'amatlolh w~tre division..; of peuple throughout Judea, which were in ~
tended to correspond tu the twenty-four cuur.ses uf the priests in the Temple. In this way a ll the pe<)p)e were involved in the dutie..; and sacrifires of
the Temple, even thuugh they could nut be pr~..>$e:nt in Jerusalem. E~o1ch
iO
71
i2
i3
74
75
76
77
26
mn'nmlrtl as:;embled, when its turn came, W read pa.ssages of Scrip ture a>r
res po nding t<> the sacrifi ces taking place in Jerusalem. (t was from these
'a-S$emblies' that 'synagogues' in Palestine seem 10 have d eveloped.ili
Other scho lars hold the opinion that from the beginning prayer was a
central factor in the syn agogues.i't ln ancient sources, the synagogue is
sometimes designated as itQOOt:UXti 'house o f prayer" . i(l Maybe there
was a difference in function between synagogues in the Diaspora and
the land of Israel,. and perhaps also between synagogues in the Galilee
and judea as long as the Temple stood."
To conclude, it must be stated that the importance of the synagogu e
and the Torah after the fall of the Second Temple is undisputed. It was
then that the Pharisaic/Rabbinic branch of jud aism gradually became
normative. It was able to survive s ince it was not dependent on the
Temple cult. The Torah became the 'portable sanctuary' and "homeland" of the Jews.Sl The crises o f 70 and 135 C. E. eventually resulted in
the writing dov~m of the core d ocuments of the oral Torah, Mishnah,
and its commentary Gemara, that is, the Talmud.&
i8 Bowke r 1969,9.
79 E.g., Pane 1975,3 1-JS.
for example, L. I. Le vine 2003, 1-21. .1nd a.ms.,..:;en 2003,147...\ san exam ple we
ma)' mention the inscrip tion (rom Sche-dia wuth o f Alexilod i a f1'()m the ti:ml~ of PloW-my Ill (Euergete..'l, reigned 216-221 B.C. E.).
81 See, h w example, L. I. Levine 2003, 1-21, and Falk 2003. 404428.
3 2 Bowker 1969, 42. Ht)ltz 19S4a, 17.
83 The W I'Y meaning: of the word Talmud i..'l sludy, tha t is, s/Jtdy ofJhe T.mlh.
84 In the Bib!~... the most usual o~>tect of ~-.., is Cod, and can in the.c;e cases a1:;o haw the
me.'ul ing 'wor.<~hip', E2.1a 4:2; 6:21.
85 T he NKJV .says here: " Fo1 Ezra IMd p-epatl~d hLc; he.wt /,, seek the Law o f the lORD.
and to do it. and to teach statues aJld ordinances in lsael" See also Ps 119:94, 155,
and l Chr 28~. Cf., Lev 10:16; Oeut 13:15 {\'. 14 ill N RSV). and !.!Ia 5.;:6.
SO
Sl~e,
27
qui red the sen se of' iuquiring itl ~1rder to do'~ and in Rabbinic literature
is mainly as..'iOCiated with b iblical interpretation.~P Th e noun 'midrash'
is fo und only twice in the Bible; 2 Chr 13:22 a nd 24:27. In both cases the
word seems to denote some kind o f book or study, but we canno t be
certain: ~ 'T he rest o f the acts o f Abijah, his behavior a nd his deeds~ are
written in the story [<t-"1'V:lo] o f the prophet lddo" (2 Chr 13:22). In the
LXX the word [3t[3Aiov is used in this con text."'
As previously mentioned/ in Rabbinic literature midr-ash primarily
denotes biblical study and interpretation. The noun is used to signify
both the process whereby the Bible is expounded and t/Je result of that
exegesis.911 There have been several a tte rnpts to define mid rash, but no
general consensus on the matter has been adlieved. Most scholars do,
however, recognize that midrash in its widest sense refers both to an
exegelicalwelltod, the result of iHierpreting (the exegetical exposition of a
certain biblical unit or verse), and the midrasldc compilations~ e.g ., Genes;s
Rabbah. The te rrn can thus in its widest sense be applied to an}' Jewish
biblical interpretation a nd not only the Rabbinic Mid rashim.IJI Aocor
ding ly, even a book like jubilees can be said to be a midrashic work.<n
The midrashic method is considered very a ncient; indeed 1 ~2 Chroni
d es ha ve been designated a kind o f midrash, rnainly of 12 Samuel a nd
the books of Kings.<nSome sd lolars have also daimed that Deuteronomy
and the book of Ezekiel contain midrashic elcments.94 \Ne can also men
tion some of the titles o f the b iblical Psalms; for example~ the introduc--
86
87
8,1)
89
90
91
92:
Pl"ll'ton 1979, IM .
Plwton 1992a, 8 18, and jastrow 1971, 325. jastm\Y" lists lhree C"a tegories of meanings
ll f the \'erb in Rabbillic Hebrew: I} to examine, question 2) to expound. ill terpret 3} to
feach, l~cture/preac.h.
l'm'ltm 1992a, 8 18.
In 2 Chr 24:27 the LXX ha.<1 lhe word yQaq}. See al<~ll Si 5 1!23 vJhere 3 house of
team ing'/ vTo.o n:: is referred to.
Pmton 1992a, 8 18.
The masculine p lural foml 'Midashim' is a rather late crealion and a lludes only to
the midra.<~hiccom pilations. llle pluml used in e.wly Rabbinic litera~ure is lhe femi
nine 'Midrashol'. Trebll lie Barrea, 1998,476-477, and ~taccoby 1988,23.
This is lhe gene al vie"' mnong scholars: e.g ... Pmton 19i9, t OSIO'J, Zeuerholm 2001,
4, Bowker 1969. 46, and Neusner 1987, 712. Macroby, however, prefers hl use mi
dral>h in a more testicled sense and onJy applies illo deno~e Jhe Rabbiuk illh~p-et.a
~ions found in the Midashim. Howe\er, he oon.<>iders the term '{h)asgad.ah' hl have
3 w ider ange and admils that haggadnh may also be found in non-Rabbinic \\'Orks
( 1988, 22 25). See a lso Trebolle Bam~ra t99$, 4,)7, and Herr 1971, 150S-1509.
E.g... Porton 1992..l, 8 19, d ., 2 S.:lmuel7, clnd I O.mnicles 22.
Vernw..c; 1970, 199.
4
93
9'1
28
tion to Psalm 5 1:!15 "To the leader. A Psalm of David, wlreu t!Je prophet Nn-
some~
times said to be a kind of mid rash on the Mishnah, but the prime object
of interpretation is the Biblc:n The word mid rash has thus rome to signi ..
fy ancient Jewish (and to a certain degree ancient Christian) biblical
i nterpretation.>JII Mid rash has been defined as
95 Jaffee l997. 717.1. Eve1\ the contents of some Ps-:1lms ace midrashiC', e.g... Psalm 78.
Cf ... 2 Sam uel 12.
Hohz 19$4b. 178.
~e Kugel 1990, 1-2. and Signer (1994. 6.~) who \Y"I'iles: ..The re are some remnrkable
parallels between the Midra...oohim and patriS-tic licemnu-e. both Greek and Sriac.. in
hemeneutic.1l methods. Origen and Jerome both reve-al an 3\v.ueness of Midras.hk
literature."' The NT is considered by nh1ny s.cholars as a source of early midrashic interpretations. e.g., Neu!)ner 1987. xi. 7-8, nnd 37-40. see belm'l. Cf.,. al.;o Horbury
1988. no-776. As a complement to midra!)h, jewish sages have always U$ed the literal in cervn~c.l! ion of Sc1iptu ~ No mau,~r how myscical and deep the me<~ ning we c;u1
disoo,e in the biblical texts, it cannot annul the obvious, plain :>en.<~e of the pei
ropes. TI1e liter11l appi'Oach (peshat) became increasingly poptlar duing the Middk>
Ag,~s as a re..;ult of l<~lami c influence .1nd as a polemical v.eapon directed against
ChrL<~tian allegcuization of Scriptu-e. Trebolle Bnrret<l 1998, 475-476. le,rine, 1988. 37.
and Greenstein 1984. 213223.
99 PQI'Ion J992b. 62.
100 Zellerholm 2001, 6.
101 Porton himself <~dmiL.; that 1he notil)n of post-biblical midrnsh being different from
biblical mid ash meriL.; invesrig<~ tkm . Porton 1992b, 69.
102 Ze.Ueholm 2001. 8. See also Kugel 1998,29-30.
103 Pot1on J992b. 70.
96
97
9$
29
2. The Bible is a book of iHslructiou lhal is relevatlf for the time of the
in te rpreter a nd his a ud ience. In the Qumran society, for examp le,
many o f the b iblical prophecies were understood as referring to the
political situation of their own d ay. As a nother examp le, Kugel re
fe rs to what Paul says in I Cor 10:11: "These tl'ings happened to
them [the Israelites during their 40 years of wand ering in the
d esert] to serve as a n examp le, a nd they were written to instn1ct us,
on whom the ends of the ages have come." In Rabbinic Judaism,
midrash is used to bridge the gap between the biblical v,rorld and
th e time of th e Rabbis. Midrash is thus a n aclualiznliou of Scripture,
where the biblical message and commandments are adapted to nev,r
circumstances. Midrash is a profoundly religious activity, close to
what we may call homiletics.
3 . The Bible is perfect ntzd perfectly lzamwnious and con tains no mis
takes. Contradictions or in consistencies are viewed as illusions. The
b iblical revelation is seen as a ha rmonious w hole, a nd one biblical
text can thus illu minate another. Scripture is to be interpreted by
Scripture. Every d etail in the Bib le is importantj everything is in
there for a reason JI~to
4. The Bible is divin ely sanctioned o r inspired.
30
As mentioned above, the verb tt.~i means 'to search/seek', ' to inquire',
' investigate', etc. Th e midrashic method o f i nte rpretation is thus ron
cem ed v.r ith pu tting questions to the biblical texts. Theological prob
lems and contradictions have to be explained and gaps in the texts
filled in. For example; w hat ha ppened to Isaac after he v.ras nearly sacri
ficed by his father? Gen 22:19 merely states that Abraham retu rned to
his servants and they went together to Beersheva. But '''here '''as
Isaac? \Vhy d id God co mmand Abraham to sacrifice him in the first
p lace? Who is God talking to in Gen 1:26? Midrash hates a nonymity;
what was the name o f Cain's wife? \'\'h at d id Cain say to Abel in Gen
4:8, and why d id he kill h is brother? Wh a t happened to Enoch after
"God took h im" ? (Gen 5:24).
Midrash answers questions and adds " missing'' details to the
sparse biblical narratives. The id ea is to read "between the Jines" of the
Bib le, an activity sometimes described as 'creative llistoriograplry'.lll7 Ku
gel terms this ~narrative expansion'.l1111 According to the midrashic viewl
the b iblical texts have manifold meanings, and the Rabbis promote
mu ltiple interpretations of Scrip ture. too
Another characteristic o f mid rash is 'creative philolog,l (. Hebrew is
considered the holy language and every detail, indeed every single
letter, is significant.tto For example, the cre..1tion story in Genesis begins
with a:., a closed Jette r, indicating that it is not in te nded for us h umans
to speculate about w hat was before the creation of the world , etc.lll
\'Vordplays are usual in mid rash.m In summary, the Bible is an inex
haustible source of divine teaching and possible meanings '' hidden" in
the texts. Jacob Neusner distinguishes between three kinds of midrash ~
ic methods o f interpretation:
1. Midr,,sh as a parable or allegory, e.g., the b ride in Song of Songs is
understood by Jews as referring to Israel and by Chris tians as refer
ring to the Church. Behind the ' plain mean ing' o f the biblical texts
there lie deeper mea nings. According to Neusner, this is the com
mon approach in the Rabbinic Midrashirn.m
31
l l 4 Ncusner 1987. 1~2. E.g., Matt 2: 1 ~. Neusl\e r a(tu.llly talks about "' .. . the 011isrian
ltdliillm of Ihe Gospel of Mallhe w .. ." (my italics).
115 Neu$Tlcr 1987,7.
l16 val\ der Hcide 1999, 7-lfl.
ll7 Patte 1975.2-8.
liS U llerholm 20()'1, 14.
119 Zellerholm 200 t I I -22.
120 Kugel 1998, 20-2l,and 1990,6-7,25 1.
32
logical positions. m AJexander Samely sta.tes that it is impossible to es
tablish the amount of Rabbinic theology that has an exegetical o rigin.
Biblical in terpretation, hmvevcr, certainly played an important role. m
l11eology and exegesis are in tertwined in the history of the Jewish reli
gion. Kugel concludes that
... it is usually difficult b) decide whether a given interpreter ~et o ut to pa
tro l all of Scripture in :;.earch of a plaoo to "plan t" an exp ressiun uf his own
id~.ll ogy, o r wh ether~ un the contra ry, faced with a particular exegetical
stimulus in the b iblical tt~xt-an u n usual wo rd. an apparen t int.."t)n&"Tuity, or
the likL:...the interpre~r came up with an explanatiun that, in one way o r
another, also reflected his OV\'1"1 id t-'OIOb")' or i:=J.!>ue.o; of his day .m
12t
122
123
124
125
33
128 Olyan 1993, 25-27, 66-67, and 105109. Another prominent angel Lc; of course RaphaeL
a m ain characler in lhe book of Tobit. In Jewish tradition, Ra phael is coonfed am<~ng
lhe archangel'l togelhe hrith Gabriel and Mict..1el. Wilh regard to Ra phael. Mastema.
and PenueL see al'lll below. A'cording to Olyan. the angelic name Doqiel i$ derived
from an interpretati on of lsa 40:22. where the noun dXJ appears. II is B llap.1x lt-gm11emm. and the amtext in ls11 40:22 is a lheophan)' O lyan 1993, 7879. The angel Doqicl
is mel\tioned in lhe T. All. 13. 10 (1-ec. A). The angel lahtiel is probably derived fm m
the wod 'lalat' flame, in Qm 3:24. This angel is mentioned in the Hekahltlite.r.nure,
Oty.-u l 1993, 7173. The angels Mahpekicl and Haphekiei/Haphkiel a1-e mentioned in
a Jewish Aramaic inscription o n a Babylo1t ian magk bQwl. HaphekieiJHaphk:iel a!>'"
pears in a magic book from the Cairo Ge1t iz..1h. see Olr<ul !993. 83-84. Their fuooion
is said f(l tum at!Jitlld )1~:; ) lhe heavens and the ea1'1h, the st<lts and constellation..'!. The
lll'igin of lhe ir IWimes is prob.~bly oonnecred with an illtei'Jll'etalion of God's m.~trtftr~rUJ
of Sod1>m and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, whe re two unn.1med angels a 1-e mentioned.
Cf., Gen 19:25: " . .. and he <n.te1111rnt~lt~'tlyyalllll>k (~:;>) tht"l$e d lies .. ."and Cen JIP.29b:
" ... God reme mber! Abraha m. and sent Lot oul from the midst of the mli..,.Jit
rmlf"/ltallaJ1lul.'t ( ;;j-J:;;;J . . . See, for example, I$a 13:19, Oeut 29:22 and O lyan.. 1993, 8385, see a l1i0 Milik's/Biack's e<>m menl'il in 77te Bool:s df E.twdr. Ar.tntaic Fnwmmls from
QwmlTJI Ctrt'l' 4. 1976, 128.
129 Olyan 1993, 3250. The..'le angelic hosts are me1\tioned in the Hekalot literature. s~
also, for exo.mple, Prsikt.? RaliiJ~tJi 20A and 7.2. 1 Eu. 61.10; 71.7, and 3 Eu. 6.2; 7. 1.
Concem ing the Maa5im, d ., Ps 103:22 and lhe Qumran Angelic Liturgy.
130 Olyan 1993. 50. Sl->e a lsoJ 11. 7. 1. Also P!i 68: 12-13 ll.ils ghet rise to angelic interpreMtim,s: who .ue the messengers in v. 12. and who are t11e kings of lhe armie.o; tlw.t
flee in v. 13? Many manuscriprs IMve ~161)/angels/messengets' instead of
~';;w"Jci ngs' in v . 13, see also Olyan 1993, 2 1-22.
131 Olyan 1993, 30,61).69, 87, 11611 7.
132 Oly.l n 1993, 109--11 1. Cf., f En. 8.1; 9.6: 1 0.4~. 8; 13.12. etc. See also A(JIX'. Ah.l3.614;
14.6-J.I, elc.
34
ma \Vho challenged God and provoked Him to test Abraham by com
manding the latte r to sacrifice Isaac (cf., job 1:6-12)."' According to
Olyan, the name Mastcma is derived fTom the noun :.oottn:> \'lrhich only
occurs in Hos 9:7 and 8.U' To sup port h is view, O lyan points out that
the root of :"'?Jc~ [cow: ' bear a grudge ag ainst', ' harbor animosity tcr
ward' ] is very similar to the root of satan [lotti: 'to accuse', -'act as adver
sary'] both in fo nn a nd meaning.u:>
Another angel mentioned in juiJilet~ is the angel of the Presence,
probably first de rived from lsa 63:9: ''In all their affliction He [God(
was afflicted, And the Angel of His Presence saved them .. .''U6Th is angel
is the narrato r in Jubilees, but the book also mentions other angels of the
Presence. ll'lese angels are of a very h igh rank in ancient Jewish litera
ture, often equated with the archangels.m According to Ja n \.Villem van
Hen ten:
... th~ g roup of four a rchang~l$ll8 p robab ly d eveloped from the four living
creatures from Ezek I. They are s tanding (m the fo u r sides ( ) f the d ivine
th rone (d . the 'An gels o f Pr<...,nce,' e.g . lQI-I t\:'12-13; 1Q5b 4:25-26; 4Q400
col. 1 lines 4 and 8) and sa}' praises before the lord o f Glury (7 Enoclt 40),
pray o n behalf l)f the rig-hte<ms t)n earth (1 uodt 40:6; Tob 12:15) and act as
interce..o;.'>OrS fo r the :o<:m1s of the righteous ones who have d i ~d (1 fn{)CIJ9; T.
Allr. 14).u;.
Margaret Barker, hov~.rever, cla ims that the concept of four archangels
may have been derived from the four titles of the Mes...~iah according to
the MT of !sa 9:5:
(lsa 9:6 in NRSVJ For a chHd h as been born fur u s, a ~m given to u s; authorit}' rel-it.; upn n his shoulders; and he is named Wonderfu l Coun$t'IOr,
Mighty Cotl, Ev~r{a!>liug F(llher, Pr-imc of PcliCt!.(m y italic..;).
35
In the LXX these four d esignations are cornbined into one, ' The Angel
of Great Counsel.' .m Barker w rites:
The Angel wa:'l fo urfold. It has been suggested that the fo ur title-s uf the
Angel were indhidually r~pre.o;.tnted by the four archangels and these
ev~ntually o bscun.>d the s-ingle identity of the m ig:inal Angel {... ) In Isaiah's
pruphecy Wonderful Coun.<;elJor was Michael_ as can be ~en fro m the
them~s nf job and Second Isaiah that Yahweh's ina)mparability lay in his
wi$d(lm (Job 38-9; lsa. 40, 43). Mighty God was Gabriel, Everlasting Father
was Raphael and Prince of Pl!ace was Phanuel, the Angel ()( the Pre..;enru
and Light of God. The G reat Angel was thus a fig ure of four as pects but
these Wl! H~ known a.<; late as the time of the tran~ l a tion of the LXX to have
been fo ur aspectsof0ne.l-l 1
36
Heb rew o":''7K as ' angels',"' e .g., Gen 32:30b w here Jacob exclaims;" ...
For I have seen God face to face ... " is rendered in Targuw Neofiti 1 as "I
have seen rmgels from before lire Lord face to face ... " I47Jn Targum Pseudo~
}mlntluur, w henever God speaks in the plural form, the interpretation is
often that he is addressing the angels, e.g., God's words in Gen 1:26;
" ... Let us make h uma nkind in o ur image, accord ing to our likeness ... ''
a re thus understood as God speaking to angels. WI
Besides the addition o f angels where the biblic~'ll texts " require''
them, Targum Pseudo}otlal!Jau present<> a special case among the Tar
gums by in..c;erting angels fo r no apparent reason. e .g., t-he reference to
Samael, the angel o f death in Gen 3 :6. T his Targum a lso mentions a n ...
gelic narnes that are not known fTom the Bible or the Rabbinic tradition,
e.g., Zagnuge l in Exod 3:2, a nd o fte n ascribes miracu lous inte n ,entions
and the belief in IWl) divine pm'ler.::. See a lso chapter t f>. s.w/J~tdrill 38b, and Rebiger
2007.630, MJ.
116 Shinrut 1983, 183, and Kasher 2007, 562563. Othe1 exampk>..ct a1<e lhe largumic renderings o f c-.en 3:5; 3 1:24: and 33:10.
147 Eng. tl'illl$. McNamara 1992. 159.
148 Shi1tan 1983, 184. Other exampf.e.c; are the ~nderings of C'.en 3~22 and 11:7 in Tsrgum
PSt'lld)/i)twtlmu.
149 Shina n 1983, 184197. and M.ther 1992. 6-8. See also Kasher2007, 583-58-1.
150 Olyan 1993, 11 6-120.
37
CUS!Iion concerning detail$ of the diffe1-ent Ta>gums, lhei place of o rigin, interr~Lation$hips. ~diting,. age, and so on. All Targums are geneally con!lidered to
(mainly) enoompa.!>S mat~rial originating: during the lime-frame of lhis thesis, I'Oughly from the Second Temple e1'<1 until l'lOOn a fl~r the appearnnce of Islam. E!kil l')f the
~xtant Targums may contain material from rliffe t~nl pe1iod!1. Targ1t11t l>stuet~
/OIIo1tfbm, hw e>o:ample. 1-efers bolh hl " Yoha nan the High Pri~t..." Dem 33:11 (John
Hyrc.mus, 134- 104 B.C.E.), and hl a wife and daughter of Moha mmad, Gen 21:21.
M.1ny scholars believe that all of lheTargums originated in Palestine/Israel. e.g.. Porton 1992b, 70. It is usua lly a.<t.<~umed thlll lhe o riginal Hebrew texl behind the Targums was \ery dose (if not identical) hl the pre.<~ent r-.rr. see, e .g . Tov 2003, 237-255.
Th~re is, however, no general consensus concem ing this nMner. P~rhaps in this ca..<~e
there is a difference betv.'C<el\ lhe ,..officia l"' TMgum.<~ and lhe so-t"o''lied p.,le!ltinian
ones. Cf., Pa lle 1975, 52. For more inf()l'ma tion. see for e>o:.unple Bowl:er 1969, 328.
l e vine 198S, AJ,~xander 1992. 3~33C). !'u\d 1988, 217-250. See also chapter4.5 below.
38
Firstly, additions arc presented in such a way that they can be
bracketed out and the base translation of the original text is easily dis
cem ible. Secondly, the translation and comment are inseparably h1sed
together, a nd the original cannot be distinguished.I5J
Bowker classifies the Targums as a "genre" midw..,y between the
LXX and the \'-rorks belonging to the 'rewritten Bible' type. 1 ~ Samely
does not wish to designate the Tougums as biblical translations at all, in
order not to obscure the fo rmal differences between them and the LXX,
Peshitta, and Vulgate. 1 ~x. Instead, he chooses to define the Targums as;
" ... an Ara maic narrative paraphrase of the biblical text in exegetical de-pende nce o n it~ wording" 1?6 (my italics). Th e p u rpose of the Targums is
to express t!Je meauitzs o f the biblical texts, rather than to serve as literal
transla tions. ~7 We may mention the famous Talmud ic diclum: hJf one
translates a verse liter-~11ly, _l'l e is a liar; if he adds thereto, he is a bias~
p hemer and a libeller."':>~~ Etan Levine provides us wi th an example of
the application o f this " rule:"
Scriptural phrases such as "and they saw the Cod of JsraeJN (Ex 24:10) c;m ~
not be translatl!d literally since God cannl)t be seen by man, yet to in::;ert
the wurd " angel" wo uld be a bJasphemy, since the angel would be subMi
rend ~ ring
39
is "And they
n\Orphil;ms..
l63
16ol
16S
166
40
similarity, a re basically speaking about two different things. However,
some scholars have argued for a connection between ' the Menua' and
' the Logos' of John's Gospel.'"
Robert Hay-'"'ard sees ' th e Memra' as originally substituting for the
Tetragrammaton. Accordingly, the fact that 'the Menn a' in, for example
Tnrgum Neofiti 1, is o fte n connected to God's mercy has led him to sug
gest that this may expla in the Rabbinic association of the divin e
attribute of Mercy with the divine name Yl-1\NH.Io'tll
The expression yeqarn has the abstract meanings 'honor', 'glort,
'splendor', a nd 'majesty' and is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew
kfrbod. It is e mp loyed in the Targums in order to safeguard the tran ...
scendence of God. In Targum Neofiti 1 it is most commonly uset.i in
combination with the tenn sltekiuln, the Aramaic counterpart of the
Heb rew word shekina!J, denoting the divine presence. The combined
expression ' the Glory of the Shekinah of the lord ' is there very common. The concept 'Shekinah' d erives from the verb slmkeu, 'to dwell,
settle d own, abide' . Although the noun sltekiua/J does not occur in the
Bib le, the verb is often used to denote God's dwelling among His
people {e.g ., Exod 25:8; 29:46, Nu m 5:3, a nd Ezek 43:9).'"'
Most schola rs believe that the Targurns originated as oral Ararnaic
translations and interpretations of the readings of the Scriptures in the
synagogu es.lro According to Jewi'ih tradition, the 'targumic institution'
dates back to the time o f Ezra. m The Ta rgums belong to the oral Torah.
As such, the Targums a re will"'CS..'ieS o f Rabbin ic tradition.'i and theology,
particula rly Targuttt Onqelos and Tnrgum Jonatflnn. T11e meturgt-..
man/ translator was bound by Jewish tradition. m
As stated above, ju daism o f the Second Temple era was not a u niform religion, and several stra nds existed. T11e "victory" of Rabbinic
judaism \.:as a long drawn -out process and some of the material in the
Targums may be from a n earlier period. Levine writes that d uring the
Second Temple era;" ... the basic crite ria for o rt hodoxy were recognition
of the God of Israel, belonging to the people o f Israel, and following ~'c
167 ~e. fo example Abe-lsol\ 1912, 158-167, and Gn.<1sfeld 1988, 2529.
168 Hayward 1981, 147-J.I9.
169 McNamara 1992, 36-37. ~e also Grossfeld 1988, 29-30, al\d Ml)()re 1922., 55-59. In
TttJ811111 0JJqefos, sltl!killlo7 lc; mo1-e often used on its own. For further informa tion, J'lee
Grossleld 1988, 29-30. The e:<pres!lit)n is of ~.--ourse a lso empktyed in Tar~1tm PSL'tedo/OIIo7!lurn.
liO E.g., Le Deaut 1989,563-575, and Alexande 1988, 238239.
171 Cf.. Neh 8:8. The only occurrence of the verb oo;.;', I 'to translate' io the Bible is in
Ezra 4:7. ~e also Alexander 1988, 239-24 1. and Met2ger 1962. 749.
172 Paue 1975,65, and Alexander 1983. 2326. and 1988. 238-239.
41
L1w of Moses." This was a "creed" that all Je\vish groups could accept
even Jewish Christians.m
Many scholars claim that the ' targumic institution' was never total
ly under Rabbinic controiP' To some degree the Targums contain fo l
kloristic traditions.m This is apparent in the so~called Palestinian Tar
gumsY'{, Targum Pseudo-Jonalhatt includes interpretations that \\*ere
censured in Rabbinic literature, sometimes as early as the Mishnah.m
Alexand er Diez Macho claims that Targum J'-J'eofHi 1 contains paraphras
es from pre~Christian Limes, d ue to the fact that they favor Ch ristian
interpretations of Scripture.-s that were Jate r censured by the Rabbis
because of the polemical struggle ben.,cen jud aism and Christianity
regarding.. e.g., the correct'' interpretation of the Hebrevo.' Bible/QT.
The Silz im Leben of the Targums was the synagogue service, pri
vate d evotion, and the (religious) schooJ. N The Targums are designat
ed as a branch of study that falls benveen the Bible and the Mishna.llll1
The liturgical u se of the Targu ms gradua lly ceased with the coming of
Islam and the emergence of Arabic as the vernacular in the Middle
East. 1111 The Yemenite Jewish liturgy is an exception, and Targum Ouqe
los is still used in the synagogue scrvice.111z The Targurns jouatlum and
Ot~qelos are to this day studied in Jewish religious schools and in pri
vate devotion. I ~V The Targums are invaluable sources of knowled ge
about early Jewish interpretation and, as such, belong to the 'world of
mid r-ash'.
42
TI1ere are, however, marked diffe rences between the Targums and
other kinds of mid rashic sources. Th e exegetical melltod in the Targurns
is that of midrash, but in litem/ form the Targums are "transJa ..
tions"/paraphrases and not Bible commentaries as the Ra bbinic Midra
shim. The Targums, for example, never refer to Rabbinic authorities by
name, and seldom openly quote the Bible.'llt The Targums also distin
guish thernselves from the works of the 'rewritten Bible', though they
may be closer to them in genre.
(2) Examples of sources belonging to t/Je seco11d category of midrashic sources, the so~ca lJ ed 're,vritten Bib l e'~ are Jubilees, Geuesis Apo..
crypllou.. and Liber Atlliquitalum Biblicarum [LA.B.), sometim es c.=-t lled
PseudoPitilo.'Ms The differences behveen th ese works and the Targums
a re that the la tt e r are bound by the wordiug o f the original Hebrew text
l11e 'rewritte n Bible' sets out to retell th e biblical narrative in Us owu
words, a nd '".rith its own literary d evices. The 'rewritten Bible' could be
said to be interested in story, '"'hile the Targum is interested in the bibli ..
cal text. 1~ Porton does not want to clas..~ify the ftuleau Antiquities by
Josephus or Philo's Life <l/ M<lses as midrashic \ovorks because both of
43
them seem to have been \Vritten for non -}e\'~.rs. 11; They are, however,
similar to the 'rev~.rritten Bible' in literary fo rm. 1 ~
Patte points out that the view on revelation expressed in jubilees is
very different to that of Rabbinic judaisrn. Far from being a source of
'divine revelation', the cultural changes o f history are more o r less:
looked upon as evil. The Pharisees/Rabbis were open to Hellenistic
influence, but in ' Apocaly ptic Jud aism', to w hich }ubilt-es bears witness,
the Hellenistic culture is considered heathen and thus evii.wThe prior
Persian culture may, however, have had an unconscious influence upon
the ApocalyptisLc;; their dualistic world view, angelology, etc.''~~'
According to Rabbinic Judaism, the oral Torah is not a new reveJa ..
tion but an unfolding of the message already given in the written To~
rah. Jubilees, on the other hand, claims to contain additional revelations,
' heavenly secrets' not fou nd in the Bible.l9 1 This is apparently in con
tradiction to the Rabbinic "d octrine" that no part o f the Torah/divine
revelation has been left behind in heaven, sec, e.g., Deut. Rab. 8.6.'\1::
Jubilees thus represents a different form of judaism, and in contrast to,
for example, Targum Ouqelos, it does not belong to the framework o f the
Rabbinic oral Torah. In Jaffee's words: " ... tradition is Torah only if it is
transmitted by a Rabbinic sage."ru.
(3) The third type of midrashic sources are the Pesharirn of Qumran.
These are ~1 kind of 'Bible commentaries'. Like Juln'lees, they are wit
nesses of the' Apocalyptic judaism' that nourished in the land of Israel
d uring the Second Temple era. A chief characteristic o f the Pesharim is
the attempts to demonstrate that biblical prophecies were being fulfilled
in the history and life of the Qumran community. Eschatology is a major
theme. Neusner calls it 'mid rash as prophecy'. In this respect the Pesha
rim d iffer from the Rabbinic Midrashim and there are also significant
stylistic differences betv~.reen them. For example, the Rabbinic l'viidra
shim are collections of interpretations by different Rabbis, \Vhile the
Pesharim are always anonymous and appear to be unitary biblical
commentaries. Moreover/ the Rabbinic Midmshim o ften quote single
188 With regard to Philo, some of his '"orks must ~ oons id ered more as proper ' Bible
oomment.wies', for e);ample, his treatise Qun;Jious and AJtswcrs .-m Geutsis.
189
l90
191
192
44
words and phrases and present mulliple interpretations, whereas the
Pesharim comment on entire pericopes of Scripture. '"'
(4) The Jourlh group o f midrashic sources, the Rabbinic Midrashim,
can also be designated as 'Bible commentaries', though of a differen t
d1aractcr than the Pesharim. There are d ifferent kinds of Rabbinic Mi
drashim. Sdlolars sometimes lalk about !Jalakhic ~fidrashim versus
hnggndic Midrashim.'95
A definition of Rabbinic terminology is here appropriate. Halakah
derives from the root 1':7 'to walk' and signifies legal material. Halakhic
Mid rash thus anstvers the questions 'ltmv?', 'wllen?', and 'wllerer Hala
kah consists of concrete rules about how the biblical commandments
should be put into practice in different situations; how a person can walk
in ' the path of the Torah'.
Haggadah, on the o ther hand, derives from the root i:Ol 'to tell/to ex..
plaitl' and haggadic midrash answers the question 'why?' Haggadah
explains the mea11ittg of the commandmen ts and describes Rabbinic
theology. One important purpose o f haggadah is to inspire the Jev,s to
live according to halakha. Haggadah is a wide ranging term referring
to homilies, legends, parables as v,rell as theological and ethical state-ments. One may compare haggadah with the parables o f Jesus. In
summary, haggadah encompasses all Hon~Jegal Je\".rish interpretations of
Scripture. Halakha has a more binding character than haggadah. '%This
latter term is often called aggarlalrl in order to d istinguish it from the
Passover Haggadah, the earliest known Rabbinic Midrash on Deut
26:5-8. 1"
The Mishnah mainly contains halakha. According to Ncusner, the
Rabbinic Midrashim and the increasing Rabbinic in terest in aggadic
exegesis was partly d ue to the challenge o f Christianity. With the advent of O lristianity, it became more important to discuss theological
is..c;ues.1911 About a quarter of the material in the Babylonian Talmud is
45
aggad ic.'fl The oral Torah thus consists of both aspects of }e\vish inter
prctation. It is therefore very misleading to talk abo ut ' the oral la v~l .:!to
There is very little in je\\1 ish literature that can be described as
"pure" halakha or aggadah.21n For this reason, Porton avoids classifyi ng
the diffe rent Rabbinic Midrashim as halakhic or aggadic. He also points
out that the word ' aggadah' o riginally meant exegt"Sis, and the term
'midrash aggad ah' is thus a tautology. Porton distinguishes between
two kinds of Rabbinic Midrashim, the expositional and the ltomilelical.
The expositional Mid rash is a ru nning commentary o n a biblical text.
Ge1wsis Rnbbah belongs to this group.::oo
Bany Holtz prefers to classify the above mentioned Mid rash as exegelical, since it constitutes a detailed verse by verse commentary on
Genesis. O n the other hand, he designates Pirqi de Rabbi Eliezer as a
narrative Midrash, similar in style to the ' rewritten Bible'.m Pirqe de
Rabbi Eliezer has many sirniJarities with Tnrgum Pseudo~jonatltnn.:s't TIH~
two sd1olars are, however, in agreement concerning the homiletical
~vfidrashim group, whid1 stricti)' speaking does not contain 'Bible
commentaries' but collections of ~ho milies' on the main themes of the
Tor-..lh readings in the synagogue, and often only comments o n a few
verses of a biblical passage. As an example we can mention Pesiqta de
Rab Knhat1a, which seems to be organized around verses read o n special
festivals and holy days.:!t6The early Midrashim all appear to have ori ~
gina ted in the land of Israel.a:.;
l99
200
201
202
203
46
In discussing the d ifferent genres employed in the early jewish in*
terpretation of the Bible, Devorah Dimant concluded that tve can
roughly distingu ish ben.veen two kinds of use of Scripture; the exposi~
tiona) a nd the compositional mode. In the expositiona l function, the
biblical e lement is explicitly presented ~1nd commen ted on as sacred
text. Dimant p laces the Rabbinic Midrashim and the Pesh~1rim of
Qwnran in this group.w
Tile compositional use of Scriptu re, on the other hand, can be found
in, for example, the works belonging to the 'rev,1 ritten Bible' genre. In
these works, the b iblical elements are integrated into the structure and
presented v.r ithout any fo rmal marke r. The compositional use o f Scrip
ture ma y also be expressed by rncre a llusions to the Bible; h ints at
terms or motifs ta ken from biblica l accounts well known to the reader.
As an example, Dimant mentions lhe book of Tobit, where Tobit's cha
racter seems to have been modeled o n Job's personality in the Bible.2u11
Dimant's d escription o f this last mentioned compositional fu nction of
biblical e lements in ea rly Je\'ltish interpretation thus has a d ear similari
ty to what Robert Alter d efines as use of b iblical litera ry themes, or
type-scenes to use his m"n expression.:ll19
There are sd1ola rs who want to limit the term ' rn idmsh' to signify
dnly /lie Rabbiuic Mirlrasllim. Maccoby, fo r example, prefers to use m i
dmsh in this restricted way . However, he endows the term '(h)aggadah'
with a wid er scope a nd admits that it may a lso be found in non
Rabbinic works. He claims that this is the origina l je\vish usage of the
tem1inology and that this d istinction may help us to avoid an overlap
between mid rash and (h)aggadah." ju lio Trebolle Barrera writes:
Pruperly speaking, mid rash aS..<i-um~:; the t!xistence nf a biblical text which is
alruady t~tablished and "canonized". Giv('n the various funn.o; of interpreta
tit)n of biblical texts (midrash, pesher, prophecy applied to the present, rte
w riting of narrativ~ uf bibliCill laws, etc.), it would be better if the term "mi
d rash" were rt!~rved fo r Rabbinic mid rash and did not indude the different
flmn$ of biblical inMrpretation under the name "midra..,h"', which other
w ise bec."omes !()generic and is nn Iunger predSt!. w
the eal'liest gnlup of Rabbinic S<Jge.<t, from the time tlf Je.o;us until the early third cen
tury CE. They \'lt'.l'e follovted by the Am orain\ (amar, to s.1y, /to comment. the com
47
I
2
Meier 1995a, RS. Freedm.l nWilloughby (1997, 321): "From these PlSSages it is evident that the ma/'ak YHWH is d osei)' as.sociated with Yahweh in name, auth(wity.
and mess.1ge, and that he 1-epl'esents Yahweh in the lu.unan realm, whe1~as Yah weh's own immediacy is actualized in 1-calms ourside huma n perceptiml!'
50
1~'?n
5
6
7
The par,,llel texts a re to be found in I Clll' 2 1:1430; 2 a u 32.."2(}.22, and lsa 37:36.
Note tha! it is YHWH who tells O.w id to 1\utnber the lsr.:le lites in 2 Sam 24: I. while
ao:ording to I Chr 21: I it is Sat.m . This incident, refem'!d to il\ 2 5.lmu el 24 and I
Chronicles 21. is the ot~ly biblical case w here il is s tated tha t Lhe ange l 11f the tod
turned. again.c;t ls rae L lll is gives rLc;e to the po.c;sible understanding of ' Lhe destroying
angel' in t Chr 21: 1415 as a demonic figure, in ~pi te of the fa CI that it is s tated th.at
YHWH sent him, d ., I Sam 16:14.
These texts are <~ ISO discussed in Gusgisberg t9i9.
The 11rigin.!'! lity of this idelltiiic.:llion,. howeve1, is intellsely debated among s..:holars,
see below.
Ho."' 12..'11-6 (w. 35 ill N RSV) will also be di$C\.IS.~ in gre.lte d1~tail because of the
perk1lpe's mnectkln to Gen 32:2232.; 28:1022. and 35:1 15.
3.2CenesL<~
51
3.2 Genesis
3.2.1 Hagar and the Angel
Genesis 16
We first encounter the angel of the Lord in Gen 16:7-14.' This pericope
has nmdl in common with Gen 21 :1720., and they are o ften designated
as parallel texts. The two pericopes describe a meeting between Hagar
and the angel/messenger of the Lord/God. In both cases, the angel
comes to the rescue of Hagar and her {in Genesis 16 still unborn) son.
According to both texts, the angel of the lord/God delivers a message of crucial importance and speaks with divine authority. In the two
sto ries, the divine angel/messenger speaks in the first person as if he is
God Himself (Gen 16:1 0 and 21:18, cf., Gen 12:1-3 and 17:3 -8), although
he also refers to God in the third person (Gen 16:11 and 21:17). The
angel never explicitly identifies himself. The text..fi: are ambiguous. Wlto
is the angel of the Lord/God? His identity is veiled in obscurity.
\+Vhen she has fled from Sarai, Hagar meets the angel in the desert:
(Gen 16:7) The angel of th!! LORD fo und ht!r (Hagar) by <l :;pring of water
in the wilderness, the spring (m the way to Shur. (SJ And he said, "Hagar,
slave-girl of Sarai. where have you come from and when! are you };Uing?"
She said. I am running away from my mistress Sarni 19). The angel of the
LORD said t() ht?r, " Return tu your mL.;tress, and ;o:;u bmit to her." f10) The
Angel of the LORD also said to her, " I w ill f.;<) greatly multiply yo ur
offspring. that they <:anno t be ~ounkd for multitude." [tl J And the ang:el uf
the LORD said to her: "Now, you have conceived, and shaU bear a $<)n; }'<'m
shall call him Ishmael, for the LORD has given heed to your affliction. (12]
lie shall be a wild ass of a man. wlth his hand ag:ain.st everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and he ;o:;hall live a t (>dds with al1 his kin." {'1 3] Sl)
she named the LORD who spoke to her, " )"ou 11r.r 1-mi" ( ""1:11:1 ;Tn' ow N., prn
'N., ' N :tnN. ;~;x l for sht! l>aid, "1/(lt't' I rltdly se-en Cod (mtl rcrmrintd alive tifkr
suiug him?" ['~1 ' 'VoN. n' N.1 o?:-~ Q):IJ' (14] Therefore the well W<lS ca1led 8l..oer1ahai-roi; r:s:1n; "'iN.:!) it lies betwetm Kadesh and Bered.
8
9
52
tO
II
12
13
14
15
In th is s-espect, there i$ an appares\ t difles-ence between Gen 16:7 and Gen 21: 17, see
below. Like M.anoah .md his w ife, Hagar does not at first reali?..e tha t she is meeting
a heavenly emis."W'' sy . In Judg J3:222.thc ongel of the lord appears to the cmsple as a
snan. in "'human fosm.'' Although it is M t explicit!) s tated in the text, it i$ highl)'
probable that the angel of the lord likewi$e .1 ppeas'ed to Hagar in hum<an fornt,. since
she does not at first s-ecogni?.e him as a he-. n:enly messenger. See Jsaac:s 199$, 6, and
We.<Oterman.n 1985. 243. As we have .!>een in chapter I .'I. the heaves1ly me...
-.enger.V
oJx;~.. in contrast to 0 1erubs .1nd Seraph.<O, are gene rall)' depicted in the Bible as $1m
ilar to humans in <appearance and are sometin"'-'S simpi)' c..alled 'men .' See, for ex.1 m ~
pie.. Gen 19-.5, to.
\".>'e.'itetmasm 1985, 243. Ae<osd ing. to WesternMsm. the 1N~ YH\'I.'H L.:; a me.<Osengerof
C"'..od: who in human fonn meets a person Qn earth. The initiol g.reeting of fhe 1N'x: L~ a
key to our underst.-.nding of the 'phenomenml.'
See also Sarna 1989. 121.
See also KOckert 2CXY1, 53.
N KJV.
The e pithe t 'K1 7x i.!l l'lpen to multiple interpretations depending on the vocalb:ation
of the second wtwd. Possible tnmsl.lliort..<l are: 'God of seeing', th at i.<~, the all-seeing
God, 'Cod l'li vision', ' God of my seeing'. that is, whom I ha\'e seen,. and cl'ld who
see.<~ me'. According to Sarno ( 1989, 121), il is likely tlt.ll the various me.mings were
intended lo be apprehended simultaneously. In hL~ wos'ds: ..,.When Cod 's..~e.<~' it is, of
oourse,. that He s hows His concern and extends His protection: when Hagar ' sees,'
she experience.., Cl'ld's self ma sl ifestation."
4
3.2CenesL<~
53
... 'Have I really seen God at1d remained ali've after seeing him"' I 'il'~, c~ 0::.:1
~, 'iiiX]? In v. 14 we read: "Therefore the well was called Beer~lah ai-roi
("K1 n? i X:l]; it lies between Kadesh and Bered."H As in Judg 13:1 923,
for instance, the messenger is not recognized as a d ivine cmis.-sary until
his d eparture.?
The Hebrcv,r text o f v. 13 is obscure and d ifficult to translate.'ll
Many scholars today have adopted John \"lellhausen's emendation,'"
according to \\hich the last part of v. 13 should be renderet.i as follows:
n~\ ~n~ l\, O ';'i'~ Cl.i rne..m ing: "Have I really seen God and remained
alive/and I (still) live! As shov.m in the quotation above, this rendering
is chosen in the NRSV.wThis is in accordance with the name o f the \',ell
in v. 14, w hich could be translated as "the well of the living one who
sees me/the well o f one w ho sees and lives." Hagar is amazed that she
has seen God, and yet survived (cf., Gen 32:30; Exod 33:20; Judg 6:22
24, and 13:22)." According to this rendering, the name o f the well is
thus to be u nderstood in the light of the concept that normally one who
really sees God must d ie. Hagar, however, appears to be an exception
to thot rule.
According to \Vesten nann, Wellhausen's emendation is worth)' of
consideration, because it makes such good sense in the context of the
pericope. However, he also maintains that another "solu tion" to the
problematic verse could merely be the changing of O?:i to O':i;:-t In the
latter case, the verse should be translated: "I have seen God after he
saw me."n 1A'estem1ann interprets vv. 131 4 as Hagar says that God
saw her in her m isery and came to her aid, hence God is her savior, cf.,
Ps 113:6."
t6
t7
18
~e a ls.o
54
John W. Wevers points o ut that the LXX obviously interprets the epi
thet ~:\, 7~ in v. 13 as Hagar proclaims the messenger as "the God w ho
looks u pon me", thus reading~, as a participle with a first person pro
nominal suffix; God is the One who pays attention to and provides for
her.Z~ \Vevers further remarks that since the ilyyu\o.; in v. 7 is unarticu
lated, it should be rendered ' a mes.c.;enger'.n However, in v. 13 this mes
senger is apparently identified as the Lord /God Himself, thus the am
biguous relationship between God and His angeVmessenger is pre
served in the LXX.1. . \Nevers takes the v,mrd i vc;.mtOv adverbially to
mean 'in person,. face to face', and he translates v. 13b according ly;" ...
for even in person have I seen the one appearing to me." 27 The Hebrew
name of the well in v. 14 is not translated in the LXX but rendered in
accordance wi th t-he reading in v. 13: " ... (IJQffiQ oU EvC:.:m tov dbov
... /"the well of him I have openly seen/ the well o f the o ne w hom I saw
in persQ n"~ The s.ame Hebrew d esignation of the well recurs in Gen
24:62 and 25:11 b ut U1erc the LXX renders it as TC) <jlQE<>Q -rlj<;
OQ<.lcrc~.~~;!"the well of the vis ion", thus alluding to the appearance of
the " ange l ~~ to Haga r.~
The noun OQaou; occurs in the LXX Pentateud1 eight times, only
two of which describe ordinary human vision; Gen 2:9 and Lev 13:12.
In all o ther cases, like the one in Gen 24:62, the word designates visions
of a supernatural kind.: According to Robert Hay...vard, the choice of
i\Qaat:; in the LXX rendering o f Mizpah, the name o f the place w here
24
25
26
V
2S
29
30
Weven; 1993, 225. See <liso the Vutg.lle C'.en 16: 13.
Wever~ 1993, 222.
Wevers l 993, 222.. 225-226.
Wevers 1993, 225-226.
1"he second alterna tive is Wevers' {1993, 226) lran.<~lation. \\'evcrs {same p<lge) con
dudes IIU~ t: " Pres-umabl)' Hagar has seen the l.Qrd, though only in his form as 0
l.iyycl<~~; l<t.'Qiou, since attlll'ding h) Exod 33:20 no man c-a n !tee my (i.e. Glld's) C
.1ce
and live:
See also Weve1-s 1993, 373.
See also, e .g., Num 24:4, 16, wher,~ the word de.'lignates an original Hebrev1 mnll 'vi ~
~illn' of God.
3.2CenesL<~
55
jacob and Laban made a covenant (Gen 31:49), may signify that the
translator(s) understood the pact between jacob and Laban as having
included a revelation of GOli .:n
It is possible to understand the text to mean that God spoke to Ha
gar through an angel. In her exclamation, she recognizes God as the
source of the message and her deliverance. God saw Hagar in her dis
tress and sent an angel. This interpretation, hO\vever, is d oubtful be
cause of the text's ambiguity. \.Yhy does the heavenly messenger first
talk to Hagar as God Himself in the first person and then switch to the
third person? (Gen 16:10-11).
The angel speaks and blesses in the first person as if he were God:
" I will so greatly multiply your offspring .. .''" He never says that God
sent him o r that his message comes from God. It is only in v. 11 that the
angel t..1lks about YH\VH as someone distinct from himself. The angel
talks with divine authority. He does not identify himself, but Hagar has
the impression that she has met God.3.1
The angel of ~'e Lord always has a special reason for his appearance. such as the delivery of a cr ucial message, of great importance in
the (salvation) history of Israel. The announcement o f the birth o f a
child or of salvation (cf., jud g 13:25; Gen 18:915; 21:17-20; 22:11-18} is
very common. In this case.. both of these elements are combined.3-l
31
32
33
~~
56
Genesis 21
The time has now come for a comparison between Gen 16:7..14 and
21:1720." In the context Qf the latter peric<Jpe, we are t<Jid that Hagar
has been d riven away by Abraham due to Sarah's fea r that Ishmael
might inherit from her husband and d iminish/annul the inheritance of
Isaac. Abraham felt compelled to expel her because of this conflict but
does so very unwillingly and only after God has told him to heed his
wife Sarah:
[2'1 :1 l ] The matter \Va.S: very d i:;tres~ing to Abraham (m account uf his son.
(12) But God said to Abraham, ''Do not be d i$tr(>S.<Cled because o f the boy
and because uf yuur slave wuman; whatever Sarah says t<) y<)u, du as she
teUs yuu, fo r it is th rough Isaac that yuur o ffspring shall be named for yuu.
(13] As for the son of th e s lave woman. I will make a nation o f him al.,o, because he is your off~pring.".l6
In this critical, desperate situation, the angel o f God o nce more appears
as her comforter and rescuer. It is worth noting that it is the rm
gel/messenger who speaks to Hagar but it is God wllo berm.; the boy's cries
and shows her the well~
{21:17] And Gotl [Eiohim) heard the vtlite vf the boy; and the rmgd dfCod
called to Hagar from llct~t'i"u, and said to her, "What ! roubl e~ you, Hagar?
Do not be afraid, fi'r CfJd has heard the ''uice t)f the boy where he is. 1181
Come, lift up the buy and hnld hml fast with your hand, for I will make a
~.....ea t nation of him .... (19] Then Cot/ opened her eye~ and sh e saw a well ()f
water. She went, and filled the skin with water, and g ave the boy a d rink.
(201 Cod was with the boy~ and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and
became an expert with the bow .
In contrast to the narrative in Genesis 16, the angel of God does not
encourage Hagar to return to Abraham and Sarah but prornises that
God \viii take care of her and her son. As in Gen 16:10, the angel says
~I)
36
37
38
3.2CenesL<~
57
that he will give her abundan t o ffspring. Gen 21 :18. In both pericopes
the angel blesses Hagar with divine authority in first person singular:
... I will so grenlly mulriply your offspring .. . (Gen 16:10), " ... /will mnke
a g reat nation of him ... " (Gen 21:18). This is precisely w hat God H imself tells Abraham in Gen 21:13. But the angel also refers to God in the
third person, Gen 16:11 and 21:17. Both narratives mention a welVa
spring of water, perhaps the s..1me one.
There are many parallels between the two pericopes... e.g., the angel
of the lord/God plays a similar role, that of savior. One major difference in the portrayal of the divine messenger, however, is that the an
gel of God calls to Hagar from l~enven according to Gen 21:17, whereas
in Gen 16:7 the angel meets her 011 enrt!J: "The angel of the Lord found
her by a spring of water in the wilderness ... " Westem1ann \"-'rites
about Gen 21:17: "The messenger of God who is encountered on earth
(cf. Gen 16:7b) has become an 'angel', a heavenly being who call< from
heavcn .''N
Another obvious difference is of cou rse the designation o f the Deity
in the texts, YH\VH versus Elohim. The designation ' the angel of
YHWH/tl1e Lord' is the most common in the Bible (58 times), w hile 'the
angel of Elohim/God' only occurs 11 times.'"
Concluding Remarks
The narratives about Hagar's encounter with the d ivine messenger tell
us something important abo ut God's character. God sees Hagar's dis~
tress and delivers her and her son, even though she is only a bond\,,to~
man; God shows her mercy. God is impartial and He does not abandon
the outcast. God's grace and blessing is not restricted to Isaac's line.J1 It
is note\~t.orthy that Hagar, Ishmael's mother, is the only biblical woman
w ho gives God a "narne," an epithet:"You ~Are ~ th e-God w h oSees .. .''
(Gen 16:13)."
It is possible to understand the texts as if God spoke to Hagar
through an angel, although this interpretation is hardly tenable bec..1use
of the ambiguity of the narratives. As mentioned in chapter 2.2.1, mi
drashic exegesis takes its point of departure in q uestions put to the
biblical texts. One purpose of midr..,sh is to solve theological problems
39
40
41
42
58
in the Bible. Our t\ovo present pericopes are no "simple" texts. The am
biguous identity of the angel of the lord/God is o ne of the apparent
exegetical problems in the texl"'>. \Vho is it that speaks to Hagar in these
narratives?
A connected issue is how we should interpret the obscure verses
Cen 16:13-14. 1s Hagar really proclaiming that she has seen God and
gives Him a name in v. 13? lf she saw God, why did she survive since,
according to Jewish theology, no one can see God and live? Does she
actually identify the angel of the lord as Cod Himself? What is the role
of the angel of the Lord/God in the interpret..1tions of these two texts?
Hm"' is he related to God and to Hagar? Do the interpreters have any
comments as to why the angel of God calls to Hagar from heaven in
Gen 21 :1 7f whereas he seerns to meet her on earth in Gen 16:7? How are
the two texts related to each other?
3.2.2 The Three Heavenly Visitors and the Doom of Sodom and
Gomorrah
In Genesis 1819:29 we can discern three main sections, the visitation of
the three "men" to Abraham and S...rah, Gen 18:1-15 (16),<> Abraham's
negotiation with YHWH, Gen 18:17-33, and the doom of Sodom and
Gomorrah, Gen 19:1 29.4-' ln the Bible these sections form a single, in tegrated narrative. However, the o riginal unity o f Gcn 18-19:29 is de.
bated among scholars, b ut that is a subject for another lhesis.0 The fo
cus here is the in terpretation of the texts in their present fo rm. Gen
18:115 read s:
ICen l S:'II The LO RD appeared to Abraham by the oaks uf rvfamre, as he
sat at th~ ~ntram:e of his tent in the heat of the day. [2J He looked up and
Saw th~ men standing near him. Wh en he saw them, he ran from the tent
entrance tu m(>et th~m. and btw.ed duwn to the gruund.<~" (3] H~ said, "My
1ord (1J~], if I find favur with you (1'J'!1J lit. "in your (2nd pers. sing.) eyes"L
Slune !iehotars wish to include v. 16 in this passage. However, the scene itself OOW.I'S
Gen 18: 1-15, w hile v. 16 serves as a bridge to the subsequent sections. see furthe
Hamcwi 2001. 1314, and Westermann 1985. 282.
44 See alc;o Hamori 2004. 13-33. Some scholars h.a ve AAJggested a prc-lsraelitic oigin of
the Genes:Lc; uurative in a mylh of 3 visiMtion of three g:odlt,. see the discus.c;ion in
\'\>'e.c;termaut 1985, 275276. and Hamori 20();1, 48-73.
45 See a iJ'O Ham01i 2001. 13-:33, We.c;terntaut 1985, 274275, and \an Seters 1975. 21 >
216.
46 Abraham's reverent s -eeting indicates tha t he acknowledges his vis ihws B:.!l being of
higher rank than himseU. See also Westermann 1985, 278, and Letellier 1995, 82.
43
3.2CenesL<~
59
do no t pa~~ by your servant. 141 Let a little water bt! bnm ght, and wash
yo ur fet~ t? and rest yo urs:el\'e.S undt:r the tree. (5) Let me bring a little bread,
that yo u may refresh yoursel ve~ (... )"" So flu_
-y ~aid, "Do as you ha\e said."
(8) .. . and he lr\brahamJ s-tood by them under the tr(>e while they ate. (9J
Tiley sajd to him, " \Vhenc: is- your wife Sarah?" And he said, "There, in the
tcnt" [l OJ Then tm~ said [ "~K'l), " /will surely return tu )'OU in due season,
and ytmr wife Sarah ~hall have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent
entrance ~hind him. ( 13) TI1e LORD (:1t.'1') said to Abraham, "Why d id Sa~
rah laug h, and ~ay, " ShaU l indeed lx!ar a child, now that I am old?" Is anything too wonderfu l for the LORD? At the set time I will return to you, in
d ue sea~m. and Sarah shall ha\'t? a sun. (15) But Sarah denied, saying, I did
not laugh, fo r .s-he was afr<lid. He said, "0 yes, yo u did laugh."
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
60
5<1 See also Hamori 2004, 3436, and Letellier 1995, 8283.
55 Hamo.i (2004, 131132) poinls out llt.lt both \..enesis 18 and 32 d e.1l with the confir
malion of a divine promise to one of Israel's fo refathers . Moreover, in bolh nam1
rives God appears in concrete human hmn, the socalled g theophan>" to use Ha
mori's designation, a fMt that s.h e Mkes as an illu ~tration of the special relationship
between God and the patriarchs. Regarding the ''iltheophany', see furthe below.
See also Letellier 1995, 88-89.
56 See also Hamori 2004, 44-47.
57 According to a text critical note to v. 22. the original wording M the verse was:" and
the Lord rema ined standi11g before Abr-.1ham".
58 Samaritanus Iu s i:':\"~ in C'.en 19: 12.
59 In this ver"Se the two angels refer to Cod in the third person.
60 The seemingly pleona.<~tic repe1i1km of "'from YHWH" i1\ Gen 19:24 ga\'e rise hl the
interp1-eMtic>n that the second refere n~ to YHWH in fact refers to the angel Gabiel.
ThL'I illte.pretatioo could bo.~ Colken as support fo r the ' two-powers-tw.J-esy and Ihe
pas.~1ge was included among the ''dangerous texls"' by the Rabbis, see. e.g.. (>. Sau
ft~iriu38b. Seeals.oSegal 1977, 12 1134.
3.2CenesL<~
61
61
62
~e <~ lso
63
Thi~
66
67
6S
Gen 19:4-5.
Hamori 2001. 43-44, aod 141 147.
Letellier 1995, 90-9 1.
Barr 1960. 3238, e$p. pp. 33-34, and Gieschel\ 1998, 5169.
l)'pe-scene recurs in the NT, see the an nunciatiot\.<1 to Ze<hariah, the fa ther of
John the Baptist and Mouy. the mother of Jesus in luke's ('.ospel. See itl.'io Bmwn {reprinted ed.) 1999, 155 158, 268-269, .md Letellier 1993, 103-107.
64 Cf.. Heb 13:2.
65 For a discussion lli Genesis 32. see below.
62
derStand him merely as a substitute fl)r God. This is p;u ticul;u ly th~ case in
Gen 16,7-14 ( ... J. The nwl'flk passages, fa r frum establishing a remoten~s or
transcendence of YH\>VJt perhaps in an attempt at combating primitive
anthrupomorphis.m.. sustain an ambiguity of identity and increase myste ry.
The nrnf'(lk does not d ilute the theo phany, but must be understood as accompanying the self-revelation of Cod in human form .. .~
Conduding Re rnarks
I agree tvi th Letellier that the main mystery o f the na rra tive in Genesis
18~1 9 lies in the ambiguous relationship between the three divine visitors. The story may be interpreted as an appeara nce o f YH\VH a nd hvo
angels, or that YH\VH '"'' as sorne how present in all three of them, al
though the s tatements in Gen 18:22 a nd 19:1 indicate that God was
accompanied by tvvo angels.)\1 ln this way, Genesis 18-19 present the
same problem as most of the 'angel o f th e Lord-texts' . Hmvever, it is
t-rue that the h uman appearance of Abraham's v isitors is made remark
ably concrete by their eating o f his food, a behavior which has no coun
terpart in any other biblical texl.
69
iO
7t
3.2CenesL<~
63
64
-.,,:~
Th e verse can be translated: "Abra ham called the name o f the p lace the
Lord sees/chooses, as it is said today, on the mountain o f the Lord it is
seen/revealed" (my translation).7' ln the Hebrew text it is u nclea r w ho or
what is seen o n the mountain. \Nho o r \vhat d oes the last pa rt of v. 14
refers to; the ram, God, the a ngel of the lord, or sornethinglsome<.>ne
else? Th e translators of the LXX as well as the Swed ish Bible 2000 interpret the en d of the verse as referring to the Lord, LXX: Ev 1'~ OQn
Kvpto; ,;;q,eiJ /Bib le 2000: " ... pa berget d a r H erren blir sedd" ['' on u,c
mountain w here file Lord is St't'n/' my translation]. Th is u nderstanding
of the verse is of in te rest for our subject, since it is the a ngel of the Lord
who reveals himself and talks to Abraham in vv. 1112 a nd 15-18. Arc
the angel o f the Lord and the Lord Himse lf ide ntical? The NRSV, on the
other hand, tr-anslates the verb :1-l\., as 'provide': "So Abraharn called that
p lace 'The LORD will provide'; as it is said to this d ay, "On the mount of
the LORD it slra/1 be provided."
T he bib lical pericope has six/seven actors: God (Eiohim/YHWH),
Abraham, h is two servants," Isaac, the a ngel of the Lord (YHI'VH), and
the ram. Tl' c focus of u, e study is the m le o f the angel of the Lord in
early Jewish interpretation. The main question is w hether the angel is
actua lly seen as a revelation of God Himself or '' only" as His messen
ger? The biblical text is ambivalent on this point. Are God and the angel
of the Lord iden tic..1l, and does our na rra tive therefore only have six
actors?
As mentioned a bove, the text contains both biblical " names" of
God, YHI'VH and Elohim, a nd the angel is called 'the angel of YHWH'.
Tile angel is the deliverer of Isaac and therefore a lso of his descen ...
d ants, the people of Israel. Th e angel appears for the first time in vv. 11 ~
12 and saves Isaac at the last moment from being sacrificed by his fa
ther. T he a ngel of the Lord speaks \vith d iv ine au thority in the first
person sing ula r, as if he is God himself, although he a lso refe rs to God
in the third person:
74 The1-e are !>()me tex1 critical rematks peraaining to thi!l verse in BHS. The issue is llw
s ammatical fl'u'm in which '''e .we to l'e<ld 1he verb;;~, 'h) see' the first and se<:ond
time il appears in the ver:;e. It a ll depends on hov1 we choo.u~ to voC<~ I i ze the worJ.
The MT li1<st uses an active and the n a pass:he form.
75 The two young men, the servallL'I of Abraham, are identified as Ishmael and Elielt>l'
in Pirt de R~rb()i Elitzer 3 I Bnd To1r,'?lllll Pstu.1c>}mmllum Gel\ 22:3.
3.2CenesL<~
6S
ICen 22:11 ) But tht! angel of the LO RD cal100 to h im from heaven, and said,
"Abraham$ Abraham!N And he said, ''Here I am.N (12) Ht! said. ' Do not Ia}'
y<)ur han d (>n the b<>y or d o anything to him; for now I know that you fi:ar
Gotf, s ince you have not withh~ld your $<)n, your only son from nu:.N
ln verse 16 the a ngel uses the so-called ' messenger--fom'lllla'/ ;'1\.i " c~l/
'says U1e Lord' . Most scholars thin k that this does not solve the problem
of the a ngel's identity. The a ngel never indicates tha t God sent him, as
other messengers usually d o. Tt is also note\vorthy that the ph rase c~l
;"ll;'l~ only occurs at th is point in Genesis and th at no other bib lical 1~'1J
uses it. m
The fact that Gad swears by Himself is some thing un ique in the Aqedah a nd is only mentioned again in Exod 32:13, where the text alludes
to this episode.n The a ngel of the Lord confimls a nd expands o n the
divine promises previously g iven to Abraham (Gen 12:1 -3; 15:4-21;
17:1 -8).
In Gen 22:19 v~.re read that Abraham returned to his servants and
they went together to Beersheba, but Isaac is not mentioned. Wh ere is
Isaac? He must still be alive, sin ce we read tha t the angel of the Lord
p revented Abraham fr01n completing the sacrifice. As in Genesis 16
and 21, the a ngel intervenes as a s.wior. In the same \vay as he came to
the rescue of Ishmael and his mother in the desert he saves Isaac's life
a t the last moment in Genesis 22.
66
78
79
80
~'IY translo.tion. In connection with lhe w ell. it i$ wmth nl)ting lhBl in its rewriling of
Gen 22:1-19, fttf1iii'-1'S refe r'$ to o. well near lhe !iacrifici,ll site. Ab.-.ham bids hisserwuus 10 stay there, white he and Isaac continue on {lttb. 18.4). In lhe LXX IW1' Sheb.l
(\..en 22: 19) is t:Mnslah~d a.!l <!J(U) 'Q ,.oU1'5QKm1/'the well of the I'Mth' . a ., /11('. 18. 1718.
My t.-.ns l.l Hons.. See also \\'estermal\1\ 1985, 217
LXX adds ... .. and lhe Cod of the earth ..... c~,nceming the title of YHWH as coo of
heaven', see al<>o Niehr 1995, 702'705.
3.2CenesL<~
67
me, saying. ' To yo ur offs pring I w ill givl! this )and: lit! will send his n~tge/111
before yew, trnd .110u slwll Mke n wife fc>r m.v son ftimt tll~re. ( 1': ~? l:lK'm rht"' N).1
DWJl '" '"\':ill-~ MPi') (8) Bu t if the woman is not ,.,..illing ft) follow you, then
yo u will be free from this oath uf mine; only you mus t not f<lke my son
back there:"
Rebekah thus follows the servant back to Canaan and marries Isaac:
(24:66) And the servant told Isaac all th~ thing..:; that he had d t)ne. (67) Then
L.:;aac b roug h t her intu his m<)lher Sarah's lent. He tuok Rebekah, and she
became hi::; wife; and he loved her. So Isaac was comfortl!d after his m()ther's death.
8l
82
We..c;rermann (1985, 378) lMs <.hosen the translalioo messenger' in \~ 24:7, w hile in
his se<l)nd oommenta ry on Genesis ( 1987, 167) he uses the transla tion ' a ngel.'
See als.o Gusgisbers 1979,.19-40.
68
states that" .. . the later angelic protection of God's people in any con
text can be perceived as an extension of this original messenger task
(Dan 3:28; 6:23[22); Bar 6:6 ( Ep jer 6))."oo
In its present form, Genesis 24 is a tale o f divine providence. God
leads the servant to Abraham's relatives and a suitable wife for Isaac.
The protection of the angel g uarantees the success of the commission.'"
According to \Vestennann, the theme of d ivine provid ence in Ge-.
nesis 24 is the result of a reworking of an o riginally "pure" family narr
a live. The words of Abraham in v.7 "he [GodJ will send his a ngel be
fore you ... " are thus a later insertion. As su ppo rt fo r his claim, \'Vestermann writes that Abraham's assurance to his servant here is
. .. a traditional fixed exp re.o;sion fo r Cod's a.SSi$tance and it occurs al:;<,) in
Ps. 91:1 1, which is an assu rance of b!...-ssing to an in d ividual at a relatively
Jatto' period (d. Ps l21); the reworking uf Gen. 24 in to its prt.os~nt form may
be tempo rally dose to it.&S
Concluding Rernarks
As stated above, the only reference to an angel in the singular in Gene.
sis.. w here the d istinction between God and His angel seems clear, is in
Gen 24:7, 40. In the narrative o f the wooing of Rebekah, the angel pla ys
a very anonymous, "back stage" role; he docs not speak (cf., Genesis
22) and is only referred to in the third person.
83
84
8.?
1\leier 1995a, 85. See also Gutmann /Edilo ri.ll Staff 1971. 964, New~om 1992,. 2.'50, 252.
and Ps 3-1:7 (v. 8 in the {'..JT).
See a iJ'O KOcket 2007, 7172. AI lhe Silme time, Genesis 24 is a fllm ily tale, whose
prim..ary Sl'l.:l l is marri!lge. lo this re.!ipect.. th e perioope has m aJlY si mit.uitie..<l to Gen
29: 114 !lnd Exod 2:151r22. All th ree narratives d e..'>cribe a meeting a1 a well between
a l).tranger f1'0m afar !lnd llxal people, a meeting lhat 1-esu iL<; in m arriage. llle ccun
0\(m lhe me of all Lh1-ee 1\ill'r,l thes. the meeting wi th a fulure .!ipouse at a welt m ay be
defined as a ..'>CK'alled typt..."-scene in the Hebrew Bible, see Aller 1981. <J7~2. Tile element l') f ' divil\e gu id an ce' i_<;, hll\'le\er, absent in the 1wo la$1 men tio-ned perioope.<;.
Neveth ele$.S, the fac1 that God is no l explicitly men tioned in C.eo 29:1- 14 <~ nd Exod
2: 15b-22 does not exclude the implkali-on o f Hi$ action in the narratives, $lee, fm ex
ample. Wesae.mann 1985,383.
We.<;termartn 19.85, 383384. See !llso Ern ikel 2007, 11-1. and K3ckera2007, 72.
3.2CenesL<~
69
86
87
Gen35,6.
70
Genesis .31
Lel us begin by looking at jacob's account o f his encounter with God's
angel during his service ''lith Laban:
ICen 31:10) " ... During the mating of the Oock I o nce had a d ream in which
I looked up and saw that the male gt)ats that leapt?d upon the Aock were
striped? Sp~!<:kled, and mottled. (11 ) TI1en t!J~ tmsd of God ( o"::~:l 1K'?l:l) said
to~ in the d ream, 'Jacob.' and I said, 'Hent I am!' (12) And he said. ' louk
up and SL>e that all the goat$ that leap o n the Aock are striped~ speckled,
and mottled; fo r 1 have ~n all that Laban is doing to you. (13Jlttm the God
of Bethd, w hert you mwit11t'd a Jlillnr tmd nwde n vow to m~. Now leave this
land at once and return t() th ~ Jand of your birth"'/ nnwll ,11/1\ ;.~ 11:1 '?~1 'JlK)
r vn?lb j"1K i~ ~r.1'1 !IXT:'l f"'''tl~:'llt< K'l 0 \? :1/"1!;' m 0'.1''7 rmJ ,19~ :0~1! 0\!l
Here Jacob addresses his two "vives Rachel and leah and tens them
about a revelation in a dream. In the context o f the pericope we read
that laban and hL'i sons have become jealous o f Jacob because o f his
increasing wealth, vv. 12. God then exhorts Jacob to return to his ho
meland, v. 3.~ He decides to flee and therefore summons his wives to
explain the situation, v. 4. Jacob tells them that Laban has behaved un
justly b ut that God has been with him, vv. 5-9. jacob attributes the in
crease in his livestock to a divine revelation in a dream, vv. 1012.
It is noteworthy that jacob refers to '1/~e angel of God in v. 11. Diana
Lipton points out that although angels appear elsewhere in Genesis,. this
is the only dream w hich is mediated by an angel; speaking in God's
name, and she further rernarks that in the mid dle o f v. 12 the angel's
voice has become indistinguishable from that o f God. Despite this am
biguity, Lipton claims that the angel in Genesis 31 is to be understood as
a d istinct being. sep~uate from God, a conclusion she bases o n the simi
laritics between the fu nction of the angels in Gen 31:10.13 and Zech 5:5
6. like Zechariah's angel, jacob's angel appears as an angelus inte-rpres,
i.e., an interpreter o f d reams and visions. Because Zechariah' s angel is
d early depicted as an independen t being. she claims that the same most
probably applies to the angel who appeared to jacob."' I admit that there
$8
89
Cl... the "ange l's" instruction in Gen 3 1:13. D. lipton (1999.. 30} remarks that the
dre1llll reported in Gen 3 1:10-13 is the onl> Cene.<~is-d -eam not announced b)' the
narrator, possibl) lx"'cause the dream and God's instruct ion in v. 3 were reg.wded as
anothe r version of one <lJld the same evl~nt.
lipton 1999.. 30.. 115-121. Upton appa.-ently does 1\0t Mke into consider.u ion the
question of rhe "'.tngel's"' own identification 3.!1 'the God of Bethel'. see the d iscu..'l.!lion
above.
3.2CenesL<~
71
is a genu ine affinity in ftmction between the two angels, but this fact
alone does not per se p lace them in the same category.
In Gen 31:13, th e a ngel of God iden tifies himself as 't!Je God of Be
llwl'. The Hebrew wording in th is verse is strange; 7ft\ n~::z 7x:.i ':>l."i. can be
t ranslated as "I am the God Bethel." Jn the words o f Nahum Sarna;
. .. the succeed ing double use of "where," (Heb. $./wm), show:=. that "Bethel ...
here is a plact,e name? not a d ivint! n ame.il' The title i.s intended not to limit
the living Cod to a ::Opl!Cific locale but to can to mind the t)riginal theophany
ICen 21k10-22), specifically the prom i:=.t~ of a mstant protectit)n and safe re
turn. ln like manner? the emphasis on the vow is a reminder to the p a
triarch that his self-impc_)..;ed obligation assumed at Bethel h<ll'i yet to be diS
charged . ..9 1
The LXX is clearer than the MT in v. 13, where the an gel of God says to
Jacob:
ICen 31:13] i:y(;, d pl b flti).; b <'x!Jfl ti;; O()\ t:V 't6m~' fl t u U/ 1 <lm the Cod that
ap peared to you in the p lace uf Cod .'
According to Hay"vard , the tr-anslators o f the LXX modeled their account of the angel's appearance to Jacob o n Moses' calling~cxperience
at the burning bush.<n They interpreted Jacob's life as prefiguring the
destiny o f his descenda nts/ the people of Israel. Jacob's servitude in the
house o f Laban foreshadows the slavery o f lsrael in Egypt. God intervenes in both cases; in Gen 31 :12, the a ngel says to jacob" ... for I have
seen all that laban is doing to you/' cornpare with God's words to
Moses in the LXX Exod 3:7 " ... l have observed the misery of my
people who are in Egypt ... " God/the a ngel o f God exhorts Jacob to
" leave this la nd at once"9' ~lnd God tells Moses that He has corne down
in order to "bring ~>em (U'e people of lsmel) u p out o f that land
90
91
92
93
9-JI
Bethel was the lt.lme of a p.1gan god once worshipped b) some o! the peoples in the
Ancienl Near E.lst, d .. Jer 48: 13. tikewL<~e, the place known as Bethel was most cei'C<linly already a sacred Canaanite a J!tic site befofe and durin& the p.llri.wchal peril)((.
See Sama 1989, 398-100. For fu rfher d iscussion, see below.
Sama 1989, 21S.
The LXX also uses the definile form when reft'l'ring to the .mgel in'' I 1:0 t.iyy.:Ao;:
toU (~miJ . .., beO'Iuse l11e "angel" has a lread) made himsell known to j!Kob in Genesis 28. This probably expl.lins the de-finite form in verse 13, both in the Greek ~md the
Hebrew texts: .. .. . I am I he God of BetheVtll!! Cod vt ho appeared to rou in the plaro
of Cod . .." God is 1-eminding Jacob of their previous encounter al Bethel. The Swedish Bible translation (Bibel 2(XX)) of Gen 3 1:13a reads: ''Jag :iir den Cud som vL<~adt>
sig fO dig i Bethel ... fJ am the Cod who appear~.->c.i h l you in Bethel .. ."{My tmsla+
tion). According 10 \Nevers (1993, 501-502), it is made totally d e<11' in LXX\'\' . 12-13
that the "ange l" L<~ none other lll.ill\ God Himself.
Hayw<1rd 2005. 11-43.
Gen31: 13b.
72
[Egypt)."" l11c addition to the angel's speech in the LXX Gen 31:13; " ...
and 1 \Viii be with you/''X> is regarded by Hayv~.rard as an allusion to
God's promise in Exod 3:12.97
The a ngel of God identifies himself in Gen 31:13 as the God i>
ixj>-9rt'.; om iv 't6ncp 9e.oU/ "who appeared to you in the p lace of God 11, a
cla use that is reminiscent of Exod 3:2 whe re it is sta ted in the LXX:
"Ocjllltl bt atn~' ayy<Ao; KUQfou .. ./. .. "And an angel of the Lord ap
penred to him (lvtoscsJ ..." Jacob is thus cornpared to Moses; both had a
vision of God/His angel. In the two narratives. the iden tities of the a n*
gel and God a re blurred; w hen \Ve continue to read Exodus 3."'11 the
angel of the lord seerns to be none o ther than God Himself.i't HaY'".rard
further points out that the LXX designation of Bethel as 'the p lace o f
God' may be intended to remin d the reader o f the p lace o f God's ap
pearnu.:e to Moses in the burning bush, which is explicitly described as
' holy ground', see Exod 3:5.'"'
Genesis 28
The angel/ messenger of God hence claims to be none other than God
Himself who appeared to jacob in Bethel. Gen 31 :13 thus refers back to
another divine revelation in a dream, d escribed in Gcn 28:10-22:
(10J Jacob l~ft &er-sheba and went toward Haran. (11 J 1-f~ c:ame (:V.~'l)IOI to
a certain
p lac~ lo,p;:.~l
and stayed
th~re
set. Taking one of the s tones ( u~e TIP'l)un (){ the place [D1P1:1.1L he put it under hi$ head and Ia}' down in that place. {12) And ht dretmJcillhat lhae W(/.5"
ladder $~1 up tm tile earth. the top of it rt<tuhing M lrerJve~n; ftmllJte: angels of God
w~re li'$Ceudittg tmtl tlc;tc-ruling ou it. I :r:l'i'YO:t :l ~le ,".:~N11 :rs1N :!~1'3 o ;o :u:n oi?:l'l)
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Exod 3:8.
This concluding phr.-.se has no counlerparl in t he MT. How-e ver, it Lc; e mployed ill
God's previous exhOI'IBiio-n to Jacob to retum home. see Gen 3 1:3b.
See Hayward 2005, 38-44.
See, e.g . E>:od 3:4b in the LXX and the MT. See als.o Hayward 2005. 4243.
The similar ambivalence between Cod and His omgel app<uenl in Exodus 3 and Cen
31: 11 -13 is not d isrus....:;ed by HB)'Ward., whose flXUS differs from thal of the prt>Senl
investigation.
&"e Ha)'VJetrd 2005, 42-4J. Cl., a lsc> Jacob's designation of Bethel aCCllrding hl Cen
28: 1&.17. The Hebrew word ov:: 'place occurs no less than six times in the account
of Jacob's dre.lm a t Bethel and i.e; apparentl)' a key-word in lhe stor)' ll also has lhe
o:>~tnotat i on of 'holy place/site', see below.
literally: "he mt'J a certain plat--e .. ." Acco"<ling hl We$1erm.ann ( 1985. -152), lhe \erb
:-u~ ' meet' con.c;titutes a link to ("_.en 32: 1-2. where the same \'ctb is emplo)ed. St.>e also
Philo's interpretation ol the verb in his analysis of Gene..,is 28 ln 011 Dmu11s 1.71)..71
and Pin~ dt! Rab()i Elitur, see below.
literally; .-. ... Irom the s1o11ts lin plural!I of thilt place .. ." See lhe an.alys-is of lhe
Targums below.
3.2CenesL<~
73
;um IJ3J And flit WRD stood be:."id~ IIim Ho and said
( 11:),~'11''?91-SJ :n.'T' :u:n], " I am the LORD? th~ God of Abraham(... ':'l;N :r'l:'l' 'l:S
D:'l~:t:s) your father and the God u f (s;;-1ac; the land o n whkh )'tlU lie J will
give to you and to you r offspring; (14) and )'(lUr o ffs;pring shall be like the
d ust tlf the earth, and you sh all spread abruad to the west and to the east,
and to the nurth and to the :::outh; and all the famili~s of the earth shall be
blessed in }'OU and in your offs-pring. (15] Know that I am with ytlU (. . . ;u.-n
11:-1: 'J!.~J and will keep yuu wher~ver you go. and will bring y<>u back to
this land; fM I will no t leave you until I have done what 1 have prt)mL.;ed
you.N (16) Then Jacob wuke from his :;loop and :::aid, "Surely the LORD Lo; in
thjs p lace-and I d id not know it!N f17J And h e was afraid1 and said, "How
awe-some is thi::: place! This is none t)ther than the house of Cod, and th is is
the gate of heaven." I x; ')!.'(1 :'ll:l 0 \?l:o::! ;n;, rzr PK 1J:>S"l lN~'J:> ~P9' l'V"1 f16]
(1::1 0'1"'Y'l o;~ tl':l;.~ ':>.~?J:i
.O'J:>'o!l:l 1~'W ;m C':'l;X i'l':! C~ ~ :Tt f~ :'l;:l 01jm:'l ~ :'Ill 1~~"1 X1""'1 I TJ '1'\~"1"
(1 8) St'l Jacob rose early in the muming. and he t()(lk the stone fpN.., ]tl'll
that he had p ut und er his head and set it up fur a p illar (:"l:!~t-) and poured
oil u n th~t top of it. [19] He mll~d flint pfnte Bctllrll n'J l:1:t Dlp~:'l oe:t i'IN X1"''
; x); but the name ()f the city was Luz at the firSt. (20] Then Jacob made a
vow, saying. ''If Gud ( o:r'?~ J ,,.. ill be with me, and wi11 keep me in this way
that I go, and will g ive me b read to eat and clothing tu wear, (21 ) so that I
come again tu my fath~r's hou~ in peac~t, then the LORD ( :11:;"] ;o:;hall be my
Cod (O':i?"S:'? ''1. [22) and this s tune? which J have ~t up fur a pillou , shaH bt!
God's hou~ (o:;;.~ l"'":!J; and of aiJ that yuu give me I will ~"U re1y give une
tenth to yuu." 1/li.
This dream is the initial theophany in the life o f Jacob and constitutes
the first occasion when God appears and spe~1ks to h im. Tn a sense the
vision can be designated as his calling as a senrant o f God. 1co. Jacob is to
be the o ne who will carry on the spiritual heritage of his fathers. The
pericope belongs to the narratives of encounters with God and o f &1
c:red sites inserted in the jacob ..Esau story (see also Cen 32: 1 ~21 22 ..32;
35:1 15). 11"
God introduces Himself as "' ... the LORD, God of Abraham your
fa ther and the God of Isaac ...'' This is dearly an allusion to the cove ..
nant made with Abraham and Isaac. God links Himself to jacob's fa..
thers a nd continues by repeating the promises of land, abundant
offspring, and blessings previously given to the earlier patriard1s (vv.
13-14), see, for example, Gen 12:13; 13:14-1 7; 22:15 18; 17:6-8 (Abra
l06 Cf., the c-alling M lhe prophet Isaiah: Isaiah 6. See also Westel'm.mn 1985, 454455,
and Kugel 1993, 211.
107 Westermann 1985. 452.
74
(Num 12:6bl ... When there are pmphets <~ mong you, I the LORD make myself
known to them in tJisiims: I speak to them in drt~mf'ii. ( 7] Not so with my serwmt ~l os
e.<~: he is entrusted w ith all my house. (81 With him I speak face to face-clearl)' not in
riddles: and he behold$ the form of the LORD . ..
Acrording: to CuHey (2004. 105-109). the e-a rl) jews placed a high \a lue on dreams as
real exper;ence.c; of the direc1 voice of Cod. Divinely inspired dreams a1't' common in
the BiMe. Be.<;ide.<~ Jacob, his so11 Joseph <Uld the prophet D.lniel are well-known bibli
cal d ur.lCters who can be n~nti oned in this context. It L<~ some times difficult to dis
tinguish between dreams and visions in the Bible. Exp1-es.sions such as "'1 continued
lc)(>king, in the vi$ions of my head as 11a}' in bed .. ." (Ocm 4: 13) m<~y refer to dreams.
l09 We may, however, interpret Gen 15: 12-16 as God talking to Abraham in a d ream,
although th is is unusual in the c.lse of Abr.lha m. cf., \..en 12: 1-3: B: 14- t 7 etc.
LIO According to Gen 31:24, God a lso appears to Laban in a dream when he pui'Sues the
fleeing Jacob and wams him~ ''Take heed th at you say not a word to )lcob, eithe
good or bad .... According: to Cen 16:2-<1. Cod appeared hl l<~rael (i.e.,. Jamb) in the vi
sions of the night, p1't'Su nMbly a d re-a m, thu$ jacob/Israel ha d ll total of three d hhw
dream re\eiMion..<l.
lll The Hebre\,_. word o';o is a ltitf.t.'U: legomewm. Its etymology and mealling is uncer1.1in;
it may derhe from the root 77c ' hl heap/pile up'. Accord ing to Koehler!Baumgarlner
(2001. 757758), Sarna 1989, 198, Weste1mann (1985, 454), a nd, for exam ple The Nevi
lnrernatiOJMI Ve rsion,. 's.tail'\'lay' i$ probably the correct tratslation. Jn addition to
the New Revised Standard Versioo cited above, the New King Jame.c; Version atso
uses the translation ' ladder'. According to Sarna (1989, 198}, the in.spiratiQnal stimulus for the image of the ' ladder' is eithe r the l,ldder of ascent to heaven known from
Egyptian a nd Hinite sources or the Babylonian z igglll'.ilt/temple rower. The gods
were ClWISide red hl contact humanity from the top of che zigglll'<ll,. and the temple
pric.>sts \' 'ent up and down in the sevice of the deities. The ongel<~ may thus play a
priest!}' role in jacob's dream. See a lso Alte r 1996, 49. Anothe interpret.l tion is th at
Genesis 28 depict.~ Yahweh as a king and the angels as his emissaries who ll't' sent
ll ut from His throne on varillliS mi<~sions and alterwards l't'-t\ 111\ to report. See tewi'\/Oiiver 1996,229.
3.2CenesL<~
75
112 For reasons of simplicity, I w ill in generill use lhe word ' l.adder', becalLc;e fhis is the
~rnnslation in Lhe NRSV.
113 S..~ea l$o0 Kugel 1 995, 2 11 .
ll4 See K&ket 2007, 57, and \Vesterm<ann 1985, 454->&55. Acrordi.ng co \'~falters ( 1992..
602), 1he ladde is " . .. a symbol of the .lccessibilily of God's help a nd P..,sence, a
theme distinctive to the Jaoob s hwies."
115 See a lso Kikken 2007. 5>1,. 57. Westermam 198.1), 4.5<1455. and Murphy 1989,30.
116 See Kugel 1990, 114-120.
l17 Sama 1989, 198. Cf.. for example Zedl 1:711. II is 110tewor1hy that 1he riders fan
gels?! who patrol the e.wth are dearly distinguished from the angel of the Lord, see
V\. lOb II :". .. They are thoeie whom the LORD has .sen1 h) p.t~t i'OI the earlh. Then
they spoke to the .,ngel l'lf 1he LORD who was s tanding among the myrtle 1rees, -we
ha\'e patrolled the earth. a1\d lo, the whole earth remain..<~ at peace.'" a ., Job 1. 2.
118 S.1ma 1989, 199. Aa.'Ording hl Sarna, the idea of sudl places wa.<~ w idespre.ad in the
A1\Cient Middle East. See also Ps 78:23 and Westermann 1985, 457.
76
tioned above, these two texl4i and Genesis 19 are the o nly examples of
o~:~x:;:>:{angels in the plura l in Genesis. The a ppearance of the angels is
not described in Genesis 28.
The heavenly ladder and the a ngels certainly h ave a deep symbolic
significance. I question Sarna' s s tate rnent that the a ngels p lay no role in
the dream. If so, why are they in it? Kugel rcmark..5 that it is peculiar
that the angels are said to be going up and dmvtl, in that o rder. In his
own words: u An gels are said to reside in heaven; they should therefore
more properly be said to go dowu aud up."l~' It rernains to be seen
whether the ea rly Jewish interpreters bothered w ith this question.
The meaning of Gen 28:13a is d ebated . Does God stand upon/ above
lhe ladder, or is He depicted as standing beside/ in front of jnmb? l11c
Hebrew wording here is; ''1"'7~ :1:0 :i'lii' :-U.'i'l ... " ~1nd the question is what
or w ho the suffix attached to the preposition ;~ alludes to, the ladder or
Jacob? Since lhe ladder is ment ioned in v. 12, i t seems likely that the
suffix refers to it, and this is a lso the transla tion we find in NKJV; " ...
And behold, the lord stood above it [the ladder] ... " Th is is also the
rendering in the LXX,m the Vulgate a nd Peshit1a.m
\.Yestcrmann however, claims that the reference is to jacob and that
the verse should be translated accordingly; 1'And Yahweh stoOl-i before
him a nd said ... " n He bases his interpretation o n the fact that Jacob is
addres.sed by God in the following, vv. 13b-15."' This appears to be a
weak argument, as God can talk to Jacob even if He is stand ing
above/on the lad der.
From the point of v iew of conte nt, the question o f \\1here God is
stand ing may appear to be of little sign ificance but if God is d epicted as
l 19 The e>:p1-ess ion d oes not occur an}'\'o'here else in the Bible, with the e>:<:eption l')f 2
Chronicles 16, where the meaning is d ifferen t. $ee We.<~termal\l\ 1985. -152.
120 Kugel 1995, 213. Li\guislicallr speaking. the1-e is nothing s trange abou! the orde of
the vebs in Cen 28: 12.. In Hebrew as in Eng lish. things are geneally said to ' gl') up
and down', not 'd own Bnd up'. Set~ also Kugel 1990, I 14.
121 The wcH'ding of Ceo 28: 13 in the LXX is as foiiO\\'S: ... Obt d,oo;: i:neo:rn)QIK'TO 11
mJtl); Xll dl"'cv, Ey(o) Kl.'(HOC. 6 ~h:O.: J\~tip 't0(1 '<1.-:t'TQO.; oou .. I" .. . the lord
stood upon it llhe ladde) and said, 'I am the Lord, 1he God ll f Abc.lham you r father
...... Since the word f~,_w 'ladder' in Greek. t<.\i~lll!. L'l fem i1t ine. the reference c.l n here
only be to the ladder, no t to Jaoob, who is obviously nMs.culine.
122 Sec also S.1ma 1989, 198 and 364. Acrording to him, th is is also the choke of Rash i,
ibn E:r.ra. and Ramb.lm, whe reas S.1.1di.1h refers lhe Jll'eposition to Ja~.ub . See<'ilso the
New lntetnaticmal Version w hich SUtes in v. 13: " The1'e above it (the ladderl s to..ld
the LO RD ... "
123 \Ve_c;term ann 1985, 451 and 45.S, thus .11so the New Re\cised Standard Ve rsion a nd the
lllte.<tt Swedish Bible tran..'llation, Bibel 2000.
124 Weste rntann 1985.455.
3.2CenesL<~
77
standing upon the ladder, it and God become more closely connected
to each other. us Othenv-ise, it is possible to in terpret God's speech to
jacob and the \lision of the ladder as two separate revelation.~. thus in
accordance with Westennann.llf> Sama also translates v. 13a in this way:
"And the LORD was standing beside him (Jacob) and He said ..."'"
Regard less of how we u nderstand \1.13, it is clear that the God who
talks to jacob is distinguished from the angels going up and dmvn on
the ladder. Nevertheless, the angel o f God who appears to Jacob in
Haran refers to himself as ' tire God of Bethel/ Gen 31:13. This is accor
ding l)' no "ordinar)' angel," unlike the angels in Gen 28:1 2.
As we have seen, jacob encou nters God/the angel of God in a
dream vision in both Gcn 28:10-22 and 31:1013. The two pericopes also
have in common that Jacob finds himself in awkward situations. In
Genesis 28, Jacob is on the run tov~.'ards Haran in order to escape the
revenge of his brother Esau. In Genesis 31, he has found hirnself forced
to flee o nce morel this time because of the jealousy of Laban and his
sons. In both situations~ the divine revelation L'i in tended as an encou
ragement. In Gen 28:15, God sa)'S to Jacob:
" ... Kn()lV that I am with )'l)U and will keep yuu wherever }'OU go, an d will
b ring you back to this land; fur I wilt n ot le;-we you until I have d o rw. what 1
have promised you."
125 H we understand the .. ladder" in Jacob's d ream a.c; modeled on the Baby lonian :r.ig
gur<~ Vh~mpl e towe1, it seem..'i most probable that \~ is depicted ll..<; standing
l"'ll/ilbove the .. ladder.*
126 We..<>termann 1987, 200.
127 Sama 1989, 198. Sai'IM Bl<~o claims that t he lildder d id not function .ts "' channel o f
communication between m an and God, a sta tement tltat he lea\o"e!!; unexplain..~i .
128 A<~ men ti oned ilbove, jacob is O l\ the run. As a reAAJit of the e<mfliC1 with his brother,
jac<lb is told by hi.<1 mother to le.w e the land of his f-a mily and flee to Laban, hi.c; unde
in HarBI\; Cen 27:42 45; 28:12. Isaac exhorts his son to take as \\ife one o f the daugh
ters of laban., ll\al is, a relative.
129 See a lso Westerman n 1985, 455-456, 160.
4
78
l30 See also KO&ert 2007, 58, who interprets the angels l'Ul the ladder a..<1 symbl.,lizing
}lcob"s d ivine prote\~tion, d., God's promise in Gen 28: 15.
131 Sama, 1989, 197, 199, 400, and Westennann 1985, 454. The Swedi.c;h Bible translation
from 19 17 says in Gen 2S:t I: o.._'fl han kom d:\ till tleu !tt'lig,, plar.stu ../A I\d hence he
C.l m,~ h l lilt fmi!JJ>Inct . .. " (my tran.<llation). In Rabbinic termirw>logy, the \'lOrd Olj:7.'.)
(\l me 10 be employed as a d ivine epithet meaning 'the Omnipresent'. Al'"l.:Ording to
Koehler/Baumgatner (2001. 627). it already h.ld lhLc; meaning in ~'llh 4:14. See also
Marm~Wstein 1927. 9293, and Oeut 12:5; 14:23: 16:2,. 6, where the word is used to des.
ig.nate God's dlosen abode. The ex p~$Si 01l ' house of Cod' is a de.<ig.nation for the
Temple i11 Jerusalem in. e.g., Ps 42:5: 1 an 6:33; 22:2 11.
l32 Jk't'lb's surprise may also be interpreted in the light of his p.lst beha\ior towatd hh;;
b1'0ther. Because of feelings of guilt. he ma)r be surpri<~ed that Cod still is concerned
about him. See Sarna, 1989, 199.
133 Kugel 1995. 211.
3.2CenesL<~
79
rience o f 'the holy'.l:u Because he treated the p lace irreveren tly, the
discovery o f its sanctity frightens jacob, although it shou ld be noted
that the Hebrev~.r word fo r ' holy', ttny, does not occur in the pericope.1-
The foiiO\'Irin g morning Jacob begins to act upon h is vision. He
erects the stone he slept on as a p illar a nd pou rs oil o n it, v. 18. This
action presu pposes the already existing rite of the anoin ting of the ;'l:l'S"b .
The stone marks ou t the p lace o f the revelation a nd fu nctions as a 'wit
ness' to Jacob's subsequent vow to COli in vv. 20~21..'-x. d., Gen 31 :45-54
and Josh 24:27. The ;"i:tJ.f'J is intended as a 'witnes..c.;' to the d ivine presence at the site and is hence called o,:i?l\ n':l /'house o f God', v. 22.m In
verse 19 Jacob calls the p lace Bethel. the name having t-he same rnean
ing. See also Gen 31:13a, where the angel of God refe rs to this even t and
sa ys: "I am the God of Bei!Jel, where you anointed a pU/ar and made a vow to
me."l311 The sto ry h as thus a n etiologic..1l purpose; to derive the initial
holin ess o f the site from Jacob's d reamvision.IJ9
The Septuagint version of Gen esis 28 does not mention the n ame
Bethel at aiL In v. 19 the expression Lc; liter-ally translated in accordance
wi th its Hebrew meaning; ' house o f God'; ... troi. f.KMtatv raKe~ TO
Ovo1-1a ToU T(mou f Kdvou OlKo~ 9t:oU .. ./ " ... And Jacob called the
name o f that p lace thelwuse of God . .."
134
135
136
137
l38
139
~e
also, e.g . Judg 13:20-22 cHld Luke 1: 11 t2. Hagar (Cen 16:714; 21: 172(>), hm>Je\
er, is no t ~aid to have s.hown .m y fe.a when s.he encountered the .angel of th e lord.
~e.. for example, Vv'e.<~te rman.n 1985, 1(,(). Aocording to him, God's presence in his tory a!ld the impon.mce of cullic wcH"ship are the two main mes.'lages of the text.
\Ve.o;termann 1985. 457-458, Sama 1989, 199200.
Sama 1989. 201. The ;;:ro~ may <~ lso be u nderstood as a 'wiLO&-"S.'i' to jacob's dream
vision. w,~s1eml:.mn 1965.437. In v. 22 the .sume L'l hence gi"en the same n.ame a.. <1 Lhe
place, cf., vv. 17, 19.
See also HM 12:4b 5 {vv. 5b-6a in the Mn: "'He met him l)acobl at Bdl1t'l, and there
he spoke with him. The LORD the God of hosts, the LORD is his !lame !"'
See Kikker! 2007, 57, Westerma nn 1983, 452 451. and S.H'n.l 1989, 199, and 398-400.
Etiological n.uratives are m.~quen l in Genesis. The ntuning of a pLace is often de!iCribed as a rt-spon...e to a d ivine 1-evelation. See Gen 16: 14; 22:14: 32: 1 2. 30, and 35:7,
4
15.
l40 The n umbeing of the verses d iffers between the MT and NRSV; Gen 31:53 in the
N RSV co1Tesponds to Gen .n: I in !he MT. II n ot 1''111-.ewL.::e s tated, the following discus.o;ion adheres to the NRSV.
80
3.2CenesL<~
81
ties with Jacob is not God, but 'a divine being', 'a d emon'.w. \\'ester
mann takes the fact that the assailant shuns the daylight as proof of his
demonic identity; God does not fea r the dav.m.rr Moreover, the God
w hom Jacob had invoked in prayer could not possibly be the o ne who
attacked hirn. On the contrary, Jacob's victory over the demon is God's
answer to his prayer for divine intervention.Nil
Another interpretation of the text is to identify Jacob's contender as
an angel of God .l.&9 This view is represented by/ for example, Sam a,
w ho point~ out that, because he blesses Jacob, the antagonist cannot be
a demon, a conclusion I find reasonable.'30 As Hamori remarks, it is
indeed very telling that \..Vestermann finally p uts the word ' blessing'
wi thin quotation marks in his discussion of the narrative, because it
docs not fit in ""'i th his d emon interpretation.'s In support o f his identi
fication o f the contend er, Sama also refers to Hosea 12 and other bibli
cal accoun ts where the designations tt.'"'~ ' man' and/or C':i?~ ' divine
beings' arc used for angels; Genesis 1819; josh 5:13-15, and judges
13.mThe last argument is we..1k, since these biblical references arc high
ly ambiguous, all of them belonging to ' the angel of the lord-texts'.'"
Sarna connects Jacob's wrestling bout with his return to the Prom
ised Land and the subsequent confrontation with Esau, as the river
146 We.<>termann 1985. 515-5 18. We!O-tem1ann and Vawter (19i7, J.19) inrerpret the word
C'"K in Genesis 32 !l..<l meaning 'son~ne. Vawter concludes that in v. 3t it bt.~conws
... quite d ear that a super-human, Cod-like dtarac1e.r is the one with w hom }.1cob
hasconte nded at the )lbbok.''
147 Weste rmann, 1985, 521. West ~rmann (19fl5. 5 1 ~517) also refers to Exod 4:24-26,
w he re it is stated tha t YHWH a ttaC".ked Moses a t night. He claims that the referen ce
to YHW H is seconday and thBI the <~ llaclcer was originally a demon, see .,IS() the
dis.::u..<~sion of th is text in chapter2.
148 We..<>termann 1985, 521.
149 See a lso Hamotl2004, 93.
150 S..'lma 1989, 403. See a lso KOckert {2007, 60-61) who 1-emarks 11Mt demon.c; do not
usually give bl es.<~ings. H o~'1ever, KQcke rt q ueS-tions the identification of Jacob's opponent as an angel since jllcob' s new name !l..<l well as his -eaclion reoorded in v. 30
[311 " . .. For I have seen GoJ f.1ce to f.~a. .. " implies th at he had struggled with none
l')the than C'.od Himself.
15t Hamori 2004, 94. A Ml"ll'e likely varhmt of the 'demon-interpretation' is to 1'eo:l d the
SlOt)' ps)chologically: Jarob w ~slles with his ''inl\e l'~d~mort.c;.. (as well as God) a t
night; i.e., his conscience and fears. w hen faced w ith the impending confront.ltion
w ith Esau. See al<~o Aller 1996, 18 1. Walters ( 1992. 605} inferprets Jacob's \'' re$1ling
bout a t Jabbok as ~presenlii\S his struggle ,.,ilh both men {Esau, laban, Isaac) and
C'.od thmughQut his life. At jllbbok. Jacob w.ls forced to face his own dl a l'.~cter, his
rel!llions with other people a.<1 well as '''ith Clxl.
152 S..'lma 1989, 22'7-228. 383-384, 40.1. and 4 14.
153 See also KOcke tt 2007,61-62.
82
is
(Cen 32:20) Then he fthe man) said., "l.e t me gu, for the day is b reaking ."
But Jacob said, " 1 will n ot let yuu go, un le.~.. you b le:=os me." (27') 5<) he said
to him, "\'Vhat is your name?" And he said, " ja<."t)b." (28] Then the man
said, "You s:ha11 n o l()ng:er be c.aHed Jacob. But Israel. fur you have striven
with Q >d and with humans, and have p revailed.N/11ll!l 1\~ "\t!K"' JV!I" x'? "\t!K''I
m,,,i'll orz."~ o.:.., o;m 0!1 n1e' :> ~1?S' OR :>
divine nature o f the man but also the significance o f the new name
itself. The explanation given in v. 28 indicates that Israel means 'he
strives with God' .1ss Harnori refutes the argument that the \Vord o~ii'K
in this context may signify 'divine beings/ since it is used as an equivalent to 7s, 'God{EI', in v. 28 (v. 29 in the MT). Hov.rever, Jacob's question
in v. 29 may still expres..c.o his d oubts concerning the identity Qf his op
ponent, perhaps he still wonders w hat kind o f o~ii?#divine being he
really is:1""
(Cen 32.:29) Then Jamb a.sked h im, "Please, tell mt! your name." But he
said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" A nd there he b1es..'ied him. (30) Su
154 S..'lma 1989, 103. See also Num 2 1:24: Deut 2:37;3:16; j\lSh 12:2. and Judg 11: 13, 22.
l!).1- Sarna 1989, 4011. Acco.'ding to Sarna {1989, 227). the bestowal ol the name Israel
constitutes th e blessing of Jacob, but there is no general oon..'ICit.~u..c; Cl) nce.m ing this
.natter.
156 See 11lso Hamori 2004, 8283. Hamori compares this renaming of Jacob with Hos 1:6-2: I {v. 3 in the Mn. As will be shm'ln belm'l, Jarob/brael has been be.<ttowed w ith a
kind of angelic character in some e.:wly Jewi~h sources,. see al!iO Gie~hen 1998.
152183.
157 Verse 29 in the tviT.
l58 Howe\er, in names formed by ' verb (in this case :iii:/ ' strhe{struggle/contend')
oombined with the dhine element ""'!god', God is usually th e subject of the acli<tn.
not its indite<:l object. heni.X! 'Clld s trives'. See illso Sarna 1989, 26. Tile meaning of
this name has been much debated, see below.
159 See also Hamori 2004,85-86.
3.2CenesL<~
jacob called the p1ac~ Peniel, saying . "For I hm~ ::;een Cod fa c~ to face, and
vet my 1ife is pre.wrved."/ 0')!1 ~ : !' 0':1'?~ 'li'K"'' '' 71\')!1 z:n;m:1 Dl!l ~p XV''
l (JI),'V!Il '?~ml
When Jacob/Israel asks for the man's name, he re<:eives no reply (v. 29).
Bruce Vawter cornpares the man's refusal to tell hie; narne with God's
crypt ic a nswer to Moses in Exod 3:14: "I AM WHO I AM."'" After the
man has left. Jacob/Israel names the place Peniel, 'face of God', since he
is shake n by the experience that he has met God in person and yet sur
v ived. This reminds us of Hagar's reaction a fter seeing the a ngel of the
Lord.. Gen 16:13, as well asQf the name of the well, v. 14.'eu
According to Hamori, the man's coun ter question in Gen 32:29
'1Vhy is it that you ask my name?" and his b lessing o f Jacob fim,lly
cQntiml h is iden tity as God Himse lf. Furthermore, she cla ims that Ja
cob's naming of the place Pe nie/ cannot be separated from his exclama
t ion in v. 30 "For I have seen God [0';"17R] face ld face/' once more o:"'7R is
used as a n equivalent to 7K,/J.Itu
jacob's reaction in v. 30 clearly indicates that the narrative in its
p resent fonn describes a meeting with GOli.'MThe patriarch's wonder
that he is still alive must be seen in the light of the Israelite conviction
that no man can see God's face and live, compare Exod 33:20, where
God says to Moses.. " .. . you cannot see my face a nd live, for no one
shall see me a nd live.''IK> However, the case o f Moses is highly ambiguous, because in Exod 33:11 it is stated that " ... the Lord used to speak
to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a frie nd,'' a nd in Deu t 34:10
Moses is said to have been exceptional in this regard . Hamori daims
that the stories of Jacob a nd Abraham in Genesis 18 and 32 simila rly
describe an intimate relationship with God. She further points o u t that
in both narratives God confim1s His p romises to the patriarchs.'(,(,
Jacob's naming of the place and the wQrd o~l~ -'face' in v. 30 (31) is a
key-word.t67 It denotes perwnal p resence, in this case divine presence.l611 To seek God's face is to seek His presence.'""'
160
161
162
163
16<1
l6S
l66
167
16~
169
the r...rr.
Vawter 1977. 351.
Cf.. Gideon's exda m~lti on in Judg 6:22.
Hamori 2001, 77, 8386. Cf.. the di$C\J~s.ion <li the ang,~li c name Phanuel. ~ee clMpter 2.
S..~e a ls.o K& ke rt 2007, 61.
See also Murphy 1989, 3il.
Hamori 2004,130132,. 189-190.
See a lso Ham ori 2004,83-86.
Sem.,. 1 99~. 609.
See, e.g . Ps 105:3.
Ver~e 3 1 in
84
TI1e phrases tn!l '~ O'J!:I a nd 11un:~~:t O"l!l 'face to face' are only used in
the Bible to denote humandivine encoun tcrs.m. Th at the expression
signifies the Deity in person is shown in Exod 33:14 16:m
(v. 14) l-Ie (G(>dJ said "My presence [0')!) lit. ' face' ] wi11 go w ith you, and I
will give you res:t:'' (v. 15] And he [ Mo~s] $aid to him, '1 f yo ur pri.'S(!JJCe
(O'J!)] will n ot go, d u not carry us up fmm here.
16) For how shall it be
knuwn that I have found fa\or in your sight, I an d yuur pt!Ople, unless !fJ"
go with us-? In this way, we shall be distinct, I and your people ... 17.l
rv.
In these verses, the presence [D'JO) of God is said to go w ith the people
and God is depicted as personally accompanying them bu t, in Deut
4:37, YHWH is said to have Jed His people ou t o f Egypt with (by means
of) His O,j!l:
And because he luved your ancestors, he ch use their d el;cend anl'> after
them. He b rought yo u ()Ut uf Egypt with his o wn presence [l'l ~:! J, by hi.s
great power ...
3.2CenesL<~
8S
,,to;
,,ttl
ICen 32:24(2.5)] And Jacub was ltdt alone; a nd a man wre..a!f'd with h im
(bulAmtv Llvflt,x.m u~ p e t ' mJToUJ ti11 the morning . (28{29)) And ht! said to
him, yu ur name shall n o longf'r be- called Jat()b, but Is-rae) shall be yo ur
name, f<)r y<lu Jwv~ }ncr.vrHtd! been sfrt'mglstrcngfhene~l yourself wiflt Cot/,
[i:vioxt.' tu:t.; p nit o ~:oV) and with m e n (y uu are) migMylpOwi.'rful (Ktti p nit
(ivOt,x.'!muv 6uvan~~1 ~'~1 J. (30(31)1 And Jacob called tOO na m e of that place
the Ja~elviSil!le fomrlshape of Cod (Eibu; 6toUJ; for {he saidj I h a ve seen G()d
fae(? to face (t.lt>tw yt\Q E>tbv m]<X1c.mu v 7tQI'~ it(J('xJc.movJ and my life was
pre$erved .
Interesting ly enough, there are some late text witnesses of the LXX
w hich have IAyytAog'angel' ins tead of a v9QW7lo.;fman ' in V . 24 (25).
This reading is probably an interpretation influenced by the reference
to an angel in Hosea 12 but it is not attested in the o ldest and most reliable manuscripto;.ll Hayward, with reference to M. Harl, points out
176 Sever.-.! scholars thus d eive the vebal fo rm ,,_..,. in Hos 12:5 from the root men
177
l78
I i9
ISO
L81
182
tioned above and pmpo$e thnt the Cl'll'rect translation i.<1 "he had dominion'", <~ I
though it is und ear \Vho had dominion ll Ver w hom, jacob M the <~ngel. See Hamori
2004, 79-80, .1nd Sarna 1989,400.
In the Ta rgum~ jaoob/IMael is enlitled 'a p1ince of God', see belo-w.
See Samtl 1989, 105, who po-ints out lhat lsraeiJ)acob is used S}'I\OI\)'MQusly v1ilh
Jes.hurun in Deut 32:15: 33d5, 26, .1nd l'ia 44:2. Vawh.~ (19i7, 35 1) concludes lhalth~
purpose of the oa''''lti\'e is to demonstr.ue tha t Jaoob w<~s a man 1\0t only nuuked by
Sti'US&Iing with men., i.e . . Laban and E.ooau, but had also contended w ith God and
pte\'<liled, re..<1ulling in a transformaliml of his personality. However, <IS Alter (1996,
182) f>11ints out. it is noteworthy thnl the p.~~ t riMch's new name {lsr<~e l) does not replace the old one (Jacob) completely (<IS is the case with Abram/Abraham) but in
ste.ld berome." a synonym for ir, see, e.g., Gen 49:2.
Thus. 7K:iK'I <i"l\ .. Israel. a man seeing Cod'.
See Sarna 1989, 4Cl'4-405, and Hayward 20()5, 2i28. Sa- a ls.o lhe discussion of Philo's
int~rprelal'ion of the pericope below.
Some MSS add lte 1~ tml 'yoo shall be', see Wevers (ed.) 1974, text critical note to the
LXX Ge.n 32:2fl.
See Wevers 1974,3 14. See also Hayward 2005, 5..~.
86
that the most common meanin g of the Greek preposition peT1 is ' in
company with/together with' ra ther than agains t, w hich indicates the
pos..~ibility that the LXX translators wished to imply tha t the man w restled with/alongside Jacob against some u nmentioned foel 1l!J an interpre-tation I find fa rfetch ed.
It is obvious, however, that the meaning of v. 2R (29) is ambigu ous,
in the words o f Hayward, " ... Has Jacob been strong w ith God in the
sense of p revailing over him; or has he s trengthened h imself with the
help o f God, and, as a result, gained power over men?" '""
The verb i:-vt(rxUnv used in this verse also occurs in, fo r cxarnple,
Deu t 32:43, w here we find it in an exhortation to the angels o f God to
"be strong w ith/ in God''. According to Hayward, the use of the same
verb in Gen 32:28 may imply that the name/ title Israel has a kind of
angelic status/dimension . I ~G
The designation of the p lace as ' face/fo rm o f God'/Eibo.; e eou in v.
30 (31) is obviously a literal transla tion o f the Hebrew name Peniel,
compa re with the re nde ring of Bethel as ' house of God', see above. This
translation forges a n etymological link to the following verb elbov 'I
have seen.' 1l!i> The LXX version of our pericope echoes God's words to
Moses in Exod 33:18-20, thus implying that the name Israel has to d o
with the exceptional ability to see God's face.IJS:
The sto ries in Genesis 18 and 32 have simila rities with the account
in jud ges 13, in which an angel is rnentionet.i . As in Genesis 18 a nd 32,
the divine messenger in ju dges 13 appears in hu man fonn. ln Judg
13:17, Manoah asks for th e visitor's name but receives the answer "\Vh y
do you ask my name? It is too \Vonderful", a parallel to th e man1 s response to Jacob's question in Gcn 32:29.111$ Th is par~11lel is even more
evident in a gloss in some LXX versions of the latter verse, where the
man adds "and it (the name] is to be wonde red at", a ren dering \"thich
is most proba bly a n a tte rnpt to ide ntify Jacob's un kn0\'111 contender in
the light of Ju dges 13 .111\1 The word s of Manoah to his wife in v. 22 echo
3.2CenesL<~
87
the reactions of jacob/Israel and Hagar in Gen 32:30 and 16:13 respect ively: " ... \Ve shall sure ly d ie, for we have seen God [a;,"; I\). " 190
Many schola rs thus rnainta.in that the account in Judges 13 is a key
to understanding the complex texts in Genesis 16i 18 and 32, a nd vice
versa. The connections between the pericopes indicate that the stories
about the mysterious men in Genesis 18 and 32 should be interpreted in
the light of 'the an gel of the Lord traditions'.'"
However, as mentioned previously, the only two narratives in the
Bible that Hamori classifies as so-.called ~' iS theophanies' a rc Abraham's
and Jacob's e ncounters with God in Genesis 18 a nd 32.'"'2 In her view,
these two stories d istinguish themselves from, for example, judges 13,
by ,.,.hat she defines as ~ realistic anthropomorphism'; the man who
confronts jacob at the ford of Jabbok physically wrestles wi th h im. The
myste rious stranger is not supematurally strong a nd it is stated " that
he s...1.w that he could not prevail against Jacob ... '' In the case of Genesis
18, the three men gladly eat the food that Abraham offers them.'"
Although the 'angel of the Lord' in Judges 13 is designated W"K 'a
man',').! described in bo th Judges 6 1"'!1 a nd 13 as havin g a physical h u ~
man form and initially believed to be a fellow h u man by Gid eon as
well as by Manoah and his wife, he does not e ngage in sud l human
behavior as eating or w restling. In contrast to the men in Gen 18:5-8,
the a ngel of the Lord does not eat the food offered by Gid eon and Ma
noah, see judg 6:1921 a nd 13:15-20.'"
Hamori a lso points o ut other differen ces beh...een the pericopes, for
examp le, the use of the tcm1 11\7tt ' angel/ messenger' in Judges 6 and
l91
192
l93
l94
l95
l96
(221 Then Cideon perceived that it was the angel of the LORD.' and Ckteon said,
'Help me, Lmd God! For I have seen the angel of the tord face to fare.. )oJ~ 71'> o~ J .
(231 But the LORD Solid to him. "Peace be to you; do not fear, you s hall not die:"
Gies.chen 1998, 57-69. See alsoS)I'i!n 2CXX>, 247-251.
H.1mori 2004,1-8, 133-190.
SeeGen32:2S: IS:S.S,and Hamori 200-i, 18, 14 1-155.
See Judg 13:6,8-11. Note, however, lhat the designation 'mant man of God' in the
story de.wly renects Manoah's and his wife's mis.amception of the ide ntity of the
angel of the Lord. II is not the perspective of the n.UTator, see, e.g., Judg 13:3, 9, 13,
15 16. In the ltal'ra tivc, it is no until vv. 20-22 tha t Manoah and his wife realize his
true identity.
In Judges 6 the ongel l') f the ll"ll'd is never design.ated as ' a man'. H1)wever, in addi
tion hl Gene.o;is 18 and 32, the dhrine emi.o;sa ty \,.oho n~1s Joshua (chapter 5) L<1 also
referred to as 'a man, see beiO\\'.
Hamori 2004. 14 115$. Howeve1, s he admits that the IUII'ratives in Cenesis 19; Judges
13. and Josh S: 13 15 are dosely related to the' ' i?> theophany te)(tS-'.
88
197
Sl~e.,
e.g... Judg 6: 11 -12. 20-2t, and 13:9, 13, 21. h is n.l~ ooh~wothy that in Judges 6,
the angel of the Lord/Cod i!t never de!tignated 'man'/ :.:rx.
3.2CenesL<~
89
long journey (Gen 33:1 8). By now, jacob has been confronted by the
mysterious " man" w ho wrestJed with him at the ford of Jabbok, Gen
32:22-32. He and his brother Esau have also been reconciled, chapter 33.
Now, when Jacob has come home to his land, God again reminds
him to fulfill the vow that he made in Bethel, see Gen 28:20-22; 31:13.
We read in Gen 35:1-3:
(Cen 35:l J God (O':"'i~) $aid h) jaa:lb, "Ari~e. go up to &llul (~ nJj and
~ttl e there. Afak~ tm t/Uar thtr~ to tile G:11l [i16J.lll! wiltJ llp}l('art~l to ytm wheu
yc)u flcil frtJm yfmr IJrothe:r E.~au ... (2J So jacob said to his household and to all
who were w ith him, "Put away the foreign gods that a re among you, and
purify yourSelves, and change y<>ur clothes; f3) Then come, let us go up ft)
Gdhd, tluff 1 may mak~ m1 lllftrr there to Ill~ G'Hl (iK'?J,lll.l w!Jl,lmSwcrerrl m~ in the
day ofmy tli.stress mullrns b~eu willl me Ulft~ret't"rlluroc ,~tmc."
The words in Gen 35:1b; " .. . the God, who appeared to you when you
fled from your brother Esau," clearly allude to the divine revelation in
Genesis 2S. In this vision, God promised Jacob a safe retum; "KnO\"-'
that I am v~tith you and will keep you '".'herever you go, and will bring
you back to this land ... " (Cen 28:15). God exhorts jacob to make an
altar to God/EI in Bethel, the place of the revelation, a symbo lic act to
prove Jacob's fulfillment of his vow. The wording of this verse is
somewhat puzzling; why does God/Eiohim refer to God/EI in the l11ird
person, as to someone distinct from Himself?
jacob apparently acknowledges that God has kept his promise, v. 3,
and that the time has now come for the fulfillment of his own vow,
namely that YHWH should be his God, cf., Gen 28:20-21. lL seems as if
Jacob consid ers the divine encoun ter in Genesis 28 as an answer to his
prayers. Here, the use of the designation ' EI' for God is not coinciden..
tal, as it is a component of the name Be th el.~,..
Tn order to fulfill his vow, Jacob orders his household to purify
themselves"" and get rid of all their foreign gods as a sign o f loyalty to
YHWH. The journey to Bethel has the character o f a pilgrimage to a
holy site.~16 Jacob goes there to commemorate his first encounter with
God.
In Gen 35:5 we read that God once more protected jacob on his
journey. The protection was greatly needed, because of the conflict with
202 In the r..rr, lhe definite form Lc; u ~: lilerally: "lo Ott G111f w ho appeared h l you in
Bethel .. this Cod was.alceady known lo Jacob, hence the use of the definite arlide.
203 A lso he1't' the Hebrew u$1.'$ the d efi1t ite article.
2().1 Sama 1989, 239.
205 Cf., Exod 1 ~101 I and Josh 3:5. S..~e .llso Snrn.a 1989, 2-10.
206 Westermann 1985, 550, S.wn.a 1989, 2.)9
90
211
212
n~l
cerlainly also means ' holy site', see above and Sarna
1989. 240.
Again, lhe definite fmm i<~ us...~ lilerally: " . .. be<ause llure /Jit <A.1 appeared to him .. ."
See also We~tetmilnn 1985, 552. Cf., also Cen 1:26.
See II. s.mltl!,triu 38b and Segal 1977, 12 1-134, ..n-73. Olher scl'iplural ve1"SeS u~ed by
the heretics in s uppi)f1 ol lheir lht.>olog)' were e.g., Gen I :12.. 26-27; 11:5-7: 19:24;
Oeull:7: 2 Sam 7:23-24, .rm d Dcm 7!9-14.
S.1ma 1989,24 1.
Note that L'()( here use.<~ the name Bethel. contray to iL.:; rendeing of Genesi~ 28 and 31.
3.2CenesL<~
91
Hayv~.rcud
points out that the verb used in this verse, tnu:palvc.,, is very
u nusual in the LXX Pentateuch and is o nly employed in two additional
texts, both o f which d escribe a n epiphany of God. In the first perioope,
N um 6:25, the divine e piphany is connected to the priestly blessing of
Israel and, in the second text. Deut 33:2, God is, according to the LXX,
accomp anied by a ngels/ compare Genesis 28. Hayward thus concludes
that, in the mind of the LXX translators, jaco-b's dream in Bethel was a n
epiphany, and the appearance o f God seems to be conne<:ted to b lessing
(cf., Gen 35:915) and the presence o f angels."'
In Gen 35:9 it is said th.>t God appears once more to jacob and
blesses hirn. In verse 10 God says to jacob:
ICen 35:10) .. . "Yuur n ame is Jacub; no )()nger shall yo u be ca1led jacob, but
Israel shall be yuur name." 5() he was called lsraePU
This is an ech o of Gen 32:28/ as here God oonfi mls jacob's new name
w hen he a rrived in the Promised Lan d .m According to S..1ma, it was
not God in person w ho changed jacob's name the first time (Gen 32:2S)
bu t an angel. The new name therefore neeti s to be confiml ed a nd vali
dated by God Himself."' jacob is Israel, the a ncesto r of the people of
lsrael. Thus, the following verses (vv. 11 12) concem d ivine promises
on a n ation a l levef.:!17
God in trod uces Himself in Gen 35:11 as ,,\/1 '?1</' EI Shad dai' ." ' This
divine e pithet is tra nslated in the NRSV as 'God Almig hty'. Th e origi
nal meaning of the d ivine "narne" may have been 'God of the \\filder~
nes...c;/Moun tain' but its etymology and meaning a re the subject o f de~
bate.2'9 Jt is consistently used in the Bible as a n e pithet fo r YH\+VH, with
the sole exception of job 19:29.-"'1
92
bless you Uacob] ..."God now answers Isaac's prayer concerning his
son, Gen 35:11 12. These verses a re reminiscent of God's p romises in
Gen 17:1-8, in which God also designated Himself 'EI Shaddai' and
dlanged Abram's name to Abraham, a pa rallel to the re naming of jacob
to Israel in Gen 35:10."'
Jacob refers to God as 'EI Shaddai', compare Gen 35:11 . Jacob is d ying
and, w hen looking ba ck at h is life, recalls h is meeting(s) v,!ith God a t
Bethel and refers to the div ine p m rnises given to him as stated in Gen
35:11-12 (see a lso Ge n 28:1314)."' Because Jacob is blessed by God, he
has the abilily to bestow the d iv ine blessing on h is grandsons. \Ve thus
read in Gen 48:15-16 tha t Jacob prays for Ephraim and Manasseh:
(Cen 48:15) ... "Tht CM (o;,;x;,) before w hom my ant(>Stu~ Abraham and
Isaac walked, the Cod who h as been my Shl!pherd all my life to this da)',
1161 tlu~ tmgd (1X)~1 F!l whu has red t~emed me[';'\.'\ ; X);,) frt)m all h arm, b less
the boys ... "'~'
35: II is rendered simpl) as o 9t ih; oovJ"your Cod."' See also the LXX Gen 28:3.
where Isaac refers h) Cod as: '' . .. my Cod ...," .a.nd 48:..1, w here Ja<ob tefets lo Cod as
...my God .....
220 See Knauf 1995, 14 16-1423,esp. p . 1417.
221 Jacob's respon..o;e to lhe revelation is to sel up 3 pillar :ui<l, lmce again at the place
where God spoke h) him. II is unclear whether this is a rededit"ation of rhe ol'iginnl
pillar, or a new one. 1l l i$ time he nol only pours oil on it but also a drink l')ffering.
FilMlly. we have 3 repetition of jacob n.aming the place as Belhel. \'V. l4- 15 .
222 S.:l ma 1989. 325.
223 Cf.,. Gen 3 1:11-13 .
224 The LXX read..c; (\..ell 48:151 .. . 0 Ht 6.;, t:&r)Qi <m)at.w ot nmiQt C ~ou i:wwriov
(.UJmiJ AjXJruip Kai l<1ll.<'u<. 0 9t.O' 0 'tQi:ct>>\' J-lf iK \'tim)'I'Ot; l M: t i}' iu.t tQt.t~
T<U)tll.;, (16] 0 liY)'..\o;, 6 Q00p t:v6.; J-1( o : 1U\\n(oW 'tf;Y\' KCli~V t:MO)'ll(1(.ll 'lt'l
n t ui){(l 'fo-:\lno ...
3.2CenesL<~
93
"The angel" is here equated with God. Moreover, ''the angel" is designated as the one w ho has redeemed ('10..1] Jacob from all evil. The verb
; Nl is often applied to YHWH in the Bible, e.g., Exod 6:6; 15:13; Ps 74:2;
Ps 1()3:1-4; 107:1-3, and lsa 44.:22-24. The substantive 'l.u /'redeemer' is
an epithet metaphorically used fo r YHWH in the Bible. In Deutcrolsaiah it is a common title fo r YH\,VH, used in parallel \Vith such stan
dard epithets as ' the Holy O ne of Israel' and 'YHWH Zebaot'. Sec for
example lsa 41:14; 43:1; 47:4, and 54:5."'
The parallelistic structure of verses 15~16 also s trongly indicates
that ' the angel' is here an epithet for God.zu, "Th e angel" in v. 16 is none
other than God who has kept His promise and blessed and prote.:ted
Jacob all the days of his life, cf., Gcn 28:13-15; 31 :11-13. Accord ing to
Sarna, this is the most probable interpretation, and I tend to agree with
him.w He writes:
... No one in the Bible ever invo kes an angel in prayer, no rm Jacob's several encounterS with angels is there an y mention o f one wht) delivers him
from harm. When the patriarch feels himself to be in mo rtal danger, he
prays d irect!)' tu C od. a:1i in [Gen] 32:10-13 and it i$ He whu again and again
i$ jacob's g uardia n and protecto r (28:15,20; 31:3; 35:3). AdmittOOiy, "AngeJN
as an epithet fo r Cud L~ extraordinary. but s ince angt"ts are o ften s imply extl!n.~iun.~ of the divine persunality, the d istinctit.ln behvt~en Gud and angel
in the biblical texts is frequent!}' blu rred (cf. Gen. 31 :3, 11,13; Ext>d. 3:2,4).
Neverthel~s, this \'elSe may reAect some trad ition assudated with Bethel,
not pre.'*'ned in Genesis, concerning an angelic guardian o f Jaa)b (d.
31:13; 35:3). An echo of this may lx! fou nd in Hosea 12:.5.!$
Sarna thus points out that the epithet ' angel' for God in v. 16 is something extraordinary and Samaritanus has here used the rendering
1'>0:1/' tlte Kit~g'.
~e also Ps 7&35: P1'0V 23: II; Jer .50:31. In Job 19:25 Ote tenn. however, m.1y refe r to
another he-.we\ly fisw-e, a medi ator between Cod <uld }ob. l11is medial or is de-si s
naled by Elih u as a i~""lmes.se nger/angel, Job 33:23-24. For m ore ilt fomlMion, see
Mullen 1995, 706708. He \'!rites o n p. 706: NOn an indhidu.ll level, Yahweh ran.<~oml'l
the pious and the need y, most specifically lhe wldm,, and the ocphan (Cl~l\ 48: 16 . ..)."'
226 Cf.. Hosea 12. See also KOckert 2007, 6263.
227 In his n.mslation of C'.en 48: 16 Sarna ( 1989, 328) has wrinen ''che Angei.N hrith a
capital A. He st.lles tha t th is is because he interprets the d esignation as an e pilhN for
God Himself {d., the NKJV Gen 4-8:16).
228 S.."'!ma 1989, .ns.
225
94
Concluding Remarks
An important diffe rence between Genesis 28; 31 and 35 is that 'the angel of Cod' (in the singular form) is only mentioned in Genesis 31 . In
Gen 31:11 it is ' the angel of Cod' w ho addresses jacob, w hereas in the
other pericopes it is 'God.' In Gen 31:13 ' the ~1ngel' id entifies hirnself as
God: "I am the God of Bet!Je/, w here you anointed a pillar and made a
vow to me'', and in Gen 35:1b Jacob is cornm~1nded to rctum to Bethel
and there make an altar to '' ... the God, w ho appeared to yo u when
you fled from your brother Esa u ... ", a clear reference to the dream in
Genesis 28. For these reasons, it seems apparent that 't-he a ngel of God'
in Cen 31:11 is iden tical to God Himself. It appears to be the same person who talks to Jacob in a ll three narratives.z.."t
As we have seen, the narratives in Genesis 28 and 31 have in com
mon that God/the angel o f Cod is said to have appeared to jacob in a
dream. The theophany of Genesis 35 thus differs fro m the others in that
God speaks to Jacob when the latter is awake.
In Genesis 35 God's exhortation to Jacob to return to Bethel and fuJ.
fill his vow is in rnany ways a difficult text. It is indeed peculiar that
God/Eiohim refers to God/El in the third person, as to someone disti nct
from Himself. likewise, the use of the plu ral form of lhc verb ;,;,. 'to
appear/reveal' in v. 7 is quite strange. In this way, the narrative of Ja
cob's return to Bethel contains an ambiguity similar to that of the expli
cit ' angel of the Lordtexts'.
Genesis 35 is the final chapter in ' the jacob cycle', and although jacob Jives o n and is mentioned in several later chapters, he is no longer
the main character. Genesis 36 focuses on his brother Esau, v~.'hilc ' the
joseph cycle' begir'-' in chapter 37. We have seen that Cen 35:1 -15 refers
back to jacob's dream in Bethel. Th us, ' the Jacob story' in the Bible bo U'
begins and ends at the same place,. in the LXX designated as ' the
(3) In t he womb he IJaoobJ tried to !ruppla n! hiSc brolhe t, and in hLc; manhood he
stn.n-e tvi/Jt ('t(lc/. )4) He stn.n:V! wilh lht attgel and prev.liled, he wept and sought his fa
vor: he mel him Bl &thl'l, and th ere He spoke with him. )5) llu LORD lht Cod ofhost,
tile LORD til1is ttallh'!
Because of the parallelistic slru chu~ of lhese ver!les, it seems evidctl l tha! lhe ''angel''
(\...nd, d .. v. 3.) menlioncd by lhe prophet Ho..c;ea who s1rusgk>d with jacob Bl lhe
ford of Jabbok is the same person who jacob is said hl have encountered in Belhel
(\
...enesi ~ 28 <uld 35).
3.2CenesL<~
95
is
3.2.6 Conclusions
230 Properly spe.lking. the )o1cob story begin.<~ in Cen 25:19. but since Jacob has his first
enrounter with God in C'.enesis 28, this is the st.wting point of his life as God's ser
vanL This d ivine re\elation has been de!:>igna ted by schol.us as the rentral event in
the )arob story, e.g . Westermoum, 1985, 405-409. See also \'\>'allers 1992,. 599-608.
96
Gen 19:1, 15; 28:12, and 32:1. These angels seem to be distinguished
from God. It is remarkable that the angel of God{Eiohim who appears
to jacob in Gen 31 :1 013 identifies himself as the God of Bethel who
addressed Jacob in Gen 28:13.
The narratives of Genesis 18-19 and 35 contain arn biguities similar
to the explicit 'angel o f the Lord-texts'. As for Genesis 32, it is clearly
not an "ordinary'', earthly man who struggles with Jacob, but some
kind of supernatural op ponent Like ' the angel of the lord', he acts
with divine aut hority~ blessing the patriarch and giving him a new
name, cf., Gen 16:10-12; 17:5-8, and 35:9 -10. There is an apparent resemblance between Hagar's and Jacob's reactions to the divine e nt:oun ...
ters, see Gen 16:13-14 and 32:29-30.
3.3 The Rest of the Pentateuch and the Books of U1e Former
Prophets
3.3.1 Exodus
231 In
th~
NT, th is incident is
r~ferred
3.3 The Re.!lt of the Pent.lteuch and the Bl)()k..'l of lhe Former Prophets
97
sole ca.se w here the angel of the Lord only appears at the very begin*
ning of a narrative.m
The revelation of the divine name connects Lhe above mentioned
narrative to Exod 2.1:20-24:
(20] I am going M send 1m augt'l in fro nt of )'c'm. to guard you on the way and
to bring yuu to the pla ce that I h ew~ prepared. 121 J 81! attentive to him and
Jis tt-n to his voice; do not rebel againj;f him, for h~ will not pardon y<)ur
transgr...~sion; for my tWmt is in liim. [22) But if you listen attentively tu hi$
r."')iCt' and dv all that I $a.'f, then I will b~t an enemy to your enemies and a foe
to your foe..;. [23] \"/hen my rm:~el g<~ in front ()f yuu, and brings you to the
Atnc')rites, the Hittites, the Perizzite::;_, the Canaanites, the Hivities, and the
jebusit...>$. and I blot them out. (24] you shall not bow down to their
gods ...213
ln this text, the angel is apparently d istinct from God and yet not com
pletely separate from Him . By possessing the divine name_, he also
shares the divine power and authority.w Cornpare this to the Deutero
nomistic theology, i n which the concept of ~the name of God' is used to
2:32 The terminolog.kal confusion in lhe pekope has been explained by Freedman
Willoughby (1997. 320} in th ree way.!l: "'{l) Yah weh might h.we nansmitted his mes
l><lge to Moses by his mal'ak, but the author used the tel'lllS Yahweh and Elohin\ s incE'
in hLc; opi1\ ion the me.<~sage c-.1me directly from God. The OCC\Jfl'el'\re of mal'ak at the
beginning of the narralive qualifies the s ubsequent use of YahWl~h and Elohim. (2)
The imporlll ncc of the c.l ll l"'f !<.loses, the initiBtion of God's per501Ml n..amc did not a l
lm'l the narrative to be dl"'minated by Bmal'ak. The significance of the narrative itself
required the diroct intervcmtion of G\xl. (3) Yahwl~h hint.'lelf spoke to Mo.'le.'l, but
since Mo!ies was not allowed tlt see him, the intercession of the molfliA: was neces
s.uy."' According h) Fabry ( 1997, 320), ExodlL'I 3 is not cons idered a literay unit in
recent academi c-exege.<~is. See nl$0 Guggisbers 1979, 404 1.
233 Cf., alc;l) the Tatsum to) Chr.:miclts. I O l r 17:2 I:
And who is like your people Israel. a people 1miq11e a11d :;ele'.ct in the eath, for whom
1ut angd smt fr(m l'if"re Jhe Urolell'llt'omYI to delher a pl->ople h) be his own,. ro ma ke a
name for Jrim'St'lf 1tno"l ,,, do filr illl'tff s ~at and migiii.V deeds by driving oul fl1t nations
fl\)ll\ befMe the people w hom yl"'U had delhered from Egyp1? I Eng. trans. Mdvor
1991. 107. The words ill italics arc the Targumk derivah"'ns from the MT).
234 See alSI) Ciesd um 1998, 57. In the NT, this parallels the hymn in prni.!le of Jesus in
Phil 2:9-11:
(91 TherefMe Cl"'d also highi)' exalted him ,, nd gave him the name that is above
e\ery name. ( 10) so tlt.ll a t the n.ame of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven, and
on earth and under the e..uth, Il l) and every tongue s hould COI\ fe;s that jesus C l\l'iSI
is lotd, to the glory of ('.od the falher.
98
describe the way in \\1h idl YHWH is present in the Temple of Jerusa
lem.n"
\+Vith reference to Hos 12:13,1:w. some scho lars have proposed that
the 1160 in Exodus 23 should be id entified a s a hum,, n guide a nd leader, p resumably Moses o r Joshua. T here are two major objections to this
interpretation: firstly, the 1~'1l is not &'lid to be speaking in God's name
as a prop het, but it is stated in v. 21 that" ... my [i.e., God's] name is in
h im ... '' Second ly, it seems to be implied in the same verse that the 1~7,1:)
has the power to forgive Israel's sins, a capacity that elsewhere in the
Bib le is reserved for God.n;
In Exod 14:19, the a ngel o f God is conne<:ted to the pillar o f cloud
leading and p rotecting the Israelites d uring their exodus frorn Egypt:
IE.xod 14:'1 9) Tile angel of God [E1ohi m ~ who was going bef<ne th~ Is raelite
army moved and went behind tlwm; and Ot~ pil/(lr (~{ dc>ud moved from in
front of them and took i t~ plare behind them.
In Exod 13:21-22 and 14:24, however, it is stated U1at it was God (YHWH)
who manifested Himself in this pillar. In Exodus 33l'lll, the a ngel seems to
be a being distinct from God. The Lord says to Mo.es in vv. 2-3:
[Exod 33:2) 1 will semi tm tmt.:d before you,!.W and I will drit~ (mt the Canaanite.'>, the A mori te~. the Hittites, the Perizzitt..-s, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. [3) GQ up to a land flowing: with milk and honey; but I will not go up
fmtcmg you, or I u'C'1uld constmt~ you mr th~ u.-ny ...
later on in this c hap te r, it is stated that the Lord/YHWH s poke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (v. 11) and U1at U1e p resence of God wa s manifested in the pillar of cloud :
Exud 33:9) \>Vhen Moses entered the tent, tile pilltJr of cloud would descend
and St<md at the entrance of the tent. and the LORD (YH\VHl would speak
with Moses.
235 Newsom 1992. 250. See alro Hannah 1999, 2 1. Fischer 2007, 81-9l, and. e.g., Owl
12:3, II; 14:23: 1 Ks.~ 8: 16, 29; 9:3, and )e1 7: 12.
236 See also judg 2: 1-5, d iscus.c;ed below.
237 See also Aus looe 2008. 8-10. Accotding hl Seg.11 {19i7, 68-70), this pas.c;age was con
sidered J>I'Oblematic by th e R.-.bbis in their auem pL<~ hl combat the 'two--powersheresy' bec.1use of the ''angel's" remill'kable ability. Cf., the debates in the NT between the Jewis h leadl~rs aJld Jesus. where o ne of the things that seem ed to upset the
Jewish authcH'ities the molt.! was that jesus claimed to ha,,e the power ro forgive sin.<~,
~e., e.g., M.wk 2: 112. See itl.<;o G)eschen 1998, 32-33, 7l 78, and Guggisberg 1979, 60-4
61.
238 See also Cusgisbe'S 1979, 62-6<1.
239 Here the NKJV follows the LXX:" And I w ill send nl)' Angel before you ... " The MT,
however, lacks the fi rst per!iOI\ s ingular suffix au.-.c:hed to the word 1X7~ a.nget' and
refers thus s imply to " .. .an angel ... ". cf., NRSV cited a.bme. In this context the image
lli the l X;IJ seems to be used to denote the itbsence of God. See cslso Exod 32!3'1.
3.3 The Re.!lt of the Pent.lteuch and the Bl)()k..'l of lhe Former Prophets
99
The conversation takes place after the incident with the golden calf,
chapter 32. Moses p lead s that he and the people may find grace befo re
Cod a nd U1at YHWH 1-Umself will go with them. vv. 12-13. God a nS\\'ers h im and says
IExud 33:14) He ::~a id, "My f1rC'SCIIU rJ!~ J will go w ith you. and I will give
you rest."
At the end of the conversation, w hen Mose.'i asks to see the Glory of
God, he receives the answer:
(Exud 33:19) . .. '1 will make all my goodness pass before you, and w ill
proclaim befo re y<lu the name, ' the LORD'; ...." (20] ''But". M said, "you
can nut soo my fa c~; f<lr no (me shall see m~ and live." [23) then I will take
awa)' my hand, and you shall see my back; but 1ny face shall not be
seen." 2-t~1
v~.'hen
tioned there:
IExud 24:9) Then ?vloses an d Aaro n? Nadab, and Abihu, and Se\enty of the
<:'lderS o f ls rad w~nt up, [tO] an d thty Stlw lhe Cri'Jtl of lsrad. Under his foo t
there was something like a pavement uf sapp hire stone, like the v~ry h<:'a
210 According hl Jewish traditHm, the following theophan)' in Exod 34:5-7 is one of the
mo$t cent'l l episodes in the Bible as God reveals His \'et}' character to Moses:
(51 Now lhe LORD (YHWH] ek~.ccllfkd in lite dot1d a~~d s tood with hint lhe1-e, ond
pmdnimed lhe 1t.1me "The tORD" )YHWH j. (61 The lORD IYH WH 1 p.aS<>ed before
him oHld proclaimed. ''The LO RD (YHWHI, the lORD (YHWH] a Cod )Ell, merciful
and gr.:l dous .!!low hl anger. and abmmd ing in ste<~ dfast I()Vl~ and faithfu lnes..;;. (7}
keeping steadfn..."t kwe for the tholL<~andth genea tion. f<>rgiving iniquity and t1. ms.
gression and .!lin, yet by no nw.lns dearing the guilty. but vi.!liling th e initlHity l"lf the
pare1lts upon the children and the children's children to the third tuld the foHrth
generation."
God i$ thus depictOO here both as the .se\e re .1nd righteous Judge and the forghing
and mercifu l Father. In Jewis h ll'<ldition. the two m.ain d esignation$ of Cod. Elohim
(EI) nl\d YH\VH are OOIUH!Cied to the two chief aul'ibutes of the God of Js r.-.el.
YHVlH refers to the me.I'C}' of God. while Elohim .st.mds f(lr His justice. See G. Latsw n 1993. 299301. a.nd Spiegel 1993, 121 122.
241 SeeCie.c;chcn 1998,55.
4
100
ve:n fu r <:lea mess. rt l J God did not lay h is hand ()0 the chief men
people of Israel; tdro tllt-')1 lh!llcld CM. mullhcy (l/e (md tlnmk.m
()f
the
Israel through the med iation o f angels. This tradition is also present in
the NT, see Heb 2:2 and Gal 3:19 (angels in the plural). ln Acts 7 Stephen first refers to a specific augel in the singular, d efinite form but later
on he mentions unspecified angels in this context: 2'"
(3SJ"He (Mo~es) is the une who was in the cungn:gatiun in the wildcme~s
with lhe fmgel who spoke to him at Mouul Siulfi, and with o ur ancestors;
and he rl!Ceived 1hing oracles tu give to us ( ... ) (53) You are the o nes that
re<.-eived the lmv (f'S tJrtlnittttfl by angels, and yet you ha\'e no t kept it:''2:~s
In the LXX the o ne who intends to kill Moses over the issue of circumcision in Exod 4:24 is id entified as an angel of the Lord. althoug h in the
MT it L YHWH Himself. The angel may have been substituted for
YH\VH by the LXX translators for theological reasons.2"' However, the
angel o f the Lord is generally described as a benefactor of Israel, who
protects and guid es the people (e.g., Exod 14:19; 23:20). When h umans
are compared with the angel of the Lord, it indicates a great apprecia ..
tion of their personalities: good, d iscerning and \\rise (1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam
14:17, 20). TI1e angel is /11e Redeemer ['moj, cf., Gen 48:16. TI1e o nly oon
242 Cf... Ezek 1:26-28. However, the sl:alement :a few verse..<1 below, in Exod 24:17: "'Now
the appe:mmce of !he glory ol the Lord WolS like ll devouring fire o n the lop of the
mount.lin in tlH~ s ig_ht of the people of Israel" (d., the buming bush in [):Od 3), can
be taken :as B'-lualifkalioo of the eal'lier a..;:;crtion., i.e., it was "tlnly" !he Glory ot !he
1.Qt'd !lUll the elders of Israel beheld. This is one possible inletpt'i'1oltion, bu! the pas.:;age could just as well be undet'5tood to impl)' a d ifference betweet\ the "c\'>mmon"
people of lsr.1el and the leaders: the elders saw God in pet'Soe>l\. but the people lia\''
HisGior)' See lllso Thc>mpson., 21XY7.. 221222.
24J See also b. Sfmhulriu 3Sb, \oJhere !he ' divine tu me-angel' i11 Exl)() 2]:21 is discussed.
For further elrtboratioo of this is...;ue., see dlilpler2 above :and Segal 1977. 33-73.
244 See also Ps 68: IS (verse 17 in NRSV).
245 This ttadHiml is a lso aue...;ted in !he translation:; of Deut 33:2-3 in the LXX, Vulgate,
l'e..,.hitt:a, :and the Targu ms to the Pent.l leuch. See also the Taf811111 Jo Cltmuic/1$, 1 Chr
29: II, Shinan 193.1, I$3-JS4. and Kinel 1964, 83. However, in the .~coount of the di
vine re\'elat:iml at Sin.li in Exodus 19, neither !he LXX not MT t-efer to any angels, a l ~
thllugh a dcmd on the m ountain is mentioned.
246 See also clupler 2 01bove.
3.3 The Re.!lt of the Pent.lteu ch and the Bl)()k..'l of lhe Former Prophets
101
247 See aiSc) E)'l\ikel 20Cf7, 112-113, von R.ad 1964,77, and Freedma n -Willoughby 1997.
318.
248 S."lmarit<mus mention.c; an angelh16:: also in Num 22:20; 2:3:4,5, and \1 16 . Th e MT
has Elc)him in 22:20: 23:4 and YHWH in 23-'.5, 16.
249 However, as sh mvn above, sch olars differ about th e interpretation of Oeut .fd7. C f.,
also lsa 63:9-tO,see below. ln Exod 12 :22-28 it is no t d ear wheth erit was God Him
self \vho killed the fi rstbom sons llf the Egyptians, beC'Iuse in v. 23b it seem.'l as if
C"'...od u.!led tf:~ IA'Siroyt'r to d o this. The .!lanw word ' the Oe$lroyer'/rni i!m:1 is employed
to d enote th e angel of th e lord who executed C'.od's punishnwn t for the s in o f o.wid
in 2 Sam 24: t6 a nd I Chr 2J :I5: ' the d estroyin g an gel:' fnn;:>~;; ~'mJ. However, in 2
Kgs 19:35 and the p.w,l llel texts o f lsa 37:36 and 2 C lw 32!20-22 concerning the k illing
of th e As.syrian.<~ b) the angel of th e L.otd. a word from a differe1\ l root is u..<~ed. See
also whal Paul writes in t Cor IO:lO: " .. . ,, nd do no t complain, as some of them Ithe
lsra.elitesJ d id. and were de.c;troyed by Ill!! dcstroyt>r [b 0..\t:f)()tu"fll']:''
same wod
as in t1le LXX Exod 12:23b is h ere used by Paul. CuiolL'II}' e nough. the Modern Hebl~\'1 tran.<~lation of the 1\'T (th e Bible Society in Israel. 1995) uses the corteept 1N'rt;;
nr.m. in I Cor 10:10.
250 In I Kgs 19:5-8 chere is al'll'l a reference to an angel who.!lpeaks to Elijah.
251 Meier 1993b. 101.
n,e
102
had promised to your anct!:::tor.;. I said, ' I wi11 rn:ver break my owenant
with you. [2) For your part, do no t make a covenant with the inhabitanl'> uf
this land [... )' But you have no t obey...-'<.1 my command [.. .1(3] So now (say,
I will O()f d rive them o ut befo re }'(JU; but they shall beo)me adversaries to
you, and their gudo; shall lx! a snare to you." (4) When the angel uf the
LORD spoke the.o;.e words to all the L.;raelite.s, the JX!Ople lifted up their
voices and wept (5) So they named that place Buchim, and then~ they sacri
ficOO to th~ LORD.
252 According to Judg 6:7-10. il was God himself who delivered the lsr.lelites f 1'0n\
slavery in Egypt and led them inhl the PI'OmLc;ed LaJld. See also Guggi.c;berg. 1979,6465, and Ausloc-..s 2008, 1-12.
253 See abc.we and Newsom 1992. 249. Sullivan 2004, 57, and AusiOO$ 2008. 1-12.
254 In Targt~m ]1'111111/um, lhe ~.;. in Judges 2 is explicitly identified as a prophet, see
Harrington and Sald.wini (Eng. lran.c;.) 1987, 6 1. See also Ka.c;he 2007, 558-559, and
Smelik 1995,349-352.
25..r;. See AuslllOS 2008, 1-12, Fischer 2007,89-91. and Sulliva1\ 2004, 57.
3.3 The Re.!lt of the Pent.lteuch and the Bl)()k..'l of lhe Former Prophets
103
{8] Then Manoah <?ntreated the l u rd [YHWH). and said, "0, LORD, I
pray, let the man uf God [Eiuh im) whom yuu sent come to us ag ain ..." [9]
Cud [Elnhim) lis tened to Manoah, and the angel uf Cod rElohim) came
again to the woman as she sat in th~ field; but her husband Manuah was
not with her. [tO] So the woman ran q uickly and to ld her hu:;ban d, "The
man wh o came tu me the other day has appeared to m&." (1 t] Manuah gut
up and folluwed his wife, and came t() the man. and said to h inl, "Are }'OU
the man who s po ke t() this woman?" And he said, " I am." [121Then Manuah said, "Now when your words cc.)me true, what is tube the b<,ys rule
of life; what is he to du?"' j13] The angel uf th e LORD [YHWHJ said to Ma
noah. ''l.et the wuman give heed to all that I said to her."
p5] t\f anoah said to the ;mgel o f the LORD [YHWHl "Allow us to d etain you. and p repare a kid for you." (16J The an,~el ()/ the LORD rYHVlH]
said to Mano ah, "If you d etain me. I will rn'>t eat y our food, but if ytm want
tu prepare a b urnt offering, then offer it UJ the !.ORO rYH\>VJ-1)." (f o r Manoah d id not know that he was lh.: flngd of lht LORD) [YHWlt }(17)11um
Manoah said to the nngel of the LORD (YH\VHJ- 'What is your name, so that
we may honor you when your Wi)rds rome true?" [l8J But the fmgel 1Jf the
Ltmf (YJ-1\VH] said tu him, ''\Vhy du yt'>u ask my name? It is tOt'> wonderfu l."
[19) So ?\1anoah took the kid with thL> g rain o fferi ng. and o ffered it on
the rock t<) the LORD, f() him who works wond ers. [And He did a wondro us th ing while Manoah and his wife looked o n .. . NKJV1 (201 When the
fla me went up toward he<n-en from the altar, th~ (IJISCI of the LORD
(YHWH] a~nded in the flame o f the altar while "-f an oah and his wife
1ook00 o n; and they fe ll on their faoo.o; tu the g-round. (21) Tht' (mgel of the
!.ORO (YJ-IWHJ d id no t appe<lr ag ain to Manoah and his wife. Tlam Mantmh realized that it was the angel "f tl1e LORD (YHVlH). [22) An d Manoah
said to his wife. "We shall surely d ie, for we have seen Coil (E.lohimJ."
The s..1me figure is here id entified as tile augel of l11e Lord, God, 1/Je mau,
lite man of God, attd lite augd of GOO. In v. 6the two last men tioned id enli
tics are combined . It seems that d ifferent strands o f the angel o f the
Lord traditions' have been consciously united in this story, compare
Genesis 18 and 32.zso The similarities between Judg 13:19~22 and Judg
6:19, 21 -23 are stTiking :"'
(Judg 6:19) So Gi d~on went into his h ouse and p rep<lrt'!d a kjd, and unlea
vened cakes frum an ~ phah of Aour (... }and bruught th~m to h im (the an
gel o f the LO RD). under the oak and presented them ... 1211 Then the angel
of the LORD reach ed ()Li t the tip of the staff that was ln hjs hand, and
touched the meat and the unlea"ened cakes; and fire s prang up from the
104
rock and coru>umed the me-at and the unleavened cak~s; and the angel uf
the LORD vanished fron'l his s-ight. {22) 11len Gid eon perceived that it , ..as
the angel of the LORD; and Gideon said, "Help me, Lord God! Fo r I have
seen tfle angel of th~ Lord fa ce to face." [23) But the LORD said to him,
"Peace be tt) you; do nl)f fea r, yuu :::hall nu t d ie.....
Both Manoah and Gideon prepare a kid for their guests, but these
refuse to eat a nd the food is consumed supematurally by fire, whercu~
pon the heavenly visitors vanish suddenly from sight. This highly superhwna n disappearan ce makes Manoah and Gideon finally realize
that they have met a divine messenger and they consequen tly fear for
their lives.
As mentionet.i previously, the story in Genesis 18 has often been
compared to Judges 13, but a rnajor diffe rence between the two narra ..
tives is that Abraham's guests in fact eat the food o ffe red to them. In
both Judges 6 and 13 the supernatural d1aracter o f the visitors is be*
trayed by their behavior, w hile in Genesis 181 o nly the message itself
ind icates their heavenly Qrigin. Accordingly, o f these accounts only
Genesis 18 is class:ified by Hamori as a n , .iS theophany.' ~"" See above for
further discussion of this issue.
3.3 The Re.!lt of the Pent.lteuch and the Bl)()k..'l of lhe Former Prophets
105
the Lordtext'.l611 The " rnan" seerns to distinguish between himself and
the Lord/YH\VH in v. 14. b ut a t the s..'lmc time he accepts Lhe worship
of )oshua.u.
The cxhort,, tion in Josh 5:15 recalls the command o f God (the angel
of the lord?) in the buming bush to Moses in Exod 3:2-6. The appearance o f the .... man" as a warrior holding a sword paralleJs the descrip
t ion o f the angel o f the Lord confronting Salaam in N um 22:23.:ua TIH~
angel \"-'ho leads the Israelites o ut of Egypt and into the Promised Land
can also be mentioned.w \Vorth noting is that in the context of the
above cited verses, it is the Lord Himself who continues to speak to
Joshua in chapter 6:1 -6.
According to Hamori, the e ncounter recorded in Josh 5:1 3-15 constitutes Lhe closest angelic parallel to the ' "Is u,eophany'. As in Gen esis 18
and 32, the divine messenger is called w~ 'a man' and, in contrast to the
divine visitors of Manoah and Gideon, he does not engage in a ny supernatural act. However, Hamori claims that by presenting h imself as
'commander o f the am'y of the lord' and by d eclaring the sanctity of
the p lace of his appearance, " the man" imrnediately identifies himself
as a divine being . Additionally, u nlike the divine agents in Genesis 18
and 32, he d oes not participate in any specific human activity, such as
wrestling o r eating.2M
3.3.3 Condusions
In Ex(,du s, the l K;b and God appear to be in te rchangeable. In Exod
14:19 the 1X'n seerns to be present in the pillar o f cloud, but in other
text~ it is said that it was God w ho manifested Himself in this pillar. By
260 In Targtm Jcmallum, the "man"' is identified as ''BI\ angel f1'<lm bef1lrc the Lord."' :tee
Josh 3:H, Hanington/Silld.wini {Eng. tr.-ms.) 1987. 25.
261 This .. m.a n"' ha<~ been identified a<~ Mkh~l. the gua1'dian angel oflsr.~el by same later
interpreters, cl., Dan 10:21; 12: I. Maybe thL<~ is be<ause the same title, name ly
~~/pri nce/commander, is used to designate both 1\1khnel and the "'m<m"' w ho meet.'l
Jol>hua. ln the LXX this tenn is in these cases translated b)' the word tiyyrJu:-..::. See al
liO /fl:>t-,,
. Jollld Aso1t>lfr 14, where the heavenly man says hl Aseneth: "'1am the chief of
the hou.!le of Lhe Lord and the commander of the w hole host of the Most H igh ... " See
also Si.1llivan 2001, 55-36.
262 This reminds U-" of 'the de.o;troying angel' who a.:co'<ling hl I Chr 2 1:16 was hllld ing
a drawn sword in hLo; hand. See <~ l so 2 Sam 24:15 16; 2 Kgs 19-.3S; Is.\ 37:36. In Josh
23~, 9 10 it is said tha t it was God who fought for ls rllel.
263 Cf., Exod 23~23; 33a 3. and Judg 2: 1 5 (see above).
261 Hamo1i 2004. 147-150. 11 is indeed remarkable LhnLLhe"'man" ao::epL<~ the worship of
Joshua, cf., Re\ t 9:<).10. Sl.><e also CieW\en 1998, 33.
4
106
possessing the d ivine narne and being capable of fo rgiving sins (Exod
23:21), the 116~ is depicted as sharing d ivine au thority. The attempt to
identify the 1~;1) in Exodus as a hUJnan leader, e.g., Moses, thus seems
fa rfetched. Hov~.'ever, unlike ' the angel o f the Lord' in Genesis1 the d i
vine messenger in Exodus is sometimes spoken of by God in the third
person (e.g., Exod 23:20-24; 33:2-3}. Perhaps Exodus bears wih,ess to a
development in temls of the separation o f God and His messenger,
aJUw ugh the process is fa r from complete.';' In Judges 6 and 13, u,e
fusio n of the 1X;b and God is obvious.
On the oth er hand, the iden tification of the 1K7l:J in Judges 2 as a d i
vine mes.,"enger is more dubious. However, considering the people's
reaction in )udg 2:5 I fi nd it likely u,at this is also an example of the
1
Exod us~traditio n of the angel o f the Lord' bringing the Israelites out of
Egyp t and into u,e Promised land.
In the same way as the narratives in Genesis 18 and 32, the passage
in Josh 5:13-15 may be clas..-c;ified as an implicit reference to ' the angel of
the lord'. As )acob"s contender at )abbok he is called ' a man' but his
title ._m d acceptance of Joshua's worship reveal his divine identity.
265 See al~ Hannah 1999, 2 1. According to E)ltikel (2007, 113 12.1), ' the a ngel of the
lo.'<l-texts' in both Exodus (with the exceplion of Exodus 3) and Judge~> dLc;plB)' an
angelology ch.a l'acteri.<~tic 1"1f the p1-e-exilic period of Israelite histmy, Le., a st.lge between the oldest oorw:eptil.)n of angel<~ as Nmere exten.c;ions of Cod Himself (e.g.,
Genesis 16) .md th e 1.1te1 po$t-exitic view. di.<~pla)ed in, fo r exampf~ the book of
Daniel. I agree thal th e d cSCtiption of the dh<ine name angel' (whom C',od refers hl
i1\ the third person) in, e.g.., Exodus 23, m<~y repre:;ent this 'midway-$tage' in the development of l<~raelite angelology. However, as st.lted abo"e, in my view the fusion
of Cod and the 1~'>~ is obvious in judges 6 a nd 13.
266 Sniclly speaking, the concept 'the a ngel of the Lord does not appear in Ezekiel.
while in Zechariah we find it in 1:11: 3:1 6: 12:8. The angel of the Lord who appeal'S
in lsa 37:36 secm.c; to be distinguished fmm Cod.
4
107
3.4.1 Isaiah
[lsa 6.1:9) In all th~i r afnictinn lie was afflicted, And the Angd of His Prts~ttre saved them; In His Jov~ and i n His pity J-le redeemed them; And He
bore them and car-ried thi:!m All the days uf old. (10] But they rebelled and
griev~d 1lis l lol.IJ Spirit; 5<) He turned Him.w H agains t them as an enemy?
And h~ fuug ht against them.JtV
267 N KJV. Cl.. Judg 2: 15. See B:l.'io Guggis berg 1979, 87.SS.
him, so as to bring affliction upon them, he did nm afflict the m, btl a11 o111g!!l smiJrom
f~Jort ltim dtlivert'ti tftem: in hi.c; mercy and in his pity ft"'l' them he re..'icued them. and
bare t hem, and carried the m all the days of old. (Eng.. Ll'.l~ls. Stenning 1949,208, 2 10,
my italicsJ.
270 See a lso Mach 199l79R1.
271 The NRSV fotkwls the MT:
{l'ia 9>.6/V. 5 Mn For a child has been bo1'Jl fo us. a liOil given h"l us: authOiity rests
upon his s houlders: and he is ll.lmed \Vonde rful Coun:;elor, Mighty God, Everlll..'lt
ing F,101er, Prince of Pe~.
See also Cuiley 2004,23, 3 10, who cla ims thnl the four titles of the Mes..'iiah in the MT
may ha"'e been given to the four ar<hangelc; Michael, G.ilbriel_ R.:lphael, and
108
Uriei/Phanuel a.<~ the four aspect:> l')f the a ngel of gr eat coonseVthe angel l')f the Lord.
Sec also Baker. 1992,36 and i0-94. Cf., above, chapter 2.2.2.
272 Tuschling (2007, 83), daims IIMtthe expession ch~n by the transl.l tor implies llla t
the LXX s upports an understanding of ' the angel of the Lord' a.<~ a h)rpost.a..<~Lc; of God,
notal\ "'ordio<uy" angel.
273 MT ha..<1 ' \'lith us' (d. NKJV cited below) but. e.g... the LXX has 'with him'. see the
tex! c-ritical apparatus to the verse.
2i4 The transl.ltion in the Nl<JV is slighlly diffe rent:
(Hos 12:3) He (Jacob) took his bi'Other by the heel in the womb, and in his strength
he s truggled with Cod )4) Ye.c;, he strugsled \'' ilh the Angel a nd prevailed; He wept,
and sought favou r from Him. He found him in Bethel. and th ere he spoke !O us - 1>1
that is the l.ord (YHWH I God of hosts. the l.ord i.e; his n~morabl e name.
Note !he connection to Bethel (d.. Gen 28:12-17: 31: 11-13). The "'man" in Gen 32:2430 might be the "'angel.,. that Jacob/ls.,el refer:~ to in Gen 48:15-16.
275 II the word 1K'?1l i$ (l(iginal, Hl"'Se.il I$ the 01\ly pre-exilic prophe1 vJho refers to an
angel. since jacob' s opponent i.e; d eal'!}' not a human messenge See al<\0 Sullivan
2004, 47.
276 Cf ... judges 6 a nd 13 w here the d esignations ' God' a nJ 'angeVmessenger ,.,r the
l.01d!God' are us..~d <lltemately for the divine visitors.. See also Andersen/Freedman
1980,612-613.
2n Hmo,~ever. v. 6 is con.<~klered by some schola rs to be a glos.'l. see e.g . Whill 19'-J J. 25.
109
278 Roland E. Murphy has re vLc;ed the JBC artide by Dennis J. McCarthy.
110
v~lhich
version is the oldest o ne. It rnay very ~,ovell be that Hosea 12 p red ates the
narra tive in Genesis 32 in its present fo rm. According to \+Villia m D.
\'Vh itt, both Hosea a nd the author of the Genesis story used a common
source.::.s6 Kevin P. SulJivan concludes that, since jacob's weeping in
supplication has no coun terpart in the Jabbok narrative in Genesis, it
indicates either that Hosea might have known a diffe rent t rad ition or
that the prophet altered the Genesis story .::111 In either case, Sullivan
a rgues that:
... this lend ~ credence to the possibility that the 1~?r. was indeed Miginal
{...]the Genesis pa..:;sage was vague enough to allow room fur interpretati
on and it seen"'S that regardless of when it occurred, the author/reda<.iur of
Hosea '12 alter...d the Genesis tradition of jacob wre..,tling with Cod tu Jaa)b
w re::>tling with an angel.
Be that as it may, sch ola rs generally agree that Hosea refers to ancient
jacob traditions.~ Another sLTiking difference between the narrative
and Hosea's state ment is that the prophet d oes not ment ion the ford of
Jabbok but refers to jacob 's e ncounters w ith God a t Bethel. see Genesis
28 a nd 35. Thus, Hosea appears to have combined various Jacob tradi~
tions.?.W Another d ifference is of course the use of the word 116t1 in designation of Jacob's contender, who is sirnply called 'a man' in Genesis
32 but, as mentioned above, this rendering has been questioned. Possi~
bly, the word was added as a result o f a later interpretation of Jacob's
opponent as a n angel. ~~
In the case of the Genesistext1 it is when the patria rch receives his
new name that the " rnan" ackn owledges that Jacob/Israel has prevailed . Hosea1 o n the o ther hand, does not mention the renaming of
Jacob a nd does not explicitly state who was victo rious in the combat.2'.1 1
As mentioned in the analysis o f Genesis 32 above, many scholars derive
the verb i~'' in Hos 12:5 from the root,.,~ ~ to rule', 'have dominion'
and not from :ii~ ' to strive/struggle' . Th e s ubject of the verb however,
page} s uggests that the equation of 'man' ... 'angel' in Hos..':a 12 may be derived fi'Om
Genesis 18 19. Cl.. Sullivan 2001,. 49.
2'91 See also Mays 1969. 163164.
111
\-Vhitt argues that in this way Hosea bears wih1ess to Lhe original t:radi
tion: Jacob is defeated and begs for mercy, but in Genesis 32 the roles
have been reversed, probably in order to present the patriarch in a bet
ter ligh t.m Additionally, he claims that the author of the Genesis ver
sion has s u bstitu ted~,~ fo r the already exis ting g loss j x;::J.:!
Both Whitt and H. L. Ginsberg interpret Hos 12:51JX~{')' n~:~ in the
light of Gen 31:13 ;~ n'> ;~o ~:1< "I am the god Betl1cl" and identify Ja
cob's opponen t as a god by the name o f 'Beth-.el' ..31.~1 However, a great
'X
292 See a lso Wolfll974, 212213, Sarna 1989. 404405, and Hamori 201).1, 79-82.
293 See also Whitt 1991, 32.. who argue.<; th.:ll lhe w.1y one l'e~lds the subject depend~ on
\'\hether one retains the term -p;.'7!) o dismi~ses it as a gloss.
294 The weeping of jacob is not mentioned in GenesL<; 32, though his reque~t for a bless.
ing in ' ' 26 ma> be intep-eted a~ a p'tayer/supplic.ui on.. he nce ' to seek fa vor.
295 However, .:lS me11tionc._~ abcw e, the Hosea text is unclear regarding who was vktorious in the combat, Jacob or the " angel" a nd, linguistic-.l lly ~peaking. the pericope
can be interpreted to mean that it was the laUe w ho wept and sought fa vor with Ja
cob. Acrording hl K&kt>.l't (2007, 62). this mily be the reason fothe transfmmation of
Jacob's combat "'ith God into a combat with an augd in Hosea 12, becau..<;e s uch a
~ta tement c-an be nl.:lde <lbllUt an al\gcl but certainly not about God.
296 See also Wolff 1974, 2 11-213, Mays 1969, 16J..16<1, M.:Cathy/Murphy 1989, 227, and
Hamori 2004, 80-82.
297 ~l ay~ l969, 164. See also Wolff 1974. 213, and Walters 1992. 607-608.
298 Whitt 1991,33-34.
299 \\<.hin 1991,33.
300 Whiu 1991. 35-43, and Cin.'berg 1961, 339-3'1 7. In additiol\ to Genesis 31, Whitt als..J
refer~ to Gene.<;i~ 28.
112
difference bet\'lreen the t\vo sd1olars is that \'VhHt maintains that the
god Beth--el was merged with YH\-\'H in later tradi tion,:~u w hile Gins..
berg interprets Hosea's statement as a condemnation o f the cult o f the
'an gel EJ ..bethel', to usc his designation.l!U The identification of Jacob's
contender as a god named Bethel appears to me as somewhat far
fetched, and I prefer to interpret 'Bethel' in Hos 12:5 as a reference to
the p lace o f the d ivine e ncoun ter.300 ln the LXX, Hos 12:31>-4.)0.1 is ren
dered as follows:
(3b) .. . .-t.d Ev tdmOI<; m)tuli ~\lax11m: nQ<'..; th:bv. {41a.ti i:vfcrxuvt !JE:Ttc.lyyi:Aou h:cti ibvvtloflJfl KA(.tiXRW Kui t'bE:{jflr)uUv !JOU, l:v Tt~ OiKl~> Ov
t i:'t_>t)odv p~:. '"1i t._t:t b\(v\t]OtJ 1t(.>h; HiJTbv/~otiYtu{}'(;,.3Cf./... and in hi:c. labors
h~
(Jacob) had power with Gt)d. And he prevailed/was
strung/strengthened himself with th~ ang~l and was strong. they wept. and
entreakd me, they found me in the house of On/th~ Being/the Existent/the
Eternal, and there was spo ken tv him/them.
As shown in the quotation, the LXX states that Jacob ''prevailed with
the angel," thus nlain taining the ambiv~1lence ben.veen God and the
angel, vv. 34 . According to the LXX version, Jacob is the victor, b ut in
v. 4b the su bject changes to plural_, "they wept and entreated rne ... "
The explanation is certainly that the patriarch Jacob is seen as a representative of the collective, Le., the people of Israel, cf., above.
Sullivan considers the LXX reading . .. xal i vfcrxt..xn: !lt:Til
(iyyi:Aou ... in Hos 12:4 as a support for the originality o f ' the an
gel' /1'/\'7b in this verse and if the word actually is a g loss, it must have
been inserted at a fairly early stage.n
As we have seen in the d iscussion of the Jacob texts in Genesis, the
Hebrew place name Bethel is most commonly translated as
'r6~to.;/o fK<K 9t:ot), 'place/house o f Godl o r transcribed as Btn9r]A. The
rendering in Hos 12:4 is thus a bit peculiar. One possible explanation
could be that the phrase ofKo:; Ov refers to a sanctuary at Bethel,>" the
house of God, i.e., the house of YHWH, whose name signifies ' the Be*
ing!~'e Existent/the Eternal', rendered in Greek as 6 'Ov, compare Exod
3:14:
Ked dm:v i) Ot.i>; nc..,M'>; Mc.Juqriv 'E yW d pt t') ,;,\,)o;Lli dm:v, Oihc.J..; i:Q ti~
'toi; uioi; lcJfJCU)A D t';Jv t.ln ~cnnAt.::i:\1 pl: nQc'K; V~.ui.; ./ And God spoke to
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
113
I am the & inglthe Existent/the Eternal and he said, thu:; shall you
say to the sons uf Israel, the Being/the Existent /the Eternal has ~nt me to
you ..3AA
Mu~:;:
3.4.3 Condusions
As shown above, lsa 63:910; 9:6 a nd Hos 12:35 (46] are text critically,
ling uistically and theologically complicated passag<>s. Both the passage
in Hosea 12 a nd that in Isaia h 63 contain some kind of 'inner biblical
'
exeges1s.
The phrase in Hosea 12:5 1K;n ;~ is much discussed because o f its
peculia rity, a nd there are basically two d ifferent "solu tions"; the e rnen ..
dation to read ;~ as nx 'with', or to retain 7x and read it as?~ 'El/God',
w hile d eleting 1~?n as a gloss. In the latter case, the term L'i explained as
an insertion in H osea's text, based on a presu med later interpretation of
jacob's combatan t as an angel, cf., the LXX version. TI1e theory o f An
dersen a nd Freed man a ppears to be an exception to the n ile and, al
though in te resting.. their explanation seems h ighly speculative. Howev
er, even if '"'e keep 1s.?n~ Jacobls contender was most certain ly not seen
as an "ordin ary" angel by Hosea, as he is equated with God, d ., Gen
48:15 ~16. Those scholars w ho re tain 116.b o fte n refer to the presence of
the "angel" in the LXX Hosea 12 and if the ,.;ord is indeed a g loss, it
must have been inserted at an ea rly stage. Moreover, the LXX render~
ing of the Hebrew place name Bethel in Hos 12:4 is q uite remarkable.
Speaking of the LXX, we have seen above that th e versions o f lsa
63:9 and 9:6 diffe r significantly from their counterparts in the MT, and
the main issue in these pericopes is also the presence or absence of an
angel/divine messenger.
The a nalysis makes it evident that all of these texts were perceived
as difficult from early times, a nd the heart of the problem was {and
remains to this d ay) the relationship between God a nd His
1:61J/"angel".
114
also encounter ' the son of God/the angel', Dan 3:25, 28, and 'one like
the son of man'WJ/'onc like a h uma n being', Dan 7:1J.:uo In Psalms, the
angel of the Lord is mentioned in Ps 34:8[7] a nd 35:56, described as a
guardian angel sent by God to p rotect and deliver the pious and to
p ursue their enemies. Tn Chronicles we have the paraiJel textc; to 2 Snm
24:16 a nd lsa 37:36; 2 Kgs 19:35 (1 Ou 21:15 respectively 2 C hr32:21). In
Eccl 5:6(5] we read: "Do not Jet your mouth lead you into sin, and d o
not say before the messenger {i!Otl]m that it was a mistake ..."The
cu rious thing is that the p hrase "before the messenger'' in the LXX is
translated as 7tQO 11QOm~mou roU 9t:oti, " in the presence of God.11 T his
is a unique case. In the book o f Job, Elihu refe rs to the 1!6i:l as a media ..
tor between God and h umankind, job 33:23
309 N K)V.
310 Daniel 7 was considered a dangerous pass.age by the eMiy Rabbis, as it c1m be inlel'preted as refeing to two divine beings. the Ancient One' and one like the son of
n\31\' , see fu rther Segal 1977. 33-J9. In Dan 4: 1().20 we encounter the term
ir/watd ler:. a design ation for some kind of angelic beings found in pll$1-exilic jewLcth
literature but canonicall> only in the book of Dan iel. Sl~e also Noll 1997,9-12.
311 The NJKV a dds the designation "''/God;" " 'hile like the MT, the NRSV refers h) an
tmspcdfii!d me.o;sengerhx7~. From the c<>ntext of Ecd 5:5 in the ~IT it is undeM
whether a human (a prophet?) or a divine messenger is intended.
312 ~ inte 'Polation theoy can be seen 3:.<1. an exception in this case bec-ause, according
to chis view, it was originally Cod Himself who was the agent in the.cte narratives.
115
But the explanation that Sl!ems most likely is that the interchange between
Yahweh and mal'ak yfuult in various texts is th~t expressio n of a tensiun ur
paradox: Yahweh's authority and pre~nce in these enc<mnters if1 to be af.
firmed, but yet it is not po~sibl e f(lr human beint,>S to ha\e an umn ed iat~d
encounter with God ..m
As I see it, she actually does not solve the problem o f the identity o f the
angel of the Lord but instead states that the very point of these texts is
that " the unresolved ambiguity in the narrative aJimvs the reader to
experience the paradox." She also maintains that it would be mislead
ing to suggest that this perspective was a dogmatic belief in ancient
Israelite religion. As mentioned, there are biblical texts in w hich God
communicates with humans '"'ith no reference to the angel of the Lord
(e.g., Genesis 15), w hile sometimes the distinction between God and the
angel is d ear (e.g., 1 Kgs 19:57)."' There is a general consensus be
hveen scholars that there are different kinds of 'angel of the Lord texts'.
The problematic pericopcs are those \\here we find the above rnen
tioned merging of the identity Qf the angel and God Himself.3u
3.6.2 The Interpolation Theory
One qu ite frequent approad1 to this problem is the in terpolation
theory. According to this viev..., the word 1K;~ \ovas inserted in certain
contexts by the editors. The ambiguity between u,e angel o f the Lord
and God Himself is d ue to the fact that originally it was God alone who
w~1s the agent in these texts.''o Gerhard von Rad supports this theory
and writes:
What distinguis hes these pa'lsag~~ from the Mhers is that it is impossible in
them to di ffer~n ti a t~ between the~ ll r:n:p 1K7n] and Yahweh liimSt!lf. The
One \\tho s peaks or act.<;, i.e., Yah weh or the ~ ;:. is Ob\luusly o ne and the
same person. Yet in the apparently haphazard altematiun between the twt)
there is a certain system. When the reference is to C ud apart fmm man,
Yahweh is used; when C ud enters the appreciation()( man, the' .e is intr<r
du c~d (... ] Originally the stories probably refe rred quite naiv~ l y to purely
St'!n.!;ua1 theophanies.m
116
The editors are said to have inserted the concept o f 'the angel of the
Lord' fo r diverse theological reasons, for example to softe n the anlhro~
pomorp hic depictions of God in the stories.3111 This is the solu tion pro
posed by Meier. In addition, he cla ims tha t a nother reason for support
ing this theory is that the term 1N'.tl is not found in all text wih1esses.
One example is Exod 4:24, where the MT states that it v,ras God who
sought to kill Moses. As this idea was lheologically difficult, the translators of the LXX inserted a n angeJ.31\I
Meier also argues that the phrase :n:r 1~?t- should be un derstood as
indefinite and thus translated 'an (tmspecijied) angel/messenger of the
Lord' . He argues that since the Hebrew d efin ite article cannot be em ~
p loyed in the construct when the nome-n rectum is a proper n~1me, a
translation in definite fo rm is equally possible and a matter of interpre*
tation.320 As support for a translation in indefinite form, ~vfeier also re
fers to many cases in the LXX w here the angel makes his first appe~u
ance."' Sure en ough, both in Gen 16:7; 21:1 7, and 22:11, the LXX has an
indefinite fom>: iiyy<Ao.; KL'Q1ou/9wu: 'ntl a ngel of the lord/ God'. This
is of inte rest, since the chosen translation of :11;'j' 1~7~ might indicate
how the transla tor viewed this ' being'. That the LXX uses the defin ite
form in, for example, Gc n 16:8-10: 0 ayyt.Ao:; KUQlOU/'1/Je angel of the
Lord', is probably because the angel has already been introduced in
verse 7.Jn In accorda nce with his chosen translation o f the concept,
Meier a lso claims that the phrase 1~'?1:> YHWH is to be u nderstood as a
title desig na ting several of God's supernalura l cnvoys.~J However,
many scholars maintain that a translation in the definite form is proba
318 von Rad 1964, '77-i8. See alo;o Meier 1995b. 106, S.1ma 1989,383, <~.od Gieschen 1998.54.
319 Meier 1995b, 96- 108. Cf.,. <~ ls.o the scholarly discus..:;ion of the~~ i.o Hosea 12 l'efe rred to <~blwe.
320 Meier mention..<~ two diffe1~nt Bible tran.c;lations in ord~r to illustra te this; the jewis h
Publication Society typically tmnsl.lles :;;;1 1IO,'!l <~san ang~l of the lord, hhite the
N,w R1vised Slamlar.1 \1t'rsio11 tran!tla les rhe concept in the definit~ form.
321 Cf,. for example 2 Ou32:1, and 2 Kgs 19:35. Meier 1995b, 98-108.
322 Meier 1995b, 98-108. He \'lrite.c; on pp. 98-99:
Bec-au!>E' Greek. like Englis h, u.c;ually di!ttingu iltlles definite from indefi nite in geniliw
cons tructions (unlike H~bre...., .md L:uin), early evidence from Gre~k is invalu.:1ble in
discerning how the Bible's eMiiest ae<e.<tc;ible intepreters unde1's t01.xl the phrase. Th~
NT knows of no single *The angel of the Lord/('".od"' ...The Septuagint gene<~ll) fl"'l
lows s uit in tr.msJating mal'ak YHWH in the OT, although tht>re a re a fe\'1 exceptional
l'<ll>eS where the d efinite .wt id e appe<~~'S w hen the figure first appeat!i in a ll<ll'tative
(Num 22:23: Jud 5:23 JtXX cod. A ~ 2 Sam 24:16: OOillr<lStthe far more numerou$ ca.c:es
where LXX present:> the figure as i1\definite: C~n 16:7; 22: II, IS; Exod 3:2 . .. )
323 Meier J995b, 107.
117
bly correct and thus consid er it a 'special title', reserved for a particular
divine messenger.m
The in terpolation theory has not been accepted by all scholars.l~ As
we have seen, it cannot explain many o f the texts w here God speaks
directly to humans without the men tion o f this ' meti iating figure', in
eluding such bold anthropomorphic narratives as that of the visit of the
three " men" to Abraham in Genesis 18..~' James Barr opposes the inter
polation tl' eory:
Firstly, the introduction of the 11ml'ftk is too extren"'ely spaSml)d ic, and
!eaves too man y fierce anth ropomorphism..; untouched, fur its pu rpu.~ h )
be under.>tl)Od in this way. The voice and preSence of the mt~l'ak alternates
in a n umber o f s torief.; so much with the voice and appearing l)f Yahweh
that it is hard ly p<>S..::ible to understand his plaoo as a subst:i tu ft~ fo r the Iat
ter. Second ly, fa r from the nwl'llk representing a later and mme .suphisti
cated fea ture, it is foun d deeply embedded in s tories of g reat antiq uity; the
best example is the J sto ry of C'..en xviii, wh-~.~re to be sure the term nmtak
d ot.os no t app~tar until xix 1 ;md there in the plural. b ut where it is ind isput
abJe that we have th L> same general phenomenon as th~ mtJI'llk of o ther stO
ries.m
324
~c Gie..<1chen
325 Newsom, see abcwe. See also KOckert 20Cf7. 73-75, ,md Faby 19'17, 321-322.
3'26 The Jnhvi!i-ti c ~lCCOUI\1 in c,~nesis 2-3 is also worth menti<ming for iL'I omth ropomcw
phic description of God.
327 Barr 1960,33-34.
3'2f\ We.<~termann 1985. 243. See illso Hamori 201):1. 153-155.
329 fil bty 1997, 322.
118
330 ThLo:; theory lUis been proposed by van der Woude (1963164, 613). He prefel'li to
rraMiate the concept 1x'i~ YHWH in indefinite form, bec.1use the .mge l is an exte n
sion of Cod Himself. In th is way he agrees w ilh ~1eier. although otherwise they haw
different t1pinions ooru:eming this iss:ue. 5L"e abme. If we .we hl believe Finkel<:tein
( 1929, 235-240), the Sadducees advocated precisel)r this view on angels 3..'1 mere extensions/emanation.'! of the Deity .1nd \'lith n1l ind ependent existence or personal if)'
1ll their 1WII\. As is well known, the Sadducees strongly obje<:ted to the l'haris.l ic
view on an gels<~s individual beings. See a lso chapter 1.4 above.
331 Meier 1995b, lOS. See also jl)hnsson ( 19-12. 54 1), w ho appears to advocate a kind of
oom.binnlion of the messenger and 1-epresentative lheories. In his discu..<;sion of lhe
appearance of angelstmys.teriou...'l nlE'n' in Gene.'lis. KOckert {2007, 5'178, see esp. pp.
53, 6975) al<:o empha.'liZe.'l lhei1 function as d ivine messengers but doe.<: not make
any dear d istinction beh"ee.n the above mentioned messenger theory subg1'0ups...
J.n Meier 1 995.~. 87-88, and 1995b, 10>.
::tn Gieschen 1998, 55.
334 We.<Otern\alm 1985, 24.3-244.
3.7 Conclusion.c;
119
3.7 Conclusions
I have presen ted a survey o f the d ivergent explanations of the merged
identity o f God and His 1'1\71l in some texts. However, there is no uni
form angel of the Lord tradition' in the Bible. Sometimes the angel is
presented as d istinct from God, e.g., in 2 Kgs 19:35, and in Exodus God
3.15 F.abr)' 1997, 322., Gie!K'Jl en 1998, 55, and Hann.h 1999. 20. Aco.w ding to Meier {199Sb.
105), a the01y also t>xists in which " . .. tht> angel of the Lord is a means of .::r)'StaUiz
ing into one figure the man)' revela tory fomls of a n early polytheism:" A rather spe-
120
sometimes refers to the 1~'?0 in the third person (e.g ., Exod 23:20-24;
33:1 -2). However, by possessing the d ivine n,, me, the 1<'>0 o f Exodus
shares the divine nature and power and cannot be seen as completely
separate from the Deity.J.W In the 'angel o f the Lord narratives' of Gene-sis a nd Ju dges, w ith the possible exceptions of Genesis 24 a nd Judges 2,
the oscillation between God and His 1~;r.o is u ndenia ble. These differ
ences '"''ithin the Bible rnay possibly mirror a h istorical development o f
the 1X;>J~ concep t.
Regarding the fusion of God and the 1~'>1:>, the various suggested
"'solu tions" may be divided into three main categories; the interpola
tion theory, i.e., the idea o f a later insertion o f the 1K'~ into the text. and
theories that focus on the function or nature of the 1X~. Sometirnes it
may be hard to d istinguish bet"'"ecn the various hypotheses. For exam
p ie, the borderline ben.vecn the interpre tations of seeing the 1K;.;:a as a n
extension or a manifestation of YH\VH is quite narrow.
339 The COIUlection between the d ivine 1W1me a nd the a ngel 1"eeaUs th~ !iO-called 'r~vel a
tion hypothesis' proposed by H. Junker (1995, 76-77). H.:: views rh~ angel as the
oomp.ilniol\ and bearer of the glory of YHWH. revealing the l}l't!sei'IC\! of YHWH
when he app~ars, but YHWH Himself remains im+isibte to humans.
Se~ a lso
1 22
2
3
4
5
6
4.1 Tile Book of Tllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)nlOil and lhe Gospel of l uke
123
9
MOl)l'e 1996, 4243. Fitzmyer 2003, 52-54, and Otzen 2002.57-59.
10 The ' Book/l.aw of Mo.'le.c;' is referred to in Tob 6:13 and 7: 13. See t\.h)(ne 1996, 39, and
Otzen 2002.57-59.
ll In pre\'ious years. C l wa.c; generally regarded as the version close.<~t to 1he original
form of Tobil but today Gil has a.o;sumed thai posili on. Acoordinsly, n\OSI Bible
translation$ today ;u-e mainly based on C ll. e.g., 1he N RSV, 1he tr.l nsl<nion used in
this thesis. This 1-ece:ns ion of Tobit ic; rel.ali\'el)' int.l.::t only in lhe Code" SirU'I ilicus..
Regarding delaiis aboul the m.ss used in the NRSV for the f:rMsla tion of Tobit, see
the preface '"To the Reader."
12 Sec Moo1-e 1996, ~- Fit2.myer2003. 3-17, Di lelia 2000. 198-199, and Otzen 2002.
60-M. Concerning the status of the book of Tobit and the term.<~ ' Apocypha' and
' deulerocanonical', see !\l ome 1996, xiv, 48-53, ond Fitzmyer 2CXB, 57.
13 Moo1-e 1996, 17-24. Nowell 1996, 568-569. Set! also 0 1zen 2002, 27-56, Fit1.mye:r 2002.
294 1, a nd Spencer 1999, 160.
14 See Murph)' 1996, 83, Wight 1989,510, and C l.uke 1973, I. For reasons of simplific;ation,. 1w ill hencefoth refer to 1he book as ' \Visdom'.
124
self by that name.'s An anonymous 'I' addresses us in the book but the
author's implied id en tification wi th the King is clear.'" The cla im of So lomonic authorship is best expla ined as a Uterary d evice to increase th e
book's au thority, King Solomon be ing the archetypal wise leader in Jewish tradition. In this way, the author connected hi..~ work to the tw o most
important ea rlier book<:; of the wisdom tradition, Proverbs and Eccle
siastes, biblical books likewise attributed to the legendary wise king. 17
TI1e tme identity o f th e a u thor is un knmvn bu t he was most proba ..
bly a learned, G ree kspeaking Jev,r Jiving in Alexa ndria, a main centre
of the Jewish Dias pora in his time .Is Some scholars have questioned the
u nity of Wisdorn. but the predominant v iew today is th at the book is
the work of a single a uthor. \.Visdom was most certa inly originally \\'fitten in Greek.l9
The d a te of \Visd om is debated; its composition has been placed
from a pproximate ly 200 B.C.E to 50 C.E. Most schola rs tend to da te
Wisd om to the latte r h alf of the first century B.C. E." Th us it is probab ly
later than Ben Sira h, the o ther a pocryphal/deu terocanonical book be
longing to the wisd om "gen re."
Dav id Winsto n argues fo r its composition to be e arly first century
C. E., more s pecifically d u ring the reign o f Caligula, 37-41 C.E." It is
gene ra lly acknowledged that the author made use o f the LXX, the com
position of which th us constitutes a terminus post quem. The in fl uence of
\Visd om on the NT has o fte n been assumed, a lthough there are no dea r
quotations from \Visdom in the NT.n
15
16
t7
18
4.1 Tile Book ofTllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)nlOil and lhe Gospel of luke
125
According to Wis 1:1 and chapters 6-9, the in tended readers o f the
book arc the kings and rulers o f the earth but in viev~.r of the content of
\Visd om, its author certainly had a much wid er audience in mind. The
author's main p urpose was p robably to encourage and strengthen his
fellow Jews and to warn against assimilation.n
There are similarities between Wisdom and Philo's writings, and
Philo has even been suggested as its author. This theory may be hard to
prove but it is obvious that Philo and the author o f \.Visdom worked
and lived in a similar intellectual and religiou$ environment. They v,rere
both most p robably Je\vish residents of Alexandria and may have been
roughly contemporary with each other.:-' \Vinston has proposed that
the author o f Wisdom was influenced by Philo,~" although the common
assumption is that \Visdom p re dates Philo's v~.rorks.~
and companion of the apostle Paul. is the author of the third Gospei.V
This is not the p roper place fo r a discussion of Lu ke's sources but it
is generally assu med that he used Mark's Gospel as weU as the so
called Q-sou rce. \'\'hen it comes to the birthnarratives... he seems to
have had access to o ther traditions as '".rei!. l uke's home-church is often
identified as the congregation o f Antioch and this is possibly also
w here the Gospel was composed .2ll
The Gospel of Luke was p resumably written after the fall of Jcn.sa
lem in 70 C.E. It is commonly d ated somewhere between 80-85 C.E.,
thus later than Tobit and \\lisd om.2'1
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
S..~e
WinstOI\ 1992, 126, MU!"J>h)' 1996,84, and G1abbe 1997, 9194. Thu.c;, lhe conw n*
riona l \'iew is lha t rhe book was prim al'ily w iuen fl)l' lhe Jews of Alexandria. even
thm1gh an intended gentile readership C&I\Jl Ot be e>:duded.
Wrigh t 1996, 510, Winston 1979, 59-63, D.wi.<~ 1984, 49-6'2. and Murphy 1990, &3.
Win.<~ton
1979, 5963.
126
30
31
32
sugsesL'I tha t Luke "' rote primarily for the "simple folk" <1mong the people of Israel.
See Luke 1: 1-4. The n.ame Theophilus. me".anins ' fl'imd M Cod' m.1y possibly be B
pseudonym for God fcaring reiidei'S in general. See .11so Nolland 1989. xxxiii.
See also Moore 1996. 89, 20, 188-191, 217.
Sel! also WesternMnn 198-5, 392, a nd Spencer 1999, 158-159.
See al;.o Nickelsburg: 1996,341, \' llll den Ey11de 2005,273-280, Ot:zen 2002, 2 1-23, ,)1\d
Mach 1992, 144148.
Sl~e. hw example, Nowe l1201)5, 3 1I.
See Tob 4: 12 13. &>e also Nowe ll2005, 3 11, Nickelsburg: 1996, 3-11, van den Eynde
2005, 273 280, Otzen 2002.. 2 1 23.
See Tobit chapter:; 5 I I.
4
33
.34
35
36
37
38
4.1 Tile Book of Tllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)mon and lhe Gospel of l uke
127
39
40 See Tob 5: 13. The 1t.1me Azariah me.ms 'YHWH has helped', which is exactly lhe
ftJnclion Ihal lhe angel has in t1le st01y. See .11so Fit2m}' er 2003, 184, I 92193.
41
42
4J
44
4.?
The name Raphael means cod has he-aled'. yet another hint CM1cerning hi..; Mie in
the naf'l',ltive, see also Fil2myer 2CX)3, 160 16!.
See ch.a pler 4.2.
See also Ego 2007, 244~245. and Barker 2006, 118-128. Although ne\'er denoted a.<~
such in lhe book of Tobit, Raphael L11 later regarded as one of th\~ ardlange-ls. See
!\tach 1995. 1299-1.300. and Newsom 1992, 252. Raphael is frequently mentioned in
the Pseudepigrapha. and ill Qumran sources. e.g. J 11. 20.17, a nd 40. 1-10. See also
Gieschen 1998, 135-136...md r...h)()re l996. 160-161, and 271-272. See a lso Otun 2002.
1549. a nd Skemp 2005, 51-53.
See <~ lso Reiterer 2007, 271-273. and Ego 2f.XY1. 245-2-16. The lille 'God of heaven' l1.'1ed
in prayer by bolh Abraha m (Gen 2-1:3,7) and Raguel. S.uah's father (fob 7:12; 8: 15), i.'l
an .1ddilional com'M!<tion between lhe two lt.wr.l li\'es. See a lso Nowell. 2005. 4~.
When Raphael re\eals his true idenlil}' 10 Tobil and Tobias he says thal il was he
w ho lrnn.<>ntined Sarah's a~~d Tob-it' s pr,,yers lo \.Aid; Tob 12: 12 see below. He i..; a
mediiSim belween God and lnunanity, .m angelic function l)'p ic.l l of Second Temple
apocal)plk wri1i.1\gs, see. for ex.,mple. J Em'f<h 9: -10: 99.3, IOU, and Rev 8:3-4. See
also Niclcels burg. l996, 34-1. Fit;:m>e r 2003. 294-295. Skemp 2005, 53 and BMke 2006,
120.
128
and to arrange the marriage between Tobias and Sarah, thus delivering
her from the demon that afflicts her:'.,
The readers of the book of Tobit know more than the characters in
the narrative. They are infonned fro m the outset that Raphael is an
angel and that a main issue in the plot is the quest for a bride; facts that
recall other stories of journeys in order to acquire a brid e from one's
0\'~tn people, such as Genesis 24 and 28-29. In many ways, Raphael's
fu nction as a match-maker seems to be modeled on the role of Abra ..
ham's servant in Genesis 24...,. However, an obvious difference is of
course that Raphael is an angel, thus reminding the readers of the ser
vant's invisible companion.4s V{hen he sends his son away, Tobit says
to him:
... May Cud in Maven bring you t:;afely there (Media) and return Yl)u 4? in
good Malth t() me; and may his angel. my son. accompany }'Oll both (Tu
bias and Raphae1/A:.c.ariah] for your safe t-y. (Tob 5:17, d., Cen 24:7J<il
\\' hen they leave, Tobias' mother starts to cry, and Tobit comfort<; his
wife and says:
Do nut worry, uur child w ill leave in good health and return tu us in gl'>l.xl
health (...] D o not fear fo r them, my ~iste r. For a good angel51 will accum
pomy him; his journey w ill lx~ S-uCC(>SS:fu ~ omd he will come back in gOl)d
health. (Tob 5:21-22).-"
Considering the fact that the readers are by now infonned that Tobias
is actually traveling together with the angel Raphael, the s tory is here
46 Tob 3:1617. See abo Nowell 2007. 230231. Moore 1996, 2930, .m d \a n den Eynde
2005, 274279. As nlerltioned above. providence is a major theme both in Tobit nnd in
Genesis 24. The mnrl'iage...; of bath Isaac ilnd Tobias are decided and a ft'anged b)'
God, see Gcn 24:50, nnd Tob 7: 11. See a lso Fitzmyer 2003. 2 18.
47 Sec Nickelsburg 1996, 341, and Otzen 2002., 2 1.
48 \Vhen discussing the simil..w ities between the book of Tobit and Cenesis 24, Ot2en
(2002. 21) holds that the weak point in the comp.lrison l')f the two u.r.llives L'i that
the serv.1nt travels Blone, a statement thlll I find highly peculi.ll' in light l')f Abra
ham's words in Gl~n 24:7. Although (he angelic companion rema ins invisible and si
k n t in \.enesis 24. it dl"'CS not imply that he is not pres.?nl.
49 In all the exiBnl \'etsions of Tobit, Ole G1't'ek wo1'<1 for ....you"' is here in the plural
form. Tobit is thus praying for d ivine prote<tion for both hi'i son and his (de fitciCI)
angelic companitm, thus heigh ten ing the irony of Ole tale. See also Fi!?.m)er 2003,
196.
50 S..~e also Tob 5: 1.>-16.
51 It seems <1pp.i11"ent thai the olUthor o f Tobit also believed in "IMd"' a ngels. See also
Moore 1996. 190.
52 In the LXX, the s.ame G 1~k verb t.Uobillo), 'succeed' w hk.h is u~d in Tob 5:17 (.lnd in
10: II. 14) i.<~ al<il') used in Cen 24:40 {and in w. 21, 42, 48. 56). See also Fitzmye1 2003,
199, and Otten 2002. 2 1.
4. 1 Tile Book of Tllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)mon and lhe Gospel of luke
129
130
once and for all frorn the demon w ho had killed all her fom1er hus
ban ds, see chaptcrs3 a nd 8. According to Moore, the book o f Tobit
... represents a major s tep in tht! evolution uf tht! biblical understanding uf
d t!mOnS [... )and, espedaUy. of angels{ ... ). Hen'! are mentioned fo r the fi~t
timt! in Scripturt! two supernatural creature.o; who will figure quite promi
nently in subsequent Jewish an d Christian traditions: thL> archangt!l Ra
phael and the demon Asmodt!uS."'~
Tobias retums safely to his parents with the money and his w ife, dlap--ter 11 . Raphael is also active in curing Lhe blind ness ofTobit, see 6:29;
10:14, and 11:7-8."
lmd. ' to dc~woy'. )Cf.,. Exod 12:231or repre.<~ent~ the Pe1s ian ilt'$1mm daeONJ or ttslwtdjv,
' the demon of ange r'. \.,..ho accompanied Ahriman (Augra Afai11y11), the Cod of E\'il:"
See als.o Huuer 1995, 197-200,. and Fitzmycr 2003, 150 151.
61 Sl~e also the P~eudepigraph ical book }fi:C1'1 1tttd A.;em:ll1, w herein .1n angel plays " '
active role in Lhe arrangement of the marriage of the two OMin ch.a acter~. chapte1'S
141 7.
62 Moore 1996, 28. See also Huller 1995, 1<17-200. In J 11. 10.4 Raphael is ordered by
God hl hand le another demon in a similar way: " . .. bind Aza1.el by his hands and
feet .and throw him into the darkn ess: nnd split open the de~ert that L<~ in Oudadel
and lhto\,_. him the1-e.'' l11e belief in d emon..<: and spil'itual W<H'fare that we enCOUI\Ier
in the book of Tobit is reminilieent of the demonology and exox:-ism of the NT. &"e
al<~o Skemp 2005. 58..(,(), Fitzmye 2003, 243. Otzen 2002.47-49, and Nickels burg 1996,
344. llH! pn~dom inant view among ~hola 1s is lhu..o; that the 00\')k of Tobit bears wit
ness to a ather deo.eloped angelology,. see. for example, Fit?.myer 2003, 160. BMker
(2006. 118-128), hllWever, appear~ to be of a d ifferent opinion. For a more detailed
diliCUssion of this i!lsue, see beloh.
63 According to the book of Tobit. R.lpiMcl thus lu d 1h1-ee ta~k!l to .lccomplis.h; the cure
Qi Tobit's blind ness. the o.r.angement of Sarah's and Tllhia..<l' matriage and the expu1
sion of the demon A~modeu..c~. ThL'I cml l'ldicl~ Iacer Rabbinic tradition that fme angel
.._....,.nnot perform more titan one mission. See d taple 4.5 below and Barker 2006, 126.
64 In the tt~xt \ersion gcnc mll> used.. the doxology i~ in the 2<'-l person and contains
l'lOI) one Messing of the .1ngels. See Gieschen 1998, 136. and Stucken.b ruck 1995, 164167.
4. 1 Tile Book of Tllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)mon and lhe Gospel of luke
131
(Tob l1 :14bJ Bl es~d God and Ble,:;scd his great Name and Blt~sed all his
h oly angelo;; may his g reat Na m~ be upon u s, and bl~d tJlllfu: tm:~cls unto
(l/1 t~g~-s.f15 ) For he has afAicted me. But n()w I see my $<m Ttlbias!li&
6.1)
66
67
68
Eng. tr<ms. Cie!chen 1998. 136 1my il<llicsl. In lhis Cilse, the lran.~l. atOI'S of the NRSV
including AplXf)"Pha ( 1989} do nol foi!Qw the Codex Sinaitkus. and Tob II :14b-15 is
translated ill fhe foUowin s way:
[ 14I"BJe..<t.<led be Gl'KI, and blessed be his great 1u me, and blessed be all his hoi)' aJl ~
ge ls. flo<tay his holy name be blessed thmughoul all the ages. I JSjllloug:h he a fflicted
llle.. he h.a s had m el\:)' upon me. Now I see my son Tobias!..
Gieschen 1998, 136.
See a lso Nowell 2007, 233237.
Allhough it is M l explicitly stated Lha l the ol.ngel of the Lord appeared h) Hagar in
the fonn of a man, il seems to be implied ill fhe slOI')', see dMpler J .
132
See also Sulliv.m 2004, 37-83. 179195, Kolenkow 1976, 153162, and Fi!2.m)'e 2003.
187-188. Moore ( 1996, l&.l-184) writes: "Starting: with Genesis (JS: I-8: 19: 1-3) and
001\linuing through the New Testament (d., Heb 13:2), angel<~ are Vil'tually indistinguishable f1'<lm human beings. In fact. they are often mistaken for mortals. Tile de-piction of a ngels.. complete .,...i!h wings and haloes, so oommon in 0 1ristia n painting..;
and sculpture, represen t.<~ artistic conventions, not biblical d,~scri pt i ons.''
70 During S..~oond Temple tinlt'S., the standnrd jewish interpretcltion of Genesis l ~ l9
was th at the th1-ee men d id not BCiually eat nt Molmre, it was only a vision. C" josephlL'I' inte1'p1-et.llion of Geoe.<~i!i IS in Aul. 1.196-198 and thlll of l'hilo in 011 Abr,;Jam
118 as well as the l'llestinian Targum!i to Cen 18:8. e.g., Tg. Nccj.: "Then he IAbr.l
ham) took curds Bnd milk and the calf whidl he hnd prepared, and placed it before
them fhis three guests]; and he sttl(ld be.<~ide the m under the tree and lll!!!f l.tl\.'ft' givi11g
lilt' impll!SSion of t'aliug attd driukiJlg.. (Eng. trans. McNamar.l 1992,. IM). Ill the Talmud
as well as in Cabbalistk lore, Raphael i!i said to be one of the three ,mg:els who visited Abraha m. He is c1-edited with the heating of Abraha m from the pahl from his
circum cl<~i(m. See Scholem 1971, 1549, an d Cuiley 2CXW, 311. See alSlO the treatment of
Gene!ii!i 18 in the TtoslammiiJ_( Abrafmm. Con!iidering t1le question whether or not an gel$ eat. see Goodman L9S6, 160- 175. In Tob 6:6, there is a d ifferen ce between the
version.'! Gil and Gl. In the Iauer, it is explicitl) said that not on.ly Tobia!i but lll>lft he
and Raphael ate the fish caught from the river Tigris, a !it.atement that i..c~ Cl"ll'rected by
Tob 12:19: Rapl1.:1el did not really eal, it wa.<~ a vision. See also Ego 2007. 249.
7l Note tJMI Raphael d,~!iign.ues him$elf ali one of the .seven highest angel!i, angell'l
!itcmding before God's throne. The late r tmdition ol !il~Ven archangels L'l thus an ticipated in the book of Tobit. Cf., Luke I :19: ' And the angel (Gabriel) answered him
69
4.1 Tile Book of Tllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)mon and lhe Gospel of l uke
133
they feU fac~ down, fo r th~y were afraid. (17] But he IRa
phael] said to them, "Du nut be afraid;n peace be with yuu. Bl~ss Cod fore
v~m1on~. As for me, when I wa.s with y<,u, I was m)t acting o n my own will.
but by the will of Cod. Bl~~s him each and every day ... (19J Althoug h you
'"'ere watching me, I rua.lly d id nut eat o r drink anything~ut what you saw
was a vision. 120) So now get up frum th~ ground, and acknowledge Cod.
See, I am ascending to him who sent me. W ritt~ down all these things that
have happt:med to yuu."'n [21) Then they s tood up, and could see him nu
more. [22}They kept blessing Cod and singing praises, and they acknowl
edged God for th(~e marvelous dt~eds of his, when an angel uf God had
appeared to them.
w~re s hak~n;
{L.~hariah}.lnd said h> him,, ' I am Gabiel who lttilnds in th e presence of \,.od . . .'" See
also Re'' 1:4; 3-:1; 4:5; 8:2, and Zedl '-J:!O; T. I.evi3.4-8, and I EH. 71.8-9.
72 A typical angelicexhorlation. see also, for example, Ceo 2 1:17: o ,m 10:12. 19; Luke
1: 13,30; 2:10.
i3 The commission 10 w l'ite down the pas1t'!venls/Vision...:; in a book is qt~i te common in
angel-aphnl\ies. e$pedaUy in apocalyptic writings.. see Daniel 1012. Rev 1'};9: 22:910. and Nickels-burg 1984, 46.
74 Di Lelia 2<XX>. 205. Accodi.ng h> Di Lelia, .some ~imi l a l'i t ies ~ween 1he twll ruwra
five.c; are the he.lling of t-.1anooh' s wife from barrenne.c;s w hich cm-espond." to Ra
phael's healing Ill Tobit's bli:ndness {d.. Gab1iei's promi..;e of a son 10 1he elderly and
b.l1'1'en couple Zechariah and Eli2abeth in Luke I and lhe prediction of Isaac's birlh
ro Abraham n1ld Sarah in Genesis 18). the inilial hum a~l d isguise of the ange lic \'isitor, the theme of pta)'er. Ihe offering ,'){ food. and the ascension of the heavenly messenger. For delll ils, $ee Di Lella2fXX>. 199-206.
75 It i..:; aJSl) noteworthy. lhal similar lo Jacob's contender in Gen 32:29. the ansel of the
Lord in Judg 13: 17-18 1<efuses 10 1-eveal hi.'i name 10 Manooh nnd his wife.
134
Like Tobias a nd h is father, Manoah .md his wife d id not at first realize
that Lhey were vis ited by a d ivine messenger. The wife designates h im
"a ma n of God " or simp ly " the man," judg 13:6, 10. his not u ntil their
departu re that the heavenly visito rs reveal who they really are. l11e
reaction of Tobias and his fa ther to this disclosure is similar to that o f
Manoah a nd h is wife. Compare Tob 12:1621 cited above wi th judg
13:20-21 :
1201 When tht! namt! {of the burnt o ffering) \Vent up toward hemen frum
the alta r, the angeJ o f the LORD ascend ed in the flam e of the altar while
Manuah and his wifu loo ked o n; and they feU on their faces f<} the ground .
(2lJ The angel of tht! LORD d id not a p pear again to Manuah and his wife.
Then M;m()ah realized that it was the angel uf th~ LORD.
76
77
1 35
78
79
80
81
82
FtetcherLouis 1997, 62 63, Sullivan 201).1, 19 1 192.. and Skem p 2005, 54~58. C f.,
also Raphael's \\ords i.n Tob 12.-20 with jesu ~ wo rds in john 16:5: ,.,.But now I am
going 1o him w ho sent me. .:''
Cf., l.uke 24:~37, and Tob 12:.16-17.
luke 21:4 1 43.
Fletc:he'-louis 199-7,63-71. Ske mp 2005, ~58 .lnd Goodman 1986, 168.
As w e ha\re .seel\ above, the etngel is tile Red~t"m~r f'iJO;;). cf., Gel\ 48:16.
~c
136
lntetpretation..c~ of Genesis
83 C(., Judg 13.25: Gen 18:915; 16:7-14; 2 1!17-20; 22: 11 18. See ol1W Westermann 1985,
242. The o n.ly concrere cxcasioll when lhe angel i.e; depicted as tuming against Israel
i.e; in 2 Sam 24: 15--16, cf... 1 Chr 2 1:1130, see a lso von R<ld 1964, 7i and FreedmaJl
Willoughby 1997. 318. See also <lbme. sections3.2.1 and 3.3.3.
al\~ ~vident structural simila ilies belwee!l the annunciations to ~la y a1\d
Ze\:lu.riah According to luk~ 1: 11 -20, the a.ogel Gabriel appeared to the falllel' of
John the Baptist. Gabriel (!')retells the birlft cif a son ro him and his wife, despite thei
old age, and prt'11icls lflt name and fl1t fli'$1iny/task of thei child. According to, for ex
ample, Browll ( 1999, 269), Luke was d ealy influenced by the narrative of lhe dhine
prom ise of the bith of a $O il to ancllher elderl)' and barren couple, Sarah and Abra
ham. See alc;o Nolland 1989. 1736.
See atso lhe story about Han nah and her SOil in I S.1muel 12. Although no angel i.'l
n'W!ntioned, it i.e; appa ~nt tlu t the birth of s.-u nuel is a special gift from Cod.. ''" an swer hl Hannah'.<~ prayer. Jc."SU.!I' case is of Ctlurse unique. since the NT here speaks
about a virgin birth. Joseph L'l his adopthe fllthe An aJlgel M the Lord appe.ws to
Joseph in his dream; see Matt 1:20-21 and 2!13. See a lso Brown (r~pfinted ed.) 1999,
156~ 158, 231.. 1tote 1.. a1\d 268-269. For t1 discussion of Brown's book, sec, for exam ple,
Ctlnr.ld t9&S, 656-663.
See chapte1.3.2 above, Alter 198 1, 47~2. and Coleridge 1993, 31-37.
See also Wes.temann 1985.. 242-243.. a1\d 2.J5246.
Westerm al\ rt 1985, 245. He writes o n t he s.:1me page: "'The pmm ise in vv. 11 12 Iu s a
defined s truc-t\u<e, attested by a serie.'l of p.wallels, which pt.'ints hl a narTa!ive form
which has its base in the oral traditioo sMge."
84 There
85
S6
87
88
4.1 Tile Book ofTllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)nlOil and the Gospel of luke
137
89
90
91
Note that Gabrit~l in Luke 1~6-38 is ne\ercalled ' the angel of th e b.)ld'.
\.\/estermalll\ 1985. 243. See als.o chapter 3 above.
Westermann ( 1985. 245} w ites:
This I the similarity of Gen. 16:8, 1112 a nd Luke 1:28, 30b-32) is a rare ol.nd .ash)und
ing example of the perseverance of a form o\er a period of mo~ than a thOlL!>and
ye.ars[ . .. J
A comp..w ison with Lk. 1:1117 shows that the form is open hl variation ( ... ) The
form has the following parts: ( I) lntmduction: a messenge of God is there (greet
ing}: (2} announcement of P~gnancy and a birth of a son is introduced by :u:;: (3)
specification of the name of the son with the reason expiBi.ning the 1\ilm e; (4} Ill\
nQOnce m,~nt of w hat \'lill become of the child. The constant etement, which is never
missing.. is the announcement 1lf the billh of n SOOi and thi.<~ is what the fllrm a.<~ B
\'\hole is olll about: all oth er parts an~ directed to or .subordinated to th is: (uigin.llly il
i$ probably lhe announcement of the bith of a son to ,, childless womBil. It is as such
the (U\OOullt-em.ent of s..l lvation or of the lumins point in a C'risis a nd w coincide.<~
w ith the nac'l'lthes of a messenge of Cod: he comes to announce the cha nge in the
lot. But the e:.:.am ples show that the hwm can also be used in o.ther siluath)OS,. as in
Gen. 16, w here the IU\OOUilrement leads to another cri!>is.
92
Cf., the words of the ange-l of the Lord hl Samson's mother in Judg 13:3-5. w here the
me.<~s.lge of the angel of the lord also follows a similar pattem. Sl."e al<>ll Klein 2CXY7,
318-319.
138
afflkiion.
[ 12) He shall be a w ild a~s of a man,
with his h and agains t every<me, and
you."
The commissions of the angels are similar in these casesi the annuncia ..
tion o f the birOt of a .sou, his name, and ajorelelliug of!Jis lask/desliny.111c
content of the tasks/destinies of Ishmael and Jesus is of course different
but the literal structure of the messages to the two v~mmen follows the
same pattern. likewise.. the function of the heavenly emissary is the
same in both narratives. The pericopes share the same motif, the angel ..
ic announcement o f the birth of a son.-n According to john Collins, the
archangel Gabriel i n the Gospel of Luke " .. .is a messenger from God
and takes over the ,-ole of the 'Angel o f the LORD' of the Hebrew Bible,
in announcing the birth of john the Baptist and jesus.""~
However, the ambivalence conceming the merged identity between
God and the messenger that \oVC find in Genesis 16 does not appear in
Luke 1. Hagar' s response to the words of the divine emissary is that she
indeed has seen God, v. 13. Mary's reaction to the angel's message is to
question how all this is abo ut to happen, since she has no husband,
v. 34. The angel who visits Mary is explicitly identified as Gabriel by
the narrator, v. 26.
However, lhe annunciation of the birth ()( Jesus to Mary illso s-trongly e\Okes the
callinst.WI'<ltives o f the OT, e.g ., Judg 6:1124; Exodus 3, ilnd jer 1:410. See .11so \VY
ler 1996, 136138, ilnd Noll.1nd t 989, 3959.
9'1 Cllllins 1995, 611.
93
4. 1 Tile Book ofTllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)nlOil and lhe Gospel of luke
139
In fact, the merged identity between the angel of the Lord and God
Himself is not found anywhere in the NT. In this respect, Samuel Meier
is correct, when he writ'es that " . .. the NT knows o f no single 'The an
gel of the Lord/God,' for the definite article never appears when a fig
ure identified by this phrase makes its first appearance- it is ahvays 'an
angel of the Lord' (Matt 1 :20; 2:13,19; 28:2; Luke 1 :11; 2:9; john 5:4; Acts
5:19; 8:26; 10:3 ["of God"]; 12:7.23; Gal 4:14).""
Concluding Remarks
Let us now tum to a comparison o f the angelology presented in these
various pericopes. The angel w ho guides Tobit is named~" but the angel
in Genesis 24 is anonymous. The angel Raphael plays a rnudl more
active part in the story than the angel in Genesis 24, w ho is mentioned
only in vv. 7 and 40.
The reason for the more developed angelology of the book o f Tobit
compared to Genesis 24 is most probably that Tobit reflects a later stage
in the development of the Israelite religion. As a named angel \"-'ith a
distinct personality, Raphael distinguishes himself fro m 'the angel of
the Lord', the theophanic angel." It is also worth noting that the OT
texLo; that seem to distinguish ben.vecn the angel of the Lord and God
are generally to be found in later biblical texts, e.g., 1 Chr 21:14-15."
However, in this respect there is an important difference between
Genesis 16 and judges 13 compared to Genesis 24. In the latter, we do
not find the merged identity of the angel and God. As mentioned above
in the text analysis. this is the only reference to an angel in the singular
in Genesis, where the distinction between God and His angel seems
clear. The angel in Genesis 24 may very well be an ''ordinary" one. If
Claus W'estermann is correct in his assumption that the reference to the
angel in Genesis 24 is a later insertion,'I'J this could thus explain the
distinction between the angel and God in this pericope.
The religion of the Hebrew BiblejOT must not be confused with the
many fonns of Jewish faith at the time o f Jesus. There is a considerable
timespan between the writing down of Genesis 16 and Luke 1. The
merging of the identity of the d ivine rnessenger and God can be ex
95
96
97
9$
99
140
E.g., Dan 9:21; 10:1214. 12: I, a nd Tob 12:11- 15. See Bl'>o Bro\\'1\ 1999. 129 a nd 260.
See also Fi1t ke!stei.n 1929, 235-240.
Barker2()()6, LIS-128. e.<~p. p. 124.
Barker 2006, 118-t 19, 128. As support fo r her themy. B.-wker points out that tht> Deutt>ronomistic theolog)' does not seem hlle1we any room for ,,nge ls. As support sht>
refers to l'>a 37:!6 versus 2 Kgs 19:15. St>e Barke 2006, p. 119 and note 4. As is well
known, th\~re are n\) angels mentiollOO in the t>.IT-version 1lf Oeuteranomy.
104 According to Barker (2(XXI;, I t81 19), the books of Job <Jnd Tobit lllu$ d o not ~.-'Miform
to the Deutei'OMmi!Uic theory of dhine l'eWclrdretributiOI\. However, this seems to
be I'Mher a marginal s tandpllint. Ao; s taled above. many sdl\l lars see dear examples
llf a OeutemnomL<~tic inRuence Oil the theology of the book \l f Tobit.
tOO
lOt
102
liD
4. 1 Tile Book ofTllbit and Wisdom of Soil) mOll and Ihe Gospel of luke
141
Isaiah 9, ' Prince of Peace' represents Raphael. Barker thus claims that
d uring the Sc<:ond Tern pie period the l<>rd was still remcmbcret.i as ''a
duster of angels,., to use her expression.ul5
It seems reasonable that the revelations of the angel of the Lord' in,
for example, Genesis 16 and judges 13 are expressions o f this early
stage of the Israelite religion; 'the angel of the Lord' may be seen as a
manifestation of God o n earth. Hm"rever, I agree with most schola rs
that the angel Raphael in the book of Tobit can hard ly be put in to the
same category .
Like Gabriel in Luke 1, Raphael is clearly presented as an individu
a l separate from God. The mere fact that they both have their own
names indicates their independency as d istinct personalities and dis
tinguishes thern frorn the angel of the Lord, \'ltho is a lways nameless
and a nonymous.II)(,
It is a lso highly questionable that the presence of demonic charac
ters (Satan and Asmodeus) in Job a nd Tobit respectively is an expres
sion of Israel's p reJosian ic faith, sin ce both are portrayed ~1s angel
ic/spiritual beings acting independently and in opposition to God.IU7
lOS Barker 2006, 123- 126. Jsa 9-.5(61 is rende1-ed dif!erentl)' in the ~IT n.nd the LXX. St."e
also chapters 2.2.2 and 3.4. 1 in this dissertatiQn. A.s s hown in chapter 2.2.2. in an eal'lier book Barker ( 1992. 36) inS-tead anibutes the title 'Prince of Peace' to the angel
Phanuet while Raphael is associ.l ted with the tHie 'Eve rlasting Father.'
106 Nole that the angel of the lord i1\ Judg 13: 18 refuses 10 1't'venl his name, as dOtS
Jacob's conter\der in Cen 32:30. C f., Luke 1:19 w here the olngel identifies himself in
front of Zedl ariilh and proclaims: "I a m Gabriel. I s1and in the pre.c;ence of God, and 1
ha\'e been sent to you .. ." &:.e e.g . Tob 12: 15. and FinkeJs1ein 1929, 219220.
107 According to, fo r example, Skem p (2005, 5860), the book of Tob-it and the NT in
many way5 sl ~ 1'e a s imilar demonology.
142
ll t
112
ll3
ll4
th~
earlier wisdom books of PI'Ovebs., Job and Bl~n Sira, 'lady \\1il':dl"lm' in the Wisdom
l"lf Sc\lomon may be d.1ssified a..c~ a hyposta.qi.c;. See also Grabbe 1997, 7780, and Rins
&-en 1947, 115-119. Hl"IWever, according 10 Murphy ( 1992, 926), it is better to talk
aOOm 'l.ady WL"'dom' in this book also a.c; a personification of C'.od'$ wi.sdom, ralher
than as a hypostasis, which view is l>hared by OUI\0 (1989, 163-176).
Sel! also Perdue 199-t 310.313.
The exact meaning of Deul 4:37 and Judg 2:1 i.s. however, del).:l !ed, see dw.pte 3
above.
See also Gie.c;dlen 1998, 98-99, and Fossum 1995, 5762.
Cf.. Exodus 3 w here the angel of the l.o1'<1' is said 10 have appearod to Mose.c; in lhe
bum ing bush. although the one who spe.1ks ro him is dearly Cod Himself. see dl<lpfer 3 above.
4.1 Tile Book ofTllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)nlOil and lhe Gospel of luke
143
them thrt'1ug h the Red Sea, and led them th ro ugh deep waters, (19 ) but she
d rowned their encmk>:S [...) [201Therefore the righ teous plund ered the un
godly? they ,:;an g hymns, 0 Lo rd, to your ho ly name, and praif.ied with une
acct)rd your defen d ing hand ...
In Exod 14:19 the a ngel of God appears in the pillar of cloud, w hile we
read in v. 24 that "the Lord in the pillar of fire looked down on the
Egyptian a rmy, and threw the Egyptian am1y into panic"_l l$ Bu t according to the rende ring of th e exodus in Wis 10:1520, it is ' Lady Wis
dom' "',.ho becomes 'a starry flame' and the hand o f God seems to be
equated \'l.ith her.nf>
The imagery o f 'God's Han d ' in Wis 10:20 recalls the song of Moses
in Exod 1 5:1~18, which is explicitly a lluded to in this verse. In the song
of Moses as well as in \+Visd om, 'the Hand ' d early represents God b ut
in th e la te r text it seems to be yet a nother epithet for 'L1dy \'Visd om'.117
Compare also Wis 11:17 with Wis 9:12, w here God's Word/'Logos',
' Lady Wisdom' a nd 'God's Hand ' arc equa ted w ith each other as in
str umental in the creation o f the world.us In \Vis 18:15 the 'Logos of
God' is said to be the one w ho killed the firstborn o f the Egyptians.
Thus the 'Logos' seems to be id entified with 'the Destroyer'/nn\0~0
mentioned in Exod 12:23b, and in Wis 18:16 the ' Logos' clearly
represents ' the Destroying Angel'/il'ii!Zl.D:i 1~''-' in 2 Sam 24:16 a nd 1 Chr
21:15 .n-t This is noteworthy, since scholars generally agree tha t ' Lady
\Visd om' a nd ' Logos' a re used synon)'mously in \Visd om. Here, the
'wisdom ~ tra diti o n' is fused w ith the 'Logostrad ition' of Hellenistic
ju daism.'"' Compare, for examp le, a lso Wis 18:15 a nd 9:10; both 'Lady
\\' isd om' and the 'Logos' are depicted as having their a bod e in heaven,
tiS
~c
also lsa 63:9 i.n the r..rr where 'the angel of His {God's) pre.<~ence' is credited \'lilh
having delive'ed Israel out of Egypt. Hm'le\er. in the LXX 1-endering of Ol is verse.
any angelic involvement is explicitly d en ied: the deed is aSC'ribed to Cod Himself.
See further chaptel' .H abo\'e and Fossum 1995, 57-39.
116 Cf .. also Sir 24:4 "I ('lady Wisdom'[ dwell in 1he highest heavens, and my lhrone
was in a pillar of doud." See also \\1Lo; 1 8~ .lnd 19:7-8.
ll7 See a lso Cie.o;chen 1998, UX>-101, a1\d j ude 5, where .lcco'<ling hl some mss Jesu..c; is
identified as 1he o ne who brought Israel out oi Egypt. See Blo;o t Co 10:4 <Uld M.ltl
11: 19; 23:34; d ., Luke 7:35; II :49. Fo a discu.!l!iion of this i.o;sue and ron..neclion:; to
' the angel of the lord', see !UIther Fossum 1995, 4 1 ~9. See alo;o Col 2:1-3, t Cot 1:24,
and Suggs 1970,31-61.
118 For a q uotMion of lhese verses, see 8.:cursus 2 below. See alw W is8:4; 9.9; 2 Eu. 30.812, Win.o;ton1979, 38-39, FQS.o;um 1985,288, .md Cie:;chen 1998,93, 100.101.
119 See also Wis '1 8~25. F<lssum 1995, 51, 5562; 1985, 228. and Gk>..'>Chen 1998, 105107.
cr.. Re.v 19:11- 16.
120 See e .g... Wins to n 1979, 3810, and 1992, 125. See also Gr<~bbe 1997, 76-80.
144
lntetpretation..c~ of Genesis
on Cod's throne. How then, a rc \\'e to define the na ture of 'lady \Vis
dom1 ? In a n attempt to answer this question, Gerhard von Rad \Vrites:
... None the l ~ss it is correct to say that wisdom i~ th~ funn in which jah
weh's will and his aco:1mpanying uf man (i.e. hL-; salvation) approaches
man (... } Stilt the most important thing is that w i.sdom dues not tum tO
ward~ man in a shape of an'(!", teaching. guidance, salvatilm o r the like,
but uf a perSOn, a summoning " I,.. So wisdom is truly the fo rm in which
Jahweh makt>S him.sc1f pr(~nt and in which he wishes to be sought by
man. "Whuso find s mtt, finds l if~N ( Pr<N. vrn. 35). Only Jahw~th can speak
m this way. And yet, wi$d01n is not Jahweh himself: it is ~<)mething sepa
rate from h im . . .ut
4.1 Tile Book ofTllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)nlOil and lhe Gospel of luke
145
The Aqedah
In Wis 10:5 it is stated that it was 'lady Wisdom' who gave Abraham
strength during th e Aqedah:llll
['..Vis 10:5] Wisd om a lso, when the nations in wicked agreement had been
p ut to confusion, recognized the righteo us man and pre.ser\cd him b1ame1e.s..,. before C ud, and kept him strung in his compas.o;-ion for his child.
In Genesis 22.- it is ' the angel of the lord' who addresses Abraham and
rescues Isaac but in \Nis 10:5 it is instead 'Lad y W'isdom' w ho is involved in the Aqet.iah.lll
130 In lhe so-called Aplxryphal or Owt~roc-.mon ical Scriptures of rhe OT ther~ arc a few
allusions h) Gen 22!119. 1tamely in Judith 8:2627. 1 MBCc 2:52; Wi.<t J()-.5, and Sir
t:~t
44: I<J.21. Of thec::e. only the l)lle in WL<t 10:5 is o f inteTest for our s tudy.
See illso the allusion to the destruction of Sodl)ffi and Gomorrt~h in Wis 10:6-S. where
'Lady \\1L<~dom' is credited with having. saved 1..<)1, d., Gene.<~is 19 . See also Winston
146
shown him the kingdom of God and to have given hirn knowledge o f
holy things,u.1 most certainly an allusion to Jacob's revelation at Bethel.
Another pos.sible translation of v. 10 is to read ~holy ones' instead of
' holy things'. If we choose this rendering, ' the holy ones' ore probably
the angels he saw in his drearn.
In Gen 28:15a we read that in the d ream God says to j,Kob: " Know
that I am with you and will keep you w herever you go ... " 'L1.dy \+Vis
dom' is also said to have increased the fruit o f jacob's toil while he was
in the service of Laban, something that jacob himself tells his wives was
an act o f the angel o f God (Gen 31:413). Gieschen states that i n this
speech Jacob refers to the G<>t.i who exhorted him to leave Laban (Gen
3 1:3) as identical to this "angei."m \Vis 10:12 seems to aJiudc to Gcn
3 1:24, where '"'e read that when laban pursued the fleeing Jacob, God
appeared to the former in a dream and wamed him not to harm Jacob.
The lost part of Wis 10:12 is probably an allusion to jacob's contest with
' the unknown rnan' in Genesis 32.133
For these reasons it is apparent that the role o f ' lady \'Visdom' in
the passage quoted above is rooted i1' angelomorphic traditions. Thus, I
fu lly agree with Gicsd,cn ""'hen he w rites: "One can see from the Gene-.
sis narrative that most of the events related in \+Vis. 10.10~ 12 involved
I J3 According to Win:>ton (19i9, 217), ' the holy things' may here consist in a vision of
the future Temp~ and th e Levite p1iesthood, an inte1'p1-et.1tion he bases on l p1'esumptive influence of the Tt.; Mml'llf t'lf U;i. C f., the Targumic rende1ings M Genesis
28. see below. See .11!00 Wright 1989, 517.
l34 Gieschen 1998, 102.
135 See a lso \\1in.:;ton 1979, 2 17218. Since 'lady Wisdom' in the pas..<1age quot,~d above is
depic-ted as the p1'0tector of Jacob, it s...~ms likely t1l.l t she is: not to be under.stond as
jacob's opponent in Wi.<~ 10: 12 but rather ll..'l the one who strengthened him ln the
oontest and ens u red his vkto.y. d. Cen 32:28 129) in the LXX. Thus Wis 10: 12, in
turn.. remind.'! me of Ho.yward's interpretation of luke 22.<4.3-H in the light of lhe
LXX rendering of this verse (see fu rlltel' the di!K:u-":tion of LXX Genesis 32 in chapter
3.2.5. According hl Hayward {2005, 32l-327), the LXX \ersion of j.1cob's stru gglt~
may be u nderstood as me-aning that the angel fought alons-;ide Jacob against some
unna med foe .md he arg.ue.'l that luke had jacob's .struggle in mind when he wrote
his \'er.shln of th e 11ight time anguis h l')f je.'lus at Gethscmane. In bllth case.!;, heargue$, an angel was sent hl strengthen Jacob and Jesus. Thu..c~, o.ccmding to Ha)'Ward's
interpretatilln of l uke's passion na.T.l!iw. Ole Evo.ngeiL'It mod elled hL'I version of Jesus' nig.ht at C".elhsemane on J.~oob's st rugg~ .11 jabb&'k: like }lcob, an angel .::ome.<~ hl
support jesus ag.1inst the foe. who in Luke 22:53 is explicitly d efined as ' the pO\..'el' of
darkness'. cr.. \Wstermann's ide ntification of the man of C'.enesis 32 as representing
the d em01\k powe1s {.see chapter 3.2.5). However, he do..~s oot p1-esuppose a third
per.!IOn at Jabbok. To me, Hay"ard's mnection of th e two l'l.ill'l'atives appears rather
spectlalive. becau$11.' it is hard lo imagine a third. unmentioned person at the ford of
)abbok.
4. 1 Tile Book ofTllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)nlOil and lhe Gospel of luke
147
the actions of God as the Angel of the lord."'"' In Wisdom, the hypostatized divine \Visdom has taken over the role o f the angel o f God as
the o ne w ho guided and protected jacob. In the same way as the "an
gel," the personified 'L.1dy Wisdom' appears to be equated with God
Himself. 137
Concluding Rernarks
As we have seen, there arc several examples w here the actions of 'the
angel of the Lord' in the Bible have been attributed to 'divine v~.'isdorn'
in Wisdom. It seems therefore probable that the personification of wis
dorn in this book is dependent upon angclomorphic traditions... to use
Gieschen's expressio n..
4.1.4 Summary and Conclusions
The book of Tobit is full of irnplicit allusions to Genesis 24. This early
jewish novel is not an explicit interpretation or rewriting of the peri
cope but the author was certainly inspired by the biblical narrative
about the wooing of Rebekah. He seems to have modeled his own story
on Genesis 24 as a kind of proto ty pe. The two sto ries share at least two
basic motifs; the importance of marrying a relative and ange1ic protec
tion on a joum ey. Both Tobit and Genesis 24 arc family narratives and
at the same tirne tales of divine g uidance and providence. In both sto~
rics, prayer plays a prominent role.
The words of Tobias' father to his wife in Tob 5:22, "A good angel
will accompany !tim, his joumey will be successful. aud he wUI cmne back,"
remind the reader of the words of Abraharn to his servant in Gen 24:7b;
" ... lte (Cod} wifl send His angel before you, atlli you s!Jal/take a wife for my
son from !!Jere." Angelic guidance and protection o f a traveler is an important element of the plot in both narratives and may be labeled as a
kind o f common typescene. Raphael guides Tobias to Sarah and her
family, and God (by His angel) leads the servant o f Abraham to the
proper wife for Isaac. In both U1e book of Tobit and Genesis 24, the
l36 Gieschen 1998, 102. Even though the angel in Gen 3 1:11 is called ' the angel of God',
Git.>sc:hen (1998, 2.7) has <:hosen to consistently refer to thLc; figure as'IJle ange l of the
lord'.
137 Gie~hen 1998. 98103.
148
4. 1 Tile Book of Tllbit and Wisdom ofSoll)nlOil and lhe Gospel of luke
149
1 50
lhe angel oftlze Presetzce. According to the book's own account, this angel
d ictated the conten t of Jubilees 250 to Moses. The angel o f the Presence
is thus the alleged narrator o f }ubilees.1411 Co rnpare the trad ition that the
Torah was transmitted to Moses through the mediation of angels: Deut
33:23 in LXX, the Vulgate, Peshilta, and the Targums, see also Acts
7:38, 53; Gal 3:19, and Heb 2:2. Jubilees was most probably written in
Hebrew in the land o f Israel d uring the ntiddle of the second century
B.C.E. It seems to have been popular in the Qumran commu nity .
4.2 The
Pseudepig r<~piM
151
l42 Olyan 1993, 1~4 1 09. The quotation of ls.1 63 ~9 is taken from the N KJV, w hich here L<~
based Ol\ the MT. The NRSV, however, transJ,ltes the verse according to th~~ Septu a
ginl's vel"$ion: ,. .. . it wa.c; no mes...;enger or angel. but his presence that sa....ed them
... ~See alc;o chapte rs 2 and J .
143 111 I:Jt"Od 23!20 23 the .mge l is li:nked to God's own na me, cl., also Exod 13:21 22. See
VanderKam 2<XX>a, 385-3SS, and 2001, 86-89. See al'l~l Olyal\ 1993, l<m-l09, and van
Ruite11 2007, 593 594.
l44 Guiley 2004,45.
l45 Guiley 201).1, 45. The ilJ\gels of the P1~ce are often equated with the four m sewn
archangels. Ange lic hier.uchies b uill l.lp<>n four archangels usua11y include 1\lichllt'l,
GabrieL RapiMel <uld Uie i/Surie l. See Gutm ann/Edilotial Staf/ 1971, 962 963, Sch~
tem 1971. 1549, and v.m Henten t995b, 150-153.
l l6 Gutmlmn/ Editori,ll st.l!f 1971. % 2 96.1. G11iley's lis t includes (besides !'vlich.ael}: Meta
trOI\. Suriel., S..mdalph~ln, As tanphaeus, Sarakiel, Plt.mue l. jehoel. ZagzagaeL Urie t
Yefefial\. S.1baoth, tu~d Akatriel. Ac>l'dillg to her, the angels of the Pre.c;enre are also
equated with the angelc; of Glor)' Gulley 2004, 45. In addiliol\ to }ubilt'ts, th e angels
of the Presence are mentioned in the Ttst.limttJts tif 111( T<f>d :..- P.ttri.u clrs, 1 Euocl a1\d
ill the LJ~ of Adam aud Ew. They appe..u also in the Qunwan lite r.llure, see Seow
1995, 611 6 13, and Olya n 1993, lOS.
4
152
(cf., Exod 24:8; 34.10, 27; Deut 4:23; 5:2; 9:9, and Gen 12:1).1" There thus
appears to be a merging of God's and t-his angel's iden tity in Jubilees, as
is the case concerning God a nd the angel of the Lord in the Bible.t~~
4Q225
l11is Qumran manuscript has been classified as part o f Pseudr>}ubUees'.
Th e accoun t o f the Aqed a h in this document is s imilar to that in Jubilee$
but there a re also diffe rences. l11e manuscrip t p robably bears witness
to yet anothe r version of Gen 22:1 ~19. lt is unclear w hether or not the
document is an o rigina l version of Jubilet"S. Th e manuscript is written in
Hebrew and c.."ln be dated sometime between the las t years of the fi rst
century B.C.E. and the beginning of the first century C. B.'~
4Q158
Th is Qu mran document be longs to a group of five poorly preserved
manuscripts w hich have been classified as reworkings o f the Penta~
teuch, all of which may be dated to the first cen tury B.C.E. 4Q158 is
inclu ded in my am,lysis because it contains a frag mentary paraphrase
of Genesis 32.130 The manuscript exhibi ts a noteworthy deviation from
the MT that will be discussed belov,r but, because of the briefness of the
section dealing v,rJth this source, there \'ltill be no surn mary of the re~
sults. 1'1
4.2 The
Pseudepigr<~piM
153
Testament of Jacob
TogeU,er with the Testament oft.snnc, tile Testament of Jacob ultimately
derives fTom an apocryphal book probably w ritten in Greek during the
first century C.E. by a Jewish a u th or in Egypt, which deals with u,e
death of Abraham. The three texts are collected under the title Testa
tmmts of lite Three Patrinrclzs. In their present fonn, they aU show obvious
signs of Christianization. It is, however, certain that the original Testa
ment of Abralzam was a Jewish work, and its Jewish character is still ap
p arent. There are more 01risti~1n elements in the Tt>stament of Isaac and
Tt"Sfnment of Jacob but it may nevertheles.,.;; be worthwhile to take a look
at the latter.J$.1
152 For more information, see Harri11gron's inrroduC1ion to the book in OTP, vol 2, 1985.
297-300. I use his Englis h triul..!llation of UWr Auliquitalum Biblic.trllm ill OTP, vol. 2.
1985, 304-377.
153 See Sanders' introduction in OTP \'ol. L 1983, 869-880. I use the Engli<>h tnmslation
l')f rhe Ttstll'llll.,lr &J /tkl!b b)' Stinespring found i11 O TP, vol. I, 1983, 91-1918. The bl"ll'de rtine between Chris-tian ity a nd Judai!tm was probabl)' q uite \'ague for 3 lo11ger
time in the region of the Ea.<>tern amrd us than in the We.<~!.
154 Charlesworth 1992.609.
154
ln tetpretation..c~ of Genesis
LSS I use lunt's ll'aMiation 1lf the Lmlol~r if lob in OTP, vol. 2, 1985, 407-4 1L see his
introdu<:tion on pp. 40'1406.
l56 Kugel 1993, 209227. Kugel's reasons are based both on the content l"'f l.a.lder of};IC(!b
and the many HOOrew words that s urvive in th e transC'ription l"'f the text Kugel
point$ outthllt the1-e are many conne<:til"'ns between thi$ source and Rabbinic exeget
icaltrllditi~"'ns. See alc;o Kugel 1990. 117 119.
157 tunt introduction in OTP, vol. 2, 1985, 402-403, see aloo Kugel, 1990, I 17 119, tmd
Charleswoth 1992, 609.
158 Howe\er, a~ will be s hown below. the i.<1sue of whetl\el' ja<:l"'h is hl be t1nderstood
literally <IS the iJtotruation of the angel in this te)!t is a moot point.
l59 See Smith's introduction hl the Proyer ofj flf;tp/l in OTP. vol. 2, 1985, 699.
l60 Additioncl ll). fragment B is .1lso quoted in Eu~bi us., J11e PJ\"{Jivatimt dj fht: QISpd, and
Procopius' l a tin commentary on Genesis,. see Smith's introduction in OTP, vol. 2,
t 9S5. 699.
155
many parallels between the text and early Hellenistic and Ararnaic
material. '..,.
Because of the few remains of the Prayer (if }osepll, its original Ian
guage is veiled in obscurity. Scholars w ho regard it as an origin~' I jewish '"rork assume that it was written in Ararnaic, while those w ho claim
Chris tian authorship advocate a Greek original. The opinions likewise
differ conccn1ing its provenance; either Alexandria or Palestine. A~
cording to Smith, a Jewis h o rigin al context and <1uthorship is th e mQ...c;t
probable, because the work contains many dose parallels in tedmical
terms, narrative traditions and theology to both Hellenistic and Pales
tinian judaism. Thus O rigcn '"'as probably correct w hen he defined the
Prayer of ]O&f11l as a Jev~.rish composition.lt.:.!
Joseph and Aseneth
}o.seplr nmt Asenetll is a romance written by an anonyrnous author. It i.e; a
The main d 1aracters in the novel are the patriarch joseph and his
wife Asencth, the Egyptian girl whom, according to Gen 41 :45, joseph
married '"hen he entered the service of Pharaoh. The story builds and
elaborates on the biblical joseph's and Aseneth' s relationship and tries
to answer the intriguing q uestion o f why Lhe pious and God~fearing
joseph actually married the daughter of a pagan Egypti,m priest. "'
156
Jubilees has no version of Gen 16:7 14, only an accoun t based on Gen
21:921.'"'<: Perhaps the author viewed the two pericopes as two versions
of the same sto ry, the destiny of Hagar and her e ncoun ter \Vith the an
gel o f the Lord . Contextually it correspond s to the narrative in Genesis
21 an d is placed just before the story of the b inding o f Isaac, Gen 22:119.
As in the Bible, it is said that Abra ham drove away Hagar and his
son Ishmael very unwillingly. God had to command him to obey Sarah's w ish in this matter, ]ub. 17.4-7. God promised Abraham that he
would take care of Ishmael: "But rega rd ing the son of this girl, I will
make him into a great people because he is from your seed/' }ub.17.7.
111e expu lsion of Hagar and her son is described in Jub.17.17c-18a as
one of the many trials of Abraham. \+Ve find the coun te rpa rt to Gen
21:17-21 in fub.l 7.11-14:
And WI angel of th~ Lord, ont! (if the holy ones, said to her, "\>Vhat are you
weeping for, Hagar? Having arisen, p ick up th e child and take h im in your
arms hl!cau .se flu: tORD lms lu:1ml your wicc wul he lias ~ettn tile child." And
she (lptuctl her eye..; and she saw a well of water. And sh ~ went and filled
the water skin. And sh e gave the child a drink and an:r.:;e and went toward
l67 Hanson, il\trodu(.tion OTP \'OL 2. 191)5, 843-844. I tLc;e his translation of the Pseudep igraphon in OTP, VOL 2. 1985, 848-854.
168 Ho.,..ever, in fub. 24.1 there is a 1<eference to 1he Well of the VLc;ion' , i.e., the well
where,. <Jcoording hl C".enl6: 13-H, the a ngel ll f the Lotd appe;u-ed to Hagar.
4.2 The
Pseudepigr<~piM
157
the de:..;ert of Parnn. And the child gre,.,.. and wa~ a hun ter. And 1/w LORD
was w ith h im. An d his mother tonk a w ife for h im from the maid s of
Egyp t. And she (the w ife] bore a son for him (Ishmael] and he called him
Nebaioth becaus~t, sh~ (J-Iagar?J said, "the LORD wtJS new I() me when I ctllled
toflim.N [my italicsJ.
Jubilees' version is very similar to the biblical account.- but there are also
differences. The angel of God is here called "a11 augel of tl~e Lord, oue of
01e l10ly oues." Jubilees d oes not tell us from w here the angel spoke to
Hagar. In contrast to the Bible, the heavenly emis.-c;.ary is depicted in
}ubih>es as an u nspecified angel, one among mauy in the heavenJy court.
The divine narne used is the Lord/YH\+VH. T11e angel is not labeled ~1s
belonging to the angels of the Presence. As we t-vill sec, this is the case
in jubilees' account of Lhe binding of Isaac. The angel of the lord is there
iden tified as the narrator himself. I"\!
As in the Bible, the angel in Jub.l7.12 speaks about God in the third
person singular, as someone distinct from himself; " ... because the
Lord has heard your voice and he has seen the child ... " In Gen 21:l7b
we read; " .. . Do not be afraid; for God has heard the voice of the boy
w here he is.u According to the biblical account, however, the angel of
God thereafter S\Vitches to the first person singular and says to Hagar
that" ... I will make a great nation of him," Gen 21:18b. In Jubilus, the
angel is not said to have made such a statement to Hagar, but the
promise is mentioned as God's words to Abraham in Jub.1 7.7. 1~
Some differe nces of les..o:.;er s ignificance are that in the Bible it is the
voice of /he lad that God heard, while in Jub. 17.12 it is the voice of Hagar and He is &1.id to /rave .seeu lire child, the latter being an addition to
the biblical version.m Moreover.- in the Bible, it is God who open.s the
eyes of Hagar in order for her to see the well, but Jub. 17.12b simply
states that" ... site (Hagar) opened her eyes and she saw a v.reJI of water
... '' Maybe the wording '' ...God opened her eyes ... " appeared too
anthropomorphic for the author o f Jubilees.
To\"'' ards the end of the version in Jubilees we find some interes ting
information, not recorded in this context in the Bible: "And she [the
wife of Ishmael] bore a son for him and he (Ishmael] called him Ne-
169 ~e illso Vande Kam 2001, 52. and Ashton 1994, 83-.84.
I 70 ~e pte\ious pag~.
171 This is prob,;lbly an auempt by the authMof Jubilees to harmoni1.e the biblical story,
w herein there is a contrildiction concerning this maner: " .. . And a.<~ s.h e !Hagar} sat
opposite him (l<>hma.eiL she lifted up her voice and wept. And God heatd the \'Oice
of the bl')y; a od the angel 1"lf Cod c-alled to Hagar front heavell. . .'' Tile Swed ish Bible
2000 follows the LXX and states that il l\.~s the boy, not Hag.u. who w ept.
158
baioth because, she (Hagar?] said.~ 1The LORD was near to me when I
called to him,"' Jub.1 7.14bc. "'
My interpretation, based o n the context, is that the woman who in...
spires Ishmael to call h is son Nebaioth must be ide ntified as Hagar. The
name refers back to the rescue o f Ishmael's mother a nd himself by the
angel of God in the d esert: God heard Hagar weeping a nd in His mercy
sent her an angeL Th is pa rallels the naming o f her own son in Gcn
16:11: " ... Now you have conceived and shall bear a SQn; you shall call
h im Ishmael, for the LORD has given heed to your affliction."
172 In the Bible, Nebaioth i.'l mentioned in Cen 28:9: "'So E.<~au went to lshmael and took
1\l<lhalath the d.1ughler o f Ish mael. Abraha m' s son. tftt sis ter dj "-'clMjaiJt, to be his
wife in addition to lhe Wi\'eS he had:'' See <als.o Cen 25: 13.
4.2 The
Pseudepigr<~piM
159
Uul,. 17:16)
173 According to /lib. 17. 1718, God had already tested Abraham in n\BI\)' way!i and h.ad
found him fai thful. T he commandment h) offe1 ls..lac is depicted as Abraham's final
174
175
176
l77
178
160
james VanderKam points o ut that the only two contexts w here the an
gel of the Presence and prince Mastema are explicitly men tioned together in JubUees are the Aqed ah and the events leading up to the Ex
odus from Eg)'pt. In Jul>. 48.2 prince Mastema is charged with the ottempt to kill Moses but the latter was saved by the angel of the Pres
encc.111z According to Jub. 48.131 the angel o f the Presence stood ben.vcen
the Egyptians and the Israelites, in the same way as he describes him
l79
S..~e
Bern.<~tein
Kister 1994, 10. \'an Ruilel\ (2002. 84-85), howe\er, questil"lOS the dependence of /llbi
ltv:s upml lhe book of Job by pointi ng out severa l diffe1-ences between the naiTative of
the Aqedah in /ttbile'.t'S a1\d Job's trial. For example, in }ullilas it i.<> \..od Himself hho
remains in charge. As in Gene.<>is22,. it is C.od who tesL<~ Abraham. But in the lxll")k of
Job, God puts Job into the hands of Satan.
ISO lui 18.16. The purpose of rhe tial was thus nllt ro pnwe son'Lt'lhing to God, who is
l)mni-sdent, see also V<~nderKam 2001, 52.
LSI Note that the angel of lhe Presence firs.1 talks about God in rhe lltird p~'tSI.m, but in the
end !i.:lys: ..... and you d id not deny your firstbom son to me." C f., the biblical text.
182 In the Bible lhe a uaclcer is identified as Cod Himself: "And i! came to pa..<>s on the
way, at the e.ncampmenr, that the LORD met him fMllSt'Sl a nd Sllught to kill him:''
Exod 4:24.
4.2 The
Pseudepigr<~piM
161
The angel of the Lord in Gen 22:11 -12 is thus identified with the angel
of the Presence in Jubilees, '"'h ile the secQnd calling to Abrahanl in Gen
22:15-18 is ascribed to God Himself. It is, however, puzzling that
Jub.18.14 states that the Lord called Abraham by his n.mle ngaiu, since
according to fub. 18.10-11 it was the angel of the Presence who called
him by name the first time. 'A'h cn comparing the d ifferent manuscripts,
VandcrKam proposes that according to the original text it is still the
angel who speaks to Abra ham in Jub. 18.14, but we cannot be certain
about the original wording of the verse.185 There is a certain incQnsis
toney in fub. 18.9-15. In Jub. 18.9-13, the a ngel of the Presence speaks in
the first J."lerson singular as the one a nd only angel in the Aqedah, w hile
in the quotation above he seems to include Qther angels who were also
active in the first calling to Abraham.
Concluding Remarks
In Jubilees' version of the binding of Isaac (Gcn 22:1 -19) it is the demonic
p rince Mastema who is the in itia tor of the action. In Jub. 17.15 we read
162
that " ... word s came in heaven concerning Abraham that he was fai th
ful in everything ... " This refers most assuredly to an alleged discus
sion among the a ngels. Prince Maste ma is said to h ave questioned the
truth of this state me nt. Because o f h is accusations concerning Abraham,
God decides to put the latter on trial. The scenario p receding the Aqe
dah probably partly o riginated as an in te rpretation of Gen 22:1; " After
these things God tested Abraham .. . " but foremost d ue to a wish to
ju stify God. The transferring o f the initiative fro m God to prince Mas.tema explains the reason for the trial and solves a theological problem.
The a ngel o f the Prese nce narrates th e story in the first person sin
gular and iden tifies himself as the o ne \vho called out to Abraham o n
the first occasion in o rder to prevent h im from oornplcting the sacrifice.
The a ngel of the lord in Gen 22:11 12 is in Jubilees thus said to be u,e
angel o f the Presence. Like th e a ngel o f the lord in the Bible, the angel
of the Presence first spe,, ks about God in the third person singular bu t
in the end he refers to himself; " ... I know that you are one wllo fenrs tile
Lord and you did not de ny your firstborn son to 111~' Uub. 18.11b). AI
though the a ngel of the Presence in Jub. 18.911 appears to be distinct
from God, th e biblical a mbiguity still remains.
Hm.,ever, the angel of the Lord 's second call to Abraham recorded
in Gen 22:15 18 is ascribed to God Himself in Jub. 18.14 15. Jubilees is
thus not e nt irely consistent in its identification of the angel of the Lord
in Gen 22:1 19. But if \\'e are to believe VanderKam, it may have been
the angel of the Presence v,ho o nce more spoke to Abraham in the o rig *
inal version o f Jub. 18 .14. Another p uzzling issue in fub . 18.14 is that the
narra tor refers to other a ngels involved in the Aqedah.
4Q225
Th e only pericope o f relevance to our study that has a counterpart in
this document is Gen 22:119; the text usually designated as the Aqedah
(even though the actual bin ding of Isaac is not mentioned in 4Q225).
The source has been labeled 'Pseudo-jubilees', and there are indeed
many similarities ben.,cen the renderings of the Aqcdah in the two
texts. Prince Mastema has the sarne function in 4Q225 as in Jubih--es; he
accuses Abraham before Cod o f lov ing Isaac more than God,. and in
this way initiates the trial.
We also e ncounter some new in fo rmation here. According to Geza
Vermes1 4Q225 bears 1t....-itness to the tradition that Abraham s..1w a 'fire'
4.2 The
Pseudepig r<~piM
163
marking the div ine presence on the sacrificial site.lllf> This tradition is
moreover to be fo und in Targum Pseudo ~joun tllan, Genesis RabbaiJ, and
P;rqe de Rabbi EUezer. The synagogue mosaic o f Sepphoris also seems to
testify to this interpretation of the Aqedah.' 117 Florentino Garcia Martinez, however, doubtc; this reading o f 4Q225.'~
A d earer d ifference between this source and JubUees is the mention
in 4Q??5 of /l~e holy angels .standing niJ<liJe (the altar?) weeping for Isaac's
sake, while lite angels of Mastemalllle at~gels of nuimosily are said to rejoice
w hen they see that Abraham is about to kill Isaac. According to Garcia
Martinez, the purpose of Mastcma's p lan in testing Abraham was to
abort the promise of posterity through lsaac.1" The weeping of the ho ly
angels is mentioned in other sources 1w but the presence of several de-mon ic a ngels in the Aqedah is something u nique to 4Q225. Th e a ngel's
first caJI in order to p revent Abraharn fro rn sacrificing his son is not
mentioned, b ut the o ne w ho finally stops h im from sacrificing Isaac
seems here to be ide ntified as God Himself.
The ending o f the Aqedah'., in 4Q225 d iffers from both the biblical
version a nd Jubiletos' account. It is there stated that God b lessed Lo;aac all
the days o f h is life. The name of God is rendered :1'1:7'
'God
1
YHWH.' "
'K
186 See the English t:ranslat:ion of 4Q225 (4Q226) by Vermes, 1997, 509, and Vermes 1996,
H0-146. S..~e al'lo the textual notes on 4Q225 in DJD XIII. Qunmw C.WI' 4. P.mlliblical
Text:;, par1 J. 1994. 15 1.
187 See below. C f., also Exodus 3.
ISS Garda Martine;,o. 2002. 5'1-52.
189 Garcia Martinez 2002. 55.
190 See d 1apte 4.5. See also the textu al notes 011 4Q225 in DJD XIII. QtmrM Cazl' 4.
Paml>iblical Te:rls, p.ut I, 1994, 152.
191 Garda Martinez (2002, 47) hesit.l tes to use the d esignntion ' Aqed.l h' <:l')l\cenl ing the
rel\deing of Gen 22:1-19 in 4Q225, becou..'le the actual binding of ls.a.ac is one of the
elements of the s tmy omined ill the document
192 According to Gtuda Mart:inez, this detail oontradiciS a Qumran o rigin l'lf the compositioll. He illso daim.<~ tha t 4Q225 ~ou ld be diffe1-entiated from /ubilo:s. He write.<~: "'II
belongs Lhus neithe to /t~bilt-es nor to the Qum ral\ tmdi!ioll. Thi.'l ..:ha r.-.ch~ris.tic
makes il even more interesting. in so fa as it witnesses to the development and
growth of the traditions around the Aqedah, though not in a p.wticular sectarian
oontel<t of fhe Judai.o;m of the time.."' see Garcia Martinez 2002. 56-37.
164
believe Vermes, one is that 4Q225 bears \Vitness to the tradition that
Abraham saw a 'fire' marking the sacrificial site as holy. This read ing of
the manuscript is, however, very uncertain and doubted by among
others, Garda ~.fartinez.
Another and in this case obvious difference between }ubUees and
4Q225 is the appearance of several holy angels weeping for Isaac as
well as the reference to a multitude of angels o f animosity, who are said
to rejoice when they think that Abraham is about to kill his son. These
angelc;, both the good and the bad ones, have no coun terparts in the
Bible. The one who prevents Abraham from slaughtering Ts..1.ac in
4Q225 seems to be id entified as God Himself, clearly d istinguished
from the v~.reep ing/rejoicing angels.
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and Demetrius the Chronographer
In Liber Antiquilnlum Biblicnrum there are a fe\'~.r allusions to the Aqedah
in the retelling of the revelation of God to Balaarn, the victory chant of
Deborah and Barak, and the story about the daughter of Jephd1ah,'" cf.,
Numbers 22; Judges 5 and 11:30-40). It is only the first two references
that are of interest for o ur quest. In L.A.B. 18.5 God says to Baalam:
... And I demand ed his (Abraham's) S<)n a.s a hoh'>e:aust. And he brought
him t<) be placed c.m the a ltar, but 1gtntt him luu:k UJ his jfllher and, bt>ca.u.se he
d id not refuse, hi::. offering was acceptable before me, and un account of his
blood I chose them. And then I $nit/ to the rmgds who wt>rk ~cretly, 1'u ' Did I
not say regcmHng this, I will rc-vclll cr~trylllitrg I mu doiu,o,: to Abmltnm .. .'[my
italics).
193 LAB. 18.5; 32.14, and 40. 1-9. In the last mentioned reference, Jcphthah'..c~ d.mghter
oom p.ill"eS herself with Isaac, w hom she considers as a I'Oi e model.
19-1 Or: N the angels of the sevice.. .... IEng. lran.c;. Jacobson.. 1996, 1181. ~e alc;o h i~
oommentMy on p. 581.
16S
him, C<x l said to him IAbrah am], 'Kill the fru it of yt)ur body for me, and
offt!r for me as a sacrifiru what has been given to yuu by me.' 1W [my italics).
The angels thus play a similar role as prince .Mastema in jubilees. According to L.A. B. 32.4, Isaac is saved at the last moment by God Himself
And w hen he (Abraham) had offered his son upon the altar and had buund
his fet!t so as ft) kill him, the J\<fc>:;f P<)U'erful futsk11ed mul se11t forth llis r-v.1ice
from o n high saying. 'Y()u shall nul slay yo ur son, nor shall you d e::troy the
fruit of yuur body. For O()W I have appeared so as f<') reveal you to thu.o;e
w ho du not kno w you amlllat"'t' s/ud the mouths of fftO:;e w1r<1 mc tJiu~tr.vs sptakillg roil agllinst you .. .'(my italics].
The purpose of the trial was thus to pro\'e the fidelity o f Abraham to
the angels and the rest of the \"-'Orld. 1.,.; As in LAB. 18.5, no specific
angel of lhe Lord is mentioned.
In contrast to Liber Arlliquitnlum Biblicarum, the rendering of the
Aqedah in Demetrius tile Cflrouograplze-r is quite simil.u to the biblical
account; there is o nly one angel mentioned, and as in the Bible it is he
w ho prevents Abraham from oompleting the sacri fice. However, in
contrast to the biblical story, there is no ambivalence between the angel
and God. The o ne w ho saves Lsaac is clearly an angel distinct from God:
But no lung a ftt~r Cod C(lmmanded Abrah am tu offer his S<m J.saac (. . .).But
w hen he was alx)ut 10 sacrifice him? he wa:; prevented by an ang(~(, who
pnwid ed him with the ram for the burnt uffering ... 197
Concluding Remarks
Simil.u to 4Q225, Liber Auliquitatum Biblicarum refers to a multitud e of
angels involved in the Aqed ah but they are not said to have either wept
or rejoiced . Their role is instead described as similar to that o f prince
Mastema in both ju/Jilet>s and 4Q22S, be<:ause according to L.A. B. 32.11>2, it was the jealous angels who provoked God into subjecting Abra.
ham to a trial. In both L.A. B. 18.5 and 32.1b2, the angels are d epicted as
'walkers-on' in the drama; they are spectators 'behind the scenes.' It is
God Hirnself who c..1lls out to Abraham at the las t moment and saves
Isaac from being sacrificed. There is no specific angel o f the Lord who
interferes.
However, in the short reference to the Aqedah in Deme-trius tire
C!Jrouograp!Jer, the saving of Isaac is ascribet."' to an angel, acting on
166
God's be half. but d istinguished from h im. As in the Bible, there are no
oth er a ngels mentioned in the story.
Jubilees
jncolJ's dream nl Bethel
Th e context of the na rrative (Gen 28:10..22) is the same ~1s in the Bible.
Jacob is forced to leave his home because of the conflict v,.rith his broth
er. In co ntrast to the biblic41l version. hmvever, Rebeka.h is said to ha ve
been infonned in a dream of Esau's pla ns for revenge and thus advises
her son to flee to her brother Laban in Ha ran. Isaac also agrees to Ja
cob's journey and with the b lessing of his father Jacob thus departs
from home.' 9 " \>Vhen he has left.- Rebekah grieves for her son; she is
worried a bo ut h im a nd weepsi Jub. 27.13. Isaac comforts her <1nd says:
Uub. 2 7. 14] " M y sister, do mlt wf>t'!p ( )0 aca">unt of Jacob, my son, because in
peace he will journey and in peace he will return. [15) God !\lust High wiJI
protect him fro m aU evil and M will be with him because he will not fo rsake h im all of h is days, (16J fur I kn(l W that he will make hi~ way~ pruspe r
e\'erywh~re h~ g<~S until he retums tu us in peace and we ~(>e h im in
peace ...N
Isaac is confident that God will protect Jacob on his journey and that he
will return home safely. The theine of divin e p rotection when traveling
is sorneth ing we recogn ize from both Genesis 24 a nd the book of Tobit.
Although Jub. 27.13-18 is based on Gen 28:1-5,"' many scholars have
noted a rema rkable similarity between Tob 5:18~22 a nd this p~,ssage.
ln the same way as Isaac, Tobit comforts h is '''ife w hen their son Tobias
lea ves home in order to go to Media: "A good angel w ill accompany
h im; h is joum ey will be successful. and he will oome back" [Tob 5:22).
In jubilee.s, hov,tever, it is God in person who is said to directly exe rcise
His protection, not an an gel." 11
21111
cr., lhe pta}'er ol Isaac for hL~; son Jacob in Gen 28:3-4.
200 See.. e.g., Molwe, 1996. 193-194.
201 Dupont-$i)mmer (1968, -I I 1-126) daim.o; lhal lhe Naulhor" of Tobil was inspired by
/ubill'ts. Because Tobit's a!lgelology is mol'e d evekped in thi.~; p.1ssnge. he concludes
199
that /11bil~'l'S is earli.e Lhan the book of Tobit. A~; shown in the quobltion. l!iaac 1-efe~
to God's pesonal protection, but in Tobit th e pnlle<tion is exercised by Lhe angel
Raphael. Hm..-ever. moM scllol<l ~ consider the ca$e Lobe the oil~ way around: the
'aurho~ of /clbih'l'S used Tobit as a model and SOUl\.-e of inspiratio1\. The book of Ju-
4.2 The
Pseudepigr<~piM
167
jacob thus leaves the land of his birth in order Lo escape the revenge
of his brother Esau and, as in the Bible, God encoun ters him on the
way. We can read about jacob's dream at Bethel in Jub. 27.19-27./ubi
lees' version of the revelation is very similar, in fact almost iden tical, to
the biblical accoun t. Jacob sees in his dream a heavenly ladder with
angels ascend ing and d escending on it. 200 God stands above the stair..
case and speaks to him; jub. 27.21-22.211' In verse 24 we read that God
says to jacob:
Ur1l,. 27.24) " ... And beh(lld, I shall be with }'(lU and I .shall protect you everywhere you gu. And I shall bring you back into this land in peace because
I shall n ut fo rsake Yl)U until I du everything w hich J have said to you."
This verse is virtually identical to Gen 28:15 and it is also an echo o f the
words of Isaac in Jub. 27.1516, as quoted above.
As in the Bible, the God w ho addresses Jacob is clearly distin
guished fro m the angels w ho go u p and down o n the ladder. Jacob's
reaction to the heavenly vision in Jub. 27.2:.,...27 is the same as in Gen
28:1618.
]ilcob eventualJy an-ives at his destination, works there fo r his u ncle
L1ban and marries the latter's two daugh ters Leah and Rachel;-Jubilees
28, compare Genesis 29-30.
Jacob's sec.rmd dream
We find u,e shortened coun terpart o f Gen 31:2-21 in Jub. 29.14. laban
and his sons have become jealous of Jacob, who decides to flee. We
read in verse 3:
Mlets. is g:~nerally OOfl.<iidered to be lal~r than Tobit. See, e.g., MoMe, 1996, 194. As
!thown previously, ang~ls play a more predominal\t role in other parts of jubirm,
and it seems e\id~nt that /tMitcs generally ha..<; tluite an ad\anced ang~lol og:y. See a lso /ltb. 35.16-17, a passage ill which h;.l.lC once again ensm-es his w-ife of jacob's divine protection: NAnd you (Rebekah) should not fear on aocoun1of Jacob because the
protector of jat---ob is greater alld mightie Ll\oln l11e protector of Ec;au.N hl the light of
/lib. 27. 13-18, the most pmbable interpretation of Isaac's assurance in /teb. 35.16-17 is
th,l t "the protech'>l' of j.lCCib" is Cod Himself. How,~ver, if we are to believe Charles
( 1902.. 209, ntlle 17), the latter pas.c;age is Ole ea rliest 1-efe ~nce 10 Jewish belief ill
gu ardian angels . The i:sue L'l in tum diS>Cussed b) Hannah (2007, 4~424) who .l iS..J
interpreLc; the pa.c;s.1ge in this way, vJith the 1-esetvation that he mailltains that the
angel Raphat>l's role in Ole book of Tobit must be counted a s the earliest w itJless to
the belief ln guardian angels.
202 }11bil~rs does"'-'' offer 311)' ~xpl.lna tion of the meallillg of l11e stairway/ladder or the
pre.<~ellce or the ang~ls in Jacob's d n~am.
203 Wintermute has here chose' lhe rranslatioll 'stain"'' Y: not 'ladder:' God/the LORD
is depicted as sblnding abme it. Howeve1, Ch..wles' English transl.l tion has the wo1'<1
' ladder' which God is s.1id ttl be standing uptm; see }ul. 27.21 22 hl AOT. 1984, 87.
4
168
Unlike in the biblical narrative, jacob is said in Jub. 3 1.3 to have invited
h is fathe r and mother to come to Bethel in order to participate in the
sacrificial service. Jacob visits his parent~ and his son Levi is or
dained/blessed as a p riest by Isaac: " May he (God] draw you [levi] a nd
your seed near to hirn frorn all flesh to serve in his sa.nctuary as tire
angels of /he Pn>se11ce nt1d /l~e l10ly o11es ... " Uub. 31.14). The a ngels o f the
Presence are thus considered to perform a p riestly role in heaven.211s
jacob tells h is father that God has shown him m ercy a nd protected
him from all evil, and now the time has come for the fulfillrnen t o f the
vow he o nce made to God in Bethel, fub. 31 .24-26.a16 Because of the
weakness of old age, Isaac does not follow Jacob to Bethel to participate
20.J Wil\temute OTP, \'OI. 2, 1985, Ill. Winte1m ute is probably ro-ect in hi.<~ B...'lsump
rion. We nHL<~r, howeve r, oon.<~ide r Lhe poe;sib-iliry that the wcwding. in }ub. 29.3 may be
delibe rah~ly ambiguous, leaving it to lhe 1\~ade r to interpret the pron oun a..c~ l'eferl'ing
either to God or to an angel. See alc;o Hayward 2005, l i..Jl 16.
205 ~e also the Test1TJUI"tlf ofL11i.
206 C., }tb. 27.13- 18 and C'.en 48: 16.
4.2 The
Pseudepigr<~piM
169
in the service but Rebekah accompanies him, Jub. 31 .26-3(). The whole
of chapter 31 is d ed icated to Jacob's preparation for the sacrifice on the
altar he has built at Bethel and hence the accomplishment of his vow.
jubilees 32 describes jacob's sacrifice and tithe at Bethel, w hile his
son Levi functions as a priest during the service.w ln the second nig ht
at Bethel. God appears once more to Jacob, blesses him and gives him
his name lsraei.Jub. 32.1719 is thus a counterpart of Gen 35:9-13.~"
ln jrtb. 32.16 we read that jacob wants to b uild a sanctuary at Bethel,
but he is later prevented by an angel from accomplishing this plan:
Uu(J. 32.21 J And he (Jacob] saw in a ujsion uf til~ nisllf [a d ream? Cf., I Sam
3:5; Isa 29:7V'l9 and lx!hold att (mgd was descending from heaven, and there
were seven tablet!; in his hand$. And he g;we {them) to Jacub, and he read
them. and he knew everything whkh was written in them, which Wl)uld
happen to him and his sons during all tM ages r...) [23) And he (the angel]
said to him1 "Do nvt build this place, and do not make an eternal sanch.tary, and do not d well here because this is not thL> pJacl! ...
N
207 One nigh t in Bethel. God confi1ms to Le\i i.n a dn~am tha l he and his son.<~ ha"e been
l)l'dnined as priesL'I of Gtld forever, /Ill~ 32. 1. See also T. Levi 2Al2, where Lf'vi is said
to lhwe been Mken up to heaven by an angel <lnd ordained a priest, d ., alo;ll dhlpters
Sand 9 in the Pseudepigraphon. According (0 Kugel (201.16. 11>168), the rr.:ldition
th.u an angel was i11volwd in Levis coven.m t wilh Clld is b.1sed on an ancienl illterpretatiol\ of Ma l 2:47. Although !he t\ame of the holid.1y is no! explicilly m.enlioned
i.n fubilm 32. Jacob's oolcbation in Bethel seems to be cmmected fO Sukkolh, a nd /teb.
32.2729 mosr rertclinly refers to the in.o;tiluti(ln of Slltmiui Atst'rd:
Alld he l)acob) obsen ed lhe~ yet one (mMe) day .:lnd he sacrificed in ir according to
everything which he had been SBcrificing on the prwious days. And he called il
<Additioll"' be<ause lhat day wa.'l added. bul lhe p1
-eviou$ {days) he c.1lled ,..the
feast.... [ .. .1Thereflll'e ir was revealed h) him sochM he miglu obsene ililnd add it to
the se"en d ays of the feast. And it was called <Addirillll"' becalL'ie il is w l'illen (on
high) in the a !testation of feast d Bys acco.ding lo the number of d ays of tll,~ year.
Pscudo~fomUium
to Gerte:;is 35.
208
170
of the law and k>:Stimony accunHng to their weeks (of yt!arSJ according to
the Jubilees., year by year throughout the full num~ r uf J ubile~. from {the
day of creati<'ln untilJ the day of the new creation when the heaven and
earth an all of their creatures s:hal1 be renewed 1... ) until tht~ sanctuary of
the LO RD is creatt>d in Jeru$alt!m upo n Muunt Zion ...
In his happiness over Lhe reunion with Joseph,. Jacob looks back a t his
life and recalls the vision a t Bethel. Jacob exclaims that God has indeed
kept the promise he once made to him there;" And behold, 1 [God] shall
be with you and I shall protect you ... "
Concluding Remarks
In Jubilt-es' rendering o f the Jacob narratives, God Himself st..1nds out as
the o ne w ho appears to the patriarch during his travels and hard
171
ship s."' Th e only exception is the angelophany in jub. 32.21 23, which
lacks a coun te rpa rt in the Bible. The angel w ho gives Jacob the seven
tablets concerning the fu ture of h is descend a nts is anonymous b ut fo r
contextual reasons we may assurne that he is to be identified as the
angel o f the Presence, compare Jub. 1.29. The the rne of divine protection
of LTavelers is sign ificant in jubilees and recalls the book o f Tobit as well
as Genesis 24.
4Q1 58
A fragmentary para ph r-ase of Genesis 32 is preserved in the Qumran
manuscript 4Q158. Th is version is quite similar to the biblical account
with the noteworthy exception that, \vhen b lessing him after the fig ht,
Jacob's conte nde r refers to God in the tltird person:
" ... May the lo[rd ) make you frui tful (.. .). May he b'T<mt you kn)o wled ge
an d understanding and may he $a \' }'OU from all violence ...N
2 12 As s.h own, /tebileV!-$ h.ls no version of jacob's struggle BL the fo rd of j.lbbok, nor a
dire coul\lerparl of Gel\ 48: 15-16, bu! aU the Mher rele\'lll\1 j acob narratives are
rende1'ed chereill.
213 See a lso Hayward 20()5,28-3 7.
214 Acrotding to Lunl (note 1.1 in OTP vol. 2. 1985, 407), it is probable tll.illlhe Laddt:J' of
/occ'lb orisinalty begllll w ith Jacob's own acoou.u of the events lh oll bmugh t him to Bethel consideiog the first -person ll<l!l'Mh e from v. 6 onwards.
172
twentyfour faces. (7] And while 1 wa~ still lnoking at it, behold, angels of
God ascended and d escend ~d un it. [SJ And God was standing above its
highest fat.-e, and he called 10 me from there, saying, ' 1arob, Jacob!N And I
said, "Here I <un LORD!N
4.2 The
Pseudepigr<~piM
173
Lun t \\'rites that here " ... 1 the voice' has ceased to be something heard
[as in Lntf. Jac. 2.1) and has become a hyposkltic creature.""' Jacob does
not fear the appearance of the archange1i the vision in the dream was
more terrifying.
This angelophany obviously constitu tes a major d ifference between
the Lntfder of jacol1 and the biblical account in Genesis 28. In the same
way as the anonym ous -angel with the seven tablets in hie; hand Uub.
32.21), the archangel S..riel is d epicted as distinct from God. He is a
heavenly nlessenger~ the angel w ho is in charge of dreams who comes
in order to unveil Jacob's mysterious vision. God is personified by ' the
voice: Cod commands Sariel to bless Jacob before he starts to explain
the dream, and the ardlangel accordingly changes jacob's name to
Israel. Lnd.Jac. 4.1-5 is thus an echo of Gen 32:24-30:
(Lad. fat. 4:1 -5} And the a nge1 said to me Uaa"Jb], ''\\That is you r namte?N
A n d I said, '1acob." (He announced), " Yo ur name shall no Junger be caUed
Ja cob, but your name shall be similar to my name, Jsraei.N A n d w hen I was
going fn)m Phandan a of Syria t() meet Esau my b rother, he came to me and
b1essed me a nd called me Israel. And he wuu1d nut te11 ml! hi::; name u ntiJ I
a djured him.
217 lunt, introdution in OTP, vol. 2.. 1985,406. See al.;o Charleswoth 1992, 609.
218 See chapter 4.5 beloh' and Vermes 1975, 159-166. Vermes interprets )Mob's words in
Tmg~tm Nt'tljiJi 1 Cen 32:31 ... I have seen .angels from be-fore the Lord face to face
and my life h.ls been saved" as an allusion to the angels Oil the ladder in Jao..'Ob's
dream in Bethel. I find this interprelation doubtful Jacob's words here may just as
well.lllude hl the angel$ who met him as described in Cen 32:1-3.
219 van Henten 1995b, 152. Variai\IS of the n;une of this a!lgel are S.:mlqel and Sul'iel.
among others. There are a lso t-raditiOI\.'1 wnceming B fallen angel b) the name of Sa
riel (and similar names). Sec Guiley 2004, 318.
220 Ed. Milik .1nd Black l976. See pages 170-171. Snrit>l is a l$0 mentioned in lhe Q1m1rmt
War Scr<,lf, IQM 9. 12-15. St.>e al.;o Vern'W!'S.. 1975, 159-166.
174
According to Kugel, Jacob's fea rfu l reaction to the dream (Gen 28:17)
was something that p uzzled the early Jewish interpreters. Wh at was it
that scared Jacob so much?ln As we have seen, according to Lnd. }ac.
3 .4..5, Jacob d ee med the vision of h is dream to be more frig hte ning than
the angelic visita tion. Th e a nswer p rovided by the Ladder of jncob is that
the ladder in itself is a symbolic message concerning the fu ture:
ILad. /11c. 5.11 Thus he said lo m~: "Yuu have seen a l add~r with twelve
steps. each step having twl) h uman faces ' "hich k~ p l chang ing: !heir ap
pearance. J2J The ladder is thi$ ag(:', (3Jand !he twelve s teps ;ue the periud.s
o f this ag:e. {4) But the twenty-four faC(~ are the k ing.~ of the u ngodly na
tk)n.~ of this age. (5) Und er these kings the ch il d n~."ll of your child ren and
the gen~rations of you r son.<; will be interrogatl!<l:-u (6J The:;.e will ris-e up
against the iniquity of yuur grandsons( ...J (161Know, Jac()b, that yuur d es.
cend ants shalt be exiles in a strange land, and they will a fflict them w ith
slavery ( ... ) (17) But the LORD will judge the pe()p!e fo r whom they
slave.125
11le ladder represents thus the coming ages o f history a nd the twen ty
fou r faces sym bo lize the two "pagan" rulers of each period who will
subdue Jacob's o ffspring. As the e mbod iment or re presentative of the
people of Israel (d ., Lnd. Jnc. 4.15), Jacob is a llowed to see the fu ture of
4.2 The
Pseudepig r<~piM
175
In Lad. }ac. 5.16, the archangel Sariel explained the ladder as a symbol
of the twelve fu ture eras of '~Nor1d history, each period reigned over by
two kings, in total 24 kings of ung odly nations. In the passage cited
above, the emphasis is instead o n the socalled four ascents o f this age
and the angels ascending and descending on the ladder.
Kugel connects ' the four ascents of this age' to the four beasts in the
book o f Daniel. The angels w ho are said to go u p and d own symbo lize
the rise and d ownfall of heathen empires. The angels in Jacob's dream
226 Cf.. We!i-tennanl\ 1985, 460, where he state..; that God's 1>1-esence in history .md the
impoYiance of cuhic wo1-ship ar~ the two main me.<~sages of the text.
227 Cf., also Prnyt-'t (1/ })SeJ/h, Fr.1gment B, $et! below. Acoordins lo !he l'ra!ler of }c'15t.-p/J,
JacOO is in reality an angel himself, by the na me of Israel. See .11so the Pn:yer(JJ}ac.>h.
228 According ro Kogel (1995, 2 16). ' this place' refers to Jen L'Ialem.,. not Bethei/Lu ~.
176
are thus interpreted as lite angelic princes of tire pagan uatious {d., Dan
10:13. 20)'-"' and that is why they are depicted as first going up before
descending. and not the other way around, \Vhich had bt.'en the case
with GOli 's ministering angels.m Jn the words of Kugel:"... the fo ur
beasts are transformed into (fou r) 'angels of God' said to go up and
down jacob's ladder."m
It is noteworthy that even though the angels are presen t in the ini
tial description of the dream in d1apter 1, there is no mention o f the
fou r ascents. The Ladder of Jacob in its present form seems to be a fusion
of two o riginally distinct and slig htly conflicting explanations of Jacob's
vision. In the interpretation that Kugel considers the original o ne, the
angels play no particular role in the dream, except perhaps to assure
Jacob of angelic protection for his descendantc;. It is the ladder itt itself
that constitutes the message, as 'lite staircase of history:m Kugel aocor
dingly claims that the passage cited above is a later interpolation,m a
conclusion that I find convincing. This is hence the reason for omitting
Lad. Jnc. 5.7-15 in my first quotation of the chapter.
The angels in the dream are either understood as GOO's angels who
represent the heavenly protection of jacob and his descendants
throughout history o r as the guardian angelic princes of the heathen
nations. Ho\"'ever.. the two interpretations o f the d ream have in com
mon the depiction o f God as standing above the ladder/staircase. God
is the O ne who controls \VOrld history, and he will eventually redeem
Jacob's offspring. The archangel Sariel fu nctions as the angelus inlerpres,
in the same way as the archangel Gabriel in the book of DanieL This
biblical book is an important key to understanding the message of the
Ladder ofJacob."'
The two human faces on each step of the ladder/staircase (Lad. Joe.
1.5) are said to represent futu re pagan kings w ho will subdue Jacob's
descendants (Lad. Joe. 5.1-5). However, the fiery face o f a man at the to p
of the ladder mentioned in Lad. Jac. 1.4, 6, is not id entified by Sa riel. The
wording o f Lnd. Joe. 1.4 is peculiar: "And the top of 1/~e ladder was the face
as of a mat1. cnrued ou/ offire ." The ladd er is thus described as having a
1?7
man's head a t its very top. \Vh o does this head represent? As we ha ve
seen, God is said to be standing " ... above its [the lad der's] highest
face ..." see lAd. jac. 1.8. Th us, God a ppears to be distingu ished from the
face a t the ladder's top.
However, And rei Orlov interprets the fie ry face in Lad. jac. 1.6 as
the face of God.m In support, he refe rs to Jacob1s p rayer in response to
the visio n,~1" especially his words in Lad. ]nc. 2.15: " . .. Before the face of
your [God's) glory the six-winged seraphim a re afraid [ ... ] a nd they
sing unceasingly a hymn ...11 According to Orlov, the depiction of Jacob's v ision gives the impression that God 's voice is e manating fTom
the fie ry face o f the lad der, w hich he sees as a distinct divine manifesta
tion. God is speaking to jacob from behind the 'face'. m
Moreover, Orlov refers to 2 Euoc/J 22, w hich also contains a similar
depiction o f the face of th e Lord as ' fiery and terrifying', and he further
rema rks that, in some b iblical a nd intertestarnen tal texts, 'face' is used
as an equivalen t to God's Glory, His Kauod.'-"
According to Kugel, the description of the lad der w ith the fiery
head at its top is based on the fact that the H ebrew word ~.,can mean
both 'top' and ' head,' cf., Gen 28:12a.m As rnentioned in the analysis of
Gen 28:10-22 in chapter 3, it is linguistically possible to interpret v. 12b
as meaning that the a ngels a re going u p and d own "on"/for the sake of
Jacob.l-W The Hebrew \'-rord Ll may refer either to Jacob o r to the ladder.
The Hebrew wording o f Gen 28:12 is as follows:
Kugel conne<:ls the head constituting the top of the ladder in lAd. jac.
1.4 with the Rabbinic tradition that Jacob's portrait i.'i said to be kept in
heaven.w He poin ts out that it is possib]e to interpret the suffix at
G.me.<;is Raf1lt.tk
241 Kugel 1990, 112-124, 250. cf., a1SoO the Pale.c;tinian T.wgums to (".en 28: 12 and Gm. Rab.
68. 12.. see d\apter4.5 beklw.
178
tad1ed to the Hebrew word >:m/ 'head/top' as allud ing to Jacob. According to Kugel, the verse could thus be tra nslated as; " ... and Iris Ua
cob's] head reached to Jreave-n; and behold, tile angels of God u.-ere asceudit~g
and dt"Scendiug upon !Jim.''U2 The reason fo r the shuttling o f the angels
back and forth ben"reen heaven and earth is thus their wish to behold
Jacobi on the one hand his heavenly portrait a t the top of the ladder,
and o n the other the '' real" Jat:ob lying on the ground .u.l However, this
interpretation is not expressly given in the Pseudepigraphon.
Orlov also takes this line o f interpre tation a nd discus.~es the scho
larly suggestion that the fiery face at the top o f the ladd er mar
represent Jacob's heavenly counterpart;- Jacob's portrait/image e n ...
graved in/seated on God' s throne.'-" This heavenly d ouble o f Jacob has
in tum been defined as his guardian "angel" and identified as the e rn
bod iment of the d ivine Glory. Th e idea o f Jacobls heavenly counterpart
also seems to be presen t in the Prayer ofJosep!J.""
Concluding Remarks
As the Iitle imp lies, this Pseudepigraphon is based mainly on Jacob's
vision of U1e heavenly ladd er in his dream at Bethel (Gen 28:10-22). In a
similar way to Jubilees_, this source also contains a n additional angelo-.
p hany1 not ment ioned in the Bible.
God, who is depkted as sta nding at the top of the ladd e r, sends out
the ard1angel Sariel in order to make Jacob u nderstand the meaning of
the dream vision. This angel is entitled the o ne 'in charge of dreams' .
He is portrayed as distinct from God, w ho is personified by ' the voice'.
l11e role of Saricl in the Ladder of jamb is remin iscen t of the archangel
Gabriel's function in the book of Danieli like him, Sariel is an angelus
interpres. Sa riel appears to be of a higher rank than the angels going up
and d own on the ladder. He is d early d epicted as separate fm rn both
them and God. Similar to the unnamed a ngel in jrtb. 32.2126, Sariel
reveals to Jacob the fu ture destiny of his d escendants.
244 Orltw 2004. ~71. See a lso Fishbane 2003~ 247249, lhe renderings of Gel\esi$ 28 in
the Palestinian Targums, and chapters 4.5 <~ n d 4.6 below.
215 See furlhe1 chapter L6 and 0 1lov 2004. 6671, Rm..,land 1984, 300-507, 11nd FQ6Sum
1995, 13515 1. H owever, Orlo v (2004, 76) adm iL'I that th ere is B cerr.lin amb igui ty in
he1'erlf in the the L!tddt-r 1>/ tacob: " .. th~ fiery fare c-. m be Mkt>ll eirher a..c; God's Kawd
or an en throned vice-regent as..~iated with the F., ...-e (i.e. the enthmned JacobIsrae l)."
4.2 The
Pseudepigr<~piM
1?9
Testament of Jacob
ln this narrative, the background setting o f the plot is an angelic visita..
t ion; when the e nd of jacob's earthly life d raws near, God sends h im
~vfichael. here design ated as the chief of the angels. Mich ael's commission is to prepare Jacob fo r his a pproaching d eath. This a ngelic visitation is depicted as one of many in the life of Jacob, who is used to talk
ing wi th a ngels; T. Jac. 1.410.
Some time la ter, Jaoob is v isited by yet another a ngel, a n angelo~
p hany that initially scares him, because the angel resembles his father
lsaac. This anonymous a ngeP..,. says to Jacob:
246 In his intmduelion to Prayt'r of j.-)SepJr (OTI>vol. 2. 1985, 7 11) Smith illterprets this
angel in Tl'"illmlleul of }oU(!b <IS .Michael, appearing to Jacob in the form of IS<~ac. Acoordillg to Jewish tradition., the archangel Michael L'l the guardian angel of the
people of l:w.l~~l, see, e.g., Dan 12:1. ln T. Do?JJ 6.5, we 1-ead about an unnamed 'angel
of peace' who i$ ded ou-ed r.,., be l<;rael's guardian,. a tradition that af!>O seems to be ~~:.;
tal\t ill 1Q369 and T. Lm 5.6. .,.here the .mgel who spe-aks to Levi identifies himself
as th e angel who intercedes for the people of lsr.lel. However, Je\'li.<;h t:rodition is
ambivalent on lhL<: point. since the re are a lso texts which d eny the idea of an angelic
patrol\ of ls-rae l and proclaim God robe the pe~lple's sole prote<tor, e.g., Dcu1 32:89;
Sir 17: 17 Bl\d fllb. 15.30-32. See al<;l') Kugel 2006, 186206, and Hanllah 2007. 122-423.
180
(T. }llc. 2.51 ... "Do nut ftmr, 0 jacob; I am th~t angel who has been walking
with you and guarding you fm m }'OUr infancy. [6 J I announood that you
would receive the bl ~ ing of yuur father and of Relx~cca, yuur mother. (7) I
am the one who is ,~ith you, 0 Israel, in aU your acts and in everything
which you have witnes::;(..od. [8) I saved yuu frum Laban when he was en
d;mgering yt)U and pursuing you. (91 At the time I gave yuu aU hi$ possessions and blt?S..:;ed yt)u, yuur wiv(>S, your child ren and your Aocks. (10) I am
the one who saved you frum th~ hand of E..::au (... J (14] Bles~ed are you al
so, Jacob, for yuu have see.n God face f() fa ce. ('151 You saw the angel uf
God-may he be exalted!-and you saw the ladder standing fi rm on the
~'T()Lmd with it..;: top in t-he heavens. (16) Then yuu beheld the Lord sitting at
its top ,,,.jfh a pt)\ver which no one cuuld describe ...
N
l11is angel is thus Jacob's guardian, who has watched over him his e n ...
tire life. In T. fac. 2.89, we see that the a ngel identifies himself as the
one who saved jacob from Laban and b lessed his fa mily a nd flocks, a
dear a lJusion to Gen 3 1 : 1 0~1 3, \'I!here 'the a ngel o f God' is me ntioned.
On the other hand, the angel who addresses Jacob in the passage
cited above distinguishes himself from 'the angel o f God' refe rred to in
T.Jnc. 2.15 and speaks reverently about him in the th ird person. Verses
14-15 a re para llel and may accordingly be interpreted as referring to the
same person; " ... you have seert God f<.1ce to face (v. 14). You saw 1/le
angel of Gmi- may he be exalted'" (v. 15a), a n allusion to Cen 32:30. In
the same v~.ray as in Gen 48 : 1 5~16, the angel and God seems to be
equated v,rith each other. There a ppears thus to be a slig ht contradiction
between T.fac. 2.89 and 2.15.
In the refe rence to Jacob's dream vision a t Bethel.., God is said to
have been sitt ing at the to p o f the ladder, possessing an indescribable
pmver. The angels in the dream are not mentioned, nor the significa nce
of the lad der, v. 15b-16. "'
T. fac. 4.15 corresponds to Cen 48:15-16; Jacob blesses his grand sons
Ephraim and Manasseh a nd says:
(T. /at. 4.15] "May fltt G(Jd und ~ r whose a utho rity my fa ther$~ Abraham and
Isaac, served in reverence, the Cotl who h a~ ~ tn.>ngthened me from my
youth up to the present time when the tmgd has saved me from all my af
flictio n.'>, may he bJes~ th~ l a ds~ Manasseh and Ephraim."
247 Jn T. fac. 3.~. Jaoob h~lls his holLc;ehold llt.ol l God Himself once appeared to him in
Upper Mesopotamia and promL10ed to bles..; hin\ and his descendant!>, d.~ Cen 2$: 1315.
181
God's emissary, a being sent by God. Throug h His a ngel, God has pro
tected Jacob but the a ngel here is nol equaled with God.
Concluding Re marks
According to the Tt'Simnenl of jacob, the patria rch is visitc<l at the e nd of
h is life by the a rcha ngel Michael in order to prepare him lor h is ap
p roaching death. Some time la te r, another a ngel appears, who rescm
bles h is father Isaac. This last mentioned a nonymous angel introduces
h imself as jacob's gua rdia n a nd ide ntifies himself as the ' the a ngel of
God' who s.wed Jocob from Laban a nd increased h is Oocks (Gen 3 1:10
13).
Jn the same way as the a ngel o f the Presence in jubilees' version of
the Aqedah, Jacob's guardian a ngel addresses h im in the first person
singular. On the o ther ha nd, it seems as if the author of the Pscudepi
graphon inte rprets the 'un known man' who e ncoun tered jacob in Ge
nesis 32 as God in person, because he makes the angel exclaim; '' ... you
Oacob] have seen God face lo face. You saw the a ngel of God- may he
be exalted!" (T. Jac. 2.14b 15, cl., Gen 32:30). 'The a ngel of God' refe rred
to in T. jac. 2.15 is apparently someone other than the speaker, and in
the light of the p reced ing verse he seems to be identified as God Him
self. It is also stated tha t it \Vas God w ho addressed jacob in h is dream
al Bethel.
The a ngel refe rred to by Jacob in Gen 48:15-16 is interpreted in T.
Jac. 4.15 as a gu a rdian a ngel sent by God. This angel is probably the
same as the angelic speaker above.
182
248 S..~e Smith. introduction to the Pmyt>rcf}.-upll in OTI, voL 2,. 1985, 701, and 1968, 253
271. A similar tradition is also exMnt in Philo's writings Bboul lhe ' Logos-', \\'hk h he
sometimes called lsr.lel, see below. C f., also Kugel 1998. 394-397. In 81odus the title
deari> refers to llle no.tion, as in .f Ezra 6.58; Sir 36: 12; Jt~b. 2.20, and Ps.;. Sol. 18.4. but
someti mes Exl'ld 4:22 i.e; interpreted a..c~ referring to the patriardl in person, e.g. Jub.
19.29; E:rod. /Wl>. 19.7. See a lso Smith DTP, vol. 2, 1985, 7 13, note d.
249 However. to be pre<ise, Philo does not explain the name Israel as mean ing ' a "'"''
seeing Cod' but niways gives the shor1er etynHMogy 'the one who sees (God)', thus
l"'miuing the \\'\"11'<1 ' mtut' . See further d l.olpte 4.3 below.
2 50 Smith introduction in OTP. vol. 2. 1985. 704. and,. 1968, 281-282. When dLc;rus.!iing the
incarnation of the angel lsrae.l. Smith {1968, 28 1283) refers to the 'd escent myth' and
compares the Prity~r(!f }t'1Sl>p/l "'ith the d escent of 'lad)' Wi!idom' into the midst of
Israel in str 24:8. See als.o H;mnah 1999,89-90.
1&1
251 Smith, OTP vol. 2, 1985, inl1'0ductlon, 705. S..~e a lso the Pray~r oJim:ttiJ \'. 19.
252 Smith OTP vol. 2.. 1985, inmlducdon.. i 05. See 2 E11ad1 chapte 1: 22.9: 33.11; 67. 18 .
See illso VanderKam 2000b, 428-432. and Fletcher-Louis 1997, 14t).J64.
2.1)3 See Smilh O'TP, \'0 1. 2, 1985, introduction.. 710, and 1968, 284-292.. Kugel 1998, 397,
and Orlov 2004, 6671.
254 See G~en 1998. 137142. and FCIS.$um 1995, 142149. Cf., Pirq~ de Rallb; Elit'!cr 37.
The title rs..~el' is sometimt'S given h) Ole ' Logos' by Philo, see, e .g., 011 /Jee Ct.mftsit.m
cifTangut:' 146. See also dt~~pters L1 and 4.6.
255 Cf., Col 1: J.;.l7. Sl."e also Sm ith 1968,268, and Gieschen 1998, 140.
256 Cf.. )ohn 1: 14.
21)7 Aa:ording to Smith. another possible tran..;latio n of this pas.<~age is: N his name
(Uriel) should have precedence over my 1t ame (lsr.lel) and of Ole angel thBI i.'l before
all."'
258 The itali..-s in the q uotations of the l'raya.T if }ttiepll ill'e the trBit.-=;lah'lr's. Aocm\.iing to
Gieschen (1998, 1:39140) the refel'etlce to ' Ole inextinguL.;hable name im plies a COl\
nection to Ole ' divine name-angel' or the Exodus tradition.
2S9 See Smith 1968, 281292. Sulli\'an 2001. 98-101, HwMdo 1998, 61~5. and Kugel 1998,
398-399. Smith emphasi.l.es the idea of illcarnntion and ' the d e..<~cent-m yth' in the
Pmyer aJ j tJscpft.
184
260 See Fossum 1995, 148. T hese two interprelatkms of Jaoob's claim need nl)l exclude
261
262
263
264
26.15
each other, the incamated angel may very well be identical with Jacob's celesti al
oom\lerpat, thus Smith, Kugel et aL Howevet, Fossum explidtly denie..o; the idea tltal
the angel lst"ael in the l'ra!l~.,. ('/jl)f.(!ph is aCiually portr.lyed as iuctrmtkd in Jacob. He
instead speak.o; of a my:;lical ideJIIily' belWl~en two being...~ one e-a rth ly and one he.wel\ly. See also the diMUS$ion -egardi\8 the interpretatiol\ of ' the fiery head' on top of
the ladder il\ Jacob'.<~ d ream nt Bethel in the sedion on the Ltdder of} oU(!b alxlve and
d\apters4.5 and 4.6.
Smith OTP voJ. 2. 19$5, 713, 1\0h~ e .
See, e .g., T.wlmma (ed. Buber) NumWrs. Nas.o 19 Bnd Smith afl' vol. 2. 1985, intro~
duction. 70-1.
Sl~e also Sullivan 2004, J02 10J, al\d Odov 21.'X>4, 75-76.
S)ri.an Mesopl)I<Uuia is the siBndard Septuagint lr.msltltion of PBddanAram. Sl-<>e
LXX Cen 3 1:18 ilnd 33: 18 .
C.... lXX h) Gen 35:9.
4
4.2 The
Pseudepig r<~piM
18S
266 See a lso Smilh introducrion i.l\ OTP \'OL 2, 1985, i 09-710.
267 See illso Smith 1968, 284-286.
268 S..~~... ~~.g., I En. 9.10: 10.1, 4, 9, II: 20.2 and Guilt!}' 200t 360-361. 01\ page 361 Guiley
w rites: "In lhe Prayer of Joseph, Uri.el stntes, ' I ha\'e come down to e.uth to make my
dwelling: am o ng men, and I am c.1lled J ~Cob by nam e.' The e>:ilct me.'uling of this
stiltem ent is no! d e<tl', but it suggesL'I that Uriel m ig ht have be<ome Jacob, thus making him the fi rst angel of re<ord to become a motal."' This interpretatio n is apparent
ly ba.c;ed on a totally diffe1'enl translalion/und~rstanding of th e wording of the PraJ~e'r
!1"'7JJ.
269 See alc;o Smith 1968, 278-281. The IMme ''Uriel' mea ns ' fi re/lighl of Cod' . C!., G.tt.
Rab. 77.2. '"'hl~rein jaoob in his S-tlife with the ang~l at jabbok cla ims to be made
complete b) fit e, like an angeL See also Exe'Ni. Rab. 15.6: "'lll e angels are called 'fire',
fo r il L'l wrillen: TJ/(' flaming fire> Tlly mi11ish'f"S (Ps. CIV, 4), and l$l'.lel L'l also so called,
as il is wrillen: itJtd Jl1e l1m1se of lacob sllall ()<!a fire (Obad. 1, 18) .. ."' [E11g. lran.'l. l eh r0\BOI\
19391.
186
ln tetpretation..c~ of Genesis
4.2 The
Pseudepig r<~piM
187
278 Smith OTP vol. 2, 1985 introduction, 709. and Odebe1'g 1928,99.
279 Cf.. Gen 32:29: "Then ).l\':Ob ilSked him, ' l'l\~3$(: tell me your name.' But he S.l id, 'Why
h> it that YlU ask my ruuue ? Alld he ble$.'1ed him." The 'malls" blessing of }.1cob
denll>ns.tate.'l thai, ae<:ording ro the biblical \eJ"Sioll, it is he who is Jacob's superior,
no! the other WilY arQund as ill the Prayer oJloscJJ!t.
280 See illso Smith OTP vol. 2, 198.1), 713, note m.
281 See a lso Smith OTP voL 2, 19$.S, 713, note n.
282 Smith, intmduc:tion in OTP vol. 2, 1985, 704.
283 Ac; s tated above, the designation sons of Cod' is commonly used reg.wdil\g ilJlgel'l ill
the Bible, e.g . Gen 6: 14 a nd Job 1:6.
284 Cf.. D.ln 12:l. 1l1e G reek word used here for 'chief captain' {ciQXIX.tt\lt.\QXet;;) i$
unique to the l'raytr of /I)~;>J but lppears to be synon}'mous w ith the design.ation of
the arch~1ngel Michael in He-llenis tk Jewish literatul\~ (ttiJXtc:ttQt.hlyo;:), e.g .. LXX,
Dal\ 8: 11 and T. A(). 1.4 and }os. ~1$1'11. 14.7.S. See a lso G iesc:~n 1998, 14().-142. and
Smith OTP vol. 2, 1985, intmduction, 704.
188
was written in them, which would happl!n hJ him and to his sons d uring
all the age.o>.za;
285 Cf... al<;o Puryl'r of fOSt:plt, Fragn"W!nl C and !Ad. fac-. 4.1 5, !tee above.
286 Smith in'P, vol.l. 1985, intmduction. 711.
287 Cf... the P.lle!ttinian Targunt.<I IO Genesis 32. see cholpter 4.5 belovt.
28.1) See,. e.g . Fossum 1995, 142 149
289 See.. e.g,. Smith 1968, 28-1292.. and Sullivan 2001, 98 10'1.
290 Fossum t995, 142149, and Giescht.>Jl 1998. 137 142. As support for their inte.rpreM
don, both o f the.'>e sdlOiars refer to Philo's writings. where th e 'logo.<~' L'> also sometime..<! labeled ' the angellsr.lel", and the 'togo~;i of Phil~l is indeed no " ordinary"' an
gel. See further chapters 4.3 and 4.6 below.
291 Orlov 2001, 76. d .. also Jacob/lsrael's claim in the l'raye:r of }ost"piJ: " Am I not Israel.
the fi rst minister before the face of God?"'
189
the focus is not so much on his heavenly status as on h is external features. The n arrator explains Jacob's extraordinary appearance by the
fact U1at he has struggled with God. Th us, it seems implied that the
mysterious ''man" at Ja bbok was God in person.
190
191
192
292 Philo ihed .1pprox. 30/LO B.C.E-50 C.E. See Willia mson 1989, I. Bo'gen 198<1, 233,
Rtmia 1990, I. 3, and \Vins ton 2CX)5, 7105.
293 U nles.~ otherwise s tated, 1 use the texl~ b)' Philo fmHld in the loeb series and th us
the E.ngli.sh nanslation.<~ by Colson. Whitaker, and Marcus.
29-1 Wins ton 2005, 7105.
295 Philo C.:lme from a wea1t11y. a ds tocratic,. and int1uential Jeh'i$h family in A~!lndria
(according to jerome, of priestly descent). Philos brother, Alex<lnder, w.1s probabl)
the chief inspe<tor of l-"USioms t"IO the Eills tem border of Egypt and was rich enough
ro pm,ride silver and Sllld pl.ues for nine gates of the Tempf.e of Jerusalem and to
k nd money to King Agrippa I. One of A~xand e"s sons (i.e.. Philo's nephe\") m.u
ried the King's dillughter Berenice See Jo..;ephus, fe-.tisll War 5.205 and Aul. 19.276-277. S..~e .llso Runia 1990, I. 25, \'\>'in.<~ton 2005. 7105. and Borgen 1997, 1415.
296 Runia 1990, I. 45, and BOI'gel\ 1997, 16-17.
193
298
299
300
301
302
30.1
304
1 94
cal exegesis as teslified by, for example, the earlier works of Aristobu
Ius, and there are many connections between the \<Visdom of Solomon
and Philo's ""'orks.liG
The p lace of Philo's tho ught within the religious context of his day
has been the subject of much schola rly discussion; was he essentially a
Mid d le Platonic philosopher, mystic, or Jewish exegetc?.JCoi The answer
is probably that all three of these designations encornpas.~ true aspects
of this multifaceted personality a nd au thor. He \"'as certainly a mystic
in the sense that he regarded the ultimate p urpose of life to be the vi
sion o f God. In Questions ami Answers on Exodus 2.51 he writes: '1 For the
beginning a nd end of happiness is to be able to see God." Thus, Philo's
interpretation of the name Israel as 'he \\'ho sees (God )' expresses the
heart and goal of his piety.llli
As mentioned above, Philo was an Alexandrian Jew, and the ques
tion arises as to what exte nt his version of Judaism was represen tative
of the Jewish cornmunity in w hich he lived. Erwin R. Goodenough
advocated the v iew that Philo is a witness to a Hellenistic rnystical
branch of jud aism nou rishing in the Greek-speaking world and particu la rly in Alexandria during his time, a Judaic-Hellenistic brand'\ differ
ent to Palestinian Jewish faith.ll'"' Samuel Sand mel also argues that 'Phi
Ionic religiosity' differet-1 from the emerging Palestinian Rabbinic Ju
daism:
Philo's religiu.s-ity wm; q uite uniqul! and d ifferent frum that pre~ented and
advocated in Rabbinic Literahtre. Tu Jab(}r the p<'lint, his religion was nut
distinctly different from that uf the RabbL.,, but his religiosity was (... ) In
Rabbinic judaism the Laws are an end in th e m.~J vt~s, in Philo they are a
means to what he concl!ives a.s- a greater end. There is no eclm I know ()fin
Rabbinic liter<lture of tiw central goal in Philo's Judais m, that uf mystic
C<)mmunion with the Godh ea d.~
305 See Borgen 198-1,279-280, 1997, J.S.45, .lnd Runia 1990, I. 15, William.c;on 19$9. 147,
and Win5-ton 2005,7105-7106.
306 Sl~e Borgen 1997, 113.
307 \\lilli.amson 1989, 2829, 7172, and Win.<Oton 1996, 74-82. See .llso Botgen 1997, 3, cmd
Tllbin 1992. 35 1. In his works, Philo someti mes refers hl personal myMical e);periences,. !tee, e.g . On Sp~cial Lr.tos 3.l-6; On 1J1e Clltr.l()im 27-29 and lite Migration ofAb-raluun 3-1-35.
.30S See Borgen's (1997, 1-13) survey of the histor)' o f research in Philonk stud ies.
309 S.mdmel 19i9, $3. Commenting on this passage, Wil!i.lnt!ll"'ll {1989, 71) SIBle.<~ llMI
although il is ind eed true that Philo's goo I ,,..,l$ "mystic communion with the Godhead .. it need not p~r Sl'e);dude the impcmance of the Mos.ak commandnwnl<~ in Philo's pie ty. in the same way as the Rabbinic emphasi.c; on otx'>dience to the law need
not ~xdude the goal of com munion wi!h Cl"'d, and 1 tend 10 ag n~e wi th him.
195
As shown in the quotation, in contrast to Goodenough, Sa.ndmel classifies Philo's religiosity as "quite unique11, i.e., he does not consider him a
representative of a large movement wi thin the Hellenistic Diaspora
judaisrn of the time but as reflecting a rnargin~'l viewpoint.lo However,
although Sand mel regards Philo as thoroughly Hellenized, he d oes not
deny his loyalty to Judaism. The Torah was the cen tre of Philo's exeget
ical endeavors_, not the writings of the Greek philosophers.:m Tn the
same way as Josephus, Philo considered Moses the greatest legislato r
and teacher of all time.'" According to Philo, the highest philosophical
truth is to be found in Jud aism.ll3
The fact that Philo was a recognized leader in the Jev,.'ish communi
ty of Alexandria and was even chosen to head the delegation sent in
39{4fl C.E. to Emperor Gaius Caligula in Rome in o rder to defend jewish customs and rights indicates that he was not regarded as an outsider or a heretic by his fellow Alexandrian Jews.JN In this light, Sandmel's
classification of Philo as representing a marginal viewpoin t seems ra ..
ther unlikely.
An opposite view to those of GOOli cnough and S..1.ndmel was proposed by Harry A. Wolfson, who argued that Philo o nly ,eprcsented a
Hellenization in respect of terminology, on a "superficial level'' so to
speak, and not in terms of relig ion. According to 'A'olfson, Philo's
thoughts are to be seen as a Hellenistic philosophical ad aptation of
basically Pharisaic/Paleslinian Judaism.m
Scholars today are generally agreed that it is impossible to d raw a
sharp dividing line bet\ovccn so~called Hellenistic and Palestinian )udaism..w The Judaic \\'Orld of Philo's time was one of mutual infl uence
and comrnunication between various jewish groups in Galilee, Judea,
and the Diaspora.l17 Thus, scholars today tend to favor \Volfson's u n~
derstanding of Philo, although he has been criticized fo r presen ting
196
64.
320 See a lso Borsen 1984.238.
321 BQI'gen 1984, 259259. and Cohen 1995. 1-20. See also Segal l?n. 178-18 1.
322 Bl'u'gel\ 1984a. 124.
323 801'gel\ 198-1.257.
324 \Volfson, 1947 vol. 1. 88.
325 See e.g .. Runia 1990, I, 13. and Wins.ton 2005, 7106.
326 Cohen 1995, 1420.
197
There are thuse who, regarding 1av.s in their literal sense in the light of
symbol.:; uf matterS belo nging tu the intellect. are overpunctilious abuut the
latter$ while treating the fonner with eao;:y going neglect. Sud! men I for my
part should b1ame for handling th ~ ma ttt~r in too easy and off hand man
ner: they ought to ha\'e given careful attentio n h ) lxlth aims, to a mor~ fu ll
and exact investigation of what is nul seen and in what is seen tu be s t~
wards withuut reproach. A., it is, as though they w~re Living al(me by
them..~lve..:; in a ,~ i ld erne."-'>, or as tho ug h they had bec(lme disembodied
souls( ... ) (tis qu it~ true that the Seventh Day is meant IQ teach the power
of the Un(lrig-inate and the no n-action of cnoated beings. But let us ntlt for
this reason abnl gate the laws laid down fo r i ~ observanc\? a nd light fi res
o r till the gmund ur carry loads [... J lt is trut~ aloo that the Feast is a symbol
of gladness uf soul and of thankfulness to God? but we should no t for this
reason turn our back.'> o n the general gatherings of the years seasons. (t is
true that the rettiving circumcision does indeed po rtra)' the t~xdsion of
pleasure and aU pa.S.'\ i(mS, and the putting away of the impious conceit ll
but let us not on this acc<>unt repeal the law laid sown for circumcising.
Why. we .shall be igno ring the Sanctity of the TempJe and a thousand uther
things, if we are g-<ling Ul pay heed to no thing except what is shewn us by
the inner meaning of things. Na)' we should look o n aU tht~Se outwa rd ob
servan<."E!S as resembling the body. and their inner meaning;:; a~ resembling
the soul. It follows that, exadly as we have to take thought f() r the bc:>dy,
because it is the abode of the S<)ul, so we mus t pay heed to the leHer of the
1
.m
Bl"'l'gen 1984, 257258, Willian\SOl\ 1989, 168 169. a nd Win..ao n 200S, il06.
328 Bo1'8en 1984, 258, Runia 1990. II. 1891 and WiMton 2005, 144.
329 Borgen 1997. 1718 .
1 98
Ja,vs. Jf we k~ep and obse rv~ these, we shall nut incur the cen..<i-ure of the
many and the charges they are sure to bring ngainst us.
199
r...
Philo's treatises can be divided into three main categories; the exegcti
cal, the historical-apologetic, and the p hilosophicai.J>J The first category
cQrnprises Philo's exposition of the Mosaic Scrip tures and consists in
tum of th ree large series, the first of which comprises paraphrases of
the Pentateuch, e.g.? Otl lite Creatimz, On Abraham? On Rewards atld Pu
uislzments and Ou llze Special Laws.341' These works bear clear resemblance to the genre o f ' rev,,ritten Bible' and Borgen classifies thern as
sud1.-J.11
The second series o f the exegetic.."ll w ritings cQnsists o f purely allegorical commentaries on Genesis, e.g._, On the Cherubim, 011 Flight and
Finding, On the Coufusion of Tougut>s, Ou the Clzauge of Names, On Sobrie#
(If, Allegmica{ Ttlterpretatiotl, OH Drtmkemzess, On J!Je lvfigration of Abra
ham, Wlro is lite Heir, and On Dreams.:J.U
The third and final series o f t reaties belo nging to the exegetical C.."'t
egory are Qzn">Stious and Atz.m~ers 011 Genesislxodus. As the titles indicate,
in these works Philo employs questions p ut to the biblical texts as the
338
339
340
3<11
3<12
200
starting point for his exposition . Th e exegetical treaties comp rise by far
the largest part o f the Phi Ionic corpus (39 books)."-'
Among th e h istoricalapologetic writings, we fin d Agait1st Flaccus
and On lhe Embassy lo Gaius. A s an example o f the \VOrks o f the last
main category, the philosophical treaties? On Providence can be men
tioned. In total, 48 of Ph ilo's writings are still extant.Jt-~
Since the concern of this chapter is Philo's in terpretation of 'the a n
gel of the Lordtexl~ in Genesis, it is the first main category that is of
interest, i.e., the exegetical w ritings. The m ain books by Philo analyzed
below are On Flight aud Fit1ding, On Abraham, Questions and Answers ou
Geuesis,;;..s:; a nd On Dreams. In th ese \"-'Orks we find Philo's in terpreta ..
lions of Genesis 16; 22; 24; 28; 31, and 32. Concerning jacob's struggle at
the ford of Jabbo k, Philo comments upon Genesis 32 a nd Jacob's new
name Israel o n various occasions, for example, a lso in Ou the Cltauge of
Names, Ou Drukenuess, and On Sobriety. As will be shown, there arc a lso
some scattered rernarks on these pericopes in some o f Philo's other
texts, fo r example, On tile Cherubim. He a lso briefly discu~~s jacob's
bles.sing o f Ephraim and Manas..;;ch i1' Ge ne.o;is 48 in several of his
books, for examp le, in Allegoricallt!terpretaliou, book three.
415.
34.5 Unfor1unale1y, the main pa1't of Qtet'$lio11s aud At~sw.rs 011 Geue:sis is 01\ly exta nt in an
Armenian translation,. J>I'Ob.lbly daling from the 5fh cenlur> C. E.,. the Greek origina l
being l os~. ap.u'l from a tin)' porlh)n {~s..c1 tltaJl 10 pe cent) of lhe book See Marcus
(intmduc1ion) 1933, vii.
346 See also WilliamsQn, 1989.28.
347 See a lso Williamson 19.89, 103.
201
202
By His Spirit, God makes Himself known to the mind o f man. Hmv
ever, the h uman soul is u nable to grasp God's nature in iLc; fullness and
2(}3
Thus, Philo interprets the three "men" who visited Abraham in Genesis
18 as God and His two powers. However, in reality, all three visitors
were a manifestation of the o ne true God, and Abraha m's perception of
them as three was an illusion, d ue to the limitations o f the hurnan
mi nd .Jt.~'
358
359
360
361
20 4
According to Philo, the sun rnay be likened to God and the ~mnra ys to
His ' Logos';- we as h umans cannot g aze directly into the sun w ithout
being blind ed but we can perceive the light which emanates from it.'f12
The above mentioned tension bet-ween God 's transcendence and
immanence find s its p rime solution in the concept of the ' Logos'.. \"thich
encompasses and u nites the ')>0\"-'ers' o f God, both the creative and the
ruling aspect."'' The 'Logos' may also be d escribed as the expressed
thought of God; it is God in His self revelation to ~'c world . God in His
essence remains unfathomable but, through His 'Logos', 'He w ho lS'
reaches d own to a nd makes H imself known to humankind. The 'Logos'
is God in His knowability.364 Philo also depicts the 'Logos' as the in...
strumcnt by which God both created and sustains the world . Moreover,
the 'Logos' is the image of God, and h uman beings arc in tu rn created
in the image o f the ' Logos'.3fi!l
Philo's depiction o f the ' Logos' is very complex, and it has been
much discussed w hether it is to be u nderstood in terms of a n inde
pende nt e ntity, a 'hypostasis' or a manifes tation/an aspect of God, as
the .. powers' mentioned above..36io It is beyond the scope of this thesis to
elaborate this issue in de tail bu t it will b riefly be touched u pon below,
since the ' Logos' constitutes a keyterm in Philo's exegesis of the peri
copes in focus.
The religioushistorical background to Philo's 'Logos' is both Jew
ish and Greek. For example, the te rm itself was borrowed from the
Sto ics, although given a new meaning, a nd the re are a pparent connec
tions to Jewish wisdom tradition and perceptions of the creative '\'\ford
of God'. Philo sometimes ident ifies the divine '\<Visd om' with the ' Lo~
gos' but 'Wisdom' is also metaphorically d epicted as the mother o f the
'Logos' ~1nd God as its Father.)!,7
In this context, Philo's teaching has often been compared with the
' l ogos' o f John's Prologue, a nd it is genera lly recogn ized that ~'c
Evangelist and Ph ilo d raw upon common traditions. There a re ccr
362 Sl~e the dili<:ussion below of Ou Dreams 1.2:)9.240 and Qu:sticms tJIIll Auswtt~ on C..eue
sis 3. 3435. See illS!> Williamson 1989, 105106.
36.) Sl.>e e.g., 011 tilt CIJ~'tlebim 2728. In 011 FfigM omet Filliiing 101 q uoted below, lhe to-gos' is even depicted as being the - marioteer of the Powel'sN. !X.--e also Williamson
19$9. 105109. and Wolfson 1947, 'ol. I. 234-ns.
364 See Williamson 1989, 103109, Sandmel 19i9, 94 97. Dunn 1989, 220230, 2-11, and
Dodd 1953,6.1).71.
365 William s.c>n 1989, 108- 109, J 12 I 15. Set> also Borgen 1984, 2M266, Wolfs.c>n 1947, vol.
J, 261282. and Dodd 1933,68-71.
366 See Runia 1990, 1. 9-10, and Tobin 1992,351.
367 \Vins h)l\ 1989, 103109, Tobin l99l350-351, and Wolfson 19-17, vol. J, 253-261.
4
205
368 See also Willi<ult.."'n 1989,52-54, 1151 19, Dodd 195.1. 71-73, and Dunn 1989, 240245.
t\1any scholars poin t out tJMt the s imil.l rities between Philo's logos concept and the
pre-incamate 'Logos' of john d o no-t nt.<essarily impl) any dil'ecl influen\.-e l)f Philo's
works on the Fourth C'.ospel. bu~ are due to the Evangelis t's and Philo's common~
ligimL"' herit.lge. See,_e.g.. Brown 1966, l Vlll.
369 \<\>'olfson 1947, vol. I, 366-385. &."e also William!lon 1989, 110- 111. 135, .lnd Borgen
1984. 273.
370 WolfSl)ll 19<17, vol. I, 366-385. See a lso Runia 1990, I, 10. and Hrmnah 2007.424-425.
371 SeeGen 19:15-23.
3n Wolfson 1947, vol. 1.381-383.
373 Wolf.!ll)ll 1917. voL I. 383-38.1). However, Philos belief in evil ''llngelo;.. hM been
disputed by schola'S.. see, e.g... Dillo n 1983. 203-200.
206
Philo has some commen ts on Hagar's e ncounter with the angel in his
works Ottilie Cl1erubim, On Flighl fltld Findiug, On Dreams and Queslious
As seen in the quotation, Philo designates the angel o f the Lord who
encoun te rs Hagar as a 'divine 1A'o rd/a divine Logos', and th is identifi
cation o f the angel is also extant in On Dremw; 1.240 and in Questions
and Auswe-rs on Genesis 3.28: "\V hy does the angel say to her, 1Hagar,
maidservant o f Sar~1h, whence comest thou and w hither goest thou'?
[ ... )Bu t as for the d eeper meaning, forceful ness (is meant), for the di
vine Logos is a d iscip linarian and an excellent healer o f the weakness of
the soul."
The angel appears in order to encou rage a nd ad vice Hagar to re
tum to her mistress. Philo also de notes him as 'the angel monitor', Ha
gar's teacher. l11e translators Colson and \Vhitaker understand this ~1s
2CY7
According to the transla tors' in te rpretation, the a ngel is here called ' the
in wa rd monitor' by Philo.375 Bu t the a ngel seems nevertheless to be
addres.<ing Hagar from the o utsid e. Why else does Philo fi nd it necessary to explain that the angel's question is not caused by ignorance?
The angel already knew the reason fo r Hagar's flight, a nd he is rebuking her. The angel knows all about Hagar, includ ing that she is pregnant with a male child. Philo's words a re pecu liar in th is context; in
contrast to created beings, the angel kllO\'ItS "the secrets of the womb."
Does this imply that he is not a created being h imself? Or does the term
"created beings" in this case refer to h umans as distinct from angels?
The a ngel is said to be speaking to Hagar's soul. '"'hich may imply
that Philo regarded Hagar's rnecting v.r ith the a ngel as a n ' inner expe
rience' . \+Ve are perhaps to understand Philo as sa ying that the angel
spoke to Haga r through her own conscience.
Ph ilo understands Gen 16:13-14 to mean that Hagar perceived the
angel/' the divine Logos' as God Himself. ln reality she did n\eet not
God in person, bu t His servant; see, for example, Ot1 Fligltl and F;ndittg
1.211212. This interpretation is also to be fou nd in On Dreams 1.23924()3:~> a nd Queslions atld Answers on Geues;s 3.3435. Here, Philo comp~ues God to the sun itself a nd the ' Logos' is like ned to the sun rays, by
some people misinterpreted as being the source o f light itself:
mui Answer:; OJJ Cemsis 3.34) (Cen xvi. '13) Why d o~s (Scriptu r~)
say, "And she called the name uf the Lurd, who was speaking to her,
(Qu~tions
208
"Thou art God who seest ml!, fo r s he said, "Fo r indeed I have seen before
(me) him who appeared tu meN? Observe the fi rst point carefully, that he
was the servant of God in the same way (that Hagar was) the maid-servant
of wisd um. Henoo the angel was called {God) in order that she mig ht har
monize the reality to his appearance. Fur it was fitting and proper that
God, thL> Mt).~t High OnL> and Lord uf all. should appear tu wL..dom, while
he who w as his Logos (and) minis ter (should appear) I;() th~ maidservant
and attendant of wisdom. But it was not ~trange (for her) to belie\' that the
angel W<lS God. Fur those w ho are unable t<l see the fi rst cause naturally
suffer fw m an illusion, they believe that thl! ~eo)nd is the first. {They are
like those) who have pour eyes ight and are no t able to see the corporeal
fonn, which is in heaven,. (namely) the sun,. and belil!ve that the rays which
it sends h) earth an~ this ilo;elf. And all thuse who d u not see the Great King
a$<-"ribe the d ignity of the firSt in sow reiE,t lty tu his satrap and the (me un
der him.
Concluding Remarks
To conclude, it seems clear that Philo interpreted Gen 16:7-14 as a n
encoun ter between Hagar a nd the d ivine ' Logos', God's servan t. A~
cord ing to Philo, ' the a ngel of the Lord' in Genesis 16 is not to be con
fused with God Himself. Howeve r, it is peculiar that the ' logos' is con
trastcd with created beings in On Flight and Finding 1.203-205.
3'i7 See .Marcus' h)Otnotes s and i (Ques1io11s mld Awm.'l'rs m 1 G~'fltsill}, 1933, 222.
3'i8 ~e als.o Quts fiOII S and Allllln!!'S lltl G!!Jitsill3.35.
209
Philo does not mention the second divin e interfe rence in Gen 22:1 5~ 18
and the bles,ing of Abraham b ut simply states that " twice He [God[
called the father by name"~ a reference to the a ngel's words in Gen
22:11 w here Abraham's name is repeated twice?st ""'ith th e difference
that in Philo's version the a ngel is substillltcd by God.
Concluding Relnarks
In his accoun t of the Aqedah, Philo appears lo identify 'the angel of the
Lord ' as God the Savior. Hmvever~ his substitution o f the ..m gel for God
may also be interpreted to mean that -Philo considers the angel per se as
u nirnportant a nd not neccss..1rily implying that Philo deemed the angel
in Genesis 22 to be a manifestation o f God b ut that he read the text as
God speaking through the angel. In a ny case, it was God who inter
fe red. Philo's ascribing of the rescue of Isaac to God may also be seen in
the ligh t of the irnportance of the Aqed ah in jewish tradition.
379 Ho.,....evel', in 011 tilt llndt:lll$tY1Mellt'SSofCod 4, Philo mentions that Abrahrsm bound
lsa!K, but al.,o he re.. it i.'l Abraham's ' inner world' Iha l is in focus.. and no .1ngel is
mentioned in the shOI'I allu$ion to the Aqedah.
380 Ou Abraltellfl200207.
381 See a lso Feklmal\ 2006, 276.
210
(Questions
21 1
Although the woman may not trust ' this youth', that is, Abraham's
senran t,M6 she will have faith in his angelic guide, d esignated by Philo
as 1 thedivine \+Vord', the 'Logos'.J117
In the same way as Abraham's words in v. 7, the servant's prayer
(Gen 24:121 4) is interpreted prophetically by Philo;
(Quc>$fitms mul Answt'rs on Gemesis 4.95J ... since the angel o f C od was his
companion (m the journey and was near by, he was perhaps enthused by
him ;md began t() be p<l$~essed.
The arrival of Rebekah at the well even befo re the servant had finished
speaking (Gen 24:15) is interpreted by Philo as proof o f " ... the surpass
ing kind ness of God, which seem to be S\o\o'i fter than anything in crea ..
tion .'1l..~
Concluding Relnarks
It may thus be concluded that prophetic in.c;piration as well as d ivine
384
385
386
387
388
See iiiSO Marcus 1953, note a {Qtt~limL': fmd Answors tm C.eltiSis), p. 374.
Cf., Philo's commentary upl"'ll Gen 22:119, see ilbovt~.
See iiiS.O Marcus 1953 (QUL"Siious Otld .41tSWI'rsem c.mLOSis), nl"'te a. p. 37-1.
See ills.o Marcus 1953 (Ques1im1s a11d A~rsw..rs mt Ct11~osis), note b, p. 374.
Queslimt!> ami Answers mt Gt11i!sis 4.96.
212
tive. The angel is by Philo equated with the divine Word, the 'Logos'
but distinguished from God Himself, designa ted by Philo as ' the Savior'.
389 See the"'An.alytical introdu ctio n lo bl'IOk 1/ 011 Drenms. b) Colsonf\Vhitalct>l' 1958,
285, il\ Pl1ih1, vol. V. LC L
390 Ou Dr~!oms I. I 2.
391 literally . .. he mf.l a cetail\ place . . :"
213
that which contains it, and th~ Deity, bt:!ing contained by nothingm, is of
neCl~Sity Itself (to; own place ...,;.;~
According to Philo, apart from its ordinary " physical" meaning. the
word 'place' may either indicate the divine Word/'Logos' w hich God
fills and in w hich he st..1nds, or God Himself.:w~ The divine 1 Logos' is
God's place, an interpretation Philo bases on Exod 24:10 according lo
the LXX, w hich diffe rs from the MT:
And they [Moses, Aron, Nadab, Abiud ;md ~eventy of tJw elders of Israel]
saw lht pillet! where the Cod of Israel SlOc'KI . I Ktti t:i6ov ti'JV T(mov <"liJ
t:ion1Kn b 6t:<'.t.; Toll 1o(>ulA ..N, (instead ofl; " ... and they saw the Cud of
lsral!J .. . / ... ; N,_'L" ' :1'?1\tiN. l~Wl . (MT)..m
See also On the Carifusion of Tongues 96-97 where Philo identifies 'the
place' in the LXX version of Exod 24:10 as u,e 'Logos':
For then they ::;hall behold the place which in fact is the Wo rd, where
stands God the never chang-ing. n~v~r swerving. and also what liL:-s under
his feet like ''the work uf a brick uf sapphire, like the fo rm of the fi rmament
of the heaven"' (Ex. xxiv. '1 0), l!Vt!:n the W(lrld of o ur senw::;, which he indi
cate..; in t-his mystery. For it well benefits th()Si' who have entered into com
radeship w ith knowledge to desire to :;ee the Existent if they may, but, if
they cannut, W ::;ee at any rate his lmagl!, the m()St huly W'()rd, and after the
Word its most perfect work uf aU that l)Ur st!n.ses know, even this wo rld ...
The use of the word ' place' as signifying either God's 'L<.>gos' or God
himself recalls the early Rabbinic epithet OljHl/lv!dqOm as a d ivine title
designating God as ' the Omnipresent.''"' In addition to Exod 24:10,
Philo also uses Gen 22:3-4 to support his interpretation:
392 Yonge pmpo~e~ another lrai\Siatil)ll: " . .. but the Deil)' being AAJJTOUI\ded by noth
ing. is necessarily itsell its own place .. ."
393 As seen in the quohltion, Colson and Whitaker have cl\c)sen to translate Philo's
concept 'l.ogl'll:i' acoording fO iLc; literal English me.m ing NWord:'' I will the-1-efore use
both temls a~ intechangeable equivale nts.
394 A('C(l(ding h) Segal ( 1977, 162165), Philo's divine 'l.ogos' is the hyp06tasi?:ed intelli
gen.:e of God; b)' His ' LogO$', God reve<~ ls Himself fO humankind. Tile tog~ is
God's ' image', the visible emanation of Cod. Kleinknecht (1969, 89) \\'rite!>! "'Tilus the
A6yo; is a mediating figute whidl romes foth ftom God and estal>li~he.<~ a link between the remotely transc~ndent God and the world of m.m. and yet which
represenLc; m.m to God as a high ptiest . .. "See also Hanneth 1999, 79-83.
395 S..~e also 5eg.11 1977, 1 6.~169, '""' B<'ll'ker 19')2,. I 18122.
396 See ai!>O Jas.trow 1971,830, Segal. 1977, 161162. Urbach 1975, 6679, A. Ma1morstein
1927, 92 92, and 148- 153. According h) Koehler/ Baumgartner (2001. 627), rhe \\'CU'd
,\1tfrt'm already ha~ thi.<~ meaning in Esth 4:14: "For if you keep silen ce at :;uo::h time a.<~
thi~. relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from .1.nother quarter .. ." 11nK Ol~ ...
f1'0m Godj. See also chapter 4.5 below.
4
214
(On Drmms 1.64-66J"He [Abrah<lm} came to th~ place (the LXX: ... i)AEh:v
d.:; 'tbv Tt'm uv) of which God had told him: and lifting up hi.:; eyt~$ hi! saw
the place from afar."' (Cm. xxii. 3f.). Tell me. pray, did h~ wh<) had come to
the place see it from afar? Nay, it would .seem that one and the same word
is used of two d ifferent things: o ne of these is a d ivine Word, the other G<>d
whu was befure th~! Word l ...) But when he has his place in th~ d hrine
Word he does not actually reach Him Who is in very essence God, but soo..o;c
Him from afar ...
l11e repetition of the v~.rord 'place' implies that it denotes tv~.ro differen t
"entities" in Gen 22:3-4; God and God 's 'Logos'/Word.
After his survey of the three different definitions o f the word
'place', Philo concludes that the proper interpretation of Gen 28:11 is
that ' Lhe place' denotes u,e Word of God: " ... jacob, having come to
Senseperception, meets not now God but a word of Glxl, even as did
Abraham .. . ""' Furthem,orc, Philo highlights the fact that the text
does not say that Jacob came intentionally,, by choice so to speak, to the
place but that he mel with a place. Hence the divine 'logos' met him,
manifesting itself suddenly to an u nprepared Jacob.:wll
Philo provides several allegorical interpretations of ' the sun' in Gen
28:11. The sun, according to Philo, first and foremost represents God;
' the Father and Ruler of the Universe', to use his designation.3'J'J God is
Light the very source of all light."" The sun may also symbolize the
d ivine 'Logos', the divine pattem o r model w hich contains the fullness
of God;~n and finally it may represent the hu rnan mind, enlightened by
God d irectly or by the means of His ' Logos'."" According to Philo, the
latter applies to jacob in Gen 28:11.""
The sto nes mentioned in this verse are also interpreted allegorical
ly; the sto nes represent incorporeal ~words'/A6ym.. that is, immortal
souls. Jacob takes o ne of these sto nes, the suprem e logos, the divine
'Logos' itself, to serve as the pillow for his mind. Hence Jacob lays his
whole life ~'in the hands of" the divine Word, the 'Logos':11"'
After this prelude, Philo discusses the d ream vision itself. He in ter
prets the Jadder/sl<lirway as sym bolizing three things. Firstly, the lad
der is a figurative name for the air.~ the abod e of the unbodied souls.
215
Secondly, the ladder in itself c..1n be said to represent the human soul,
upon which the divine \Vords ascend and descend, hence the soul con
stitutes the hu man link connecting wi th the di vi n e. ~~~~~
Th ird ly, the ladder may be a picture of the future life o f jacob, with
all the ups and downs that awaited him:
[On Dnams 1.150, 153156] lt may be that the Practiser OacobJ has his own
Jife presented f() him in his visi()n as resembling a stairway{ ... } The affairs
of men a re naturally likened to a Jadd ~ r owing tu their uneven course. Fur
one day, the poet says, brings o ne man down frum un high . and lifts anoth
er up, and nothing relating to man is of nature h) remain as it L~, but all
such things are liable to changes of every kind (... ]Such is the road nn
which human affairs g u up and down.. a road liable to shifting and un.">fa
ble happ<'ning.< [... J
Kugel compares this interpretation by Philo with the one given in the
Pseud -epigraphon Ladder of Jacob, w here the ladder is said to represent
' this age' as well as the fu ture destiny of Jacob's descendants.-W'J
According to Philo, the dream showed God. 'the Ruler o f the an
gels' standing fi nnly upon the ladder, rneaning that God is the unqucs
2Hl
tionable lord of all creation, stand ing high above all created beings and
things. lt is God alone \vho establishes and holds together the creation
and prevents chaos:
(On Ori:ams '1.157-1581 ~ dream Sht!wed the Ruler of tht! angels (Tbv
(.tvxt.l)'YfAuv, ..:l.JQ1ov] set fast upun the s tairway, even the Lord, for high
up Like a chari l)f~er high o ver his chariot o r a helmsman high over his ship
mus t ,.,..e conceivt! uf Him that IS (Tb i'1v} stand ing o ver bod ie..:;, o ver souls,
over doings, over words, o ver angels [.. .)over powers descried by o ur
~n.:;es, O\'>r invis ible beings, yea all things ::>een and unseen: f()r having
made all the univers~ to depend o n and cling to Hirn..;eJf ( ... ] Let nobody
(...1think that anything co-operates w ith Cod to help Him to stand fimll}'
11For it is because He stabiL-;hes and h()fds it together that the syst~nl of
creatOO beings remains strongly and mig htily free fro m de..:;tructiun . ..
217
actly o pposite to the standard rabbinic doctrine. YHWH i:c; 1nerciful fur the
rabbis; kyrios, judging for Philu. C()n\'e rsely, Elohim is judging fur the rabbis; lheos, merciful fo r Philo:m
218
that appeared to thee,"' not " in my place" but "in the place uf Cod," as
though it were ano ther'~. What, then. are we to say? He that is truly God is
One, but thuse that are improperly so caU~d are more than one. A<.'cording
Jy, the holy wurd in the present in$-tance has indicated Him Whu is truly
God by means of the articles saying " I am the God/ while it o mits the article when mentioning him wh() is improperly so called, saying "Who ap
peared to thee in the place" not "of the C od,"' but s imply "uf God." 1-lere it
g ive~ the title t)f "G(,d" to t lif.i chief \r'lurd, not from any superstitit)US nicety in appl)ring nmnes, but with one aim before him, to use words tu exp re~s
facts. Thu~ in an()ther place, when he had int.Juired whether He that IS has
any n<lme, he came to know fu11 well that He has no pr<1per name( ... J for it
is O()t the nature of Him that IS to be s poken of, but simply to be. T(~timo
ny W this is afforded also by the divine response made to MoSK~' question
whether He has a name, even " I <un He that 15"' ( Ex. iii. 14) ... ~19
'The God' in definite fo rm d enotes the true God in Himself, while the
word 'God' \o:ithout the definite article denotes the ' Logos'. God ap--peared to jacob in Gen 28:10.22 through His 'Logos', God's d1ief Word.
According to Segal: " Philo derives the idea that the logos is a separate,
second d ivine hypostasis from the fact that 'God' is repeated in 'place
of God'' in.stead of using the pronoun (i.e., My place) as one v~.rould
normally expe<:t."'" See also Gen 35:1 (MT) w here God!Eiohim refers in
the third person to the God/EI who previously revealed Hjmself to
Jacob in Bethel: " .. . Arise, go up to Bethel, and settle there. Make an
altar there to the God [not to me!] \vho appeared to you v~lhen you fled
from your brother Esau." God reveals Himself to humankind in the
form of His ' Logos':m
(On Drwrms 1.232) To the soul~ indeed which ;u e inrurpureal and are occupied in His worship it is likely that He should reveal H i m.~H a.s He is, <."on
verSing with them as friend with friends (the ange1s?J;~: but to ~()uls which
4 t9
420
421
422:
219
In, for example, On Husbandry 51, the 'Logos' is likewise labeled God's
'viceroy' and additionally identified as the ' divine nameangel' of Exo
dus 23.= The 'Logos', the image of God, the angel of God and the di
vine viceroy are thus equated to each other in Philos teaching.m It is,
hmvever, noteworth y that 'the angel of God' in singular form is not
mentioned in Genesis 28 bu t only in f'.crenesis 31, w here he in v. 13 idcn~
tifies Himself as flu~ God, in definite form, a term understood by Philo to
denote God Himself, not a mediator. Philo's statement that it was the
423 See illso e.g ., On FUgilt and Fi11ding 10 1, II t -112. Otl JJ1e Mign;tNm of AbmJwm t74, ond
Gieschen 1998. 107~ 1 t2.
424 Acrording hl Gieschen (1998. 107-1 12), Philo's u~c: of lhe term 'anger to denote the
'logos' reve.11s his dependence upon the Jewi.c;h ongelomOI'fJhic lrild ilion~ in his elaboration of the amcepL
220
According to On Drwrkenuess 82-83, jacob's struggle at )abbok is in terpreted allegorically as the patriarch's final exercise i n his pursuit of
virtue. Philo quotes the statement in the LXX Gen 32:28; "Thy name
shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name, because
you have been strong with God and mighty with men" and takes this
to mean that Jacob had showed himself worthy bo th in fro nt of God
and humans. As a reward, Jacob is blessed with the name Israel. '"'hich
according to Philo signifies perfection and the sight of God:""
Now Jaet>b is a name for learning and p rogTC$$, gifts which d epend un the
hearing; lsr-ae1 for- perfection, fur the name expteSSl.>S the vis-ion of God. And
what among aU the b les:.::ings- which the virtue., ~oive can be mor~ perfect
than the s ight t)f the Absolute(}' ExL'>h.mt? He whu has- the sight of this b1es..:;.
ing has hLs fair acknllw1edgt!d in the eyes uf both parents-, fur he has gained
the strength which is- in God and the p()wt!r wh kh avails among men.
Sl~e
the dilio.tssion of Philo's intep-et.l tion of jacob's d ream at Bethel (C'.enesis 28)
abo\e. Ao; mentioned in the i.nti'Oduction, be.:ause of the inhe1-ent ilmbigu ity in Phi
lo's d i$0Jssions of the ' l....,go.<~', tl\el'e are also divergent views among s.chol.us -egarding th e iote rpretcllion of Philo's \\'l'itingli on this point. There are basically two
,..sides;" those w ho cons ider Philo's Logo.<~ a.<~ noth ing m ore than a way to expl'ei$
C"...od's acti on in the world, e.g. Hurtado (1998, 44-18}, while o thei"S argue tlt.lt Ph ilo's
'logO$' s hould be regBrded as a h)rpos.lilsi ~. e.g.,. Wolfron (1947, \'OI. 1. 231252). See
alo;o Hannah 1999, n-83.
426 See Ott Dmum; 1.190 quoted aOOve.
427 See also Col.son/ Whitaker. l930, 0Jt SoWridy 65, h)Otnll te a, p. 478.
428 See also H11ywa'd 2005, 169172.
425
221
222
connection between the 'Logos' and the nation of Israel in Philo's \"-' l'it
ings..f..1.5 Indeed, in Ott Jl;e Cmifusiou of Tongues, 146, the 'Logos' itc;elf
carries the narne of Israel, a name that Philo throughout his \Vritings
interprets as meaning 'one who sees (God)' :~:li!
But if there be any as yet unfit tu be called a Son of Co<)d, let him press to
take his place under God's Firstborn, the Wo rd, whu holds the eld erShip
a mung the angels, their ruler as it were l.. 'Ti>V tiyyi:Ac..w nQur~lJ'tun>V. ,;.,.;
th> t.1Qx(tyytAov: the eld est uf Hi.:; angels, a.'> the great a rchangeJU.l - And
many names are his, fur he is called, "the &ginning," and the Name uf
Go d, and His Word, and the f\1an after HL.; ilnage. and " he that sees,N that
is Israel( ... i, i)(!c~w, l u(.H"-'''A]:".ill
According to Philo, it was this 'angel', the 'Logos',. who bestowed the
name Israel o n Jacob. Moreover, the reason that jacob, even after his
renaming as Israel, is on occasio ns still called by his o ld name-1' 9 is due
to the fact that the new name was given to him by an angel, and not by
God Himself; in contTast to the case of Abraham:
{On the Clwuge oJ Naml!'S 87] .. .Therefore did Abraham in token of the tWtm
tenor of his future tife r~ive h is new name fmm Cod, the unchangeable
( ... 1 But jacob was re-named by an angel. Gt)d~s minister, the Word, in aC
kn()Wiedgement that what is below the Existent cannot pro duce pem"ta
nrnoo un~werving an d unwavering ...
435 See a lso Wolfson 1947. vol. I, 377379, G ie~hen 1998, 111112, and HiuUMh 1999, 88
89.
436 For a full ILc;t of references, liee th~ 'Index of name!>'; ' lsrlk'-1' in Philo, vol. X, lCL,
1962. 334.
4J7 Yonge's tran.c;Jation.
4J8 Cf... Col1: 15 17and Heb 1:13.
4.19 See, e.g. \A"-n 34:3; 35:1 IS; 37: 1. 34; 48:23.
440 H.:lyward 2005, 167.
223
(011 Drewus 1.129) The divine wurd readily listens to and accepts the athlete
(Jacob) tube first of aU a pupil. then when he has been satisfied uf his fi tness of nah.tre, he fastens <m the glove..; as a trainer d t>es and summons him
to the exercises, thi!n clOSl$ with him and fur<."eS him tu w restle until he has
d eveloped in him an irresistible s trength, and by the b reath t)f d i vi n~t inspiratio n he changes ears into eyes, and g:ives him when remodeled in a new
funn the name of Israel-l-Ie who St~e.s.
Since the ' Logos' in Out!Je Catifusiou of Tongues 146 is designated by the
very same titJe, ~Israel', that is given to Jacob, Gicsdlcn suggests that
Philo may have understood the renaming of Jacob as the 'Logos', i.e.,
the angel Israel bestowed his O\Vn name upon the patriarch.u1 Because
of the close connection between Jacob/the nation Israel and the Logos'
in Philo' s mindset, o thers, for example, \'Volfson and Darre11 D. Hannah, in terpret the 'logos' in this context as the guardian angel of Israel.
the archangel Michael."'
Although Philo does not explicitly offer any such specific identifica
tion of Jacob's contender in On Dreams 1.129, it seems implied that the
' Logos' is to be u nderstood as an angel. akin to those o thers
A6ym/'angels' mentioned in the context.443 However, as discussed
above? sdlolars differ in the interpretation o f ' the archanget the Lord'
w ho, according to OH Dreams 1.1 57, addresses Jacob from the top o f the
ladder in his dream at Bethel. some identify him as God in person/ o th..
ers as the Logos' .
In the same way as the biblical account, the name of the antagonist
remains unknO\\'ll in Philo1 s interpretation o f Genesis 32, w hich may be
illustrated by his discussion of the narrative in On Ihe Change of Names
14-15:
So impc,,s,sible to name indet:!d is the Existent that not even the Pot('nd\!S
who serve Him tell u.s a pruper name. Th us after the wrestling-bout in
which the Man l>f Practit.-e [Jacob) eng:aged in his q uest of virtue, he says to
the un.o;een [cmQt1n,_,J ma..;-ter,.4~ "Announct'! to me Thy name," and he said
"\!Vhy do~t thou ask this my name?"' (C'ol!n xxxii. 29), and he refuses to tell
his personal nam\! f... t O i61uv ..:t.tt u:Uf.?lO\'}. "(t is enough fl>r thee,N he
mean.'>, "to profit thn)ugh my benediction, but as fur names, those symbl>ls
which indicate created beings_, look nut fo r th~tm in the case of ilnperishable
naturns." (<fuJo mv {1<J)OUQnn.;] Think it nut then a hard saying th<lt the
Highest of all thing..-. should be unnamable ( ... Tb "f(~ Ovno.N 11Qt<~U Tc:tTov
224
225
226
Prayer ofJoseplr
Philo
(Fragment A) "1. Jac:xJb, who is speak (On the Confusion of Tongues 1461 But
ing to yn u, am also Israel, au angel of if there be any as yet unfit ft) be called
a Son<)( Cud, let h im pn.ss to ta ke his
Coli ;md a ruling spirit.( ... ]
pJace unde r God's Firstborn, th~
But, I. jacob, who me n call jaet)b but
Wurd1 who ho lds til ~ eldcrslrip amtmg
whose na m e is lsrt1el a m he who God tlte tmgels, their nrler as it were
<:allt!d lsra(!/ wh ich mean s, n man
(... Tb v Uyyl:AcoJV nQtuPlJTln:uv, c~>;
set iug Cod, because I a m the firstbom itv t:\Qx_ciyytAcJv: the eltlest of his
of every Jiving thing to whf)m God
a flgds, as the grctlf trrcluwge/4,-.,). And
g ives li fe.~
many names a re his, for ht,e is called,
"'th('!" Beginning," and tht! Nam e of
C ud, and His \Vord, and the Man
after His image, an d " Ire that sees, ..
that is ls rtuof ( ... t, ''tx~v, lo<,xu)AJ.
And when I was coming up from
Syrian Mes<)po tamia, Uriet the angt~ l
of God~ came fo rth and said that I had
descen ded to earth (. .. J He e nvied me
a nd fo ug ht with me [.. . )
449 cr.. Col 1:15 17. See al!iO Smith 196-Cl, 268, tmd Gieschen 1998. H O.
450 Yongc's tran.c;Jalion. See a lso Wile) is I he Heir205 .md Ou Dn>r~ms 1. 157 tlUOied above.
451 St.--e al<;tl Ou lite CJ1e111Mm 2728. where lhe ' Logos' is depicled as standing belween rmd
uniting the lwo Cherubim, reptesenting C.od's higheS-t pt>\''e rs. His g<mdne..c;s, and Hi.<~
Stwereiglll)'. However, hl \1!/ltc) t; lite Hdr 166 God Himself occupie.c; lh is position.
227
As shown, many of the epithets that Philo as..c;:ign.s to the 'Logos' correspond closely to/are identical to those given to jacob/lsr~1el in the Pmyer
of Joseplt, fo r example, 'archangel'~ ' firstborn', ' Israel', i.e., ' the man who
sees'/'he w ho sees', 'the archangel o f the power of the Lord' /'the charioteer of the Powers'.m' Ho\vever.- Philo also employs tem1s not found in
the Pseudepigraphon, e.g., he labels U1e 'Logos' as ' the man after His
[God's ! image'.
An additional connection between Philo's ' Logos' and the angel Jacob/Israel in the Prayer of Josep!J may be that Uriel in the latter work is
depicted as lite eig!Jlh in rank, '"'' h ilc Jaoob/Isr.-.el is 'tl1e archangel of the
power of the Lord'. Philo assigns a similar title to the ' Logos', which he
declares to be 'the d1arioteer o f the Powers'. When commenting o n the
LXX Exodus 25 in Questions and Answer.s on Exodus 2.68, Philo describes
the ' Logos' as part o f a sevenfold hierarchy in whidl God h~1s the p rime
position and the 'Logos' the second highest. Possibly.- the author of the
Prayer of Jasepll also had such a heavenly hierarch y in mind and placed
Uriel o utside " the inner-circle o f seven'' bu t this conclusion remains
hypothetical; perhaps there is only a "superficial'' similarity between
the terminology of Philo and d1e author of the Prayer ofJoseph.
However/ it is evident that both of them agree in ascribing to Israel
the status o f the highest angel b ut they arrive at this conclusion b}' d iffe rent routes;.t.u Philo never depicts the pntrinrdt Jacob as an (incamated)
angel. In his works.- it is the ' Log<:>S' that inhabits this position. The de
scription of the conflict at Jabbok as a confrontation between two rival
angels, Uriel and Israel. in the Prayer of Joseplt has no counterpart in
Philo's exegesis:m
The only similarities between the elaborations on Genesis 32 pre
sente..i by Philo and the Pseudepigraphon are the fact U1at Jacob's o pponent in both cases is iden tified as an angel, Uriel and the Logos'
respectively, and the etymology of the name Israel. However, in Philo's
works, the name ' Israel' is generally described as a reward, Jacob has to
bt>come Israel ;, order to see God, it is not a quality he possesses from the
outset."-;. >;
Based on these parallels and d ifferences, there is no dear anS\'I!er
regarding the relationship between Philo's authorship and the Prayer of
228
}osep!J. The latter rnay be contemporary with Philo's works but that
does not imply any inter~depende nce between them. Philo both might,
and might not, have known the composition. Most probably, both Philo
and the author of the Pra!f" of joseph built u pon common jewish traditions regarding the etymology o f the name Israel and angelologyi tradi
tions pre-dating bo th of them. They had a common religious heritage
but used it differently in their respective authorships::.t.
The Blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh
Regarding the interpretation of jacob's blessing of his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh, Philo has three references to Jacob's words in Gen
48:1516 relevant to the present thesis. The first is fou nd in Allegorical
lnlerprelaliotl 3.177-178:
Now tho..;e uf whom we have been speaking p ray tu be fed with the word
of Cod. Bu t jacub? looking even h igher than the wurd, says that he is fed by
God Himself. He s-pea k.~ o n th is- wiSt~: "Tht? God to Whom my fa thers Ab
raham and Isaac were well pl t~as-ing. the God V.'ho feedeth me from my
youth up unto this day, the Angel wh{) d elivered me out of all my ills_ bless
these boys" (Cen xlv iii.15f.). HtW' beautiful L.; his to ne and temper! He
kK">ks e,m God as feeding h im, not His Word; but thtt Angel, who is the
Word, as healer uf iUs (.. .) He thinks it meet and right that He that IS
should Himself in His uwn Pen;on g ive the p rincipal boons, while His An
gels and \Vurds give the secondary g if ts; and St:ondary are such as involve
riddance from ills f .. ) Nuw His {Cod's) mode uf dealing is the same in the
case of the soul. The good th ings, the food. He Him~ lf be..,-tows with His
o wn hand, but by the <lgency of Angels an d Words such as invQive the rid
d ance o f iHs.
456 See Haywa1d 2005, 2162 19, and Smilh '1968, 259260. See also Bimb.1um 1996, 72 90.
4
229
(On/he Confw;iml oJTougu'S Hl0-182) ...God is the cau~eof good thinWi o nly and of nothing a t all that is bad, s ince He Himse1f W<lS the most ancient
of being..'> and the good in its most perfect fo rm [.. .) b ut that the cha~tist!
m~nt of the wicked should be aS$ured through His underlings. My though
ts are attested al:;o by the w ords ( )f him Oaa )bl whu wa.o; made perfect
thruugh practice? " the God who nourished me fn)m tn}' yo uth, the angel
who sav~t me fn)m all evilo;c [... ) f()r he, too, hereby confesses that the tru
ly good gifts, which nouris h \irtue-luving souls, are referred to God alone
as their Ci-l uSe. but ( m the other hand the p rovince of things evil has been
a , mmitted to angels( ...). Tl~ reft)re he says, "Co me and let t LS go dm.,n
and cunfound th~ m ."~"' The impious indeed deserve to have it a~ their punishment, that Cod's benefi cen t and merciful and bountiful powerS shuuld
be bmught in association with W<)rk~ of vengl!ance. Yet, though knowing
that punishment was salutary fo r the human race, He d ecreed that it
should be exacted by uthers ..."'~
[On Fliglrf flntl Fimlfu.~ 66-671 ... He [God) punishes n()t by His t)wn
hand ~ b u t by th o~ of others who ad as His mini~te rs (... )The Practiser (Jacob) testifies to what I say in the wo rds, "Cud who nourishes me... (q u()ta
tio n nf Gen 4S:1516J He a::;crib...~ to Cod the more important good things.
by which th~ soul is nu urished, and the les.~,; impo rtant, which C()me about
by escape from sins, to God's minister.
l) n
this
pass.1ge:
Philo here seem. <1 to assign the work of punishment 10 Lhe lower divi.<~il.)n of lhe mi
nisters rather lhan to !he Potencies, though elsew h,~re he tr~~ats it as belonging to lhe
Kingly Potency indicated by lhe name o/6 Kl-'Qto.;, e.g.., Dt Abr.l44, 145. Here the
.. angel$"" have lhe w hole province of e\ril assign...>d lo them. whether to save them
ft'Om it. as with Jacob, or 10 inflk~ it.
459 ~ea ls.oOnHusJumdry 128-129.
230
Because God is the o rigin of good only and human nature encompasses
both good and evil, Philo declares that God tvas assisted by H is ser
vants in the creation of human kind, a statement t-hat cornes perilously
d ose to the 'two powers-heresy' combated by the early Rabbis, al
though Lhe Rabbinic interpretation of the same passage explains the
plural by saying that God consulted the angels.461
Concluding Remarks
Gen 31:13 as re.:orded in the LXX is a key verse for Philo's theological
system:
ICen 31:13) ... tyc;, Li~ (1 fh:6t; i) <'KIJOtl:; o(n i:v t6m~, Atc:(JiJ... I 1 a m t he
1
According to Philo, the God (in the definite fo rm) here refers to His
' Logos', i.e., 'god' in the indefinite form. Philo's cornment Qn this verse
implies that God initially appeared to jacob through u,e 'Logos'. The
' logos' is identified by Philo as the angel of the Lord, the image of God
and the divine viceroy. However, his in terpretation of the verse is not
enti rely in agreement with his comment on Genesis 2R since, according
to Philo, Jacob's dream showed God standing above the ladder, indicat..
ing that he is the lord of all creation.
The sun as "veil as the word ' place' is said by Philo to S}'mbolize
both God Himself and the divine 'Logos'. It is noteworthy that the
word A111iq0m/'place' denotes God as the Omnipresent in some Rabbinic
4(,0 See a lso Ou lf1~ O'llliml 7275. If we Cl"'nl'inue to read On Fliglll and Fiudiug (68-70)
\ '/e
find the same explanation of the use of the plural hwm in .::onrM.<tion with the Cl't!<l
riml of huma1t kind.
46t Sl.>ee.g .. C"..-'11. R4b. 8.4; b. 5!tJiitt'.ltriu38b, and Tg. Ps.J. Gen 1:26. However, the Rabbi.<~
s-ll'ongly opposed the notion that God ltaJ hd11 in the neaHon. See al.~o Segal 19n,
176177, and FO$sum 1985, 198-21 I. llte re are als..""' pass.tge.~ in Philo' s works tJMt
seem to ron t adk~ hL~ "dllCtrine"' of Cod a" Ute oigin of goodness l"'nly, e.g., Alit
g.,;..-.ti intt>rJIYefaJiml 3.1MI06. See a l$1) Wolfson 1947, \'01. I, 282. 349, and 382. lt
must a lso be pointed out lhat, although olCCOI'<Iing to, e.g., 011 tf1r C.mfllsilm iJf
Tmgtet'S li81 79, God a.~signs the creati-on of lhe evil aspect of man to his serVBI\l<\,
God is still in control and ha..c~ the ultimate respl"'nsibility for lhe whole creation. thu..c~
there i..; no place for d ualis m in Philo' s lhi1\ ki.ng. See also \ViUiamson.. 1989, 44-IS.
231
Jacob has not been granted the ability to sec God's true natu re but God
Himself has revealed His existence to him, a statement that most
probably alludes to jacob's experience at the ford of Jabbok. Thus, ac
cording to Lhis passage, it seems that Philo interpretc; Genesis 32 in
462 S..~e fotexam ple Gc.-11. RtJIJ. 6$. 9 (quoted below in <:hapter 45).
463 E.g., OJ: Dntke-nut>sll82..&3 and Oulftt~ Ciumgt: t>/ NtJml'5 82. see quolations above.
46.J Yooge's transJatio1t.
465 \\mge has here: "' . .. nl")l having le.wnt this fact from a nyone ellle ( .. . j bul being in
st1-u<:ted in the fact by Cod himllell, who is v1iliing hl 1'eVeal his own exLc;tenre to his
!ttippliant:'
232
terms of a revelation o f God, w ho had willed to" ... reveal His existence
as a person to the supplian t.''-1M
Rega rding the comparison be t\veen Philo's authorship and the
Prayer of joseph, it may be conclu ded that U1e descriptions of the 'Logos'
by Philo have many p arallels wi U1 the angelic portrayal o f jacob in the
Pscudepigraphon, as bo th are e nt itled 'Israel', 'archangel', etc. Howev
er, the respective interpretations o f Genesis 32 differ con.o;:iderably.
Finally, Philo's references to Jacob's words in Gen 48:1516 clearly
indicate that he conceived the a ngel in v. 16 as being d istinct from and
subordinate to God. According to Philo, the su perior blessings are
granted by God, the rescue from evil by His servant, th e angel.
466
233
depiction o f the angel Israel in the Prayer of Joseph, although the p atriardl Jacob h imself is never u nde rstood as a n angel by Philo. It is the
' Logos' who is the supreme ardl angel. However, in On Dreams 1.157
God Himself seems to be design ated as ' the archangel', standing on the
stainvay in Jacob's dream at Bethel (Genesis 28). In Philo's treatment of
Genesis 28 a nd 31, the rela tionship be tween God and His ' Logos' is fa r
from clear. The word 'place' in Gen 28:11 is, for instan ce, said to refer
both to God a nd to the 'Logos' . However, in the case o f Philo"s interpretation of Gen 48:15- 16, 'the angel' is porrrayed as distinct from God.
The connection between ' the angel of t-he Lord' and the 'Logos' in
Philo's exegesis is o bvious but... as mentioned above, Ph ilo's ' Logos..
doctrine' is very complex and still an issue for scholarly discussion.
Many scholars maintain that although Philo calls the 'Logos' 'a
second G od/~r;; the ' Logos'/'the angel o f God' is essentially a man ifesta
t ion of the One God as He has d10sen to reveal Himself to the world.
For exam p le, in the words of Alan Segal:
Philo allows for the existtmce o f a second, principal d ivine creature, whom
he ca11s a "sEX<md God," wh-o neverthtd e.o;.'O is o nly the visible emanatiun uf
the 1-figh, C\'er-existing God. In doing this, he has an en tire-ly d iffenmt emphasis than th ~ rabbis. He is clearly fo llowing the Greek philo~ophers. Like
them, he is n~1 uc.1ant to etmceive o f a pure, eternal God whu pa rti cipab..~ d irectly in the a ffa ir:; t.lf the <-"orruptible wurld. Su h~ employs a system of
mediation by which G(x:i i::. able ft) reach into the tran..o;ient 'vorld, act in i t.~
fiH it.. a::. \V1l as transcend material exi~tence, withuut implying a dmnge in
HLs e::>sence ll So the logos, d efined a~ the thinking facu lty of C<>d, can
easily be described also as an incorporeal being( ...] The /t)go~ b~um es the
actual figure of Go d who appeani "like a man" in o rder that men may
know His prcsence.u.a
234
470
47l
472
473
474
235
A vast amoun t of sd 1olarly books and articles have been written con
ceming Flavius Josephus, the famous Jewish historian, politician, and
general, active during the first cen tury C.:175 Since the focus of this
chapter is Josephus' understanding o f the angel of the l.ord in Genesis,
I "ill restrict myself to an o utline of Josephus as a Jewish ''theologian"
and interpreter of the Bible ...a76
475 See., e.g., Feldman's bibliogNphies: /fl5l1Jiuts a11d ..Hodl.'ftt Sdml;1rslup (J9.l7..SO). 1984,
and /i)U'111Uts: A S1lpple.t11eul.1ry 8iblitlgrf1phy, 1986. Feldnum has h imself w iuen/ediled
se\eral book..'! and olrtid es about Josephus,. e.g. /Ml'l111lt.<:. 1ft; Bible a11d HisWty, 1988. I
would also like to mention Molson's introduction in Flo1Vi!IS JosqJ!ms. Tnmsl.alim1 ttlld
C(t/1111/t'lllary, vol. .t Juderm AtllitJIIifit':i t 4 (ed. Mason,. tran.'l. and o::ommentn.ry, Fe ldman). 20()(}.l.. Xlli-XXXVI and the article "New a.ments in Josephus r,~seau:h," by
Bond in Ct.rmlls itt R;:seardJ: BibJi.:al Sludit'.-;. vol. S, 2000. 162 190. See al40 M.1son's
!i-UfVt>)' "Josephus and Juda ism," 2000b, 5<16-563.
4i6 Josephu..'l was born 1\.'1 Joseph ben Mauityahu in rhe ye.u 37/3S C.E. in jel'USale m,
w hich was also rh~ place of his upbringing. He was of prie.<~tly de~"'ellt, and on his
nllllher's !tide he beiMged to the roy<'~ I Hasmonean fa mily. According to Eusebius:
(HE 3.9.2.), he died in Rome. pnlbably around 100 C. E.. see also Sterling 1992, 235.
Aller JO$ephus" death the Roman.<~ deposited his works in the city lii>I'M')" and e1-ected
a ..'ltatue in his honor. For surveys of his life. see Bilde 1988, 13-22. 27-6(). Feldman
1992, 981998, and 2006, 313333, Sterlins 1992,. 229-2.)5, Schalit I<Jil, 25 1-264, At
t:ridge 1984, 185-192, .1.nd Bond 2000. 162178.
477 In .4111. 20.268, Jl)!;ephus mentions that he intended to w1ite yet Bl\Other work: On
C11~1oms .md CaJtSt'S, whe1-ein he would d eal with su ch theological issu es as the rea$0l'IS for the comm.lndmenl"',. the prMtice o f circumcision. e tc., see also, e.g., A111.
1.23, 29, 3. C)IJ. 230, 4.198. However, this work d oes not appear to luve been completed, see Feldman 1998, 205; 2(XX>. 10, note 34, and 2006, 333, Schi'u-er, vol. I {Iran.<:.,
rev., a'ld ed. Vemes a nd Millar) 1973,55-56, and Attridge 1984, 2 12. Bec.1use of his
deference to the Rom.aM and !itibSe!.luent affili.uion w ith the impe1ial f.lmiiy, Josephus' reputation amons his fellow Jews suffered, and his writings ha\'e survived
236
478
4i9
480
481
482
mainly bec-.mse o f theil prest.'J'\'<llion by the early Cllur.:h. J t\~ph us' M 'ilings preoent
a unique and invaluable source of infMmatit'lO f\~gard ing, Jewis h society and hiS-tory
at the time o f the birthof<luistianity, see Bilde 1988, 15-l7,and Bond 2<XXt li7-J79.
See als.o f eldman 1992, 995-996.
Mo.<~t scholars lriut.c;late the title of this Wtll'k as the J~><~Ji.dt Auliqw'lil."!l. Ho\Y"ever, alcmg
with, for example. 1\Jas.on and Feldman., who$e trans lation I u ~ (fe ldman 2000a. ed.
Mason), I have chosen the title }lldtrm Anti.qJtitics. th us u.<~ing the d esignation 'Judean'
as refering ld the people of Jud ea. Compare other ethnic design.<llions; 'Egypti;m;
'Babylonian', no t to me ntion jo:sephu.'l' model. the /Wm:m Autiq11ili~":l. see below.
Although Jt>wi:;.h history begin.<~ with Abr.lham, JCI\.<'ooeph u..c~ follows the Bible a1\d
a..xordingly s tarts his wok w ith the cre-a tion. It is generally as.<~umOO th;l! Josephus
aspited to produce a Jewi.'lh counterpa rt to the Rmmm AntilJtilits by Dionysios of Halicamassus.. written about a cennuy e.U'Jiet and al'lo enc\lmpas.<~ing twenty books.. see
ThaC'keay's introducHon in fos..,ms, vol. rv. in the loeb series, reprinted 19i8, p. lX,
and Altsh uler 200S, 4957.
Mason 2000b, 556.
Set>., e.g., Bond 2000, 172-174, Bilde 198.1). 93,99-101, .md Feldman 1992.988.
There are dhergel\1 v iews amo ng schololrs as to \\'helh~ r ftdt'OII Auliq1tili!!S wa..c~ an
auem pt b y joseph us to ptol>elyci7.e. !\Jason and Feldmnn argue that by '''ritillg the }ti
ek't211 J\nliquilit':i, joseph us wanted to point out the attr.lCtit'lOS ,l( Judai.'>m to potential
OOJl W11S. s...-:.e FeW man 1998, 46-19. and Ma:.c;on 2000b, 553558. See also Bilde 1988, 99.
Other St.ilolars have dfiUb ted Jo.c;ephus miss:ion:uy'' inten tio n. see the s uwy ill Bond
2000, 1'721 74. A diffe1-enre betwee"~ Mason and Feldman is that the former has played
down the apologetic nature of the \\'t)l'k arguing tha t it is m.ainl) d irected ttl itl\ already
intere.<~lt->d ~nd sympathetic Gentile readel'$hip. Acco'ding to Mason (2000b, 556), the
/lede!i7JI Antiqtdlits may best be d escribed as" . .. a oom prehen.'>i\'e man ual tlf' prim er in
Judean his tory. law. and culture."' According: to G. E Sterling (1992. 302306). Josephus'
main putposo."! in witing the Judewt A11tiquilit-s was to gain 1'eSped fot the jewish ~ople
within the Crem-Romtm world and not hl pro.~Jyti.ze. as in .4g,tilfs.l Api.m.
237
[Ant. 1.5-6) J h ave taken in h;md thi..s pre..;cnt tas k th ink ing that it will appear
to all the Greeks d eserYing uf studious <llten ti<)n,~!G for it i..s going to encompass our entire andent histo ry and constitution uf the state? translated from
the Hebrew writings (...] to reveal wh<l ~ Judean.s were frOn"l the beginn ing and what fortunes they experienced, under '"hat surt of lawgiver they
were trained as to piety and the exercise o f the other virtues .. :"~
The political constitution that Josephus refers to above is, o f course, the
Mosaic Law, the Torah, which he affirms is the most superb constitu
tion in existence.m According to Mason, Josephus' interpretation of the
Bible)jewish history has an evident priestly perspective; the ideal jewish government is theocracy, executed by means o f a priestly aristocracy.4llto
However/ in josephus' world view, the Mosaic constitution also has
a universal d imension; the God of Israel is also the God o f all human~
kind and He re'"'ards everyone '"'ho obeys His decrees and pu nishes all
w ho transgress thern:4117
I Anl. 1 :1 4) On the whole, one \lhO would wis h to read through it rthe Bi~
blel would e$pe<:ially learn frum this history that those who comply with
the will of Cod and do nt)t ven ture to transgress Jaws that h ave beL:.rt well
enacted s ucceed in aU things beyond belief an d th at ha ppines~ 1ie.s befo re
them a."'i a reward fr(ml God. But to the extent that they d is..:;ociate themselves frum the scrupulous ob~rvancl! uf these laws the p racticable things
becuml! impracticable, and whatever seemingly gO()d thing tht!y pursue
with zeal turns in to irremed iable misfo rtunes.4~
483 )o.c1ephlL'I .c;pedficatly dedicalt->s his ,.,.ork to one of tlwse interes.ted Gentiles; "" ... there
were certain person.<~ curious abm11 the hL<~h)l)' who urged me h) pursu~ it, and
above aU Epaph.roditus, a man devoted to every form of le<uning,. but e..c;pecially intere..;t~d in the exp~rience...; of history. . :" fAll f. 1.81 See also Auridge 1984, 187. Cf. .-.1so the d edication fO Theophilus in tuke 1: 1-4 a nd Acts 1: I.
481 Unless olhe.rwis~ stated, I use the Englis h translation of th~ /Jtd~1Jl Auliqtilit:"ll by
Feldm<m 200()a.
485 Ani. 1. 14-26;- see a lso Mason 2000b, 554.
486 1\laSt-.n 2CXX)b, 554-555, 360.
487 Alt~gh josephus does nl""lt d eny llt.ll a speci.ll relBtions.h ip between God and l<~rael
exists, it is not stre..c;s~d in the /lld~m Anliquiltts and he never explicitly mentions the
ccweJMnt. Se~~ A ll ridge 1976,78-83.
488 See al110 Aul. 1.20: "God as the universal Father a nd lord Whl) beholds all things,
gra n l<~ h) s uch as follow Him a life of b1is.~ but involves in dire calamilie.'l lhose w ho
step out.<:ide lhe p.Hh of virtue."
489 See. e .g., Attridge 1976, 71-107, Stel'ling 1992, 295-297, .md Bilde 1988, 184-185. 1\laSOI\ (2CXX)a, XXII-XXXIV) lisL'I fl)ur major theme..; in th~ /ltd!!llll Auliqtdlits! the antiqui-
238
to Josephus, the Mos..1ic constitution is fou nded upon the laws of nature
and piety and is therefore universal and superior to all o thers.4'90
As a precedent fo r his rendering into G reek of the biblical history in
the judeau Auliquitit>s, Josephus rnen tions the LXX and refers to the
legend of its creation, a fact that also implies that his work was primari
ly directed towards nonJewish readers.Hl However, apart from the
intended Gentile audience, most scholars assume that Josephus also
had a Jewish readership in mind . Josephus' secondary aim may have
been to strengthen the Jewish identity among his feiiO\v Jews in the
Oiaspora and to wam against assimilation:m
17te sources fmd gmre of llze judeau AHiiquilies
josephus' reference to the LXX as a model for his work leads us to the
question of whidl sources he used when composing the biblic..1l pa
raphrase of the Judean AHiiquilies.J<n Most scholars assurne that Josep hus had at his d isposal biblical texts in bo~' Hebrew a nd Greek, possibly also an Aramaic Targurn, and that his usc of them v._, ried from
book to book. The facts that a multitud e o f text variants existed in Jose-p hus' time and that he did not transla te the b iblical texts literally, but
usually paraphrased and rewrote the biblic..1l stories in his own v~mrds,
make the whole issue very complex. Most likely, josephus made use of
a Greek biblical text but there are indications that it was not the LXX as
we know it today. The Hebrev~. text he had befo re him may have been a
d ifferent version from the later standardized MT.w.t
!eJt,r ofAristt!mo.
S(~e the survey in Bond 2000, 172173. nnd Feldman 1998, 49.1n llnl. 4.197, Josephus
in fact addres..c1es potential J ewi<~h re.-.de-s who might encounter hi.<~ te):t, and A111.
1.88 also seems to be inteJl ded for an audience fam iliar with the biblical tradition.
See also Stel'ling, 1992..306307.
493 I will here limit myself to main!)' disclL<~sing the sources behind llle biblical part of
the work. s ince Josephus' account of lafer jewi.<ih hL<~tory is not of intere..'lt in the
present investiga tion.
494 Feldman 1992, 986-987. and t99S. 23-:36. According to Fe ldman, for hL<~ rendeing of
the Pe ntateuch. josephus probably main.ly used a Heb1-ew text and/OI' a (wrinen?)
A1amaic Targu m. See al:~o Auridge 1976, 29-38, and 1984, 211. According to the lat
ter (Attridge 19&1, 21l). the evidence fo r josephus' u..<~e of a Targum is very scant.
239
Since, in his retelling of biblical histo ry. josephus has apparently both
omitted certain episodes and in ten\foven a large number o f additions$4'*' his statement above has given rise to much discussion. Many
solutions have been proposed"'"-' and I \viii mention just a few of them.
Louis H. Feldman suggests that like the Rabbis, Josephus consi
dered it permissible to elaborate on the narrative parts of the Pentateuch b ut not to aher the biblical rommandments. Another proposed
explanation is that josephus included not only the w ritten Torah in
'Scripture' but also the Jewish tradition in general, the so~called o ral
Torah.'<M There is also the fact that josephus and his contemporaries
most probably understood the word 'translation' as includ ing interpre
tation. The modern concept of literal translation, verbatim, so to speak,
was unknown in Josephus' days. The Greek words Josephus uses for
' to translate', seem to encompass interpretation, p..uaphrasing and am
plifyi ng. To josephus, it was the co/1/elll of the biblical texts that mat
495 E.g. . Feld man 1992, 986-987, and 1998, 17,23-30, Schalit 1971,258. and ln.c;tone Brew
cr 1992. Ul3184. Reg.wding the scht")larly d iscu~si on l">f the ex:islcnc~ of synagogues
240
tered, not their extemal form ..woJ A comparison \Vith the rendering o f the
Bible in the Targums is appropriate."" All these theories seem fairly
reasonable and d o not necessarily exclude one another.
According to Feld man, the Judeatz Antiquilits shares many of the
d1aracteristics o f Midrash, e.g., the explanation of difficult passages~ the
addition o f details, etc.sm In many ways the work may be classified as a
kind of ' rewritten Bible', as it retells the bibJical na rratives in its own
words. In tenns of literary genre, the }udeau Antiquities has many simi
larities with books sud 1 as Jubilt"t's and Liber Anliquitatum Biblicnrmtz .t~lz
Feld man argues that there are indications that Josephus and the presumably contemporary PseudoPhilo (LAB.) made use of a common
oral o r written exlrabiblicaJ source in their elabo ration o n Scripture.'~13
There are also extra~biblical paraJiels betv,.'ecn the content o f Josephus'
work and Jubilees as well as other A]X)Crypha and Pseudepigrapha,
such as 1 or 3 Esdras and the Wisdo m of Solomon.30' Feldman also
points out affinities between the Jrrdemr Antiquitie-s and the Rabbinic
~vfid ras h i nl .!it1~
The impact of Hellenistic literature, bo th jewish and pagan, on Josephus' works can not be exduded. Thus. the infl uence o f P hilo is ap
parent in Josephus' account o f the creation of the world.xo.; Henry St. J.
Thackeray argued that Josephus had hvo assistants w hen he composed
the latter part o f the }udean Autiquities, each o f them infl uenced by a
499 Feldman 1992,. ~986: 199$. 4246, .lnd 2006, 343-345. See .-.Jso lnowlocld 2005. 'o!S
65. Bilde 1988, 9597, and Sterlins 1992. 252258.
500 Feldman (1998, 17) propn_<;e$ that Josephul'!: used the Targum..<~ as models fo r his
interp~ t.l ti ve biblical pa'' Phmse in the ftdl!lw Atlliquiries.
SOl Feldman 1998, 16.
502 As s hown in chapter 2. the definition llf l\1idrash is much deb.1ted among scholars.
Porion does not classif) the lrdi'An Auliquilii!S as B Midas hic work. because in con
rrast to }ubila"f> and LA.B., th e former seems to be d irected to non-Jews {Porton
1992b, 72). However, in the lisht of Porion's own definition of Midrash as" . .. a type
of lite.r.nure, oral o r .,...riuen. which has its s tarting point in a fixed, canonical text.
oon..<>idered to be the rewa~ \\'Ord of Cod by the midrashist ,,nd his audience. a1\d
in \\hidl the original verse is explicitly cited or d eatly alluded to" (Porton 19i9, 112),
it could be etrgued tha t neither of the th1-ee work..c1 fits in. Sec also Fe ldman 1998,
141 7.
241
different Greek a uthor.!X'G Th is theory has been refu ted by, for example,
Feldman, a nd Josephus himself d oes no t mention any assistantc; being
involved in the work.!O!
Finally, the personal imprint o f the a uthor on h is work must be tak
en into accou nt. Feldma n a ttributes seve ral elemen ts in the }udeatl Au
tiquities to the c rea tiveness of Josephus himself a nd, like all a u thors, he
was influenced by the environment in whid1 he lived as well as by
co nte mporary e vents and personal experiences. For examp le, Jose phus
emphasized the virtues of biblical heroes and exhibited a rationalizing
tendency, e.g., h is downgrading o f miracles, traits that according to
Feldma n may be related to the fact that he w ro te primarily for a non...
jewish audience.!1119 Josephus frequently employs the fo rmu la "concem~
ing such matters [miracles] Jet each one jud ge as is pleasing to him/ '!>111
a cornment also found in many other ancient h istorians' w ritings, for
example, Oionysius of Halicamassus.m However, the formula is not
due to personal doubts, as Josephus himself most certainly belie ved in
mirades, bu t a n expression o f courtesy towa rd h is pagan readers.5 1:
All in all, Josephus was clearly not a systematic wr ite r o r theo lo
gian, and h ie; writings d isplay a certain ambiguity to ward miracles. He
frequently p lays dO\vn the supernatu ral clemente; of the biblical sto ries
and SQme times omits them from h is n a rrative altogether, bu t he also
assures his reade rs o n several occ..1sions o f the historicity a nd accu racy
of the miraculous character o f the biblical narratives. Fo r example, Jo~
sephus testifies that he h imself has seen the p illar of salt identified as
Lot's wife, see Ant. L203 ..su
!,07 See TIMckeray' s int mduction in fos~pfws, vol. IV. xhxvii, 1978, in lhe Loeb seies.
508 Feld ma n t<m, 98S, 994995. See also lltshl ne Bre\~er 1992. 184 185.
509 Feld man 1998, 54-62, a nd 2006, 322323. Kosken.tiemi (200~. 279) arg.u es ttg:<tinst this
intt.>rprelalion of jl'l!'ll"phu$' writing.~ and s.t.ltes: " A skeptical pagan audien ce, which
JosephlL<~ wa s a llegedly concerned about. i.<~ the fant.l:.-y of some scholars. He did nl')l
write for skeptics; Olilei'\'IL'I~ he c~rtainly would have omilted more stories. and certain!)' he had nol added or e)(<~gger.l ted mir.lcles,. .1s he som~tin"'-"S does... Th~re Me,
however, ma ny examples in jo.<;ephus' rendering ol c,~ne.<~i.'l w here his ationalizing
tend~I'W.')' is evident, as will be shown.Jillustrated below, and it seems T~ason.abte to
assume thallhis is du ~ to lhe rultUI"..l l COI\Ie)(l in which he wmle.
5 10 E.g ... Alii. 1. 108, 3.$1, 3.322, 4.158. 10.28"1, etc.
511 Se~ a lso F~ldma1\ 1998. 209, and EJetz 1987, 212.
512 See Feldman 1998.210, and Beiz. 1987, 2 12 213.
513 ~e a lso Be11. 1987, 212-213, a od Mo~h.-ing 1973, 376--383.
4
242
lntetpretation..c~ of Genesis
Josephus - n Phnr;see?
As a teenager, Josephus decided to acquainl himself v,rith the three
Je,vish "sects"; the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Es..c;enes. He also
spen t three years in the d esert with a certain he rmit named Barmus.
According to a common understanding of Life 12. Josephus finally decided to join the Pharisees, and the prai ominant view is that he either
was a Pharisee, or at least wished (for politica l reaso n.,~) to p resent h im
self as such.s1.a However, his Pharisaic a llegiance is a matter o f discus
sion:m
Many sd10la rs have pointed o ut ideological diffe re nces behveen the
Jewish \.Var a nd the Judenu AtzliquiOes, bu t it is d eba ted whether the his..
torian 's attitude towa rd the Pharisees changed significan tly in the latter
work.sit.
In addition to Josephus' statement in Life 12, scholars h ave some*
times referred to other issues in o rder to '-'prove" h is a lleged Pharisaic
a ffiliation, for example Josephus' abovementioned exaltation of the
Mosaic Law, the inclusion of cxtra~biblical material in his writings, his
emp hasL'i o n d ivine providence, a nd h is belief in the resurrection of the
dead.r> 17
These arguments h ave a ll been refuted by Steve Mason, \"rho c laims
that Josephus' theological outlook may very well be seen as representing
514 See, e.g ... Feldman. 1992. 982. Fran);man ( 1979. 399) identifies Jo..;ephu..c~ as a Pharisee
based on his S-tatement il\ Lifi- 12 See a lso the S-Urvey of the s.cho1a..ly discu..<ision in
Bond 2000, 170, Bilde 1988. 175, 189, Attridge 1976, 11-13, a1ld Masol\ 1991, 18-39,
324-343.
515 See, e.g . Schwam: ( 1990, 170222) \Vho comments on life 12 s tating that the fact that
)osephu..c~ says that he conducts hi.c; life according to the n 1les of the Plt.:wisees does
not imply thn.t he c1.1ims to be a me mbe1 of tha t group. See also Ma..c;on 1991. 342-356,
and 2000b. 546-562.
516 The fact that Josephus often e);pre::t..es criticism of the Phtsrisee$ has gi v.::n rise to
qu~ti ons about his relations hip to the Sl'<>up. MaS~-m. for e)o;.lm ple, maintain..c; ll\olt Jo-sephu..<~' a ltitude hl the Phari~s was Largely negative, see the s urvey in Mason 1991,
18-39, and 18 1-195, 325 356. See also S..:hwart7. 1990, 170-216, and Bilde 1988, 173191. My supervisor Tord Fornberg susges.t..c~ that Josephus' attitude toward the Ph.l
ri..c;ees may be conn.."Cted to his relalion.c;hip to the different ''sd \OlliS"' with in the
Sl'<>up. f ul'lher, th<ll Josephus probably disliked the natil)nalistic "schoor' of Sh amntBi. w hich ha d tie.o; to the militant. 1-cl>elliou..o; groups in Jewish soc-iety. Afle1 the
war, this fraction losL its inRuence ove1 the people. The SUI'\'iving school of Hillel,
ho\~Wr, was more mode1a te and pacifistic. Josephus' more fa \'OI'<tble portray<~ ! of
the Pharisee.c; in his later works may thus be seen as hjs appnwal of the school of Hil
~1. See also fQrnberg 1988, 13, and Attridge 1984, 186,226-227.
517 See che AAJrvey in Ma!IOn 1991. 330-341. <tnd Bilde 1988, IS5-186. Bilde (t98S, 189)
writes thBt
Josephult rharis.aic' thoolog}' runs like a red tlll'ead th1'0uglmut his
works .. .N
N
243
the general je\\rish view of his day. He also refers to studies showing
that jooephus' aggadic elaborations of the Bible point to a priestly rather
than a Pharisaic in fluen ce.su~ Moreover, because o f our relatively sc1nt
knowledge of the Jewish traditions of Josephus' time, it is difficult to
make an accurate evaluation of his writings on this point.5l'
As wilJ be shown in the following. Josephus appears to have shared
the Pharisees' belief in angels as independent personalities, distinct
from God.sw However, the belief in individual angels and d emonic
spirits was not restricted to this group but a more \Vide spread phcno
menon in Second Temple Judaism.m
Differences between Josephus and Hellenistic judaism represented
by,~ for example, Philo have also been proposed as indications of his
Pharisaic affiliation. One such d ifference is the lack of a teaching on
intermediary "hypostases," equivalent to the Philonic 'logos' .522 But, as
Mason writes,~" ... it is no longer possible either to distinguish rigidly
between 'Palestinian' <1nd ' Hellenistic' o r to equate ' Palestinian' and
'Pharisaic' ... "sn
Seth Schwartz concludes his analysis of Josephus' relationship to
the Pharisees by stating that in the ]udean At~fiquities he promotes the
emerging Rabbinic judaism and the early Rabbis as the post-war Jewish
leaders, a group related to, but not identical with, the Pharisaic move*
ment."24
Harold Attridge argues that there are no clear connections between
the major interpretative themes of the Judeml Anaquith>s and the Phari
saic tradiLion.s2s If we arc to believe Attridge, Josephus' retelling of
244
Genesis 16
In contrast to the biblical version, in his prelude to the story o f Hagar's
encoun ter with the a ngel, Josephus ment ions Abraham's distress
caused by his d1ild lessness. Abraham p rays to God for the birth of a
son and God promises him offspring . In this context, Josephus declares
that it "vas on God's command that S.uah brought Hagar to t-he bed of
Abr-aham in order to make her p regn ant. The birth of Ishmael is thus
described by Josephus as a n o utcome of a divine initiative. Th is differs
from the biblical account, where the idea is solely ascribed to Sarah
with Abraham agreeing to .,ocomplish it (Gen 16:13). In Josephus' accoun t, Sarah is simply depicted as obedient to God.~11 The transferring
phus m ade .m inhwmed choice in l"lp ling for the Phari~ee.<l. n~e daim to dose as."'C>d
ation with that ~;ect, a.<~ well as the p.wlirularl)' favo.able picture of it, i~; a dtaracteris-tic of Joseph us' later writing. In contrast. the earlie 1 account of the ~eeL<~ in the \Var
(2.:119-66) paints a g lowing p iccure of the Es..-o;e.n es. a.<~ the mo.'lt aur.lcrive J...}. Per
hap.<~ that portrBit in War repre..<~enL<~ the e.ll'lier predilectiM s of the h isrori.ll\, who
had spent such .a lengthy perilxl with the de..c;ert hermit., although it also serves well
the apologetic tendency in the l\-'ar to portr..,y a u thentic JudaLc;m as d is tincc from that
lli the l'eVl"lluti onaries."' See al~o Auridge 1984, 22~227.
526 Attridge 1976, 15and 181 184.
527 See, e.g., Mason 2000b, 549-562. lns tone D1'eWe1' 1992. 185187, Attridge 1976, 16.
Sterling 1992. 2JS.238, Bildc 1988, 189 19 '1, Fetdm.Bn 1998, 5662. .-and 2000, 3-4. O n
~eve.rai OtXasions in his writings, Josep hus identifie.<~ himself with the prophet Jere
miah, among o ther b iblical ch.w.lcters. St."e, e.g... Fektman l 992.. 986; 1998, 59, Bnd
Ma::von 2000b. 549550.
528 ..1\tff. 1.18(;.187. See ai!IO Bailey 1987, 159, Franxma1~ 19i9, 139, and Asruwu 198.1), 147.
cr., G1'11. Rab. 45.2 whe1-e it L<~ s tated that God was ~peaking through Sarah on this ocC.ls ion.
245
Strictly speaking, josephus calls the one who meets Hagar in the desert
"a divirte a ngel/rnessenger/ilyyAo.; 9eio.;." He d oes not say "an angel
of the lord/iiyy<Ao:; KL'Qiou" as in tl1e LXX. However, josephus' choice
of d esignation is most probably not to be un derstood as refe ning to the
divine nature o f the messenger. josep hus simp ly states that the messenger was sent by God, w hich may explain Feld man's free transla tion
of ilyyrAo~ 9icx;: as " an angel of God.''!Vt In agreement with the LXX,
josephus interprets the divine emissary as a n unspecified a ngel and
uses an. indefinite form; "a11 a ngel of God." Th e divine messenger refers
to God in the third person. josephus seems to clearly d istinguish God
from His messenger.
529 Am.a1u 1988. 147, and N.>ldnt.M'I 1998, 20>214. In his r~telling of Genesis 16, Josephus
may WI'Y well have been influenced by Cen 21:12 where it L<; explicitly $lolled lltal
S.1rah's wish 1~ce i ved d ivine sanction. See Feldman 2006, 370, and Fr.mxman 1979,
138139.
530 Ani. 1. 188.
531 Also Thacker3)' ll'ans lates iiyyr,\o' (~tlo.; as an <~ngel of \A:Id." See th~ /L"<I'i:lfJ Allliq
11ilies 1.189 in /OStJIIIw;. the Loeb Classical Librar>' vol. IV, r~printed 19i8. According
ro the GmkEuglisJ1 Uxiam compiled b)' Liddell and Scott ( 1968, 788), in add ilion ro
'd ivin~. 9tio' may cdSl) mean: 'of or f1'0m che god(s), belonging or sacred to a god,
more than human ..:, ~tc. In A Crt't'k~Eugli'SJI Lxico11 Jo lite Ne-;o TeslfiiiWtll a11d t>tf~er
E11fly OtriMiatl lih'f1llur!! ( I~V. and ed. F. W. Dcmker 2000, 446-447) three m.:lin mean
ings al\~ lis ted: I) " ... that whid'l bo.~ il)l'lgs to thl! lt.'llure 01' ~l<l lu..<; of d~ily, divine. 2)
per.Sllns who st.1nd in dose relation lo, Ol' refWt characteristics of, a d eity .. . 3) that
w hich exceeds the bounds of hum.cm or earthly possibility, s upenl aturaL..
246
5.12 All i n all, Josephu.!l stresses the in.<~olenre o f Hagoll' and thus puts Sarah in a mo re
filVll l'abie ligh t in o:tlmpari.<~l'lll tl) the Bible. See also Fram.:man 1979. 138139, B.ilile)'
1987, 139, Amaru 1988, 147, and Feldman, 1998, 180, 244. The angel's t>Xho rt.ltion
that Hagar "would attain a bette r life tlu'Oug h being self-.(01\lrolled" may be related
to Josephus high e.<~teem o f the Stoic philosophy. See Fe ldma n, 1998, 192-197, 238.
5.13 Cf. l'hito's commmt upon theperin)pe.
247
Genesis 21
josephus a lso has a counterpa rt to the o ther biblical story a bo u t Hagar
and the angel in his }udeatt Auliquities. As in the Bible* Abraham at first
does not want to listen to Sarah and hence sends Haga r an d Ish mael
away. It is God 's approva l o f the expulsion that rnakes h im ch~mge h is
mind .s..,. The cou nterp~ut to Gen 21 :1 7~19 is to be found in the Attt.
1.219:
But tm m1gd df God f6t:.lo~ t:fyytA<'~J met her n-Jagar) and Utld her o f a s p ring
n earby and bad e her to IO<''k after the nu rtun~ uf tht~ ch ild, fo r great bk.>$..;;
inbry; awaited h~r th rt)Ugh the p re'>ervatiun o f Jsmaelu..o;. And she took cou
rage through these prom i~s, an d meeting shepherd.s, esta~d her misfor.
tunes because of their att~nti un .
Again, Josephus lite rally refers to the angel as 'a divine messenger', and
as in h is rend ering o f Genesis 16 he uses the indefinite form. It is an
anonym ous, unspecified divine emissary that Hagar e ncounters. In Gen
21:1 7 we read that " ... Cod hea rd the voice of the boy; and the a ngel of
God called to Hagar from heaven ..." But in Josephus' version, the di
v ine messenger meels Hagar, p robab ly o n earth, in the desert, compare
Cen 16:7. Al~1o ugh occording to the Bible, the a ngel calls to Hagar from
heaven, it is a kind of " meeting". In the Bible, the ange l's intervent ion is
described as God's response to Ishmael's crying.s.l7 This is not me n
5..14 Ao; stated alx)\'e in fh~ illlroducticm, Josephus usu.lil}' tries hl omit thetlklgic.l l J>I'O~
l~ms in his r~nd ei11g of lhe Bible.. See Peldmlu\, 1992.. 987, and 1998. 164 171.
53.1)
536
Thi.c; m ay p1'0bably havt> been the case even for jewish reade rs.
Jos~phu..'l does not render God's OOIW~rsarion with Abraham in Gen 21:1213, bul
simpl) write$ that "... later, for (".od alc;o approved of the things d~c-e~d by Sara,
having been persuad~d. he IMnded O\'et lsmaelos ... )Ani. 1.217]. See also f.eldnMn.
1998, 250.
5'37 ACCO(ding to C'.en 21: 16, in the ,._rr Haga is the on~ \\ho cries, but in the LXX It L<~
Ishmael. a r~ndering lhBl s~~m..o; lobe more logical becau..c:~ il is st.lted in verse I7 in
both versil)l'l..<: liM I it was the voice o f 1J1eboy lha l God he,lrd.
248
249
by Fram:ma1' {1979, 155). According hl him. it Lo; po.~sibl e hl "find"' j l~ phus' she~
herds in tu\ alternate r~ading of the Hebrew text in Gen 2 1:19.
.544 J u.o;e th~ te1m ' Aq<ah' ot ' Aqed<lt lsa<ac' . i.e. 'the binding of Isaac' bemuse this
expce.o;!iion h ol S ~ome th~ s~ner.\l d esignation of G~n 22!1-19 in Jewish exegesis of
the text. However, nowhere does josephus me ntion the actual bindin g of Isaac on
the alta r. See B:lso Feldman 2CXX>.l, 90.
250
Josephus' implied message is that because Abraham owed all his bene-fits to the divine be nevolence, God, as the giver o f the gifts, also has the
right to w ithdraw them, hence justifying t he test.-5-t>
Abraham's reaction to the d ivine commandme nt is that" . .. nothing
would justify d isobedience to God and that in everything he must
submit to His will, since all that befell His favo ured ones w.1s ordained
by His providence ...",5-16 an insertion that very well mirrors Josephus'
own conviction.~'
Abraham thus travels to Mou nt Moriah together with Isaac and
two servants in o rder to obey God's bidding.~"
\+Vhen the altar has been prepared, Abraham d irects a long speech
to his son and te lls him that he is the intended sacrificial victim. The
consensus is tha t since Isaac's birth was a d ivine miracJc, God has the
right to reclaim his life. Isaac was born supernaturally, so his death will
equally not be a natural one.st-t Jn contrast to the Rabbinic e laborat ion of
the Aqedah, josephus' Abraham does not make any appeal to God.'"'
Isaac. being 25 years old , receives Abraham's words with joy. He con ...
siders it an honor to die such a death and rushes to the altar.5.$1 Isaac's
willingness to be sacrificed is depicted by Josephus as a n act of great
virtue ..m He is a prototype for Jc\~t.rish marty rdom.m
According to josephus, it was God Himself who prevented Abrn
ham fro m completing the sacrifice of Isaac, no a ngel being mentioned:
(A"t. 1.23.1-234J And the deed would have been done if Cod had not stood
in th~ way. (..:iw btQtlxOq TO EQyOv 1-n) U'thn:u.; t j.l71Ubf:Jv TO U Ot:uiJI For
He ca11ed upon Habnml<)S by na me. preYenting h im fro m the s laughter of
the child . Fur He said that He had decrt>ed tht! slaughter of his child not be-
cause He hmg~d fur human blood, nur had H~ made him his father wish
ing tu d~ prive him of his son with such lmpi ~ty. but being willing to tL~t
his attitude, to St>e whether, if commanded. he would ubey such injunctions. But having learned the enthusias m and the high d egr~e of his piety,
545 See also Nie hoff 1996,36, Feldman 1998, 252, and 2000,86.
S.16 A11t. 1.225, Englis.h n ansl.ltion TI1ackeray in }t'li>t:p/uts, vol. IV, the LCL... reprin!ed
1978.
547 See Niehoff 1996,36-37, and Feld m.a.n 2000a, 87.
251
He said that he t<'J<)k plea.s u re in what he had offered him and that l-Ie
d oomed it proper that he and his race would nu t fall short of recehing
every C<)nSideration, and that his son would be very long-lived and ha\ing:
lived happily '"'Ould bequeath to his virtUl)US and legitimate children a
great realm.
As shown above, Josephus often prefers to let God replace angels in his
paraphrase o f the Bible. The absence of the a ngel may thus be a resu lt
of his 1'dcmythologizing" effort.554 ln the Bible, the a ngelic interfe rence
is expressec.i by a heavenly voice_. calling from above. The su bstitu tion
of God for the angel thus has no a nthropomorphic implications. Moreover, since it was God in the firs t p lace w ho commanded Abraham to
offer his son, it is logica l that it is God who in terferes a nd saves ls..1ac.56~
Another explanation is that Josephus considered the Aqedah such a n
important event that it must have been God in person v,ho prevented
Abraham from offering Isaac..~;;, It is a lso worth noting that in josephus'
version, the two heavenly in tervent ions are combined in to one)l-57
Moreover, josephus emphasizes that the God of Israel does not find
p leasure in human sacrifice; it was not a cra ving for hu man blood that
mad e God command Abrah am to o ffer his son; it v~,ras "just'' a test. According to Feldman, Josephus' intention is to stress the d iffe rence be-tween hu man sacrifice among the pagan s a nd the Aqed ah.558 In cont rast to many o ther e arly Jewish interpretations of the pericope, Jose-p hus does not d elve into the problem of God's omniscien ce in re lation
ship to His testing of A b raham .:;~
ln. the same way as in the biblical account, Isaac is thus spared and
a ram takes his place on the alta r:
(Ant. 1.236] ... Having said tl-u.~ things, (;c)l/lm>ught ftJrtJr a rmu fmm tJbscu rity for thr.m IAbraham and Isaac] fM the SilCTifice ...
554
~e
Tl'Siam~Jll
aud Mytftc>I>$Y
556
252
that it was caught in a thickel by its honts. Feldman argues that in this
way Josephus wanted to imply that the animal had been there all the
time but merely hidden from sight; the sudden appearance of the ram
would otherwise have seemed too miraculous for his Hellenistic read
ers.!iH>
There is no dear distinction in the Bible between God and the angel
in this biblical context. The ram is given by God"" 1 but its arrival is not
necessarily supernatural.~ It is~ however, de.u that in Josephus' ren...
dering o f the Aqedah, the o nly heavenly actor is God Himself.
The Wooing of Rebekah
ln At1l. 1.242256 Josephus refers to the guidance of God and the impor
tance of prayer in his retelling of the servant's match making tTip in
Genesis 24, but he d oes not mention the angel. Another important dif
ference between Josephus' accou nt and the biblical story is that, according to Josephus, Rebekah was appoin ted frorn the o utset by Abrah~'lm
as the future wife of I saac.~ See, for example, Ant. 1.245:
Therefo re. he (the servantJ prayed God that Rebttkka, f()r wooing whom fo r
his $un Habramos had dispatched him, if this marriage was destined to be
contracted in accordance with his intention, should be fou nd among them
(the maiden..; at the weiJ) and should be ri!COgnized by her offering him a
drink when he r~u ested it. whereas the others refused.[Cf. Cen 24:.1214)
As in the Bible, Rebekah meets him at the "veil and personifies the an...
swer to his prayer;
(Aut. 1.249) ... o n hearing these words. M ftheser.anfl b()th n~juiced at the
things that had happt?ned and at the word.; that had been said s poken,. See
ing that God was so dearly supporting his jo urney ... (cf. Gen 24:2(~28]
J~Jdnwn200tl3, 9798.
253
564
565
1998, 249-251.
254
~e his tl'ilnsl.l tion in /05t'J1IIIlS, Vlll. IV. LCL.. repinted in 19iS, Ant. 1.279. Whi.<~ton
(new upd.lted edition. 1987, Aut. 1.279, p . 47) has yet o~~ nolher tran.<~lation of Jose
phus' version of Jacob'.<~ 1'evela tion: " At w hich time he saw in his sleep such a vision
stcmding by him:- he-aven.,. and pe1'SOns d escending upon the ladde r llt.ll seemed
more excellent than human: and at Last God himself stood abO\e it. and was plainl)'
visible to him . .. ,.
567 Feldman 2!XX)a, 109. See nlso Liddell .md Scott t96H, 12821283.
568 Fe ldman 2<Xnl, 109.
569 Fe ldman 2000a, 109, a nd 1998, 2 12. In his Cllmmenhlr)' to the }t1dtvm AutiquiJi~>s,
Feldman seems in fhis case hl be is~fl uenced by Thacke.rays trmlslalion.
566
255
and thus less concrete than a real even t ~' Is it really only Jose
phus' attempt to rationalize the biblical narrative that may explain his
alterations of jacob's vision of the lad der and its angels at Bethel? This
question needs fur ther consid eration, even though it is not the main
issue in the present investigation.
Could it be that Josephus' interpretation o f the angels as ' phantoms
of nature' is inspired by Greek mythology? There are rnany o ther ex
amples "'"here 'phantoms' or 'specters' replace angels in Josephus' ren..
dering o f the Bible. However, in these cases he uses the synonyrnous
designation cptiv-caaf..laln rather than 0\jJu~, e.g., his versions of the
ap pearance of the angel o f the Lord to G ideon (At1l. 5.213-214, cf., jud g
6:1124) and his rend ering of the angelic visitation to Manoah's wife
(Ant. 5.277-285, cf., judges 13). We may also mention Josephus' renderings of Gen 32:1 2 .m d vv. 2232, see belm"-'.572 To retum to his account
of Gen 28:1022, the \'isions/phantoms on the ladder do not play any
significa nt ro le in Jacob's dream vision. Josephus makes no subsequent
cornment about their presence.
The importance of the drearn lies in the message that Jacob receives
from God. In contrast to Philo, Josephus shows no hesitation in claim..
in.g that Jacob in his vision actually saw God Hirnself; God is described
as standing above the ladder, plainly visible to jacob. God is depicted
as the Master of all creation, standing above 'the apparitions/the phan
toms o f nature'.
dream
a!SI) Gnuse ( 1996, 149) nho writes: NTh~ \<isual aspect of the dream iL underscored by the use of the t~rm, 'he thought ((bo!rv) he saw,' the e>:pres..~ion common
to visual symbolic d 1-eams (.'\111. 1.279). Btl! an auditor}' a..<>pect i..; de.wly J>l'l':sent, for
God canoo (... )and spoke a ratllel' long. mes<>age 1 ). llle oontent of the message is
charact~rislic of auditory me.o;!i.lge d 1-eams with its emphasis on d i\ine di1-ection and
pre.o;~nce. Tile dr~am combines elements of the auditory message dream and the visual symbl"llk dream, but this resuiiS from the presence of both mode..<> in the original
bibltcaJ h"Xt.N
571 Aoo..lrding to lidd~ll and Scoll (1968. 19 16), the word cj)c't\mopa has the me-aningt~
'apparition', ' phantom', \'ision', and 'd re<~ m', etc. In A Gud:~Euglis}l trAkmr to llle
Nt>w T1'-St.tmml tmd e>llttr Ea,ly Cluistimr Lilemlt~re (rev. <~.od ed. Dankt>l' 2CXX>. 846,) we
find th e t.anslation..; 'apparition' and 'gh ost' as vtell as ref~ren ce.o; to (among others)
M<llt 14:26: tvl.wk 6:49. and Luke 24:37.
sn Se~ alc;o Feldmrm 1998, 212-213. In hi.<~ rendering of the angi!l of th~ lord visiting
tv1anoah' s wif~... josephus in f.tcl alt~rna tes between th~ designations
lt.n.'t'lltl'f.il/<~pp.uiti on/spectl'e and O:yytAo.;/tmgel. AI the end of the stor)' il Bl"ttMI
I> appears !hilt Josephus identifies the hea\enly \'isitm- as God Hint.c;elf. Sl-"t' also the
comme nlay on Aul. 5.277-2$4 by Bress 2005, 69-71: 2007, 528. 532, and note 25 on
the !.tsl m~ntioned page.
SiO
Se~
256
Th e Commission to Retum
In contrast to Philo, Josephus does not comment on the appearance of
the a ngel of the Lord to Jacob in Gen 31:1013. H is reason may be that
he found it difficult that in the Bible it is ~, e a ngel o f God who talks to
jacob and identifies h imself as 'the God of Bethel' . We have seen before
that Josephus tends to avoid such theological problerns.57to
Josephus simpl}' states in Au/. 1.309 that after 20 years in the service
of Laban Jacob decided to leave him in secret Nothing is said about
whether or not jacob's d ecision \Vas based on God's command. God is
not mentioned here by Josephu s.
575 Ant. 1.284. TI1ackeray (foseJ1Ims, vol. IV, LCl.. repinted 1978, 139) translate$ fh:it.l
tmia as 'God's heart !)tol\e.'
576 Gnuse ( 1996, 150), on the othe hand, suggesL<; that J06ephus chose to omi! Jacob's
dream " .. . beCIUL'te it a lludes to the s heep .,....hich were produced by 'mttg:k" in the
mnti' S process. Josephus omits the <l<:count of Jacob's trickery in sheep production
tactics, be<-.l use il was a n embarrassing slOt)' ... ""~ ~tl<~o Fe ldman 2CXX>a, 116.
257
.4111. 1.3 12 313. d ., Get\ 31:24. Set' Bl<~o Gnuse 1996. !5015 1.
C.en 32:24. Tile LXX has he1~ 1\\'(~gc.mo.;:. MT {Gen 32.'25) has wx.
Se~ c~n 32:28. r..rr: ("'..en32:29.
See <tlso Franxmen 1979.204-205.
Thackeray (fosc'l"'u-:;, voJ. IV,lCl repl'inted 1978, 159) has th~ trans latm 'phantom'.
Thackeray (/O$~pfws, \'OI. IV, lCl, ~printed 1978, 159) ha.<~ lhe tl'olll$l,ltion Nthe s.1rus
gle l""d been begun by t he spMre, which now found.~ tongue ...
S-83 A<~ sho\\'1\ abcwe, th~ G 1~ek texl l\.ils here 9riov kyyr.Aov which Thn-d:eray (f~~~pfms.
vol. IV, LC L. reprinted 1978. 159 Jtran.<~late.<~ a~ 'an nngel of Cod'. cf., Josephus' ren
dering: of Gen 16:7 14; set' abo\'e.
SStJ Thackeray {)osepluu:, vol. IV_. lCI., rep1inted 1<178, 161) likewi se here uses. lhe de$ig
nation ' the apparition' .
577
578
579
580
581
5.1)2
258
SS5 Ant. I. 325. Tl \.ilcke <~y's c:mnl)lation in f(~:>e!pfms, vol. IV. lCl. oeprinted 1978, 157. Cf.,
Josephus' d epiction ,.,r the angels tha t jMob (thought) he $iwl on the ladder in his
dream at Bethel.
586 I.e., Gen 32: 1-2 and vv. 22 32.
587 H.1yward 200S, 2.10.
588 See A C.mmrdmlcc 111 tlte StpltagiiiJ. second edilion (ed. Hatch and RedfMlh), 1998,
1-12-1. See a iSQ Ha>ward 200.r;, 232. ln Josephus' writings. the wo1d <flt.\\t:'I.<TJ.Jo.l occurs
in: /o!tl>isfl War 3.353, 5.381, Aut . t.325, 1.33 1, 1.333, 2.82, 3.62, 5.21.). 5.277, and 10.272.
S..~e A Complete Coucoulmtcc ro Flmius jf&'f}ltus, vol. IV (ed. Rengstotl'), 1983, 279. "Ow
negative connotation of the word in LXX may imply tha i it i<~ a hoe:tile, dem-onic oul
gel whom jacob encounter$ at Jabbok. Howeve1, we have seen that josephus. for example, also empfoys this word in his rendering of the angelic visitation to Manoah
and his wife, as well a.<l in his vetsion of Gen 32:1 2, which speaks again!>! sud l an inferpretation.
4
259
the jewish discourse and steps into the world of Greek philosophy.
According to him:
The word <PthotrOflr if.; <.".Ommon in l ~amed treatises t)f the C reco-Ro man
period, and refers to an image presented by an object to the mind, a dream,
or a vision. Tilt! sen$4.~ t'lf the wurd ilf.; d ream or vision ht!ig:htens the pnr
p hetit quality of the narra tiv~ ...SS9
HaY'"mrd pointe;: o ut that Josephus has transfo nned the biblica.l narra..
tive into a prophetic vision, probably inspired by Gen 35:9-15/ioo where
Jacob's change of name to l~rae l is connected to a d ivine oracle.""1 \'Vhereas in the Bible, Jacob's combatant blesses him in the end, josephus
omill) the blessing;.m the phantom's fu nction in the Judean Auliquities is
instead to foretell the future destiny of Jacob and his descendants. In
josephus' version, the prediction of the indesLTuctibility of Israel becomes the main message of the narrative.S\13
Besides the absence of the bles.sing of jacob, there are also many
other items in the bibJical sto ry that Josephus has o mitted in his rendering of il. For example, in the Judemt Anliquities, the arrival of the d awn
is not connected to the departure of the phan tom/angel.~ The daybreak is nmvhere mentioned by Josephus. In his version, the battle ap..
pears much shorter than in the Bible; jacob certainly d id not fight all
night long. Nor does josephus directly mention that jacob's adversary
during the fight hit him on the hip socket,SOJ5 an omission that makes the
battle lose some of its ooncretenes..c;. It is not u ntil the end of the story
that he alludes to this detail.r>'H> josephus has also removed all direct
speed l in his aa:ount. In sum, compared to the biblical o riginal, Josephus' narrative of jacob's experience at the ford of Jabbok appears to be
more visionary in character, his use of the term cj>dvtaalla being a
260
In the Bible, the opponent's iden tity remains a mystery but it is hinted
at in the rne,'lning of jacob's new name Israel:"... for you have striven
with GOO and with h umans, and have prevailed"fl11 as well as in the
name Jacob gives the site of the battle, see below. In Josephus' interpre
tation of the narrative, the narne Israel signifies the opponent of au nngel
of God, not an opponent of God in person."" Josephus emph.1sizcs that
the patriarch has not only striven with no Jess than an angel b ut has
597 Jo.ooephus' des.criplion M the departu1-e of the <jlllvmo~o also underscores the imagi
nary character of lhe event:
And the Bppal'ition, having said th i$. v.mi..;hed:" IAnt.
1.333). See also Begs: 2007, 534.
598 Gnuse 1996, 152.
.599 Cf... }OlOephu..<l' .~coounl of the angel of the lm'<l'$ vi!iit to Mano..'lh's wife in Au!. 5.2772115. The word ciyyt.Ao' is robe found in some extcml maouscripL.; of the LXX, see
S..~pruagillt3, Vetus Tes.tamentum Graerum. vol. I, C'.enesis {eeL Wevers 1974), pp.
N
314-3"15.
600 Cf... Gen 32:29: "Then Jacob asked him, ' Pie.1se rell m e your name. Bul he said, ' Wh>'
do you ask my I'Uime?' A.nd there he blessed him."'
601 Gen 32:28.
602 See Aul. 1.333 tluoted .1bLwe. The identification of jacob's comba~ant as om 31\gel is
al.;o well ath~sled in other early jewis h sources, for example, in one 1-eading in lhe
LXX, the Targums, and the Ptayr-r of foseJJ!r. J~phus ma)' have been inJiu enced b)'
the tr.-.dilional jewish interpretation. See also Hayward 2005, 2.)1 236.
4
261
The dream spoken about is, o f course, Jacob's nightly vision at BetheJ.61"'
In the same v,,1ay as in the Biblical version, Josephus states that God
exhorted Jacob to fulfill the vm..,, he once rnade in Bethel, comp are Gcn
28:2022 a nd Anl.1 .284. As usua l, Josephus has simplified the narrative.
In the Bible, God says lo Jacob:
605 A,. stated previously. the design.ation ' man' in the Bible sometimes Ius the implied
meal\ing of' angel' and this may lie behind josephus' interpreMtion of Cen 32:22 32.
4
606
607
60S
609
C'.en 32:30.
Feld man 1998,328, and 2000, 121. See al$0 Begs 2007, 530-531.
See a lso Hayward 2005, 239.
Ge:n 28: 10-22. d.., A11r. 1.279-284, see above.
262
"Arise, go up to Bethel and settle there. Make em altar there to tilt Cctl who
appeared to you when you fled fro m your broth~ r Esau.N(Gen J.5:1)
It is indeed very strange that God here seems to refer to Himself in the
Himself who spoke directly to Jacob, the sole exception being his ren
dering of Jacob's struggle with the 'phantom/angel o f God at the ford
o(jabbok.
610 Another diffe 1~nce Cllmp<l red to the biblic.ll version is that josephus points ou! tltat
J.lcob did not know about the foreign gods s toll"ll by Rachel. Wherea.."' i1\ Cen 3S:2 it
is jacob w ho ins-ll'ucts hL'I hous ehold to get rid of t11em. in jQSephus' version i t is God
who l't'VeiiiS thei1 presenre to jacob illld orders him to purify his tei\L'I. Acnwding hl
Fe ldman, Josephus in this cilse in..::erts an ilppea rance of God w here the Bible does
not mention Him. This S-liltement seems peculi.:u, s ince in (act C(>d L.:: speaking in
Gen 35: I, even though He dl1o.~S not t>Xpre$Sl) instruC1 Jncob to get rid of any S-ll'ol.OS'-'
gods. See Feldman 2000.:\, 124. note 963.
6tt SeeAul. I..J09 and &bo\'e.
612: Cf., Cen 35:9-13. According to Feld m.m {2CXXt 124, note 968). the omi.c;sion of the
divine blessing of jarob may be politic-all> moth ated .
613 The1't' may alc;o be oiJH!r reasons why Josephus deleted the blessing of Ephraim and
Manasseh. see Peldman2(10()-., , 185, note 519. See also Feldman, 1998, 328.
263
6l4 Howeve r.. j llSiephus is fa r from alone. since this tendency is common in J ~wish ex
~sesis in genetal.
264
sis 16, on the other hand, the angel who meet~ Hagar is a main charac
ter in the narrative and thus impossible to ignore. Josephus' omissions
of Jacob's dream in Gen 31:1013 as \Veil as the Patriarch's blessing of
Ephraim and M~1nasseh may be d ue to his wish to ~1void theological
problems. In Josephus' version of the life o f Jacob, it is generally God
who speaks to him, the o nly exception being Jacob's encounter \Vith the
' phantom/angel' at the ford of )abbo k.
\.Yhat then, is the d ifference between, for exarnple, the narrative
about jacob's stmggle al lhe ford of Jabbok and the Aqedah? Wh y does
the angel replace God as the one who shows Hagar the spring of water
in Josephus rendering of Genesis 21, w hile he ascribes the prevention of
Abraham's sacrifice to God, contrary to the Bible? Wh y d oes Josephus
treat these stories diffe rently? A possible answer may lie in the nature of
/he lexls. On the one hand, josephus' "demythologizing" tendency
makes him eager to omit the activity of angels where possible but, o n
the o ther, he also \"'ants to avoid anthropornorphisms and other theological problems in his rend ering of the Bible. The various natures of the
narratives should also be taken into account when con..c;idering Jose-phus' d loice of terms in d esignating angels: ciyyeAo;; 'angel/messenger',
<1><\VT<ta~la, and/or otj>1<; 'vision/apparition/phantom'. For example, the
divine emissary who encounters Hagar is d early a messenger, ",,.hiJe the
angels on the ladder in jacob's drearn do not have this fu nclion. Morecr
ver, Josephus' d1oice o f the term cp.:ivnA(J!JLl in his version o f Jacob's
struggle at the ford of jabbok is most probably d ue to his wish to minimize the concretenes.c; of the narrative and present it as a vision.
The d ivine intervention in the Aqed ah {manifested by a heavenly
voice) conforms to Josephus' tr~1nscendent conception of God. Hm,ev
er, concerning, for example.- such an anthropomorphic talc as Jacob's
struggle at the ford of Jabbok, josephus found it hard to believe that the
patriarch's opponent might actually have been God Himself. When
analyzing the judenn Anliquifies, it is also hnportant to bear in mind that
by modem standards josephus was by no means a systematic author o r
theologian.
In conclusion, it may be stated that it is apparent that Josephus
wanted to elimin.=-lte the biblical ambivalence between God and His
angel in the pericopes. T1' e ambiguity o f the biblical texts disappears in
josephus' rendering of them. In his versions, the angel(s) is/are dearly
d istinguishable from God, it is either God Himself o r an angel(s) who
is/are depictet.i as ~1ctive. Josephus seems to have a form of ' Phari
sak/individ ualistic' view on angels, regarding them as distinct perso
nalities, separate from Cod, although they all remain unnamed in his
treatment o f these texts.
26S
4.5 The Targu ms, Rabbinic Mid rash and Tal mud
4.5.1 Introduction
Tnrgun1 Onqelos
Targum Onqelos (Tg. Onq.)/' 15 one of the two a uthoritat ive Targums of
Rabbinic Judaism, is the most literal o f the Targums to the Pentate uch.
Nevertheles..c;~ it contains some interpretative material paraphrasing o ur
pericopes.
As is the case with a ll of the Targums, the origin al composition and
redaclion of Onqelos is difficull to date, since it contains layers of ma
terial from different periods. \Vc must distin guish between the dating
of the traditions oontained in the Targums and their final redaction. In
the words of Anthony D. York:
While the evkhmoo indicate.<; a great an tiquity for w ritten Targ:umim to
many portions of the Bible, no effective method has as yet been d evised to
d istinguish between the recen.sion of a particular taf},'Uinic text and tht! Ira
d itiun that underlies that tt~xt."l"
~vfany
615 Hencefo rth, I will use the s hOJter d esignation Om~t1os, except when applying the
abbrevialion.
616 York 1974,49.
617 There <I I'C, however, al.;o scholars who advocate a B.lbylonian migin of Ot~qdc~. e.g.
1'. Kahle. 51.~ Gros.<>fcld 1988,30-32.
618 Grossfeld 1988,30-35.
619 Grossfel d 1988. 30-32. For more information, see hLc; w hole 'introduclion', Grossfeld
1988, 1 35. See .also Abetbach/Grossfeld 1982. 9-18, and Bowke 1969, 2226. Alexrm
der ( 1992. 321322) \\'rites that Pr<llll Targum Ouqt'los origin!ltcd in Pale.<~tinc/the land
of l:w<~el in the firS-t or eal'ly seoond centutielt CE. Ae<ording to him, the Babylonian
redaction of the Targum w.ls made in the fourth or fifth cenhuies C. E.
4
266
~vfidrashi m
Targrmr Neofili 1
As mentioned in chapter 2.2.3, Alexander Diez Macho clairns that Tar
gum Neofili l (Tg. Neof"') con tains paraphrases that are pre-Ch ristian,
since they favo r the Ouistian interpretation of Scripture.~' Acco rding
to Bowker, Neofiti in it~ present fo rm can be assigned to the third century C. E., while M. McNamara suggests a dating o f the Targum to the
fou rth century or rnaybe earlier.6l" Neofiti v~.ras (re-)discovercd by Dicz
Macho in the Vatican Library in 1 956.~'i
Tile Genizah HWtluscripls
The Genizah is located in the Ben Ezra Synagogue o f Old Cairo. It con
tains je\ovish manuscripts d ating from approximately the $J.h- 9d\ centu
ries unlil the 14ct~ century. The Cairo Genizah is the largest and, after
Qumran, the most import..1nt source of ancient and medieval jewish
texts discovered in modern times. The Genizah fTagrnents o f Palestini
an targumic manuscriptc; are counted among the earliest extant v~.rit
620 GI'OSsfeld 1988, 1518 . If not otherwise s tated. I use the Engli.<>h translatio n by Aber
bad'\/GI'OSSfeld, 1982.
621 McNamara {1992.. 4 1), howeve. writes that "' .. .The nttmu$Cripts of the P.lii!'Siiniall
Ttt~l/IIIS of the Pentah?uo::h have been lran.<~mitted to us by Rabbinic judaism. This is
evidence that even if not an official Targum, as Om~tlf}$ la ter was. the Palestinian
Targum tradition was 1-eoognized by Rabbi1tic Judailm ll..'l its l'WIIl."' 11lere .ue scholars (e.g., Klein) vJI\Q see a oonne<rion between the Pa~tini nn Targums And the halakah of the sc:hool of Rab bi l~maeL McNnrnara 1992. 42.
622 Henreforth.. I will u..c:e the l>ho11er designa tion Nrufili, e);<:ept v.'hen us.ing the abbrevi
at ion.
623 Dfe:z. Macho 1960, 22>233.
624 Bowker 1969, 16-20. and McNam ara 1992, 44-15.
625 McNamarB. 1992 (inl mduction). 79. I consult the Engl i.<~h ta ns l.uion!l b)' J..,lcNam a
ra}!\1ah er 1968 and McNam ara 1992. If not othen'li.<~e S-lclted, I use the Englil>h trans
lalil11l by M. McNamara. 1992.
267
626 See Klein (introduction) 1986_. vol. I, xh:-xxxviii. 1f not o the..,.,rise s.l.ilted, I lL<te the
Arama ic texfs of the Ta1ogum Cenizah fagmenL<~ rolle<:ted by Klein along with his
translation..;. For furthe inform ation reg:. uding 1he Geniz.lh manlL<tCI'iplo.. see Klein's
introduccion.
627 Klein 1980, 12. McNa m.:l r.l 1992.4, and Alexander, 1992.323-324.
628 Alexande r 1992, 323.
629 Alex.lnde.r, 1992.324, McNolmara 1992.. 5, and Klein 1980, 13-19.
6:30 r<.kNamara 1992.6, <Uld Klein 1980, 19.
631 Klein 1980,23-26.
632 Alexander 1992, 324. If no t otherwi!ie s tated, I use the Englis h tl'<lns l.uion found in
Tilt Fragfltt.IJ T1trgums t>tilt' Pmltlt'UdJ. Acr:ordiug lo Jl1eir Extant Sl>utc.!':s, vol. I (AI'l
nuk tel<t) and vol. 2 (Eng. tran.<t.). Ed. and lrBilS. Klein., 1980.
268
Targum Pseudo~}otlalhmt
Targum Pseudo--Jonathan (Tg. Ps. ~J.'fU in itc; present form is consid ered to
be of a later d a te, although it certainly oontain..c; ancient t raditions. Psett
do]ot~alhan
p robably received its final form after the emergence of Islam a nd the Arab conquest o f the Mid d le East. This Targum is the only
one that schol.us generally consider to contain elements from the Islam
ic e ra a nd therefo re it contains a n ti ~ Moslem pole rn ic.6."U
Pseudo-Jouatlratl in its present fom1 contains an amalgamat ion of
material from diffe ren t periods, perhaps to a higher degree than a ny
other Targum to the Pe ntateuch. It reveals knm,,.Jedge about Islam and
refers to a wife and daughter of Mohammad (Tg. Ps.J. Gen 21:21) as
well as to 'Yohanan the High Priest' in Tg. Ps.J. Deut 33:11 Oohn Hyr
canus, 134104 B.C.E.).
As mentioned in chapter 2.2.3, this Targum contains in terpretations
that were censured in Rabbinic literature, sometimes as early as the
Mishna h .~1.11 However, Michael Maher states that PseudoJonathan " ... in
its fiHal form cannot be dated before the seventh or eight century ~llo (my
italics).
Tt has been proposed that the Targum constitu tes a n attempt to
combine a Paleslin ian targurnic tradition w'ith material from the rev ised
Baby lonian Onqelos, with interwoven additio ns from various Midra
shim, however, this has been disputcd.U.17 f'vf.m y scholars agree that the
redaction o f lhe Palestinian Targums was probably completed in pre
lslamic times, w ith the exception o f PseudcJ~Jonntlum .~"~
633
Hcncl~fortl\.
the .1bbreviatkln.
634 M<lher 1992. II. Because of the ltmguage of Psctedo-]cma/Jtan, S..Jme schol.us do nat
COI\Sider it a..c; belonging to the Paltstinian ttuogumic family, al!hough it ront.lin:; Pal
e.c;tinian material. Maher 1992.. 9.
635 Alexander 1992.. 322. See also Bowket1969, 26-28.
636 Mahe r 1992. 12.
637 Ale>:ander l992, 322-323.
6.18 McNamarn1992, (introduction), 4J-;J5, and M.lher 1992, 1112. For the Aram .1k tt~>:t
of Pscttd~>-Jmatfllltt, see Oarke 19~1. If not otherwise s tated, I use ~1 aher's Englis h
t.r.mslation ( 1992} of l11e T argum.
269
but in the religious school o r/and private stud y. The Targum to Cltrom'
cles (Tg. Cltr.) has an apparent Palestinian character and it was most
certainly composed in that country. although it also displays affinities
wi th the Babylonian Talmud. It also appears to have been influenced by
Pse-udo ~jonatlran .
Genesis Rabbah
639 Mcivor (introduction) 1994, 11 -18. I u!le th e Engli!th tra1tsla.tion by Mdvor, 1994.
270
644 Sttack/Stemberger 1991. ;356.357. Although Pit~~ dt RabJli 1ie:ur is generally considered to have been edited duri ng th e eigh th or ninth century, much llf the material
in thi..c~ Midra."h is older. See, e.g... th e introduction by Fiedlander. 19 16, pp. liii 1v
and Strack,/Stemberger 199 1, 35ft.3S7.
645 F1iedlander 1916. liiilv, and Bowker 1969, 85. Strad:/Stemberger, 1991, 356-357,
cl.1ssifioes Pinl" dl! Ra1lbi 111'-ztr (i1\ contrast to Friedlan der) as the c~at i ve wo.k of a
persoo.llauthor.
6<16 F1iedl.mder 1916 x ix lv, Bowker 1969, fl5. Maher 1992, 5 12. and StrackJStemberger
1991.357. llLc;e the English trans lation by Fried la~~der, 19 16 .
6<17 Sl~e Strack,o'Stemberge l991. 317322, and Br.lude{Kapstein 2002. xi d . I use the
English tran.c;Jation by Baud e and Ka pstein, 2002.
6<18 St:rack/Stemberger 1991. 2.75 279. See .11so Lauterbach (introd u ction) vol. 1. 1961. >:iiiixiv. I use the English t"tan.<ilation by Lauterbach, 1961.
4
271
The Talmuds
As is \Vell knov,m , the two Tal muds, in particular the Babylonian one,
are the principal works of Rabbinic Jud aism and further presentation is
superfluous. For some general infom1ation, see chapter 2."'9
Tnrgun1 Onqelos
Genesis 16
Regarding Gcn 16:710, 0 11qelo.s is very similar to the MT. Moses Aber
bach and Bernard Grossfeld have chosen to translate '"i :o:-t't. in v. 7 in
indefinite fo rm: "Then n11 angel o f the lord fo und her by a spring of
water in the wildem ess ... " But we could equally understand the Tar
gum as referring to a specific d ivine messenger, ' the angel o f the Lord ',
as in the Bible. To some d egree, the biblical ambivalence ben.veen the
angel and God remains in t-he Targum. As in the Bible, the angel refers
to God in the third person (v. 11, see below) but he also talk-5 w ith di
v ine authority in the fi rst person: " I w ill g reatly multiply your descen
d an ts ... " (v. 10).
Onqelos interp rets Lhe coming o f the angel as God's answer to the
p rayer of Hagar. "Behold, you are p regnan t, and you shall give birth to
a son; and you shall c.-.11 his name Ishmael; fo r 1/le Lord !Jns accepted youI'
649 1 use the English tran..;lation of th e Babylonian Talmud by Epstein., vol<t. 1-35.
1935-1948.
272
p ;:;
0),,_
(131
:"',lll\ 'J
[131
r-' ~,,
1'::1
1\':1
;ll
rt 41 ;
''lfiK1 11'0
1N'?m
1\,)n
fl 3] Then she ct~lleil lh~ rumu of the
LORD who s:pokt~ to her, You-Are-the~Q)(f-Wh6-Set.s; for she said, "Nat>~t I
also hae ~ell I-lim wlto sees m~?" p 4)
Therefo re the well was called B~:er
Lalmi Roi; (the well of the U\'ing One
who sees me] observe, it is between
Kadesh and &red.
650 Accord ing to Aberbach/Cms.c;feld, it is s ignifican t that Onqtlfl:l tr.m!tlates: the Heb1'e\V
phrll.<~e :t'i~ u;;; in v. t:) a..<~ :;:;.:; 77<l:i1Xi , using the lthpaei fl', rm of the \'erb '7'i<J/ 'hl
speak'. Oueltlos could jus:l as well have used the traJlSialion :;.n 7.'7::;. Aberbach and
Grossfeld suggest that lhe reason was probabl)' that lhe ta'SumLc;t wal\ted to make
C'.od's words to Hagar les.c; diroo. The u.<~e o f this gram matical foml renders the di sMniX' between Cod and H aga geater: Aberbach!GrO!;Sfeld 1982. 99, no te 10.
273
ample, Gen 12:8: " ... there he [Abram] built an altar to the lORD and
invoked the name of the lord (<nii"' o~':l ~1i'' l]." See also Gen 13:4; 21:33,
and 26:25 both in Ouqelo.s and the ?vfT."~ The reference to t-he prayer of
Hagar in Onqelos may also be an influence from the sy nagogue~liturgy
of the time.
The end of Gen 16:13 is also different in the Targum. According to
Onqelos. Hagar is here saying: " ... I. too, have begun to see (visions)
after He had been revealed to me." The targumic ad dition in Hagar's
exclamation; " I, too have begun .../...~l~ n11t~... " might, according to
Abcrbach/Grossfeld, be connected to the midrashic vie\ov that several
angels appeared to Hagar. The meeting wiU' the angel of the lord in
the d esert \\'ilS thus only her first heavenly vision.611t
Note that Hagar is saying'' ... 1, too, have begun to see (visions) ... "
This is pos.sibly an allusion to the midrashic concept that divine revela
tions happened regularly in Abraham's household. Hagar is exclaiming
that nmv she tool despite her low status as a servant. has had a heaven..
ly visitation.6.'15
Hagar meets the heavenly emissary in a revelation, a vision. It is
thus not comparable to a 'face to face' encounter between two persons
in the desert. G rossfeld writes that Ouqelo.s in v. 13 presupposes an u n~
derstanding of the Hebrew o?;,; 'here/even' as o;n; ' dream (....vision).'6Mo
This reminds us of what God Qnce said to AarQn and Miriam in N um
12:5-8:
(5) Then the LORD came down in a pillar uf duud ;md stood at the en
trance uf the tent, and called Aanm and Miriam, and tht!y both came for.
ward. [6) And he said$ "Hear my word$: Wht?n there are prophel<:> among
you, I the LORD make myst!lf kn<nVl'l to them in visions; I Speak to them in
d reams. (7J Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my
653 See also Gros ..<1fe ld 1988, 73, nme 9, Che~er 1986, 89, and Aberbach(Grossfeld 1982.
99$ note 10. TI'I is ill te'Pretation may be seen in the light of the fact that the Hebrev1
word KV (especially in combina tio n with the p-epo.<~ition :!) can a!St) m\~an 'call
upon/ invokeJappe.ll to', hence 'pray'. a ., also Rom 10:13 and the l'e ndering of Cen
16:13 in the Palestil\ ian Targums, see below and Maher 1992.. 63, no te 16.
654 Abcrbilch,'Gros.sfeld 1982, 99100, note II. Aberb.lch/Cro..,sfeld refers here to C'ttu.
/Wb. -15.7. I am dll l.lbtfu l abl)Ut this refererw:t:,. s ince Q_.,,I'.S;s RtJbb11)t he re oommen l~
upon H11s;al"s e>:pe1ience dul'ing het escape ( 1\)0\ Sarah in Genesis 16. II i..; ll'ue th.at
the Midr.ls.h ~tates that seve ral .angels nppe.a1'ed to Hagar, bter on 1me nnd rflt' sam~ ex-Lit$i.lll.
65S Abctbach!Grossfeld 1982. 99100, note II. ln addition to the Rllbbinic tradition,
Abctbach and Crossfelrl base this on rm a.<~l)u mption of the substitution of the word
o?:i in ro-n br ~ (I} in Tg. Ouq. Cen 16:13 . ..\ s shown abo\'e, Gros..,feld also susgesL.;
anO!her inlet'flt"elation of Owlt'lfiS concerning the .. t ...anslalion" of the word o?:i.
656 Grossfeld 1988, 73, nl"'te 13. See also O les tet 1986, 87.
274
ht)U$e. 18) \>Vith him J ,:;peak fare to face-deon ly, not i n ridd les; and he~
holds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak
against my Si"n'ant Mo~s?,.
l11e meeting between the angel o f the Lord and Hagar is not described
by Onqelos as a meeting 'en route'. It is not an 10rdinary' meeti ng benveen two persons in the desert1 b ut depicted as a heavenly vision. This
is a spiritualization of the biblical pericope. In this way Onqelos tTies to
diminish the anthropomorphism o f the text, a typical targumic de-vice.IU7The LXX also differs from the Targum on this point:
ICen 16:13} KL't i i:K"c~Atm~v J\:ylt(> ,(J {JvOp t.t Kt-'Qtuv 'tOU At.tAuUvw.; 1lfJ<l;
u:trn1v, ru c) fh:b~ b rmtx:J\' '"'C OTt dm:v, Kai yl-'t(.> t:vc.,muv t:iDov ('x1)66tUt
"'oi/And Hagar called the nam~ of fh (? Lord who Spoke to ht!r, " Yo u are the
God who se~ me./luoks upo n me;" fur she said, "Fo r I have upenly {or: in
perSon,~~ chapter 3) ::;een him that appeared tom ~... {14) ht..:.L-v "TMnuv
i:Ktl:Acat.v 't~J (fi(.Ji:U:(.J <t>Qi:tlQ oU t vc.'mcov t:ibov ... / ...The w~U of him whom
J have o penly seen ...
657 See.. e.g., Grossfeld 1988, 19-23, a.nd 73, no~e 13.
658 Kols.her (2007. 559) tromslates ~'9 1!0.'l in Gen 16: 14 as ' the .1ngel of the Owenant'.
His e);pl.'u lMions of 011qdos.' in.:ertion of the angel is IIMtthe Targu m is adheting h)
the conte);t of the verse (\V. 71 1) in whkh it is an angel who speaks to Hagar. l)t' that
the Targum w ishes to sever the dir'e(tlink between God and the <llien maidsetvant.
659 ThL.; interpretation is al.;o found in later jewish comn~ntari es. According to, for
example, Rashi (see Rashi, C.>mm~'""''Y tm J}le Tm'il!t, vol. I, Hettis.flislC'It'Jttsis, Eng.
trans. Herczeg 1995, 18 1), the fact thal the angel speaks in the fi ts t pets-:>t\ si.ngul.w
and says to Hagar: "I w ill multiply your des..'elldan ts exceedingly ... " (C..en 16: 10)
doe$ nl)l imply rhat the .mgel him..~lf ll<l$ the ability to increase her offspting. The
angel is speaking on behalf of Cod. But th is dlleS not expla in why the angel in one
and the same pericope fin;.t talks in the first pet-ron (v. 10) and then s\,itches to the
third person in v. 11. \1/hat is the t-eason for this ambivalence?
275
MT: 'K, ni 1K:I (!It~ Well of I.J.t!wi-roi o r: the Wdl of l11e Livint.J 011e wlro s~('S m~).
TO (Targ:um Onqe/()$], anxious to ~mphasiz~ that it was an angel rather
than God in per-Son who appeared t() Hagar, introduce:; "the living angelN
to prevent any misconceptio n. This was particularl}' nec~ssa ry, sin ce~, n?,
whatever its pre<:Lo;e connotation. undoubtedly nders to Cod dL~t:ribed as
~,
in the previous verse. fi>l
'N
Geuesis 21
Onqelos' version of Gen 21:17-20 is almost identical to the MT. The angel of the lord calls to Hagar fro rn heaven and speaks comfortingly to
her, as in the Bible (v. 17)."'' The angel thereafter speaks to Hagar in the
for I \\'ill make of him [Ishmael] a gre..'lt na
first person and s..1ys;
lion", v. 18. In the next verse we read that " ...Gad [lit. the lord/ "]
opened (lit. uncovered) her eyes, and she saw a well of water ... " So fa r
there are merely stylistic differences between the MT and Ouqelos, i.e.,
the angel is labeled .,, >OX?Il/ 'the angel of YHWH/the lord', not ' the
angel of Elohim/Gocl'. However, the former designation of God is a
usual characteristic of the targumic genref>~U
h
276
Genesis 16
Verses 712 of Neofiti and Pseudo-Jouatlmu arc quite simiJar to each other
and to the MT. The messenger w ho meets/finds Hagar in Gen 16:7 is
,~, K:l~6?.>.~ The translators render this as ~tfte angel of the Lord' (not in
the indefinite form as Aberbach/Grossfeld, cf., above).""
As in the Bible, u,eangel of the Lord talks in the first person singu
Jar in v. 10 in both Targums: " ... I will surely multiply your sons so
they cannot be numbered for multitude" (Tg. Neof). But in accordance
with the MT, the angel in the follm"'ring verse refers to Cod in the third
person;"... you will call his name Ishmael, because yourafflictions/uwe
h<'l!tl heard before the Lord""' (Tg. Neof), " ... because your affliction lms
been revealed before the Lord" (Tg. Ps.-J.). 11m s in v. 11 the two Targums
are closer than Onqelos to the MT, since there is no reference to the
prayer of Hagar.
Unfo rtunately, we do not have any complete rendering o f Gen 1 6:7~
14 in the Fragmeul Tnrgums. In v. 7, we have "Qn the road to Hal usa,"
instead of" ... on the way to Shur'' (MT). Verse 13 is, however, availa
ble in its entirety in the Fragment Tnrgums. Not surprisingly, they con
664 The inset'lion 1lf the Memra (\Vord) is a common targumic d evice used in t-everence
of God. The addition of the Memra obviates a din--..:1 reblion..;hip between man and
God. Ao.-:otding to Grossfeld {19$$, 85, note 12): ,.. ... The use of the phr.lse ' the Me
mra l") f the Lord sustains' is .m extt<emely common targumic phra..c1e employed in
tmnslation for situatilms in Hebrew where God is depicted as assisting.. J>I'Otecting,
defending and pt-esetving man." Cros..<>feld al~ claims that" . . .It I the Me mr.ll appears to be ul)ed e uphemi.<~tically by Cod's personal manifestalion.N Fm more infmm!llion on the Memra, see chapte r 2.2.3.
665 NtVJjili has :in' -r.~;J "he (the angel) met her. ..N, while Ps~ndofl1tra/Jtatl has ;;.rot:tX) I
"he found her.....
666 NtVJjifi vol. L (Aramaic text) ed. Diez Macho 1 96..~, Cen 26:7-14, p.l:rl. The \'lOrds in
italics are targumic devi.ltion..<~ from the MT: McNamara 1992, ix.
667 A NrofiJi margina l gloss Iu s here ... he Memraf\\'ord of the llll'd has heard."'
McNamara 1992,99.
277
tain a great deal of interpretative material. The same is the case in Neofi-
li and
Pseudo ~jouatllart.
278
MT{NKJV
OIS X"\?' r.l
n31
~ "'l:!i:"i :"il:r
TQ. Neo{.
Tg. Ps.-1.
FrR.
T~.
~IV:i 11''731 n 31
Olj> nK'11K1(13)
--u.1nK'"!).'(l fl31
_ , :t""''~l)
:1'11l'r.": "'
0\V:i n.~?'ll
:~;~ r~l;:.n:;;,
~.,
n"'l~K
.,Jl
:mx.
m., ;'1,~" ~
~Jl ..,)J"'''Xl
TUmmn ~s
""\l!l
' l l\"0:.'?!: i :
~nn;:.l\?1 ~n,
Dl"'K
TI'Nil N'l:)?;,;?
V- ;~ ;m 111:>
XJ:l 0 1::1
1'11'-lX 011K
1j:>' J'tK'i)i1~
-?1! l ln7n:
l\"t.:i K i) D"P
0'?:1
FrR TR.(V)"'
K\t' i':)
-R:'IN ~:i"1
l\1 ; x
(PJ""
"'X
x ~m
..., MJ':v
xu n 1ro
'~'i::!
1":1 nx.?J.11'K
""'l!>~:i i'l~n
n K"'rl."'''Xl "\i'O
' 11ll<J"1 ""'ll!l '?:;
"\X:ii
:11~?
X "''~?
"'?ltiXl f:I}"IX::!
''lti'K1 K"\':1
, , D"P :1'?!1
f ::l1 ~,,
.1 :Slin r
:n 0~"\
:rs:t'?n
called the
name of tla:
LORD who
~ poke tu h~ r,
You-Are-theCod-WhoSec~; fo r .she
said, ''Howe J
also h~re seen
Him wh(l sees
me?"'
pnry~Yl in
tlumks !Jifor('_
the l o rd
the
name of th~
Mcmrn
(\.Yurd] cif fit(:
Lord whu wa$
r.roetJleil h )
her: You are
the GOd Who
su~tain~ all
trg'S; rur: exists for all
ages]6.?Z fo r
[13) And Ha
(13) A nd Ha-
g<lr gave
thanks and
wlfOS(: M tmrtl
prayed in the
had spok~n 1:<) name of th~
her, attd she
memmuf the
spDk('_ thus,
l.urd who
''You are the
was revealed
Living ami
to her and to
Endurins On(:, Sarai lwr miwl1o set."S but;:; SireS..,., and
tt(JJ S(:et~"; fo r she said:
she said, "Be:- "Blessed a rt
gar g<we
thanks and
~he prayed in
the name of
the memn1 of
lhe Lord Who
was revealed
unto her; and
~he said:
" Bk>S..-.;00 art
Thuu, Co(ld.
Sustain~ r <lf
thou God.
VVho exi.sts
forever, Who
has seen 1ny
d istress; for
she $aid:
" \Vhy even
unto m ~ You
were revealed, just
after Yuu
were revealed
unto Sarai my
279
AJI WMlds,
Who has SI:!E?n
my distrn."St
fo r she said:
"Why even
unt<) me Y ()U
w~re revealed, jus t
after Y<lU
were revealed
unto Sar-ai my
mis tress.N
mistn~ss."
Zflh.
Grossfeld {2()00, 149) tran.-.lates it " . .. the pre.~;erver of all WOI'Ids."' He suggest~ howe\er, tha t the original fext in Noofili wa..;: ~.''1)7:; ~? o..y./ N\'lho endures unto aU e tecnil)'" Cf.. Dan 6:27 a nd Tar"gum lmwthltn to Hab I :12. The phrase x~7:.? U'ii {Frg.
Tg./P) Klein ( 1980, 14) tran.o;lates as NWho e~isL<t fore ver." See abO\e.
673 Or: " . .. the w~~n w here he w ho exists for all ages w.ls re \ealed."' Eng. trans. i\lcNamBraJMaher 1968, 535. See above. A Nrufili marginal gloss has:"' .. . abow hhich WolS
revealed the glory ~lf the $hekir1ah of the Lord ... " (MC'N.lma ra, 1992, 100). C f., Psl'fldt?--}muolftfm.
674 'Vision' is omilled in Edilio prirto.-ps (Ed. pr.) of Ps!!//d(l-}tllt.a/Jra/1 {Venire 1598). M.lher
follows the reading of the Britis h Ubrary MS 27031 (tond .) of Tg. Ps.-f., since according to Rabbinic tradition Hagar wa.-. accustomed to d ivine revelations. Maher 1992,
63. note 18. cr... the a nalysis of Onqdo.; above.
280
675
676
677
678
281
years ..." (Gen 22:19). After this, Isaac is m issing u ntil Gen 24:62: "Isaac
was coming from the sdzoolhouse of Slrem the Great, by the way that leads
to the v.ell w!Jere tlte Living nud Eudul'ing One, who sees bul is tlol seen, wns
revealed lohim ..."r..<o See a lso Gen. Rab. 60.14:
AND ISAAC CAME FROM COMING, etc. (XXIV, 62): i.e. he came frtlm a
mission to fetch someone. And whither had he gune? TO BEERLAHAIROI (ib.): he had g:t.lne to fetch Hagar, th~ one who sat by the well (bc'er)
and b(.JSought Him who is the life (lalmi) <>f aH worlds, ::laying. 'Look upon
(rc'ch) my misery.'
680 Cf., .11so the Frg. Tg. (P) to Cen 2~:62: "And Isaac wa$ roming from t he study hall o f
the Greal She-m to the well .11 which lhe Glor)' o f the She-kinah of the Lord was
-e-
' ' ealed; and he was dwe11ing between Haga and Halu1.ahN(M)' translation).
681 There ma)' also be a contadiccion in the P.1!estinjan Targums to the Rabbinic opi+
nion that God h <~ d never Spi)ken di-ecli)' to a woman, wilh the sole exception of Sarah.. d ., Frg. Tg. Gen 16: 13 (Vand P): " . . .\Nhyevel\ u nto me You were te\ea\00, just
after You were revealed unto Sarai nl)' mLc;tres.o;."
682 Cl1ncem ing the concept 'the Glory of the Sheki1Mh of lhe Lord', see chapter2.2.J.
282
H~1gar's
whiclr /l~e Living and Enduring One ums revenled ... " (Tg. Ps.J.).
The Palestinian Targu ms seem to interpret the appearance of t:he
angel of the Lo rd in Gen 16:714 as a theophany . The a ngel of the Lord
is iden tical to God Himself and, although the holy angels a re a lso carri
ers o f the d ivine Glory, o nly God can be described as " ... the Living and
Enduring One, who sees bul is not ~~tt" (Tg. Ps.J.. Gen 16:13). However,
in the same way as in Ouqelos, the " angel"/divine messenger reveals
Himself to Hagar in a heavenly v is ion; it is not a meeting 'en route'.
Geue.sis 21
Conceming Gen 21:1720 we a re limited to the rendering of Neofiti and
Pseudo-jonatltnn,. sin ce the relevant verses are unfortunately not p reserved in the Fragment Targums or the Cairo-Geniz.ah.r...oa
TI1e rendering o f Nt~fiti is q uite close to the Hebrew origi nal. de
spite the fact that one o f the reasons for the expu lsion o f Ishmael is said
to be that he practiced id olatry (Gen 21 :9). The alleged id olatry of Ish
mael may be explained as an attempt to justify Sarah's (and God's)
behavior. Abrah am u nwillingly casts both him a nd Hagar out, o n
God's command to listen to Sarah's request. God, however, p romises
Abraham to make a g reat nation of the son o f Hagar, h is bondwoma n,
vv. 10-13.
As in the Bible, the heavenly mes.c;enger/ ,.,.,'i ~'~71:- calls to Hagar from
heaven in v. 17 and refers to God [~~ ~ ) i11 the third person;" ... Fear not,
because Ute Lord h~1s heard the voice of Ute prayer of the boy ..."61tt But in
v. 18/ the messenger switches to the first person singular;" ... I will make
him (Ishmael ) a great nation ... " Jn v . 19 we read: "And the Lord6fls
opened her eyes and sh e saw a \"tell o f wate r ... " The only noteworthy
difference from the MT is the use of the Tetragramma ton (albeit in short
eneti fonn) and the reference to Lhe prayer of Ishmael in v. 17. The a rnbi ...
valence be lween the rnessenger and God thus remains in Nt."'t.lfiti.
The interpretative material is more extensive in PseudoJmrathan but
it main ly concems Ishmael a nd not the identity o f the heavenly emis
sary. According to Mah er, there is an apparent antiMoslem attitude in
683 ln the FragmeuJ Targcwts the only ext.mt verses of Gene!ti.'l 21 are vv. 9, 33 (P), and w.
J. 7. 9. 15. and 33 (V).
684 A Neofili margin.al glns..<t has he1-e Nth~ Memra of the lcH'd (has he.wd) the \'Oice.N
McNamara 1992.. 114.
68.; No'Ofili marginal glos.'l: the Memrcl C)f the lord. McNamar.-1 1992, 114.
2&1
The biblical ambivalence concerning the ide ntity of the angel of the
Lord remains in Pseudo ~jouatlran. But in contrast to the Bible.. the de li ~
verance of Hagar and her son is explicitly connected to the merit of
Abraharn . Because Ishmael is Abraham's sot\ God saves h im and his
mother in spite of h is present and fu ture sins, v. 17.w \+Vhy Pseudo-]atlalhmr finds it unproblematic to state that "the Lord u ncovered her
(Hagar's] eyes ... " in v. 19 bu t inserts the Memrn in v. 20 is a riddle.61111
Genesis Rabbah
Geuesis 16
The Rabbis behind Genesis Rabbalz have the following to S3)' abou t Ha
gar's encounter v..rith the angel in Genesis 16:
(Geu. R"l'. 45.7] . .. the a ngel said: HAGAR. SARAI'S HANDMAID, etc.
Hena?, AND SHE SAID: I REE FROM THE FACE OF MY M ISTRESS SARAt. AND AN ANGEL SAID UNTO HER: RETURN TO YOUR MISTRESS,
etc (... ) AND AN ANGEL OF THE LORD SAID UNTO HER: I WILL
GREi-\ TLY MULTlPLY THY SEED~ etc (XVI. 9 f.). How many angels vi sitt~d
her? R. llama b. R. Hanina said: Five, fllr each time 'speech' is mentioned it
686 Concem ing the anti-Moslem mentality, see Maher 1992. 76, note 2-1.
687 We have some suppcwt for such a n inh~p-eia ti on in the context of the MT. See the
nords of Cod to Ab1aham according to Ceo 21: 13: "'Yet I will m.1Jce a natiol\ of lhe
SOl\ llf lhe bond"oman, becau~e he is your .!Ieee!.'"
688 A Nct>jili ma'Sinal gloss state..; in v. 20: "'the tl.1emta of the Lotd (w.1s) at rhe a id of the
child." McNarnar.a 1992, 114. As mentioned previously, oo..'Ording to Cto.ot.<tfeld the
U$e of the Mema L<~ ''ey oomnwn in tilrgumic tl'ansl.uions of verse.<~ in the Hebre'"
Bible where Cod is depicted a~ assisting: people. Cl., the an.alysis above of /lbilt't'i>,
the Judl.,1JI Auliqllilh'li, and Tg. Ouq. Gen 21:20.
284
referS to an angel. The rabbis said : Fuur, th is being the numbt!r o f times
'angel' occurs. R. Hiyya Qb~ rvcd: Come and soo how great is the d iffe r
l>nce be h\een the earlier generations and the later Onl$! What d id Manoah
say t u h is wife? We $./wll surd.IJ 1lie, IJi:ttwse we Jmvc st't'u Gut (Judg. XUt 22);
yet Hagar, a lxmdmaid, sees fi ve anb"eiS and is nut afraid of them! R. Aha
said : The finge rnail of th e fathers rather than the stomach t)f the son..,.! R.
Lsaat q uok d : Sllc :;ect}, lflc uays of lu:rlrouscllald (Pw v. XXXI, 27): Abrah am's
househo ld were seers,~) she fHagar) was accustomed to them.
As shown a bove, a similar interpret..1tion of the end of Gen 16:13 o;;, m:1
,~,~,iii\ 'n'1'..,/"Have
1.
I also here seen Him '"'ho sees me?" is a lso found in
the Targu ms, explicitly in the Palestinian ones/"''2 e.g ., "Behold also now
he !Jas beeu revealed to me after he !Jas [Jeeu re-.Jealtd to my mistress Sarai"
(Tg. Neof).
TI1e epithet that Hagar gives God, '"' '?K, is explained by R. Aibu to
mean that she thereby proclaims that God sees the suffe rings of the
689 According to Freedman/Simon 1939, 388, note I, the biblical reference to Dllvid's
royal rank and t11e word 'halom' e.xprao;e.<~ Hagar's gratitude that kings Wl)Uid
spring from her. 0 1r. Edd. has here: ''Not 011ly WllS I favoured to see the ansel together with m y mistre.o;s. but even my mist res.<~ who was w ith me did 1\l"'t see him
(while I did):" This might explain the romp.wison in the end.
690 FreedmanJSim.on 1939, 388, note 2: .. Rendering: I have St"ell (the angels in the ,,rildernes.<~) ilfter having see.nthem (at home); v. st~pm, 7."
691 The noble lad)r d id not see lhe king bec.mse she was hiding her fal-'e in modesty:
FreedmanJSimon 1939,388. note 3.
692 Except P.:k'tldOfom:rlllall, ~above .
28S
'""' AND SliE fliAGAR) CALLED TliE NAME OF TliE LORD TliAT
SPOKE UNTO HER? R. joshua b.R Nehemiah
That was through an angel ...#J_;
anSw<~ red
in R. Jd i's name:
693 Or: "You see the humiliation of those humiliated ... G.:rl. Rah. 45. 10, Eng. !roms. Neus
ner, vol. 2.. 1985, ISS.
69.J N KJV.
695 Gm. IM}. 45.10.
696 The Midra..o;h continues hl say lluat not even the ma tri<H'<h Rebekah had a direct
enrounte1' with God.
697 Ra..shi {1040 1105), on the other hB1\d, emphasize$ that neill\el' Samh nor Haga had a
direct encounter w ith God in per.;o.n. On both occasions (Gen 18:1013 and Gen 16:714) it is an angel speaking on God's behalf. Ras.h i, Eng. tran..;. Heaeg:,. 1995, 18 1.
This prominent med ieval sd \Oiar, I\Oweve, belongs hl B later period !han th at covered in my thesis.
286
the Bible as a un ity. in whidl every thing belongs together. One biblical
text can thus illuminate another.
Even th ough the Ra bbis o f Get1esis Rnbbnlt acknowledge that the title
,~, ;~ in Gen 16:13 is given by Haga r to God, the majority nevertheles.c;
deny that He talked to her in person; God addressed Hagar through
angels. Th e designation ' the a ngel of the Lord 1 in Gen 16:714 is inter
preted as den oting several angels appearing to Hagar. This is why the
p hrase 'the a ngel of the Lord said to her' occurs more tha n once, each
time it refers to the speech o f a differe nt a ngel. To the 'midr-ashic mind'
there a rc no unnecessary repetitions in the Bible.f<'M According to the
Rabbis, one angel cannot h ave more than one task at a time."'cn
Gene.sis 21
Regarding Gen 21:1720, Geuesis RaiJba!J does not have a ny comment
u pon the identity of the angel o f God who calls to Haga r but the Midrash mentions other a ngels, and he does not seem to be one o f them:
(Gm. Rnb. 53.14) AND THE ANGEL OF GOD CALLED TO HAGAR (XXI,
t7)-for Abraham's sake; while (GOD HATH HEARD THE VOICE OF THE
LAD} \'\THERE HE IS connotes fo r his uwn sake, fur a sick perSon's prayers
on his own behalf are mure effi cacious than those of anyo ne else.
\VHERE HE 15.700 R. Simun said: The ministering angels ha.,-tened to
indict him exclaiming. '5<)\'ereign of the Universe! Wilt Thou bring up a
well for o ne who wi11 ooo day s lay Thy children with thin:;t?1llt '\Vhat is he
(Jshmael] nuw? He (God ] d emanded. 'Rightt><>u$/ was the answer. 'J judge
man o nly as he is at the mo ment/ said He. (Therefore Scripture con tinues]
ARJSE, LIFT UP THE LAD, etc. AND GOD OPENED li ER EYES, etc. (XXI,
18 f.). R. Bt>njamin b. l e\l and R. jonathan b. Amram b<>th said: All may be
presumed to be blind, until the Holy (me, bles...;OO be He, enlighten.'> their
eyes ...
Th e focus of the Midrash is not the iden tity o f the heavenly messen ger
but the fact that God rescued Ishmael, in spite of the fact th at he (h is
descenda nts) would become en emies of Israel. God saves Ishmael and
Hagar, for Abraham's sake (cf., Tg. Ps.-J.) but also because of the prayer
of Ishmael. At this moment, lshrnael is conside red righteous by God,
287
Genesis 21
As in jubileesl the e xpulsion of Hagar and Ish mae] is de picted in Pirqe de
Rabbi Eliezer as one of the trials of Abraham. Th e two books also have in
common that they contain a counterpart to the story o f Hagar a nd the
angel th at can only be fou nd in Gen esis 21 .
No angel is men t ioned in Pil'qe de Rnbbi Eliezer's rev,.rriting of the pericope.''~~lThe only ' heavenly actor' is God Himself. Does this imply that
the ~~ange l" and God are assumed t() be one and the same person? Or is
the angel as God's rnessenger oonsid ered u nirnportant by the author?
\Ve ca.nnot know fo r sure. As in, for example, Pseudr>}onalllau, Hagar is
here depicted as an idolater. In cont rast to the Palestinian Targums,
nothing is said of Ishmael's idolatry, on the contrary, he entreating ly
p rayed to the God o f his fa ther Abraham to save hirn and his mother.
702 Cf., xod. Rub. 3.2: "" ... the angels sought to bing dW11'Se." BS<linst him (l<~hmael l
li.'lying : 'lo1d of th e Universe, will Thou cause a well to come up for one who will
l"me day t.y ro slay Thy children with thirst'? 1...1c ,'XI 1-etorted: 'But lttlto, is he righteou s or widted ?' They 1-eplied: 'He is rightel"'us.' W'hereupon God said: ' I judge a
mall only on what he is 11.0<11' :" Eng. ll'<uls. Lehrman 1939,60. According toil ffi('l<:l
em jewish oommentatm, it i.s llOteworth) tl'l.ilt God in Cen 21:1 7-20 is na med by His
attl'ibute of strict justice, Elohim: Rabbi M. Zlotm.,..it:r. 1978, 764. See also l. R,)S}t fmSJuuw 16b. According h"' Gen. Rab. 53.B, H.~gar a ppealed to the justice of God:" . .. R.
Berekiah s.1id: Tile phrasl~ connl"'tes,. as a woman w ho impug.ned Cod'$ justice, SB)'ing.. 'Ye.<~te rday Tilou dids t promi..;e me, I w ill s -eally multiply thy seed, etc. (Gen.
XVJ. 10), and OO\\' he is d)ing of thirst!" ..
703 Although l'irq~ .t~ IM>bi Elitur does not make any reference ro the <mgel of the lord
in the rendeing of C'.enesis 21 (chapter 30), the angel is menriorted in a la1er chapter.
Since according to Ge.n 16:11 the angel commands Hagar tf 1W1me her son l.;hmaet
lhe Midr.ilsh sl.ltes that he is one of six perscms \\'ho were c-alled by their names before their Cl<e-.1tion. The olhets are: l<~aac:. Mo..s es, Solomon,. josi.1h, .l.nd King Messi.ilh!
Piu d~ Rabbi Elie:ur 32. Ct:'nt.sis Rabbalt also be.11'S w itness to this ta dition, see 45.8.
288
Th e reason for theiI' expulsion is said to be thal lshmael had tried to kill
Isaac. ""
Pirqe de RnbiJi Eliezer states that God answered Ishmael's p rayer and
opened 'the well w hich was created at twilight' for h im and h is moth
er.7U'I It is thus no ordinary \VeiL According to Je,vish tradition, it was
created at twiligh t o n the eve o f the first Sabbath in the week o f crea
tion.m; ll'lis interpretation may be derived fro m the name o f the 'veil in
Cen 16:14: ,:-t, 'ii; "110/"the 'veil of the Living One \Vho sees me." God
showed Hagar the well a nd saved Ish mael. On e may compare this with
the Muslim legend of the holy Zam-Zam-wcll in Mecca, probably dating from p rc.. (sJamic times?";
There is a parallel in Genesis 22; when Abraham is prevented by
the a ngel of the Lord from killing Isaac, he discovers a ram to sacrifice
ins tead of his son. According to Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, the ram was also
created at 'the twi light'."ll' Compare the name o f the well in Gen 16:1 4w ith the name Abra ham g ives the S.."lcrificial site: oi ~:l 1~:\' ,~.:\ :1:-t"'' ;, ~,~
:11\1~ m;,.. ,;,:. .. ./" ' The LORD will provide'; as it is s.."lid to this d ay, 'On
the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided'." The verse could also be
rendered: "Abraham called the name o f the p lace the Lord
sees/chooses, as it is said today, on the mountain of the lord it is
seen/revealed " (Gen 22:14, my translation).
289
The rende rings of Gen 16:7~12 are q uite similar in all the Targums
and in the ~...f f.7119 The messenger wh o mceto;/finds Hagar is referred to
in definite fom1 in Gen 16:7; ,., ~:-16.nj' the a ngel of the Lord'.' 'u As in
the b iblic..1l narrative, the angel o f the Lord addresses Hagar in v. 10 in
the first perS<.m sing ular1 e.g.1 Ntofil.i; I will surely multiply your sons
... ., However, in the following verse, the messenger refers to God in the
third person. The biblical ambivalence concerning the merged identity
of God a nd His messen ger thus remains in the Targums. In v. 11 Onqe
los distingu ishes itself from the others in stating that God had heard the
prayer of Hagar. Pseudo~Jouatllatl reads for example " ... your affliction
has been revealed before the Lord/' but this can be deemed merely a
stylistic d ifference. Not surprisingly, \ove fi nd the most cxpandet.i tar
gumic paraphrases in Gen 16:13 14.
The idea that a slave-girl should have given God a name was prob
ably hard to imagine for the targumists. Both Onqelos and tl1e Palestini
an Targums thus interpret :n;,, 0".? ~,;>.,.nl /"she called the name o f the
Lord" (Ml) in Gen 16:13 as a reference to the prayer/worship of Hagar.
This trans lation may also have been in fluenced by the liturgy o f the
synagogu e.
lt is possible to u nderstand the exclamation of Hagar in v. 13 in all
the Targums as implying that she identifies the "angel" o f the Lord as
God Himself. For example: "You are the God who sustains all ages ...
[or: exists for all ages ... ]" (Tg. N<'Of>. Compare Onqelos: " .. . You are the
God w ho sees everything ... "
All of the Targu ms seem to allude to the Rabbin ic t radition that di
vine revelations were common occurrences in Abraham's household. In
Neofiti and the Fragme11t Targums (V and P) Hagar act"ally compares
her experience in th e desert to that of Sarah. Th is in te rpretation is also
fou nd in Gert. Ra/1. 45.7 and 10.
Rega rding the relationship of the revelations of Sarah and Hagar,
hmvever, there is an inconsistency in Geuesis Rabball. On the one hand,
Hag ar is said to have compared herself to Sarah o n a n equ al level: '' I
was favoured [to see the angel] not only with my mistress, but even
now when I am alone ... " (Ge11. Ra/1. 45.10). On the other, the majority
of the Ra bbis o f the Midrash emphasize that God has never directly
709 In the Fragmt'tll Targ1wts we do not have an>' complete rendering of these ve1"SeS. In
v. 7 we merely ha\<e ... on the rood If Halusa; ilt.<~tead l") f " on lhe road to Shur'"
(~IT) .
710 NrufW has ;;n nq/''he (the ol.ogel) met he r . .. ", while PM:Idof ona/JiatJ has ;;n~; I
"' he found he r .. ."
290
291
292
'The \\ell of the Living One who sees me." Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer's re
writing of Cen 21:17-20 may thus have been infl uenced by the parallel
pericope Cen 16:7-14.
4.5.3 The Aqedah and the Angel
TheTargums
lttt roductio11
Tnrgwu Onqelos
Except for the above mentioned derivations. there are merely stylistic
d ifferences benveen Onqelos and the MT, probably due to the targumic
avoidance of anthropomorphisms, tor example; " ... by Nfy Memra I
swear, says the lord ... " (v. 16, my italics)."' Onqelos displays u,e same
ambivalence conceming the angel of the Lord as in the original text
Not surprisingly/ this is the Targum that contains the smallest amount
of interpretation.
Tl1e Paleslirtimr Targums
In the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateud 1, we likewise find the
same ambivalence between YH\+VH and the angel o f the Lord. The
wording of Neofiti in vv. 16 and 18 is a bit peculiar:
(v. l6) And Ire: (the a ngel of the l()rdJ said: "In the name of IIi..; Word Jlrrwe
swtml- Says tht! lord .. ." ( ' " 1llX /"'t"j:> :M~ll !llL'J 1llX1)
(v. 18? my italics].m ''And because yuu (Abraham) heard the t.'Oiu
Word" l:'l'"'illll ?pJ rol~!l.' 'l)
(1! his
712 See the Eng. tran_<~. and critical an.alysis of Onqe/c>:> b)' Aberbach!Gro!>Meld 1982, 128
133. A.<~ metllioned abtwe, Alex.ander and Levine both claim that the Cllrt.::em in the
Targums is J'et't'rL>tt~c- of G~i rBther than a n avoidllt\Ce of .anlht'Opomorphism$. Alexander 1988,226, and Levine 1988, 15~ 1 .
713 Targmn Ntujiti I. \ol. 1. ed. Diez Macho 1968, 129. Eng. tr.ans. Mdi.Jam.ata/M.lher
1968, 553.
293
(v. 16) . . . and said, "By my WMd hcwe I SV'<'lrn, sa ith the lord ... "i~'ll:l 1e~1
"'' ,l:>.,.. r.'l:)''PI
(v. l S, my italics] ... because thou hast obeyed my voiu." pit. "my Mcmm!Word"/ 'l'3'l:<~ M"'JV1F11
All the Palestinian Targums mention angels in v. 10, e.g., the Fmgmeul
Targums:na
... Isaac's ey~s were sc.anning the (mgds of the heights; Isaac saw th~ 1n, A b ra
ham d id not St.oe them; at that mument the lmgcls of life heights mme fiuth and
said to one another: 'Cum~. see two uni qu~ righteous men who are in the
world ..."l"(my italics]
Nt>ojili diffe rs from the other Palestinian Targurns <1nd refers fi rst to
angels bu t says at the end o f v. 10: '' ... In that hour a voice (bat qol!lit.
'dauglter of a voice'] came forth frorn the heavens and said ..." 711 (my
italics). The angel o f the Lord is distinguished from the angels men
tioned in v. 10 and seems to have a higher status. He appears to be
iden tified ""'i th God himself, yet he is distinct from Him, as in the origi
nal text.
Pseudo.-jouathntt, together wi th a targumic Tosefta71~ among the Ge
nizah fragments, refers to a cloud o f glory in v. 4: "On the third d ay
Abraham lifted up his eyes~ and saw tire cloud of glory smoking on the
mountain ... " (Ps. ~].. my italics). It is only Pseudo ~jonatlran that answers
the question of w hat happened to Isaac after the Aqedah: "And the
tmgels ort ltigh led Isaac and brought him to the school of Shem the
great~ and he was there three years .. .." (v. 19, my italics). According to
PseudoJouat!Jan the reason for u,e death of Sarah in Gen 23:12 is that
Satan came and told her that Abraham had really sacrificed Isaac. The
trial, however, is not carried out on S..1tan's suggestion (d., jubilees) b ut
because of the rivalry bchveen Isaac and Ishmael (v. 1)?t"
According to all the Targums (includ ing Onqe/os). the angel of the
Lord says in v.12 that Abraham now has proven that he fears God, e.g.,
7l.J Targcmt Pseud(t-Jouallum, ed. Clarke L9S4. 24. Eng. trans.. Bowker L<)({o), 226.
715 See a lso a Mtgumic tosefta to lsa 33:7 and Kas her2007, 581581.
716 This i..; the man u~ript Vatican Ebr. 440. Accotding to the ms ParL.;- Biblioll~ue
nationale Hebr. 110, it was a roia (lit. ()qatll qala .. 'daughter of a voice') tlw.t
emerged from heaven nnd said: "Come see two uniqu e rig.hteous men ..." cr.. M~ofili.
Conce rning the concept ' d.mghler of a voice', see d tapter 2.2.
717 Tg. Noof. Gen 22: 10. Ed. Diez. Macho 1968, vol. 1. 127, Eng. tran..;. McNamara/M.aher
1968. 551.
718 Cambl'idge Llniversily library, ms T-S B 8.9, folio 2. S..~e Klein {ed. and Eng. trans.
vol. I. 1986, 34-35.
719 Tg. Pll./. Gen 22:4, 19 and \'. 1. Eng. trans. Bl)Wke r 1969, 22(1-226.
294
ln tetpretation..c~ of Genesis
Nt."Ojiti '' ... because now I know tha t you fear before the Lord
" nu
l l ms1 we here have no particular difference between the Targu ms and
the biblical account. Bu t why did God have to compel Abraham to
prove his fidelity? The Targu ms give us no dear an swer. However, in
Gen 22:14, the Palestinian Targu ms have pu t a long p rayer in Abra
ham's mou th. Here Abraham d eclares that God knew all along that he
would pass the test, since He is omniscient.
All of the Palestinian Targums say at the end of this verse (after th e
long prayer o f Abraham) that the Shekiulalr (Aramaic: Presmce) of tire
Lord was re-.Jealed to him o n the mountain. Does this refer to the revela
lion of the a ngel of the Lord?"
the Aqedah. One reason for the trial L'i said to be th e angels' criticism of
Abra ham (cf., L.A.B. 32.1 2):
According toR. l eazar who maintained that the emph))'mlmt of waeluhim
wh~ rt! Eh)him W()Uid suffice intimates, n~ lllld Hi$ C(')url, il W(l:O f/z(! mitti$lt!r
iux rmgds whu spuke thus: 'This Abraham rejoiced and made aU uthers Te
;c>ite, yet d id not set a~i d e for Cod a ::lingle bullock o r ram.' Said the Holy
One, blessed be lie, to them: ' Even if ,.,..e btU him to offe r his uwn son. he
will not refuse-n! (my italic..;:).
Tg. Nl!t)f., vol. 1, Cen 22:12. Ed. Die1. Macho 1968, 127, Eng. tran.1. Me:.t..lam<al'a/Maher
1968, 552.
721 OJIJ]l!"ICS has a wntewhat diffe1-ent rendering of this ve~ " . .. On th is mountain did
Abraham worship before the t.ord.N According: to Aberbach and Grossleld (1982,
131. note 10) Onqtltl'; conne<:ls
from the root ;;l\, witll tlle rooll\..,. - to fear, thus
'to worship'. See B:I.'IO Chester 1986, 6773.
- n Gl'n. Rab 5.1.4.
m GL'tl. Rr.b. 56. 1, Pitqf de Rabb; /i,:ur 31. Pcs;q. Rat> Ka!t. 26.4. As we have seen above.
the a ngel of tlle lord is co1mected in Exod 14: 19 to the pilhll' of doud f.eading and
protecting the Israelites during their exodu..'l fmm Egypt.. but in Exod 1 3 ~2l22 a1\d
14:24 it is stated tha t it WB:.!I YHWH whl) manifested H imself in this pillar. In Exodus
3 it is the angel of the Lotd who is manifested in the burning bus.h b u! it is YHWH
M,.
,__
295
Tg. Ps.j.) explain in this \vay how Abraham knew w hich place God
had chosen fo r the act, compare Gen 22:2b: " ... go to the land of Mo
riah. and offer him [lsaac] there as .a burnt offering on o ne of the moun
tains that I shaH show }'Ou." The statement that the two servants did
not see the d ivine manifestation explains why Abraham d id not take
them v,ith him to the mountain.n
ln Gen. Rab. 56.4, it is stated that lite denumic angel Samael tried to
make first Abraham, then Isaac, v,tithdraw from accomplishing God's
cornmand in Gen 22: 2. Isaac was thus aware of w hat \"-' ilS about to
happen (cf., b. Sanl!edriu 89b, see below).
From the Arnoraic period o nward, Samael'r. is the main name of Sa
tan in Rabbinic Judaism.nr. In the Pseudepigrapha he is referred to as a
Satanic figure in, for example, 3 Bar. 4.8, 3 En. 14.2727 and the Marlyrdom
m1d Ascensiotl of Jsaiall. In the latter source the name Samael is used syn
onymously with Satan and Belial (e.g., chapter 2). In Psemia--}mlntllmt
chapter 3, Samac! is equated with the serpent called 'the angel of death'
that caused the fall of Adam and Eve (v. 6). In Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer
chapters 13 14, he is the tempter of mankind and the leader of the rebel
lious angels.
According to Get1. Rab. 56.5, when Abraham bound Isaac o n the al
tar, the princes (lhe guardian at~gels, cf., Daniel 8 and 10) of the heathens
were also bound. \Vhen Isaac's descendants, the people of Israel fall
into sin, these fetters are, however, broken.m
724
725
726
727
728
w ho talks to Mose.<~. AOCll rding ltl Pire~ dt Rabbi 1it':ur3 l omd Tg. P$./. Gen 22:3, the
cwo serwmts .ne Ishmael and Eliczer. In Pirq~ t f R1tbbi Elieur, we read th.at thty qua
rteled about hho s hould inhel'il Abraham after the death of lsaM. God interferes
and puts an end to the d iscu~sion: NTIIe H.,ty SJ1ilit answe1-ed them, sayi\S to the m:
Neither t his o ne nor that o ne shall inherit....
Cf., c,~n 22:4-5. $l-><e also Gt'll. !Wb. 56.2, Eng. trans and comment Neusner 1985, 279.
Cl.. also Verme..;' interpretation of 4Q225. see above.
The nrune is d e1ived fram the word sami I ~o meaning blind. Many Gnostic works
refN to Samael a..; 'the blind god'. See Scholem 1971. 7 19.
SeeScholem 1971,719722.
This source distingu is hes belheen Satan and Samac I. the laUe being identified as
the guardian .1ngel of Rome: see3 11. 6.26.
The meaning is that, when I!WI.lC WclS bound on the altar, the gu.wdian .mgels of the
heathens became subliervient to l<~rael. but when lsr.lel silt.<t lhe heathens .md their
angels gain dominion over the m. C f., \.tt'Jt. R.tb. 56.9: '"At lhe end of fa fter ) Bll generations lstael \''ill fall inhl Ole dulcfle..; ~lf sin and be rhe \<l(tim..; M persecu!ion; yet
e\entually they will be redeemed by the ram' s hom, a...; it says._ A11d /J1e Lo1i1 C.od <l"il l
blow tfu leom ', J...l Ole Hllly One, bles...::ed be He, s.aid co him !Abraham, my Bddition):
'Sll will thy children be e ntangled in countries, ch<mging from Babylon co Media,
from Media to Greece( .. . ) yet they v1ill eventually be redeemed by the rams hlll'll,
as it is \\' l'illert, And JJe (.,)rtf(;,( will blow llll! f lm's fmru 1. .. 1 /llt Lm'd oJftc>5/S -will d~
296
Both Getzesis Rnbba/J and Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer say that llze angels wept
when they saw Abraham stretching forth his hand to slaughter his SQn
(cf., 4Q225). According to Pirqe de Rnbbi Eliezer, the nt~gels beseeclted Gad
to have mercy upon ls..1ac.7Xl As shown above, Geue.sis Rabbah states that
the lenrs of t!Je angels dis_olved the knife. The angels arc also said to
have cried out that God had broken his covenant with Abraharn. God's
response was that He will not profane His covenant and that His in ten
tion was never that Abraham should slaughter Isaac, only 'to take him
up' /'l~tnm:
When tM Patriarch Abraham stretched forth hL$ hand to take the knife to
slay his son,. the tmgcl.s u.Y!pl ... Imy italics)
.. . And who says that th is verse r~fe rs to the ange1s?-Here it says,
UPON (t\11 - MA' Al) THE WOOD, while in another pas..<Clage it says, Above
(m i*nw'tJT) Him stood flu: s.t.Ttrplrim (lsa VI. 2)_ill
.. . The angeJs as.wmbled in g roups abuve. What did they cry? 11u:
wtrstc, tlrt' wayfari11g mtt.n attsellr; 1k hnth fnvkcn tit~ cot'Ctilml. l ie
hntJr tlr$pisffl Ore cities (lsa XXXItl, 8) -has He n o pleasure in jerusalem and
the Temple, which He h ad intended g iving as a pc:)$.<>es..:;ion to tJw d escendanl'i' o f lsaac? ...
R. Aha said : (Abraham wo ndered): Surely Thou too indulg,est in pre
varication! Ye.'ieterday Thou saidest, For in lsmJc slrnif seed be cnUttl M llltt:
(Cen XX1.12); Thou d idst then retract and say, Tflke now th.v so11 (ib. XXJJ, 2);
hig}tu!(lY~' fi~
fmd lflt:tn ... "llle quote is from Zech 9: 14 15. See al'lo Oeut 32!89 accord ing to lhe
LXX.
729 Gtn. RaiJ. 56.7. Niehoff (1995. 79) oompart>S the rCIIe of rhe angel in the Aqedah w ith
the role of the rtngel in lhe story abcrut Salaam in Numbers 22. According to Num
22:~21, Bataam is relying "~m Cod'.<~ command when he nsrees hl follon the Mo.l
bites. but he is J>l'eVCnted from cursing lsr.1el by the omgel of the lord, Num 22:22 35.
7.30 Pirq.t dt R.ai'>bi Elj~our 31.
731 Gl'n. Rab. 56.5.
4
2'17
w hile now Thou bidd L~t me, LAY NOT THY HAND UPON THE LAO!
Said the Holy One, bk--s::;OO be He, 1:<) him: '0 Abraham, My c(n-oemmf will I
not pmfimr. (Ps LXXXIX, 35), Amt f w ill tSft1blis.h t\ofy tovCIItml wilfllsnnc (Gen
xvn. 21). When J bade thet!, "Tak~ IW1V thy Stm,N etc., I will r:Ol (Jitcr f/l(lt
wltith is ,~(me (m f of lvly lips (Ps. loc. dt.). Did I tell thee, Slaughter him? No!
but, "Ttik~ him 11p". Thou hast taken him up. Nuw take hjm d(n..,n:m
298
~aid : 'Bles~ed
art thou,
The reason fo r Isaac's later bad eyesight (Gen 27:1) is said to be that
he saw lite glory of lite Sltekiua!J as he lay bo und on the altar.737
In accordance with the biblical account, Isaac is not sacrificed in
Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, and the ram takes his place on the <Jitar.T.lll Howev
er, it is said that the demouk angel Samael tried to d istract the ram in
order to annul Abraho:m'l'"s sacrifice. According to Pirqe de Rabbi Elie-zer,
it is Samac) who was also respons ible fo1 the d eath of Sarah (Gen 23:1,
cf., Tg. Ps.JV"' ln Pesiqla de Ra/J Kahana, on the other hand, it is Isaac
himself who tells Sarah about the event and that he would have been
sacrificed if God!' the Holy One' had not stopped Abraham. Sarah is so
shocked that she d ies.7JI1
The Babylonian Talmud, u,eTargum to Chronicles and Mekilta de
Rabbi Ishmael
Sa11hedrit1 89b
ln the Babylonian Talmud tractate San!Jedrit1 89b, Satan plays the same
role in the Aqedah as Prince Mast'ema in Jubilees. In this interpretation
736 Pirq.? etc R.Wbi Elia:tr 31. The blessing of l..c~aJc is Mken from the second benediction of
the Sllcmoudt 'Em!t/ the Amida. The prayer originally included IS benedictions
(hence its name) but a 19tr. was added at a later sMge, pe1haps a polemic againstjcwi.c;h O u-istitti\S. It is thus one of the oldest prayers in th\~ Jewish liturgy and oon.<>titutes to th is day the central part of the Synagogue-service. Isaac's rescue i.'l connooed
in )ewi.c;h though t to the resurrection of rhe dead. cr... G~on. Rab. 56. 1; Heb 11: 1718
and Rom 4: 13-25.
737 Pirq.? de RrdJbi El!c:~r 32. See al~ Gm. Rr.b. 65. 10, \\'here it is stated thlll the later b.ld
eyesight of lsaac was caused by the teacs or the angels falli ng into his eyes during the
Aqedah. l n Tg. P.;.-J. Gen 27: I. it is stoted tha t Isaac'.<~ eye-problem was c.1used by
the fact that he lt.ld looked ups1n the Throne of Glory while tied to the alt.u.
73S Pirqi dt R.1bbi Eli1'Ztr ma kes a connection between the pregnancy ~..c Rebekah as an
answer to prayer and the bind ing of Isaac at ~1oriah:
R.'lbbi Jehudah said: Rebecca was barren for twenty yeous. After twenl)' years (Jsaar}
hlOk Rebecca and '''ent (with her} to 1<-lount Moriah, to the place whe1-e he had been
bound, and h,~ prayed on her behalf concerning th e conception of the womb: and the
Holy One, ble$Soed be He, was entreated of him ... 1Pittr2' de RoWbi 1io r 32. See also
Tg. Ps.J. to Gel\ 25al}.
739 Pirqt~ dt Rabbi EH~our 31 a nd 32.
740 Pt-siqla de Rab Kaluma 26.
299
of the Aqedah... it is also stated that Satan tried to get Abraharn to waiv
er in his faith_bu t failed, cf., Ge11. Rab. 56.4, see above.
Berakal 62b
Another Talmudic tractate, Berakol 62b... records a Rabbinic discussion
connected to the Aqedah. The text discussed in the tractate is 1 Chr
21:15:
And Cod sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. As he was destroying,
the Lord lookcil fur saw: :ti\'"1) and relented ()f the d isaster, and said ft) the ange-l tvho tL'liS tleStmyin~ (nn!Z'n., 1K?'lJ "(t is em:lUg:h. now r...strain y()ur hand."
r\ nd tile llngef of flti! Lim/ s tood by the thre.shing floor of Oman the Jebusite.
\Vhat was it that the Lnrd smv that made him stop the destroying angel?
One o f the Talmudic Rabbis claims that it \\'as t!Je ashes of lsnac tlmt the
L~Jrd saw.
11 Chr 21:15} Then the 1\-kmm of the lim/ sent filL angel of the pc:;til~nc!" to Jerusalem to destn)y it. \Vhen he was d estroying: it, hi! o b.:;erved lhe aslus of
the IJinlling of l$/rac ududr were althc lm:;;e (if the tJltflr rmd he rtmcmberi.'ll his cotYmmt with Abntfmm whidlllt fwd set llp with lrim on the ut(Jtmfniu of w01Sili}1;
(lu o/Jsen)t'tl) the srmCltwry-!Jous~ whid 1 w(L'> lflxwt, where lhi! souls of tire righteous tJre, mul tlzi! imgt of Jacob wl1ich tms engrrmetl (In the throne of ,~lor.v, and
he repented itt himselfof tht~ evil whid1 he lwtl planned 10 de>. Su he said to the
d t>Stmying ange-l: "You have had enough ... '"741
741 The \vords in iLillics ae't' the targumic addirions/intepreialions of the Hebrew origi-
nal.
742 See also Spiegel 1993. 3844. Spiegel refers to a Rabbinic tradition claim ing that the
ram which was sacrificed in the place of Isaac bore hi..; very ll <lm,~. i.e. the ram was
called Isaac. According to Spiegel. the ashes of Isaac pf\)bably .11Jude to lhe a.o;he.'l of
the r.~m . In Pinli' dt Rabbi Eliaer 31, we read: "The ashes of the ram were the base
which was upl"'n the h1p of the inne r altar: Accordii\S to Gt:tl. Ral>. 56.10, the plwase
'\\rhe1-e the Lord is seen' il\ Gen 22:14 refe1'S to the p1't'sertce of the lord in the e-ebuilt
Temple dul'ing the l\Jessia1\ic e r<L Mount Moriah is the place of salvati-on. Acc01'<1ing
to Rabbinic tradi!ioe\, Abmham's r.lm was C'J'eated altwilight on the fi rst Sabbath eve
l1f the " 'eek of c-reation. See, e.g ... Neall. Ritl>. 17.2. Eng. lrBI'I$. Slotki 1939, '700.
300
743 Mt!ki/Ja .tt Rabbi Islowtd, voL I Pi~a I 1.9095. See also Pisha 7.78-82. p. 57. Il l<~ noteworthy that it is Ol)t d ear in the 1\<JT Exod 12~22428 whether it w.~s Cod Himself who
killed the fi rstbom sons of Ihe Egyptian.<~. because il\ v. 23b it seem s a..<~ if Cod used
llle DtMmytor to c.'II'IY l)U tlhL<~ task. T his is sue is. however, not disct~s.">ed he1\'! in Mekilla de Robbi lsJuuad. See a lso Johl\ 8:56: " Ymu a ncesh11' Abraham rejoiced lhnt he
would see my day; he Si'l \'1 it and was g lad."
744 See also 11. Rfl':dl fm5fuwa J6a, til . Tn'au. 2.4. Jacob$ 1971, 481482. lewl<~ 1971. 144)1447, and Spiegel 1993, 51 39.
745 Uv. Rr.b. 29.4, IO,see al<~ojacobs l 97 1. 309.
746 Niehoff 1995, 75.
717 Spiegel 1993, 121-124.
4
301
Concluding Remarks
\Vema}' conclude that Abraham's fi nal trial. the Aqedah, is depicted ~1s
a crucial event that highly engages the angelic world. According to the
Babylonian Talmud, Saulledrin 89b, Satan questions Abraharn's p iety
and in this way p rovokes God to test him. Th e words in Gcn 22:1; At
ter these things God tested Abraham ..." in this Talmud ic tractate thus
refer to satanic activity, \vhich forms the reason for the trial. According
to Talmud, Satan late r tries to rnakc Abraham waiver in h is faith, compare Gen. Rab. 56.4. The transfer o f the initiative for a q uestionable act
from God to Satan already appears in the Bible itself, see 1 Sam 24:1
and 1 Ou 21:1 .7''"
According to P;rqe de Rabbi Efiezer.. the demonic an gel Samael is rc
sponsible for the death o f Sarah (Gen 23:1 ) and in Pseudojonathan Satan
p lays this role. Thus, we encounter to some extent a d ualistic
world view in some of our sources. Although God is in control, he also
has enemies in the heavenly realms.
However, the angels of God are also e ng aged in the Aqedah. According to Geu. Rab. 55.4, the angels were jealous of Abraham, w hich
caused God to pu t him on trial in order to demonstrate Abraham's
faith fulness.7!011
In many of our sources the angels of God play a more benevolent
role. This applies to the Palestinian Targums (Gen 22:10) and the Midrashim Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer and Genesis RatJbalt. In the last h~t.'O works,
the holy angels arc even said to have wept in compassion for Isaac. The
angels pray that God will show him a nd Abraham mercy. The angels
accuse God of having broken the covenant \\rith Abraham, e.g., Gen.
Rab. 56.8. Perhaps the a ngels were not aware that it was "only" a trial?
N iehoff interprets the angels as representing God's merciful side.
302
751
cc.. the P.lle!i-tiniM Targums. whe1-e the angels are mentioned in the preceding ver!ie;
Gen22: 10.
752 Or: beside j!Mob.
3(}3
753 The t..-wgumic renderins l)f ~nes.is 24 is f.lirly lite ral. All the T.:wgums state tha t
Abraham says in\'. 7 th at Cod \''ill send/appoint His angel to go w ith th e ser\an t. in
l"U'der to ensul'\"' the suoces..; of the jll umey. In Ne'r)fiti the divine gu ide is 011led the
' the ange l lll mercy, v . 7. According to Guiley (20();1, 39). angels of mercy stand a t
the right hand of God in the heavenly cout of law in the seventh heaven. These angels rtre 1>1-esent a t the judgment (I( humans. !\los-t of the angels of metcy a1't> not
named. Among the a ngels wh<):';(> names are known, we may mention e .g.,. Gabriel.
Mich~t Zadkiel and U:l.iet who i'll't> suOOrdinllle to Metatron. Pinr-2 ~~~ Rabl>i Elitzer
32 mention..; that Isaac married hi$ relative Rebekah,, bu t the Midash d oes 01.1.t make
an>' reference to the angel or the joume> of the sen '<lnt.
754 The servant of Abraham is identified as Eliezer in Gm. Ral. 59.9, d ., Gen 15:2.
755 According to Gm . Rab. 59.8. the comma ndment of Abraham hl his serwmt hl " .. . put
your hand under my thigh .. ."' in Gen 24:2 refers to the nwenanl of cin::um..:L.;ion.
Sama rcmrtrks that the d ivine tille ' lhe Lord, the C'.od of heaven and the God of the
eMth' is unillUe in bi blicallite ratu n~. He writes: " In light of the f.l\:l that the mi.ctsion
invol\'es t:r.wel to a d istl!l\l land, it makes sense to invoke God's unive1'Sal sovereigl
~y. The epithel may be a monlltheistic \'etsion l"'lf an andent Near Eastem oath h'll'*
304
lntetpretation..c~ of Genesis
IAbraha m said]: 'Bef,)re I made Him known to His creature,:; He was the
GOO OF HEAVEN; now t hat I have made Him known to His creatures, l-Ie
The single angel in Gen 24:7 has thus become two angels in the Mi
drash's u nderstanding of the verse. As we have seen, according to the
ancient Rabbis, o ne angel does not perform t\VO missions. One angel
was appointed to guid e and protect the servant on his journey. while
the o Lher had the commission to arrange the meeting of Eliezer and
Rebekah.759
The theme of divine guidance penetrates the commentary to the pericope in Geuesis Rabbah. For example, according to one interpretation,
the Mid rash alludes to Isa 50:10 and identifies Eliczer as the servant of
God \'1lho walks in d arkness, only to have his path illu minated by God
by means of meteors a nd ligh ll,ing (Gen. Rilb. 60.1).
The p rayer of the servant in Gen. 24:12 is interpreted as an in voca
tion of the merits of the paLTiarchs, since he prays accordingly: "0
LORD God of my master Abraham, p lease grant rne success today. and
show steadfast love to my master Abraham .. . " According to Rabbi
Haggai, this verse also teaches us that we all need God's kindness, even
756
757
75.8
759
mul.a in which the gods of he.:lven and earth were invoked as w itnesst"-".. (Sarna 1989,
162). For he-aven a nd earlh as \'' i tnes..~ se~~ Deut 4:26; 30: 19; 3 t :29: 32:1. and l<~a 1:2.
The d ivine tille 'God of heaven' is a lso found in, e.g ... Jonah !:9: Esra 1:2; 2 Chr 36:23;
Dan 2: t8; Pl't 136:26 .md Tob 5!17.
Gl'n. Rab. 59. tO. Acc.uding to a modem Je.,...ish com mentahw, the m idras.h ic v iew
that a p.wticular angel is meant is based Ol\ lhe f.l.::t that the angel in Gen 24:7 is
C.llled .... His JGod' sJ angel", rather than em (unspt~d f)ed) angel. 11le a ngel in question
i'l eithe r MH:ttael or the angel in dw.rge of ma iage. See Zlotowitz 1978, 9()!.
Thal is,. bring hei'QU!to the well.
Gl'tl. Rab. 59.10.
J<k'tlb, Elieze1', a nd H.1gar a re comp.a1'1 in a comment on Gen 32:4 Jv . .) in the NRSVI
in GL'tl. Ral. 75.4, whe1-e lhe R.'lbbL'I claim thal the mes..-<;enger.!l whom jacob sent before him were literally angel~ because:
... If om angel escorted Eliezer, who W<l$ but a serva nt of the house. how much more
to this one Jj.lcob}. who "'"' s !he belo\red of the house! R. Hama b. Hanina obsel'\'ed:
H.1gar was but Sar,\1\'s handma id, yet five angels appeared to her, how much more
to this man Uacllhl who was the beloved of the house!
305
Abraham: " ... \'1.1ho prophesied and said, He will send His angel before
thee (ib.7}, was yet in need of kindness ... " (Gen. Rnb. 60.2).""
GOli was quick in answering the prayer: "Befo re he had finished
speaking. there was Rebekah, who was bom to Bethuel, son of MUcha,
the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, coming out ... " (v. 15). Rabbi
Simeon b. Yohai points out that Eliezer is one of the three persons in
the Bible w hose petitions were answered while their prayers were still
on U1eir lips, the o ther two being Moses and Solomon (Gen. Rnb. 60.4)." '
The marriage of Isaac and Rebekah is thus understood by the Rabbis of
Gew?sis Rnbbah as a divine arrangement.
As in the Bible, the activity of the angel(s) is very much relegated to
the background o f the story. Genesis Rnbball d oes not even make any
reference to the servant's repetition Qf Abraham's promise o f angelic
pmtection in v. 40. However, in contrast to the Bible, the Midrash refers
to Isaac's guardian angel in its description Qf the first meeting o f Isaac
and Rebekah, Gen. Rnb. 60.15:
AND SHE (Reookah J SAID UNTO THE SERVANTS: \'/HAT MAN IS THIS
(HA-LAZHI) THAT WALKETH IN THE FIELD TO MEET US (XXIV, 65)?
R. Berekiah said in tht! nam e o f R. Hiy}'a h is fa ther: She saw that he llsaac)
was comet}'? (lm-ltJZch h aving the same meaning] as in the ve~e. Behold, this
(ha-la:ceh) dreww.r cometh (Gen. XXXVJJ, 19).'"! The Rabbis said: It refers h)
his guardian (angel), /urltttd1 meaning.. This one fthe angel] is for his serv ice.7.U
Concluding Rernarks
Belief in divine providence is a key issue in Gene.sis Rnbbnh's ex-position
of Genesis 24. God had already appoin ted Rebekah to be the wife of
Isaac. This is evident in, fo r example, the in terpretation o f the words of
Abraham in Gen 24:7 as prophetic.
The universality o f YH\<VH is u nderlined in Genesis Rnblmlz. He is
the GQd of both heaven and earth and not limited to the boundaries of
Canaanr the Promised L.1.nd . .:\braham is credited as the o ne w ho mad e
Cod known to the world .
760 Acrording to ibn Eua. Abraham did not prophecy in v. 7 but he 11rayt:d: ... MBy he
:;end his angel before you . .. " See Zlotowi l2 1978, 901.
761 GeJits.is IMtb1th refers here to Num 16:31 {Mo::es) ond 2 Cl\1' 7: I (Solomon).
762 l~tta(> ic:t here compared to Joseph.
763 f 1-eedman/Simon (1?39, 538) have in note 2 '" explic.ati ve comment to the Midras.h:
"'Re.adingfullttzdr a..; daw ::elt, he is for him.... a.uiou..<ll)' enough, Raphael is said to be
the preceptor angei M Isaac. Lewis/Oliver 1996,342.
306
307
the lord stood above it [the ladder]/him ."'.n Onqelos uses the typical
targumic concept ' the glory o f the Lord ' in order to avoid anthropo~
morphism.7h7 However, in v. 15, the Targum has chosen another fre
quent circu mscription fo r God : "And behold, my JVfemm (lit '\oVord ']
will assist you, and I will watch over you wherever you go ... " In
v. 16bl when jacob awakes, according to the Targu m he exclaims: " . .. In
truth the Glory of the lord dwells in this place'", and I d id not know
it." Ho,vever/ in his subsequent vow, Jacob refers to the Memra o f the
Lord : "If the Memra of the lord \"-' ill as...c;ist me, and protect me on this
jou rney( ... ] and I retum in peace to my father's house- then the ~...temra
of the lord shall be my God' (vv. 20a, 21).'" There is th us a correspon
dence between vv. 13 and 16 as well as between vv. 15, 20, and 21.
Unfortu nately, the only preserved verses of Genesis 28 in the Frag
men/ Targums are vv. 10, 12, 17 (P) and vv. 10 and 12 (V), and in tl1e
Cairo Geni7..a.h o nly vv. 1722 are extant. The o ther Palestinian Targums
contain a complete rend ering of the chapter.
Neofiti has a literal rendering of Gen 28:13 and thus refers to God
directly: "And the Lord stood besid e him Uacob] and said ... ' '7711 How
ever, in a NeofW Marginal g loss there is a noteworthy deviation from
the MT; "an at~gel of mercy from befo re tl1e lord stood placed besid e
him ... " 771 Thus, according to this version, it was not God H imself who
addres...:;ed jacob in Bethel, bu t an angel! This interpretation is most
probably influenced by Gen 3 1:11 13, w here ' the angel o f God' identi
fies himself as the God who appeared to Jacob in Bethel.
PseudoJouathfm refers to the d ivine revelation in v. 13 in the same
manner as Onqelos: "And behold, the Glory of the lord stood besid e
766 Or: ..... 1he l<~rd ~r01:td beside him/it .. ."My tr<mslation.
767 S..~e a lw Abebach/C n::~S..<>feld 1982,. note 5, p. 170.
768 Acrording to Aberbad\I'Gro..~feld, the Rabbi~ wught to as!iOciate lhe place of Jlc<lb'l'l
dn~am w ith lhe Jt~rus.alcm Temple. St.>e <llso Gen 28: 17 ln Ouqdos. .1nd Abel'
b.l<:h/Gro!t.~feld 1982, note 14, p. 171. TI1is inteJ1>M.:lti on al.;o seems to be implied in
the Plllesti.nian TMgums to Gen 28: 1L 17, see be-low. See also Maher 1992.. 99100.
and McNBm<~r<l 1992, 139 140.
769 Acrording hl Gtossfe1d {1988, note 12 to Tg. 011q. Gen 2 1:20), the targumk u~age of
m~~ Mem r<~ is very common whenever God i$ depicted as as..<>is.ting. prote<:li ng.. de
fending M pteser\ing man. S...>e the chapter on Haga a nd the 11ngel abow. See also
McNamara 1992,. 28.
iiO Note th at the Targum refers to jacob, not the ladder. The Rabbi~ of Gentsis Rdbb.1lt
are of differing opinions concerning this matter. See C'..e.t. RtiiJ. 69.3.
771 Cf., Nrofili's tendering of Cen 24:7, ~ee note 153 Bbove.
308
him ... " According to both N<'Ofili and Pseudojonat!Jan in Gen 28:16,
Jacob refers to" ... the G/or.v of l"e Sl~ekinah of the Lord .. ."m
Pseudo--Jonafhnu
(Gen 28:20J An d <Jacob>i" 1 m ade a !Ge n 28:20) And Jacob s wore $a )ing,
vow, saying: " If th~ L(Jrtl r"') is at my " If the M emra of th~! Lord [" '1 ~1~"1lj
aitf, and protect'> me
come..; to my ass i ~tance, and keeps m e
fr,)m slmlding imrocenl blc)()(/, (/rom) idl){
u10r:;hip, muf (from) :;cxrml immomlity,
pcm~e
r ; ...
I 22] (then) th is stone which I set as a (221 and this stone w h ich I ha\'t!
pil1ar will be (l Mm:hutry lolht 1w m~ >/ placed as a p iUa r shall 00 t~rrfluRttl rJS n
Or~ Lim/ .. ."
*'ttcflutry of lht Lon!, rmd lite g~nemli011S
$./mil W(Jr$./u)J up(Jn it to the Nnme of tile
l.onl . .."m
i i2 Cf., Gt-11. Rab. 69.7: ,.AND HE SAID: SURElY (AKEN) THE lORD IS IN THIS
i 73
774
775
776
Pl.ACE, AND KNEW IT NOf (ib.). Whe re (ekan) dwell<~ the Shechinah? IN TH IS
PlACE. ye~ I did not knm'l (.. . j R. Judah b. R. Simon said: Thi..c~ la dder stood on the
Temple site .. .." In Gt:tt. Rab. 68. 12. the lad der is also said to repre..<~entthe alia in the
Tem ple and the angels iiS l>l'iests,. see below.
The words in italics are the ~.ug,umic d eviations from the Hebrew text. see the edi
to~ forewo1'<1 to McNanMra's Engli$h translation of Nt'(Jfiti, 1992, viii.
Jacob" is mis.c;ing: i 1\ the text.
NtYJj ifi margi1\BI gloss; "the ~1emra l')f the Lord l<~ at my a id as a mdeemer Cod." See
McNa mara, t99ll41. Al'.lnMic text. Diez Macho (ed .) 1968, 181.
The pillar is thus connec1ed to the Temple in Jerusalem. see fmther below. d ., als..J
the d iscussion of John I:51 below.
309
In the sarne way as Onqelos, both of the Targums usc the divine designation Lord/YHWH in Gen 28:20 and not God/Eiohim as in the MT. As
Onqelns, PseudoM
}OJratltan refers to 'the Menua of the Lord'.m According
to all the Targums, Jacob invokes the help of God in these verses, but
Pse-udo~jonatlran contains a unique moral aspect, not present in the o t..h..
ers.rn However, in contrast to Nt?Ojili, the end of v. 21 in Pseudo}mzatlzan
is iden tical to that in the MT. In this verse the wording o f the fo rmer
recalls Gen 48:1516/ where Jacob invokes God in prayer and says:
" .. . the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the angel
w ho has redeemed me from all harm, bless the boys; .. .''
777 But there is no reference hl the Mem r.l ill v. 21, as in Onqt/,).;, see above.
778 The $ilme inti!rpre tation is to be found in Gc'J1. Rab. 70.4.
779 Alterna te forms are ' the Debbira/Dibbura'. This cliOCept is a counterpart to ' the
rvle mra'. In the word...; I){ McNamara {1992, 38): " In Heb~w. c1illba~AII is the 111mlt'llltc
l ilmis of the verb diiJber ('to s peak') and means'd ivine discourse', revelation'. In the
earlier Tannaitic pe1iod the form gel\er.llly used in Jewish sources L~ dibf.er, w hile in
the late r Allllltaic age it is difW(tr. Djhht-m, deiJir~A. dillbur(t~), or however we \\l'He lh~
words, signi fie.<~ Cod olS re\<ealing: his will to mall."'
780 This miracle is most certainly lin.ked to the traditions of the holine.<~s of the stone at
Bethel. For a di..;cussion of these tradition..<~ and their po.<~sible oonnectiM hl John 1:51.
see below.
781 Cll llOOI'Iling the miracle of the Shlnes, s.ee Gt11. Rab. 68. 11 and b. Htelliu91a.t>.
3 10
FragmeHI Targums states that Jacob's image is 011 the throne of Glory.7llz
As the diffe rences bchveen the two Targums are minor, I quote the
complete verse in Neofiti but o nly the last part o f the verse in the Frag
went Tnrgums (ms V):
ITg. Ncof Gen 28:12) And he Uacob) d reamed, and behold, a ladder \\as
fix~d o n the earth and its head reached to the height of tht! heavens; and
behold, the angels Owl had tltd>mpnnicd him from t}n~ l!cJusc of his fothtr tiS
cend~.-d Ill !Jeru gootflidings (()the n11gds <m high. :;t~yiug: "Omr~ tmd seL' tl1t pious
man wlmsc imtrg~ js t<ugrm.l~d iu the tl1rtmc f1jGion;, wltom you rl~.-<Sircd 10 set."
And behold, the angels from before the Lord a.;;.o:::nded and d esc~n d ed ami o(J.
served him.
[Frg. Tg. (V) Cen 28:12bJ .. . "Cum~ and see Jacob, the pious man,
whu$4.~ image is on the throne of glory whom you have desired to see;N and
behold the hoi)' angels frum before the Lord wen? ascending and descend
ing. gazing upon him.oo
Both Targums state that Jacob had been acoornpanied by a ngels w hen
he left his home, a nd these angels now ascended back to heaven and
told their fellow angels that they now had an opportunity to get a
glimpse o f the man "whose image is o n/engraved in the throne of
Glory."
According to James Kugel, this midrashic paraphrase may be a n attempt to answer the question as to why the Bible depicts the angels as
going up a nd down,. in that o rder. The a ngels who had accompanied
Jacob went up and told others, who then went down in order to look a t
Jacob. Bu t the renderi.ng of the verse in the Targums seems to suggest
that the a ngels kept going up a nd down looking at both jacobs portTait
in heaven and the man himself asleep on the ground .?S~
As we have seen, this interpretation is presumably inspired by the
fact that it is linguistically possible to u nderstand the Heb rew word l:l
i82 According hl ms 1', the Fmgt11en1 T1tl~tms has here" .. . th\~ piou$ ma1\ IJarobL whose
im age is_ra,d to lhe lhrone lli glory .. ." Sl->e Blso Nssum 1995, 14 1-142. Rcn.,..land
1984, 198-507, and the discu.ssiml of johl\ 1:51 below.
78.) This lladitH>-n L~ a lso a nested in t he barailha in b. Hulliu 9tb:.
... A Ta1ma taught: They fthe angels) ascended hllook at the image above and desrended hl k1ok at the image below. They wished to hurt him,, \\'hel\ Behold the Lord
stood beside him l)ac<lb).
Here the angels a 1-e d epicted as jealous of Jaoob, but \..od
lli the a ngels .11 the Aqedah in LAB. 32;1 2.
784 Kugel 1990, 11-1. See also Rm.,..IMd 1984, 500-506.
4
proh~CL'I
31 1
in Gen 28:12b as referring to jacob, and not the ladder, thus the rendering; "(up)on him [Jacob)/ because of him/for his sake."""
The idea that jacob's portrait is engraved on God's throne is also at
tested in the Targum lo Chrmzicles:
(1 Ch r 21:15) Thi?n the Memm of tile lim! sent the angel of tlu! ptstilenu t() jerusalem to d es.truy it. When he was d L~truy ing it, h~ ob.St~ rvt!d lhe rtSirt"S (1f
lhtbituliug of lsrl(lC: which w.:re:- at the:- (J(I$C of the rllffJr, muffle remem(~ered his tO
t't.'1umt 1-r.oit!J Abmlmm whid1 Itt> Jwd set up witII liim 011 lite mountt~in of W(JrS/ti}l,
(lte (Jbserortl) Jhc smldttary -ltouS(! whid1 il'flS nl10t.'l:', where tit~ stnrls (~{the ri;.:lt
leO/IS tm. mullhe:> image of Jnrob which ttYfS t'llgrat>~Cd 011 lltt lllr(me of glory, and
he repented iu himself ...
\'Ve also find the tradition referred to above in many Midrashim, see,
78S See rtlso Kugel 1990, 114- 115. Cf., lhe lAddtr of }aCJ.Jb and )tli'U\ I:51, see below. Ac.
cording to Kusel. another expla1trtlion of the origin of this interpret<ltion may be that
the Hebrew word feu- 'l adder/s.t<~ iwa)'' Sltllam (a hapax legomenon) L.; similarsounding to lhe word se/l'm, ' image'. Kugel 1990, 124. See also c~n. Ral~. 6..~. 13 and the
discw1sio1\ of John 1:51 below. In later Rabbinic te);L<t, the human face t'f lhe Cherub
in Ezekiel's vision {E.7..ek. I :10, 26) is said hl bear the features of Jact'lb. See Kugel
1990. 117, 250 .and Guiley 2001, 19-1.
i86 We may here .also mention lha t this in terpre1~l!ion is attested in Pirqt> dt RfJ111ti lit-ur 35:
And the ministering angels we1-e ascending a nd descending thereon, and they beheld the face of jacob and they said: This is the face like the fal~ of the 0 Myya h,
w hidl L.; on the Throne of Gloy ... "
787 See a lw NJtm. Rob. 4.1. (Eng. t:r.ans. Slotki 1939, 95} w here the motif of )at-"'b's heavenly porlrait is based upo1\ l ~a 43:4:
... There is a scriptural text bearing on this: Sill(e thmt 1WJ pnxim11> ill .'t.fy siglll, and hanmuabk de, (Is.~. Xllll, 4). The Holy One, bk>R..;ed be H e, said hl Jacob: Jacob, t hou
art E>xreedingly precious in my ~ight. For I have. as it were, set thine image on my
throne. and by th) IMme the <mg,~ls pr.lise Me and s.ay: 8/ts.'itd be' llle Lml, tftl' Cx1 of
Israel,Jtmu r..oerltsliug attd I>tLvrlaMing {Ps. XLI, 14).
312
nam ~
of R. Samu el b. Nach man: &cause the m inis tering angels re\tMied Go d 's s.x:rets, they were banished
from their precincts a h undred and thirty-eight years 11R. l-lama b. 1-la
n ina said : rrhEl-) were banL.;hed] bt!cau se they boaStt!d and said, For u:t will
de$frOy Oris pl(lce 1S9 (Gen. XIX, 13). \Vhen did they retum? On thi::; occasion,
A'>CENDING first and then DESCENDING.
788 The angels \oJho ascended were tho.o;e oonne.:l~ to the land of lo;rael, \.,.ho al Bethel
returned to he.wcn, to be replaced by other angelic guards who d escended f1Y.ln\
hea"en.. in order to ocoompan)' Jacob oub)ide hi$ native land. 11te belief that Jacob
e1t~1yed angelic protection is alo;o apparent in the inteqll'et.ation of Cen 32:3 (\'. 4 in
the MT): "'Then Jarob sen t me.o;sengers before him ..... llte Midtash com p.t~res j,tcob
h) H<~gar and Abraham's se.rvant Eliezcr:
The abbis said: 11 mean.<~ literally ..., gels. It an <~ ngel esawted Eliezer, w ho was but a
senMt of the house, how much the more th is one (Jacob), w ho was the beloved of
the house! R. Hama b. Ha1\in<l obse1'Ved: Hag<~r was but S.lt<lh':> IMndmaid, yet five
angels appeared to her; how much the more then to this man )Jacob), whll was the
beloved o! the house! (Gen. Rab. 75A.J
313
designaled before tile U>rd. mrd this is /he gale of prayer designated /award
lteaz.w1", and Pseudo--Jonnthmr has here '' ... a nd this is (n place) suitable for
prayer, corresptmdiug ld the gate o f heaven, fmmded beneath J!Je Til roue of
Glory."m See also Rabbi Bar Ka ppara's comment in Gw. Rab. 68.12:
Nu dwam is without it$ interpretation. AND BEHOLD A LADDER .symbo
1i.se..; the stairway;J9.1 SET UP ON THE EARTH-the altar, as it l-iays, Anttlftfr
(Jj earth tlm1 $/wit mflke unft> Me (Ex. XX, 21); AND THE TOP OF IT
REACHED TO HEAVEN- th~ sacrifices, th e o d our o f wh ich ascended to
heawn: AND BEHOLD THE ANGELS OF GOD-the Nigh Priests; ASCENDING AND DESCENDING ON IT-aS<.-end ing and d ...~-ending the
stairway. AND BEHOLD, TilE LORD STOOD BESIDE H IM (XXVtll, 13)-/
smv file Lt>rd strmdius bL"f>ide the ttltw (Amo::> IX, l)i'u
790 See al.;o Jas.trow t97J, 830. AoccU'ding to Koehle/Baumg_.artner (200t, 627), the word
a;:;!! already has this mean.ing in Esth 4:14: "'For if you remain complete-ly silenl at
this tinle. relief and d e-liverance w ill ari.c;e for the j ews from tlllt'tlht!r Jlltl.:t" l ;ii;l(. !liy.':~ ..
fr<tm Gro]. St.>e also 1'\'J.atmorstein 1927, 92-93.
791 Philo, 011 Drt"tttltS 1.6 2-64.
792 A Neofili m<lrgin.al glos..; ha..; he~ ''lhi..; is nllt a profane pl.ta> but rather the place of
the $.ili'U:!u.uy of the- lewd and this temple corre.c;pcmds to th e g.tte- of the sat'U:tu.uy
\'\hich is in heaven:' See also '' 22 in NtYJfili and f>setu1f~)cmallum cited above and
Clarke 1974/S. 367-377 and O'Nei112003, 374-3-81.
793 l.eading to the top of lhe allar in the Temple, see Freedman. 1939 note 2, p. 625. See
alw Grossfelds comnwntary to Ni'Pfiti, 2000, pp. 200205.
791 Ac-rording to yet another interpt-ei.illion ol \~n 28:12 in Gt'u. Rab. 6-8.12. th~ ladder
repre;;e-.nts Sin.ti aod lhe angels allude to Mose.<t and A.WOI\ . See also C.tt'tl. Rab. 68.9,
where it is stated th.al jacob was the patriarch who iMrituted e'ening prayer.
3 14
In Pirqe de Rabbi EUezer chapter 35, Bethel is identified with Moun t r...to
riah, the place w here Isaac was bound, i.e., the Temple site, and there is
also an explanation of the Rabbinic d e..r;ignation o f GOli as MaqOm:
... Frilm Beer-Sheba a::> fa r as Mount Moriah is a journey of twu days~ and
he [Jacub] arrived there at midday, and the Huly One~ blessed be He, met
him, a!:> it is said, "And he mel in the pla ce~ and tarried there all night, ~
cause the s un wa~ set" (Cen xxviii. t1) \Vhy is the name of the Holy One,
ble.<OSed be He, called Makum? BQCau.se in every place where the righk>tms
are He i$ found with them there as it is said, "(n every place (Makom)
wht~ re I rea)rd my name I will come unto thee and ble..:;s thee (Ex. xx. 24).N
( .. . J Jatob took n.ve1ve stones uf the s tones uf the altar. wher~)n hLo; father
Isaac had bt.ot::n bound, and set them for his pillo w in that place ... (Cf., Phi
Jo, On Drtmus 1.71 J
cend (to power] and it is indeed an a.o;cent fo r them, but each is neverthe
1es~ lower than the preceding. It is w ritten, As for Owl image, its IJcad u~1s of
fine g(J/d, ;ls breaM (lml if$ arms of s;Ivc-r, etc. (ib.32). Babylon was the highest
of aU, as it is w ritten, J1l(m trrltfle lrcml 1Jf goltl (ib. 38); and it is w ritten.. Ami
after f11C'e slrtrll flris~ m1oth~r kin:'ltlmu inferior 10 llwc (ib. 39) [.. .) AND BE
HOLD, THE LORD STOOD BESID E HIM: thus it is written, Ami iu tl1e days
of those kings shall flu GM of llt'tJvm set up ll kingdom whid1 shall ll.t't~r be de
stroy..'rl (ib. 44).
315
797 See Freed m.<~ n 19.39, note I. p. 629, and Dan 10: 13, 20.
798 I.e., RQme. see below.
799 Eng. tran..;. Lunt in OTP, vol. 2. 1985, 409. See also d Mpter 4.2 .1btwe .md Kugel 1995,
2 11 ~2 1 6.
800 That is, Noofili, Pseud""fot~allum and a Cairo Ceniz.ah-frag:ment (ms Antonin Ebr.lll B
Ill~ folio 2v). Verses 11 ~ 13 are unfortunah~ly not extanl in ms P of the Fragmt'lll Tifr
gums. In ms V the only preserved f.<~gnwllt of \~n 31: II is~ "Jilrob aJlswered in lhe
language of the Holy Temple, and he said: NHere I am."' See .liS() Chester 1986,
156-13..'l.
3 16
r.;m~~,
N,;,;x X1~
..
/I am
Th us, in all of the versions of the verse, the an gel w ho appears to jacob
in his dream in Gen 31 :11 id entifies himself as the God v,ho spoke to
him at Bethel. However, in conlrast to both Lhc MT and the LXX, a ll of
the Targums state that it was the angel of the Lord/\' HWH who ad
dres.sed Jacob in Gen 31:11 and not the angel of God//ohim/Theos.
According to Gert. Rnb. 74.3, the on gel o f God spoke on this occ1sion
both to jacob and to fu ture genera ti ons but the Mid rash contains no
comment on the a ngel's identification o f himself wi th the God of Bethel
(Gen 31:13). Nor does Pirqi! de Rabbi /iezer (chapter 36) make any reference to v. 13 but only to v. 3 :
... Betau~ it is said, "And it was told Laban tm th~ third day that jac<>b
' "'aS fled (Cen xxxi. 22). Why d id he flee? &cause the Hu1y One, blessed be
He, said to him: jacob! I cannot suffer f\fy Shekinah to d well with thee uut~
~id e the land, but return unto the )and o f thy fath~ rs, and tu thy kindred,
and I will be w ith thee"' (ibid. 3). Therefore he fled.
317
The Targums
The Hebrew wording of Cen 32:25 ~liv.i '':.' T~ 'ltlli IV"X i'lX..'I n:~; J i'lr' ,m1 I
"Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him u ntil
daybreak" [NRSVJ~ is rendered in Ouqelos: p?vi iii :"1'~~:.; 1'\'"1::; ?inWN;\ ...
Xi05./ " . . . and a man contended with him until the morning dawned''
(my italics).
Ouqelos thus renders Lhe Hebrc\"' Y:lX'l 'wrestled' as ?inVN;~, which
Aberbach/Grossfeld translate as 'contended, since they understand the
verb as indicating verbal strife rather than p hysical combat.lt.'t! This in
terpretation seems to be supported by jastTow.11113 According to Aber~
bach/Grossfeld, Ouqelo.s chose this verb in an attempt to d iminish the
implicit anthropomorphisnl of the accounti that Jacob wre.stled with an
angel"" or indeed even with God Himself (cf., Gen 32:29, 31, lvfl).""
The Tnrgum's next major d eviation from the MT is fou nd in verse 29:
Thereupo n htt $aid, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel;
for yQu are g reat {or: a prince) before the Lord and a mung men, therefore
you hav~ prevailed.NI 0~1 .. 01i' n~ Yl
i~v r:~7x 11ll!l 1UI '"\~M Jj:>!."' N.? ,1;)1(1
.,N.
801
802
803
804
Verse2<11inNRSV.
Abctbadv'Grossfeld 1982. nole 7, p. 197. See nl$0 GnlS..<(feld 1988, noh~ 13, 11 7.
JaJ>Ito\o,t 1971, 152S.
A.; will be shown, this is the interpretation given in lhe Targum, see Tg. Onq. Gen
32:31.
80S Aberb.ilch/Grossfeld 1982. nole 7. p. 197.
3 18
X117'::>'1
~'1J)
[NRSV:I " .. . fo r you have s triven with God rMT: 0!;' n-.:::
' :I
319
had always bcL"''l an angelic prince before the Lord, and the episode at the
j abbok was principal!)' designed tu announce a fact which was alread y
knuwn.a~:
All the Targu ms share the interpretation that the "man" whom Jacob
encountered at jabbok was au angel and not God in person; an id entification of the o pponent that most probably is mainly due to an avoid ance of anthropomorphism. It is explicitly stated il' Exod 33:20 that no
man can see the face of God and livei consequently, it cannot have been
God that jacob saw ' face to face' at jabbo k.
However, there are some significant details distinguishing even the
Palestinian Targums fTom each o ther. In order to illustrate this, I quote
some selected targumic verses o f the pericope:su
ICen 32:25: Tg. Nebfl ...a nd tile tmgd Sflriel wrestled with h im (Jacobl in lhe
appr.tmmucifa man ... fTg. Ps.-].J ... And au rmg~l in tl11tjorm ufa man w rest!Qd with him.111f. Ami he said, NDid y(Ju 1101 pmmise to tithe tJII Owl woultl be
yours? M)w belrJid, you Jumt hc~Civl': sm1s and (lift: tfmcgMer ami you lwve twl
tithed them.r{ . J Ami he bt.-gnu to ctmnl Jrmu Simetm, nml Uvi lurp~uctl f(J bl': the
leu fir. Mid1ad -spok~t up ami said, "M11SUr tif the world, tilis tme.> is ytmr /(Jt." II
wtJS on ttcnmul if these things llmt he (the a ngel Mi chael) UlrriNf l1eyond lht
stremrr 1mlil tlu: ct'lmnn of th~ da\"'' " n'>S~.
812 Hayward 2005, 303. Cf., lhe Ptstyer ofJos~'Pfl lre.l led above
813 See also Hayward 2005, 282-~- Sarna (1989. 405) point$ out that th~ verb ;z-1 in
Hos 12:5 (w hidl refe rs to this~vent) can only deriv~ from -.w, a byhll'm l'lf ,,17. A.; is
evident in Ihis verse, the I>I'Ophet Hosea used the desig.na t~n 1N'n! '!lngeVmes..<>enger'
to signify Jacobs contender .lt the ford of Jabbok. Thus, the targumic identifiollion
of th~ ' m.an' i1\ Genesis 32 as an angel is most likely influenred by HO$ 12!4-5 (vv. 3-4
in the NRSV).
81-1 Some mss add here !'0'1} 'you sha ll be'. see \\'eve~ (ed.) 1971, text critic-al note 10 the
J.XX ('_.en 32:28.
815 The 01\ly extiml \'erse of lhe perioope in the Fmgrmmt T.usm11s llf rele\anc~ for our
quest is Gen J2:27.
816 The same rend~ring of Cen 32:25a is a lso extant in the Cairo Cenh::ah ms Oxford
Bodleian Heb. b 4, foHo 18v. See Klei1\ (ed. and Iran...;.) 1986, 66.
320
(Gen 32:2?: Tg. M~of.) .. . And he fth~ ang~J Sariel] :->aid: "Let me go 00
cauf.;e the rise of the dawn haf.; arrived, tmd becmrst flu: lime of the t~ngcls on
high tl1 pmi$t' has arrh.wl, flnd I wu flu: chit!f of lh~ w/IC) pmi-se.N liJ7 [Tg. Ps.].J ...
(uul lhe l1our lui...; come when tlw (mgtls on hi.~l! pmise the Lord of the world, ami I
(lm one of lite d11gels who praise, lmt from the d(lY Jlurf J!Jc world UII'J$ m fetl my
lime M prai~ ditlnot C(}mt" until l11is time. (Frg. Tg. ms P) And he fthe angel]
said: "ReleaSt~ me, (... ] fo r the time has n)mt.e for the angels of the heights
(to g-ive praise;r11~ and ( am head of those w ho give prai..e;"' ...al'J (ms V)
"Rel\!ase me r ... ( the hour has a)me for the angeJs to give praise;" .. .
fG:?n 32:30: Tg. PS./.J Jacub a.!Ok\!d and said, "Tell me your name, I pray.
And he said, \rVhy do you a.o;k my name?" And ]tJcob! bi\!S$ed him there.
[Gen 32:31: Tg. OnqJAnd Jac(Jb called the name (lf the pJace Peniel; fo r
(he said), "I have seen an angel of the Lurd face h) face, and yet my life has
boon pref.;erved.N ITg. Neoj:] ... called the place Peniel because: "I have seen
(mgels from bt.forc lite Lord face to face and my life has been spared."'tcJ
N
(Gen 32:33: Tg. Ps.-].J .. . because the tinge/ to uched and ltelil the socket
of Jacob's r~:~~~~ hip ...
817 Nt'Ojiti marginal gloss: ''the time of the angels on high h> be sent has a rived, and I
am the chief of the l'lnes whll are !ient."
818 .. (to give praiser is the tran.'lllllo"s in.c;erlion a nd thus pari of the quolnlion.
3 19 Almost the same t-endering: of the \'erse is foul\d in the Cairo C'.eni:>.-lh m..c~ Oxfo'<i
Blxlleia n Heb. b <&,folio 18v. See KJein (ed. and lran.~.) 1986, 66.
820 The addition of the na me Jacob i!i utt ique lo f'seJtdfr}i?mlllum.
821 Almo.'lt identical rendering: (reft~rence to Bngel!i in plural) in Puud>fotwllt.1JJ. C f., Cen
32:29 i.n the two Targum..<~ quoted above.
822 I.e.. the reference to the hea\'enly service.
823 See also Hayw.wd 2005, 308-309.
321
vealed. Ouqelos is furthcm1ore the only Targum that in this verse refers
to an angel in the singular fom'lf<Q4 Jacob's exclamation can thus only
refer to the encounter with the ' man' at Jabbok.
In the Palestinian Targums, jacob's earlier vision of the angels at
Bethel may also be included in his statement.~ Another reason for the
reference to ~1 multitude of angels in these Targums may be the same as
the explanation suggested concerning Gen 32:29. Since no man can see
God's face and survive.. the melurseman interpreted O\:i'X to mean 'di
vine beings', i.e., angels, as opposed to God.ll26
In Onqelos and the Fragment Tnrgums, Jacob's angelic opponent is
anonymous but in "''eofW and Pseuda.-}onallzm1 he is identified by name.
The reference to him as the angel Sariel is unique to Neofiti and not
fou nd in any other Rabbinic interpretation of the narrative.
This angelic name is on the w hole very rare but is mentioned in a
few sources, for example, the Qumran \!Var Scroll, 1 En. 9.1 ~7 and the
Ladder of Jacob. Sariel seems to be an o lder name for tl1e angel later Ia
beled Uriel. w ho, as mentioned above, is depicted as Jacob's combatant
at jabbok in the Prayer of Joseph.'" The appearance of the name in Tg.
Neof Gen 32:25 may also be connected to its phonological similarity to
the name Israel,''" cf., the Ladder of Jacot~:
(Lad. }lf~. 3.3) And Sariel the archangel came tu me (Jacob) and I saw (him),
and h i$ appearan ce wa.o; very beautifu l and aweS()me . .. (Lrul. }tJC. 4.15J And
the angel said to me, "What is your name?" And I said, " Jacob." (He an
nounced).. "Your name shall no longer be called jact)b? but )'OUT namt~ shall
be s imilar to ffi)' naml>, ISrael.,. And wMn I was going fn)m Phandana of
Syria to meet Esau my b ruther. he came to me and b les,.:;ed me and ca1led
me Israel. And he would not tell me hL.; name until I adjured h im
82-1 However, the Peshitt.l also 1-efers hl a single angel in lhL~ ' ' t>l"se, in the s.1me w ay as
825 According to Hayward (2005, 293}, the reJer~nce to a multiplicity of angels in the
Palestinian Tcu>gunt.'i h) t his verse is due to !he associ.llion of Genesi$ 32 in Jewish
exegecical tradition with the vision of ang,~ls in GenesL.; 28. AMther possible explanation is h) read thl~ statement in the tight of Jacob's nweting witJl angels in Cen
32:2-3. See also G rossfekl's Commenb1ry to NMfiti 2000, 227-228.
826 See also O leste 1986. 361, Ka$her 2CXY1, 562563, and duple 2.2.2 abme.
827 I.e., in the Ethiopic ms.o;:. St->e ul.;o clMpter 4.2.
828 See a l$0 Rebiger 2007, 6.'18.
829 ~e Gr,lssfeld's Comn"~en tary to Noojiti, 2<XX>, 225-227, and Hayward 2005, 297-299.
322
Heb~ \''
323
This elaboration o f Genesis 32 may appear very distant from the bib lical accou nt. In the Bib le, the combat is apparently physical b ut in th is
interpre tation of the event Jacob is said to be engaged in a kind of com
petition and verbal battle with the a ngel. As shown above, this inter
pretation o f the pericope also seems to be implied in Onqelos. The con..
crete a nth ropomorphism of the bib lical na rrative has disappeared in
Gem-sis Rabba!J; the angel demonstrates his supernatural powers by
transferring Jacob's flocks in the blink o f an eye and by bringing forth
fire from the earth . Hmvever, Jacob is not intimidated a nd says that he
himself is made of fire. Th is claim ma}' be an in d ication o f Jacob's own
a ngelic status.II.:W
St~ttg (1J5otags RahmtJ1 to Song 3:6 hall a similar exegesis of our text a..; Gt-tlt>Sis RnbMIJ;
jac<lb's contender is identified as the angelic rep-esentcative of EsatL Indeed, this
l\'1idr.-.sh 1-e.p roduces much of the oontel\l llf Gl'utsis RaN111lt. Howeve1, nc>whe re in
thili Mid.-.sh is the a.ogel said to be involved in the heavenly worship. See also H3)'
ward 2005, 279282, and Miller 1984, J00-102.
838 Gm. Rr.b. 77.2. In b. H1tJii11 91a some other dL'igu ises are s ugge..;ted: "R. S..1mucl b.
Nahman !laid, He appeared to him as a heathen 1... 1 R. Samuel b. Aha said ( ... 1 H~
appeared to him as one of the w ise.. . "
839 Cf., E.md. Rat>. 15.6: "The a.ogels are calll~d ' fi re', for il is written: ' The flaming fire
Thy ministers' (Ps. C IV, 4), and l:>ra~l is also so c.1Ued. as it is wriuen ~ ' and the holLc;e
of Jacob s hall be a fire' (Obad. 1. 18) .. .'"' [Eng. I ran.~. tehrma ml 19391. See a lso the
Pmyer ofJvscpft tre.-.ted ,,bove and Smith 1968, 274281.
8.17
324
In contrast to the widely spread practice d u ring the time o f the Rabbis,
jacob's amu lets are not said to be inscribed with the names of a ngels,
instead he is protected by h is 0\~t.'n and his pa rent"s merits. Moreover,
Jacob is depicted as the w inner of the combat; in the e nd Israel will
prevail against Rome. In the words o f Hayward: "Th e victory over
Rome is yet to come1 but th is is as.s:ured [ ... ] That v ictory itc;elf, indeed,
was a nticipated in Jacob's v ictory over Esau's a ngel ... "w Compare the
in terpretation of the ascending and descending angels in jacob's dream
at Bethel as the a ngelic princes of the heathen nations, see above.
325
As in Nt~Jili, the angel p leads \o.:ith Jaoob to release him, because the
t ime for th e heavenly \~t.'orship has arrived. In cont rast to Neoftti, how
ever, the a ngel does not specify his position in the heavenly dwir b ut
only says that he want~ to leave in order to partake in the angelic
praise.~"
In this statement, the Rabbi claims th at the a ngel's request for rele.1se
would be meaningles.5 if he were to be exchanged after a day had
passed. According to Freedman, Rabbi Berekiah's remark may be un
derstood to mean that either he disagreed with the opinion that it was
Esau's guardian whom Jacob met~~-W or that it was no ordinary a ngel b ut
one o f superior status.~'~' To me, the second alternative seems as the
most probable, the Rabbi thus ident ified Jacob's opponent as o ne of the
a rchangels; Michael or GabrieJ.K>
The blessing of jacob a nd the bestowal of his new name Israel in
Gen 32:28 [ v. 29 in the MT) is in te rpreted in Ge11. Rab. 78.2-3 as the a n
gel's disclosure of the future:
8115 A.; s hown in chapter 3, Sili'Jhl like"'ise identifie..; the "'man" in Cene..;i.c; 32 in this WB)'
hi.c; interpreMtio n :;eent.<t lluLc; to have been in$pired by lhL.; Rabbinicexege..c;is.
846 Cl.. Ps~udo jmmllum and the Fragmml Targ1tms, m..~ V.
847 See illso L1lJ1/tltlctiUms Rai~)(J]r 3, Llm 3:22-24, which i.n commenting Genesis 32 is
roughly identical to Gt!111'S;s R,;bbal and thus al.;o testifies to the same ange loll>gy.
848 Seealw Rebiger2007,6.1 1.
&19 11 is. \\'Orth noting tha t the Targums do not refer tt.. lhe idel\tification of the combatant
as. E.').llu's celestial cou!lte r'}Mtt.. but the worS-hip-motif is extant in some of them. Perhap..; R. Berekiah himself adhere$ to this o ther tradition?
850 F1\'!edman 1939,714, no te 5. See <1l.so Ha>ward 2005,260-261.
&SI See als.o the dis cus..c;ion i1\ !\Iiiier, 1984, 103-10-1.
326
{G<n. Ral>. 78.2) ... 11<! U<><'Jb) a nswered him. ' I WILL NOT LET YOU GO,
[Ctn. Rai>. 78.3) AND liE SAID UNTO I-IlM : WHAT IS TiiY NAME?
AND HE SAID: jACOB. AND HE SAID: TiiY NAME SHALL BE CALLED
NO MORE jACOB (XXXII, 28f.). (.. .) 'That confirmdh lilt u,y)rt/ of /lis m"""'yaru refer.:; I;() the one angel who appeared to our patriarch jacob and
told him,: The Holy One, bles~d be he, will reveal him~lf tu thee at&thel
and change thy name, and I h)() will be there (...J God d id appear t u him to
fulfil the degre~ of that angel, whu had said to him, THY NAME SHALL
BE CALLED NO f>.fORE JACOB , and C ud too s poke thus to h i m, as it says,
r\ml GtJil said unto him: Thy mrmt slta/1 uot be called (lilY mort lat ah (Gen.
XXXV, 10) ...
Accord ing to Geuesis Rabbal1, it was not after the fight115-t at the ford of
jabbok that jacob was given the new name JsraeJ.l511s The angel did not
really have the authority to rename jacob, but revealed to him that God
Himself would ap pear 10 the patriarch at Bethel and give him a new
name. The angel gave jacob a promise of a fu ture blessing, a promise
that God fulfilled when he returned to Betl>el. ll>us, the Rabbis of tl1e
Mid rash interprel Gen 32:28 [29] in the light of Gen 35:9-10 and Hos
12:4 [v. 5, MT]. By interconnecting these three passages, they answer
several q uestions that arise \"'hen reading thern. For example; the rea ..
son for the renewed conferri ng of the name Isr-ael o n Jacob in Gen 35:10
is that on this occasion Cod confirmed the words of the angel, in his
852 Thus, t he thtt~ "'men'' who visit Abrah.am and Sarah (Cene~i~ 18) are here identified
as,ll\gel'i.
853 The Midaash refer~ here to lsa 44:26.
851J A.<~ shown in the quoMtions. according to Gemsis ~tbOOia the combat was apparently
as much ' verbal S-ll'ife a~ a physic-a) struggle, d ., Onqtk1s treated abo\e.
855 The $ignifican ce ol the name ' Israel' in Gen 32:28 {29) is ia\terp-eted in Gl'll. Ril.f>. 78.3
in hoJO '"'ays: Firstly, the name i$ under~tood to mean that Jaoob/l<;rael IMd !>-~ri ven
with celestial beings, i.e., the a ngel at }abbok, hence the de:;ignalion 'Eiohim' in this,
verse i.<l taken I<~ refer to divine being.'i/angel$ and not God. Secondly, the name
'lsraeJ' il't intetprt~ted as deriving from the Hebrev,r verb ;-s ' to rule', ' to be a pince':
J.~cob/lsr.lel is Cod's prince and hi~ feature.<; are eng.;wed in heaven, cf.. Om~tlos'
rendering()( th e verse.
327
very presence. Accordingly, the curious 'wi th us' in Hos 12:4(5) is exp lained as referring to jacob and this a ngel.115f>
By transforming the bles.ing of Gen 32:28[29] into a prediction of
the futu re, the Rabbis also avoided the problem o f having an angel
pos..-c;essing the a uthority to bless a nd rename Jacob,~t especially a n
angel whom they explicitly state was d efeated in combat and is inferior
in spiritual statu s compa red to the patriarch:
IG.:n. Rab. 78:1 1 R. Meir, R. Judah, and R. Simeon each made an observa
tion. R. tvteir said: Who is greater. The guardian or the g uarded ? Since it is
written, For He will ,t,:ii"Je" His rmgcls dwrgtt over tlttt in t~ll lhy ways (Ps. XCI. 11),
it foll ows that the g uarded is greater than the guardian. R. Judah said: Who
is greater, the bearer or the borne?( ... J R. Sime<)n said: \'\lho is g reater: the
sender or the sent? Fro m the verSt~. AND HE SJ\JD : LET ME GO !Jit. 'send
me away'!. it follows that the sender is g reater than the sent.11!i1
sent "
860 See also Hayward 2005.264-266.
861 Gm . Rh.b. 78.4. In this context, the Rabbis compare jacob's angelic opponent to the
angel of the Lord who appeared to Manoah Qudg 13:18). w ho likewise did not re\'l~al
hi.~; name. See also Miller 198<1. 105.
328
And he said, Ld mt.' go, fot tlte day brcflkdh. IJae<)b} said to him, ' Are you a
thief or a r<)b'lle that yo u are afraid t.lf the mo ming?' He replied, ' I am an
angel. and fro m the day that I was created my tim~ to s ing praises (to the
Lord) has not cume u ntil now' ...
The angel w ho encoun ters jacob at the ford o f jabbok is thus distinguished from Michael, since we read that ... .. MichaeL the angel, des
cended and took Levi ... " (my italics). Michael had to descend from
heaven in o rder to fetch Levi, \o.:hereas Jacob's o pponen t must already
have been on e..u th. But the final proof that this angel was not Michael
is Pirq2 de RatJ!Ji Eliezer's version of the renaming of Jacob:
Again the angel said to him: " Let me go" (Cen xxxii, 26). Jacob answered
him: I w ill O() t let thl!e go u n til thou has t bles.o;ed me; and he blessed him
( ... ) Again he said to him: ''l.et me go" (... } He answered him: I will no t let
thee go until thou tel1e.o;-t me what th)' nam~ is. And {the angel) called his
name Israel. like his own name, fc:,lr his own name wa$ called Israel
862 See aJ!\0 Haywa1'd 2005. 273279, and Miller 1984, 107-109.
863 Pirq.? dt &li'>Jli Elir..er 37.
329
Both of these me.-.nings of the ~mgel's name may be implied in the Midrash. Another striking difference between Pirqe de Rabb; Elieze-r and the
other sources is the fzKt that according to the l\1idrash the angel in
question is sent to Jacob as an answer to his prayer for deliverance from
the hand of Esau (cf., Gen 32:912). Consequently, fa r from being the
celestial patron of Esau. this angel is instead depicted as a benevolent
angel who comes to Jacob's support when he is faced with the impending confrontation with his brother.
jacob's Pilgrimage to Be~'cl
JntroducOOtl
P;rqe de Rabbi Eliezer d oes not make any comment upon Gen 35:1-15,
but there are some targmnic paraphrases of the text that are notewor
thy. In Genesis Rabbalt. there are also some interpretations of the pericope of interest to o ur subject
The Targums
As usual, when God addresses jacob (vv. 1, 10 and 11) the Targums
em ploy the Tctragrammaton 'YHWH/ the l ord' instead of 'Eiohim/God' as in the MT.&'>o'> O therwise, Onqelos and Pseudo~Jonatlwn have
quite a literal translation of Gen 35:1.; but Neofiti deviates slig htly more
from the MT:
330
And tit~ Lortl said to jacob: "Arise, go up to Bettml and d'vell there and
build an altar there II) t!Jt muu~ of lift Memm of fhl" l.J.>rd who w as revealed to
you when you fled from before Esau your hr<Jiher."'
According to all the Targums the Lord/YHWH refers in Gen 35:1 to the
one who was revealed to Jacob at Bethel in the I!Jird person, as someone
d istinct fTom Himself. in the same way as in the ~fT.IIlo7
In all the Targums, there is a correspondence beh..ecn their render
ings of Gen 35:3 and Gen 28:20; e.g., Onqelos:
(Cen 28:20aJ Then Jacob made a \'() W, saying. ..1f 111.: Mem.rn of the lord will
a$Si$l me and p rotect me on th is joum ey th at J am making ... (Cen 35:3)
Then Jet us a rise and go to Beth t~l. and I will b uild {lit., make) an altar there
to the Cod who a<."repted my prayer <m the d ay of my d istrL>SS and whose
lvlemm Jws (Jt'ttl my support un the journey ...
867 Both Ouqe/(lf; and P~tdt~/liiiAIIIml 1-efer hete to ... the Cod who revealed
Hln\.<~el f .....
868 The u~e of lhe divine epithet ' the name of t he Lord' is rel.ativel> unusual in lhe
Targums compa1'ed to ~uch expra<~ions as 'lhe Memra of the lord'. The latter i.'l e~
pecially common when the meaning of the te:<t is to e>:press divine p1'0teclion. The
phr!l...e "'Cod/the lord {or. I am) w ith yc,u, i.<~ usually rendered a$ "'the Memra of the
to.'<l i$ (or: I, in my rvlemra am) at your aid." See McNantara 1992. 28.
869 See also Ceo 3S: J3 in a Mrgumic fragmenl of the Cairo Ge1tiz.ah; Leningrad,
S.:l ltykov-Schedtin ms Anlonin Ebr. 111 B 542. folio 2v.
870 Al'<lnMic text, see Gins.burge.r's edition 1971,65.
331
(Cairo Cenizah) And he built an altar, there; and he named the place
EJ-&thel; for th~re angels had been revealed unto him, when h~ was Oet!
ing fr<)m before Esau his bruther.a:ol
E l-bethel~
be-
871 Leningrad. Salty kov -Schedl'in, ms Antoni11 Ebr. Ill 8 542. folio 21.
872 Che..'>ter 1986, 23-27, 156. See the R.1b b-inic discus..;ion of this he1-esy and Gen 35!7 in
b. s,m1Jet1riu 3.8b. See also chapter 3 above a nd Segal 1977, 122. Other "dangerous
pass.1ge..;" d iscussed by the Rabbis are, e.g.. Gen 11:7; Deut 4:7; 2 Sam 7:23. Reg.ou'd
ins OtUJolos. it must be poinred out that there .ue orher val'iants of Gen 3-5:7. Acco'd
ins ro Grossfeld (1988, 122). other readings are here 'the angels of the Lo'd (d.,
Pioo:udo-fotlalllom above) and "tm angel of the Lod ."' As !>hown in dl.'lpler 3, Sama in
terptets Cen 35:7b in a simi Ia way ro P.x.~tlc>-}mwtfmu.
873 Thi.; praye is a lso ext.mt in the Cairo Genizah: Leningrad, Saltykov-Schedrin. ms
Antonin Ebr. lll 8 542. folio2rand2v.
874 Thi.; divine epithet could just .l$ well be tr<lnsla ted as ' God of Etem ily'.
875 Tg. Ne.>f: ....you were 1-evealed to him in the Valley of the Vision while he wM still
suffering from drrumdsion . .:'' Cai1'0 Genizah: " ... And the mem1'<1 of rhe Lord w<~s
te\ealed upon him in the Plain of the Vision .. ."
332
Aram; and he had not rt,.ted frt)m ttm pain of his hi pwbon~~ he h~a rd about
the death uf Rebekah hL.; m<)th~r [...)and he sat (_h)wn, scr~am ing and wail
ing [ ... J and Yo u in Your good mercy ,.,..ere revealed unto him lo O)nSule
him: You bles.o;ed him with the blt$Sing of mourners; a$ it is explicitly writ
ten [ . . . )"And th~ Lord appeou t:!d ag~o1in tu Jacob ..."
1ns V: [...)You were revealed unto him [...)when the way uf the world
occurred to Deborah ( ... 1and Rachel died, to his .sorro w [... J and Yuu,
Mastt'?r t>f the Entire world[ ...) in the mt>asure of Your goud mercy were
revealed unto him, and Yo u amso1ed him, and You blessed him with the
mou~r' s blessing on (the death ofl his moth~r; it L.; therefor~ ~xplici tly
written I ...) "And the m~..wm1 of the Lord W<lS revea l ~d unto Jacob a sea)nd
tim ~ when he a rrived from PaddanAram, and he blessed him."3 ih
876 Tg. l's..J. Gen 3.S:9b: "Tile lord ,,....,.s 1-evealed ag.lin to Jacob J J and he bles..<>ed him
ill lfuu,?me l>fllis !\<ltmm after llis t1W/11er l1tkl died." C(., Deut 34:6 according to P$tUdl)l~>naJlmn.
877 That Jn-cob wa:; informed of the death of his m-other during hi$ stay in Bethe l is
pre.c;umably based on the f-ac~ thai there i.e; no mention in the Bible liM I Rebekoh a nd
Jacob e\'er met whe-n he returned home. llh~ 1-eunill rt of Jacob and l..<~allC a nd the
death of the Iauer, hm'i'ever, are mentioned in Cen 35:2729 .
878 ThLc; interprecation of Cod"s appearance in v. 9 is also to be found in. for example.
Get~. R.af>. 81 .5, ~md 82.3.
8i9 See also Mohe r 1992. note 13, p. 120, and M cNa ma ra 1992.. note 12, 166.
333
ccption 'the memra of the lord' .111(1 God is explicitly designated not only
as the Cod of Israel, bu t as 'the Master of the En tire world'/ 'God of the
\Vorld.'IISI The prayer inserted in Gen 35:9 tells us something importan t
about how the Targumists perceived God's ch aracter.
This midrashic expansion of Gen 35:9 th us refers to God as the role
model for certain work..5 of mercy; being created in His image, human
kind is to imitate God.llll2
As in the MT, it is YHWH who gives jacob the name Israel in botl1
OnqehJS and the Palestinian Targums. With the exception of the Cairo
Geniz..1.h rendering, w here we read; "And the memra of the Lord said to
him: Your name h~1s been Jacob; you shall no longer be calle<l Jacob.., b ut
rather Israel shall be yo ur name ... " IS!Il, all the Targums refer to God
directly in Gen 35:10.
In Gen 35:11 we read that God designates Himself as "I am 1 Sl!addai/ ~i'.v 7~ ~lx." As mentioned above, the exact meaning of the d ivine
epithet / Slmddai is uncertain. The NRSV translates it as 'God Almighty'. This is also Freedman's translation of the epithet in the biblical quo-tation of Gen 35:11 in Gen. Rau. 82.4.
All the Targums employ the same epithet as the MT in the rendering of Gcn 35:11, 1111t v~.rith the exception of Neofin, which has dl am God of
lite Jreavens.''*"5 This designation is the usual rendering in Neofiti of the
biblical 'EI Shaddai'. See, for example, Gen 17:1; 28:3; 43:14, and Exod
6:3.""
Get~t"'Sis
RalJbah
Geu. Rab. 82.2 records a Rabbinic interpretation of Gen 35:9:
R. Isaa c cummt!nred : An altar of e a rt h shalt thou makt! unto me ... in ev11ry
plate where I c;m~e My name to be mentkme d I will rom e u n to thee and
8!l0 A mentioned ab<we, Hayw.wd argues !hal "the Memra in the Targums represents
God's mercy, a coocluskm that seems to be supported b)' the use of fhe e pithec in
this context. S..~e all)() Hayw.wd 1981, 44.
881 A.; mentioned, the Aa maic e pitllet ~.,..._~, :;-;;~has a double o:mnotation a nd may
also be translated as"Clxl of Etem ify:''
882 In this t.<u'gumic pr.1yer, the blessing of the b1ide and bidegroom is .11so said to be
derived from C'.od's blessil\g of Adam rmd Eve. A NtVJjiti marginal gloss to C.en 35:9
connects the obligation to bury tht> d t>ad to Cod's burial of ~1o..;es. See McNamara
(Eng. trans.) 1992, 166-167.
883 leningrad. Sallykov-S.:hed in. ms Anto11in Ebr. Ill B 542, folio 2v.
884 The tansl.llors have left th e epithet untnnslated 111\d 1'ende1' it as ' EI Shadda i'. See
Maher 1992. 120 (7g. l,s./.) nnd Abebach/Cmssfeld 1982, 206 {On!c~). Gen 35:1 l is
unfortunately 1\0t extant in the fragmtuJ Targmm>.
885 LXX ha..; here s im ply: '' . ...Ey<:J 6 96~ aou/1 am )'Our Clxl ... "
886 See a lso McNamarn 1992, 35.
334
R. Isaac thus connect Gods blessing of jacob in Gen 35:9 to the Rab
binic interpretation of jacob's dream at Bethel (Genesis 28): jacob's
portrait is engraved on God's throne and the angels '"'ent u p and down
in order to look at, on the o ne hand, his heavenly portr-ait, and on the
other the man himself sleeping on the ground.
The Rabbis of Genesis Rabball also have a comment u pon Gen 35:10
where we read that God changed jacob's narne and called him Israel:
IGt-'11. Rnb. 82.2J I am the Lurd ... that confirmeth the word o f H is servant,
and perfo rmeth the counsel of J-lis angels ( lsa. XU V, 24 ff.). Said R. &re.
kiah in R Le-vi's name: Since He T onfirml!th the W()rd of His Sl!rvant..' du
we not know that He ' Performeth the c(mnsel of His angels'? But (the t~x
planafion is lhL.;c): an angel had appeared to o ur fa ther Jae<.lb and said to
him: "The Holy One. blessed be He, will reveal Hims:t~ l f to thee at Beth..el
and change thy name, and I too will be present thl!re. Thu::; it is w ritten? At
Beth-el He would find him, and there He would Sp!!ak with us (Hosea XU,
5): it d (X!S not say, 'with thee.' but 'with us'. And so Cod a p~a red to him,
in order to confi rm the wo rd of the <mgel (...)Thus, AND COD APPEARED
UNTO JACOB AGAIN . .. AND H E CALLED 1115 NAME ISRAEL""
111e ' un known man' who struggled with jacob at the ford of jabbok
(Genesis 32) is identified by Rabbi Berekiah as an angel who foretold
God's renaming of Jacob. The prediction of the angel, however, needed
d ivine confirmation and this is the reason for God's second appearance
to jacob at Bethel. When jacob retum ed to Bethel, God appeared to him
once more and confirmed the new name in the presence of this angel.
According to the Rabbi, that is why the prophet Hosea says; " ... and
there [in Bethel] He [God] would speak to 11s (Jacob and the an
gel] ... """
The ~vfidrash contains additional interpretations o f God's second
appearance to Jacob when he retum ed to Bethel:
(Gt-u. Rllb. 8 2.3 ) R. Jor.eb. R. Hanina said: AGAIN implies, astln the firSt t)C
ca.<;iun. As (>n the first occasion (He spo ke to him] thn)ugh an angel~ so on
the second occas ion it was through an angel. R. Abba b. Kahana said: (The
word AGAIN implie..;c]: I will no t again unite My name with any human w.
335
ing save o ne.!Wi R. Jud an said: pne word AGAIN intimates): ()nee again
w ill I reveal myr.elf unt<) thee......,
Jacob's
Bles.~ing of Ephraim
and Manasseh
Tile Tnrgums
According to Neofiti, jacob says to Joseph in Gen 48:3: " The God of the
herwens [MT: El Shad dai) was revea led to me atluz (i.e., Bethel] in the
land o f Canaan and blessed me."m As in Cen 35:11, the o ther Ta rgums
use the same ep ithet as the J\..1T; 'EI Shaddai.'""~
Both 011qelos a nd Neofiti render Gen 48:1516 quite literally bu t, as
usual, they refe r to 'YHWH/ the Lord ' in v. 15, w hile the MT has
(C.eu. Rab. 82.6):-\ ND COD WBNT UP FROM HIM, etC'. (XXXV, 13). R. Sinlln b. La
k is h said: The P.lll'ial\':hs are (God's) chariot, for it says, Aud C'.t~oi wcul lfl) from lfiNIIt
Ahraltam (Gen XVII, 22); AND GOD WENT UP FROM UPON HIM; Aud, 11t'l1iJld, !Itt
336
According to Pseudo~Jonnt!Jan, ' the angel' is thus not equated with God
but is explicitly said to be au emissary sent by God to redeem Jacob from
a ll evil. It is noteworthy th at Jacob dO<$ not ask God h imself to b less the
boys, b ut prays that Gnd will fin d it p leasing that IIJe augel b lesses Eph
raim and Manasseh (cf., T. Jac. 4.15).
\"le h~we 11
(Cur. Ed d):
Genesis Rnbbn/J
simila r interpretation of the pericope in Gen. Rab. 97.3
R. Samu el b. Nah man sa.id : It L.; even g reater than red e.mp ti<m, for red t:!mp
tion oomes through an a ngel.!f)'; whereas sustenance come.<> through the Hl'>
Jy One, b l e..;~ be He. Red!!mption co mes th mug h an angel: TIJE ANGEL
WHO HATH REDEEM ED ME. (Cen 48:16) Whereas sustenance come$
thro ug h God: Thou opet~~t Th.IJ lumd, mul Sfltisfit'."l t'L't'ry living thing (Ps.
CXLV, 16).
895 According to Grossfekl ( 1988, 156), a variant re.lding of Omlt-105 ha.<1 GOO." Nrojiti's
marginalglo..'1$CS fo Gen 48: 15 refN h) " the Menu., l'lf the Lord ... " See McNam<al'ol
1992. 213.
896 Nt'Ojili marginal g loss: "evil" .. MT, Ouqc.los a nd Pseudl)/mmllmu.
897 The l'etldl~ring of these verses in the C:airo-C'.enizah fl'.lgme nt is roughly the same,
with the exc~ption that j.lCob refers in v . 15 10 the Memra: "'The memra of lhe Lord.
before whom my fathers ( .. . ( worshipped lo}ally-rhe memra of the lm'd w ho has
led me f l fv. 161 The angel w ho redeemed and sa(ved] me fl\)ll\ a ll evil, may he
bless the youths ... " JCambridge U1\iversity Library m.~ TS AS 7 1.5\, 2 141', 281rJ.
898 "Btess ....a nd Isaac" is omitted in MS. Lond. Sl."e Mtlher 1992, note 16, p. 156.. Otuice
( 1984, 6 1} ha...<; not included this parr of v . t6 in his edition of PStuJi)/OtUltlum.
899 Neusner (1985, 338) tl'anslates ..... . for redl~m pti on t.lkes pi Ml~ through the agency of
a d ivine me..<~senger .. ."
337
that h~ lifted up his eye..; and loo ked, and, behl)1d, there s tood a man <wer
agains t him ... And he said: Nay, but I am captain of the host of the l ord; 1
am n()W come oosh. V. t3f.). R. joshua said in the namt! of R. Hanina b.
Is aac: J-le cried o ut from his very h.>(H1ails, "A>'( am ca ptain of th~ host of the
Lord'; I am a prince uf the celestial host and \.;herever I appear the t luly
One? blessed be He, appearS.""lt
The angeJ '"'ho has redeemed Jacob from aJI eviJ, a nd whom he as ks to
bless his grandsons, seems thus to be identified wi th the un known
"man" with a dr-awn sword in his hand w ho appeared to Joshua according to josh 5:1315. It is striking that joshua worshipped befo re this
"man:"
[Ju.sh 5:131Once when joshua was by jt!richo, he-looked up and saw a man
standing ~fore him with a d rawn sword in his hand. Jo...,hua went to him
and said to him, "Are you one of us, o r one of our adver-saries?"' f'I4J He
replied, ''Neithe r, but as commander of the a rmy of the LORD I have no w
come.N And Joshua ft! ll o n his face tu the earth and wor.sh1pped. and he
said to him, ,...What do you C()mmand your servant, my Jord ?" !15) The
commander of th~ a rmy of th~ lDRD said to joshua, ''Remove the :->andals
from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy.N And joshua did
so.'flll
900 Acrotding co Freed man 1939, p. 939, note 3: ''The l~x pr\~ssion 'from hL.; toe-nails'
means tJMt he cied out wi th hL<> whole body.N
901 Accilrding co Freedma n (1939, p. 939, note 1), this inh.'Pretation of Gen 48:16 is
based on the facL.; tha t both joshua and Gideon were de..;cendants of j(laeph, bl)(]l are
called }'()UOS,. and an olngel appea red to both ol th em. Jacob thus p rayed that Joshua
and Gideon might be blessed. Concem ing Jo.l(hua as a d escendant of Ephraim, see.
e.g . I Chr7!W.27.
902 Cf.. Exod 3!2 6:
4
(21The1-e the angel of the LO RD appe:tred to him l t-.h'~St'S] in a name of fire out of a
bush: he looked, and the bush was blazing. yet it was not consumed. [31 TI1en Moses
s.:tid, ''I must tul'n aside and look oll this great sight, and see ''-"'Y the bush i!i not
bumed up.'' (41 When the lORD saw that he had IUI'lled aside ltl see, Cod c-alled fO
him out of lhe bLL<>h. "Mose.c1, t\lose10!" And he said, " Here I a m.'' (5] The n he sa id,
"Come no closer! Remove the sandal!! from your feet, for the place l1n which you are
standing is hoty ground.'' 161 He s..1id fUIther, "I am the Cod of yoUI' fa ther, the Cod
l1f Abr11ham, the God of Isaac.. a nd the Cod of Jacob.'" And MGSe$ hid hi...; face, for he
was af1-aid hl look. at Cod.
338
Th e identity of the angel of the Lord and the lord Himself is merged in
the above passage. It is worth considering that in Judges 6 the angel of
the Lord and the Lord Himself seem to be one a nd the same person,
just as is the c..1se with God and His angel in Gen 48 :1516 .
Concluding Relnarks
Conside ring the interpretation of Jacob's nightly struggle wi th the mys
terious "man" of Genesis 32, we may conclude that th e opponent is
consistently ide ntified as an a ngel. Thus. all our sources deny that it
was God in person w ho jacob met at Jabbok, most assured ly because
they wish to avoid the stun n ing implication that the patria rch in fact
strove \Vith God in person. Moreover, since no man can sec God and
live, it cannot have been God to ,,_,.hom Jacob refe rs in Gcn 32:3 1, thus
'Eiohim' is in terpreted as meaning 'divine beings/angels' (e.g. Tg. Neoj;
Tg. Ps.J.) or 'an angel' (Tg. 011q.). In the two Palestin ian Targums, )a
rob's exclamation may be un derstood as refe rring to all his encounters
w ith angels, both at Bethel a nd a t )abbok, while in 011qelos, he only
seems to refer to the latter rneeting.
The description o f Jacob's angelicopJX>nent differs between the var~
ious sources, sometirnes even within one a nd the same text. ln Onqelos
and the Fmgwetzl Targums. Jacob's a ngelic o pponent is anonymous but
in Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonalhttu, he is iden tified by name, Sariel and Mi
d1ael respectively. Both the Fragment Targums (ms P) and Neofifi'itiJ iden
tify the a ngel as the celestial worship -leader, and this is the reason for
the a ngel's request to let h im go \\'hen dawn comes. The same motif is
also present in PseudoJonarlran, ms V of the Fragment Tttrgums, Geuesis
Rabbah, the Bal>yloHiaH Talmud and Pirqt de Rabbi /iezer bu t in these
sources the a ngel is not said to be the leader of the heavenly choir. In
Genesis Rnbba!J, there is also a n additional identification of Jacob's com
batant as the guardian angel o f Esau/Edom, who d uring the time of ~'c
903 Ho.,..ever. in a Noojiti marginal glo.'ls, the an g,~l is idenlified as 'the head of those who
are sent'.
339
Ra bbis \\'llS seen as representing the Roman Ernpire. In this Mid rash the
transient natu re o f the a ngels is emphasized. However, Rabbi Berekiah
a rgues th at the a ngel w ho confronted jacob was of higher rank and
thus consta nt in nature. The Rabbi's statement can rnost p robably be
interpre ted to mean that he regarded the opponen t to be either the arc
hangel M ichael or Gabriel.
ln Pseudo}onat!Jau, the interpretation of the a ngel as Mid1ael is evi
dent. The alleged reason for his appearance is to remin d Jacob of his
promise to give a tenth of h is possessions to God. In Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, this motif recurs, but here it is not Michael who reminds Jacob, a)..
though he also appears in this context. lnstead, the angel w ho confronts
Jacob at Jabbok is said to bear the name 'Israel' an d, when the angel
blesses Jacob~ he gives him his own name~ a motif tha t is not extant in
any other of the discussed sou rces. Far from being the celestial repre
sentative o f Esau, the appearance of the angel Israel is describet.i in
P;rqe de Rabbi Eliezer as an a nswer to Jacob's prayer for divine p rotec
tion.
The idea o f a n angel blessing Jacob seems to have been a proble
matic issue in many o f the sources. since the patTiarch is considered to
be his superior. Indeed~ in Pseudo-fonatlum, Gcn 32:30 is rendered; " ...
and jnmb b lessed him [the a ngel)there ... " but in u,e o U,er Targums it
is the other way around, whidl is also the most natu ral interpretation
of the Hebrew original.
However, in Geuesis Rabbalt, the blessing and renaming of Jacob in
Genesis 32 is interpreted as the angel's d isclosu re o f the future; w hen
Jacob retu ms to Bethel, God \viii appear to him a nd give him the new
name Israel. In this ma nner. the Rabbis interconnect Genesis 32; 35 and
Hosea 12 to each other, an evident example o f intertextual exegesis, so
typical of Midmsh. Tims, God's second appearance {C..en 35:912) is
said to be in order to confirm Jacob's new name, Israel, in the presence
of this very angel.
Accordingly, the dominant v iew in Genesis Rabbalt seems to be that
God in person spoke with Jacob at Bethel on bo th occasions (Gen esis 28
and 33). 111cre is nevertheless one passage in the Mid rash according to
w hich God spoke to him U1rough a n angel; both the first time (accord
ing to Freedman, an allusion to the dream in Genesis 28) and o n the
second occasion when Jacob returned to Bethel (Gcn 35:9(: "l11cn God
appeared again to Jacob ... ", cf., Gen. Rnb. 82.3). Genesis Rnbbnh thus has
no consisten t view on the matter. According to another inte rpretation,
God appeared on the second occasion to comfort Jacob after the death
of Deborah. among others. There is also an interpretation of Gen 35:9 in
the Midrash which alludes to the t-radition of Jacob's heavenly portrait.
340
The biblical ambiguity between God and the angel remains in the tar~
gumic rend erings of Genesis 16 and 2 1. The most expanded paraphras
es are to be found in the versions of Gen 16:13-14. Hagar gives U1e angel
d ivine titles in the targumic renderings of Gen 16:13 but at the same
time Onqelos inserts a reference to 'the living angel' in Gen 16:14, prob
ably in an attempt to prevent the interpretation that it was God in per*
son who appeared to Hagar. However, this rendering is u nique fo r
Onqelos. Regarding Gen 21 :17-20, the Targums have a relatively literal
rendering o f the passage. There is a general tendency to avoid anthro
pomorphisms and to spirituali?.c the biblical accounts; Hagar did not
meet the angel 'en route' bu t in a vision.
It is noteworthy that_.. according to Nt7Qfi/i, the angel in Gen 24:7 is
designated as ' the angel of mercy' and the s..1me designation occu rs in a
Nt.'Ofili marginal g loss to Gen 28:13. This, however, is exceptional. In
general, the translations of Genesis 24 in the Targums are relatively
literal and the one who speaks to Jacob in his dream at Bethel in Gene--
341
3 42
90.J Ho.,..ever, aJ:> s tated in note 8S7 ablwe, when commenting tm Deut 33: L Ptf>iqta dl! Rab
Kafuma al<~ll states that the oulgel blessed jacob.
343
905 E.g.. the interpretations of Genesis 32; 24 and Hagar's angels in C'>t"llo!Sis RliiJ(Mit.
906 E.g., the 1-enderings of Gene..'ii.<t 16 and 21 in the Targums (esp. the Palestinian ones)
and the inttwpretations of Genesis 21: 22. and 3 1 ill general.
907 The piytetilll lWiginated in the Palestinian Synagogu es during the pe1i od of Late Roman .nnd Byza1\line rule, i.e., the centuries before the Islamic conque.c;t. llle Jmytauim,
liturgical poe1:s,. we1-e generally c.antOI'S. For fu rther infomla!il)ll, see Carmi (intr~
duction in 1Ju Penguin Bo)04 t'!f Hebm.t'l Wrst) 1981. 14-50.
3 44
and Hebrew respectively and in both cases the a utho rs remain LH'I*
known . Both piyutim concern the Aqedah. In the Aramaic piyut we read
tov.ra rd the e nd:
The (lngcls sMorl up UJ appens.: thd r Lord, we ~g yuu to take pity t)n the boy,
because of th~ 1<>ve of his fa thl!r we plead fo r the man in wlf()SC lu>use we l11n..'i.'
t"ilktt sail.
The Almighty tuld him !Isaac]: be not afraid, boy. I am the Rt~d t->emer, and I
shall redeem ytm, fi rm L.~ Cod and strong are His d t~eds, ther~ is no uth~ r
like Him, ntme who r~embhs 1-fim.'A.""
In the same way as in, for example, the Palestinian Ta rgums and
4Q22.?, th is poem men tions angels involved in th e Aqedah . However, it
is God/1/~e Almighty w ho saves Isaac, no specific a ngel of the lord being
mentioned. This is also the case in the Hebrew poem:\11~
Then h ~ (Abraham) went un to build the altar, stood up and placed his
Jamb rrsaac) upo n it; he to<') k the swurd in his hand and to<)k no pity at an.
1Jw Almigllty crittl out M him [Abraham]: ' Drop your hand at tmce! lns-tead
of your son.. I d e~ire the ram caught by hL-; horns in the thicket'.
0 Cod, heed these ashes, <.-redit u.s with his covenant, favour ul-1 for his
binding, r~wa rd o ur self-denial!*"l
In the Aramaic poem, the a ngels p lead fo r the life of Isaac and sa y:
" .. .-we plead for ll1e man in wl10se /10use we lmve eaten snit." Th is is proba
bly a reference to the v isit o f the three men to Abraham in Genesis 18,
in Jewish sources often inte rpreted as angels. The angels pray that God
will show mercy towards Abraham a nd Isaac {compare, e.g., Geuesis
Rabbah and Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, see ch apte r 4.5 above). God's response
is to tu rn to Isaac and p rornisc to redeem h im. Jn contrast to the biblical
account, God addresses Isaac, not Abraham,<J 11 b ut in the second He-brc'"'' poem it is Abraham who is the main characte r. The poems thus
have d iffe re nt foci, Isaac and Abraham respectively, but have in com
mon that there is no reference to any specific 'angel o f the Lord' .
In the two poems it is God Himself who saves Isaac, although angels
p leading for his life are mentioned in the Aramaic o ne. The omission of
a specific angelic savior recalls, for example, the account o f the Aqedah
908 ThLc; poem is reconslrue1ed (:rom Geni:?.ah ma nuscripts and is to be found in the book
/l!i.oisft Paltsliuillu Artllllilic P*lr.IJJrmtt L11/t' Atlliqttily (Sl.1koloff .and YaJMiom 1999, 124131). See .11!00 \em Bekkum 2002, 9495.
909 This is the e.wliest known pi>em on the .-\qedah. See C.wmi (introduction in J1u
P~llgttill &ok,~{H~>f>r,w Vtrse) 198 1,86.
9 10 See CMm i (Ed. and Eng. tran5.), 198 1, 201-202. See ale;,-, van Bekkum 2002.93.
911 Cl. 4Q225.
345
912 In the Dl"'lll'a Europos synagogue, there is a depktiOI\ probably showing the pati
arch jacob a.nd a glimpse 1"1f the ladder. induding h\'O <~ngels {see Goodenough 1988,
iliwonation 52}. Howe\er, the one who speaks to Jacob in his dream is not shown,
thus the depiction is of little relevance for our sub~.
913 See picture I.
914 Thompson 1992. 241213. See ol.;o van den Brink 2002. 142.
915 Seepicture 2.
916 See picture 3.
917 van den Brink 2002, 112.
918 van den Brink 2002, 14<1 145. C f., chapter 2 abMe.
346
out from heaven above the altar. The hand L'i generally considered lo
represent God.'Jl9
Wis 11:17
These connections between 'God's Hand'.. 'the angel o f the Lordl, and
'Wisdom' may perhaps imply that the artists saw u,e angel of the Lord
as God's " Handi" a medium proclaiming God's will to Abraham, a
"tool'' in His h and ?:~u
919
920
921
922:
923
924
347
'
3. Sepphoris synagogue, floor mosaic (fifth/sixth century C.E.). Courtesy of Prof. Zeev Wei.-;s, 1ne Sepphoris Expedition, The Hebrew Uruversity of jerusalem. Drawing: Pnina Arad.
349
928 See LindMs 1972, 3638, Perkins 1 9~9. 944945, and Be.as ley-Murra)' 1987, lviiih:iii.
929 According to tradition. the gospel \\.as Ctlmpl-r.::ed in Epllt"..'iUS. Altho ugh its tltigin..'l
can be traced back to Jude.a, Ep hes:lL'I m ay \'ef)' well be the site o f its fi1'ti'll editing.
The go:pel m<~y h..w e wandered from ]t~rus.alem to Antioch before acquiring its final
form in Ephesus, $ee Beasley-~lurr.-.y 1987, lx:<,lx:o:i. The fi1'ti'll form is o ften anibuted to the ll"ll'ti'l~mine Sd tal)l that L'l postl.ll."lled to have emerged f1<om the Joh.mnine
ch urches of A<~ia Minor. see S<:hn.ackenbu.-g, 198C). vol. I. 75-104, Bto\\' 1\ 1966.
l:o:);,iit-d i, and Perkins 1989,946.
930 The lang1.1age of the Gospel o f John has Ob\ iou.!l Sem itic clMracterL<~tiC$ a nd Buntey
( 1922) e\en suggested that it was o igina lly ,,rinen in A.-.m aic. St.>e al<;c> Linda1'S
1972, 44-45. As is well knc>Wll, the Gospel of jo hn w.l$ composed at roughly the ~l me
rime as ~he writings of jo$ephlL'I.
931 From nm'l Ol\. I w ill simply lLo;e the tem the Eva ~tgel i.c;t' when 1<elening to the a utho~s) of the SllSpel.
350
932 See Buhmann 1971, 7~9. Culimrutn 1976,30-38, Bto\\'ll 1966, b:xv-b:xvii and Be11sley~
~1U I'l".'IY 1987, Jiii lxvi. lxxxh:-xc.
933 See, e.g., Schnackenburg 1980, vol. I, 125,485-493, and Br\">wn 1966, lviilviii.
9.3<1 See Beas1e}-Mun-.ly 1987.1iv-lv. and B-rown 1966,lviii and 520.
935 Sl~e. e.g., BrO\'In 1966, !viii.
9.36 See, e.g .. Rowland 1984, 500.
9J7 Sl)me scholars (e.g., O'Neill200.1, 37-1. Neyrey l982. 586-589, and Rowland 198>&, 500}
reg.ud John 1:51 as an origit.ally independ tmt saying b}' jesu s. They refer h) the sud~
den shiff to the plural flwm in v. 51 as an indication tha t it ili> B lrtter addition to the
Nath.mael story. Another wa}' of explaining the s hih to the plural L~; tha t NaLha1t.ael
may be !ieen as a repre:;entative l)f all che folklwers of Jesus. compare the oo1wersa ~
rion with Nkodem os in Jolm 3. Be llt.al .ls it may. mQ61 .!l~hola -s asr~ lhat in John
1:51 Je.<>us is oot onl}' &ddressing Nathanael but all his disciples. tvh"~St certainly, lhe
reference is to d L<>ciples in a broader ~en.<>e, i .e., including p1'\!Stun ptive readers of the
Gos.pel. See also, e.g., Ash lon 199 1, 348. and Fos.<>um 1995, 151.
351
352
the Rabbis, the Scripture has many layers; see the fa rnous saying in the
M;shualt Abot: ''Tum it over and over because everythi ng is in i t."IN!>
will d e~i re to join the upper (things) with the lo wer. 131 And befo re his
a , ming your son..'> and daughters will tell abo ut him and yo ur young men
will have visions about him ... "
945 m. A(.>ol 5.22. (Eng. tr.l ns. Neusne r 1988. 689). See a lso chapter 2 above.
Barreu 1956, 186187. Lindars 1m 121122.. and Ashton 1991. 342.348, See alw
8ea..;JeyMUJT3)' 1987,28, Bultmann 1971, JOSIM, Odebe.rg 1929,33-42, and Perkins
1989. 953. In later jewish My$tical litea h.re. the angel ~leta trOll is d epicted a..<1 tlw
ladder of Jactlb's vision. see fu1'1 he.r Odeberg's introducti on to 3 Euoclt, 192$, 123. a ..
Joh 14:6; Job 33~23-28, '''\d I Tim 2:5-6: 151''For there is one Cod and one Mediator
betw~n God and men, the !\tan Chri..;t Jesus. 161 who g;ave Himself a ranSI.lfl\ fM all,
to be testified in due time .. .
9-17 In Cen 28.12. the LXX uses the s.une p1-eposi!ion for 'upon. i.e..,. tn i.
948 Sec chapter 4.2.1 and tun! in OTI'. vol. 2, 19$5, 402-105.
9->19 Ne>' rey 1982. 586-591. Cf., the reference toOuist in...-.eted by Christi.ms in V\' . 1920
of the second p1-eserved prayer in the Hdlt-Jti-:>lic Syt~ag.,gal Pmyc-rs: " And having
placed our f.lther jacob in Me$0pot.ami.l, lw.vins s hoh.<n (him} Lhe Chri.c;l, lhrous,h
him >'OU spoke, s.1ying, Umk! lmu will1 !Jl>U " IEng. ti'<UlS. DMnell in OTP, \fOI. 2,
1985, 6781.
950 Or beside jacob, see sectil\n 3.2..5.
~1 6
353
On the other hand, w hen James Dun n discusses the angel of the Lord in
the OT in relation to the Christo logy of the NT, he concludes that:
... no NT writer thought of C hrist as an angel, whether as a pre-existent di
vine being who had appeared in Israel's hi~tury a:=> the angel of the Lord, o r
as an angel or Spirit boo)me man [... ] 'The angel of the l ord' m early Jt:m:.
ish texts is most ubviuusly a way of Spt!aking abuut Yahweh himself. and
w ht.tn 'the angel of the l o rd' reappears in the wri ting::~ of Luke and lvlat
thew there is no real pu.s.o;ibi1ity of confusing him with jesus. The idea of Je
sus as an incarnation of an angel never seern.s to have entert!d the head of
an y NT autho r ...'*"-i
"''$
354
i.e., an angel such as Gabriel in the Gospel of Luke. see chapter 4.1.
Most certainly, they would agree with Du n n that Jesus is not a n incar~
nated a ngel in that sense o f the word.%.5
As mentioned in d1apter 1, the original meaning of the Hebrew
word 1:\'7.> is ~messenger', 'one who is sent', and in the Gospel of John,
jesus clearly stands out as the messenger/agent of God the Fatl1er par
e:n:el/ente.%(,
In many ways, the <1mbiguous relationship between the angel of the
Lord a nd God in th e OTis mirrored in Jesus' intimate relationship with
the Father. Jesus' teaching is not h is 0\"rn, bu t he speaks o nly as he is
told by his Father."'' just as the identities o f God and the angel of the
Lord are blurred in the OT, so are the identities of jesus and the Father
in John's Gospel... see? for example, John 10:30... 38, w here Jesus says:
"The Father a nd I are o ne[ ... ) the Father i.s in me a nd ram in the Fa
ther." See also john 5:30, 36..39; 7:16; 8:51 -59; 12:49; 14:67, and 14:9b-10:
(9b]" .. . Wht~ver ha.s seen me Uesusl hm;; seen the Father. How can y()U
[Philip) say. 'Show us ( th~ d isd pl~s J the Father'? [101 Do yuu not believe
that I am in the Father and the Fath~r is in me? The wo rds that I say to yuu
I do not speak uf my o wn; but the Fathe r wh() dwe1ls in me does his
wt>rks."
95S Cf., a lso J ude 5, w here aaording to some ms..; Jesus L<~ c:~-ed ited a.c~ rhe tme whl) d eli
vered lhe Jsr~li tes out of Egypt. thus it seem.<~ implied that the au thor identified Je
sus as lhe theophank angel of the Exodus, see a lw chapters3 and 4.1.
956 In the Gospel of John. Je..;us often 1-efers to the F.lther as the one who sent him. See.
e.g . Jt-.hn 3:1311; 5:30-38; 6:29, 3540; 7:1618, 28-29; 12:44-fJO; 13:20, and 20:2 1. See al
so Borsen 1968, 137-148, \fans 1993. 135 145, and Talbe11 l9i6, 418440.
957 Sec also North 200.1, 155 166.
9S8 This e tymology of the nam e Israel is to be found in. for exam ple, Philo's w d tings,
t~.g. 011 Duam.:: 1.114. The fig ttee under which NathBnae l is d epicted as having been
sitting in v. IS is al.,O$Ometimes used as a S)'mbol ftw the people of Isra-el. d ., Hos
9: 10 and Jeremiah 24.
959 Targum Ot~ql!/1'1:1 speaks abl)Ut Cod's Glory, the Yeqar11lr s tanding over Jnrob in Gen
28,13.
355
thanael bu t all o f Jesus' disciples a re cast in the role o f Jacob. Like Jacob,
they will see._, theophany.<J&>
As support fo r this in te rpretation, Neyrey mentions several other
pericopes in the Gospel, e.g., John 5:37:"'>1
And the Father who sent me [Jesus ) has himself testified on my behalf. Yuu
(the Jews] howe never heard his voictc: ur word o r seen his form ...
These sayings o f Jesus seem to imply that not even Moses ever sav,r
Cod the Father.%:! Tn this context, Neyrey refe rs to Philo '"!ho accepted
the statement in Exod 33:2023 tha t no one can see God a nd therefo re
interpre ted the theophanics Qf the OT as revelations of God's 'Lo
gos'M 'ord or a potency o f God. According to Neyrey, although Philo
u nderstood the name 'israel' as meaning 'the o ne who sees God ', he
nevertheles.,c;; maintained that the p atriarch did not see God in person,
bu t the ' div ine Logos' .'NU
However, i n Philo's ' "'ritings the n ame Tsr.., el is not only the name
of the patria rch Jacob, bu t also a name that he g ives the ' divine
Word/Logos', which in turn is o ften identified wi th the angel of the
Lord."" According to Philo, it is the heavenly Israel w ho truly is ' the
one who sees God':
But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son o f Gud, let him pre.~ to
take his p1ac~ und er Cod's FiNi-tbo rn, the Word, who ho lds the eldership
among the angel.:;, their ruler as it were. And many name..:; are his, for he is
called, "thtt Beginning/ and the Name uf God. and His Word, and the Man
after H is image, and '11e that Set!S," that is Israel (011 flu: C,:mfusi(Jn of Tonguo; t46)."';
960 Neyrey 1982.. 3$~59(). C(.,. fl'll' example.. Joh n I :14: 2: II and 14:614.
961 Neyrey 198'2.. 58~594 . He a iSQ reJers to. e.g . john J: l8: 3: 13; 8-'.56-58 and 12:4 1.
1.3.
965 Cf.,Coi i: J5. Seecslso0unn 1989,165.
356
Wisdom and lrJ~ros specu1atitms and the johannin~ confe!>~i<)n that the
'Wurd becamt! fk>-Sh'. ff the Ioxos could be identified as the angel that
walked the earth and was set!n by the patriar<:hs, thrn it Wt)uld not be tuo
difficult tu eq uate the log(k; with Jesus who walked the l!arth and taught his
disciples.
l11e Philonic identification of the Logos as the "angel" Israel recalls the
Prayer offosel>h treated above in chapter 4.2.""'
Jesus as Jacob's Heavenly Counterpart
As mentioned previously, many sd1olars connect the logion in John
1:51 v.rith the Jev,rish tradition \Vhidl interprets 'on it'/'on him' [':1] in
Gen 28:12 as referring to Jacob. As we have seen above, this interpreta
966 See also Smith 1968, 253294. and l'irqC dt Rfl!~i Elic::er 37. where J.~cros angelic
oombatuu beo:u'l; the name 'l:;f'"aer, see fmthe chapter 41.5. See also Fossum 1995, 142
151. .md the discussion below regarding jacob's gtMdian ange-l/heavenly counte r
part For a disrussion of the Pmycr "if l~pl and Philo's exegesLc;, see chapters 4.2 al\d
4.3 respectively.
967 See, e.g., RllWland 19Sl 502, and Hay\"ard 2005, 318. ..\ s shown in cho.pter 4.2, lhe
same cr<ldition seem$ to b..~ ext.11n t i:n lhe 11ddu o-f Ja.:11h. For fu rther inrormation. see
alc;o chapter2.2.'3 and 4.5.
968 See, e.g. Oarke 19741.flS, 374-375. Rm..,land 1984. 501303. and Hay"'ard 2005, '318.
969 Rowland 1984, 500-507.
357
Jacob's heavenly counterpart and regards this idea as the key to the
interpretation of John 1:51.9711 He firmly rejects Lhe notion that Jesus is to
be seen as the ladde r in this logion:
The message cumeyed b)' the pictur~t is not s imply ' that there is no other
route betwet?n heaven and earth than the Son uf Man'. The view that joh n
1.5 '1 represen ts the Sc.>n of Man a<> the reveaJer sidesteps the real i~sue,
namely that uf the COJmt:cl icm ~htt"t'tt the figure t)f the Son t'lf Man and the
ascen t and d t~Ste nt uf the angels .<m
970
9 71
972
973
9 74
n.
975
976
977
9 78
358
claim, Fossum refers, for example, to the Prayer of Ja..-;epft, w hich accord
ing to him implies that there exisl'i a rn ystical iden tity between t\,m
beings; the patriarch Jacob and his heavenly counterpart.m Hmvevcr,
jacob's ' image' is no ordinary guardian angel but the angel Israel, the
very Glory of God.""
Finally, Fossum concludes that the implications of john 1:51 in the
light of these jewish traditions is that" ... Jesus, like jacob-Israel, is both
in heaven and on earth at the same time.''"11 l \'\'hen he '"'alketi this earth,
Jesus, the Son of Man, was simultaneously present in heaven with the
Father."l\2 The allus ion to the angels ascending and d escending between
jacob sleeping o n the ground and his 'image' upon the throne of God
constitutes a promise of a vision of the Glory o f God manifested in the
Son of Man on earth.<;l,Sl
Similarly, Gieschen sees in jesus' words to Nathanael in John 1:5051 an example of his selfid entification with the enthroned Glory of
God:
jesus is presented here as the angelomorphic Son of tvlan, na mt!l)', the
GltHy who has "the appearance like a man" (Ezek 1.26; Dan 7.13) and
whl)m angels des-ire t() see. lll(m~fo re, the "greater things" Jesu~ is pmmi$
ing that Nathanael, a true "Israelite" (d. Philo's etymology l)f Israel = " he
whu :-;ees God"'), will ~(>e are thost! things associated , ....ith the visible ma
nifestatiun uf the Glory who L.; the Son of man, upon whum all the heaven
Jy host wish to gaze.'JS4
He fu rther points out that, in the Gospel of john. jesus refers to himself
on rnany occasions as the only mediator of he~wenly revelation by
979
poople a.nd natil)n lli lsmeL For example. in Oeut 32:9 it is wTitten that Is rael is God's
llWI\ pcwtion (d., lub. 13.30-32) but in D.m 12: 1, the nrchansel Michael is said robe
the guardian of the people. Likewi.o;e, both in T.Dl111. 6.5 and in 4Q369 there is a refer
ence to an angel of peace as a guardicm over ls r.lel. see al!ill Kugei2(X)6, 186206. lAd.
lou . 4. 1-5 and Pirq2 d!! Ro1!1bi 1it'.u r37. For hH't her dis cus..o;ion, see chapter -1.2.
Fossum 1995, 1421-19. Fossum also refers to the GrecoRll man idea t1Mt every pe1son
has a guardian s pirit who IOllks like him 0 1' her. Til is idea was incorporated into Ju
daism. see pp. 145-147 and lA>tef. R1ib. 4.4. C f., also Enoch'.<~ ide.ntHkation with the
heavenly 'Son of Man' in 1 Etw.:l1 3i7 1 and VanderK.am 2000, 425-129. See also
Smith's introduction to the Pra}ll!r of 1~1' in OTP vol. 2 1985, pp. i03-71I, Smith
1968. 253294, Borgen 1968, 144-148, and Ashton 1991. 342 348. For a detailed d iscussion of the Pra~r o>f}o).jepo/1 in this thesis, see chapter 4.2.
Fossum 1995, 1-12 149. Cf .. alo;othe ' face of a man. carved out of fil'e' in lAd. fac. 1 .-1~
and j Mob's s ubsequent pr.\yer i.n Lnd. fac. 2.7 19. See a lso OtiO\ 2004, 5976.
Fossum 1995, 149,seealsopp. 150-1; 1.
Fossum 1995, 149150. See a lso John I :18: 8: 16, 23, 29; 10:30. and 16m.
Fossum 1995, 149-15 1.
Gieschen 1998, 281.
4
980
981
982
98.1
984
359
mean.c; o f the descent~ascent motif,'JKS e.g ., John 3:1 3,\111(, '"'here Jesus says
to Nicodemus:
"No one ha~ asc~nd ed to heaven but l-Ie w ho <:-dme down n.e. dL>Scended)
from heaven, that is, th e Son of Man, who is in flcnvetr."%:7
98..? Gieschen 1998, 2802&3, esp. p. 2$2. See also A.;haon 199'1, 348-356, and Tn.lbo.~rt 1976,
<118-440.
986 ~e a lso e.g:... John 6:42, 46j 6:62: 16:28, and 20:17.
987 Allhl.lugh the la!i-1 dause in the verse N . . . who is in he-. wen.. is missing in Codex
Sinaitict~s Codex V.ltkanus (both of which are Alexandrian mss) and the Bodner pa
prri pM and p1!, it IMs cons iderable h"l<lctiticl l support. S..~e also Fossum 1995,
149150.
9S8 A.; a mauer of fac1, according to Haywa rd (20()5, 312320}, the inlerpretation of the
nam.e ls,ael 3:.'1 'one who sees God' and the aJMiogy between Jacob/lsrael and Jesus
360
991 See also Haywad 2005. J63-164, 20!t 3 1 ~-316, and above, chBpter 4.3.
992 Hay\\'Md 2005,313-314.
993 See also John I 1:40: 14:9, .and Ha)ward 2005,320.
m Hayward 200.1), :317.
995 Hayward 2005,317-318. See a lso e.g.. John 3: 13; 6~.1), 4142. SO, 5 1. 58; 8:23.
996 See johl\ 4.
997 John 4: 12.
998 Hayward 2005,316-320.
361
associates the last day of Sukko th, Sltemini 'Atserel, with the confinna..
t ion of Jacob's g ift o f his new name lsraet.m As we have seen in chapter
4.2, Jul>i/ees narrates that Jacob wished to build a temp le at Bethel b ut
was dis..~uaded by a n angel from doing so at this very feast. However,
according to the Gospel of John, jesus himself is the Temple of God, the
contact poin t of heaven a nd earth . u11~ In the new covenan t, there wilJ be
no need fo r an earthly temple~ as the lTu e believers will worship " in
spirit a nd in truth;'' john 4:2126."(1'
O'Neill then refers to Ge11. Rnl1. 68.12, where the he,wenly stairway/ladder which Jacob saw is compared to the stainvay in the earthly
temple leading to the top of the altar. The a ngels a re in tu m cast into
the role o f the h igh priests, bringing the sacrifices of the people to the
altar a nd hence tQ God. This in te rpretation is thus linked to the Rabbin ..
ic identification of Bethel (meaning 'house of God') as the fu ture temple
site in Jerusalem.lCUI
999 E.g., }ubil.ts 32 and Ta'}iwtl l'seudl)-jmlaltm to Gent."Si.!l 35. See ;iablwe chtlpter 4.2 and
John chapters 7 and 8. See Bl.'lo H.:lyw.atd 2005, 139 150, and 3 1>316, 319.
1000 E.g . john 2: 19-22. .see al<io Ha}ward 2005,3 15-320. In my view, at this point. Ha>ward's interpretation d flsely resemble." the ' ladder-theory' mentioned ;iabme, but it
could jul>-1 ;itS well be placed in the ,...Bethel--category", i.e., Je.<iuS as the Temple of
God, d ., O'Neill's interpretation belov1. ~e also Fos.,.um 1995, 130-133, who inte.'preL<; jolm chapters 7 and 10 as implying that je.<;u.s is the ne\,.. Temple-alt.u, the
fou ndcltion s tone of the world.
LOOI St->e also Hayw.ud 2005, 319320.
1002 O'Neill 2003, esp. p. 376.
1003 O'Nei112003, 377.
362
100>1
1005
1006
l007
363
us this bread always." PSJ jesus said to them, "I am the b read of life.
Whoever comes to me will never be hu ng ry. and w h<)ever believes in me
wiU m.wer be th irSty."
It is worth considering that in one o f his writings... Philo links the manna
with the divine Logos. lOl l
Ernest G. Clarke also advocates the interpretation of John 1:51 in
light of jewish traditions surrounding the stone at Bethel in Genesis 28.
In the same way as O'Neill, Clarke refers to Lhe Jewish connection of
Bethel with the Temple and prayer. un~ Hov.ever, in contTast to O'Neill,
he regards Jesus as corresponding to Jacob in the logion. In the same
way as, for example, Rowland, Clarke in terprets 1:1 in Gcn 28:12 as refe rring to Jacob, and in John 1:5 1, jesus as the Son of Man has taken his
place.tol l In short, Clarke appears to have made a fusion o f two Jines of
interpretation in his discussion of the logion; Jesus is seen as both the
holy stone of Bethel, i.e., the Temple of God, and jacob's counterpart.""
According to Clarke, this combination is also eviden t in jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well in John 4.11113-
Tiull/l1e \Vt>r.;t i>; Wm/110 Atllld: tf11' ikUL.,. 118. See al<~o O'Neill 2003, 380.
Cl.arkc 19'74/5, 3i0374.
CL:lrkc 1974/5, 374375.
Chwk,~ 19'74/5, 3~375. See also Hamcrton-Kcll)' 1973, 225230. Ar. I und erstand it.
he alsc1 fuses the.<~e two n'kltives in his discussion o f john I :51.
l015 Clarke 19'74/5, 37:)-375.
1016 O b..~r.idc jacob, see dlaptcr 3.2.5. Cf., Gcn 31: II where the angclllf God identifies
himself as the God of Bethel' .
1011
l012
1013
lOH
364
366
The texts in question may be divided into two groups. I have dlo
sen to focus primarily the first, namely those that explicitly mention
' the angel of the Lord': Gen 16:7-14; 21:17-20; 22:1-19; 24:7, 40; 31:10-13,
and 48:15-16. Since the angel of God who appears to Jacob in Gen 31:1013 iden tifies himself as the God of Bethel w ho spoke to him in Gen
28:10-22, the la tter pericope ha...r; a lso been t..1ke n into considera tion. l11e
same applies to Gen .35:1-l S... a text cle.-. rly connected to Jacob's drea rn at
Bethel in Genesis 2S and Ums also to Cen 31:10-13. O f these texts, only
Genesis 24 contains a re ference Loan a ngel in the singular \"-1ho seems to
be distinct from God. Due to its exceptional character, the pericopc has
been included for rea.sons of comparison. ls it treated differently from
the other pericopes by the in terpreters?
367
Secondly, sources that share the same rnotif(s), thcme(s), and/or literary structure as the biblical texts. By the use o f a biblical theme o r
motif familiar to t:he presumptive reader, the "author'' invites the au
dience to understand the story in the light o f an already weiJvknown
biblical text. This literary method has been classified as the use o f type*
scenes and can be exemplified by the book of Tobit, "'"here the role of
Raphael seems to have been modeled o n that of the angel mentioned in
Genesis 24, although the latter d oes not play such an active part in the
narrative as Raphael. T11c depiction of Raphael is also reminiscent of
that o f the angel o f the Lord ""'ho appears to Manoa.h and his wife in
judges l3. Another example is the annunciation to Mary. t:he literary
structure of w hich parallels the announcement of Ishmael's birth in
Genesis 16.
A third interpretative method can be described as explicit allus ions
or references to biblical persons, evenlc; or circumstances. \<Visdom
chapter 10, in w hich ' lady Wisdom' assumes the role played by 'the
angel of the Lord' in many Genesis and Exodus texts, and the allusion
to Genesis 28 in John 1:51 constitu te examples of this kind of biblical
interpretation.
As stated in chapter 1, I have focused on sources from roughly 200
B.C. E. to 650 C. E. and my ambition has been to investigate the material
ch ronologically. However, other issues sudl as gen re and the kind of
interpretative method(s) employed in the sources have also been taken
into consideration.
In addition to the differences in genre and interpretative methods,
various jewish contexts are also represented. For example, Genesis RniJ..
ba!J and Philo's Questions and Answers on Genesis can both be classified
as Bible commen taries, although in many ways the works are worlds
apart. Some similarities between Philo's interpretations and the Rabbin
ic material can be discerned, b ut in general Philo's philosophical and
allegorical method of interpretation is u nique in the studied material.
However, there are parallels between the Prayer of Joseph and Philo's
works as well as connections bet\ovecn Philo's 'Logos' and the depiction
of 'lady Wisdom' in Wisdom, a book that most probably also origi
nated in Alexandria.
Like Philo, Josephus wrote his work the Judetttl Atttiquines tor the
Creek speaking world, but otherwise it is very differe nt in character to
both Geues;s Rnbball and the Philonic corpus and in many ways consti
tutes a unique composition reflecting the personal outlook o f the au
thor. Both Philo and Josephus wrote in a Hellenis tic context but yet
used d ifferent terms w hen referring to angels. Philo borrowed the
terms 6afJ.IOVf~ ' demons' and Abym 'logoi'/'words' fro m the Greek
368
p hilosophers, w hile josephus called them iitl>cc<;/<J>a,~.:la)lata, 'visions/apparitions' or dyyeAm 'angels/ messengers' in the same way as
the LXX.
The Rabbinic material and many of the Pseudepigrapha, e.g., the
Palestinian Targums, Genesis Rabba/1, Jubilees, and the Ladder of Jacob,
appear to share interpretative traditions, probably because most of
these sources originated in a Semitic context. TI1e different ch a racteris
tics of the sources sta nd o u t ~1s being of g rea te r imJ."'Irtance than duonological as pects when analyzing the in te rpretations o f the relevant
pericopes. Thus, it is import..1nt to bear in mind the miscellaneous cha
ractcr of the sou rces in the d iscussion of the resultc; of the in vestigation.
Moreover, the (probably) earliest work a nalyzed in the thesis, the
book of Tobit, contains a fairly well developed a ngelology, i.e., a conception o f angels as individ uals, bearing personal names a nd distinct
from God. Th is perception of angels most certain ly originated during
the Second Temple era, the period in w hich o ur investigation takes its
starting point. Th us, this is the kind of angelology e ncountered in the
oth er post~bi blical sources.
As stated previously, the Sadd ucean view on angels as impersonal
exte nsions o f God appears to have been rather archaic, while the Pha ri
sees and o ther jewish groups generally embraced the more " in dividua
listie" conception. It should therefore come as no surprise that, fo r ex
ample, both the Rabbinic and Qurnranic material testify to thir; later
angelology. It is well known that the Sadducees grad ually lost their
infl uence after the fall o f the Second Temp le in 70 C.E. Thus, the cluonological .setting o f the various post~biblical sou rces has proven to be of
minor importance in the discernment o f common denominators be-.
tween them, i.e., patterns of in terpretation. Instead, a more importa nt
factor tum cd out to be the nnlureof111e biblicaflexls. There are clear simi
larities between, for exa mple, the treatment of the Aqedah in many of
our sources. Th us, the question whether the appearance of 'the angel of
the Lord' in the various biblical texts is perceivet.i diffe ren tly can be
ans\vered in the affi nnative.
However, there a re obviously chronologically based differences
when comparing the sources '\ovith the biblical texts . ln contrast to the
angel o f the lord in, e.g., Judges 13, the angel Ra phael in the book of
Tobit is apparently distinct from God. In this respect, the relationship
between the book o f Tobit a nd Judges 13 mirrors that of Genesis 16 and
Lu ke 1. ln the sarne way as Gabriel, Raphael introduces himself as an
angel who stands in the presence of God (cf., Tob 12:15 a nd Luke 1:19).
Th is is noteworthy, since according to jr~bilees 'the angels of the Pres
encc' a nd the a ngels of sanctification are the two highest o rders of an
369
370
HimseJf. For example, the Rabbis o f Genesis Rnbba!J emphasize that God
never appeared in person to a '"'oman, except to Sarah, and all the Tar~
gums interpret Gen 16:13 as a reference to the prayer}\,mrship of Hagar,
because it appeared impossible to the targumists that a woman and
maidservant should have given God a name/an epithet. Similar to the
Rabbis o f Genesis Rnbbnh, Philo oontra..'its Sarah and Hagar with each
other. God appeared in person to Sarah but not to Hagar. According to
JubUet'S, the angel "'"ho encoun tered Hagar in the desert w~1s "one of the
holy ones', i.e., an "ordinary" angel, distinct from both God and the
angelic narrator, the angel o f the Presence.
However, in the Pseudepigraphon's account of the Aqedah, it was
the angel of the Presence w ho called out to Abraham on the first occ..1
sion in order to prevent him from sacrificing his son, while the second
call o f the biblical 'angel of the Lord' in Gen 22:1518 is ascribed to God
Himself. jubilees is the only source that iden tifies the a ngel o f U1e lord
in Genesis 22 as a specific angel. Both josephus and Philo mention the
angel in their renderings of Genesis 16 b ut in their interpretations of
Genesis 22 the angel is absent~ the only heavenly actor being God.
ln the same way as Philo and Josephus, the Mid rash Pirqe de Rabbi
Eliezer neglects mentioning the angel and states instead that Isaac was
saved by a heavenly voice, i.e./ Cod calling to Abraham from above.
T his recalls the 'hypostasised ' voice addressing Jacob in the Ladder of
Jacob.2 We saw in section 2.1.3 that the bath qol in Rabbinic sources is
often used as an equivalent to the Holy Spirit. This pattern reetus in the
two discussed Piyulim, thus it is God Himself w ho saves Isaac. Pirqe de
Rabbi Eliezer is the only sou rce that omits the angel in its rendering of
both Genesis 21 and 22. JubUees and Pirqe de Rabb; Eliezer only comment
on Gen 21:1720, possibly bec.1use the " auU1ors" considered U1e narra
tivcs abo ut Hagar's meeting with the angel in Genesis 16 and 21 as two
versions o f the same story. }ubi/toes is the o nly Pseudepigraphon that
contains a version of Hagar's encounter with the angel.
TI1e omission of the angel in many of the discussed elaborations of
the Aqedah may be explained by the fact that the interpreters u nders
t001.i the narrative to mean that God spoke through the angel. i.e., the
messenger per se is not important and thus not mentioned. In contrast
to the angel in the Hagar pericopes, the angel in the Aqedah is not a
main character in the narrative, and the focus o f the interpretations is
on .:~braham and Isaac. The transfer of the saving o f Ts.a.ac need not
necessarily imply that early jewish interpreters identified the angel of
371
372
ln Pir~ df Rabbi E.lieur 37, lhe angel's name is Israel. He is lhus said h) gl\'e hi.c; m'ln
name lo Jacob, !>ee ch.apler 4.5.
373
4
5
Cf., one of the suggested interpretations of Genesis 32 il\ Gtt~esi.;: Rabb!lll, in which
JacOO's opponent is identified a.<~ Esau'Sc guardian angel. i.e., the angelic pa t1'0n of
Rome, .!lee chapte 1.5.
374
375
376
John, the pre incamate Christ is called the 'logos' and described in
terms that are reminiscent o f Philo's Logos.--concept. '0.'e have seen in
chap te r 4.6 that some scholars interpret the gospe l in the light o f the
'angel o f the Lord-traditions' a nd identify Jes us in John 1:5 1 as corres
ponding to God appearing to Jaoob at Bethel. As James Dunn states.., it
is, however, true that no NT author perceived Ch rist as an angel, that
is, assuming that we define angel' according to the angelology of
Second Temple Judaism, i.e. angels s uch as Raphael in the boQk of To
bit and Gabriel in Luke 1. As shown, in many \"-'ays Luke p resents Ch r
ist after his resurrection in angelic terms (chapter 24) but by depicting
him eating in the presence of the disciples it is eviden t that l uke
wished to counteract the assump tion that the risen Christ is to be un
derstood as an angel.
In this context, it is worth noting that many scholars point o ut that
the Fourth Evangelist interpreted the name 'Israel' as rne~ming 'the o ne
w ho sees God ' and that this fact played a significant role in his w riting
of the gospel. Sirnilar to Philo, the Evangelist states that no one has ever
really seen God, except " the o ne who is from God", i.e., Jesus (John
6:46, cf., 1 :18) and in Philos te aching it is the 'Logos' w ho truly is " he
that sees, that is Israel" (On lite Confusion of Tongues 146). The s.a.me
interpretation o f the name recurs in the Prayer of Joseph, in w hich Ja
cob/Israel is depicted as a heavenly being.. u nderstood by some scholars
as the palTiard1 Jacob's celestial coun terpart and even as the very em
bodiment of the Glory of God. For example, jar! Fos.o;um ad vocates this
interpretation and co nnect~ the "angel" Israel in the Prayer of Joseplt
with John 1:51 and the jewish trad ition concerning jacob's heavenly
portrait/counterpart, u nderstanding 'on it:'/ 'on him' in Gen 28:12 as
referring to a person, not the ladder. According to Fossum, jesus has
taken the place of Jacob as the locus of the ascend ing and descending
angels' attention in John 1:51.
The identifica tion o f the ange l w ho jacob refers to in Gen 48: 16 is
ambivalent in o ur sources. jubilees seems to equate him \vith God bu t in
Get1esis Rabbah it is stated that the verse says that redemption comes
through an angel but sustenance comes through God. On the other
377
hand, the tvfidrash connects the verse with the revelations of the angel
of the lord to Joshua and Gideon;0 in the latter case, at least, it is again
u nclear whether it is an angel or God Hirnself \"-1ho appears. In both
Ot~qelos and Neofili, the angel in Gen 48:16 is und erstood as an epithet
referring to God, while Pseudo~Jountlwn d istinguishes between God and
His angel.
In commenting on Gen 48:15-16, Philo also makes a distinction between the roles of God and the angels in relation to humankind. In this
context, Philo does not seem to discuss the 'd ivine Logos' but the role
of "ord inary" angels, d istinct from God, sec, e.g., Allegoricallnlerpreta
lion 3.177-178 and On tile Confnsion of Tongues 180182.
In general, the angel of the Lord is connected to the red eeming
agency of God in o ur sources. 'T11e Rabbis point out Lhat it is
God/Eiohim who su bjects Abraham to,, trial, but it is the angel of the
Lord/YH\'VH w ho rescues him. The d ivine name YH\VH is connected
to the d ivine attribute of mercy, while Elohim represents God's
attribute of justice. Philo refers to the same two bas ic qualitie-$ o f God's
personality, but connects them with the opposite d ivine names. Ac.
cording to Maren Niehoff, lhe crying angels in t-he interpretations of the
Aqedah represent God's merciful side.
Finally, the conclusion must be drawn that there is no u nambi
guous or homogeneous interpretation o f ' the angel of the Lord ' and his
iden tity in our sources. He is sometimes depicted as a d ivine emis.-c;ary
separate from God, while in other cases he appears to be seen as a ma
nifes tation or a hypostasis of Cod Himself. The ambivalence in the rela..
tionship between God and His angel remains in many of the interpreta
tions of the texts, and in relation to "ordinary" angels ' the angel of the
Lord' is generally awarded a special, high status.
Bibliography
(Abbreviations are from the Ust in Aucllor Bible Dicliounry (ABO), vol. 1,
1992. Not included abbreviation: DOD Dictionary of Demons am/ Dei
tit~ in Hte Bible.)
380
Bibliography
Targums
11u: AnllmJic Bible. Tire: Tnrgums. Project Direct<'>r M. McNamara. Eds . K.
381
Qumran Texts
~W of Enoch. Aramaic Fm,~mm ts from Qwrmm Owe 4. (Tran~. and Ed s. J. T.
Milik with the Ct)Uaboratiun of M. Black). Oxford, 1976
17u: Complete Dmcl Sea Scrolls in EngUslr. ( Eng. tran.-;. C. Vermef.;). londun. New
York, l!t al., 1997
Qumrfln Cat't' 4. Vlll. PflmbiMiml Tr.xls, Part 1. OJD XJH. {Eds. H. Attridge et al.).
Oxford, 1994
Transcrip tion and Eng. tran~. of 4Q225 by F. Ga rda Ma rtine-.~:, 46-47, in: "The
Sacrifice of Isaac in 4Q225"', 44-57 in: Thr. Sacrifict of l$1-flfC. 77tc AqMuh (Genesis 22) (llltl its lnlr.rp,.dntic)tiS. (Ed-;. E. Noort and E. Tigchelaar). Leiden et al.,
17u:
2002
Pseudepigrapha
The Ape)trypJml Old Tes fmur.ut. (Including }11bikes: tht! tran slation of R. H. C har1e~ re\i~d
Rabbini~1
11u.: Ba!Jylonifm Tfllmud. T ran.o;latt>d into English . VuJs. 1-35. (Ed. I. Epstein). Lon don, 1935-1948
77te Croum Hagg(l(lah. Art r-.tan aboem ent and Pro duc tion: R. Rausnit-L. English
text ed iting: Y. Fac-hl~r . (Facsimile edition). Jerusalem, 1995
Gene$iS RfdJbflh. 71tc }utltlic Gmmu:t1Mry to llu: Btmk of Cene.:."is. A New Ame:r;am
Tnmslfllitm. Vol. 2. ( Ed. and Eng. trans. J. Neusne r). Atlanta, 1985
fcwisll Palestiuim1 Aramaic Poet,.y fmm Late Auliquily. (Eds. M. Sokoloff and
j . Yahalom). Jerusalem, 1999
382
Bibliography
Lrurreulfllitms R(lblmlt. Art AntJiylit(J/ Translatitm by fatcW Ntu~ner. BJS, 193. Atlanta.
1989
11u: Legends (if life Jtu:;. (Ed. L Ginzberg), Vt)1. I. BiMc TimL"S fmd CJuirruters from
the Crtnticm to Jrin)b. PhiJadeJphia, '1 942
Mekilta ile-Rrtbbi lslmmt:l. vol. '1-2. (Ed. and Eng. tran.~. J. Z. Lauterbach). Phila
delphia, 196'1
Midrn~il RnblmJr. (Ed s. H. Fn.-edman and t--1. Simon). London. 1939:
-Vol. 1. C'~ucsis. Eng. trans. H. Fr(.>edman. Lundlm, 1939
-Vol. 2. Gem'Sbt. Eng. tran..;. H. Freedman. London,. '1939
-Vol. 3. ExtJdus. Eng . trans. 5. tv1.l.ehrman. London, 1939
-Vol. 4. Li"VilicllS. Eng. trans. chapter 1-19, J. lsraelstam, trans. chapters 20-37. j .
J. Slotki. London, '1939
-Vol. 5. Nmubers. Eng. trans. J. J. Slotk i. l ond on, 1939
-Vol. 6. NmuberS. Eng. trans. J. J. SJotk i. l ondon. 1939
-Vol.?. Dt:ufcnmmuy ami LLrmcntations. Eng. trans. Deuteronumy, J. Rabbinowitz.
Tr-ans. Lamentatkms, A. Cohen. lond on, 1939
The Mi$/uurh. A Nt!VJ Tnmslntirm. (Ed . and Eng . trans. J. Neusnv.r). New Ha\'en
and U.mdon, 198S
The Pcn;.;uitr BfH1k of Nebn1u VtJSt.". (Ed ., introduction and Eng. trans. T. Carmi).
J-larm<md swurth, 1981
Ptsikla RaMmli. Disrou/'SI!'S fiJr Fe(lSls, Frrsts flml SptXi(l/ Snblmths. (Ed. and Eng.
trans. W. G. Braud e), Vol$. 1-2" Yale Judaic S~ries. vt)l. 18. New Haven and
London, 1968
Ptsikla tit Rab Kaluuw. R. K"}uuw's Omrpilnfi(m of Disc.mtrfi.t'S fi)r Sabbaths mul Fo;trll
ilnys. (Ed .;. and Eng. trans. \>V. C . Br-aude and I. J. Kapstein). Philad elphia,
2002
Pirk de RrJbbi Elieztr. T ranslated and Annotated with Introduction and ln dice.<>
by G. Fried land er. l ond on, 1916
Rashi. Tire Torah: with Rnshis Comment"ry. Trtmslated, Amu>tlffl'ti, ami Elucidated:
Ccuesis/n'~X~ i:>O (Eds. and tran~. I. Z. Herc:reg et al.). New York, 1995
Songs of Song$ RtrbfmiL An Analytical Tran.o;lation by J. Neus ner. 2 vc:.ts. BjS, 197
and 198. Atlanta, '1989
Midms./1 Tnnlum111: (5. Buber recension), translated into Eng!Lo;h with in troducti
on. ind ices, an d b rief n otes by J. T. TuwnS(>nd. Hoh<lken, 1989
71u: Ttrlmud (If the Uuul of lsnrel. A Prelimin ary Translation and E.xplanatit,m, vol.
16. RfJ$/r N(lS}uum. Eng . trans. E. A. Goldman. Chicago and London, 1988
Seoondary Lilerature
3&1
Philu, 10 vols. With an English trans lation by F. J-1. Colo;.on an d G. J-1. \Vhitaker
LCL. Cambrid ge MA, London, 1927-1962
Philo, Sup plemt1nt t an d 2. Qucsticms lfnd Answcrs lm Cne-sis/E:r()([us. Eng. trans.
R. Marcus. LCL. Cambrid ge MA, Lo ndon,. '1953
11u. Works cif Philo. Com}Jiefc rmd Un(lbridgcd itt One Volume. New Updated Ed itio n. Eng. trans . C. 0 . Yt)ngt1, Peabody, MA. 1993
Secondary Literature
Glossaries and Concordances
Danker, F. \IV.. 2000. A Grt:i:k-[uglish Ll':rictm of tile Nmv Te;tmm~nt flml other Ettrly
CJIJislirm likrnturt. Third editit)n . Revised and ed ited by F. \"/ . Danker based on W. Bauer's GriechisdHteutche-s W()rterbuch zu den Sch riften dt1S
Ncu en T(>Stament.; und d er frii.christlichen literatur, sixth ed ition, ed. K..
Jo\land an d B. Aland with V. Reichman an d o n previous Eng lish cd ition.'i-by
W. F. Arndt, F. W. Ginb"Tich, and F. W. Danker. Chicago an d London
Hatch? E.. and Redpath.. H. A 1998.. A Contortlmtce to the St.phurgint. Ami the
Other Gre~k Versions (if the Old Tr."fi.lnment (lnclutling tile Apocry}Jimf &'H'Iks.) $(e.
cond ed ition . Gran d Rapidr.;
jas:tnn v, M . '1971.. Dictionary of the Twgumim Talmud &llli, Yemsbnlmi ami
lvliilmsllit Lifemture: o~7!:) i !l:O. New York (rep rint)
Koehler, L and Baumgartner, W. 2001. Lexictm iu \fdt.7is Testrunt"nfi Libros. Stu
d y Ed ition. Leidl!n et al.
Liddell, H.. C. and Scott, R. 1968. Greck-Englislt L~xiclm. Revised and Augm(~fed
Throughl)Ut by Sir J-1. 5 . Jones. With a Supplement. Oxfo rd
Reng.'itorf, K. H. 198.:3. A compldt Gmcordmtce f(1 Fltroius Josephus? vol. 4. l eid en
384
Bibliography
A l tschu l ~ r
0 . 2005.
2. jerusalem
Charlesworth, J. H. 1992. " Jat.'ob, ladder of'", 609 in: ABD vul. 3. (Ed. D. N.
Freedman). New Yurk, London, To ront<)
Cullins, J. J. 1995. "Gabriel
640~642 in: DDD (E'l~. K. van der Torn. B.
&~eking and P. W. van der HorSt). Leiden et al.
'"',:U",
Fabry, H.-J., Freedman. D. N. and Willoughby, B, R. 1997. ''1:-t'D nml'lfk",.. 308325 in: TOOT v()l. 8. ( Eds. G. J. Butterweck. J-1. Ringg-ren, and JH. Fabry).
Grand Rapids
Feld m an. L. H. 1992. " )oSphus", 981-998 in: ADD \'OJ. 3. (Ed. D. N. Fre<!dman).
New York, Lundc)n? To ronto
Fl us..~ r, D. 1971. "Ma~tema"? 1119-1120 in: E.ncfml vol. U . (Eds. C. Roth, G.
Wiguder, et al.). Jerusalem
C rt).ssfeld? 8. 1971. "Tran.o;l<ltiOnS? Ancient Version~". 841851 in: Enc }l1d, vol. 4.
(Eds. C. Roth, C. Wigud er, et al.). jerusalem
Cuiley, R. E. 2004. TI;t E.ntydopetlia of Anscls. Sectmd Edition. New Yurk
Gutmann,. Y. / EdituriaJ Staff. 1971 "'Angels an d Ange1olugy". 956966 in: Encfml,
vol. 2 (Eds. C. Roth, C. Wigod er, et at.). Je rusalem
van Henten, j . W. l995a. "Angel 11 'iyyt,\u:;". 90-96 in: ODD {Eds. K van d er
Torn? B. Seeking and P. W. van d er Horst). Leid en et a1.
- 1995b. "Archangel 6:Qx6yytAo.;", 150-153 in: DOD (Eds. K. van d er To rn, B.
&eking and P. \'V. van der HurSt). Leiden et al.
- l995c. " Mastemah ":'ll20trr7J", 1033-l 035, in: DDD ( Eds. K. van der Torn, B.
&eking an d P. \IV. van d er Hurst). Lei d en et a1.
Herr, M . D. 1971 . "Midmsh", lSlYJ-1514 in: Encfud, vol. 11 . (Eds. C. R<,th? G.
Wigl,d er, et al.). Jerusalem
Herrmann, W. 1995. "EI7x", 522-533ln: ODD (Ed::>. K. van der Torn,. B. Bc..ocking
and P. W. van der Hor~t). Leiden et al.
Hutter. M. 1995. "A.smodeus .~<r~ c>&tttJ.;". 197-200 in: DDD (Eds. K. van d er
Tum, B. Seeking and P. W. van d er Horst). Leiden et a1.
jac()bs, L 1971. "Akedah", 480-484 in: Errc}ud, vol. 1. (Eck C. Rt, th, G. Wigoder,
Seoondary Lilerature
38S
LewLo;, A. L '1971. "Shula r", H 421448 in: Er~t:/utl. \'ul. 14. ( Ed.;. C. Roth. C.
W ig ode r, et aJ.). Je ru salem
Lewis, J. L. a nd Oliver, E. D. (E.d. Sifmng, K. 5), 1996. Angel$ A to Z. New Yo rk
Mach, M. 1995. .,Ra p hael 'X~ ,.., 1299-'1300 in : ODD (Eds. K. van der Tom1 B.
6~...-cki ng and P. W. van d e r Ho rs-t}. Leid en et al.
Marmorstein, A. /Ed itorial Staff '1971 . ''Fa llen An gels"I"Angels in the Talmud
an d Mid rash" , 966971 in : "Angels a nd Angelo lugy"', Encfml vol. 2. (Eds. C.
Ruth, G. Wigud e r, et a!.). Jl~rusalem
Mason, S. 2000b. " Joseph us and j udaism" 546563 in : Th~ Errcyclopedia tif
fmlaism, vol. 2. (Eds. j . Neusner, A Avt:r)Peck a n d W. Sc:Mt-Grt-(m ). Lei
den ~t a!.
Meier. S. A. 'J995a. "Angel I 1~7;:.", 8190 in : DDD (Ed~. K. van der Tom, B.
Bc.-cking and P. W. va n d e r Horst). Leid en et al.
- 1995b. "Angel uf Yah\~eh :11:1" 1~''-'", 96-108 ln: ODD (Ed s. K. va n d e r Turn,. B.
Bc.>Cking and P. W. va n d e r Htm;;t). l eid en et al.
Met-.t:ger, B. M . 1962. "Versions, Ancient, I. Ara m aic Tafb'UtnS t)f the OT"", 749150 in : Tile lnkrprclcrs Dhfjonary (Jj the Bible. Au lllu$lmlt'd Encyclopt.Yiia, V(ll.
4. New Yo rk, Nashville
Mu llen, E. T. 1995. "Go'el ' Xl", 706-708 in: DOD. (Eels. K. van der Tom, B.
Bc..ocking and P. \IV. van d e r Ho rSt). Leid en et al.
Mu rp hy, R. E. "Wisdom in th ~ OT"', 920-931 in: ABD vol. 6 (Ed. D. N.
Freedma n). New York, Lon don,. Torontu
Newsom, C. A. 1992. "AngeJ$",. 2482S:l in: ABD vot. 1. (Ed . D. N. Fm~d man).
New York, London. T urontu
N iehr, J-1. 1995. "Cud of Heaven O'n!V':i ":1' :\", 702-705 in: ODD. ( E,to;. K. van d e r
T orn, B. Seeking a nd P. W. van der Horst). Leid en e t al.
Noll, S. F. 1997. g 4855 "1K;r.." 941943 in : New fr11ermrticmal OjcJimmry of Old
T.sttmumf 11t~J!Ogytmtf Exegesis, vol. 2. (Ed . W. A, VanGem e nm ). Carlbole
Porton, G. 1992a. "Mid ra~h", 818822 in: ABO vo l. 4 . (Ed. D. N. Freedman).
New York, Londlm, Toron to
von Rad, G. 1964. B. "1K;b in the OT", 76-SO in: ' 'dyy~:,\o.;", TDNT vo l. 1. C rand
Rapids
Scha1it, A. 197'1. ~jo~ phus Flavius",. 25 '1-263 in: nc}ud, vo l. 10. (Ed s. C. Roth,
G. Wigoder, et at), Jen1Salem
Scholt~ m. G. 1971. "Samael"', 719722 in: Encftul vo l. 14. (Eds. C. Ro th, G.
W ig ud e r, et aJ.). Je ru salem
- 1971b. "Raphael", 15491550 in: Encfud, \'(lL 13. (Eds. C. Roth, G. Wig:t.>der, et
al.). Je rusalem
S<~ow, C L. 1995. ''FaceO'l!:", 601-613 in: ODD (Ed s. K. van dcrTo m , B. Seeking
an d P. W. van d er Hl)rSt). Lciden e t al.
T ho m pson, H 0 . 1992. "Du ra Eu rupu:t'. 241 243 in: ABD vol. t. (Ed. D. N.
Freedma n). New York, Lon don e t at
386
Bibliography
To bin, T. li. 1992. " LugusN, 348356 in: AGO v<ll. 4. (Ed. 0. N.
F r~edman).
New
van der Toom, K. 1995. " Yahweh :7'!:1.,..... 1?11'1730 in: DDD (E.ds. K. van der
Tt)m, B. Seeking and P. W. van der I forSt). leiden et a1.
WalterS, S. D. 1992.. "Jacob Narrative", 599608 in: ABO \'ol. 3. (Ed. 0 . N.
Freedman). New York, London, Tvronto
WinSt<)n, D. 1992. "Solomon, Wisdom (lf"', 120~127 in: ABD vol. 6 (Ed. D. N.
Freedman). New York, lond<m, To ronto
- 2005. ''Philo judaeul'i", 7105-7108 in: Enc&l. Sectmd Edition. ( Ed. L. Jones).
Detroit, New York. et a l.
General Literature
Abe)S<)n, J. 1912... T11t' lmmnm:nte of Cri'Jtl in Rallbi11iCtJI Litemtun:. london
Ackerman, H. C. 1921. "The Principle uf Differentiation between 'the Wurd uf
the L-t)rd' and 'The Angel of the Lord' ", 145-'149 in: Th~ American j(mrrwl of
Semitic Languages wul Lit~raturcs, vo1. 37.
Adania, B. 2002. Rum i Tdlmml. SkeUefte.l
-2004, !\>lidmsh Bi/J~lu mdlan rmkrrw. Skelleftefl
Alexander, P. S. l 9SS. ,.,.he Targumim and the Rabbinic Rul~ fnr the Delivery
of the Targum", 14-28 in: Cougress Volum~: Snlturuwcn '198.3: [.ftt~tuflr Cougrcss
of the lntenmtiont~l Orgtmizlftion jt1r the Shuly of tlr~ Old TesUlmeul. Leiden
- l 988. " jewish Aramaic Translations of the Heb rew Scriptures", 2'17-254 in:
CRINT. Se,tiou tui'I'J, lhe Likmhm~ cif fire jewish Pt'f.)p/e in flit PrJ'icul of tile Se
corul Ttmpk tmd Tt~lmud, ptJrf tme, Mikm. Tt.-xt. lrmrsltJtitm. rea1ling llmllnlr.r
prelation in Ancitut JudtJiSm tmd Ettrly Clm'stitmity. ( Eds. M. J Mulder, and H.
Sys.ling). Philadelphia
Alter, R. 1981. Tl1e Art of BiiJliall Nnrmlire. New York
-1996. Cettt"Sis. Trtmslatiott ami Commentary. Nt!w York, London
Amaru B. J-1. l 9SS. "Portraits ()f Biblical Women in jus.ephus' Antiquitk'$", l43170 in: IJS vol. 39
Andersen, F. J. and Fret?dman, D. N . l 9SO. HosetJ. A New Trtmslt'lliml with lntro~
ductiou tmd Commt:nftrry. AB, vol. 24. New Y()rk
Anderson, A. A. 1972. Tire BookofPstJbmi, vol. 2; Psalms73-150. NCB.l(mdon
Ashton, j . '199'1. Uutkrstnmling fit~ Fourth Co:;pd. Oxford
- 1994. Shulyiu.'( john. Appn'XJclta; to lhe Fourth Gospel. Oxford
Attridge. H. W. l 976. T11e Juterprcftltimr of Biblital History iu !he Anliquitlllt':S
fmllrictlt of Flavius /c).!>tplws. HDR.. \'t)l. 7. Missoula
- L984. Jusephus and H is Works, 185232 in: CRJNT. Section two, tile Litemturc of
the Jewish P~:ople iu tht Periotl of tl1e Sct oml Temple tuul Ttflmud, part htU, jcwish
Writings of the Socoud T.:mple period. Apocryplw, Pseudtpigmplm, Qunmm
Scdtrrimt Writings, Pltilo, Jt~lws. (Ed. M. Stone). Philadelphia
Aus1oos, J-1. 2008. " The Angel o f YH\<\'H' in Exod. xxiii 20-23 and Judg. ii 1-5. A
Clue to the' Deut~ mn ()m(ist)ic' Puzzle'?-"1 112 in: t.r'f. vol. 58
Seoondary Lilerature
387
388
Bibliography
d ~.tn Brink, E. 2002. "Ab raham's Sacrifice in Early j(!wish and Earl)' Christian Art", 140-151 in: The Sacrifice of JsaflC:. '1JJe Aqednh (G<nesis 22) ami its
lnUrprefttfitms. (Eds. E. Noort and E. Tigchelaai). Leiden
Brown, R E.1966. Tlt~C&Spi'l According to fe>lm (i-xii). AB, vo1. 29. New York
- 1999. The Birth 'if flu: McssirJit: " Commentary ott flit lnfim~J Ntrrmlhot...; in Mfllflu'lv
and Luk~. Reprint ufSecund edition. New York
Bu l bnann~ R. 1971. 1J1e Cc.'>]J.tl ofJo!m. Jo\ Cl)mmentary. Oxford
- 1984. Nctv Teslameultmd Mythology rmd ofh('r Dm;ic Writings. Philad elphia
Burney, C. F. '1922. The Anwwic Origin of the F()urlh Gospel. Oxford
van
Cheste r? A. 1986. Divine Rrodntitm ami Divine Tille~ in tJu: Pcnltrfcudud T(lrgumim.
Texte und Studien zum anti ken Jud t.."ntum, '14. TUbingen
Clarke, E. G. 1973. Tlu: 1>\'iMmu ofSolomtm. Cambridge
- l974n5. "Jacob',; Dream a t Bethel as Interpreted in theTargums and the New
Testament"', 367-377 in: SR. vol. 4
Claus::;en, C. 2003. "Met!ting. Community, Synagog u e-Different frameworks of
Ancient Jewish Cungregatic.ms in the Diaspora", l44-167 in: 17u J\n6tm l
Synag~)g1w Frmn its Origins until 200 C.. ( Ed s. B. O lss<>n, and ?\1.
~tterhulm), CunBNT, vo l. 39. Stockholm
Cuh en, N. G. 1995. Philo }ud(tt!us. His Uuit~rsc ~)f Di$COIIrS.t. Beitdige zur Erfo rsch ung d e::; Altc.~n Testament.'> und des An tiken judentums. Band 24. Frankfu rt am Main et <ll.
Cohen, S. J. D. 1992. 'The Place llf the Rabbi in jewish Society t)f the Second
Century", 157-'173 in: Tile Citlilet! itt LiJI~ Antiquity. (Ed. L I. Le\ine). New
Yo rk and jerusalem
Coleridge, M. 1993. Tile Birth of the Luktm Ntrrrali~. N(trrafivt U..i Cltristology iu
I.uke 1-2. jSNTSup, 88. Sheffield
Cun rad E. W. 1985. "Annunciation tlf Birth and the Birth u f the Messiah", (>56663 in: CBQ, vul. 47
Cull mann, 0 . l Cfl6. T1u Jofumuint! Cirdc. lis pli1 u i11 /uditism, amoug the disciples of
{esus mill in ctrrly Chrisli(mity. A study iu lire origin of the Gospel of ]olm. l ondl)n
Seoondary Lilerature
389
Dill()n, j. 198.1. "Philo's Doctrine o f Angels", 197216 in: Tn:o Trtnties- of Philo of
Alc.wmdria. A Cvmmtuftrr.v mt De Gigrmtibus mul Qtu'N'l Deus Sit lmmutfliJilis.
By 0 . \<Vin.'>ton and J. Dillon. BJS, 25. Chico
Dimant, D. 1988. "Use and Jn terprt:!tation of Mikra in th~ Apocrypha and
Pseud epigrapha", 379419 in: CRJNT. S(!clion two, fit(! Littmture~ of the /tUiisll
Poople in lhe Period of lite Ser:oml Ttrmple ami TtJimwl. }Hirf Ott!!, Mikra. Text.
lr;msltllimt, rt.ttdittg and lnltrprd tllion in Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity. (&;. M. J Muld er and H. Sysling). Philadelphia
- 1991. " literary Typologies an d Biblical Jntt:!rp retatiun in the J-lellenis tk
Ru man Period", 73--$0 in: fetm'!>h Civiliz.fltion in the lldleuistic-Romml Pcriml.
(Ed . 5. T"lmon). Sheffield
Dc:>d d, C. H. 1953. 17te Interprdatiou of lltt Fdurlll Gospd, Cambridge
Dunn.. J. 1989. CftristOI(Jgy itt lftr. Mtfking. A Nt:w Te.stwm':u f lnquin; iuto the Origins
tif lite Om.trine uf titer lnwnmlitm. $(..>(."t)nd Editi()n. Grand Rapids
Dupont-So mmer, A. 1968 "L'E.~senistnt:! a Ia lumiere dL.>S manuscrip tf.; de Ia mer
morte angetogie et dt!munolo&.;e, 1e line d e Tobie", 41 1-426 in: Anuuain: du
Cvli~J:e dt Fnmce. Paris
Ego. B. '7he Figure of the Anb"et Raphael According to his Farewell Addrt>S.'l in
Tob 12:620", 239.253 in: DtlltcriJcmumical ami Cognil fe Lilt!rafure, YetJrbcJOk
2007. A11gels. The Concept of 0 .-lcstial Bt!ing:;- Origius, Devdopmenl am/ Rtccp
litm. (Eds. F. V. Reiterer et al.). &rlin and New Y<>rk
Evan!>, C. A. 1993. Wortl (md Clor.v. On the Exegdical (uul171e~)/OgittJI BtJckgrdwul df
folm's Prolo,~ue. Sheffield
van den Eynde S. 2005. ''One journey and O ne journey Makes Three: The lm
pact t)f the ReaderS' Knowled ge in the Book of Tobit.., 273-280 in: ZAW.
v<)l. n7
Eyn ikel, E. "The Angc.-1 in Sam$<)n's Birth Narrative- Jud g 13..-. 109123 in:
Deuterocmwllicdl wul G)i;JUtfe Lif'rfllurc, Yearbook 2007. Augds. Tl1t CottCt'JH bf
Celt"Sfial !kings- Origius, Diz;eMpmcnt mul Rm~ptic>tt. (Eds. F. V. Reiterer et
al.). Berlin and New York
Falk, D. K. 2003. "Qumran and tht:! Synagogue Liturgy", 404-434 in: The Anticttl
Syua>,>cJgue From if$ Origin$ until 200 C. . (Ed::>. B. Olsson and M.
Zetterht)Jm). C<mBNT Vt')l. 39. Stockh()Jm
Feldman, l. J-1. 1984. JO$i'PllllS wul M c'lllern SdJ(iltJrsltip (1937-'1980). Berlin, New
York
- 1986. Josephus. A S li}Jplcm~nflfry Bibliogmplty. Net"' Yurk
- 1987. /oseplms. Jud~tism mu/ Chri$ti11nity. (Eds. l. H. Feldman and C. Hata).
Le-id en
- 19$8. JO$tplws, tile Bible mul Nistmy. (&b. l. H. Feld man and G. Hata). Detroit
- '1998. Jo-sepltllS's lnltrrprelfitm of tlu: Bible. Berkeley, los Ange1E>..s and london
- 2006. Judaism wul 1/dlenism Rectmsitle-red. Supplements tu the journal fo r the
Stu dy o f Ju d aism. (Eds. J. Collins and F. C . Martinez). Leiden, Boston
Finkel stein, L. 1929. '7he Phariset~s: Their Origin and their Philo:=.t:)phy", 185
261 in: NTR vol. 22. Reprinted in Origins of Jutlt~ism, vol. 2. part 1, Tilt'
Pluuisee; wul Otht!r Sts. (Ed. j . New,"ner, 1990). Nt:!w York and London
Fishbane, tvl. 2003. Bibliml Myth wul RtJbbinic M.ytlmwking. Oxford
390
Bibliography
Fische r, A. 20lYJ. "Moses a n d the Exc:>duSAngel", 79-93 in: DeuteltJCfliUill icol ami
Cog_mJie Lilt7tllure, Yet1rbtxlk 2007. Angds. Titt' Omci.'pl of C~I-Mial Bd11gs -
Seoondary Lilerature
391
/JS,
V<)l. 56
392
Bibliography
Isaacs, R. H. 1998. Ascending facob',; Uultlt:r. Jc:wislt Vitws t~( Augds, Dcmtms, ami
Seoondary Lilerature
393
394
Bibliography
Murphy,. R. E. 1989. " Genesis" (comment ~)n Cen 1:125:18 by R. j . Clifford and
comment o n C.e n 2 5:l9-50:26 by R. E. rvturphy), 28-43 in: NJBC (Ed!i. R. E.
Bn)wn, j . A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy et al.). Lond t)n, New Yo rk
- 1996. '17u: Tree 1)/ Lifo. Au ExpitmJtion bf Bihliall Wisdom Utr:rflture. Second Editi
on. Grand Rapid!i, Camb ridge
Neusne r, j . 1987. What is Midmsil? Philadelphia
Newman, C., Davila, J. R. and Lewis. G. 5. ( Ed<;.) 1999. The Jtui.sh R(JOI!< of
ChriShJiogiall McmtJllu:i$m. Ptrptrs f rom Ott St. Autlrt:1vs Ctmfrnncc (m the Historic(d Origins of th~ \'V(}rs.l!i;, (if ]C'Su.S. Supple ment:; to the Journal fur the Stu dy
o f Judaism, vol. 6.1. leiden
Neyruy, H J. 19S2.. 'The jaa)b AlltLSiuns in jt)hn t:St", 586-605 in : CBQ. vo l. 44
Nkkelsburg . G. W. E. 1984. ''T'he Bible Re w ritten and Expanded"? 89-156 in:
CRINT. Sectitm two, lht Lit~ratu" of tile }tu.1iSI1 Pt't.)p/e in the Pcri01l of tit!! St
tcmd TcmJJ!e ami Tttlmutl, part fli(J, }t.wisll Writings of lhe Sl'COJUI Ttmpl~ Period.
Apncrypfur, P:;cutlt.pigmplta, Qumnm S~'tfttritm WritinJ~s. P!Jila, /O$t'JIIms. ( Ed .
~1. St<m e). Ph iladelph ia
1996. "The Search f(lr Tobit's Mixed Ancestry. A Histtrica) and
Hermeneutical Od ys.o;ey", 339-349 in: Rtt.Q, vol. '1 7
Niehoff, tvl. '1 995. "Return u f Myth in Ce nes-L<> Rabbah <)n the Akeda" , 69-78 in:
/JS, \' ( )1. 46. Oxford
- 1996. "Two Example.-> of ju...;:eph us' Narrative Tech nique in His ' Rewritten
Bible", 3 1-45 in: /Sf, vol. 27
Noll and j . 1989. Luke 1-9:20. \VBC, vol. 35A. Dalla$
No rth, W. E. S. 2004. "Muno theism and the Gospel of John: jesus, Moses and
the Law," 155-166 in: El1rly .Jt'1vish mul CJm'Min11 lv!ouotlu!ism. (Eds. L
Stucke nbn1ck and W . North). Lo ndon.. New Yurk
Nowelt I. 1989. ''To bit". 568-571 in: NJBC (Eds. R. E. Brown, j . A. Fitunyer and
R. E. Murphy e t al.). Lon don, New York
- 2005. ''The Book uf Tob it: An Ancestral Stury". 3- 13 in: lnterlb:lunl Studies in
fkn Sira muf Tobit. 5Sir.VS in 1lmtDr tif A. Di Ldta, 0. F. M. (Ed .s. J. Corlt!y and
V. Skemp). C BQMS, \'OI. 38. Wa.-;hingt<'m DC
- 2007. "The 'Work' uf the Archa ngel Raphael". 227-238 in: !Xuteroouwnicltl ami
O)gu(lf~ Litcrn!ure, Ye(uhook 2007. Angtls. T11e Concept of Cdeslhll B~ings Origins, D.tdopm!!nl ami R((<eptiou. (Eds. F. V. Rei t~ re r et al.). Berlin and
New York
N. 1929. Tfrt Fourth Gospel. lnhrpreled in Its Rdlftitms to
CtmtemporttrwlmS Religious Currents i11 Palestine ltml the I lt'!lleniMic-Ori(:tlflfl
Odebe rg.
Seoondary Lilerature
395
Orlov, A. 2004. "The Fare a:; the Heavenly Counte r part of th~ Visionary in the
Slavonic Ladder of jacob", 5976 in: OfScribt'$ wul Sages. E.ttrly }twislt lntcrprtftllitms mut Tnmsmi..,'Sion of Scriptur~. Vol. 2. Later Versi(m.~ and Trad itio ns. (Ed . C. A. Evan.<;). L'm don, New York
Ot--.len, B. 2002. Tor,if ami Judith. Guides to AptJcn;pJm wul Pseudepigmplw. Lundun,
New York
Pattt:?, D. 1975. F.ilrl.IJ Tt.~m:~h H:nnen~ufit' in Pa/f.'f;tim~. ML5...:;uu1a
Perdu~, L. G. 1994. Wisdom (md Crer1licm. Tit!! Th~.-'Oiogy of Wisdom Litcmlure.
Nash ville
Perkin...:;, P. 1989 "The Gospel Aa.ord ing tu joh n'', in: NfBC (Eds . R. E. Brown. J.
A Fitunyer a n d R. E. Murp hy e t al ). Lun don~ New York
Perrot, C. '1988. "The reading t.lf !he Bible in the Ancient Synagogue", 137-159
in: CRNT. Secti011 ht'O, file' Literfllure of !he' }~"wish Pt'<1p1e iu file' Period of the
Scamtl Ttmpl~! mul Trilmutl, ptJrt one, Mikr(t. Tt-"J.'t, fmnslr~ tion, reading mullnfl'rpr~frJlhm i11 Ancitnt /utlmsm ami Early Christianity. (Ed s. M. j. Mulder and H.
Sys1ing). Philadelphia
Porton, G. 1979. "Mid ras h: Palestinian Jews and the Hebrew Bible in the GreenRo man Pe riod N, 103-'1 3..") in: ANRIV, vo1. 11:19.2. (Eds. H. Temporini and W.
Haase). BerJin
- 1992b "Defining Midrash", 55-92 in: Tile Study c'( Ancient futlaism. Vol. l.
lv!isluwh, Midr(c;lt, Sidtlur. (Ed. J. Neu.sner). Atlanta
von Rad, G. 1962. Oltl Tc-:;tllmcnl Tlrcol<)gy. Vol. 1. TT!t! Tlt~ology of lsnrel's Historical
Trmlithms. Edinburgh
- 1985. Genl'Sis. A Clmtmf'!tlfwy. Ltmdtm
Rebiger. B. 2007. "Angels in Rabbinic Literature", 629-644 in: Dt-ukr~x:mumiml
(mtl Coxmrte Litt'Tttllm, Yc(lfl1C1c'lk 2007. Angtls. The Couupt of Ccltslial BeingsOrigins, Drodopm~nt ami Reception. (Eds. F. V. Reitere r et al.). Berlin and
New York
Reiterer F. V. 2fXl7. "An Archangel's Theology. Raphael's Speaking about God
and the Conl-"ept of God in the Bo(l k of Tobit"'. 255-275 in: [kut~rc)C(moniml
(mtl Cogmrfc Literature, Yearl10<:1k 2007. Augels. Tire Conupt of CdestiJtl BeingsOr~.;:ius, Dcvdopmt!ul (md Rtcepti(m. (Edf.;. F. V. Reitere r et al.). Berlin and
New York
Ringgren, H. 1947. Word mul Wistlom. Stutlit"S in th~ I-lypOsltltiZilfion of Divim
Qurllilit'S ami Functions iu tile Aucit!ul M~Jr Ea-st. Lu nd
Rofe, A. 1979. Tit~ Belie-f iu Angels in the Bible rmtl in Early lsrricl: 0~:1~?~:1 :mn:.:;;
.~'"li'D::: Jerusalem
Rowlan d, C. 1982. Tilt O;~tt lltavttl. A Study uf Apt.)(.tJiyptic in Jutlaism mul Early
Chrislirmity. Lond on
- l 984. " John 1:51. Jewish Apocalyptic and Targ umic Tradition". 498-507 in:
NTS vol. 30
van Ruiten.. J. 2002. "Abraham, Job a nd the Bouk of J ubilee.~: The JntertextuaJ
Relationship uf GenESis 22:1 19, job 1-2:'13 a n d jubilees 1?:15-18:'19"', 5S..S5
in: The Sacrifice of lsmu~. Tiu Aql'tlr1lt (Genesis 22) mul its Interprdlltitms. l!ds. E.
Nuort, and E. T igcheJaar. Leid en et al.
396
Bibliography
th~
and the Orig-ins o f the Synagogu e", 63-89 in: Tit~ Ancitut Syuagc>gue From its
Orilfius until 200 C.. ( Eds. B. O lsson and M. Zetterho lm), CunBNT, vol. 39.
Stockholm
Runia, D. T. '1990. Ext!gt."Sis nml Pltilosoplly. Stuilies on Philo of Alextuulritr.
Colleded Stud ies Series, 332. AlderShot a nd Brook field
R<>ttger, 1-t. 1978. M11l'nk }tdtwtt- Bote 1.1tm Cot I. Dit Vor:;Jdlrwg ti()JI C..otlt'S Bolen im
hcbrliisclum Allen T.stmuenf. Frankfurt am Main
Samely. A. 1992. Tilt! lnterpref11titm of Spt~"'C.II in the Pt:nt(lklldl Ttrrgums. A Study (1f
lvfelhod nml Pns entntimr in Tflrgumic E.:rescsis. T Ubingen
Sand ers, E. P. '1977. Paul mul Palcslinirm Judt~ism. A Cinupnri$(1n of PtJtUms of
Religicm. Philadelp hia
Sand mel. S. 1979. Philo of Alc.wuulrin. An ln tn)(/udion. New Yo rk and Oxfo rd
Sarna, N. 1989. Tlu~ IPS Tt1rnfr Cmmnc11tary. Cetrt.'$i$: n~~~,:l. Philad elp hia
Schiffman~ L. J-1. 1991. From Ttxt to Tr(tdititm. A Hislc>ry of the ~ctmd Temple ami
R11bbiuic JutftJism. Hoboken
Schnackenburg, R. 1980. 17tc Q)spd Atnwdit~g to St. fohn, vo l. l . J-ITKNT . Lon
dun
Schwart-.l~ S. 1990. ](Jseplws ami Jutlentt PtJiitics. C()Jumb ia Studies in the C lassica l
Trad ition, vuJ.lS. (Ed. W. V. J-lani.;). Le iden e t a l.
Schi.i.rer, E. 1979. 71u: I listory of tile l~'<uisll P~"'ple i11 the~ Agt< of]l'Sus Cluist (175 B.C.
-A.D. 1.35). A New English Versi()n Re\'iSoed and Edited by G. Vermes, F.
MiUar, and M. Black, vul. 2. Edinburg h
Schafer, P. 1975. Rimlitift zwischen Eugdn rwd ,ll;feuscllen. Llr~ter:;udwng~u :wr
mbbinisd1c!U E.ngclvor:;telluns. Berlin, N~w York
Segal. A. F. 1977. Ttt'O Pow~r:; irr HcmJi.'ll. Ertrly RtlbiJinic Reports nbout Christirwity
flnd CnoMicism. SJLA, vo1. 25. Lciden
van Sete rs, J. 1975. Almtlumr itt History ami Tnulition. New Haven and Umdon
Shinan~ A. 1983. ''The Angelolugy of the Palestinian Targums on the PentateuchN~ 181-l 9S in: Sefimrd, v()J. 43. Madrid
-1992. ''The Aramaic Tarhrum as a f\<fi r w r of Galilean Jewr}'N 241-251 in: 71tc
G(dilec in Urk Antiquity. ( Ed. l. I. Levine). New Yl) rk and Jerusalem
Signer, M . A. 1994. "H()W the Bible Has Been Interp reted in jewish Trad itionN,
65-82 in: Tire: M.'W lul!*rpretcr's Bible, vol. 1. Nas:hvl11e
Skemp, V. 2005. "Avenues of lnte rtextuality ~tween Tobit and the New TeS
taml!nt", 43-70 in: lrrlcrft'xfu(t/ Stutfil'S iu Ben Sim llml Tobit. Essays itt Hoii(JY of
A. Di ILl/11, 0 . F. M. (Eds. j . Corley and V. Skem p). C BQMS, 38. Washington
oc
J.
397
Seoondary Lilerature
MA
Sullivan, K. P. 2004. Wre.Miing with Angel:;. A study flj lire RC'It1fitmslrip beh1-Wtt
Augcls ami I hmums iu Ancicut /{:'wislt Liknrflm tmtllht New Te.J>Umrml. ACJU,
55. Leiden and Boston
Synfn. R. 2000. "The Targum a~ a Bible Reread, o r How d oos Gud
Communicate with Humans?", 247-264 in: Joumt~l for tile Anmmic Bible, \'l)l.
2. Sheffield
Ta l bt~ rt.
Red ~emer
in
398
Bibliography
VanderKam, J. C. l 997. "Th~ Aqedah., Jubil oos~ and Pseu dojubil~._~"', 241261 in:
71Je Que:;! for Cot~lexI tmtl Mcanit~g. Studies in Biblitt1l lnltrtexllmlity in I hmor
tiffames A. StuukrS. (Eds. C. A E.\'ansand S. Tahnun). Leiden {'f al.
- 2000a. "The Angel of the Pre;em.'e in the Bol)k of Jub ik.oe..;"'. 378393 in: Dctul
Sm Discoveries. A Joumal of Current R&rirdl on flu: Scrolls tmtl Related
Lift+n?tun!, vof. ?. L~iden ~~ al
- 2000b. From Rcvt>llltitm to CwrotL Stutlie$ in the lldmtw Bibk ami Sromd Temple
litemfllrt. Supplements to the Journal fo r the Study of Judaism, vol. 62.
(Eds. j . Collin..; and F. G. f\1 artinez). Leiden e t al.
- 2001 . Tile Book of fubikes. Cuitlt"S to lht A;,(J(ryplttl ami Pseudepigrap!m. U mdon,
New York
\!Vassen, C. 2007. "Angels in the Dead Sea Scn)lls... 499-523 in : Deult.,otmllmiml
fmd Ct'gut~k Lilemture, Yau-110(11.: 2007. Angels. Tire Concept oJCeleSlial B~ings
Origins, IA'toelopmcnt ami ROCC'Jiliou. (Eds. F. V. Reiterer et al.}. Berlin and
New York
Vawte r, B. 1977. Ou Gem:-si..,: A M.w Reading. Lond lm
Weiss, Z. and Netzer, E. 1998. Promifl.t! tmfl Rt'llemplion. A Sytwgc>gue MIJSflit." f r>m
Se}Jpftoris. jeru::~alem
Verm es, G. 1970. "Bib le and Mid rash: Early Old Tt~Stament Exegesis"', in: CHB
vol. I. From the Beginnings f<> Je rume. (Ec:k P. R Ackroyd, and C. F.
Evan s). Cambrid ge
- 1975. ''The Arch angel Sa riel. A Targumic Parnltel 1:<'1 thtt Dead Sea SeroUs"',
'159166 in: Cllristinnity, fudnism atttl Otlrer CrtcORtmum Culls. Part Three,
frulttism lJt:fort! 70. S)LA. (Ed. j . Neu.:;ner~} Vol. 12. leid t~n
- 1996. "New light u n the Sacrifi ce uf l::~aac fnm l4Q225"', 14()..'146 in: IJS, vol. 47
Westermann, C. 1985. Ceuc:;is 12.36. A Commtrlllry. Minneapolis
- 1988. Cc11~'"Si:>. A Pmdical CommC"ntwy. Text and lnterpretation. Grand Rapids
Wevers, J. W. -199:}. N(JJe; 011 till! Gra* Tat of Cen~is. SBLSCS, vol. 35. Atlanta
White, S. L. 1999. "Angel of the Lord: Mes...wn ger o r Euphemism?"' in: TynBu/,
vol. 50.
Whitt, W. 199 1. "The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and Their Relation to CenESi~"',
18-43 in: ZAW, \'OJ. 103
Williamson.. R. 1989. J~ws in flu: HellenistiC" Worltl: Philo. Cambrid ge
Comm~ntari es u n \!Vritings ()f the Jewish and Christian \IVorld 200 BC to
AD 200. Cambridge, New Yurk et a1.
W'instc)n, D. -1979. The Wisdom of Solomtm. A Nt;v TnmsiMion wilh Introduction
ami Comnu:ntarrJ. AB, vol. 43. New York
- 1996. "Philo's Mysticism"', 74-82 in: Tift Strulifl Phihmictl Amwtll. Shulir:s i11
I-lellenistic Jrulm'sm, vol. 8. (Ed. D. T. Runia), BJS, 309. Atlanta
W'())ff, H. W. 1974. I-IO$ta. A
d elphia
Cutmu~nf(lry mt
Wo1f::~un,
van d er Woude, A. S. 1963/64. "De Mal'ak Jahweh: Een God::~bode", 113 in:
Nt:dTfs, vol. 18
Wright, A. C. 1989. "Wisdom"', 510-522 in: N/GC (Ed s. R. E. Brol'm, J. A.
Fitzm)er and R. E. Murphy et al.). lundun, New York
399
Seoondary Lilerature
\!Vyle r, B. 1996.
lJiiJie in
tit~
\'01.
Zette rholm, K. 2001. PoJtmit ofa Villnin. Lillxm tltt! An'mtevm in Rnhl1iuic l..iternlure.
Lund
Zimme rli, W. 1979. Ezekiel. a Comuu:nftlr.v on flu: Book of th~ PrO}Jht"l Eukitl, vol. 1;
Chap terS 124. Hermc neia. Philad elph ia
Zloh)wit:t.. M. 1978. B~rt>isilis/Gcnt<>Sis. A M:w Tmnsltffion with tl Ccmuneutnry
A110rologiud From Talmutlic. Mhirasllic tlnd RalMuic ~mras. Vols. 1-3. Eds.
N . Shennan and M. Zlotowit-L. New York
39-40
265-266,271 276, 292, 294,
306,107, 3 17318,333
A ckerman
1 19
Adania
15- 16, 18, 30
37-42, 265, 267A lexander
268, 292
10, 46, 68, 74,
A lter
80-81, 84-85,
122, 136
A ltman
215
A m aru
244-246
193, 199-200
Amir
Ande rsen/Freedman 10$-109, 112113
Anderson
25
152,157, 174,
Ashton
350-353, 358359
235, 237-238,
Attridge
240, 242-244
A usloo..;
98, 101-102, 107
Bilde
Birnbaum
Bund
242
Borgen
Bowker
Buyarin
van de n Brink
Bro'A'll
Bultmann
Burney
Charlesworth
Chester
Barker
244, 246
12-13
34, 34-35, 108,
127, 130, 140141, 144, 2 13,
234, 352-353,
355
Barr
Barrett
Bauckham
Beasley-Murray
IX~gg
van Bekkum
& mstein
& t:t
59, 61, 1 17
352
144
349-350, 352
260-26'1
63, 344
160, 165
218, 241, 248
192-200, 202,
204-205, 353355,358
16-17, 20-22,
25-27, 37, 38, 42,
44, 45, 265-266,
268-270, 293
32
345
61, '122, 136,
140, 205, 349351,364
251, 350,352
349,351
s,
153-154, 173
272-273, 280,
294,315,32 1,
331
Clarke
Bailey
Bambergl!r
235-240, 242,
244
227-228
235-2.16, 238,
Claus.o;,,m
Cuhen. N. G.
Cuhen, S. J.D.
Coleridge
Cullins
Conrad
Cullmann
123-125,268,
293, 3 '13, 336.
351, 356, 363
23, 26
196
41
136
138
136
350
Dani61ou
353
Davies and Chilton 5
Le Deaut
Diez Machu
39-41
4 1, 266, 2 76,
292-294, 308
402
Di leila
Dillon
D imant
Dodd
D unn
DupontSommer
Ego
E\ans
van den Eynde
Eynikel
Fabry
Falk
Feldman
Finkelstein
Fi::;cher
Fish bane
Fitzmyer
Flesher
Fletche r~Louis
Flu:i.'it?r
Fomberg
Fossum
Fraade
Franxman
123. 13l-134
205
10, 46. 121, 122
2lH. 204-205.
351
142, 144, 204?
205, 353-355,
376
1M
127, 132, 134
354-355
"126, 128,129
6, "12-13, 55, 62,
68. 101, 106
97. 117, 1'19
23, 26
209-210,235242. 244-256,
258, 260-262
14, "118, 139-141,
243
98. "102
178
122-123, l27130. 132, 139
41
l35. 183
159
x. 18, 242
3, 4. 7, 142-143,
145, 178, 183"184. 188,230.
310, 350, 353.
356,>59, 361,
376
38.41
242, 244-246~
249,251-252.
257
Fret~dman/
Goldenberg
Goldin
Goodenough
Goodman
C rabbe
Greenstein
C ro...:;sfeld
CuggisOOrg
C uiley
Gutmann
1-famerton-Kelly
1-Jamuri
Hannah
Willoughby
Ga reia M arHnez
Cerdmar
Gieschen
Ginsberg
Cnuse
Hayward
K<kkert
6, 12-13,52.57,
62-63, 6S, 75,
78-79, 86-81.83,
93, 110-11'1,
117-1 '18
Lars..'ion, G.
lar$..'i<'>n, H.
leteUier
Levine, E.
99
129
58-62
16, 21. 28, 37,39,
41,292
23, 26, 41
62.300
74, 305
70
168-169, 171.
220- 223, 227-
228, 258261,
300-301, 3 18.
320-328, 333,
335, 351, 355356. 359,161
31
63
195
12- 13,34, 151,
159, 173
27,44-45
12
5, 15-16, 19, 21,
26, 28, 30, 44, 45
28
8, 16,23
239
52
Jaa'>bs
Jaffee
62.300
8-9. 16, 19, 2022. 28, 42-43
118
juhn.s..'iOn
Kalimi
Karris
Kasher
Kister
Kittel
Klein, H.
Kleinknecht
Knauf
Kolenkow
Koskenniemj
Kugel
Levine, L. I.
lewis, A. L
Lewis/Oliver
Lipton
Maccoby
Marmorstein
16-17, 19-21.27,
37,44-46
3, 103, 107, 12(~
127
'12, 78, 213, 3'13
Marshall
125126
Mach
130
llhnan/Harviainen
Jnowlockj
JsaaD>
5
125-126
13, 36,102,274,
293,321
160
13, 100
137
213
91
132
241
5, 8, 18-22. 2.~32, 63, 73, 75-76,
78, 154, 169,
174-179, 182184, 195,215,
310-311,315,
351,358
403
195, 235-239,
Mastm
242-244
Mays
109-112
Md:arihy/Murphy 1091'11
1, 12-13, 49,65,
Meier
67-6S, 101, 115116, 1'18-1'19,
139
Mendelstm
201
Met'Lger
40
322-323,
325,
MiUer
327-328
Moehring
241
MtK)f"e, c. A .
122-123, 126'130, 166-167
'14,23,39,40
Moore, G. F.
Mullen
93
75,83, 108-109,
Murphy
123-125, '142.
144
MUller
34
Neur.;ner
27-28,30-31.38,
43-44
12-13, 55, 68, 98,
'102, 1'14-115,
Newsom
404
N!!yrey
Nicke1sburg
Niehoff
Niehr
Noll
Noll and
North
Nowe ll
Samely
Sanden;
Sandme1
Sarna
66
114
'125-126, 136.
138
354
'122123, 126
129. 131
Schalit
Schiffman
Schnackcnburg
Scholem
Schwartz
SchUrer
Odeberg
Orlov
O t-.ltm
Schi:ifer
S.gal
s,
Seow
Patte
Perdue
Perkin.'>
Perrot
Port(m
vo n Rad
Rebiger
Reiterer
Ringgren
Rore
Rowland
van Ruiten
15'1~ 160
Runesi><:n'l
19, 23-25
192-197, '199202. 204-205,
224
3
Runia
R()ttger
32. 38.42
153
'194-195, 201202,204
52. 71, 74-82.
84-85. 89-93,
'Ill , 1'16, 303304, 3 '19, 325,
3.1'1, 340
235,239.240
14
349-350
132, 151. 295
2.18-239, 242243
23-24. 2.15
3
3-4, 7. 60. 90. 98.
100, 114. 196,
202,213, 21621 230. 233234,331
8.1-84, 88, 15'11
177
van Seter$
Shinan
Signe r
Skt~mp
Smelik
Smith
58
3, 35-36, 41, 100
15,28
127, 129..130.
135, 141
13. 102
150, 154-155.
'179, 182-H~9~
226-228, 32.1,
356,358
Speis.t~ r
5.1
Spe ncer
122-123, 126,
129
99, 299-300
16-21, 45
2.15-238, 240.
244
3
8, 20, 44-46,
269-270
4, '130-13'1
143, 145
3, 102, 105, '108,
110, 112.132,
Spiegel
Ste insaltz
Sterling
Stier
Strack/Sternberger
Stuckenbruck
Suggs
Sullhan
405
Syn'.'ll
135, 183-1114,
188
S,lr7
Tuschlil\g
353-3~. 359
2+25
10,46
I00, 345, 3SS
2(13, 353
194, 204
4, 23,37
IS, 17- 18,27-28,
3fl.39, 46
3. 14, lOR, H9
Urb.ach
213
W.altcrs
Talbert
Tate
Tcugci~o
Thom~
Thunberg
Tobin
Tuv
Trcbullc BarrcrJ
VandcrK01m
Wd~~
V.;awtt..r
Westermann
~Ne\'CrS
\o\'hitc
\>VhiU
William.SC.In
Win..;ton
Wulff
Wolfson
2JO
van der Woudc
Wright
Wyler
York
Zettl!rhulm
Zimmcdi
ZJotowit:z
118
123-125, 14-1,
146
138
265
27-29, 31
25
287.304-305
Ezekh!l
1
22
35$
1 and '10
11
4Q
12.33
25
12,318
Gem.>sis
1
3
5
6
11
12
16
17
18
19
21
23
24
27
26
29
31
407
340-342, 369370,372
ix, 1, 5, 30, 55,
62-66, 68. 145,
1so, 152, 156,
161-163, 190,
208-209, 213214, 232,249251, 263, 288,
292-295, 297,
299--303, 341,
345, 370-371,
373
293, 298, 301
10, 54, 66-69.
77-78, 95, 120,
122, 12(~129,
139, 147-'148,
166, 17'1, 21021'1, 249,252253, 263, 303306, 330, 340,
366,'367, 369,
374
36,298
5-7, 11, 50, 69,
71-72, 74-80, 8995, 102,108,
110, 12S.l29,
146, 150, 153,
166-167, 171'175, 177-'1 79,
185, 190,212,
214, 2'16-220,
222, 230, 233,
255-256, 261,
302, 306, 309,
312-313,315,
317,322, 3.'34335, 339, 343,
3S0,352, 356357,361-363,
3(>6-367, 375376
52, 68, 128-129
'1, 5-6, 50. 55,
69-72, 74, 77, 79,
88, 93-94, %,
408
32
35
48
SelediveSou'<e lnde:x
Hosea
8
34,85
9
12
34
S-7, 50, 69, 7981, 84-85. 93, 98,
106, 101\-'113,
115, 184,319,
326-327, 339,
342, 366, 372
Isaiah
6
9
ll
28
37
41
42
43
44
50
63
Job
I
16
19
20
25
33
38
n,73,325
29, 34-35, 107,
113, 140-141
29
258
50, 1m, 10S-106,
114, 140
93
60
311
12. 85, 93, 326
304
5, 34, 84, 101,
lo6-t07, 113,
143, 151, 177,
375
12, 34, 75, 187
34
91,93
258
186
114,352
35
Joshua
5
6
24
Judges
2
5
6
101-102, 106,
'120, 142
101, 164
1, 6, 53, 55, 83,
411
26
31
32
35
309-310
315
319-321, 325
330-332
Neofiti 1 to Genesis
16
276-262, 2S4.
289-290
333
'132
282283, 290
292-294, 370
30-1,340, 374
307-310, 3'13.
316, 340, 374
173. 179, '1 86.
318-322, 327,
338
329-3-11, 333.
340
335,336, 340
17
IS
21
22
24
26
32
35
4$
280-26.1
24
25
27
26
298
298
307.J09, 312313. 3 15, 362
316-317
318-322,326.
338-339, 372
329-333, 340
336, 340, 377
31
32
35
48
Pseudo~jouatllan
td :rodus
aud Numbers
Exod 4
Num 23
35,37
280
Targumlo Cltrouicles
IChrP
1 Chr 21
1 Chr 29
97
299, 302, 311
I 00, 269
Targumlo lsaiall
Onqelos to Geuesis
16
21
22
26
31
32
35
4$
Psertdo~JOitntlratt
1
3
16
21
22
63
2il-275, 281.
289-290, 340,
369
275-276, 283.
290. 307
292-294, 301
306.J07, 309.
313,330
315,316
317-32'1, 323.
338,372
329,33'1, 333.
340
335-336. 340, 377
to Genesis
230
295
276-262, 2S4,
289-290
262.263, 291).
291
293-29 4, 298,
301.J02, 342.
373-374
107
Targumlo Hdsea
12
321
Q umran Texts
4Ql5S
4Q225
Pseudepigrapha
Demetrius t!Ie Cltronograp!Jer
156,164- 165.
18'1 -182, 191,
372
1 11ocll
6
9
20
37-il
40
12
127
174
358
34, 127
412
SelediveSou'<e lnde:x
Ladder of jacob
78
7
174
174
174
99
104
127
127
70-/1
72
74
2 Enoch
1
22
33
67
69-i.l
171-172, 175177,358
172-173, 1/7,
358
172, 174, 210,
321
173-174, 188.
32'1
174176, 315
352
183
7, 177. 183
183
183
7
5
7
Prayer of joseph
'187
7, 150. 154-'155,
174-175,178179, 182-189,
184
.191, 225-228?
232-233, 321,
349, 356, 358,
367, 372, 375376
Jubilet'S
1
2
6
10
7-11
12
15
17
18
24
27
28
29
3 '1
32
3
4
Philo
129, 166-167
167
167-168
'15'1, 168-169
169-171, 1i.l.
175, 178, 187,
Allegoricalluterprelnliou
1.3&-38
3.104-106
3.1/7-178
89-93
197
170
1 (,0
202
230
228-229,377
M;grntiou of Abraham
On Abraham
107
18
179
179-181, 371
180
'180-181, 336
156
36.1
45
48
Testament ofJacob
ns
119-l25
17(>-117
20().207
203
132, 20J
203
208-209
209
223,231
221
81-82
87
221
222,375
On !he Cherubim
3
27-28
27-29
413
1.239-240
2.12.1
204. 206-207
193
On Drrtnkeutless
2i16
204,226
194
82-83
220
193
213
216
11!.1, 222-226,
355,376
229-230
228-229, 377
195
201
5-6
6
66-67
68-70
101
11 '1..112
112
203-205
21'1-212
200
230
On Husbandry
8
16
72-75
171)-172
201
51
128-'129
212
212.313
43-44
21 4
72
214
On Snbrietv
219
229
On Dreams
1.1-2
1.62-64
1.64-66
1.70-71
1.70-9'1
1.79
1:114
1.115-119
1.1'16. 118
1.'120
1.127-128
1.128
1.129
1.133-139
1.140-142, 146-150.
231
354
214. 216
362
198
214
222
22.1
215
153-156
215
1.157
1.157-159, 193-196
1.160..172, 182-1 8.~,
190
1.190
1.228-232
1.237-241
217
220
218
219
65
231
220
On Sf~'<inl Lnws
3.1-6
194, 199
194
227
201
233
206
203, 207-208
210
211
414
SelediveSou'<e lnde:x
Josephus
jmtean Atztiquities
1.'14
1.17
1.11\-23
1.189-190
1.195
1.203
1.219
1.222-236
1.223-224
1.224
1.233-234
1.236
1.242-256
1.279-281
1.284
1.309
1.325
1.3.11-334
1.332-333
1.341-342
1.342
5.213-214
5.277-285
b. Sanl1edriu 89b
237
239
195
245
262
241
247
249
249
263
250
25'1
252
253
26'1
256
25S
257
2(>0
26'1
262
255
255
Midrashim
Exodus Rabba/J
3.2
15.6
19.7
32.7
Gell<'>is Rabbah
1.1
45.7
45.10
47.10
50.2
53.14
55.4
56.1
56.2
56.5
56.5-8
56.7
56.8
56.9
M;shJta
m. Abot 1.1
m. Abof '1.2
m. Abot 5.6
m. Alrof 5.22
m. Ta'rm. 2.4
19
22
288
16,352
300
Babylonian Tnlmud
b. Bemkot 62b
b. Nullin 91a-b
11. Mcgmah 29a
b. Nr:tltJrim 32a
299,302
186,300-310, 324
25
35
b. R(,:;fl JurSiuma 16a 300
II. s~mlu'ririn 38b
4, 36, 60, 90.
100, 230, 331
287
185,323
'182
314
De-uterm1omium Rabbal1
4.4
56.4
Talmudic Literature
56.10
56.11
59.8-9
59.10
60.1
60.2
60.4
60.14
60.15
65.10
68.9
68.10-11
68.12
358
200
273, 281, 283,
289
285, 289
284
286
286
294, 301
294,298
295, 347
295, 299. 301
296-295
251,297
296
297,301
288, 295. 300,
302
250,299
297
303
304
304
297, 304-305
165,305
2.~ 1
305
298
2.1 1, 312-313
309
'177, 308.311314, 361
415
68.13
6$."14
69.3
69.7
70.4
74.3
75.4
.111
176,314
77.2
77.3
L85, 323
186,324
325, 327
78.1
78.2
78.3
7$.4
81.5
26
316
Supplement 1.10
334
176, 314-315,
373
264, 294, 29$
327
304. 312
82.3
82.4
82.6
335
97.3 (Cur. Ed d)
336
295
30
31
287-2$8
294-299,301-
302
32
35
36
37
Levitkus Rabball
29.4, 10
2.1
307
30S
309
325-326
326
327
3.12
333-334
332, 334, 339
3.13
82.2
300,314
Slmg 3:6
Tmrlmma
Pisha 7.78-82
Pisha 1l.9095
Bereshit 1.10
300
300
323
186
Piyutim
Numeri RalJbah
17.2
4.1
Pt-siktn Rnblmti
Piska 5.1
299
311
Aramaic piyut
on the A~dah
344,373
Hebrew piyut
on the A~dah
344
t\1elchi:tedek
t\fetatron
7, 151.303,352
32-35. 86, 105,
107, 113, 15'1,
179, 181. 186-
f\1 khael
archangt!l
Asmodl.'us
A.zazel
&1ial
the Destroyer/the
destr<lying ange:J
Enoch
Gabriel
Israel
Mastema
PenueVPhanuel
Rague1
Raphael
Samael
Saraqel
Sariel
232-233, 339,
Uriei/Suriel
Satan
Zagnugel
3()3,104, 316317,319.322,
325, 328. 338339, 342. 358
33-35, 83. 108,
'141, 151. 173174.179, 186.
191
151
'10. 33-35, 86,
'10 7, 122. 126135, 139-141.
145, 147-148.
151, 16(>-167.
186,305.367369,376
36. 295, 298,
301,341.373
173
ts l . t 72- l 79~
186, 191,319,
320-322. 338.
342,372
I 2. 34-35. SO.
'14 1, 159-161.
293, 295. 298299, 301. 341,
373
35, 86. 108, 151,
173-174, 179.
'183-189, 191.
226-227, 321.372
36
Angelo logy
2-J. 1014. 32
36, 43, 49, 63.
106, 121, 130,
139-140, 148149. 166-167,
200, 205, 228,
243. 249, 2(f),
325, 341, 353,
365? 368369,
376
Angeluphany
136, 171, 1n
178-179,331
Anthn)pumurphis:m 32. 35, 39, 6162.
87-SS, 95, '116117, 157, 198,
203,219,248,
251. 261, 2632C>4. 272, 274,
290, 292, 307,
317-319,323,
340,371
ix. 1, 5? 9, 62-63?
65, '145, 152,
156, 159-165,
170. 181, 190,
208-209, 232,
249-253, 261,
294, 298-299,
301,302, 3'10,
341-344, 346,
368, 370-375,
377
Logos
Menu a
Shekinah/Shekinta
Thoophany
417
22.. 210, 293,
341,370
'142-147, 149,
182, 346, 367.
375
39-40, 119, 143,
l49, 182-183,
188, 200-201,
203-208, 2'11214, 216,218228, 230-234,
243, 290, 313.
350, 353, 355356, 360, 362363, 367, 372.
374-377
39-40, 107, 276,
278, 280, 282283, 290,292293, 299, 301302, 307-309,
311, 330-33.1,
3.36
22, 39-40, 279,
28'1? 290, 294?
298? 302. 308?
316, 324, 330,
342, 364, 373
33, 60-62, 71, 73,
82, 87-SS, 94, 99,
'104-105, 114,
118, 249, 259.
262, 282,331,
355, 364, 371