The Messenger of the Lord in Early Jewish Interpretations of Genesis

Camilla Helena von Hcijne The ~Icssengcr of the Lord in Early J ewish Intcrpretarions o f Genesis

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Herausgegeben von John Barton · Reinhard G. Kratz Choon-Leong Seow · Markus \Xfitte

Bond 412

De Gruyter

Camilla Helena von Heijne

The Messenger of the Lord in Early Jewish Interpretations of Genesis

De Gruyter

ISBK 978-3-11-022684-3 c-ISBN 978-3- 11-022685-0 ISS~ 0')34-2~73

U!msry if CtJ»f/tsS CarM.ging-iH-PNWiiatiM D,#a A CIP c.u:dogue terotd for this book i$ av:Lil:tble from the Ubr..ary of Congres5.

BiWN!,mphir inJ(IrJtMJiM fmWiJhM 0' tht Dnmthr NAticJMibiMktiHk The Deutsche Na tic.m:~lbibhothck Jim 1his publication in the Dcutsehc N:uion:tlbibliogmt'ie; dc:uikd bibliogr.tphic dat:a :tre :1\':til:tble in the lmemer :lt http:/ / dnb.d-nb.dc. @

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 sh·uggle 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.

X

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
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.

Uppsala, March 2010

Camilla vo11 Heijne

Notes on Abbreviations and Pictures, etc. The abbreviations used are from the list in Anchor Bible Diclionary (ABD) vol. 1, 1992, with the exception of the abbreviation of Dictionary of DeWes aud Demons in t!Jt~ Bible (ODD) which is not included in the above mentioned list.

Unless othenvise stated, whenever a Bible text is quoted in English translation the Ne\"' Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is used.

In the end of Excursus 2, there are three pictures showing :

1

Doura Eu ropos synagogue, painting on the upper panel o f To· rah shrine (third century C.E.).

2

Beth Alpha synagogue, floor mosaic (ca. 525 C.E.).

3

Scpphorissynagogue, floor mosaic (fifU,/sixth century C. E.).

Contents

Preface ...... ................................................................................................... ix Notes on Abbreviations and Pictures, etc. ........................................... xiii

1. 1.1 12 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.4

Defining the Issue ...................................................................... 1 Aim and Scope of lhe Study ................................................................. 1 EarlierResearch - SomeRemarks ...................................................... 3 Material and Approach ......................................................................... 4 BibUcal Texts ............ ............................................................... ........... 4 Post-Biblical Sources ......................................................................... 8 Outline of the Thesis ....................................................................... 10 Angelology - Some ~1troductory Remarks .................................... 11

2. 2.1 2.1.1 2.12 2.1.3 2.1.4 22 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

Early Jewish Exegesis - A Survey ......................................... General Background ............................................................................ TI1e Written and the Oral Torah ................................................... TI1eOriginandGrowth oftheOraJTorah ................................. TI1e Rabbis and tl1eOral Torah .................................................... The Evolvement of tl1e S}o1agogue .............................................. An Introduction to the World of Midrash ...................................... Definitions of Mid rash ................................................................... Some Examples of Midrashic Influence on Angelology .......... The Midrashic Sources ...................................................................

3. 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.22

The Ambiguous Identity of the Angel .................................. 49 Introduction ........................................................................................... 49 Genesis .................................................................................................... 51 Hagar and the Angel .................................. .................................... 5 1 The Three Heavenly Visitors and the Doom of Sodom and Gomorrah ..................................................... .................................... 58 TI1e Aqedah a nd the Angel .................................................. ......... 62 TI1e Wooing o f Rebekah - the Angel as a Protector a nd Guide ................................................................................................. 66 jacob a nd the Angel ........................................................................ 69

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

Summary and Condusions ......................................................... 147 The Pseudepigrapha a nd d1e Qumran Documents ................... 150 Introduction ................................................................................... Hagar a nd the Angel .................................................................... The Aqedah .................................................................................... Jacob a nd d1e Angel ...................... ................................................

150 156 159 166

Summary and Conclusions ......................................................... 190 Philo of Alexandria ............................................................................ 192 Introduction ................................................................................... 192 Hagar and the Angel .................................................................... 206 The Aqedah .................................................................................... 208 1l1e Wooing of Rebekah .............................................................. 210 Jacob a nd d1e Angel ...................................................................... 212

4.l4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.4

Summary and Conduding Discussion ..................................... 232 1l1e Jurlean Anliquilies by Flavius Josephus ................................... 235

4.4.1 4.4.2

Introduction ................................................................................... 235 Hagar a nd the Angel .................................................................... 244

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

josephus' Aqedah a nd His Version of Genesis 24 .................. 249 jacob a nd the Angel ...................................................................... 253 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................... 263 TI1e Targums, Rabbinic Mid rash an d Talmud ............................ 265 Introduction ................................................................................... 265 Hagar and the Angel .................................................................... 271 The Aqedah a nd the Angel ......................................................... 292 TI1e Wooing o f Rebekah According to Gem'SiS Rn/Jbnlr ........... 303 jacob a nd the Angel ...................................................................... 306 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................... 340 Excursus 1. TI1e Angel in Early jewish Liturgical Poems ...... 343 Excursus 2. The Aqedah and the Angel in Early Jewish Art 345 Scl1olarly Reflections on john 1:51 .................................................. 349 Introduction ........................ ........................................................... 349 The Gospel o f john and jacob's Divine Encounters ............... 3511 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................... 363 Comp~uative Analysis and Conclusions

............................. 365 Introductory Remarks ....................................................................... 365 C<mduding Discus:;;ion ..................................................................... 369

Bibliography .. .............. ..................................................... ...................... . 379 Primary Sources and Trans lations ........................................................ 379 Secondary Literature ............................................................................... 383 In dex of Modern Authors ...................................................................... 401 Selective Source lndex ............................................................................ 406 Selective Index o f Terms and Names ................................................... 416

1. Defining the Issue 1.1 Aim and Scope of the Study In the Bible' we encoun te r the e nigmatic figure 'the messenger/angelo( the Lord/YH WH/God/Eiohim' seveml times. The relationship between God and this angel is fa r from clea r a nd the id entity o f YHWH a nd His a ngel is merged in many tex~s, e.g ., Gen 16:7-14; 21 :17-20; 22:1-19; 31:10· 13; 48:15- 16; Exod 3:1~; Josh 5:13-15; 6:2, a nd Judges chapters 6 a nd 13. 1n these perico pes, ' U'e a ngel o f YHWH'' seems to be comp letely inter· changeable with YHWH Himself. According to Exod 23:20-21, the an· gel possesses the name of God, it is ... in him', and it appears to be im· plied that this ' divine name angel' has the power to forgive s ins, an ability tha t elsewhere in the Bib le is reserved fo r God. This angel is always a nonym ous and speaks with divine authority in the fi rst person singular as if he is God Himself, thus there is no cle.u d istinction between the sen der a nd the messenger. 3 UnJikc other biblical angels, the 'angel of the Lord ' accepls being worshipped by men and seems to be acknowledged as divine; e.g ., Gen 16:13; 48:15-16; Josh 5:13-15, and )u dg 13:17-23.' The aim of the present study is to explore the ambiguous relation· ship bct'".recn GOli and His angel in early Jewish biblical in te rpretation

2

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 Heb•·aica Stung<~ ••tens.i a, 1990, and the New Revised St.lndatd Version (NRSV), 1989, if nl')( othel"\' 'ise ..'lt
2

I. Defining the Issue

and theology, focusing on sources from roughly 200 B.C. E. to 650 C. E. How did the early Jewish interpreters treat this perplexing phenome· non? Wh o is 'the a ngel o f the Lord'? How is he related to God and to other heavenly emissaries? How is the angel of the Lord depicted in the various sources? Was the ~1ngel und erstood as a manifesta· lion/revelation of God Hirnself, or as an independ ent a ngelic being,-a messenger d istinct from God? A third alterna tive between these two extremes may be that ' the angel of the Lord' was regard ed as a h)'J."'IS· tasis o f God, a personification/an extension of the divine \Viii, possess· ing a certain degree o f independ ent personhood but not completely separate from COli . A related question is in w hich ways the view o f God was influ· enccd by the angelologys o f early Judaism a nd/or vice versa as v,re Jl as how the relationship between man a nd the d ivine realm is constituted. Th e present thesis is not primarily a study o f the designation 'the angel of the Lord' per se f, but the heart of the problem is the ambivalence be. tween God a nd this angel that appears in many biblical text<. How did the early Jewish interpreters hand le this is::;ue? In order to d efine the identity of ' the angel of the Lord' in early Jewish exegesis, we need to examine how he is portrayed in his rela· tionship o n the one hand to God, and on the other to so·called ordinary angels. The interpretations o f the identity of ' the angel of the Lord' cannot be studied in isolation but must be seen in a wid e r religious conte xt as part of the development o f the angelology and the concepts of God in the various fo rms o f early Jud aism. At first. my a mbition was to stud y the early jewish interpretations of this phenomenon in the Bible as a \Vhole. Hov,rever.. because of the vastness of the a rea, I had to restrict my focus to the relevant texts in Genesis and how they have been interpreted in early Jewish literature. 11ms, the p urpose is not to explore the perception(s) o f U1e ambiguous relationsh ip between the 'angel of the lord' a nd God in e~1rly Judaism in general b ut to investigate the early Jewish treahnent of this issue in a specific sample o f biblical texts. How is 'the angel o f the Lord' identi· fiet.i by the early Je,vish in terpreters in these texts? Are there a ny main p~1ttems o f in te rpretation? Is there a u niform a nswer, o r is the appear· ance of 'the angel of the lord' in the various biblical texts perceived

5

6

1 use lhe term 'ong~l ology' \\' ilh some r~sen.e are alSlO texL" in which he app~a rs lobe distinct /rom Cod, e .g .• 2 Sam 24:15·16. and 2 Kgs 1 9>~15.

1.2 Earlie•· Researdt -Some

R~~mnrks

3

differently, and,~ if so, why? Are there a ny discernable differences in the interpretations that may depend on the character of the divergent bibJi .. cal textl) as such? Do the discussed Jewish sources differ from each o ther in their treabnent of the issue? ls it possible to discem a ny chrono~ logical development in the interpretations o f the texts d uring the cho sen time·sp~1n? However, in addition to the fact that around 800 years separate the d ating of the earliest and the latest source, i t must also be take n in to cons:ideration that the material represents different stra nds of judaism, from pre-Christian Apocalyptic ju daism (e.g., Jubilees, Qu· mran), the writings of Josephus, and the Hellenistic, Alexandrian branch represented by, for examp le, Philo a nd the Wisdom of Solomon, to later Ra bb in ic Ju daism~ i.e .• the Talmud and the Rabbinic Midrashim.

1.2 EarJjer Research- Some Remarks The identification o f the angel of the Lord in the Bible has been the subje.:t of much schola rly discussion. In March 1979, Fritz Guggisberg presen ted a doctoral dissertation o n the subject, en titled Die Gestalt des Mnl'ak fa!Jwe im AlleH Testament.' The main focus of my study, however, is the early history o f Jewish interpretation of ' the angel o f the Lord textc;' in Genesis, as opposed to the b iblical texts themselves. To the best of my knowledge, such an investigation h.1s not yet been conducted. The role o f a ngels in general in early Jewish exegesis is discussed by, for examp le, Saul Olyan in h is monograph A Thousand Thou sands Ser.Jed Him. Exegesis and tile Naming of At~gels irt Aucieut Judaism (1993}.8 A systematic a nalysis of the concept 'the angel of the lord' in early Jewish biblical interpretation has yet to be made. Jarl E. Fossum has carried out a thorough investigation of the Jewish a nd Samaritan con· cepts of in termedia tion and the origin of Gnosticism .!! The monograph by Alan F. Segal'" deals with the early Rabbinic polemic against w hat was labeled the heresy of 'two pov,rers in heaven ', i.e., the belief in a n

7

$

9 lO

See a lso ROuger 1978, and Stie•· 193-t. CcutOOI'fling angelology in gener.ll, much has of course been wliuen. See e.g., Shinan's a ••ticle abm1t the angelology of the Palestinial\ T.wgum.Siidsm, 1977.

4

I. Defining the Issue

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.

1.3 Material and Approach 1.3.1 Biblical Texts l11e study concerns the in te rpretations o f the b iblical texts in the form in which they existed d u ring the period of Jewish h istory mentioned above. The pericopcs encountered by the early fc\"rish interpreters were probably very similar to those found in the Masoretic text (IVIT),'' a lthough important issues o f textual criticism and linguistic problems will be discussed. Differences be tw een the lvfT and other ancient ver·

Thllt is. a belief in hO/O complementary heavenly poh•ers, 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 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 ckenb••uck 1995, H.mnah 1999, and Newma n e l al. (ed.) 1999. 15 To\' 20!13, 243. ll

4

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 Lord·texts' a re close· ly interrelated in early Jewish interpretation. Therefore, in the analysis of the in te rpretations of Gen 16:7·14 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 35:1·15, 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

Holtz 1984b. 11·29••md 1984a, 179· 186. Syren 2000. 247·2·18. Syten 2000, 248·259. See also Kugel 1990, I, al\d Olyan 1993. I J. 19·20. In my study, 1 g~nera ll y refer to both the n.ll'1 ative in Gen~sis 22 and its il\te rpret.lrions a.s 'the Aqedah'. i.e .• ' the binding: of Isaac', w hk h has become the s bmdard designa tion of the peri.::op~ in Jewis.h tradition..; for thL'I indu..'live us.1ge see, e.g .• Kalimi. 2002, I ·38. However, I .1m \''ell
6

I. Defining the Issue

Bethel' in the lhird person. Is this therefore a reference to 'the a ngel of God'?, compare Genesis 31. A few texts in Genesis rnention angels in the p lural. These angels, who seem to be distinct from God, a ppear in the contexts of ' the angel of the Lord·texts'. Thus, in Gen 28:12, jacob d reams of angels ascend ing and descending o n a heavenly st:..1irway/ladder a nd sees COli standing above it, v. 13, " and before Jacob reaches the ford of Jabbok, he meets angels o f God; Gcn 32:1 ·2. Secondly, there are texts w hich I temt implicil references to 'the a n* gel of the lord '. Despite the fact that the designation 'the angel of the Lord' is not mentioned, these pericopes d escribe d ivine revelations of a simila r character a nd exhibit the same ambiguity behveen God and the d ivine emissary(· ics). 11ms, these texts also belong to ' the a ngel o f the Lord traditions'.:!!•

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. 4·6): 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!

Th e prophet Hosea alludes to ~'e tradition of jacob's wrestling bout and designa tes h is combatant as a 1~'0, an a ngel/mes...c;enger. However,

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. 113·114. Verse3 Jin the r..rr. ~ealso ju d g 6:22-23, and 13 ~21·23.

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 Jacob·tradition appear to have been fused in this state· menl. The passage is also related to Gen 28:10.22; 31:10· 13, a nd 35:1·15 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 Jacob·saga 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 n·speculations~. 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.

8

I. Defining the Issue

1.3.2 Post-Bib lical Sources As previously mentioned, r foc us o n jewish sources dating from rough· ly 200 B.C. E. to 650 C.E.» Th e reasons for this choice o f time-span are firstly that we may assume that the books of the present Jewish biblical canon were in the main complete by the start o f that period. The Penta· teuch was most certainly a lready "canonized ," an d even books sudl as Chronides, Ezra-Nehemiahl Psalms a nd Daniel were considered by many as ' Ho ly Scripture'.:lll Secondly. the completion o f the Babylonian Talmud and the emergence of Islam i1' the 71t1 century C.E. mark the end of a period in jewish h istory.Jl Hm.,•ever, the dating o f ancient sou rces is a complic..1tet.i matter and I will also d iscuss a few sources edited after the 7'" century C. E., since they contain material from earlier times. Thus Targum Pseudo·JoHathau, which is d ifficult to d a te, will be included ." Th e date of the origina l oompo.•ition o f the Pseudepigraphical work Tl~e Ladder of Jacob is u nknown . The book r:nay be based on a jewish source dating from around the first century C .E...u T he l\{idrash Pirqe de Rabb; Eliezer is another ex· ception to my general duonological limitation, since it shares many traditions with, for example, Genesis Rabbnll, the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (OT), and Tnrgrmr Pserrdo-Jorralharr.,.. The sources to be stud ied thus include the Targums to Ge nesis...l 5 since they are not merely Aramaic transla tions of the Bible but o ften conta in a great deal of e laboration o n th e biblical textc.o. The SamarUau Targum is not strictly Jewish .m d will therefore be omitted. T he sch ism between Jews and Samaritans is very o ld a nd goes back to a t least Per~

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 othe••wise s.t.lted, in quotillions from the T<w gun\.'1 the wotds in italics a1-e not m)' ow·n 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., lllma•VI-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, 209·2 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 Fragmelll·T1trgmm; .

9 sian times.3f> I

""ill a lso examine the writings of Josephus a nd

Philo.

Apocryphical books and Pscudepigraphs, such as the book o f Tobit, Wisd om of Solomon, Jubilees, Prayer of Joseph, Testament of Jacob, and early Rabbinic Midrashim, e.g... Ge-nesis Rabbalr, will also be considercd.:l7 As for Lhe Q umran literature, although there a re many angels mentioned in these sources, the materia l contains little o f relevance fo r our subject. However~ in 4Q225, the so-called 'Pseudo-jubilees', there is a rendering of the Aqedah of interest for our task, and in 4QJ58 a frag-

mentarily preserved paraphrase on GenesL'i 32. The New Testamen t (NT) will also be treated against u,e background of early Jewish interp re ta tion of the Hebrcv•' Bible..>$ Roughly speaking. I v~.rill use three kinds o f interpretative material in

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."lmaritntras.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 "dh•orce" 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 pa••ti: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 separe 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
10

I. Defining the Issue

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.

1.3.3 Outline of the 11>esis As mentioned a bove, the inte rp retations of the identity of ' the angel of the Lord' must be seen in the context o f the d evelopmen t o f the a ngelology and concepts o f God in the various forms of early Judaism. Thus, as background in fo nnation, I will briefly discu s.s the development o f angclology in section 1.4, and in ch ap ter 2 I ,,.;n present a survey of early Jev.rish exegesis. Th e rnain focus of this chapter is the emerging Rabbin ic Judaism and its literature, i.e., the Talmud, Targu ms, and Rabbinic ~.fidrashiln. However, I define mid rash as an in terpretative method in a broader sense, encompassing such non·Rabbinical works as Jubilees a nd o ther Pseudepigrapha. The analysis of Philo's a nd Josep hus' interpretations of the texts in d udes a general in troduction ooncem ing their characteristics as e xegetes.

39 Sec a lso Ge11esis 18. a nd I S.:l muei I. 40 See Alter 1981, 47-62, esp. p. 51. As olher example:; of biblical t>•pe-srene.c;, Aller mentions the eru:oun!e1· with the fu!ure betrothed at a well and the lestanlel\ l ilf the dying hero (e.g .• Genesis 49 a nd Deuteronom)' 32-33}. etc. The belrothal lype-scene alc;o indudes the tra\'eling of the hero fo a fcU'e ign land, see e .g., Genesis 24: 29:1-20; Exod 2!15-22, and ll1e book of Tobit. See a lso Teugels 2004,45-57. 41 ~e als.o Dima1\l 1988,383, 391· 400, and dlapters 2 and 4. 1 below.

1.4 Angelology- Some lnttoduC'Iory Remarks

11

Although the subject of my thesis is to examine the early Jev,.rish in· terpretations of the Genesis texts in question, an analysis of the biblical texts as such is necessary as a basis fo1· the investigation. Therefore, chapter 3 contains a d etailed examination of the relevant Genesis·texts wi th text-critical analysis . Important differences between the Septua· gint (LXX) and the MT are thus d iscussed in this chapter. For the sake of clarity, 1 have included a survey o f all the 'angel o f the Lord-texts' in the Bible but the main focus is on Genesis. As mentioned ..1bove, the early Jewish interpreters did not treat Genesis as an isolated book and all 't-he angel of the Lord· texts' arc interconnected, thus this chapter is intended as a general overview. It also serves as an introductory chap.. ter to the problem/ phenomenon of the merget.i identity o f God and His angel in the Bible it..~lf. At the end o f chapter 3, \Ve look briefly at how this problem has been dealt with in modem historical-critical exegesis. The main part of my thesis is chapter 4.- in which I analyze the in· terpretations given in the various Jewish sources of the appearance of ' the angel of the lord' in the chosen Genesis texts. My ambition has been to investigate t-he material chronologically, thus starting the anal· ysis with the earliest works, the book of Tobit and \·Visdorn o f Solomon. However, other considerations sud1 as genre, the kind of in terpretative method(s) employed in the sources and the interrelationships between them have also been decisive in the ordering of the material. For exam· pie... all the Rabbinic material is discussed in chapter 4.5, and the Gospel of Luke is treated in the same chapter as the book of Tobit (4. 1), despite the fact that there is a considerable timc·span between them. Moreover, because many scholars have seen a connection between John 1:51 and the in terpretatio n o f Genesis 28 in, for example, the Targums and the Rabbinic Midrashim... the discussion of the Gospel o f John has been placed after the chapter on these Rabbinic sources. In two excurses, I will briefly discuss the treatment of ' U1e angel o f the Lord-motif' in early jewish liturgic.1l poems and art. After the discussion of the interpretations of the texts in each section, a summary of the results is provided. Finally, in chapter 5 I sum· marize and discuss the conclusions of the investigation.

1.4 Angelology- Some introductory Remarks \Vhat is an angel? The most common \'lrord for angel in Hebrew is 1~7;,, w hich originally means mes...:;euger. It is an instrumental noun derived from the ancient Semitic root 116 found, for example, in Ugaritic, where it means ' to send with a commission/message·. A 1K7::J is thus 'one who

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, 15·18." 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'
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.

Bamberge•• 1971,957, wm Hente11 1995a. 90. and Freedm.ao-\'l.'illoughbr l997, 309. \·Vhile 1999, 300. Newsom (1992, 249) S-tates: " Neve•·theless. there are indications t lhlt

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., r»s. 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); 'spi••iLo;', e .g... I Kgs 22:21; Ps IO·bt ' ministe rs' is used parallel to o~K';.•) /mes..<~e nge•s 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. 2•18·249. 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$, hllWever, is the sow•ce of th e ll ldest legend conoo1'fling the fa llen angels (1 Enodt 6) and the inh~•·p•-e· talion al<~o has mode1'fl supporte1"S, see e.g .• von Rad 1985, 114. It Lc; noteworthy. hc)wever, that the pericope itself d oes n01 contain an>• deill' d enouncement of ' the son$ o f God' marTying the women. See a lso Ma rmorstein 1971. 966, Hogeterp 2007. 379·38 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.

1.4 Angelology- Some lnttoduC'Iory Remarks

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-efe••red 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 1·233, 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..
14

I. Defining the Issue

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

in angels is d ue to n g rowing sense o f d istance between humankind and a transcendent God has been contested. For example, Olyan argues that the explanation is mainly to be fou nd in the biblical exegesis of that time.5l! Based primarily on Acts 23:8; "The Sadducees say tha t there is no resurrection, or angeJ, or spirit; but the Pharisees ackn0\"-11edge all three/' it is commonly assumed that the Sadd ucees denied the very existence of angels. This may be an exaggeration. based on their rejection of apoc..1lyptic tead1ings. It is tn1e that the Sadducees d id not acknov~,.Jedge the authority of the oral tr-ad itions of the Pharisees but angels are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, even in the Torah itc;elf, and it is unlikely that the Sadducees consistently rationalized the biblical ap pearances of angels into human messengers, although they certainly rejected as superstition the exu berant angelology and demonology which was popular among apocalyptic circles, for example, the Es· senes.~ The d ifference beh veen the Sadducees and Pharisees may be that they represented d ifferent kinds of angelology; while the latter regardet.i angels ~1s independent, distinct personalities with \Vilis of their own, the Sad ducees maintained an o lder vie\"' and perceived them as mere impersonal extensions of the Dcity.!ls The implied mean· ing of Acts 23:8 may thus be that the Sadd ucees refused to accept the later angelology embraced by the Pharisees and other jewish groups.!l9

5<1 SS 56

Si 58 59

Cutm.an n/ Edihltial s taff 197 I, 961. Gutm
2. Early Jewish Exegesis - A Survey 2.1 General Background 2.1.1 The Written and the Oral Torah Knowledge o f the Hebrew Bible alone is not sufficient fo r a proper u nderstand ing o f Jud aism. A person gains approximately the same amount o f knowled ge of judaism as o f Ch ristianity by confining his/her study to these Ho ly Scriptures.' In addition to the Bible, Judaism has an ora l trad ition, the oral Torah. In the same way as 0 1ristianity, Judaism has a d ual Canon. According to tradition, both the written Tor-ah (the Bible) and the oral Torah were revealed by God at Sinai. l The Torah is the heart of Rabbinic Judaism 3 and is often compared to a marriage contract, Israel being the wife of God:' O ne of the few dogmas of Rabbinic Judaisrn is the divine and Mosaic origin o f the To~ rah.$The tem1 'Torah' is a somewhat complicated concept. The tmnsla· tion ' law' is too narrow, as the term rather implies ' instruction', ' teach.. ing' o r 'guidance in life'. In its most lim ited sense 'the (written) Torah' indicates the Pentateuch, the most holy part o f the Bible in Judaism. In relation to the Pentateudl, the rest o f the biblical books are considered ''commentaries" on the Mosaic revelation, although the concept can also signify the Bible as a whole.

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 p••actice." See also Adania 2002. 20-21. Trebolle BarTera 1998, 2 I ·22. an d Signc •· 1994, 66·67. The main focu.." i$ on !io."".I·Cillled '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.,. f•tbil~>tS. and not only as 3 designation of the Rabbinic Midras him. Philo and ]n.
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