ANGELOLOGY AND THE SUPERNAL WORLDS IN THE

ARAMAIC TARGUMS TO THE PROPHETS*

BY

RIMMON KASHER
Bar-Ilan University,Ramat-Gan

A belief in the existence of angels is basic to the Aramaic Targums

to the Bible, as it is to the overwhelming majority of Jewish literature.
In this respect these branches of literature are merely reflecting well-
established beliefs of the Ancient East and the Hellenistic world, signs
of which are already discernible in the Bible. However, a careful exam-
ination of the available material will show that the Aramaic Targums
do not reflect identical conceptions or trends. For example, A. Shinan
has demonstrated considerable differences between the angelology of
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, on the one hand, and the Palestinian Targums
to the Pentateuch, on the other, both in the frequency of their refer-
I
ences to angels and in the attitude expressed therein.'
In this article I would like to examine angelological ideas as reflected
in the Aramaic Targums to the books of the Prophets: Targum Jonathan
(hereafter: TJ), on the one hand, and the so-called "Toseftot Targum"
(hereafter: TTs), on the other. Indeed, the Toseftot Targum to the
Prophets, unlike TJ, do not constitute a "corpus" in the strict sense,
being scattered in numerous manuscripts; we do not possess even one
manuscript encompassing all the Toseftas-such a manuscript most
probably never existed. Nevertheless, an overview of the TTs uncov-
ers a largely uniform world of beliefs, and this is true, inter alia, of their
treatment of the angelic world.
It appears that despite the basic assumption, common to both TJ
and the TTs, that the angelic world exists, the two Targums differ in
their attitudes to angels. The differences extend to the frequency of

* This article is based on R. Kasher, TargumicToseflotto the Prophets(Sources

for the
Studyof JewishCulture,vol. II), Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1996.
' A. Shinan "The
Angelologyof the Palestinian Targums on the Pentateuch," Sefarad
43 (1983), 196-197; idem,The Embroidered Targum,Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992, 127.
 169

references, to the specific names of angels or angelic groups, and to

the roles assigned to these supernal creatures. Speaking generally, one
might say that TJ avoids mentioning angels as far as possible; to quote
Smolar and Aberbach, "TJ ... tends to restrict the significance and
activity of the angels."2 The TTs, on the other hand, incline toward
the opposite extreme, some offering details never mentioned in the
Bible or even in TJ. Nevertheless, they do adhere to certain restric-
tions which, surprisingly, are not observed in TJ or indeed in other
Jewish literary works.

I. Discretion on tzuo counts: Anonymiry versus Identification, Detail

(1) Let us begin with the different treatments of the angel who
appears to Joshua at Jericho. In Josh. 5,14 this angel presents himself
as "captain of the Lord's host," and the next verse also refers to the
angel as such. Tj' renders the title as "an angel sent from before the
Lord" (v. 14) or "an angel who has been sent by the Lord" (v. 15).
This translation avoids any reference to God's heavenly host or to a
hierarchy in the angelic world; naturally, therefore, it does not con-
sider the angel himself as possessing any kind of elevated rank.
The various TTs to this verse' reflect the same policy of interpre-
tation or translation. However, not content to leave the angel anony-
mous, while on the other hand reluctant to associate him with the
Lord's host, they identify Joshua's angel with Uriel/Ariel,5 and set out
his tremendous size in detail:

(13) And it came to pass, when Joshua came to fight at Jericho, he looked
up and saw an angel standing before him, and his name was Uriel, and his
length was as from the earth to the heavens,and his width was as from Egypt to

2 L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, Studiesin

TargumJonathan to the Prophets,New York-
Baltimore :Ktav Publishing House and Baltimore Hebrew College, 1983, 224.
3
Throughout this article my text for TJ will be the (Yemenite)tradition published
by A. Sperber, The Biblein Aramaic,II-III, Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1959-1962.
4 The
quotation below is based on the complete manuscript, MS New York JTS
L899a, fol. 83b-84a. Other MSS containing this TT, with variations, are the Genizah
fragments MS Cambridge T.-S. B 13,12, and MS New York JTS L607, fol. 5.
5 The Genizah fragment reads "Ariel" and as this MS is written in plene
spelling, it is dubious whether one should read "Uriel" for "Ariel." Both names are
known from other angelologicalsources. For Uriel in Second Temple period literature
see The Old Testament ed. J.H. Charlesworth, I-II, New York: Doubleday,
Pseudepigrapha,
1983-1985, Index, s.v. "Uriel." For Rabbinic literature see R. Margaliyot, Mal¸akhei
'Elyon, Jerusalem:Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 19642,5-10. For the angel Ariel see Margaliyot,
ib., 17.
170

jericho, and his sword was drawn fiom sheath to sheath in his hand. Joshua threw
himself face down on the ground and asked him, saying, Have you come
to help us or do you wish to slay our enemies?
(14) And he said, I have not come to help, neither am I an enemy; I
am an angel, sent by the Lord! Now I have come.... To punish you ...
have I come.... And Joshua threw himself face down on the ground
and said, I pray You, 0 Lord, forgive your servant's sins on account of his
deeds. And he said to him, Everythingthat was utteredbeforethe Lord must be
fi§illed and carried out.
(15) And the angel who was sent by the Lord said to Joshua ...
While in w. 14-15 the TT concurs with the interpretational-trans-
lational basis of TJ as to the title "captain of the Lord's host," its ver-
sion of v. 13 introduces elements found neither in the Bible nor in TJ:
the angel's name is Uriel/Ariel, and he is gigantic: his length is the
distance from earth to heaven, his width, the distance from Egypt to
Jericho.s
Nevertheless, the TT adopts some caution with respect to the angel.
In the Bible, Joshua prostrates himself only after the apparition has
identified itself as "captain of the Lord's host" (v. 14), and he addresses
the angel as adoni, "my lord." TJ translates literally, "What does my
lord (ribboni) command his servant?" Lacking any explicit message from
God, the word "my lord" is clearly referring to the angel. Not so in
the TT. Despite the grandiose description of the angel Uriel, Joshua
does not address the angel at all at this point. Instead, the Targum
understands Joshua's question "What does my lord etc." as a declara-
tion of submission to God: "Everything that was uttered before the
Lord must be fulfilled and carried out." In other words: "my lord" is
taken as referring to God. Moreover, Joshua appeals directly to God,
ignoring the angel: "... and said, I pray You, 0 lord."
Thus the TT under discussion differs from TJ in explicitly naming
the angel and defining his size. At the same time, it nevertheless takes
a restrictive view of the angel's function, assigning him no intermedi-
ary role and a fortiori not deifying him or putting him in God's place.
TJ's tendency to avoid any reference to a heavenly "army" or host
of any kind, exemplified by its translation of "captain of the Lord's
host" as "angel sent by the Lord," may be detected elsewhere as well.

6 Possiblyan allusion to the legend that the angel who appeared to Joshua was the
one who had appeared to Moses in the thornbush. This legend is also featured in the
TT to Josh. 5,14 in MS University of Salamanca 1, written in 1532 by Alfonso de
Zamora.
 171

For example, TJ generally understands the phrase "Lord of hosts" as

a proper noun, therefore not translating but rendering it in the origi-
nal biblical Hebrew. The same is true of such phrases as "the God of
hosts."'
The Targums to the Hagiographa, on the other hand, sometimes
take a different course. Thus, the Targum to Ps. 89,9 translates the
phrase "Lord, God of hosts" as "Lord, God over all soldiers of the
heavens," while 1 Chr. 17,24, "Lord of hosts," is rendered similarly.
This translation/interpretation was apparently also common in Prophets.
An echo may be found in Targum Esth. 1,4,8 where Hag. 2,8 is cited:

MT The silver is mine and the gold is mine--says 11

TJ The silver is mine and the gold is mine-says
T. Esth. The silver is mine and the gold is mine-says '`ft7 h
[= The Lord, commander of the hosts]
Does the quotation from Targum Esther represent the translation of
an isolated verse, or is this a remnant of an overall interpretational
approach to the translation of Prophets, departing from that of our
present TJ? Currently available data are insufficient to permit a definite
conclusion.
The fact that TJ, followed by the TT as cited, avoid ascribing heav-
enly hosts to God' is thus particularly striking, given the evidence of
an alternative Jewish tradition of translation/interpretation. Parallels to
this tradition, incidentally, may be found both in the Peshitta'° and in
the Syro-Palestinian translation." 1I

7 Cf. 2 Sam.
5,10; 1 Kgs. 19,10.14;Jer. 5,14; 15,16; 35,17; 38,17; 44,7; Hos. 12,6;
Am. 3,13; 4,13; 5,14-16.27; 6,8.14; 9,5. On the possibilityof interpreting the Hebrew
word zeua¸ot,generally translated as "hosts," in the sense of actual military forces see
J.A. Emerton, "New Light on Israelite Religion," ZAW 94 (1982), 3-9. On the descrip-
tion of angels as soldiers see B.A. Levine, "The Language of the Magical Bowls," in:
J. Neusner (ed.),A Historyof the Jewsin Babylonia,V, Leiden: Brill, 1970, 343-344, 361-
364, in connection with magical bowls and Seferha-Razim;in the context of Qumranic
texts see C. Newsom, Songsof the SabbathSacrifice. A CriticalEdition(HSS 27), Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1985, 29; and for a good example in Hekhalot literature see 3 Enoch
19,6.
8
According to MS Vat. Urb. Ebr. 1, written in 1294. A facsimileedition was pub-
lished by E. Levine, The Targumto the FiveMegillot-CodexVaticanUrbinatiI, Jerusalem:
Makor, 1977. See on this quotation M. Goshen-Gottstein, Fragmentsof Lost Targumim,
II, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1989, 31.
9 But cf.
TJ to 1 Kgs. 22,19, translating "the host of heaven" as "the soldiers of
heaven."
10
E.g., to Josh. 5,14.15: "I am the military commander of the Lord"; to Hag. 2,6.8:
"Says the Lord of hosts...."
11
E.g., in 1 Sam. 4,4: "the Ark of the Lord of Hosts Enthroned on the Cherubim"
172

(2) The naming of an angel who is mentioned anonymously in the

Bible and in TJ may also be found in three different TTs to 2 Kgs.
19,35. Let us first compare the different translations with the original
text:' 2

MT ... an angel of the Lord went out and struck down ...
TJ ... an angel of the Lord went out and slew ...
TT The mymr' of the Lord caused confusion in the camp of Sennache-
rib King of Assyria, and Michael, the angel of the Lord, went out
and slew ...

Thus, the TT to the verse identifies the angel who smote the Assyrians
as Michael, an angel already familiar from the book of Daniel (10,13.21;
12,1) and much of post-biblical literature.'3 On the other hand, TTs
to Ezek. 1,1'4 and Is. 10,32'? identify the same angel as Gabriel, who
also appears in Dan. (8,16; 9,21), and is quite prominent in post-
biblical literature. These TTs clearly share the tendency, foreign to
the Bible and TJ, not to leave any angel unnamed.
At the same time, the TT to Ezek. 1,1introduces a detail unmen-
tioned in the Bible or in TJ, also referring to the Assyrian defeat:

The angel Gabriel, who is one of His emissaries, went out and appeared
from the Temple Wall and burned all the camps with fire.
I cannot explain why the angel Gabriel is said to appear "from the
Temple wall." At any rate, unlike TJ, the TT is of course expanding
and adding to the biblical text.

II. Discretion versus Intense Curiosity

Another example illustrating the difference between TJ and the TTs
is the translation of Chapter 1 in Ezekiel, known as Ma`aseh Merkavah,

and Zech. 9,15: "The Lord of Hosts will protect them" the phrase is rendered liter-
ally. Cited from M. Goshen-Gottstein, TheBiblein the Syropalestinian Version,
I, Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1973, ad loc.
12The TT is from MS Reuchlinianus 3; for a facsimile see A.
Sperber, Codex
Reuchlinianus in Karlsruhe,
No. 3 of theBadischLandesbibliothek Copenhagen:Ejnar Munksgaard,
1956. The addition appears as a marginal gloss, with the comment that it was taken
from the Jerusalem Targum (Heb. Targ<um>Yerush<almi>).
13See the
copious material provided by Margaliyot, Mal¸akhei�Elyon, 108-135; for
references in Second Temple period literature see OT Pseudepigrapha (Charlesworthed.),
Index, s.v. "Michael."
14 MS Gaster 1478, The John Rylands University Library of Manchester.
15 SeeMS Reuchlin. 3 (supra, n. 12), in a marginal gloss.
16 Margaliyot,op.cit.,21-44; OT Pseudepigrapha(Charlesworthed.), Index, s.v. "Gabriel."
 173

which describes in some detail the beasts bearing God's throne in

Ezekiel's vision. The details touch upon several aspects of the vision:
the number of beasts (four); the number of heads and wings of each
beast (also four); the shape of their feet (rigid, like a calf's foot); and
their faces, each made up of the faces of four different animals-man,
lion, ox and eagle. The prophet also describes how the beasts moved
as a group and their appearance, like burning fire (Ezek. 1,5-13). He
further describes the wheels that moved the beasts (w. 15-21). The
entire scene is the basis for descriptions of the Merkavah, the Heavenly
Chariot, in post-biblical literature.
How do the Aramaic translations treat this chapter?
TJ in fact departs in some verses from strict adherence to the text.
It accurately describes the place and time of the vision (v. 1); it some-
what expands the account of v. 6, stating that each beast had sixteen
faces and sixteen wings, the total of all faces of the four beasts being
sixty-four, which is also the total number of wings; it also notes the
function of the hands below their wings (v. 8). The mission of the
beasts is described at length (v. 14), as is their reaction when the Lord
addresses His prophets (v. 25). In addition, TJ explains the biblical
comparison of the sound of the beasts' wings to "a tumult like the din
of an army" (v. 24) as referring to the beasts' voices (?) uttering God's
praises, and to the voices of "the camp of angels on high."
No further details are provided in TJ of the beasts' appearance
beyond the original biblical text. The translation does not fill out our
knowledge of the beasts' limbs (except for their legs, wings, hands and
faces, which are described in the text itself), or of their sizes or the
sizes of their limbs. TJ's primary concern is to explain the text; as far
as the mystical aspects of the description are concerned, the translator
displays considerable reserve.
The TTs to Ezek. 1,1, however, are less concerned with explana-
tion than they are with the mystical message of the text. However, far
from painting a uniform picture, they represent several different shades
of interest.
One TT to the verse that exhibits a distinct mystical bent may be
found in MS Gaster 1478. 17 In fact, this translation devotes itself to
describing all the supernal worlds, one by one. It first describes the
seven firmaments, the extent of each and the distance between con-
secutive firmaments. The seven firmaments are listed as vilon, reqi`a,

17See
above, n. 14.
174

shehaqim, zevul, ma'on, makhon, the extent of each firmament is

five hundred days' march, and that is also the distance between every
two firmaments."
There follows a very long description of the beasts' limbs, fourteen (!)
in number,20 from hooves to horns. The list is as follows: hoof, ankle,
shin, thigh, knee, side (?), buttocks, back, waist, arm, shoulder, neck,
head, horn. The translator then goes on to add the dimensions of each
and every limb, stating that the size of each limb is the composite sum
of the distance from the earth to the heavens (= 500 days' march) +
the total extent of the seven firmaments (including the thickness of the
firmaments and the distances between them) + the sum of heights of
all the previous limbs. And these details are set out separately for each
limb! Once the account of the beasts has been completed, the TT adds
various other details: the extent of the 800 firmaments above which
stands the Lord's throne; and the responsibility of the angel Metatron
for these firmaments. The detailed account ends with the interesting
comment that God's praise is so great that "his servants and the angels
of the heavens cannot know and utter his praises"!
But the mystical curiosity does not end there. The text goes on to
mention "light-[footed] angels of wrath," who take sinners down to Ge-
hinnom, heap fire and sulfur upon them and rebuke them for their
misdeeds. In addition, describing the fate of Sennacherib and Nebu-
chadnezzar in Gehinnom, the Targum identifies Gabriel as the angel
who smote the Assyrian camp (2 Kgs. 19,35).
In sum, the TT in question paints a colorful picture of the upper
worlds: it describes the seven firmaments and lists their extent, as well
as the beasts' fourteen limbs and the sizes of those limbs; it tells of the
"angels of wrath" and the angels Gabriel and Metatron.
Before we compare this TT to TJ and to the TT for Josh. 4-5, we
must note that it exists in several versions. The version just described
is the longest, all the others being considerably shorter." The main

18
Similarly in the Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 12b; Avotde-R.Natan, Version A,
37 (Schechter ed. p. 110); VayiqraRabba 29,11 (Margulies ed., p. 680); Pesiqtade-Rav
Kahana23,10 (Mandelbaum ed., p. 343); MidrashTehillim114 (Buber ed., p. 471); Seder
Ma�aseh Bereshit,in Wertheimer, BatteiMidrashot2I, pp. 29, 38-43, 367; Midrashha-Gadol
Gen. 1,1 (Marguliesed., pp. 15, 18); Midrash�Aseret ha-Dibberot
(Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash
I, p. 64).
19Cf.
Hagigah 12b;Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 9,1 (13a).
20 I have found no
parallel to this long list.
21All the
(!) manuscripts I have been able to locate which include TTs to Ezek. 1,1
in the short version are of Yemenite origin.
 175

difference is that the short versions are very brief in their descriptions
of the beasts' limbs: beginning with the size of the lowest limb-the
ankle-they then state that all the other limbs are of the same size.
Moreover, the number of limbs is smaller: eight or even less. To my
mind, these differences betray a definite tendency to restrict attention
to the beasts of the Chariot as far as possible. A similar tendency may
be discerned in Midrash Tanhuma, Terumah 9: "And the hooves of
the beasts were five hundred years and fifteen years march. There is
no need to measure anything higher than the beasts' hooves." While
the Buber ed. on Terumah 8 (p. 93) does not even refer to the size
of the hooves: "There is no need to measure the beasts' hooves."
Perhaps the TTs' evasion of a detailed specification of the beasts' limbs
should be attributed not to a desire for abbreviation but to a certain
reticence concerning the Heavenly Chariot.
At the same time, however, these very same short versions refer to
vast hosts of angels ("a thousand thousands and a myriad myriads"-
cf. Dan. 7,10) surrounding the Throne: "angels of fire" and "angels of
wrath." Here, too, we are told of the vast dimensions of the angels:
"... as from the height of the earth to the height of the heavens."
Clearly, then, mystical curiosity is not abated even in these short ver-
sions ; reticence is exercised, however, with respect to discussion of the
Chariot.
A comparison of TJ with the TTs to Ezek. 1,1reveal a consider-
able difference. As we have seen, TJ does not depart from the bibli-
cal account, neither does it add details. The TTs, on the other hand-
all versions-add a great variety of details found neither in the Bible
nor in TJ. While the biblical text does make some reference to the
number of limbs, it says nothing whatsoever of their vast sizes, and
neither is there any hint to that effect in TJ. No other heavenly crea-
tures are mentioned: neither Metatron nor Gabriel appears; the different
angelic hosts mentioned in the TTs-the "angels of wrath" and "angels
of fire" are unparalleled in the Bible or in TJ; and the tremendous
number of angels is an innovation of the TTs.
Yet another difference between TJ and the (long version of the) TT
is their attitude to the angelic songs of praise. One of the classical roles
assigned to angels in the literature of angelology is to sing God's praises.22
Accordingly, TJ refers to the beasts(?) in such terms in Ezek. 1,24:

22For
angels' praise of God see Newsom, Songs,29-30.
176

"The sound of their speech as they give thanks and bless their living
Sovereign, the King of the In the TT to Ezek. 1,1, how-
ever, the angelic bands grouped around the Throne are incapable of
uttering praise: "His servants and the heavenly angels cannot know or
utter His praise, for their eyes cannot see, nor their ears hear." God's
greatness is such that even angels cannot apprehend it. Such limita-
tions on the angels' powers of perception may be found in the tan-
naitic literature. For example, the Sifra to Lev. 2,1 (Finkelstein ed.,
p. 18) reports a dispute between R. Akiva and R. Simeon bar Azzai
concerning the subject of the verse "You cannot see My face, for man
may not see Me and live" (Ex. 33,20):
Rabbi Akiva said: ... Even the beasts who bear [the Throne] do not see
the Glory. Said Simeon bar Azzai: I do not come to dispute my Master's
words, only to add to them :... Even the ministering angels, who are
immortal, do not see the Glory.

The same dispute, but with interesting variations, is found in Siftei

Numbers 103 (Horovitz ed., p. 101). For our purposes, the interesting
element in that source is a statement of R. Eleazar son of R. Jose:
"Not that they do not see; but they even do not know His place... ".
We have here evidence of a relatively early concept (late 2nd century
C.E.), which limits the angels' powers of perception. This would seem
to clash with much of Qumran literature, which refers to angels, inter
alia, in terms derived in various ways from the verb "to know": "Known
of the Worlds," "those who know the mysteries of... Purity," "the
"illuminators of knowledge," "spirits of knowledge and intelli-
gence," and so on.
Finally, comparing the TTs to Ezek. 1,1with the TT to Josh. 4-5,
we find both texts describing the celestial creatures as possessing vast
dimensions. Both identify the angels by name: Joshua's angel is Uriel,
while the TT to Ezekiel (long version) names the angel who smote the
Assyrian camp as Gabriel.

III. Earthly versus Angelological Exegesis. The Angelic Order

We have already seen that TJ tends to avoid references to angels
as far as possible. Even where the Bible actually uses the word mal'akh,

23 Cf.
TJ to Ezek. 3,12, where, however, the text does not disclose the identity of
those uttering praise.
 177

"angel," or where the text otherwise suggests an association with angels,

the translation is not faithful to the text but renders it differently. The
TTs, on the other hand, rise to the occasion, as it were, and follow
their usual inclinations. A good example is provided by the different
translations of Is. 33,7:24

MT Behold, their valiant ones (? Heb.: 'r'lm) cry out

TJ Behold, when You reveal Y ourself25to them, the emissaries of the
nations will cry out bitterly
TT Behold, when I revealed Myself to Abraham ... And after that I
told him to offer him up as a burnt-offering ... Then rose all the
heavenlyangels,artgelsof fear, artgelsof trembling,and cried outside their
enclosure and said ...
MT The ambassadors (Heb. mafakhei) of peace weep bitterly
TJ (Those) who went to proclaim peace began once again to weep
bitterly
TT And eventhe angels of peace who stand in the camp of the Shekhinah
weep bitterly ...
Whatever the meaning of this difficult verse, and whatever the pos-
sible readings,26 the difference between TJ and the TT is obvious. The
former pictures the text in earthly terms: the Hebrew mal'akhei shalom
is translated "emissaries."" The picture traced by the TT, on the other
hand, pertains entirely to the upper worlds. The Hebrew 'r'lm (v.l.:
'r'lym) is considered as a generic term for angels,2$ and is therefore ren-
dered in Aramaic by the general term 'ngly mrurm', "heavenly angels."29
The translation goes on to identify these angels as belonging to two
more specific groups: "angels of fear" and "angels of trembling,"3° on

24The TT is a
marginal gloss in MS Reuchlinianus 3, with the indication that it
was extracted from Targ<um>Yerush<almi>.
25Aram.
ttgly;v.1.: ¸tgly= I shall reveal Myself.
26 Some medieval Hebrew
manuscripts read ¸r¸lym(in the plural); 1QIsa reads ¸r¸ lm
(= I shall show them?).
27 The Aramaic word used here, ¸zgd,belongs to the earthly, human world, being
the term usually employed in the Targums to Prophets for flesh-and-bloodmessengers.
Cf., e.g., TJ to Is. 14,32; 18,2; 30,4; 37,9.
28 For this term and its occurrences see S.M.
Olyan, A ThousandThousandsServedHim
(TSAJ 36), Tübingen: J.C. Mohr, 1993, 52-53.
29This
phrase is also common in the Targums to the Hagiographa. See Ps. 50,4.6;
97,6; Job 15,15; 20,27; Second Targum to Esth. 6,1;1 Chr. 16,31.In all these cases,
with the exception of the Targum to Esther, the phrase is the translation of (ha-)shamayim,
"heaven. "
30This identification is
presumably based on the derivation of the word 'r'lm from
the root yr¸; cf. LXX ad loc.
178

the one hand, and "angels of peace," on the other.

TJ also resorts to groups of angels in its explanation for 1 Kgs.
19,11-12. This passage describes God's revelation to Elijah on Mount
Horeb in a rather unusual way, and that is probably why TJ saw fit
to introduce angelic camps: "the camp of angels of wind," "the camp
of angels of fear," "the camp of angels of fire." Some of these groups
are also mentioned in TTs to Is. 33,7 ("angels of fear") and Ezek. 1,1I
("heavenly angels," "angels of fire"). Nevertheless, there is a slight
difference between TJ and the TTs. While the latter employ phrases
whose opening word is "angels," TJ essentially refers not directly to
angels but to angelic "camps," using the Aramaic word mlgt'. The
explanation for this distinction may lie in an overall conception of the
angelic order. The term mahaneh, "camp," is generally used in the Bible
in a military context, whether in the sense of a camp proper (of some
armed force or host) or in the wider sense of an army or host itself.3'
Indeed, Qumranic references to angels describe an angelic order par-
alleling that of the Qumran sect itself, phrased in military terms bor-
rowed from the biblical account of the Children of Israel in the desert,
such as mahaneh, degel or piqqud.32 It seems not inconceivable that such
use of the word msryt' indicates TJ's conception of the angels as orga-
nized along military lines. If so, it seems rather curious that TJ to Josh.
5,14-15 does not render the phrase "captain of the Lord's host" liter-
ally (see above) and moreover does not translate the phrases "Lord of
Hosts" or "God of Hosts" at all.
Conversely, the absence of the word msryt' in angelic references in
the TTs may perhaps hint at a different notion of the angelic order.
At the same time, the TTs do seem to refer to different groups of
angels (and individual angels) as possessing different status. Thus, the
TT to Is. 33,7 cited above mentions at least three groups. Two of
them-"angels of fear" and "angels of trembling"-are said to be "out-
side their enclosure", while one-"angels of peace" is in the "camp of
the Shekhinah." These statements may be associated with a saying
attributed to the Palestinian amora R. Johanan (3rd century C.E.): "Only
angels of peace and angels of mercy stand before the Holy One, blessed
be He, but the angels of wrath are distant from Him."33 However, the
basic idea of the TT to Ezek. 1,1 (brief version) seems different, as it

31 See BDB 334a.

32 Cf. Newsom,
Songs,29.
33 Tanhuma,"Tazria�"11(Buber ed., p. 39).
 179

refers to "angels of fire" and "angels of wrath" close to the Divine

Throne.
Up to this point we have mentioned four individual angels by name:
Uriel, Michael, Gabriel (later we shall also refer to Penuel) and Metatron.
Of these, only the last-named is described (in the TT to Ezek. 1,1) by
the phrase "the Great Prince of Israel." Thus the TT preserves a well
known (late) tradition according to which Metatron is the most impor-
tant angel .14

IV. Disputes and Battles Among Angels and With Angels

TJ's tendency to minimize attention to the angelic world implies,

naturally, that it never mentions any kind of conflict among the super-
nal creatures or any threat to their existence. The TTs, however, are
less reticent on this subject.
(1) A very cautious reference to a conflict, possibly only a discus-
sion, among angels may be found in the TT to 1 Sam. 17,42.35 The
Targum is concerned here with the dialogue between David and Goliath.
After the dialogue a quarrel breaks out among five stones, each claim-
ing the privilege of being chosen to slay the Philistine giant. The stones
are named for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Aaron. Simultaneously
with the dispute among the stones, a consultation takes place in heaven:

Thereupon David raised his eyes to the heavens and saw angels taking
counsel against Goliath the Philistine. Thereupon Aaron's stone was viewed
with favor by the Lord.

The motif of angelic counsel is unique to this fragment. In Midrash

Samuel 21,1 (Buber ed., p. 108) the disputants are Aaron and God:
"Aaron said: Am I not the blood-avenger? It is my task to take retri-
bution against him! Said the Holy One, blessed be He: On the con-
trary, he has blasphemed and reviled before me! It is my task to take
retribution against him!" In a variant of this midrash, cited in David
Kimhi's commentary ad loc., the three Patriarchs also intervene, on the
grounds that Goliath "blasphemed and reviled the ranks of the living

34 For Metatron's
position see Margaliyot, Mal¸akhei�Elyon, 91-107; H. Odeberg,
3 Enochor the HebrewBookof Enoch,repr. with a prolegomenon by J. Greenfield, New
York: KTAV, 1973, xxx-xxxii,79-146.
35
Quoted from MS Munich 5. The same TT exists in other MSS: Jew's College,
Montefiore Collection 7 (H. 116);MS Madrid, National Library 7542; MS Salamanca,
University Library 1; also in the Leiria ed. of Former Prophets (1494).
180

God (= Israel)." As against these midrashic traditions, the TT proba-

bly preserves a tradition of a similar argument in the heavens-possi-
bly over which angel would slay Goliath36 or which stone would be
chosen by lot. One should note the midrashic tradition cited in Aggadat
Bereshit 51 (Buber ed., pp. 102-103), according to which "the angel of
Satan" assisted Goliath, whereas the "ministering angels" helped the
Israelites.37
(2) In a TT to 2 Sam. 21,1738 we find a lengthy account of the bat-
tle between David and "Ishbi benob" (sic!). This battle, too, like that
of David and Goliath, is given an angelological bent; the reference,
though brief, is of no little interest:

Thereupon David once again raised his eyes to the heavens and saw, and
behold, the arcgel(Aram. of Israeland the angel of the Philistineswere fighting
one another.

The motif of the angel, or genius,39 of Israel battling the angel of the
Philistines may already be found in the book of Daniel (10,13.20), and
it was well developed in Qumranic literature, particularly in the War
Scroll. 40 It should be noted that this was no argument or verbal dis-
pute, but a battle in all earnest. This example, therefore, repeats the
motif already referred to in the previous example: whatever happens
in the lower worlds has its counterpart in the supernal worlds.
(3) A TT to Is. 57,154' renders a lengthy description of a verbal
argument between the angels Michael and Samael. The argument, said

36 Cf. Pseudo-Philo61,5, where God sends the

angel Zervihel to help fight Goliath.
37Cf. the comment of Evelin van
Staalduine-Sulman, "The Aramaic Song of the
Lamb," in J.C. de Moor & W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Versein AncientNear EasternProse,
Neukirchen: Neukirchen Verlage, 1993, 279: "... the poem does not only describe the
struggle between David and Goliath, but also the on-going struggle between the forces
of good and evil, of God and his adversaries." And see our second example below.
38
Quoted from MS Gaster 1478,The John Rylands UniversityLibrary of Manchester.
Part of this MS was published by Gaster himself in ZDMG 62 (1908), 528-530.
39 The literal
meaning of the word ¸ysr¸is "prince, lord," but it is commonly used
in angelologicalcontexts.Cf. Bab. Talmud, Yoma 77a: "Dubiel, the ¸ysr¸of the Persians"
(as in MS Munich); Pesahim 111b: "The ¸ysr¸ of sustenance is called Cleanliness, the
¸ysr¸of poverty is called Filth." The word appears in similar contexts in Aramaic mag-
ical texts; cf. C.D. Isbell, Corpusof theAramaicIncantationBowls,Missoula:Scholars Press,
1975, text 49,11: "Metatron, The Great Prince (¸ysr¸rabba)of his Throne"; text 56,12-
13 : "Metatron, The Great Prince (¸ysr¸ rabba)of the entire universe.... Raph<i>'el,
the prince (¸ysr¸)of all healings."
40 See Y.
Yadin, The Scrollof the War of the Sonsof Lightagainstthe Sonsof Darkness,
transl. B. & Ch. Rabin, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962, 232-240. Cf. 2 Macc.
5,1-4; Rev. 12,7-9.
41
Quoted from MS Gaster 1478,The John Rylands UniversityLibrary of Manchester.
 181

to have taken place on the Day of Atonement,42 concerns the behav-

ior of the Children of Israel, Michael noting its positive aspects and
Samael negative ones. Finally, God Himself declares that Michael has
gained the upper hand:
Said the Supreme One to Michael: All power to you, for you have over-
come Satan with the utterance of your mouth.

(4) The prophet Zechariah has a vision in which Joshua, the High
Priest, appears before a heavenly tribunal with the participation of the
angel of the Lord, Satan and the Lord Himself (Zech. 3, ff.). Though
both the biblical text and the various Targums describe a heated dis-
pute between Satan (in some Aramaic translations: the Accuser) and
God, the Targums describe Satan in different ways:41

(3>')
MT Joshua,... standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan stand-
ing at his right to accuse him.
TJ Joshua, ... standing before the angel of the Lord, and the Subverter
(Aram. h *I')standing at his right to accuse him
TT Joshua, ... standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan (Aram.
stn') standing at his right to accuse him
(3,2)
MT And the Lord said to Satan, "The Lord rebuke you, 0 Satan!"
TJ And the Lord said to the Subverter, "The Lord rebuke you, 0
Subverter!"
TT And the Lord said to Satan, "The Lord rebuke (the) Satan!"
= stn', instead
Why did TJ avoid the simple translation satan using the
word htl, htlh oryn'? One explanation that has been suggested points
to the idea (Bab. Talmud Bava Batra 16a) that Satan "descends (from
Heaven to Earth) and leads astray, and ascends (from Earth to Heaven)
and prosecutes, obtains permission and takes the soul [= kills]." The
important point for TJ was not the demonic force ascribed to Satan,

42Is. 57,14-58,14is the

Haftarah for the Day of Atonement (Morning Service)accord-
ing to most rites. The motif of an angelic debate may also be found in the midrashic
literature. See, e.g., Tanhuma,Deuteronomy 10-a brief account of a dispute between
the angels of the twelve tribes and the angel of Esau; the outcome indicates the win-
ner in the upper and lower worlds.
43
Quoted from MS Parma, Palatine Library 555 (de Rossi 1854).The TT also exists
in other MSS, with many variations: Oxford, Bodl. 68-69; MS Berlin, the National
Library 1; MS London 187; MS Madrid, UniversityLibrary 116-Z-39;MS Salamanca,
University Library 3; MS Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale 75.
182

but his task, i.e., to subvert and accuse; hence the use of §j'."
A similar understanding of Satan may be found in the TT to Is.
57,15 (above, example 3), where Samael (= Satan) is indeed described
as an accuser. However, the TT to Zech. 3,1-2 is bold enough to con-
sider Satan part of God's heavenly retinue, both because of the bibli-
cal account here and because of Satan's role in Job chaps. 1-2.45 It
therefore explicitly refers to the Accuser by his name, Satan.
(5) The last example in this section is rather different, both formally
speaking and in substance. The different versions of the TT to Ezek.
1,1 incorporate a passage which refers to Nebuchadnezzar's hubris on
the basis of Is. 14,12-14, where helel ben shabar, "The Shining One, Son
of Dawn," is described as desiring to rule the upper regions. The pas-
sage in question, cited below in a few versions, refers to v. 13:
MT I will ascend to the sky
TJ I will ascend to the height
TT46 I will ascend to the very uppermost heavens and destroy the upper
residences and battle the supremeholy ones
TT4' I will ascend to the highest heavens and destroy ...
TT48 I will ascend to the uppermost heavens and destroy the residences
of the upper regions
MT Higher than the stars of God will I set my throne
TJ Higher than the people of God will I set my royal throne
TT" And I will set my royal throne higher than the throne on high
TT4' And I will set my royal throne (Aram. hvrj mlkwty dyly) higher
than the Cherubim
TT48 And I will set my royal throne (Aram. lcze?rsymllauty)higher than
the Cherubim

There is no doubt that this passage is indeed a translation-interpreta-

tion of Is. 14,13.49 In content it goes far beyond the biblical text, which
in itself uses quite bold imagery. The "stars of God" are interpreted
as alluding to God's throne (or even thrones, in the plural, cf. Dan. 7,9)
or to the Cherubim. Moreover, while the Bible describes the "Shining
One" as aspiring to emulate God, the Targum has Nebuchadnezzar

44 Cf. Smolar-Aberbach, Studies,225.

45
Similarlythe Targums to the Hagiographa, e.g., Ps. 109,6; Job chaps. 1-2; 1 Chr.
21,1.
46 MS Gaster 1478.
47 MS New York,
JTS L260A.
48 MS Bar-Ilan University 737.
49 Cf.
DJ. Halperin, The Facesof the Chariot,Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988, 280.
 183

boasting of his ability to destroy the upper regions and attack "the holy
ones of the Most High"-presumably also to defeat them. The motif
of battle with the heavenly "holy ones" is borrowed from Dan. 7,18
+ 21-22.25, where the text is concerned with the war of the fourth
beast against the holy ones.
The TT to Ezek. 1,1, which does not hesitate to refer in detailed
terms to the supernal worlds (above, sec. II), also renders a bold account
of Nebuchadnezzar's ambition to achieve victory over the upper worlds.
TJ, on the other hand, never eager to give such descriptions, is seem-
ingly averse even to ascribe such thoughts to Nebuchadnezzar. Wherever
it can suggest a different interpretation, referring to earthly events, it
deviates from a literal translation in order to do so. Hence the text is
explained as referring to the Babylonian monarch's desire to rule not
over the upper regions but over the earth, i.e., over the people of
Israel. Even v. 14, which explicitly quotes the "Shining One" as say-
ing, "I will mount the back of a cloud, I will match the Most High,"
is interpreted in TJ metaphorically, placing the greatest possible dis-
tance between the text and the picture of the supernal world: "I will
ascend higher than any nation, I will be above all of them!"
It is not surprising, therefore, that TJ translates Is. 24,21, which
explicitly refers to war in the heavens: "In that day the Lord will pun-
ish the host of heaven in heaven," in such a way as to avoid all ref-
erence to mythological pictures painted in the Bible or to the super-
nal worlds: "And it shall come to pass, at that time the Lord will visit
[his wrath?] upon the mighty hosts who dwell in might." Similarly, it
was probably a reluctance to describe conflict in the heavenly retinue
that brought TJ to avoid ascribing any "fall" or "sin" to angels. Thus,
the mythic account of the sinning cherub in Ezek. 24,14-16 receives
an exclusively historical interpretation, aimed only at the king of Tyre
and omitting any mention of a "cherub."

V. Introduction of Angels Unmentioned in the Biblical Text

In this, the final section of our study of the attitude of the Targums
to Prophets to angels, we wish to consider an interesting feature of the
Targums, which may be explained in two ways. There are cases in
which, although the biblical text has nothing whatever to do with the
angelic world, the Targums-both TJ and TTs-nevertheless introduce
angels. There is apparently no single explanation for this phenomenon;
it may be attributed to two different tendencies-first, the desire to
184

avoid anthropomorphism; and, second, a tendency to favor midrashic

exegesis and a predilection for the supernatural.

A. Introduction of an 'Angel" to Avoid Anthropomorphism

In several passages, TJ introduces an angel where the Bible itself
refers directly to God. This may be done, for example, when the verb
root jj', "to go out, emerge," is applied to God. Though TJ some-
times renders this as 'tgly, "to be revealed,"5° it occasionally changes
the subject of the verb to an angel. Thus, TJ translates Judg. 4,14,
"Does not the Lord go out before you?" as "Does not the angel of
the Lord go out to insure success before you?" Similarly, TJ to 2 Sam.
5,25, "For the Lord will go out before you," as "For the angel of the
Lord will go out to prosper before you."" Smolar and Aberbach were
most probably right to attribute such cases to TJ's policy of avoiding
anthropomorphism.
The same tendency is evident in a TT to Josh. 10,41.'' This verse
refers to the meeting of Pharaoh (in the Bible: Abimelech!) and Sarah,
as related in Gen. 20. Among other things, the TT states that Pharaoh
was rebuked, even punished, by an angel of the Lord, for having taken
Abraham's wife Sarah: "And he was rebuked on her account by an
angel of the Lord." As the verb "rebuked" is derived from the root ykh,
this is no doubt a translation-interpretation of the word ze?e-nokhahat
(Gen. 20,16; generally translated into English as "you are righted" or
"you are cleared"), from the same root. In the biblical story, God
Himself appears to Abimelech king of Gerar (ib. w. 3, 6). The Pentateuch
Targums replace "God" by mymr', "word" (TO ad v. 3, v.l. in Samari-
tan translation; Neofiti to both verses), or by the letters YWY (TO to
v. 6). A tradition similar to that of the TT is transmitted in Bereshit
Rabba 40,2 (Theodor-Albeck ed., p. 389) in the name of the Palestinian
amora R. Levi: "All that night the angel stood over him holding a
whip." Further detail is furnished in the midrash Tanhuma, Lekh-Lekha
8 (Buber ed., p. 66): "Thereupon the angel came down from heaven
holding a rod...." It would seem that both the TT and the midrashic

50
E.g.: TJ to Judg. 5,4; Is. 26,21; Mic. 1,3. And cf. the Targums to Ex. 11,4.
51 MS London 187
(Sperber's sigla: a) reads "the Lord," more in keeping with a lit-
eral rendition. I shall discuss the literal translations of Prophets elsewhere.
52
Smolar-Aberbach, Studies,225.
53 MS Reuchlinianus the TT in
3; question is a marginal gloss, accompanied by the
comment that it was taken from <Targum>Yerush<almi>.
 185

sources introduce the angel in order to distance human beings from

direct contact with God. A similar trend may be discerned already in
1 C,ZGenAp XX,16-17, but there the agent of punishment is not an
angel but "a pestilential wind" or "a wind that was evil."

B. Introduction of Angels due to Midrashic Exegesis

In addition to the examples considered previously, one can cite fur-
ther instances of references to angels incorporated in TTs where the
biblical text itself involves no such reference. The tendency to ascribe
activity to angels, on the one hand, and midrashic exegesis, on the
other, may be responsible for the appearance of angels in the follow-
ing examples.
(1) According to the TT to I Sam. an angel sent Saul to
inform Eli of Israel's defeat:

And Saul son of Kish, a Benjaminite, ran from the battlefield and came
to Shiloh that day, by means of an angel who helpedhim run from there

Sources parallel to this fragment, which indeed identify the "Benjaminite"

of the biblical text with Saul, state that Saul was "light-footed. 1155 Our
TT, however, proposes a supernatural explanation for the speed with
which Saul reached Shiloh from the battlefield, involving the miracu-
lous intervention of an angel.
(2) According to the TT to I Kgs. 1,1,56 one reason that David
"never felt warm" was that, once he had seen the Angel of Death-
see 2 Sam. 24 (= 1 Chr. 21)-his body continued to tremble:
... because of the great fear and much trembling that seized him when
he saw the Angel of Death standing between heaven and earth, his drawn
sword in his hand ... His appearance was terrible, his voice fearful, ter-
ror and fear were upon his face ... Fear seized upon him ... Terror and
amazement entered him, all his bones broke and all his limbs trembled

The biblical text attributes David's condition to natural causes: "King

David was now old, advanced in years; and though they covered him
with bedclothes, he never felt warm," and TJ translates accordingly.

54MS Reuchlinianus 3; the TT in

question is a marginal gloss, accompanied by the
comment that it was taken from "another book" (sef<er>ah<er>).
55 Pseudo-Philo
54,4; MidrashSamuel11,1(BX ed., pp. 78-79); MidrashPsalms7,2
(Buber ed., p. 63).
56
Quoted here from MS Salamanca, University Library 1. Parallel sources: MS
Munich 5; Genizah fragment, Cambridge, T.-S. B 12.5.
186

The TT in question, however, associates David's condition with an

exceptional, even supernatural event in his past-the very sight of the
Angel of Death had a lasting effect on his physical well-being."
(3) Is. 21,5, part of the prophecy of "the Desert of the Sea,"58 seems
to be a call to prepare for war. Among other things, it calls upon the
princes/offitcers (iarim) to "grease the shields." TJ translates the phrase
literally, rendering sarim as rbrbj' * "great ones, princes."59 The TT to
this verse,6° however, understands the call as aimed at the angels:

Rise up, 0 Michael and Gabriel, the two Great Ones, take revenge from the
kingdom of Babylon and give the kingship to Cyrus and Darius, the
kings of Persia and Media
We shall not be far wrong if we consider the TT as expanding and
interpreting the Targumic tradition found in TJ ad loc., according to
which sarim = rbrby'. But it is doing so in its own special way: influenced
by repeated references to the angelic world, it only naturally identifies
the "great ones" with Michael and Gabriel, who are frequently called
sarim in Jewish literature.fi' Moreover, it refers to this pair of angels62
as intervening in historical events: they are responsible for removing
Babylon from the stage and raising up Persia and Media. In addition,
the Targum actually appeals to the angels-a rare feature in the TTs
to Prophets, though the fact that the verse is ostensibly spoken by God
somewhat mitigates the boldness of the interpretation.
(4) The TT to Ezek. 37,763 refers inter alia to the angel who defeated
the king of Babylon:

Just at the time the prophet was prophesying about them, Belshazzar the
king was drinking from them, and the angel struck that evil man on his
mouth

57 Farther on the TT
proposes another explanation: Davd's chills were a punish-
ment for the disrespect he showed for clothing when he cut off the corner of Saul's
cloak (1 Sam. 24,4-5).
58There are
many different explanations of this phrase. According to vv. 6 and 9
the prophecy is concerned with the defeat of Babylon by Elam and Media.
59Aram.
rbrby¸is a common translation for Heb. sarim;cf. TJ to Is. 19,11.13; 23,8;
30,4; 31,9; 34,12; 43,28; 49,7.
60 MS Reuchlinianus 3; the TT in
question is a marginal gloss, accompanied by the
comment that it was taken from Targ<um>Yerush<almi>.
61The source of the term is Dan.
10,13.21;12,1.
62 Michael and Gabriel are
frequently mentioned together, as a pair, in post-biblical
sources.
63
Quoted from a Pentateuch, ed. Salonika 1513. First published by A. Díez Macho,
Biblica39 (1958), 198-205.
 187

This event is not mentioned in the Bible, though a partial parallel may
be found in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 92b).
(5) According to the TT to Hos. 12,4,64 the "man" who wrestled
with Jacob is identified with an angel, who is even named; the pas-
sage is part of Jacob's prayer to God to save him from Esau:
Deliver me, I pray, from the hand of my brother-as You delivered me
from (his)65arcgelPenuel.

The notion that the man who wrestled with Jacob was an angel is
no innovation of this TT; it is paralleled in the Palestinian Targu-
mim to Gen. 32,24-25.29;66 Neofiti ad loc. even identifies the angel as
Sariel. 67
If the TT is indeed alluding to Jacob's struggle with the "man,"
rather than explaining the name Peniel/Penuel given to the site of the
encounter (vv. 31, 32), it constitutes a hitherto unknown tradition con-
cerning the identity of the man/angel. Here, too, the TT reflects the
notion that any anonymous figure should be identified.
(6) The TT to 1 Kgs. 19,1068 lists the (twelve) miracles that hap-
pened to Phinehas when he stabbed Zimri and Cozbi. One of the mir-
acles occurred when the Angel of Death, seeing Phinehas, stopped
killing the Children of Israel:
The twelfth miracle: When the Angel of Death saw him, the plague
against the Israelites was halted.
The biblical story of the plague (Numbers 25) says nothing of any an-
gelic involvement. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to v. 8, which lists twelve
(other) miracles, does indeed refer to an angel, but in a completely
different context (the tenth miracle: "An angel came and inverted the

64 MS
Jerusalem 4° 577.49,published by Y. Komlos, Sinai 50 (1958), 475-476.
65The MS reads "his
angel" (ml¸kyh);possiblythis should be emended to ml¸kie,"the
angel." For the role of the angel Penuel see Olyan, ThousandThousands,108-109.
66 For a discussionof these
Targumim see Goshen-Gottstein,Fragments of LostTargumim,
I, 49.
67A midrash on the
phrase "for you have striven (Heb. sarita)with God and men"
in v. 29. Other sources suggest different identificationsof the man/angel: Uriel, Gabriel,
Michael, Metatron, Israel, or the angel of Esau. For the different traditions see J.Z.
Smith, "The Prayer of Joseph," in J. Neusner (ed.),Religions in Antiquity
(E.R. Goodenough
Festschrift),Leiden: Brill, 1968, 277-281; idem,"Prayer of Joseph," in OT Pseudepigrapha
(Charlesworth ed.), II, 707-709.
68MS
Jerusalem 4° 577.49,published by Y. Komlos, Sinai50 (1958), 480. The TT
could equally well refer to v. 14.
188

couple, so that the woman was beneath and the man on top ..."). The
TT under discussion seems to reflect an exegetical-translational con-
cept explaining the "plague" (v. 8) as the result of the Angel of Death's
intervention; it would thus be ideological related to the TT to 1 Kgs.
1,1 (above, example 2), to Pseudo-Jonathan to Ex. 12,13.24 (mashbit =
"Angel of Death"/"Angel of Destruction") and to Pseudo-Jonathan's
expansive paraphrase of Deut. 9,19, concerning the punishment of the
worshipers of the golden calf: "At that time, five angels of destruction
were sent by the Lord to destroy Israel...."

Summary and Conclusions

Our goal was to try and examine the degree to which the different
Targums to the books of the Prophets-Targum Jonathan and the
Toseftot Targum-do or do not represent a unified attitude to angels
and the angelic world. There is no doubt that both TJ and the TTs
take the existence of angels for granted; but it is equally clear that TJ
adopts a more cautious, reserved, approach than the TTs. Indeed, the
TTs are intensely curious about the supernal world. Despite the fact
that they derive from a variety of sources and differ quite widely in
their language and function, it is undeniable that fifteen of them dis-
play such an interest. Moreover, these fifteen instances constitute a rep-
resentative sample of the different sources and are therefore adequate
to indicate a trend shared by the Toseftot Targum as a whole.69
Moreover, I would say that the difference is not one of quantity
alone, but also of substance-not only is the number of references
larger, but their content is quite different. Unlike TJ to Prophets, the
TTs furnish us with the names of no less than seven angels: Uriel,
Gabriel, Metatron, Michael, Samael, Penuel and the Angel of Death.
The number of groups or categories of angels mentioned in the TTs
is also greater. While TJ mentions only such groups as "angels of fire,"
"angels of trembling," "heavenly angels" and "angels of wind," the TTs
refer to still other groups: "cruel angels," "angels of wrath," "angels of
peace" and "angels of fear" (in addition to those mentioned in TJ,
which also appear in TTs). And such expressions as "his attendants"
(smšwhy) or "officers" (srky¸) also occur in the TTs but not in TJ.

69 It is nevertheless
worthy of note that three of the TTs quoted above-to 2 Sam.
21,17, Is. 57,15 and Ezek. 1,1 (longversion)-are particularlyrich in angelologicalmate-
rial, and all three come from the same manuscript.
 189

Another difference between TJ and the TTs concerns the tasks

assigned to the angels. Wherever the former enlarges on the biblical
text, it considers angels in two roles: uttering God's praises and par-
ticipating in divine revelation. The TTs, however, involve the angels
to a far greater degree in events on earth no less than in the heavens.
Among other things, this implies the notion of the guardian angels or
geniuses (sarim) of the nations and of Israel. Thus one has frequent
descriptions of the angel of Israel doing battle with the angel of a foe;
and Metatron is on occasion referred to as "the Great Prince (sar) of
Israel." There is no hint of these beliefs in TJ.
To what can we attribute these differences? A comparison of the
material in the Targums to Rabbinic literature reveals that TJ is closer
to the world of the Talmudic Sages, as the latter's references to the
angelic world are also always "brief and colourless, lacking mythical
characteristics."70 It is not inconceivable that TJ reflects rabbinical views
of the period following the end of the 2nd century C.E., which tended
to restrict the powers of angels as far as possible,71 objecting to angelic
cults72 and to prayers directed toward angels.73 Where TJ nevertheless
introduces angels, it is careful to call them specifically "angels of the
Lord," never assigning them too independent a position.74 It seems very
probable, therefore, that the recension of TJ in our possession repre-
sents the greatest possible consideration of the Sages' overall attitude
to the angelic world.
The TTs, however, represent an almost diametrically opposed atti-
tude-a positive view of angels and their many roles. Our knowledge
of the origin of these Targums is scant, though we do have a few indi-
cations of their Sitz im Leben. Many of the TTs (approximately fifty
percent) apply to verses which are explicitly known to be part of haftarot;
some of these explain the first or last verses of haflarot,and some exist
in manuscripts containing collections of haftarot with Aramaic transla-
tions. It is not surprising, therefore, that twelve TTs out of the fifteen

70E.E. Urbach, The

Sages-Their Conceptsand Beliefs,translated by I. Abrahams, I,
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 19712, 166.
71Urbach,
op. cit., 182-183.
72Cf. Tosefta Hullin 2,18: "Whoever
slaughters [an animal] for the sun or the
moon ..., for Michael the great captain ...-the meat is considered as if offered to
the dead."
73Cf.
Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 9,1 (13a); Bab. Talmud, Yoma 52a.
74Cf. R. Kittel, TDNT, I, s.v. "äγγελoς," 82, for the
general Rabbinical attitude to
angels.
190

discussed here fit the criteria just listed;75 one further TT should pos-
sibly be added in view of its content.76 They seem to have been part
of the Targums to haftarot and may thus attest to the instruction heard
by the congregation in the synagogue-instruction, however, that was
never expurgated by the Sages (as was TJ). Hence the TTs are valu-
able evidence of popular Jewish concepts and beliefs as they evolved
in synagogues in Antiquity. While TJ reflects the "official" translation,
the TTs reflect the unofficial, i.e., popular translation.
Despite the aforesaid, even the TTs to Prophets are not completely
unbridled in their attitude. They, too, refrain from describing the angels
as independent creatures, capable of acting against God's will; angels
take no part in Jewish prayer; and they are not described as beings to
be worshipped or addressed. Such popular beliefs find no place even
in the TTs-a fact which may indicate that they, too, were "super-
vised" to some extent.
The relationship between TJ and the TTs resembles that between
Targum Onkelos and the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch, on
the one hand, and Pseudo-Jonathan, on the other. While the latter
makes numerous references to angels,77 the other Pentateuch Targums
show an attitude to the angelic world similar to that of TJ.78 To our
mind, the TTs to Prophets and Pseudo-Jonathan represent the same
philosophy and policy of translation-interpretation. Their philosophy is
rather close to that of some apocalyptic and esoteric literature, which
referred freely and frequently to angels and assigned them various tasks.
However, whereas Pseudo-Jonathan refers frequently by name to angels
that appear specifically in the late Jewish esoteric literature, the TTs
to prophets, interestingly enough, mention only angels figuring in the
early literature. Moreover, those angels actually named-Uriel, Gabriel,
Michael and Penuel-are all held to be "archangels,"79 and this may
be the reason for the special attention devoted to them. Nevertheless,

75 The exceptions are those to Josh. 10,41,1 Sam. 4,12 and Is. 21,5.
76 The TT to Josh. 10,41 refers to Gen. 20; it may therefore have served as a pre-
liminary to the weekly portion of the Torah (in the Triennial Cycle) that began with
Gen. 20,1.
77 Cf. Shinan, "The Angelologyetc.," 182-191; idem,Embroidered Targum,120-126.
78 Cf. Shinan, "The Angelologyetc.," 186-187; idem,Embroidered Targum,124-125.
79 Cf.,e.g., 1 Enoch 9,1, where four angels are named: Michael, Uriel, Raphael and
Gabriel; ib. 20,2 lists the seven archangels and their functions:Suru¸el, Raphael, Raguel,
Michael, Saraqa'el, Gabriel and Ramiel; ib. 40,9: Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel;
and ib. 54,6: Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Penuel (also ib. 71,8-13). For similar refer-
ences in the midrashic and esoteric literature see Yadin, Scrollof the War ..., 237-240.
 191

it is not impossible that the TT to Ezek. 1,1, which is replete with

descriptions of supernal and hidden worlds, originated at least partly
in circles of Jewish mystics.80 Whether some of the Targums to the
Hagiographa also originated among these circles is a separate question
that deserves special study.

80 It is not
surprising that the TT in MS New York, JTS L260A is ascribed to
R. Menahem Recanati-a commentator, rabbi and kabbalist of 14th century Italy.
Surely it is no accident that he was probably the first author to cite whole excerpts
(no less than 40 times) of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch!