2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 75.

Aramaic
Studies
Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91 www.brill.nl/arst

A Brief Comparison of Targumic and

Midrashic Angelological Traditions

David L. Everson
Hebrew Union College

Abstract
In comparing the angelological traditions of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, as seen in several
key passages, to those of rabbinic literature, one finds that the former draws broadly
from the various periods of the latter. The angelology of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan reflects
traditions seen as early as the Tosefta and as late as Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer. Despite the
fact that various passages within this targum may echo pseudepigraphic traditions, Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan contains a number of angelological traditions that are exclusive to rabbinic
literature.

Keywords
Angels, Targum, Midrash, Rabbinic Literature

The amount of angelic material found in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (TgPsJ) is

remarkable. In no other Targum are angels so often and so vividly portrayed.
Likewise, the amount of angelic material found in rabbinic literature is
staggering. From the tannaim to the geonim and beyond, angels are frequently
employed and discussed throughout rabbinic literature. In order to better
understand the angelology of TgPsJ and its relationship to rabbinic literatures,
I will compare a number of Midrashim concerning angels that appear in both
TgPsJ and rabbinic literature. The seven passages to be examined are: (1) Gen.
6.2, 4—the fall of the angels; (2) Gen. 3–4—Sammael and Eve; (3) Gen. 6–
7—Noah and angelic assistance; (4) Gen. 14.13—the survival of Og; (5) Exod.
32.19—Satan and the golden calf; (6) Deut. 9.19 and Exod. 32.12—the five
destroying angels; and (7) Deut. 34.3—Armilus the wicked.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/147783507X231930

2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 76.

76 David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91

1. The Fall of the Angels

Rabbinic Judaism inherited a great deal from Second Temple angelological
developments. One belief that was ignored or rejected early on was the belief
in a heavenly rebellion. This resistance was almost certainly motivated by an
aversion to the dualistic implications of fallen angels. In works such as 1 Enoch
and Jubilees, Gen. 6 is thought to record the fall of the angels. Among the
Pseudepigrapha, this event is of central importance. In the earlier rabbinic
literature, however, Gen. 6 is never seen as referring to an angelic fall. Angels,
let alone fallen ones, are entirely absent from the Mishnah. Though angels are
present within the Tosefta, fallen angels are absent. The same can be said for the
Mechilta, Sifra, and Sifre. When you look at the etymological commentary that
is given for the Nephilim in Gen. R. 26.7 (and a similar account in Tanhuma),
.
the verb ìôð is expounded three times, none of which refer to a fall from heaven.
The Nephilim caused the world to fall (eìé!t!ä) through their wickedness, they
caused abortions or untimely births (íé!ì"ôð), and they themselves fell from the
world (eì"ôð; presumably as a result of the flood).1 This is also true with regard
to the Babylonian Talmud. Yom. 67b briefly refers to the affair of Uzza and
Azael but no explanation is given.2 Likewise b. Nid. 61a states that Sihon and
Og were the gigantic sons of Shamhazai but there is no reference to a heavenly
rebellion. Neither is an explanation given regarding the identity of Shamhazai.
The rabbis of the Amoraic period were hesitant to include a heavenly rebellion
of angels into their commentary. Bernard Bamberger has gone so far as to say
that the ‘Talmud never speaks of fallen or rebel angels. This is no accident; nor
were the rabbis ignorant of the legend. They knew and suppressed it.’3 It is not
until the later Midrashim, such as Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer (PRE), where Gen.
6 is understood to describe the fall of the angels from heaven.

úåéåìâ ïé÷ ìù åéúåøåã éðá úà åàø íéîùä ïî ïúùåã÷ íå÷îî åìôðù íéëàìîä—PRE 22 (160)
ìëî íéùð íäì åç÷éå §ðù ¬íéùð ïäî åç÷ìå íäéøçà åòèå úåðåæë íäéðéò úåìçåë äåøò øùá
åøçá øùà

. Bereshit 40 (úà
1)
A similar explanation for the Nephilim is also found in Tanh. åìéôä
íìåòä).
2)
Uzza and Azael appear more frequently in later literature: Pes. R. 34.3; Seder Eliyahu Zuta
25.3; Zohar 1.23a, 1.55a, etc.
3)
Bernard J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels (Philadephia: Jewish Publication Society, 1952), p.
90.
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 77.

David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91 77

PRE 22 (160)—The angels who fell from their holy place in heaven saw the daughters
of the generations of Cain walking about naked, with their eyes painted like harlots,
and they went astray after them, and took wives from amongst them, as it is said, ‘And
the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them
wives of all that they chose’.4

Pseudo Jonathan reflects a similar tradition.

ïëìäîå ïñ÷ôå ïìñëå ïåðéä ïøéôù íåøà àùðéà úðá úé àéáøáø éðá ïåîçå—Gen. 6.2, 4 (TgPsJ)
ïî ïìôð ïåðéä ìàæòå éàæçîù ºåéòøúéàã ìëî ïéùð ïåäì åáéñðå åðæéì åøéäøäå àøùéá éåìéâá
ïãéìéå àùðéà úðá úåì àéáøáø éðá ïåìòã ïë øúá óåàå ïåðéàä àéîåéá àòøàá ååäå àéîù
ïåäì

Gen. 6.2, 4 (TgPsJ)—The sons of the great ones saw that the daughters of men were
beautiful, that they painted their eyes and put on rouge, and walked about with naked
flesh. They conceived lustful thoughts, and they took wives to themselves from among
all who pleased them. … Shamhazai and Azael fell from heaven and were on earth in
those days, and also after the sons of the great ones had gone in to the daughters of
men, who bore them children.5

As mentioned above, this passage is consistent with the later rabbinic tradition
that Gen. 6 recounts a heavenly rebellion of the angels. What is more, this
passage reflects the later rabbinic tradition that the fallen angels were only two
in number, instead of the large number recorded in such passages as 1 En.
69.2 and Jub. 5.1–6.6 Furthermore, it is significant to note that Shamhazai and

4)
All English translations of PRE have been taken from Gerald Friedlander, Pirkê de Rabbi
Eliezer (New York: Hermon Press, 1916). The parenthesized numbers refer to specific page
in this work.
5)
All English translations for TgPsJ have been taken from The Aramaic Bible series.
See Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, Translated, with Introduction and
Notes (AB, 1B; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992). Michael Maher, M.S.C., Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus, Translated with Notes (AB, 2; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994).
Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy, Translated with Notes (AB, 5B;
Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998).
6)
As mentioned above, b. Yom. 67b refers to ‘the affair of Uzza and Azael’ (ìàæòå àæåò äùòî),
which required atonement. Uzza and Azael also appear in certain manuscripts of Deut. R.
11.10 (near the end). Here the angels covet the daughters of men, corrupt the ways of men,
and are therefore suspended between heaven and earth. As is this case with all material in
Deut. R. that is paralleled in Petirat Moshe, this is undoubtedly a significantly later addition
to Deut. R. This passage is not included Margolioth’s edition. See H.L. Strack and Günter
Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992),
p. 306. For Petirat Moshe, see J.D. Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim (New York: J.D. Eisenstein,
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 78.

78 David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91

Azael are identified as the fallen angels. This pair is not found in any rabbinic
literature (not to mention Pseudepigraphic literature) until writings such as
Midrash Avkir and Rashi.7

2. Sammael and Eve

Sammael appears in Gen. 3.6 and 4.1 of TgPsJ. In Gen. 3.6, Eve sees ‘Sammael
the angel of death’ (àúåî êàìî ìàîñ), becomes terrified, and thereby eats of
the fruit. The identification of Sammael as the angel of death has a number of
connections to later rabbinic traditions. First, though Sammael rarely appears
in various pre-Islamic rabbinic literatures, he is never identified therein as the
angel of death.8 This identification only appears in later rabbinic literature
such as the Petirat Moshe and the Zohar.9 Second, the terrifying appearance
of the Angel of Death which motivated Eve to take the fruit is absent from
rabbinic literature until a later period. It may be found in PRE 13 (95) which
states that the ‘she saw the angel of death (úåîä êàìî) coming towards her; she
said: Woe is me!’ Despite the fact that the PRE’s description of Eve touching
the tree safely is absent from the Targum, the placement of this Midrash in

1915–1918), II, p. 368a. In 3 En. 5.9, the number of fallen angels is three: Uzzah, Azzah, and
Azael.
The reduced number of fallen angels is also seen in the Koran (2.102), which states that
Harut and Marut taught men witchcraft at Babylon. Multiple versions of the story may
later be found in the writings of the Islamic historian Tabari.
7)
Midrash Avkir is preserved in Yalkut Shimoni and its redaction has been dated to the
eleventh century. The midrash of Shamhazai and Azael taken from Midrash Avkir is found
in Adolph Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch (Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1967), IV, pp. 127–128.
See also Ozar Midrashim, II, pp. 549–550. Rashi records Shamhazai and Azael as the fallen
pair in his commentary on Num. 13.33.
8)
Gen. R. 56.4; Tanh.. Vayišlah. 8; and b. Sot. 10b. Stemberger has noted that Sammael does
not appear in rabbinic literature until after the fifth century. Günter Stemberger, ‘Samael
und Uzza: Zur Rolle der Dämonen im späten Midrasch’, in A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger
and K.F.D. Römheld (eds.), Die Dämonen. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und
frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), p. 639.
Bamberger, Fallen Angels, p. 139, has suggested that Sammael’s appearance in Tanhuma . may
‘reveal later influences’. Σαµιλ and Σεµιλ do appear in Greek versions of En. 6.7.
9)
Ozar Midrashim, II, p. 370a; Zohar 1.35b; 2.51b–52a. In the Zohar, the identities of
the serpent, the Angel of Death, and Sammael are somewhat variable. In Shnei Luchot
HaBrit (Sefer Bereshit 4), the etymology of Sammael is reflective of the Angel of Death’s
job description: he gives (íñ) evil to (ìà) those who are good. In b. B. Bat. 16a, Satan is
identified as the angel of death, however, the Talmud gives no indication that Sammael and
Satan are one in the same.
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 79.

David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91 79

TgPsJ parallels its location in PRE (i.e. it follows ‘your eyes will be opened’
and precedes ‘gave to her husband’).
Regarding the impregnation of Eve in Gen. 4.1 of TgPsJ, Robert Hayward
has stated that ‘the editio princeps of Ps.-Jon. relates the tradition, which is much
older than PRE and very widespread, that an angel engendered Cain’ (italics
mine).10 In support of this statement, he supplies a number of references (i.e.
4 Macc. 18.9 [actually 18.8]; 2 Esd. 4.30; Jn 8.31–45; b. Yeb. 103b; b. Shab. 146a,
etc.). What Hayward does not point out, however, is that rabbinic literature
consistently distinguishes between Satan/Sammael and the serpent. According
to Bamberger, ‘the classic [rabbinic] sources do not involve Satan in the Eden
story: the serpent of Eden is a literal snake’.11 As early as the Tosefta, we see that
the serpent ‘set his mind on killing Adam and taking Eve to wife’.12 Likewise,
the Talmudic passages cited by Hayward do not support the angelic/demonic
paternity of Cain either. Rather, they support his serpentine paternity.13 The
distinction between serpent and Satan/Sammael is found even in PRE where
Sammael is described as riding the serpent of the Garden of Eden.14 In TgPsJ,
Sammael and the serpent are also distinct. In Gen. 3.1–5, Eve converses with
the serpent without fear. She only becomes terrified when Sammael appears
in Gen. 3.6. The notion of Sammael or Satan impregnating Eve (and not the
serpent) is, therefore, peculiar to TgPsJ, PRE, and later writings.15 These two
traditions are distinct from earlier rabbinic literature in that Satan/Sammael
impregnates and they are distinct from the pre-Rabbinic traditions in that
the serpent does not. Ephraim Urbach suggests that the Tosefta, PRE, and
TgPsJ alike knew ‘the myth of the Serpent-Satan-Samma"el, as it appears in
the apocryphal literature’ but they chose to temper that myth’.16

10)
Robert Hayward, ‘Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’, JJS 42 (1991),
pp. 215–246 (223).
11)
Bamberger, ‘Fallen Angels’, p. 94.
12)
t. Sot. 4.5.
13)
The phrase àîäåæ äá ìéèä äåç ìò ùçð àá äòùá (‘when the serpent came unto/upon Eve,
he injected filth) is repeated in b. Shab. 146a, b. Yeb. 103b, and b. ‘Avod. Zar. 22b. This, of
course, refers to humans having been infected with evil from the beginning, and may or
may not refer to the conception of Cain. This phrase also occurs in the Zohar (1.37a).
14)
PRE 21 (150). The same description of Sammael riding upon the serpent is found in the
Zohar 1.35b and 2.253b.
15)
Hayward suggests that the possibility that the inclusion of Sammael in Gen. 4.1 of TgPsJ
may have been a later accretion. See Hayward, ‘Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer’, p. 224. If so, this
would not exactly resolve the matter of Eve not being impregnated by the serpent in TgPsJ.
16)
Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1975), p. 169.
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 80.

80 David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91

3. Noah and Angelic Assistance

In Gen. 6–7, Noah faces the great difficulty of bringing an enormous number
of animals on to the ark. This difficulty is solved by TgPsJ and PRE in similar
fashion: through angelic assistance. In PRE 32 (166), Noah asks God, ‘Have
I the strength to collect them unto me to the ark?’ As a result, the angels
that had been appointed over each kind of animal (ìë ìò íéðåîîä íéëàìîä
ïéî) and gathered the animals and their food into the ark. Likewise in Gen.
6.20 of TgPsJ, God tells Noah that an angel will catch the animals and bring
them to Noah. It is important to note that nowhere else in rabbinic literature
does one find angels assisting Noah in this task. In b. Zeb. 116a the greatest
challenge faced by Noah was not the enormous number of animals that had
to be gathered, rather, it was determining which ones were clean and which
ones were not.17 According to R. Hisda, Noah brought the animals before the
ark (äáéúä éðôì ïøéáòä) and the ones which the ark accepted were clean and
those which were not accepted were unclean. R. Abbahu states that the animals
went in on their own accord (ïäéìàî ïéàáä).18 According to the first opinion,
Noah did not require assistance for gathering the animals. According to the
second opinion, neither Noah nor angels were responsible for the gathering
of the animals. In Gen. R. 32.8, Noah faces the challenge of determining the
respective genders of the animals. Accordingly, the gender dilemma is solved
by the biblical text itself. The animals were not brought to the ark, they simply
came of their own accord.19
There are a few differences between the accounts found in TgPsJ and PRE
that should be mentioned. First, in TgPsJ there is only one angel that will catch
and bring the animals to Noah, whereas in PRE we learn that multiple angels
have been appointed unto every kind of animal. Second, Noah does not make
a petition before God which results in angelic assistance. Third, the exegetical
springboard for the account found in PRE is Gen. 7.2, whereas in TgPsJ it is
Gen. 6.20.20

17)
This is repeated in b. Sanh. 108b.
18)
A similar belief is reflected in Philo, Vit. Mos. 2.61.
19)
Gen. R. 32.8: íéàá åéä ïäéìéàî ,íéàáä àìà áéúë ïéà íéàáåî.
20)
Gen. 7.2 would serve as a more logical basis for this inclusion of angels in that, here,
Noah is commanded to take (^"ì­çw!z) the animals. In Gen. 6.20, we read that the animals
are predicted to come to Noah (eà&áé).
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 81.

David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91 81

4. The Survival of Og
Og has been included in our discussion since he is the grandson of Shamhazai
and does have gigantic status. Og is mentioned in Num. R. 19.32 as having
survived the flood but how he did so is not stated. Deut. R. 11.10 states that
he survived the flood due to the fact that he was a giant. He was so tall that
the water did not even reach his ankles. According to this tradition, there is
no reason that Og should ever have been killed by the flood. In b. Zeb. 113b,
though Og was too tall to have been drowned by the waters, he should have
been killed nonetheless.

¬!àéâñ éëéä äáéú ¬êéîòèìå !åðåãéð ïéçúåøáå åì÷ì÷ ïéçúåøá ìåáîä øåã éùðà – b. Zeb. 113b
äáéúä éãéöá åððèöðù ¬íäì äùòð ñð àìà ?éà÷ àëéä ïùáä êÀî âåò ¬ãåò

b. Zeb. 113b—The people in the generation of the Flood sinned with hot passion, and
with hot water they were punished—And on your view, how could the Ark travel [at
all]? Moreover, how did Og king of Bashan stand? Rather, a miracle was performed for
it [the water], and it was cooled at the side of the Ark. (Soncino)

Accordingly, Og should have been scorched by the water but was miraculously
protected.21 Og’s immense size is also attested in b. Nid. 24b, where either Abba
Saul or R. Johanan is said to have walked three parasangs into the thigh bone
of Og, king of Bashan.22
A different account of Og’s survival is found in Gen. 14.13 of TgPsJ and PRE
22.

äåäå àúåáéú éåìéò áëøå àðòáåèá åúéîã àéøáðâ ïî áéæúùéàã âåò àúàå—Gen. 14.13 (TgPsJ)
áæúùéà äéúåëæá àìå çðã éåðåæî ïî ñðøôúî äåäå äéùéø ìò àððâ

Gen. 14.13 (TgPsJ)—Then came Og, who had escaped from among the giants who
died in the Flood; he had ridden upon the ark, and there was a cover over his head,

21)
The salvation of Og in this passage is somewhat uncertain. Did he stand beside the
ark? This would be similar to the tradition that later appears in PRE (see below). What is
certain, however, is that the depth of water could not have rendered the demise of Og. This
fact is assumed in the question ‘how did Og stand?’ The premise is that he withstood the
flood and how could this be true if the water was scorching?
22)
The Persian parasang/farsang was approximately 3.5 miles or 5.6 kilometers long. In
Arabic folklore, Og was also thought to have survived the flood on account of his miraculous
height. Accordingly, Og was thought to be so tall that waters of the flood were only able to
reach his waist. See Emil G. Hirsch and M. Seligsohn, ‘Giants’, in The Jewish Encyclopedia
Volume 5 (London: Funk Wagnalls, 1906), pp. 656–659 (658–659).
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 82.

82 David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91

and he was sustained from Noah’s provisions. He had not escaped because of his own
merit … .

A similar but somewhat different story is found in PRE.

äáéú ìù úéðåìéñ úçú ãçà õò ìò áùéù ïùáä êìî âåòî õåçå ¬çð êà øàùéå—PRE 22 (167)
åì èéùåî äéäå äáéúá ãçà øåç á÷ð çð äùò äî ¬íìåò ãáò íäì äéäéù åéðáìå çðì òáùðå
íéàôøä øéúî øàùð ïùáä êìî âåò ÷ø §ðù ¬àåä íâ øàùðå ¬íåéå íåé ìëá åðåæî

PRE 22 (167)—‘And Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark’ (Gen.
7.23), except Og, king of Bashan, who sat down on a piece of wood under the gutter
of the ark. He swore to Noah and to his sons that he would be their servant for ever.
What did Noah do? He bored an aperture in the ark, and he put (through it) his food
daily for him, and he also was left, ‘For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the
remnant of the giants’ (Deut. 3.11).

What the two of these stories have in common is that, first, the flood apparently
should have killed Og and his giant stature would have been no help to him.
Second, Og either floats upon or beside the Ark. Third, Og was sustained
by the provisions of Noah. You will notice that PRE and TgPsJ use the same
terminology in this regard (ïåæî). Despite these similarities, there are a number
of differences that should be noted. First, in TgPsJ, Og is sitting on the roof of
the Ark. In PRE, he is presumably floating next to it on a piece of wood (áùé
õò ìò). Second, TgPsJ does not make mention of the hole that Noah made
in the side of the Ark. Third, TgPsJ makes no mention of Og’s oath or of the
proof-text of Deut. 3.11 (i.e. undoubtedly the catalyst for a Midrash concerning
Og’s survival in the first place). Nonetheless, in light of the aforementioned
traditions of Og’s survival, these differences are relatively insignificant since
TgPsJ and PRE are more dissimilar to all other accounts than they are to each
other. Or, to put it another way, TgPsJ and PRE are only similar to each other.
Other traditions appeal to the gigantic size of Og as a means of explaining his
survival while TgPsJ and PRE attest that Og survived the flood via flotation
and Noah’s provision.
Another remarkable story concerning Og is found in Num. 21.35 of
TgPsJ. This expansion is almost completely mirrored in b. Ber. 54b.23 As the
story goes, Og intends to destroy the camp of Israel, so he uproots a mountain
the same size as the camp and rests it upon his head. He thus intends to hurl
the mountain on top of the Israelites. The mountain was perforated by means

23)
A less similar parallel is found in Deut. R. 1.24.
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 83.

David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91 83

of an ant or worm (depending on the version) which brought the mountain

down upon the head of Og. He attempts to remove the mountain but is unable
to on account of his teeth being disjointed. Moses then, taking an axe which
was ten cubits in length, leapt ten cubits high and struck the ankle of Og,
thereby killing him. These are the principle features of the story and are found
in both the Berachot passage and in TgPsJ.24
The accounts do vary slightly in several respects. In TgPsJ, the camp is
measured to be six parasangs, whereas the Berachot passage, the camp is said
to be only three parasangs.25 Nonetheless, the size of the mountain reflects the
size of the camp in each source. In TgPsJ, it is a worm (ìçæ, ‘creeping thing,’
or ‘locust’) which destroys the mountain, whereas in the Berachot passage it
is an ant (õî÷, ‘locust’ or ‘ant’).26 In TgPsJ, the broken teeth of Og and the
enormous leap of Moses are consecutive narrative features of the expansion.
In the Berachot passage, these are alternative endings based upon the exegesis
of úøáù íéòùø éðù in Ps. 3.8 (‘you broken the teeth of the wicked’). Simeon
b. Lakish says that one should read úááøù (‘you have lengthened’) instead of
úøáù, which refers to the height of Moses (by stature or leap) when he struck
Og.

5. Satan and the Golden Calf

In Exod. 32.19 of TgPsJ, Satan appears in the episode of the golden calf.

àéòéùøã ïåäéãéá ïéâðéçå àìâéò úé àîçå àúéøùîì äùî áéø÷ ãë äåäå—Exod. 32.19 (TgPsJ)
àîò íã÷ øååùîå æôèî äéåâá äåä àðèñå éåîã÷ ïéðçâîå ïéâðçî

Exo 32.19 (TgPsJ)—‘When Moses came near the camp, he saw the calf, and the musical
instruments in the hands of the wicked people who played and bowed down before it.
Satan was in the middle of it, leaping and jumping before the people’.

In reading this verse, one must decide what the referent of äéåâá is. Was Satan
leaping and jumping while inside the calf or inside the camp? As Clarke has
noted, it is possible that Satan was dancing in the middle of the camp while
the people were worshipping the calf. Within rabbinic literature, Satan is often

24)
This story is preserved in Arabic folklore as well. In fact, Og is referred to as ‘Uj ibn-Unk’
(Og of the neck). See M. Hermann Zotenberg, Chronique de Abou-Djafar-Mo"hammed-ben-
Djarir-ben-Yezid Tabari (Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1867), I, pp. 51–52, 390–392.
25)
This may be explained by the fact that, in the Talmud, the camp of Israel was said to be
three parasangs by three parasangs. See b. Erub. 55b.
26)
ìçæ is used to translated úòìÇz in Deut. 28.39.
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 84.

84 David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91

described as dancing.27 On the other hand, the Talmud also mentions that
Satan can take the form of a bird or a deer.28 In later rabbinic literature, the
calf is described as animated. For example, in Cant. R. 1.48, the Egyptian
magicians worked their sorcery over the calf so that it appeared to be dancing
(èèøîë äàøð). In PRE 45 (355), we learn that Sammael entered into the calf
and began to low in order to lead Israel astray (úåòúäì) into idolatry. Later on,
within the Shelah, Satan is said to have been within the golden calf dancing
among with the Israelites.29 These later traditions may reflect Islamic influence.
In discussing the Islamic tale of Al-Sāmirı̄, S. Krauss has argued that the
animated golden calf is an Islamic contribution.30

6. Moses and the Five Destroying Angels

Deut. 9.19 of TgPsJ and various Midrashim record a remarkable story, in which
Israel is threatened by five destroying angels but is delivered by Moses. As the
story goes, in response to the episode of the golden calf, God sent down five
destroying angels in order to destroy Israel. The first three angels are restrained
when Moses mentions or summons (depending on the version) Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.31 Moses is then left to face the remaining two angels. Moses
prays before God and they too are restrained from their destruction.
Looking at the chart below, it appears that Tanh., . Exod. R., Midr. Ps.,
and Midrash Qohelet preserve the standard list.32 Deut. R. only differs from
this tradition in that Mekaleh is found in the place of Hashmed. TgPsJ and

27)
b. Ber. 33a; b. Pes. 112b; b. Meg. 11b; Num. R. 20.11.
28)
b. Sanh. 95a, 107a.
29)
Shnei Luchot HaBrit, Toldot Adam 34.
30)
‘This fact in itself that the golden calf (ìâò) is represented as an animated and living
being, is a Mohammedan notion’. See Samuel Krauss, ‘A Moses Legend’, JQR 2 (1912), pp.
339–364 (342).
31)
This is based on the prayer offered by Moses in Ex. 32.11–13 where Moses petitions God
not to destroy Israel because of the golden calf. In v. 13 he says ‘remember Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob’.
32)
Here is a chart of the various ‘five destroying angels’. The name and order of the angels
are provided.
. Ki Tasa 20
Tanh. óà (2nd) óö÷ (1st) úéçùî (5th) äîéç (4th) ãîùä (3rd)
Deut. R. 3.11 óà (1st) óö÷ (3rd) úéçùî (4th) äîéç (2nd) äìëî (5th)
Exod. R. 41.7; 44.8 óà (1st) óö÷ (3rd) úçùä (5th) äîç (2nd) ãîùä (4th)
Midrash Qohelet. 4.3 óà (4th)
óö÷ (1st)
úéçùî (2nd)
äîç (5th)
ãîùä (3rd)
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 85.

David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91 85

PRE are the only two sources which have Haron in the place of Hashmed.33
The accounts of TgPsJ and PRE are similar in other respects as well. It is
only in the late sources of TgPsJ, PRE, and Exod. R. that Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob are physically present. In the remaining traditions, the first trio
of angels is restrained by the mention of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They
are not summoned by Moses to actually confront the angels. In TgPsJ, they
are resurrected from the grave: ‘Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob rose up (íé÷åà)
from their graves’. In PRE, Moses invokes the patriarchs saying, ‘If ye be of the
children of the world to come, stand ye (åãîò) before me in this hour’. Whether
or not this implies resurrection, it is important to note that the patriarchs do,
in fact, make an actual appearance in order to rescue Moses.34 In the Exod.
R. account, the three patriarchs came and stood against or prevailed over the
three angels (íäî äùìùá åãîòå úåáàä äùìù åàá).
Another feature that is common to TgPsJ and PRE is the angelic burial
provided by Moses after the conflict. Though TgPsJ’s description is fairly brief,
there are a number of noteworthy parallels to the account given in PRE. The
end of the verse reads as follows:

àìéçãå àáø àîù úòåáùá ïåðéøîèå áàåîã àòøàá çééù øôçå—Deut. 9.19 (TgPsJ)
Deut. 9.19 (TgPsJ)—[Moses] dug a pit in the land of Moab and hid them (there) with
the oath of the great and fearful Name.

The account given in PRE is as follows:

Midrash Psalms 7.6 óà (1st) óö÷ (2nd) úéçùî (5th) äîéç (3rd) ãîùä and ãéîùî (4th)
PRE 45 (357) óà (2nd)
óö÷ (1st)
úéçùî (4th)
äîéç (3rd)
ïåøç (5th)

Gen. 9.19 of TgPsJ óà (1st) óö÷ (3rd) úéçùî (4th) äîéç (2nd) ïåøç (5th)

As you can see, no two charts have the same order of angels listed. There are four lists that
supply the same or similar names for all five angels (note the variations of úçùä and ãéîùî).
There are a number of similarities (esp. the same four names being present in every list).
Tanhuma’s
. list of five is taken from the standard edition. It should be noted that in Buber’s
edition (Ki Tasa 13), øéáùî is given instead of ãîùä.
33)
This angelic name is derived from the above mentioned proof text, Exod. 32.12, where
Moses implores God to ‘turn from your burning anger’ (^tà ïÇø#çî). This is explained in
PRE 45 (358) but is left unexplained in TgPsJ.
34)
The belief in resurrection is found throughout rabbinic literature. The classic discussion
in found in b. Sanh. 92a where the Tanna debe Eliyyahu states that the righteous will not
revert to dust but will be able to stand or endure forever (ïéîéé÷ íìåòì íä) just as the Holy
One endures forever.
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 86.

86 David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91

óà ïåøç úà ïîèå ãâ éðá úìçðá äìåãâ äøéã úéáë õøàá øôç äùî äùò äî—PRE 45 (358)
êåùðì åéôá ìòåôå äìåò äéä ïéàèåç åéäù ïîæ ìëáå ¬íéøåñàä úéáá ùåáç àåäù íãàë õøàá
àø÷ð §éôì ¬õøàì äèîì åãéøåîå íùä úà åéìò øéëæî äùî äéäå ¬ìàøùé úà úéçùäì åçåøá
äöåø àåäå ïéàèåç íäù ïîæ ìëå ïãâðë åøá÷ úà ïúð 䧧áä äùò äî äùî úîùëå ¬øåòô åîù
åãâðë äùî ìù åøá÷ úà äàåø àåäå ìàøùé úà úéçùäì åçåøá êåùðìå åéô úà øåòôìå úåìòì
®øåòô úéá ìåî àéâá åúåà øåá÷éå §îàð êëìå ¬õøàì äèîì ãøåéå ãçôúî àåä

PRE 45 (358)—He dug in the earth in the possession of Gad, as (though for the
foundation of ) a large dwelling, and he buried ‘Fierce Anger’ in the earth, like a man
who is bound in prison. Every time Israel sins it arises and opens its mouth to bite
with its breath, and to destroy Israel. Moses pronounced against it the (divine) Name,
and brought it down beneath the earth. Therefore is its name called Peor (the one
who opens). When Moses died, what did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He put
his burial place opposite it. Every time Israel sins it opens its mouth to bite with its
breath, and to destroy Israel, but (when) it sees the burial place of Moses opposite to
it, it returns backward, as it is said, ‘And he buried him in the valley, in the land of
Moab, over against the house of Peor’.

Before discussing the similarity of these passages, a word should be said

regarding their key difference, the identity of the remaining two angels. In
TgPsJ the remaining angels are Af and Hemah. In PRE they are Mashhit and
Haron. For PRE, after the patriarchs had given assistance, Moses offered a
prayer which resulted in the divine restraint of the fourth angel—Mashhit.
Therefore, the PRE passage above concerns the fate of the final angel. The
TgPsJ passage concerns the fate of the final two angels. This is a simplification
of the more involved account found in PRE. The account found in PRE
consistently complies with proof-texts which serve to explain the origin of all
five angelic names. The angel Mashhit is identified in Ps. 78.38 (a verse which
also mentions Af and Hemah).35 The angel Haron is identified in Exod. 32.12,
where Moses implores God to ‘turn from your burning anger’ (^tà ïÇø#çî). It
is because of this proof-text that, in the passage cited above, Haron becomes
identified as Haron-Af. This is somewhat confusing considering that Af was
one of the angels who was so recently immobilized by the patriarchs. TgPsJ,
however, is not concerned with these proof-texts so that Moses (more sensibly)
faces Af and Hemah as the last of the angelic destroyers. These are the angels
that he admits fearing in the Hebrew text of this verse: ‘for I was afraid before
the anger (óàä) and wrath (äîçäå) …’ (Deut. 9.19). Thus, the list of five angels
found in TgPsJ reflects a source which undoubtedly incorporated such proof-
texts as those found in PRE (if it does not reflect PRE itself ). However, the

35)
PRE 45 (357–358).
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 87.

David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91 87

placement or organization of those angels reflects a translation that is sensitive

to the biblical text and averse to the incorporation of unnecessary proof-texts.
With that said, the similarity of these passages may now be addressed. There
are three parallels: the burial itself, the use of the divine name, and the location
of the burial. These features are unique to TgPsJ and PRE alone. What is
more, the longer account found in PRE consistently explains matters that are
left unexplained in TgPsJ. For example, in reading TgPsJ, one wonders why it
was necessary to bury the remaining two angels. This is mentioned as a point
of fact but no rationale is given. In PRE, we read that the pit serves to hold
the angel Haron-Af at bay. Accordingly, this angel is temporarily restrained
but if Israel were to sin further, he would be allowed to threaten Israel with
destruction. Here is another example. How is it that the angels were hidden
or shut in (øîè) by means of the oath of the great and fearful name in TgPsJ?
In PRE we learn that Moses had dug down to create a large dwelling (äøéã
äìåãâ) for his enemy. However, it was not until Moses invoked the divine
name (íùä) that the angelic apartment miraculously descended into the earth.
Finally, in reading TgPsJ, one wonders why the angels were buried in Moab,
when, according to the narrative, events are occurring at Mt. Sinai. In PRE we
discover that the angel Haron-Af is buried in Moab so that the burial place of
Moses might be placed opposite to it. In this manner, the angel will not succeed
in destroying Israel when further sins are committed. When Haron-Af leaves
his burial place, he will see the grave of Moses and return to his underground
layer (i.e. ‘the house of Peor’).36 This more complete version of PRE which
explains the various features of TgPsJ’s translation (i.e. angelic names, the
need for burial, the use of the divine name, and the location of Moab) would
challenge the suggestion put forward by Hayward, namely, that ‘PRE may, at
some stage in its textual development, have borrowed from the Targum’.37 In
this instance the borrowing appears to be going the other direction.

7. Armilus the Son of Satan

In various places throughout the later Midrashim, a certain Armilus (ñåìéîøà)
appears, who is often associated with Satan. He is called ‘the son of Satan’ (àåäå

36)
Deut. 34.6 is given as a proof-text: ‘he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab
opposite Bethpeor’ (RSV). The úéá of Bethpeor refers to the layer of Haron-Af, while the
øåòô refers to the fact that it was God himself who opened (øòô) the ground so that the
dwelling could descend.
37)
Hayward, ‘Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer’, p. 227.
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 88.

88 David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91

àðèñã äéøá).38 He is also called ‘the Satan Armilus’ (ñåìéîøà ïèù).39 Generally
speaking, Armilus is the legendary nemesis of the coming Messiah. In short,
Armilus is identified in late Rabbinic literature as the coming antichrist or
anti-Messiah. Accordingly, this character frequently appears in later Jewish
apocalyptic literature.
This character appears for the first time in the seventh century in Sefer
Zerubbabel and Doctrina Jacobi Nuper Baptizati.40 Armilus appears twice in
the targums (Deut. 34.3 of TgPsJ and Isa. 11.4).41 The inclusion of Armilus has
been considered by some to be a later accretion. Bamberger refers his appearance
in Deuteronomy and Isaiah as ‘probably very late insertions’.42 Others, such
as Louis Feldman and Samson Levey suggest that the appearance of Armilus
is not a later accretion, rather, it indicates a late date of composition.43 In the
apocalyptic expansion of TgPsJ in Deut. 34.3, Moses is able to see (from Mt.
Nebo) into the future by means of the Memra of the Lord. This vision stretches
from the judges who are soon to follow (i.e. Jepthah and Samson mentioned
in v. 1) all the way until ‘the battle of Gog’ (âåâã àáø÷) when Michael will
usher in the eschaton during a time of great distress (àáø àøòö ïãéòá). As
part of the eschaton, or immediately prior to it, Moses sees that Armalgos the
wicked (àòéùø ñåâìîøà) will be punished. Armalgos here, of course, is simply
a variation of Arimlus.44 As Clarke has noted, TgPsJ contains a marginal note

38)
Pereq R. Shimon b. Yohai. See Ozar Midrashim, II, p. 556a.
39)
Sefer Zerubbabel. See Ozar Midrashim, I, p. 160a. He is also referred to as ïèùä ñåìéîøà
in the Signs of the Messiah. See Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, I, p. 60.
40)
See David Berger, ‘Three Typological Themes in Early Jewish Messianism: Messiah Son
of Joseph, Rabbinic Calculations, and the Figure of Armilus’, Association for Jewish Studies
Review 10 (1985), pp. 155–162.
41)
Armilus has been omitted from Sperber’s edition of Isaiah. See Alexander Sperber, The
Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1962), p. 25. However, it is
included in all the Rabbinic Bibles and also in Lagarde’s Prophetae Chaldaice (Leipzig, 1872;
repr. Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967).
42)
Bamberger, p. 122. David Berger also suggests this possibility. See ‘Three Typological
Themes’, p. 156.
43)
See Louis H. Feldman, ‘Abba Kolon and the Founding of Rome’, JQR 81 (1991), pp.
239–266 (256). Samson Levey uses the appearance of Arimilus to support his thesis that
‘the terminus ad quem of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets cannot be any earlier than the
Arab conquest of Babylonia’. See Samson H. Levey, ‘The Date of Targum Jonathan to the
Prophets’, VT 21 (1971), pp. 186–196 (194–196).
44)
It should be noted that àòéùø ñåâìîøà of TgPsJ nicely parallels the occurrences of
òùøä ñåìéîøà found in Midrash Vayosha, Signs of the Messiah, and Pereq R. Shimon b. Yohai.
See, Ozar Midrashim, I 1, p. 156a; I 2, pp. 391a, 556a. Among the variant spellings of this
name is ‘Amilius’. Perhaps the ending ñåâ- is a corruption of ñåé-. See Levey, ‘Date of Targum
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 89.

David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91 89

that serves to eliminate any confusion: ‘The MS mg reads ‘’rmylws’ the wicked
whom the nations of the world call ’ntqrystw’ (Antichrist)’.45

8. Concluding Remarks
In the passages discussed above, there were a number of passages which echoed
pseudepigraphic traditions (or otherwise). A word should be said about these.
In such instances, there is the possibility that TgPsJ’s angelic material is not
based upon rabbinic literature or traditions. Rather, TgPsJ could be drawing
upon earlier sources.46 The echoes of earlier traditions discussed here are the fall
of the angels (Shamhazai and Azael), Noah’s angelic assistance, and Sammael
and the impregnation of Eve. The fall of the angels in TgPsJ (brief as the
account may be) is particularly interesting due to the fact that fallen angels are
absent from rabbinic literature until a much later period. If TgPsJ had been
written in the fourth or fifth century, how would their inclusion be explained?
Was TgPsJ cutting across the grain of rabbinic exegetical sensibilities? Was
TgPsJ drawing upon much earlier sources since these topics are absent from
all rabbinic literature from and prior to that period? When the fallen angels of
TgPsJ are compared with those of later rabbinic and earlier pseudepigraphic
traditions, TgPsJ is seen to have more in common with the later rabbinic
literature. First, as mentioned above, the number of fallen angels is limited to
two (as in the Talmud, Deut. R., and even the Koran). Second, the pairing
of Shamhazai and Azael is only seen in later rabbinic literature (e.g. Midrash
Avkir and Rashi).
Regarding Noah’s angelic assistance, the Talmud and Gen. R. did not see
the large number of animals as a task requiring angelic assistance. In both
sources, the animals ‘came on their own accord’. Though the accounts are
somewhat different, TgPsJ and PRE both maintain that Noah received angelic
assistance in collecting the animals. There is little here, however, to require a
connection between the two sources in this instance. It is possible that TgPsJ
and/or PRE could have been drawing on pseudepigraphic traditions. Jub. 5.23
states that ‘[Noah] entered, and all that we brought to him, into the ark, and

Jonathan to the Prophets’, p. 194, n. 1.

45)
Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy, p .104, n. 13.
46)
This is an argument suggested by Hayward who points to earlier sources (the LXX,
Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo, Revelation, 1 Enoch, etc.) as better candidates, vis-à-vis PRE, from
which the traditions of TgPsJ could be drawn. See Hayward, ‘Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer’, pp.
219, 225–226.
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 90.

90 David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91

the Lord closed it from without’.47 Since the format of Jubilees is a first-person
monologue given by the angel of the presence, this passage could very well
refer to angels bringing the animals to the ark. 1 En. 67.2 states that the angels
built the ark. Similar to the gathering of the animals, the construction of the
ark would have been a daunting task that could be easily solved through the
assistance of angels. Thus, in this instance, TgPsJ is consistent with PRE but
there are certainly no grounds for establishing a connection between the two.
The impregnation of Eve by Sammael creates a scenario similar to that of
the fallen angels. That is, in rabbinic literature, Eve was not impregnated by
the devil. According to the Talmudic passages cited above, she was certainly
contaminated by the serpent and perhaps through sexual means. Whether or
not this resulted in the birth of Cain is unclear. However, it is clear that this
was not Satan or Sammael. If TgPsJ had been written in the fourth or fifth
century, how could the devil be considered the father of Cain? Did TgPsJ have
access to and accept pre- or non-rabbinic traditions such as those of the New
Testament or 4 Maccabees? In the above examination it was shown that the
separate identities of Satan and serpent, which are found in earlier rabbinic
literature, are also preserved in TgPsJ and PRE. The pre-rabbinic traditions
regarding Eve’s impregnation by the devil are rooted in the integration of the
identities of Satan and serpent. To this extent, TgPsJ is in disagreement with
pre-rabbinic traditions and is in agreement with PRE. Moreover, it is only in
TgPsJ and PRE that we find reference to Sammael specifically impregnating
Eve. The account of TgPsJ is quite rabbinic.
In examining this material, we have also seen that TgPsJ contains angelic
traditions that are exclusive to rabbinic literature. For example, there are several
versions of the five destroying angels located throughout rabbinic literature and
nowhere else. Likewise, there are statements and explanations given throughout
rabbinic literature concerning the survival of Og, which cannot be found in
pre-rabbinic sources. The key features of Og’s demise in b. Ber. 54b are evenly
paralleled in Num. 21.35 of TgPsJ. In examining this material, we have also
seen that TgPsJ contains angelic traditions that are exclusive to later rabbinic
literature. For example, in Deut. 9.19, by invoking the divine name Moses was
able to bury the last of the destroying angels in the land of Moab. A more
complete version of this story is told in PRE (and nowhere else), which serves
to explain the unexplained features of TgPsJ’s abbreviated version. Og’s floating
survival of the deluge is not only exclusively found in TgPsJ and PRE, it also

47)
Taken from, Robert Henry Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament in English Volume 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 91.

David L. Everson / Aramaic Studies 5.1 (2007) 75–91 91

contradicts earlier rabbinic accounts. Finally and remarkably, the post-Islamic

antichrist Armilus appears in TgPsJ.
In conclusion, it would appear that TgPsJ’s use of midrashic angelological
material is similar to its use of the other targums. If one tracts a given chapter
of TgPsJ in order to observe how the other targums are being used, one finds
that TgPsJ now takes from Onqleos, now from the Palestinian Targum, and
now functions independently.48 Why shouldn’t TgPsJ have the same flexibility
when it comes to incorporating angelic traditions? TgPsJ now agrees with
Gen. R., now with the Talmud, now with PRE, and now creates a new angelic
Midrash.

48)
As Paul Flesher puts it, ‘the combination of these sources results in a targum containing
three different types of Aramaic: the Eastern dialect of Onkelos, the Palestinian dialect of
Proto-PT, with most of the newer additions written in Later Jewish Literary Aramaic’. Paul
V.M. Flesher, ‘The Targumim’, in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part One, The Literary and
Archaeological Sources, ed. Jacob Neusner (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 40–63 (48).
2006080. AS. Proef 3. 4-9-2007:12.18, page 92.
Copyright of Aramaic Studies is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.