Sárospataki Füzetek 16. (2012)
2012 / 3-4. szám - TANULMÁNYOK - Jaap Dekker: A Szolga és a szolgák Ézsaiás próféta könyvében
Jacob j. T. doe dens of Thomas,22This angels-interpretation of Gen 6:1—4 is also found in Philo23 and Josephus.24It seems therefore that the earliest interpretation of Gen 6:1—4 understood the ‘sons of God’ to be angels. For a time, Jewish exegesis tried to counter this angels-interpretation. Genesis Rabbah 26:5.1 gives the first clue for an alternative Jewish interpretation of Gen 6:1—4. The passage from Gen. Rab. introduces the interpretation of rabbi Simeon bar Yohai (2d century c.e.), who identified the ‘sons of God’ as ‘sons of the nobility’, whilst cursing anyone who called them ‘sons of God’.25 Despite the curse on the earlier angels-interpretation, traces of it were preserved in the Targumim and in later Jewish tradition. According to the Babylonian Talmud26 there is an authoritative Tannaitic rule external to the Mishnah (baraita) from the school of Rabbi Yishmael27 according to which the term Azazel indicates “that it atones for the act of Uza and Azael”, names that refer to the fallen angels known from the Enochic tradition.28 Similarly, a name of a fallen angel known from the Enochic tradition occurs in the Talmud,29 where Sihon and Og (Num 21:21—35) are considered to have been sons of “Ahijah the son of Shamhazai”.30 22 Act. Thom. 32, Dutch translation: A. F. J. Klijn, Apokriefen van het Nieuwe Testament II (Kämpen: Kok, 1985), 56ff. 23 Philo, De gigantihus / Peri, giga.ntwn) Text: Leopold Cohn and Paul Wendland, eds., Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt (Vol. 2; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1897), 42—55; translation: C. D. Yonge, The Works of Philo: New Updated Version (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 152-157. See also Philo, Quod Deus sit immutabilis / "Or i arpeirtov to Getov 1:3. Text: Cohn and Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini opera, Vol. 2, 56ff. Translation: Yonge, The Works of Philo, 158—173; Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin, 1:92. The complete text is only handed down in Armenian. Latin and French translation: Charles Mercier, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim: I et II, e versioné armeniaca (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1979). English translation: Yonge, The Works of Philo, 791-813. 24 Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae. Text: Benedictus Niese, ed., Flavii Iosephi opera. Vol. 1: Antiquitatum Iudaicarum Libri 1—V (Berlin: Weidmann, 1955), 17; English translation: Steve Mason, ed., Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary: Vol. 3, Judean Antiquities 1—4 (trans. Louis H. Feldman, Leiden: Brill, 2000), 26-27. 25 Jacob Neusner, Genesis Rabbah. The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New American Translation (BJS 104; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 282. Because ‘sons of God’ is a literal translation of the Hebrew text, the curse must have been addressed at adherents of the angels-interpretation. 26 Tractate Yoma. 67b. 27 Contemporary of Akiva, however, Yishmael did not share Akiva’s opposition to the angels-interpretation. 28 Cf.I.Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo'ed (London: Soncino, 1938), 316 nt. 5. 27 Tractate Niddah 61a. 30 Cf. I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud: SederTohoroth (London: Soncino, 1959), 433 nt. 7. Interestingly, the combination of Biblical references to Og as residing in Ashtaroth and Edrei (Josh 12:4, 13:12) with Ugaritic literature in which Rp’u is described as ‘the god who dwells in Astharoth and judges at Edrei’, also suggests something like superhuman ancestry for Og, cf. John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 223-224. Day observes a fascinating connection between KTU1.108.1-3 where rp’u mik 'lm, “Rp’u, king of eternity” is mentioned, who is characterised as 'ilytb b'ttrt ‘il tpzbhdr'y, “the god who dwells in Ashtaroth, the god who judges in Edrei”, and Josh 12:4 about one of the ethnic Rephaim, “Og, the king of Bashan, one of the remnant of the Rephaim, who dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei.” (cf. Josh 13:12 “Og, who reigned S ’A 1A1 FÜZETEK 2012/3-4
