ȱ

TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱAngels’ȱFallȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ
ȱ
JANȱDOCHHORN,ȱÅARHUSȱ

1.ȱIntroduction:ȱDefinitionsȱandȱMethodȱ

Theȱtermsȱ“angels’ȱfall”ȱandȱ“fallenȱangels”ȱoriginateȱwithȱtheȱdogmaticȱ
traditionȱ ofȱ Christianityȱ whichȱ talksȱ aboutȱ “fallen”ȱ orȱ “evil”ȱ angelsȱ inȱ
theȱcontextȱofȱtheȱlocusȱofȱtheȱprimevalȱfallȱofȱSatan.ȱAccordingȱtoȱthisȱ
Satanȱ onceȱ wasȱ aȱ superiorȱ angelȱ who,ȱ joinedȱ byȱ otherȱ angels,ȱ turnedȱ
fromȱ goodȱ toȱ evilȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ freeȱ willȱ inȱ primevalȱ timesȱ andȱ forȱ thatȱ
reasonȱ fellȱ downȱ fromȱ heaven1.ȱ Thisȱ locusȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ earlyȱ churchȱ
tradition:ȱ alreadyȱ theȱ apologistsȱ mentionedȱ Satan’sȱ fallȱ andȱ oftenȱ hisȱ
angels’ȱfallȱasȱ well2.ȱ Especiallyȱinȱ theȱ 2ndȱ –ȱ 5thȱ centuriesȱ ADȱ numerousȱ
narrativesȱ dealingȱ withȱ thisȱ subjectȱ wereȱ inȱ circulation3,ȱ notȱ leastȱ theȱ
traditionȱ originatingȱ fromȱ theȱ Jewishȱ Vitaȱ Adaeȱ etȱ Evae,ȱ sayingȱ thatȱ
Satanȱandȱhisȱangelsȱfellȱfromȱheavenȱbecauseȱtheyȱrefusedȱtoȱperformȱ
proskynesisȱ beforeȱ Adam.ȱ Nearlyȱ canonicalȱ –ȱ andȱ displacingȱ otherȱ
traditionsȱ–ȱisȱtheȱversionȱfoundȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱOrigenes,ȱDeȱprinȬ
cipiisȱIȱ5,ȱ2Ȭ5;ȱitȱidentifiesȱtheȱSatanȱwithȱtheȱ“morningȱstar”ȱ(e`wsfo,roj,ȱ
lucifer)ȱwhichȱhasȱfallenȱdownȱfromȱheavenȱaccordingȱtoȱIsaȱ14:12ff.ȱandȱ
interpretsȱinȱadditionȱtheȱoracleȱconcerningȱtheȱKingȱofȱTyreȱinȱEzekȱ28ȱ
asȱindicatingȱaȱprimevalȱfallȱofȱanangel4.ȱTheseȱtwoȱtextsȱareȱalsoȱfoundȱ
inȱ Isidor,ȱ Petrusȱ Lombardusȱ andȱ Thomasȱ Aquinus;ȱ inȱ additionȱ espeȬ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
1ȱȱ Cf.ȱIsidor,ȱLiberȱSententiarumȱ1,10,5Ȭ12ȱ(MPLȱ83,554Ȭ556);ȱPetrusȱLombardus,ȱ Liberȱ
Sententiarumȱ 2,6ȱ (MPLȱ 192,662Ȭ664);ȱ Thomasȱ Aquinas,ȱ Summaȱ Theologiae,ȱ quȱ 63ȱ
(BACȱ 77,435Ȭ47);ȱ Hutter,ȱ Compendiumȱ Locorumȱ Theologicorumȱ 5,10Ȭ18;ȱ Calixt,ȱ
Epitomeȱ Theologiaeȱ p.ȱ 56Ȭ58;ȱ Gerhard,ȱ Lociȱ Theologiciȱ 2,5,10Ȭ12;ȱ Hollaz,ȱ Examenȱ
TheologiaeȱAcroamaticumȱ1,4,20ff.ȱȱ
Editions:ȱTrillhaas,ȱLeonhardȱHutterȱ23Ȭ24;ȱMager,ȱCalixtȱIIȱ150Ȭ153;ȱPreuss,ȱJohannisȱ
GerhardiȱLociȱII,ȱ10Ȭ11;ȱHollaz,ȱExamenȱI,ȱ583f.ȱ
2ȱȱ Justinus,ȱ Dialogusȱ cumȱ Tryphoneȱ 103,5;ȱ 124,3;ȱ Tatianus,ȱ Oratioȱ adȱ Graecosȱ 7;ȱ
Athenagoras,ȱ Supplicatioȱ 24Ȭ26).ȱ Concerningȱ theȱ apologistsȱ cf.ȱ Goodspeed,ȱ ApoloȬ
geten.ȱ219,ȱ244Ȭ245,ȱ273Ȭ274,ȱ343Ȭ347.ȱ
3ȱȱ ForȱmaterialȱconcerningȱearlyȱchurchȱtraditionsȱonȱSatan’sȱfallȱcf.ȱBamberger,ȱAngelsȱ
73Ȭ86,ȱ272Ȭ274.ȱ
4ȱȱ ForȱOrigenes,ȱDeȱPrincipiisȱ1,5,2Ȭ5ȱcf.ȱKoetschau,ȱOrigenesȱ70Ȭ78.ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
478ȱ JanȱDochhornȱ

ciallyȱ Johnȱ 8:44;ȱ 2Petrȱ 2:4;ȱ Judeȱ 6ȱ areȱ usedȱ inȱ dogmaticȱ tradition.ȱ Theȱ
protestantȱtheologiansȱmentionedȱaboveȱ(cf.ȱnoteȱ1)ȱdoȱnotȱreferȱtoȱIsaȱ
14:12ff.ȱandȱEzekȱ28;ȱtheȱonlyȱexceptionȱisȱCalixt,ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱtradiȬ
tionalistȱ andȱ headstrong;ȱ heȱ remarksȱ thatȱ Isaȱ 14ȱ andȱ Ezekȱ 28ȱ allegoriȬ
callyȱreferȱtoȱSatan’sȱfall5.ȱȱ
TheȱpresentȱarticleȱaimsȱatȱpresentingȱearlyȱJewishȱtraditionsȱwhichȱ
correspondȱ orȱ areȱ similarȱ toȱ theȱ Christianȱ traditionȱ justȱ roughlyȱ deȬ
scribed.ȱ Thisȱ projectȱ impliesȱ aȱ methodicalȱ problem:ȱ Thereȱ isȱ aȱ riskȱ toȱ
subsumeȱ phenomenaȱ underȱ aȱ categoryȱ toȱ whichȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ belongȱ –ȱ
neitherȱinȱanȱobjectiveȱnorȱinȱanȱhistoricalȬgeneticalȱsense.ȱThisȱdoesȱnotȱ
soȱmuchȱapplyȱtoȱnarrativesȱofȱaȱfallȱofȱSatanȱ–ȱandȱhisȱangelsȱ–ȱinȱpriȬ
mevalȱtimes,ȱwhichȱactuallyȱexistedȱalsoȱinȱearlyȱJudaism,ȱthoughȱtheyȱ
areȱ notȱ asȱ widelyȱ attestedȱ asȱ inȱ Christianity.ȱ However,ȱ thisȱ riskȱ beȬ
comesȱimminentȱwhenȱweȱturnȱtoȱtheȱsoȱcalledȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱwatcherȬ
angels;ȱ accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ beforeȱ theȱ Delugeȱ aȱ groupȱ ofȱ angelsȱ marriedȱ
humanȱwomenȱagainstȱGod’sȱwill,ȱbegotȱtheȱgiantsȱandȱdisclosedȱheavenlyȱ
secrets;ȱ inȱ theȱ sourcesȱ theyȱ areȱ calledȱ “watchers”ȱ afterȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ termȱ
designatingȱ angelsȱ (!yry[ [“watchingȱ onesȱ reflections”],ȱ Greekȱ evgrh,goroi,ȱ
OldȱEthiopicȱteguhân)ȱofȱthisȱtraditionȱinȱtheȱNewȱTestamentȱ(2Petrȱ2:4,ȱ
Judgȱ6)ȱhaveȱbeenȱassociatedȱinȱdogmaticȱtraditionȱwithȱtheȱlocusȱofȱtheȱ
fallenȱangelsȱviz.ȱSatan’sȱfallȱrespectively.ȱ
Thereȱ isȱ aȱ temptationȱ toȱ associateȱ theȱ Watchers’ȱ traditionȱ atȱ onceȱ
withȱ theȱ mythȱ ofȱ Satan’sȱ fall,ȱ orȱ toȱ defineȱ itȱ asȱ aȱ variationȱ ofȱ aȱ moreȱ
extensiveȱ category,ȱ anȱ earlyȱ Jewishȱ mythologyȱ ofȱ theȱ angels’ȱ fall,ȱ forȱ
instance.ȱ However,ȱ thisȱ wouldȱ comprehendȱ theȱ religionȬhistoricalȱ factȱ
ratherȱimprecisely:ȱtheȱWatchersȱconcerningȱtheȱtermȱ“fallȱofȱangels”ȱisȱ
hardlyȱ everȱ used,ȱ muchȱ lessȱ stillȱ aȱ fallȱ ofȱ Satanȱ isȱ mentioned.ȱ Atȱ theȱ
sameȱ timeȱ theȱ mythȱ ofȱ theȱ Watchersȱ doubtlessȱ hasȱ someȱ analogiesȱ toȱ
theȱideaȱofȱSatan’sȱfall.ȱBothȱshareȱanȱimportantȱtrait,ȱnamely:ȱangelsȱdoȱ
somethingȱnotȱcomplyingȱwithȱGod’sȱwillȱandȱareȱpunishedȱforȱthis.ȱNoȱ
oneȱwillȱbeȱsurprisedȱthatȱSatan’sȱfallȱandȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱWatchersȱ
wereȱ associatedȱ withȱ oneȱ another,ȱ atȱ leastȱ secondarilyȱ soȱ (cf.ȱ AthenaȬ
goras,ȱ Supplicatioȱ 24).ȱ Therefore,ȱ weȱ willȱ haveȱ toȱ takeȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ
theȱWatchersȱintoȱaccountȱhere.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱweȱwillȱhaveȱtoȱtakeȱheedȱtoȱ
rememberȱ thatȱ itȱisȱ originallyȱsomethingȱ elseȱ thanȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱaȱ fallȱ ofȱ
angels.ȱTheȱlatterȱisȱrealizedȱinȱtheȱtraditionsȱofȱaȱprimevalȱfallȱofȱSatan,ȱ
which,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱalreadyȱindicated,ȱalsoȱexistedȱinȱJudaismȱandȱwhichȱ
willȱbeȱtheȱfocusȱofȱourȱinterest.ȱ
Weȱ willȱ proceedȱ asȱ follows:ȱ Firstȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ theȱ Watchersȱ isȱ
described.ȱSpecialȱattentionȱwillȱbeȱpaidȱtoȱitsȱrelationȱwithȱsatanologyȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
5ȱȱ Mager,ȱCalixtȱ151.ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱAngels’ȱFallȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ 479ȱ

(ch.ȱ 2).ȱ Thenȱ weȱ willȱ dealȱ withȱ theȱ mainȱ subject,ȱ theȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ theȱ
Satanicȱ fallȱ inȱ earlyȱ Judaism.ȱ Afterȱ anȱ introductionȱ (ch.ȱ 3.1)ȱ andȱ afterȱ
consideringȱ someȱ ratherȱ vagueȱ testimoniesȱ (ch.ȱ 3.2),ȱ twoȱ –ȱ receptionȬ
historicallyȱ influentialȱ –ȱ centralȱ passagesȱ willȱ beȱ discussed,ȱ anȱ earlierȱ
oneȱtakenȱfromȱtheȱVitaȱAdaeȱetȱEvaeȱ(ch.ȱ3.3)andȱ–ȱnotȱasȱdetailedȱ–ȱaȱ
ratherȱlateȱoneȱfromȱPirqêȱdeȱRabbiȱEliêzerȱ(ch.ȱ3.4).ȱItȱremainsȱtoȱsayȱthatȱ
onlyȱearlyȱJudaismȱ(ch.ȱ3)ȱwillȱbeȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱourȱinvestigation.ȱNevȬ
erthelessȱChristianȱtestimoniesȱwillȱplayȱaȱsignificantȱroleȱasȱwell.ȱThisȱ
showsȱ theȱ affinityȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ religiousȱ milieusȱ especiallyȱ inȱ thisȱ field;ȱ
butȱitȱalsoȱisȱsomehowȱconnectedȱwithȱtheȱfactȱthatȱChristiansȱadoptedȱ
theȱtraditionsȱofȱearlyȱJudaismȱmoreȱreadilyȱthanȱtheȱrabbis.ȱNumerousȱ
Christianȱ testimoniesȱ areȱ onlyȱ secondarilyȱ Christian,ȱ i.e.ȱ theyȱ areȱ deȬ
rivedȱfromȱoriginallyȱJewishȱwritingsȱwithȱaȱChristianȱsuperstratum.ȱ

2.ȱTheȱTraditionȱofȱtheȱWatchersȱ

TheȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱWatchers’ȱmarriagesȱisȱveryȱold.ȱItsȱBiblicalȱpointȱofȱ
referenceȱ isȱ inȱ Genȱ 6:2Ȭ4.ȱ Itȱ isȱ attestedȱ inȱ nearlyȱ allȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ theȱ
EnochȬPentateuchȱ(1ȱEn)ȱwithȱtheȱexceptionȱofȱtheȱastronomicȱbookȱofȱ
Enochȱ(1Enȱ72Ȭ82)6;ȱTheȱtraditionȱisȱalsoȱreflectedȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱGiants7ȱ
asȱ wellȱ asȱ inȱ Jubilees8ȱ andȱ laterȱ Jewishȱ writings;ȱ besidesȱ thereȱ isȱ eviȬ
denceȱofȱaȱChristianȱreceptionȱofȱtheȱmyth9.ȱ
InȱspiteȱofȱtheȱpopularityȱwhichȱtheȱmythȱofȱtheȱWatchersȱenjoyedȱ
inȱlateȱJewishȬChristianȱantiquity,ȱitȱlostȱitsȱattractivenessȱsinceȱtheȱ2ndȱ
centuryȱ AD,ȱ becauseȱ anȱ anthropologicalȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ “sonsȱ ofȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
6ȱȱ Cf.ȱ 1Enȱ 12Ȭ16;ȱ 19:1Ȭ3;ȱ 39:1Ȭ2;ȱ 54Ȭ55;ȱ 64;ȱ 67Ȭ69,ȱ especiallyȱ 69:Ȭ14;ȱ 86Ȭ88;ȱ 106:13Ȭ17.ȱ Forȱ
1Enȱcf.ȱUhlig,ȱHenochbuch,ȱalsoȱdealingȱwithȱproblemsȱofȱintroduction.ȱ
7ȱȱ Fragmentsȱ inȱ Qumran:ȱ IQȱ 23.24;ȱ 2Qȱ 26;ȱ 4Qȱ 203.204[?];ȱ 4Qȱ 530Ȭ533;ȱ 6Qȱ 8.ȱ Forȱ theȱ
Qumranȱtextsȱcf.ȱGarciaȱMartinezȱ/ȱEȱJ.ȱTigchelaar,ȱDeadȱSea.ȱ
8ȱȱ Cf.ȱLibȱJubȱ4:15,ȱ22;ȱ5ȱlff;ȱ7:21Ȭ25;ȱ8:3;ȱ10:5;ȱ20:5);ȱcf.ȱalsoȱDamȱDocȱ2:18;ȱJosephus,ȱAntȱ
1:73;ȱPsȬPhilo,ȱLiberȱAntiquitatumȱBiblicarumȱ34ȱ(insecure);ȱ2ȱBarȱ56:10Ȭ16;ȱprobablyȱ
ofȱJewishȱoriginȱ alsoȱareȱ2Enȱ7;ȱ18;ȱTestȱRubȱ5:6Ȭ7;ȱTestȱNaphȱ3:5;ȱ forȱJubileesȱVanȬ
derkam,ȱ Bookȱ (Ethiopicȱ text;ȱ theȱ appendixȱ offersȱ parallelȱ traditionsȱ inȱ otherȱ lanȬ
guages)ȱandȱLittmann,ȱBuchȱ31Ȭ119.ȱForȱDamDocȱ2:18ȱcf.ȱLohse,ȱTexteȱ70Ȭ71;ȱcf.ȱalsoȱ
Nieseȱ,ȱFlaviiȱIosephiȱI,17;ȱHarringtonȱ/ȱCazeaux,ȱPseudoȬPhilonȱ256Ȭ259;ȱRyssel,ȱBaȬ
ruchapokalypseȱ 402Ȭ466,ȱ especiallyȱ 434;ȱ Böttrich,ȱ Henochbuchȱ 875Ȭ880;ȱ deȱ Jonge,ȱ
Testamentsȱ10,ȱ117.ȱ
9ȱȱ Cf.ȱe.ȱg.ȱJudeȱ6;ȱ2Petrȱ2:4;ȱPapias,ȱfrag.ȱ12ȱ(insecure);ȱJustin,ȱApologiaȱ5;ȱJustin,ȱApȬ
pendixȱ 5;ȱ Athenagoras,ȱ Supplicatioȱ 24Ȭ26;ȱ Euseb,ȱ Praeparatioȱ Evangelicaȱ Vȱ 4:9Ȭ10;ȱ
Tertullian,ȱDeȱOrationeȱ22:5Ȭ6ȱ(CCSLȱ1,270),ȱDeȱ CultuȱFeminarumȱ1:2ȱ(CCSLȱ1,344Ȭ
346),ȱDeȱVirginibusȱVelandisȱ7ȱ(CCSLȱ2,1216Ȭ1217);ȱCommodianus,ȱInstructionesȱ1:3ȱ
(CCSLȱ 128,4);ȱ Sulpiciusȱ Severus,ȱ Chronicaȱ 1,2,7Ȭ8ȱ (CSELȱ l,4Ȭ5).ȱ Editions:ȱ Körtner,ȱ
Papiasfragmenteȱ 64;ȱ Goodspeed,ȱ Apologetenȱ 29,ȱ 82,ȱ 343Ȭ347,ȱ andȱ Mras,ȱ Eusebiusȱ
WerkeȱVIII,1ȱ229.ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
480ȱ JanȱDochhornȱ

God”ȱ inȱ Genȱ 6:2ȱ becameȱ dominant.ȱ Onȱ theȱ Jewishȱ sideȱ Symmachusȱ
testifiesȱtoȱit,ȱwhoȱtranslatesȱ~yhlah ynbȱasȱoi` ui`oi. tw/n dunasteuo,ntwn;ȱtheȱ
Septuagintȱstillȱhadȱoi` ui`oi. tou/ qeou/ȱ (withȱtheȱwidelyȱattestedȱvariantȱoi`
a;ggeloi tou/ qeou/)10.ȱ Berešîtȱ Rabbâȱ 26:5ȱ showsȱ theȱ sameȱ hermeneuticalȱ
strategyȱwhenȱRabbiȱŠimcônȱbenȱJôHajȱrendersȱtheȱrespectiveȱphraseȱasȱ
hynyyd ynbȱ(“sonsȱofȱtheȱjudges”)ȱandȱcursesȱanyoneȱwhoȱtranslatesȱitȱasȱ
hyhla ynbȱ(“sonsȱofȱtheȱgods”)11.ȱOnȱtheȱChristianȱsideȱtheȱinterpretationȱ
ofȱGenȱ6:2Ȭ4ȱasȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱWatchersȱisȱincreasinglyȱsuppressedȱbyȱ
theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ theȱ “sonsȱ ofȱ God”ȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ Sethites,ȱ whoȱ wereȱ fasciȬ
natedȱbyȱCain’sȱfemaleȱoffspringȱandȱbecauseȱofȱthisȱdepartedȱfromȱtheȱ
rightȱpath.ȱThisȱreadingȱisȱfoundȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱJuliusȱAfricanus12.ȱȱ
Itsȱ manifoldȱ applicabilityȱ explainsȱ theȱ enormouslyȱ broadȱ circulaȬ
tionȱofȱtheȱWatchers’ȱmyth.ȱSoȱoneȱmightȱlearnȱfromȱitȱsomethingȱaboutȱ
theȱdangersȱofȱfemaleȱcharms;ȱinȱ1Enȱ19:2ȱwomenȱareȱalreadyȱpresentedȱ
asȱ thoseȱ whoȱ actuallyȱ tookȱ theȱ initiativeȱ inȱ marryingȱ theȱ angelsȱ (theyȱ
seducedȱtheȱangels;ȱcf.ȱTestȱRubȱ5:6Ȭ7).ȱAnotherȱmotifȱthatȱguaranteedȱ
interestȱinȱthisȱmythȱwasȱtheȱfactȱthatȱitȱgaveȱanȱaccountȱofȱtheȱdiscloȬ
sureȱofȱheavenlyȱsecretsȱ(cf.ȱesp.ȱ1Enȱ6Ȭ11):ȱtheȱWatchersȱhaveȱconveyedȱ
numerousȱ skillsȱ toȱ men,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ astrology,ȱ magic,ȱ
medicine,ȱ cosmetics,ȱ metallurgy,ȱ andȱ militaryȱ affairsȱ –ȱ allȱ ofȱ whichȱ
wereȱ toȱ aȱ wideȱ extentȱ consideredȱ asȱ achievementsȱ ofȱ civilizationȱ inȱ
contemporaryȱpaganȱsources13.ȱInȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱWatchers’ȱtraditionȱ
theyȱareȱunmistakablyȱevaluatedȱunfavourably.ȱThusȱtheȱmythȱincludesȱ
anȱ aspectȱ ofȱ criticizingȱ civilization.ȱ Further,ȱ itȱ probablyȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ
parodyȱ ofȱ theȱ contemporaryȱ Prw/toj eu`reth,jȬdiscourse,ȱ whichȱ tracedȱ
backȱ achievementsȱ ofȱ civilizationȱ toȱ figuresȱ ofȱ mythicȱ traditionȱ –ȱ beȱ itȱ
theȱ Greekȱ oneȱ orȱ thatȱ ofȱ orientalȱ nationsȱ –ȱ andȱ thusȱ expressedȱ theȱ
claimsȱonȱethnicȬreligiousȱweight14.ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
10ȱȱ ForȱtheȱSeptuagintȱandȱtheȱotherȱGreekȱtranslationsȱcf.ȱWevers,ȱGenesisȱ108.ȱ
11ȱȱ Cf.ȱAquila:ȱoi` ui`oi. tw/n qew/n.ȱForȱBerȱRȱ26,5ȱcf.ȱTheodorȱ/ȱAlbeck,ȱBereschitȱI,ȱ247.ȱ
12ȱȱ Chronographia,ȱfragȱ2ȱ(MPGȱ10,65);ȱthisȱviewȱisȱheldȱlateronȱbyȱCyrillȱ(Glaphyraȱadȱ
Genesimȱ 2)ȱ andȱ Augustinusȱ (Deȱ Civitateȱ Deiȱ XV,22Ȭ23;ȱ XVIII,38),ȱ forȱ instance;ȱ aȱ
prominentȱwitnessȱalsoȱisȱtheȱsoȱcalledȱCavernaȱThesaurorumȱ(ibidemȱ11),ȱaȱretellingȱ
ofȱtheȱBibleȱwrittenȱinȱlateȱantiquityȱinȱtheȱSyriacȱchurch.ȱCf.ȱRi,ȱCaverneȱ80ffȱ(text)ȱ
andȱBezold,ȱSchatzhöhleȱ14ff.ȱ(trans.).ȱForȱanȱintroductionȱcf.ȱStone,ȱHistoryȱ90Ȭ95.ȱ
13ȱȱ AnȱexampleȱisȱtheȱPhoenicianȱHistoryȱbyȱPhiloȱofȱByblos,ȱwhich,ȱafterȱaȱcosmogony,ȱ
offersȱaȱprimevalȱhistoryȱofȱcivilization,ȱinȱwhichȱfiguresȱfromȱPhoenicianȱmythologyȱ
–ȱ forȱ theȱ mostȱ partȱ appearingȱ underȱ theȱ namesȱ ofȱ Greekȱ deitiesȱ –ȱ areȱ theȱ protagoȬ
nistsȱ(PhiloȱBybliusȱapudȱEusebius,ȱPraeparatioȱEvangelicaȱIȱ10,6ff.).ȱ
14ȱȱ AsȱanȱexampleȱforȱtheȱPrw/toj eu`reth,jȬDiscourseȱcf.ȱPhiloȱBybliusȱ(cf.ȱnoteȱ13).ȱForȱ
theȱendeavourȱofȱGreekȱandȱHellenisticȬOrientalȱhistoriographersȱtoȱformȱtheȱbeginȬ
ningȱofȱcivilizationȱfromȱanȱethnicȱperspectiveȱbyȱhavingȱrecourseȱtoȱtheȱhistoricallyȱ
interpretedȱmythicȱtraditionȱofȱtheirȱownȱpeopleȱcf.ȱtheȱshortȱsurveyȱinȱOden,ȱPhiloȱ
118Ȭ124.ȱItȱisȱalsoȱreflectedȱinȱJewishȱhistoriansȱlikeȱArtapanusȱundȱEupolemus.ȱForȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱAngels’ȱFallȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ 481ȱ

However,ȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱWatchers’ȱmythȱcouldȱbeȱconnectedȱwithȱ
knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ originȱ ofȱ demonsȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ mostȱ important:ȱ AcȬ
cordingȱ toȱ 1Enȱ 15:8Ȭ12ȱ demonsȱ areȱ theȱ spiritsȱ ofȱ theȱ giantsȱ whoȱ wereȱ
destroyedȱ throughȱ theȱ Deluge;ȱ alreadyȱ inȱ 1Enȱ 19:1ȱ itȱ isȱ theseȱ demonsȱ
whoȱ causeȱ idolatry.ȱ Inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ aȱ demonologicalȱ explanationȱ ofȱ
paganȱcultsȱtheȱWatchers’ȱmythȱwillȱbeȱusedȱafterwardsȱtimeȱandȱagainȱ
(cf.ȱe.g.ȱJustinus,ȱApologiaȱ5ȱetc.).ȱAtȱtheȱlatestȱwithȱthisȱdemonologicalȱ
outlookȱtheȱmythȱtouchesȱaȱsubjectȱthatȱisȱveryȱcloselyȱconnectedȱwithȱ
theȱconceptȱofȱSatan’sȱfall,ȱnamelyȱtheȱetiologyȱofȱevil.ȱUnderȱtheȱcondiȬ
tionsȱofȱaȱdemonologicalȱinterpretationȱofȱreality,ȱasȱitȱprevailsȱinȱearlyȱ
JudaismȱandȱearlyȱChristianity,ȱinformationȱaboutȱtheȱoriginȱofȱdemonsȱ
isȱ alsoȱ toȱ aȱ largeȱ extentȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ derivationȱ ofȱ anythingȱ
whichȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱmorallyȱandȱpracticallyȱadversativeȱinȱlife.ȱ
AlthoughȱtheȱpossibilityȱtoȱprovideȱanȱetiologyȱofȱevilȱoffersȱanȱimȬ
portantȱ pointȱ inȱ relationȱ withȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ Satan’sȱ fall,ȱ theȱ differȬ
encesȱbetweenȱtheȱtraditionȬcomplexesȱcannotȱbeȱoverlooked.ȱThisȱmayȱ
beȱseenȱalreadyȱwhenȱconsideringȱaȱlinguisticȱspecialtyȱwhichȱisȱnotȱaȱ
minorȱ detailȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ context.ȱ Theȱ Watchers’ȱ traditionȱ comparaȬ
tivelyȱ seldomȱ saysȱ thatȱ theȱ angelsȱ “fall”ȱ orȱ “haveȱ fallen”.ȱ Exceptionsȱ
likeȱ DamDocȱ 2:17Ȭ18ȱ whereȱ itȱ saysȱ aboutȱ theȱ “Watchersȱ ofȱ heaven”ȱ
(~ymvhȱyry[)ȱ thatȱ theyȱ “haveȱ fallen”ȱ (wlpn)ȱ “becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ conductȱ inȱ
hardȬheartedness”ȱ(~bl twryrvb ~tklb)ȱconfirmȱthisȱrule.ȱAllȱtheȱmoreȱsoȱ
narrativesȱaboutȱSatan’sȱfallȱtalkȱaboutȱfallinȱgȱviz.ȱfallenȱangels,ȱespeȬ
ciallyȱwithȱregardȱtoȱSatan.ȱDeviatingȱfromȱDamDocȱ2:18ȱthisȱconcernsȱ
veryȱoftenȱnotȱonlyȱfallingȱinȱaȱfigurativeȱsense,ȱbutȱinȱaȱconcretelyȱspaȬ
tialȱsenseȱ(cf.ȱe.g.ȱVitAdȱ11Ȭ17),ȱsoȱthatȱtheȱtermȱ“angels’ȱfall”ȱviz.ȱ“SaȬ
tan’sȱfall”ȱmayȱbeȱtakenȱsoȱtoȱspeakȱasȱanȱoriginalȱlanguageȱ(ethic)ȱtermȱ
asȱlongȱasȱoneȱdoesȱnotȱtransferȱitȱtoȱtextsȱofȱtheȱWatchers’ȱtraditionȱbyȱ
mistake.ȱȱ
Theȱ reasonȱ forȱ thisȱ linguisticȱ differenceȱ wouldȱ beȱ aȱ secondȱ aspectȱ
whichȱ distinguishesȱ theȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Watchersȱ andȱ ofȱ Satan’sȱ fallȱ
evenȱ moreȱ effectively:ȱForȱ theȱ presentȱ theȱ Watchersȱ–ȱinȱ contrastȱwithȱ
Satanȱandȱhisȱangelsȱ–ȱareȱirrelevant,ȱatȱleastȱasȱlongȱasȱtheyȱthemselvesȱ
areȱconcernedȱandȱnotȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱtheirȱevilȬdoings.ȱTheyȱwereȱ
activeȱatȱtheȱtimeȱbeforeȱtheȱDelugeȱandȱtheyȱwereȱpunished;ȱthereforeȱ
theyȱcouldȱbeȱimportantȱasȱaȱparadigmȱofȱdivineȱpunishingȱactivityȱ(cf.ȱ
Judeȱ6).ȱButȱjustȱbecauseȱofȱthisȱtheyȱareȱnoȱlongerȱanȱactualȱthreatȱforȱ
whoseȱ originȱ oneȱ needsȱ toȱ look.ȱ Completelyȱ differentȱ thingsȱ areȱ withȱ
Satanȱandȱhisȱangels,ȱtoȱwhomȱoneȱfeltȱexposedȱinȱtheȱpresent.ȱCorreȬ
spondinglyȱtheȱproblemȱofȱtheirȱidentityȱwasȱactuallyȱobvious,ȱandȱtheȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
theȱrelationshipȱofȱtheȱWatchers’ȱmythȱwithȱthisȱdiscourseȱcf.ȱHanson,ȱRebellionȱ195Ȭ
233.ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
482ȱ JanȱDochhornȱ

ideaȱ ofȱ aȱ primevalȱ fallȱ ofȱ angels,ȱ whenȱ Satanȱ andȱ hisȱ angelsȱ becameȱ
whatȱ theyȱ are,ȱ couldȱ functionȱ asȱ aȱ modelȱ ofȱ explanation,ȱ thoughȱ onlyȱ
fromȱ aȱ certainȱ timeȱ onwardsȱ (cf.ȱ ch.ȱ 3).ȱ Correspondinglyȱ theȱ ideasȱ ofȱ
Satan’sȱfallȱandȱtheȱWatchers’ȱmythȱareȱdistinguishedȱfromȱoneȱanotherȱ
basicallyȱ inȱ theirȱ subjectȬrhemaȬstructureȱ insofarȱ asȱ theȱ angelicȱ natureȱ
ofȱtheȱprotagonistsȱisȱconcerned.ȱWithinȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱSatan’sȱfallȱtheȱ
(primeval)ȱ angelicȱ natureȱ isȱ theȱ newȱ message;ȱ Satanȱ inȱ hisȱ evilnessȱ isȱ
theȱsubject,ȱhisȱangelicȱnatureȱtheȱrhema.ȱTheȱotherȱwayȱroundȱitȱstandsȱ
withȱtheȱWatchers’ȱtradition:ȱoneȱknowsȱthatȱtheyȱareȱangels,ȱbutȱwhatȱ
theyȱdoȱcomesȱasȱaȱsurprise.ȱȱ
TheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱWatchers’ȱmythȱoriginallyȱhasȱnothingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱ
theȱ satanologicalȱ tradition,ȱ traditionȬhistoricallyȱ correspondsȱ toȱ theȱ
distanceȱbetweenȱtheȱWatchers’ȱmythȱandȱtheȱideaȱofȱSatan’sȱfall.ȱOneȱ
willȱlookȱforȱanyȱallusionȱtoȱSatanȱinȱtheȱearlierȱtextsȱaboutȱtheȱWatchȬ
ersȱinȱvain.ȱInȱJubilees,ȱtoo,ȱbothȱideasȱstandȱoneȱbesideȱtheȱotherȱnearlyȱ
unconnected.ȱ Afterȱ allȱ Mastemaȱ functionsȱ thereȱ asȱ theȱ leaderȱ ofȱ evilȱ
spiritsȱ whichȱ areȱ thoughtȱ toȱ originateȱ withȱ theȱ Watchers’ȱ marriagesȱ
(10:5).ȱButȱinȱaȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱWatchersȱthemselvesȱheȱdoesȱnotȱ
appear;ȱandȱweȱdoȱnotȱlearnȱanythingȱaboutȱhisȱownȱorigin.ȱMastemaȱ
inȱJubilees,ȱaȱveryȱactiveȱSatanicȱfigure,ȱplaysȱaȱroleȱonlyȱafterȱtheȱDelȬ
uge,ȱwhenȱtheȱWatchersȱhadȱalreadyȱbeenȱpunished.ȱȱ
Inȱvain,ȱcorrespondingly,oneȱwillȱlookȱforȱinfluencesȱexertedȱbyȱtheȱ
Watchers’ȱtraditionȱinȱtheȱearlierȱsatanology.ȱThisȱisȱtrue,ȱofȱcourse,ȱforȱ
passagesȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱ(Jobȱ1Ȭ2;ȱZechȱ3:1;ȱ1Chrȱ21:1),ȱbutȱasȱwellȱ
forȱtheȱdoctrineȱofȱtwoȱspiritsȱfoundȱinȱQumranȱ(cf.ȱ1QȱSȱIII:13ȬIV:26);ȱ
itsȱ“angelȱofȱdarkness”ȱ($vwx $alm)ȱmightȱbelongȱtoȱsatanologicalȱtradiȬ
tion,ȱcf.ȱtheȱphraseȱ“ruleȱofȱhisȱadversity”ȱ(wtmjXm tlXmm)ȱinȱtheȱcontextȱ
ofȱ hisȱ activitiesȱ directedȱ againstȱ theȱ sonsȱ ofȱ justice,ȱ aȱ phraseȱ recallingȱ
theȱSatanicȱnameȱMastemaȱ(1ȱQȱSȱIII:23).ȱTheȱsameȱnegativeȱanswerȱisȱ
toȱbeȱgivenȱforȱtheȱmostȱpartȱofȱtheȱtextsȱdealingȱwithȱSatan’sȱfall:ȱAgainȱ
oneȱ willȱ lookȱ forȱ verifiableȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ Watchers’ȱ mythȱ inȱ vain.ȱ
OnlyȱinȱAthenagoras,ȱSupplicatioȱ24ff.ȱ(Goodspeed,ȱ343ff.)ȱaȱconceptȱofȱ
Satan’sȱ fallȱ andȱ theȱ Watchers’ȱ traditionȱ appearȱ connectedȱ toȱ oneȱ anȬ
other.ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱAngels’ȱFallȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ 483ȱ

3.ȱTheȱTraditionsȱofȱSatan’sȱFallȱviz.ȱofȱSatanȱasȱaȱFallenȱ
AngelȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱȱ

3.1.ȱIntroduction:ȱOnȱtheȱrelationȱbetweenȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱ
Traditionsȱ

AsȱcomparedȱtoȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱWatchersȱtheȱideaȱofȱSatan’sȱfallȱisȱ
surprisinglyȱ pluriform.ȱ Andȱ itȱ isȱ attestedȱ onlyȱ relativelyȱ late:ȱ noneȱ ofȱ
theȱreadingsȱcanȱbeȱdatedȱearlierȱthanȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱADȱwithȱfullȱcerȬ
tainty.ȱȱ
DifferentȱfromȱtheȱWatchers’ȱtradition,ȱconceptsȱofȱSatan’sȱfallȱ–ȱasȱ
weȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ seenȱ aboveȱ –ȱ areȱ attestedȱ mainlyȱ inȱ theȱ Christianȱ
sphere,ȱ whichȱ weȱ willȱ dealȱ withȱ justȱ inȱ passing.ȱ Weȱ willȱ alsoȱ leaveȱ itȱ
unexplainedȱinȱhowȱfarȱJewishȱtraditionȱprecedesȱChristianȱtraditions.ȱ
Maybeȱ inȱ Justinusȱ aȱ Jewishȱ backgroundȱ hasȱ anȱ afterȬeffect,ȱ whenȱ heȱ
relatesȱtheȱsentenceȱw`j ei-j tw/n avrco,ntwn pi,pteteȱ(Psȱ81:7ȱLXX)ȱinȱDialogusȱ
cumȱTryphoneȱ(124:3)ȱtoȱ“thatȱsoȱcalledȱserpent”ȱ(tou/ keklhme,nou evkei,nou
o;fewj)ȱ“whichȱhadȱaȱgreatȱfall,ȱbecauseȱitȱseducedȱEve”ȱ(peso,ntoj ptw/sin
mega,lhn dia. to. avpoplanh/sai th.n Eu[an);ȱforȱthisȱthereȱareȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱJewȬ
ishȱ parallelsȱ –ȱ thoughȱ theyȱ clearlyȱ followȱ aȱ differentȱ tendencyȱ –ȱ inȱ
AbôthȱdeȱRabbiȱNathanȱ(ARN;ȱSchechter,ȱ164)ȱandȱinȱMidrashȱTehillimȱ
onȱPsȱ82:7.ȱJewishȱinfluenceȱisȱshownȱdirectlyȱorȱindirectlyȱinȱanyȱpasȬ
sageȱwhereȱtheȱtraditionȱoriginallyȱcomingȱfromȱtheȱJewishȱVitaȱAdaeȱ
etȱEvaeȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱadopted,ȱnamelyȱthatȱSatanȱfellȱbecauseȱheȱrefusedȱ
toȱperformȱproskynesisȱbeforeȱAdamȱ(VitȱAdȱ11Ȭ17);ȱitȱproducedȱenorȬ
mousȱ consequencesȱ inȱ Copticȱ literature,ȱ asȱ Iȱ willȱ showȱ inȱ aȱ separateȱ
article.ȱMaybeȱoneȱmightȱpostulateȱaȱJewishȱinfluenceȱalsoȱwithȱregardȱ
toȱtheȱonomasticȱtraditionȱwhichȱatȱleastȱemploysȱHebrewȱorȱAramaicȱ
linguisticȱmaterial.ȱItȱoftenȱassociatesȱtheȱnameȱ“Satan”ȱwithȱ“apostasy”ȱ
andȱ henceȱ probablyȱ alludesȱ toȱ aȱ fallȱ ofȱ angels,ȱ cf.ȱ e.g.ȱ Justinusȱ Dial.ȱ
103:5,ȱ whoȱ explainsȱ Satana/jȱ asȱ aȱ compositeȱ madeȱ upȱ ofȱ sata/ȱ (=ȱ
avposta,thj)ȱ andȱ na/jȱ (=ȱ o;fij)15ȱ andȱ theȱ Onomasticumȱ Vaticanum16:ȱ Sata,n

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
15ȱȱ Hereȱanȱetymologyȱisȱintendedȱwithȱtheȱwordȱ vxn,ȱ”serpent”,ȱwhichȱisȱonlyȱattestedȱ
inȱHebrew,ȱandȱtheȱverbȱhjfȱ/ȱhjsȱ(Hebrewȱ/ȱMiddleȱHebrew)ȱviz.ȱhjf / ajf / ajsȱ
(Aramaic);ȱitsȱbasicȱmeaningȱrefersȱtoȱanȱ(intentional)ȱleavingȱofȱtheȱpath,ȱcf.ȱKöhlerȱ/ȱ
Baumgartner,ȱ Lexikonȱ 1227aȱ andȱ Dalman,ȱ Handwörterbuchȱ 283.ȱ Thisȱ etymologyȱ
mayȱindeedȱbeȱprovedȱinȱAramaic,ȱcf.ȱCavernaȱThesaurorumȱ3:6ȱ(Ri,ȱ22Ȭ23),ȱwhereȱtheȱSaȬ
tan’sȱnameȱ¾æÓèȱisȱderivedȱfromȱ¾Óèȱ(“goȱastray”);ȱCf.ȱBrockelmann,ȱLexiconȱ467.ȱȱ
16ȱȱ deȱ Lagarde,ȱ Onomasticaȱ 176.ȱ Numbersȱ ofȱ pagesȱ andȱ linesȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ
edition;ȱtheyȱareȱprintedȱinȱtheȱmarginȱinȱtheȱsecondȱedition.ȱForȱ theȱonomasticȱtraȬ
ditionsȱinȱtheȱearlyȱchurchȱcf.ȱWutz,ȱOnomastica.ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
484ȱ JanȱDochhornȱ

avntikei,menoj h== avposta,thj17ȱ andȱ similarȱ Quaestionesȱ Bartholomaeiȱ 4:25ȱ

whereȱSatanah,lȱisȱtranslatedȱevxa,ggeloj qeou/.ȱ

3.2.ȱSpuriaȱinȱJewishȱTraditionȱ

Butȱ whatȱ aboutȱ concretelyȱ nameableȱ Jewishȱ references?ȱ Againȱ weȱ areȱ
confrontedȱ withȱ materialȱ thatȱ canȱ hardlyȱ beȱ consideredȱ asȱ secure,ȱ
partlyȱ becauseȱ theȱ referencesȱ areȱ derivedȱ fromȱ Jewishȱ writingsȱ withȱ aȱ
Christianȱsuperstratum,ȱpartlyȱbecauseȱtheyȱshowȱonlyȱaȱvagueȱideaȱofȱ
Satan’sȱ fall.ȱ Suchȱ anȱ exampleȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ 2ȱ Enȱ 31:3Ȭ6:ȱ whatsoeverȱ thisȱ
textȱonceȱwantedȱtoȱsayȱ(inȱitsȱpresentȱstateȱofȱbeingȱitȱisȱhardlyȱunderȬ
standable)ȱ itȱ seemsȱ asȱ thoughȱ itȱ hintsȱ atȱ aȱ primevalȱ rivalryȱ betweenȱ
Satanȱandȱmanȱconcerningȱpower;ȱthusȱitȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱakinȱtoȱtheȱnarraȬ
tiveȱofȱSatan’sȱfallȱinȱVitaȱAdaeȱetȱEvaeȱweȱareȱgoingȱtoȱdiscuss.ȱNeverȬ
theless,ȱitȱisȱnotȱquiteȱsureȱwhetherȱtheȱtextȱoriginallyȱmentionedȱaȱfallȱ
ofȱSatan;ȱBöttrich18ȱthinksȱthatȱtheȱremarksȱinȱ2Enȱ31:4Ȭ5ȱaboutȱSatanȱasȱ
aȱ formerȱ angelȱ andȱ aboutȱ theȱ changeȱ ofȱ hisȱ nameȱ fromȱ Satanailȱ intoȱ
Satanȱthatȱwentȱwithȱtheȱlossȱofȱhisȱangelicȱnatureȱisȱsecondary.ȱ
Alsoȱuncertainȱisȱ3Barȱ4:8ȱwhereȱtheȱvineȱisȱidentifiedȱwithȱtheȱtree,ȱ
throughȱ whichȱ Adamȱ wasȱ seduced:ȱ thisȱ hadȱ beenȱ plantedȱ byȱ Samael,ȱ
whomȱGodȱhadȱcursed;ȱthatȱisȱwhyȱGodȱhadȱforbiddenȱAdamȱtoȱeatȱofȱ
it.ȱ Whenȱ theȱ passageȱ talksȱ aboutȱ aȱ cursingȱ ofȱ Samael,ȱ thisȱ couldȱ beȱ aȱ
hintȱatȱaȱfallȱofȱSatan;ȱbutȱweȱdoȱnotȱcomeȱtoȱknowȱanythingȱprecisely19.ȱȱ
Inȱ Rabbinicȱ literatureȱ weȱ findȱ atȱ bestȱ reflectionsȱ ofȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ aȱ
protologicalȱfallȱofȱSatan:ȱTheȱpassageȱinȱAbôtȱdeȱRabbiȱNâtânȱ(ARN)20,ȱ
whichȱ stronglyȱ recallsȱ theȱ Testamentȱ ofȱ Job,ȱ relatesȱ theȱ sentenceȱ “andȱ
likeȱoneȱofȱtheȱprincesȱyouȱfall”ȱtoȱSatan’sȱfallȱduringȱtheȱfightȱwithȱJobȱ
(cf.ȱTestȱIjobȱ27);ȱhereȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱverseȱfoundȱinȱJustinusȱ
mightȱ haveȱanȱ afterȬeffect.ȱ Perhapsȱ thisȱ alsoȱ appliesȱtoȱ Midrashȱ TehilȬ
limȱ onȱ Psȱ 82:7,ȱ whichȱ takesȱ theȱ respectiveȱ sentenceȱ asȱ referringȱ toȱ Isaȱ
24:21ȱwhichȱtalksȱaboutȱtheȱ“disasterȱofȱtheȱhighȱhostȱinȱtheȱheight”ȱbyȱ
God21.ȱ Whetherȱ thisȱ passageȱ isȱ consideringȱ aȱ primevalȱ fallȱ ofȱ angelsȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
17ȱȱ ForȱtheȱQuaestionesȱBartholomaeiȱcf.ȱBonwetschȱ,ȱFragen.ȱ
18ȱȱ Henochbuchȱ929,ȱnoteȱ4a.ȱ
19ȱȱ Forȱ 3Barȱ cf.ȱ Brock,ȱ Testamentumȱ /ȱ Picard,ȱ Apocalypsisȱ 61Ȭ96.ȱ Thatȱ theȱ treeȱ inȱ theȱ
centreȱofȱtheȱgardenȱwasȱaȱvine,ȱisȱalsoȱsaidȱinȱBerRȱ15,3;ȱPirqêȱdeȱRabbiȱEliezerȱ23ȱ
andȱelsewhere,ȱcf.ȱGinzberg,ȱHaggada,ȱespeciallyȱ43ȱ(1899),ȱ122Ȭ125.ȱ
20ȱȱ Cf.ȱ Schechter,ȱ Abothȱ 164.ȱ Theȱ respectiveȱ passageȱ isȱ Sondergutȱ ofȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ
recensionsȱofȱARN,ȱnamelyȱofȱrecensionȱA.ȱCf.ȱStemberger,ȱEinleitungȱ224Ȭ226.ȱ
21ȱȱ Cf.ȱXrdmȱ498.ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱAngels’ȱFallȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ 485ȱ

mustȱremainȱundecided,ȱthough.ȱTheȱreferentialȱpassageȱinȱIsaȱ24:21ȱatȱ
leastȱisȱnotȱprotologicalȱinȱnature.ȱ

3.3ȱVitaȱAdaeȱetȱEvaeȱ11Ȭ17ȱ

Onȱ theȱ wholeȱ itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ theȱ primevalȱ fallȱ ofȱ Satanȱ actuallyȱ hardlyȱ
concernedȱearlyȱJudaismȱ–ȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱChristianityȱinȱtheȱ2ndȱcentury.ȱ
However,ȱweȱhaveȱalreadyȱcollectedȱseveralȱpassagesȱwhichȱindicateȱ–ȱ
inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ theirȱ vaguenessȱ –ȱ thatȱ suchȱ aȱ subjectȱ existedȱ inȱ earlyȱ JudaȬ
ism.ȱ Aboveȱ allȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ textȱ whichȱ reallyȱ testifiesȱ substantiallyȱ toȱ reȬ
spectiveȱ satanologicalȱ speculationsȱ inȱ earlyȱ Judaism:ȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ SaȬ
tan’sȱ fallȱ inȱ Vitaȱ Adaeȱ etȱ Evaeȱ (VitAd)ȱ 11Ȭ17ȱ toȱ whichȱ weȱ alreadyȱ
referredȱ severalȱ times22.ȱ Itȱ narratesȱ howȱ Adamȱ learnsȱ (afterȱ Eveȱ hasȱ
beenȱseducedȱbyȱSatanȱaȱsecondȱtimeȱ–ȱVitAdȱ9Ȭ10)ȱfromȱSatanȱwhyȱhe,ȱ
Satan,ȱfightsȱagainstȱhimȱandȱhisȱwifeȱsoȱfiercely.ȱSatanȱtellsȱAdamȱthatȱ
heȱisȱactingȱinȱsuchȱaȱhostileȱwayȱagainstȱthemȱbecauseȱforȱAdam’sȱsakeȱ
heȱ lostȱ hisȱ doxa,ȱ hisȱ nearnessȱ toȱ God,ȱ hisȱ heavenlyȱ dwellingsȱ andȱ theȱ
communityȱwithȱangelsȱandȱwasȱthrownȱdownȱtoȱearthȱ(VitAdȱ11Ȭ12).ȱ
Theȱ occasionȱ whenȱ thisȱ occurredȱ wasȱ theȱ momentȱ whenȱ Adamȱ wasȱ
createdȱ (VitAdȱ 13):ȱ Whenȱ Godȱ breathedȱ intoȱ hisȱ nostrilsȱ theȱ breathȱ ofȱ
life,ȱsoȱthatȱheȱbecameȱGod’sȱimage,ȱMichaelȱfirstȱmadeȱAdamȱperformȱ
theȱproskynesisȱbeforeȱGodȱ(13:2).ȱAfterȱMichaelȱhimselfȱhadȱsetȱaȱgoodȱ
exampleȱheȱaskedȱtheȱangelsȱtoȱperformȱtheȱproskynesisȱbeforeȱAdamȱ
asȱGod’sȱimageȱ(14:1).ȱThisȱisȱindeedȱtheȱorderȱthatȱwasȱdirectedȱtoȱtheȱ
angels;ȱtheȱvocabularyȱdescribingȱwhatȱAdamȱdoesȱwithȱregardȱtoȱGodȱ
isȱtheȱsameȱinȱtheȱdifferentȱversionsȱofȱtheȱstoryȱasȱwithȱtheȱactionȱthatȱ
isȱdemandedȱfromȱtheȱangelsȱwithȱregardȱtoȱAdam:ȱInȱVitAdȱ(Latin)ȱitȱ
saysȱinȱbothȱcasesȱadorareȱ(“adore”),ȱinȱtheȱArmenianȱparallelȱ erkirȱpaȬ
ganelȱ (“toȱ fallȱ toȱ theȱ ground”)23;ȱ theȱ basicȱ Greekȱ termȱ willȱ beȱ
proskunei/n24.ȱSatanȱisȱnotȱpleasedȱbyȱMichael’sȱdemand.ȱHeȱrefuses,ȱgivȬ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
22ȱȱ Theȱ Vitȱ Adȱ derivesȱ fromȱ theȱ ApocMos,ȱ whichȱ originatedȱ inȱ Palestinianȱ Judaismȱ inȱ
theȱfirstȱorȱsecondȱcenturyȱADȱ(cf.ȱDochhorn,ȱApokalypseȱ149Ȭ172).ȱShortlyȱafterȱtheȱ
ApocMosȱ theȱ Vitȱ Adȱ wasȱ writtenȱ inȱ theȱ veryȱ milieuȱ thatȱ alsoȱ composedȱ theȱ
ApocMosȱ(cf.ȱDochhorn,ȱApokalypseȱ138Ȭ145).ȱLikeȱVitȱAdȱasȱaȱwhole,ȱVitȱAdȱ11Ȭ17ȱ
existsȱinȱthreeȱversionsȱ(Latin,ȱArmenian,ȱandȱGeorgian.ȱForȱaȱsynopseȱcf.ȱAndersonȱ
/ȱStone,ȱSynopsisȱ9Ȭ13;ȱconcerningȱtheȱversionsȱofȱVitȱAd,ȱdesignatedȱVitȱAdȱ(lat),ȱVitȱ
Adȱ (arm),ȱ andȱ Vitȱ Adȱ (georg),ȱ cf.ȱ Dochhorn,ȱ Apokalypseȱ 39Ȭ60,ȱ whereȱ alsoȱ someȱ
Copticȱfragmentsȱareȱpresented.ȱȱ
23ȱȱ ForȱVitȱAdȱ(arm)ȱcf.ȱStone,ȱPenitenceȱ(CSCOȱ429);ȱStone,ȱPenitenceȱ(CSCOȱ430).ȱȱ
24ȱȱ Cf.ȱ theȱ secondaryȱ traditionȱ inȱ ApcSedrachȱ 5:2;ȱ Didascaliaȱ Christiȱ 23;ȱ Quaestionesȱ
Bartholomaeiȱ 4:54,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ theȱ lexeaeȱ proskunei/n.ȱ Forȱ Apcȱ Sedrachȱ cf.ȱ Wahl,ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
486ȱ JanȱDochhornȱ

ingȱ theȱ followingȱ reason:ȱheȱ wasȱ createdȱ priorȱ toȱAdamȱandȱ thereforeȱ

Adamȱowesȱtheȱproskynesisȱtoȱhim,ȱnotȱheȱtoȱAdam.ȱTheȱangelsȱattribȬ
utedȱtoȱSatanȱjoinȱinȱhisȱrefusalȱ(VitAdȱ15).ȱConsequentlyȱGodȱisȱangryȱ
withȱSatanȱandȱhisȱangelsȱandȱhasȱthemȱexpelledȱfromȱheavenȱtoȱearth.ȱ
Whenȱ heȱ hasȱ arrivedȱ onȱ earthȱ andȱ afterȱ heȱ hasȱ recognizedȱ theȱ lossȱ ofȱ
hisȱ glory,ȱ Satanȱ enviesȱ Adamȱ hisȱ dwellingȱ inȱ Paradiseȱ andȱ seesȱ toȱ itȱ
thatȱAdamȱisȱexpelledȱfromȱParadiseȱbyȱmeansȱofȱhisȱwifeȱasȱSatanȱhadȱ
beenȱexpelledȱbeforeȱ(VitAdȱ16).ȱThisȱisȱSatan’sȱstory,ȱandȱafterȱAdamȱ
hasȱlistenedȱtoȱit,ȱheȱfirstȱcommendsȱhisȱlifeȱtoȱGodȱ(cf.ȱPsȱ31:6);ȱafterȬ
wardsȱheȱpraysȱtoȱGodȱthatȱheȱwillȱremoveȱthisȱfiendȱfromȱhisȱsightȱandȱ
mightȱ giveȱ Satan’sȱ lostȱ gloryȱ toȱ him.ȱ Satanȱ hasȱ vanishedȱ immediatelyȱ
afterȱthisȱ(VitAdȱ17).ȱ
ThisȱisȱnotȱtheȱplaceȱtoȱproveȱtheȱJewishȱcharacterȱofȱthisȱnarrativeȱ
inȱ detail;ȱ occasionallyȱ oneȱ hasȱ ascribedȱ aȱ “heterodox”ȱ viz.ȱ “Gnostic”ȱ
backgroundȱtoȱit 25.ȱHereȱitȱmayȱsufficeȱtoȱsayȱthatȱitȱmayȱbeȱregardedȱasȱ
aȱ genuineȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ essentiallyȱ Jewishȱ VitAd.ȱ Itȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ
chaptersȱ (VitAdȱ 1Ȭ21)ȱ whichȱ areȱ aȱ surplusȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ ApocMosȱ
fromȱ whichȱ Vitȱ Adȱ isȱ derived,ȱ butȱ whichȱ areȱ basicallyȱ composedȱ likeȱ
theȱnarrativesȱofȱApocMos26:ȱAllȱlayersȱofȱApocMosȱandȱtheȱSondergutȱ
ofȱ VitAdȱ developeȱ narrativesȱ aboutȱ Adamȱ andȱ Eveȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ exeȬ
geticalȱ observationsȱ concerningȱ theȱ biblicalȱ textȱ (mainlyȱ Genȱ 3);ȱ inȱ allȱ
layersȱincludingȱtheȱSondergutȱofȱVitAdȱtheȱbookȱofȱJubileesȱisȱanotherȱ
referentialȱtext,ȱinȱtheȱlaterȱlayersȱofȱApocMosȱandȱinȱtheȱSondergutȱofȱ
VitAdȱ alsoȱ theȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ Eveȱ aboutȱ theȱ regrettableȱ occurrencesȱ inȱ
Paradiseȱ(ApocMosȱ15Ȭ30,ȱaȱretellingȱofȱGenȱ3ȱwhichȱformsȱtheȱnucleusȱ
ofȱApocMos)ȱservesȱasȱaȱreferenceȱtext.ȱWhatȱisȱtrueȱforȱtheȱinitialȱchapȬ
tersȱofȱVitAdȱinȱgeneralȱisȱalsoȱtrueȱforȱtheȱstoryȱofȱSatan’sȱfall27:ȱAsȱwillȱ
beȱseen,ȱitȱisȱbasedȱonȱexegeticalȱobservations,ȱtakesȱnoteȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱ
Jubileesȱandȱmayȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱfurtherȱdevelopmentȱofȱnarrativeȱ
ideasȱ takenȱ fromȱ ApocMosȱ 15Ȭ30.ȱ Thusȱ itȱ originatesȱ inȱ theȱ milieuȱ ofȱ
ApocMosȱandȱVitAd.ȱNow,ȱwhatȱareȱtheȱtheologicalȱandȱnarrativeȱcenȬ
tralȱideasȱofȱthisȱstoryȱwhichȱappearsȱasȱaȱlittleȱpeculiarȱatȱfirstȱglance?ȱ
Onȱtheȱwholeȱfourȱcentralȱaspectsȱareȱtoȱbeȱfound:ȱ
1.ȱAsȱaȱBiblicalȱstartingȱpointȱtheȱcreationȱofȱman,ȱwhichȱisȱhereȱdeȬ
finedȱasȱtheȱcreationȱofȱAdamȱexclusivelyȱ(cf.ȱ1Korȱ11:7;ȱ1Timȱ2:13),ȱasȱ
God’sȱ image,ȱ mayȱ beȱ determined.ȱ Adam’sȱ creationȱ asȱ God’sȱ imageȱ isȱ
hereȱ understoodȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ thatȱ itȱ occurredȱ theȱ veryȱ momentȱ whenȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Apocalypsis,ȱ forȱ Didascaliaȱ Christiȱ Nau,ȱ Didascalieȱ 225Ȭ254,ȱ forȱ Quaestionesȱ BarȬ
tholomaeiȱcf.ȱnoteȱ17.ȱ
25ȱȱ CfȱMerkȱ/ȱMeiser,ȱLebenȱ766Ȭ767ȱ(bibliography).ȱ
26ȱȱ Cf.ȱDochhorn,ȱApokalypseȱ138Ȭ145.ȱ
27ȱȱ Cf.ȱDochhorn,ȱApokalypseȱ143Ȭ144.ȱȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱAngels’ȱFallȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ 487ȱ

GodȱbreathedȱtheȱbreathȱofȱlifeȱintoȱAdam’sȱnostrils;ȱGenȱ1:27ȱandȱ2:7ȱ
areȱassociatedȱtoȱoneȱanotherȱbyȱcombinedȱreading.ȱTheȱideaȱconstituȬ
tiveȱ forȱ VitAdȱ 11Ȭ17ȱ consistsȱ inȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Adamȱ beingȱ createdȱ asȱ
God’sȱimageȱisȱinterpretedȱinȱtermsȱofȱGenȱ1:26,ȱthatȱisȱasȱaȱtitleȱimplyȬ
ingȱ authority:ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Genȱ 1:26ȱ Adamȱ willȱ beȱ createdȱ asȱ God’sȱ
imageȱinȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱhimȱrulerȱofȱtheȱanimals;ȱinȱanalogyȱheȱisȱhonȬ
ouredȱ byȱ theȱ proskynesis,ȱ whichȱ is,ȱ however,ȱ notȱ performedȱ byȱ theȱ
animals,ȱbutȱbyȱtheȱangels.ȱȱ
Thatȱtheȱtitleȱ“God’sȱimage”ȱisȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱasȱtheȱreasonȱforȱAdam’sȱ
claimȱ toȱ theȱ angels’ȱ proskynesisȱ isȱ expressedȱ inȱ theȱ narrativeȱ amongȱ
otherȱ thingsȱ byȱ theȱ featureȱ thatȱ firstȱ Adamȱ prostratesȱ himselfȱ beforeȱ
God,ȱ beforeȱ Michaelȱ asksȱ theȱ angelsȱ toȱ prostrateȱ themselvesȱ beforeȱ
Adam,ȱ God’sȱ image.ȱ Thisȱ makesȱ itȱ clearȱ thatȱ theȱ angels’ȱ proskynesisȱ
beforeȱ Adamȱ isȱ derivativeȱ inȱ nature:ȱ Itsȱ archetypeȱ isȱ theȱ proskynesisȱ
beforeȱGodȱcorrespondingȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱGodȱhimselfȱisȱtheȱarchetypeȱ
ofȱhisȱimage,ȱAdam.ȱOneȱmayȱnotȱoverlookȱthisȱtraitȱwhenȱdealingȱwithȱ
theȱproblemȱwhetherȱVitAdȱ11Ȭ17ȱisȱtoȱbeȱregardedȱasȱaȱproductȱofȱbaȬ
sicallyȱmonotheisticȱJudaism.ȱInȱJewishȱmilieuȱauthorityȱthatȱisȱderivedȱ
fromȱGodȱmayȱobviouslyȱreceiveȱhonoursȱwhichȱareȱanaloguesȱtoȱhonȬ
oursȱofferedȱtoȱGod.ȱThisȱisȱalsoȱshown,ȱforȱinstance,ȱinȱHebȱ1ȱwhereȱitȱ
saysȱ thatȱ Christȱ afterȱ hisȱ sessioȱ adȱ dexteramȱ receivesȱ theȱ angels’ȱ
proskynesisȱ (Hebȱ 1:6;ȱ cf.ȱ 1:3).ȱ 3Enȱ 14ȱ (aȱ text,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ datedȱ later),ȱ
whereȱMetatronȱ=ȱEnochȱacceptsȱtheȱangels’ȱproskynesis,ȱalsoȱshowsȱaȱ
correspondingȱtendency.ȱ
2.ȱ Aȱ specialȱ characteristicȱ whichȱ distinguishesȱ VitAdȱ 11Ȭ17ȱ fromȱ
Genȱ1:26,ȱisȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱclaimȱofȱauthorityȱconnectedȱwithȱtheȱtitleȱ
“God’sȱimage”ȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱangels;ȱinȱGenȱ1:26ȱitȱwasȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱ
animals.ȱ Theȱ dominiumȱ bestiarumȱ thusȱ becameȱ aȱ dominiumȱ angelorum.ȱ
ThatȱVitAdȱisȱinterestedȱinȱjustȱthisȱtransformationȱmayȱbeȱseenȱwhenȱ
oneȱconsidersȱtheȱcloseȱrelationȱbetweenȱVitAdȱ11Ȭ17ȱandȱVitAdȱ44ȱ(16),ȱ
whichȱisȱaboutȱSatanȱseducingȱtheȱserpentȱtoȱhelpȱhimȱwithȱtheȱplotȱheȱ
hasȱplannedȱagainstȱAdamȱandȱEve.ȱInȱVitAdȱ44ȱ(16)ȱSatanȱmentionsȱaȱ
dailyȱproskynesisȱperformedȱbyȱtheȱanimalsȱbeforeȱAdam;ȱthenȱheȱtriesȱ
toȱexplainȱtheȱabsurdityȱofȱthisȱaction,ȱnamelyȱbyȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱserȬ
pentȱ wasȱ createdȱ priorȱ toȱ Adam.ȱ Weȱ areȱ familiarȱ withȱ thisȱ argumentȱ
fromȱ theȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ Satan’sȱ fallȱ asȱ well;ȱ doubtlessȱ VitAdȱ willȱ haveȱ
bothȱtextsȱrelatedȱtoȱoneȱanother.ȱSoȱforȱtheȱreaderȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱdominȬ
iumȱ bestiarumȱ andȱ dominiumȱ angelorumȱ belongȱ together.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ presupȬ
poseȱthatȱthereȱareȱnoȱsuperiorȱbeingsȱbeyondȱGodȱapartȱfromȱmenȱandȱ
angels,ȱthenȱthisȱdepictsȱaȱprimevalȱworldȱorder,ȱwhereȱAdamȱisȱinȱtheȱ
topȱpositionȱimmediatelyȱfollowingȱGod.ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
488ȱ JanȱDochhornȱ

Theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ Adam’sȱ topȱ positionȱ withinȱ theȱ cosmosȱ inȱ primevalȱ
timesȱ hasȱ numerousȱ analogiesȱ inȱ earlyȱ Jewishȱ andȱ earlyȱ Christianȱ litȬ
erature.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ trueȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ repeatedlyȱ attestedȱ conceptȱ ofȱ
theȱsuperiorityȱofȱtheȱrighteousȱtoȱtheȱangels,28ȱwhichȱprobablyȱalsoȱisȱ
theȱbasisȱofȱTestAbr:ȱthereȱtheȱArchangelȱMichaelȱdidȱnotȱsucceedȱwhenȱ
heȱ hadȱ toȱ demandȱ Abraham’sȱ soulȱ fromȱ Abraham(TestAbrȱ 4:5ff.ȱ cf.ȱ
ApocEsdraeȱ6:3Ȭ15).ȱAȱcognateȱideaȱisȱalsoȱshownȱinȱtraditionsȱdealingȱ
withȱ authorityȱ ofȱ theȱ righteousȱ exertedȱ onȱ animalsȱ andȱ evilȱ spirits.29ȱ
Hereȱ againȱ menȱ actȱ asȱ rulers.ȱ Suchȱ anȱ authorityȱ becomesȱ especiallyȱ
evidentȱ withinȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ Seth’sȱ journeyȱ throughȱ Paradiseȱ inȱ
ApocMosȱ 9Ȭ13,ȱ whereȱ Sethȱ –ȱ whoȱ isȱ alsoȱ calledȱ “manȱ ofȱ God”ȱ inȱ theȱ
narrativeȱ(ApocMosȱ13:2)ȱ–ȱputsȱanȱanimalȱattackingȱhimȱinȱitsȱplaceȱbyȱ
referringȱtoȱhisȱownȱstatusȱofȱbeingȱGod’sȱimageȱ(ApocMosȱ12).ȱAȱsimiȬ
larȱwayȱofȱhierarchicalȱthinkingȱmayȱbecomeȱmanifestȱalsoȱinȱtheȱNewȱ
Testament.ȱ Aȱ significantȱ exampleȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ 1Corȱ 3:22Ȭ23ȱ whereȱ theȱ
addresseesȱareȱpresentedȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱthatȱtheyȱareȱownersȱofȱeveryȬ
thingȱ–ȱPaul,ȱApollosȱandȱCephasȱasȱwellȱasȱcosmicȱactualitiesȱlikeȱlifeȱ
andȱdeath,ȱpresentȱandȱfuture,ȱwhileȱtheyȱthemselvesȱbelongȱtoȱChrist,ȱ
whoȱbelongsȱtoȱGod.ȱThisȱtextȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱVitȱAdȱ11Ȭ17ȱbyȱtwoȱaspects,ȱ
namelyȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ man’sȱ cosmicȱsuperiorityȱonȱ theȱ oneȱ handȱ andȱ theȱ
factȱthatȱthisȱcosmicȱsuperiorityȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱconnectedȱwithȱbeingȱsubȬ
ordinatedȱtoȱGodȱ(viz.ȱChrist),ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand.ȱHierarchicalȱthinkingȱ
remindingȱofȱVitAdȱ11Ȭ17ȱisȱalsoȱfoundȱinȱHebȱ1,ȱwhereȱChristȱreceivesȱ
theȱangels’ȱproskynesisȱ(Hebȱ1:6).ȱAsȱinȱVitAdȱ11Ȭ17ȱitȱisȱagainȱanȱindiȬ
vidualȱ personȱ toȱ whomȱ theȱ respectiveȱ authoritativeȱ positionȱ isȱ attribȬ
uted.ȱThisȱperson,ȱhowever,ȱrepresentsȱaȱcommunity,ȱnamelyȱtheȱChrisȬ
tians.ȱItȱfitsȱinȱwithȱthisȱthatȱHebȱsaysȱwithȱregardȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱtoȱ
inheritȱ salvation,ȱ thatȱ isȱ theȱ Christians,ȱ thatȱ theȱ angelsȱ fulfilȱ theȱ funcȬ
tionȱofȱservantsȱ(Hebȱ1:14).ȱProbablyȱAdamȱisȱalsoȱaȱfigureȱwhoȱmayȱinȱ
principleȱ representȱ aȱ community,ȱ althoughȱ VitAdȱ talksȱ aboutȱ Adamȱ
andȱ Eveȱ (andȱ Seth)ȱ ratherȱ asȱ individualsȱ thanȱ asȱ prototypesȱ orȱ repreȬ
sentativesȱ ofȱ mankind 30.ȱ Otherȱ individualȱ charactersȱ whoseȱ authoritaȬ
tiveȱ positionȱ recallsȱ VitAdȱ 11Ȭ17ȱ areȱ Enoch/ȱ Metatronȱ (3Enȱ 14)ȱ andȱ
Moses,ȱ whenȱ theȱ latterȱ isȱ dreamingȱ thatȱ heȱ mayȱ takeȱ aȱ seatȱ onȱ God’sȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
28ȱȱ Cf.ȱApcEsdraeȱ1:9;ȱNarratioȱZosimiȱ(gr)ȱ20,2Ȭ6.ȱ
29ȱȱ Cf.ȱTestIssacharȱ7:7;ȱTestȱNaphthaliȱ8:4;ȱTestBenjaminȱ5:2;ȱbBerȱ33a;ȱActȱ28:3Ȭ6.ȱ–ȱForȱ
theȱdominionȱofȱtheȱrighteousȱregardingȱtheȱanimalsȱcf.ȱDochhorn,ȱPaulusȱ207Ȭ208.ȱ
30ȱȱ TheȱnarrativeȱaboutȱtheȱwildȱanimalȱattackingȱSethȱ(ApcMosȱ10Ȭ12)ȱisȱaȱcharacteristicȱ
exampleȱforȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱprotagonistsȱofȱApcMosȱviz.ȱVitAdȱareȱratherȱindividuȬ
alsȱ thanȱ types:ȱ theȱ curseȱ inȱ Genȱ 3:15ȱ isȱ relatedȱ toȱ Eveȱ andȱ Seth.ȱ Aȱ littleȱ later,ȱ howȬ
ever,ȱAdamȱreproachesȱEveȱwithȱhavingȱbroughtȱdeathȱuponȱ“us”ȱandȱ“allȱourȱoffȬ
spring”;ȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ allȱ mankindȱ asȱ theȱ existentialiaȱ concerningȱ menȱ
afterȱtheȱexpulsionȱfromȱParadiseȱdoȱnotȱonlyȱconcernȱAdamȱandȱEve.ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱAngels’ȱFallȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ 489ȱ

throneȱandȱreceiveȱtheȱstars’ȱproskynesisȱ(EzechielȱtragicusȱinȱEusebius,ȱ
PraeparatioȱEvangelicaȱixȱ29.5).ȱ
3.ȱ Satanȱ doesȱ notȱ acceptȱ Adam’sȱ dominiumȱ angelorumȱ byȱ arguingȱ
thatȱhe,ȱSatan,ȱwasȱcreatedȱpriorȱtoȱAdam.ȱThisȱargumentȱhasȱrecourseȱ
toȱtheȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱangels’ȱcreation.ȱSinceȱtheȱbookȱofȱJubilees,ȱasȱ
provededȱabove,ȱfunctionedȱasȱreferentialȱtextȱinȱtheȱmilieuȱwhereȱhasȱ
beenȱ ApocMosȱ aboveȱ andȱ VitAdȱ wereȱ written,ȱ LibJubȱ 2:2ȱ willȱ mostȱ
probablyȱ beȱ inȱ theȱ backgroundȱ asȱ itȱ saysȱ thatȱ theȱ angelsȱ wereȱ createdȱ
theȱfirstȱdayȱofȱcreation.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱfindȱoutȱwhatȱisȱmeantȱbyȱthisȱarȬ
gumentȱitȱmayȱnotȱbeȱoverlookedȱthatȱitȱisȱalsoȱusedȱbyȱSatanȱinȱanotherȱ
passageȱ withinȱ VitAd:ȱ inȱ VitAdȱ 44ȱ (16)ȱ heȱ saysȱ toȱ theȱ serpentȱ thatȱ itȱ
needȱnotȱperformȱtheȱproskynesisȱbeforeȱAdam,ȱbecauseȱheȱisȱyoungerȱ
thanȱ theȱ serpent.ȱ Concludingly,ȱ indicatingȱ Adam’sȱ posteriorityȱ notȱ
onlyȱ castsȱ doubtȱ uponȱ theȱ dominiumȱ angelorum,ȱ butȱ onȱ theȱ dominiumȱ
bestiarumȱ asȱ well.ȱ Indeed,ȱ oneȱ mightȱ askȱ –ȱ withȱ Genȱ 1ȱ inȱ viewȱ –ȱ whyȱ
manȱ viz.ȱ Adamȱ asȱ theȱ lastȱ oneȱ createdȱ shouldȱ beȱ theȱ ruler.ȱ Rabbinicȱ
literatureȱ ,hasȱ indeed,ȱ thoughtȱ aboutȱ thisȱ problemȱ associatedȱ withȱ
man’sȱposteriorityȱwithinȱcreation31.ȱInȱthisȱcontextȱtheȱangelsȱareȱmenȬ
tioned,ȱtoo:ȱ“IfȱAdamȱisȱworthy,ȱtheyȱsayȱtoȱhim:ȱ‘Youȱareȱsuperiorȱtoȱ
theȱservantȬangels.’,ȱandȱifȱnot,ȱthenȱtheyȱsayȱtoȱhim:ȱ‘Theȱflyȱwasȱthereȱ
beforeȱ you,ȱ theȱ mosquitoȱ wasȱ thereȱ beforeȱ you,ȱ thisȱ rainwormȱ wasȱ
thereȱbeforeȱyou.’”ȱ
4.ȱ Whenȱ Satanȱ refusesȱ toȱ performȱ theȱ proskynesisȱ andȱ evenȱ deȬ
mandsȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ namelyȱ thatȱ ratherȱ Adamȱ mustȱ performȱ theȱ
proskynesisȱ beforeȱ him,ȱ thenȱ heȱ appearsȱ asȱ aȱ rivalȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ
powerȱ andȱ thusȱ asȱ Adam’sȱ opponent.ȱ Thisȱ aspectȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ noticed,ȱ
becauseȱ inȱ researchȱ onȱ Satanȱ thereȱ prevailsȱ aȱ tendencyȱ toȱ regardȱ himȱ
primarilyȱasȱanȱopponentȱofȱGod32.ȱButȱSatanȱdoesȱnotȱturnȱagainstȱGodȱ
inȱ theȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ Satan’sȱ fall.ȱ Evenȱ theȱ claimȱ thatȱ Adamȱ shouldȱ perȬ
formȱtheȱproskynesisȱbeforeȱhim,ȱisȱnotȱperceptiblyȱtoȱbeȱunderstoodȱinȱ
thisȱway;ȱthisȱwouldȱcastȱtheȱshadowȱofȱbeingȱsomethingȱillegitimateȱonȱ
theȱ angels’ȱ proskynesisȱ beforeȱ Adam.ȱ Onlyȱ laterȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ Isaȱ
14:12ff.ȱenteredȱpartsȱofȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱVitAdȱ(lat)ȱ15;ȱinȱChristianȱlitȬ
eratureȱsinceȱOrigenesȱthisȱbiblicalȱtextȱwasȱinterpretedȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱ
thatȱhereȱaȱprimevalȱarroganceȱofȱSatanȱtoȱclaimȱtoȱbeȱGod’sȱequalȱwasȱ
shown.ȱ Byȱ thisȱ interpretationȱ emergedȱ theȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ whichȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
31ȱȱ Cf.ȱBerȱRȱ8:1ȱvarȱ(Theodor/ȱAlbeck,ȱBereschitȱ56,6ȱApp).ȱȱ
32ȱȱ AnȱexampleȱforȱthisȱviewȱisȱfoundȱinȱvonȱRad dia,boloj 71Ȭ74,ȱespeciallyȱ74,9ff.ȱToȱ
Satanȱ inȱ earlyȱ Judaismȱ heȱ asscribesȱ aȱ nearlyȱ completeȱ absolutizationȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ
God;ȱasȱaȱreasonȱforȱthisȱ heȱassumesȱ theȱdevelopmentȱofȱaȱdualisticȱworldȱconceptȱ
influencedȱfromȱIranicȱideas.ȱSimilarȱinformationȱisȱfoundȱinȱBreytenbachȱ/ȱDay,ȱSaȬ
tanȱ1370,ȱandȱNielsen,ȱ!j'f,' ȱ745Ȭ751,ȱespeciallyȱ749.ȱȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
490ȱ JanȱDochhornȱ

formedȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheȱeditioȱprimaȱofȱVitAdȱ(lat)ȱbyȱMeyer;ȱasȱthisȱediȬ
tionȱ wasȱ regardedȱ nearlyȱ unanimouslyȱ asȱ identicalȱ withȱ VitAd33,ȱ theȱ
recourseȱonȱIsaȱ14:12ff.ȱwasȱtakenȱasȱaȱconstituentȱofȱtheȱnarrativeȱaboutȱ
Satan’sȱfallȱandȱtheȱlatterȱwasȱevenȱtakenȱasȱaȱmidrashȱonȱIsaȱ14:12ff.34ȱ
Butȱthisȱisȱinadequate:ȱVitAdȱisȱnotȱaboutȱSatan’sȱrebellionȱagainstȱGodȱ
orȱevenȱaȱdualismȱbetweenȱGodȱandȱSatan,ȱbutȱratherȱaboutȱaȱcontrastȱ
betweenȱ Satanȱ andȱ Adamȱ whoȱ areȱ rivalsȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ oneȱ andȱ theȱ
sameȱpowerfulȱposition.ȱ
Suchȱ aȱ satanologyȱ isȱ notȱ uncharacteristicȱ forȱ VitAdȱ andȱ ApocMosȱ
onȱ whichȱ itȱ isȱ based.ȱ ApocMosȱ alreadyȱ knowsȱ Satanȱ asȱ man’sȱ enemyȱ
(cf.ȱ theȱ titleȱ evcqro,jȱ inȱ ApocMosȱ 2:4;ȱ 7:2;ȱ 15:1).ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ familiarȱ withȱ
rivalryȱbetweenȱAdamȱandȱSatanȱwithȱregardȱtoȱpower:ȱinȱApocMosȱ39ȱ
GodȱpromisesȱtoȱAdamȱwhoȱisȱlyingȱdeadȱonȱtheȱgroundȱthatȱtheȱjoyȱofȱ
thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ broughtȱ himȱ downȱ toȱ thisȱ willȱ turnȱ intoȱ sorrow,ȱ andȱ
viceȱversaȱwillȱhisȱsorrowȱbeȱchangedȱintoȱjoy;ȱheȱwillȱtakeȱaȱseatȱonȱtheȱ
throneȱ ofȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ hasȱ deceivedȱ himȱ (ApocMosȱ 39:3).ȱ Obviouslyȱ
onlyȱ oneȱ atȱ aȱ timeȱ mayȱ rejoiceȱ here,ȱ andȱ theȱ oneȱ supplantsȱ theȱ other.ȱ
Betweenȱ Satanȱ andȱ manȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ substitutionaryȱ relation.ȱ Alsoȱ inȱ
ApocMosȱ 16ȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ substitutionaryȱ relationȱ mayȱ beȱ found:ȱ
thereȱSatanȱsaysȱtoȱtheȱserpent:ȱ“LetȱusȱseeȱtoȱitȱthatȱAdamȱwillȱbeȱexȬ
pelledȱ fromȱ Paradiseȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ beenȱ expelledȱ forȱ hisȱ sake.”ȱ (16:3).ȱ
Again:ȱtheȱone’sȱmisfortuneȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱother’sȱfortune.ȱȱ
TheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱrivalryȱbetweenȱAdamȱandȱSatanȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱcharȬ
acteristicȱ ofȱ theȱ earlierȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ Satan’sȱ fallȱ inȱ general.ȱ Weȱ haveȱ
alreadyȱfoundȱitȱinȱ2Enȱ31.ȱItȱisȱalsoȱfoundȱinȱearlierȱChristianȱtraditionsȱ
ofȱSatan’sȱfall35.ȱInȱtheseȱChristianȱtraditionsȱitȱisȱthroughoutȱconnectedȱ
withȱtheȱmotifȱofȱSatan’sȱenvyȱwhichȱisȱcloselyȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱideaȱ
ofȱ rivalryȱ forȱ power.ȱ Satan’sȱ envyȱ isȱ attestedȱ inȱ theȱ Jewishȱ contextȱ inȱ
SapSalȱ2:23Ȭ24:ȱItȱtalksȱaboutȱSatan’sȱenvyȱofȱmanȱasȱGod’sȱimage;ȱtheȱ
ideaȱ thatȱ manȱ isȱ God’sȱ imageȱ isȱ interpretedȱ hereȱ notȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ aȱ
powerfulȱ positionȱ ofȱ man,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ hisȱ immortality.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
33ȱȱ Cf.ȱ Meyer,ȱ Vitaȱ 185Ȭ250.ȱ Onȱ theȱ wholeȱ Meyer’sȱ textȱ correspondsȱ toȱ theȱ southernȱ
Germanȱ recensionȱ ofȱ VitAdȱ (lat);ȱ forȱ thisȱ cf.ȱ Petorelli,ȱ Vieȱ 5Ȭ104,ȱ especiallyȱ 41Ȭ67.ȱ
Thatȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ VitAdȱ (lat)ȱ mustȱ haveȱ readȱ considerablyȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ oneȱ atȬ
testedȱ inȱ VitAdȱ (lat/ȱ sd)ȱ indicatesȱ Codexȱ Paris,ȱ BNF,ȱ latȱ 3832,ȱ whichȱ offersȱ anȱ exȬ
tremelyȱdifferingȱtextȱcloserȱtoȱtheȱArmenianȱandȱGeorgianȱversions.ȱTheseȱtwoȱverȬ
sionsȱ becameȱ knownȱ onlyȱ later,ȱ cf.ȱ Dochhorn,ȱ Apokalypseȱ 39Ȭ41.ȱ VitAdȱ (lat/ȱ p)ȱ asȱ
wellȱasȱVitAdȱ(arm.georg)ȱdoȱnotȱincludeȱaȱrecourseȱonȱIsaȱ14:12ffȱinȱVitAdȱ15.ȱ
34ȱȱ Cf.ȱFuchs,ȱLebenȱ506Ȭ528,ȱespeciallyȱ513ȱnoteȱc.ȱ
35ȱȱ Cf.ȱ Irenäus,ȱ Adversusȱ Haeresesȱ V,24,4;ȱ Demonstratioȱ 16;ȱ Tertullian,ȱ Deȱ Patientiaȱ 5,5Ȭ7ȱ
(CCSLȱ1,303);ȱCyprian,ȱDeȱZeloȱ4ȱ(CCSLȱ3A,76Ȭ77).ȱCf.ȱStieren,ȱSanctiȱIrenaeiȱ783.ȱandȱ
terȱMerkerttschianȱ/ȱWilson,ȱavpo,deixin.ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱAngels’ȱFallȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ 491ȱ

SapSalȱ 2:23Ȭ24ȱ isȱ noȱ narrativeȱ aboutȱ Satan’sȱ fall,ȱ butȱ itȱ generatedȱ suchȱ
narratives36.ȱ
Weȱwillȱretainȱ–ȱbothȱreligionȬhistoricallyȱandȱtheologicallyȱ–ȱanȱexȬ
tremelyȱ relevantȱ traitȱ ofȱ theȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ Satan’sȱ fallȱ inȱ VitAdȱ 11Ȭ17,ȱ
namelyȱ thatȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ primarilyȱ dealȱ withȱ aȱ conflictȱ betweenȱ Satanȱ
andȱ God,ȱ butȱ withȱ aȱ conflictȱ betweenȱ Satanȱ andȱ man.ȱ Thisȱ aspectȱ reȬ
turnsȱ inȱ theȱ Christianȱ traditionȱ ofȱ Satan’sȱ fallȱ (cf.ȱ Cyprianȱ andȱ TertulȬ
lian),ȱbutȱgraduallyȱSatan’sȱaggressionȱagainstȱGodȱbecomesȱmoreȱandȱ
moreȱprevailing37.ȱThisȱbecomesȱespeciallyȱclearȱinȱtheȱstoryȱofȱLuciferȱ
mentionedȱinȱch.ȱ1.ȱ
Anȱimportantȱresultȱofȱtheȱaboveȱshortȱexegesisȱofȱtheȱnarrativeȱofȱ
Satan’sȱfallȱinȱVitAdȱ11Ȭ17ȱwillȱbeȱthatȱitȱisȱindeedȱconceivableȱasȱorigiȬ
natingȱ inȱ aȱ Jewishȱ milieu:ȱ relationsȱ withȱ otherȱ Jewishȱ (andȱ Christian)ȱ
traditionsȱ andȱ theologoumenaȱ areȱ bothȱ numerousȱ andȱ relevant.ȱ Withȱ
regardȱ toȱ itsȱ positionȱ inȱ religionȬhistoryȱ theȱ storyȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ quiteȱ
conjunctive.ȱCorrespondinglyȱitȱobtainedȱ–ȱatȱleastȱinȱtheȱbeginningȱ–ȱaȱ
considerableȱresponseȱ–ȱprimarily,ȱhowever,ȱinȱChristianȱtraditions.38ȱȱ
AlthoughȱVitAdȱ11Ȭ17ȱisȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱasȱoriginatingȱinȱearlyȱJudaism,ȱ
itȱcannotȱbeȱdeniedȱthatȱitȱwasȱnotȱsuccessfulȱinȱJewishȱtraditionȱliteraȬ
tureȱwhichȱfollowedȱafterȱit.ȱThisȱisȱtheȱmoreȱstrikingȱasȱtheȱtraditionsȱ
ofȱApocMosȱandȱespeciallyȱofȱVitAdȱwereȱstillȱadoptedȱbyȱtheȱrabbis39.ȱ
Probablyȱitȱwasȱrejected;ȱthisȱisȱprovedȱbyȱtheȱfactȱthatȱinȱBerRȱ8:1040ȱweȱ
findȱ aȱ traditionȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ interpretedȱ asȱ aȱ parodyȱ ofȱ thisȱ narrative:ȱ
Whenȱ Godȱ hadȱ createdȱ Adam,ȱ theȱ angelsȱ wantedȱ toȱ speakȱ aȱ Q¬dôšȱ
beforeȱ Adam.ȱ Atȱ thisȱ momentȱ Godȱ causedȱ aȱ sleepȱ toȱ fallȱ uponȱ Adamȱ
(theȱ creationȱ ofȱ theȱ woman!ȱ –ȱ Genȱ 2:21).ȱ Hereȱ God’sȱ prerogativeȱ forȱ
beingȱ worshippedȱ isȱ emphasized,ȱ namelyȱ againstȱ Adam;ȱ thatȱ aȱ conȬ
frontationȱwithȱVitAdȱ11Ȭ17ȱwasȱintendedȱseemsȱprobable.ȱItȱmayȱalsoȱ
beȱconsideredȱthatȱVitAdȱ11Ȭ17ȱdidȱnotȱmeetȱwithȱapprovalȱbecauseȱforȱ
theȱrabbisȱtheȱmotifȱofȱSatan’sȱfallȱwasȱaȱmatterȱkeptȱinȱtheȱbackground.ȱ
Theȱ fewȱ occurrencesȱ weȱ dealtȱ withȱ beforeȱ lookingȱ atȱ VitAdȱ 11Ȭ17,ȱ
whichȱremainȱobscure,ȱdoȱnotȱalterȱtheȱfact.ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
36ȱȱ Tatian,ȱOratioȱadȱGraecosȱ7ȱ(Goodspeed,ȱApologetenȱ273Ȭ274)ȱundȱCyprian,ȱDeȱZeloȱ4ȱ(CCSLȱ
3A,ȱ76Ȭ77).ȱ
37ȱȱ Alreadyȱ inȱ Irenaeus,ȱ adv.ȱ Haer.ȱ IVȱ 25:4,ȱ whereȱ Satanȱ stillȱ primarilyȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ
rivalȱofȱman,ȱwithȱregardȱtoȱGodȱSatanȱisȱcomparedȱtoȱanȱapostateȱwhoȱtriesȱtoȱwinȱ
overȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ aȱ regionȱ againstȱ theȱ legitimateȱ ruler.ȱ Probablyȱ thisȱ parablesȱ
alludesȱtoȱtheȱseducingȱofȱAdamȱandȱEve;ȱtheȱpassageȱisȱsomewhatȱobscure.ȱ
38ȱȱ Cf.ȱDochhorn,ȱApokalypseȱ52Ȭ54ȱ(n.ȱ39).ȱ
39ȱȱ Cf.ȱVitȱAdȱ1Ȭ6.20ȱ[lat:ȱ22]ȱ[Adamȱinȱsearchȱofȱfoodȱandȱrepenting]ȱ//ȱBerȱRȱ20,10;ȱVitȱAdȱ18Ȭ21ȱ//ȱ
ApcȱMosȱ25ȱ//ȱBerȱRȱ20,7;ȱApcȱMosȱ40,3Ȭ5ȱ//ȱBerȱRȱ22,9ȱandȱDochhorn,ȱApokalypseȱ140Ȭ141;ȱ
144;ȱ406Ȭ407;ȱ537Ȭ538.ȱ
40ȱȱ Cf.ȱTheodorȱ/ȱAlbeck,ȱBereschitȱ63Ȭ64.ȱȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
492ȱ JanȱDochhornȱ

3.4.ȱPirqêȱdeȱRabbiȱEliêzerȱ

However,ȱthisȱmustȱnotȱgiveȱriseȱtoȱtheȱimpressionȱthatȱclassicalȱJudaȬ
ismȱremainedȱintransigentȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱmotifȱofȱSatan’sȱfall.ȱJudaȬ
ismȱ neverthelessȱ producedȱ aȱ greatȱ traditionȱ ofȱ Satan’sȱ fallȱ inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ
this.ȱ Itȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ Pirqêȱ deȱ Rabbiȱ Eliêzerȱ (PRE)41ȱ whichȱ willȱ
originateȱinȱtheȱ9thȱcentury42.ȱTheȱBookȱBahirȱthenȱadoptedȱit43.ȱAccordȬ
ingȱ toȱ thisȱ traditionȱ Samaelȱ whoȱ isȱ ridingȱ onȱ theȱ serpentȱ andȱ onȱ aȱ
camel,ȱ seducesȱ theȱ firstȱ twoȱ humansȱ (PREȱ 13)ȱ afterȱ theȱ servantȬangelsȱ
(trvh ykalm)ȱhaveȱconsideredȱhowȱAdamȱmightȱbeȱleadȱintoȱcommittingȱsinȱ
againstȱhisȱcreator.ȱSamaelȱisȱpunishedȱbyȱbeingȱexpelledȱfromȱheavenȱ(PREȱ
14).ȱPREȱ27ȱtellsȱhowȱSamaelȱwhenȱheȱwasȱthrownȱoutȱofȱheaven,ȱtriedȱtoȱseizeȱ
Michaelȱbyȱhisȱwingsȱinȱorderȱtoȱdragȱhimȱalong.ȱTheȱservantȬangelsȱareȱmenȬ
tionedȱneitherȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱintrigueȱagainstȱAdamȱandȱEveȱnorȱwhenȱ
theȱtwoȱareȱpunished.ȱȱ
PREȱ seemȱ toȱ associateȱ aȱ traditionȱ ofȱ Satan’sȱ fallȱ continuingȱ Genȱ 3ȱ
withȱ aȱ characteristicallyȱ rabbinicȱ motif,ȱ namelyȱ theȱ rivalryȱ betweenȱ
angelsȱandȱmen.ȱButȱthisȱtraditionȱonȱSatan’sȱfallȱwillȱhaveȱbeenȱindeȬ
pendentȱ onceȱ asȱ theȱ servantȬangels’ȱ relationshipȱ toȱ Samael’sȱ activityȱ
andȱ sufferingȱ appearsȱ aȱ littleȱ unclearȱ (theȱ servantȬangelsȱ disappearȱ
fromȱ theȱ narrative!).ȱ Thatȱ theȱ serpentȱ wasȱ shapedȱ likeȱ aȱ camelȱ isȱ alȬ
readyȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱinȱBerRȱ19:144.ȱButȱevenȱifȱoneȱassumesȱthatȱtraditionȱ
wasȱadoptedȱinȱPREȱoneȱwillȱnotȱsucceedȱinȱgoingȱbackȱtoȱtheȱearliestȱ
times.ȱAndȱratherȱsomethingȱelseȱisȱimportant,ȱnamelyȱtheȱsurprisinglyȱ
conservativeȱ (asȱ comparedȱ withȱ theȱ developmentȱ inȱ Christianity)ȱ traitȱ
ofȱ theȱ narrative:ȱ Whereasȱ inȱ Christianityȱ –ȱ especiallyȱ byȱ theȱ legendȱ ofȱ
Luciferȱ–ȱanȱoppositionȱbetweenȱGodȱandȱhisȱapostate,ȱSatan,ȱbecomesȱ
moreȱandȱmoreȱprominent,ȱinȱJudaismȱthereȱstillȱis,ȱasȱinȱVitAdȱ11Ȭ17,ȱaȱ
competitiveȱ rivalryȱ betweenȱ Satanȱ andȱ man.ȱ Jewishȱ satanology,ȱ ifȱ itȱ
knowsȱaboutȱaȱprimevalȱfallȱofȱSatanȱatȱall,ȱremainsȱtrueȱtoȱitselfȱinȱthatȱ
itȱregardsȱthisȱfallȱmoreȱasȱanȱaffairȱofȱanthropologyȱthanȱofȱtheology.ȱ
ȱ
ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
41ȱȱ Cf.ȱBörnerȬKlein,ȱPirke.ȱ
42ȱȱ Cf.ȱStemberger,ȱEinleitungȱ321Ȭ323.ȱ
43ȱȱ Cf.ȱScholem,ȱBuch.ȱ
44ȱȱ Cf.ȱ Theodor/ȱ Albeck,ȱ Bereschitȱ 171.ȱ Cf.ȱ alsoȱ theȱ traditionsȱ concerningȱ theȱ formerȱ
shapeȱofȱtheȱserpentȱinȱAbôtȱdeȱRabbiȱN¬tanȱlȱ(Schechter,ȱAbothȱ3).ȱȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱAngels’ȱFallȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ 493ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Abbreviations:ȱ
BAC:ȱBibliotecaȱdeȱAutoresȱCristianosȱ
CCSL:ȱCorpusȱChristianorum.ȱSeriesȱLatinaȱ
CSCO:ȱCorpusȱScriptorumȱChristianorumȱOrientaliumȱ
CSEL:ȱCorpusȱScriptorumȱEcclesiasticorumȱLatinorumȱ
MPG:ȱPatrologiaȱGraeca,ȱcollegitȱMigneȱ
MPL:ȱPatrologiaȱLatina,ȱcollegitȱMigneȱ
PTS:ȱPatristischeȱTexteȱundȱStudienȱ
ȱ
Anderson,ȱG.A.ȱ/ȱStone,ȱM.E.ȱ(ed.),ȱAȱSynopsisȱofȱtheȱBooksȱofȱAdamȱandȱEveȱ
(SBL.ȱEarlyȱJudaismȱandȱitsȱLiteratureȱ5),ȱAtlantaȱ1994.ȱȱ
Bamberger,ȱB.J.,ȱFallenȱAngels,ȱPhiladelphiaȱ1952.ȱȱ
Bezold,ȱC.,ȱDieȱSchatzhöhle,ȱLeipzigȱ1888.ȱȱ
Bonwetsch,ȱ N.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Dieȱ apokryphenȱ Fragenȱ desȱ Bartholomäusȱ (Nachrichtenȱ
derȱ K.ȱ Gesellschaftȱ derȱ Wissenschaftenȱ zuȱ Göttingen,ȱ PhilologischȬ
historischeȱKlasseȱ1897,ȱHeftȱ1),ȱGöttingenȱ1897.ȱ
BörnerȬKlein,ȱD.ȱ(ed.),ȱPirkeȱDeȬRabbiȱElieser.ȱNachȱderȱEditionȱVenedigȱ1544,ȱ
unterȱ Berücksichtigungȱ derȱ Editionȱ Warschauȱ 1852ȱ (Studiaȱ Judaicaȱ 26),ȱ
Berlinȱ2004.ȱ
Böttrich,ȱChr.,ȱDasȱslavischeȱHenochbuchȱ(JSHRZȱ5/7),ȱGüterslohȱ1995,ȱ843Ȭ846.ȱȱ
Breytenbach,ȱC.ȱ/ȱDay,ȱP.L.,ȱSatan,ȱin:ȱDDD,ȱLeidenȱu.a.ȱ1995,ȱ1369–1380.ȱȱ
Brock,ȱ S.P.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Testamtumȱ Jobi,ȱ in:ȱ Picard,ȱ J.ȬC.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Apocalypsisȱ Baruchiȱ
Graeceȱ(PVTGȱ2),ȱLeidenȱ1967,ȱ61Ȭ96.ȱȱ
Brockelmann,ȱK.,ȱLexiconȱSyriacum,ȱHalleȱ1928ȱ=ȱHildesheimȱ/ȱZürichȱ1995.ȱȱ
Crawford,ȱS.W.ȱ(ed.),ȱ4QDeutq,ȱin:ȱE.ȱUlrichȱetȱal.ȱ(Hg.),ȱQumranȱCaveȱ4,ȱDeuȬ
teronomy,ȱJoshua,ȱJudges,ȱKingsȱ(DJDȱ14),ȱOxfordȱ1995,ȱ137Ȭ142.ȱ
Dahl,ȱN.A.,ȱDerȱErstgeboreneȱSatansȱundȱderȱVaterȱdesȱTeufelsȱ(Polyk.ȱ7,1ȱundȱ
Johȱ8,44),ȱin:ȱApophoreta,ȱFSȱE.ȱHaenchenȱ(BZNWȱ30),ȱBerlinȱ1964,ȱ70Ȭ84.ȱ
Dalman,ȱ G.H.,ȱ AramäischȬNeuhebräischesȱ Handwörterbuchȱ zuȱ Targum,ȱ TalȬ
mudȱundȱMidrasch.ȱMitȱLexikonȱderȱAbbreviaturenȱvonȱG.H.ȱHändlerȱundȱ
einemȱVerzeichnisȱderȱMischnaȬAbschnitte,ȱGöttingenȱ1938ȱ=ȱHildesheimȱ1987.ȱȱ
deȱJongeȱM.ȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱTestamentsȱofȱtheȱTwelveȱPatriarchs.ȱAȱCriticalȱEditionȱofȱ
theȱGreekȱTextȱ(PVTGȱ1/2),ȱLeidenȱ1978.ȱȱ
deȱLagarde,ȱP.:ȱOnomasticaȱSacra,ȱGöttingenȱ21887ȱ=ȱHildesheimȱ1966.ȱȱ
Dochhorn,ȱJ.,ȱDieȱApokalypseȱdesȱMose.ȱText,ȱÜbersetzung,ȱKommentarȱ(TSAJȱ
106),ȱTübingenȱ2006.ȱȱ
Dochhorn,ȱJ.,ȱPaulusȱundȱdieȱpolyglotteȱSchriftgelehrsamkeitȱseinerȱZeit.ȱEineȱStudieȱ
zuȱdenȱexegetischenȱHintergründenȱvonȱRmȱ16,20a:ȱZNWȱ98ȱ(2007),ȱ189Ȭ212.ȱȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
494ȱ JanȱDochhornȱ

Fuchs,ȱC.,ȱDasȱLebenȱAdamsȱundȱEvas,ȱin:ȱE.ȱKautzschȱ(ed.),ȱDieȱApokryphenȱ
undȱPseudepigraphenȱdesȱAltenȱTestaments,ȱII.,ȱDieȱPseudepigraphenȱdesȱ
AltenȱTestaments,ȱTübingenȱ1900,ȱ506Ȭ528.ȱȱ
GarciaȱMartinezȱ,ȱF.ȱ/ȱTigchelaar,ȱEȱJ.ȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱStudyȱEdition,ȱ
IȬII,ȱLeidenȱ1997Ȭ1998.ȱȱ
Ginzberg,ȱ L.,ȱ Dieȱ Haggadaȱ beiȱ denȱ Kirchenväternȱ undȱ inȱ derȱ apokryphischenȱ
Literatur:ȱMGWJȱ42ȱ(1998)ȱ537Ȭ550;ȱ43ȱ(1899)ȱ17Ȭ22;ȱ61Ȭ75;ȱ117Ȭ125;ȱ149Ȭ159;ȱ
217Ȭ231;ȱ293Ȭ303;ȱ409Ȭ416;ȱ461Ȭ470;ȱ485Ȭ504;ȱ529Ȭ547.ȱ
Goodspeed,ȱE.ȱJ.ȱ(ed.):ȱDieȱältestenȱApologeten.ȱTexteȱmitȱkurzenȱEinleitungen,ȱ
Göttingenȱ1914ȱ=ȱGöttingenȱ1984.ȱȱ
Hanson,ȱP.D.,ȱRebellionȱinȱHeaven.ȱAzazelȱandȱEuhemeristicȱHeroesȱinȱlȱEnochȱ
6Ȭ11:ȱJBLȱ96ȱ(1977)ȱ195Ȭ233.ȱ
Harrington,ȱ D.ȱ J.ȱ /ȱ Cazeaux,ȱ J.ȱ (ed.),ȱ PseudoȬPhilon.ȱ Lesȱ Antiquitesȱ Bibliquesȱ
(SCȱ229),ȱParisȱ1976.ȱȱ
Hollaz,ȱD.,ȱExamenȱTheologiaeȱAcroamaticum,ȱIȬII,ȱStargardȱ1707ȱ=ȱWiesbadenȱ1971.ȱȱ
Koetschau,ȱP.ȱ(ed.),ȱOrigenesȱWerkeȱV:ȱDeȱPrincipiisȱ/ȱPeri. avrcw/nȱ(DieȱgriechiȬ
schenȱchristlichenȱSchriftstellerȱderȱerstenȱJahrhunderteȱo.Z.),ȱLeipzigȱ1913.ȱȱ
Köhler,ȱL.ȱ/ȱBaumgartnerȱW.,ȱHebräischesȱundȱaramäischesȱLexikonȱzumȱAltenȱ
TestamentȱIȬV,ȱLeidenȱ1967Ȭ1995.ȱȱ
Körtnerȱ U.H.J.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Papiasfragmente,ȱ in:ȱ Körtnerȱ U.H.J.ȱ /ȱ Leutzsch,ȱ M.ȱ (ed.),ȱ
Papiasfragmente,ȱHirtȱdesȱHermasȱ(SUCȱ3),ȱDarmstadtȱ1998.ȱȱ
Littmann,ȱ E.,ȱ Dasȱ Buchȱ derȱ Jubiläen,ȱ in:ȱ Kautzsch,ȱ E.,ȱ Dieȱ Apokryphenȱ undȱ
PseudepigraphenȱdesȱAltenȱTestamentsȱII:ȱDieȱPseudepigraphenȱdesȱAltenȱ
Testaments,ȱTübingenȱ1900,ȱ31Ȭ119.ȱȱ
Lohse,ȱE.ȱ(ed),ȱDieȱTexteȱausȱQumran.ȱHebräischȱundȱDeutsch,ȱDarmstadtȱ41986.ȱȱ
MagerȱI.ȱ(ed.),ȱGeorgȱCalixt.ȱWerkeȱinȱAuswahlȱII:ȱDogmatischeȱSchriften,ȱGötȬ
tingenȱ1982.ȱȱ
b qlx ,bwj rxwX ,rawbmh ~ylht Xrdm,ȱJerusalemȱ2003.ȱȱ
Merk,ȱ O.ȱ /ȱ Meiser,ȱ M.,ȱ Dasȱ Lebenȱ Adamsȱ undȱ Evasȱ (JSHRZȱ 2,5),ȱ Güterslohȱ
1998,ȱ766Ȭ767.ȱȱ
Meyer,ȱW.ȱ(ed.),ȱVitaȱAdaeȱetȱEvae,ȱin:ȱABAW.PPȱ14ȱ(Münchenȱ1878),ȱ185Ȭ250.ȱȱ
Mrasȱ K.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Eusebiusȱ Werkeȱ VIII:ȱ Dieȱ Praeparatioȱ Evangelica,ȱ Ersterȱ Teil:ȱ
Einleitung,ȱ dieȱ Bücherȱ Iȱ bisȱ Xȱ (Dieȱ griechischenȱ christlichenȱ Schriftstellerȱ
derȱerstenȱJahrhunderteȱo.Z.),ȱBerlinȱ1954.ȱ
Nau,ȱF.ȱ(ed.),ȱUneȱdidascalieȱdeȱNotreȬSeigneurȱJesusȬChrist.ȱIntroduction,ȱtexteȱ
grecȱetȱtraduction:ȱROCȱ12ȱ(1907),ȱ225Ȭ254.ȱȱ
Nielsen,ȱK.,ȱ!j'f',ȱin:ȱThWATȱVII,ȱStuttgartȱ1993,ȱ745Ȭ751.ȱȱ
Niese,ȱB.ȱ(ed.),ȱFlaviiȱIosephiȱOpera,ȱIȬVII,ȱBerlinȱ21955.ȱȱ
Oden,ȱR.A.,ȱPhiloȱofȱByblosȱandȱHellenisticȱHistoriography:ȱPEQȱ110Ȭ111ȱ(1978Ȭ
1979)ȱ115Ȭ126.ȱȱ
Petorelli,ȱJ.ȬP.ȱ(ed.),ȱLaȱVieȱLatineȱdȇAdamȱetȱEve:ȱALMAȱ56ȱ(1998),ȱ5Ȭ104.ȱȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ TheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱAngels’ȱFallȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ 495ȱ

Picard,ȱJ.ȬC.ȱcf.ȱBrock,ȱS.P.ȱ
Preuss,ȱE.ȱ(ed.):ȱIohannisȱGerhardiȱLociȱTheologici,ȱIȬIX,ȱBerlinȱ1863Ȭ1875,ȱIIȱ(1864).ȱȱ
Rad,ȱG.,ȱvon,ȱdia,bolojȱB:ȱDieȱalttestamentlicheȱSatansvorstellung,ȱin:ȱThWNTȱII,ȱ
Stuttgartȱ1935,ȱ71Ȭ74.ȱȱ
Ri,ȱSuȬMinȱ(ed.),ȱLaȱCaverneȱdesȱTresors.ȱLesȱdeuxȱrecensionsȱsyriaquesȱ(CSCOȱ
486.487ȱScriptoresȱSyriȱ207),ȱLeuvenȱ1987.ȱȱ
Ryssel,ȱV.,ȱDieȱsyrischeȱBaruchapokalypse,ȱin:ȱE.ȱKautzsch:ȱDieȱApokryphenȱundȱ
PseudepigraphenȱdesȱAltenȱTestamentsȱII:ȱDieȱPseudepigraphenȱdesȱAltenȱ
Testaments,ȱTübingenȱ1900,ȱ402Ȭ466.ȱȱ
Schechter,ȱS.ȱ(ed.),ȱAbothȱdeȱRabbiȱNathan,ȱLondonȱ/ȱWienȱ/ȱFrankfurtȱ1887.ȱȱ
Scholem,ȱG.,ȱDasȱBuchȱBahir.ȱEinȱSchriftdenkmalȱausȱderȱFrühzeitȱderȱKabbalaȱ
aufȱ Grundȱ derȱ kritischenȱNeuausgabeȱ (Quellenȱ undȱ Forschungenȱ zurȱ GeȬ
schichteȱderȱjüdischenȱMystikȱ1),ȱLeipzigȱ1923.ȱ
Stemberger,ȱG.,ȱEinleitungȱinȱTalmudȱundȱMidrasch,ȱMünchenȱ81992.ȱ
Stieren,ȱA.ȱ(ed.),ȱSanctiȱIrenaeiȱEpiscopiȱLugdunensisȱDetectionisȱetȱEversionisȱ
Falsoȱ Cognominataeȱ Agnitionisȱ seuȱ Contraȱ Omnesȱ Haeresesȱ Libriȱ QuinȬ
que,ȱI,ȱLeipzigȱ1853.ȱȱ
Stone,ȱM.E.,ȱAȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱLiteratureȱofȱAdamȱandȱEveȱ(SBL.ȱEarlyȱJudaismȱ
andȱitsȱLiteratureȱ3),ȱAtlantaȱ1992.ȱ
StoneȱM.E.ȱ(ed.),ȱPenitenceȱofȱAdamȱ(CSCOȱ429;ȱScriptoresȱArmeniaciȱ13),ȱLouȬ
vainȱ1981.ȱȱ
Stone,ȱM.E.,ȱTheȱPenitenceȱofȱAdamȱ(CSCOȱ430;ȱScriptoresȱArmeniaciȱ14),ȱLouȬ
vainȱ1981.ȱ
terȱMerkerttschian,ȱK.ȱ/ȱWilson,ȱS.G.,ȱEivj avpo,deixin avpostolikou/ khru,gmatoj.ȱTheȱ
ProofȱofȱtheȱApostolicȱPreachingȱwithȱSevenȱFragments.ȱArmenianȱVersionȱ
Editedȱ andȱ Translatedȱ withȱ theȱ Cooperationȱ ofȱ H.R.H.ȱ Princeȱ Maxeȱ ofȱ
Saxonyȱ(PatrologiaȱOrientalisȱ12,5),ȱParisȱ1919.ȱȱ
TheodorȱJ.ȱ/ȱAlbeckȱCh.,ȱBereschitȱRabbaȱmitȱkritischemȱApparatȱundȱKommenȬ
tarȱIȬIII,ȱJerusalemȱ21965ȱ=ȱJerusalemȱ1996.ȱ
Trillhaas,ȱ W.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Leonhardȱ Hutter.ȱ Compendiumȱ Locorumȱ Theologicorumȱ
(KleineȱTexteȱfürȱVorlesungenȱundȱÜbungenȱ183),ȱBerlinȱ1961.ȱȱ
Uhlig,ȱS.,ȱDasȱäthiopischeȱHenochbuchȱ(JSHRZȱ5/6),ȱGüterslohȱ1984.ȱȱ
Vanderkam,ȱJ.C.ȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱBookȱofȱJubilees.ȱAȱCriticalȱTextȱ(CSCOȱ510.ȱScriptoȬ
resȱAethiopiciȱ87),ȱLouvainȱ1989.ȱȱ
Wahl,ȱO.ȱ(ed.),ȱApocalypsisȱEsdraeȱ/ȱApocalypsisȱSedrachȱ/ȱVisioȱBeatiȱEsdraeȱ
(PVTGȱ4),ȱLeidenȱ1977.ȱȱ
Wevers,ȱ J.W.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Genesisȱ (Septuaginta.ȱ Vetusȱ Testamentumȱ Graecumȱ AucȬ
toritateȱAcademiaeȱScientiarumȱGottingensisȱEditumȱ1),ȱGöttingenȱ1974.ȱȱ
Wutz,ȱF.,ȱOnomasticaȱSacra,ȱI.ȱIIȱ(TUȱ4ȱ1,ȱ1.2),ȱLeipzigȱ1914.1915.ȱ
ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ

VI.ȱ

ȱ
ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/31/15 6:01 AM