I ran across a version of Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer – The chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great which is with the midrash genre which refers to homilies and is also aggadah which means folkloric it is also literal apocrypha in that the author is unknown. There is a famed Rabbi Eliezer (80-118 AD) yet, since this text references events such as the Muslim conquest of Arabia, Spain and Rome.
The ed. Notes “The fall of the angels recalls Jude 6 ; Jubilees v. 6, 7 ; Slav[onic]. Enoch xviii. ; Eth[iopic]. Enoch vi.-xvi., xix., and Ixxxvi. ; Test[ament]. XII Pat. (Reuben, V. 6, 7), and Fragments of a Zadokite Work (ed. Schechter, iii. 18). See infra, pp. 99 and 160. The fall of the angels is a favourite subject with the Church Fathers, e.g. Athenagoras, Embassy, xxiv. ; Justin Martyr, Second Apology, v. ; and Dialogue with Trypho, Ixxix.” You can find what these writers and texts say on the subject in my Early commentaries on Genesis 6: Angels or not? – interactive chart.
The ed. tells us “there are more than two dozen editions” of the pirke/chapters and that some early editions note that this took place “‘in the days of the generation of Enosh.’ This view opposes the doctrine of the Book of Jubilees v. 6-9, which holds that the fall of the angels took place in the days of Noah” and cites, “Eth. Enoch vi. 4-6” but does not quote that, that text has that they “descended in the days of Jared” also that the Chronicles of Jerahmeel xxiv, which refers to historical events are late as the Crusades, refers to “the days of Noah.”
The pirke/chapters makes statements to which I referred in Rabbinic writings – serpent seedline of Satan as Jewish fables which is the anti-biblical folklore according to which “‘And * Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and he begat in his own Hkeness after his image ” (Gen. v, 3). Hence thou mayest learn that Cain was not of Adam’s seed,” nor after his likeness, nor after his image.^ (Adam did not beget in his own image) ‘* until Seth was born, who was ^ after his father Adam’s likeness and image,*^ as it is said, “And he begat in his own likeness, after his image ” (ibid.).” I left the non-alphanumeric marking in just to denote that is difficult to know what is being quoted when.
In any case, I would hate to think that someone invented an entire theology, which is then applied to the whole Bible, just because Seth looked like Adam.
Ed. notes that the pirke had referenced Sammael, a styled aka for Satan “and the angels who fell from their holy place in heaven” and the Palestinian Targum, folklore filled paraphrases of the Old Testament, refers to Sammael as “the angel of death.” Ed. Tells us that “other legends, describes Sammael as using the serpent in his plot against Eve” and/or Sammael “took the serpent as a garment” since “Sammael was the great prince in heaven…He took his band ^ and descended ‘ and saw all the creatures which the Holy One, blessed be He, had created in His world and he found among them none so skilled to do evil as the serpent…So (was it with) the serpent. All the deeds which it did, and all the words which it spake, it did not speak ^ except by the intention of Sammael” another portion reads that Sammael “riding on the serpent came to her…” and so Eve “was pregnant by the angel Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain.” Moreover, the “Tree which led Adam astray . . . which Sammael planted” also “Sammael (or Azazel) had twelve wings…Sammael (with whom Azazel is identified)” and “Moral evil was brought into the world by Sammael and the offspring of the fallen angels” and that God “cast down Sammael ‘ and his troop from their holy place in heaven,*’ and cut off the feet of the serpent.”
So you can see how free the authors of folkloric homiletic materials feel themselves to be in filling in perceived detail-gaps in the Bible.
Reference is made to “the distinction which the Rabbis and others drew between Cain and Seth : ‘ And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and she said, I have acquired a man (child) from the Lord ’ (Gen. iv. i).” Then, for some reason it is stated, “Concerning Abel the Bible states, ‘ And she continued to bare his brother Abel’ (ibid. 2), without adding any further qualification as in the case of Cain” but what further qualification is supposed to be necessary besides the fact that Eve specifically notes that “I have acquired a man (child) from the Lord”?
Ed. elucidates that the issue is that “The words ‘ likeness and image ’ are not mentioned in the story of Cain’s birth. The first editions add : ‘ neither did his deeds resemble those of Abel his brother’” since the text is attempting to make something out of nothing and we are also told, “Cain inherited the nature of Sammael, the angel of Death, and became a murderer” which is not an issue since Adam and Eve sinned and they were both created directly by God.
Moreover, we are told, “The fifth chapter of Genesis begins afresh the history of Adam’s offspring, but omits all reference to Cain” which only makes sense since Cain absconded from Adam and Eve, moved away and started his own family, city, etc. (just in case, see Where did Cain get his wife?
From all of this is built concepts such as that “Cain arose and were descended all the generations of the wicked, who rebel ^ and sin, who rebelled against their Rock…Rabbi Meir said : || The generations of Cain went about stark naked,^ men and women, just like the beasts,’^ and they defiled themselves with all kinds of [sexual] immorality…in public ^ and in the streets.” The Palestinian Targum for Genesis 6:2 states, “the sons of the great saw that the daughters of men were beautiful . . . walking with naked flesh” of course, this Targum dates to circa the 600s AD and not even earlier Targumim speculate as wildly as this one does.
We are told that “Rabbi” someone or other “said : 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 ’ ’…Rabbi Joshua said : The angels are flaming fire, as it is said, ‘ His servants are a flaming fire ‘ (Ps. civ. 4), and fire came with the coition of flesh and blood, but did not burn the body ; ^ but when they fell from heaven, from their holy place, their strength and stature (became) like that of the sons of men, and their frame was (made of) clods of dust, as it is said, ‘ My flesh is clothed with worms and clods of dust ‘ (Job vii. 5).”
The reference is to Psalm 104:4 which the Jewish Publication Society translates as “Who makest winds Thy messengers, The flaming fire Thy ministers.” If “His servants are a flaming fire” is it because they were made to be such: at some point. The reason why this is being applied to angels is that the term angel means messenger and can thus refer to any messenger including human ones and also to the category of being who’s job is to deliver God’s messages to humanity.
We are then told that “Rabbi Zadok said : From them were born the giants” which is a generic term that only means taller than average (with the average male Hebrew of those days being 5.5 ft.) and that “These ‘fallen angels’ were called Nephilim (the fallen ones)” which is mistaken as the Nephilim are the angel’s offspring. Moreover, ed. notes “These angels who fell from heaven are not mentioned by name” by actual name “in our book, but they are named
Shemchazai and Uzziel in Pal. Targum to Gen. vi. 4, and also in the Azazel Midrash” and names are given to them in Ethiopic Enoch—for an interesting correlations to a supposed alien/UFO contact case, see Semjase in the Billy Meier case & the Book of Enoch – cosmic coincidences?
In my article, How to bring the Nephilim down to Earth I noted, “Some apocryphal texts also mention ‘giants’ generically not giving us specific or even general height ranges. And those which offer some idea of height tend towards utterly outlandish statements…” such is the case here as the pirke has the Nephilim mocking God’s intended judgment by the flood thusly, “‘If He bring from heaven the waters of the Flood upon us, behold, we are of high stature, and the waters will not reach up to our necks ; and if He bring the waters of the depths against us, behold, the soles of our feet can close up all the depths.’ What did they do? They put forth the soles of their feet, and closed up all the depths.”
Now, Rabbi Zadok’s complete statement is, “From them were born the giants (Anakim),^ who walked with pride in their heart,^ and who stretched forth their hand to all (kinds of) robbery and violence, and shedding of blood,^ as it is said, ‘ And there we saw the Nephilim,^ the sons of Anak ’ (Num. xiii. 33) ; and it says, ‘ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days ’ (Gen. vi. 4).” Of course, the quoted texts tell us nothing about prideful hearts, robbery, violence or shedding of blood and they are anachronistic since Numbers comes after Genesis but Genesis’ reference to “those days” is being applied to the Numbers text (oddly, they could have tried to get away with applying Genesis’ reference to “those days and after that” to Numbers—which I still believe would not be valid but be a better try nevertheless).
The text goes on to quote Rabbi Joshua thusly, “The Israelites are called ‘ Sons of God,’ ^ as it is said, ‘ Ye are the sons of the Lord your God ‘ (Deut. xiv. 1 [which states “ben Yahovah Elohim”]). The angels are called ‘ Sons of God,’ as it is said, ‘ When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy ’ (Job xxxviii. 7) ; and whilst they were still in their holy place in heaven, these were called ‘ Sons of God,’ as it is said, ‘ And also after that, when ^ the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them ; the same became the mighty men, which were of old, men of renown ‘ (Gen. vi. 4).”
The editor provides not info on the angel view of Genesis 6 even whilst asserting something that the Bible never states, “The angels whilst in heaven were the sons of ‘ Elohim ’ ; when they fell and sinned they lost their right to this designation. Men may rise by virtue and holiness and become worthy of being called ‘ the sons of Elohim.’” I will simply note that the issue is not terminology but how the context defines the terminology at any given usage.
The text then has Noah stating “Turn from your ways and evil deeds, so that He bring not upon you the waters of the Flood, and destroy all the seed of the children of men.^ They said to him : Behold, we will restrain ourselves from multiplying and increasing, so as not to produce the offspring of the children of men. What did they do ? When they came to their wives they spilled the issue of their seed upon the earth – so as not to produce offspring of the children of men, as it is said, ‘ And God saw the earth, and behold it was spilled ‘ (Gen. vi. 12).”
Let us pause a moment so that I may note that I bet you never realized that Genesis 6:12 was referring to ejaculate matter. Well, the text refers to the Earth being shachath (Strong’s H7843) and I can see why the statement is made as spilled/shachath is used in reference to ejaculate matter in Genesis 38:9 “And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.” Yet, as noted: context determines meaning and the reference is simply to spilling something and specifically in the sense of due to spoiling or corrupting. The fact is that there is no context within Genesis 6 to infer a story about the specific mating habits, or lack thereof, of the Nephilim.
In fact, Rabbi Levi had been previously quoted as specifying that “their sons and increased and multiplied like a great reptile, six children at each birth” and that “In that very hour” meaning as soon as they were born “they stood on their feet, and spoke the holy language,” which is merely Rabbinic folklore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.