Loren T. Stuckenbruck

The Book of Giants from Qumran

Texts, Translation, and Commentary

Mohr Siebeck

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Stuckenbruck, Loren T.:The book of giants from Qumran : texts, translation, and commentary / Loren T. Stuckenbruck. - Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, 1997

(Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum ; 63)ISBN 3-16-146720-5

© 1997 J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P. O. Box 2040, D-72010 Tübingen.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.

The book was typeset by ScreenArt in Wannweil using Times typeface, printed by Gulde- Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper from Papierfabrik Niefern and bound by Heinr. Koch in Tübingen.

ISSN 0721-8753

for Otto Betz honour of his 80th birthday

8. June 1997

Preface

The Book of Giants has long been known as a work which circulated among the Manichaeans as a composition attributed to Mani. Thus the condemnation of the “Liber de Ogia nomine gigante” as an “apocryphus” in the Decretum Gelasianum (perhaps 6th century) may presuppose a claim relating to its Manichaean origins. However, a case for its existence prior to Mani was made by the important Huguenot scholar, Isaac de Beauso- bre in 1734 (vol. 1 of his Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manicheïsme, p. 429 η. 6, cited by W. B. Henning in “The Book of the Giants”, BSOAS 11 [1943-1946] p. 52). De Beausobre inferred that Mani must have drawn upon at least two mauvais sources: a “Book of Enoch ” and a further writ­ing which the 9th־century chronographer Georgius Syncellus had de­scribed as ή γραφή των γιγάντων. The latter work was, in turn, said to have been discovered after the flood by a certain Καιναν (Noah’s great- grandson according to LXX Gen. 10:24) who subsequently “hid it away for himself” (see Alden A. Mosshammer, Georgii Syncelli Ecloga chrono- graphica [Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneri- ana; Leipzig: Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft, 1984] p. 90: εκρυψε παρ’ έαυτω). Whether or not Syncellus’ comment was influenced by Jubilees 8:4 (or a later version thereof) at this point, the explicit mention of “The Book of the Giants” without, at the same time, there being any reference or allusion to Mani or Manichaeism may be significant: it is possible that the nomenclature in Syncellus ultimately has its roots in the existence of an independent source whose precise content was no longer known to him.

During the course of the 20th century a number of finds have shed considerable light on the literary evidence for the Book of Giants. The discoveries and publications of Manichaean fragments from the Book of Giants have, of course, substantiated the many references to its circulation among and use by the Manichaeans. And now, as is well known, the re­covery of manuscript fragments from Qumran Caves 1, 2, 4, and 6 have confirmed the Book of Giants as an independent Jewish composition from the Second Temple period. Whereas the Manichaean materials and possi­ble allusions to the Manichaean Book of Giants have recently been sub­jected to a timely analysis by John C. Reeves {Jewish Lore and Manichaean

PrefaceVIII

Cosmogony. Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions [Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 14; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992]), the present volume takes its point of departure in the Book of Giants as an early Jewish work from the Second Temple period.

My interest in the Book of Giants was triggered ten years ago while I was engaged in a lexical analysis of the Greek recensions to 1 Enoch (esp. Codex Panopolitanus, Syncellusa’b, and the Chester Beatty ms.) and the Enochic Aramaic fragments from Qumran in Tübingen and Heidelberg. Several years later, in the context of a doctoral seminar with Professor James H. Charlesworth at Princeton Theological Seminary, I was able to engage in an initial study of some of the published fragments which J. T. Milik had identified with the Book of Giants (The Books of Enoch [Ox­ford: Clarendon Press, 1976]). However, the possibility of any publication at that time was precluded, as analysis was frustrated by the unavailability of the pertinent photographic evidence. Of course, this situation changed dramatically with the publication and itemization of the Rockefeller col­lection (formally PAM) in 1993 by Emanuel Tov, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche (Leiden: E. J. Brill). This provided an opportunity for me - at first through the encouragement of Professor Peter Lampe at the Uni­versity of Kiel - to resurrect a dormant study and to pursue a more thor­oughgoing analysis.

It is here appropriate to stress that the investigation carried through in this book should in no way be confused with an ‘official’ publication of those Book of Giants fragments which have yet to appear in the Dis­coveries in the Judaean Desert series. For one thing, this volume as such is wider in scope in that it embraces virtually all fragments (unpublished and published) which have been related to the Book of Giants. Moreover, some features which have accompanied the publication of the Qumran fragments have not been included: most obviously, plates; measurements of the individual fragments; and, in some cases, a detailed discussion of palaeography and orthography (though these considerations are not en­tirely excluded).

It is hoped that the present study has been able to throw further light on the Book of Giants as an early Jewish document to be taken seriously in its own right. The main body of the volume - i. e. the text, English transla­tion, notes, and commentary of the relevant manuscript fragments from Qumran - is to be found in Chapter Two (pp. 41-224), with Chapter One providing an introduction to the study of the document along with a con­sideration of the milieu (provenance and date) which may be posited for the work. In order to distinguish degrees of likelihood concerning the identification of manuscript fragments with the Book of Giants (see

IXPreface

p. 41), Chapter Two has been divided into two sections, the first (Part One) consisting of a study of those manuscripts which probably belonged to the work and the second (Part Two) containing a discussion of those fragments concerning which an identification with the Book of Giants is questionable. These sections are supplemented, respectively, by a Glossary for the texts covered in Part One and by an Appendix with readings and an English translation for the materials discussed in Part Two.

The research leading to this book would not have been possible without the prior work on the Book of Giants fragments by Jean Starcky and J. T. Milik. Their painstaking work with the fragments, which is reflected inter alia by the progressively improved arrangements of them on the photo­graphs, have often provided a starting point for reconstructions which I have proposed. In addition, I have benefited significantly from the scho­larly contributions of Klaus Beyer and Florentino Garcia Martinez (espe­cially on the Qumran fragments) and of W. B. Henning, Werner Sunder- mann, and John C. Reeves (on the Manichaean sources).

For their acceptance of this study for inclusion in the Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum series, I would like to thank Professors Martin Hengel and Peter Schäfer. Further, I am most grateful to Mr. Georg Sie- beck at J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) in Tübingen for his kind commitment to the production of such a complicated manuscript through type-setting. In this connection, special thanks go also to Mr. Matthias Spitzner for his patient and professional oversight of the manuscript preparation.

The bulk of this book was written in the summer months of 1995, dur­ing which I was given study leave from the Department of Theology at the University of Durham, UK. In particular, I am deeply indebted to my New Testament colleagues there, Dr. Stephen C. Barton and Professor James D. G. Dunn, for their moral support (and more!) during the writing and preparation of this manuscript. Not least am I grateful for helpful discussions with Dr. Robert Hayward and Dr. Walter Moberly.

Many thanks go to my wife Lois who, as an indulgent conversation partner, has patiently endured stories about the giants, their exploits, and their fate during the last several years! Together with our children, Daniella and Hanno, she has been an unfailing source of inspiration.

Finally, I would like to dedicate this volume to Otto Betz, Professor at the Eberhard-Karls University of Tübingen, on the occasion of his 80th birthday (8. June 1997). During a period of study in Tübingen (1986- 1988) I found myself frequently stimulated and informed by his interest in the literature of Early Judaism. His contributions to the fields of New Testament and Early Judaism have over the years represented high aca­demic achievement. This has not prevented him from tirelessly devoting

himself to the encouragement of young scholars in both Germany and abroad. Many - not least myself - shall remain in his debt.

X Preface

Loren T. StuckenbruckEaster 1997

Table of Contents

Preface.................................................................................................... VIIAbbreviations........................................................................................ XIII

Chapter One

Introduction

I. Research on the Book of G iants Fragments from Q u m ra n ... 1A. The Work of J. T. Milik (1971 and 1976)..................................... 1B. Research Subsequent to Milik........................................................ 4

7. 1976-1992.................................................................................... 42. 1991 to the Present ................................................. 83. The Purpose of the Present Volume........................................ 10

II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f theQum ran Book of Giants F ragm ents. ......................... 11A. The Significance of the Problem ................................................. 11B. Synoptic Comparison of Three Reconstructions...................... 13C. Proposed Sequence of the

Qumran Book of Giants Fragments ........................ 20

III. The Character of the Qum ran Book of G ia n ts ............. 24A. Its Relation to the Book of Watchers........................... 24B. Distinguishing Characteristics of Qumran B G .............. 25

IV. D a te .................................................................................... 28

V. Provenance and P u rpose ................................................. 31

Chapter Two

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragm ents

Part One: Materials Belonging to the Qumran Book of Giants ... 41

1Q23 = lQGiants*................................................................................. 43

Table o f ContentsXII

1Q24 = lQGiants*.................................................................................... 592Q26 = 2Q G iants...................................................................................... 634Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa ............................................................................ 664Q530 = 4QEnGiants*........................................................................... 1004Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc ........................................................................... 1414Q532 = 4Q EnG iants^........................................................................... 1784Q556 = 4QEnGiantse ........................................................................... 1854Q206 2-3 = 4QEnoche ......................................................................... 1916Q8 = 6Q G iants...................................................................................... 196

Part Two: Manuscripts Whose Identification withthe Book o f Giants is Unlikely..................................................... 214

4Q534 = 4QElect of G o d ...................................................................... 2144Q535 and 4Q536.................................................................................... 2176Q14 = 6QApoc a r ................................................................................. 2191Q19 = IQBook of N oah 11, 13, 15................................................... 2194Q533 = 4QGiants or Pseudo-Enoch a r ........................................... 2214Q537 = 4QApocryphon of Jacob a r ................................................. 222

Appendix: Texts and Translations o f Documents which havenot been assigned to the Qumran Book o f G iants .................. 225

4Q 534............ 2254Q535......................................................................................................... 2284Q536......................................................................................................... 2296Q 14.......................................................................................................... 2311Q19 11, 13, 1 5 ....................................................................................... 2324Q 533......................................................................................................... 2334Q 537......................................................................................................... 237

Glossary (for Texts Probably Belonging to the Book of G iants) 243

Bibliography.............................................................................................. 255

Index of Passages ......................................................................... 263Index of Subjects...................................................................................... 280Index of Modern Authors........................................................................ 288

Abbreviations

(excluding the Qumran documents; for sigla, see pp. 20-21,42-43,243)

1 Chron. 1 Chronicles1 En. 1 Enoch1 Kgs. 1 Kings1 Macc. 1 Maccabees2 Sam. 2 Samuel3 Macc. 3 MaccabeesABD David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary

(6 vols.)acc. accusativeact. activeAnt. Josephus, Antiquitates JudaicaeAq. AquilaAram. AramaicATTM Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten MeerATTMEB Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer.

Ergänzungsbandb. (before rabbinic text) Babylonian TalmudBE J.T. Milik, The Books o f Enoch. Aramaic Fragments o f

Qumrân Cave 4 Bell.Jud. Josephus, Bellum JudaicorumBETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensiumBG Book of GiantsBib BiblicaBibl.Heb. Biblical HebrewBibZeit Biblische ZeitschriftBSOAS Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental African Studiesc.Apion Josephus, contra ApionemCBQ Catholic Biblical QuarterlyCD Cairo Genizah Damascus DocumentClem.Rec. Clementine RecognitionsCod.Pan. Codex Panopolitanuscol.,cols. column, columnsCRINT Compendium rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentumDam.Doc. Damascus DocumentDan. DanielDeut. DeuteronomyDictionary Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary o f the Targumim, the Talmud Ba-

bli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature Dictionary o f JPA Michael Sokoloff, Dictionary o f Jewish Palestinian Aramaic

AbbreviationsXIV

DISO Charles־R. Jean and Jacob Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des in­scriptions sémitiques de Iouest

DJD Discoveries in the Judaean DesertDSSE Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (1995)DSS on Microfiche Emanuel Tov, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A

Comprehensive Facsimile Edition o f the Texts from the Ju­daean Desert (1993)

D SST Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Trans­lated. The Qumran Texts in English (1994)

DSSU Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea ScrollsUncovered

Enoch Michael A. Knibb with Edward Ullendorf, The EthiopieBook o f Enoch (2 vols.)

EstBib Estudios BiblicosEth. EthiopieETL Ephemerides Theologicae LovaniensesExod. ExodusEzek. EzekielFE Robert Eisenman and James Robinson, A Facsimile Edition

of the Dead Sea Scrolls fern. femininefig. figurefrgt., frgt.'s Fragment, fragmentsFRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und

Neuen Testaments GCS Griechischen christlichen SchriftstellerGen. GenesisGrk. GreekHab. HabakkukHeb. HebrewHenochbuch Siebert Uhlig, Apokalypsen: Das äthiopische HenochbuchHSM Harvard Semitic MonographsHSS Harvard Semitic StudiesHTR Harvard Theological ReviewH U CA Hebrew Union College AnnualImp.Aram. Imperial Aramaicimpf. imperfectimpv. imperativeinfin. infinitiveIsa. Isaiahitpa. itpa"elJas. JamesJBL Journal o f Biblical LiteratureJewish Lore John C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony. Stu­

dies in the Book o f Giants Traditions JJS Journal o f Jewish StudiesJSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer ZeitJStJud Journal for the Study o f JudaismJub. JubileesJudg. JudgesKAI Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Röllig, Kanaanäische und

aramäische Inschriften (3 vols.)Ι.,ΙΙ. line, lines

XVAbbreviations

Lev. LeviticusLXX Septuagintm. (before rabbinic text) MishnahMan. Manichaeanmasc. masculineMBG Manichaean Book of GiantsMid.Pers. Middle PersianMidrash Midrash o f Shemhazai and 'Aza'elMk. MarkMPAT Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Daniel J. Harrington, A Manuel o f

Palestinian Aramaic Texts ms. ,mss. manuscript, manuscriptsMT Masoretic traditionn. noteNeh. NehemiahNeof Targum NeofytiNid. Niddahno. numberNew Schürer Emil Schürer, The history o f the Jewish people in the age o f

Jesus Christ, eds. Geza Vermes, Martin Goodman, and Fergus Millar (3 vols., 1973-1987)

NRSV New Revised Standard VersionNTS New Testament Studiesobj. objectOBO Orbis Biblicus et OrientalisOTP James H. Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

(2 vols., 1983-1985) p.,pp. page, pagesPalm. PalmyrenePAM Palestinian Archaeological Museumpass. passivePEQ Palestinian Exploration Quarterlyperf. perfectpers. personplur. pluralPraep.Evang. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelicapron. pronominalProv. ProverbsPs. PsalmsPTA Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungenptc. participlePVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti GraeceQumApoc Florentino Garcia Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic. Stu­

dies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran rel.pron. relative pronounRevBib Revue BibliqueRevQum Revue de QumranRHR Revue de l'histoire des religionsSBL Society of Biblical LiteratureSBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph SeriesSBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature: Resources for Biblical StudySBLTT Society of Biblical Literature: Texts and TranslationsSBT Studies in Biblical Theology

AbbreviationsXVI

s c Sources chrétiennesSem Semiticasing. singularSib. Or. Sibylline OraclesSir. SirachSTDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judahsubj. subjectsubst. substantivesuff. suffixSVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti PseudepigraphaSym. SymmachusSyn. Georgius SyncellusSyr. SyriacT.Levi Testament o f LéviT.Naph. Testament o f NaphtaliT.Reub. Testament o f ReubenTg. Onq. Targum OnqelosTg. Ps.-Jon. Targum Pseudo-JonathanTheod. ThéodotionThRund Theologische RundschauThStud Theological StudiesTob. TobitTools Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publica

tions and Tools for Study (1990)TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentumv.,w. verse, versesVet Test Vetus TestamentumWsdSol. Wisdom o f SolomonWUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchung zum Neuen TestamentZDM G Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen GesellschaftZebah. ZebahimZ N W Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Chapter One

Introduction

I. Research on the Book o f Giants Fragments from Qumran

A. The Work o f J. T. Milik (1971 and 1976)

One of the enduring contributions of J. T. Milik’s studies of the Aramaic fragments of Enochic works discovered in the caves near Qumran has been the identification of materials from the lost Book of Giants (BG).1 The “discovery” of this early Jewish writing was for Milik based on two primary observations. On the one hand, a number of manuscripts from Cave 4 refer to the ante-diluvian patriarch “Enoch” (e. g. 4Q203, 4Q206, 4Q530, 4Q531) but preserve contents not found in any part of Ethiopic or 1 Enoch or one of its surviving Greek recensions. On the other hand, and

1 See Milik, The Books o f Enoch. Aramaic Fragments o f Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), esp. pp. 4, 6-7, 57-58, 230, 236-38, and 298-339 (hereafter, BE). Milik’s presentation here brought together the results of studies which he had published several years earlier: “Turfan et Qumran: Livre des géants juif et manichéen”, in eds. Gert Jeremias, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann, Tradition und Glaube. Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 117-27 and “Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméens de Qumrân”, HTR 64 (1971) 333-78, esp. pp. 366-72.

2 Based on the fragments found during the early part of this century in the Turfan basin of Chinese Turkestan, Henning began to give attention to the Manichaean BG in “Ein manichäisches Henochbuch”, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wis­senschaften in Berlin, Phil.-Hist. Klasse (Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1934) 3 -11 and “Neue Materialien zur Geschichte des Manichäismus”, ZDM G 90 (1936) 1-18, esp. pp. 2-6. Henning then published a number of BG-related fragments - the most important in Middle Persian, Uygur, Parthian, Coptic, and Sogdian - in “The Book of Giants”, B SO A S11 (1943-1946) 52-74 (hereafter “Book of Giants”). The Mid. Pers. fragments are catalogued by Mary Boyce in A Catalogue o f the Iranian Manuscripts in Manichaean Script in the German Turfan Collection (Deutsche Akademie der Wis­senschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, 45; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960) no. 101 (p. 9). To Henning’s collection of texts, Boyce adds some Parthian citations on the first of a double sheet (ibid., no. 813 I, p. 55; cf. p. 147). See further, Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, “Der Buddha Henoch: Qumran und Turfan”, Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 32 (1980) 371 n. 21.

Introduction2

perhaps even more significant, is that some of these and other Qumran materials were seen to preserve details which are paralleled in later sources: most notably, in extant fragments of the Manichaean Book of Giants pub­lished by W. B. Henning2 (and now also by Werner Sundermann3) and in a Jewish writing designated the Midrash of Shemhazai and (Azael.4

Until quite recently, however, the fragments of the Qumran BG have not been the object of the sustained discussion that scholars have devoted to the other materials presented in Milik’s study. Several reasons for this neglect may be identified. First, the western world has known about Ethio- pic Enoch through text and translation since the early 19th century,5 whereas the Manichaean BG fragments were not published until 1943 (by Henning).6 Due to the relative novelty of the latter as well as the area of study it represented, students of Early Judaism were not as well positioned to evaluate critically this aspect of Milik’s work.

Second, on first glance the Qumran BG fragments would appear to have formed but a tangential part of Milik’s main focus on the Aramaic fragments corresponding to the 1 Enoch corpus (Book of the Watchers - ch.’s 1-36; Astronomical Book, cf. ch.’s 72-82; Book of Dreams - ch.’s

3 See Sundermann, Mittelpersische und panische kosmogonische und Parabeltexte der Manichäer (Berliner Turfantexte, 4; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973) 76-78 (esp. “M 5900”) and “Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch”, in Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata (Acta Iranica, 23 and Second Series, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1984) 491-505 (esp. Frgt. “L”); see further p. 200 and John C. Reeves, “Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants?”, JBL 112 (1993) 114 n. 17. The most important recent study of the Manichaean BG sources is now Reeves’ published dissertation, Jewish Lore in Mani­chaean Cosmogony. Studies in the Book o f Giants Traditions (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College, 14; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992), hereafter Jewish Lore.

4 For an initial text with translation based on 4 medieval Hebrew mss. (provisionally collated), see Milik, BE, pp. 321-31 and 338-39. Milik hypothesizes that the Midrash is an adaptation of the Manichaean BG and attributes it to R. Joseph bar Hiyya (d. 333 C. E.) because he is mentioned as the story-teller at the beginning. The significance of the Midrash for Qumran BG becomes more apparent if Milik’s thesis of its derivation is questioned (as by Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 88) and if it is regarded as another - abbre­viated and clearly later - version of the BG story.

5 The translation was initially published in 1821 by Richard Laurence, Mashafa He- nok Nabiy, The Book o f Enoch the prophet (Oxford: Univ. Press), while an edition of the Ethiopic ms. (Oxford Bodleian no. 4) was not published until 1838 by Laurence, Mashafa Henok Nabiy, Libri Enoch prophetae versio Aethiopica (Oxford: Univ. Press). Previous to this corresponding Enoch materials in Greek had been known through the Chronography of Georgius Syncellus (808-810 C. E.), which had been edited by Joseph Juste Scaliger in 1606 and J. A. Fabricius in 1703 and 1722 (cf. Milik, BE, pp. v-vi); this material and ms. evidence from Greek recensions published near the end of the 19th century (esp. a tachygraph for 89:42-49; Codex Panopolitanus for 1:1-32:6; and the Chester Beatty Papyrus for 97:6-104:13; 106:1-107:3) have been conveniently gathered by Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG, 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 3-44.

6 See n. 2.

3I. Research on the Book o f Giants Fragments from Qumran

83-90; and the so-called Epistle of Enoch - ch.’s 91-107). And yet, Milik’s interpretation of the Enochic fragments made the BG material all the more integral to his edition. Noting the absence at Qumran of fragments belonging to the Similitudes (7 En. 37-71) and, on palaeographical grounds, the incorporation of some fragments of BG within a manuscript containing portions of 7 Enoch (4Q203-204), Milik argued that Simili­tudes was a Christian composition from the late 3rd century C. E. Corre­spondingly, he proposed that BG originally belonged to a Pentateuchal Enoch corpus and, due to its use in Manichaean circles, was eventually replaced by Similitudes in the collection.7 This controvesial hypothesis, which downplayed the significance of Similitudes as an illuminative back­ground for the use of “son of man” in the New Testament, sparked con­siderable debate. As a result, references to the Qumran BG by reviewers of Milik’s study have been frequently absorbed into their critique of his dat­ing of the Similitudes.8

A third, and without doubt the most important, reason for the lack of attention shown to the BG fragments from Qumran is that Milik’s pub­lication of the material was conspicuously incomplete. While he did pro­vide re-readings for some fragments of previously published materials from other caves (1Q23, 2Q26, and 6Q8),9 of the five manuscripts he ascribed to BG he limited a full publication with plates to only one manu­script (4QEnGiantsQ10 while offering a number of readings and restora­tions for three others (4QEnGiants^׳ e).n Admittedly, Milik probably had good reason for not including all the BG fragments. Aside from the simple difficulty of producing too large a volume, the manuscripts 4QEn- Giants^ d>e had all been assigned to Jean Starcky for official publication. Whatever the case, however, as long as the photographic evidence for these

7 So Milik, BE, pp. 4, 54, 57, 76-79, 91-106, 109, 183-84, 227, and 310. See also idem, ,,Littérature hénochique373-78 ״ (bibl. in n. 1).

8 See, e. g., the reviews and articles referring to Qumran BG by E E Bruce, PEQ 109 (1976/77) 134; Devorah Dimant, ״The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch״, VetTest 33 (1983) 16-17; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ״Implications of the New Enoch Literature from Qumran״, ThStud 38 (1977) 338-39; T. W. Franxman, Bib 58 (1977) 434-35; George W. E. Nickelsburg, CBQ 40 (1978) 412; James A. Sanders, JBL 97 (1978) 446; Rudolf Schnackenburg, BibZeit 22 (1978) 133; Michael E. Stone, ”Apocalyptic litera­ture”, in ed. idem, Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period (CRINT, 2; Assen/ Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1984) 397-98; James C. Vanderkam, ״Some Major Issues in the Contemporary Study of 1 Enoch: Reflections on J. T. Milik’s The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments o f Qumrân Cave 4”, Maarav 3 (1982) 93-94.

9 BE, pp. 300-303, 309-310, 334-35; on p. 309, Milik suggests that 1Q24 may also have belonged to BG.

10 Ibid., pp. 310-17, Plates XXX-XXXII (but without phot, for Frgt. 1).11 Ibid., pp. 236-38, 303-308.

Introduction4

fragments was generally inaccessible, most specialists in the field were in no position to venture independent analyses without, to a large degree, having to rely on the information supplied by Milik. It is thus likely that such less than ideal conditions inhibited the assessment of the Qumran BG as an early Jewish document in its own right.12

B. Research Subsequent to Milik

1. 1976-1992

Subsequent to Milik’s edition of the Qumran Enoch materials, BG was recognized as an independent work, and references to vocabulary, texts, and ideas from its fragments were soon included in several publications. Whereas Michael A. Knibb, unlike Milik, made limited use of BG in his 1978 edition of the Ethiopic manuscripts of 1 Enoch^ in 1984 Sieberg Uhlig reserved an appendix for a German translation of BG fragments in his translation and study of the same.14 The first, however, to present both texts and translation of some BG fragments after Milik were JosephA. Fitzmyer and Daniel J. Harrington in their A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (1978).15 In the same year, Michael Sokoloff published a largely philological evaluation of Milik’s edition; here he incorporated some of the BG fragments from Milik’s clearer readings in a glossary, in which he proposed a few lexical and morphological corrections.16

Despite the impediments described in section I. A above, several scho­lars have managed to make significant contributions to the study of the Qumran BG; they are Klaus Beyer, Florentino Garcia Martinez, and John

12 This no doubt accounts, e. g., for the very cursory discussion of Qumran BG among Heb.-Aram. Jewish ״Prophetic-Apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha״ by Geza Vermes in the revised edition of Emil Schürer, The history o f the Jewish people in the age o f Jesus Christ, eds. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-1987) III. 1, pp. 254-5 (hereafter New Schürer). More informative is the brief discussion of BG by Nickelsburg, ״The Bible Rewritten and Expanded”, in ed. Michael E. Stone, Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2/2; Assen/ Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1984) 95-97 (hereafter ״The Bible Rewritten״).

13 So Knibb and Edward Ullendorf, The Ethiopic Book o f Enoch. A New Edition in the Light o f the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978) vol. 2, pp. 10 and 193-95, where 4QEnGiantsa Frgt.’s 9 and 10 are considered for their possible relationship to 7 En. 84:2-4,6.

14 Uhlig, Apokalypsen: Das äthiopische Henochbuch (JSHRZ 5/6; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984) 455-58 (hereafter Henochbuch).

15 Published in Rome by the Pontifical Biblical Institute (hereafter MPAT); see pp. 68-79 (2Q26 and selected portions of 4QEnGiantsö׳ c, 1Q23, and 6Q8), from which׳the more certain vocabulary is included in the glossary.

16 Sokoloff, ”Notes on the Aramaic Fragments of Enoch from Qumran Cave 4”, Maarav 1 (1978-1979) 197-224.

5I. Research on the Book o f Giants Fragments from Qumran

C. Reeves. It is appropriate, then, that the scope, purpose, and contribu­tion of their respective publications are briefly outlined and reviewed.

In his monumental work on Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (1984),17 Beyer presented the BG fragments in his attempt to collect “alle aramäischen Texte, die vom 2. Jh. v. Chr. bis zum 7. Jh. n. Chr. in Palästina abgefaßt wurden und in Niederschriften ihrer Zeit erhalten sind.18״ Therein Beyer not only included BG among his independent read­ings and translation of all these texts,19 but also incorporated his lexico­graphical and morphological analyses of all vocabulary items in a glossary at the end of the work.20 In the case of the Qumran BG fragments Beyer provided stimulus for later discussion in four main ways: (1) In several instances he suggested readings and reconstructions which differed from those of Milik, even for some fragments for which no photographs were available (esp. 4Q530 ii, 1.3-iii, 1.10 and 4Q531 17). (2) In addition to the manuscripts Milik had assigned to BG, Beyer suggested that fragments of 6Q14 (Aram.) and from 1Q19 (Heb.) may have belonged to BG as well.21 (3) Beyer attempted to arrange the fragmentary BG texts into a coherent order which reflects how the work may have been structured (see sectionII. B below). (4) Beyer has interpreted Hebraisms in the language of the texts and 1Q19 as indications that BG was originally composed in Hebrew during the 3rd century B. C. E.,22 while the names of the giants Gilgamesh and Hobabish betray a Babylonian provenance.23

In 1987, BG was treated by Garcia Martinez in his review of Qumran materials published between 1975 and 1985,24 a discussion which in Eng­lish translation he updated as an independent chapter for a collection of essays entitled Qumran and Apocalyptic.25 Here Garcia Martinez provides an overview of critical problems involved in interpreting Qumran BG and

17 Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 (hereafter ATTM).18 ATTM, p. 21.19 For BG, see ibid., pp. 258-68.20 Ibid., pp. 499-763.21 See ibid., pp. 229, 259, and 268. Unlike Milik, who had considered up to 11 mss. for

inclusion in BG, Beyer thus ended up with 13; see this section below.22 Beyer is also of the opinion that the other Enoch writings found at Qumran were

also composed in Hebrew. Thus he maintains that BG is ”das jüngste Stück des heb­räischen Henoch” {ibid., p. 259). Concerning the difficulties of assigning 1Q19 to BG, see Chapter Two, Part Two below.

23 Ibid.24 Garcia Martinez, ”Estudios qumranicos (1975-1985): Panorama critico (I)”, Est-

Bib 45 (1987) 175-92.25 Subtitled Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992)

97-115 (”The Book o f Giants”), hereafter QumApoc.

Introduction6

comments on the contents of each of the more clearly identifiable manu­scripts mentioned by Milik (1Q23, 2Q26, 6Q8, 4QEnGiants^ b> c> d> e, and 4QEnoch^ 2-3).26 After devoting a brief section to the Manichaean sources, he then attempts to arrange some of the Qumran fragments into a sequence which differs from that suggested by Beyer. His comments in these sections demonstrate a methodical consideration of criteria for which a broad outline of events may be derived.27 Finally, he discusses provenance and date, proposing an origin among Essene circles sometime during the middle of the 2nd century B. C. E. after the composition of Daniel.28 Garcia Martinez’ treatment is well balanced and remains throughout aware of problems posed for interpretation by the fragmen­tary nature of the evidence as well as their incomplete publication.

The study by Reeves on Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony (1992)29 consists of an analysis of BG in the later Manichaean sources. As the Qumran BG fragments are illuminative for culling the source-critical and traditio-historical background for Manichaean BG, Reeves devotes his longest chapter to a running text, translation and commentary on the Qumran fragments and relates them to parallels among the Mani­chaean materials.30 He, too, has presented the fragments in an arrange­ment which he thinks at places is preferable to the one proposed by Beyer.

Reeves, as Beyer and Garcia Martinez before him, was of course quite aware of the frustrating incompleteness of the pertinent manuscripts from Qumran. This limitation aside and despite the excellence of his discussion on the Manichaean and related sources, his treatment of the Qumran fragments is somewhat disappointing. While one might be sympathetic with his principled exclusion of less certain Qumran manuscripts from consideration,31 it is not clear why he can ignore these fragments when they could have contributed to his argument.32 Moreover, his alternative suggestions concerning the possible order of events in Qumran BG, which

26 Though Garcia Martinez questions the certainty of 4QEnGiantse and 4QEnoche 2-3 (ibid., p. 105).

21 Ibid., pp. 106-113.28 Ibid., pp. 113-15. On this further, see section IV below and Chapter Two, under

4Q530 col. ii, 11.17-20.29 See full bibl. in n. 3 above.30 Jewish Lore, pp. 51-164.31 Ibid., p. 51.32 Reeves ends up including 4QEnoche 2-3 under ”QG2” after all, while none of the

1Q24 fragments receive further mention. Most conspicuously absent from his discus­sions concerning use of ,,tablet” in BG is 2Q26 (a repeated washing of ,,tablets” in water) which Milik had associated with the Midrash o f Shemhazai and ‘Aza ,el (oblitera­tions of writing on a large stone) and the Man. Mid. Pers. Frgt. j Page 2; see also his discussion of ”tablets” in n.’s 291 and 306 {ibid., pp. 153-54).

7I. Research on the Book o f Giants Fragments from Qumran

seem unaware of Garcia Martinez’ contribution to the problem33 and rely on a questionable reading,34 are problematic at several points.

The inevitable tenuousness of the three works just reviewed rests mainly in the fact that none of them were in a position to refer to the remaining unpublished Qumran materials. Nevertheless, all three make contributions in specific areas which should be taken into account in any further study of Qumran BG.

Between 1976 and 1992, the dependence of scholars on the study of BG by Milik meant that some of his statements about the fragments were subject to conflicting interpretations. This is nowhere more true than the various construals of Milik’s frequently cited comment about the manu­script evidence itself:

U p to the present I have located six copies o f the Book o f Giants among the manu­scripts o f Qumrân: the four manuscripts cited above (1Q23, 6Q8,4QEnGiants^׳ c), a third manuscript from the Starcky collection, and 4QEnGiantsfl published below. There are also five other manuscripts too poorly represented to allow a sufficiently certain identification o f the fragments: Ene 2-3 (above, pp. 236-8), 1Q24 (DJD i, p. 99 and pl. IX), 2Q26 (DJD iii, pp. 90-1 and pl. XVII; see below, pp. 334-5), and two groups o f small fragments entrusted to the Starcky edition.35

What materials did Milik specifically have in view when referring to “a third manuscript from the Starcky collection” and to the “two groups of small fragments entrusted to the Starcky edition”? Since Milik does not clarify his statement any further, others have interpreted them in various ways:

“third manuscript” “two groups” o f mss.

Fitzmyer36 4QEnGiantse(4Q556) 4QEnGiantsi/ (4Q532)4QEnGiantsf (?)

Beyer37 4QEnGiants^ (4Q532) 4QEnGiants^ (?)4QEnGiants£ (?)38

33 That is, Reeves is aware neither of the Spanish version of Garcia Martinez’ essay nor of Adam S. van der Woude’s review of it in ”Fünfzehn Jahre Qumranforschung (1974-1988)”, ThRund 54 (1989) 259-61.

34 See ibid., p. 105. His interpretation of 4Q530 col. iii, 1.7 is bound up with his placement of 4Q530 ii-iii, 4Q531 17, 6Q8 1, and 4Q203 7Bii-8; see section //below .

35 Milik, BE, p. 309.36 The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study (SBLRBS, 20; Atlan­

ta: Scholars Press, 1990) 52-53 (hereafter Tools). Fitzmyer’s construal is followed by Reeves (Jewish Lore, p. 51).

37 ATTM, pp. 259-60.38 Beyer’s nomenclature becomes explicable if he assumes that 4QEnGiants£> has al­

ready been covered by Milik’s reference to ”Ene” (= 4Q206). In any case, Beyer has rightly dropped these designations in his Ergänzungsband to ATTM (Göttingen: Van- denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994) 119-24 (hereafter ATTMEB).

Introduction8

“third manuscript” “two groups” o f mss.

Garcia Martinez39 4QEnGiantsi/ (4Q532) 4Q533 (4QGiantse ar?)4QEnGiants£?40 (4Q556)

Without further and relevant information from someone having direct access to the sources, it was nearly impossible to proceed with sufficient clarity. Only an independent inspection of the photographs and of the designations assigned to the fragments they contain would make it possi­ble to shed light on the manuscripts to which Milik in fact referred.

2. 1991 to the Present

Apparently by the time Reeves’ monograph was submitted to the publish­ers, the publication by Robert Eisenman and James Robinson of many previously unavailable photographs of Cave 4 fragments at the end of 1991 {Facsimile Edition)41 was not accessible to him.42 Similarly, Garcia Martinez’ The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (1994), an English translation of a 1992 Spanish edition, was unable to base the texts on some of the photographs.43 Though the Facsimile Edition was in principle significant

39 See QumApoc, pp. 104-105 and idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qum­ran Texts in English, translated from the 1992 Spanish edition by Wilfred G. E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 505 (hereafter DSST). Garcia Martinez does not specifically refer to Milik’s statements about the ”two groups”; the manuscripts under this column have, therefore, been inferred from his reference to materials of (for him) uncertain identifica­tion on the basis of the above publications.

40 Since in QumApoc Garcia Martinez did not provide a numerical designation for 4QEnGiants<?, does his nomenclature under 4Q533 in D SST suggest that he is identifying the two with each other? If so, this is clearly wrong, as the ms. referred to by Milik as 4QEnGiantse actually corresponds to 4Q556 (designated together with 4Q557 by Garcia Martinez as 4QVisions; DSST\ p. 507). Whether or not 4Q556 was rightly designated 4QEnGiantse by Milik, Garcia Martinez’ descriptions of 4Q533 and 4Q556 largely cor­respond to those in ed. Emanuel Tov with Stephen J. Pfann, The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche. Companion Volume (Leiden: Brill/IDC, 1993) 47-48 (hereafter Microfiche Companion Volume); eds. James H. Charlesworth et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 1: Rule o f the Community and Related Documents (Tubingen/Louisville: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]/Westminster John Knox Press, 1994) 182-83 (hereafter DSS Rule); and Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books, 1995, 4th ed.) li-lii (hereafter DSSE). See further under 4Q556 in Chapter Two.

41 A Facsimile Edition o f the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols.; Washington, D. C.: Biblical Archeology Society). The volumes contain 1785 plates of photographs taken for the Palestinian Archaeological Museum (hereafter PAM) during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s.

42 The same may be said of Reeves’ further contribution, ”Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants?” (1993; bibl. in n. 3) and Ronald V. Huggins, ”Noah and the Giants: A Response to John C. Reeves”, JBL 114 (1995) 103-110.

43 See DSST, p. xx.

9I. Research on the Book o f Giants Fragments from Qumran

in making unpublished materials generally available for study (e. g., for the unpublished BG fragments), it had several shortcomings. For one thing, the volumes did not present an exhaustive collection all PAM photo­graphs. This would be of particular consequence in instances among some of the earlier photographs, when fragments prior to their proper analysis would sometimes appear within a random selection of such pieces. Moreover, the size of many of the photographs is reduced and can sometimes only be read with difficulty. Finally, in cases where the PAM collection contains lighter and darker developments of a negative, the Facsimile Edition most often includes only one. For this reason, it is simply precarious to base readings on these volumes alone.

Matters have, of course, improved immensely with the publications in 1993 of The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile Edition of the Texts from the Judaean Desert edited by Emanuel Tov with the collaboration of Stephen J. Pfann (hereafter DSS on Microfiche).44 At this point, the entire collection of Qumran materials became available for scrutiny by interested scholars. This edition, in addition to photographs from the PAM collections in Oxford (complete) and Princeton (selective), have provided the analytical basis for the present work.

The first to print a text and translation for any of the unpublished BG manuscripts were Eisenman and Michael O. Wise (1992).45 The readings they printed for the six fragmentary pieces of 4Q532 - apparently based on the PAM photographs which appeared in the Facsimile Edition - are, however, quite misleading; their text reflects the assumption that the frag­ments must all belong to the same lines of only one column.46 Essentially, then, the text of this work does not reflect a sufficiently careful analysis.

By far the most important contribution to the study of BG since the photographic editions appeared is contained in Beyer’s Erganzungsband to his ATTM (.ATTMEB).47 Adopting an identical format of presentation

44 Leiden: Brill/IDC. The edition is accompanied by an Inventory List o f Photographs compiled by Stephen A. Reed (hereafter Microfiche Inventory) and the Microfiche Com­panion Volume (mainly a catalogue of photographs and publications corresponding to a comprehensive list of the documents) edited by Tov with Pfann (cf. n. 40 above). As is to be expected of any work which amasses such detail, there are occasional mistakes (e. g. PAM number, document alleged to be in a photograph, etc.) in both of the companion volumes. A second edition has been announced which will attempt to correct some of them.

45 The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Shaftesbury: Element) 94-96, without photo­graph (hereafter DSSU).

46 Except, of course, for Frgt. 1; the Frgt.’s are thought to belong to col. ii of this Frgt. See the discussion under 4Q532, Chapter Two.

47 ATTMEB , pp. 119-124 (bibl. in n. 38 above).

Introduction10

and analysis as in the earlier volume, Beyer offers texts based on the Facsimile Edition and DSS on Microfiche to 4Q532 (4QEnGiantsi/) and the remaining unpublished fragments from 4Q530 and 4Q531. In addition to a few corrections of earlier readings (see 4Q531 17 in “G 6”), Beyer has arranged some of the new materials within the sequence he proposed in ATTM (e. g., 4Q531 1 in “G 1”; 4Q531 4 in “G 10”), while he correctly reassigns 4Q530 6 (only 1.4 of which had previously been published) from his “G 1” to a later part of the BG narrative.48 Beyer’s consideration of BG is not limited to his section on the BG fragments. Under 4Q534- 536.561 (= siglum “E”)49 Beyer proposes that the fragments belonging to 4Q535-536, which he thinks contain an address by Enoch to the fallen angel Baraq’el, may actually belong to BG instead.50

Nevertheless, Beyer’s work falls ultimately short of being comprehen­sive. His apparent aim to include the fragments containing legible vocab­ulary is, for the most part, adhered to; but it remains that in a number of cases the existence of lines are not represented in his texts51 and several fragments have been either overlooked or entirely omitted.52

3. The Purpose of the Present Volume

Since the PAM photographs have only recently become available, as yet no work has appeared in which all of the probable and possible Qumran BG materials have been collected, analyzed, and commented upon. In this study an attempt has been made to fill this void, based on my reading of the photographs in DSS on Microfiche and the incomplete and com­plete collections of the PAM materials at Princeton Theological Seminary and The Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies respectively.

Though this work is intended to go a long way towards an edition of the hitherto unpublished fragments, it should be remembered that it does not constitute an “official” publication of the materials: the PAM photo­graphs are not printed here, and the author himself has not worked di­rectly with the fragments and thus can provide neither a thoroughgoing analysis of the palaeography of the scripts nor a physical description of the

48 On.grounds of the physical evidence, Beyer’s placement of 4Q530 6 in ”G 8” - i. e. the column immediately preceding 4Q530 ii - may be questioned; cf. under 4Q530 6 in Chapter Two.

49 ATTMEB , pp. 125-27.50 This and other such possibilities are discussed in Chapter Two, Part Two.51 E.g. 4Q532 1 (11.1,10); 2 (11.1,2); 3 (11.1,5); 4 (1.5); 5 (11.1,3,5); 4Q531 1 (1.9); 3

(11.1,2,4); 7 (11.1,3); 8 (1.6); 10(11.1,2,4); 13(1.5); 15(1.1); 18(1.4); 20 (1.1); 21 (1.4); 22 (1.1); 23 (1.1); 25 (1.5); 26 (11.1,2,4); 30 (1.2); 47 (1.1); and 48 (1.1).

52 So 4Q531 24 and 31-45; 4Q530 9-15 and 17-19. Cf. also 4Q556 1-5 and 7.

11II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG

fragments. For such information, one yet awaits the full publication of 4Q530, 4Q531, 4Q532, and 4Q556 in future volumes of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series {DJD).

Having reviewed the developments in research on Qumran BG from Milik to the present, I shall bring together in the following three sections (II-IV) some of the results spread throughout the analysis and commen­tary in Chapter Two; this discussion shall address the questions of order­ing the fragments, the character, and the date and provenance of BG.

II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f the Qumran Book o f Giants Fragments

A. The Significance o f the Problem

At a number of points throughout the present study, suggestions are made about the relative sequence of the Qumran BG fragments to one another. The purpose of the discussion here is to provide a synthesis concerning this issue on the basis of Chapter Two. A necessary part of the analysis will, of course, consist of a presentation and evaluation of ways others have attempted to arrange the fragments. It is initially appropriate, how­ever, to consider the significance of such an enterprise.

A quest to discover a sequential relationship among a large number of codicologically isolated fragments may seem to involve an ultimately fruit­less exercise of imagination! Given the very fragmentary evidence stem­ming from some ten manuscripts, each arrangement of the materials is to some degree going to be speculative. Moreover, placing the pieces into a relative sequence can easily be made to reflect an assumption that the various manuscripts preserve different portions of a largely homoge­nous text.

These difficulties notwithstanding, there are several reasons for giving consideration to the sequencing of the Qumran BG fragments. Firstly, the attempt itself is not entirely unfounded: two of the manuscripts (4Q203 and 4Q530) preserve something of an internal sequence which, however meager, provides clear evidence concerning the narrative structure of those parts of BG. In addition, some of the fragments contain apparent refer­ences to other parts of the composition and hence offer some important clues about the document’s structure. At times, sequences contained with­in individual fragments from the Manichaean recensions of BG, insofar as they may be thought to reflect the order of a Semitic Vorlage such as in the Qumran BG, may provide a further basis for an approach. This may be

Introduction12

particularly significant in cases where one Manichaean fragment overlaps with at least two of the Qumran fragments. However, such a basis for reconstructing the Qumran BG must be applied with caution since BG undoubtedly underwent considerable change as it was transmitted among varied socio-cultural and linguistic contexts over hundreds of years. Final­ly, inferences about the general structure of the narrative can be adduced by comparing the fragments with traditions about the Watchers and giants preserved among other early Jewish materials; this is most conspicuously the case with the Book of Watchers and Jubilees. If the Qumran BG pre­supposes a knowledge of the Book of Watchers - as appears to be the case - then this comparative approach cannot be ignored.

A second reason for trying to establish a relative order of the BG frag­ments is that it obliges the interpreter to enquire more rigorously into the essential character of the document. What motifs are borrowed from a common stock of early Jewish tradition, and which themes reflect a dis­tinctive perspective of the writer(s)? As the structure itself can betray the compositional technique of the author(s), so the attempt to reconstruct a narrative sequence - insofar as this is possible - constitutes an important aspect of interpretation.

Thirdly, and following on the second point, the various proposals for assigning a particular sequence to the BG materials bring into focus the major interpretive issues which scholarly analysis has raised. As shall be presently demonstrated in section II. B, the structure attributed to BG corresponds closely to the interpreters’ views concerning the purpose and function of the composition.

After a synoptic presentation of the differing sequences suggested by Beyer, Reeves, and Garcia Martinez, their proposals are each evaluated. In the discussion a method of approach to the problem is delineated and, on that basis, an alternative arrangement of the materials shall be pro­posed.

13II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG

B. Synoptic Comparison o f Three Reconstructions

(For the sake o f clarity, the sigla o f documents and the fragment numbers in the arrangements given below have been aligned with those which have been applied in the analysis in Chapter Two.)

Garcia Martinez54

1 : Summary o f the Book o f Watchers 1Q23 9+14+15 1Q23 1+6+2255 4Q203 1356

Reeves53Beyer

G 1: Giants Dominate the QG 1: Events A fter theWatchers ’ Fall 4Q531 5+1Q23 9+14+15

Earth 4Q531 5+1Q23 9+14+15

(A TTM )4Q531 1 (ATTM EB)

G 2: Lies and Shedding o f QG 2: Earthly Violence 2: Activities o f the GiantsBefore Their Imprison­ment 4Q203 1 4Q203 2 4Q203 3 4Q203 4 4Q203 5 4Q203 657 4Q531 5

Reported to Enoch 4Q206 2 4Q556 6+4Q206 34Q530 6, 1.7 (following

Beyer, A TT M )

QG 3: Petition by Enoch fo r Divine Intervention58 4Q203 9 and 10

QG 4: Dreams o f Hahyah and ’Ohyah59 QG 4A: 4Q530 ii QG 4B: 6Q8 2 (belongs

to Hahyah’s dream)

Blood4Q206 2 (A TTM ) 4Q556 6+4Q206 3 (A TTM ) 4Q530 6, 1.7

(so A TTM ; in A TTM EB under G < = 1 En. 9: 10)

G 3: Second Tablet not ye t R ead 4Q203 7 ii (A TTM )

G 4: Second Tablet o f Enoch (A T T M ) 4Q203 8

53 The headings in Reeves’ sequence are not his own, but are formulated here on the basis of the descriptions he provides for them in his analysis.

54 Garcia Martinez posits for Qumran BG ”three parts at least”, but, through infer­ence, actually distinguishes between the giants’ unhindered activities (section 2) and a time when they are confined to prison (section 3). Thus his ordering of Frgt.’s is divided here into four sections.

55 Contra the placement of these Frgt.’s in Beyer (G 14) and Reeves (QG 10). Garcia Martinez emphasizes a correspondence here to 1 En. 10:19.

56 According to Garcia Martinez this corresponds to the giants’ posture narrated in 1 En. 13:1.

57 4Q203 5-6 are considered by Beyer as isolated Frgt.’s.58 Cf. Beyer (G 14) and Garcia Martinez (4) who are inclined to interpret the Frgt.’s

as a prayer of Enoch at the conclusion of BG. Milik (.BE, pp. 316-17) does not attempt to locate them.

59 Cf. Beyer’s Q 9.

Introduction14

Garcia MartinezReevesBeyer

3: Dreams and Speeches o f the Imprisoned Giants and M ahaway ’s Messages to Enoch 6Q8 1

QG 5: M ahaway’s Journey to Enoch60 4Q530 iii

4Q531 1762

4Q203 7 i- ii65

QG 6: Conflict Between ’Ohyah and M ahaway61 6Q8 1 1Q23 29

QG 7: Second Tablet not yet R ead64 4Q203 7 ii

4Q203 867

4Q530 it״69

QG 8: Second Tablet o f Enoch66 4Q203 8

QG 9: Reaction o f Watch­ers and Giants to the Oracle68 4Q531 17

G 5: Conversation Between ’Ohyah and Mahaway Concerning the Immi­nent Judgment (A T T M )6Q8 1 1Q23 29

G 6: Shemihazah Speaks with ’Ohyah 4Q531 17 {ATTM ,

ATTM EB)

G 7: Discussions Among the Giants (A T T M ) 4Q203 1 4Q203 2 4Q203 3 4Q203 44Q203 7 i, Frgt. a 4Q203 7 i, Frgt. b 4Q203 13 4Q530 col. ii, 1.263

(O’öJto)4Q531 4 (D־vnK)

G 8: A Giant Anticipates Punishment

(A T TM E B )4Q530 6=col. i

G 9: Dreams o f Hahyah and ’Ohyah 4Q530 ii (ATTM , ATTM EB)

60 Cf. Beyer’s G 10.61 Cf. Beyer’s G 5.62 Cf. Reeves’ QG9.63 Beyer was unaware in ATTM that the reading O'5 Baba occurs in col. ii. Thus in

ATTMEB this text is more correctly placed under G 9.64 C f Beyer’s G 3.65 Whereas Beyer (G 3, G 7) and Reeves (QG 7, QG 11) separate the 4Q203 7 Frgt.’s

A from B, Garcia Martinez follows Milik’s reconstruction by reading them together.66 Cf. Beyer’s G 4.67 Cf. Beyer’s G 4.68 Cf. Beyer’s G 6.69 Cf. Reeves’ QG4.

15II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG

Garcia Martinez

4Q530 iii72

2Q2675

6Q8 276

4. Enoch ,s prayer (?) 4Q203 9 and 10

Reeves

QG 10: Loading up the A rk70 1Q23 1+6

[The Deluge; Final Battle Between the Giants and Arch­angels]71

QG 11: Isolated Fragments Whose Precise Position in BG is Impossible to Determine74 4Q203 1 4Q203 2 4Q203 3 4Q203 4

4Q203 7 i, Frgt. a 4Q203 7 i, Frgt. b 4Q203 13 4Q530 co lii, 1.2

Beyer

G 10: M ahaw ay’s Second Journey to Enoch 4Q530 iii (.ATTM ) 4Q531 4 (ATTM EB)

G 11: Dream About the Tree with Three Roots 6Q8 2 (ATTM )

G 12: Dream About a Rinsed Tablet 2Q26 (ATTM )

G 13: Enoch’s Prayer 4Q203 9 and 10

(A TTM )

G 14: Enoch’s Prophecy o f Future Blessing 1Q23 1+6 (A T TM )13,

G 102-626:Isolated Fragments 1Q23 2-4, 7, 10-11, 13,

16-17, 19-22, 24, 2 7 - 28, 30-31 (A TTM )

1Q24 1-8 (A TTM )

70 Cf. Beyer’s G 14, in which the fragments are interpreted as stemming from a pro­phecy concerning future blessing. Garcia Martinez, on the other hand, finds therein a rehearsal of contents from 1 En. 10:19.

71 Reeves posits the existence of this section on the basis of his interpretation of 1Q23 9+14+15 (= his QG 10) and some of the Manichaean fragments.

72 Cf. Reeves’ QG 5.73 Cf. under Reeves QG 10 (a different interpretation of content) and Garcia Marti­

nez 1 (different location and interpretation of content).74 Reeves places here all those fragments which Beyer labels ”Gespräche der Riesen”

(= G 7) in ATTM.75 Garcia Martinez is cautions about suggesting a precise location of 2Q26 relative to

6Q8 2 within his section 3.76 Garcia Martinez maintains that 6Q8 2 is ”apparently related” to 4Q530 ii and

therefore should be located after 4Q203 7 and 8. He does not explain how he conceives of the relationship, that is, whether 6Q8 2 is for him part of the dream vision of Hahyah (4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12) or belongs to an interpretation of it by Enoch (4Q530 col. iii).

Introduction16

Beyer Reeves Garcia Martinez

4Q530 16 (ATTM )4Q531 2-3 , 6-10,

12-16, 18-23, 25-30,46-48 (ATTM EB)

4Q532 1-6 (ATTM EB)4Q203 5-6, 11-12

(A TTM )6Q8 5-6, 8-10, 15, 18,

26 (A TTM )

G 1000:Prediction o f the Deluge 6Q14 (A TTM )

Some comments are presently devoted to each of the sequences presented above. My analysis of the materials (Chapter Two) demonstrates that at some points - sometimes on the basis of the physical evidence, sometimes through inference - all three represent possible ways of sequencing the materials. In several instances, however, the proposals may be questioned. A brief discussion of these cases shall help clarify why it has occasionally seemed necessary to adopt a different sequence below.77

Beyer’s reconstruction makes use of more of the fragments than the other two, even if the supplementary ATTMEB is not taken into consid­eration. As such, his suggested order is primarily based on a series of inferences which attempt to make some logical sense of the material. While many of Beyer’s suggestions remain plausible, in two places - where the physical evidence has not been adequately considered - there is strong reason to reject it: (1) Beyer has assigned 4Q203 7 col. ii to his “G 3” while 4Q203 7 col. i fragment b is placed under “G 7”. Since both columns belong to the same fragment 7, the sequence assigned to them must be the reverse: contra Beyer, 4Q203 7 col. i b is followed by 4Q203 7 col. ii. (2) Beyer has placed the main portion of text in 4Q530 fragment 6 col. i (“G 8”) in the column immediately preceding the one containing the two dreams of Hahyah and ’Ohyah. Despite the fact that this corresponds to the arrangement of the fragments in PAM 42.496, this location is highly improbable. The visible portion of 4Q530 6 col. ii occurs at a point which is irreconcilable with even his own reconstruction of fragments belonging to 4Q530 col. ii. 4Q530 6 cols, i-ii may, therefore, belong to an even earlier part of the manuscript.

77 For a fuller discussion of the problematic sequences listed below see the analysis of the pertinent fragments in the commentary.

17II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG

Reeves’ sequence is problematic in two ways which are closely bound up with the interpretation of the text: (1) He assigns the two dreams of Ha־ hyah and ’Ohyah (4Q530 col. ii) to a relatively early part of the narrative. This is based on his unconvincing attempt to interpret 4Q530 col. iii so that it describes Mahaway’s first (<contra the adverbial “second time” on1.7 of the text), perhaps only, journey to Enoch. (2) On the basis of this interpretation of 4Q530 col. iii, the conflict between Mahaway and ’Ohyah (6Q8 1), the reading of a “second tablet” (4Q203 8), and a description of the angels’ victory over one of the Watchers (4Q531 17) are all postponed to a later part of the narrative. More convincing is perhaps Reeves’ sugges­tion that the prayer fragments, 4Q203 9 and 10, are consistent with a petition whose most plausible context may have been as a response to reports of the giants’ treacherous and destructive activities on the earth (cf. section 3 of the proposed sequence below).

Garcia Martinez orders the fragments into four sections. He is careful to begin with internal sequences in 4Q203 7-8 and 4Q530 cols, ii-iii, and then goes on to make suggestions by inferring from the content of the other fragments how the other fragments might be related. Here he dis­tinguishes between fragments which reflect giants’ activities before and after their imprisonment. Finally, he draws on Fragment c from the Mid­dle Persian Kawan to situate the conflict between ’Ohyah and Mahaway in 6Q8 1 within the same context as the content of 4Q531 17, in which the prominent Watcher Shemihazah tells of his battle against the heavenly angels. Though not explicitly delineated, Garcia Martinez’ arguments per­taining to the order of elements reflect a methodology which rightly com­mence with the physical evidence followed by a consideration of clues within the Qumran fragments, and then - lastly - he considers whether or not the Manichaean fragments can be illuminative. From the latter, we may observe that his use of the Manichaean BG is not made to depend on an additional reconstruction of these later materials, but is limited to in­stances where one of the Middle Persian Kawan fragments contains ele­ments which has parallels with otherwise disparate pieces from Qumran. Thus, as a whole, Garcia Martinez’ reflections concerning sequence are preferable, especially if compared to those of Reeves, whose method of interpreting the elements of the Qumran BG tends to be more eclectic.78

78 That is, Reeves assumes on the basis of the Sundermann Frgt. ”L” (Recto) that Mahaway returns to the giants with two tablets after his consultation with Enoch; see Jewish Lore, p. 107. While this is possible, it is questionable whether Reeves is correct in supposing that Mahaway journeys only once to Enoch; cf. the comment under 4Q530 col. iii, 1.7 in Chapter Two.

Introduction18

Nevertheless, in one main section the order and placement of fragments proposed by Garcia Martinez has not been adopted here. He notes that fragments 1Q23 9+14+15, 1Q23 1+6+22, and 4Q203 13 correspond, in this order, to the general content of 1 Enoch 7:4-5, 10:19, and 13:1 respec­tively. From this he suggests that these fragments may have belonged to a summary of the Book of Watchers located at the beginning of Qumran BG.79 If a new literary context of Book of Watchers traditions may be granted, one is not mistaken in querying the assumption that such tradi­tions merely rehearse a previously known work, that is, that they have not been rearranged within the new literary context.80 Thus it is proper to explore whether the motif of eschatological productivity in 1Q23 1+6+22 - whatever is relationship to 1 Enoch 10 - may have been given a new setting in Qumran BG, just as the content of 1Q23 9+14+15, if compared with that of the fragments 4Q531 1 and 4Q532 2, can be under­stood as a specific part of an elaborate description of the giants’ misdeeds rather than as a mere summary of their activities in the Book of Watchers. Even if 4Q203 13 is best correlated with the punitive sentence pronounced against 4Azazel in 1 Enoch 13:1, no further grounds exist which might lead one to assign the fragment to an introductory overview of the Book of Watchers. The most to be said is that the existence of such a section at the beginning of Qumran BG seems only to be remotely possible.

A methodology of ordering the fragments should, at base, reflect a two­fold awareness that the relationship between the Qumran fragments and the Manichaean Book of Giants, on the one hand, and the relationship among the Qumran materials themselves, on the other, may very well have been more complicated. It cannot, for instance, be taken for granted that even one Manichaean fragment bears a sequence that faithfully reflects that of the Aramaic Book of Giants extant at Qumran; consequently, the possibi­lity has to be entertained that the materials may well have been retold or recomposed in a different form. Not only does one have to reckon with the likelihood that over time parts of the Book of Giants were abbreviated,81

79 It is perhaps interesting that Garcia Martinez does not include 4Q531 5 which also seems to allude to the Book o f Watchers (1 En. 7:1-4 and 9:8-9).

80 This is, e.g. the case with 4Q530 6, 1.4; cf. Mid. Pers. Kawan Frgt. g (Henning, ”The Book of Giants” 62). Before the photographs were accessible, scholars, simply following Milik’s observation that this text cites 1 En. 9:10 (BE, p. 230) assumed that the 4Q530 Frgt. must, therefore, reflect the same context; see esp. Beyer, A TTM , p. 260- 61 (and n. 2) and Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 81. Garcia Martinez himself cautiously avoided drawing any implications about the location of this fragment.

81 See, e. g., Mid. Pers. Kawan Frgt. c, which - if it corresponds to 6Q8 1 and 4Q531 17 - is much shorter.

19II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG

expanded,82 or conflated,83 but also that in places the order of the Vorlage was affected. Furthermore, it ought not to be assumed that each manu­script belonging to Qumran BG must have represented an identical recen­sion.

In an attempt to follow through with the method just described, the following sequences may be considered.84 (1) On the basis of the physical evidence and with Garcia Martinez, it may be established that 4Q203 7B-8 and the fragments from 4Q530 cols, ii-iii belong together; in addition, one may add the smaller groups of fragments 4Q203 2-3 and 1Q23 16-17.85

Of course, the subsequent two approaches are less certain. (2) Compar­ison with the Manichaean fragments suggests that (a) 2Q26 and 6Q8 2, both of which contain dream imagery that does not clearly overlap with those dreams in 4Q530 col. ii, belonged together in that order (Mid. Pers. Kawan Frgt. y); that (b) the pronouncement in 1Q24 8 was followed by a description of eschatological blessing in 1Q23 1+6+22 (Mid. Pers. Kawan Frgt. I); and that (c) the conflict between ,Ohyah and Mahaway in 6Q8 1 (which mentions Baraq’el) is followed by a Watcher’s (Shemihazah’s?) confirmation of Mahaway’s gloomy message in 4Q531 17 (Mid. Pers. Frgt. c).86

(3) At several points, the content of the Qumran BG fragments may make it possible to infer the general shape of the narrative, (a) Following Garcia Martinez, there is good reason - so 4Q203 7B col. i, 1.4 - to distinguish between fragments which recount the giants’ unhindered activities (at least

82 Whereas none of the Qumran materials contain anything which actually narrates a battle between the giants/Watchers against heavenly angelic forces - only 4Q531 4 and 17 seem to allude to this some of the Manichaean fragments preserve this motif: Mid. - Pers. Kawan Frgt. i 95-99 (Henning, ‘T he Book of Giants” 58,62); M 5900 (= no. 22 Recto, in Sundermann, Kosmogonische und Parabeltexte, pp. 77-78); Sogdian T ii (= text “G” in Henning, “The Book of Giants” 68-69); Parthian M 35 (= text “N ” in ibid. 71- 72); and Parthian M 291 (= text “T”, ibid. 73). The absence of such material among the Qumran fragments does not necessarily mean that it did not exist, but it is possible that the relative abundance of it among the Manichaean sources reflects a later interest which took expression in expansions of the tradition.

83 E. g., Qumran BG may have contained up to four of the giants’ dreams (4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12 and 17-20; 2Q26; and 6Q8 2, which is distinct from 4Q530 col. ii, 11.7- 12). On the other hand, the Midrash o f Shemhazai and ‘A za ’e lpreserves only two dreams corresponding to 2Q26 and 6Q8 2 respectively, as seems likewise the case in Mid. Pers. Kawan Frgt.y. It is possible that Sundermann Frgt. “L” (Verso, 11.7-12) contains a conflation and adaptation of the two dreams found in 4Q530 col. ii.

84 For a fuller account of the location of individual Frgt.’s, consult the comments ad hoc in Chapter Two.

85 Not enough, however, is preserved in 1Q23 16 and 17 to indicate anything about their location.

86 Cf. Milik, BE, p. 301.

Introduction20

sections 1 to 4, less certainly 5 and 6S1 below) and those which are sub­sequent to their incarceration (sections 9-10). (b) Second, and more ex­plicit in the fragments, is the importance of the number “two”. 4Q203 7B col. ii mentions and 4Q203 8 contains “a copy of the second tablet”, which implies that there has been a “first”. If the Manichaean Middle Persian Fragment “L” (Recto, 11.2-10) provides any indication, Mahaway brings both tablets to the giants and Watchers after his encounter with Enoch. From 4Q203 7B col. ii we learn that these messages were not read succes­sively and, therefore, probably belonged to distinct parts of the narrative (sections (5, 10). Furthermore, 4Q530 col. iii, 1.7 suggests that Mahaway’s journey recounted there is his “second” to Enoch. This implies a previous such encounter. If, as in this case, the consultation with Enoch was pre­cipitated by the giants’ troubling dreams, the first visit may be assigned just subsequent to the other dream traditions (cf. sections 5-6 and 13). Finally, the dreams of the “two” giant brothers, ’Ohyah and Hahyah, func­tion pivotally as a medium through which the message of divine judgment is conveyed (cf. 4Q530 col. ii, 1.3, section 12). Given the repeated use of the number two, it is likely that it reflects a way in which the Qumran BG was structured, (c) Third, given the framework provided by the considera­tions outlined above, further inferences are suggested for a number of isolated fragments. Reasons for assigning these fragments to a particular context of BG may be found in the comments which accompany the texts and translations in Chapter Two.

C. Proposed Sequence o f the Qumran Book o f Giants Fragments

Sigla: The following list o f abbreviations (placed after each fragment) is adopted in the ordering o f fragments below. As a whole, the list has a two-fold function: (1) it denotes the kind o f reasoning used to place a given fragment and (2) where applic­able, it indicates when this placement diverges from the other proposed sequences (provided above). For a fuller argument with respect to possible locations o f frag­ments with BG, the reader is refered to the relevant discussions in the text and commentary.

MS: The sequence between this and another fragment is based on their physicalrelationship within one Qumran manuscript.

MBG: The order is based on sequences within one o f the Manichaean BG frag­ments.

87 Garcia Martinez (QumApoc, p. I l l ) argues, in view of the parallel between 6Q8 1 and Mid. Pers. Kawan Frgt. c - both contain the conversation between ,Ohyah and Mahaway - that the former presupposes the giants’ and some of the Watchers’ impri­sonment because the latter text speaks of “Shemihazah’s intervention”. The relation, however, of Shemihazah’s confirmation of Mahaway’s message (cf. 4Q531 17) to a sup­posed imprisonment o f giants is not immediately apparent.

* The placement o f the fragment within this part o f the Qumran BG is basedon inferences discussed in the commentary.

? The inferred sequence or placement is very uncertain; the fragment mayvery well belong within another context o f BG.

[] Such brackets are placed around section headings and sub-headings forwhich there is no direct textual evidence, but whose existence in the Qum­ran Book o f Giants may be postulated on the basis o f the extant materials (which are cited).

X ,X X ,X X X ,X X X X : The sequence differs from that o f Beyer, Reeves, Garcia Mar­tinez, and Milik respectively.

1. Narrative Account of the Fall of the Watchers, Birth of the Giants, and the Giants' Misdemeanors on the Earth

(a) General Introduction Recounting the Fall of the Watchers and the Birth of the Giants4Q531 5-(*, XXXX)4Q206 3 + 4Q556 6-(*,X,XX,XXX,XXXX88)

(b) Elaborate Account of the Giants’ Misdemeanors 4Q531 1-(*,X89)1Q23 9+14+15-(*,X,XX,XXX)4Q532 2-(*)

2. Report of These Events to Enoch

4Q206 2-(*,X,XX,XXX,XXXX90); cf. 4Q531 45?

3. Enoch's Petitionary Prayer

4Q532 5-(?)4Q203 9-(*,X,XXX)4Q203 10-(*,X,XXX)4Q531 12-(?)4Q53121-(*)

4. Conversations Among the Giants Concerning Their Deeds

4Q203 1-(*)4Q203 2-(*,MS)

II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG 21

88 Beyer, Reeves, Garcia Martinez, and Milik all place 4Q206 3 after 4Q206 2 (see sections 1 and 2 below).

89 Beyer places 4Q531 1 before 4Q531 5.90 See n. 88 to 4Q206 3 above (under section 1).

Introduction22

4Q203 3-(*,MS)4Q203 5-(*)

5. First Pair of Dream-Visions91

2Q26 (Washing of Tablets-Dream of ,Ohyah?)-(?,MBG92)6Q8 2 (Three Shoots-Dream of Gilgamesh?)-(?,MBG,X,XX)

6. [Mahaway’s First Encounter With Enoch]; [Mahaway Returns with Two Tablets]; [The First Tablet from Enoch to the Watchers and Giants Is Read\ ; ,Ohyah Is Incredulous about the Message from Mahaway

(a) [Mahaway, with Baraq’el, Encounters Enoch the First Time.] 4Q532 2,4-(?)Cf. 4Q531 9-(?)4Q531 4-(?)Cf. 6Q8 1, 1.4. Cf. 4Q530 col. iii, 1.7־reference to Mahaway’s en­

counter with Enoch “for a second time״ .

(b) [Mahaway Returns from Enoch with Two Tablets.]-(MBG)Cf. Manichaean Fragment “L״ Recto, 11. 6-8; 4Q203 6Bii, 1.2.

4Q531 9-(?־Mahaway Reports to the Giants about the En­counter)

(c) [The First Tablet from Enoch to the Giants Is Read by Mah-away.]-(MBG)

Cf. Manichaean Fragment “L״Recto, 11. 9-11. Cf. also 4Q531 22?

(d) Initial Resistance to the Message6Q8 1 (Conflict Between ,Ohyah and Mahaway)-(MBG,*)

7. A Watcher Tells of His Powerlessness Against God's Angelic Forces; ,Ohyah and Gilgamesh Express Conflicting Interpretations of Their Dreams

4Q531 17, 11. 3-7 (A Watcher Speaks of His Own Powerlessness)- (MS,MBG,*)

4Q531 17, 11. 8-10 (,Ohyah’s Depression Because of His Dream)- (MS,*)

91 The siglum ? after 2Q26 and 6Q8 2 indicates the lack of certainty concerning a location of these dreams within BG as a whole.

92 The sequence of 2Q26 before 6Q8 2 follows the order of the similar pair of dreams in the Midrash o f Shemhazai and ‘A za’el and the Middle Persian Kawan Frgt.y.

4Q531 17, 11. 11-12 (Gilgamesh Begins to Tell of His Dream; 4Q530 col. ii, 11. 1-3 may suggest that Gilgamesh Is More Optimistic than ’Ohyah.)-(MS,*)

8. [Initial Punishment of ‘Azazel\\ Giants Anticipate Their Judgment

4Q203 13 (Address to ‘Azazel?)-(?)4Q203 7A i (Punishment of ‘Azazel; Giants’ Judgment Anticipated)-(*) 4Q530 6 (A Giant Contemplates His Judgment)-(*)4Q531 18 (A Giant Contemplates His Judgment)-(*)4Q531 13 (Giants Contemplate Their Judgment)-(*)4Q531 14 (Giants Contemplate Their Judgment)-(*)

9. Initial Punishment of Giants

4Q203 7B i (Giants Acknowledge Their Defeat)-(MS,*)

10. The Second Tablet

4Q203 7B ii, 11. 2-3 (“The second tablet until now has not been read. ”-(MS,*)

4Q203 8 (A “Copy of the Second Tablet” to “Shemihazah and all His Co[mpanions”)-(MS,*)

11. Gilgamesh Remains Hopeful

4Q530 col. i, 11. 1-6 (Hopeful Words to Gilgamesh? or Gilgamesh’s?Optimistic Interpretation of a Divine Message)-(MS,*)

4Q530 col. ii, 11. 1-3 (Gilgamesh’s Report Gives Giants Reason to Hope.)-(MS,*)

12.Second Pair of Dream-Visions

4Q530 col. ii, 11. 3-6 (Dreams Introduced)-(MS,*)4Q530 col. ii, 11. 7-12 (Hahyah’s Dream)-(MS,*)4Q530 col. ii, 11. 13-16 (Giants’ Response to Hahyah’s Dream)-

(MS,*)4Q530 col. ii, 11. 16-20 (’Ohyah’s Dream)-(MS,*)4Q530 col. ii, 1.20-col. iii, 1.3 (Giants Decision to Send Mahaway to

Enoch)-(MS,*)

II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG 23

Introduction24

13.Mahaway's Second Encounter With Enoch; Enoch's Interpretation of the Dreams

4Q530 col. iii, 11. 4-11 (the Encounter)-(MS,*)[4Q530 col. iii, 11. 12ff.] (Announcement of the Deluge)4Q531 4 (The Certainty of Punishment is Underlined by Previous De­

struction of Watchers and Giants. This fragment could also belong under 6 b above.)-(?)

1Q24 8 (A Final Pronouncement Addressed to the Watchers and Giants)-(MBG)

14. An Announcement (by Enoch?) of Post-Diluvian Bliss

1Q23 l+6+22-(MBG,*,XXX)

III The Character o f the Qumran Book o f Giants

A. Its Relation to the Book o f Watchers

Several of the fragments preserve literary details otherwise only known through the Book of Watchers.93 These are:

1Q23 9+14+15 Cf. 1 Enoch 7:4-5 (giants’ violent activities)4Q531 5 Cf. order o f motifs in 1 Enoch 9:8-9; 7:4-5 (giants’

violent activities)4Q530 6, 1.4 1 Enoch 9:10 (cf. Cod. Pan.; complaint against the

giants)1Q23 1+6+22 Cf. 1 Enoch 10:19 (eschatological fruitfulness)1Q24 8 1 Enoch 12:5 (cf. Cod. Pan.?; announcement that

Watchers will not have peace)4Q203 13 1 Enoch 13:1 ? (announcement that 'Azaz’el will not

have peace)

If compared with the Book of Watchers 6-16, these and other fragments - see also 4Q531 1; 14; and 4Q532 2 - are more elaborate, especially where the unhindered atrocities of the giants are concerned. Moreover, the tradi­tion shared by 4Q530 6, 1.4 and 1 Enoch 9:10, in which the human victims of the earth and said to be 44complaining and crying out against their murderers”, is placed is very different contexts. In 4Q530 6 a giant appar­

93 Further motifs and traditions shared by BG with the other 2nd cent. B. C. E. writ­ings such as the Enoch literature (1 En.), the Damascus Document, and Jubilees can also be found in the Book o f Watchers; see 4Q203 9 and 10; 4Q530; and 4Q531 5. The book of Daniel (cf. 7:9-10) may constitute an exception, though the case for literary dependence is more difficult to support; see the comment to 4Q530 col. ii, 11.17-20 and under section IV. B below.

25III. The Character o f the Qumran Book o f Giants

ently links his own fate with these petitions,94 whereas in 1 Enoch 9 four primary angels recount the petitions as they intercede to God in response to the Watchers’ and giants’ violent deeds. If the tradition did not ulti­mately originate from some unknown work upon which both the Qumran BG and the Book of Watchers drew, it seems more likely that BG has adapted the tradition from the context of 1 Enoch 9 rather than the other way around. The impression resulting from these observations is that the Qumran BG drew upon the Book of Watchers as one of its main sources.

Milik’s view that the author(s) of BG depended on the Book of Watch­ers fits well with his thesis that by the end of the 1st century B. C. E. the Qumran BG formed part of an Enochic pentateuch.95 Of course, his stron­gest argument - though not entirely certain - in favor of BG’s inclusion into such a corpus is codicological, that is, the identical scribal hand in 4QEnochc (4Q204) and 4QEnGiantsa (4Q203). If correct, however, is Milik right when he assumes that Qumran BG, as the other writings of 1 Enoch, is actually a pseudepigraphon “attributed to Enoch”?96 This issue raises the related question concerning the distinctive features which char­acterize Qumran BG.

B. Distinguishing Characteristics o f Qumran BG

The various attempts to ascertain some coherent ordering of fragments (see section 77), however problematic, do reveal an independent work which is comprised by its own emphases. These may be conveniently dis­cussed when the function of Enoch and the author’s (or authors’) interest in the giants are considered. Since BG seems to have depended on the Book of Watchers, its character may be at least partly delineated on the basis of a comparison with it.

First, the role of Enoch in BG differs from that which is found in the other Enochic writings. To be sure, Enoch figures prominently in BG, but - contra Milik - it is nowhere clear from the extant fragments that BG is regarded as a story recorded by Enoch.97 The importance of the ante­diluvian patriarch in the story is without doubt the reason why BG may have been included within a copy of other Enochic works, but that it

94 See Mid. Pers. Kawan, Frgt. g, 11.84-89 (esp. 1.89), which Henning assumes derives from a “series of visions” given to Enoch (“The Book of Giants” 58 and 62). From 11.84-85, however, it is also possible to infer that the 1st pers. narrator is Nariman (= Hahyah).

95 See section 7 A above.96 Milik, BE, p. 57.97 On this problem, see the introductory comments on 4Q206 (Chapter Two) below,

where the interpretation and placement of Frgt. 2 of the ms. by Milik is discussed and rejected.

Introduction26

reflects precisely the same genre cannot be assumed. The possibility that BG is not a pseudepigraphon in the same sense as the Book of Watchers and other parts of 1 Enoch may be supported by the following formal observations:98 (a) Nowhere among the extant Qumran BG fragments is Enoch ever portrayed as a 1st person narrator.99 The fragments 4Q203 9 and 10 (esp. 9, 1.1) may be an exception; but there - if the assumption that Enoch is the one praying is correct - the address to God as “my Lord” is part of the prayer which in turn may be contextualized by a narrative about him in the 3rd person. Conversely, though perhaps an argument from silence, (b) among the clear instances Enoch is only referred to in the 3rd person (4Q203 8, 11.3-4; 4Q206 2; 4Q530 col. ii, 1.21-col. iii, 1.7; 4Q531 45). Finally, (c) though Enoch does play a key role as interpreter of the revelation of divine judgment (e. g., 4Q530 cols, ii-iii), the preserved materials do not portray him as a recipient of any of the visions or dreams themselves. This contrasts with his function as visionary proper in 1 En­och; see further below.

Second, in both degree and kind, Qumran BG casts the spotlight on the progeny of the fallen Watchers more than any other Jewish writings com­posed during the Second Temple period.100 This is not to play down what the Book of Watchers and Qumran BG have in common. To be sure, the Book of Watchers (so ch.’s 6-16 as a whole) does betray an interest in the

98 For this view see also Dimant, “The Biography and the Books of Enoch” 16 n. 8. Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 55, rightly characterizes Milik’s position that BG was represented as composed or compiled by Enoch as an “unquestioned assumption”.

99 This seems largely true of the Manichaean BG fragments as well, though here the material is less transparent. Henning, e.g., argued that Mid. Pers. Kawan Frgt. g, in which a figure speaks in the 1st pers. sg. about his visions of victimized humans com­plaining against their oppressors and of perpetrators of evil being punished, constitute visions given to Enoch (11.86ff; see idem, “The Book of Giants” 58 and 62). The figure in question, however, may very well be the giant Nariman (= Hahyah) instead (1.84).

The narrative style of BG may ultimately reflect that of the Book o f Watchers 6-11, in which the story is concerned with an elaboration of Gen. 6:1^1: the Watchers’ fall, their activities, and the destruction pronounced on them (through primary angels). In these chapters, a link is not forged between Gen. 6 and the Enoch tradition of 5:18,22-24 and, therefore, the figure of Enoch does not occur. If anything, given the location of Gen. 6:1-4 at the beginning of the flood account, the Watcher myth is more naturally related to Noahic traditions; cf. 1 En. 10:1-3, in which the deliverance of Noah and his descendants is contrasted with the obliteration promised for the Watchers (esp. 'Azaz’el, vv. 4-6,8); see Dimant, “1 Enoch 6-11: A Methodological Perspective”, in SBL Seminar Papers 13 (1978) esp. pp. 326-30. The location of this mythical tradition in 1 En. 6-11 within an Enochic context presupposes, of course, a juxposition of the biblical traditions from Gen. 5 and 6. The integration of flood and Enochic traditions reaches a more advanced stage in Jub. 4:24.

100 The Book o f Watchers 6-16, by contrast, focusses more on the Watchers’ deeds and resulting plight, which the mention of their offspring underscores; see esp. 1 En. 10:7,10; 12:4-6; 14:6-7; and 15:3-5.

27III. The Character o f the Qumran Book o f Giants

giants’ ante-diluvian activities (7 En. 7:2-5; 9:9), speculates about their post-diluvian existence (15:8-12; 16:1), and anticipates their destruction by means of divine judgment (10:9-15). Likewise, the Qumran BG frag­ments contain accounts of and allusions to the Watchers’ fall from heaven (4Q531 5), underline their powerlessness in the face of God’s angels (4Q531 17), and announce their punishment (4Q203 7A and 8). Without the expansive traditions from the Book of Watchers (based on the biblical narrative in Gen. 6:1^1), the mythical context of the BG fragments would not be comprehensible. But, whereas 1 Enoch 12-16 are composed of Enoch’s announcements of punishment to the Watchers, BG tells how the giants come to learn about their doom.

It remains, however, that this dependence should not be allowed to detract from the presence of several details unparalleled in other early Jewish literature. Most conspicuous is the fact that in BG the giants are given names (e. g. ’Ohyah, Hahyah, Mahaway, Gilgamesh, Hobabish). In turn, these characters seem to have been assigned specific roles in the story: for instance, Mahaway acts as an mediary who is sent to Enoch by the giants and who returns with Enoch’s interpretations of their dreams (4Q530 cols, ii-iii; 6Q8 1?); ’Ohyah and Hahyah are the primary recipients of the dream visions (4Q530 col. ii); and it is possible that the figure of Gilgamesh represents one whose interpretation of his(?) dream(s) is decep­tively optimistic (see under 4Q531 17, 1.12; 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3). In this connection, it is significant to note that in Qumran BG it is the giants who learn about their fate, and this through dream visions given to them (see 4Q530 col. ii; 2Q26; 6Q8 2; 4Q531 17, 11.11-12).101

Third, the emphasis on giants’ dreams among the Qumran BG frag­ments is consistent with the function of Enoch. Less a visionary,102 Enoch acquires in the narrative the role of a dream interpreter par excellence (i. e. for the visions of others; see comments below under 4Q530 col. ii,11.14,21-22; 4Q203 8, 11.4,13). Whereas he announces doom to the Watchers directly in Book of Watchers (12:1-13:10; 14:3-7; 15:1-16:3; cf. Jub. 4:22) and intercedes to God on their behalf (13:1-10), in BG his re­lationship with the giants seems to be more detached. Barring an occur­rence within the lost part of the work, Enoch does not communicate with them all at once. Contrary to the Book of Watchers, not Enoch, but the giant Mahaway, makes mediating journeys103 to Enoch near the ends of

101 For either the Watchers or giants to have dreams about their fate is singular in extant early Jewish literature.

102 Contra 1 En. 12:4; 14:8; 15:1.103 Contra 1 En. 12:4; 13:1,3,7; 15:2.

Introduction28

the earth (4Q530 col. iii; cf. 6Q8 l 104). The chain for the mediation of a divine message is thus more complex: God-Enoch-Mahaway-Watchers (4Q203 8)/giants (4Q530 col. iii).105

By way of summary, BG retains elements from 1 Enoch 6-11 (the fallen angels myth) and 12-16 (Enoch’s communication with the fallen angels) and, in so doing, has integrated these themes while placing the focus on how the sons of the Watchers learn that they will be punished. If it can be said that 1 Enoch 6-11 constitutes a kind of “expository narrative” of the myth in Genesis 6:1-4,106 BG presupposes such an exegetical expansion and shifts the spotlight. This adjustment occurs not only laterally, but also with respect to intensity. The story of the giants’ exploits, dreams, and plight seems to have been more detailed than the accounts concerning the Watchers or giants in either the Book of Watchers or Jubilees.

IV. D ate

The date of the original composition of BG cannot be established with certainty. For Milik, this question was made contingent on his claims based on codicology and palaeography, on the one hand, and on his dat­ing of other writings, on the other. With respect to the physical evidence, Milik suggests a terminus ante quem for the earliest manuscript, 4QEn- Giants^7 (4Q530), which he assigns to “the first half of the first centuryB. C.”.107 In addition, he argues that the early Herodian script of 4QEn- Giants^ (4Q203), which he believes formed part of the scroll 4Q204 (4QEn- oclF), suggests a date for that manuscript sometime during the last third of the 1st century B. C. E. Mainly due to archaizing orthographic features in 4QEnochc, Milik finds justification for asserting that it was copied from “an old manuscript, doubtless belonging to the last quarter of the second

104 This Frgt., if alluding to an encounter with Enoch, implies that Mahaway was accompanied by his father Baraq’el.

105 In addition, Paul D. Hanson, “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6-11”, JBL 96 (1977) 200, has noted a “deanthropomorphizing tendency” in 1 En. 9 :l’s adaptation of Gen. 6:12 in which “God saw that the earth was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth” (NRSV); instead, in 1 En. 9:1 divine cognizance of the proflagation of evils on the earth is mediated by primary angels. If the 4Q203 2-3 texts stem from BG, it is significant that the figure of Enoch is placed among those to whom the violence of the ante-diluvian giants is made known.

106 See Hanson, “Rebellion in Heaven” 195-233 (bibl. in previous n.).107 BE, p. 57. Milik refers here to the charts of Frank M. Cross, “The Development of

Jewish Scripts”, in ed. G. Ernest Wright, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1961) 149, fig. 4 1.3.

29IV The Date o f the Qumran Book o f Giants

century B.C. (date of lQIsa and IQS)”.108 For a terminus ab quo Milik looks to the account of Enoch’s works in Jubilees 4:17-24 in which BG is not included. Thus, in dating Jubilees to 128-125 B. C. E., Milik proposes that BG was composed later. Milik then attempts to narrow the gap and appeals to a phrase in the Damascus Document col. ii, 1.18 (“and whose bodies were as mountains” - הם וכהרים ... אשר תי גויו ) which he thinks may well betray a dependence on “a work devoted more particulary to the descendants of the Watchers”, that is, on BG. By further assigning to the Damascus Document a composition date of 110-100 B. C. E., Milik arrives at the conclusion that BG must have been written sometime between 128 at the earliest (Jub.) and 100 B. C. E. at the latest (Dam. Doc.).109

Milik’s argument for dating BG is beset with difficulties. There is, of course, the question of the degree to which the manuscripts can be dated accurately by means of palaeographical analysis. However, apart from the way he dates the Damascus Document, palaeography is not the most deci- sive part of his reasoning. More important is his emphasis on the silence concerning the existence of BG in Jubilees. Three problems with Milik’s use of Jubilees for dating BG can be identified: (1) Milik’s assumption that BG, in a strict sense, is an Enoch pseudepigraphon (see section III.B above); (2) the related assumption that Jubilees would have alluded to BG were it already composed110; and (3) the dating of Jubilees itself. Re- garding the last point, Milik appeals to Jubilees 34:2-9 and 38:1-14, wherein he finds historical allusions to the military activities after the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes in 129 B. C. E. led by John Hycanus I in the Transjordan, Idumaea, and Samaria.111 This interpretation has, for good reasons, been contested. For one thing, this later date would require one to suppose that the author of Jubilees is casting the Hasmonaean Hyrcanus in a positive light. Even more problematic are the supposed allusions to Hyrcanus. On the contrary, James Vanderkam, after a detailed

108 Ibid., pp. 178 and 310.109 Ibid., p. 58. On his own dating for CD to 110-100 B. C. E. see further Milik, Ten

Years o f Discovery in the Wilderness o f Judaea, trans. John Strugnell (London: SCM, 1959) 38 and 58 (4QD^, the oldest ms. was copied in 75-50 B. C. E.).

110 It is in fact possible that Jub. presupposes a knowledge of BG tradition in 5:7-9, in which the infighting among the giants because of God’s “sword” is described; cf. 4Q531 4, 11.4-5. But this does not have to be an allusion to BG itself. This does not therefore bring us closer to addressing the question of when BG was originally written.

111 BE, p. 58 n. 1. Finding in Jub. 30:1-4 an allusion to the destruction of Samaria by Hyrcanus in 109 B. C. E., R. H. Charles pushed for an even later date of composition (the final years of Hyrcanus’ reign); see his Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha o f the Old Testament (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 2.6. It is far from clear that 30:1^1, which abbreviates the biblical narrative (Gen. 33:18-34:31) considerably, should be thought to contain a specific reference to any event.

Introduction30

study of the place-names in Jubilees 34:4 and of the historical allusions throughout the work, cannot identify any event after 161 B. C. E.; the accounts in 34:2-9 and 38:1-17 were influenced by the Maccabean vie- tories during that year over Nicanor at Bethhoron and over the Edomites (so 1 Macc. 7:39-50 and 5:3,65).112

As for the Damascus Document (CD col. ii, 11.18-19) - the difficulty of dating this work aside - , there is little therein which suggests that the passage actually alludes to or cites BG. While the passage clearly refers to the Watchers ( רי השמים עי ) and their sons (הם בני ), the description of the latter recalls the description of the Amorites in Amos 2:9 (“his height like the height of cedars”; cf. 1.19-“whose height was as the height of cedars”). Garcia Martinez has argued that the second parallel phrase (“whose bodies were as mountains”), which Milik derives from BG, is sufficiently explicable as a “poetic extension” of the first.113 Even if, how- ever, one grants that the Damascus Document is citing a recent tradition concerning the giants, we may ask why this tradition should necessarily be BG (cf. 1 En. 7:2) or why such a tradition should necessarily be a literary one. Milik’s proposal that BG was composed between the respective pro- ductions of Jubilees and the Damascus Document rests on a series of ques- tionable hypotheses which are extrinsic to any of the data within the Qum- ran BG fragments themselves.

Beyer’s dating of BG to the latter part of the 3rd century B. C. E. offers an alternative to Milik’s view. His date involves the debatable hypothesis that (1) BG was originally composed in Hebrew and the related assump- tion that (2) BG would already have been copied alongside other Enoch literature as “das jüngste Stück des hebräischen Henochs” in the 3rd cen- tury B.C. E.114. Nevertheless, the advantage of Beyer’s proposal is the literary dependence of BG on the Book of Watchers which it implies (see section III.B). If composition of the latter occurred sometime during the

112 Vanderkam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book o f Jubilees (HSM, 14; Missoula, Mont.: 1977) 220-29 and 283. See further O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees”, in ed. James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985) 2.44 (hereafter the volumes are cited as OTP); Vermes, New Schiirer, III. 1, p. 313; and John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1987) 67 and 228 n. 105. The attempt by Reeves to push the date of Jub. back to sometime between 225 and 175 B. C. E. (Jewish Lore, p. 54) is based on the tenuous supposition that “a significant amount of time had to have elapsed before a relatively new work amassed the respect implied by its reproduction and pro­mulgation” (i. e., 100 years!).

113 Garcia Martinez, Qum Apoc, p. 115. This phrase thus substitutes the complemen­tary parallel phrase of Amos 2:9: “and as strong as the oaks”.

114 ATTM, p. 259.

31V Provenance and Purpose

3rd century B. C. E.,115 then here we might have a reasonable terminus ab quo.

Regarding the earliest possible date of composition, Garcia Martinez suggested a way forward by calling attention to the significance of the relationship between 4Q530 col. ii, 11.17-19 and the text of Daniel 7:9- 10.116 At that time, the pertinent BG material was, of course, still unavail­able. Garcia Martinez reasoned that if Milik’s claim of literary depen­dence on the Danielic text were to be substantiated, then the composition of BG may be assigned to an “upper limit by the middle of the 2nd cen­tury B .C .”.117 On the basis of my comparison of 4Q530 col. ii, 16-20 (’Ohyah’s dream) with Daniel 7 (see Chapter Two), it is difficult to main­tain a literary dependence of the former on the latter without accounting for some important differences. On the contrary, it appears that BG actu­ally preserves a theophanic tradition in a form which lacks traditio-histor- ical developments that one finds in Daniel 7.118 While this conclusion does not necessarily mean that BG must have been composed before the pas­sage in Daniel, the comparison of the texts strengthens the possibility that BG may have been written sometime between the Book of Watchers and Daniel,119 that is, sometime between the late 3rd century and 164B. C. E.120

V Provenance and Purpose

In the absence of more materials from BG, the possible provenance of BG constitutes an even more elusive problem. Beyer’s postulate of a Babylo­nian origin is possible, but seems for him to be based on the mere occur­rence of Gilgamesh and Hobabish as names for two of the giants.121 Since

115 On the dating of the oldest ms. of Book o f Watchers, 4QEnocha, see Milik, BE, pp. 140-41.

116 QumApoc, p. 115. Garcia Martinez’ lower limit (“end o f the 2nd century B. C.” seems to be based on Milik’s claim that 4QEnochc goes back to a ms. containing late 2nd cent. B. C. E. collection of Enochic writings.

117 Ibid.118 See the comment to 4Q530 col. ii, 16-20 in Chapter Two below.119 From this an inference that Daniel somehow depends on BG does not necessarily

follow; BG may preserve the theophanic tradition in a form which, from an independent source, was adapted in Daniel 7.

120 Within this period, I am inclined to assign BG to the years before the Maccabean crisis, as the extant Qumran Frgt.’s do not contain any such (or any other) historical allusions. In this respect, the Frgt.’s are simply too scanty to put forward any convincing possibilities.

121 ATTM, p. 259.

Introduction32

these names may merely represent the use of Babylonian traditions, it is no less likely that BG was written somewhere else in the eastern Jewish dia­spora or in Palestine.

BG’s specific interests in providing an abundance of names for fallen Watchers and giants and in having Enoch function as an interpreter of dreams for figures associated with evil might seem to be compatible with an origin within an Essene milieu. In his lengthy description of the Essene αϊρεσις (Bell Jud. 2.142), Josephus attributes to its members a careful preservation of “their books and the names of the angels” (συντηρήσειν ομοίως τά ... αυτών βιβλία καί τα των αγγέλων ονόματα). In the same context and elsewhere Josephus refers to the ability of some Essenes to foretell the future (Bell Jud. 2.159; Ant. 17.373). In another place he writes about a certain Simon, an Essene, who in interpreting a dream of Herod’s son Archelaus announced the end of his rule (Ant. 17.346).

But nothing in these statements of Josephus is specific enough to single out an Essene provenance for BG.122 The immediate context of Josephus’ mention of the Essenes’ interest in angels’ names suggests that he has good, not bad, beings in view; in any case, there is no reference to either the Watchers or the giants.123 Moreover, the traditional motif of a wise man who interprets the dreams or visions of evil figures (thus announcing their punishment) is also consistent with the stories in Daniel 2 and 5, that is, with a non-Essene writing. If the date sometime during the early 2nd century B. C. E. suggested above is accepted, then the origin of BG would likely have to be sought outside of the Essene movement, and certainly not at Qumran. Whether the author(s) is/are to be characterized as “proto־” or simply “pre-Essene” remains unclear,124 nor is it apparent that the cir­cles in which BG arose necessarily lived in Palestine.

It is perhaps possible to make some headway if the question of prove­nance centers on the cultural milieu of BG. In turn, the matter of context may shed light on the purpose of BG. Fortunately for us, two sources going

122 Hartmut Stegemann’s recent attempt to correlate Josephus (Bell. Jud. 2.142) with the interest in giants’ names in BG is unconvincing, as there is no indication that the term άγγελοι with the article, in parallel with the group’s writings, is to be interpreted in relation to bad angels. This is not to mention the difficulty in finding therein a specific reference to the giants; see Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus (Freiburg in Breisgau: Herder, 1993) 136.

123 Cf. Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, p. 114.124 One should not be too quick to draw a direct line of continuity from the authors

of the Enochic and Daniel literature to the Essenes or, more specifically, to the commun­ity at Qumran, as has Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, trans. John Bowden (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 1.175-210; cf. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagi­nation, pp. 62, 90, and 116 (cf. also bibl. on p. 227 n. 86), who has cautioned against the assumption of a genetic relationship among the groups.

33V Provenance and Purpose

back at least to the mid-second century B. C. E. presuppose a particular interest in “giants” around the time of the flood and their role in the spread of culture. These are preserved by Eusebius of Ceasarea, in his Praeparatio Evangelica 9.17.1-9 and 9.18.2, who cites the pagan historiographer Alex­ander Polyhistor (ca. 112-30 B. C. E.) who, in turn, cites these sources mentioning the γίγαντες. In them the giants are related to the biblical tradi­tions concerning the great flood (9.18.2) and the building of a tower (so in 9.17.2; 9.18.2); moreover, the biblical figures Enoch (9.17.8) and Abraham (9.17.3-8) are linked with the dissemination of astrological lore.125

A number of scholars have attempted to derive both passages from the same author and, therefore, they are often jointly referred to as Pseudo- Eupolemus.126 However, the varied attributions in Alexander Polyhistor, which derive the first fragment from a lost work On the Jews of Assyria by a certain “Eupolemus” and the second fragment, more generally, from “anonymous” traditions, should caution one from assuming a single author.127 Indeed, the contrasting representations of the “giants” suggest

125 For the text within its Eusebian context, see now eds. Guy Schroeder and Edouard des Places, Eusèbe de Césarée: La Préparation Evangélique (Sources Chrétiennes, 369; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1991) 235-241. Cf. also ed. A. M. Denis, Fragmenta Pseudepi- graphorum Graeca (PVTG, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 197-98 and esp. Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (SBLTT, 20; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983)1.157-87 (hereafter Fragments).

126 As esp. argued by J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke: Hellenistische Studien (Breslau: Skutsch, 1875) 90-92 and Ben Zion Wacholder, “Pseudo Eupolemus5 Two Greek Frag­ments on the Life of Abraham”, H U C A 34 (1963) 83-113; cf. also Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1.88-89; Harold W. Attridge, “Historiography”, in ed. Michael E. Stone, Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period, (CRINT, 2/2; Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1984) 165-66; and Reeves, “Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants?” 112 whose interpretations reflects a fusion of both fragments. The common attribution of the fragments is declared a “scholarly concensus” by Holladay, Fragments, pp. 159 and 163 (n. 18).

127 Wacholder retracted his position (see previous n.) in Eupolemus: A Study o f Ju- daeo-Greek Literature (Cincinnati/New York/Los Angeles/Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974) 287 n. 112. Wacholder drew attention to Nicholas Walter’s study, “Zu Pseudo-Eupolemus”, Klio: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 43-45 (1965) 282-90; see more recently Walter, “Bseudo-Eupolemos (Samaritanischer Anonymus)”, in ed. Werner Georg Kümmel, Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-röm­ischer Zeit (vol. 1, pt. 2; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976) 137^13, who argues that the conglomeration of details in Frgt. 2 is unattributable to a single author. The main argu­ment favoring Walter’s thesis is that, formally, the essential difference between the Frgt.’s is the nature of their attribution: whereas Frgt. 1 refers to one author (“Eupolemus”), Frgt. 2 - preceded by a brief mention by Eusebius to an Abrahamic tradition in Arta- panus (Praep. Evang. 9.18.1) - only mentions “anonymous writings” (αδέσποτοι). See more recently R. Doran’s important discussion in “Pseudo-Eupolemus”, in OTP; 2.874 and Huggins, “Noah and the Giants” 104-107. Huggins rightly highlights the differences between the fragments with respect to the identity of “Belos”; see below.

Introduction34

the possibility that the statements in both fragments may ultimately stem from independent sources. It is proper, therefore, to discuss the fragments separately below.

The first fragment, which Alexander Polyhistor mistakenly ascribed to the second century B. C. E. Jewish historian Eupolemus, clearly exhibits a Samaritan bias; Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek (Gen. 14) is lo­cated in Gerazim instead of Jerusalem.128 According to this fragment the γίγαντες, identified as “those saved from the deluge” (οι διασωΦέντοι έκ του κατακλυσμού), are credited with having first founded the city of Ba­bylon (9.17.2). Subsequent to this they are said to have built the famed tower and, after its destruction, they were scattered throughout the whole earth “by the power of God” (υπό τής τού Φεοϋ ένεργείας; 9.17.2). Although the location of Abraham’s birth-place is identified as “the Ba­bylonian city Kamarine” (9.17.3), the author of this fragment does not emphasize the implied connection between Abraham and the giants. Both Abraham and Enoch are said “to have founded” (εύρηκέναι) as­trology and other such sciences, but it is Enoch (equated with the Greek “Atlas”) who is ultimately credited with these discoveries (so 9.17.8).129 The source of astrological learning is thus traced back to the ante-diluvian period, and the “Babylonian” giants are the implied tradents of this knowledge to Abraham. The author is primarily interested in asserting the primacy of Babylon (the Seleucid kingdom) over Phoenicia and Egypt in the spread of culture, and claims that Abraham’s journeys provided the conduit for this dissemination (9.17.4, 6b-7). This explanation for the development of culture is associated with the writer’s assignment of Belos’ genealogical origin to Babylon. The precise relation of the first- mentioned Belos=son of Kronos to the γίγαντες, however, is not clarified, that is, it is not clear whether he is the first of the γίγαντες130 or simply the

128 The passage in Praep. Evang. 9.17.5-6 places Abraham’s encounter with Melchi­zedek in the temple of Ά ργαριζίν (= Gerazim), “which may be translated as the Mount of the Most High”. The pro-Samaritan bias conflicts with the writings attributed else­where to Eupolemus which affirm inter alia the primacy of the Jerusalem temple under Solomon {Praep. Evang. 9.30). Though the interpretation of the place-name may well derive from the Gen. 14:18 identification of Melchizedek as a “priest of the Most High”, it is not necessary to suppose that therefore the assertions in the Frgt. are con­sistent with a pro-Jerusalem stance, as Doran has argued in “Pseudo-Eupolemus”, pp. 874-76. It remains that the degree of religious syncretism is more conspicuous in this “Pseudo-Eupolemus” Frgt. than in the other “Eupolemus” fragments transmitted through Alexander Polyhistor.

129 Enoch, in turn, is said to have “known everything through angels of God” (πάντα δΤ αγγέλων Φεοΰ γνώναι; 9.17.9). The euhemeristic identification of Enoch with Atlas is based on the latter’s association with the discovery of astrology; cf. the references cited by Wacholder, “Pseudo-Eupolemus” 96 n.’s 82-83.

130 So Wacholder, Eupolemus, p. 314.

35V Provenance and Purpose

first human (πρώτον γενέσϋαι Βήλον).131 Insofar as the γίγαντες are linked to the astrology and learning of Abraham, they are cast in a posi­tive light. Not surprisingly, the link between the giants and the traditional motif of their culpability - retained primarily in relation to the giants’ building of the tower132 - occurs without special emphasis.133

These sections of the fragment clearly reflect a fusion of the biblical narrative (in Gen. 6-14), Jewish midrash (esp. in the connection of Enoch with astrology), Babylonian chronology (Babylonian origin of Belos gen­ealogy), and Hellenistic tradition (association of Atlas = Enoch with as­trology).134 The surviving γίγαντες become therein an important link in the introduction of culture and are not singled out for overt vilification. As participants in the transmission of learning, the giants are assumed to have had contact with Enoch. Nevertheless, the fragment makes no at­tempt to coordinate either the giants who escaped the flood or Belos who “lived first”135 with any of the biblical characters, such as Noah or Nimrod who are nowhere referred to in the fragment.136 Though biblical tradition may explain how Nimrod could be identified as a giant (Gen. 10:8-9) or how Noah, Nimrod’s ancestor, could have escaped the

131 As argued by Doran, “Pseudo-Eupolemus”, p. 881 n. t.132 The identification of the tower builders as “giants” is, o f course, explicable on the

basis of exegesis of the text in Gen. 10:8-11 and 11:1-9. Whereas the shared place-name Shinar in the biblical text can be taken to imply that the tower was built at the instiga- tion of Nimrod, the designation of that figure as a 10:8) ר בו בארץ ג -LX X γίγας; cf. v. 9) would explain why he could be linked to the ante-diluvian ם י ור גב ה (Gen. 6:4). This exegetical tradition also probably underlies the link between the giant Belos and the tower in second fragment. This must not mean, however, that the fragments themselves constitute specific allusions to Nimrod; see below.

133 The flood (9.17.2) is not portrayed as the outcome of divine punishment; in itself the motif does not imply that the giants were bad. Rather, it is the giants’ existence before the deluge which establishes their link with Enoch, and their escape is made to explain the continuity of Babylonian learning with the patriarch.

134 These traditio-historical connections are epitomized in Wacholder, “Pseudo-Eu- polemus” 96 n.’s 82-83; Holladay, Fragments, 1.185-87; Doran, “Pseudo-Eupolemus”, pp. 876-78; and Huggins, “Noah and the Giants” 105-106.

135 The text reads: πρώτον γενέσΌαι Βήλον (9). The reference to Belos is indepen- dent of the flood, which is only mentioned in v. 2. It remains unclear whether Belos is thought to be the first giant (Wacholder, Eupolemus, p. 314) - without association with the deluge - or the first human (as argued by Doran, “Pseudo-Eupolemus”, p. 881 n. t).

136 The fragment as it stands actually refers to two figures as “Belos”. The first is identified with Kronos (Βήλον δν είναι Κρόνον), while the second, mentioned in the next phrase, is his son and the brother of Canaan (εκ τούτου δε γενέσΌαι Βήλον και Χαναάν). Under the assumption that fragment 2 was written by the same author, several have emended the text from “Canaan” to “Ham” (the son of Noah). The present text, however, would appear to identify the first Belos as Ham (along with Kronos), who in the biblical tradition is the father of Canaan. On this see Doran, “Pseudo-Eupolemus”, p. 881 n. u and Huggins, “Noah and the Giants” 105.

Introduction36

flood, the traditions in both MT and LXX neither account for how Nim­rod could be identified as Noah nor explain how Noah could be identified as a γίγας. Rather than taking biblical tradition as the sina qua non point of departure, the author of this fragment seems to have been more at pains to trace a Jewish origin of culture through Babylonian lines and to under­score the derivative nature of Egyptian learning. If the Noah figure is implied at all among the deluge survivors - and nothing in the fragment itself suggests this possibility -, then the connection would likely have been extra-biblical.

The second fragment conveys a somewhat different picture. First, Abra­ham’s lineage is more explicitly derived from the giants (άναφέροντα εις τούς γίγαντας). Second, in contrast to the first fragment, the cataclysm itself is not mentioned; the text refers instead to an episode in which the giants, while dwelling in Babylonia, were “destroyed by the gods because of their ungodliness” (δία τήν ασέβειαν υπό των ϋεών αναίρεσή ναι).137 Divine punishment is thus not related to the building of the tower, but to the giants’ impiety. Third, Belos is explicitly identified as one of the giants who escaped a destruction; he is credited with having built the tower in which he subsequently lives (κατοικήσαι πύργον); no chastisement for the tower episode is implied.

Despite the different emphases of the fragments, they reflect a similar pattern in several areas. Most significant of these are the following: Both fragments link Abraham and the giants to the transmission of Babylonian astrological science. Moreover, in both fragments it is the figure of Abra­ham who spreads astrological learning from Babylon to Phoenicia and

137 See Hesiod’s Theogony, 11.617-719 (ca. 8th cent. B. C. E.), which recounts the defeat and incarceration of the Titans resulting from their revolt against the Olympian gods; cf. the text in ed. M. L. West, Hesiod: Theogony (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966) 134-38. The Titans’ revolt, involving Zeus’ father Kronos, is to be distinguished from that of γίγαντες in early Greek mythology, the former conflict having led to Zeus’ rise to power and the latter representing a subsequent challenge against the rule of Zeus. Later, however, the battles involving the Titans and γίγαντες are frequently merged into one story; cf. Timothy Gantz, Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources (Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993) 44-56 and 445-54. The fusion of these myths was apparently common during the Hellenistic period; see e. g. the frieze on the well-known Altar of Zeus in Pergamon (built during the reign of Eumenes II in the early 2nd cent. B. C. E.), in which Zeus and the Olympian gods are pitted in battle against Kronos, the Titans, and the giants. The same fusion no doubt underlies the destruction of the γίγαντες “by the gods” in Frgt. 2. Cf. further Sib. Or. 3.97-99 (prob­ably to be dated to the m id2־nd cent. B. C. E.), in which the tower of Babel in Genesis - destroyed by “gods” (according to Josephus, citing the Sibyl in Ant. 1.118 - οί ύεοί άνέτρεψαν τον πύργον) and, in the Pseudo-Eupolemus fragments, built by “giants” and Belos the giant respectively - is followed by a demythologized account of the tita- nomachy from Hesiod’s Theogony; cf. Wacholder, Eupolemus, pp. 104-105 and Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1.88-89.

37V Provenance and Purpose

then to Egypt.138 Both associate the building of the tower with a giant (Frgt. 2) or giants (Frgt. 1). And, finally, both contain the motif of an escape by giants from some form of destruction. Whether or not either of the accounts constitutes an allusion to Noah, it is easy to see how an alternative coordination between ante- and post-diluvian learning in Early Judaism might have arisen. In reaction to such a tradition, there may have been those who attempted to draw a clearer distinction, on the one hand, between the culpable giants and the flood survivors (Noah)139 and, on the other hand, between the kind of learning associated with the rebellious angels and that which Enochic tradition ascribed to Enoch.140

Since with respect to early Jewish tradition the ״Pseudo-Eupolemus“ fragments reflect a speculative interest in the fate of giants, a comparison with the early Enochic traditions (Book of Watchers and BG) may be illuminative. For one thing, the author of fragment 1 does not demonstrate any effort to draw a qualitative distinction between the angels who in­structed Enoch in the sciences and the giants who learned this from En­och. In Enochic literature, on the other hand, giants are the offspring of the rebellious angels who taught culture to their sons and to human beings (1 En. 8:1-3; 9:8; 10:7; cf. e. g. 65:6-11; 69:1,6-15). In the 1 Enoch corpus, Enoch’s revelation is distinguishable from this knowledge because it is comes to him through visions frequently mediated by good angels (1 En. 14:8-25; 17:1-36:4; cf. e. g. 71:3; 72:1-82:20; 92:1). To an even greater degree than the Book of Watchers, the fragments of BG show a specific interest in elaborating the heinous crimes of the giant progeny of the fallen angels (4Q531 1; 1Q23 9+14+15; 4Q532 2; cf. 1 En. 7:2-5).

138 This may well reflect Graeco-Babylonian tradition. Whether or not it is dependent on the 3rd century B. C. E. priest and historiographer Berossus continues to be debated; see Holladay, Fragments, 1.179 n. 7 and Doran, “Pseudo-Eupolemus”, p. 877 and n.’s 29-32.

139 With Reeves, “Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants?” 110-12; see 1 En. 106:1-7, 10- 12 and 1 QapGen col. 2, 11.1-7, 14-18. While I agree with Reeves (contra Huggins, “Noah and the Giants” 103-110) that these early Jewish texts polemicize against tradi­tions which were associating Noah with giants, his thesis that the coordination of bib­lical characters by “Pseudo-Eupolemus” with Greek and Near Eastern mythological traditions depends on BG’s reference to “pagan” characters is less convincing. An im­portant difference ought not to be overlooked between the two; while Frgt. 1 of “Pseu­do-Eupolemus” provides an equivalent for Enoch in the Greek hero Atlas (9.17.9), the extant fragments of BG reflect no such attempt. Though the names Gilgamesh and Hobabish no doubt derive from the Gilgamesh Epic, there is no indication that they, in turn, are being coordinated with any of the biblical heroes.

140 The distinction is emphasized in 1 En. 16:3: the secrets taught humans by the Watchers result in the spread of evil throughout the earth. This contrasts with the vi­sions shown to Enoch in ch.’s 17-36.

Introduction38

Another difference between Enochic tradition and the ״Pseudo-Eupo- lemus“ fragment 1 obviously lies in the fate of the giants. Whereas in the latter a number of giants are thought to have escaped the flood, BG (4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12; 6Q8 2) and the Book of Watchers (10:2, 9,17,20; 16:1) draw on flood imagery to underline the theme of the giants’ eradica- tion.141 In 1 Enoch 15:8-12 there may be an admission of giants’ survival of the cataclysm, but the recensions all insist that this would have involved an essentially different mode of existence, that is, as evil spirits (cf. also in BG 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3 and 4Q531 14, 1.3).142

Though the flood inspires imagery which may have been related to the eschatological destruction of evil (7 En. 10:2-3,16,20,22), it is tempting to consider whether BG and 1 Enoch 15-16, within the context of the devel- oping order, underscore the singularity of a human Noah’s survival of the event and preclude any genetic link between the giants and humanity thereafter.143 If so, then it is possible that BG presupposes traditions known through Greek and Babylonian historiographical works which, from the perspective of its author(s), are thought to espouse views about the history of culture at the expense of an adherence to the framework of the biblical narrative.

Although these considerations do not permit one to situate BG geogra- phically, they nevertheless enhance the possibility that BG, with respect to

141 Cf. the same emphasis in Sir. 16:7 a (ούκ έξιλάσατο περί των αρχαίων γιγάντων); CD col. ii, 17-21 ( ם ה בני בחרבה היה אשר בשר וכל נפלו ... ו ); and Wisd. Sol. 14:6-7 (καί αρχής γάρ άπολλυμένων υπερήφανων γιγάντων). It is unclear whether the destruction of the giants commanded of Michael in 1 En. 10:15 envisions the final destruction or the flood itself (cf. v. 20).

142 Hence, in building on this tradition, 1 En. 106:17 (Chester Beatty Papyrus, v. 14) stresses that the giants were born as “flesh” rather than as “spirit”. Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP, 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 138-39 suggests that 1 En. 15:8-12 and 16:1 are a development of 10:15 and thus argues that 10:15 was originally a divine decree (not a command to Michael) which refers to the end time. The existing recensions to 1 En. 10 do not, however, make unambiguous distinctions between the Urzeit and Endzeit\ cf. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11”, JBL 96 (1977) 388 n. 18 and 396.

143 Though the earliest traditions about the giants’ survival are preserved in historio- graphical works, this does not necessarily mean that writings such as BG must have been aware of such a tradition through them. There are stories in rabbinic literature which identify Sihon and Og as giants who escaped the flood: see b. Zebah 113 b; Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Deut. 2:2 and 3:11; and esp. b. Nid. 61 a - of the two, only Og, grandson of שמחזאי, survives the flood ( ג מבול מדור שפלט עו ; text cited by Milik, BE, p. 320) and is identified as the escapee who reported the destruction (of Sodom and Gomorrah!) to Abraham. Because Sihon and Og are identified as “the sons of Ahiyah the son of Shemhazai”, Milik thinks that the b. Nid. text actually refers to BG; if anything, however, the content reflects the connections drawn between Abraham and the giants in the “Pseudo-Eupo- lemus” fragments, that is, the passage represents the kind of tradition which BG may have sought to refute.

39V Provenance and Purpose

Noah and the giants, marks a critical response to a particular form of coordinating Hellenistic and Babylonian-Jewish ideas in the Near East during the early 2nd century B. C. E. Such a Jewish reaction is conceivable in regions of the Near East which saw the interpenetration of Hellenistic and Babylonian cultures.144 Such conditions need not, of course, be lim­ited to the Seleucid-Babylonian kingdom alone. If there is anything in the report of “Hecataeus of Abdera” (ca. 300 B. C. E.) cited by Josephus (c. Apion 1.194), the political instabilities following the death of Alexander the Great resulted in the emigration of many Jews from Babylon-Syria to Phoenicia and Egypt. Such emigrations, if they occurred, would have in­cluded a destination of Palestine as well. Except for Egypt, where the composition of a work in Aramaic would have been less likely,145 any of the other regions, including Palestine, remains possible. Unless more spe­cific evidence turns up, the provenance of BG shall continue to be a pro­blem for which answers are elusive.

It is difficult to assess the purpose of a work whose remains are as fragmentary as those of Qumran BG. Nevertheless, the above discussion allows for brief comment. The attempt here to identify the cultural frame­work within which this writing was composed has already suggested that BG may have been an early response to what its author(s) regarded as a misperception (known, e. g., in the “Pseudo-Eupolemus” fragments): the notion that one or more of the ante-diluvian offspring of the rebellious angels survived or escaped divine punishment. By leaving these giants without exit and, more specifically, by having the giants participate in the revelations concerning their own judgment, the writer(s) may have wished to reenforce the culpability of spiritual powers which in mythology were associated with the γίγαντες of Genesis 6:4 (LXX).

This much seems clear. But our understanding of BG may be taken a step further. If a continued spirit-existence of the giants following the deluge formed part of the mythological framework for the author(s), then BG’s repeated reference to the giants’ culpability and their inescap­able destruction through the deluge would have reflected the belief that

144 E. g., the history of Babylon written in Greek by the priest of Bel in Babylon, Berossus, during the early 3rd cent. B. C. E.

145 On the basis of content alone, provenance in Egypt cannot be excluded. In con­trast to the traditions of “Pseudo-Eupolemus” fragments, Philo of Alexandria {de Gi- gantibus) during the 1st cent. C. E., put forth an allegorical interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4 which insisted on the essential difference between Abraham (ουρανού) and the giants (γης; 62-64), a distinction which without doubt for him, as in BG, would have included Noah (1-5). In the course of Philo’s argument, Nimrod (interpreted as “desertion”, αύτομόλησις; 66) is identified as a γίγας (cf. LXX Gen. 10:8) who, as οι γης παΐδες, inaugurated (άρξαντος του έργου) the lamentable abandonment from reason to flesh (65); see de Gigantibus 58-67.

Introduction40

these spirit powers, though active in the world, are essentially defeated powers (cf. Mk. 1:4; 5:7; Jas. 2:18 b). The flood event is in this sense both historicized and promisorial. The destruction of the giants’ bodies in the deluge, forecast through the dreams given to them, also makes the Watch­ers’ progeny cognizant of their ultimate fate.

As significant as Noah’s flood is for BG, nothing survives among the fragments which indicates that this event is actually narrated in the story.146 Indeed, it is possible that, for all its importance, allusions to the flood are for the most part confined to the giants’ dreams (cf. 4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12; 6Q8 2; 2Q26). If this construal is correct, then BG is not merely an expansion of the Genesis story; the primordial event is subor­dinated to an eschatological framework. One might surmise that, from the perspective of BG’s intended readers’/hearers’ who quite probably knew the Genesis narrative (and the Book of Watchers), a final eradication of evil is conceived as yet to come. This unfulfilled expectation may have been implied by a narrative in which the primordial flood event itself is not retold. A Jewish community, in the belief that divine punishment has through the flood already inflicted a decisive blow against the Watchers and their gigantuan offspring, could be assured by the story that God’s final triumph over these powers is imminent. Such a coordination of End- zeit and Urzeit in BG may thus have expressed a confidence in divine victory throughout the cosmos which, at the same time, marks an effort to take seriously the persistent experience of evil in the world.

146 Contra Reeves; cf. p. 17 above (under his QG10 and following). The fragmentary nature of the materials, of course, cannot exclude this as a possibility. But the assump­tion that a narrative account must have formed part of the story is not supported by anything among the extant fragments.

Chapter Two

The Book of Giants and the Qumran Fragments

Part One

M aterials belonging to the Qumran Book o f Giants

The following readings of and comments on the fragments from Caves 1, 2, 4, and 6 near Khirbet Qumran shall assume the following format. First­ly, I shall present those materials which may be used for an interpretation and analysis of the Qumran BG (Part I) before drawing attention to ma­nuscripts identified with BG but of much less certain origin (Part II). The present analysis of fragments from each manuscript has resulted in the postulation of several degrees of certainty concerning their identification as belonging to the Qumran BG. These degrees may be distinguished as follows:

(1) Manuscripts whose identification with BG is virtually certain:1Q23; 6Q8; 4Q203; 4Q530; 4Q531.

(2) Manuscripts whose identification with BG is probable:2Q26; 4Q532.

(3) Manuscripts whose identification with BG is plausible:1Q24; 4Q556; 4Q206 2 and 3.

(4) Manuscripts considered for inclusion in BG, o f which identification with it is possible, but for which there exists no positive evidence to support it: 4Q534 (Fitzmyer1); 4Q535-536 (Beyer2); 6Q14 (Beyer3); 1Q19 fragments 11, 13, and 15 (Beyer4).

(5) Manuscripts suggested for possible inclusion in BG, but whose content is inconsistent with that o f the manuscripts in categories 1-3 above, thus ma­king an identification with BG highly improbable:4Q533 (Starcky); 4Q537 (Reeves5).

In Part One it is the manuscripts belonging to categories (1), (2), and (3) which shall be analyzed and discussed; these materials shall be considered as usable for interpreting and reconstructing the Qumran BG. The manu­scripts listed in (4) and (5) are treated separately in Part Two. In this sec­

1 See “Qumran Aramaic in the New Testament”, in A Wandering Aramean, p. 101.2 ATTMEB, pp. 125-26.3 ATTM , p. 268.4 Ibid., p. 229 n. 15 Jewish Lore, p. 110.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments42

tion the materials will not be presented in as much detail as in Part One; their inclusion in this study is merited by the need to establish criteria for determining what the Qumran BG is likely to have contained.

Secondly, in order to facilitate usefulness, it is pertinent to provide some comment on the format adopted for the present analysis. Among the Qumran BG materials, some of the manuscripts consist primarily of iso­lated fragments while others allow for a greater degree of reconstruction. In the former case, the presentation follows a numerical order in accor­dance with arrangements of the fragments in the photographs used. When proposed combinations of some of the tiny pieces are considered plausible, the analysis and commentary is reserved for the joined fragments which are presented at the conclusion of the manuscript (as in 1Q23). When it is unnecessary to argue for a combination of fragments, the texts are presented first in their reconstructed form, while the isolated fragments are subsequently analyzed (as in 4Q530 cols, ii-iii). Possible combinations of materials in different manuscripts are indicated and subjected to critical evaluation (e. g., the proposed overlap between 4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12 and 6Q8 2; 4Q556 6 and 4Q206 3).

Thirdly, the presentation of each fragment or reconstruction of frag­ments will include the following information: (1) a bibliography (given according to author in roughly chronological order); (2) the mention, where applicable, of proposed combinations to be evaluated; (3) a list of photographs containing the material; (4) readings based on the photogra­phic evidence, followed by a critical comparison with other proposed rea­dings and reconstructions; (5) a translation followed by a comparison with other renderings proposed; and, where appropriate, (6) a commentary which draws attention to traditio-historical backgrounds of the material and the question of its literary context and function in the Qumran BG.

Finally, and for the sake of clarity, the readings below make use of the following sigla throughout:

° above a letter, denotes a letter which is undecipherable on the basis o f itsvisibility but may be reconstructed on the basis o f context visible letters which are undecipherable

[ ] markers for the beginning and end o f visible text (letters within these brackets are restored)

(?) the precise form o f the restoration uncertain < > supralinear letters| the right or left margin o f a column or between columns

1Q23 = lQ E nG iantsa - (31 Fragm ents)6

1Q23 = lQGiantsa 43

Proposed combinations of fragments. Milik has proposed the following groupings of 1Q23 fragments: (a) 1+6+22 {BE, 301-302); (b) 9+14+15 {BE, 302-303). Beyer also suggests the combination (c) 24+25 {ATTM, 267 n. 1), while Garcia Martinez has proposed (d) 16+17. These fragments are treated both individually (section A) and, when justifiable (i. e. in the first two of these proposed combinations), in their combined forms (sec­tion B), with commentary being reserved for the latter.

Overlaps and associations with other Qumran Book of Giants materials:(a) On the basis of similar content, Beyer (followed by Reeves) suggests that the combination 1Q23 9+14+15 is preceded by 4QEnGiantsc 5 in BG;(b) to the group in (a), Beyer adds the contents of 4QEnGiantsc 1 {ATT- MEB, 119); (b) Beyer (again followed by Reeves) finds in 1Q23 29 a pos­sible overlap with the text of 6Q8 1 11.4-5.

A. Individual Fragments from 1Q23

1Q231Milik, DJD I, 97-98 and “Turfan et Qumran”, 120; BE, 301-302; Fitzmyer-Har- rington, MPAT, 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 266 (and n. 3); Uhlig, Henochbuch, 755-56; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 60, 65, and 122-24; Garcia Martinez, DSST, 260 and Qum- A poc , 100.

Photographs. Milik, DJD I, Plate X IX (all 1Q23 frgts.).The fragment is combined with 1Q23 6 and 22 by Milik {BE), followed by Uhlig

and Garcia Martinez, with 1Q23 6 only by Beyer. See the combined text and trans­lation in section B below.

] . 1 ־.[ priKiD !nan־ 2

p]nKa vw 'D pn«a !y 3].*o rrn !a * ra 4

] a., 1?y 5

I. 1: Milik {BE): ]m[.II. 2-3: It is unclear whether the number precedes or follows the noun (Beyer,

A TT M , 266 n. 3); for the number following the substantive in 1Q23 see 1Q23 9+14+15 in section B below. For M ilik’s restoration o f 1.2, which follows the Middle Persian Kawan fragment (cited below), see under 1Q23 1+6+22.

6 Together with 1Q24, 1Q23 was originally designated by Milik, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert: Qumran Cave I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955) 97, as one of “Deux Apocryphes en Araméen” (hereafter DJD I).

1. 4: Milik, D JD ה :/ צלחי (“its part”). Milik (BE), Fitzmyer-Harrington, andBeyer: חשה כל (“every snake”); Uhlig: “von jedem wilden Tier” (= חיהל כ ). Fitzmyer-Harrington: ... ף כ]ל מן כל ומן עו (“from eve[ry bird, from every’5); Beyer: ב ר ק] ע .(”and scorpion“) ו

1.5: Milik, DJD I: ג עו . Milik (BE), Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer מזג(“mixture”).

1 [״.]2 donkeys two hundred assefs ... two hundred3 sheep, two hundred rams, two hu[ndred ... o f the4 field from every living creature, and ’.[5 upon/concerning ..g [

1.4: Beyer: “außer jeder Schlange und (jedem) Skorpion”.

44 The Book of Giants and the Qumran Fragments

1Q232

Milik, D JD I, 97: Fitzmyer-Harrington, M P AT, 68-69; Beyer, A TT M , 267.

l ]. אנין[איו[ 2 ·[

1.1: Or ן י אנ .1.2: Or און [.

1 ]. they/these[2 ]> .[

1Q233

Milik, DJD I, 97; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 267.

ה..[ 1[ נ מ

ת [ 2 הוי ]ו

א [ 3 שחית] ו

1.1: Milik, DJD I, and Fitzmyer-Harrington: ] ל ה כ מנ [ (“all from it”).

1 ].. from it[2 ] and I was/you were[3 ]’ and [the] corrupt [one

1.3: Fitzmyer-Harrington: “defor[med”; Beyer: “verderbt”.

451Q23 = lQGiantsa

1Q234Milik, D JD I, 97; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 68-69; Beyer, A TT M , 267.

ה[ 1 ·[ב.[ 2 ר ק [

]ל[ 31. 1: See the similar ה in 1Q23 13 1.2. Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]. .[.1. 2: Milik, D JD I, and Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]ב ר ק ת [; Beyer: ] ב ת ר ק [.

1 ]M2 ](you/it [fern.]?) will approach[

3 ]/[

1. 2: Fitzmyer-Harrington: or “offer”.

1Q235Milik, DJD I, 97.

..] [ב 1[תב] 2

1 ]/ ..[2 M

1Q236Milik, D JD I, 97 and BE, 302; Beyer, A T T M , 266 and n. 3; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 755-56; Garcia Martinez, DSST, 260 and QumApoc, 100. See under 1Q23 1 above.

Milik and Garcia Martinez combine 1Q23 6 with 1Q23 1+22, while Beyer com- bines it only with 1Q23 1. For the combined text and translation, see section B for 1Q23 below.

]..[ 1(end o f 1Q23 1 1.2?) 2 ]. מאת]ין

1. 2: Given a correct reconstruction and following the Middle Persian Kawan(Frgt. I; cited under 1Q23 1+6+22), Milik, followed closely by Beyer, reads and restores: ן ] . ] י עלין מאת]ין ד .מאתין י . רין מאתין . דכ .

1 ]..[2 ]. [two] hundred [

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments46

1Q23 7

Milik, D JD I, 97; Beyer, A T T M , 267.

ארו [ 1[ ו

]ל״[ 21. 1: Milik, DJD I, 97: ]רי א ו . If the word contained no further letters, ארו is

the more common form of the word.

1 ] and behold[2 ]/..[

1Q23 8Milik, DJD I, 97.

]1[דן

]n]this?

־]

1Q239Milik, DJD I, 97; “Turfan et Qumran”, 120 and BE, 302-303; Fitzmyer-Harring- ton, MPAT\ 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 260 (11. 1-3) and n. 1; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 57, 62, and 74-75; Garcia Martinez, DSST, 260 and QumApoc, 100.

Milik (BE), Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, Reeves, and Garcia Martinez all com ­bine 1Q23 9 with 1Q23 14+15. For the combined text and translation, see section B below. In addition, Beyer, followed by Reeves, suggests that the text in 1Q23 9+14+15 follows upon that o f 4QEnGiantsc 5 (4Q531 5)7; later, Beyer (ATT- MEB, 11) adds to these fragments the thematically similar 4Q531 1 (see the com ­ment under this Frgt.).

]an n.[ 1

]pi n.[ 2

].a ina*[ 3M ]V.[ 4

1. 1: Milik (BE) and Fitzmyer-Harrington: nan n.[; Beyer: nan n[.1. 2: Milik, BE; Fitzmyer-Harrington; and Beyer: na[.1.3: Milik, DJD L ]xa. Milik, BE: ]a; Fitzmyer-Harrington: !]a; Beyer:

n[x]a, n being the visible letter on 1Q23 14 1.5.

7 See the treatment of this fragment below.

41Q23 = lQGiantsa

1. 4: Milik (BE) and Fitzmyer-Harrington: f? 1?..[.

1 ].h rb[2 ]./z w # [

3 ]giants m.[4 ]../[ ]/[

1Q 2310

Milik, D JD I, 98; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (1.2 only).

]. an[ 1 J. vn1?[ 2

1.2: Or: , in 1?[. Beyer: l ’nb[n.

1 \rb .[2 ]I ty w .[

1. 2: Beyer: thjirty.

1Q 2311Milik, D JD I, 98, “Turfan et Qumran”, 120 and BE, 302; Beyer, A TT M , 267.

].j? op [ l

xn]aj..[ 2

1. 1: Beyer: Q]7j?.1. 2: The substantive 73J in extant BG fragments is always plural. Beyer:

n]ai k[.1 ] he arose bef[ore?2 ].. [the] gian[ts

1Q23 12

Milik, D JD I, 98.

1[ iH[ 2 • [ 3

1.1: Or: p or ־|.

1 ]«2 ]which/who

3 ] ·

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments48

1Q 2313

Milik, D JD I, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267.

ע .[ 1 ארב]

2 ] ק א ת הר] נ

ל .[ 3 אז [

1. 1: Milik (DJD I) and Fitzmyer-Harrington: ע ב] ר א ל [.1. 2: Milik (DJD I) and Fitzmyer-Harrington: ק ת ע[ ; Beyer: ק נ [.

1 ]. fou[r2 ]tq [the] river[3 ] .h e went[

1. 3: Or: 2ps impv. “G o!”.

Comment: The vocabulary may suggest that the fragment belongs to an account of a journey; if so, could this belong to one of Mahaway’s flights to Enoch (cf. 4Q530=4QEnGiants^ col. iii)? The scant evidence here, however, makes this suggestion little more than speculation.

1Q23 14Milik, DJD I, 98, “Turfan et Qumran,” 120 and BE , 302-303; Fitzmyer-Harring- ton, MPAT\ 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 260 and n. 1; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 57, 62, and 74-75; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 100 and DSST\ 260.

Milik (BE), Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, Reeves, and Garcia Martinez all com- bine 1Q23 14 with 1Q23 9 and 15. See further under 1Q23 9. For the combined text and translation, see section B below.

]1[ 1]2 ] עו ד י ר ו

אר .[ 3 ב [

4 [ לו ט לש ק [

ה] 5 [

1.1: Milik, D JD I: ]ף ]I. 2: Milik (BE), followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington, restores: י ר]ז .II. 2-3: The restorations following ]אר ב and ]לש depend on the fragment’s com-

bination with 1Q23 15 11.1-2. See section B to 1Q23 9+14+15 below.1. 4: The reading o f ק at the beginning depends on the combination with

1Q23 9 1.2; both fragments preserve part o f the letter. Milik (DJD I) originally read ] לו ט לע י [.

1 m2 ]and they knew r[3 ]. b r [

491Q23 = lQGiantsa

4 ]they killed Is[5 M

1Q2315Milik, D JD I, 98, “Turfan et Qumran” 120 and BE , 302-303; Fitzmyer-Harring- ton, MPAT, 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 260 and n. 1; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 57, 62, and 74-75; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 100 and DSST\ 260.

Milik (BE), Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, Reeves, and Garcia Martinez all com- bine 1Q23 15 with 1Q23 9 and 14. For the combined text and translation, see sec- tion B to 1Q23 below.

א[ 1[ ע

א[ 2 שגי]

די כ[ל 3 [

1.2: Portions o f the same ש are visible both here and 1Q23 14 1.4.

1 n2 ]much/many[3 everything which[

1Q2316Milik, D JD I, 98; Beyer, A T T M , 267; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 100. Garcia Martinez proposed the combination o f 1Q23 16 1.3 (top o f ל visible) with 1Q23 17 1.1 (see ל in ]לו ע ו ). See comment in section B below.

א 1(?) א/י ח] לו

|ואי 2

]ל[] 31.1: With Beyer, Milik, DJD /: ]rm.1. 2: Milik, DJDT. ]. אי אינBeyer: 1 ;ו .(.beautiful”-masc. / fern. abs. plur“) י

1 [the] tablet[(s?)2 w ’y[

3 []/[

1Q2317Milik, DJD I, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 70-71; Beyer, A TT M , 267; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 100.

Garcia Martinez proposed the combination o f 1Q23 17 1.1 (bottom portion o fthe visible ל with 1Q23 16 1.3 (top o f ל ). See the comment below.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments50

עלו 1[ ו

הון 2 די בי . [שרי 3 ל ו [

1. 3: With Beyer. Milik: רו ש ו . The plural subject and pron. suffix in 11.1-2might initially suggest a plural form here (= qal “they encamped”). However, the following ל may suggest an infln. which would be consi- stent with שרי (pa“el “he began”; the plur. form would be שריו and hence is unlikely).

1 and they entered[2 through their hands .[3 and he began to[

1. 3: Milik {DJD I), followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: “and they encampedat”. See comment on 1.3 above.

Comment. The combination 1Q23 16+17 rests on two considerations: (1) both fragments preserve the right side of a column and (2) a ל can be reonstructed from visible portions of 16 1.3 and 17 1.1. The join, however, remains uncertain.

1Q23 17 perhaps offers some hint about the context of the fragments: the 3rd person verbs and pronominal suffix indicate a narrative whichrecounts the activities of a group and one of its members. This fits wellinto the context of the giants or Watchers’ activities as recounted in 1Q23 9+14+15 and 4QEnGiantsc (=4Q531) fragments 1 and 5. The verb שרי in the pa ‘el (= “to begin”) occurs several times in describing the Watchers’ and giants’ deeds: 1 Enoch 7:1 - “they (the Watchers) began to go unto them (the women) and to defile themselves among them” (cf. 4QEnocha [BE, 342], Cod. Pan., and Syn.a); 7:4 - “they (the giants) began to kill humanity” (4QEnoch^ [BE, 150], contra Cod.Pan., Syn.a, Eth.); and 8:3 - “they (the Watchers) began to reveal secrets to their wives (so 4QEnocha=Syn.a). See also the Middle Persian Kawan in Henning (“Book of Giants” 60), which preserves such language in a comparable context:

(Frgt. c) Sam thereupon began ...(.Frgt. j ) Thereupon the giants began to kill each other and [...]

The creatures, too, began to kill each other.

511Q23 = IQ G m ntf

1Q2318Milik, D JD I, 98.

]· ···[ 1ה[ 2[ ב א ת

ל·[ 3 [

1.1: Milik: ] . ו ד לו [1.2: M ilik ת[: ר ב א ת [.

1 ] - ·[2 ]you (shall) wish[

3 ]■/[

1Q2319Milik, D JD I, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 70-71; Beyer, A TT M , 267 (1.1 only).

א[ 1 ע ר] א ב

2 ]. ע ב ]

1. 1: With Beyer. Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]א ר א ב [ (“thewell”)

1. 2: Milik: ] ב ע ת [, closely followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ב ע]ל ת [ (“hereturned un[to”).

1 ]on [the] ear[th2 l b ‘[

1Q2320Milik, DJD 7, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (11.1-4).

U 12 ] הן בו באדי]ן א

מין .[ 3 על . [

4 ] ל י כ בנ [

]. ..[ 5

1. 2: Milik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer: [ן די א ב .1. 5: Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]. ו ת [.

1 ]«[2 ]their father. The[n3 ]. ages .[

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments52

4 ]all the children of!5 ].. .[

C o m m en t. “Their father” could be referring to Shemihazah, the father of Hahyah and ’Ohyah, while “all the children of” in 1.4 may refer either to humanity as a whole or to the Watchers’ offspring, the giants. The frag­ment preserves too little, however, to establish the probability of thesepossibilities.

1Q2321

Milik, D JD I, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267.

]0[ ].[ 1Y! paan[ 2

].......................3

1. 2: Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: p5an [ (< !a n “to seize”). Be­yer: ]*!Dav (“with you”). Because o f the following ,?D3, M ilik’s reading is to be preferred, while Beyer’s reading requires b in to be read locatively.

1 ]·[ )m [2 ]you are seizing everything which[3 ] / . . . . [

1Q2322Milik, D JD I, 98 and BE , 302; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267 and n. 3.

]![ 133]» 1» T>Q[‘7K 2

]!’1X3[ 3

1.2: Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]. !a. Beyer: ]» p .1. 3: Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: j. ]’"7X3.

1 ]«[2 thousands from a grfape cluster3 ] Then [

531023 = IQGiants“

1Q2323Milik, D JD I, 98.

]·1 ] א פן ]· .ל[ 2

I.2: M ilik:].. ל [.

1 ]from2 ]/. .[

1Q2324Milik, DJD I, 98; Beyer, A TT M , 267 and n. 1; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 122.

Beyer combines 1Q23 fragments 24 and 25. This proposal makes little sense, since it involves reading the text o f the fragments vertically instead o f horizontally. Moreover, it misleads Reeves into finding here corroborative evidence for his questionable identification o f 1Q23 1+6+22 as a flood narrative.

לא] 1תוב]ה)?( 2מין] 3

].. 4

II.2^1: Beyer (+1Q23 25): ] ]ה בו תוב] ל מין ר א ע ע אר (sic!).

1 not[2 again[3 waters[4 ..[

1Q23 25Milik, DJD I, 98; Beyer, A T T M , 267 and n. 1.

Beyer combines 1Q23 25 with fragment 24. This proposal makes little sense, since it involves reading the text o f both fragments vertically rather than horizon- tally. See further under 1Q23 24.

]1[ 1] .. ל.[ 2.

] ·’·[ 3

י·[ 4 [ בא] 5 ע] אר ל

I. 2: Milik: ].ה לי .II.4-5: Beyer (+1Q23 24): ] ]בו תוב]ה א על מין ר ע אר (sic!).1.5: Milik: ].... ל [.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments54

1 ]«[2 ] ./...[3 ].y. [4 ].bw [5 ]to [the] earth[

1Q2326Milik, D JD I, 98.

] ...[ 1

בער] מ. [.. 2

]·· ··[ 3

1.2: M ilik ע.[: . ן מ ..[.

1 ]...2 ].. m. k'r[3 ].. ..[

1Q2327

Milik, DJD I, 98, “Turfan et Qumran”, 120 and BE, 302; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (11.1-2,4); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 100.

א אלן .[ 1[

י[ 2 הו מ [

ב.[ 3 ..[

]עד [ 4כ[ 5 .[

1.1: Beyer: לן א ל [.1. 3: Milik, DJD I ן : י ב .[; Fitzmyer-Harrington: בין .[ (“between?”).1. 5: Milik, DJD I: ]י ב [.

1 ]. these ’[2 ]Mahaway [3 lb ..[4 ] until[5 ]k.[

Comment. Since the giant’s name “Mahaway” (1.2) is only otherwise known through Manichaean (Middle Persian Kawan, Frgt. c: “Maha- wai”) and other Qumran BG materials (see s. v. in the index) and nowhere

551Q23 - lQGiantsa

occurs in 1 Enoch, its presence here provides added evidence for the iden- tity of 1Q23 with BG.

1Q23 28

Milik, DJD I, 98; Beyer, A T T M , 267.

ברה] [ה 11 ]h his son[

Comment. רה ב : the substantive probably refers to a giant, while the suffix denotes one of the Watchers.

1Q2329Milik, D JD I, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 262 and n. 1; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 59, 64, and 108.

Beyer, followed by Reeves, places the content o f 1Q23 29 1.2 on 11. 4 -5 o f6Q8 1, where the texts overlap. See 6Q8 1.

bxpn]n *rmlKb 1 ]·*w xb[ 2

1. 1: bNp"i]a, restored on the basis o f the possible overlap with 6Q8 1 1.3.Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]a N*ir!K[ (“I shall be in”).

1. 2: Milik: ]l2PtP Kb[ (“they did not finish”).

1 to ’]Ohyah, “Ba[raq’el . . .”2 ]he did not finish[

1Q23 30

Milik, D JD , 98; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (1.1).

] [שרי 1

2 [..]

1. 1: With Beyer. Milik: ]ה ר ש [.1.2: Milik: ן י ב [.

1 ]he began [

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments56

1Q2331

Milik, DJD I, 98 (11.1-2) and BE, 335; Beyer, ATTM, 267 (1.3).

]·[ 1 ]n n.. [ 2 ]. Km*?[ 3

1 ].[2 ] ..t h[3 ]the tablet .[

B. Fragment Combinations from 1Q23

1Q23 1+6+22

Notes on the combination. Milik {BE) has proposed placing 1Q23 22 som­ewhere beginning on 1.4 of 1Q23 1. This reconstruction is based on (1) influence of 1 Enoch 10:19 (“one measure will yield a thousand”) and the Middle Persian Kawan (Frgt. I) 1.7 (“and their wine [shall be] six thousand jugs”) and (2) the correctness of Milik’s reading jny in 1Q23 1 1.5 and of his problematic translation of the term as “pitcher”. On ac­count of consideration (1), Milik’s placement of the fragment cannot be excluded. Another possible context for 1Q23 22 may be suggested by the Middle Persian Kawan (Frgt. c): “4He says one of thousands. For one of thousands ...’.” Because it depends entirely on the Manichaean fragment, however, this placement is even less certain than Milik’s proposal.

1Q23 22 is placed here on 1Q23 1 11.3-5 (Milik: 11.4-6). This combina­tion makes good sense and is consistent with the physical shapes of the fragments.

The visible letters ]fiXE .[ are sufficient for placing 1Q23 6 in the context of 1Q23 1 and are consistent with the remains of 1Q23 1 1.2.

] . 1 ־.[ nan p[,־!־ 7 n» pnKiD ,!n־ a n 2

,]!־[ ]nxa vw'n p n « » w 3na]y ־!a rrn hS ־!a in n 4

]piKn[ ] a.. 17V 5

1. 2: Identification o f *! in *p־n y and D in ־p]nKft depends on the correctnesso f 1Q23 6 being joined to 1Q23 1.

1. 4: Identification o f 17 in derives from the join o f 1Q23 1 to 1Q23 221.2

1 ]. .[2 donkeys two hundred wild asses, [two] hundred[

571Q23 = lQGiantsa

3 sheep, two hundred rams, t[w]o hundred[ ... of the4 field from every living creature, and thousands from a gr[apevine5 upon/concerning ..g [ ]Then[

Comment. The list of animals in groups of 200 corresponds closely to a list in the Middle Persian Kawan fragment of BG published by Henning (“Book of Giants”, p. 61 Frgt. /):

“(50) ... wild ass, ibex ... ram goat (?), gazelle, ... oryx, of each two hundred, a pair ... the other wild beasts, birds, and animals ... and their wine [shall be] six thou­sand jugs ... irrigation(?) of water(?) ... and their oil [shall be ...”.8

In the context of the Middle Persian Kawan fragment, the passage occurs within a message from “Enoch, the apostle”, possibly to the Watchers and their giant offspring. Since in the Kawan fragment the previous part of Enoch’s message concludes with a pronouncement that his auditors shall not have peace (cf. 1Q24 8), it is possible that 1Q23 1+6+22 may have originally belonged within the Qumran BG just subsequent to the content of 1Q24 8.

Keeping in mind the fragmentary state of the Qumran and Manichaean materials, their mention of animal pairs producing 200 offspring9 suggests that 1Q23 1 preserves words spoken by Enoch, who is predicting a post­diluvium fertility to follow upon the destruction of the giants. This recon­structed context is strengthened by the possible presence of allusions to 1 Enoch 10:17-19 in 1Q23 1 and the Middle Persian fragment cited above.10 Though 1 Enoch 10:11-19 involves a mediating figure other than Enoch (i. e. God communicates through Michael, v. 11) and restricts mention of reproductive activity to humanity (v. 17) and vegetation (vv. 18-1911), its pattern is similar to that of the Manichaean version: an announcement to the Watchers that they and their offspring will be destroyed concludes in a description of an eternal period of fertility and righteousness (vv. 17-22).

This consideration of correspondences between 1Q23 1 and the Mani­chaean fragment, on the one hand, and between 1Q23 1 and 1 Enoch 10, on the other, make it possible to correct two misconstruals concerning the content and context of 1Q23 1. Firstly, the correspondences diminish the possibility that 1Q23 1 simply preserves an account of “the story of the

8 Milik {BE, p. 301) is thus correct to identify the fragments of 1Q23 as belonging to the Qumran BG.

9 We may ask whether the choice of 200 to describe the extent of reproduction is intended as an antidote which reverses the fall of the 200 Watchers as narrated in 1 En. 6:5.

10 See Henning, “Book of Giants” 61 n.’s 7,9 and Milik, BE, p. 301.11 The reference to wine and oil in 1 En. 10:19 corresponds to the Middle Persian

fragment cited above.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments58

14 1.114 1.214 1.3 + 9 1.114 1.4 + 9 1.214 1.5 + 9 1.3

9 1.4

Flood” containing “a list of animals which might represent a portion of the cargo that Noah loads upon the ark.”12 Secondly, these parallels imply that if 1Q23 1 contains a prediction of bliss after the deluge, its content should not be isolated from an announcement concerning the imminent destruction of the Watchers and their progeny.13

1Q23 9+14+15

Notes on the combination. This join was first proposed by Milik, BE, 302. The combination is consistent with the physical evidence of the fragments (space between lines) and allows for the reconstruction of a coherent text:

15 1.1 + 14 1.3 + 9 1.115 1.2 + 14 1.4 + 9 1.215 1.3 + 14 1.5 + 9 1.3

9 1.4]1[ 1

]2 ] עו ד י ר ו

3 ]. א רב]ה[ ה ע ר א ב [

4 ]. טלו ה ק ץ ו א שגי] ל

5 ] ן י ר ב די ]כ[ל מאה ג [

6 ].. [ל ל] [

1. 2: Milik (BE) restores: ר]זי ; in 1 Enoch 16:3 Enoch tells the Watchers thatthey know “the rejected mysteries”.

טלו in ק :4 .1 ק .can be reconstructed from visible traces on 1Q23 9 and 14 וThe restoration follows Beyer.

1 M2 ]and they knew r[3 ].h [was] great on the earth[4 ].h and they killed man[y5 ]a hundred giants, [a]ll who[6 ]../[]/[

1. 2: The translation o f Garcia Martinez (D SST[ 260) follows M ilik’s recon-struction: “and they knew the mysteries”. N ot enough is visible on 1Q23 14 to verify this reading.

12 As argued by Reeves (Jewish Lore, p. 122) on the basis of 1Q23 frgt.’s 1+6.13 As suggested by Beyer (ATTM, p. 266) who, though mentioning the parallel in 1

En. 10 (though only referring to vv. 17-19; cf. n. 3), characterizes 1Q23 1+6 as a “Segens- weissagung Henochs”, a consideration which leads him to assign the fragment to the conclusion of the Qumran BG.

591Q24 = lQGiants

Comment. The verbs indicate that the text stems from a narrative. The destructive activities referred to could be those of the Watchers or the giants. Milik’s reconstruction at the end of 1.2, given 1 Enoch 16:3, might suggest that the Watchers are in view. However, the destruction wrought on the earth according to 1 Enoch!:3-5 is attributed to the giants. In 1 Enoch!:3-5, the crimes of the giants recounted are: (1) they devour the toil of humanity14 (v. 3), (2) they have begun to kill (4QEnGiants^ - שריו ,and consume humanity (v. 4). They also (3) “sin against birds (לקטלהwild beasts, reptiles”, (4) were devouring one another’s flesh, and (5) were drinking blood (v. 5). Furthermore, the Middle Persian Kawan (Frgt.j) speaks of the giants’ destructive deeds (Henning, “Book of Giants” 60, 11.23-32):

“ ... Virogdad ... Hobabish robbed Ahr ... o f -naxtag, his wife. Thereupon the giants began to kill each other and [to abduct their wives]. The creatures, too, began to kill each other. Sam ... before the sun, one hand in the air, the other ... (30) ... whatever he obtained, to his brother ... imprisoned.”

In all likelihood, then, the fragments 1Q23 9+14+15 preserve an account of the giants’ unhindered and violent deeds on the earth.

Two further fragments, 4Q531=4QEnGiantsc 1 and 5, also preserve a portion of a narrative about the destruction wrought by the giants. This similarity in content has also led Beyer to associate them with 1Q23 9+14+15. Concerning a relative sequence among these materials, see the comment under 4Q531 1.

1Q24 - lQ E nG iantsb - (8 Fragm ents)15

Identification. The identity of 1Q24 is admitted by Milik as uncertain: “too poorly represented to allow a sufficiently certain identification” {BE, 309). However, the words and letters from fragments 5 and 8, though inconclusive, may be taken as evidence in favor of assigning the manu- script to BG. While Milik leaves the question open and Beyer includes it (ATTM , 259, 267-68), Fitzmyer-Harrington {MPAT, 126-28), Garcia Martinez (QumApoc, 100-101 n. 12), and Reeves {Jewish Lore, 51) leave 1Q24 out entirely from their discussions of BG.

14 I. e. the giants consume the food produce grown through human labor.15 Together with 1Q23, 1Q24 was originally entitled “Deux Apocryphes en Araméen”

by Milik {DJD I, pp. 97-99).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments60

1Q241Milik, DJD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT\ 126-27; Beyer, A T T M , 267-68 (11.3-7); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 101 n. 12.

.רוה] [. 1

ווה·] .......................[ 2ולנה.] [יא ו[ל] 3

ול] ולהמריא [.יא 45 .] vacat [ולכול

ולמ.] [.פיא 6ולברקיא] י[א 7

] ל··

1.1 1.2 1.3

Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ] ח ן רו ו [.Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: j.m ן שין שי ובח .[.Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ] א י הן ל.. לנ ו [; Beyer: ] ו[ל]..[יא א ל.. ו

1. 4: With Beyer: א רי מ ח ל א :Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington ;ו רי ב ח ל ו(“and for the companions”).

1 ]. .rwh[2 ] .. n and h \3 and ]the[ ] and the nr.[4 ]the /[ ]. and the donkeys and the[5 ]. vacat and for all[6 ]the[]./? and the m.[7 ]’ and the lightning bolts[8 ] /. . [

Comment. Garcia Martinez maintains that the identity of 1Q24 as part of BG would be more certain if א could be read as “an orthographic לברקיvariant of ברקאל instead of the emphatic plural of ק ר ב ”. This reasoning follows on the supposition that the name of the Watcher ברקאל, among the extant Dead Sea Scrolls, occurs outside BG only in the 1 Enoch Ara- maic materials (6:7-4QEnocha; cf. 8:3); since clearly 1Q24 does not belong to 1 Enoch, the fragment would then more likely belong to BG. Garcia Martinez is correct, however, to maintain that the reading of 1.7 is itself insufficient grounds for making an identification.

1Q242Milik, DJD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ 126-27; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (1.2).

611Q24 = lQGiantsb

]·[ 1 2 ] ל אר]עא ע

ל[ 3 [

1 ]·[2 ]upon [the] ear[th

3 ]/[

1Q243

Milik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 128-29; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.3).

] ■[ 1] א[ 2 ת

3 ] ל כו תעז ל [

1. 3: Beyer: ]Π; Milik: א כי ש]ו ח ; Fitzmyer-Harrington: כא ש]ו ח .

1 ]·[2 r t3 ]for every hsh[

1Q244Milik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 128-29.

ה מיא [ 1.[

Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]ל כו מיא ל .

1 ] water h.[

1Q245Milik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 128-29; Beyer, A TT M , 268 (11.3- 4); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 101 n. 12.

]·[]· ·[ 1].2 ] ש ציו רו

3 ]. ן הו ל רי כו ל ו [

א [ 4 טר מ א ל ולטל]

5 ] [ל ל] [

1. 3: With Fitzmyer-Harrington. Milik: ררהרן.[; Beyer: ן הו ר [ (sic!).1. 4: Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer: א ר ט מ ל .ו

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments62

1 ]· ·[ ]■[2 ]rwsh and y s. [3 ]their .r[4 ] the rain and [the] dew [5 ] / [ ] / [

Comment. The emphatic state and order of the meteorological phenomena “the rain and the dew” corresponds to that of another manuscript from BG, 4QEnGiantsfc 4Q203 11 col. ii, which reads ולטל]א למטרא . These phenomena are also combined among the Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch; however, in the extant examples the words appear in the absolute state and are given in the opposite order.16

1Q246Milik, DJD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT,\ 128-29; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.1).

לכרל[ 1 [

2 ] פי .גי ל [

1. 2: Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ל ] כו .

1 ]for every [

2 ] / ·gy py[

1Q24 7

Milik, DJD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ 128-29; Beyer, A T T M , 268.

לקץ יום .[ 1[ א [ 2 ל גמירי]ן כו

הון 3 די ע[לי [

1. 2: Milik: ת רו] מו ג (“accomplishments/destruction”); Fitzmyer-Harrington:ת[ ר מי ג (“decision o f”).

1.3: M ilik .(!sic) ע[לוהוך:

1 ]. day at the end time[2 ] everthing completefd3 u]pon those who[

16 See 4QEnochc to 1 En. 36:1 ( ומט]ר לטל ) and 4QEnastri’ to 1 En. 76:8 ( ]ומטר טל ). In the context of the latter example, all meteorological phenomena are given in the absolute form. The argument from order is not clearcut; in 1 En. 76:11 the Eth. twice preserves the “rain, dew” sequence (cf. also the parallelismus membrorum in 42:3).

632Q26 = 2QGiants

1Q248

Milik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 128-29; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.2).

ן·[ 1[ ]·[2 ] לכון שלם לא [

1 ln[ ].[2 ]there (is/will) not (be) peace for you[

1.1: Milik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer: “he did not take vengeance onyou”.

Comment. The phrase on 1.2 closely approximates what Enoch says to the Watchers and their children in the Middle Persian Kawan (Frgt. I): “To you ... not peace/’17 Furthermore, the phrase corresponds to 1 Enoch 12:5 (Cod. Pan.-και ουκ εσται ύμΐν ειρήνη, Eth. has 3rd pers.; cf. also 16:7), which is part of a divine pronouncement against the Watchers communi- cated to Enoch through the (good) Watchers. Finally, in 1 Enoch 16:4 some Ethiopic manuscripts contain this text as part of what Enoch is to communicate to the Watchers for whom he is interceding. Since none of the other 1Q24 fragments correspond to anything from 1 Enoch traditions and since the phrase also seems to occur in the Manichaean Kawan, this fragment suggests that 1Q24 may merit inclusion in the Qumran BG. Here, then, Enoch is probably addressing a group of Watchers; cf. com- ment on 4Q203 13, 1.3 below.

2Q 26 - 2QEnGiants (1 Fragment)

2Q26Baillet, DJD III,™ 90-91 (“Fragment de Rituel [?]”); Milik, BE, 309 and 334-35; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 72-73; Sokoloff, “N otes” 210 and 213; Beyer, A TT M , 266; Sundermann, “Ein weiteres Fragment”, 492; Garcia Martinez, Qum- Apoc, 101; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 51 and 147 n. 19919.

Script. Herodian.

לממ]חק לוחא [הדיחו 1]לו[חא] מן עלא מיא [וסלקו 2

17 See a similar phrase (if correctly restored), but which uses the singular 2nd person pronoun, in 4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 13 1.3: תי ש]לם לכה אי [.

18 Abbreviation used hereafter for eds. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Dis- coveries in the Judaean Desert: Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962).

19 Despite the parallels between this fragment and the Manichaean fragment (see below), Reeves essentially ignores 2Q26 in his analysis; see also Jewish Lore, p. 154 n. 306.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments64

טלו ..[ 3[ חא ונ חא מיא מן לו די לו

4 ]. [ ר. ל [להן ה כו [

1. 1: With Beyer. Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: אדיחו they“) י[[will] wash”); M ilik חו: די ה ו[ .

1. 2: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: קו ל ס י .1. 3: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: לו ט נ י . Milik: ה ב] ד .1.4: Baillet: ]. ד. ח אל לה. א . .[.

1 ] “Wash the tablet in order to ef[face it!”2 ]and the waters rose up over the [tabjlet[3 ].. and they lifted the tablet from the waters, the tablet which[4 ].hr.[ ]for them all[

1.1: Baillet, Milik, and Fitzmyer-Harrington interpret the verb form as a 3rdperson plural (whether as a perf. or impf.), while Beyer sees therein a 2nd pers. plur. impv. See the comment below.

Comment. Milik, who first associated 2Q26 with BG, included it among those manuscripts “too poorly represented to allow a sufficiently certain identification of the fragments” (BE, 309). Elsewhere, however, Milik (BE, 334-35) adduces two pieces of evidence which lend his discussion more certitude about fragment’s identity.

The first text to which Milik draws attention is the Midrash of Shemha־ zai and ‘Aza’el, a medieval document of which the second half appears to be an abridgement of the story of ’Ohyah and Hahyah recounted in the Book of Giants. Milik (BE, 321-30) provides both a collation of four out of the six extant manuscripts of the work and an English translation, which he divided into 13 sections. In sections 9 and 10 the giants Heyya and ’Aheyya are given dream visions after Shemhazai, their father, has been informed by Metatron through a messenger that God is about to destroy the world through a flood (section 8). The first of the two dreams (9), according to the compilation of the Oxford Bodleian Hebrew manu- script (1325 C. E.), translates as follows:

“One saw a great stone spread ( ה אבן ל דו ה ג ס רו פ ) over the earth as a table חן) ל שו כ ), and the whole o f it was engraved with lines. And an angel (ך א מל ) de- scended from the firmament with a knife in his hand, and he was erasing and scraping off ( ה ר הי ר חק גו מו ו ) each o f the lines; he was not leaving (anything intact) except for one line (composed) o f four expressions (ת בו תי ) / ’

The second dream (section 10) envisions a garden of trees of which all are destroyed except for one with three branches.

The second text belongs to the Middle Persian Kawan (Frgt. j ), 11.34-39 (Henning, “Book of Giants” 60). After the mention of Sam (= Middle Persian Kawan designation for ’Ohyah), the following vision is recounted:

652Q26 - 2QGiants

“ ... over Taxtag. To the angels ... from heaven. Taxtag to ... Taxtag threw (or: was thrown) into the water. Finally (?) ... in his sleep Taxtag saw three signs, [one portending ...], one woe and flight, and one ... annihilation.”

Immediately following, a vision of Nariman (the Kawan designation cor­responding to Hahyah) is recounted, which is concerned with a garden of trees.

Following a note by Henning (“Book of Giants” 60 n. 7), Milik reads “Taxtag” of the Middle Persian fragment not as a proper name,20 but as “a board” which is thrown into the water and which (according to Milik’s emendation) is seen by the sleeping ’Ohyah to have three signs on it (BE, 334). Milik regards the “board” thrown into the water as an equivalent to the engraved “great stone” in the Midrash, which has adapted the story by doing away with the water imagery. Thus this board in the Kawan frag­ment, analogous to the Midrash, is undergoing effacement through the water, which represents destruction from the flood. Milik goes on to sur­mise that the board with three signs on it must refer to a different board, a board which represents that which has not been destroyed by the flood, i. e. the ark of Noah and his three sons. This scheme is transferred to 2Q26: in 11.1-2 the tablet is being effaced by washing (hence the restora­tion in 1.1 on the basis of the Midrash), a reference to the evilgeneration submerged by the flood waters; in 1.3 a second (or perhaps even a third) tablet, which is lifted out of the waters, signifies the ark.

Milik’s interpretation of at least two tablets, however, appears to be contradicted by the Midrash and 2Q26. In the former, only one stone is mentioned, i. e. the stone which is effaced except for four lines. In the Qumran fragment the tablet emerging from the water in 1.3 appears to be the same tablet over which the waters have risen in 1.2. Such considera­tions have perhaps led Garcia Martinez to suppose that the fragment “repeatedly mentions the immersion of a tablet in the water, no doubt with the intention of erasing what was written on its surface”.21 Garcia Martinez may be correct in his assumption of one tablet, since neither the Midrash nor the Kawân demand that one think of any more. But a de­scription of an extended washing process in 11.1-2 is likewise unnecessary to the dream vision. Beyer’s suggestion that the verb of 1.1 be understood as the imperative command from a heavenly voice removes the problem. The 2nd person imperative form is probably directed towards agents of

20 Henning, as indicated in his translation provided above, interpreted the letters txtg as a proper name, since in the fourth occurrence the word is the subject of the verb “to see”.

21 QumApoc, p. 101.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments66

God’s activity, i. e. angels. In 1.2 there follows the washing itself (and the judgment it implies), while in 1.3 the divine agents raise the tablet.

If 2Q26 has been correctly assigned to the dream vision of one of the giants (on the basis of the Middle Persian Kawan and the Midrash of Shemhazai and ‘Aza’el), then it is a vision with both positive and negative dimensions.22 From the perspective of humanity, the dream reflects God’s protection of the faithful (Noah and sons) despite the destruction wrought through the flood. However, this limited extent of survival contains fore­boding prospects for the giants. The second dream about trees, mentioned in the Kawan and Midrash, corresponds to the extant portions of 6Q8 2.

4Q203 - 4QEnGiantsa - (13 Fragments)

Photographs. 4QEnGiants^ is the only BG manuscript which Milik edited by providing both readings and photographs.23 The readings offered here are based on a comparison of the Plates published by Milik (BE, XXX- XXXII) and other photographs in the PAM series which contain the in­dividual fragments (specified below).

Proposed groupings of fragments. Milik has proposed the following as­sociations of fragments:

(a) 1,2+3 (BE, 311);(b) 5+ “7 i” (BE, 312);(c) M ilik’s “7 i” (BE, 312-14) consists o f two fragments (designated 7 A

and 7 B below) which he assigned to two sides o f the same column;(d) 8 belongs to the column immediately following “7 ii” (designated 7 B ii

below);(e) 11 i belongs to “7 ii” (designated 7 B ii below), while 11 ii belongs at the

bottom o f 8 and would thus correspond to “7 iii” (BE, 317); and(f) 10 is placed by Milik to the left o f 9 on the same column (BE, 316-17),

while Beyer places 10 below 9 (A TTM , 266).

These possibilities are evaluated in the discussions under the relevant frag­ment numbers below.

Script and codicology. The hand of the manuscript is early Herodian (see Milik, BE, 178-79, 182-83). The scribal hand is identical with that of 4QEnochc. Milik concludes from a consideration of script, orthogra­

22 Beyer (ATTM, p. 266 n. 1) argues that 2Q26 contains a prediction of the destruc­tion of the Watchers, while the Midrash focuses on the salvation o f Noah and his sons. In the Midrash, however, the giants’ dreams lead Shemhazai to repentance, while ‘Aza’el does not (an explanation for the scapegoat ‘Azazel to bear Israel’s sin on the Day of Atonement); see Milik, BE, p. 328.

23 The only exception is frgt. 1, for which BE, Plate XXX does not include a photo­graph.

674Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

phy, state of preservation of the fragments, and a parallel “arrangement of the text” that it is “quite certain that 4QEnGiantsa formed part of the same scroll as that of Enc.”24 These similarities are indeed striking. Per­haps inconclusive, however, is the question of an identical “arrangement of the text”. Whereas 4QEnochc often marks new sections either by indenting lines,25 concluding lines before reaching the margin,26 or by leaving space between words on the same line,27 4QEnGiantsa seems in addition to be more likely to leave whole lines blank.28 Nevertheless, too much should not be made out of these observations, since the supposed difference is only based on fragmentary evidence and, hence, scribal con­ventions observed in either 4QEnochc or 4QEnGiantsfl might actually have been used in the other. Thus, unless further evidence to the contrary is produced, the extant materials all point in the direction of Milik’s thesis. It is thus likely that BG was included in a manuscript which also contai­ned the Enochic Book of Watchers, Book of Dreams, and the so-called Epistle of Enoch.

Garcia Martinez has concluded from Milik’s observations of older or­thographic features in 4QEnochc that this manuscript must have derived from a Vorlage which contained the same collection of Enochic works, including BG. If correct, this supposition would mean that BG belonged to the Enochic corpus well before the production of 4QEnochc=4QEn- Giants^, i. e. perhaps as early as the late 2nd century or early 1st century B. C. E. Milik (BE, 180-81) related the following orthographic elements to a phase prior to the manuscript: (1) the repeated, though not consistent, use of K as a final vowel following and 1 - as in IQS and lQIsa^;29 (2) an occasional use of n to mark the emphatic state for a masculine noun30 - as in the earlier manuscripts 4Q Enoch^31; and (3) a single use of 0 in place

24 BE, p. 310 (see also pp. 178-79).25 See BE, Plate XII frgt. g 11.7,9.26 Ibid., Plate XI, frgt. g, col. i, 1.3.27 Ibid., Plate XIII frgt. n, col. i 1.3.28 For at least six clear instances, see frgt.’s 2, 1.3; 4, 1.2; frgt. 7 A, 1.4 from bottom;

7 B i, 1.4 from bottom; 8, 1.2; and probably 12, 1.2. Dimant, “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch” 16 n. 8, cautions that the photographs in BE are not of sufficient quality to verify Milik’s codicological identification of 4Q203. To this she adds the literary consideration that, unlike the other Enochic works, BG “does not seem to have been written as a pseudepigraph^ work ascribed to Enoch” and therefore would not have lent itself to inclusion in a collection of Enochic works.

29 So the clear instances חזוא (impv. plur.; 4QEnochcI i 18=2:2); הווא (pf. 3rd pers. plur.; 4QEnochc4 1=89:31); ביא (absol. sing.; 4QEnochc I vi 23=14:10).

30 In 4QEnochc there are two instances, both of which correspond to the so-called Epistle o f Enoch, they occur together in 5 ii 28=107:1: יסוף ורשעה ובאישתה (“and evil and wickedness shall come to an end”).

31 See Milik, BE, 180 and Beyer, ATTM, 227.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments68

of the etymological ש - as in 4QEnocha.32 In 4QEnGiants^ feature (1) occurs at least once: שרוא (Frgt. 8, 1.14=plur. impv. from the root שרי ). Features (2) and (3), however, are not extant. While the evidence is only fragmentary, there is thus only scant positive evidence to suppose that a copy of BG was also part of the same Vorlage. The material basis for Garcia Martinez’s supposition are inconclusive. On the other side, we do not possess enough evidence to know whether 4QEnochc=4QEnGiantsa is the first manuscript to have included BG. To be sure, there are other manuscripts of BG antedating 4QEnGiants^ (6Q8, 4QEnGiants^) which seem to have circulated independently from the other Enochic works, but one must reckon with the probability that not all BG manuscripts origi- nally buried in the Qumran caves have been recovered. Barring further evidence, the question of when a collection of Enochic writings which contained BG was made must remain open.

4Q2031Milik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 124 and BE , 311 (without photograph on Plate XXX); Beyer, A T T M , 263 and A TT M E B , 125-26 (= 4Q535!); Reeves, Jewish Lore, 60 and 65-66 (without comment on pp. 124-27); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 103 and DSST, 260.

Milik suggests that 4Q203 1-3, all o f which preserve the beginnings o f lines next to a right margin, belong to the same column; see also Garcia Martinez in Qum- Apoc.

Photographs: PAM 42.436 (= EE, 858); 43.572 (= FE, 1520).

אקר]ב כדי 1?

ל 2 א ק ר ב [פי 3 עוד אנ [ה 4 קאם אנ [

1.1: With Milik and Garcia Martinez (.D SST ), whose translation followsM ilik’s text. Beyer reads ].אלן (cf. Reeves: ]אק ) in A T T M , while in A TT- M EB he reads the uncertain third letter as a ד , restoring ש אקד] . The third letter is barely visible and is itself more a matter o f reconstruction than o f a reading. For the verb ב ר ק see 1Q23 4 1.1.

1.2: Beyer (A TTM ) restores בי א ], apparently on the basis o f 6Q8 1 1.3; inA TT M E B Beyer does not offer any restoration.

1. 4: If the words do not, as is likely, represent a nominal or adjectival pre-dicate sentence, then the second word is likely to be a ptc. The clear אthere suggests that the ptc. is from ם קו .

32 In 4QEnochcIii 27=6:7, for the fourteenth fallen angel read סתרי]אל (cf. Stucken- bruck, “Revision” 31; Milik, BE, 347 has סתוא]ל while Beyer, ATTM , 235 reads אר תו ).

694Q203 = 4QEnGicintsa

1 When I a[pproach?2 Baraq’el [3 my face still [4 I rise/stand [

1. 1: Beyer (ATTM E B ): “Wenn ich heiligen werde [”.1. 3: Reeves’ translation is improbable: “face o f [”.1. 4: Garcia Martinez (to 4Q535): “I arose”.

Comment. This small fragment contains three clear references to a first person speaker. If Milik’s association of 4Q203 1 (cf. 1.2) and 2 (cf. 1.4) is correct, then the mention of Baraq’el on 1.2 suggests that the speaker may be his son, the giant Mahaway (see also the discussion under 6Q8 l).33 As it is unlikely that Baraq’el is being addressed in the fragment, Mahaway may be addressing one or more of the other giants34 - this possibility, however, remains uncertain. If Mahaway in 4QEnGiantsa 21.4 is being introduced as a speaker (i. e. if the restoration there of T\[lV is right) and if Milik is correct that fragments 1-3 originally belonged to the same column, then this fragment containing words spoken by Mah­away may be assigned to a place below fragments 2-3.

The name *7Kp*־Q refers to the fallen watcher who appears ninth on the list of the twenty leaders in 4QEnocha to 1 Enoch 6:7 (so also in 1 En. 69:2). On the form of the name, see the discussion under 6Q8 1.

4Q203 2

Milik, BE, 311; Beyer, A TT M , 263; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 60 and 66 (without com ­ment on pp. 124-27); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 103 and D SST, 260; all provide readings for only 11.2-4.

Milik suggests that 4Q203 1-3, all o f which preserve the beginnings o f lines next to a right margin, belong to the same column. Milik further proposes that the

33 Without providing any indication or explanation Beyer, in ATTMEB, has isolated 4Q203 1 from the other 4Q203 frgt.’s and has placed it within “E 5,13”, i. e. 4Q535. The result is a discrepancy with ATTM. Beyer seems to have been followed by Garcia Mar­tinez (DSST, p. 260 - 4Q203 frgt. 1 - and p. 263 - 4Q535 frgt. 1) who likewise has placed the same fragment within two different manuscripts. In proposing his interpretation in ATTMEB, Beyer may have been influenced by the placement of 4Q203 1 alongside the three 4Q535 frgt.’s in PAM 43.572. The inclusion of 4Q203 1 in PAM 43.572 may reflect Baillet’s view in the editio princeps to 6Q8 (DJD III, p. 117) that 6Q8 1, which mentions Baraq’el, is concerned with the “birth of Noah”. The association of Baraq’el with his son Mahaway in 6Q8 1 coheres more naturally with Milik’s proposal that 4Q203 1 and 2 are related to each other than with the identification of 4Q203 1 as part of 4Q535. See further, Part Two of this chapter below (under 4Q535).

34 Cf. 4Q203 3 1.4 below, from which may be inferred that one of the giants is ad­dressing a group of others.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments70

bottom right vertical stroke o f ה after the lacuna o f 4Q203 2 1.4 is visible on 1.1 o f 4Q203 3; there is thus a good case for combining these two fragments. This combi- nation is followed by Beyer.

Photographs: PAM 42.436 (= FE , 858); Milik, BE, Plate XXX.

]■*[ 1הון] 2 עלי

] vacat 3ענ[ה 4 מהו]י ו

1. 1: There are faint traces o f a letter in the line above 1.2) ה).1. 3: The space at the beginning may suggest that the whole line was left

blank.1. 4: This line = 4Q203 3 1.1. The restoration (following Milik) is more likely

than ה אנ , especially since 1.4 marks the beginning o f a new section. A ו is added before the verb on the assumption that the line beginnings are vertically aligned.

1 ] ’·[2 over/concerning them[3 vacat4 and] Mahawfay answerjed

Comment. The 3rd pers. suffix on 1.2 either (a) occurs as part of a first person speech by one of the characters or (b) reflects the conclusion of a section written in the third person narrative.

Line 4 evidently opened with a formula introducing a speech by Mah- away. Therefore, as fragment 1 perhaps contains words of Mahaway, frag- ments 2-3 may be thought to have preceded it in the column.

4Q203 3Milik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 125 and BE , 311; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ 72-73 (Frgt. 1); Beyer, A T T M , 263; Sundermann, “Ein weiteres Fragment” 492; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 60-61, 66, 124-26 and “Utnapishtim” 114; Garcia Martinez, Qum- Apoc, 103 and DSST, 260.

Milik suggests that 4Q203 1-3, all o f which preserve the beginnings o f lines next to a right margin, belong to the same column. Milik further proposes that the bottom right vertical stroke o f ה after the lacuna o f 4Q203 2 1.4 is visible on 1.1 of 4Q203 3. This fragment combination accords well with the space between this stroke and the beginning o f the line, which corresponds to the space o f the lacuna in fragment 2. There is thus a good case for combining these two fragments. This combination is followed by Beyer.

Photographs: PAM 42.436 (= FE, 858); Milik, BE, Plate XXX.

714Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

ה[ l וענ[

ה 2 [ רו ב ח ש 3 ב ב אדכ חו ו .[

תנו]נ[ני ומה 4 לק]טלה ת

1. 1: This line = 4Q203 2 1.4.1. 2: There is space before the edge o f the Frgt. for the expected י . The ה -ו

form o f the 3rd pers. plur. possessive suffix is either (a) a simple scribal oversight or (b) an inadvertent approximation to spoken Aramaic, in which the stress o f an originally penultimate syllable -oh led to theloss o f the final y. In favor o f the latter possibility might be some ex-amples from the early 2nd century C. E. in the legal documents from Wadi Murabba‘at and N ahal Hever which, using both ה - and ה attest ,־וthis pronunciation for the 3rd pers. plur. suffix. But this somewhat later evidence may reflect a local dialectical feature.35 See a further instance o f this form in AQTgJob to Job 41:12: ה רו חי 36.(”nostrils“) נ

אדכ.[ :3 .1 is the beginning o f a personal name. The last visible letter could bea ו ד, , or ר and clearly belongs to the word.37

תבונני :4 .1 ת is an ambiguous form: either (a) from תן נ , qal impf. 2nd pers.plur. + 1st pers. sing, object suff.38 or (b) from י תנ , p a “el impf. 2nd pers. plur. + 1st pers. sing, object su ff, as in Beyer’s interpretation (.A T T M , 263, 725). Before the lacuna ]לק could be the preposition + substantive (with Beyer); Milik, however, interpreted the letters as - attached to a ל p a “el infinitive form, e. g., perhaps from the root ל ט ק . If there is any literary connection between this fragment and a text in the Middle Per- sian Kawan (Frgt. j , p. 1), M ilik’s proposal is the possibility which more immediately suggests itself (see the comment below).

1 and answer]ed[2 his companions [3 Hobabish and *dk.[4 and what will you give me for kfilling

35 These examples are conveniently gathered and referred in Beyer, ATTM , p. 451 andATTMEB , p. 288. All attested instances have the form ה - except for a cession deed(written in Nabataean script) which belongs to the Babatha archive of Nahal Hever (9X וה -).

36 Beyer (ATTM, pp. 297,451,635) interprets the form as a scribal error, apparently because of the overwhelming use of the form והי in the other Qumran texts and because the pronunciation -oh seems to have been an orthographic feature in texts penned near Engedi. The pronunciation, however, seems to have been more widespread (as in the Samaritan dialect). An orthographic anticipation of the spoken language cannot, there- fore, be ruled out.

37 Sundermann’s reproduction of Milik’s reading (“Ein weiteres Fragment”, p. 492) separates the letter from the preceding ones: 'dk .[; Reeves, Jewish Lore, pp. 60 and 124, only reads ]אדב. Likewise, Garcia Martinez’ translation (D S S T p. 260: ADK [; cf. also QumApoc, p. 103: “Adk”) leaves the impression that the name has only 3 letters.

38 In any case, the 3rd pers. masc. sg. subject in the translation of Garcia Martinez (DSST, p. 260) - “What will he give me to k i[ll...?” (emphasis my own) - has no basis in the text.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments72

1. 1: On the reconstruction, see the text note to 4Q203 2 1.4 above.1. 4: Beyer: “was werdet ihr mir berichten über [”; see text note to 1.4 above.

Comment. It is impossible to know how far the words of Mahaway intro- duced in 1.1 (=4Q203 2 1.4) may be extended into the next three lines. The text in 1.4 is without doubt spoken by a giant, and the 1st pers. sing, object “me” indicates a self-reference. The speaker in 1.4 poses a question to a plurality of addressees, who are probably other giants. The dialogue has its context in the violence being committed by the giants.

Fragment j (p. 1, 23-28) of the Middle Persian Kawän, according to Henning’s translation (“The Book of Giants” 60), contains elements which also converge in 4Q203 3:

... Virogdad ... Hobabis robbed Ahr. ... o f ... - naxtag, his wife. Thereupon the giants began to kill each other and [to abduct their wives]. The creatures, too, began to kill each other.

This passage contains the name Hobabis (= hwb(’)bysh) and an incom- plete name Ahr. [, which either correspond or approximate closely those names on 1.3 of 4Q203 3 (]. ש ואדכ חובב ). The following reference to kil- ling may add contextual (but not textual!) support for the restoration suggested at the end of 1.4 (see text note). These few correspondences between 4Q203 3 and the Kawän Fragment j are not of such an extent that a literary dependence of the latter on the former can be established.

The name Hobabish was originally thought by Henning to be that of one of the fallen watchers in 1 Enoch 6:7. He speculated that the Mani- chaean fragment preserves a variation of the name XcoxapiqX (Cod. Pan.) = Xcoßaßif]^ (Syn.).39 The Greek forms, however, represent variations that derive from the Aramaic form כוכבאל , as attested in 4QEnochöf 40 Clear- ly, then, the names of the watcher and the giant are distinct. Milik has instead proposed that the name “Hobabish” may be a composite form: Hobab + (fish .41 As such, the name would call attention to the giant as an embodiment of human (< Heb. ש and animal characteristics. Milik (איhas derived Hobab from the power-wielding and ferocious monster known through the Gilgamesh Epic as Humbaba (the Neo-Assyrian form; the Old Babylonian version has Huwawa). In tablets 4 and 5 of the ancient epic, this creature engages in a fierce battle against Gilgamesh and Enkidu in order to prevent access to the “Cedar Forest” which he was guarding.42

39 “The Book of Giants” 60 n. 3.40 See Stuckenbruck, “Revision” 28 and 48.41 BE, p. 313.42 For the text and translation, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution o f the Gilgamesh

Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982) 32-33 and 93-95 respective­ly.

734Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

Since the name “Gilgamesh” appears twice elsewhere among the Qumran BG fragments (see below, 4Q530 col. ii 1.2 and 4Q531 Frgt. 17 1.12), this ultimate derivation seems assured.43 In this connection, we may note that Reeves points out a convergence in place names between an Old Babylo-

43 Going further, Reeves has ventured a hypothesis based on the appearance of the name “Atambis” ( tnbysh) in two Manichaean Middle Persian fragments published by׳Sundermann: (1) “M5900” Recto? (2X in Mittelpersische und parthische kosmogonische und Parabeltexte, p. 78) and (2) “L” p. 1, Verso 1.5 (in “Ein weiteres Fragment”, 497). Reeves argues that Atambis ultimately goes back to Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh Epic (tablets 10-11); see Reeves, “Utnapishtim” 115. Utnapishtim is, of course, a personage in the Epic who achieved immortality by escaping the flood sent by the gods upon the earth; this leads Reeves to suggest that Atambish, whose appearance in the Manichaean BG is owing to its ultimate derivation from the Qumran version (now lost), was em­ployed in BG as a kind of as a kind of anti-Noah figure who, as one of the giants (ibid., 115 and Sundermann, “Ein weiteres Fragment” p. 495 n. 19), meets destruction in the BG story. The great flood, in which Noah and his family are spared, destroys this mythological flood-hero. For Reeves, then, the BG author(s) integrated the names of such “pagan actors” from the Gilgamesh Epic as “a bold polemical thrust against the revered traditions of a rival culture” (.Jewish Lore, p. 126).

Huggins (“Noah and the Giants” 108-109) accepts Reeves’ association of Atambis with Utnapishtim, but rejects Reeves’ contention that this figure (a) is to be identified as a giant and hence that he (b) functions polemically in BG as an anti-Noahic figure. Instead, Huggins maintains that the equivalent for Atambis is Enoch. Huggins’ alterna­tive thesis is in part inspired by the fact that the brief narrative in Sundermann’s Frag­ment “L” does not provide any clues about the Atambis’s identity. The text of “L” (Verso, 11.1-7) reads:

“Then Sam said to the giants: ‘Come here that we may eat and be glad!’ Because of sorrow they ate no bread.They went to sleep. Mahawai went to Atambis (and) related everything. Again Mahawai came. Sam had a dream. .. .”

Who is the one to whom Mahawai gives a report? The possibilities would seem to be (a) a giant, (b) a watcher, or (c) Enoch, of which Huggins prefers the latter. For all the parallels which Huggins finds between Utnapishtim and Enoch - i. e., they are both antediluvian figures, they had risen above death, understood mysteries which they might reveal to those journeying to the ends of the world where both live - , the use of names in the Manichaean materials dictates against his thesis. If Atambis=Enoch, then it is a singular occurrence in the extant Manichaean BG versions that distinct, interchangable names are being applied to the same figure; “Enoch” occurs in the same Fragment “L” recto 1.11: “A copy of Enoch the scribe”. On the supposition of his identification, Huggins links the disaster described in M5900 Recto? to a parallel Frgt. i o f the Kawan in Henning (“The Book of Giants” 62) which mentions Enoch, but offers no positive evidence to support his thesis. Contra Huggins, the fragments can be read in a way that contrasts the two figures. Whereas in M5900 Atambis is associated with the giants (“And those three giants who were with Atambis were slain”) and watchers (“And he came[?] before those wa[tch]ers and giants who were with him”), in Frgt. i Enoch is said, accord­ing to Henning’s translation, to be “veiled”/“covered”/“protected” by angels. The im­pression is left that Atambis in the Manichaean BG is one of Enoch’s leading opponents and, hence, may be a watcher after all (as originally suggested by Sundermann, M itte/- persische und parthische kosmogonische und Parabeltexte, p. 78 n. 1); retaining influence from the Gilgamesh Epic, the ysh in Atambis may simply be a reflex (as Reeves argues) of Utnapishtim without calling attention to human characteristics o f the figure.

The Book of Giants and the Qumran Fragments74

nian fragment of the Epic, which identifies the “Cedar Mountain” with “Hermon and Lebanon”, and the Book of Watchers 13:9, which similarly places the watchers “at Ubelseyael (corrupt for Abilene?), ... ‘between Lebanon and Senir’ - that is, Lebanon and Hermon.”44 If the author(s) of BG knew of this setting in the Epic - independent of 1 Enoch 13:9 -, then Reeves may be right in postulating this as an added reason for choo­sing to include a “Hobabis” among the giants.45

4Q203 4Milik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 124 and BE, 312; Beyer, A TT M , 263 (11.1-6); Uhlig, Henochbuch, 758; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 61 and 66 (11.1-6; without comment on pp. 124—27); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 103 and DSST, 260.

Photographs. PAM 41.287 (= FE, 228); 42.440 (= FE, 861); 43.201; Milik, BE, Plate X XX .

] [בהי! 1

vacat 2

מר .[ 3 ה א הי ה או לה]הי

א עלוי מן .[ 4 ע וש אר .[

אר[עא vacat 5 כ]די

6 ] ו י בכו שו קו]דם ו

]ל[ 7

is either the inseparable preposition or the last radical o ב :1.1 f a substanti-ve; the latter is possible since there is no visible space between ב and the edge o f the fragment.

ה :3 .1 הי ה] ל ; cf. the spelling in 4Q203 7 A ה :1.5 הי .לההי]ה או occurs also in4Q203 7 A 1.5; 1Q23 29 1.1; 6Q8 1 1.2,[4]; 4Q530 ii 1.15; and 4Q531 17 1.9. At the beginning o f the line, Milik restores אדי[ן ב ; Beyer: אדי[ן .(ב(

י ד כ] :5 .1 is the most likely reconstruction for a word which begins a newsection and begins with כ־ .

44 Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 124. The broken text in 4QEnochc to 1 En. 13:9 (= I vi; see Plate XII in Milik, BE) says that “I (Enoch) came] unto them and all of them were assembled together and sitting and c[rying ... (א]בלין)”. The Aramaic probably followed with a place name which reflects a word-play on the foregoing verb: Abel-Mayya or Abel-Men ( מיא/ן אבל ), south and between Mt. Hermon and Lebanon. This, and not Abilene = אבילין to the north - initially conjectured by R. H. Charles (The Book o f Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906] 35) and followed by Knibb (Enoch, 2.94) - , is preferable if Enoch’s location “by the waters of Dan which is southwest of Hermon” in 13:7 was being associated with that of the watchers; see Milik, BE, p. 196; idem, “Le Testament de Lévi en araméen: fragment de la grotte 4 de Qumran,” RevBib62 (1955) 404; and Black, The Book o f Enoch, p. 144.

45 See Jewish Lore, p. 125.

754Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

שויו :6 .1 with Milik and Uhlig; Beyer: ו וי ח . The left vertical stroke o f thefirst letter ends slightly below the base line, as is the case with some in the manuscript; however, the root שוי - whether in qal “to be equal” or pa “el “to put, place” - does not make sense. The term in qal might be translated in a derived meaning, “to become even”, i. e. to prostrate oneself. Milik, Beyer, and Reeves read ם קוד] at the end o f the line. It is not clear from the photograph whether the dark part o f this side o f the Frgt. is all shading or also includes faintly visible traces o f a letter.

1 ]their ... &/among them [2 vacat3 ]. ’Ohyah said to Ha[hyah4 ]. from above the earth and s h \5 ]the[ earjth. vacat W[hen6 ]they prostrated and wept beffore

1. 4: The translations for עלוי מן differ. In his lexicon Beyer translates thephrase “herunter von” (.A T T M , 627; cf. A TT M E B , 391) and renders here simply “von”; Milik and Garcia Martinez have “above” and “on top o f respectively; Uhlig: “uber”. I have chosen a literal rendering ייwhose meaning is made dependent on the (no longer extant) preceding verb.

1. 6: On the choice o f the first verb, see the text note above. The contextrequires an intransitive verb; the translation o f Reeves (“they sat”) is strained. Milik, followed by Garcia Martinez (.DSST\ 260; but see Qum- Apoc , 103!), suggests that the giants may be weeping before Enoch (see comment below).

Comment. This fragment contains the conclusion of one section (possibly written in a 3rd pers. narrative) and the beginning of another, in which the ,Ohyah addresses his brother. Lines 4-5 suggest that ,Ohyah is relating a frightening portent. The 3rd pers. plur. in 1.6 makes it possible to infer that ,Ohyah’s report is not only heard by Hahyah but by other giants as well.46

In 1.6 Milik (BE, 312; cf. also Uhlig and Garcia Martinez, DSST) has put forth the suggestion that, perhaps because of their posture, the giants are bowing and weeping before Enoch. This proposal finds for Milik fur- ther support by a supposed similarity of context between this fragment and page 1 of a Sogdian fragment published by Henning (“The Book of Giants” 66, 11.1-10):

46 Garcia Martinez assumes that the prostrators are ’Ohyah and Hahyah. This is likewise possible. I am assuming, however, that after the vacat o f 1.4 the new paragraph opens with a verbal subordinate clause (i. e. “When they heard [what ’Ohyah said] ...), which would denote a reaction the preceding words by a plurality of figures (thus not including ’Ohyah). Unless something new has happened which makes ’Ohyah and Ha­hyah bow down and weep, the reconstruction put forward here is to be preferred.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments76

[when] they saw the apostle, ... before the apostle ... those demons [[=giants]] that were [timid], were very, very glad at seeing the apostle [[=Enoch]]. All o f them assembled before him. Also, o f those that were tyrants and criminals, they were [worried] and much afraid. Then ...

However, in other parts of the Qumran BG Mahaway is sent by the giants to Enoch for an interpretation of their dreams (4Q530 col. ii, 11.20-23); there is no hint elsewhere in the Qumran BG that the giants (except for Mahaway) ever meet up with Enoch. This suggests that, at least in con­trast to the Sogdian fragment, Enoch’s contact with the giants in the Qumran BG is mostly a matter of meditation. Furthermore, the Mani­chaean fragment, though attributing a similar posture to the “demons” (= giants) before the “apostle” (= Enoch), does not otherwise reflect the similarity of context which Milik suggests; nothing is said here specifically about a conversation between the giant brothers. Finally, 4Q203 4 does not preserve any hint that the giants have caught sight of Enoch and are reacting to his presence. Thus, unless 4Q203 4 preserves a significantly different mode of communication in another (later?) part of the story, a reconstruction of Enoch in 1.6 remains most unlikely.

4Q203 5

Milik, BE , 312; Beyer, A TT M , 268 (11.2-3); Uhlig, Henochbuch, 758; Garcia Mar- tinez, QumApoc, 260 and DSST, 103.

Milik proposed that “Fr. 5 should perhaps be placed in the lacunae o f fr. 7, col. i, at lines 5 -7 ”.

Photographs. Milik, BE , Plate XXX.

].. .[ 1

. 2 ] ס מ אנ°ו]ן ח

לו[ 3 טי ק . [

1. 1: Milik: ]..א [.1. 2: Milik (followed by Uhlig and Garcia Martinez) restores: א ש אנו] . Milik

interprets חמס as a substantive in the construct state and the following word as an object o f its action. This reconstruction opts for the longer o f two possible spellings o f the term: ש אנ)ו( . Hence the reading here corresponds to that o f Beyer (an alternative also considered by Milik), who takes חמס as a verb. The fragment is, in any case, so shaded at the end o f this 1. that both alternative readings remain uncertain.

1. 3: Though none o f the letters are completely visible, the reading is almostcertain. The verb is qal pass. 3rd pers. plur.

1 ]. ..[2 ]he inflicted the[m] with violence[3 ]they were killed .[

774Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

1.2: See textual note above; Milik: “the violence (inflicted) on me[n”.

Comment. Milik’s placement of the fragment in 11.5-7 of 4Q203 7 col. i does not fit well with the evidence there (cf. under 4Q203 7).47 The same roots appearing in this piece ( ,חמס קטל ) are also found (though as sub- stantives) within the context of Aramaic Enoch Book of Watchers 9:1 (4QEnocha I iv, 11.6-8) - the 4 angels “peered down from among the hol[y] one[s of heaven and saw] much blood being poufred upon ]the[ earth, and [the] whole [earth] was filled with e[vil and] violence (חמסה) against the ones killed (48”.(א לי קטי This piece, then, is either part of a narrative account of violence being wrought by the giants on earth (cf. 1En. 7:3-5 and 4QEnGiantsc5, 1.6) or, as more strictly in 1 Enoch9:l, abrief resume of their deeds in another part of the story (cf. 1 En. 9:9b, 10:15).

4Q2036

Milik, BE , 312; Beyer, A T T M , 268; Garcia Martinez, DSST, 260.Photographs. PAM 42.440 (= EE, 861); Milik, BE, Plate XXX.

]·[ 1לנא] [הרה 2

[ל..] 3

1 ].[2 ]he was/[will] be to us[

3 ]/·.[

1.2: Garcia Martinez’s translation o f the verb is highly unlikely: “went forus”.

4Q203 7 A and B I -I IMilik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 124 and BE , 312-14; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments o f Enoch” 206-207 (7 a, 1.7); Beyer, A T T M , 261 (7 ii) and 263 (7ia, b); Uhlig, Henochbuch, 758-59; Black, The Book o f Enoch, 121 and 221; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 103 and DSST\ 260; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 59+64 and 109-10 (7 ii),

47 Milik’s proposal is especially problematic on account of 1.3, for which in frgt. 7 A 1.7 there is no wording to make the addition of קטילו a suitable option.

48 This reading is uncertain, but more likely than the text of Milik (.BE, p. 342; see also Knibb, Enoch, 2.85): עליה את[חטי . The latter is improbable for two reasons: (1) the reconstructed verb is as yet unattested in the itp. (see Black, The Book o f Enoch, p. 130) and (2) there is no space for another letter between the first י and the following ל. For another occurrence of the root קטל as a substantivized pass. ptc. plur., see the likely reconstruction of קטי[לין in 4Q530 = 4QEnGiants^ 6 1.4, a statement which corresponds to 1 En. 9:10; see under 4QEnGiants^ below.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments78

61+66 and 126-27 (7 ia, b); Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology,49 236 n. 94.

M ilik’s 4Q203 “7 i and ii” represents his combination o f 3 fragments (all belon­ging to/included under the heading “i”): (1) a fragment containing portions o f 7 lines on the right side o f a column; (2) a fragment preserving portions o f 2 bottom lines o f the left side o f a column; and (3) a fragment consisting o f the end o f a line (the 3rd 1. from the bottom) on the left side o f a column (i) and o f the beginning of the 3 bottom lines o f the next column (ii). From BE , Plate X XX I (and p. 313) it is apparent that Milik assigned (1)=A to the right side o f a col. i whose left side is preserved by the combination o f (2) and (3)=B i-ii. As is clear from PAM 40.622 and 41.643, B i- ii (= M ilik’s “ib -ii”) consists o f two originally separate fragments. M ilik’s combination “ib -ii” (= our “B i- ii”) is correct; however, the placement o f “A” in the same column as “B i” may be questioned for reasons to be provided in the comment below. Though these fragments are retained under M ilik’s “fragment 7”, the designations “ia” and “ib -ii” have been renamed “A” and “B i- ii” in order to reflect their independence from each other more accurately.50

Photographs. For 7 A: PAM 40.617 (= FE, 77); 41.354; Milik, BE, Plate XXXI. For 7B i-ii: PAM 40.622 (= FE, 82; without the lower rt. Frgt. = 11.7-8); 41.354; 42.436 (= FE , 858); Milik, BE, Plate XXXI. For 7B i, missing in PAM 40.622: PAM 41.643 (= FE, 364).

A

1. 1: Milik: ].כ [.1. 2: Milik: ] ל ו .[. Since “all/every” is spelled in the manuscript with the

internal ל ,ו כ [ is to be taken as the final letters o f another word.1.3: Milik and Beyer: ה כ[ קפ] תו . Where they read ה , it is difficult to discern

whether the dark traces are parts o f a letter or folds in the fragment.1.5: On ה הי או see 4Q 2044 n. to 1.3. ההי]ה is the fullest preserved spelling for

’Ohyah’s brother’s name; hence: “Hahyah”. For the reconstruction of ר מ א , see 4Q די[ן :1.3 2044 א ה אמר ב הי ה או לה]הי .

1.6: If there is any parallelism with the following phrases, א לנ is more likely the dir. obj. o f a verb than ~ל denoting a preposition (with e. g. an indir. obj. suffix). The spelling o f עזא]ז[ל follows that o f biblical tradition (cf. Lev. 16:8,10,26). In the Aramaic Frgt.’s o f the Book o f Watchers a form

49 WUNT, 2.70; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995.50 Beyer and Reeves reject Milik’s 7 ia + ib reconstruction, though Reeves adopts the

line numeration for 7 ii (11.5-7) based on the reconstruction.

ש] נ .] 1

] [כל 2פ]...1ת ק 3

vacat 4לההי]ה [אוהיה אמר באד]ין 5

א עבד לעזא]ז[ל [ה ]ו לנ ל]ה ו 6א רי ב שון וע]ירי[א ג תנ ל י הון כו רי חב] 7

bottom margin

794Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

corresponding to a form o f “A sael” predominates ( / En. 6:7-4QEn- ocha I iii 9 [4 ,[ל א ס ע QEnochc I ii 26 [אל ש ע ]), which in Syn. and Cod. Pan. appears as 9A^ctA^X and ’A ozaX respectively.51 The 4Q180 He- brew text contains the name twice as 52.ל א עזז Before this word Milik reconstructs ]ה אל ] (“but”), a term unattested in extent Aramaic sources before the Bar Cochba revolt. M ilik’s proposal is the result o f both (1) his ascription o f fragments A and B i to the same column and (2) the readings he has adopted for B i 1.1; see the comments on A and B i below.

1. 7: After the first word Milik reads and restores: א -Milik acknowled .ול]ו[ges that this spelling o f the negative particle would be a Hebraism, but its occurrence is nevertheless more explicable given his questionable rea- dings א עני ולו in B i, 1.1 (see n. there). It is therefore preferable to posit with Beyer the end o f a sentence at this word,53 so that שון תנ opens a יnew one. Beyer offers no reconstruction, but it is possible, given the semi-cursive script, to find sufficient space in the lacuna for א רי עי (with the , ’s attached to the preceding letters ע and ר ). At the end o f the line Milik reconstructs הון בי חב]י while Beyer has 54.הי רו ב] ח If the term refers exclusively to the giants, then M ilik’s restoration is possible; in contrast to the Watchers, “beloved ones” is reserved in Enochic lite- rature for the giants (cf. 1 En. 14:6=4QEnochc I vi, 1.16 [כ]ון בי בי ח ] and 10:12, refering specifically to the giants as “beloved ones” o f the Wat- chers). Beyer’s restoration adopts the more neutral term, as בר ח is con- ceivable as a reference to either the Watchers (cf. 1 En. 9:7) or the giants (see below, 4QEnGiants^=4Q530 col. ii, 11. 1,3,5). If the restoration adopted here for the beginning o f the line is correct, then בר ח may be the more likely reconstruction.

1 ].nsh[2 ]kl [

51 The form “Azazel” in the Eth. witnesses (1 En. 8:1; 9:6; 10:4,8; and 13:1) no doubt represents an accommodation to the biblical tradition.

52 Published originally by John M. Allegro in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert o f Jordan, V: I (4Q158-4Q186) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) 77-79 (esp. p. 78) and improved by John Strugnell, “Notes en marge du volume V des Discoveries in the Ju- daean Desert o f Jordan”, RevQum 7 (1970) 252-54 (esp. p. 253). See also Milik, BE, 314 and esp. pp. 249-51. More recently, see Devorah Dimant, “The Tesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181”, Israel Oriental Studies 9 (1979) 77-102. The author(s) of 4Q180 may have taken the figure from the atonement ritual and related it to the birth of the giants (following the tradition in 1 En. 107).

53 Milik translates the section from 1.1 of Bi to A 7 as a string of substantives acting together as the subject of the verb שון תנ of the Watchers, the giants, and [the sons ,...]“ :יall [their] beloved ones will not be spared [...” This reading is unlikely because the final substantive in the sequence is being ackwardly reconstructed as subsequent rather than prior to the verb; the expected syntax would have the noun attached to the *ו and preceding the verb. Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 206-207, apparently fol- lows Milik’s reading of ול]ו[א but proposes that the verb be rendered as the itpa. form of .”in the sense “to forget”: “they will not be forgotten נשי

54 The visible part of the second letter excludes reading a ט which would have suggested restoring חט]איהון.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments80

3 [your/his ]strength[4 vacat5 Th[en ],Ohyah [said] to Hahya[h, “ ...6 us [and/but he? ...]A ‘Aza[z]el and made h[im?/for him? ...7 the giants and the Wa[tchers]. All [their] co[mpanions] will rise up

[against . . .”

1.2: See text note above.1. 7: The translations differ for the itp. o f שי The basic sense o .נ f M ilik’s

rendering (“will not be spared”) is followed by Garcia Martinez (“none ... will be forgiven”), whose translation betrays an attempt to relate the verb to the atonement m otif associated with the name ‘Azazel occurring on 1.6 (see comment below).55

Comment. Here an attempt must be made to explain why the reconstruc- tion of A and B by Milik has not been followed. For this we may repro- duce the relevant 11. of Milik’s text:

column i

vacat vacat

א עני ...[אדין 5 לו ו

א 6 עבד לעזא]ז[ל ]אל[ה לנ רין בני[ ל]ה ו עי

א 7 רי ב שון ול]ו[א ג תנ ל י הון כו בי חב]י

margin margin

Milik’s running text primarily merits consideration on the basis of the respective formats of the fragments: (1) A and B both belong at the bot- tom of opposite sides of a column and (2) the 4th lines from the bottom of each piece are blank. Furthermore, the fragments both contain 1st pers. plur. suffixes as self-references for the speakers. Given these similarities, the fragments either preserve parts of one coherent text or stem from different columns of the manuscript, in the latter case converging in for- mat through sheer coincidence.

Awkward attempts to produce a coherent translation through Milik’s combination leave little doubt concerning its improbability. The similar renderings of Milik (and with him, Uhlig) and Garcia Martinez are as follows:

Milik: Then, he (sc. God?) punished, not us, but 'Azazel, and has made him [..., the sons] o f the Watchers, the giants, and all [their] beloved ones will not be spared [...

G. M.: Then he punished not us but Azazel and made him [... the sons] o f the Watchers, the Giants; and none o f their [beloved beings] will be forgiven [...

55 It is even more difficult to justify Reeves’ translation (“they have forgotten a l l . . .”).

814Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

The reconstruction behind these respective translations creates several for- midable difficulties for the text: (1) God is a most unusual subject for the pa <(el of the verb עני (“to oppress, afflict”); (2) the following ו־ clause would have to function as an interruptive phrase, most uncommon when following a verb which takes a dir. obj.; (3) the reading of א לו , though one of several possible ways to read the letters at the end of the line, would have to be understood as a Hebraism (see n. to text B i, 1.1 below); and (4) the emphatic plur. for “giants” at the beginning of 1. 7 does not cohere well with the use of the absol. plur. form for “Watchers” (one would ex- pect א רי עי ) in Milik’s reconstructed previous line. In view of these pro- blems, the ascription of fragments A and B i to the same column is to be rejected. Rather, it seems safer to assign fragments A and B to different, perhaps successive, columns which were similarly torn near the bottom; the placement of vacats in both fragments is simply a matter of coinciden- ce.56

Line 5. A new section opens with words addressed by ’Ohyah to Ha- hyah his brother. The interaction between these two giants is also found on fragment 3 above, where the words of ’Ohyah to his brother also in- troduce a new section in the manuscript. Here we have to do with a con- versation between them, while in other fragments it is their respective dreams which come into focus; see 4QEnGiants^=4Q530 col. ii, 11. 3-20 and comments on 2Q26 and 6Q8 2.

Line 6. The 1st pers. plur. suffix, spoken by ’Ohyah, is either a reference to the two giant brothers or to the giants as a whole. לנא was probably preceded by a verb, just as the following poorly preserved ה [... must be regarded as a verb with Azazel as its object (parallel to ] ל עבד at the end of the line). The reason for singling out the Watcher 'Azazel in conjunc־ tion with the giants is not clear. The possibility that in this passage Azazel is being assigned an “expiatory role”57 cannot be categorically ruled out. Indeed, in the Book of Watchers this figure (though in the Qumran Ara- maic probably in the form “Asael”) is associated with the atonement motif (1 En. 10:4,5,8). Moreover, correspondence with the spelling in biblical tradition may suggest a deliberate connection with the Yom Kippur ritual. However, Lester L. Grabbe, who builds on Milik’s reconstruction of the text, may be overstating the case when he concludes that 4Q203 7 “clearly states that punishment for all the sins of the fallen angels is placed on Azazel”.58 If the dissociation of the fragments advanced above is correct,

56 The possibility of such a coincidence is not as far-fetched as might initially seem, given the frequency of vacat lines in the ms.; see the codicological comments above.

57 Milik’s conclusion in BE, p. 313.58 Lester L. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpréta-

tion”, JStJud 18 (1987) 155.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments82

there is actually no visible evidence here to support such a claim. Judging from the other references to 444Asael” in 1 Enoch,59 the special mention of this figure here may simply be due to his prominence among the fallen angels as a revealer of sinful arts (1 En. 8:1; 9:6; 10:8; 13:2), whereas She­mihazah - who is given the role as leader in 4Q203 8, 1.5 (see below) - is specifically linked with the union with women and the teaching of charms (7 En. 6:2-3; 9:7; 10:11; cf also 8:1b Syn.b).60 It may be that the Qumran BG preserves 4Azazel and Shemihazah traditions in a way that (1) retains the ambiguity or tension in the Book of Watchers61 concerning which of them is the chief of the fallen angels or (2) while preserving both tradi­tions, specifically singles Shemihazah out as the chief62

Line 7. Reservations about rendering the verb in the sense of 44to forgi­ve” have been noted above. In the previous line, ’Ohyah has apparently recounted retributory events which have already been carried out against themselves and 4Azazel (perf. verb). From the imperfect form of the verb

59 The identification of “As/zael” or a comparable form (see e. g., Milik, BE, p. 131) as the biblical Azazel does not constitute a problem as may initially seem. In the Midrash o f Shemhazai and'Aza’el, in which the latter is spelled עזאל (at the beg.) and עזאזל/עזזאל (at the end) in the Bodleian ms. and עזאל (beg.) and עזאזל (end) in the Yalqut Shim'oni, the Midrash Bereshit Rabbati according to R. Moses of Narbonne, and the Raymund Martini ms. (collated in ibid., pp. 322-26). In addition, 1 En. 10:4-5 locates the punish- ment of A sael in the “wilderness of Dudael”, of which a similar place name of the desert region is designated as the scape-goat’s destination in m.Y0m a 6:8 ( רו רו בית ה ; variants: רון ,הדודו הו ) and in the Tg. Ps-Jon. to Lev. 16:21 ( ת הרודי בי ); see M. Delcor, “Le mythe de la chute des anges et de l’origine des géants”, RHR 190 (1976) 37.

60 Azazel and Shemihazah, outside the passage listing the names of the fallen Wat- chers (7 En. 6:7) and the catalogue of vices taught (8:1-3), are the only Watchers men- tioned by name in the Book o f Watchers, thus signalling their prominent position. In the Similitudes (7 En. 69), seven leaders of the fallen angels are listed (vv. 4—14) which are distinct from the foregoing list (v. 2). The addition of these names no doubt reflects a later development; in the actual list of v. 2, “Semyaza” is placed at the beginning (as in 6:7), while “Azazel” occurs twice, as the ninth (= 6:7) and twenty-first (cf. 6:7 Eth. Araziel, as the twentieth angel; has the Similitudes Eth. accommodated this name to Azazel?).

61 The operating assumption here is that the author(s) of BG was dependent on the Book o f Watchers for some details which are then elaborated or placed within the context of a different story. One of the Pseudepigrapha Group sessions at the Society of Biblical Literature Meeting in 1978 was devoted to a detailed discussion on the tradition-history behind 1 Enoch 6-11. In this forum, Nickelsburg argued that the A sael legend in the Book o f Watchers draws on the Prometheus myth (“Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6- 11” 383-405) and Paul Hanson emphasized that it ultimately goes back to a “culture- hero” tradition (antithetically conceived through a “rebellion-in-heaven” myth reflected in the Shemihazah passages) preserved in Sumerian and Akkadian texts (“Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6-11” 195-233).

62 Though an argument from silence, it may be significant that the currently extant Manichaean materials nowhere contain the name Azazel or an equivalent thereof (un- like Shemihazah; see below under 4Q203 8).

834Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

in 1. 7 one may infer that a further event is imminent, in which both giants and Watchers will participate. If the suggested translation and restorations are correct, then ,Ohyah’s words are heralding an escalation in the con­flict, in which all the fallen angels and their offspring are going to join in battle against the heavenly forces of God.

B I-II

i (1 1.2-3=later addition)

vacat 1לדו ענו ב[אדין 2 י

[עירין מן 3

א [לה 4 ף עגננ תק לכ]ה ו

מ.] לכה

תרי לוחיא] ל

א תנינ א לא כען עד ו קרי]

bottom margin

col. i 1.2: דו ל י , instead o f Beyer’s )טליא ט is unlikely) and M ilik’s (א לו see ;(וcomment on A above. The verb, which in its qal stem means “to bear/ give birth to” (as opposed to the a fe l stem = “to beget”), would expect a fern. subj. Hence, either one should read דו ל או (as 4Q531 5, 1.3, with the Watchers as the subj.) or ה Also .(.with the women as the subj) ילדpossible though likewise not a fully satisfactory interpretation is that the form is sui generis (as in Heb.) and thus the women are intended,

col. i, 1.3: The indeterminate plur. form o f ר עי ; see 1 QapGen col. 2, 11. 1,16 (also the basis for restoring מן here),

col. i, 1.4: א ^־עגננ תקף ;.perf. 3rd pers.+lst pers. plur. obj. suff /מ followed by ל־ as nota accusativa is to be interpreted as p a ‘el, as in IQapGen col. 21, 25-26 ( ף ק מלך ... ת ם ל ד ל סו סו ל הי ו רו ב ח ). Beyer reads/restores א ע[לי]נ , seeing here a parallel to the foregoing 1st pers. plur. suff. Since the second visible letter o f the last word has a stroke with two extensions toward the top, כ is preferable to a י or ו .

col. ii, 1.1: Milik (with him, Garcia Martinez) reads/restores מה]וי (see comment below). The space at the beginning o f the line is simply due to a fault in the parchment (Milik, BE, 314).

col. ii, 1.2: The blank space, as in 1.1, is due a flawed area on the manuscript not conducive for writing. The ~ל functions as a nota accusativa.

col. ii, 1.3: With Milik, Beyer, and Reeves, read: ]קרי (= qal perf. pass. 3rd pers. sing.).

1 vacat2 ]Then they answered, “They bore3 from? ]Watchers4 ]lh he has imprisoned us and defeated yo[u

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments84

you/to you m.[ the two tablets[and the second (tablet) until now has not been read[.

Comment on column i. On the dissociation of this part of the fragment from fragment A, see the comment on A above. Following a vacat in the manuscript and a short introduction, a plural subject (mentioned earlier in the line) recounts a brief resume the giants’ birth due to the Watchers’ sexual activity with the women on earth. This reading may be suggested by the convergence of ילדו and רין עי (^ “Watchers”63) in 11.2-3, but re־ mains uncertain. Line 3 continues with the words of the verbal subject from 1.2. The direct object references “us” and “you” probably indicate the distinction between the giants and Watchers. The last word could hy- pothetically be restored as לכ]ון (“you” plur.), but this would require an extension of the line well into the margin between the columns; thus it is safer to follow the slightly shorter restoration of ה . Perhaps, then, the giants (or some of them, perhaps ’Ohyah and Hahyah) are addressing one of the Watchers. 4QEnGiantsc = 4Q531 17, 11.3-7 preserves portions of a Watcher’s (Shemihazah?) 1st pers. account of his battle with the an- gelic hosts of heaven. In the narrative there the force of both the fighting sides is described by drawing on forms from the root תקף (1.3חיל־ בתקוף

פין אני[ן ;לרעי 1.7מני־ תקי ). If there is an allusion here to the conflict told in 4Q531 17, then the content of the latter may be assigned to a previous part of the story and perhaps - by way of conjecture - just prior to this section (i. e., corresponding to the upper part of the missing column in Bi) .

Line 4 reflects an acknowledgement of defeat and implies that the pos- ture of the Watchers and their progeny before God is going to be a matter of petition for mercy.

Comment on column ii. The separation of the content on this column from that of B ii by Beyer (followed by Reeves) within his ordering of the fragments is codicologically impossible; Beyer (.ATTM , 261 and 263) has

63 Cf. Fitzmyefs discussion of the term in The Genesis Apocryphon, pp. 80-81; the term denotes an angelic being and could refer to angels considered good (Dan. 4:10,13,14,20 [cf. Theod. to 4:13,17,23]; 1 En. 1:2; 12:2-3; 20:1; 39:12-13; 40:2; 61:12; 71:7; 93:2 etc.; 4QMess ar 2.16,18), bad (CD 2.18; and as 01 syppyopoi in T. Reub. 5:6-7; T. Naph. 3:5; Aq., Sym. to Dan. 4:10, 20; cf. Jub. 4:15; 1 En. 1:5; 10:9,15; 12:4; 13:10; 14:1,3; 15:2; 16:1-2; 91:15) or to both kinds simultaneously (\QapGen2A, 16; 4QAmram 2.1-2). In the two fragmentary extant examples of the Qumran BG, the term appears to denote fallen angels in this text, while in 4Q532=4QEnGiants^2.7 the context is insufficient for ascertaining a precise meaning. If the restoration at the end of 4Q203 8, 1.4 is correct, then עירא - in parallelism with קדישא on 1.5 - refers to one of the archangels who addresses Shemihazah and the other fallen angels.

854Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

placed B ii (= his G3, “Die beiden beschriebenen Tafeln”) and therefore also 4Q203 8 (= G4) before B i (= G7, “Gespräche der Riesen”). Though Beyer’s “G7” may simply represent for Beyer a collection of fragments not easily placed into a coherent sequence of the Qumran BG, the splitting up of B i from B ii has important consequences for construing the ordering of the fragments. Reeves, in adopting Beyer’s separation of B i from B ii, places the former along with other smaller fragments in a section (QG11) which he describes as “very fragmentary pieces whose precise position in the narrative sequence of the Book of Giants is impossible to determine.”64 B i is left out of consideration in the attempt to reconstruct the order of the Qumran BG. According to Reeves’ sequence, then, a battle between the giants and archangels and the resulting defeat does not occur until after the second tablet has been read (B ii), a notion con­tradicted by the references to a prior imprisonment (X33}y) and overpow- erment (f? qpn) on Bi, 1.3.

Lines 2-3 . Grammatically, “the two tablets” are the direct object of a verb. In the Manichaean Fragment “L” published by Sundermann (super- scription+11.1-9 also cited under 6Q8 1 below), both tablets are brought before the giants.

Here it is worth citing the extant lines of the Recto side of L in their entirety (11.1-13):65

(Superscription) concerning the demons‘“... not remain.” Again he said, “Bring these two stone tablets which are inscri­bed. First, bring Nariman <=Hahyah> the message.” Why are you running in such fright? I have now come, and I have brought these two tablets in order that I might read the one to the demons before the giants.’ Shahmizad said, “Read the writing of Enoch the scribe66 before ... which [has to do] with the message [concerned with the demons . ..”

As to be discussed under 6Q8 1, the bringer of these tablets is probably the giant Mahaway who has apparently come from Enoch.

The fragmentary Qumran and Manichaean materials lead one to ask two primary questions, for which there is but little evidence to go on: (1) of what did the first tablet consist - i. e. how is the content of the two tablets related - and (2) are both tablets read before the giants in succes­sion within the story or are they read at different parts of the story?

The first question cannot be answered with any certainty on the basis of the extant evidence. In view of the Manichaean text just cited and of 4Q203 7 B ii and 8, there are two possible answers. First, if we follow

64 Jewish Lore, p. 124.65 “Ein weiteres Fragment”, pp. 495-96.66 On the meaning of the designations attached to Enoch in the Book of Giants, see

the discussion under 4Q203 8 below.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments86

the Manichaean text, it is possible that Mahawai is repeating Enoch’s instruction to bring the first tablet to Nariman (=Hahyah), while in this text the second tablet is being addressed to the “demons” = giants. This seems to be the judgment of Sundermann.67 The text, however, does not clarify whether Mahawai is to bring Nariman the first tablet or bring him first the same message which he subsequently delivers to the giants. A second alternative is likewise possible, if the Manichaean fragment is sup­plemented by details in 4Q203 8, which purports to be a “copy of the se[cond] tablet” (1.3) from Enoch. A comparison of addresses among these materials suggests a contrast; whereas the message read in the Mani­chaean fragment is specifically directed toward the “demons” = giants, the “second tablet” of 4Q203 8 is addressed “to Shemihazah and all [his com­panions” (1.5), i. e. to the Watchers (see further under 4Q203 8 below). If the Manichaean fragment is preserving the story at this point with details as originally contained in Qumran BG, then one may ask whether Sunder- mann’s fragment corresponds at all to the context of 4Q203 7 B ii and 8. Could not the Manichaean fragment introduce the reading of the first tablet to the demons upon Mahaway’s initial arrival, while - by way of contrast - 4Q203 7 B ii and 8 set the scene for and provide the text for the second tablet?68

While advancing the second alternative proposal, it is important to state two assumptions to which it is related: (1) that the details concerning the addressees in the Manichaean fragment faithfully reflect what was contai­ned in the Qumran BG and (2) that the fates of the Watchers and giants69 could be distinguished in BG and that therefore these groups could be addressed separately. Taken together, these considerations reflect the pos­sibility - being explored throughout the commentary here - that the nar­rative of the Qumran (and Manichaean) BG contained a sequence in which the story unfolds slowly through the repetition and further develop­ment of narrative elements consisting of common motifs (two pairs of dreams [see under 2Q26, 6Q8 2], two tablets, Mahaway’s two journeys to Enoch [see under 4Q530 col. iii]).

67 “Ein weiteres Fragment”, p. 495: “ Wenn Mahawai dort jedenfalls zuerst dem Nari­man eine Botschaft Henochs überbringt (IR 4-5) (d. h. den Brief auf der einen Stein­tafel?) und dann (auf der zweiten Steintafel?) eine Botschaft an alle Dämonen, so deutet dies vielleicht darauf hin, daß ein Traum Narimans (Ahyahs) Anlaß der Entsendung Mahawais gewesen ist.” (Italics my own.)

68 The possibility of this suggestion at least shows how precarious it can be to assume real correspondences on the basis of superficial similarities, in which the differences are ascribed to changes which have occurred through transmission and a shift in theological perspective.

69 Concerning a possible distinction even among the giants, see below the comment on 4Q530 col. ii, 1-3 (and references there to the Manichaean Sogdian fragment).

874Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

The second question is, as the first, difficult to answer. Certainly B ii,1.3 indicates that the function of the second tablet in the narrative is to be distinguished from that of the first: “the second until now has not been read”. From this statement alone, it is unclear whether in the narrative the first tablet has been read (above B ii in the same column or much earlier in the story) and, if so, where. If the Manichaean fragment may be thought to provide a clue, Mahawai only reads one of the tablets (the one “con­cerning the demons”) before the giants; this event, in turn, occasions the Sam’s (= ’Ohyah’s) dream recounted on the verso side (11. 6ff). From this it would follow that the contents of the first tablet have been made known at an earlier part of the narrative.

The words “until now” introduce the scene in which Enoch’s second message is revealed. Contents thereof are preserved in 4Q203 8.

4Q203 8Milik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 125-26 and BE , 314-16; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Frag- ments of Enoch”, 207 (1.12); Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 72-75; Beyer, A T T M , 261; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 759; Sundermann, “Ein weiteres Fragment”, 494; Black, The Book o f Enoch, 283; Garcia-Martinez, QumApoc, 103 and D SST \ 260-61; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 59, 64-65, and 111-17; Martin Karrer, Johannesoffenbarung als B rie f70 57-59 and 172; Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology, 235- 36.

4Q203 8, the most extensive of the fragments of this manuscript, consists of three joined pieces. The PAM photographs of 4Q203 8 show that a large fragment was joined with a smaller one at the end of 11.3-4; to the latter, a tiny fragment at the top left of PAM 43.201 is joined by Milik to the end of 11.4-5. This combina- tion fits well with the evidence in the larger fragment and is adopted here.

Photographs. PAM 41.444 (= FE, 302); 42.436 (= EE, 858); 43.201; and Milik, BE, Plate XXXII.

I ספ]ר ...

vacat 2אי]גרתא די ת]ני[נא לוחא פרשגן 3

עירא[ ... ] פרשא ספר חנוך יד בכ]ת[ב 4ח]ברוהי ולכול לשמיחזה וקדישא 5[ל] ד]י לכון להוא ידיע 6ש.... ודי ועובדכון 7 ] נכולהון ד]י ונ[שיא ]ו[בני]הון אנון 8תכון 9 ומזעקה[ ... קאמה ע[ל°יכ]ון והות] בארעא בזנו

בניכון] עובד ]וע[ל עליכון וקבלה 10II בה חבלתון די חבלא vacat ...[ובארעא[ בשמיא די כול ... אבד]נא ארו מטה רפאל עד 12

70 FRLANT, 140; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments88

א ודי 13] יהוה ... דא צבות]א ופשר בימיא וד]י[ במדברי מה אסירכון שרוא וכען לבאיש עליכון 14 [

] vacat וצלו 15 ן

1. 1: If 4Q203 7 B ii, 1.3 (bottom of a col.) contains an introduction to thesecond tablet, then it is quite possible that this fragment belongs near the top of the column which follows. The word ספר could be restored within the context of two possible phrases: (1) a reference to “Enoch the scribe of interpretation” ( ך פרשא ספר חנו ; cf. 1.4 and 4Q530 col. ii, 11.14 and 22?), so that the name would have to occur on the previous line of this or the preceding column; and, as Milik proposed, (2) part of a title to the new section of BG as in 4QEnochcI vi, 1.9 (1 = קושטא מלי ספר En. 14:1). Since 11.3-5 serve as an introduction to the text of the mes- sage, 1.1 must have contained a title encompassing a larger section; therefore, alternative (2) is the more probable. If this is correct, then of course the wording would have differed from that of 1 En. 14:1.

with Milik and Fitzmyer-Harrington (cf. Garcia Martinez in אי]גרתא :3 .1D SST and Karrer) contra Beyer: אי]תי. For the latter there is no con- temporary evidence for the construction of the relative particle די folio- wed by איתי (the same idea - i. e. “which is” - would more often be expressed without the latter term).

since ,(so Beyer) כ~ with Milik rather than with the preposition בכ]ת[ב :4 .1the first letter has a higher base than the second. יד כתב refers to a document containing Enoch’s own handwriting; in a similar sense, cf. the phrase יד]ה כתב corresponding to Tob. 9:2 in 4Q197 = 4QTob arb (PAM 42.217 = FE, 718, bottom middle Frgt., 1.5). On the meaning of

ר פ פרשא ס , see the discussion on 4Q530 col. ii, 1.14 below; for the mo- ment note that this description of Enoch is closely related to the func- tion of the message as a פשר (see 1.13).

א) implies a foregoing substantivized adjective וקדישא :6 .1 רב ; cf. רבא קדישאin 4Q530 col. ii, 1.17 = God) or an equivocal substantive (א עיר ; cf.

וקדיש עיר in Dan. 4:10,20=an angel; וקדישא ירא ע =Raphael in 4QEn- oche I xxii, 1.5=7 En. 22:6. The affinity with 1 En. 22:6 could favor the view that one of God’s archangels is dictating the letter. On the other hand, of the two passages in the Book o f Watchers in which Enoch is commissioned by “the Watchers and holy ones” (7 En. 12:4-6) and God (15:1-2) respectively, the latter’s direct address to the Watchers in the 2nd pers. plur. corresponds more closely to the similar style of this fragment (so Reeves, Jewish Lore).11 At the end Milik restores ל]א[ (also Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez, DSST) and Beyer has

ל כו[ ; though the space of the lacuna corresponds more to the latter, there is too little context for an attempt at restoration here.

71 Reeves emphasizes the divine epithet “the holy and great one” in 7 En. 10:1 and 97:6 (Eth. in both: ‘abiy wa-qeddus), which leads him to reconstruct רבא at the end of 1.5. These considerations are possible but must remain inconclusive. The lack of refe- rences to primary angels as “the holy one” in 7 Enoch may be due to retiscence on the part of the Grk. translators; see the Eth. and Grk. Cod. Pan. to 22:6 which refer to Raphael merely as άγγελος (vis-à-vis the Aram, “the watcher and holy one”).

894Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

-as the third word is probably correct (so Milik, Fitzmyer-Har נשיכון :7 .1rington, Beyer, Reeves, and Garcia Martinez, DSST), but in the availa- ble photographs the final four letters are either invisible or illegible.

1. 8: Milik and Fitzmyer-Harrington: ונשיא ו[בני]הו[ן ; though Beyer andReeves read less letters here, they have the same text. אבון is masc. plur. and probably refers to the giants; grammatically, it could be func- tioning as a simple pers. pronoun, as a resumptive emphatic pronoun, (i.e. “the giants, they”), or as a demonstrative (i.e. “those [giants]”). The restoration כולהון follows that of Beyer; Milik’s הון בני would re- quire that 1.7 had enough space for the wives of the giants to have been mentioned.

:with Beyer and Reeves; Milik followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington הות :9 .1ה הו . The rt. vertical stroke of the last letter is slightly diagonal, which is more likely in 4Q203 for ת than for ה. The subject of the verb would be the fern. ארעא; Beyer’s restoration of a fern. sing. ptc. with the verb, but following the prep.+suff, is thus a possibility which coheres with the ptc.’s at the end of the line and at the beginning of 1.10 (see n. to 1.10).

1. 10: The fern. sing. ptc. form with *ו favors restoring with Milik a parallelverb at the end of the preceding line; the verbs קבל and זעק in the same stems are paralleled within an almost identical context in 4Q530 6, 1.4 ( ומזעקן קטליהין על קבלן קטי[לין נפשת - a citation of 1 En. 9:10?). Read with Milik (and Fitzmyer-Harrington, Reeves) contra Beyer: only ועלל ע .

1. 12: The beginning of the line presupposes that the vacat on 1.11 ended soonafter the lacuna there begins. Milik: א אבדנ] . On rendering the phrase

מטא רפאל עד , see the translation note below.1. 13: Beyer: ד]י צבו וכול (= “every creature whfich”; M ilik: צבות]כון ופשר (cf.

Garcia-Martinez, DSST; Reeves does not include the last part of this line). The visible parts of the letters clearly favor פשר and exclude ל כו ; if there, the final word’s ת only remains visible as a tiny dot.

1. 14: The readings and translations diverge here. Milik: מח]בל אסורכון (“thebonds which tie [you] up”; Fitzmyer-Harrington - “your bond that ro- pes you”; and Garcia Martinez, D SST - “your chains”); Beyer: אסירכון (“was ihr gefangen haltet”; similarly Reeves: “your prisoners”). A rea- ding of אסור ( - “chain, fetter”) would imply that in response to the message, the Watchers are told to disengage themselves from their chains, which seems odd if the Watchers are being expected to undo their own fetters and if the letter in fact is concerned with their further punishment.72 Beyer and Reeves are surely correct in reading a substan- tivized adjectival form derived from a qal pass. ptc. (ATTM , 519): “that which is captive”. The resulting meaning is, then, that the Watchers are told to set free that which they still have under their control/grasp.73

1 The boo[k of ...2 vacat

72 See also the important observations of Reeves along these lines in Jewish Lore, pp. 116 and 157 n. 347.

73 Therefore, I have found it necessary to alter my rendering for 1.13 (following Milik) in Veneration and Christology, p. 236.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments90

3 A copy of the s[ec]ond tablet of the le[tter4 in a document (written by) the hand of Enoch, the scribe of interpreta-

tion [ ... the5 and Holy One to Shemihazah and all [his] co[mpanions ... :6 “Let it be known to you th[at ]/[7 your activity and that of [your] wivefs and of your children and of8 those [giants and their ]son[s and] the [w]ives off all of them9 through your fornication on the earth, for it (the earth) has [risen

up [ag]ainst y[ou ... and crying out]10 and raising accusation against you [and ag]ainst the activity of your

sons[11 the corruption which you have committed on it. vacat [12 has reached Raphael. Behold, destruction will come upon ... all who

are in the heavens, and who are on the earth,]13 and who are in the deserts, and wh[o] are in he seas. And the in-

terpretation of [this] matter [... will become14 evil upon you. So now, set loose what you hold captive mh[15 and pray.” vacat [

1.9: The ו־־ is rendered in an explicative sense.1.12: Milik: “until the coming of Raphael”; the translation agrees with Soko-

loff, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, and Reeves on the grounds of two primary considerations: (1) Milik’s rendering corresponds better with a temporal construction such as די עד + verb (so Dan. 7:22; cf. Dan. 4:30, 5:21; \QapGen 16.11; 17.9,16; 19.9,26; 21.1,15,17, 18); (2) the rendering adopted corresponds to the word order in Dan. 7:13

יומיא עתיק .ועד1.14: See the textual note above.

Comment. “The second tablet” is presented in the form of an official letter decree. It contains an opening address formula (11.4-5; sender to reci- pients); a decree formula (1.6; “let it be known ...”); a densely-worded summary of culpability (11.7-11); a heralding of judgment (11.12-14); and at the end, a summons that the recipients capitulate (11.14-15). These formal elements provide the message a tone of seriousness to be associated with the communication.

Lines 3-5. If one considers the fact that Mahaway in BG is the bringer of the two tablets from Enoch (cf. Sundermann’s Manichaean Frgt. L Recto and discussions of 6Q8 1 and 4Q530 col. ii, 1.21-col. iii), this message re- fleets an elaborate chain of mediation between the sender and recipients:

God/A Primary Angel - Enoch the Scribe - Mahaway - Watchers/Giants

In BG as a whole, this chain is flanked on both sides by God (either the immediate or ultimate source of the message), on the one hand, and by the giants (the Watchers’ progeny), on the other. Here the giants are, however,

914Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

clearly not the immediate addressees, while it is not impossible that the sender of the letter is an angel (cf. the textual note to 1.6 above).74 In any case, the decree itself has been delivered through two intermediaries: Enoch the scribe, to whom it has been dictated, and Mahaway the mes- sage-bringer.

The function of Mahaway highlights the significance of the narrative role being assigned to the giants in the story Without a mediator-giant, the story could have easily been consumed by the a pronouncement of destruction on evil which climaxes in the subjugation of the Watchers. In 4Q203 7 B i, 1.3 above it was noted that the text distinguishes between the giants’ fate as those “imprisoned” and that of a Watcher (restoring the sing. njS1? in 7 B i, 1.3) as “overpowered”. The address in the second tablet is directed toward “Shemihazah and all [his] co[mpanions” (2nd pers. plur.-l 1.6,7,9,10,14), while the only extant reference to the giants is in the 3rd person (1.10; cf. also 11.7-8); whereas giants have presumably already been decisively fettered, the Watchers are, as a whole, still engaged in the struggle. The participation of the giants in communicating the de­struction of evil - i. e., Mahaway’s function as mediator and ’Ohyah and Hahyah’s dream-visions - reflects how the author(s) of BG did not trans­late the superior rank of the Watchers into their dominance of the plot. Though giants have been made recipients and bearers of divine revelation, their chained existence underscores that, at least after the first tablet, their defeat is beyond dispute. The distinction among the forces of evil may have provided a literary way of underscoring the inevitable and gradual breakdown of evil while acknowledging its continuing presence in the world of human experience. On the particular significance of the giants themselves, see section V on the provenance and purpose of BG in Chap­ter One above.

The role of Enoch as scribe is here applied in its most literal sense, i. e. as one who writes (in this case a message dictated to him). In the Book of Watchers Enoch’s writing activity is explicitly mentioned in 13:4-6 and 14:4, where it refers to what he does on behalf of the Watchers in their bid to seek forgiveness from God. By contrast, in 4Q203 8 Enoch’s func­tion is dissociated from the immediate petitions of the Watchers so that he becomes the scribal agent in the divine ultimatum to the Watchers. This development is consistent with his role as recorder of eschatological evils

74 The difficulty of identifying the sender not only turns on the designation קדישא (1.5) but on the fact that, despite the formal considerations mentioned above (n. to 1.6), God commissions Enoch to pronounce doom on the Watchers in 15:1-2 (for the mes- sage to them, see esp. 15:3-7 and 16:3), while in 12:4-6 he is sent by “the Watchers and the holy ones” (v. 4).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments92

for future generations mentioned in the remainder of 1 Enoch,15 and per­haps this may reflect a certain retiscence on the part of subsequent au­thors of Enochic literature to have their religious hero appearing to take up the cause of fallen angels. However, like the Book of Watchers, Enoch’s scribal function remains closely interwoven with the Watcher myth, sug­gesting that BG presupposes (and thus adjusts) the representation of Enoch contained there. On the epithet “scribe of interpretation” see the comment under 4Q530 col. ii, 1.14 below.

Shemihazah (in the Man. BG = Shahmizad in “L”, Recto 1.10 and the Middle Persian Kawan Frgt. c, 11.6 and 15) is the progenitor of the giant brothers ’Ohyah and Hahyah (Kawan, Frgt. c, 1.6; cf. also the Midrash of Shemhazai and 'Aza’el) and, in one strand of tradition preserved in the Book of Watchers, is introduced as the leader of the rebellious angels in heaven (7 En. 6:3,7; 9:7; cf. 10:11); see comment on 4Q203 7 A, 1.6 above. The association of him here with fornication with human women (1.9) is in continuity with statements of his culpability in the Book of Watchers (7 En. 9:7-9; 10:11). Though no further explicit reference to this Watcher is made in the extant Qumran BG fragments, occurrences in the Mani­chaean fragments (esp. in “L”) suggest that he is a recurring character in the story. In the text from L cited under fragment 7 B ii above, Shahmizad is the one who requests that Mahaway read one of his tablets addressed “to the demons”. It is doubtful, however, that the Manichaean passage corresponds to this part of the Qumran BG, since the 2nd pers. plur. suffixes and verbs throughout the letter clearly have the Watchers, not the giants, in view as addressees. If, then, the Manichaean text has not transformed its Vorlage from a communication to Shemihazah to a mes­sage for the giants, then the L passage may refer to a different section of BG, during which the leader of the fallen angels functions to call forth the reading of the (first) tablet.

Lines 7-12a. After alluding to the rampant evil engendered by the re­bellious Watchers (11.7-9), the letter draws attention to the complaint of the earth (11.9-11) through which this evil has been made known to Ra­phael (1.12a). The mention of Raphael as an angel who listens to cries of

75 Passages which specifically narrate Enoch’s writing activity have him (1) recording (his?) prayer “for the generations of eternity” in the Book o f Dreams - 1 En. 83:10 (cf. the differing Eth. recensions represented in Isaac, “1 Enoch”, p. 62 and n. q and Knibb, The Ethiopic Book o f Enoch, 2.193); (2) writing down “wisdom” for Methuselah and future generations in the condensed (Eth., based on a Grk. recension) version of the Astronomical Book = 1 En. 82:1-2; (3) recording wisdom teaching for generations to come at the beginning of the final extended treatise of 1 Enoch = 92:1; and (4) recording an account concerning eschatological evil for Methuselah and “those who will come after him” in the added section at the end of 1 Enoch - 108:1.

934Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

the victims of violent wrongdoing on earth is already implied in the Book of Tobit (12:12,15,16), where his intercessory role augments his function as protector of Tobias from harm in the story (5:22; 6:10-18; 8:2-3). In the Book of Watchers Raphael is also accorded a prominent role in the de­struction of evil; he is the first among the angels to enforce the punish­ment decreed against one of the fallen angels (Azazel; 13:4-6). In addition the Book of Watchers highlights even further his involvement with cries of complaint in two passages. (1) In Greek recensions and 4QEnoch° 1 iv 6 to 1 Enoch 9:1, Raphael appears alongside Michael, Gabriel, and Uriel who observe the violence and relay the earth’s complaints through a pra­yer of intercession to God.76 (2) In 22:3-13, Enoch is transported to a place where “the souls of the dead” are gathered. Here he sees the “spirits of the dead” raising their complaints toward heaven, and Raphael acts as his interpreter. Given the emphasis on Raphael there, the choice of this angel by the author(s) of BG here may reflect a familiarity with Raphael’s connection with the complaint motif in the Book of Watchers. The short reference to the complaints reaching Raphael in ll .l lb -1 2 a presupposes that Raphael has passed them on to God or has interceded on the victims’ behalf.

Lines 12b-15. The message ends with an announcement of destruction and a demand that the Watchers capitulate and “pray”. From 1.13 it may be inferred that the coming destruction is going to be complete; it is likely that the divine ultimatum to the Watchers is heralding the Noahic deluge. This cataclysmic event will not only destroy the world, but is going to have evil 1.14) consequences for the Watchers as well. The summons topray at the end of the letter (1.15) does not mean that the possibility of forgiveness is being left open for Shemihazah and his companions. Rather, as in the Book of Watchers, their praying is a sign of defeat signalling a contrast with the ultimate lot of the earth’s victims. Whereas the latter’s cries have been heeded, the Watchers’s pleas for divine mercy for themsel­ves and their children cannot escape the decisive results of divine judg­ment (cf. 1 En. 14:4-7). The inclusion of the Watchers in the destruction of the flood appears to cohere with the substance of Hahyah’s dream in 4Q530 col. ii, 11.6-12 in which “water” and “fire” everything in the gar­den (1.10) so that presumably the large shoots (1.8) growing there are destroyed; cf. also 2Q26 and 6Q8 2 discussed above.

76 In the Eth. recensions (except for the 18th cent. Bodleian ms. 5 and EMML 2080 from the 14th/15th cent.) the name Raphael/“Rufa’el” is not retained, having been re­placed by Suryan/Suriel/Suriel (a corruption?); cf. Knibb, Enoch, 2.84 and Isaac, “1 Enoch”, p. 16.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments94

4Q203 9Milik, BE , 316-17; Knibb, The Ethiopic Book o f Enoch, 10 and 193-95; Beyer, A T T M , 266; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 759; Camponovo, Königtum , Königsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den Frühjüdischen Schriften,77 248 n. 58; Black, The Book o f Enoch, 150 and 257; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 103 and D SST \ 261; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 57, 62, and 82-84.

Milik (RE, 316), apparently on the basis of similar content, combines fragments 9 and 10, placing the latter on the same column to the left of 9 at 11.1-4. Beyer, on the other hand, has placed 10 after his text of 9, which is possible if there is a relationship between 4Q203 9-10 and the phraseological sequence in 1 En. 84:3- 6. As there is no further evidence to suggest this placement, the fragments are treated separately

Photographs. PAM 41.591 (= EE, 353); 43.202; Milik, BE, Plate XXXII.

] וכול [.ל. 1

יק]רכה הדר קודם מן ר[עלין 2

אנתה יד]ע רזיא כול די מב[רך 3

תקפתכה] לא צבו [וכול 4

ק] וכען ק[ודמיכה 5

תכה [מלכות 6 לש] רבו

]vacat [.ום 7

..] [ין 8

1. 1: With Milik and Garcia Martinez. Beyer, Knibb, and Reeves read onlyל כו . The letter before כול does not have a base low enough for a ~ב , and the visible part of a small lower diagonal horizontal stroke does not rule out reading ו־י.

1. 2: The 2nd pers. pron. suff. is restored in line with those on 11.4, 5, and 6.Milik’s assumption that ך ר [ on 1.3 belongs to either הדרך or יקרך leads him to restore the shorter [רך יק instead.

1. 3: Since the 2nd pers. pron. suffixes end in 11.4-6) and throughout the כה ms.), the last letter is more probably to be taken as the final radical of the word. Thus one may restore with Beyer, who suggests for the con- text the phrase “dein Name sei] gepriesen”, appealing to a similar wor- ding in Dan. 2:20: די שמה להוא מברך אלהא as well as to the formula in Ps. 113:2 and Job 1:21 {ATTM , 538); see further the Fragment Targum to Exod. 15:3 (ms. 110): מברך רבא שמיה .יהא מברך would, then, be a p a “el pass. ptc. For the sequence blessing-divine omniscience in prayer, see 1 En. 9:4-5 and 63:2-3.

- תקפתכה :4 .1 qal perf. 3rd pers. sing. + 2nd pers. sing. obj. suff. A transitivesense of the qal root is attested in biblical Hebrew.

1. 5: The letter just before the lacuna is visible and easily identificable as a ק .Milik posits a restoration of (?) שמיא ק]דישי (cf. 1 En. 9:3=4QEnocha I iv, 1.10 - ש]מיה קדי[שי ), but this must be regarded as uncertain.

77 Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 58; Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

954Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

1. 6: Milik: עלמיא לש]ני (”[everlasting] y[ears]”); Beyer on the other hand,restores לש]נאיכה (”[your] e[nemies]י,). No restoration is attempted here for lack of further evidence.

1. 7: With Milik; Beyer proposes ]יום כול .

1 ]./ and all [2 ](they)[ sh]ake before [your] glofrious] splendor [3 be bl]essed because [you] kno[w] all mysteries [4 ]and nothing has defeated you[5 b]efore you. And now q[6 ]the rule of your greatness Ish[7 ].wm [8 ]yn . .[

1. 3: See textual note above.1. 4: Milik and Garcia Martinez: “is stronger than you” (תקף taken as a

stative verb); Reeves: “is too difficult for you” (תקף the Aramaic equi-valent behind 1 En. 84:2c Eth.-wa-’i-yesana‘aka)n \ and Beyer (.ATTM , 538; see also Camponovo): “hat dich besiegt” (תקף is transitive, as in biblical Heb. and IQapGen 21.25 and Tob.6:3 in 4Q197=4Q7b& arb (PAM 42.216 = FE, 717, 1.1 of the largest Frgt.: נ]ונא ת]ק[ף [?). For the qal perf. of תקף in this sense, see esp. 4Q203 7 Bi, 1.3 discussed above. These analogous occurrences lend credence to Beyer’s transla- tion. Beyer interprets צבו as “living creature” (as in his doubtful reading of 4Q203 8 1.13; see the textual note); see, however, Milik (.BE, 317: ^ = “thing” in Syr. and Palm.) and Beyer {ATTM, 674: with לא צבו, means “nothing”).

1. 6: See textual note above. Beyer5s suggestion that one restore “your ene-mies” is not impossible, but introduces a term not found in the context of any of the comparable texts in 1 En. 9:4-11, 63:2-4, and 84:2-4.

Comment. The extant parts of this text indicate that the fragment belongs to a prayer. This interpretation of genre initially suggests itself, as 11.2-6 are dominated by the extolling of divine traits, but is made certain by the 2nd pers. sing, address and the existence of comparable prayer texts. In this connection, the following formal parallels may be noted:

1.2: “your glorious splendor” 1QH 12.15 ( כבוד־כה הדר ); cf. 1 En.14:21.79

1.3: “may your name be blessed’5 Cf. Job 1:21; Ps. 113:2; Dan. 2:20(all in 3rd pers.; see n. to text above),

“you know all mysteries” Cf. 1 En. 9:5-6; 9:11a; 63:3a (Tanams. 9, as followed by Isaac); 84:3;4QM ess a r - 4Q534 1.8 (in 3rd pers.).

78 Reeves5 suggestion follows upon Milik’s own comparison of 1.4 with 1 En. 84:3 {BE, 317).

79 See Black, The Book of Enoch, p. 150, who suggests that the phrase διά τό έντιμον και ένδοξον here ultimately derives from Aram. יקרה הדר על .

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments96

1. 4: “nothing has defeated you” Cf. 1 En. 9:5; 84:3 (but the sense isquite different).

1. 5: “the rule o f your greatness” Cf. 1 En. 9:4. More common is “therule o f your/his glory”, as in the Qumran Shirot O la t ha-Shabbat (4Q401 14 1.6; 403 1 1.25; 405 23 col. ii, 1.11; 405 24 1.3).80

With the exception of the phrase in 1.2 the parallels noted are approxi- mate. There is thus little to sustain the possibility raised by Knibb (who emphasizes the parallel between 1.4 and 1 En. 84:3) that there may be a literary relationship between 4Q203 9 and the prayer in 1 En. 84:2-4. This opens up the way for considering the distinctive character of the prayer in relation to the Qumran BG.

Though fragments 9 and 10 do not contain any details which explicitly refer to the Watcher or giant story,81 there are at least two elements in 9 which correspond well with the context of BG and the Book of Watchers. First, the vocabulary in 1.4 may well be best understood as a reflection of the distinctive context of Qumran BG, i. e. its use of the root תקף as a category by which the strength of the opposing forces (God-angels vs. Watchers-giants) is measured; cf. 4Q203 7A, 1.3; Bi, 1.3; and 4Q531 17,11.3 and 7. Second, the phrase extolling God, “because [you] kn[ow] all mysteries” in 1.4, may emphasize God’s omniscience in contradistinction to the Watchers. In 1 Enoch 9:6, subsequent to an emphasis in the text that God knows everything (v. 5), Azazel is said to have “revealed the eternal secrets (Cod. Pan., Syn.-τά μυστήρια) which were in heaven” (Cod. Pan., Eth.). In chapter 16:3 this tradition is reinterpreted in order to clarify that actually not “every mystery” (παν μυστήριον; Eth.-plur.) was revealed to the Watchers. Instead, according to the Panopolitanus recension, they “know the mystery which comes from God” (μυστήριον τό έκ τού Φεοϋ γεγενημένον εγνωτε), while the Ethiopic versions presuppose that they only “know the rejected mystery/mysteries”. In either case, the stress is placed on the Watchers’ limited knowledge. From this perspective, the prayer’s assertion of God’s knowledge of all mysteries is specifically con- cerned with expressing God’s superiority over the rebellious angels who may not be thought to have had access to the “eternal mysteries” and to have brought them down to earth.

The two prayers of 1 Enoch bearing most similarity with the fragment 9, i. e. those of 9:4-11 and 84:2-6, are petitionary prayers in response to the

80 See the published edition of these texts in Carol Newsom, Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice. A Critical Edition (HSS, 27; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985).

81 Since there is no real parallel between fragments 9-10 with any known part of 1 Enoch, the question of its identification with BG has to be taken seriously.

unjust suffering on earth resulting from the Watchers’ fall and the giants’ violent activity (9:1-3, 6-10; 84:4). If, as is likely, fragments 9 and 10 form part of the same prayer, then the occurrence of the frequent *!$731 formula in both texts as well as the direct address to God in 10 1.1 provide evi­dence that the prayer is intercessory.

The fragments themselves do not reveal the identity of the speaker(s). From the start, the Watchers and giants may be excluded since the nature of their prayers to God can be expected to have involved an indirect im- plorement for mercy (1 En. 15:2); by rebelling against God, the Watchers have forfeited their function as intercessors on behalf of human beings. A more likely possibility is that the prayer is being spoken by an angel or angels, as in 1 Enoch 9:4-11. This hypothesis would gain further credence if it could be demonstrated satisfactorily that the second tablet to the Watchers in 4Q203 8 has been dictated by one of the archangels (but see the discussion and notes to 11.3-5 of this fragment above). Perhaps the most plausible possibility is that the speaker is Enoch himself, who in the Qumran BG acts as the interpreter of the giants’ dreams and offers the petition in 1 Enoch 84. In this connection Reeves draws attention to 4QEnoch£?(=4Q206) 2-3 + 4QEnGiants£?(=4Q556) in which the bloodshed on earth seems to have been made known to Enoch (see below on the identification of these fragments), and proposes that the report of this activity may have preceded Enoch’s petition. If 4QEnGiantse and 4QEno- ch6׳ have been correctly correlated and identified as belonging to BG, then the petition may be understood as Enoch’s response to the report which he speaks on behalf of those suffering on earth on account of the Wat­chers and giants.82

4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 97

82 Between the initial report to Enoch and the petition, Reeves (.Jewish Lore, pp. 83- 84) inserts a passage from the Middle Persian Kawan (Frgt. g, 11.86-94) in which a first person narrator (presumably Enoch) is observing the events on earth:

... And (in) another place I saw those that were weeping for the ruin that had befallen them, and whose cries and laments rose up to heaven. And also I saw another place [where there were] tyrants and rulers ... in great number, who had lived in sin and evil deeds, when ...

Given the absence of Enoch speaking in the first person in other parts of the Mani­chaean and Qumran BG materials, this passage is conspicuous. Without depending on the argumentum ex silentio, it would at least not be misleading to note that in the Qumran BG the initial report to Enoch would have been sufficient as a background for his prayer. Has a 3rd pers. narrative been transformed into that of a 1st pers. (cf. 4Q530 col. iii and the Man. Uygur Frgt. page 1 [Henning, “Book of Giants” 65]), does this section represent a later addition to BG, or does it correspond to another, though thematically closely related, part of the story? Cf. the discussion on 4Q530 6, 1.4 below.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments98

4Q203 10Milik, BE, 316-17; Knibb, The Ethiopic Book o f Enoch, 10 and 193-95; Beyer, ATTM, 266; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 760; Camponovo, Königtum, 248 n. 58; Black, The Book o f Enoch, 256-57; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 103 and DSST’ 261; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58, 63, and 83.

On the association of fragment 10 with 9, see under 4Q203 9 above. Beyer's placement of 10 after 9 in his text would be consistent with the sequence of par- allels between 9-10 and 1 En. 84:2-6 suggested by Knibb.

Photographs. PAM 41.354; 43.202; Milik, BE, Plate XXXII.

מרי ו[כען 1[

2 ] ת שגי ותן א . [

3 ] א צב דב ת [

1. 1: With Knibb, Beyer, Garcia Martinez, Reeves contra Milik: מרא]י. Thevisible lower right part of the letter is too vertical to make א a likely reading. See 1 En. 84:6.

1. 2: Milik: ]..ו ; Knibb: ].ו ; Beyer, Reeves: ]m. The initial letter could be י orו , the second ה or ח, and the last one ך ן, , or ף (not enough space to the rt. for ץ or p). Given that יהך perhaps makes less sense here than הן ,וthe latter is more likely. At the beginning Milik reads: שגית .[.

1 and ]now, my Lord[2 ]you have increased. And i f .[3 ]you wish and k[

1.2: Reading with Milik: “y°u have multiplied” (with the stem letter at thebeg., the verb is an afel form).

Com ment. See the comment under fragment 9 above. To the comparisons listed there, one may add the following formal correspondence to this text:

1.1. ”and ]now, my Lord” 1 En. 84:6. Cf. also IQapGen 20.13-14..וכען . מרי( .

The wording of 1.1 is consistent with that of a petitionary prayer.

4Q203 11Milik, BE , 317; Beyer, ATTM , 259 and 268; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 760; Garcia Mar­tinez, QumApoc, 103 and DSST\ 261.

Milik suggests that the second column of the fragment be placed below 4Q203 8, so that Frgt. 11 col. i = Frgt. 7 b ii (our 7 B ii), and 11 col. ii = Frgt. 8 + col ii (which would = our 7 B iii). The proposal is made on the assumption that, barring evi­dence to the contrary, the fragments of this ms. at the bottom of a column may be correlated wherever possible. Though possible, Milik’s location of the fragment must remain uncertain.

Photographs. PAM 42.436 (= FE, 858); 43.202; Milik, BE , Plate XXXII.

994Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa

1 ·][ר 2

margin

[ומט]רא רטלא

bottom

col. ii, 1.1: With Beyer contra Milik, Uhlig, and Garcia Martinez: Jn]*)DDT See 1Q24 5 for the combination of Kbtt and *ntafc, though ·(״frost״)there in reverse order. Ultimately, the second word is uncertain.

[the dew and [the] rai[n

1 ].2 ]r

Comment. In the Book of Watchers (7 En. 34:2) dew and rain are placed at the northern gates of heaven. In 1 Enoch 36:1 and in the Astronomical Book (76:8), these meteorological phenomena are related to the southern part of heaven, the final destination of Enoch at the end of the Book of Watchers. The Manichaean Uygur fragment designates Enoch as “the apostle, from the south” (Henning, “Book of Giants” 65).

4Q203 12

Milik, BE, 317; Beyer, ATTM , 268.Photographs. PAM 42.436 (= FE, 858); 43.202; Milik, BE , Plate XXXII (sha-

ded).l ועד [

]vacat 2אד]י[ן 3[

1. 1: Milik: ]עד .(so also Beyer) ד There may be a space after .ו1. 3: Milik: ]אדן . The latter letter could be one of several final letter forms

which, as the third letter of the word, do not produce a recognizable word. The reading above thus follows Beyer, though the space allowed for a י is minimal.

1 and unto [2 vacat [3 Th[e]n[

4Q203 13Milik, BE , 317; Beyer, ATTM , 263; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 760; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 103 and D S S T 261; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 61 and 67.

Photographs. PAM 43.202; Milik, BE , Plate XXXII (shaded).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments100

].. 1 (?) שו[יו מן ו

2 (?) לה אמר אד[ין [

ש]לם לכה [איתי לא 3

4 ] הרה ל. [

1. 1: Restore at the beginning with Milik; the restoration recalls vocabularyin 4Q203 4 1.6: קו]דם ובכו שויו [. The two visible letters at the end may be part of the preposition ם ד קו .

1. 2: The suff. with ~ל is sing, because of the address in 1.3.1. 4: Milik: ]ה [ :Beyer ;]למהו א הוה ל [. There is space between the second and

third visible letters. If BeyeEs reading of א is correct, the first word is either the negative particle or the last part of a substantive in the em- phatic state.

1 and] they [prostrajted(?) from ..[2 Th]en he said to him[3 ]there is [not] pfeace] for you[4 ]/. it/he was [

Comment. The fragment describes the actions of a group in 1.1 which could be the Watchers or the Watchers with the giants. In any case, it is likely that the address in the 2nd pers. sing, in 1.3 is spoken to one of the Watchers who has a leading role, whereas the 2nd person plural address preserved in 1Q24 8 would likely have the Watchers as a group in view (see 1 En. 16:7; cf. 3rd pers. plur. in Eth. and 2nd pers. plur. in Cod. Pan. in 12:5). In 1 Enoch 13:1 ‘Asael (Cod. Pan.-Άζαήλ; Eth. has Azazel) is told these words (Cod. Pan.-ούκ εσται σοι ειρήνη) at the outset of Enoch’s reprimand. If, however, in Qumran BG Shemihazah functions as the chief of the fallen angels, then he is probably the one addressed in 1.3. The singular address here excludes the possibility that this fragment may be assigned to the second tablet (Frgt. 8: plur. verbs and suffixes).

4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb - (20 Fragments)

Photographs. The initial readings and proposed restorations of the manu- script by Milik (BE) and Beyer (.ATTM) were not accompanied by a pub־ lication of photographs; the photographs from the PAM collection were first made available in FE and the DSS on Microfiche respectively. Beyer’s readings in ΛΤΤΜΕΒ have subsequently taken the photographic editions into account.

Numeration and arrangement of the fragments. The numbers assigned to the 4Q530 fragments throughout the analysis below reflect the order of their arrangement found in PAM 43.568 (going from right to left, top to

1014Q530 = 4QEnGiants

bottom of the photograph). 4Q530 18 and 19 represent fragments in PAM42.496 not taken up in 43.568. 4Q530 20 is an isolated fragment in PAM 42.439.

4Q530 was originally assigned to Jean Starcky for publication. Starcky then made his transcriptions of this manuscript available to assist Milik’s analysis of the Qumran BG.83 Of these materials, Milik mentioned and pieced together some six fragments belonging to two columns (ii-iii).84 In addition, he mentioned a third column (i) but did not provide any readings.85 Milik’s study represents an a stage of arrangement which marks an improvement on the placement of the fragments in the PAM photographs 42.496 and 43.568. With minor adjustments the arrangement proposed by Milik, which represents a largely coherent text, is followed here.

For purposes of reconstruction, it is important to note that Milik’s reference to three columns was based on his analysis of only six fragments. 4Q530 is extant, however, in at least twenty fragments,86 and there is good reason to posit that they belong to at least fou r columns of the manu­script. From the arrangement of fragments on the PAM photograph 43.568, however, one might be led to think that the larger fragments be­long to only three columns. This is in fact what Beyer has done in his placement of fragment 6 i within column i under fragments 3 and 4 i,87 with the result that 6 ii would have to belong to column ii. For reasons given below this arrangment should be rejected. Just as Milik found it necessary to reconstruct column ii according to an arrangement of frag­ments beyond that of PAM 43.568, so also it is necessary to “correct” the PAM photo in relation to what one does with fragment 6 i-ii, which may be assigned to an even earlier column in the manuscript.

Although fragment 6 i is probably prior to “column i”, uncertainty con­cerning its precise location affects the sequence in which the 4Q530 frag­ments will be analyzed here. The treatment below begins with those frag­ments which have been assigned to the three successive columns (men­tioned by Milik) - fragments 1-5 and 7-8 - and then proceeds to analyze

83 See Milik, BE, p. 303.84 I. e., columns ii and iii are reconstructed by Milik on the basis of frgt.’s 1,2 i,4 ii,5,7,

and 8; ibid., pp. 304—307.85 Ibid. p. 303. Belonging to column i are frgt.’s 3 and 4 i.861, e., sixteen frgt.’s in PAM 43.568 and three tiny frgt.’s in PAM 42.496 (at the

bottom, numbered from right to left, 17-19) not included in the former. Frgt. 20 is in PAM 42.439. Of course, several of the twenty frgt.’s are themselves comprised of origi­nally separate pieces which Starcky had joined during the earlier stages of analysis.

87 Beyer, ATTMEB, p. 120 (11.12-19). Beyer subsumes under the same column (= “G 8”) frgt.’s 3 (11.4-6) and 4 i (11.1—4).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments102

the remaining fragments of the manuscript - i. e., fragments 6 and 9-20. Unlike the other Qumran BG manuscripts, therefore, the sequence below does not strictly correspond to the actual numeration of fragments.

The importance of the 4Q530 fragments for a study of the Qumran BG cannot be overestimated. Though the fragments in combination nowhere reproduce an entire line intact, their combination with respect to column ii (a) allows for a reasonably accurate restoration of several full lines from the column (11.4 and 15-17), (b) produces readable portions from each one of its lines (except perhaps for 1.11), and hence (c) makes it possible at this point to provide an almost continuous text.

Script. Judging from the length of column ii, which according to its reconstruction contains 24 lines, the columns of this manuscript consisted of some 22-25 lines, allowing for some variation of spaces between lines within columns (as col. ii) as well as variation of space between the co­lumns as well.88

In his analysis of paleography at Qumran, Cross already included 4Q530, referring to it with the provisional designation “4Q Ps.־Enocha” and characterizing the hand as “an unusual semicursive” script to be dated “ca. 100-50” B. C. E.89 Cross’s script chart appears to have been limited to only a portion of the fragments, as some of the letters appear to have varied more in form than is given in the chart. It is not surprising, therefore, that on the basis of his reconstruction of column ii, Milik has estimated that the length of the lines vary between 42 and 48 letters per line.90 Indeed, if the readings and restorations suggested here for the most complete lines of column ii may be taken as a point of departure (11.4 and 16-17), the number of letters seems to have varied even more, i. e. from 43 (1.16) to 52 (1.4) letters. This variation of length in 4Q530 seems to de­pend on four main factors: (1) the abundance or absence of “shorter” letters on the line (such as 1, or *|); (2) the use of vacat on the lines to mark the shift to a new thought; (3) the variation of the sizes of letters within the scribe’s handwriting; and, of course, (4) the varied length of the lines themselves. On account of these variables, an attempt has been made here to leave compensatory space between some of the words (see, e. g., col. ii, 11.2-3 and 14-16) in order to present some idea of the different lengths of lines and sizes of the letters.

88 In col. i the lines are further spread apart than in col. ii (cf. frgt. 4 i with 4 ii).89 ”The Development of Jewish Scripts”, pp. 149 (fig. 4, line 3) and 181-88 for indi­

vidual comparisons of the letter forms.90 BE, p. 304.

1034Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

The scribal dittography through homoioarcton in column ii, 1.4 demon­strates that the manuscript represents a copy from an earlier Vorlage. The­re is no indication that this error and the further mistakes on col. iii, 11.3- 4 were corrected in the manuscript by the scribe.

4Q530 Reconstructed Column I (Fragments 3-4 I)

Beyer, ATTMEB, 120 (G 8, 11.1-6); cf. Milik, “Turfan et Qumran” 121 and BE, 303; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ 74-75; Beyer, ATTM , 264 and n. 1; and Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104.

As already suggested in PAM 42.496 and 43.568 (= FE, 887, 1516), the top line of fragment 3 may be joined to 1.4 of fragment 4 col. i. A comparison of 3 in PAM42.496 and 43.568, on the one hand, with the same fragment in the earlier 41.512 (FE, 336), on the other, shows that a piece containing 4 letters was eventually added to the bottom line of the fragment. Furthermore, between 42.496 and43.568 a piece was added to 4 at 11.2-3.

Photographs. PAM 41.512 (separate Frgt.’s 3 and 4; = FE, 336); 42.496 (= J?E, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

top margin, column i

[יותבהי 1

עם [מיא 2

בכל יתמנו [א 3

שבו [ 4 שבן יתח למן שניא בח

במטרהן] אלן יומיא שב[עת 5

ואל] יחדון כ[ל 6

1.1: For ת, cf. the same in Frgt. 4 col. ii, 1.5: תו א The final two letters are .וunclear (esp. י), but are chosen (with Beyer) for because the reading provides the only meaningful alternative. The 3rd pers. obj. suff. הי- indicates a jussive form (see further jussives on 11.3-4)

1.2: Beyer: א ..[; cf. PAM 42.496. מיא is made visible through the addition of the tiny piece to 11.2-3 in 43.568.

1.3: ^ ^ .(a jussive form; cf. 11.1,4 ,-ן without־1. 4: Beyer: א שגי . The second letter, with one vertical and horizontal stroke,

is clearly a נ למן. was most likely followed by די at the beginning of 1.5. The verb שבו .is a jussive form; cf. 11.1.3 יתח

1.5: Restoration of שבעת with Beyer, though, as Beyer admits, the number could also be 4 (ארב[עת) or 9 ( .)תש[עת מטר is either (a) the substantive for “rain” or (b) a qal infin. + suff. from נטר (”to guard, keep”). If the latter, the suff. may be either possessive (as Beyer) or objective.

1. 6: Beyer: .חדין ל [. The negative particle is indicative of a following jussive. The long impf. form of the verb suggests that it is not attached to a preceding negative particle such as אל . Given the unlikelihood of having side by side, this line may be contrasting the privilege of one לא and אלgroup against the woes of the other.

1 ]let him cause him to dwell/sit2 ]the waters from/together with3 ], let them be numbered among the whole4 ] let them be reckoned according to the reckoning of years for the

one5 [who ... ]these [sev]en days through keeping them[6 a]ll(?) will rejoice, but let[ ] not[

1. 4: On “years” (Beyer: “viel”), see the textual note above.

104 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

Comment. These lines do not preserve a sufficient amount from the lite- rary context to establish the speaker’s identity or to be certain about their precise content. Since the verbal forms are in the imperfect throughout, the words and phrases may be concerned with future events (from the perspective of the speaker).

The mention of “waters” (1.2), the reference to “counting” (1.3), and the chronological expressions (11.3^4) are perhaps consistent with events associated with the deluge which is expected to be a decisive moment in history. Beyer ascribes these words to a giant,91 a plausible supposition which, however, is based by him on his questionable placement of frag- ment 6 - where a 1st pers. speaker is explicit - under fragments 3-4 i on the same column.

4Q530 Reconstructed Column II, LL.1-3A (Fragments 4 II, 5, 2 I): The Giants are Reassured Through Gilgamesh

Beyer, A TT M E B , 120-21; cf. Milik, “Turfan et Qumran” 121 and BE, 304, 313; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 74-75; Beyer, A TT M , 259, 263-64; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104 and DSST, 261; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 120-21; “Utnapishtim” 114; and Huggins, “Noah and the Giants” 108.

The text produced in A TTM E B by Beyer follows the association of fragments by Milik reflected in his readings offered for later lines in the column (followed by Beyer for those lines in A TTM ). The joining of fragments 4 ii and 5 is made plau- sible through (a) the location of both at the top of the column; (b) the coherent sequence שנת + עיניהון in 1.4 of both fragments; and (c) the smooth transition from עלוהי to חבריא in 1.3. The relationship between fragments 2 i and 4 ii seems confirmed by (a) the former’s position at the top of the column and (b) the cohe- rence of the text from words at the end to the beginning of the following lines (so esp. 11.1-2 and 3-4).

Photographs. PAM 41.512 (= FE, 336); 42.496 (= EE, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

91 Beyer entitles the section, “Die schlimmen Ahnungen eines Riesen.”

1054Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

top margin, column ii

2 i 5 4 ii

לה אמר די דנא אבון אחוי ו]או[היה חברוהי וכל [ נפשנא] מות על 1]ו גלגמיס 2 א לט רבא לנא נפשה על ]ד[ין ומתאמר אפחד [.בה . לרוזני

עלוהי [ל וא..] ותב חבריא עלוהי וחדו 3

1.1: The last two letters of נא נפש are clearest in PAM 41.512. In the middleof the line, one might also restore ]היה ה , but the longer name is chosen because of the space required between fragments 5 and 2i. Near the end, Beyer reads: די ד{מא ) (,’that which”), ד*־ being a mistake made by the scribe. The second letter, however, is not closed, as one would expect of מ in the manuscript; rather, the horizontal and vertical lines of the letter suggest a נ . For the reading די נא ד , cf. A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri o f the Fifth Century B .C .92, text no. 26, 1.23 (זי ^T =”that which”.93

to fear, be afraid o“ ,פחד pa‘‘el imperf. 1st pers. sing, of) אפחד :2 .1 f”), contraBeyer: אביר (“strong”). The second letter curves down at the top as פ, while the third letter is clearly a ח . For the term רוזן (“prince, poten־ tate”), see the heb. qotel (subst. < qal ptc.? from רזן “to be weighty”): Ps. 2:2 (and 4Q174, 1.23); 1Q39, 1.10; Judg. 5:3; Hab. 1:10; Prov. 8:15, 31:4; Isa. 40:23. The use of this term may betray Heb. influence. לנא is not read by Beyer, who simply has ר בא ו . The vertical stroke of a ל is distinguishable from the stroke of the final ן on the previous line, and the following two letter traces are consistent with a small נ and א re־ spectively. The phrase ד[ין מתאמר[ anticipates אמיר דין (“judgment was spoken”) in ,Ohyah’s dream on 1.18 below.

א :3 .1 חברי ; Beyer: א רי ב ג . The first letter is visible but illegible. Before theend of Frgt. 5 Beyer plausibly suggests that the text has ]ואזל.

1 “... concerning the death of our souls [ ] and all his companions.”And [,OJhyah informed them (about) that which

2 Gilgamesh had said to him. “And .[ ].bh I shall fear, and [ju]dgmentwill be spoken against his soul; for us the Great One has cursed the princes.”

3 And the companions rejoiced on account of it. And he returned and’..[ ]/ concerning it. ...

1. 2: The spelling “Gilgamesh” for מיס -is taken from the more conventio גלגnal form with ש found in 4Q531=4QEnGiantsc 17, 1.12.

1. 3: ”On account of it”; the 3rd pers. pron. suff. refers to the substance ofthe preceding statement which has been introduced with the substanti- vizing relative clause “that which he said”.

Comment. Questions of interpretation arise in the attempt to infer the movement of the narrative. The first person plural suffix in 1.1 allows

92 Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923.93 See further examples in Beyer, ATTM , 550 and ATTMEB, 330.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments106

for the supposition that the column begins with words referring to the potential “death” of the giants’ “soul(s)”.94 In what follows on the line, either Hahyah or, as more likely, ’Ohyah reports what a certain giant named Gilgamesh has told him to the others (the giants?). If the demon­strative relative clause in'? *־lEN *,*T *0*7) refers to the words which open the column, then Gilgamesh is the likely speaker there, while the statement on1.2 contains ’Ohyah’s(?) summary or reaction. If this is the case, then *,m^y in 1.3 should more properly be translated “on account of him”. On the other hand, it is syntactically possible that the clause anticipates what Gilgamesh has said, so that his words, as summarized by ’Ohyah(?), are given in the remainder of 1.2. According to this option, it would be impossible to decide between Gilgamesh or ’Ohyah(?) as the speaker at the beginning of the column. In any case, it is ’Ohyah(?) - and not Gilgamesh - who is the subject of DD on 1.3. The verb denotes a separation from the giant companions and sets the stage for the dreams of Hahyah and ’Ohyah recounted in the following lines of the column.95

Lines 2-3 seem to reverse the expected litany of doom being heralded against the giants. In an earlier portion of the manuscript, the giants, cognizant of their culpability, are represented as anticipating their own destruction (Frgt. 6, 1.5; see below). Here, however, the term (“for us”), if correctly read, suggests that the judgment pronounced “upon his soul” is perceived by the giants as being in their favor. In addition, the curse issued by “the Great One”96 against “the princes/potentates” seems to have been welcomed with relief, since the giants in 1.3 are said to “have rejoiced” in response to the preceding report. The giants’ positive reaction contrasts with the worry and fear which they show in other extant parts of Qumran BG (6Q8 1, 1.3; 4Q203 4, 1.6). Unfortunately, there is nothing in the context of 4Q530 which, other than the report of Gilgamesh, states unambigously why these giants should be enthusiastic about their fate.

In Sundermann’s Manichaean Fragment “L” Verso, 11.2-3, Sam (= ’Ohyah) seems to be reacting similarly to Mahawai’s reading of the second

94 With the 1st pers. plur. possessive suff., נפש is to be interpreted either as a collec- tive singular (,,our souls”) or as an elliptic self-reference (”ourselves”; with the preceding subst. in construct, “our own”; cf. Beyer, ATTM , 370 for this sense). If the tradition in 1 En. 15:8-12 distinguishing between the giants’ spirits and their bodily existence (no Ara- maic extant; Cod. Pan.-πνεύματα, σώμα) is being assumed here - in which the giants’ bodies are destroyed while their spirits survive the deluge -, then the passage may be concerned with the question of whether or not the punishment meted out to the giants is partial or complete. See Chapter One section V above.

95 The separation of Hahyah and ,Ohyah from the other giants as they have their dreams is implied by the verb אתו at the beginning of 1.5; see below.

:probably refers to God; cf. the theophanic epithet in 4Q530 col. ii, 1.17 below רבא 96רבא קדישא .

1074Q530 = 4QEnGiants

tablet to the giants: he exhorts the giants, “Come here, so that we might eat and be glad!” If the Manichaean text is allowed to illumine the giants’ positive reaction in 4Q530 col. ii, then perhaps the mention of their joy functions as a literary device to illustrate their illusory perception concer- ning the reality of divine punishment. Indeed, that the joy of Sam (= ’Ohyah) in Fragment “L” and that of the giants in 4Q530 col. ii is short־ lived is a perspective which both fragmentary passages have in common. This reversal of the giants’ false expectations would then be underlined by the giants’ ominous dreams which directly follow these scenes in both texts (“L” Verso, 11. 8ff.־Sam’s dream; 4Q530 col. ii, 3b ־20־ Hahyah and ’Ohyah’s dreams).

Though the giants’ rejoicing probably does derive from their hope for a reprieve, it is precarious, for reasons given in the comment on 4Q203 8, to assume such a direct relationship between this text and the Manichaean passage. For one thing, unlike Sam and in contrast with 4Q530 col. ii, the giants in fact do not eat “because of worry” (11.3-4). More significantly, col. ii, 1.2 seems to provide reasons for the giants’ joy.

The pronouncement of judgment and the curse appear to have been directed against figures other than those giants with which the passage is immediately concerned. The reference to “his soul” may denote a specific punishment reserved for one of their own or perhaps of one of the Wat- chers, such as Azazel (cf. 4Q203 7A, 1.6). Furthermore, the “potentates” cursed at the end of 1.2 are apparently to be distinguished from these giants. Hypothetically, the term רוזן could refer to human rulers, but the context suggests that “the Great One” has cursed other giants, while ap־ parently having spared Hahyah, ’Ohyah, and their immediate companions. Is one to suppose, then, that the author(s) of BG distinguished factions among the giants to whom punishment should be meted out accordingly? Such differentiation has already been inferred on the basis of 4Q203 A and Bi above. Moreover, two pages of a Sogdian fragment published by Henning (“The Book of the Giants” 66) seem to distinguish between giants who are glad at seeing Enoch and those whose reaction is one of fear:

{Page one) ... [when] they saw the apostle, ... before the apostle ... those demons that were [timid], were very, very glad at seeing the apostle. All of them assembled before him. Also, of those that were tyrants and criminals, they were [worried] and much afraid. Then ...

{Page two) ... not to ... Thereupon those powerful demons spoke thus to the pious apostle: If ... by us any (further) sin [will] not [be committed?], my lord, why ? ... you have ... and weighty injunction ...97

97 Henning admits that the order of the two pages is uncertain, but this makes no difference in the essential distinction among the giants being made.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments108

If such a distinction is presupposed in 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3, then the com­panions of ,Ohyah(?) can rejoice because “the Great One” has cursed the other giants, i. e. those considered especially culpable for their evil activi­ties.98 Consequently, as do the fragments in 4Q203 (7 A, B i-ii, and 8), this part of 4Q530 seems to reflect a complex and differentiated development in the narrative and should caution one not to oversimplify the story in attempting a reconstruction of the document.99

The source of the news which causes the giants to rejoice is apparently the giant “Gilgamesh”. Where, in turn, has Gilgamesh received this infor­mation? It is possible that a fragmentary text in 4Q531 17, 1.3 provides a clue. The broken text there may be translated as follows: “Gjilgamesh, say your dream.” If this translation is correct, then the text presupposes that Gilgamesh has been the recipient of a dream vision and has him being asked to tell it. Whereas in 4Q531 17, 1.9 ,Ohyah admits being troubled by his dream, it may be that Gilgamesh’s vision - if 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3 provides any indication - was thought to leave some room for hope. If 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3 does presuppose the Gilgamesh’s dream mentioned in 4Q531 17, then it probably belongs to a later part of BG.100

The name “Gilgamesh” occurs here with a slightly different spelling than in 4Q531 17, 1.12 (tP,»fcji,?[a). In noting the presence of Hobabis and Gilgamesh among the giants, Milik has suggested that the final ending -ish may reflect the partially human composition of these figures.101 With re­spect to Gilgamesh, the spelling with 0־ in 4Q530 col. ii, 1.2 does not preserve such an etymological derivation. Nevertheless, in the Old Baby­lonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic (tablet I ii, 1.1) Gilgamesh is charac­terized as “two-thirds” divine and “one-third” human, analogous to the giants’ status as offspring of the fallen heavenly Watchers and the human

98 One might speculate whether the “potentates” are the giants listed in 4Q531=4QEnGiantsc4 ,11.1-5 as those who have already been destroyed, but this possi­bility must remain uncertain.

99 Reeves, in Jewish Lore, p. 84, recognizes that “the wheel of retribution revolves more slowly” in the Qumran BG than in the Book o f the Watchers (e. g., 1 En. 10:1- 16). But the inferences made from 11.1-3 of col. ii here, the materials in 4Q203 just mentioned, the reference to Mahaway’s journey to Enoch “a second time” in col. iii,1.7, and the almost certain placement of 4Q531 17 (see the following paragraph) before 4Q530 col. ii all make it necessary to locate col.’s ii־iii - i. e. the dreams of Hahyah and ’Ohyah - later in the story than Reeves who, without access to 11.1-3, describes the dreams as God’s initial response the violence on earth and to Enoch’s intercessory prayer.

100 Again, contra Reeves, Jewish Lore, pp. 119-20, who places 4Q531 17 (= “QG9”) well before 4Q530 col. ii (= “QG4A-B”).

101 Milik, BE, 313; cf. further the comment on 4Q203 3 above. Milik further ascribes a divine-human mixture to Azazel the Watcher (goat-human; cf. Lev. 16:8,10,26) and Mahaway (bird-human; cf. “his wings” in 4Q530 col. iii, 1.4).

1094Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

women.102 The inclusion of characters from the ancient epic tradition is singled out as remarkable by Milik who claimed that the Qumran BG contains “the only mention of Gilgamesh outside the cuneiform literat- ure.”103 More accurately, however, the occurrence of Gilgamesh (and Ho- babis) presupposes that these literary figures continued to be known du- ring the period of the Second Temple, a notion for which Reeves has been able to adduce important evidence. Though the name “Gilgamesh” does not occur anywhere in extant early Jewish literature, it is known that the Gilgamesh Epic continued to be copied as late as the 2nd or 1st centuries B. C. E.104 and references to Gilgamesh are, most significantly, made in Aelian’s On Animals (ca. 200 C. E.; see 12.21-Gilgamow, a baby raised by a gardener who eventually became the king of Babylon) and in the notes to Genesis by the 8-9th century bishop Theodore Bar Konai (as the 10th king following the flood between Peleg and Abraham).105

4Q530 Column II, LL.3B-6 (Fragments 4 II, 5, 2 I, 1): Hahyah and ,Ohyah have Dreams

Milik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 121 and BE, 304 (11. 3b-5a, 6); Beyer, ATTMEB , 120- 21; cf. Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 74-75; Beyer, ATTM , 264; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104 and DSST\ 261; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58, 63, and 84-85.

None of the PAM photographs display the reconstruction of fragments adopted by Milik. According to the latter, fragment 1 belongs at the left of the column at11.5-10 (in accordance with the margin to the left of the fragment), with traces of letters visible from 1.4 which are consistent with the visible traces of letters on 1.4 of fragment 2. The relationship between fragments 1 and 4 ii (and hence the posi- tion assigned to fragment 1) seems confirmed by the text running from the end of1.5 to the beginning of 1.6.

Photographs. PAM 41.512 (= FE, 336); 42.496 (= FE, 887), esp. good for Frgt. 1;43.568 (= FE, 1516).

2 1+1 5 4 ii

חלמין תריהון חלמו באדין 3עיניהון [.. וקמ]ו מנהון עינ[°יהון שנת וק]מו מנהון עיניהון שנת ונדת 4

שת ואמר [חלמיהון על] ואתו 5 ח]ברוהי[ בכנהא[ דן] בליליא חזא הוית ב[חלמי ההיה נפיליא] 6

102 For the text and translation see Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, pp. 142 and 264 respectively.

103 Milik, BE, 313. The evidence adduced by Sokoloff and Reeves (see below and the following 2 notes) refutes this claim.

104 The material is referred to conveniently by Reeves in Jewish Lore, pp. 120 and 158 (n. 365).

105 Ibid., pp. 120-21 and 158-59 (n.’s 365 and 367-68). See also Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 207 and 221 (n. 80).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments110

1. 4: The text o f 1.4b is difficult to make sense of, and Milik did not providea reading. Beyer (.A TTM E B , 120) posits a scribal homoioarcton in which the term הון עיני has been inadvertently repeated. Indeed, the sequence ת הון שנ הון עיני וקמו מנ seems to occur twice on the line; mo- reover, at the end o f the line it is possible that the scribe began to write

ת ן ו יה יב ע שנ once again! This kind o f scribal error provides evidence that 4Q530 represents a copy from an earlier manuscript; cf. also col. iii, 1.4. The expression “the sleep o f their eyes fled from them” denotes the giants5 inability to sleep anymore on account o f their dreams; cf. Gen. 31:40 (11 תי מעיני שנ ^ -T g O n q ת ד נ תי ו עיני שנ מי ); Dan. 6:19 ( ה ת שנ הי ו ת עלו ד נ ); Esth. 6:1 ( ה ד ד ת נ המלך שנ ); and the Genizah Ara- maic Testament o f Levi 6 -7 ( ד ו ת תנ א שנ עינ ).

1. 5: The first two letters o f אמר are illegible and spaced apart more thanother letters on the line. Milik provides no readings after הון מי חל . On the customary use o f על with the verb אתי to denote movement towards persons or a group o f persons, see Reeves (.Jewish Lore, 85; cf. Beyer, A T T M , 656). After על Milik restores: “[Shemihazah their father and they reported to him] their dreams” while Beyer suggests “[their compa- nions in order to make known to them] their dreams’5. Beyer’s restora- tion is some 6-8 letters too short for the lacuna, while that o f Milik corresponds better to the reconstructed space between Frgt.’s 4 ii and 1. However, there is no immediate warrant for M ilik’s mention o f She- mihazah, except for the attempt to avoid a redundancy with the wording at the end o f 1.5-beginning o f 1.6. Though the text o f the lacuna pro- bably contained a reference to the auditors o f the brothers’ dream ac- counts, it is impossible here to guess the exact wording. A specific men- tion o f Hahyah, whose dream is the first to be recounted (cf. 1.15, where ’Ohyah’s dream begins) may be restored after א לי פי -on 1.6 in accor נdance with the introduction o f the 3rd pers. sing, subject for מר א .

א :6 .1 לי פי was not included in M נ ilik’s published readings. On the restora-tion o f ה הי ה , see the n. to 1.5; for הא at the end o f the line, see the samewhich introduces ’Ohyah’s dream on 1.16 (ה[א).

3 Then the two o f them dreamed dreams.4 And the sleep o f their eyes fled from them and [they] afrose {{the

sleep of] their[ eye]s from them and [they] arose}} [{{sleep?] o f their eyes}}

5 and came to[ ]their dreams. And [Hahyah]said in the assembly o f [his] co[m- panions]

6 the nephilim[ in] my dream I saw in thisnight: [Behold

1. 4: On {{the ... eyes}}, see the textual note above.1. 5: The speaker Hahyah is placed here on the basis o f the restoration in 1.6.

Comment. After ,Ohyah(?) has separated himself from some of the giants, lines 3b-6 report that the two giant brothers “dreamed dreams” whose

I l l4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

content is provided in the remainder of the column (11.7-12 and 16-20 respectively).

Line 6: א לי פי The term, in 4Q531 5, 1.2, occurs in the absolute plural .נin parallel with ברין and thus seems to refer there to the giants; in 4Q530 גcol. iii, 1.8 it occurs in the phrase ארעא נפילי כל as Mahaway seeks to learn Enoch’s interpretation of the brothers’ dreams (see below). The word, of course, is used in Genesis 6:4a as a designation (ם for a (הנפליgroup whose relationship with ם הגברי (the offspring of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of humanity”) is not immediately clear in the biblical text: are the “nephilim” to be identified with “men of renown” ( שי השם אנ , v. 4c = ם הגברי ) or do they represent a separate class of beings?

Clearly, the Septuagintal and Aramaic targum traditions (Onqelos and Neophyti) have coalesced the “nephilim” in Genesis 6:4a into their respec- tive terms for the giants (γίγαντες, 106.( ה רי ב א גי ברי ,גי Though not cer- tain, this may also be the understanding presupposed in 4Q531 5, 1.2, in which the two terms ( רין ב לין ג ונפי ), denoting the Watchers’ offspring, may well be appositional.107 There the term is made to represent the giants as a whole. On the other hand, the Aquila column of Origen’s Hexapla interprets נפלים as a substantival participle, οί έπιπίποντες, which opens up the possibility of an association with the אלהים בני , i. e. the Wat- chers.108 The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has in fact followed this line of interpretation by opening v. 4 with the statement that “Shemhazai and cAza5el, they fell (נפלו) from heaven, and they were upon the earth in those days.”109 Another strand of early Jewish interpretation seems to have un- derstood the term as a kind of sub-group among (or better, progeny of) the giants. This perspective is reflected in the Syncellus version to 1 Enoch 7:1-2 which distinguishes between the γίγαντας and the progenitors of the Ναφηλειμ, who in turn are the progenitors of the Έλιούδ; all of these groups are made responsible for teaching medicines (φαρμακεία!)

106 For a further association of נפלים and ם see Ezek. 32:27, though there the גבריreference, perhaps reflects an exegetical tradition of Gen. 6:4 ( 6 ^ = ם רי בו נפלים ג slain heroes in Sheol; in the MT the form is pointed as an active ptc.). In translation tradi- tions to Num. 13:33 the ominous נפלים in the land of Canaan are rendered as γίγαντες (LXX) and ה א/ .(T. Onq., Neof) גברי

107 As argued by Black, The Book o f Enoch, p. 154, commenting on 1 En. 16:1. The identification of the Watchers’ offspring as נפילים also seems to be implied in CD 2.19, in which the Watchers’ sons (ם ה whose height was like (that of) cedars and whose“ ,(בניbodies were like mountains,” are depicted as those who fell (פלו .(נ

108 See the comparative text in F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875) 1.22.

109 See E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch (Hoboken, New Jer- sey: KTAV, 1984) 7: א מי בארעא והוו שמיא מן נפלן הינון ועזאל שמחזאי האינון בי . See also the Rashi commentary to Num. 13:33.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments112

and incantations (87rao15ia1). Similarly, the tradition in Jubilees 7:22 re- fers to the “Naphidim” as the offspring of the Watchers and mentions fierce conflicts among the giants, “Naphil”, and “’Elyo”, whose violent activity provoke suffering on the earth.110 A fourth understanding asso- ciated the “nephilim” with “abortions״ {nephalim-U^'l).nx This inter- pretation seems to have influenced gnostic speculation on the origin of the world (material existence is ultimately due to an inadvertent “abor- tion״ producing the demi-urge) and Manichaean cosmogony according to which the giants represent a multiplicity of abortions.112

The close association of the “nephilim” with the “giants” in the Qum- ran BG means that the possibility of an equivocation with the Watchers may be excluded. Less clear is whether they denote the giants as a whole or one of the related groups. The consistent spelling of א/ן לי פי and the נabsence of further etymological clues among the Qumran BG fragments make it precarious to speculate whether the specific interpretation as -underlies this early Jewish work. In any case, “nephi (”abortions”) נפליםlim” is best understood as a derogatory designation related to the root ל פ .though its exact meaning remains unclear ,נ

4Q530 Column II, LL.7-12 (Fragments 1, 8):Hahyah ,s Dream

Milik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 122 and BE , 304-305; cf. Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ 74-75 (11.7,10,12); Beyer, A T T M , 264 (departures from Milik not based on photographs) and n. 1 and A TT M E B , 120-21 (1.7); Black, The Book o f Enoch, 297 and n. 1; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104 and DSST, 261; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58, 63, and 85-90.

Fragment 8 belongs at the left o f the column just below fragment 1; 1.2 o f 8 concludes the dream with the formula ד ף כא ע חלמא סו . Since the bottom line o f

110 In the Book o f Dreams the giants are divided into three categories as “elephants, camels, and donkeys” (1 En. 86:4; 88:2); see R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigra- pha o f the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 2.24 n. to Jub. 7:22. The Syncellus version to 1 En. 7:2 comes very close to Jub. 7:22: ο! δέ γίγαντες έτέκνωσαν Ναφηλείμ, καί τοΐς Ναφηλείμ έγεννήΌησαν Έλιούδ ...

111 So in the Bereshith Rabba 26:7 (ed. Moshe A. Mirakin, Midrash Rabba [Tel-Aviv: Yavneh, 1956] 1.198): שהפילו שנפלו העולם את נפילימ- העולם את ושמלאו העולם מן ו

ת נפלים שלהם בזנו (‘”Nephilim” - who caused the world to fall and who fell from the world, and who filled the world with abortions by their own fornication.’).

112See Reeves’ excellent discussion and the literature cited there in Jewish Lore, pp. 71-72 and 135-36 (n.’s 68-77). Reeves argues with G. A. G. Stroumsa (Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology [Leiden: Brill, 1984] 160-63) that since Manichaean literature, unlike the gnostic sources, emphasizes “abortions” instead of one “abortion”, Mani must have drawn directly on Jewish tradition rather than having acquired it through its gnostic adaptation.

1134Q530 - 4QEnGiantsb

fragment 1 includes empty space underneath, the traces o f letters in 1.1 o f 8 must belong to at least the following line; hence 8 11.1-2=11.11-12 o f column ii.

Photographs. PAM 40.620 (= FE , 80 - top part o f Frgt. 8); 41.444 (= FE, 302; Frgt. 8); 42.496 (= FE, 887), esp. good for Frgt. 1; 43.568 ■(= FE, 1516).

8 + 1ן [ [א] [ל] ] 7 י א גננ שקין והו מ

שין ] 8 ן שר[ בי ר ב קו ר פ הין מן נ קר עמן ר .ל ד]י[ עד [חדית חזא ] 9

ל [.. ] 10 כ א מיא ב ר ק ונו ל דל כ ב

[ לא][·] [· ] 11ף כא עד [.א ] 12 חלמא סו

1. 7: The plur. ptc. שקין be emended to the הוא requires that the preceding מperf. plur. א הוו (so correctly Beyer); the א functions to denote the voca- lie pronunciation o f the previous consonant (see Beyer, A T T M , 117 and 411); see also א רו ב ג in 1.16 and the same spelling הוא in 1.18 below.

1. 8: Milik and Beyer: הן קר ע (fern. 3rd pers. plur. poss. suff); thus Beyerrestores the feminine ץ ר מ ת (abs. plur. form for !ה115ן ר מ ת - trees”). Whatever the restoration, the fern. suff. suggests a reference to the wo- men who gave birth to the giants.

1. 9: The letters on this line are most difficult to read; until now no satis-factory solution to the letter traces has been found. Milik suggested:

ת עינין די עד חזי ר ל מן שכי [ (”I watched until the sources had been closed by”). This reading is beset by several problems: (1) the preposition *ל is grammatically inexplicable; (2) the expected form o f the qal pass, verb is plural; and (3) the first letter o f M ilik’s עינין has a vertical stroke quite unlike the other ע ^ o f the manuscript; the letter is more likely to be a ש (cf. esp. the same in שבן ח in col. i, 1.4 above).113 Beyer, on account o f M ilik5s problematic text but without the photographic evidence in A T T M , suggested reading 55) ]ת חזא שנין די עד הוי מן שכנו ל I was [look- ing] until tongues o f fire came down from55). While שנין is a possible לreading, ו נ - at the end o f the following verb is highly improbable; Be- yer5s text makes better sense grammatically, but does not illuminate the visible letters, which are better read as ו/ייר (as Milik) or simply ר . In addition to these readings, there seems to be a sublinear part o f a letter preceding the ל (not taken into account by the readings above), perhaps a ק . As further alternative ways o f reading the letters have not thus far yielded an intelligible text which is suitable to the context, no attempt has been made here to identify the uncertain letters. At the beginning o f the line the restoration, following Beyer (A TTM ) and Reeves, corre- sponds to the wording in Dan. 2:34 and 7:4,9; cf. also 2Q26 1.2.

1. 12: The first visible letter has a base line and thus could be נ ,ב כ, , or פ . Thealmost identical formula (used here and in 1.20 below) concludes Da- niefs dream vision in Dan. 7:28 ( א ת א כה עד מל פ די סו ).

7 V[ ]’[ ] gardeners, and they were water-ing

113 Milik5s reading is apparently adopted in Black, The Book o f Enoch, p. 297.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments114

8 ]great [shoo]ts came forth from their rootage[9 ]1 [lookjed until../.........r from

10 ].. in all the waters, and the fire wasburning in the whole[

11 ]·not(?)[].[12 ].’ Here (is) the end o f the dream.

1.9: On the problem o f providing a rendering, see the textual note.

Comment. This very fragmentary dream vision involves the context of a garden. The term “gardeners” (1.7) has been interpreted by Milik as “guardian angels”, much like the “shepherds” in the Book of Dreams (e.g. 1 En. 89:59; 90:1).114 There is reason, however, to question whether the gardeners are meant to represent “good” angelic beings. According toI.8 the ultimate outcome of their work in the garden seems to be the production of “great [shoo]ts” from their root source (fern, suff.!), that is, the birth of the giants from the women.115 The “watering” activity is hence a metaphor for impregnation and the “gardeners” represent the Watchers.

The next part of the dream, preserved in 11.9-11, is difficult to read. From 1.10, however, one can infer that the garden in which the events ofII.7-8 have taken place undergoes a complete destruction through water and fire. It is apparently with a description of this destruction that the dream comes to a close.

On the basis of Hiyya’s dream about a “garden” in the Midrash of Shemhazai and ‘Aza’el, Reeves has tried to establish a link between this dream and 6Q8 2 which, in its reference to “three of its shoots”, contains an allusion to the preservation of Noah and his three sons. The passage from the Midrash, cited under 6Q8 2 below, states that Hiyya saw (1) a flourishing garden with trees and stones in it; (2) an angel descending with an axe to cut down the trees; and (3) the preservation of only one tree with three branches. Reeves’ combination of these texts with Hahyah’s dream in 4Q530 col. ii leads him to the following reconstruction of the dream (references to texts are inserted by myself):

Hahyah beholds in his vision a grove o f trees carefully attended by gardeners [4Q530 ii 7]. This tranquil scene is interrupted by the sudden appearance (or trans­formation?) o f two hundred figures within this garden. The result o f this invasion was the production o f “great” (rbrbyn) shoots sprouting up from the roots o f the

114 Milik, BE, p. 304.115 The term p3*־nn is to be interpreted as a reference to the size rather than the

number of the shoots; cf. 1 En.1'3. Reeves, referring to Jub. 4:15 and 5:6, suggests plausibly that the “gardeners” may well represent the Watchers performing their task as angelic protectors of the earth-garden before their rebellion.

1154Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

trees [4Q530 ii 8]. While Hahyah viewed this scene, emissaries from Heaven arrived and ravaged the garden with water and fire [4Q530 ii 10], leaving only one tree bearing three branches as the sole survivor o f the destruction [6Q8 2, l] .116

According to Reeves’ reconstruction of the dream, fragment 6Q8 2 provi­des supplementary details for the end of this dream. Despite the thematic coherence (garden imagery) between the texts, this interpretations does not correspond to the physical evidence. First, it appears from 6Q8 2 that the 44three shoots” are mentioned at or near the beginning of the vision (1.1), that is, before the destruction of the garden is described (11.2-3). Second, the sequence of 44three roots”, the arrival of angels(?), and a reference to 44the whole garden” in successive lines of 6Q8 2 cannot be made to supplement the fragmentary text of 4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12. This is especially the case if, with Reeves, one places the three branches near the end of the dream vision; one would have to suppose that Hahyah’s dream contained two destructions in 11.9-10 and 11-12 separated by the mention of the 44three roots”. There is simply no room at this point in 4Q530 for the length of text presupposed by 6Q8 2. Third, if one places the text of 6Q8 2 at the beginning of Hahyah’s dream in 4Q530, then there is insuffi­cient space at the beginning of line 7 for the advent of the Watchers (= gardeners?) preceded by the introduction of a tree with 44its three shoots”. These considerations thus throw doubt on Reeves’ suggestion that 6Q8 2 supplements or overlaps with Hahyah’s dream. Unless 6Q8 2 could be thought to contain a very different recension of BG at this point, it seems that these materials actually contain separate visions which have distinct emphases (cf. the comment under 6Q8 2 above).

4Q530 Column II, LL. 13-16A (Fragments 7, 8):The Giants' Response to Hahyah's Dream

Milik, “Turfan et Qumran,” 122 and BE , 305; cf. Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT[ 74 - 75; Beyer; A T T M , 264; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104 and DSST, 261; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58, 63, and 90-91.

Fragments 7 and 8 belong to two sides o f the same column, as can be established by the running text produced in 11.15-17 (= 7,11.5-7 + 8,11.2-4). PAM photograph 41.512 reveals that Frgt. 7 originally consisted o f 2 pieces later joined together in42.496.

Photographs. PAM 40.620 (= FE, 80; top part of Frgt. 8); 41.444 (= FE, 302; Frgt. 8); 41.512 (= FE, 336; top part of Frgt. 7); 42.496 (= FE, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

116 Reeves, Jewish Lore, 95; cf. also p. 96.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments116

שכחו לא 13 א [ה רי ב א ג לה לחוי

14 [ א מ פר לחנר[ך נתן] ד[ן חלמא להרן ההיה אמר אדין חל ס שא ל א ויפשרר פר לנאדין הי הודה ]ע[בה ב ה אחו הי ם ואמר או א קד רי ב אף ג vacat 15 חלמא

ה 16 ת אנ מי חזי חל א ב לי לי א דן ב רו ב ג

1. 13: For the meaning o f שכח in a fe l as “to be able”, see 4Q531 17, 1.5,\QapGen 21.13, 4Q Enoch*ii8 (7 En. 4 : l־Aram. only), and 4Q214=4Q TLevi 2iVb (PAM 43.241 =77E, 1277 col. ii, 1.2).117 Milik restores the plur. ה]ון] ל . One would expect, however, that the lower part o f ן would be visible; moreover, the context demands that the giants are responding to Hahyah who has just told them his dream.

1. 14: A t the beginning, Beyer (A TTM ) restored: [ ר ש אדין חלמא פ מרו ב אל א ש ך נ חנו ל ]. Given the space, the restoration is too short and does

not take into account the visible letters o f Frgt. 7 earlier on the line (not corrected on the basis o f the photographs by Beyer in ATTM EB). The words on this line are attributed to Hahyah, since the 3rd pers. masc. suff. in הי אחו in the following line suggests that he has just been mentioned again. שא may be interpreted as an act. ptc. functioning as פרa substantive.

1. 15: Beyer: דין א ה ]ענ[ה ב ב תו ; the readings ת and ב in Beyer’s ה ב תו are un-likely; see M ilik’s reading instead: אדין הודה ]הו[ה ב (so also Fitzmyer- Harrington, Reeves, and Garcia Martinez, D SST). The left base o f what is perhaps a נ is visible after the lacuna; thus ה ע[נ .

1. 16: Reeves {Jewish Lore, 91-92), given the sometimes indistinguishable si-milarity between י and ו , suggests reading ר ב יא ג (hence a vocative, “Oh giants”) rather than the rarer א רו ב ג . This reading remains a possibility. O f course, the vocalic use o f א in א רו ב ג does not present an orthogra- phic problem; cf. also the note to 1.7 on הוא above (cf. also הוא in 1.18).

13 ]the giants were [not] able to explain tohim

14 [the dream. Then Hahyah said to them, “Let us give [th]is[ dream toEno]ch, the scribe o f interpreta-tion, so that he may interpret for us

15 the dream.” vacat Then [an]swering his brother ’Ohyah acknowledgedand said before the giants, “I too

16 saw something amazing in my dream during this night:

1. 13: Garcia Martinez translates the first verb without the negative: “theGiants were searching fo r someone who would explain . . .”. To retain this meaning he translates a subject + a relative clause for which the verb + infinitive construction serves as an ellipsis. On the translation o f the verb as “to be able”, see the textual note above.

117 On this see already Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967, 3rd ed.) 133 n. 5 and esp. Fitzmyer in Genesis Apocryphon, pp. 150-51 and “The Aramaic Background of the New Testament,” in idem, A Wande­ring Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS, 25; Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1979) 12-13 and 24-25 (n. 65).

1174Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

1.14: Milik: “the distinguished scribe118״ ; M ilik’s rendering is followed byFitzmyer-Harrington: “the scribe o f distinction” and Garcia Martinez: “the celebrated scribe”. This interpretation stresses that Enoch is able to illuminate divine communications which are difficult to interpret. Ree- ves argues that “the scribe set apart” is more appropriate, stressing that the expression underlines that Enoch is separated from intercourse with human society.119 This interpretation, however, does not adequately take Enoch’s scribal function (i. e. the combination with the construct noun ר פ ס ) into account. On the translation offered here, which corre- sponds more closely to Beyer’s rendering (”der Schreiber, der deuten kann”), see the comment below.

Comment. This section provides a narrative transition from Hahyah’s to ’Ohyah’s dream. Once Hahyah has recounted his dream, the giants are described as unable to explain its meaning, a lack of insight which is con- strasted sharply by the description of Enoch as פרשא ספר . The suggestion that Enoch be consulted for an interpretation anticipates the giants5 deci- sion to send Mahaway to Enoch after the vision of ’Ohyah (11.21-23); thus in itself, the mention of Enoch does not introduce the following vision; the copyist has left a space blank before ,Ohyah relates the substance of his dream.

Lines 13b-15a may provide a clue for explaining the curious design- ation of Enoch as פרשא ספר , an explanation which is appropriate here given the absence of specific evidence in designations used for Enoch elsewhere as well as in the other Qumran BG passages where this epithet occurs. In Codex Panopolitanus of the Book of Watchers, Enoch is given the titles ό γραμματεύς and γραμματεύς τής άληΦείας (7 En. 15:l 120), ανΦρωπος αληθινός καί γραμματεύς τής δικαιοσύνης (12:4). Since among corresponding Enochic materials the most common underlying Aramaic root for the Greek stem δικαι- is 121,קשט Milik is probably cor- rect in postulating קושטא ספר as the underlying equivalent in the Aramaic version.122 As such, the title may have reflected or given rise to the desig- nation for Enoch’s vision as קושט]א מלי ספר in 4QEnochcI vi9 (= 1 En. 14:1; Cod. Pan.-βίβλος λόγων δικαιοσύνης); moreover, in 1 Enoch

118 See BE, pp. 305, 315, and 262: “a professional, ‘distinguished’, copyist who writes ‘distinctly, clearly’, and perhaps, at the same time, as a redactor of laws which have the force of judges’ ‘decisions’.” \

119 Jewish Lore, p. 77. / I ן120 The Eth. mss. here accommodate the designation to 12:4: “scribe of righteous-

ness”.121 For the evidence, see Stuckenbruck, “Revision of Aramaic-Greek and Greek-Ara-

maic Glossaries” 34-35 (and n. 54) and 42. See, moreover, the bilingual sepulchre in- scriptions from Palmyra, in which the corresponding texts consistently refer to the burial “rights” using the terms δίκαιος and שט /καί δικαιοις־.cf. CIS no. 4209 (236 + C. Ε ;קand Berytus 2 (1933) 110-12 no. 2 (263 C. E.-σύν 61 (וקש]ט[א 10 .(וקשטידזון/;

122 BE, p. 191; cf. also Black, The Book o f Enoch, pp. 139 and 143.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments118

12 and 15 קושטא ספר , if correct, would have been the designation given to him as he was being summoned to reprimand the Watchers. The reason for Enoch’s function as both visionary of a throne theophany (7 En. 14) and as mediator of a divine rebuke consists, according to Milik, in his 44moral rectitude” as expressed by the phrase.123 Though the intermediary role is likewise associated with Enoch as קושטא ספר , the epithet in the Book of Watchers does not throw much light on פרשא ספר in BG.

The expression פרשא ספר is applied to Enoch in at least one, perhaps two, further Qumran BG fragments. In one instance, 4Q206=4QEnoch£? 2,1.2 (= 1.6 in the combination with Frgt. 3 of the manuscript), its occur- rence depends on the correctness of the restoration: ך פרשא ס]פר לחנו ; see under 4QEnoch6? below. Even if the lacuna has been correctly restored, the context is here so broken that, unfortunately, it is impossible to learn whether the text originally contained any hint to explain why the expres- sion was chosen.124 A clearly preserved instance of Enoch as פרשא ספר occurs, of course, in 44the second tablet” treated above under 4Q203 8, 1.4. Here Enoch is the one to whom the divine rebuke addressed to Shemiha- zah and the other Watchers has been dictated; similar to 7 Enoch 12 and 15, Enoch’s role is intermediary, and a precise meaning for פרשא seems to be presupposed rather than explained. On 1.13 of the fragment, however, it appears that the message contained in 44the second tablet” is interpreted by Enoch ( שר צבות]א ופ -”and the interpretation of [the] matter (is) [...”).

The association of Enoch the פרשא ספר with one who provides a פשר is strengthened by a consideration of 4Q530 col. ii, 1.14. On 1.14 the reason provided for bringing the Hahyah’s dream to Enoch is the confidence that he will be able to interpret it for the giants. Here the paranomasia word- play, hinted at in 4Q203 8, 11.4 and 13, is brought into sharp relief in 4Q530 through a direct juxtaposition of the terms: פרשא לספר לחבר[ך

ר שו פ לנא וי . The choice of שא on the basis of the two BG texts, may ,פרbe a creative attempt to underline Enoch’s role as dream interpreter for the giants. Indeed, the root פרש is attested elsewhere in the sense of 44to interpret”,125 and thus the author(s) may have been drawing upon a derived meaning of the term.

123 BE, p. 262.124 4QEnoch<? 2+3 apparently preserve a part of the report brought to Enoch about

the bloodshed wrought on earth as a result of the giants’ activities. The phrase ספר שא as its occurrence in 4Q203 8, seems to represent a designation whose precise ,פרmeaning is being assumed.

125 In particular, see the Nabataean inscription edited in Repertoire d ’épigraphie sémi- tique (Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres; Paris: Imprimérie Nationale, 1916- 1918) vol. 3, no. 1792 B, 11.7-8: Imprsh ly m it’ (”to interpret for me the matter”=#a/ infin.), referred to by Beyer (ATTM , 672). As פרשא in the Qumran BG, the form is a

1194Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

This, in turn, may throw light on the distinctiveness of BG in relation to the Book of Watchers. Whereas in the latter the visions and communica- tions are given to Enoch (not to the Watchers or their children; cf. 1 En. 12:4, 14:1-7, 8-25; 15:1-2), in the extant evidence of the Qumran BG the dream visions are experienced by the giants themselves (6Q8 1; 4Q530 col. ii; cf. the Manichaean Frgt. “L” Verso, 11.7ff.126). Stated an- other way, whereas Enoch communicates God’s reprimands to the Wat- chers directly in the Book of Watchers, Enoch’s scribal function is expan־ ded to include the interpretation of divine communiqués sent to the Wat- chers (4Q203 8־”the second tablet”) or to the giants themselves (4Q530 col.’s ii-iii).

4Q530 Column II, LL.16B-20A (Fragments 7, 8):,Ohyah ’s Dream

Milik, “Turfan et Qumran122 ״ and BE, 305 (1.16b); Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ 74-75 (1.16b); Beyer, A TT M , 264 (1.16b) and n. 1 and A TT M E B , 120-21; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104 and 115 and DSST\ 261 (1.16b); and Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58,63, and 92 (1.16b). N o readings for 11.17-19 were available until Beyer in A TT- MEB.

As 11.14-15, the letters o f the left o f the column on 1.16 (Frgt. 8) are spread out more than those on the right (Frgt. 7); the same obtains for the letters on 1.19 on the right and extreme left (Frgt. 7). This variation o f letter size makes it difficult to reproduce the vertical relationships o f the letters and lacunae o f adjacent lines. The text on 11.17-18 after the lacunae between Frgt/s 7 and 8 ( ן [אין ... י [) belongs to a tiny piece (see PAM 42.439) which was joined to Frgt. 7 in PAM 42.496.

Photographs. PAM 40.620 (= FE, 80; top part o f Frgt. 8); 41.444 (= FE , 302; Frgt. 8); 42.496 (= FE, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

א שמיא שלטן ה[א ] 16 ארע ת ל ח נ

סון 17 ר כ טו ו חי שא י קדי א ו שין לה מ[אין מאה ית]ב רב שמ לה אלפין אלף מהי כ[ל] ]פלחין 18 מו חו ספר[ין וארו] קאמין הוא ק[ד תי ר ודין פ ודין אמיב ]רבא 19 ת כ ב ב תי ם כ[ ש בר ם ו שי א חיא [לכל .] ר ר ס ב על ו ו

ף כא עד [.ין ] 20 חלמא] סו

qal and should be distinguished from מפרש {pa“el pass, ptc.) in Ezra 4:18 (cf. the He- brew in Neh. 8:8מפרש־, pu“al ptc.). Nevertheless, the meaning of the pa “el form can carry a meaning closely related to “interpret”; see Sundermann, “Ein weiteres Frag- ment”, p. 497 n. 36.

126 Sundermann (״Ein weiteres Fragment”, pp. 496-97 n. 36) states that a literal translation for the Middle Persian epithet for Enoch ‘zw ’r ’g (cf. p. 496 n. 29) in Fragment L Recto, 1.11 should be “der Unterschneider, Erkenner” and goes on to interpret this “im Sinne eines Traum- oder Vorzeichendeuters”. Nevertheless, he does not question Milik’s translation of the Aramaic term.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments120

שמיא שלטן :16 .1 (sing.), in contrast with Sundermann’s Manichaean Frgt.“L” Verso, 1.12, according to which Sam (= ’Ohyah) sees “the rulers o f heaven” (plur.-p ’dxsh’y ’n [‘](y) ,sm n).

טו :17 .1 חי =י ^ / pass. 3rd pers. masc. plur. o f יחט (cf. Ezra 4:12 א שי א יחיטו־ ו ,“the foundations were erected”); see further Beyer, A TT M E B , 357.

1. 18: The sequence o f number, dir. obj., and ptc. on 1.17 makes the restora-tion o f a ptc. at the beg. o f this line likely; Beyer suggests restoring

חין ;סגדין פל (cf. Dan. 7:14c) is also possible. The top part o f a ל is visible below the ח o f טו חי on 1.17 (not read by Beyer), resulting in a יrestoration here o f ל כ[ . In any case, the presence o f a ל excludes the possibility o f restoring בו בון ר ר (cf. Dan. 7:10d) at the beginning of the line. Beyer’s restoration o f א נ ב די ת ספר[ין י ו ] is too long for the required space between the fragments; ספר[ין (cf. Dan. 7:lOf) is suffici- ent. For a variation o f דין אמיר ו , see מר תא ]ד[ין מ on 1.2 above. N ote the series o f qal perf. passive verbs on 11.18-19: ב תי אמיר כ[ , , and ם שי ר .

1. 19: Beyer: ב ת כ ב ב תי כ[ ] in analogy with the following ם ש ר ם ב שי ר ; there isfurther space for several letters at the beginning o f this line, thus requi- ring restoration o f another word. After the lacuna Beyer reads ל כל ע , apparently under the influence o f על at the end o ו f the line. However, the first ל is preceded by a space and no ע is visible.

1. 20: The same concluding phrase occurs on 1.12 (see n. there).

16 Be]hold, the ruler o f the heavens descendedto the earth,

17 and thrones were erected, and the Great Holy One s[at down. A hun-dred hu]ndreds were serving him; a thou- sand thousands [were worshiping?] him;

18 [a]ll were standing [b]efore him. And behold, [book]s were opened,and judgment was spoken; and the judgment o f

19 [the Great One] was [wr]itten [in a book] and sealed in an inscription..[ ]for every living being and(all) flesh, and upon

20 [ ].yn. Here (is) the end o f the dream.[

Comment. In 1971 Milik opined that the description of judgment in 11.17- 19 “s’inspire de Dan 7,9-10”.127 Nowhere, however, did he provide rea- dings for any part of ’Ohyah’s dream vision except for lines 16 and 19. It was not until 1994 that Beyer, after the PAM photographs were made available through Robinson and Eisenman’s Facsimile Edition and Tov’s Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche, published readings for the text in ATTMEB.

Milik’s view that the phraseology of ’Ohyalfs dream is derived from the throne-theophany of Daniel 7 inevitably determined the direction some subsequent discussion concerning these lines would take. While Beyer

127 ”Turfan et Qumran”, p. 122. See also BE, p. 305.

1214Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

(1984) and Reeves, due to the lack of photographic evidence, were wisely content mereley to mention the similarity between 1L17-19 and Da- niel 7:9-10,128 Garcia Martinez was willing to base his speculations con- cerning the dating of BG on the basis of the dream’s dependence on the Daniel passage.129

Given the access to photographs, however, the question of the relation- ship between the two texts may be explored in detail in order to ascertain the viability of Milik’s thesis. To this end the BG passage and the MT Daniel text are reproduced phrase by phrase below in synoptic format.

BG Daniel 7:9-10

(1 .16b) 9) ת חזה ה[א די עד הוי )

(1 .16b) א שמיא שלטן ע אר ת ל ח נ

(1 .17a) סון ר מיו כ סון ר ר כ טו ו חי י

(1 .17b) ק תי ע ב יומין ו ת שא י קדי א ו ב ת]ב ר י

ה ש לג לבו ת חור כ

שער שה ו מר רא ע קא כ נ

ה סי ר בין כ ר די שבי נו

הי לו לג ר ג ק נו דל

(10) ר ה ר די נ ד נו נג

הי מן ונפף מו קד

ם אלף ה אלפי שונ מ ש י

שין לה מ[אין מאה שמ 1) מ .17c)

(11.17d-18a) ]סגדין? לה אלפין אלף

בו ר הי רבון ו מו מון קד קו הי כ[ל]7 י מו מון ק[ד קו (1.186) י

א תב דינ (0£ 1.176) י

ספרין חו ו תי חו ספר[ין וארו] פ תי (1.180) פ

ר ודין (1.184) אמי

תב ודין כ ב ב ] תי ם כ[ ש בר ם ו שי ר- ^ (186 .11)

א חיא [לכל .] ר ס ב ו(1.196)

על (11.19c-20a) [.ין ] ו

A comparison demonstrates correspondences between the passages in four ways: (1) identical vocabulary ( ,כרסה ,יתב ,שמש ,אלף ,ספר ,פתח קדם ,

128 Beyer, ATTM , p. 264 n. 1 and Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 92.129 Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, p. 104. See the discussion concerning the date of BG

in Chapter One section IV above.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments122

, .identical grammatical forms (esp (קום); (2 חו ,כרסון ,יתב ,ספרין פתי 3) ;(130 ף ם אל ,קרמוהי ,יקומון אלפין/ ) the sequence of phrases131; and (4) the order of words within the parallel phrases (1.17a=7:9b; 17b=7:9c; 17c=10c [subst.+verb]; 18b=10d; and 18c=10f). These similarities demon- strate sufficiently that a relationship exists between the passages. This does not yet, of course, determine the nature of this relationship, of which there are several possibilities: (a) BG has adapted the Daniel text; (b) the Da- nielic vision adapts and extends the text in BG; (c) Daniel preserves a form of the tradition that antedates BG; and (d) BG preserves a form of the tradition that antedates Daniel. Whereas alternatives (a) and (b) are closely related to arguments concerning the relative dating of both wri- tings, (c) and (d) posit a dependence of both upon an underlying tradition which one has preserved more intact than the other.

In order to evaluate these options, it is first necessary to consider the major differences between the passages. These may be listed as follows: (1) whereas in BG the subject of the theophany is designated “the Great Holy One”, Daniel 7:9 (and vv. 13,22) refers to an “Ancient of Days” (יומיא ק); (2 - BG speaks of an advent (עתי or better, descent (ת ח - (נ of this enthroned figure, whereas in Daniel he is simply observed (7:9c; cf. howe- ver, v. 22-3) ;( די עד יומיא עתיק אתה ) unlike Daniel, the BG text does not provide any details about the appearance of either the enthroned figure or his throne; (4) the scene described in BG numbers the worshipers in “hun- dreds” and “thousands” (1.17c-d) while in Daniel they are numbered as “thousands” and “myriads” (7:10c-d); (5) BG uses three verbs to depict the worship activity ( משמשין ,לה ]?סגדין לה , and 11.17- הי מו יקומון קד c- 18b), Daniel makes use of two (6) ;(^- הי7:10נ( מון ־קדמו קו שונה י שמ ,י ) while BG ascribes the seated posture to 44the Great Holy One” (1.17b), Daniel apportions the act to both the 44Ancient of Days” (v. 9c) and to the heavenly court (v. lOe); and (7) unlike Daniel the vision in BG does not contain a 44son of man” figure.

As a whole, the differences adduced in this comparison demonstrate that the vision in BG is both structurally and theologically less complex that its counterpart in Daniel.132 Correspondingly, it would seem less like­

130 In addition, Daniel and BG have the qal passive forms רמיו and יחיטו respectively following סון ר כ .

131 The sequence of 5 successive phrases in the BG text (11.16a-18c) corresponds exactly to the order of parallel phrases in Dan. 7:9b, c; 10c, d, f.

132 For instance, in Dan. 7, unlike BG, it is not explicitly stated that “judgment was spoken”. BG, more than Dan. 7, emphasizes the finality of divine judgment. This diffe- rence is to be explained by the different contexts between the two writings; in BG the dreams are seen by the giants who learn of their own complete judgment, whereas in Dan. the dream is seen by Daniel and the finality is modified in order to accommodate the experience of Jews suffering under political persecution.

1234Q530 - 4QEnGiantsb

ly that the BG vision involved a removal of speculative details concerning the seated figure and his throne and of the “son of man” figure than to suppose that Daniel 7 represents an addition of these elements inspired by the vision of the Merkabah in Ezekiel l .133 Contrary to this line of reaso­ning, and in the direction of Milik’s thesis, one might argue that BG may have deliberately deleted details which allude to the Ezekiel vision (cf Dan. 7:9c-g, lOa-b). This deletion would presumably have been introdu­ced into the tradition out of a conviction that a throne-chariot vision should only be the privilege of a righteous visionary. Could, then, a reluc­tance to ascribe a “Merkabah” vision to a culpable giant - one whose dream is communicating a message related to his own culpability - have resulted in the construction of the version extant in BG? This argument from context is what would have to be supposed if Milik’s view on the priority of the Danielic vision were to be followed. The likelihood of the derivation of BG from Daniel is, however, significantly diminished on the basis of difference (4) listed above. It seems more likely that in the trans­mission (oral or written) of a theophanic vision that “hundreds” and “thousands” would have been transformed into “thousands” and “my­riads” than for the numeration of worshipers before the divine throne to have been reduced.

If this argument is correct, then the relationship between the passages favors options (b) or (d). It is not necessary to conclude from the observa­tions made here that BG as a whole antedates Daniel 7. For lack of evi­dence from which a precise date relative to Daniel can be ascertained (see the discussion on date in Chapter One section IV), it is hence more safe to conclude that BG preserves a theophanic tradition in a form which has been expanded in Daniel, in which case it remains open whether the com­position of BG pre- or postdates the form and content of the vision as preserved in Daniel 7. Whatever the temporal relationship between these writings, it is significant that the theophany of BG may well provide a piece of tradition which illumines the traditio-historical background of Daniel 7, thus throwing possible light on that author’s redactional activity.

133 The influence of Ezekiel 1 on Daniel 7 has been well documented in recent years, e. g., by Christopher Rowland, The Influence o f the First Chapter o f Ezekiel on Judaism and Early Christianity (University of Cambridge: PhD Dissertation, 1975); idem, The Open Heaven (New York: Crossroad, 1982) 95-113 (esp. p. 98); J. Lust, “Daniel 7,13 and the Septuagint”, ETL 54 (1978) 62-69 (pp. 67-68); David Halperin, Faces o f the Chariot. Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (TSAJ, 16; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988) 74-78; and Stuckenbruck, “‘One like a Son of Man as the Ancient of Days’ in the Old Greek Recension of Daniel 7,13: Scribal Error or Theological Trans­lation?”, Z N W 86 (1995) 274-75.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments124

4Q530 Column II, L.20B-Column III, L.3 (Fragments 7, 8, and 2 II): The Giants Send Mahaway to Enoch

Milik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 122-23 (col.’sii, 11.20-23b; iii, 1.3) and BE, 305-306; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M P A T 74-77; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments o f Enoch” 201 (1.21); Beyer, A T T M , 265 (same text as Milik) and A TT M E B , 120-21 (col.’s ii, 11.22-24); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104 and DSST\ 261 (same text as Milik); and Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58, 63-64, 93-94, and 102-103. The first published rea- dings to col. ii, 11.23c-24 are found in Beyer, ATTM EB. Until now, no readings of col. iii, 11.1-2 have been published.

In the PAM photographs 42.496 and 43.568 Frgt.’s 7 and 8 are aligned from the bottom visible lines o f the column; however, a comprehensible text can only be achieved by repositioning the Frgt.’s, so that the bottom 1. o f Frgt. 7 is placed one 1. below the bottom visible 1. o f Frgt. 8; hence it is necessary to place a vacat on 1.24.

Photographs. PAM 41.444 (= EE, 302; Frgt. 8); 42.496 (= EE, 887); 43.568 (= EE, 1516).

א כל [ויחלו באדין רי ב ג vacat 20

21 [ א לי פי נ שת] ואתה מהוי ו[קרו ו הי ל]כנ[ רו ב א ח ברי הי [ג חו של ך על ו חנו22 [ ר פ ש[א ס מרו פר א ך על אזל] לה ו תא אתרא] מנדע[ די חנו די לכה ו[רמו

23 [ א ת ע ד שמעתא י ה ו[ מנח כלא ודי חלמיא פ]ש[ר ל[כה יחו]א די לה ואמר קל vacat [ ]24 [ א מ... על[ תנ תי הן בי א פם אי ב אר

bottom margin, column ii

top margin, column iii

[ ] הן 1[ ]עוד 2ת 3 א. ת ב רכ א א רי ב ג [ ]

1. 20: Restore with Milik אדין ב following a vacat as required by the space o fthe lacuna between Frgt.’s 7 and 8; cf. vacat + אדין ב in 1.15 above.

1.21: Restore א לי פי ן .with Milik, Garcia Martinez, and Beyer; cf ונ רי ב גלין פי in 4Q531 5, 1.2. The restoration in the middle o ונ f the line (cf. 11.5-6: ת ש כנ הי[ ב א ח]ברו לי פי נ ) remains uncertain; M ilik’s restora- tion o f [ עו לה]ון[ ב] לה ו , followed in Garcia Martinez’ translation, seems somewhat short - unless there was originally a vacat or extra spacing here - for the space between the Frgt.’s. Sokoloff and Beyer have rightly corrected the obj. suff. in M ilik’s reading o f הו חו ל ש . The construction

שלח + על is frequently used in the Biblical Aramaic o f Ezra (4:11,14,17- 18; 5:6-7,17).

1. 22: On ר פ ש[א ס פר ], cf. 1.14 above and 4Q203 8, 1.4. The restoration in themiddle o f the line follows that o f Beyer. For חנון על see 1.21 (cf. this meaning o f על in 1.5 above134). מנדע די accords well with the context, if the giants are stating reasons for why Mahaway should be the one to

134 For further examples outside BG of bv following verbs of motion, see Beyer, ATTM, 656. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 94, suggests the possibility of restoring the more con­ventional IV following ,7TN, appealing to Ezra 5:15 and 4QEnochc 5 ii 29 (= 1 En. 107:2).

1254Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

enquire o f Enoch on their behalf; concerning the meaning o f 11.22-23 see the comment below. Towards the end o f the line Beyer corrected his text from א ארו ת מו ער[י (A T T M -”D enn d a zu ]... Fähigkeit” to דע די מנ

א ר ת מאתא א ו ] (.A TTM E B -”dQnn ... die Kenntnis] des Ortes und des Be- zirkes”); on the other hand, Milik had read here תא מו translating ,]... וloosely, “and under the pain o f death” (cf. Garcia Martinez, D SST- ”and death”). The shapes o f the letters favor M ilik’s reading over that o f Beyer; nevertheless the preceding א ר את is quite clear, making a refe- rence to death less intelligible. Therefore, the orthographically possible א ת מו ר (taken as “height”) is read here, a sense most frequently attested in Syriac literature.135 The term א ת מו ר would presuppose that Mahaway is capable o f flying since he has wings (col. iii, 1.4).

1. 23: Beyer’s restoration o f הי ת חזי at the beginning o f the line makes logicalsense; one might also restore א ת ע ד קלה for which ,י would also serve as the dir. obj. In the middle, restore with Beyer contra M ilik’s longer text:

ך ]ינ חו ש]ו[ר י ו[יפ . The form מנח (without the stem vowel and accompa- nying subject) is to be read as an a fe l pass. ptc.

1. 24: Beyer’s reading for the beginning o f the line ( [נא ... ב] ) does not take thetraces o f preceding letters into account.

introduces another protasis as on 1.24; this line, then, still belongs to הן :1.1the giants’ words o f instruction to Mahaway.

1. 3: Milik (and with him Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez, and Ree-ves) all read אחת (fern.), which is interpreted as a feminine form for the cardinal number “one”. As such it would presuppose a foregoing fern, sing. noun. However, in A T T M Beyer initially had חרי א ב (= “schließ- lieh”), which in A TT M E B he corrected to ת . ב. . Beyer’s apparent diffi- culty with reading a number here is that the letters represent the Hebrew form for the word rather the expected Aramaic 136.ה ד ח While the use o f a Hebrew form in an Aramaic document is not an impossibility, neither is it probable; a number spelled אחת in Aramaic literature and epigra- phy is without analogy. Orthographically possible would be ת ת א ב (= “with the signs/marks o f”), but this would require that the noun ת א , as in Heb. and Syr. but contrary to Aramaic texts, be interpreted as feminine. In the absence o f a convincing way to read or interpret the letters, it is perhaps better not to offer a tenuous solution at this point. One final possibility, then, suggests itself: the letters may represent a scribal error which, as other errors in the manuscript (see col. ii, 1.4; iii, 1.4), has not been corrected in the text by the copyist. The term ת רכ א (fern, constr.) is apparently interpreted by Milik as a “letter gran- ting [Mahaway] full powers” which Mahaway brings with him, a mea- ning taken over by Fitzmyer-Harrington. Reeves correctly questions this interpretation,137 since it ultimately depends on the derivation o f the

135 See s. v. in Robert Payne Smith et ah, Thesaurus syriacus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879); cf. רמתה as the emph. state (with the absol. plur. form רמוון) of רמה (= “hill, height”) in Sokoloff, Dictionary o f JPA.

136 This difficulty is also recognized by Sokoloff, who places a question mark after .in his list of lexical items אחת

137 Jewish Lore, p. 103.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments126

word from the Grk. αρχή or άρχειον;138 nevertheless, Reeves retains this sense in his translation (”authorization” [?]). Beyer’s association o f ארכה with the Bibl. Aram, term (= “length, duration”; Dan. 4:24; 7:12) is more plausible and followed here.

20 vacat Then ]all the giants [and thenephilim] became frightened,

21 [and ]they summoned Mahaway. And he came to the[ assem bly [of hiscompanions ] the giants, and they sent him to Enoch

22 the [scribe o f interpretation.] And they said to him, “G o [to Enoch, be-cause knowledge of] the location and height are yours (and) because

23 [you know and] have heard his voice. And speak to him so that hesha[ll] explain [to] you the inter- [pre]tation o f the dreams and so that everything is laid to rest

24 [concerning] the m ... o f our house. If there is a mouth o f cunning[..., ] vacat

1 if[ ]2 still[ .”]3 b ’.t the life-span o f the giants [ ]

1. 22: On different attempts at restoring the text in the middle o f the line, seethe textual note above.

1. 3 Reeves suggests restoring: “[and when] you hear his voice, then you shall recount [= א חו ת ] to him ... the dreams.” (Aramaic my own). This rende- ring can only be correct if שר ם is not read before פ ל א י ח ; moreover, the first די is clearly followed by a verb beginning with a 3rd pers. impf. preformative י instead o f a ת .

1. 3: See textual note above.

Comment. Whereas the giants’ reaction to Hahyah’s dream has been de- scribed as an incapacity to provide an interpretation (1.13), their response to the second dream is more intense: fear (1.20). The proposal to consult Enoch (cf. 11.14-15) is taken up again (1.22ff.), but this time the giants

138 See Franz Rosenthal, Die Sprache der palmyrenischen Inschriften (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft, 41/1; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1936) 91 (< αρχή) and Jean Cantineau, Grammaire du palmyrénien épigraphique (Publications de l’Institut d’Études Orientales de la Faculté des Lettres d’Alger, 4; Cairo: l’Institut Fran- çais d’Archéologie Orientale, 1935) 155 (< άρχειον = “archive”). The instances publis- hed by Cantineau in “Tadmorea,” Syria 14 (1933) on pp. 183 (1.3) and 184 (1.2) show the term to be part of the expression ת ארכא ב , i. e. “house of archives” or “library”, as is also the case in Syriac. See further Charles-F. Jean and Jacob Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de Vouest (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 25 (hereafter DISO). In any case, the expression bt ,rk ’ neither makes sense of the first two words of this line nor do they help explain the form ארכת on its own.

1274Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

engage one of their own, Mahaway, to journey on their behalf to Enoch, who will be asked to interpret the meaning of both dreams. Despite their fears, the giants’ words to Mahaway imply a certain incredulity that the visions in fact contain a foreboding message for them; in 1.23 they still seem to entertain the hope that “everything” will be “laid to rest” with respect to their fate. Had they not just received some reassurance from one of their own, Gilgamesh, that divine judgment had apparently been pro­nounced upon others (cf. col. ii, 11.1-3)7 Though the text of 1.24 through to col. iii, 1.2 cannot be restored with any confidence, it probably ex­pressed a defensive posture of the giants who, though aware of their own wrongdoing, nevertheless thought that they might not be the prime targets of the judgment motif depicted in the dreams. Wherever one chooses to place Hahyah and ’Ohyah’s dreams within BG as a whole (see the commentary on col. iii, 11.3-11 below), it is at least clear that, with respect to the giants’ ultimate fate, these visions mark a decisive turning point in the narrative.

The commissioning of Mahaway as an intermediary between the his fellow-giants and Enoch at first seems odd. The text does not answer how it is that Mahaway - and not one of the other giants, such as e. g. Gilga­mesh, Hahyah, or ’Ohyah - has been placed in a position to act as media­tor. Reeves finds the notion of one giant enjoying “a special relationship with Enoch” improbable, and therefore suggests that according to this passage the giants are merely giving Mahaway “travel instructions”.139 However, this interpretation may now be refuted on the basis of a reading of 1.23 from the available photographs (see textual and translation notes above). It seems instead that 11.22 and 23, on the basis of the visible letters, make most coherent sense if one posits that here the giants are providing reasons why Mahaway is the one to be sent on a mission to Enoch. The text suggests that Mahaway has previously had contact with Enoch (so also Milik, Beyer); if any of the restorations proposed for these lines are correct, then Mahaway has already travelled to Enoch before and is thus capable of recognizing his voice when he hears it again. That Mahaway has previously been with Enoch is confirmed in col. iii, 1.7 by the adverbial form m rjf l (”a second time”) which presupposes the earlier encounter (see below). In addition, Mahaway’s ability to recognize Enoch’s voice would be appro­priately picked up in the narrative of col. iii, according to which the com­munication occurs once the Enoch has “called out to” Mahaway (1.6).140

139 Jewish Lore, p. 94.140 See further the Manichaean Uygur fragment (first page) cited in the comment to

col. iii, 11.4-11 below, according to which Enoch is said to call out Mahaway’s name “very lovingly” in contrast to another voice which warns him from proceeding any further on his journey.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments128

4Q530 Column III, LL.4-11 (Fragment 2 II): Mahaway’s Journey to Enoch

Milik, “Turfan et Qumran” 122-24 and BE, 306-307; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Frag- ments o f Enoch,” 209 (1.3), 211, 215, and 224 (1.5); Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ 76-77 (11.3-8,11); Beyer, A T T M , 265 and A TT M E B , 121 (1.3); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104, 111 (1.7) and D SST ' 261-62; and Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58-59, 68, and 102-107.

PAM 43.568 contains the additions by Starcky o f a tiny Frgt. on the end o f 1.6 and o f two Frgt.’s at the end o f 11.8-9 (see PAM 41.512 and the bottom o f PAM42.496, Frgt. 6 from rt. respectively). Moreover, 11.10-11 originally belong to a fragment photographed separately in PAM 41.512 and added by Starcky in42.496. Finally, the text near the beginning o f 11.8-9 ( [ליך ... ומ]י מן ) originates from a joined Frgt. photographed separately in PAM 42.439.

Photographs. PAM 41.512 (= FE, 336); 42.439 (= FE, 860; beg. o f 11.8-9); 42.496 (= FE, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

לין 4 עו על ח כ הי ופר דו על בי ר כ ש] כנ

חלף ח]ו[לד 5 שהוין ו א ל ר א מדב רב [ך ו]ח[זה]י[ 6 ה חנו מהוי לה ואמר וזעק . [

א 7 תנ ת ולכה ל בו ל בע]א מהוי תני ...כל ל]מ[ליך 8 א בפילי ו ל הן ארע ב הו [

תהון יומ]י מן 9 פון [ ס] תו וי ך נ[נדע ] 10 שרה]ו[ן מנ פ [

תו שמין מן די גנ[נין ] 11 נ]ח

1. 4: Milik reads ל ע ב and regards it a scribal error, in which the word wascopied before instead o f after ר ש] כנ ; Milik thus restores: ל ע פין ב כנ which he translates “like [winged] eagle”. This reading is followed by Garcia Martinez, while Fitzmyer-Harrington leaves it out entirely (sic!) and Beyer and Reeves simply acknowledge the presence o f letters without attempting to decipher them. Here again, as in col. ii, 1.4 and iii, 1.3, the text may be the result o f a copyist’s error through ho- moioarcton (confusion o f the first letter o f the following word with כ in לין עו ל ע כ ), without any attempt to correct the text.

1. 5: Read שהוין with Milik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez, and לReeves (absol. fern. plur.). Sokoloff suggests the possibility o f reading היין ש . Beyer reads instead the constr. fern. sing. שהוון (A TTM , 704; = qatl-an in Syr.); in this case, however, the double ו becomes difficult to explain. The term חלד (see Milik, Beyer, Garcia Martinez), nowhere attested in Aramaic texts, is questioned by Sokoloff and Reeves.141 The photographs do confirm the term, but Milik did not indicate that a letter’s space separates the first two radicals. Given the Greek trans- cription o f okh in the second column o f Origen’s Hexapla and the root’s

141 Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 211, and Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 104.

1294Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

attestation in Arabic, it may be that the substantive takes a qutl forma- tion .142 Hence the restoration here o f 143.ו

1. 6: Milik (Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez): ך ו]ח[זה י חנו חו מ ... (andhe [= Mahaway] saw Enoch ... an oracle). There is sufficient space for a further letter י on the first word, which results in a form parallel to that o f the next verb with its 3rd pers. masc. sing. obj. suffix (Beyer). Thus Enoch, not Mahaway, would be the most likely subject (so also the Uygur Frgt. cited below); cf. col. ii, 1.23 where the giants speak to Mah- away about his having heard Enoch’s voice.144 Orthographically, מחוי (Milik) is possible, given the form o f the second letter; however, ה in the manuscript can vary in form (see ה in מהוי in 1.7) and מהוי is read here in line with the considerations just stated. Since 1.8) ל הן ב הו ) seems to introduce a new thought, the previous כל לי ו פי א נ ע אר may be under- stood as an equivalent to the subject o f the verb preceding the beg. o f this line. The context here allows for the inference that the giants are addressing Enoch through Mahaway in the first pers. plur.145

1. 7: Reeves proposes reading the ת ינו תנ as an adjective refering to the “se-cond” tablet mentioned in 4Q203 7B ii, 1.3 (א נ י תנ ) and 4Q203 8, 1.3 א) ת]ני[נ ). The adverbial ending ת ו - simply precludes this interpretation; see further the comment below. Before the lacuna both Milik and Beyer have a ע and Milik restores ה בע]א אנ (“I ask”; so also Fitzmyer-Har- rington, Garcia Martinez, and Reeves). For the verb א ע ב , Milik provi- des a supplementary infinitive by reading למחוי on the tiny piece added in PAM 43.568 (see comment on Starcky’s joinings above). Mahaway is thus made to ask Enoch twice for an explanation. The presence o f a ל on the Frgt. is, however, far from clear. If the name וי ה מ is read here instead, then the words here may be attributed to the giants who inform Enoch o f the reason for Mahaway’s mission (Beyer).

פון :9 .1 ס] תו } וי itta fa l o f ף ס agrees with Beyer,146 whereas Milik reads (ירון ס] תי -These translations, both pos .(”that they may be punished”) ויsible, represent different emphases: whereas Beyer’s rendering may take up the theme o f reprieve (but whose?) from immediate punishment, Milik has the text refer to “their” - the Watchers’ and/or the giants’? - punishment. In neither case, is the precise relationship between the text and the giants themselves clear.

1. 11: This line, which no doubt alludes back to Hahyah’s dream in col. ii(11.7-12), has been variously restored. Milik: תין א איל[נין מ ] (”two hun- dred tre]es”; so also Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez); Beyer:

142 See Beyer, ATTM, p. 579.143 In 4Q530 another qutl noun, רשם (col. ii, 1.20), is written without the internal

mater. If the proposed restoration here is correct, one would have to assume that the orthography for such instances must have varied. Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to confirm or question this suggestion.

144 So also Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 105.145 So also Milik, BE, p. 306: “ ... we shall listen to] your words, and all the nephilim

of the earth also.” Hence the restoration of the 1st pers. plur. after the lacuna on 1.10.146 So also Emile Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi et le personnage escha-

tologique. 4QTestLévic־d(?) et 4QAJa”, in eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner, The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings o f the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 11/2; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992) 470.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments130

­pj[tyb (”ton]gues [of fire]”; cf. Beyer’s reading for col. ii, 1.9); and Ree־ves: (”gard]eners?”). On orthographic grounds and considerationo f context, one may exclude any reference to the “great roots which came forth from their rootage” (col. ii, 1.8). Since Beyer’s restorationdepends on his rather uncertain reading o f col. ii, 1.8 (see above), it isimprobable. M ilik’s restoration envisages the Watchers’ descent to the earth, a possibility which remains unclarified by the restoration o f “trees”.147 Reeves’ restoration o f “gardeners” = Watchers (see col. ii, 1.7), therefore, remains the most likely since it draws upon an extant word o f Hahyah’s dream where it plausibly refers to the Watchers.

4 as whirlwinds, and he flew with his hands/wings k ‘l as [an] eag[le5 the earth, and crossed over bare regions, “the Great Desert” [6 And Enoch [s]aw h[im] and called out to him. And Mahaway said to

him”.[7 to here, and to you for a second time Mahaway wan[ts to recount ...

We shall listen to]8 your [w]ords, and all the nephilim o f the earth. If he has brought[9 from the day[s of] their[ ], then they will be ad[ded to10 [ that we] may learn from you th[e]ir interpretation. [11 [ gard]eners(7) who descended] from heaven[

1.6: Whereas Milik takes Mahaway as the subj. o f the verbs, the restorationo f the obj. suff. at the beg. o f the line makes Enoch the probable subj. here; see the textual note above.

1.7: What Milik renders “oracle” on 11.6-7 is given by Beyer and here as“Mahaway”.

1.9: See textual note above.1.11: On the restoration possibilities see the textual note above.

Comment. The visible letters on column iii are precarious both to read and to interpret, and this accounts for the variety of interpretations on almost every line. There is unanimity, of course, that 11.4-11 record Mahaway’s journey to Enoch (11.4-5) and subsequently contain words exchanged in their encounter. Furthermore, it is clear that Mahaway communicates to Enoch the giants’ request (11.6-10). Finally, it is probable, though not certain, that 1.11 preserves the beginning of Enoch’s interpretation of Hahyah’s dream.148

147 Milik {BE, p. 306) appeals esp. to the Sogdian frgt. published by Henning (”The Book of the Giants” 70-71), according to which “the two hundred demons came down”. Nothing in either the Manichaean frgt.’s or col. ii, 11.7-12 relates the Watchers specifi- cally to “trees” which come down from heaven; in 1.7 the fern. suff. with עקר refers to the women who bore “great shoots”, and the Middle Persian Frgt. M625c (see Milik, BE, p. 299 and Henning, “The Book of the Giants” 66) merely identifies “the Egregoroi (yr)” as “trees” which “came out”. See under 6Q8 2 below.

148 Another, perhaps less likely, possibility would be that Mahaway is actually repea- ting the content of the dreams to Enoch.

1314Q530 = 4QEnGiants

With respect to the passage, the readings and translations of scholars reveal differences of interpretation in two main areas. First, despite virtual unanimity among scholars that Mahaway is addressing Enoch in 11.6-10, there are two main ways of construing precisely the literary form in which his words occur. Is Mahaway himself the one who formulates the words on behalf of the giants (Milik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez) or is Mahaway repeating a message previously formulated by the giants (Be­yer)?149 These readings depend on whether “oracle” Qinft) or “Mahaway” (*,inft) is read on lines 6 and 7. If the latter, then the presence of “Mah­away” on 1.7 is best explicable as words of Mahaway150 if it is the giants’ message to Enoch which Mahaway is communicating. To read “oracle” on11.6-7, however, would mean that Mahaway is himself stating what he wants him for the giants Enoch to provide.

The reading “Mahaway” is chosen here for both the orthographic con­siderations stated in the textual notes above and the argument from con­text. This is directly related to a second major difference among interpre­ters: the activity which the temporal adverb m r jn may be thought to describe. Whereas a reading of “Mahaway” on 1.7 can be thought to mean that the giants have sent this giant to Enoch for a second time (Beyer) or that Mahaway is requesting an interpretation of visions from Enoch for a second time (the view taken here), Milik’s translation could suggest that for a second time refers to Mahaway’s repetition on 1.7 of his request for an “oracle” on 1.6.151 Since in 4Q203 7 B ii, 1.3 and 4Q203 8 1.3 a distinc­tion seems to be presupposed between a “second” tablet from Enoch and a first one which has already been communicated, it makes good sense to suppose that the adverb provides a clue to the overall structure of the narrative; Mahaway has been with Enoch before and is now asking him again for an interpretation. Milik’s reading, of course, does not exclude the possibility that Mahaway journeyed to Enoch before, but reduces the adverb to a repetition within the immediate context.152

Reeves’ view that m ra n should not be read as an adverb, but as an adjective, has been mentioned and rejected in the textual note to 1.7 above. On the basis of his reading, Reeves finds here a direct reference to the “second tablet” mentioned in 4Q203 7 B and 8; this would that

149 Reeves’ rendering in Jewish Lore, p. 64 does not commit itself to either construal.150 The underlying assumption is that a self-reference by Mahaway by using his own

name is unlikely.151 However, refering to the adverb m r jn in BE (p. 306), Milik states that “this is the

second time Mahaway goes to look for Enoch (line 7)”.152 It should be made clear here that Milik himself does hold that col. iii refers to

Mahaway’s second journey to Enoch. He finds an account of the first in the Mani­chaean Uygur fragment cited below; see “Turfan et Qumran” 123 and BE, pp. 306-307.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments132

the “second tablet” contains Enoch’s response to the giants’ request through Mahaway that he interpret the dreams in 4Q530. Reeves argues that “if Mahaway had visited Enoch prior to this occasion, there would have been no need for the Giants to provide him with travel instructions” in column ii of 4Q530 (see however the comment on col. ii, 11.22-23 abo­ve).153 As a result, Reeves places the dream sequence in 4Q530 relatively early in the BG narrative; in fact, he holds the view that the dreams of Hahyah and ’Ohyah are the only ones the giants have in BG. With respect to the structure of the Qumran BG, Reeves is apparently influenced by the simplicity of the Midrash of Shemhazai and cAza'el, in which only two dreams are mentioned. He is inclined both to absorb the fragmentary vision in 6Q8 2 into Hahyah’s dream in 4Q530 col. ii and to leave the vision in 2Q26 out of consideration for BG altogether (see comments under 6Q8 2 below and 2Q26 above). However, a close reading of the Midrash reveals that while elements from the visions in 6Q8 2 and 2Q26 predominate, there the dream visions from 4Q530 are not included; in other words, the Midrash apparently represents a simplification of a longer and more complicated BG narrative.

In contrast with Reeves’ reconstruction, a previous visit to Enoch by Mahaway means that columns ii and iii of 4Q530 may placed at a stage of the narrative when the giants, through dreams (6Q8 2 and 2Q26), have already been recipients of visions threatening their destruction. Whereas the earlier dreams apparently may have failed to convince all the giants that their punishment is inescapable - they seem to have held out the hope that not all of them or perhaps only the Watchers were to be destroyed (see 4Q203 7 A and B; 4Q203 8; and most clearly in 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3 and their attempt to seek reassurance on 1.23) - , the thrust of these dreams focusses more exclusively on God’s judgment.154

Mahaway’s journey to Enoch is also preserved on two pages of a Ma­nichaean Uygur fragment. Henning’s translation is given below:155

(First Page) ... fire was going to come out. And [I saw] that the sun was at the point o f rising, and that [his?] centre without increasing (?) above was going to start rolling. Then came a voice from the air above. Calling me, it spoke thus: “Oh son o f Virog- dad, your affairs are lamentable (?). More than this you shall [not] see. D o not die now prematurely, but turn quickly back from here.” And again, besides this (voice), I heard the voice o f Enoch, the apostle, from the south, without, however, seeing him at all. Speaking my name very lovingly, he called. And downwards from ... then

(Second Page) ... “ ... for the closed door o f the sun will open, the sun’s light and heat will descend and set your wings alight. You will burn and die,” said he. Having

153 Jewish Lore, p. 105.154 See the comment under col. ii, 11.7-12 above and 1.19.155 ”The Book of the Giants” 65.

1334Q530 = 4QEnGiants

heard these words, I beat my wings and quicky flew down from the air. I looked back: Dawn had ..., with the light o f the sun it had come to rise over the Kogman mountains. And again a voice came from above. Bringing the command o f Enoch, the apostle, it said: “I call you, son o f Virogdad, ... I known ... his direction ... you ... you ... N ow quickly ... people ... also ...

Milik opines that the Manichaean text contains a description of Maha- way’s first journey to Enoch.156 Reeves, who rejects the notion of two journeys as far as the Qumran BG is concerned, relates the Uygur mate- rial directly to the 4Q530 text. For purposes of analyzing 4Q530 it is not necessary to decide between these views. Nevertheless, an attempt to infer the context of the Manichaean passage within BG may corroborate argu- ments made about the context of 4Q530 column iii made above. If Reeves’ correlation is correct, then the Manichaean fragment contains an elabo- rated account of the 4Q530 journey and encounter. If Milik is correct that the fragment refers to Mahaway’s first encounter with Enoch and if the numerous details in the Manichaean source may be thought to have deri- ved from the first journey as described in a (now lost) portion of the Qumran BG, then the more cursory description in column iii is explicable. In any case, common to Milik and Reeves’ respective interpretations is the view that the Manichaean fragment is concerned with an initial encounter between Mahaway and Enoch. If the arguments advanced above about 4Q530 column iii describing a second encounter are correct, then the con- text assigned by Milik to the Uygur fragment appears to be valid.

Whether part of a first or second journey of Mahaway, the Manichaean text, in addition to the correspondence of the characters (the son of Vi- rogdad=Mahaway and Enoch occurs in both), contains further elements and motifs also found in 4Q530: (1) the initiation of the encounter through Enoch’s calling Mahaway (cf. col. ii, 1.23; col. iii, 1.5); (2) the attribution to Mahaway of an ability to fly with wings (cf. הי דו ,col. iii ,י1.4); and (3) hints that Mahaway is or has been the recipient special treat- ment from Enoch (cf. col. ii, 11.22-23).

In 1.5 Mahaway is described as crossing a wasteland referred to as “the Great Desert” . The words imply that Enoch’s abode is being located som- ewhere beyond this region. Under 4Q203 3 above, it is suggested that hints of BG’s reliance on the Gilgamesh Epic and the Book of the Watchers { - 1 En. 13:9), presuppose a location of the Watchers in Abel-Men/Mayya (to the south of and between Lebanon and Mt. Hermon). In addition, accor- ding to the Book of the Watchers, Enoch travels east toward the “garden of truth”157 (1 ; ס קושטא פרד En. 32:3=4QEnoche 1 xxvi21) which in an Ara­

156 So also Beyer, ATTM , p. 264 n. 1.157 Here in the east, this garden is assumed to be in the northwest in I En. 24:3^1

(near the seven mountains) and, according to Black {The Book o f Enoch, p. 179) in 70:3,

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments134

maic manuscript of the Astronomical Book - though in the north - is placed beyond “deserts” (למדברין) and “the seven” mountains (4QE- nastr^23 9158; cf. 1 En. 77:4) and which in the Ethiopic recensions and the Greek Codex Panopolitanus to 1 Enoch 28:1 and 29:1 - toward the east - is bordered by a “desert”. Since in the Genesis Apocryphon col. xxi11.11-12 the רבא מדברא included in the land promised to Abraham refers to the Syro-Arabian desert to the east, it may well be that Mahaway’s journey takes him from Abel-Mayya across this desert toward the para- disical garden in the east where Enoch may be thought to live.159

4Q5306 I and II

Milik, BE, 230; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments o f Enoch” 214; Beyer, A T T M , 234, 260 (n. 2), 261 and A TT M E B , 120; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104; Stucken­bruck, “Revision o f Aramaic-Greek and Greek-Aramaic Glossaries” 25 (n. 37), 39; and Reeves, Jewish Lore, 57, 62, and 81.

Beyer located 6 i o f this fragment within column i (assigned to 11.12-18) under Frgt.’s 3 and 4 i. As a result, 6 ii would have to be placed somewhere at the lower part o f column ii, thus providing the beginning o f a line not preserved by Frgt. 7 .160 Since words at the bottom o f 6 i (1.18) do not lead smoothly to the top o f column ii (Frgt. 4 ii, 1.1), Beyer posits at least one additional line below it (1.19). However, an examination o f (1) the visible letters o f Frgt. 6 ii (].Q1?), (2) the shape o f the left side o f the Frgt., and (3) the space required for 11.1-5 o f 6 i for a placement below column i, 11.1-6 excludes Beyer’s reconstruction. A location o f 6 ii in column ii,11.7-11 is codicologically impossible because o f (3); it cannot fit on column ii,11.12-14 and 23-24 because o f (2); it cannot be placed on 11.18-22 because o f the letters’ incompatibility with the readable text (1); and, obviously, it cannot be as­signed to 11.15-17 for which Frgt. 7 preserves the beginnings o f these lines. There­fore, Frgt. 6 should at least be assigned to a previous column.

Photographs. PAM 41.512 (= FE, 336); 42.496 (= FE, 887); 43.568 (= EE, 1516). Beyer (ATTM EB) was the first to publish readings for the almost all the lines on

while in 1 En. 77:4 it is placed in the north. The conflicting locations in the west and east betray the influence of Hellenistic and oriental traditions respectively; see Pierre Grelot, “La géographie mythique d’Hénoch et ses sources orientales,” RevBib 65 (1958) 63; Milik, “Hénoch au pays des aromates (ch. XXVII à XXXII). Fragments araméens de la grotte 4 de Qumrân,” RevBib 65 (1958) 77 and BE, pp. 15-19; and now Philip S. Alexander, “Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish),” in ABD, 2.983-85.

158 See Milik, BE, pp. 289-91.159 So also Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 104 and 152 n. 276, who also refers to the tradition

locating Enoch within the garden in Jub. 4:23 which is in the east (cf. 8:16). It should be noted that according to 1 En. 32:3 Enoch’s journey through the world does not actually take him into the garden (see esp. the Aram, in 4QEnoclF 1 xxvi21: קשט]א פרדם ליד =Cod. Pan. προς παράδεισον τής δικαιοσύνης); thus if BG envisions Enoch in the garden, it draws on a tradition found elsewhere (i. e. Jub.). The Manichaean Uygur fragment cited above (first page), however, places Enoch in the south.

160 Beyer himself does not attempt to read 6 ii and thus does not fit it into the context of col. ii.

1354Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

column i o f this fragment (except 1.1 for which traces are visible in PAM 41.512). The readings below are based on PAM 41.512 in which the fragment is most fully preserved.

ii i

•■[]■[]?1[ 1ר ל[לוט 2 ע צ ל ה ו ידי די אנ

3 ] כל ן ת ו לה אהך די פלטא בי

4 [ ת ... לא? ש לן קטי[לין נפ הון על קב טלי עקן ק מז ו

5 ]. א ת ת מו תן כחדא ונ א ונ לפ שיצי .[

ולחם דמך ואהוה שגיא ק[צף 6

שכני ה[°וקרת 7 א ל ת ואף חזו

8 ] ל ת ע ש א לכנ רי ב ג

1. 1: Traces o f four letters are visible on PAM 41.512; the ן could also be a p.1. 2: Restore ל[לוט with Beyer in parallelism with the following ר ע צ ל . Contra

Beyer ( ה ודי די אנ = “I, who have confessed . . .”), the final word could also be read as די .see the translation below ;י

1. 3: Beyer reads פלטא as the fern, absol. substantive פלטה (.A TTM E B , 398).There are no further indications in the ms. that א is ever used for a fern, ending (־ה); nevertheless, because o f the following relative clause, פלטא cannot be read as a ptc. Beyer’s interpretation should be regarded as valid. כל perhaps anticipates the negative לא (= “no”); this suggestion, however, remains uncertain.

1. 4: The restoration accords with that o f Milik and Beyer, who derived itfrom the Greek Cod.Pan. to 1 En. 9:10. βωώσιν αί ψυχαι των τετη- λευτηκότων και έντυγχάνουσιν161; cf. the more derivative text in Syncellus (τά πνεύματα των ψυχών των άποΌανόντων ανθρώπωνέντυγχάνουσιν). Despite some differences, it is possible - but notcertain - that the Qumran BG is citing the Book o f the Watchers here; see the comment below. The fern, absol. plur. ptc.’s ל ב ק and עקן מז (pa“el) require the restoration o f a plur. subj.

1. 5: The text is problematic because the verb here, whether read as aperfect+n (תן נ תן) or an imperfect (ו תן or ינ נ requires a dir. obj. Since (וthe following term שיציא is not a substantive but a verb,162 Beyer sup- poses that a dir. obj. is missing from the text (a scribal error?). For absence o f any better solution within the text itself, Beyer’s suggestion may be taken seriously.

1. 6: Beyer: ף נ .[. The first visible letter is identical in form to צ in ער צ on 1.2.1. 7: Beyer: ת קר שכני ה[ו א ל ת חזו (”Das Sehen hat meine Lider schwer ge-

macht.”). The first word could also be read ת ד אח (”it has seized”) but the resulting text would then make less sense.

161 No Aram, frgt.’s from the 4QEnoch mss. preserve a text corresponding to 1 En. 9:10.

162 The term was apparently brought into Aramaic from Akkadian as a verb; thus a substantive sharing these radicals is not extant in Aramaic. See Stephen A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1974) 104-105.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments136

11 M ]■[]··2 will become? ]a curse and an affliction. I, whose hands3 [... ]n and every house o f escape to which I

shall go4 [will not(?) ... the souls o f those kil]led are complaining against their

murderers and crying out for help.5 ] . t ’ and we shall die together and give (...).

He has destroyed6 [... ]great [anjger. And I shall sleep and bread7 [... ] The vision has [ma]de my eyelids heavy.

And also8 ]he entered the assembly o f the giants

ii5 to p.[

Beyer: “ ... ich, der bekannt hat”.On “ ... every house ... [will not(?)” see the textual note above. Beyer: “ ... und ich werde schlafen. Und Brot . . . ”.

1.21.31.6

Comment. Once Milik had drawn attention to the text of 1.4, Beyer (see ATTM G”־260 , 2 ”) and Reeves {Jewish Lore, 57-”QG2”) supposed that the words there had their setting in the account of the destruction and bloodshed on earth near the beginning of the Qumran BG.163 Of course, the reasoning behind this proposal was the very close correspondence be­tween 1.4 and 1 Enoch 9:10 (see textual note) where the words form part of the four angels’ prayer in which they describe the suffering brought about through the Watchers and giants’ activities on earth. Now that 1.4 can be read in relation to fragment 6 as a whole, this placement of the text should be rejected. Therefore, in ATTMEB Beyer has rightly reassigned the text to a later part of the work, though it is unlikely that Beyer is right in assigning it to the lower part of column i (see comment on the Frgt. above).

The words on fragment 6 may be confidently ascribed to one of the giants. This is especially clear from 1.6 in which the speaker refers to his oncoming sleep (cf. also 1.7). In addition, the broken lines of this fragment suggest that the giant is anticipating dire consequences for himself and for other giants (11.2,5), consequences from which there shall be no escape (11.3—4a?). Within this context the precise function of 1.4, though not im­mediately conspicuous, may be inferred: the giant apparently recognizes that his and his fellow giants’ imminent destruction is going to be the

163 Garcia Martinez did not appeal to this text for his reconstruction of BG in Qum- Apoc, pp. 111-13.

1374Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

result of the petitionary prayers of their human victims. The expression “their murderers”, which marks a departure from the Greek and Ethiopic recensions of 1 Enoch 9:10 (see textual note to 1.4), is thus to be under­stood as a reference to the giants. If Codex Panopolitanus faithfully re­flects a Vorlage originally contained in the Aramaic manuscripts to Enoch at Qumran, then this departure is comprehensible as an attempt to relate more specifically the human cries for help to the giants’ violent activity. Thus it may not be misleading to suppose that the particular focus of BG on the giants has affected the way the Book of Watchers tradition has been employed.

Lines 6-7. The combined motifs of oncoming sleep and bread also oc­cur in the Manichaean Fragment “L” published by Sundermann (cf. under 4Q530 columnii, ll.l-3a above).164 Lines 1-4,6-7 of the Verso read as follows:

Then Sam said to the giants, “Come here, so that we may eat and be glad!” Because o f worry they ate no bread. They fell asleep. ... Sam had a dream.

In this brief text the giants’ eating activity is associated with confidence, however illusory, in their well-being. Conversely, if they are unable to eat, it is because of their worry about the future.165 Less clear is how, if at all, the lack of food is related to falling asleep. Does the Manichaean text imply that, without food, the giants tire to the point of sleeping and drea­ming about their fate? The Qumran text on 1.7 is consistent with this notion, but is too incomplete to infer anything with probability. More important, however, seems to be the relationship between the giant’s tired­ness and the vision which he experiences.

In 1.7 the giant speaks of becoming tired. Since the immediately fore­going lines do not provide an account of a dream, the “vision” seems rather to induce his sleep. The giant is overwhelmed by the dream vision which he is about to have. This contrasts with column ii, 1.4 above and with 4Q531 17, 1.10 which suggest that the dream visions actually make it impossible for the giants to sleep any further.166 If the dreams are at once induced and result in insomnia, it may be that the author(s) wished to emphasize the misery of the giants’ existence, that is, that the giants find

164 “Ein weiteres Fragment”, p. 497.165 This is also implied in 4Q531 17, 1.11: after ’Ohyah mentions the ominous nature

of his own dream, this broken text alludes to an apparent inability to sleep (”he will not] sleep and he will not[”).

166 On this meaning for the expression ת ד עיניהון שנת נ , see the textual note to 4Q530 col. ii, 1.4 above.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments138

themselves in a state of restlessness dominated by worry, tiredness, the inability to eat(?), and the inability to sleep peacefully.167

4Q5309

N o readings published to date.Given the few visible letters, it remains uncertain whether this fragment in fact

belongs to 4Q530. The fragment occurs nowhere in the earlier PAM photographs and was added to 4Q530 in PAM 43.568.

Photographs. PAM 43.568 (= FE , 1516).

]..n .[ l]·[ M 2

1 .] [..־/[·] [/] 2

4Q 53010

N o readings published to date.Photographs. PAM 42.028 (= FE, 592); 42.439 (= FE , 860); 42.496 (= FE, 887);

43.568 (= FE, 1516).

I l l 1

]x’nru[ 21 M2 ]the giants[

4Q530 11

N o readings published to date.The identification o f this fragment with 4Q530 should be regarded as uncertain. Photographs. PAM 42.496 (= FE, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

]·?[ 11 }q\

167 Therefore, there seems to be no connection between this function of sleep in the Qumran BG and gigantomachic legends preserved among some Hellenistic vase-pain­tings. In the latter Alkyoneus, a giant who figures prominently in the conflict between the giants and gods, is depicted as having been induced to sleep by Hypnos, an event which results in the defeat of this giant by the gods assisted by Heracles; cf., for instance, Carl Kerenyi, Myth and Man: The Heroes o f the Greeks (London: Thames and Hudson, 1959) 170-71. By contrast, in the Qumran BG, the giants’ alternating sleep and slee­plessness appear to be two aspects of their miserable existence. Sleep, during which the giants experience their dream-visions, functions as the mode of divine communication and in itself does not play any immediate role within the narrative about the giants’ battle.

1394Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb

4Q 53012N o readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 42.439 (= FE, 860); 42.496 (= FE, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

]![ 1 ]rrmx[ 2

1 ]«[2 ]’Ohyah[

Comment. Since there is no lacuna on column ii where the giant’s name could conceivably be assigned and since column iii is concerned with the journey of Mahaway to Enoch, this fragment probably belonged to one of the earlier columns.

4Q 53013N o readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 41.512 (= FE, 336); 42.439 (= FE, 860); 42.496 (= FE, 887);43.568 (= FE, 1516).

]?1 ]. ן להון י

2 ] ו ל][.ם .[

1.1: - - ין perhaps represents a plur. ptc. ending.

1 ].yn to them?[2 ]/[].w a n d .[

4Q 53014N o readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 41.512 (= FE, 336); 42.496 (= FE, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

הון [ 1[ ב

ק[ 2 ל ח ת ה .[

1. 2: The ק has a distinctive flag at the bottom, as the ק o f הון טלי ק in Frgt. 6,1.4. If correctly read, ק ל ח ת ה is the only extant early attestation in Ara- maic texts o f the verb חלק in a passive stem.

1 ] among them[2 ]was apportioned .[

4Q530 15N o readings published to date.

This fragment was added to the 4Q530 photographs in PAM 43.568. Photographs. PAM 42.039 (= FE, 594); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments140

ס.[ 1.[

ב.[ 2 ס .[

א[ 3 הו [

1. 3: If not a 3rd pers. masc. pron., the word is a perf. masc. form o f הוי (“tobei”) .168 The form is probably sing., but could also be a plur. (cf. הוא = pf. 3rd pers. plur. in col. ii, 11.7 and 18).

1 ].42 ]. sb.[3 ]he was/they were [

4Q530 16

Milik, BE , 304; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments o f Enoch” 210; Beyer, A T T M , 267 n. 1 and 268; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 143 n. 161.

Photographs. PAM 42.028 (= FE, 592); 42.496 (= FE, 887); 43.568 (= FE , 1516).

l עד?[

ן 2 [ י נ נ ג?

1.2: This term also occurs in 6Q8 5 (in the emph. plur); col. ii, 1.7; andperhaps col. iii, 1.11 (restoration at the beg.).

1 until?[2 gardeners [

Comment. The term “gardeners” comprises one of the main elements of Hahyah’s vision (col. ii, 1.7). This fragment may either have originally been part of column ii (at the beginning of 11.8-9?) or somewhere in co־ lumniii (below 1.11) where Hahyah’s dream is being interpreted.

4Q53017

N o readings published to date.Lines 1-2 and 3-4 belong to separate fragments which have been joined in PAM

43.568.Photographs. PAM 42.439 (= FE, 860; 11.3-4); 42.496 (= FE, 887; 11.3-4); 43.568 FE, 1516).

]n./»K 6[ 1 in[ 2״.[

]t’ ,7K r־[ 3 1 1n r[ 4

168 The possibility of an impf. is unlikely since 4Q530 concludes Ill-weak verbs with n- (cf. mnx in frgt. 6, 1.6).

1414Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

1. 3: 1?K represents a negative prohibition and is followed by a jussive verbalform.

1 ]t w..h[2 ]hwy.[3 ]yn. Let not yn[4 v n

4Q53018N o readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 42.439 (= FE, 860); 42.496 (= FE, 887).

]1[ 1 h i 2

1 ]«[2 ]ryn p[

4Q53019N o readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 42.439 (= FE, 860); 42.496 (= FE, 887).

]. Ka[ l1 ]m’.[

4Q53020N o readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 42.439 (= FE, 860).

] rM !]an !n[ 2

1 )lyk [2 ]hn tan]

4Q531 - 4QEnGiantsc - (48 Fragments)

Photographs. As the case with 4Q530, 4Q531 was originally assigned to Starcky, who was responsible for the collection and arrangement of its fragments in PAM photographs 43.569 and 43.570. The readings of frag­ments 5 and 17 published by Milik (“Turfan et Qumran”; BE), reproduced and “corrected” by Beyer (.ATTM), were unaccompanied by photographs, which were not generally available until their publication in FE and the Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche. Based on the photographic editions Beyer (ATTMEB) has offered a few corrections to his earlier text and has pro­

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments142

vided readings, though incomplete, to many of the other fragments be- longing to 4Q531.

Numeration. Since a sequence among the fragments is not immediately apparent, they shall be analyzed in accordance with their appearance in PAM 43.569 and 43.570 (moving from right to left, top to bottom).

Script. No comments concerning the palaeographical context of 4Q531 have as yet been published. If the forms of the letters are compared with the script charts produced by Cross169 and N. Avigad170, the “semi-for- mal” hand171 contains features which are most often characterized as very early172 to mid-late Herodian hands.173

From the limited size and number of fragments, one can observe a liberal use of space. The copyist, in a way similar to 4Q203=4QEnGiantsa (cf. above), seems to have left spaces between words (so e. g. Frgt.’s4, 1.5 and 17, 1.9), to have indented lines (so Frgt. 17,11.2,7), or perhaps even to have left them entirely blank (cf. Frgt.’s 5, 1.7 and 9, 1.6?) as a means of interpunctuation.

4Q 5311

Beyer, A TT M E B , 119 (11.2-9).Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.569 (= EE, 1517).

א[ 1[ ר ה ש

ל 2 ת [ארעא די כו ד ב ע [

ןיך“ 169 Development of the Jewish Scripts”, pp. 138-39 and 148^49.170 “The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in eds. Chaim Rabin and Yigael

Yadin, Aspects o f the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 4; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1965, 2nd ed.), esp. pp. 67,75.

171 The use of this term arises from the closer correspondences between the letters of 4Q531 to “formal” than to “semi-cursive” Hasmonaean and Herodian scripts, but also attempts to recognize that these letter forms are frequently connected through horizon- tal and diagonal strokes on the left.

172 So esp. the letters ט (the loop at the rt. varies between open and closed) and final ם (the left main vertical stroke rises above the upper horizontal stroke); cf. lQIsab (Avigad, “Palaeography”, p. 75, col. IX). See also final ץ (similar to the medial form, the sublinear line concludes with a horizontal stroke to the left) and א (the form varies threefold: with a ligature toward the inside on the left, with a ligature toward the inside on the right, without ligatures).

173 The most developed (thus relatively late) forms include ג and 4) סQDeutJ). Since many of the letter forms vary more than in the highly standardizing representations of the Herodian script (i. e., 1QM, IQapGen, and HQTemple), 4Q531 was probably copied some time during the very early Herodian years (50-1 B. C. E.). An extant script to which 4Q531 comes close (though not identical, being slightly less consistent in the letter forms) is the hand of 4QEnochc=4Q203 (4QEnGiantsa): this is apparent in the abun- dant, but measured use, of ligatures at the extremities of the letters ( ,א ,ב ה , and ו י/ ), as well as a striking similarity of the letters ס ,ן ,כ ,ל ,ט ת, , and ש .

1434Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

א [נוניא בי[ .] רבר] 3

ל עם שמים [ פרא] די כו 4

ל א[רעא כו א ו ל דגנ כו א] ו אילני 5

א ע[נא כול? ר עי א ב ק ר ק ר ש ע.] ו 6

חרו ארעא שרץ כו[ל א כול] ו 7

בד כו[ל שה עו מ] וממרא ק 8

ה ]דכר ב ק א ונ ש אנ ב ל] ו 9

ה [....] ורא]ש? [... 10

1. 1: The third letter could also be הדי ד =( ש “witness”); the reading chosenis determined by the context, in which various phenomena in creation are being listed.

1. 2: Restore with Beyer; cf. ל כו + rel. clause in 1.4. Following a catalogue o fheavenly bodies (?) affected by the Watchers’ fall, the list now turns to created phenomena on earth. If the restoration is correct, the list to follow is perhaps introduced by this summative phrase.

1. 4: N ote the Heb. form ם מי ש . The phrase probably refers to flying creaturesand could be restored as either [צפרי (cf. Dan. 4:9,18; and WQTgJob col. 28, 1.21) or [עוף (collective־cf. Dan. 2:38).

1. 6: The first two letters o f שר א רק ק ו are unclear, but are restored (withBeyer) to produce a reference to “vulture, bee eater”.174

1. 7: Beyer interprets חרו א as a ו f el for חרר (“to burn”). The word may also beread as the preposition חרי א (temporal or locative), but on the basis o f 1.8, which alludes to destructive activity, Beyer’s reading is to be upheld.

1. 9: The damaged letters וב ה in the middle o f the line are unclear, but areread in accordance with context; ב , if correct, is written so close to the following א that an expected horizontal line at the top is indistinguisha- ble. “Male and female” refer to animals while a description o f suffering among humanity (because o f the giants?) now commences.

1. 10: The restoration is based on the probability that the final visible letter is.א

1 ]the moon[2 everything which] the earth produced3 ]the great fish[4 birds of] heaven together with everything which produces fruit[5 ... of] the [ea]rth, and all the wheat, and all the trees[6 all? sh]eep, cattle, and (every) vulture .[7 eve]ry creeping thing o f the earth. And they burned all/every[8 eve]ry severe deed, and the word m[9 ]male and female. And among humanity /[10 ] . . . [ ] . . .h and r\sh?

174 See s. v. in Jastrow, Dictionary; Beyer, ATTMEB , p. 427 and s. v. in Sokoloff, Dic- ionary o f JPA.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments144

Comment. The most significant clue for determining the context of this broken text is the verb on 1.7: “they burned”. Though the subject of the verb is not provided in the text, it is reasonable to infer that the passage is refering to the destruction which the giants are thought to have inflicted on earth. Thus the listing of parts of the created order victimized by the giants’ activities would function to express the cosmological consequences resulting from the Watchers’ descent to earth. This event has unleashed a chain of events which threaten the destruction of that which God has created.

The violence in the passage is described as affecting at least four, per­haps five, aspects of creation: (1) sea creatures (1.3); (2) creatures that fly? (1.4 - see restoration); (3) vegetation (11.4-5); (4) land animals (11.6-7,9?); and (5) humanity (11.9ff.?). Even heavenly bodies may have been affected by the Watchers’ fall, but too little is preserved from 1.1 to either confirm or dismiss this possibility.

No part of these lines corresponds with either 1Q23 9+14+15 or 4Q531 5 which likewise refer to the giants’ violent deeds. It seems thus safe to assume that all these fragments contain different parts of this sec­tion of BG. This, in turn, suggests that the account is rather elaborate, especially if one compares this to the more concise narratives concerning the deeds of the giants in the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 7:3-5 - “against birds, wild beasts, reptiles, and fish”; cf. Jub. 5:2 - “humans, cattle, beasts, and birds, and everything which walks on the earth”; 7:24 - “against beasts, birds, and everything which moves and walks on the earth”). This obser­vation brings into sharper relief the fact that, as no other extant early Jewish writing, BG focuses most exclusively and elaborately on the giants. The interest at the outset in cataloguing their misdeeds (instead of those of, e. g., the Watchers) corresponds to the detail devoted to them - that is, their plight, dreams, and imminent punishment - throughout the story.

The order with which creatures affected by the giants’ activities are listed in fragment 1 suggests that the mention of humans occurred toward the end of the account. On this basis, a reconsideration of the extant (fragmentary) lines from 4Q531 5 and 1Q23 makes it possible to recon­struct a relative sequence of events narrated in this section of BG: (1) The birth of the giants is, of course, an immediate outcome of the Watchers’ union with human daughters; therefore 4Q531 5, which refers to the birth of the giants (1.2; see below), may be regarded as prior to the description of their activities in 4Q531 1 and the 1Q23 materials and, perhaps, belongs near the beginning of the story.175 Following this “introductory narrative”,

175 On this point Milik (BE, p. 308), Beyer (ATTM, p. 260), and Reeves (Jewish Lore, p. 67) agree. Garcia Martinez (QumApoc, p. 112), who maintains that the 1Q23 materials

1454Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

the violence of the giants is described against (2) the created order (4Q531 1, ll.l-9a) and then, specifically, against (3) humanity (1Q23 9+14+15; cf. 4Q531 1, 11.9b—10). On the basis of the content in 4Q531 1, then, Beyer’s suggestion that 1Q23 9+14+15 (.ATTM , 160: = “G l ” 9) preceded the contents of the same fragment (ATTMEB, 119: 4Q531 1 = “G 1” 12-19) may in fact need to be corrected to the reverse order.

4Q5312Beyer, A TT M E B , 122.

Photographs. PAM 41.956 (= FE, 534); 43.569 (= FE, 1517).

vacat/margin?

ה [ לה] א[מר 1 ד]י עד ידע אנ

2 ] ל ה כו עליכה די ו .[

1. 1: Following לה Beyer reads די ; since the one visible mark near the lacunao f the Frgt. cannot be readily identified with any letters, it is possible that this space was left blank by the copyist. For a similar phrase ידע ה אנ , cf. 4Q531 17, 1.10 below.

1 ]he [s]aid to him, “I know until [2 ]h and everything which (is) upon you .[

1. 2: Beyer: “gegen dich”. The precise sense o f על depends on the word whichfollows.

Comment. The speaker of the extant words is not known. The fragment probably represents conversations among the giants about their plight.

4Q531 3Beyer, A TT M E B , 122 (1.3).

Photographs. PAM 43.569 (= FE, 1517).

]■■[בדון .[? .[ י

ה ת הב א לה י . . ה מ. דנ .[אל ק .. .[ ]. ..[..

1. 4: Because o f the similarity between the first four letters with others, thereading o f בדון ד from) י ב א ) is uncertain.

1234

(9+14+15 and 1+6+22) and 4Q203 13 summarize the Book o f Watchers at the beginning of BG, places 4Q531 5 in a subsequent section which he terms “activities of the giants before their imprisonment”. See Chapter One section II.B above.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments146

1. 3: The second letter of the third word could be either ח or כ . Reading theformer, it might be possible to restore מחויא (= “explanation”), but the form is rare and only attested in later sources.176

1 ]..[2 ]. they will perish .[3 you have given to him this m ...’ .[4 * . .7 . [ ] . . . [

4Q5314Beyer, ATTMEB , 121.

Beyer locates the contents of this Frgt. at a place corresponding to 4Q530 col. iii (“G 10”, 11.21-27). The reason for Beyer’s placement is not immediately apparent;it may be argued that the Frgt. belongs to another part of BG (see commentbelow).

Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.569 (= FE, 1517).

... 1 ] אחירם ו]ל ול

[ן [.] ולם..] ול[ענאל 2 [

ולעמיאל ול.].אל[ לנעמאל א[ל ... 3 [

א אלין ל[כול 4 קטל]תה די לכה חו]י[א מה גברי

בחרבא אזלו אלין כול הלא .[ 5 [

6 ] הרין א על רברבין כנ [

עליכה[ 7 . [

-a giant’s name; cf. the text ,(”the exalted one is my brother“ =) אחירם :1.1ual note to 1.3 below. A similar or identical name may be presupposed in the Middle Persian Kawan Manichaean Frgt. j , 1.24: “Ahr.[” (Hen- ning, “The Book of Giants” 57, 60; for the text, see the comment to 1Q23 9+14+15 above). This possibility is, however, quite uncertain; the form of the Manichaean Frgt. may correspond instead to ].אדכ in 4Q203 3. The ~ל throughout the Frgt. is a nota accusativa and may be restored (with Beyer) before each name in the lists.

1. 2: Beyer reads ולברקא]ל. At the most, three (perhaps only two) letters ofthe name are visible. The first letter is more likely to be read as a פ and there is no sublinear stroke to indicate a ק where Beyer places it; hence the name is left undeciphered. אל ענ , a Watcher’s name, means “God answered” or, if derived from אל עננ (cf. 4QEnocha 1 iii 10; 4QEnochcl ii 27 to 1 En. 6:7), it could mean “cloud of God”.

אל :3 .1 , the ending for the other legible names on 11.2-3 is restored twice.Since many of the Watchers’ names in the 4QEnoch Frgt.’s to 1 En. 6:7 carry this ending, it may be assumed that these names refer to the Wat- chers and not to the giants. אל מ Watcher’s name, may mean either ,נע

176 See s. v. in Jastrow, Dictionary. There is no entry for this word in Sokoloff, Dictio­nary o f JPA.

1474Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

“God has shown favor” or, if interpreted with a cstr. noun, “pleasant­ness of God”; = “God is my father’s brother” (cf the personalname in 2 Sam. 9:4,5; 17:27; Num. 13:12; 1 Chron. 26:5).

1. 4: Beyer: HE*). The term !*[,,]־in is restored here on the basis of the certaintyof the first letter and in an attempt to make sense of the context (e. g., the following second pers. obj. and exclusion of the final letter as n or n requires a third pers. subj. for the verb). ,H could also be read as if the second letter is seen as the top a sublinear stroke; this, however, would impede making any sense of the legible words.

1. 5: Read Kbn as a interrog. particle + Kb. The meaning of bTK to denotedeath is clear; this sense is more frequently attested in later Aramaic literature.177 At the end, Beyer reads an absol. (3"in), but the letter trace immediately following makes the presence of an emphatic probable.

1. 6: Beyer: ] bS7.

1 ]and Ahiram, and[2 and ]‘Anael, and P..[ ]. []n [3 . e]l, N־.. a‘emel, and .[.־el], and ‘Ammiel[4 all] these giants. What has he t[ol]d to you, so that [you] killed[5 ]. Have not all these gone by the sword?[6 ]as large rivers against ’[7 ]against you .[

1.4: Beyer plausibly restores: “alle diese Engel und] alle diese Riesen.” Sincethe foregoing names include both giants and Watchers, the summative reference would probably have included the Watchers as well.

1. 7: Beyer: “...] gegen dich.”

Comment. The fragment commences at the conclusion of a list of giants and Watchers, respectively, who have died through violence. Much about the fragment, however, remains unclear. The fragmentary lines neither reveal by whom these giants and Watchers have been killed - that is, whether by one of God’s chief angels (cf. 4Q203 8, 1.12) or by one another (cf. the Middle Persian Kawan, Frgt.y 178) - nor do they provide unambi­guous clues which suggest the identities of the speaker and addressee. The text, however, does provide several hints which shall be detailed here.

Beyer locates these lines within Enoch’s interpretation of ’Ohyah and Hahyah’s dreams preserved in 4Q530 col. iii, assigning them to a text corresponding to “G 10”, 11.21-27 (of which manuscript?). While Beyer’s line numeration seems derived from the speculative supposition that the text belongs at the conclusion of Enoch’s message to Mahaway - and,

177 So s. v. in Jastrow, Dictionary and Sokoloff, Dictionary of JPA (no. 3). This mea- ning for אזל is now attested in 4QT0b ara = 4Q196 (= Tob. 3:15; see PAM 43.176 = FE, 1231, where this reading is confirmed by the legible ל in the lacunae); cf. further Beyer, ATTMEB, pp. 137, 305.

178 Henning’s translation is cited in the commentary to 1Q23 9+14+15 above.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments148

therefore, should be viewed with caution - , his interpretation of its context merits serious consideration. That Enoch is addressing Mahaway here is based on the following threefold line of reasoning. First, the third person reference to the (1.4) would seem to exclude one of the giants as the speaker and, since Watchers are also included in the list of names, they might be excluded as well. Moreover, the second person address (11.4,7) indicates that these lines do not, in the story, represent the perspective of a third person narrator. These observations hence suggest that the speaker is either one of the primary angels or Enoch. Given Enoch’s prominent role as interpreter of the giants’ dreams, he is the more proba­ble speaker. Second, Beyer’s interpretation is related to the translation of

in 1.7 as “against you” rather than “upon you”. As such, the term would be reminiscent of the concluding pronouncement in “the second tablet” against the Watchers (4Q203 8, 1.14-'p:rby) dictated to Enoch and, if one follows the Sundermann Fragment “L”, mediated through Mahaway (see comment under 4Q203 8). Third, the question on 1.5 con­tains a speaker’s attempt to persuade the addressee about the validity of something by appealing to the fact that the giants and Watchers’ names just listed have been killed. Of course, 6Q8 1 and 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3 both contain conversations among the giants in which they disagree about their fate. If, then, this point is considered apart from the other two considera­tions just made, one might have grounds to suppose that this text is simply another instance of one giant attempting to convince another. However, if all three arguments are taken together, it is difficult to imagine what more fitting context there is in BG than that Enoch is communicating to Mah­away that the dreams herald doom for the giants. The deaths recounted by Enoch are likely to have occurred through intramural fighting among the Watchers and giants, as suggested by the 2nd person subject of the verb in1.4. The violence, however, is ultimately to be regarded as a manifestation of divine punishment.179

If the general reconstruction of context presupposed by Beyer can be upheld, it remains uncertain whether Enoch is addressing Mahaway du­ring their “first” or “second” encounter. From 4Q531 4 it may be inferred that destruction inflicted on the Watchers and giants is not complete; it is thus possible that the remaining giants held out the hope that they might escape this judgment (cf. 4Q530 col. ii, 1.2). If this is so, the fragment might correspond to an earlier communication by Enoch to Mahaway in

179 Cf. Jub. 5:7,9 (trans. Wintermute, OTP 2.64): “And against their children a word went forth from before his presence so that he might smite them with the sword and remove them from under heaven. ... And he [God] sent his sword among them so that each one might kill his fellow and they began to kill one another until they all fell on the sword and they were wiped out from the earth.”

1494Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

BG. In such a case, Enoch’s message to the giants, which refers to the violent deaths of some of their companions, as well as of at least some of the Watchers, would have failed to convince the remaining ones that they too will be destroyed. The two dreams in 4Q530 col. ii would thus function, along with Enoch’s interpretation, to remove their hope for sur­vival. On the other hand, if this fragment were regarded as part of Enoch’s interpretation of ’Ohyah and Hahyah’s dreams in 4Q530 col. ii (with Be­yer), then the persuasiveness of Enoch’s message to the giants may be thought to have been more successful in the story. It itself would represent a divine communication which virtually seals the giants’ fate.

4Q531 5

Milik, BE, 308-309; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 209, 211 and 213; Beyer, A TT M , 260; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 757-58; Black, The Book o f Enoch, 154; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104—105 and 111-12; DSST, 262; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 57, 62, and 67-76.

Milik has assigned this fragment at “the beginning of the scroll” {BE, 108); see further the comment below. The fragment represents the joining of two originally separate pieces; for the upper portion from 11.1-2, see PAM 42.032 (= FE, 596).

Photographs. PAM 42.032 (= FE, 596; from 11.1-2); 43.569 (= FE, 1517).

אטמיו] [. 1

]ונפילין [גברין 2 .

כ.] אלו אולדו [. 3

מה] יד ועל [בדמה 4

ול] להון שפק לא די [ין 5

[הוו 6 . . מל] שגיא למאכל ובעין .

vacat 1

] נפיליא [מחוה 8

1. 1: Milik reads ן[; the letter could also be ף . Beyer (followed by Reeves) has:טמיו א [ [; while Beyer reads the form as a transitive p a 1‘el perf. 3rd pers. plur., Reeves suggests that it represents a intransitive qal. In any case, Beyer and Reeves5 reading is untenable because of the space before א and its proximity to ט. Read אטמיו (with Milik, followed by Sokoloff and Garcia Martinez) = itpa. stem 3rd pers. plur., with the infixed ת - assimilated into the dental consonant of the first radical.

1. 2: On the term לין פי see the comment under 4Q530 col. ii, 11.3-6. Black ,נholds that גברין and נפילין may be understood in apposition.

אולדו :3 .1 ist the a fe l stem, 3rd pers. plur. masc. perf. of ילד. The masc. formof the verb presupposes the Watchers as the subj. Garcia Martinez5 rendering (“they shall sire55) reads the form as if it were an impf. At the end of the line Milik, Beyer, and Reeves read and restore: ל כו] .

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments150

The reading, though possible, is uncertain.אלו is interpreted by Milik as “if”, a form derived from לי הן , while Beyer sees therein a 3rd pers. plur. masc. perf. verb from אלי (“to wail”). These interpretations are appa- rently chosen because of a retiscence to read the alternate form for the interjection 180רו א . Reeves is no doubt correct, however, to interpret this form as derived from הלו attested in Imperial Aramaic sources.181

1. 4: Milik (followed by Garcia Martinez): מה Beyer and ;(”in his blood“) ]בדReeves: דמה[ (“its blood”). The pron. suff. may be either masc. or fern. If the former, then the suff. would refer to one of the Watchers or to a collective contingent of them. If a fem. suff, then the expression proba- bly refers to bloodshed on earth (fem.). Other possible readings, but which are less suitable to the context, would result from reading ר in- stead of ד כרסה: (sg. absol., “throne”), כרמה (“its/his/her vineyard”). On the instrumental sense of יד על , see Beyer, A TT M , 593. At the end of the line, Reeves suggests reading and restoring: מה]ומתא (“turmoil”). As the final letter on the line could also be ח, the word remains uncer- tain.

1. 5: Milik restores: גבר[ין (cf. Beyer and Reeves: ן[). The visible letters mayalso belong to a plur. ptc. denoting one of the giants’ misdeeds. On the meaning of שפק as “to be enough”, see the same in 4Q532 2, the textual note to 1.10.

1. 8: If the first letter is correctly read, מחוה is the perf. 3rd pers. plur. of מחי+ the fem. 3rd sing. acc. obj. (= earth?).

1 ]. they defiled themselves[2 ]giants and nephilim[3 ]. they begat. Behold, k.[4 ]in its blood(?), and by means of mh[5 ]yn because it was not enough for them and for[6 ] and (they were) wanting to eat much m/[7 vacat8 ]the nephilim smote it (the earth?)

1. 1: Translated with Milik, Uhlig, and Garcia Martinez. Concerning therenderings of Beyer (“sie befleckten”) and Reeves (“they became defi- led”), see the textual note above.

1. 3: The masc. form of the verb presupposes the Watchers as the subject.Garcia Martinez’ translation (“they shall sire”) reads the form as if it were in the impf.

1. 4: See the textual note above.

180 Furthermore, Beyer argues that as an interjection,אלו is always combined with the conjunction ~ו in the Daniel texts 2:31; 4:7,10; 7:8 {ATTM, p. 522). In earlier Aramaic texts, however, the earlier form of the interjection (הלו) occurs independently: see Jean- Hoftijzer, DISO, p. 65; Donner and Rollig, KAI, no.’s 233, 11. 9,11,13 (3X) (Assur, mid- 7th cent. B. C. E.); 270B 1.4 (Elephantine, 5th cent. B. C. E.). The reading of the Her- mopolis papyrus 1, 1.7 is disputed; see Kaufman, Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, p. 69 and n. 190.

1514Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

Comment. This fragment recounts motifs concerning the giants known through other early Jewish literature, especially the Book of Watchers. Thematic correspondences with the latter are provided here, while further parallels with early Jewish sources are noted in parentheses:

1.1: (The Watchers) defiled themselves.1. En. 9:8; 15:3-4;182 {Jub. 4:22; 7:21; 1 En. 106: 14;cf. 7:1 and 10:11 1 En. 69:5)

1. 3: (The Watchers) begat (giants).1 En. 15:3-4;183 {Jub. 7:22; 1 En. 106:17; cf.cf 7:2; 9:9; 10:9.184 Jub. 5:1; T.Reub. 5:6)

1. 4: its (the earth’s?) blood1 En. 9:1; 9:9; {Jub. 7:23-25)185cf. 7:5; 15:9.186

1. 5: (The giants’ appetites) are insatiable.1 En. 7:3-4;187

1. 6: (The giants) were eating much.1881 En. 7:3-5.

181 Reeves, Jewish Lore, pp. 72-73; cf. Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 209 and The Targum to Job in Qumran Cave XI (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1974) 110. See also n. 180 above.

182 1 En. 9:8־“. .. they lay with them - with those women - and defiled themselves .. .”; 15:3-4-“Why have you ... lain with the women and defiled yourselves ... you defiled yourselves with women ...”.

183 Whereas 7:2, 9:9 and 10:9 refer to the human women giving birth to the giants, 15:3-4 emphasizes that the Watchers have “fathered” their offspring.

184 In 1 En. 7:2, 9:9 and 10:9, it is the women who give birth to giants.185 In Jub. the giants’ violence and their subsequent destruction is employed as a

warning not to “shed human blood” nor to “eat the blood of any flesh” (5:27-29). Likewise in 20:5 Abraham is made to use the punishment of the giants as an example of what happens to those who pollute themselves through sexual union with “the daughters of Canaan”.

186 The Aramaic frgt.’s to 15:4 are, unfortunately, not extant. Here the term “blood” is closely associated with “flesh” and thus refers, not to “bloodshed” inflicted on the earth by the giants, but to the unholy union between the Watchers in their spiritual existence with the “blood of the flesh” (= human women; 15:4־έν τφ αιματι των γυ­ναικών ... έν αιματι σαρκός ... έν αϊματι ανθρώπων). This interpretation of 1.4 of 4Q531 5 is not probable, given the emphasis on the giants’ activities in 11.5-8.

187 1 En. 7:3-4 (Cod.Pan.)־“... who devoured the toil of human beings; but when the humans were not able to nourish them, the giants turned against them in order to eat them.” This tradition is taken up in the later Clementine Homilies 8.15, cited in Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 73.

188 The giants’ enormous eating activity contrasts with the account of their life as spirits after the deluge in 15:11b: “... they do not eat food nor do they become thirsty”. In the Midrash o f Shemhazai and ‘A za’el the offspring of Shemhazai are depicted as eating daily “a thousand camels, a thousand horses, a thousand oxen, and from every kind (of animal)” (Bodleian ms. in Milik, BE, p. 325; in the summary of the Midrash Bereshit Rabbati, Shemhazai attributes this appetite to “one of” his children).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments152

1. 8: The nephilim smote it (the earth?).Cf. 1 En. 7:5. The texts referring to the giants’ fighting activity focus mostly on intramural violence (1 En. 10:12; Jub. 5:2, 7:22189).

The parallels show special affinities between the BG fragment and several passages in the Book of Watchers,190 especially with those from chapters 6-11.191 Not enough of the fragment is preserved to confirm whether a literary relationship may be thought to exist. Nevertheless, if there was any dependence at all, it is more likely that at this point BG has drawn together and elaborated on various traditions about the giants from the Book of Watchers (so also 4Q531 1) than that the latter presupposes the BG account, the details of which would then have been scattered into several passages.

The vacat in 1.7 suggests the beginning of a new section in 1.8. Thus the statement of what the nephilim inflicted on the earth, while continuing the theme of the previous lines, may have served to introduce a section in which their misdeeds on the earth are going to be elaborated. This may be inferred if the possible relationship between this fragment and 4Q531 1 is considered. As observed above, fragment 1, though perhaps presuppo­sing the terse account of the giants’ activities in 1 Enoch 7, leaves the impression that it represents an expansive and comprehensive tallying of their deeds. By contrast, the narrative in 4Q531 5, as in 1 Enoch 7, is more densely packed with events, beginning with the Watchers’ defilement through their sexual union with the daughters of humanity and, in only a few lines, referring to the extent of the giants’ appetites.

Whereas Milik, Beyer, and Reeves, due to its concise summarizing style, have assigned this fragment to the beginning of BG, Garcia Martinez proposes that it should be placed in a second section of the writing which he labels “Activities of the giants before their imprisonment”.192 Garcia Martinez’ suggestion, which posits an initial section which he designates “Summary of the Book of Watchers”, might perhaps be thought to repre­sent a way of accounting for an apparent correspondence of content be­tween 1Q23 9+14+15 (the giants kill human beings) and 4Q531 Frgt.’s 5 (a general account of the giants” violence) and 1 (a detailed account of the

189 The passage depicts how the intramural violence is finally absorbed into human behavior: “the giants slew the naphidim, and the naphil slew the Elioud, and the Elioud (slew) humans, and the humans one another.”

190 The shared details with Jubilees and other parts of 1 Enoch are limited to 11.1-4, whereas those of 11.5-6 are found exclusively in 1 En. 1.

191 The parallels listed between 11.1-2 and 1 En. 15 represent elements found in other texts as well; this diminishes the likelihood of direct dependence on 1 En. 15.

192 Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, p. 112.

1534Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

giants’ violence focussing on non-human creatures).193 The content of these materials, however, may be regarded as supplementary and does not necessitate that a separate section be supposed.

4Q531 6Beyer, ATTMEB , 122 (11.2-3).

Photographs. PAM 43.569 (= FE, 1517).

] P1 ]״2 ] כרסיה ת .[

קוידמוה]*־ ח[משה 3

1. 2: Beyer: ה רסי כו ; a ו is not visible. The final letter before the lacuna couldbe ה or ח.

1 U [2 ]t his throne .[3 f]ive before hi[m

Comment. The masculine pronominal suffixes in 11.2-3 suggest that the fragment belongs to a narrative section of BG. It remains possible, howe- ver, that the events in the fragmentary text are being recounted by one of the giants or Watchers.

4Q531 7Beyer, ATTMEB שה) 122 , .(in 1.2 לבו

Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.569 (= FE, 1517).

]1 ].. כול ת.

שה פל. [ 2 לבו [

?וכערימות]ה .[ 3

1. 2: A fold in the fragment impedes reading the third letter of the first word;the visible vertical trace on the right part of the letter may correspond to a ג (i. e., “he divided”) or to a ח (“he served”), with the former possi- bility, given the following term, would seem more likely.

1 ]..t. all[2 ] pi. his garment[3 ]. and according to [his?] reason[

193 Garcia Martinez’ reasoning for positing a section shich does not include 4Q531 5 at the beginning of BG is not convincing: “Fragments 9+14+15 of 1Q23 seemingly correspond to the summary of the Book of Watchers and would, therefore, have their origin at the beginning of the work.”

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments154

4Q531 8

Beyer, ATTMEB , 122 (11.1-5).This fragment appears to be a combination of two separate pieces (11.1-3 and 4 -

6).Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.569 (= FE, 1517).

] 1 ] ה ת תפ ואשד כ

2 ] חב]רוהי קודם א ?

יקירין ־ו[הי 3 [

כ זיוא מן .[ 4 [

] בדמותה [ 5

]...[ 6

1. 2: Beyer: ]חד . The second letter appears to have a base which, if not dama-ged, may represent an unusual form of מ (as in Frgt. 20), or, if damaged, could also be a כ or ב . The restoration suggested is uncertain. The term .occurs most often in conjunction with blood אשד

1. 4: Beyer: הוא מן . What Beyer reads as a ה consists of two unconnectedstrokes corresponding to ז and ו respectively.

1 ]his shoulders. And he poured [2 ]’ before [his?] co[mpanions?3 h]is [...] (are) weighty[4 ]. from the splendor k[5 ] in its/his likeness [6 ]...[

1.4: Beyer renders with an interrogative: “Wer is dieser [...?” See textual noteabove.

Comment. The context of this fragment cannot be determined with any confidence. It is possible, especially if the restoration on 1.2 is correct, that activity of a giant is narrated in 11.1-2 and that 11.3fif. record what this giant says to his companions.

4Q531 9Beyer, ATTMEB , 122 (11.2-8).

4Q531 9 consists of two separate fragments which have been joined together; cf. PAM 41.956, in which the left half is photographed alone.

Photographs. PAM 41.361; 41.956 (= FE, 534; It. part); 42.440 (= FE, 860);43.569 (= FE, 1517). PAM 41.956, of superior quality, is followed for readings on the It. part of the Frgt.

[ן] 12vacat

1554Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

.] אלפץ אלף גבו[רתה 3

[..ת.] מלך] כול על בחיל לא [והי 4

שמ]עת קלה אנפי על נ]פ[לת ואנה ]אחדת 5

מנהון] אלף ולא אנש בני בין יתב ]ן 6

meat 7] 8 [ ] ה: .. .] [ תריו [.אן .

ש.[ ].[ 9 [

1. 3: A possible restoration at the beginning is ה ת בו[ר hence the words may ;גrefer to the size of an army: “its [strenjgth (was) a thousand thousands”. See textual note to 1.4.

1. 4: Beyer: מל]אכ[יא. In PAM 41.956 the sublinear stroke of what may be a ךis visible. The traces of letters at the end of the line are illegible. The term חיל may refer to “host”, as in Heb.; cf. textual note to 1.3.

1. 5: nbp־in 4Q530 col. ii, 1.23, this refers to EnoclTs voice heard by Mah-away.

1. 6: Beyer: .[. The conjunction in ולא may be interpreted in an adversativesense.

1. 8: Beyer: שמהאן (absol. plur. of שם). The א represents the absol. plur. -a-vowel. An absol. plur. form is to be inferred from the number which follows.

1 M2 vacat3 ]its[ strenjgth (was) a thousand thousands .[4 ]its[...] not by an army against every king of[ ]..h.[5 ]1 grasped. And I fell down upon my face. [I] heafrd] his voice [6 ]n he dwelt among humanity and did not learn from them[7 vacat8 ]h. .[ ] . . . [ ] .71 two [

9 ].[ Ish[

1. 4: Beyer: “ohne Kraft gegen alle Engel”; see textual note above.1. 8: Beyer: “zwei Namen”.

Comment. The context of this fragment within BG is difficult to posit. The words from 11.3-6 are spoken in the first person, perhaps by a Watcher or one of the giants (Mahaway?). The speaker mentions another figure whom he has apparently encountered. The description of this figure in 1.6 refers to his life among human beings, but distinguishes him in that his source of knowledge came from elsewhere.

This combination of details in 1.6 is most likely to be understood as a reference to Enoch who in BG interprets the giants’ dream visions and functions as a scribe to whom the “second tablet” to the Watchers is

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments156

dictated. The divine origin of the knowledge to which he is privy is, of course, a feature assumed throughout early Jewish Enoch literature. The claim that “he did not learn from human beings” (1.6b), in expressing this point in the negative, perhaps presupposes the corruption of humanity. If BG adopted the tradition that the Watchers’ descent had occurred “in the days of Jared”,194 then Enoch’s life on earth as Jared’s son would have been thought to coincide with the time when humans were being taught by the Watchers (7 En. 7:1, 8:1-3; 13:2). Given such an assumption, one might have found it necessary to explain that the knowledge attributed to Enoch was not compromised by the fact of his earthly existence (1.6a).195 This, in turn, reinforces the claim that Enoch’s learning was categorically cut off from the Watchers’ influence (cf. 1 En. 16:3; see also the comment under 4Q203 9).

The identification of the figure in 1.6 as Enoch as well as elements indicating that the speaker tells of his encounter with him (1.5) may sug- gest that 4Q531 9 records part of Mahaway’s initial encounter with Enoch (see comment under 4Q530 col. iii, 11.4-11). Due to the limited context preserved, however, this possibility should not be regarded as any more than speculation.

4Q 53110

Beyer, A TT M E B , 122 (1.3).Photographs. PAM 42.440 (= FE, 861); 43.569 (= FE, 1517). The readings are

based on the clearer photograph in PAM 42.440.

ש.[ .[ l

לא.. .[ 2[ת[ 3 חר או ] ו

]..[ 4

1. 2: After the space the vertical stroke could belong to the rt. part of a , ,כ רד , or ח.

1. 3: 0 </־אוחרת / perf. 1st pers. sing, from אחר ; the meaning of the qal anda fe l stems is the same.196

194 See Jub. 4:15, 1 En. 6:6 according to 4QEnocha 1 iii 4 = Grk. Syn.; 106:13. See the comment under 6Q18 below.

195 A similar emphasis may be noted in Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Gen. 5:23-24: Enoch’s ascen- sion (סליק) and transformation into “Metatron the great scribe” ( רבא ספרא מיטטרון

שמיה וקרא ) is preceded by a description of his earthly life as being “together with the dwellers of the earth” ( ארעא דיירי עם ) from which he is removed (v. 24).

196 See s. v. in Jastrow, Dictionary; Beyer, ATTMEB , p. 305.

1574Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

1 ].^ .[2 ]. ../'[3 ]and I was late4 ]··[

4Q 53111

No readings published to date.Photographs. PAM 42.440 (= FE , 861); 43.569 (= FE,, 1517).

].[ 1[ואב.] 2

[ארי.] 3

] [כה 4

1. 4: The first letter could also be a b.

1 ]·[2 ]wft.[3 ]77.[4 ]your(?)[

4Q 53112

Beyer, A TT M E B , 122.Fragments 12, 13, and 14 are placed alongside each other in PAM 43.569, lea־

ving the impression that they might belong at the top or following a vacat line in the same column. Beyer (ATTM EB, 122-23) has chosen to read these fragments separately. The relationship of these fragments is examined more closely below.

Photographs. PAM 41.678 (= FE, 386); 41.956 (= FE, 534); 43.569 (= FE, 1517). Readings are based on the superior photograph in PAM 41.956.

]1 ] ה>ק<דשתה חטין

עבדת]ה לי עלם [ 2

עדני]א כול ו[למאבל 3

[..ל ] שלחתה [ 4 [

5 ] א שר ול ב [

1. 1: The first letter, without a visible lower left stroke, resembles a ר ; butresulting restorations - they tear“) מ[רטין ,(”they will run“) י[רטון out”), ימ[רטון (“they will tear out”) - do not make sense in relation to the following word. One may suppose, then, that the letter is a damaged n. y m - q a l act. plur. masc. ptc.; cf. 4Q531 13, 1.3; 15, 1.3; 34, 1.2.

1. 2: With Beyer: עבדת]ה ל״. , with the 1st pers. sing. pron. suff, may beeither a nota accusativa or the preposition. Beyer interprets the last

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments158

word, which he reads and restores ]]עדני (cf. WQTgJob col. 36, 1.11־ “joy”), perhaps influenced by the meaning of the foregoing verb.

1. 3: The third letter could also be a בל ח מ :ח ל . The expected form of theinfinitive for the verb בל ח , attested predominantly in the p a “el, would be without the *מ prefix. ־מאבל#«/ infm.

1 those who ]sin. You have made holy[2 ] eternity. Y[ou] have made me[3 and] to mourn. All the times[4 ] you have sent [ ]../[5 ]the flesh and wl[

1. 2: Beyer: “Du hast mir getan ewiges.” לי may also be translated “for me”.1. 3: Beyer: “zu trauern alle Freuden”.

Comment. The verbs on 11.1-2 (esp. שתה on 1.1) indicate that the הקדwords of this fragment are addressed to God. The speaker of this prayer refers to himself on 1.2 as the object of God’s activity. If the fragment preserves portions of a reverent prayer, there is little possibility that the speaker is a Watcher or one of the giants. A prayer by one of the chief angels is possible; it is more probable, however, that Enoch is the speaker; see the comment under 4Q203 9 and 10.

4Q53113Beyer, ATTMEB , 122 (11.1-4).

Photographs. PAM 40.607197 (= FE, 69); 41.361; 43.569 (= FE, 1517). Readings follow the superior photograph in PAM 40.607.

vacat or top margin

]1 ] ש מקם רום קדי

2 ]. ר אבדן חרבן או [

3 ] א חט°י]ן די אנחנא י

4 ] ה אנ וה מחבל ו [

] [ 5

1. 2: Beyer reads אור , interpreting it as a place name (“Ur”). Line 3 in PAM40.607, however, reveals the presence of a letter before א no longer visible in 43.569.

1. 3: Beyer: א .[. The reading of י here assumes that the word is a predicativeadjective. The form חטין also occurs in 4Q531 12, 1.1; 15, 1.3; 34, 1.2.

1. 4: Beyer: ].ו . The final visible letter may also be a ח .

197 Microfiche Companion Volume, p. 47, mistakenly lists the PAM no. as 42.607; cf. Microfiche Inventory, pp. 64—65.

1594Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

1 ]holy (is) height of position[2 ]. ’wr ruin, destruction [3 ]y ’ (are) we who sin[4 ]and I am destroying and h[5 ]....... [

1. 2: Beyer: “Ur, Zerstörung, Untergang”.1. 3: Beyer: “wir, daß sündig”.

Com ment. The words are spoken either by a group (1.3) - which implies that in 1.4 the subject changes to the first person - or by one figure (1.4) who also refers to the group of which he is a part (1.3). Whichever be thecase (see under 4Q531 14 below), the phrase in 1.4 seems incompatiblewith a prayer; it is quite likely, therefore, that the content of this fragment does not belong to the section of BG found in 4Q531 12.

In 1.4 the speaker refers to his destructive activity. If the words are spoken by the same one who mentions the sinful activity of his group1.3, then the speaker is either one of the Watchers or one of the giants. This is especially the case if this fragment is in any way related to 4Q531 14 (see below).

In the absence of any further context for 11.1-2, a coherent meaning of the words there cannot be ascertained.

4Q 53114

Beyer, ATTMEB, 123.Photograph PAM 40.619 reveals a margin on the left.Photographs. PAM 40.619198 (= FE, 79); 41.361; 43.569 (= FE, 1517). Readings

are based on the superior photograph in PAM 40.619.

]1 ]. ב שגיא חמם ו

בשר ולא אנחנא [גרמין לא 2

א מן ונתמחה ב[שר 3 צורתנ

לנא וקדישיכה .[ 4

1. 1: The ״־־ו ending may belong to a 3rd pers. plur. masc. verb. The tracebefore ו visible in PAM 40.619 is consistent with a ר or 7; could the letters belong to the verb דו ב ע ?

1. 2: Restoration of לא before ן מי גר is with Beyer in light of the followingnegative.

1. 4: Beyer: יכה יש ד ק (without the conjunction). The phrase seems to requirea verb which would have followed on a subsequent line. The term un- doubtedly refers to good angels.

198 As under 4Q531 13, Microfiche Companion Volume, p. 47, mistakenly lists the PAM no. as 40.619; cf. Microfiche Inventory, pp. 64—65.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments160

1 ]they(?)[...] much violence in[2 ]we (are) [neither] bones nor flesh3 fl]esh, and we will be blotted out from our form4 ]. and your holy ones to us

Comment. As the case with 4Q531 13, the fragmentary text preserves words of an individual or a group.199 On 1.3 the speaker(s) anticipate(s) the eventual destruction “from our form”. This means, not that they will be completely destroyed, but that their current mode of existence will be altered. In view of the tradition in the Book of Watchers (7 Enoch 15:8-12), according to which the post-diluvian existence of the giants will be as “evil spirits” (w. 8-9), this text could well refer to the eventual fate of the giants.200 Whereas the giants initially represent the union of spirit (the Watchers) with flesh (the women),201 they can only exist in spiritual form after the deluge after which the bodies they inhabited have been de­stroyed. The implication in the fragment that the giants will survive the flood is not contradicted by the affirmation of a boneless and fleshless existence in 1.3; from this one may infer that precisely because the giants have an independent spiritual existence, they can continue to live as spirits following the deluge. If this reconstruction of the myth behind these lines is correct, then in the post-diluvian period, the survival of the giants as spirits is being characterized as a defeated form of existence.202

199 This possibility is underscored by the convergence of the 1st pers. sing, and plur. pronouns in 4Q531 13.

200 Less likely here is that the Watchers are in view. If one were to accept 1.3 (“neither bones nor flesh” as a reference to the Watchers, then 1.4, which does not speak of a complete destruction, does not make sense.

201 See 7 En. 15:4: the Watchers, by uniting with “the blood of the flesh” (sv αϊματι σαρκός), have themselves produced beings of “flesh and blood who die and perish” (Cod.Pan-σάρκα και αίμα οϊτινες άποιϋνήσκουσιν και άπόλλυνται).

202 The continued existence of the giants as “evil spirits” or “demons” is also attested in Jub. 10:1-6: Noah petitions God to take action against the giants because they are leading his grandchildren astray and causing them harm. They are subsequently brought to judgment (v.7), but on account of Mastema’s request, a tenth are allowed to remain on earth (see vv. 8-9). None of the BG frgt.’s say anything about whether all the giants share an identical fate after the flood. In any case, both the BG materials and Jub. 10 - cf. also 1 En. 15; 4Q510 1.5; 4Q511 frgt. 35,1.7 - represent secondary reflections (arising from the ambiguity of 7 En. 10:10?) which specify the nature and extent of divine judg­ment brought about through the deluge. These notions of the giants’ post-diluvian exi­stence contrast with the more succinct statements about their punishment in 4Q370 col. i, 1.6 (“the gi[an]ts did not escape”) and 7 En. 88:6 (“... they could not come up [from the flood waters] but [could only] perish and sink into the depth”); cf. also Sirach 16:7 (“he [God] did not forgive the giants of old”).

1614Q53J = 4QEnGiantsc

4Q 53115

Beyer, ATTMEB, 123 (1.3).Photographs. PAM 41.956 (= FE, 534); 43.569 (= FE, 1517).

־.]7.1? [ 1

vacat 2

]Vi ,pom[ 3

1. 3: v m is the masc. act. plur. ptc.; cf. the same in 4Q531 12, 1.2; 13, 1.3and perhaps 4Q531 34, 1.2. The form could also be read as an impf.: ,pttrp. Likewise, the following letters may also be the beginning of an impf. verb: (?).. .]V*».

1 ]·?·/·[2 vacat3 ]and (who) sin and /[

4Q 53116Beyer, ATTMEB , 123.

Photographs. PAM 43.569 ( - FE, 1517).

ואנתון

עלמין [.נת

vacat?

1. 2: On the sense of forms of עלם following a substantive, see Beyer, ATTM,658 (cf. ATTMEB , 392).

1. 3: There is sufficient space below 1.2 on the Frgt. to suggest either thebottom margin of a column or a vacat on at least part of a lower line.

1 ] and you2 ].nt eternal[

4Q 53117Milik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 124 and BE, 307-308 and 313 (11.3-10,12); Kaufman, Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, 43 and n. 58; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 16- 77; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 207, 209-210, 211, 214-15, 221 (n. 84); Beyer, ATTM, 262 (11.3-10,12) and ATTMEB, 119 (11.1-4, 8-9, 11-12); Uhlig, Henochbuch, 757; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 105 (and n. 19), 113 and DSST, 262; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 60, 65, and 118-121.

4Q531 17 represents the joining by Starcky of several pieces photographed sepa­rately in PAM 40.622 (11.1-8), 41.956 (11.7-11), 42.079 (11.1-12; everything except the piece in 42.440); and 42.440 (11.8-11).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments162

Photographs. PAM 40.622 (= FE, 82); 41.361 (= FE, 534); 42.079 (= FE, 640); 42.440 (= FE, 860); 43.570 (= FE, 1518). Except for 11.8-11 in 42.440, the readings are primarily based on the superior photograph in 42.079. Beyer is the first topublish readings on 11.1-2, 11, and the 2nd and 3rd words of 1.12.

לא [יק ] בית [כול ] [..ימינא 1

vacat [.הון 2

ף גבר [ 3 תי ובחסן דרעי חיל ובתקו גברו

לא ברם קרב עמהון ועבדת בשר כ[ול 4

שתררה עמן אנה מ[שכח ולא 5 דיני דבעלי לא

שיא יתבין בשמי[א 6 ולא שרין אנון ובקד

vacat מני תקיפין אנו[ן 7

ץ ברא ואילי אתה ברא חיות די [רה 8 קר

אנסנ]י[ חלמי אוהיה vacat לה אמר [וכדן 9

על די אנה ידע ארו ]חז[וה למחזא עיני ש[נת נדת 10

אכל] ולא א[דמוך לא 11

..] חלמכה אמר ג[לגמיש 12

1. 1: Beyer: ימינא ין [. The first two letters cannot be י and ן respectively.What Beyer reads as ן is more likely to be the conjunction *ו . At the end of the line, Beyer reads: לא ..[. In PAM 42.079 a ק is distinguishable, while the preceding letter may be a י or ו; hence one could restore either

יק ר[ (qal perf. 3rd pers. sing, of ק רי , “to be empty, vain”) or ]יק ע (subst., “oppression”).

1. 2: Beyer: הון [.1. 3: Milik: גבר ת[ מ (“I have shown myself more] powerful”) and Fitzmyer-

Harrington: מת[גבר הוית (“I was growing] stronger”). Since ג is not immediately preceded by a letter, it is better to read גבר (with Beyer, followed by Reeves). Beyer restores כול as a way of accounting for the absol. sing. form. Reeves suggests that the noun could more specifically mean “giant”; if this is right, then the figure may be refering to himself as a giant who (therefore) is capable of waging a powerful battle. This is ultimately uncertain, however, as גבר could also be a qal verb (“to be strong”). At the end of the line תי רתי should be emended to גברו גבו with Beyer and Milik (who does not mention the emendation).

1.4: Restore ]ל ו כ with Milik and Beyer. Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]ולמן כ .1. 5: The ending of the first word and the pronominal subject indicate that it

should be restored as a ptc. מ[שכח (a f el masc. sing.), which is supple- mented by the following infinitive (ה שתרר an itpa“el infin. from ,לאשרר).203 On the meaning of the a fe l of שכח as “to be able”, see the textual note to 4Q530 col. ii, 1.13.204 The expression דין בעלי with the

203 Fitzmyer-Harrington’s addition of הוית before the ptc. in the restoration, though possible, is superfluous.

204 Milik, in “Turfan et Qumran” and BE, translates the term literally “to find”; this apparently led him to regard עמן as a noun (“support”) rather than as a preposition +

1634Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

meaning “adversaries in court” quite likely an Assyrian loan-word (so Kaufman).

1. 6: Milik restores בשמי[א (so also Fitzmyer-Harrington), which is expan-ded by Beyer to בני שמי[א ב . These restorations attempt, plausibly, to produce a phrase parallel to א שי שרץ אבון בקד . Though Milik’s restora- tion provides a synonym which more exactly corresponds to יא ש בקד (Wlp-qutl subst., “holy place”), Beyer, who interprets קדשיא as a defec- tiva spelling of the adj. קדיש (as in 4QEnoch§ 1 iii 21 and l v 16=7 En. 93:2 and l l ) ,205 attempts in his restoration both to find a synonym ( שמיא בני ) and to reconstruct a running text continuous with 1.5. As a result, the immediate subj. for יתבין is the דיני בעלי . However, unless 1.6 originally contained a vacat, the lines of this column must have been longer; the final word on 1.10 requires a substantive to follow, before the text visible on 1.11 commences (beginning with the restored nega- tive). Similarly, a longer beginning to 1.9 seems requires by the text at the end of 1.8.

1. 7: Milik restores 1[אנו ד , while Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, and Reevessimply propose אנד[ן; the restoration picks up the same pronoun on 1.6.

1. 8: Beyer restores: 1“) אתה ... למנט[רה st zur Bewachung] ... gekommen”);Milik (followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington and Garcia Martinez): גע[רה (“roar”). The sing. verb. אתה may have led Milik to finds a substantive ending in ה ר [ or ה ד [. The difficulty with Milik’s restoration is that the fern. גערה (cf. g ‘r t’ in Syriac) would require the corresponding 3rd pers. fern. sing, form of the verb: ת ת א ; hence Beyer’s proposal. In any case, is to be taken as a masc. sing. ptc. A plausible reconstruction of the אתהcontext here remains elusive. Later in the line Milik’s reading of אוש, which he translated as “multitude”, is linguistically206 improbable. On the other hand, Beyer’s reading of אילי is problematic since the final letter resembles more a ן instead of י or ו ; given the difficulty with reading ש -which pro ,(with the final letter uncertain) אילי ,however ,אוvides a better parallel for the preceding ת חיו , poses the preferable al- ternative.

1. 10: Beyer reconstructs a text continuous with the preceding line: ש[נת מניונדת עיני , i. e. “und] der Schlaf meiner Augen [1st von mir geflohen”;

Beyer wants to retain the full idiom as found in 4Q530 col. ii, 1.4 where, however, ~מנ is the last element in the construction. Milik and Fitzmyer- Harrington simply restore ת ד ש[נת נ . For the ptc. ידע with ה אנ , cf. also 4Q5312, 1.1.

1. 11: Beyer: ] א ולא ת[דמוך ל . The preposition על at the conclusion of 1.10requires at least a substantive at the beginning of this line. Restoration

1st pers. plur. pron. suff. (here without the final א-). As of yet, I am unaware of a sub- stantive עמן in Aramaic; cf. Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 215.

205 So also Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez, and Reeves. However, if קדש here means “holy one”, it is the exception in 4Q531. Elsewhere in 4Q531 the term קדיש is spelled with the adjectival 4 :יQ531 13, 1.1; 14, 1.4; and 48, 1.2(?).

206 See Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 221 n. 84: “... no such noun occurs elsewhere in Aramaic, and the meaning which Milik attributes to it here is apparently based on the verbal root found in Babylonian Aramaic”; Sokoloff finds the verb in Jastrow, Dictionary, s. אוש אווש, .

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments164

of the negative לא is plausible here. Beyer has restored a 2nd pers. pre- formative for the impf., perhaps because a 3rd pers. might go well with a jussive which, in turn, would be preceded by the negative אל . The pro- posed restoration chooses the 1st pers. sing., given the same in 11.9-10. In addition, the orthographically possible reading אכל (gal impf. 1st pers. sing.207) coheres with the lack of sleep and food which accompany the giants’ troubling dreams; see the comment to 4Q530 Frgt. 6, 1.7 above.

1.12: Read with Beyer; traces of a ח are hardly visible in חלמכה , while thelower part of a ל is distinguishable. The 2nd pers. pron. poss. suff. sug-gests that אמר is an impv. rather than a qal perf.

1 ]..the right [ ]every house of [ ]yq not2 ]their.[...] vacat3 ] giant/became strong, and by the power of the might of my

arms and by the force of my strength4 a]ll flesh, and I waged war with them, but (did) not5 And ]1 [am not] able to prevail together with ourselves because

my adversaries6 and in t]he[ heavens] are seated, and among the holy places they

dwell. And not7 the]y are more powerful than I.” vacat8 ]rh of the beasts of the field is coming and the hinds of the field

are calling9 ]and according to this Ohyah said to him: “My dream oppressed

m[e10 the slee]p of my eyes [fled] to see a [vis]ion. Behold, I know that against11 I will not ]sleep, nor will I eat[12 Gi]gamesh, tell your dream[

1. 3: Milik reads the letters גבר as part of a verb: “I have shown myself more]powerful.” (cf. Uhlig; Garcia Martinez, DSST); similarly, Fitzmyer־ Harrington: “I was growing] stronger, . . .”. Others find therein a sub- stantive: Beyer (“Mann”); Reeves (“Giant”?); cf. textual note above.

1. 4: Milik, Garcia Martinez, Beyer: “... with them. But . ..”; Fitzmyer-Har-rington and Reeves: “... with them, but . . .”.

1. 5: Milik (similarly Uhlig, Garcia Martinez208): “I do not find any sup-port(?)...”. Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, and Reeves render with the idiom אשכח as “to be able” and reject rendering עמן as a substantive.

1. 6: See textual note above.1. 8: The varying translations depend on the readings assigned, of which אוש

as “noise” should be exluded; see the textual note above.

207 On the orthography of I-X verbs, which in the impf. can eclipse the first radical, see Beyer, ATTM , p. 481.

208 Garcia Martinez, DSST, translates “I found...”, which presupposes a restored perf. verb m n before the ptc.

1654Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

1. 9: Milik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Uhlig: “has overwhelmed(?) [me”; GarciaMartinez: “depressed [me”; Reeves: “baffled [me”.

1. 10: 1?V is either not translated (Milik, Garcia Martinez) or variously rende­red: “upon” (Fitzmyer-Harrington), “regarding” (Reeves), “gegen” (Be­yer), “wegen/über” (Uhlig). In 4Q203 8, 1.14, the interpretation of the message to Shemihazah and his companions is described as being “against you” (IlD^y); cf. also 1?V in 4Q530 col. ii, 1.2.

1. 11: Beyer: “Du] wirst [night] schlafen und nicht [ ...”. See the textual noteabove.

Comment. Number 17 is the largest piece from 4Q531 and, corresponding­ly, has received the most attention among the fragments of this manu­script. Though the unavailability of the photographs no doubt initially inhibited scholarly discussion, Beyer’s initial text (ATTM) and the discus­sions by Garcia Martinez (QumApoc) and Reeves (Jewish Lore) already anticipated where the interpretive questions would lie: (1) the immediate context of the fragment (11.1-2 and 11-12); (2) the identity of the speaker in 11.4-7; and (3) the possible location of the fragment’s contents within Qumran BG.

Before exploring these issues, the contents of 4Q531 17 are summarized briefly:

Lines 1-2: words of uncertain content.Lines 3-7: A figure tells of a conflict between himself and those with him, on the

one hand, and heavenly forces, on the other.Lines 8-9 a:

words invoking the imagery of wild animals, the speaker of which is either the figure in 11.3-7 or the narrator.

Lines 9 b - ll : ’Ohyah the giant mentions his troubling dream and its effects on him.

Line 12: The giant Gilgamesh is asked (by ’Ohyah?) to describe what he has dreamed.

(1) The new readings. Until the PAM photographs were made available, no readings for 11.1-2, 11, and 12 b were published. Unfortunately, 11.1-2 are not sufficiently preserved to determine what is being said or narrated and by whom. Thus perhaps the most important evidence concerning context here is the vacat on 1.2, as this implies the beginning of a new section (and possibly, therefore, a new speaker) on 1.3. More can be learned from the broken text on 11.11-12. Line 11 contains an allusion to the effects which accompany the troubling dream-visions experienced by the giants: insom­nia and inability to eat; see 4Q530 6, 1.7 and cf. the Manichaean Fragment “L” Verso, 11.3-4. If the reconstruction of the text proposed for this line is correct, then it is ’Ohyah who there communicates (to the speaker from11.3-7?) how his dream has “oppressed” him.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments166

The mention of Gilgamesh on 1.12 was first made known by Milik (.BE, 313), but without any context. The visible letters, though comprising only three words, provide further information about the content of Qumran BG: in addition to ’Ohyah and Hahyah, the story included Gilgamesh as one of the giants to whom dreams were given. The text on 1.12, then, may provide a clue for understanding the background to 4Q530 col. ii,11.1-2, in which ,Ohyah relates to the giants what Gilgamesh has told him. Since in 4Q530 the words of Gilgamesh are thought by ’Ohyah and the giants to be a source of rejoicing, one may suppose that the substance of Gilgamesh’s dreams was (a) less ominous than that of ’Ohyah or (b) ominous but interpreted (wrongly) by ’Ohyah and his companions to be concerned with the judgment of others (i. e., the “princes”, 4Q530 col. ii,

L2)*(2) The speaker on lines 3-7. After Milik, without offering reasons,

avered that this fragment contains “a speech by Shemihazah” on 11.3-7, others, for lack of information concerning the content of 11.1-2 and 11-12, have tended to adopt this characterization.209 As seen above, nothing among the previously unpublished lines adds anything to confirm Milik’s view. Moreover, Reeves has recently advanced the view that the speaker is “probably a Giant”, emphasizing that the motif of pride in the passage corresponds with references to the “pride” or “arrogance” of the Wat- chers’ progeny in early Jewish literature.210 These traditio-historical consi- derations demand that Reeves’ proposal be taken as a viable possibility.211 Several elements in 4Q531 17 might initially allow one to reason that the speaker was one of the Watchers: the reference to “waging war” against angelic forces which dwell in heaven (11.4-6) and the self-reference in 1.5 could suggest that the speaker and his (.pref. -1- 1st pers. plur. suff = עמן)Watcher companions constitute the most logical group to wage such a battle (a battle among angelic beings), whereas the violent activities of the giants are largely confined to the earth (cf. esp. 4Q531 1). Such argu-

209 So Beyer, ATTM and Garcia Martinez, QumApoc. Even in ATTMEB , in which readings of 11.1-2 and 11-12 are included, no attempt is made to confirm or support this description of 11.3-7. Reeves takes exception to this view; see below.

210 Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 118, appeals to the following passages: 3 Macc. 2:4 (“giants confident of might and boldness”); Wisd. Sol. 14:6 (“while arrogant giants were dying”); the Damascus Document col. ii, 11. 17-19 (“by persisting in their own stubborness”); and Josephus, Ant. 1.73 (“many angels of God ... engendered sons who were arrogant and contemptuous of all that was good, placing confidence in their strength”).

211 Reeves also refers to several of the Manichaean frgt.’s which refer to the giants’ strength and defiant behavior (esp. of the brothers Sa(h)m=Ohya and Ahya): Sunder- mann Frgt. “L” Verso, 11.2-4; Henning, Sogdian Frgt. I, 11.4-7 (“The Book of Giants” 70); and Henning, Middle Persian Kawän, Frgt. k, 11.60-66 (“The Book of Giants” 57 and 61).

1674Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

mentation is, however, problematic; it begins with the questionable as- sumptions that the Watchers and giants have different spheres of activity and that neither group collaborated with the other. The speaker’s boastful- ness of his own strength (1.3) and his account of having been defeated by angelic beings who, after all, live in a categorically more potent realm of the cosmos (11.5-6) betray his admission that, from the start, the conflict waged was a hopeless endeavor for him and his companions. Given the traditio-historical considerations adduced by Reeves and the clear distinc- tion between the opposing groups, the content of 11.3-7 seems to fit best with the words of one of the giants.

(3) Relative location in the Qumran BG. Here, the text in 1.12 referred to above is significant. Though the content of Gilgamesh’s dream-vision does not survive, the mention of Gilgamesh in 4Q530 col. ii as the source of hopeful news may be an allusion to this dream. If this is so, then there is little doubt that 4Q531 17 preceded 4Q530 col. ii in the narrative.212 4Q531 17, then, perhaps records part of a series of conversations through which the giants inform each other about their conflicts and dream-vi- sions. At this point, the fate of the giants looks bleak, but what Gilgamesh relates from his dream provides hope for thinking otherwise. A section in which the giants sense their defeat and imminent punishment while, at the same time, being given a reason for hope, is best assigned to an earlier part of the narrative, but, of course, after the opening account of the giants’ culpable activities and perhaps following the initial confrontation between Mahaway and ’Ohyah (cf. 6Q8 1).

4Q 53118Beyer, A TT M E B , 123 (11.1-3).

Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

יומין לזמן למחה 1[

מן רשיעיא כול 2 [ואמות אתקטל 3 .[

ל[ 4 כי [ ]■[

1. 1: Beyer, תמחה (“du wirst schlagen”). The first letter is clearly a ל whichdenotes an infinitive from מחי, in which case the qal infin. has been written without the preformative מ־י. It is possible that the absol. plur. of יום was followed by a number (Beyer).

1. 2: Beyer: ]מ . The ן before the lacunae is clearly decipherable.1. 3: Beyer: אתקבל (“ich werde aufgenommen”). The first letter could be

either א or מ א; is chosen, assuming a synonymous meaning with the

212 Contra Reeves, Jewish Lore, pp. 119-20.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments168

following verb. The looped closure on the rt. and the vertical trace on the It. excludes a 0 and is best read as a 13.

1 in order to blot out for a period of days[2 all the wicked ones from[3 I will be killed and I will die .[4 ]all/every[ ].[

11.1,3: See textual notes above.

Com ment. In this fragment the speaker (a giant?) contemplates a future destruction of the wicked (11.1-2) at which time he expects to die. The reference to a “period of days”, which implies a limited amount of time, may be an allusion to the Noahic deluge; cf. the comment under 4Q531 14.

4Q53119Beyer, ATTMEB , 123 (11.2-3).

Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

M 1..: /!]n r no.[ 2

]*raw **0*7 7.[ 3

vacat? 4

1. 2: With Beyer. The last three visible letters could also be the conj. 7 + 1stper s. plur. impf. preformative for the itp. stem.

1. 3: *007 (Beyer); the first two letters have an unusual shape; cf. a similar 0in 4Q531 23, 1.2. K*W-masc. emph. plur. ptc.

1 ]·[2 ].sr he/they will gi[ve?3 \.d the various pure ones?[4 vacat?

4Q53120 ״

Beyer, ATTMEB , 123 (11.2-4).Photographs. PAM 42.440 (= FE, 861; observe side and hence nothing visible);

43.570 (= FE, 1518). The shading of PAM 43.570 impedes the visibility of the letters.

1.3.[ 1

I?2 ־ ]r?13TI.. .[ 3

] [ 4

1694Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

1. 2: Beyer: ]. ול עבדו (“machten”).1. 3: Beyer: ] כול יסוף לא [ (“nicht wird aufhören irgendein”).1. 4: Beyer: מאתין אבון [ (“sie zweihundert”).

1 ]· b\2 ]... ./[3 ]. ..wp all/every[4 ] [

4Q53121

Beyer, ATTMEB , 123 (11.1-3).Photographs. PAM 41.949 (= FE, 529); 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

א[ l ]מבוע

]2 ] ל כו שרץ ו

3 ] ה ת כול עבד . [

4 ].. רב א .[

1. 1: With Beyer; the last two letters are, however, uncertain.1. 2: The ש, which occurs on a damaged portion of the Frgt., is illegible; its

identity is derived from the following letters ־רץ.

1 ]the source?[2 ]and every creeping thing[3 ]you have made all .[4 ]..’ rb.[

Comment. It is possible, but not certain, that this fragment belongs to a prayer.213 Cf. 4Q203 9 and 10 and 4Q531 12.

4Q53122

Beyer, ATTMEB , 123 (1.2).Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

ך .[ מו מלי יד [ l

]2 ] ו בניכון מפלת

1. 1: The first three letters are unclear; for an impf. of דמך, see 4Q531 17,1.11; cf. 4Q530 6, 1.7 on the motif of sleep. Since the words on 1.2 are addressed to the Watchers, the word following מלי on 1.1 may have been a proper noun, perhaps ך חנו ; cf. 4Q203 8 (the “tablet” dictated to Enoch addressed to the Watchers).

213 This is suggested by the combination of 11.2-3) ל .(עבדתה (with 1.3 (כו

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments170

1. 2: With Beyer. This is a clear reference to the giants. Is מפלת (“fall”)derived from the designation נפילין or does it reflect a mythical element which gave rise to it?

1 ]he will sleep(?). The words o f .[2 ]the fall of your sons and[

Comment. It is probable that the Watchers are being addressed in 1.2. Less clear is whether these words are being spoken or written to them by Enoch; cf. 4Q203 8.

4Q531 23

Beyer, A TT M E B , 123 (11.2-3).Photographs. PAM 41.956 (= FE, 534); 43.570 (= EE, 1518).

ל] כו [·.ן [וזרע נשב

11.2-3: With Beyer.

1 ]·[2 ]and all/every [ ]..[3 ] (it) blew seed .[

4Q531 24No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 41.941 (= FE, 522); 43.570 (= FE, 1518). The readings are based on the superior photograph in PAM 41.941.

ID1? □[ 1!־[].nKn>5.[ 2

vacat 3

[..>־ 41 ]m to you2 ].the wings(?) b.[\3 vacat4 ]../

4Q531 25

EE, 1518).Beyer, A TT M E B , 123 (11.1-4).

Photographs. PAM 43.570 (=

בדמה]ון [ 1?

2 ] א כדן י [

3 [ לכ]ה כעך ?

.אמר] 4 [

].לט [ 5

1. 1: Restoration with Beyer.1. 2: The final letter may also be י (so Beyer: כדי).

1 ] through their(?) blood[2 ] / according to this:[ “...3 ]Now to y[ou(?)4 ]said[5 ] lm.[

4Q531 26Beyer, Ä TT M E B , 123 (1.3).

Photographs. PAM 41.956 (= FE, 534); 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

]·[ 1

] לי[ 2] למחזא[ 3

ש.. [ 4 ·[

1. 3: Beyer: למחנא (“zum Lager”). The fourth letter does not have the base ofa נ . For למחזא (qal infln.), see 4Q531 17, 1.10.

1 ]·[2 ]ly[3 ]to see (a vision) [4 ] ..sh .[

1. 3: See textual note above.

4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 171

4Q531 27Beyer, A TT M E B , 123 (11.1-2).

Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

ת.] ולא [. 1

נשתרא] [די 2

3margin or vacat

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments172

1. 1: Beyer: ] א .ול.Q532 3, 1.3יתשרא st pers. plur. impf.; cf. 4ן־נשתרא7/?. 1 :2 .1

1 ]. and you will not .[2 ]because/that we shall begin[3 vacat

4Q531 28

Beyer, A TT M E B , 123 (11.2-3).Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

vacat? 1] 2 ] וכמדמא הי

3 ] ה ב שניא י .[

^־מדמא :2 .1 / infin. from למי .1. 3: Beyer: שנתי (“mein Schlaf”). א שני ^ . the same in 4Q531 19, 1.3.

1 vacat?2 ]hy and as being like[3 1yh (are) different b.[

See textual note above.1.3:

4Q53129

Beyer, A TT M E B , 124 (1.2, second word).Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

vacafi 1]«»■n ־!s/di [ 2

1 vacat?2 ] and now through the blood[

4Q531 30

Beyer, A TT M E B , 124 (1.2).Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

משתא [ 1 [

]...[]ל[ 2

^־משתא :1.1 / infin. from שתי . The first letter resembles a large ב ; a wordspelled בשתא or * ב + שתא (“year” with assimilated נ) is less likely.

1 ] drinking [2 ]/[]...[

4Q531 31

4Q531 - 4QEnGiantsc 173

No readings published to date.Photographs,. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

[ירגזון] 1

עלי] [. 21 ]they will be angry(?)[2 ]. upon[

4Q53132No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

].1 ]. ק א

ועל ע[בדתה 2 [

ה] 3 די · [

1. 2: For א עבדת , cf. 4Q531 12,1.2; 21, 1.3.

1 ]■’ q■[2 ]you have [m]ade and upon[3 ]ryh .[

4Q53133No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

vacat 1־.]71[, 2

1 vacat2 ].wl.[

4Q531 34No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

. [עד 1

[חטין 2

1.2: y m - q a l plur. masc. ptc.; cf. 4Q531 12, 1.1; 13, 1.3; 15, 1.3. The formcould also be י[חטון.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments174

1 ]unto .[2 ](are) sinning[

4Q531 35

No readings published to date.Photographs. PAM 42.440 (= FE, 861); 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

m w i i־*]7[ 2

1 ] for evi[l(?)2 ] not[

4Q531 36

No readings published to date.Photographs. PAM 42.440 (= FE, 861); 43.570 (= FE 1518).

בה[ 1[סחו]ר [ 2

1. 2: If the third letter is 1, then the likely restoration is סחור (usually combined with -ל and/or ר סחו ).

1 M2 ] roun[d about(?)

4Q53137

No readings published to date.Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

[מרע 1

[ל 2

1. 1: V~\'a-qal infin. from ע ע ר .

1 ]shattering [2 ]/ [3 ]·[

4Q53138

N o readings published to date.Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

נה] [ 1סחר] [. 2

4Q531 - 4QEnGiantsc 175

4Q531 39

1 ] nh\2 ]. went around[

No readings published to date.Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518):

[מהג.] 1

[לטור]א 21 ]mhg.[2 ]to [the(?)] mountain[

4Q531 40No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

ג[ 1.[ י ד

[·לח[ 2

1. 1: The letter following ג could be either ע or ש י. may also be a 1st pers.sing. pron. suff. to a word ending in 7.

1 ]who/which/because(?) g.[2 [.־//]

4Q53141No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

[ח] 1] [ומא 2

]·[ 3

1.2: The first letter may also be י.

1 M2 ]the [ ]wm [

4Q 53142

N o readings published to date.Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments176

ח 1 ת .] [עין.] 2 .]

1 ]tm [2 ]. ‘yn .[

4Q53143No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

] .. [ 1 (n/s)]T?-[ 2

]n[ 3

1. 2: ! ,?, ,”probably from the same root, but could be either a subst. (“child־masc. or fern.) or qal verb (“to bear”).

1 ] . .[2 she/the] bore/child [3 M

4Q53144No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

] .*?! bit[ 1M 2

1. 1: 1?K[-either the juss. negative particle (the following letters would thenhave to be read ].*?’) or the ending of one of the Watchers’ names (-17 would then denote the dir. obj.). If the latter, then cf. the list in 4Q531 4, esp. 11.2-3.

1 ]7 and /.[2 ]/[

4Q531 45No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

] [ 1ך [.. 2 חנו ] ל

רק··] [·.ה 3

1774Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc

1 ] [2 ]..to Enoch [3 ]..h wq..[

4Q53146Beyer, ATTMEB , 124.

Photographs.. PAM 43.570 (= 1518).

] [א 1vacat 2

] . 3 ]. מ]נפ[ילין נפקו ן

4 ]. שמיא עד א [

]..[ 5

1. 3: Beyer: נ[פילין מן[ ; read/restore מנפילין , since there is insufficient spacefor two 3’s.

1 ]’ [2 vacat3 ].« they came forth from nephilim .[4 ].’ unto the heavens [5 ]··[

4Q53147

Beyer, ATTMEB , 124 (1.2).Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

אנה [ 1 ..[

2 ] ת ק ל ל ועלת ס .[

1. 2: The third letter resembles a ל , but the supralinear vertical line is actuallya fold in the Frgt.

1 ]1 ..[2 ]1 went up and entered into .[

ב.| [להון 1

[קדיש 2

4Q53148

Beyer, ATTMEB, 124 (1.2).Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

1 ]for them in .[2 ]holy [

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments178

4Q 532 - 4QEnGiantsd (6 Fragments)

4Q532 was probably one of the “two groups of small fragments entrusted to the Starcky edition” mentioned by Milik as he described manuscripts belonging to Qumran BG. Along with several other manuscripts, he re­garded the “two groups” as “too poorly represented to allow a sufficiently certain identification”.214 The reference to the giants (= “nephilim”; 4Q532 2, 1.3) and the likelihood that 4Q532 2 preserves part of a descrip­tion of their exploits adds credence to the possibility that the manuscript

In their presentation of the fragments, Eisenmann-Wise adopted the arrangement of the fragments in PAM 43.573; they are all placed on lines which stem from the same column (“Column 2”=4Q532 1, col. ii).215 De­spite their admission in a footnote (.DSSU, 105) that “It is not certain how the fragments should be aligned”, the assumption that a reconstruction of 4Q532 1-6 in relation to each other underlies the arrangement in PAM 43.573 is misleading. Beyer is therefore correct to produce separate rea-

If the identification of 4Q532 as stemming from Qumran BG is correct, then it is possible that the readings on fragments 2 and 3-5 belong to the latter portion of the third person narrative of the giants’ activities on earth (Frgt. 2) and to conversations among the Watchers and giants on subse­quent columns (Frgt.’s 3-5). Due to the lack of context and barring fur­ther evidence, this placement hardly exceeds the bounds of speculation.

4Q 5321

Eisenman-Wise, DSSU, 95 (col. ii); Beyer, ATTMEB, 124 (col. i, 11.7-13). Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).

stems from Qumran BG.

dings of each fragment.216

11

]·23

4

5

·[

6

71* I״ ·[

·[?5Wa[

1?]b]*

ajpa1?

]an]nVi

214 BE, p. 309.215 Eisenman-Wise, DSSU, 95.216 Beyer, ATTMEB, p. 124.

1794Q532 = 4QEnGiantsd

].8 ].. ה נפק רי ו

עבד ח[רבן 9

בשר .[ 10

11 ] יהב א

12 ]. עלם י

וידע .[ 13

ל[ 114 ]

ii, 1. 3: With Eisenman-Wise. The second letter, of which the top of the vertical line is slightly bent toward the left, could also be a ר . If the word is ל כו , then this spelling varies with כל in the manuscript; cf. בכל in 4Q532 2,

L10·217i, 1. 5: Also possible, though less likely, is the spelling ]ד3מ]ל (absol. nom.,

“rule, reign, kingdom”).ii, 1. 5: Restore the qal infin. of ם קו .ii, 1. 7: Eisenman-Wise speculate: לה]וון.i, 1. 8: The subj. of נפק cannot be plur.; the first word is likely to be a proper

name (e. g., ה ה Beyer reads .(?עזרי טרי [, of which the first letter, since it is without the horizontal base, is improbable.

i, 1. 9: Or: ק[רבן (“gift-offering”).ii,l. 10: Or perhaps a verbal or substantival form from the root דין (“to judge”), i, 1. 13: W -q a l perf. 3rd masc. sing.; if followed by a sing. pers. pron., the form

would be a ptc..

i

1 ]2 ].3 ]4 ].5 ]k[i]ngs of6 ]<dyn7 ].hn. Therefore8 ]..ryh came forth9 destruction he inflicted10 ]. flesh11 ]’ he gave12 ].y eternal13 ]. and he knew14 ]/[]

i, 1. 7: Beyer: “euch” (= 2 + לnd pers. plur. pron. suff. spelled defectively.

r·[al[l(?)דto ri[se bh[and lh[ and .[ h[who/which[ may they be[ .·[].[

ה]די]

להוון]

217 On the concurrent use of the spelling with and without 1, see Beyer, A TTM , p. 604.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments180

4Q5322

Eisenman-Wise, DSSU, 95; Beyer, ATTMEB, 124 (11.3-14).Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).

l ]מ[ש]רא[ 2 בב

[ונפיל]ין גברין 3

4 ] קאמ]ין הוו

5 ] תר ארעא [

6 ]< ל עשיתין הוו< [

על עירין מן .[ 7 .[

ו ומית ואבד יס[וף 8 .[

9 ] ל ב בלו רב ח בא]רעא חנ

למא]כל לה שפק לא[ 10

11 ] ועד ארעא י .[

12 ] א ארע ב בכל ב [

13 ] א ב ש לא וכען ר [

14 ]. תקי]ף אסור ו

1. 3: Beyer: נפיל]יא; with Eisenman-Wise, the plur. absol. is restored in accor-dance with ן ירי ע on 1.7. Before the נ a trace of the lower part of ו suggests that, as in 4Q531 5, 1.2, a synonymous term (ריו ב may be (גrestored.

.represents the long -a- vowel in the ll-waw verb ptc קאמ]ין in א :4 .1תיו :6 .1 שי ע , though passive in form, may carry an active meaning, as in the

itp. stem.218 Given the verb, *ל probably belongs to an infin.1. 7: Eisenman-Wise restore עלמ]ין (“eternal”), which would imply a refer-

ence to “good” Watchers. The letters, however, may also be the preposi- tion על + a pron. suff. At the beginning Beyer reads די (= rel. pron.).

1. 8: Beyer: ת ומי ואבד סף [ (“er endete und kam um und starb”); Beyeraccommodates the verb to the perf. form of the following verbs. Howe- ver, the first visible trace does not belong to ס and is consistent with a ו . Eisenman-Wise read/restore: ף reading a noun (in the absol.) leads ;בס[וthem to read יאבד instead of ו־ + a perf. ת מי . As a result the synony- mous verbs are given impf, and perf. forms. The chosen reading at- tempts to avoid the inconsistency of impf.+perf. verb forms while rejec- ting an improbable reading on the first verb as a perf.

1. 9: As the adj. רב follows the noun it modifies, חנבלו is interpreted as averb. Beyer suggests, analogous to Mandaean Aramaic מבל ה , that the verb represents a pan‘el stem (perf. masc. plur.).219 Eisenman-Wise offer no translation of the term.

218 See Beyer, ATTM, p. 666; Jastrow, Dictionary, s. v.219 Beyer, ATTMEB , p. 343.

1814Q532 - 4QEnGiantsd

1. 10: Eisenman-Wise translate שפק as if it were the verb שבק (“to permit,allow”). Beyer correctly derives the term from the less frequently atte- sted root attested in a qal pass. ptc. form in Imp. Aram, correspondence in Egypt from the late 5th cent. B. C. E.220 See the same verb in 4Q531 5, 1.2. This meaning corresponds to שפק in Bibl. Heb. (1 Kgs. 20:10) and the same sp (y )q m Syr. At the end Eisenman-Wise restore למא]תא (“to come”) which is a consequence of their questionable interpretation of שפק . The restoration of למא]כל is derived from the phraseology of 4Q531 5, 11.2-3 ( שפק לא למאכל בעין ...) and, more importantly, from the description of the giants’ insatiable appetites in 1 En. 7:3-4. The suff. in לה could refer to a giant or denote (collectively) human beings who, because of the giants volumnious appetites, no longer have enough to eat.

1.11: Beyer: ת ועד ארעא סיפ[י עד שמיא ק]צוי/ (“bis zu] den Enden der Erdeund bis zu den Enden [des Himmels”); Eisenman-Wise: ]ועד ארעא מן .(”the earth as far as He[aven [from“) ש]מיא

1. 12: Eisenman-Wise restore: שר .ב]1. 13: With Beyer; Eisenman-Wise: א ב [. The verb following א ל , which begins

with ש , is perf. (not impf.; cf. translation n. below).1. 14: Eisenman-Wise: תקי]פא אסיר (= bound is [the] stron[g one”; ר אסי -#«/

perf. pass, or qatil adj.); Beyer: תקי]ף אסור (“eine starke Fessel”). If the preceding ו belongs to a perf. verb, Beyer’s reading is the more probable.

1 ]m[2 ]with [the] flefsh3 giants ]and nephilfim4 ]they were stanfding5 ]the earth tr[6 ]they were planning to[7 ]. from Watchers 7.[8 he/it would e]nd. And he perished and died, and .[9 ]a great injustice they inflicted on [the] ear[th10 ]it was [not] sufficient for him to e[at(?)11 ]y of the earth and unto .[12 ]on the earth in every b[13 ]the great. And not sh[14 ]they(?)[..], a stro[ng] bond [

1. 7: Eisenman-Wise: “by the Etefrnal] Watchers”; Beyer, reading די at thebeginning of the line: “die von Engeln auf”.

1. 8: See textual note above.1. 9: Eisenman-Wise do not attempt a translation. See textual note above.1. 10: Eisenman-Wise: “who ... allowed him to co[me”; Beyer: “nicht] genügte

es ihm zu [”. See textual note above.

220 Beyer, ATTM , p. 717; ATTMEB, p. 426. Cf. G. R. Driver, Aramaic Documents o f the fifth Century B. C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957, 2nd ed.) n. 7.3, 1.7 and Jean- Hoftijzer, DISO , p. 317.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments182

1. 11: See textual note above.1. 13: Eisenman-Wise: “then there will not” (presupposes an impf. form); cf.

textual note above.1. 14: See textual note above.

Comment. The words preserved on these lines stem from a narrative in which the giants’ destructive activities on earth are described (see esp. 1.9). Since the apparent focus on the giants in 4Q532 2 is consistent with the emphasis of other Qumran BG materials, the case for assigning this manuscript to BG may be regarded as strong. If this literary context is valid, then this fragment probably belonged to the section of BG which described the giants’ deeds. Among the Qumran BG materials a number of fragments reflect such an account: in addition to 4Q532 2, one may include 4Q531 1; 5; 1Q23 9+14+15; 16+17. If these various fragments may be allowed to augment one another - i. e. they do not represent different recensions or versions of BG -, one may reason that this part of BG was of considerable length.

It is difficult to know how to interpret the reference to a chain in 1.14. Does this refer to what the giants were doing to suppress human beings on earth or does the text at this point narrate what happens to the giants as they are beginning to be subdued? If the latter is the case, then 4Q532 2 would belong near the conclusion of the account of the giants’ unhindered violent behavior.

4Q5323Eisenman-Wise, DSSU95 י; Beyer, ATTMEB , 124 (11.2-4).

Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).

ה..[ 1[ ו

מנדע חסיר [ 2 [

3 ] ש<עתרא ברי י> [

4 ] ש על רך [

פ[ 5 .[ ]..[

1. 1: Eisenman-Wise:הוון ל . Neither ל nor ן are visible and ה is preceded (notfollowed) by a ו .

1. 2: With Beyer. Eisenman-Wise: חסיד (“pious”, i. e. a Heb. term). BothBeyer and Eisenman-Wise read the adj. as an attributive, but a predica- tive adj. is possible as well.

1. 3: The supralinear ש is a correction placed between ת and ר ; the copyistthus makes clear the root (before metathesis) from which the form is derived. For another itp. to שרי (“to begin”), see 4Q531 27, 1.2 שתרא) ה At the end, Beyer reads/restores .(נ ר ב ; the slightly bent trace of the third letter corresponds more closely to the right portion of a ו י, ,

1834Q532 = 4QEnGiantsd

פ , or ת . Since the first visible letter of the line is incompatible with a ת (i. e. א שתר ,cstr. state) ברת .the second word is probably not the fem ,(תi. e. “the daughter o f”). Hence read/restore ברי (“my son”); is one of the Watchers (i. e. Baraq’el; cf. n. to 1.4 below) referring to his son?

1. 4: Beyer: ך it is possible, but quite uncertain, that ,ו If the first letter is .]יthe word may be restored as חנוך (“Enoch”). The mention of Enoch here might suggest that the figure speaking in 1.3 is refering to Mah- away. The Frgt. may belong on a column subsequent to the text in 4Q532 2.

1 ]..wh[2 ] insufficient is [the] knowledge[3 ] my(?) son will begin [to ...4 ]wk upon sh[

5 M U

1. 2: Eisenman-Wise: “Pious Knowledge”; Beyer: “mangelhaft Wissen”. Cf.textual note above.

1. 3: Eisenman-Wise offers no translation; Beyer: “sein Sohn wird begin-nen”. Cf. textual note above.

Comment. The interpretation proposed for this fragment depends on rea- dings and/or restorations which, for lack of further evidence, remain un- certain: “my son״ in 1.3 and a restoration of “Enoch״ in 1.4. If both are correct, then the words of 1.3 might be attributed to Baraq’el whose son Mahaway has just encountered or is about to encounter Enoch; cf. 6Q8 1. In this light, 1.2 may belong within a context concerned with the giants’ inadequate ability to ascertain the meaning of their dream visions.

4Q5324Eisenman-Wise, DSSU , 95 (11.1-4); Beyer, ATTMEB , 124 (11.1-4).

Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).

קר .[ 1.[2 ] ל די מלי כדי ב [

רברבין [ 3 [

4 ] ואנה א [] .[

]...[ 5

1. 1: Eisenman-Wise: ]ל ר ק [ (no translation); Beyer: ם קד ל . Only the secondand third letters can be read with any degree of certitude. There is no trace of ל immediately before p.

1.2: Eisenman-Wise: ].מל ; Beyer reads/restores מלו]הי (“his words”). Thethird letter could also be י (hence “my words” or “words o f”); this reading is prefered because of an apparent space after the third letter.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments184

Beyer: כדן; the wedge shape at the top of the third letter makes the reading of ן less probable than a י .

1. 4: Eisenman-Wise: ] א אנ אנו]ן:Beyer ;ו The visible trace before the lacuna .וis unlikely to be א or 1; more probably, it is either ח (= “we”) or ה (=“I”)·

1 ]. qr.[2 ] so that when my(?) words [3 ] great [4 ]’ and 1[ ] .[5 ]...[

1. 2: Eisenman-Wise: “so that when”; Beyer: “deswegen seine Worte”. Cftextual note above.

1. 3: Eisenman-Wise: “Mighty Ones”.1.4: Eisenman-Wise: “And I” (ואנא); Beyer: “und sie”. Cf. textual note

above.

Com ment. It is probable, though not fully certain (cf. 1.4), that some or all of the words are expressed in the first pers. sing. The evidence is insuffi- cient for inferring the identity of the speaker; cf., however, under 4Q532 5 below.

4 Q 5 3 2 5

Eisenman-Wise, DSSU, 95 (11.2-5); Beyer, ATTMEB , 124 (11.2,4).Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).

מ.[ [ l

מרי א[מר 2 [

3 ] מן ב ח.. .[

4 ]. מ [מנדע זר] [

]■ ·ל[ 5With Beyer. Eisenman-Wise: מרי מר [ (“Lord of Lords”). Eisenman-Wise: ] ב [בן ] . ו [.Eisenman-Wise: ] מ מנדע ור]ב[ [; Beyer: ] ע ד כל מנ . The last fully visible letter is too compact for מ or כ ב; is more likely.

]m.[]he [s]aid, “My lord, [

]h..mn b \]. zr[ ]knowledge m[

]/..[

See textual note above.Beyer: (“Wissen von allem”).

1.21.31.4

1. 2:1. 4:

1854Q556 = 4QEnGiantse

Comment. The vocabulary (ע ד מנ , “knowledge”) links this fragment with 4Q532 3 within the manuscript. If the expression “my lord” (1.2) is direc- ted to God, it is more likely that Enoch is the speaker than one of the Watchers or giants.

4Q5326

Eisenman-Wise, DSSU, 95 (11.1-2); Beyer, ATTMEB , 124 (11.1-2).Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).

] [.ביו 1.א] [בשמיא 2

]■[ 3

1.1: Eisenman-Wise: ] בין [ (“between”); Beyer: רבין]רב (“viele”). A letterimmediately before ב excludes the possibility of reading בין .

1. 2: Eisenman-Wise: ].ו . The traces of two letters are illegible.

1 ].byn [2 ]in the heavens .’[3 ]·[

1. 1: See textual note above.

4Q 556 = 4QEnGiantse (7 Fragments)

The designation “4QEnGiantse”. The identification of this manuscript has been subject to some confusion since Milik made a reference to one of its fragments while editing two apparently overlapping fragments belonging to 4QEnochf221 While citing the 4QEnGiants£? fragment Milik (a) offered no information about the number and size of fragments identified with the manuscript, (b) did not provide any photographs thereof among the pla­tes, and (c) left no clues about the manuscript’s numerical designation. Later, in his discussion of the extant BG materials at Qumran, Milik lists the Starcky materials 4QEnGiants^c and goes on to mention “a third manuscript from the Starcky collection” and “two groups of small frag­ments entrusted to the Starcky edition” the contents of which are ultima­tely uncertain.222

These ambiguous references have been interpreted differently. In both editions of his bibliography on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1975, 1990), Fitz-

123

t A Ipftpr

221 Milik, BE, p. 237.222 Ibid., p. 309.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments186

myer relates Milik’s “two groups of small fragments” to 4QEnGiants^ and a 4QEnGiants/r respectively, while he correlates 4QEnGiantse with the “third manuscript”.223 This interpretation of Milik’s statements was no doubt based on the apparent distinction Milik was making between one manuscript of certain identification and the two less easily identifiable ones. Since Milik had confidently referred to “a fragment of 4QEn- Giants^” {BE, 237), this was likely to be the “third manuscript”. Garcia Martinez, however, has applied Milik’s references in another way: 4QEn- Giants^ is the “third manuscript” while 4QEnGiants£? apparently repre­sents one of the “two groups of small fragments”.224 Two primary reasons seem to have accounted for this correlation: (1) the natural tendency to associate a “third” manuscript with a designation that follows sequentially upon 4QEnGiants^c and, perhaps, (2) Garcia Martinez’s own view which questions the association of 4QEnGiants<? with BG.225 Finally, in ATTM Beyer may have excluded 4QEnGiants£> from Milik’s references altogether, a calculation which would explain why he ended up positing the existence of a 4QEnGiants£.226

The confusion continues when one consults the inventory lists in the DSS on Microfiche compiled by Reed. Here the nomenclature “4QEn- Giants6׳” occurs nowhere among the titles assigned, and the manuscript fragments labelled “4Q533”=“Book of Giants or Pseudo Enoch ar” do not, upon consultation, contain anything which corresponds to Milik’s “4QEnGiantse”. The text of the latter, however, may be found on a frag­ment which comes under the numerical title 4Q556, a manuscript which DSS on Microfiche lists as “Vision a ar”.227 On arguments for an identi­fication with BG see under 4Q556 6 below.

On one PAM photograph (41.951) 4Q556 represents the grouping of some ten fragments, and on the later photograph (43.754) one piece is removed while another one has been added. The numerology assigned to the fragments below is based on PAM 43.754, moving from right to left.

223 Cf. Fitzmyer, Tools, pp. 52-53; this corresponds also to the view of Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 51.

224 Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, p. 105.225 Ibid. Garcia Martinez maintains that the designation 4QEnGiantse is dependent

on the correctness of assigning 4QEnochc (sic!) 2 and 3 to BG; since nothing compels the latter identification, neither can 4QEnGiants£ be “deemed as certain”. In QumApoc Garcia Martinez does not include either ms. within his presentation of Qumran BG.

226 Beyer, ATTM , p. 260; i. e., 4QEnGiantsJ would have been the “third manuscript” and 4QEnGiants^ s in Beyer’s scheme corresponded to the “two groups of small frag­ments”.

227 See also the list in Charlesworth, DSS Rules, p. 183 (“Vision* ar”); Vermes, DSSE , p. lii (“Visionb”); and Garcia Martinez, DSST, p. 507 (with 4Q557 = “4QVisions”). The materials in 4Q556 (one frgt. of which is used in A TTM , p. 260) are not included in Beyer, ATTMEB .

1874Q556 = 4QEnGiantse

Script. The fragments of 4Q556 are too small to make an adequate palaeographical analysis possible. Indeed, in a number of cases the letters, although fully visible, remain indecipherable. Both the size of the script and some of the features (i. e. the shapes of X, V, *7, and esp. the unusual ttf228)are, with some exceptions, strongly reminiscent of the distinctive script in 4Q530.229 A date for 4Q556 of sometime during the first half of the 1st cent. B. C. E. would thus not be unreasonable (see comments on the script under 4Q530).

4Q5561No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 43.754 (= FE, 1522).11 1

(?)·[].a1? 1

r־..[ 2r

hp» 3I

i. 1. 4: A more remote possibility for the first letter is ft, in which case the wordwould belong to a verb (perf.) such as n n [x or VTft[$7.

ii, 1.1: *? could be either a preformative with ft for an infin. or a prep, with asubst. beginning with ft.

ii, 1. 3: If correctly read/restored, the term also occurs in ’Ohyah’s dream in 4Q530 ii, 1.8.

i ii

1 I·(?)1 to/for m.[

2 ]t2 d..[

228 The inner, second stroke consists of an almost vertical line that begins very close to the upper left part of the letter and crosses down through the left vertical line.

229 Perphaps this is the reason why according to the old sigla identifying the materials assigned to Starcky, the two manuscripts were closely coordinated: 4Q556 = “Sy2B” while 4Q530 = “Sy2”. Distinctive in 4Q556, i. e. bearing forms not encompassed by the variety of the script in 4Q530, are esp. the letters X (the left line converges with the diagonal one at the top left while in 4Q530 X consists of two diagonal strokes intersec­ting in the middle); ft (much larger than the rounded form in 4Q530); and j? (the loop at the top right comes down further). Also similar to 4Q530 i־ii־iii is variation in spaces left between the lines (cf. 4Q556 1).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments188

3 ]3 roota[ge

4 when

4Q556 2

No readings published to date.Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530); 43.754 (= FE, 1522).

]1[ 1קדמיהן מן יתדין צלו [ 2[

3 ] אג תפין .ליב או .[

4 ]. ע ב כתבה בין תי .[

1. 3: A line is drawn through the first four letters which the scribe must haveconsidered erroneous. The letters of the following two words remain uncertain; as read or in any alternative possibilities, the letters do not produce a coherent text.

1 M2 ] they prayed, “Let him be judged from before them.”[3 ] ’w ’g .lyn tpyn .[4 \ t y b ‘ in the midst of its/his writing .[

4Q5563

No readings published to date.Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530); 43.574 (= FE, 1522).

].[ 1 ]3 !»3[ 2] .n a .[ 3

]S3S3K[ 4

1 ]·[2 ]now b[3 ].nh.[4 ]we[

4Q5564No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530; text from 3 lines); 43.574 (= FE, 1522; text from 2 lines).

1894Q556 = 4QEnGiantse

על] [ 1[הוו] 2

1[״. 31 ] upon[2 ]they were[3 ]..·[

4Q5565No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530); 43.574 (= FE, 1522).

ת] [ין 11 ]yn ?[

4Q5566Milik, BE, 237-38; Beyer, A T T M , 260; Black, The Book o f Enoch, 133; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 105; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 51, 57, 62, and 76-81.

Milik (BE, 236-38) proposes that this fragment overlaps with one from 4Q206= 4QEnoche 3 (i, 1.3 שפיך־ הוה represents a variant of the text in 1.3: משתפך הרה ), thus suggesting that the latter actually belongs to Qumran BG. Contrary to the impression left by Milik, however, an identification of 4QEnoch£? 2 and 3 with BG cannot be made to depend on their overlap with 4Q556 6 since the evidence in 4Q556 itself is not conclusive. Given the fact that 4QEnoche 3 stems from a manu- script preserving sections of 1 Enoch while, with 4QEnoche 2 (which mentions “Enoch”), it does not correspond to any previously known Enochic work, the possibility of its belonging to BG may be entertained. Thus the case for including 4Q556 within BG rests on the interpretation of 4QEnoche 2 and 3 as part of BG (see below) and on the plausibility of the overlap. Therefore, a commentary is reserved for the section on the 4QEnoch£? fragments.

Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530); 43.574 (= FE, 1522).

]. כל ב[ארעא לש[קרה] l

מ]מללין הוו וכדבין משתפך [הוה דם 2(?)

ארע]א על וכול [ 3

1. 1: Restore thep a “el infin. of שקר with Beyer (followed by Reeves); Milik:ר pa“el infin. from) לב[קרה ק ב , “to inspect”). A restoration of שקר (“to act fraudulently, practice deceit” + ב־ as a prep, or “to deceive” + ב־ to denote the dir. obj.) is consistent with the mention of “lies” on 1.2. Milik’s restoration has in view the inspection of humans on the earth whose evil behavior was generated by the giants. שקר in the p a ‘‘el stem in the sense of “to lie” could conceivably be followed by a preposition such as -230ב , but in the sense “to deceive” it is frequently attested with

230 So Reeves, Jewish Lore p. 62, 77: “[to practice deceit upon] the earth.”

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments190

would signify that ב־ before its object;231 in this case, a restoration of ב־the earth was being subjected to deception (by the Watchers or giants), the evidence for which is given in the description of the activities refer- red to in 1.2.

1. 2: The restoration of דם (“blood”) accords well with the meaning of thefirst verb and corresponds to the text in 4QEnoch<?3 col. i, 1.3. In 1 En. 9:1 the four chief angels observe “much blood being poured upon the earth” ( ארעא ע[ל שפ]יך סגי דם , the combination of 4QEnochö 1 iv 7 and 4QEnoch6 1 iii 8); cf. also Jub. 7:23-24. At the end of the line, the מ probably represents a pass. ptc. (probably in the p a ‘‘el stem: perhaps ממללין , “were spoken”?).

1. 3: Milik (followed by Black) read the first conglomeration of letters as as if certain and, in the unavailability of photographic (”flood“) מבולevidence, was followed by Beyer, Garcia Martinez, and Reeves. The visible trace of the first letter is, however, inconsistent with a מ and corresponds more readily to ו . It might be argued that reading וכול would produce an orthographic inconsistency with כל (if this means “all”!) on 1.1. This problem is not insurmountable: the occurrence of ,in the same manuscript among the Qumran materials כול and כלthough relatively rare, is attested in several manuscripts.232

1 to de]ceive the earth. All/every .[2 blood] was being shed, and lies were being m[3 ] And everything upon [the] earth[

1. 1: Milik: “to] inspect upon the earth all”; Reeves: to practice deceit upon]the earth, all”; and Beyer: “zu] betrügen die Erde alle”. See the textual note above.

1. 3: Milik (followed by Beyer, Garcia Martinez, and Reeves) present the firstword as “flood”; cf. the textual note above.

Comment. The main significance attached to this fragment has depended on the reading of מבול (“flood”) in 1.3. If the previous lines refer to the corruptive deeds of the giants, then the flood is here understood to be the heavenly punishment for this activity.233 This direct relationship between the misdemeanors on earth and the ensuing deluge may in fact be the case in BG (see, e. g., ’Ohyah’s dream in 4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12), but it is quite unlikely that this point is being emphasized here. 4Q556 6 seems, rather, tobelong to the section which elaborates the giants’ deeds in the early part ofBG (along with 1Q23 9+14+15; 4Q531 1; 5).

231 See Jean-Hoftijzer, DISO , p. 319 (the Sefire inscription, i B 38); Sokoloff, Dictio­nary o f JPA, p. 566.

232 See Beyer, ATTM , p. 604 and ATTM, pp. 363-64.233 So Garcia Martinez.

1914Q206 2-3 = 4QEnoche

4Q556 7No readings published to date.

Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530); 43.574 (= FE, 1522).

[מ] 11 ]m[

4Q 206 - 4QEnoche (2 Fragments)

Codicology and Numeration. The two fragments treated here are design- ated by Milik with the numbers 2 and 3 respectively. These numbers reflect Milik’s belief that BG originally belonged to the Qumran Enochic corpus, immediately following the Book of Watchers - later to be replaced by the Similitudes - and preceding the other works now part of 1 Enoch.234 Thus 4QEnoch^ 1 corresponds to last portions of the Book of Watchers (i. e. to 1 En. 22:3-7; 28:3-29:2; 31:2-32:3; 32:3, 6; and 33:3-34:1), while 4QEn- ochM preserves part of the Animal Apocalypse (i.e. 1 En. 88:3-89:17; 89:26-30). If 4QEnochi?2 and 3 belong to the Qumran BG, then with 4QEnochc it constitutes a manuscript which collected BG along with other Enochic works. Of course, just where 4QEnochi? 2 and 3 originally belonged in the manuscript cannot be confirmed; nevertheless, for the sake of clarity Milik’s numeration is formally retained here.

Location within BG. The assumptions made by scholars concerning the relation between fragments 2 and 3 to each other make it appropriate at present to discuss the question of their possible order and place within BG. Milik locates 4QEnoch£?2 within column i of 4QEnoch£,3 on 11.14- 16; 4QEnoche 3 col. i, which is extant on the bottom three lines of the column, is assigned to what Milik designates as 11.19-21. Without provi- ding evidence for associating these fragments, Milik goes on to argue that fragment 2 belongs “to the initial part of the Book of Giants”.235 This location of fragment 2 and, by association, of fragment 3 is based by Milik on his reading of רבא הא on 4Q206 2, 1.3 for which he finds an analogous phrase near the outset of the Book of Watchers ( - 1 En. 1:3; cf. 4QEn- ocha 1 i 5: ק פ ר[בה קדיש]ה ינ , “the Great Holy One shall bring forth”). In Milik’s view the verb in 1.2, reconstructed as אח[זית, can be taken in his context to mean that BG is introduced as a vision given to Enoch. This argumentation, however, seems to push the meager evidence too far: even if the reading proposed by Milik for 1.3 is correct, it does not provide

234 Milik, BE, pp. 57-58.235 Ibid., p. 237.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments192

sufficient basis for confidently assigning 4Q206 2 to the beginning of BG. Thus Milik’s interpretation of 4Q206 2 and 3 ultimately raises three pri­mary issues: (1) the identification of these fragments as belonging to BG; (2) granted an inclusion within BG, the possible location of fragment 2; and (3) the relationship, if any, between fragments 2 and 3. While the first issue is reserved for the comments on the fragments, questions (2) and (3) require some discussion here.

The location of 4Q206 2 by Milik at the beginning of BG has been disputed by Beyer and Reeves. Beyer (ATTM , 260) proposes a more am­biguous text than Milik’s for 1.3: ]3־־! [!]a. With an analogy with 1 Enoch 1:3 no longer in view, Beyer places the fragment in his “G 2 ”, that is, in a section subsequent to the account of the giants’ unhindered earthly activities. According to Beyer’s translation, 4Q206 2 records how Enoch observed the misdemeanors of the giants. Reeves essentially follows Beyer’s reading (]ft“l ...ft)236 and hence also resists assigning fragment 2 to the opening of BG. Assuming the correctness of Milik’s proposed as­sociation of fragments 2 and 3, Reeves suggests a context which he derives from a parallel text in 1 Enoch 9:1: According to fragment 2 God, chief angels, or an angelic messenger report to Enoch about the giants’ deeds.

As stated above, Milik’s reading of 4Q206 2, 1.3 does not compel one to locate it at the beginning of BG. Likewise, the different readings of Beyer and Reeves do not provide evidence which favors the context they pro­pose. The view taken here follows Milik for 1.3 (see under 4Q206 2 below) while adopting Reeves’ suggestion concerning its location. The primary reason for this is the reading/restoration in 1.2 of n*o[nK (“it was repor­ted”)237 rather than Milik’s J׳TT[nN or Beyer’s rPT[nnx (“it was seen, ap­peared”). This verb, if correctly read/restored, seems to presuppose events which, given the material in Qumran BG devoted to describing the giants’ exploits, have already been narrated in a preceding section.

The grounds for associating 4Q206 2 with 3 as presented by Milik and assumed by Beyer and Reeves are not transparent. Nothing compels one to suppose that fragment 2 should be specifically assigned to 11.14-16 wi­thin column i of fragment 3.238 If fragment 2 tells of something being reported to Enoch, the narrative style of fragment 3 (,,in + ptc., as in the overlapping 4Q556 6) does not fit well within the context of such a report. If the content of fragment 3 actually belongs to the elaboration

236 Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 57; cf. also p. 62, where there is no attempt to provide a translation. Reeves’ readings posit the existence of two letters more than the space on the line allows.

237 One the reading of 1 instead of T, see the textual note to 4Q206 2, 1.2 below.238 It is odd that, while attempting to provide alternative readings for 1.3 of frgt. 2,

Beyer and Reeves have not questioned Milik’s reconstruction.

1934Q2062-3 = 4QEnoche

of the gigantuan misdemeanors, then - and contra Milik’s reconstruction - there is a likelihood that it (as the case with 4Q556 6) preceded fragment2. This means that fragment 2 may have originally belonged either on fragment 3 ii or on a subsequent column; see the comment under 4Q206 3 below.

Script. The semi-cursive hand of 4QEnochi? has been described by Milik as dating from “the Hasmonaean period, probably from the first half of the first century B. C.”239

4Q2062

Milik, BE, 235-36; Beyer, ATTM , 260; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 105; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 57, 62, and 76-77.

On the relationship of this fragment to 4Q206 3, see the section on Location in BG above.

Photographs. PAM 42.232 (= FE, 728); Milik, BE, Plate XIX.

] וכל ין [ l

פרשא ס]פר לחנוך אתח[וית 2

3 ]. א ה רבא ו [

1. 1: The traces of the last two letters, though faint, are consistent with כ and.respectively ל

1. 2: AT from the verb חזי (in Milik-n ]זי אח ; Beyer and Reeves-rp?[nrw) isnot distinguishable; the visible wedge shape angling to the left makes ו (from וי ח ) the more probable reading. Thus the verb may well an afel pass, form (i. e. אחוית). The verb is a 3rd pers. fern. sing, perf.; the possibility of a 1st pers. form is excluded by the prefixed ל before “Enoch”. The ם at the end is distinguishable; if the fragment belongs to BG, then the designation applied to him elsewhere may be restored; cf. 4Q530 col. ii, 1.14 (a discussion of the expression); 4Q203 8, 1.4.

1. 3: At the beginning Milik reads/restores ם ד א[ בני and Beyer reads simply 240 The second visible letter has no vertical line on the left.(”Blut“) דםand is thus more consistent with a ר . Despite the alternative readings of Beyer (] רב מ]ן[ ) and Reeves (] רב מ... ,), the case for reading with Milik a מ.before the lacunae is much better than a 241 ה Furthermore, the two

239 BE, p. 225; Milik bases his conclusion on comparisons with the scripts chart in Cross, “The Development of Jewish Scripts”, p. 138, fig. 2,11.2-3 and p. 149, fig. 4, 11.2, 4. Especially characteristic of this kind of script is the enlarged final mem (□). For a full physical description and orthography of the 4QEnoche see ibid., pp. 225-26.

240 Reeves, Jewish Lore, 57 and 62, follows Beyer’s readings but does not offer a translation.

241 In 4QEnoch^ the medial a ’s without exception marked by angled corners on the right and left at the top, a feature absent from this letter. Unlike the ft, in which the stroke begins on the left and moves toward the right on the top before returning to the left at the base, the thick horizontal line at the top is an extension of the vertical stroke on the right; this is consistent with n.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments194

faint traces above the lacunae could represent וו (i. e., as in הוו); but, given the following רבא (Plate XIX in BE provides the superior photo- graph), it is more likely that these traces belong to an א . If correct, רבא could represent a divine epithet; cf. 1 En. 9:1; cf. the textual note to 4Q203 8, 1.6 and n. 47.

1 ]yn and all/every[2 (it) was repojrted to Enoch [the] sc[ribe of interpretation3 ]. r Behold, the Great[

1. 2: On the epithet for Enoch, see the comment on 4Q530 col. ii, 11.13-16 a.1. 3: See the textual note above.

Comment. Reeves has suggested that this fragment preserves a section in the narrative when the angels are reporting to Enoch the events which have transpired on the earth.242 Since he assumes that 4QEnochi? 3 also belongs to this context, that fragment would belong to their account.243 Reeves’ proposal would represent a viable interpretation, and might seem to find support in his adaptation of Beyer’s text for 4QEnoche 2, 1.3. Beyer places the fragment in a similar context; the destructive events nar- rated in a foregoing section are now “seen” by Enoch. Beyer and Reeves’ readings for 1.3 are rejected here in favor of a text similar to that of Milik. Nevertheless, as argued above (the section Location within BG), since the readings of 1.3 point do not necessitate that, with Milik, the fragment be assigned to the beginning of BG and given the likelihood of reading the verb וי ח in 1.2, the placement proposed by Beyer and Reeves is to be preferred. 4Q206 2 may be thought to presuppose a narrative account in the section which immediately precedes.

4Q2063Milik, BE, 235-37; Beyer, A TT M , 260 (col. i); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 105; Reeves, Jewish Lore, SI, 62, and 79-80 (col. i).

See the section on Location within BG above. Milik {BE, 236-37) and Beyer provide a text which combines this fragment with 4Q556 6. Though 4Q206 3 pre­serves the bottom part of one column, the line numeration begins with “1” in both columns; despite Milik’s attempts at being precise about the length of the columns, the matter is treated as ultimately uncertain.

Photographs. PAM 42.232 (= FE, 728); Milik, BE, Plate XIX.

ii i

]. 1 ]xn 2

242 If one follows Reeves’ view, the verb on 1.2 would better be restored as rp*)[nx.243 Reeves, Jewish Lore, pp. 83-84.

1954Q 2062-3 = 4QEnoche

מתעשת [ם [.] [.] [..] 1

שפיך הוה דם ו[בה 2

כ[ל בה] [.ין מ] [הוו 3

bottom margin

i, 1. 1: Milik reads/restores באשת מן אד[ם ב]ני כ]ל[ אר[עאי of which the firstfour words are impossible to verify. Milik’s באשת מן should be correc- ted to שת מתע , as the second letter is clearly a ת (there is no sublinear trace corresponding to a ן) and the following V and ש are decipherable.

i, 1. 2: The 3rd pers. pron. suff. in בה is no doubt fem. and has it antecedent in in מתשפך with the parallel (.qal pass, ptc) שפיך .Q556 6, 1.1). Cfארעא (44Q556 6, 1.2.

i, 1. 3: Milik: מ]תע[בדין הוו [ (“were being perpetrated״); Beyer: ו מ]ש[קרין הו [(“sie betrogen dauernd”). Neither reading is certain; following הוו the form is no doubt a ptc., and one may infer from the number of spaces for the word that it began with מ (pa“el, a fe l, or itp. [מת־]). Thus the different restorations of Milik and Beyer reflect alternative views on the length of the word. Beyer’s choice of vocabulary is derived from his restoration of the p a “el verb in 4Q556 6, 1.1 (see textual note there) and from the accompanying reference to “lies” (4Q556 6, 1.2).

i1 ]··[].[]·[ ]m devising2 ]in it blood was being poured3 ]they were m[ ].yn in it all

ii1 ·[2 t'l3 m.[4 ’·[5 [6 [

i, 1. 1: Milik: “on account of the wickedness”; Beyer: “planend”. On the rea-dings which account for the differences, see the textual note above.

Comment. The overlap between 4Q206 3 and 4Q556 6 is presented by Mi- lik through a combined translation and by Beyer through a combined text. The text as analyzed above yields the following result (with the 4Q556 variant in parentheses):

שת [ם ... .] כל ב[ארעא לש[קרה] )מתשפך( שפיך הוה דם ו[בה ... ] מתע

ארע]א על וכול [ ]... כ[ל בה] [ון מ] [הוו ... מ]מללין)?( הוו וכדבין

מ.] 3א.] 45 [

6 [

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments196

“to de]ceive the earth. All/every.[ ... ]m devising [ ... and ]in it blood was being poured, and lies were being [spoken(?) ... ]they were m[ ]yn [ev]ery/[a]ll [... ]. And everything upon [the] earth[”244

The fragmentary account of malevolent deeds seems to be summative or comprehensive in character, referring to the activities of both the Watchers and the giants. In the Book of Watchers the motif of deception or false teaching is associated with Watchers (7:1; 8:1,3; 10:7; 13:2-Asa£el; 16:3) while bloodshed and violence on earth is specifically related to the giants (1 En. 9:1, 9; 15:4; Jub. 7:23-24). This text thus presupposes the prior birth of the giants in the narrative (4Q531 5, 1.3), and, in its compactness, seems to anticipate an elaboration of their ensuing activities (as e. g. in 4Q531 1).

6Q 8 - 6QG iants (33 Papyrus Fragments)

Overlaps and associations with other Qumran Book of Giants materials', (a) Beyer (followed by Reeves) proposes that 6Q8 1 11.4-5 overlaps with 1Q23 29. (b) Reeves proposes a correspondence between 6Q8 2 and 4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12.

Script. Cross (“The Development of Jewish Scripts”, p. 149 figure 4 line 6245) dates 6Q8 to ca. “50-1” B.C.E. Baillet {DJD III, 116) dates the manscript later: “du milieu du 1er siècle ap. J.-C.” In its combination of formal and cursive elements, the manuscript may be characterized as “se- micursive”.

6Q81Baillet, DJD III, 117 (Plate XXIV); Milik, BE, 300-301; Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 191; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 76-79; Beyer, A T T M , 262; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 755; Vermes, in New Schürer, III. 1. 332; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 59, 64, and 107-108; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 43, 101-102; DSST, 262.

Beyer, followed by Reeves, finds an overlap between 1Q23 29 and 11.4-5 of 6Q8 1.

Photographs. PAM 41.736; DJD III, Plate XXIV.

244 This reconstruction may be compared with Milik’s translation: “[... To] inspect upon the earth all the children of Adam on account of the wickedness [of the Giants, which they have done upon the earth], for upon it blood was being shed, and falsehoods were being s[poken, and impieties] were being perpetrated upon it, all [the days ...] flood upon the earth [...].” The photographs do not confirm that the text mentions “the children of Adam” (4Q206 3, i. 1.1), a restoration also not corroborated by the reading of the following sing. itp. ptc. מתעשת. On the problem of translating “flood”, see the textual note to 4Q206 3 i, 1.3 above.

245 See the same article, pp. 181-88, for paleographic comparisons of 6Q8’s letter forms.

1976Q8 = ôQGiants

]■[ I.] למהוי ואמר אוהיא ענ[ה 2מהרי[ וענה א] כלא אחזיך מן מרתת [ולא 3vacat הוה עמי אבי ברקאל לאוהי[א ואמר 4

לה[ ברקאל אחזי די] מה ]לא[שתעיה מהוי ש[יצי לא] [ [ל] 5סרי]קה ילדת הן שמעת תמהין ארו ל[ה ואמר אוהיא וענה 6

bottom of column

1.2: With Milik and restoring with Beyer. Baillet originally read: ]. הוא אילמהוי ואמר . (“... lui, et il dit d’être ...”, taking למהוי as an infinitive);

Beyer restores further: למהוי ואמר אוהיא ענ[ה באדין ].p :מרתת :3 .1 a “el ptc. masc. sing, from רתת (“to tremble”). Milik, followed

by Fitzmyer-Harrington, restores: [וי אח (“tell [us”).1. 4: It is not clear whether the text on the line continues after the vacat.

Milik (BE, 300) assumes that it does. לאוהי[א is restored on the basis of 1Q23 29 1.1.

ש[יצי לא] :5 .1 overlaps with 1Q23 29 1.2. Baillet: ]. מהו יצו [.1. 6: With Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer. Baillet, read

מר ילדת .[ (“if j ’avais enfanté”246)י followed by Reeves.247

1 ]·[2 ] ’Ohyah [answer]ed and said to Mahaway ”.[3 ]and does not tremble? Who has shown you everything? .[4 and Mahaway said to ’Ohyjah, “Baraq’el my father was with

me.” vacat5 ]/[ ] Mahaway had not [finished tellfing] what Baraq’el had

shown him, when6 ’Ohyah answered and said to ]him, “Behold, I have heard of wonders! If

[a] barren [woman] were to give birth

I. 3: Uhlig is the only one not to read the interrogative: “Der dir all (das)gezeigt hat, sage [ ...”.

II. 4,6: Baillet attributes the statements to Bitenos, daughter of Baraki’el (cf.Jub. 4:28).

Comment. The identification of this fragment as part of BG, initially made by Milik, was at first doubted by Garcia Martinez who, under the influen- ce of Baillet’s readings and notes to the text, initially argued that it, along

246 This reading is also adopted by Fitzmyer in The Genesis Apocryphon, p. 191 (cf., however, Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT). The first person verb leads Baillet to attribute the comment to Bitenos Lamech’s wife (Jub. 4:28). Baillet notes the possibility of rea- ding מרת]י ילדת , in which case the statement would be that of Lamech.

247 Reeves, though retaining Baillet’s translation, emphasizes nevertheless that the meaning of 1.6 is “obscure” (Jewish Lore, 108). Reeves’ 1st pers. translation, however, is irreconcilable with his (correct) interpretation that here ’Ohyah is reacting to Maha- way’s message “with some hostility” (ibid., 107).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments198

with the remaining 6Q8 fragments, belongs to the Book of Noah.1A% Contra Bailiet249, however, we may argue the following: (1) The reading of an infinitive rather than a personal name (למהוי) is awkward, and nothing in the fragment (1.6) suggests that a wondrous birth is actually being de- scribed. (2) Unless there has been an orthographic error, it is mistaken to read ברקאל as “Baraki’el” and thus to take this name as a reference to the father of Bitenos {Jub. 4:28). The Aramaic materials from Qumran are consistent in spelling the name of the ninth fallen angel as ברקאל (cf.1.4 with 4QEnocha to 1 En. 6:7 and 4QEnGiantsa 1 1.2), while only in the Greek recension of Codex Panopolitanus is the name of this Watcher first attested with the pronunciation BapaKip^ (to 1 En. 6:7).250 (3) The reading of אוהיא on 1.2, taken together with the likelihood of מהרי as a personal name, certifies that 6Q8 1 records a conversation among the giants.

To the evidence from Qumran, we may add a consideration from the Middle Persian Kawan: (4) The fallen angel’s name ברקאל, which means “lightning of God”, is rendered in the Middle Persian versions of BG according to sense rather than being transliterated: “Virogdad” (= “gift of lightning”). In a passage of the Kawan (Frgt. c) in which Mahawai and Sam { - ’Ohyah) are mentioned together, there occurs a statement similar to 1.4 above which may be ascribed to Mahawai: “As my father Virogdad,

248 See QumApoc, p. 43 (in “4QMess Ar and the Book o f N oaK\ pp. 1-44; Engl, translation of Spanish article originally published in 1981): “Milik pretends to see in it a copy of the Book o f Giants, but it is difficult to accept his reading of lines 1 and 5. The contents of fragment 1 speak well for its Noachic ascription, as it describes a marvellous birth; this thesis is also favoured by the mention of Baraki’el, brother of Methuselah and father of Bitenos, the wife of Lamech according to Jub 4,28, as well as the mention of Jared (see 1 En. 106,3; lQapGn 111,13) in fragment 18, and the mention of Lubar (a possible although uncertain reading) in fragment 26.” In QumApoc, pp. 101-102 Garcia Martinez betrays an unmistakable change of mind. For a similar inconsistency, cf. Ver­mes in New Schürer, III. 1, pp. 332 and 254 n. 6. Apparently, the name ,?Kp*־):} in 6Q8 1 also led Fitzmyer (who transliterates “Baraqi’el”) to conclude that the manuscript has to do with the birth of Noah; see idem, The Genesis Apocryphon, p. 191.

249 DJD I l f p. 117: pnan on 1.6 refers to the “étonnement des assistants, en présence des qualités extraordinaires de Noé au moment de sa naissance ...”.

250 It is thus misleading to suppose that “Baraki’il” (the father of Bitenos in Jub. 4:28) and ,?Hp-Q represent the same name, as implied in Huggins, “Noah and the Giants” 107. The Aramaic silver amulet containing the form 1?*Tp-Q for one of 31 angels called upon to deliver a young woman “from every evil” is much later (see Beyer, ATTMEB, pp. 264- 65 [text *ooXX 12], who dates it to the 6-7th centuries CE). The consistency of the spelling among the Aramaic texts means that it is unnecessary to translate the name by appending an -i- vowel between the two morphemes of the name, as is done by Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 207, who takes the Greek spelling in Cod. Pan. as his point of departure.

1996Q8 = 6QGiants

was ...” (page 2, 1.14).251 Moreover, in the Uygur version printed by Hen­ning (“Book of Giants” 65), Enoch twice addresses Mahawai252 as “son of Virogdad” (pages 1 and 2).

The conversation between ’Ohyah and Mahaway may be reconstructed on the basis of 6Q8 1 as follows: After Mahaway has delivered a message (a dream vision or dream interpretation?) to ’Ohyah (or before all the giants?), ’Ohyah responds by declaring rhetorically that the message leaves them no choice but to be afraid (1.3). ’Ohyah then challenges the author­ity of what Mahaway has said (1.3). In response, Mahaway appeals to the fact that his father Baraq’el was with him at the time (1.4). The text on 1.5 takes the perspective of a narrator and assumes that Mahaway continues to communicate his message. ’Ohyah interrupts Mahaway (1.6) and ex­presses his own incredulity through a rhetorical question whose logic runs as follows: if X were possible (but it is not!), then I would believe what you are saying (which I will not!) .253

Hence it is likely that 6Q8 1 preserves an account of a growing conflict between Mahaway who, on the one hand, has received and mediated a piece of divine communication and ’Ohyah who, on the other hand, feels threatened by the substance of what the message contains.

Several passages, two fragments from the Middle Persian Kawan and from the Sogdian version of the Manichaean BG, hint at and record re­spectively this conflict. In the citations below, equivalents known from the other Manichaean and Qumran materials are given for the sake of clarity:

(1) Middle Persian Kawan Frgt. c, pp. 1-2,11. 4-22 (Henning, “Book of Giants” 56-57, 60):Sam < - ’Ohyah> said: “Blessed be ... had [he?] seen this, he would not have died.” Then Shahmizad said to Sam, his [son]: “All that Mahawai ..., is spoilt (?).” Thereupon he said to ... “We are ... until ... and ... that are in (?) the fiery hell (?) ... As my father, Virogdad <= Barak’el>, was ...” Shah-

251 So Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 108. The evidence adduced by Reeves from the Sogdian version is less clear (ibid., p. 109: page 2, 1.13; see Henning, “Book of Giants” 66), since the identity of the figure pledging to protect Mahawai from Sam is not provided.

252 The Uygur version does not name Enoch’s visitor, but 4QEnGiantsz? cols, ii-iii refer to the commissioning of Mahaway by the giants to go to Enoch in order to procure from him interpretations for their dreams. The parallels between the Qumran material and the Uygur version are striking (see under 4QEnGiantsZ) col. iii) and leave no doubt that the identity of Enoch’s visitor is Mahawai.

253 See Milik (BE, p. 301) who has insightfully called attention to a similar form of rhetorical argumentation in Jub. 37:20-23, in which Esau uses a series of impossibilities in animal behavior to emphasize to Jacob that fraternity and peace shall neither exist between them nor among their progeny. However, the “analogous phrases” which Milik finds in the Middle Persian Kawan (Henning, “Book of Giants” 57-58 and 61, Frgt. ,s k11.67-76 and g 11.77-83), though referring to animals, do not preserve the same mode of argumentation and, occurring in the context of a conversation between ’Ohya and Hahya, provide no real correspondence to 6Q8 1 1.6.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments200

mizad said: “It is true what he says. He says one of thousands. For one of thousands ...”. Sam thereupon began ... Mahawai, too, in many places ... until to that place ... he might escape (?) and ...

(2) Sogdian, pp. 1-2, 11.1-18 (Henning, “Book of Giants” 65-66):... I shall see. Thereupon now S[ahm <= ’Ohyah>, the giant] was [very] angry, and laid hands on M[ahawai, the giant], with the intention: I shall ... and kill [you]. Then ... the other g[iants ... do not be afraid, for ... [Sa]hm, the giant, will want to [kill] you, but I shall not let him ... I myself shall damage ... Thereupon Mahawai, the g[iant], was satisfied ...

Another Manichaean Middle Persian text, this one published by Sunder- mann and designated “L”,254 helps to place the conflict among the giants within a narrative setting and thus augments the allusion to Mahaway’s mediating role referred to in 6Q8 1 1.3. The relevant portions are cited here:

Page 1 Recto 11.1-9 (the superscription for the page reads: “concerning the de­mons”):

Again he said: “Bring there these two stone tablets, which are inscribed.255 First, bring Nariman <= Hahyah> the message. Why are you running in such fright? I have now come, and I have brought these two tablets in order that I might read the one to the demons before the giants.”

Page 1 Verso 11.1-5 (superscription: “Sam, the giants”):There Sam <= ’Ohyah> said to the giants, “Come here, so that we might eat and

be content.” Because of worry they ate no bread. They fell asleep. Mahawai went to Atambish (and) told (him) everything.

A consideration of 6Q8 1 leaves little doubt that the speaker in the Recto side of this Manichaean fragment is Mahawai, who is mediating a message on two tablets,256 one of which is addressed to the “demons” (= giants). As the bottom of this side of the page probably contained this message, the extant top of the Verso side records that the giants’ apparent reaction to the message is one of worry. If we follow the Manichaean text here, their fright sets the stage for the giants’ dreams.

6Q82Baillet, D JD III, 117; Milik, BE, 309; Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 192; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 78-79; Beyer, A TT M , 265 and n. 1; Uhlig, Henoch- buch, 758; Garcia-Martinez, QumApoc, 101-102; DSST\ 262; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58, 63, 87, 95-102.

254 “Ein weiteres Fragment aus dem Gigantenbuch”, pp. 495-97. Sundermann descri­bes the fragment as consisting of the upper part of two pages which are written on both sides and provide an almost full text in the extant portions {ibid., p. 493).

255 Due to orthographic convention, Sundermann notes a difficulty in reading “there” in the manuscript {ibid., p. 496).

256 Concerning the “two tablets” see the discussion under 4Q203=4QEnGiantsa 7B col. ii above.

2016Q8 - 6QGiants

חזא שרשוהי] תלתת 1]אתו די עד הוית 2 [

ו כלה דן פרדסא 3 .[

may be restored in accordance with a reconstruction of this formula חזא :1-2 .11in 4Q530=4QEnGiants^ ii, 1.9: 257. די עד חוית חזא[

1. 2: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]אתת (qal perf. 3rd pers. fern,sing.). Milik first proposed the plur. form which, if correct, may refer to the appearance of angelic mediators of divine punishment.258

1. 3: Baillet: prefers בלה (“to destroy”) to כלה.

1 its three shoots[2 I was [looking] until they came[ <+subj.>3 this garden, all of it, and .[

Comment. If we follow the Middle Persian Kawan Frgt.y,259 this fragment might initially be thought to correspond to the second within a pair of dream visions given to Sam (= ,Ohyah; cf. under 2Q26) and Nariman (= Hahyah) respectively. With respect to the latter, Henning’s translation of the Kawan fragment reads (Frgt.y, 11.39-41):260Nariman saw a gar[den full of] trees in rows. Two hundred ... came out, the trees ...

Henning suggested that this passage may be supplemented by the content of another Middle Persian fragment (M 625c = Henning’s text D):261

257 The formula which combines a ptc. of חזי with הוי in the perfect followed by די עד is, of course, common. See also Dan. 2:34; 7:4,9,11; 2Q24 (= 2Q New Jerusalem) frgt. 4,I.17. The reconstructed form proposed by Baillet (חזי) is less likely, as the orthography for the ptc. masc. sing, of the verb concludes with either ה- or ־א.

258 Reeves (.Jewish Lore, p. 148 n. 217) suggests the advent of the 200 Watchers as another possibility. This interpretation depends partly on whether, with Reeves (ibid., p. 95; cf. similarly Milik, BE, p. 309), one regards 6Q8 2 as a part of Hahyah’s dream as recounted in 4Q530=4QEnGiants^ (col. ii, 11. 7-12), which refers to the emergence of “great [shoo]ts from their rootage” (1.8 עקרהן־ מן נפקו רברבין שר[שין ). If the latter describes the birth of the giants, then this event should be preceded by the advent of the Watchers. Despite the logical coherence between 6Q8 2 and Hahyah’s dream in 4QEnGiants col. ii, the space for lacunae in the latter manuscript (11. 7-12) is not such that the dream vision there could have contained both the advent of the Watchers and a preceding appearance of the three Noahic shoots (6Q8 2 1.1). On the basis of the Qumran evidence, there is thus good reason, with Beyer (.ATTM , p. 265 and n. 1), to regard the content of 6Q8 2 as belonging to another dream. In this case, then, it is misleading to allow the Manichaean evidence (Henning, “Book of Giants” 60 Frgt. j,II.39 11) and the Midrash o f Shemhazai and ‘A za’el (which is clearly a condensed version of the story) to create the impression that the tree imagery, when it occurs, must be assigned to the same dream.

259 Henning, “Book of Giants” 57, 60.260 This passage follows immediately upon the vision of Sam (= ’Ohyah) which corre-

sponds to 2Q26.261 Ibid. p. 66; cf. p. 60 n. 8 (to Frgt.y): “Evidently this is the dream that Enoch reads

in the fragment M 625c ... It should be inserted here.”

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments202

... outside ... and ... left ... read the dream we have seen. Thereupon Enoch thus

... and the trees that came out, those are the Egregoroi (y r ) , and the giants that came out of the women. And ... over ... pulled out ... over ...

6Q8 2 has, however, its closest correspondence in the second dream vision of the Midrash of Shemhazai and (A zael which, given the sequence of the giants’ names, was probably experienced by ’Aheyya (= Hahyah). The passage from section 10, following the Bodleian manuscript, reads:262

And the other (son) saw a garden, all of it ( כולו פררס ) planted with different kinds of trees and different kinds of stones. And an angel was descending from the firmament with an axe in his hand, and he was cutting (the trees), so that nothing remained in it (the garden) except for one tree having three branches ( אחד אילן

ענפים שלשה של ).

The Midrash clearly places the trees imagery within the context of one dream. Whether or not this was the case among the Manichaean recen- sions of BG is not certain. Given the verbal parallels between the Midrash and 6Q8 2, one might assume that the latter formed part of the dream of Hahyah recorded in 4QEnGiants^ col. ii, 11.6-12, in which there is a refe- rence to the emergence of “great [shoo]ts from their rootage” (1.8שר[שין־ 263.( עקרהן מן נפקו רברבין If each fragment may be thought to supply details of one dream which are not extant in the other, then the dream would have contrasted the “great shoots” ( רברבין שר[שין = the giants or Watchers) which are threatened with divine punishment (4QEnGiants^ col. ii, 11.9-10) with the “three shoots” of a tree ( הי תלתת שרשו = Noah’s sons) which are saved from cataclysmic destruction. Reeves, who with Milik maintains that 6Q8 2 is “another textual fragment” of Hahyah’s dream in 4QEnGiants^, thus suggests that those who “come” in 1.2 is a “reference either to the advent of the two hundred Watchers (אתו)or a punishing host of divine emissaries.”264 Reeves’ interpretation of 6Q8 2 1.2 may have outlined plausible possibilities for the subject of the verb, but his association of the fragment with Hahyah’s dream in 4QEn- Giants^7 is questionable.

The preserved parts of 4QEnGiants^ (col. ii, 11.7-12) do not provide any evidence supporting an overlap with 6Q8 2; the simple occurrence of tree imagery does not suffice in establishing the identification. Two main rea- sons for this view may be offered here. First, in 6Q8 2 an account of the

262 For the text, upon which this translation is based, see Milik’s critical synopsis of manuscripts in BE, p. 325 (for Milik’s translation, see p. 328.

263 Milik (BE, 309) and Reeves (Jewish Lore, pp. 87 and 95) are apparently wont to suppose that the content of 6Q8 2 provides details to Hahyah’s dream which are not extant in 4QEnGiants .

264 Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 148 n. 217.

2036Q8 = 6QGiants

destruction appears to have been subsequent to a mention of the tree with “its three shoots”.265 Thus, unless one is to assume that 6Q8 and 4QEn- Giants^7 represent two very different recensions of BG, the manuscript evidence of 4QEnGiants^ is telling. If in 4QEnGiants^ col. ii, 1.8 the “great shoots” refer to the Watchers themselves or to their offspring the giants, the space in the lacuna of 1.7 is not sufficient to have included both a mention of an arrival of the Watchers and a preceding appearance of the three Noahic “shoots” (6Q8 2 l.l) .266 Second, if our observations on se- quence are thus far correct, then the content of 6Q8 2 may be thought to have a different emphasis than Hahyah’s dream in 4QEnGiants^. Whereas the latter seems to be an account which accentuates divine punishment of the Watchers and their progeny, the former shows at least more of an interest in the survival of the righteous after the cataclysmic event (= the flood).

These considerations, therefore, lend credence to Beyer’s opinion that 6Q8 2 and 4QEnGiants^ represent not one, but two distinct dream visions in the Qumran BG.267 Accordingly, the Qumran BG must have contained two pairs of such visions, one pair found in 4QEnGiants^ col. ii (11.6-20־ dreams of Hahyah and ’Ohyah respectively) and another pair represented by 2Q26 and 6Q8 2 (also given to the two giant brothers?). Whereas the medieval Midrash preserves an adaptation of the latter, the Manichaean BG (Middle Persian Kawan Frgt.y, 11.34-41) may preserve one dream from each of the pairs, corresponding to 2Q26 and to 4QEnGiants^ col. ii,11.7-12. If this is correct, then the Manichaean BG fragments represent a more compact version at this point of the narrative than the Qumran materials.

6Q83

Baillet, DJD III, 118; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 78-79.

top margin l ] רבה

לע>ע<...תה[ 2

265 This reconstruction holds regardless of whether 1.2 is taken to describe the advent of the fallen Watchers or destroying angels.

266 We may thus attempt to reconstruct the dream underlying 6Q8 2 as follows: (1) The garden is described (as at the beginning of the Midrash), including the presence of one tree with three shoots. (2) Angelic beings arrive on the scene and completely destroy the garden. (3) Of this garden only the tree with three shoots remains. According to this reconstruction, the tree with three shoots is mentioned twice; the later Midrash has removed it from the opening description of the garden.

267 Beyer, ATTM, p. 265 n. 1.

1. 2: The top of a *7 is clearly visible following the lacuna. Baillet: nn ... V

1 ] (was?) great2 ]for his/her ‘ ... t

6Q84Baillet, D JD I l f 118; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M P A f 78-79.

].[ 1].,,I nn. 2pDWDi) 3־[]. kVi ... 4

1. 3: With Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: the letter n is uncertain(but probable due to the form required by the final ]), while IP is deci­pherable on the basis of other ttfs in 6Q8 (cf. esp. 6Q8 26 1.3).

1 ]·[2 .bh wy.[3 you will draw[4 ... and not .[

6Q85Baillet, DJD I l f 118; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 78-79; Milik, BE , 304; Beyer, A T T M , 268.

top margin?}V in 1? i ![ 1

P- ( 21. 1: Baillet: ]., lajVs; Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]. , iia ,7D; Beyer: 1?3] Milik:

*?D. There are traces of a *!, which belongs to the foregoing letters; the vertical line of the letter rules out a X.

1 ]n all gardeners[2 ] ./[

Comment. The term is only preserved in BG in the absolute plural form; see the two instances in 4Q530=4QEnGiants^ (in an isolated fragment and col. ii, 1.7). As 1?D in 6Q8 5, unless we have to do with different recensions, does not allow it to be considered an overlap with 4QEnGiants^ col. ii, 1.7, the fragment may belong to a later allusion to the dream, possibly to Enoch’s interpretation.

204 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

2056Q8 = öQGiants

6Q 86Baillet, D JD III, 118; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 78-79; Beyer, A TT M , 268.

כמסת] [להון 1bottom margin

1. 1: With Beyer. Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ].במם. The firstletter of the second word is too rounded at the top to be a ב (cf., e. g., ב in 6Q8 6, 1.1 and in ברקאל in 6Q8 1 1.3).

1 ]their [ ]//to them sufficiently[

6Q8 7

Baillet, D JD III, 118.

[ביר..] 1..ד.] [ 2

1 ] in yr..[2 ] ..d\

6Q8 8Baillet, DJD III, 118; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.1).

ימרו [ 1! [ע.[ 2 . .[

1. 1: With Baillet. Beyer: ימטון (“they will arrive”). As there is no other in-stance in 6Q8 8 of ט for a comparison268 and the form of ר is subject to variability throughout 6Q8, the reading of Baillet is to be preferred.

1 ] they will say/they will be bitter [2 ].‘. .[

1. 1: Baillet chooses the first option, in which case the word has been spelledaccording to pronunciation rather than etymology.269 The second trans־ lation possibility accords with the impf, form of ר ר מ .

6Q89Baillet, DJD III, 118; Beyer, A T T M , 266 n. 1, 268 (1.2).

י·] 1[ 1[ו/יפסל[ 2

268 If 0, the letter is only visible above its horizontal base.269 For analogous instances, see Beyer, ATTM , 514 and ATTMEB, 309.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments206

1. 2: Beyer: ] ופסל [.

1 ]n w \2 ]he will cut/he cut[

Comment. Beyer suggests a possible connection with the first dream in the Midrash of Shemhazai and ‘Aza’el (ATTM , 266 n. 1), in which an angel uses an axe to cut out all words of a tablet except four. He does not explain, however, how such a connection is to be interpreted, since the parallel text of 2Q26 only seems to refer to the washing of a tablet/tablets; see the our discussion under 2Q26 above.

6Q810Baillet, DJD I l f 118; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.2).

]·[ ]··[ 2]2 ]. לכי ון

1.2: Baillet: ]. לבי פין [, the second word also possibly לכול.

1 ]··[ ]·[2 ].wn for ky[

6Q811Baillet, DJD I I f 118 (1.1).

]..[ 1]ל·] 2

[..] 1 [/·] 2

6Q 812

1 ·] [· ש.] ]ם 2

Baillet, D JD III, 118.

1.1: Baillet: ]. ש[.

1 ]. .[2 \m sh/s.[

207

6Q 8 13

6Q8 = 6QGiants

i. i

r» n [ i1[״ 2

]m־?[ i ]...[ 2

1.1: Baillet: ,a[.

1 [׳·*·]

6Q814Baillet, DJD III, 118.

1 ]and [he] ope[ned?

6Q815Baillet, DJD III, 118; Beyer, A TT M , 268 (1.1).

Baillet, D JD III, 118.

1. 2: Baillet: ]n[.

1 \h all/every[2 ]··[

6Q 8 16

6 Q 8 17

Baillet: D JD III, 118.

1. 2: Baillet: ]»’[

1 ]./[ 2 M

Baillet, D JD III, 118.

1 ]but[2 ] ..· [

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments208

6Q818Baillet, D JD III, 118; Beyer, A T T M , 268; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 43.

! ד[ 1 ר לי

1. 1: With Beyer. Baillet: ד ר י .[.

1 ] for/to Jared [

Comment. Garcia Martinez initially interpreted this fragment as evidence that 6Q8 belonged to the Book of Noah. The mention of this ante-diluvian figure is, however, more immediately consistent with the story about the Watchers and their progeny. According to the Aramaic 4QEnocha and Greek Synchellus versions to the Book of Watchers (7 En. 6:6) and to Jubilees 4:15 the descent of the 200 Watchers to Mount Hermon is said to have occurred “in the days of Jared”.270 Moreover, in the biblical nar- rative (Gen. 5:18-19) Jared is less immediately linked with Noah than with Enoch, being the latter’s father.271 Finally, calling attention to a reference to 1 Enoch 6:6 in Origen’s Commentary on John (to Jn. 1:18),272 several have already noted that the name lends itself to a wordplay (in Hebrew) which denotes the Watchers’ “descent”.273 Thus, if the reading of this fragment is correct, the proper name is consistent with what one might expect of a writing whose theme centers on the Watcher-giants tradition.

270 See also 1 En. 106:13. The omission of this phrase in Codex Panopolitanus, Syriac, and the Ethiopie recensions to 1 En. 6:6 is to be explained by a homoioteleuton during the Greek stage of transmission. Thus 4QEnocha and Synchellus most probably repre- sent the original text.

271 See e. g. also 1 En. 37:1272 For the text see the editions of Cécile Blanc (Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean

[SC, 222; Paris: Cerf, 1975] 294 and 296, 11.2-9), E. Preuschen (GCS, II.2; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs), vol. 10, p. 151, 11-17), and A. E. Brooke (Cambridge 1896, vol. I, p. 160): ... τό δνομα του Ίαρέδ, ο και αυτό ερμηνεύεται καταβαίνων, έπειδήπερ γεγένηται τω Μαλελεήλ, ως εν τω Ένώχ γέγραπται ... ταΐς ήμέραις τής των υιών του Όεοΰ κατα- βάσεως ένι τας θυγατέρες των άνΌρώπων ...

273 This etymological wordplay, as well as that of Mt. “Elermon” (< the root חרם, in afel=“to swear an oath”) later in 1 En. 6:6, led Halévy in 1867 (.Journal Asiatique 6/9, pp. 356-57) to conclude that 1 En. derives from a Hebrew original. Beyer {ATTM, 230), based on ירד and other “Hebraisms” among the Aramaic fragments, has more recently agreed with this hypothesis. It is true that several fragments of the Hebrew 1Q19 (1,2,3,8) seem to preserve portions of 1 En. (8:2; 9:3-4; 106:10-12; and 107:2 respecti- vely). However, others have correctly noted that it is not unusual for an Aramaic com- position to draw occasionally on a Hebrew term; see e. g. Knibb, Enoch, 1.68; and Black, The Book o f Enoch, p. 117. The comment of Milik {BE, p. 214) is more specific; the ירד etymology in 1 En. 6:6 reflects an author’s presupposition that “future readers” would possess “a sufficient knowledge” of Hebrew.

209

]..[ 1vacat? 2

6Q 8 19

6Q8 = 6QGiants

Baillet, DJD III, 118.

1.1: Baillet: ]bn[.

1 ]..[2 vacat?

]0[ 1 ]·[ 2 ]·[ 3

]b*i[ 1

6Q820No readings attempted by Baillet (DJD III, 118).

1 ]m [2 ]· [3 ].[

Baillet, DJD III, 118.

1.1: Baillet: ],5[.

1 ]belonging to[

6Q821

i.[ l־a2 ] ..b

6Q822Baillet, DJD III, 119.

1. 2: Baillet: ]nib.[.

1 m2 ] /··[

6Q823Baillet, D JD III, 119.

1. 1: Baillet: ]s’?[.

1 ]Im.[

6Q824

Baillet, D JD III, 119.

ni l

210 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

־».]7[ 1

.[ 2

1.1: Baillet: 1. ה[

6Q825No readings attempted by Baillet (DJD III, 119).

[רב.] 11 ]rb.[

6Q8 26

Baillet, DJD III, 119; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 78-79; Beyer, A TT M , 626 (11.3-4); Garcia-Martinez, QumApoc, 43.

לובר 1 ..[]. לרוחה 2

ש]פיר ובחר 3 ...]. ... 4

1. 1: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ].ל .1.2: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: j ... ח .ל..1. 3: With Beyer. Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]. ובחן. The final

letter of the first word is more likely a ר because one would expect ן to go below the line (as in 6Q8 1 1.5 and 2 1.3).

1. 4: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington and Beyer:בני . The letters aretoo indistinct to be deciphered.

1 Lubar..[2 in its direction .[3 and he chose a bfeautiful?4 ... .[

Comment. The reading “Lubar” in 1.1 is clear enough to suggest a refe- rence to the mountain on which, according to Jubilees, the ark came to

2116Q8 = 6QGiants

rest (5:28; 7:l)274 and on which Noah planted a vine producing fruit for wine (7:1).275 This is perhaps the strongest evidence for an attribution to the Book of Noah in 6Q8.276 The other fragments of 6Q8, however, clearly point in the direction of BG. Given the Noahic imagery in the dream vision of 6Q8 2, the occurrence of Lubar in this fragment need not be surprising.

6Q827

ב] עד [.ר 11 [..רת.. 2

Baillet, D JD III, 119.

1. 1: Baillet: ] מ רעי .1.2: Baillet: \ ... [.

1 \ r unto b[2 ]..rt.. [

6Q8 28

Baillet, DJD III, 119.

ר..[ ...[ l

1. 1: Baillet: ].וי ... [.

1 ]... r..[

6Q8 29

Baillet, D JD III, 119.

דן] [ר 1[ל] 2

274 The designation “one of the mountains of Ararat״ in Jub. 5:28 and 7:1 is also to be found in IQapGen col. x, 1.13: האררט טורי מן חד נחת תבותא (“the ark descended (upon) one of the mountains of Ararat״), where unfortunately the name of the mountain is not given.

is also named as the place where Noah planted a vineyard in IQapGen לובר 275(=1Q20) col. xii, 1.13 (“I planted a great vineyard on Mt. Lubar”); see Jonas C. Green- field and Elisha Qimron, “The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII”, in Studies in Qumran Aramaic (Abr-Nahrain, Suppl. 3; [1992]) 70-77. The mention of this mountain in the Noah story following the flood in 4QPsDan 2x b (=4Q244; see PAM 43.249=Fis, 185 middle right frgt. 11.2-3: לובר מן נ[וח ... מבולא] בתר מן [) allows one to infer the same association.

276 See Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, p. 43.

1 (vb.+obj.?)]you this[2 ]/[

1. 1: Cf. 6Q8 2: TTnx (2nd sing. obj. suff. ending); if correct, then *p may bethe direct object of a preceding verb.

212 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

6Q830Baillet, D JD I l f 119 (11.2-3).

]![ 1]2 ] דורו/י ל

]הש .[ 3

1. 3: Baillet: ].ה .[.

1 M2 ]/ generation[s?3 ]. hsh[

6Q831

·ג] [. 1

[ ל] [.ע 2

Baillet, D JD III, 119.

. 1: Baillet: ]רג .[.

.2: Baillet: 1. ל ע .[

1 ]· ·£[ 2 ].‘ /[ ]·[

6Q832Baillet, D JD III, 119.

]·[ 1 ].s n[ 2

11.1-2: With Baillet.

1 ]·[2 ]t ׳·[

6Q8 33

6Q8 = 6QGiants 213

x[ l[?־.. 2

Baillet, D JD III, 119.

1.1: Baillet: .[.

1 ]’2 ]/..

Part Two

Manuscripts Whose Identification with the Book o f Giants is Unlikely

The following manuscripts each contain texts which scholars have associa­ted with BG. The merits and problems of this identification in each of these manuscripts are, respectively, presented and discussed below in three sections: proposed identifications, the case for an identification with the Book of Giants, and an evaluation. Since the present study of these mate­rials has resulted in a negative conclusion, the texts of the manuscripts are neither provided in this discussion nor are they included in the glossary to BG at the end of this volume. For the sake of completeness, however, readings of the fragments may be found in the Appendix.

4Q534 - 4QElect o f God1 (7 Fragments)

Proposed Identifications. This manuscript was originally interpreted by Starcky as a horoscope of the Messiah (= 4QMess ar).2 Subsequently, however, Milik,3 Pierre Grelot4, Fitzmyer5, Beyer,6 and Garcia Martinez7

1 The manuscript was originally designated “4QMess ar” by the first editor, Starcky, in “Un texte messianique araméen de la grotte 4 de Qumrân,” in École des langues orientales anciennes de VInstitut Catholique de Paris: Mémorial du cinquantenaire 1914- 1964 (Travaux de l’Institut Catholique de Paris, 10; Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1964) 51-66 (with 2 Plates). On the problem of Starcky’s description, see the discussion below. The designation “Elect of God” is taken from the expression אלהא בחיר in col. i, 1.10.

2 Ibid. Starcky’s first published analysis of 4Q534 appeared, however, in “Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumran”, Rev Bib 70 (1963) 502-504. Starcky has been follow־' ed by Jean Carmignac, “Les horoscopes de Qumrân”, RevQum 5 (1965) 199-217; Jacob Licht, “Legs as Characteristics of Election”, Tarbiz 35 (1965/1966) 18-26 (in Hebrew); A. Dupont-Sommer, “La Secte des Esséeniens et les Horoscopes de Qoumrân”, Archéo- logie 15 (1967) 24-31; and, with some nuancing, by Martin Delcor’s contribution on “Qumrân” in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, eds. L. Pirot, A. Robert, H. Cazelles, and A. Feuillet (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1928-) vol. 51 (1978) 956; one should note, however, that in the same year Starcky accepted the Noahic interpretations by Grelot and Fitzmyer (see the following 2 n.’s): “Le Maître de Justice et Jésus,” Le Monde de la Bible 4 (1978) 53-55.

3 BE, p. 56.4 “Hénoch et ses Ecritures”, RevBib 82 (1975) 481-500.5 “The Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text”, pp. 158-59. See further Lawrence H. Schiff-

man, “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls”, in ed. James H. Charles- worth, The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1992) 127.

6 So ATTM, pp. 269-71 and ATTMEB, pp. 125-27.7 “4QMess Ar and the Book of Noah”, in QumApoc, pp. 1-44 and DSST\ pp. 263-64.

2154Q534 = 4QElect o f God

have regarded 4Q534 as a work describing the birth of Noah (so in col. i,11.1-3 and 10).8 Perhaps on the basis of his Noahic identification, Fitzmyer raised the possibility in his article on “Qumran Aramaic and the New Testament” that the text originally belonged at the “end of the Book of Giants”.9 Unfortunately, Fitzmyer’s format of listing the Qumran Ara­maic manuscripts in this article did not allow for him to elaborate grounds for considering such an identification.

The Case for an Identification with the Book of Giants. Reasons for supposing that the Qumran BG may have included an account describing the birth of Noah might be as follows. In BG the giants’ fate is sometimes associated with allusions to the great Noahic deluge. This is no doubt the case in 4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12 (Hahyah’s dream), in which a garden consi­sting of “great shoots” is destroyed by water and fire; similarly, it is likely that the “washing” of the tablet in 2Q26 (esp. 11.1-2) envisage the flood’s destruction. The reading “Lubar” (6Q8 26), which may well refer to the mountain upon which Jubilees has the ark come to rest at the end of the flood (5:28; 7:1), suggests that the flood motif played an important role in BG. Perhaps even in 4Q531 14 giants anticipate that “we will be blotted out from our form” (i. e., by the flood). Finally, if the reconstruction of 4Q203 8, 11.12-13 is correct, the imminent fate awaiting the Watchers and

8 See further Vermes, in New Schürer, III. 1, pp. 332-33 and 465-66; Ben T. Viviano, “Aramaic ‘Messianic’ Text”, in ABD, 1.342; and Eisenman-Wise, DSSU , p. 34. Fitzmyer, in “Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from Qumran”, p. 159, observed that, “There is cer- tainly no phrase in the two fragmentary columns [of 4Q534] which cannot be under- stood of Noah.” The most significant evidence pointing in this direction, to be taken cumulatively, is provided by Garcia Martinez, “4QMess Ar and the Book of Noah”, pp. 19-24. Other, less convincing attempts to associate 4Q534 with Melchizedek and Enoch have been undertaken by, respectively, Jonas C. Greenfield, in “Prolegomenon” to a reprint of Hugh Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book o f Enoch (New York: KTAV, 1973) xx-xxi and A. Caquot, “4QMess ar 1 i 8-11”, RevQum 15 (1991) 145-55. If Fitzm- yer et al. have been correct in identifying 4Q534 as concerned with the birth of Noah, this does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the text contains elements which could be associated with a messianic figure (e. g., the wisdom motif; col. i, 11.7-8); see Martin Hengel’s essay on “Jesus as Messianic Teacher of Wisdom and the Beginnings of Christology,” now published in idem, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995) 100-101 and esp. Craig A. Evans, “A Note on the ‘First-Born Son’ in 4Q369”, Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995) 191-93 (on 4Q536 [sic]), who emphasizes that the phrase רוח נשמוהי in col. i, 1.10, if an allusion to Isa. 11:4 ( שפתיו ברוח ), may be interpreted in relation to other Qumran texts which find in Isa. 11:1-5 references to a messianic figure; cf. lQSb 5.20-29; 4QpIsaa7-10 col. iii, 11.1-19 (esp. 7, 1.22); 4Q285 5,11.1-6; and 4Q287 [PAM 43.314 bottom left frgt.]).

9 Fitzmyer’s article was originally published in N TS 20 (1973-74) 382- 107; see the same in idem, A Wandering Aramean, p. 101. In the second edition to his The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study, pp. 54-55, Fitzmyer does not refer to the possibility of this identification.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments216

giants is described in terms of a complete destruction of the created order and thus may be taking up the deluge motif (cf. Gen. 6:7; 7:21). These allusions, which call attention to a divine destruction of evil, are appro- priate to a story in which the giants’ destructive misdemeanors find consi- derable elaboration (e. g., 4Q531 1; 1Q23 9+14+15; 4Q532 2). Divine pun- ishment (through the deluge) must supercede the extent and kind of de- struction wrought by the giants. Finally, the “three shoots” in 6Q8 2 1.1 may refer directly to Noah’s three sons who with their father survived the flood.

A further reason for assigning 4Q534 to BG might be the references to a figure who “fell” (נפל) and to “sons of a pit” ( שחרה בני ) on col. ii, 1.1. It may be possible that the “Elect of God” is being contrasted with a fallen Watcher or Watchers/giants upon whom God’s punishment (depicted with flood imagery) is expected.

Evaluation. The presence of these Noahic features among the BG ma- nuscripts does demonstrate the importance which the author(s) attached to the flood motif in BG. To say nothing of the uncertainty that 4Q534 refers specifically to Noah,10 the cumulative weight of several considera- tions make it unlikely that BG included alongside this motif an account of Noah’s birth and extraordinary wisdom. First, none of the BG fragments contains an allusion to such details about Noah himself. Second, none of the 4Q534 materials preserve any apparent reference or allusion to the giants.11 Third, there is the argument from context: it is difficult to posit how a speculative description of Noah would have functioned within a work which otherwise seems specifically concerned with the giants them- selves, their deeds, and their plight in the face of divine judgment. On the contrary, the deluge imagery in BG seems to have been more directly bound up with the giants’ punishment and, hence, this motif would have been more immediately suitable to such a literary framework.

As for the possible reference to one or more Watchers/giants, the Ian- guage is not specific enough to confirm such an identification. The text does not preserve the subject of נפל - that is, whether the verb refers to the “Elect of God” figure or, for example, to a prominent Watcher - nor is it clear that the expression “sons of a pit” should necessarily refer to either the Watchers or giants. Even if the Watcher s/giants myth is in view, an association with the Qumran BG does not follow, since the references to them abound in other early Jewish literature.

10 See Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, pp. 100-101 and Evans, “A Note on the ‘First-Born Son’ in 4Q369” 192.

11 The “Watchers” mentioned in col. ii, 11.16-17 most likely refer to God’s angels rather than to the giants’ progenitors. See Beyer, ATTM, p. 270.

2174Q535 and 4Q536

Though these arguments do not entirely preclude Noah’s birth being mentioned in BG, they render the notion that 4Q534 comprises a (signi­ficant) part of BG little more than a remote possibility.

4Q535 (2 Fragments) and 4Q536 (3 Fragments)

Proposed Identifications. The word-for-word overlap between 4Q535 1,11.4—6 and 4Q536 3, 11.1-3 leaves beyond doubt that both manuscripts be­long to the same work. Of these manuscripts, it was apparently 4Q536, the larger of these manuscripts, which was first attributed to a work which describes the birth of Noah by Milik.12 This characterization was subse­quently accepted by Fitzmyer,13 Beyer,14 and Eisenman-Wise.15 The Noa- hic identification has been based on (1) the reference in 4Q536 1, 1.11 to a figure who “will not die in the days of evil” and (2) the shared interest in characteristics marking the birth of an ideal figure between 4Q535 1,11.1-3 and 4Q534 (col. i, 11.1-3,10), which is discussed above.

The Case for an Identification with the Book of Giants. In ATTMEB Beyer has put forward for consideration the possibility that 4Q535-536 may actually stem from the Book of Giants. His suggestion takes the text of a small fragment on the bottom right of PAM 43.572 as its point of departure, in which the fallen Watcher bKpHU (Mahaway’s father; cf. 6Q8 1) is probably being addressed by Enoch. The mention of Baraq’el, in turn, leads Beyer to restore (“the ninth’, i. e. the same ordinalnumber associated with Baraq’el in 1 En. 6:7=4QEnochfl 1 iii, 1.8 and 4QEnochc 1 ii, 1.26) in 4Q536 col. i, 1.1.

Evaluation. An apparent advantage of Beyer’s proposal could be that, if one follows his text, in 4Q536 col.’s i (1.7?) and ii (11.9-12) a culpable

12 So in Ten Years o f Discovery in the Wilderness o f Judeae, translated by John Strug- nell (SBT, 26; London: SCM Press, 1959), esp. p. 35. See further idem, BE, p. 56 and, most recently, “Les Modèles Araméens du Livre d’Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumrân,” RevQum 15 (1992) 357. Milik drew special attention to the weight of the baby (“three hundred shekels”4־Q535 frgt. 2, 1.3).

13 “The Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from Qumran Cave 4” in his Essays on the Semitic Background, pp. 158-59. Fitzmyer’s view was indebted to the pre-publication observations of Milik (cf. the previous note).

14 A TTM , pp. 269 and 271; ATTMEB , pp. 125-26.15 DSSU, pp. 34-37.16 This reading holds if one grants Beyer’s grammatical interpretation of the text

(ATTMEB, p. 126); Garcia Martinez (DSST, p. 264) translates: “he will strengthen its concealment at the end of your powers.” The disputed text reads: nm/lODHpna ,־pjonB.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments218

figure, addressed in the second person singular, may be told among other things that another has “seized the things under your control by a sword”.16 Given the overlap of 4Q536 with 4Q535, one might suppose that such words accord well with an oracle of judgment spoken against Baraq’el.

The main difficulty with this reading is twofold. First, though the name *?Kp*־Q otherwise only appears in 1 Enoch 6:7 and 6Q8 1, its mere occur­rence is not enough to positively identify 4Q535 with the Book of Giants. A second problem concerns the identification of the *?Xp“־Q fragment which Beyer has attributed to 4Q535. This fragment is in fact the same one which Milik {BE, 311) designated 4Q203 1 and which, within that manuscript, he associated with fragments 2 and 3 (cf. under 4Q203 1-3 above). It is quite possible that, on the basis of the placement of this fragment alongside pieces of 4Q535 in PAM 43.572, Beyer is proposing that it no longer be assigned to 4Q203. However, in ATTMEB he has provided neither notice nor explanation for such a shift of identification; comparison with ATTM (p. 263) yields an apparent discrepancy. Indeed, Garcia Martinez has placed this same fragment in both 4Q203 of the Book of Giants and 4Q535 of the Book of Noahl17 The placement of 4Q203 1 within the context of Noahic fragments in PAM 43.572 corre­sponds to Baillet’s initial association of 6Q8 1 (containing 1?Kpm in 1.4) with “la naissance de Noe”.18 As has been discussed under 6Q8 1, it is quite likely that 6Q8 1, with its reference to Mahaway’s conversation with ’Ohyah, belongs to BG. Although an association with 4Q535 is not impossible, Milik’s placement of the fragment (as no. 1) within 4Q203, in which fragment 2 refers to Mahaway, represents a more convincing codi- cological identification. Therefore, since an association of 4Q535-536 with the Book of Giants depends ultimately on the inclusion of 4Q203 1, Be­yer’s proposal represents an unlikely possibility.

6Q14 - 6QApoc ar (2 Fragments)

Proposed Identifications. In the editio princeps, Baillet designated the two small surviving fragments of 6Q14 as a “texte apocalyptique”.19 Later,

17 Cf. DSST' pp. 260 and 263 respectively, in which this frgt. is given similar, but distinct, translations (cf. further pp. 487 and 506). The Microfiche Inventory and Micro­fiche Companion Volume lists reflect a similar confusion.

18 DJD III, p. 117.19Baillet, in DJD III, pp. 127-28 (photographs: Plate XXVI; cf. PAM 41.510;

42.949).

2191Q19 = IQBook o f Noah 11, 13, 15

Beyer (ATTM) has offered a more specific description of the manuscript, terming it “Die Ankündigung der Sintflut”.20 The strongest evidence for Beyer’s claim comes from fragment 1, on the broken 11.5-7 of which there is an apparent reference to a future destruction ( 1 . 5 ה- ד ב -which will pro (יbably include “every beast of [the field” ( 1 . 6 ב]רא חית ־כל ) and “peoples” ( 1 . 7 Although these elements are consistent with the story of the .(־עממיןdeluge, they are not sufficiently unambiguous for such an interpretation.21

The Case for an Identificiation with the Book of Giants and Evaluation. Because of his interpretation of 6Q14 as an announcement of the great flood, Beyer proposes that the manuscript may have formed part of the Qumran BG. However, this possibility is weakened if one remembers that language which anticipates a deluge is far from exclusive to BG.22 Hence it remains least problematic to refer to 6Q14 more generally as an “apoca- lyptic text”. Given the difficulty of finding in 6Q14 clear allusions to the Noahic flood and the occurrence of the motif (in an anticipatory sense) in contemporary literature, the identification of this manuscript with the Qumran BG represents at best only a questionable possibility.

1Q19 = 1Q19 Book o f Noah (Fragments 11, 13, and 15)

Proposed Identifications. When the twenty-one fragments of 1Q19 were first published, Milik suggested that they may have belonged to a lost “Livre de Noe”.23 He postulated that this work, referred to in Jubi- lees 10:13 and 21:10 and in an expansion to the Testament of Levi which survives in an 11th century manuscript from Mount Athos.24 Given that several fragments (1-3, 8) of 1Q19 appear to bear similarities with some Noahic portions (interpolations?) of 1 Enoch while, at the same time, not corresponding word for word with the surviving recensions,25 Milik ar־

20 ATTM, p. 268.21 Similarly, Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, p. 102 n. 13.22 The destruction of the earth through the flood is also anticipated in 1 En. 10:2;

54:7-10; 60:24b-25(?); 66:1; 106:15; Jub. 7:29,33. Cf. further 2 En. 73:3-5.23 DJD I, pp. 84-87 and 152 (photographs on Plates XVI-XVII).24 I. e., ms. e (= Athos Koutloumous 39) edited by Marinus de Jonge in The Testa-

ments o f the Twelve Patriarchs. A Critical Edition o f the Greek Text (PYTG, 1/2; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978) 47 (section 57). The possibility of the textual antiquity of the recension contained in this ms. should be taken seriously, since it preserves two additional passages (after the Grk. T. Levi 2:3 and 18:2) which correspond, though not word-for-word, with 4Q213 (= 4QTLeviü); on the addition to 2:3, see the recent careful publication and analysis by Michael E. Stone and Jonas C. Greenfield, “The Prayer of Levi,” JBL 112 (1993) 247-66.

25 See Garcia Martinez, “4QMess Ar and the Book of Noah” in QumApoc, pp. 26- 36. Among the pieces containing sufficiently legible text: frgt. 1,11.2-3 is esp. reminiscent

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments220

gued that this manuscript stems from a writing about Noah which may have been adapted among the later 1 Enoch materials (esp. ch.’s 106— 107).26 What Milik has regarded as mere similarities with 1 Enoch, Beyer has identified in 1Q19 1-3 and 8 more directly as a “hebräisches Exem­plar” of the same.27

The Case for an Identification with the Book of Giants. Beyer’s attribu­tion of fragments from 1Q19 to parts of 1 Enoch leads him to consider those fragments (11, 13, and 15) whose relationship to any known portion of the 1 Enoch corpus cannot be verified. He thus puts forth the sugge­stion that these fragments may have belonged to a Hebrew manuscript of BG.28

Evaluation. The identification of parts of 1Q19 with BG is, at most, an argument from silence. For Beyer, it seems to depend on the certitude of relating the other 1Q19 fragments to 1 Enoch instead of to an independent work (with Milik). Unless these pieces reflect a different recension, howe­ver, it is precarious to assume such a relationship of literary identification (see n. 24). In addition, it is hazardous to assume that, by default, one has reason to ascribe anything not corresponding to 1 Enoch within a manu­script to BG. An analogy with the case of non־/ Enoch material in 4QEn- ochc (= 4Q204) belonging to BG (4QEnGiantsö) should not, barring evi­dence from the fragments themselves, be allowed to function as an opera­ting assumption in other manuscripts. Finally and most importantly, not­hing in fragments 11, 13, or 15 corresponds to or is reminiscent of any motif which would specifically denote any portion of BG.

of 1 En. 106:15 (cf. also 1 En. 9:1-2; Jub. 5:2); the list of the four archangels followed by an intercessory address to God in frgt. 2, 11.2,4-5 (= 1Q19 bis) closely resembles 1 En. 9:1,3-4 (esp. the occurrence of the angels’ names before the address in 4QEnoch^iii,11.13-14); frgt. 3, esp. at 11.4-5, is approximated by 1 En. 106:10,12 (in reverse order); and frgt. 8 refers to Methuselah (cf. 1 En. 106:1,4,8). The remaining frgt.’s 4-7, 9-10, 12, 14, and 16-21 contain too little to place them within a meaningful context.

26 See Milik, “Ecrits préesseniens de Qumrân”: d’Hénoch à Amram,” in ed. M. Del- cor, Qumrân. Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (BETL, 46; Paris-Gembloux/Leuven: Duculot/University Press, 1979) 94-95 and BE, p. 55. Milik’s opinion is generally followed, with some refinements, by Garcia Martinez (QumApoc, p. 42)

27 ATTM, p. 229 and n. 1. Thus Beyer incorporates his readings of these frgt.’s into his text of 4QEnoch. No doubted encouraged by this characterization of 1Q19, he argues from what he perceives as lexicographical influence of Hebrew on the Aramaic text {ibid., pp. 229-30) that the Enoch writings were originally composed in Hebrew.

28 Ibid., pp. 229 n. 1 and 259.

2214Q533 = 4QGiants or Pseudo-Enoch ar

Proposed Identifications and Evaluation. In the Microfiche Companion Vo- lume, 4Q533 is listed with the title provided above.29 As the manuscript was originally assigned to Starcky for editing, one may infer that the de- signation, which holds open the possibility of its belonging to Qumran BG, was his own. Though some recent listings of Qumran manuscripts have continued to include “Giants” or “Book of Giants” in designations of 4Q5 3 3,30 there is little reason for this.

Several considerations make the non-inclusion of 4Q533 within the Qumran BG highly probable. First, in Garcia Martinez’ list of Qumran manuscripts (DSST), the possibility of 4Q533 (entitled “4QGiantse ar?”) belonging to BG is derived from Milik’s discussion of “4QEnGiantse” in BE (pp. 237-38).31 Now that the designations can be checked against the photographs, it is clear that this association with Milik’s 4QEnGiants£> is wrong. As has been demonstrated in the analysis of 4Q556 above, Milik was in fact referring to 4Q556, a manuscript which overlaps with 4Q206 (4QEnoclF). Hence the perpetuation of the “Giants” title for 4Q533 seems to have rested on the assumption that Milik must have discussed this manuscript in his treatment of the Qumran BG. Second, as the decisive criterion for assessing the character of any manuscript is the text itself, it is significant that among the some 14 fragments attributed to 4Q533 on PAM 43.601 (= EE, 1548)32 there seems to be no recognizable allusion to either the Watchers/giants myth or to the figure of Enoch.33 Instead, the fragments appeal to the words of a prophet (1, 1.7- אא בי אמר דנה על נ ); mention place names such as Mount Sinai (1, 1.2- סיני לטור ), Joppa (1, פוא-1.9 -refer to a king of Egypt (11, 1.2 ;(שכם-1, 1.8) and Shechem ,(י

מצרים מלך ); and, among other people groups, speak of the Moabites and Amalekites (3, 1.4- א עמלק]יא ומואביא י [). This is language which the texts belonging to BG do not lead one to expect.

4Q533 = 4 Q “Giants” or “Pseudo-Enoch” ar (14 Fragments)

29 The DSS on Microfiche. Companion Volume, p. 47.30 For example, cf. Vermes, DSSE, p. Ii (“= psEn”, “Book of Giants or Pseudo-

Enoch”); Garcia Martinez, DSST, p. 505 (“4QGiants ar?”); and Charlesworth, DSS. Rule o f the Community, p. 182 ("Giants or Pseudo-Enoch ar”).

31 Since in his Tools for Study (1990) Fitzmyer does not provide the manuscript num­bers at this point (p. 52), it is not apparent whether, as Garcia Martinez, he is identifying his “4QEnGiantse” with 4Q533.

32 In Microfiche Inventory (p. 83), 4Q533 is the only manuscript listed as contained in this photograph. Fragment numbers of the citations below follow their order of appea­rance on PAM 43.601 (right to left, top to bottom).

33 The phrase 7:nnJ in 3, 1.5 (“we will destroy them”) might be consistent with the accounts of destructive activities in BG, is but a weak argument for inclusion in BG, givent he other elements extant among the fragments (see below).

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments222

4Q537 - 4QApocryphon o f Jacob ar34

Proposed Identifications. The photographs of 4Q537 only became general­ly accessible through the Facsimile Edition and the DSS on Microfiche. When Michel Testuz published one of the fragments in 1955,35 he noted the references to apparently celestial “tablets” on 1.3 and to a “tablet” on1.5 (see below, pp. 237-38). Although he did not advance a hypothesis about either the identification or the literary context of the fragment, he noted that such tablets are frequently mentioned in Jubilees and 1 Enoch.

In an article on Essene literature predating the settlement of a commu­nity at Qumran, Milik republished the text, having added a tiny piece joined to the fragment by Starcky as well as two further fragments on his own.36 These additions (cf. 11.4-6), as well as his reconstructed text (esp. 1.4), corresponded to Milik’s view that the manuscript belongs to a previously unknown work which he labelled “Visions de Jacob” in which the patriarch is being addressed by an angel during his dream at Bethel.37 Milik derived his association of the document with Jacob from two sour­ces, the Prayer of Joseph as cited by Origen - in which Jacob, speaking in the 1st person, reads “in the tablets of heaven” about what will happen to his progeny - and from Jubilees 32:21-22:38

(21) And he saw in a vision of the night, and behold an angel was descending from heaven, and there were seven tablets in his hands. And he gave (them) to Jacob, and he read them, and he knew everything which was written in them, which would happen to him and to this sons during all the ages. (22) And he showed him everything which was written on the tablets.

Since in 32:24-26 Jacob is said to have recorded the substance of this vision according to the angel’s instruction, Milik surmised that the author of Jubilees must have known this work.39 More recently, with several refinements, Emile Puech - who wisely admits a degree of incertitude - has endorsed the main features of Milik’s analysis,40 stressing in addition

34 With the publication of frgt. 1 by Michel Testuz in “Deux fragments inédits des manuscrits de la Mer Morte”, Sem 5 (1955) 38, this document was frequently referred to under the designation “4QTestuz” (as, e. g., in Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ pp. 126- 27). Subsequently, the manuscript was termed “Vision of Jacob” by Milik, “Ecrits prées- seniens de Qumrân”, pp. 103-104.

35 See his publication referred to in the previous n.36 “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân”, p. 103.37 Ibid., p. 104.38 The translation below follows that of O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees”, in OTP 2.118.39 “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân”, p. 104.40 See Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi et le personnage eschatologique.

4QTestLévic־d (?) et 4QAJa”, in eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner, The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings o f the International Congress on the Dead

2234Q537 - 4QApocryphon o f Jacob ar

the testamentary nature of the document “avec ses visions, secrets, révéla- tions, parénèse et eschatologie.”41

In ATTM (186-87) Beyer retained both Milik’s reconstruction of the text42 and his association of it with Jacob. However, instead of positing with Milik an independent document, Beyer ascribed it to one of the later parts of the Genesis Apocryphon extant among the finds from Qumran Cave l.43 Later, in ATTMEB (70-71), Beyer has continued to assert that 4Q537 belongs to the Genesis Apocryphon, but adds - no doubt following Puech’s conclusion - that the fragments coincide with characteristics of an “Abschiedsrede”.44

An entirely different interpretation of “4QTestuz” has been put forward by Reeves, who suggests that fragment may have belonged to the Qumran BG. His arguments are listed and evaluated immediately below.

The Case for an Identification with the Book of Giants. While admitting that a proper evaluation of the manuscript depends on the full publication of its fragments, he is critical of the connection with Jubilees 31 seen by Milik and Beyer, maintaining that the only motif the Jubilees passage and the “4QTestuz” fragment have in common is the reference to “tablets”.45 In addition, of course, he is retiscent to follow the joins proposed by Milik, since they seem to depend on the a priori assumption of a context preserved in Jubilees 31. Instead, Reeves calls attention to several elements which he believes “4QTestuz” shares with Qumran BG: (1) the motif of an eradiction of evil and “deceit” (2) 46;(שקר ) the reference to “the tablets”

Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 11/2; Leiden: E. I Brill, 1992) 489-90; in addition, the present author gratefully acknowledges correspondence from Puech on 4Q537 dated to Feb. 12, 1990. Puech differs from Milik in two ways: (1) he follows Beyer’s proposed restoration for Jacob’s age on 1.4 (see ATTM , p. 186); and, more importantly, (2) insists, in following the context of Jub. 31, that the place where Jacob and his descendants are not to build the temple but from which they are to leave (cf. 1.6) is not Egypt, as Milik supposed, but Bethel itself. Though the connection with Jub. 31 is apparent enough, it remains unclear whether the more exclusive focus on Bethel argued by Puech (and Beyer) takes into sufficient account the plur. form for “you will leave” on 1.6 (ppon); if Jacob is being told not to build a temple at Bethel, a sing, verb (j?0D) would be expected.

41 Ibid., p. 490.42 The one exception is Jacob’s age on 1.4; whereas Milik reconstructed “97” years on

the basis of the chronology implicit in the narrative of Jubilees (cf. 19:13; 30:1; 32:33), Beyer derived the “147” years of Jacob’s life from 45:13.

43 See ATTM , p. 186, where Beyer argues that this part of the Jacob story in the Genesis Apocryphon was inspired by Jubilees (32:21-22, 27-29; and 45:13). Beyer has apparently retained this thesis in ATTMEB, p. 70.

44 ATTMEB , p. 70.45 Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 140 n. 119.46 4Q537 1, 1.2; cf. K3nx[:i] in 4Q556 6, 1.1; see ibid., p. 79.

The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments224

(*rm1?);47 and (3) a motif concerning the survival of the righteous.48 Rela­ting the “deceit” in 4QTestuz to the restored occurrence of the same root in 4Q556 6, 1.3 - a text concerned with evil during the generations leading up to the deluge Reeves suggests that the Testuz fragment is concerned with the announcement of divine judgment through the deluge.49 Though there is no clear allusion to the great flood in 4QTestuz50 - and, for that matter, among any of the remaining 4Q537 fragments - , Reeves allows a deluge context to function as his working assumption. He thus goes on to postulate for 4QTestuz that the giant Mahaway is the auditor being told to “read” the contents of the tablets and that, “if so, the unidentified speaker in 4Q Testuz 1-3 is probably Enoch.”51

Evaluation. The identification of 4Q537 with the Qumran BG may be rejected with some confidence. Reeves’ proposal was based on a string of superficial parallels which resulted in a hypothesis which the remaining fragments of the manuscript refute. The legible parts of the fragments refer to the future blessings and sins of the auditor’s descendants (so frgt.’s 3 and 5-8) and show a special interest in the proper conditions for observing the sacrificial cult (so esp. frgt.’s 12-15). Such content may hardly be expected to cohere with a message spoken to a giant! Rather, the interest in the cultus, the events to be experienced by the addressee’s progeny, and the reading of heavenly tablets are all elements which the 4Q537 fragments share with Jubilees 31:21-29. Therefore, unless a more suitable alternative can be found, the interpretations of 4Q537 by Milik and Puech should be allowed to set the parameters for further analysis and discussion.52

47 4Q537 1, 1.3; cf. 4Q203 7B col. ii, 1.2. Whereas the context of Jubilees 31:21 would suggest that the number of tablets is seven, Reeves argues that, given 4Q203 7B and 8 the number envisaged in 4QTestuz may actually be two; see ,(”the s[ec]ond tablet“־1.3)ibid., p. 110.

48 4Q537 1, 1.1; cf. esp. 6Q8 2 (reference to the “three shoots”, the sons of Noah); see ibid., pp. 79 and 110.

49 Ibid., p. 79. may be consistent with the flood story, but are far too generic to לוחיא and שקר 50

suggest it.51 Ibid., p. 110.52 Beyer’s attribution of 4Q537 to the Genesis Apocryphon remains a possibility, but

this is a connection which - other than perhaps the shared place name 1) חזור רמת Q0/?- Geflxxi.8,10 and 4Q537 19, 1.3) - has little positive evidence to support it.

Appendix

Texts and Translations of Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book of Giants1

The following texts and translations, based on independent readings of the photographs, are not reproduced with the critical detail which accompa- nies the materials which more properly belong to Qumran BG. The mate- rial here is instead presented to provide the reader with the textual basis for the discussion in Chapter Two, Part Two. It is in that discussion where the bibliographies for each of the manuscripts may be found. Given the non-identification of this material with BG, the vocabulary of the texts has not been included in the glossary.

4Q534 (7 Fragments)2

Photographs. PAM 41.917 (= EE, 514); 42.435 (= FE , 857); 43.590; 43.591 (= FE, 1537, 1538).

column i, top margin

(frgt.’s 1 = 11.1-15 and 4 = 11.16-17)]תרתין ידא די 1 ישמק שומה [י מ..] [ .vacat [ ע]ל ]ו[טלופחין שערה 2

..ליה ידע דן מן >דן< שנין [ן ] ירכתה על זועירן ושומן 3די עדן ]ע[ד מדע ידע לא די כאנ[°וש ]עלוהי כלהון להוון בעלימותה 4vacat ספריא תלתת ]י[דע 5

ארכובה על לה למאתה חזין יבע[°ון שג]יאין וידע יערם ]וב[אדין 6וערמונ]ה[ מלכה להוין עמה וזקנונה [.חי .] וב]אב[התוהי ובאבוהי 7חייא כול רזי וידע תהך עממיא לכול וחוכמתה אנשא רזי ]ו[ידע 8

1 Discussed in Chapter Two, Part II.2 The script is clearly Herodian; Cross (“The Development of the Jewish Scripts”,

p. 138) characterizes it as “round semiformal” hand which may be dated during the period 30 B. C. E. - 20 C. E. Concerning the number of fragments: as is frequent among the Qumran manuscripts, many “fragments” are themselves composed of pieces which have been joined together.

Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

9 [ תהוא שגיא חייא כול ומסרת ]*־[סופר עלוהי חשבוניהון וכו[לנשמוהי ורוח מולדה הוא אלהא בחיר בדי חש[בונוהי ] 10

vacat [ ]11 [ שבונוהי]לעלמין להוון ח12 [ [ [.לין ל] די א

13 [ [ חשבון ת

ב·[ ] 14 והי] ] 15

ה[ ] 16

׳·[ ] 171 of the hand, two .[ ] m.\ ]y a mark. Red will be2 his hair. And lentil-like marks (will be) up[on3 small marks (will be) upon his thigh [ ]n (will be) differ-

ent one from another. He will know ..lyh.4 During his youth all of them will be [upon him as (upon) a m]an

who does not known anything un[til] the time when5 he has [lejarned the three books. vacat6 [And t]hen he will become wise and know gr[eat things.] They

[will see]k visions, in order to come to him on his knee.7 And with his father and with his fore[father]s .[ \.hy and old

age. And with him will be counsel and prudence.8 [And] he will know the secrets of humanity, and his wisdom will

go out to all the peoples. And he will know the secrets of all living things.

9 [And al]l their plots against him will come to an end, though theopposition of all living things will be great.

10 [ ]his [pl]ans, because he is the Elect of God. His birth andthe spirit of his breath

11 [ ]his [p]lans will be eternal. vacat12 [ ]’ which /[ ].lyn13 [ ] /a plan14 [ lb15 [ ]his16 [ ]h17 [ ].sh

column ii, top margin (frgt.’s 1-5)

[ ] שחוה בני לקדמין נפל [.. .ן] [.די .] 1

[ ל..] טלופחא באיש [..א ] ... [ ]2

vacat? 3[ ] ל[מאתה ] 4

2214Q534

[ה·] ל.] נשמ]והי ורוח

] לעלמין

[

10 are lost

]·[ ]· 8

[ .] ומדינן 11. [.ב.לן [מ] . . [ ..] די י ת.] ויחרבון 12

יהכ]ון[ אלן כול יחרבן במן [מן ] יסופון מין 13vacat? [ נ - 14

עובדה כעירין [יתבנון [.וב.] [ [·] 15וחוב]תה[ חטאה יסדון עלוהי [וסודה קל.] חלף 16[..מ. ועירי]ן קדיש [. ] [.לי ] 17

vacat עלוהי א[מרו ] 18[פון מי] [ר ] ... [ ] 19

].זה1 .[ \.dy .«[ ].. he fell first. Sons of a pit [

] 20

/.[ M

]..’ Evil (is) the lentil-like mark /..[ vacat?

to] come []..[

and the wind of [his] breath[ forever [·[ ]·[

11.9-10 are lost

]m [ ].b.ln y . . . which ..[]mn bmn will lay waste. All these

11 and provinces .[12 and they will lay waste .[13 waters will come to an end

will g[o14 ...[ ] vacat?15 [ ].[ ].kw\ ] they will be built. As (that of) the

Watchers (will be) his work.16 Instead of q l \ ]and its foundation they will lay upon him.

Its sin and [its] guilt17 [ \d y [ ] .a holy one and the Watchers[ ]..m.18 [ ]they [s]aid against him vacat19 [ ]... [ ]r my[ ]pwn20 [ \z h

228 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

4Q5346

]·[] 1לכו די 2. .[

לב חובה 3 .[ ינטור דן 4 [

1 [ ].[ vacat or bottom margin2 which Ikw. .[3 guilt lb.[4 this. He will guard [

4Q534 7

[.לון] 11 ]Jwn [

4Q535 (23 Fragments)4

Photographs. PAM 43.572 bottom (= FE, 1520).

4Q5351

top margin or vacat

] כחדה מ.מ.. והוין מתילד [. 1של]ם ונפק מתילד בליליא [ש 2

וחמ]שין? מאה תלת תקלין במ[תקל 3.] [..א י°ו]מוהי מפלג עד דמך בליל[יא 4]שנין משלם עד ביממא [ 5

.] ]ו[ל מנה לה [נזחה 6vacat or bottom margin

1 ]. born. And they are m.m.. together [2 ]sh born in the night, and he came out complete3 with a [w]eight of three hundred and fiffty(?)] shekels [

3 Garcia Martinez (DSSE , pp. 263-64) ascribes 4 frgt.’s to 4Q535. Frgt. 1 (PAM 43.572 bottom right) actually belongs to 4Q203, while frgt. 2 appears to have been copied by a different hand. Thus the text presented below is based on the other two frgt.’s.

4 The script is early-middle “semi-formal” Herodian, which reflects a slighter greater degree of standardization than, e. g., 4Q531. The text may thus have been copied some­time during the years just preceding the turn of the common era.

2294Q 536

4 during] the [night] (he) sleeps until half [his] da[y ]..’ .[5 ] during the day until the completion of [... years6 ](it) moves (away) from him [and] /.[

4Q535 2

vacat or top marginובעשרה] 1.][מתק]ל 2

1 and about ten[2 .[]weigfht

4Q536 (3 Fragments)t

123456

7

8

910

11

12

13

Photographs. PAM 43.575 top (= FE, 1523).

column i, top margin?

(fragments 1-2) תהוא[ [.יא

] ידכר ק[דישין נהי]ריא יתגלון [לה

זי]ו[ כולה [אלפנה חכים וכול אנש ח[כמת

להוא ורב [במתתא ועד אנשא [תזיע

כעליונין רזין [יגלארזי ובטעם [.ין

·ל[ ... [

1· rati?1?[].tp pjaa ־ioa ,־r x[bottom margin

] .y ’ you will be[ h]oly ones. He will remember [

]to him [the] ligh[ts] will revealed ]all his teaching. Splen[dor

wi]sdom of humanity, and every wise man

ואף ..א [בעפרא

רזא ס[לק[ומנתה

bottom margin

5 The script appears to represent a “semi-formal” form of the late Hasmonaean type.

>30 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

6 ]you will make humanity tremble, anduntil

7 ]in the provinces. And he will be great8 ]he will reveal secrets like the most high

ones.9 ].yn and through an understanding o f the

secrets o f10 ]... ./[ ]..’ and also11 ].[ ]in the dust12 ]at first .[ ]the secret has [go]ne up13 ]’ because he has placed me among a number. Sh.[ ]and

a gift column ii

(fragment 1)

ה] מן 7

בד 8 ] ע

ה די 9 ת ל מנה יצף אנ כו אנשא] ל

ה 10 ת סי ף כ סי ך ב סני ח ף מ תק הי ] א בו טו ק.] ... [

ת ולא 11 מו מי י שעא ביו א לכה וי ר ה פמך די סכל כ מנ ר .] י

ה 12 ת חוב מו ב מן ל תו כ ב אלה מלי י ת כ א לא די ב אמרי יבל מ י] ו

עדן ארו תעדה 13 עין ו שי דעך ר מין י ר לעל ב ך די ג די ב ע ך ל לבנ]י

bottom margin]from h ר8 he did. [9 concerning whom you are troubled for the sake o f all humanity[10 you have hidden yourself. The sword o f those whom you hold he has

overpowered [ ] Blessed is he ... q.[11 and he will not die in the days o f evil. Woe to you, O fool, because your

mouth will throw you .[12 guilt to death. Who will write these words o f mine in a book which will

not wear away, and my words y[13 pass away? Behold, and (in) a period o f wicked ones he will know

you forever. A man who for your servants, [your] son[s

4Q5363

א 1 לי[ הי מפלג עד דמך בלי מו יו [

שלם עד ב[°יממא 2 שנין מ . . [

] מנה לה נזח[ה 3 . . ש. ] [ . ל. ו

2316Q14

1 during [the] night he sleeps until half o f his day [2 during ]the day until the completion o f years ..[3 (it) moves (away)] from him and /..[] sh ...[

6Q 14 (2 Fragments)

Photographs. PAM 41.510; 42.949; D JD III, Plate XXVI.

6Q141

] . . ל[ 1 ב

2 ] די מן ·[

3 ] ה ה] ב ל לגב [כפי [

ק על[יא 4 א מן יפו .[

5 ] ה ה בד י .[

6 ] ל ת כו חי .[

7 ] ן י נ מן ענ . [

א.[ 8 [1 \b l..[2 ]w hoever.[3 ]bh to a double height[4 ]the [Most High] will come out from \[5 Ih will perish .[6 ]every living thing o f .[7 ]clouds from .[8 ].’[

6Q142

ם [.ק 1 קו .] י

כ] די [.ד 2

בכי א[בל 3 ]ו .

ל. 4 ...] [.1 .\q will arise [.2 .]d which k[

.] 3 mou]rning and crying .] .../. [ 4

232 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

1Q19 (Fragments 11, 136 and 157)

Photographs. PAM 40.444; DJD I, Plate XVI.

1Q1911

} 1 בני כ[ל

2 ] הקד]ש ל1 a]ll the sons of [2 ]/ of holfiness

1Q 1913

].1 ]. ב אל [לכבוד .] ואך כבוד בי

ותפארת כבוד בהדר י[נשא 2 ]

ך .[ 3 תו ]יכבדב1 \.by glory and also .[ ]to the glory of God b.[2 he will] be lifted up in the splendor of glory and of beauty[3 ]. he will be glorified in the midst of

1Q 1915

]·[ 1כונן[ אל כי [.רי 2לב[ [ם [.ל..] 3

1 ]·[2 \r y because God has established[3 ]./..[ ]m for k[

6 Milik (DJD I, p. 85) placed frgt. 14 on the left of frgt. 15 at 11.2-3; this reconstruc­tion is justifiably questioned on grounds of differences of line spacing by Garcia Marti­nez, QumApoc, p. 42 n. 86.

7 Garcia Martinez’ juxtaposition of frgt. 15, 1.2 with frgt. 13 at 1.3, even given his restoration of ‘,'T’[n3 (15, 1.2), does not produce a grammatically coherent text (a plur. cstr. before ,D); see his rendering in ibid.: “he will be glorified with the chosen ones (sic!), becauses God realises”.

2334Q533

Photographs. PAM 41.444; 41.512; 42.440; 43.601.A full reading o f these fragments has not been published. For readings o f in­

dividual words, see Beyer, A TT M E B , p. 107.

4Q533 (14 Fragments)8

4Q533 1

] IV..[ 1] ,ro mu’?[ 2],mam ]...«?a[ 3

] n w ta un.[ ]..a 7p’i .[ 4

] vacat n n ix ’i m a ip 1?[ 5

]a sin h ,?a natp ’7 sm n sn ria [ 6 ].·> ,t s s ’aa nas n n by .[ 7

X]mb 178 MU D3B? S[ 8

]. mu 73? sia’ !a ..[ 9].. xba .b[ 10

1 ]..qyn [2 ]to M ount Sinai [3 ]msh ...[ ]shy’ his face[4 ]. and he burned b..[ ].h'. Evil [5 ]before him and ysw..[] ... this, vacat [6 ]new provinces which he captured. Everthing which is in[7 ]. Concerning this the prophet said that y.[8 ]’ from Shechem fish. Behold, he/it will[9 ].. from Joppa unto M ount .[10 ]/. was full ..[

4Q5332

] ..’7,[ 1] Pb..[ 2]1373 .[ 3

],3? by .n.[ 41 ]. which ..[2 ]..lq [

8 The script is a “semi-formal” and early-middle Herodian.

234 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

3 ]. they wanted [4 \ t . upon ‘.[

4Q533 3

א.! [. 1בא]רעא)?([ [יהכון 2ר די [עממין 3 ספא [יא 4 אבי מו א[ ו עמלק]יד [.. 5 ב הו אבון נא..........[ 6 י ק י ד צאלין הא [ממר 7דא [.ה 8 חל]ק[ הוא ה..ף [אדיו 9 רד ש י חר

שבקון [לא 10 י

1 ]. ’.[2 ]they will go in ’[3 ]peoples [to] whom a book4 1y ' and Moabites and Amalek[ites5 “ ]..w e will be destroyed.” They6 ] .., . the righteous ones7 ]a word. Behold, these8 ] .hh. . d’ is divifding9 ]then he will put out divination10 ]they will not leave

4Q533 4

כל 1 א.] [.

שתא 2 .] [.

דא] [א 3

מן[ [.כו 4

5 ■■] [א] 6 ה ]

1 }.kl ’.[2 \shf .[3 ]’ d\4 \ k w from[5 ].. [6 ]h’ [

2354Q533

4Q5335

[ירד] 1

[אדיו] 2

ול] [.ור 31 ]Jared[)?(

2 ]then [/] 3 .]wr and

4Q533 6

].[ 1]..2 ]. [ת ל[

3 ]. א מ ..ע נ .] ].[

4 ]. [יז כ..] ם .[

מ ועבד ..[ 5 ..[

ן...[ 6 ]1 ]·[2 ]./[ ]/..[3 ] .n ' . . ‘ m.[ ].[y k״[ 4 ..\ ]yz.[5 ].. and he made m..[6 ] . . . « [

4Q533 7 4Q5338

למד[ [ל 1 ה] 1

קש] 2

1 h[2 qsh[

1 ]/ Imd[

236 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

4Q533 9 4Q533 10

[מ...] 1 [א•] 1.ה.] [.. 2

[בא][•] 3

1 ]m ...[ 1 ]’ •[2 ..] [.־/.

3 ]6!]•[

4Q533 11

בא] זעה [יא 1

מ] מצרים מן [. 2

[.מ•] 31 ]y’ trembled b ן2 ]. from Egypt m[3 ]. m.[

4Q 53312 4Q 53313

[מצר]ים|?( [..] 1 [א] 1

]•[ ]■■[ 2 ב.] [.א 2

[ל] 3[ה] 4

1 ].[Egy[pt(?) ]’[ 12 ]••[ ]•[ 2 Vb.[3 ]/[4 ]h[

4Q533 14

עממין י[שמעון 1

וישרין פתכר הוא די [ 2

מצרים [מלן [.] 3

אבון [.מרא 4

vacat [ 5לא בתגמא [.ו. 6

משתארין די [י. 7

שר אכלין [. 8 חזירא ב

2374Q537

9 ] ה ת כו ל ואף מ

10 ] ם מן א ד א קו שעי ר

תא [ לאר[ .[ 11 ..ו

12 ] ם א סי מלכ דך ו

ח[].[ 13 .1 ]peoples will hear2 ] which is an idol. And the upright ones3 ].[ ]the king o f Egypt4 ].m r'They5 ] vacat6 ].w. Beth Gama (?). N ot7 ]y . who remain8 ]. eating the meat o f a pig9 ]his kingdom, and also10 ]’ before the wicked ones11 ] ./> []· . wt'12 ]sym and that king

13 .־/][.]

4Q537 (28 Fragments)9

Photographs. Testuz, “Deux fragments inédits”, Figure 1 opposite p. 38 (frgt. 1); PAM 43.599 (= FE, 1546; frgt.’s 2 -2 8 10).

N o readings thus far have been published for fragments 10, 14-16, and 19-28.

4Q5371+4+9+1111

top margin

עך 1 ר ארון ז ת ש א כל וי קי א צדי שירי] וי

ל 2 כל עו תכח עוד לא שקר ו ש י [

א סב וכען 3 חי א לו קרי ב די כולא] ו תי הון כ ב

תי וכל 4 כל עק עין מאה כל על]י יתא די ו רב א שב[ע ו חיי שני ו [

9 The frgt.’s of 4Q537 contain a semi-formal middle Herodian script and may be dated approximately to the early years of the 1st cent. C. E.

10 The numeration of the frgt.’s proceeds from right to left, top to bottom, according to which the first frgt. (top right) is designed “2”.

11 This combination follows the joins proposed by Starcky and Milik (“Ecrits prées- séniens de Qumrân”, p. 103) which have been followed by Puech (“Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi”, po. 489-90). The restorations on 11.4,6 largely follow those adopted by Puech. On 1.5 the number of Jacob’s years is restored on the basis of Jub. 45:13.

238 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

].. 5 [ ב ס ע ] חא דן ו ת ידוה]י מן לו חזי ב [ו תי בה כ

6 [ ם מנה [תפקון די ביו קין ] ו ם מן [רי ד קו [

1 your descendants, and all the righteous and upright ones will re-main[ ... no]

2 evil and no deceit shall be found again[3 And now, take the tablets and read everything[ which is written in them4 and all my troubles and everthing which would come upon[ me all one

hundred forty sev]en years o f my life[5 [And ]1 took this tablet from hi[s] hands[ ]and I saw

(what was) written in it ..[6 from [which ]you came out. And on the [eighth] day [your offerings will

not be ]in vain before[ the M ost High.

4Q5372

כלון [ארעא 1 ת ה ו כל פרי ה ו ת חון] טב ותו

שטא 2 מהך ולמטעא ל[מ ת ול ח ר א וזנו] טעו ב

תכון 3 ש אי ב הי תהוון ]די[ עד [ו מו ל] קד

WW 41 ]the earth. And you shall eat its fruit and all its produce. And you shall

hurry[2 to ]be foolish and to wander astray and to walk in the ways o f error and

unchastity[3 ]and your evil ways until you become before him[4 ]/[]/[

4Q5373

].[ ] 1 ] הי [כוו די] ו

תון 2 שין ממרין ]ת[הוון א[נ מק ה ו ל ב קו ל ל ו [1 ]his which[ ]your [ ].[2 y]ou will be bitter and stubborn over against him and

/[

4Q5375

כל ח[טאיכון כל 1 ן ו כו בי וכל.] חו.] 1 all] your [s]ins and all your guilty deeds and all

2394Q537

4Q5376

].. .[ 12 ] ן כו ד ת שעי]כון בי פ

1 ].2 ]your[ ]through [your] trespasses[

4Q537 7

א[ 1 [ טי

צן ... [ 2 ח מין לר על . . . [

1 ]O׳ ׳ [2 ] ... for an eternal security ... [

4Q5378 4Q53710

]■pajoan k.[ 1 ’m]T !a sm 1?[ aonxi 11 ].’ it will reach you[ 1 and I took ]the tablet from [his] hand[s

4Q53712+1312

א [והיך 1 א להו הון בני]נ הנ[י הוון כ שין ל רן לב הי ט ] ו

א [מסקין 2 חי א דב ח דב מ ת מן אכלין אר[עא ו.] ל צ הון ק חי ב ] ד

פקין להוון [.י 3 א מן נ ת רו ת ומן ק חו א ת ה רי הוון ואן שו מ.] ל

vacat 4

מי [ 5[ ן ארע קד עי ב וא תרין ר1 ]and how [the] builfding] will be[ ]their[ priests ] will be

clothed, and pure [their hands2 ]bringing the sacrifices to the altar and .[ ]the[ ear]th

eating from a portion o f their sacrifices [3 ].y will be going out from the city and from underneath its walls. And

then they will be m \4 vacat5 ] before me a land o f two quarters and ’[

12 This combination, which is suggested by the juxtaposition of the frgt.’s in the PAM photograph, is adopted with some restorations by Beyer, ATTMEB, p. 70; for an English translation, cf. Garcia Martinez, DSST, p. 265.

4Q53714 4Q 53715

[ע.] 1 ק.] [כת 1]א[רבעא 2 . ל]הוון/הוא והין [.ה 2 .

1 ]‘[. 1 ]k t q[.2 \h and how [it/they wi]ll [be 2 ]four [..

4Q53716

..] באישתא תתוה צפונא מן [.. 1ארעא ] עממיא כל יסתתרון ובה ציון מנה [.][ 2

vacat 3] ולימא ואתור לפרס מדי בין כריפו עלוהי [.. 4

bottom margin1 ].. from the north evil will frighten ..[2 ] .[] from it Zion, and in it all the peoples will hide[3 vacat4 ].. above it K R Y P W between Media, Persia, and Assyria, and

to the sea [

Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

4Q53717

].1 ]. ש ונפק כסיא 2 ] מי על זית באר [. [.] ..] תא [לימין ונפק קרבא למלת קשוט [ 3 [

1 ].ksy’ and he went out sh \2 ] t ’ ..[ ].[ ]. Beer Zait on the waters of [3 ] truth according to the matter of the battle. And he went out to the right

of[

4Q53718

[ ] . . . ב[ 1

2 ] ואזל חזור רמת עמק 3 ] די אחזיני אחרא דנה כל

רשמת [להון להוא 4 ]

1 ]&. . . [ ]2 ]the valley of Ramath Hazor. And he went

34

1

1

123

123

12

2414Q537

]this whole place he showed me because it will be] for them a sign of[

4Q53719 4Q53720

]1?by XB57 bD[ 1 ]. ■poiay[ 1]every nation entering[ 1 ]peoples .[

4Q53721 4Q53722

K]snK Vd[ 1 ]3/1 n-nn [bijDb pib.[ 1]all [the] earth[ 1 ].Iwn to Mo[unt] Horeb and

4Q53723 4Q53724

xsn]« by ־,i [ 1 ] . 1].a 2

]· r a 3

.[ 1 ] which (is) upon [the] ear[th’.[between .[

4Q53725

1 ...] .IS[.־2 *]I[·■■][«־3 [····]

d[.‘. [ . . .

...] ] ] [earth

4Q53726

״’ .[ T .[ 1]»3 P tA[ 2־

]. the leaders o f .[ ]then b ‘[

4Q53727 4Q537

242 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

!.. .[ 1 ]!.[ 1].n.s[ 2 I ■ [ 2

1 [. ..[ 1 ].n[2 \s.h.[ 2 ]. .[

Glossary(For Texts probably belonging to the Book of Giants)

Sigla:7 reading, form, or reconstruction uncertainm/fs masculine/feminine singularm/fp masculine/feminine pluralcs/p common singular/pluralim pf/pf imperfect/perfectPartial reconstructions, alternative spellings, or forms with an uncertain inter­

pretation are provided among the pertinent citations.Only words which are fully or partially visible are included. Lexical items (spel­

led in plene) are strictly alphabetical.

:(to go) אזלq a lp f 3ms-'KX (1Q23 13.3) q a lp f (Q531 4.5אזלו־?/מ (5/4 qal impv. ?4) -מ5אזל Q530 ii.22)

:(.brother; masc) אחpl.+3ms suff.-'m m (4Q530ii.l5)

:(to grasp, seize) אחדqal pf. 7 ^ (Q531 9.5אחדת־ (4רם י אח (giant’s name):

(Q5314.1אחירם (4qal and a) אחר fel, to be late):

afel p f ל5אוחרת־ (4)7 Q531 10.3):(.hind; masc) איל

pl.cstr.-4) איליQ531 17.8):(.tree; masc) אילן

pl.emph.-Wl'r'X (4Q531 1.5):(there is) איתי

(Q203 13.3; 4Q530ii.24איתי (4:(to eat) אכל

qal impf. 7 ^ (Q531 17.11אכל־ (4qal infin.-4) מאכלQ531 5.6; 4Q532 2.10-

מא]כל):(not, with negative prohibition) אל

(Q530 i.6; 17.3אל (4:(behold) אלו

(Q5315.3אלו (4:(.these; masc) אלן

1) -Q23 27.1; 4Q5301.5; 4Q5314.4אלן ;אלין 4.5אלין־ )

:(.father; masc) אבsg.+lcs suff -6) אביQ8 1.4) sg.+3mp suff.-)m m (1Q23 20.2)

:(to perish) אבדqal pf. 3m s-l4) אבQ532 2.8) qal impf. 3mp-)Tיאבד

(4Q531 3.2?-(יבדון :(.destruction; masc) אבדן

sg.abs.-]7m (4Q531 13.2):(to wish) אבי

qal 2 ^ - 1) אבה[)[-?Q23 18.2תאבה ת אבל (to mourn):

qal infin.-4) מאבלQ531 12.3):(.letter; fern) אגלה

sg.emph.-xn^M (4Q203 8.3?-(אי]גרתא ן י אד (then):

-Q203 12.3אדין (4 ;אד]י[ן 13.2אד[ין-? ) with -1) ב ד די א ב Q23 1+6+22.5; 20.2-

Q203 7באדי]ן; 4 ^ 5 -B i.27באד]ין; 7-(Q5301i.3; ii.15ב[אדין; 4

:(giant’s name) אדכ.[7(Q203 3.3אדכ (4.[?

:(.destruction; masc) אובדןsg.em ph.-itti™ (4Q203 8.12-(אבד]נא

:(giant’s name) אוהיה4 ; אוהיה (1(323 29.1א[והיא- Q203 4.3; 7A.5; 4053011.1-או[היה; ii.15; 12.2; 4Q531 17.9; 6Q8 1.2- ;אוהיא 1.4אוהי[א- )

Glossary244

:(four) ארבעfem.abs.-V]21X (1Q23 13.1?)

:(behold) ארו;Q23 7.1; 4Q203 8.12ארו (14Q530 ii.18; 4Q531 17.10; 6Q8 1.6)

:(.length, duration; fem) ארכהsg.cstr.4) ארכת־Q530 iii.3)

:(.earth, fem) ארעsg.emph.1) ארעא־Q23 9+14+15.3; 19.1־

1 ; ;אר]עא 25.5לארע]א־ Q242.2- ;אר[עא־; Q203 4.4; 4.58.9אר]עא; 44Q530 ii.16; iii.8; 4Q531 1.2; 1.5־ ;א]רעא־Q532 2.5; 2.9א[רעא; 1.7; 42.11; 2.12; 4Q556 6.1; 6.3(ארע]א־

:(to pour) אשדqal p f (Q531 8.1אשד־^ן׳מ (34

:(to come) אתיqal p f 3ms-T\T)X (4Q530 ii.21) qal p f 5 (Q530 ii.5; 6Q8 2.2אתו־?/מ (4qal ptc. ms-T\T)X (4Q531 17.8)

\(.place; masc) אתרsg.emph.4) אתרא־Q530ii.22)

:(in, on, through) ב*as prep, with substantives

(1Q23 9+14+15.3 ;בארעא־ 17.2־ ;בידיהון 19.1;באר]עא־ 21.2בכל־ ;

4Q203 8.4 תכון־» ;בכ]ת[ב־ 8.9£בזנו א מדברי ^ ... ב א־ מי בארעא ; 8.13בי ;

4Q5301.3 ל־1.4;בחשבן־ 1.5־ כ ב ; ת־11.6בליליא־ ש כנ ב הן11.5; ר ט מ ב ; ;

;בכל־^11.10 ii.l 66/5 בליליא־ בחלמי ; 11.194 ; הי־ ם־111.4בידו ש בר ; Q ־5311.9

;באנשא 4.5;בחרבא־ 5.4;בדמה־ 8.5־ ;בדמותה 9.4;בחיל־ 17.3;בתקוף־ 17.3־

;בחסן 17.6;בקדשיא־ 25.1בדמה]־ ;Q532 2.2בדמא־; 29.24 ;[בבש]רא־ 2.9־

;בא]רעא 2.106/5בכל־ ;בארעא 6.2־ שמיא; 6 Q8 7.1ב ר. .]־בי )

+3fs suff.-7\4) בQ203 8.11; 4Q206 3i.2; 3 i.3)

+3mp su ff בהון־ (4(3203 4.1בהון־? [; 4Q530 14.1)

:(bad, evil) באישsg.masc.abs.-W')X2 (4Q203 8.14)

:(because) בדילל (4 (Q532 4.2בדי

:(to choose) בחרqal pf. 3m s^n2 (6Q8 26.3)

( ת בי) (house):sg.+lcp sujf-MWn (4Q530ii.24) s g . c s t r . 4 (Q530 6 i.3; 4Q531 17.1בית־ (

:(to learn) אלףqal pf. 3ms-v\x?X (4Q531 9.6)

:(.thousand; masc) אלףsg.abs.-rfrx (4Q530ii.l7; 4Q531 9.3) pl.abs.-X'ShX (1Q23 1+6+22.4;

4Q530 ii. 17; 4Q531 9.3):(to say; itp., to be said) אמר

qal pf. 3m s-1m (4Q203 4.3; 13.2;4Q530 ii.l; ii.5; ii.15; iii.6;;א[מר־; 17.9; 5312.125.4{)44Q532 5.26 ;א[מר־Q8 1.2)

qal pf. 3m pA1m (4Q530 ii.22) qal impv. ms-lftX (4Q530 ii.23;

4Q531 17.12) qal pass. pf. 3ms-^ftX (4Q530 ii.18) qal impf 36) יאמרון־?/?מQ8 8.1ימרון־) itp. ptc. 4) מתאמר־ע״Q53011.2)

:(I) אנה;Q203 1.4; 4Q530 ii.16; 6 i.2אנה (4

4Q531 2.1; 9.5; 13.4; 17.5; 17.10;4Q532 4.4)

they, masc.; emphasis o) אנון f preceding nominative):אנון .or fem־lQ23 2.1) אנון ;

4Q531 17.6; 17.7?(אנו[ן־.אנון־ (4 ^ ^ Q203 5.2אנו]ן־;

4Q530 ii.l) emphasis4) אנון־Q203 8.8)

:(we) אנחנהQאנחנה (4 53113.3 ;אנחנא־ 14.2אנחנא־ ;

אנחנה־)3.4 3556)4:(to oppress) אנס

qal pf. 3ms+lcs su ff י־ נ אנס(4Q53117.9(אנםנ]י־

.’(.face; fern־.nose; i/w) אנףdu.pl.+1 cs suff.-'SilX (4Q203 1.3;

4Q531 9.5) .'(.human being, humanity; masc) אנש

sg.abs.-WM (4Q531 9.6) sg.emph.4) אנשא־Q531 1.9)

:(.woman, wife; fem) אנתהpl.em ph.-w m (4Q203 8.8(נ[שיא־

:(.you, masc.pl) אנתוןQאנתון (4 53116.1)

:(.bond, chain, imprisonment; masc) אסורsg.abs.-^OX (4Q532 2.14)

:(bound, fettered) אסירsg.+2mp 5 1 # (Q203 8.14אסירכון־ (4

:(also) אף(Q530 ii.15; 6 i.7אף (4

:(.cunning; masc) ארבsg.emph.-X^X (4Q530ii.24)

245Glossary

4Q53011.13; ii.15; ii.20; 11.21; iii.3; 61.8; 10.2; 4Q5314.4)

:(.something great; fem) גברוsg.abs.4) גברו־Q53011.16(א־ גברו

ש :(giant’s name) גלגמיס־ מי ש (4)(53011.2גלג גלגמי ;

4Q ג[לגמיש־)53117.12:(full; complete) גמיר

p l.a b s .-v^ m גמיר°י]ן)-7.2 324)1) .'(.gardener; masc) גנן

pl.abs.-X'l'l'X (4Q530 ii.7; 111.11גנ[נין־; 17.2; 6Q8 5.1)

.'(.wing; masc. or fem) גףpl.emph.-WZM (4Q531 24.2?(].גפיא־

.'(.bone; fem) גרםpl.abs.-v4) גרמQ531 14.2)

:(.wheat; masc) דגןsg.ernph.-xm (4Q531 1.5)

:(to wash) דוח(h )afel impv. mp-WlTl (2Q26 1)

:(.generation; masc) דורpl.cstr. or with su f f .-Y /^ l (6Q8 30.2) חל ד (to be frightened):qal pf. 3mp-'hn1 (4Q530 ii.20)

;when ,כ־ rel.pron.; gen.; because; with) דיintrod. to final clause).

rel.pron.1) ;Q23 12.2; 9+14+15.5די־ 21.2; 1Q24 7.3; 2Q26 3; 4Q203 8.11;8.13bis; 4Q530ii.l; iii.ll; 61.2; 6i.3; 4Q531 1.4; 2.14 ;2.2 ;ד]י־Q531 13.3; 4Q532 1 (Q8 2.2די]־; 6?11.10

gen.-''1 (4Q203 8.3; 8 . 7 ? 7 ;ודי־ 8.8־]י- ;4Q531 17.8)

+final clause4) די־Q203 8.6ד]י־; 4Q530ii.23fc; 4Q531 4.4; 17.10; (or because־?27.2

;כ]די־?Q203 1.1; 4Q203 4.5כדי (44Q532 4.2; 4Q556 1 1.4?כדי־[) because (4Q203 9.3; 4Q530ii.22; 4Q531 5.5; 17.5 - or final-?ד; 27.2 clause)

:(belonging to) דילדיל]־)?Q8 21.1דיל (6

:(to judge) דיןitp. impf. 3m5־׳T 4) י יתד Q556 2.2)

:(.judgment, masc) דיןsg.abs.4) דין־Q53011.2ד[ין־; ii. 18) sg.cstr.4) דין־Q530ii. 18) sg.+lcs s u f f e r ! (4Q531 17.5)

:(pure) דכהpl.masc.emph.-W'Sl (4Q531 19.3)

:(between, among) בין(Q531 9.6; 4Q556 2.4בין (4

:(to weep) בכיqal 34) /?מ1בכו־ Q203 4.6)

:(to want) בעיqal ptc. m s-nm (בע]א־3530111.7)4) qal ptc. mp-^vn (4Q531 5.6)

:(.cattle; masc) בעירsg.emph.4) בעירא־Q531 1.6)

:(.lord, master, husband; masc) בעלpl.cstr.-'bvn (4Q531 17.5)

:(.field; masc) ברsg.emph.-X1) ברQ23 1+6+22.4;

4Q531 17.8 bis):(.son; masc) בר

sg.+lcs suff.-^n (4Q532 3.3?ברי]־) sg.+3ms suff.-71) (Q23 28.1ברז pl.cstr.1) (Q23 20.4; 4Q531 9.6בני־ pl.+2mp ^ ^ ;Q203 8.10בניכון־ (4

4Q53122.2) pl.+3mp suff.-]'17\',22 (4Q203 8.8־

בני]הון) :(to bless) ברך

p a ‘el pass. ptc. *71?4) מברך־Q203 9.3?־ מב[רר)

:(but) ברםQברם (4 53117.4)

:(.lightning bolt; masc) ברקpl.emph.-Wp1) ברQ24 1.7)

^ fallen Watcher’s) ברקאל 1 ו16ברקאל:) (1Q23 29.14 ;ב]רקאל־Q203 1.2;6Q8 1.4)

שר :(flesh) בsg.abs.4) בשר־Q531 14.2; 14.3שר־ ;ב[

17.4; 4Q532 1 i.10) sg.emph.-XW2 (4Q53011.19בסרא־:

4Q531 12.5; 4Q532 2.2?(בש]רא־

:(.strength; fem) גבורהsg.+lcs 51(//!4) גבורתי־Q ־53117.3

תי רו ב (גsg.+3ms ^ ^ ־Q531 9.3גבורתה־ (4

ה) גבו[רת :(to be strong) גבר

qal pf. 34) מ75גבר־ Q531 17.3?־see also subst. (ר ב ג

:(.main; giant; masc) גברsg.abs.^2* (4Q531 17.3?־see also vb.

ר ב (גpl.abs.-r1) ;Q23 9.3; 9+14+15.5גבר

4Q531 5.2) pi. abs./emph.1) ן/א־ י ר ] גב Q23 11.2) pi.emph.4) גבריא־Q203 7A.7;

ל“ if; with) הן , but, rather):;Q203 10.2; 4Q530ii.24; iii.l; iii.8הן (4

6Q8 1.6)]להן]־?Q8 17.1להן (6

“1 (and): passima} ודי fe lp f 3 ^ - ( הודי (4(353011.15הודה- :(.splendor; masc) זיו

sg.emph.-XV1 (4Q531 8.4) :(.period, time; masc. or fern) זמן

sg.cstr.-\n1 (4Q531 18.1) :(.prostitution, fornication; fern) זנו

sg.+2mp su ff-v v rv v (4Q203 8.9)to call; p) זעק a “el, cry out):

qal pf. 3ms+3ms suff-7\\?V1 (4Q530 iii.6)p a “el ptc. fp-]pV1ft (4Q530 6 i.4)

:(.seed; masc) זרעsg.abs.-vni (4Q531 23.3)

חבל (to corrupt):p a “elpf. 24) חבלתון־?/?מQ203 8.11) p a ‘elpf. 3mp-^2n (4Q532 2.9חנבלו־) p a “elptc. ^ (Q531 13.4מחבל־ (4

חבל (corruption; masc.): sg.abs.-^n (4Q532 2.9) sg.emph.-tf?2n (4Q203 8.11)

:(.companion; masc) חברpl.emph.-a^^n (4Q530 ii.3) pl.+3ms suff-'Tiinnn (4Q203 3.2־

4 ; ;חברוה 8.5ח]ברוהי-? Q530 ii.l; ii.5- הי; 4 (חב]רוהי־?Q531 8.2ח]ברו

pl.+3mp 1# ך־ (4 הו רי חב Q203 7A.7- חב]ריהון)

כ~ one; with) חד , together):fem.abs. חדה with ~4) כQ530 6 i.5-

כחדא) :(to rejoice) חדי

qal pf. 3mp-)1n (4Q5301i.3) qal impf. 374) מ7יחדון־/ Q530 6 i.6)

:(giant’s name) חובבש(Q203 3.3חובבש (4

,pa“el and afel, to inform, report) חויmake known):

p a ‘‘elpf. 3ms-VT\ (4Q531 4.4חו]י[א־) p a “el impf. 3ms-1VT\4) יQ530ii.23-

(יחו]הp a “el infin.-avn (4Q530 ii. 13) afe l pf. 3ms-VTia (4Q530ii.l) itpa. pf. 3mf-T\VT\T\X (4Q206 2.27-

אתח[וית):(.vision; fern) חזו

sg.abs.-7\MT\ (4Q531 17.10חז[וה־)

Glossary

:(.male; masc) דכרsg.abs.-4) דכרQ531 1.9)

:(to burn) דלקqal ptc. ms-p'y! (4Q530 ii. 10)

:(.blood; masc) דםsg.abs.-Ul (4Q206 3 i.2) sgemph.-Xftl (4Q531 29.2) sg.+3ms suff-nni (4Q531 5.4; 25.1?-

(or 3mp suff כדמה[sg.+3mp suff-Ynftl (4Q531 25.1?-

(.or 3ms suff כדמה]ון:(.likeness, image; fern) דמו

sg.+3ms suff-TlTVZil (4Q531 8.5)(to be like) דמי

qal infin.-$4) נזרפQ531 28.1):(to sleep) דמך

qal impf. 7^ -Q531 17.11אדמוך (4-(א[דמוך

qal impf. 3 ^ - (Q531 22.1ידמוך (4qal ptc. ms-~\ftl (4Q530 6 i.6)

:(.this; masc) דן^-Q23 8.2?; 4Q530ii.6; ii.14דן (1 ;

ii .l6; 4Q531 17.9; 25.2; 6Q8 2.3; 29.1)

:(.this; masc) דנהQדנה (4 5 3 0 ii.l^ n ; 4Q531 3.3)רע ד (arm; fern.):sg.+lcp suff-'Vni (4Q531 17.3)

:(interrogative particle) ה~with 4) לאQ531 4.5)

:(behold) האQ53011.16-4הא (4 הא)-Q206 2.3ה[א;

:(.splendor; masc) הדרsg.cstr.-n!7\ (4Q203 9.2)

:(giant’s name) ההיהAה]היה; Q203 4.3-7ההיה (4 .5 ^ ] ^ cf.

4Q530 ii.4—15):(to be) הוה

qalpf. lcs-T\V7\ (1Q23 3.2; 4Q530 ii.6;ii.9; 6Q8 2.2)

qal pf. 3ms-7\4) הוQ203 13.4;4Q556 6.2; 4Q206 3 i.2; 6Q8 1.4)

qal pf. 3fs-TV7\ (4Q203 8.9) qal pf. 3mp-V7\ (4Q530 11.7הוא־; ii.l 8-

;Q532 2.4; 2.6; 4Q556 6.2הוא; 44Q206 3 i.3)

qal impf. Ics-7\V1X (4Q530 6 i.6) qal impf. 3ms-1Vr\h (4Q203 8.6) qalpf/impf. 3ms-^7\[ (4Q203 6.2) qal juss. 3/?24) להוון-קQ532 1 ii .ll)

:(to go) הרimpf. lcs-l^X (4Q530 6 i.3)

246

247Glossary

:(.ruin, destruction; masc) חרבןsg.abs.-4) חרבןQ531 13.2; 4Q5321.9-

ח[רבן) :(.to burn; afel, trans) חרר

a fe lp f 3m p -^ m (4Q531 1.7) to count, reckon; itp., to be) חשב

reckoned): itp. juss. 3/4) יתחשבו־?/מQ530 i.4)

:(.reckoning; masc) חשבןsg.abs.-]2wn (4Q5301.4)

:(.mountain; masc) טורsg.abs./ e r a / ? / * . 4 ־Q531 39.2טור)א(־ (

(טור])א):(.dew; masc) טל

sg.emph.1) ;ולטל]א־Q24 5.4טלא־ 4Q203 11 ii.2)

to be unclean; itpa., to be made) טמיunclean)

itpa. pf. 3m p-vnm (4Q531 5.1)

:(afel, bring} יבל(h )afelpf. 4) ה י ל ב ו ח Q530 iii.8)

:(.hand; fem) ידsg.cstr.-V (4Q203 8.4; 4Q531 5.4) pl.+ lcp suff-'V (4Q530 6 i.2) pl.+3ms suff.4) ידוהי־Q530 iii.4) pl.+3mp s u f f - y w (1Q23 17.2)

:(to know) ידעqal pf. 3ms-VV (4Q532 1 i.13) qalpf. 3mp-'WV (1Q23 9+14+15.2) qal impf lcp-Vl'l'l (4Q530111.10נ[נדע־) qal ptc. m s-W (4Q203 9.3יד]ע־;

4Q531 2.1; 17.10) qal ptc. pass. m s-y'V (4Q203 8.6)הב י (to give):qal pf. 2^^4) יהבתה־Q531 3.3) q a lp f 3ms-2W (4Q532 1 i . l l)

:(.day; masc) יוםsg.abs.-UV (1Q24 7.1) pl.abs.-ynv (4Q531 18.1) pl.emph.-\H')ftV (4Q5301.5) pl.cstr.-'ftV (4Q530111.9(יומ]י־

:(to erect) יחטqal pass. pf. 34) יחיטו־?/?מQ530 ii. 17)

:(to bear; afel, to beget) ילדqal p f 3 fs -r \lf (4Q531 43.2?ילד]ת־, or

subst.; 6Q8 1.6) qal pf. 3m p-M f (4Q203 7B i.2) a fel pf. 5^/4) אולדו־לQ531 5.3)

:(.child; masc) ילדsg.abs./masc.-{x)lf (4Q531 43.2?־

\(לד])א or vb.)

:(to see; afel, to show) חזיqal p f lcs-N tn (4Q530 ii. 16) qal pf. 3ms+3ms suff-^7\\T\ (4Q530 iii.6-

)ח[זה]יqal ptc. ms-mr\ (4Q530 ii.6) qal infin.-wm (4Q531 17.10; 26.3) afel pf. 3ms+2ms ^«/^אחזיכה־

(6Q8 1.3(אחזיך־:(to sin) חטי

qal ptc. mp-yun (4Q531 12.1; 13.3־ חט°י]ן; 15.3; 34.2)

:(living) חיsg.emph.-Wn (4Q530 ii. 19)

:(.beast, animal; fem) חיהsgabs.-wn (1Q23 1+6+22.4) pl.cstr.4) חיות־Q531 17.8)

:(.army, power; masc) חילsg.abs.-fr\ (4Q531 9.4) sg.cstr.4) חיל־Q531 17.3)

:(.inhabited world; masc) חלדsg.abs.4) חלד־Q530111.5(ח]ו[לד־

:(to dream) חלםqal pf. 3mp-Mf?T\ (4Q530 ii.3)

:(.dream; masc) חלםsg.emph.4) חלמא־Q530 ii. 12; ii. 14; 11.20) sg.+lcs s u f f - ^ n (4Q530 ii.6;ii.l6;

4Q531 17.9) sg. + 2ms su ff 4) חלמכה־Q531 17.12) pi. abs.4) ין־ חלם Q530 ii.3) pl.emph.-WTfrn (4Q530 ii.23) pl.+3mp suff.-]'\7]'>74) \זלנQ530ii.5)

:(to cross over) חלףqal pf. 3 m s ^ n (4Q530 iii.5)

:(.to divide; itp) חלק(h)itp. pf. 3m s-pbnm (4Q530 14.2)

:(to inflict violence on) חמסqal pf. 3ms-Q'ftT\ (4Q203 5.2)

:(.violence; masc) חמסsg.abs.4) חמס־Q531 14.1)

:(.donkey, ass; masc) חמרpl.abs.-y^fch (1Q23 1+6+22.2) pl.emph.-W^ftn (1Q241.4)

:(five) חמשח[משה־)Q531 6.3חמשה־.:<^?מ (4

:(Enoch) חנוךן (4 חנו Q203 8.4; 4Q53011.14חנו[ך־;

1 1 .2 1; iii.6; 4Q531 45.2; 4Q206 2.2) :(.force; masc) חסן

sg.cstr.-]0n (4Q531 17.3) :(lacking, insufficient) חסיר

sg.masc.abs.-n'On (4Q532 3.2) :(.sword; masc. or fem) חרב

sg.emph.-X^ft (4Q5314.5)

Glossary248

6Q8 1.3-כלא)+3ms suff.-T6) כלןQ8 2.3)

(therefore ,ל־ thus, so; with) כןwith 4) ל־Q532 1 i.7)

:(.assembly; fem) כנשהsg.cstr.-num (4Q530 ii.5;11.216 ;כנ[שת־

i.8):(.throne; masc) כרסה

sg.+3ms suff.-4) כרנזיךךQ531 6.2) pl.abs.-^O ^ (4Q530 ii. 17)

:(to write) כתבqal pass, p f 3ms-^T\'D (4Q530 ii. 19)

:(.book, document; masc) כתבsg .c s tr .- ttl (4Q203 8.4)כ]ת[ב־) sg.+3ms suff.-7\4) כ\זבQ556 2.4)

:(.shoulder; fem) כתפהpl.+3ms suff.-7\4 (Q5318.1כ\ז^\ז (

to; for; at; sign o) ל־ f accusative; with in- finitive)1:+acc. (1Q23 9+14+15.4)לשגי]אין־;

1Q241.36W? .]־ולנה ... [יא ו[ל] ;1.4^ י5ול]־ ;להמריא 1.5;לכול־ 1.7־

;ולברקיא 1<224 3.3;לכול־ 5.3לכול־ ; 5.46^ ולטל]א־ ;למטרא 6.1לכול־ ; 4Q203 7A.6 ;ל]ה־ 7811.2לתרי־ ; 4053011.2 ;לרוזניא־ 11.19לכל־ ; iii.5- 4 ; שכני־ ;לשהוין 61.7ל Q5314.1-ירם־

^ ל־] א מי ע ל ;לאח 4.2.]־;ולפ. 4.3ו ול.].אל ;לנעמאל 18.1;לזמן־ 35.1־? ]

;לעו]ל 47.2.]־?ל )+infin. (1Q23 17.32 ; שרי ל]־ ו Q26-

;לק]טלה־Q203 3.4לממ]חק; 44Q531 5.64 ;למאכל־Q531 12.3־

ל17.5;לאשתררה־ 17.10למחזא־ ב א מ ל ; ; 18.14 ; ;למחה־ 26.3למחזא־ Q532 1 ii.5-

;למק]ם 2.10למא]כל־ )as prep, with substantives/adjectives

(1Q23 25.5 ;לארע]א־ 1}(24 7.1לקץ־ ; 4Q203 4 . 3 7 ;לההי]ל־A.5לה]היה־; 7A .6^ [t]& ^; 8 .5 ^ ולכול־4 ; ;לשמיחזה 8.14לבאיש־ Q 530ii.l4־

א־11.21ל]כנ[שת־ ע אר ר11.16;ל פ ס ל ; ;61.24 ; שת־ ;לצער־ 61.8לכנ Q531 5.5?־

ל; 39.2לטול]־; 45.2לחנוך־? ו [;4Q206 2.26 ;לחנוך־Q8 1.2למהוי־;18.1 ;[לירד־ 26.2לרוחה־ )

+1 CS suff 4) לי־Q531 12.2)+lcp suff-Kfr (4Q203 6.2; 7A.6;

4Q530 ii.2; ii.14; 4Q531 14.4)+2ms suff,4) לכה־Q203 7B ii.l; 13.3;

4Q530 ii.22; 11.23לכה־ iii.7;4Q531 4.4; 25.3?לכ]ה־)

:(.sea; masc) יםpl.emph.4) ימיא־Q203 8.13)

:(.right side; fem) ימיןsg.emph.4) ימינא־Q531 17.1)

:(afel, to add; itaf., to be added)) יסףitaf. impf. 3^/?4) יתוספון־Q530iii.9-

יתום]פון°):(glorious, weighty) יקיר

pl.m asc.abs.-y^p' (4Q531 8.3) to be heavy; afel, to make heavy, to) יקר

honor):(h )afel pf. 5 > -Q530 6 i.7הוקרת (4

ה[וקרת) :(.glory; masc) יקר

sg.+2ms suff.-Ti^p'' (4Q203 9.2?־ יק[רכה)

:(Jared) ירד(Q8 18.1ירד (6

,to sit, dwell; afel, to cause to sit) יתבdwell)

qal pf. 34) ^מ7יתב־ Q530 ii.l 7ית]ב־;4Q531 9.6)

qal ptc. ^/?4) יתבין־Q531 17.6) afel impf. 3ms+3ms suff-'T\2nv

(4Q530 i.l)

:(as, like, according to) כ~with substantives (4Q530111.46 ן5כנש]ר־

לין; 4 .כעלעו . . Q5314.6 ;)כנהרין־ 7.3־ ;כערימות]ה 17.8;כדן־ 25.2כדן־ ;

6Q8 6.1כמסת־)+infin. (4Q531 28.2(כמדמא־

:(here) כאQכא (4 530ii.l2; ii.20)

:(.lie; masc) בדבp l .a b s .-V tt (4Q556 6.2)

די see under :כדי:(all, every) כל

defective-bl (1Q23 1+6+22.4;;כ]ל־; 20.4; 9+14+15.521.24Q530 i.3 ־?ii.l; ii.lOfe; ii.18 ;כ[ל־1.5;ii ;כ[ל .l9; ii.20; iii.8; 6 i.3;4Q5322.12; 4Q5566.1; 4Q206 2.1; 3 (Q8 5.1; 15.1כ[ל־; 1.36

plene-bM (1Q24 1.5; 3.3; 5.3; 6.1; 2Q264; 4Q203 7A.7; 8.5; 9.1; 9.3; 9.4; 4Q531 1.4; 1.5bis; 1.7; 1.7כו[ל־; ;כו[ל־; 2.2; 4.4; 4.5; 7.1; 9.4; 1.812.3 ;כ[ול־; 18.2; 18.4; 20.3; 17.421.2 ;17.121.3; 23.2; 4Q532 1 11.3?כו]ל־; 4Q5566.3)

emph.1) ;כלא־Q24 7.2; 4Q53011.23כולא־

249Glossary

sg.cstr.-T\V2 (4Q530 ii.l):(.death; masc) מות :(to smite; itp., to be blotted out) מחי

qal pf. 3mp+3ms suff-7\1T\'n (4Q531 5.8) qal infin.-nmto (4Q531 18.1מחה־) itp. impf. 7<:/?4) נתמחה־Q531 14.3)

:(to arrive, reach) מטיqal pf. 3m s-nm (4Q203 8.12)

:(.rain; masc) מטרsg.emph.-xnm (1Q24 5.4;

4Q203 11 11.2(מט]רא־ :(.waters; masc) מין

abs.-yn (1Q23 24.3) em ph.-W (1Q244.1; 2Q26 2; 3;

4Q530 i.2; ii.10):(.word; fern) מלה

p l.+ lcs suff-^ft (4Q532 4.2מלי]־) pl.+2ms su ff-r i^ ft (4Q530111.8מ[ליך־) pl.cstr.-^K (4Q531 22.1)

:(.king; masc) מלךsg. abs./cstr.4) מלך־Q5319.4) pl.cstr,4) מלכי־Q53211.5(מ]ל[כי־

:(.kingdom; rule; fern) מלכותsg.cstr.-'nivb'n (4Q203 9.6)

:(pa "el, to speak) מללpa ‘elptc. pass. ?4) ממללין־?/מQ556 6.2?־

מ]מללין) :(from; comparative, than) מן

1) ;Q23 1+6+22.46W; 23.1; 2Q26 2; 3מן 4Q203 4.4;9.2; 13.1; 4Q530 ii.8; ii.9; iii.9; iii.l 1; 4Q531 8.4; 14.3; 18.2;מ; 46.3-4 Q532 2.7; 5.3; 4Q556 2.2)

+lcs suff.-'M (4Q531 17.7)+2ms s u f f (4Q530 iii.10)+3ms suff.-nin (1Q23 3.1)+3mp suff-YTttft (4Q530 nAbis;

4Q531 9.6):(?who) מן

(Q8 1.3מן (6מנבוע (source; masc.):

sg.ernph.-xvmm (4Q531 21.1(מבועא־ע נד מ (knowledge; masc.):

sg.abs.-Vllft (4Q532 5.4) sg.abs./emph.-(x)V12fc (4Q532 3.2־

(מנדע])א) to count, number; itp., to be) מני

numbered):itp. juss. 3?4) יתמנו־ג/מQ530 i.3)

:(.fal\;fem) מנפלהsg.cstr.4) מנפלת־Q531 22.2(מפלת־

:(.enough; poss. fern) מסתsg.abs.-mn כמסת־)6.1 28)6)

:(.place; masc) מקםsg.abs.-Upft (4Q531 13.1)

+3ms suff-Td (4Q203 13.2; 4Q530 ii.l;ii. 13; nAlbis', ii.22; ii.23; iii.6; 61.3; 4Q531 2.1; 3.3; 17.9; 4Q532 2.10; 6Q8 1.6ל[ה־)

+2mp suff-1) ;Q24 8.2; 4Q203 8.6לכרך 4Q531 24.1)

+3mp su ff-vrh (2Q26 4להן־;4Q530 13?; 4Q531 5.5; 48.1; 6Q8 6.1)

ל not; with) לא כ , nothing):1) ־?Q23 24.1לא א; 29.2; 1 ;Q24 8.2; 4Q203 7B ii.3]ל4Q530 ii.l 1?4 ;לא]־Q531 5.5; 9.4; 9.6; ;לא]־35.2 ;17.6 ;17.1 ;14.24Q532 2.13; 6Q8 1.3; 1.5; 4.4)

with 4) כלQ203 9.4) with 4) ה־Q531 4.5)

:(.clothing; masc) לבושsg.+3ms s u f f - n ^ ^ (4Q531 7.2?־

שה) ]לבולובר (name of mountain):

(Q8 26.1לובר (6:(.tablet; masc) לוח

sgemph.-xnY? (1Q23 31.3; 2Q26 1;2Q26 23 ;(לו[חא־bis; 4Q203 8.3)

sg./pl.abs./emph.-X^/ 1) (Q23 16.1לוח]א pl.emph.4) לוחיא־Q203 7B ii.2)

:(to curse) לוטqal pf. 3ms-vf> (4Q530 ii.2)

:(.curse; masc) לוטsg.abs.-uil (4Q530 6 i.2)

:(.bread, food; masc) לחםsg.abs.-urh (4Q530 61.6)

:(.night; masc) לילהsg.emph.-X^fb (4Q530 ii.6; ii. 16)

sg.abs.-TlXfi (1Q23:(.hundred; fem) מאה9+14+15.5)

du.pl.1) יין־ מאת Q23 1+6+22.2bis,3bis) pl.abs.-yx'n (4Q530ii.l7)

:(.word; masc) מאמרsg.emph.-xnmn (4Q ממרא־)5311.8

:(.wilderness, desert region; masc) מדברsg.emph.-Xnnift (4Q530 iii.5) pl.emph.-wnnift (4Q203 8.13)

די what?; with) מה , whatever):(Q203 3.4; 4Q531 4.4מה (4די מה (6 Q8 1.5)וי ה מ (giant’s name):1) ;מהו]י־Q23 27.2; 4Q203 2.4מהוי

4Q530 ii.20; iii.6; iii.7; 6Q8 1.2; 1.5) :(to die) מוח

qal pf. 3ms-W12 (4Q532 2.8) qal impf lcs-TWZX (4Q531 18.3) qal impf. lcp-TW^I (4Q530 61.5)

Glossary250

:(to end) סוףqal impf 34) מ25יםוף־ Q532 2.8?( [וף־0י

:(.end; masc) סוףsg .cstr.^ 0 (4Q53011.12; ii.20)

:(around) סחור סח°ו]ר)-Q531 36.2סחור (4

:(to go around) סחרqal pf. 34) סחר-?!מQ531 28.2?(סחר]־

:(to go up; ascend) סלקqal pf. 7 « (Q531 47.2סלקת־ (4qal pf. 22) -׳מ2/7םלקו Q26 2)

:(.book, document; masc) ספרsg.abs./emph.-^O (4Q203 8.1?ספ]ר־) pI.abs.-( מפריך (4(353011.18ספר[ין־

:(.scribe; masc) ספרsg.cstr.-^O (4Q203 8.4; 4Q530 ii. 14;ס]פר־)2.2 3206)4

יק סר (empty):sg.fem.abs.6) סריקה־Q8 1.6?(סרי]קה־

:(to do, make) עבדqalpf. Ics-m n v (4Q531 17.4) qal pf. 2ms-T\nmv (4Q531 12.2־

;עבדת]ה 21.3; 32.2ע[בדתה־ )qal pf. 3ms-12V (4Q203 7A.6;

4Q532 1 i.9) qalpf. 3fs-n12V (4Q531 1.2)

:(to imprison) עגןqal pf. 3ms+lcp su ff-X m v

(4Q203 7B i.4):(unto; with id, until) עד

1) ;Q203 7B ii.3עד]־; Q23 27.4?4עד 8.12; 12.1; 4Q530 ii.9; ii.12; ii.20; 16.1?; 4Q531 2.1; 46.4; 4Q532 2.11; 6Q8 2.2; 27.1)

:(.time; masc) עדןpl.emph.-w4) עדנQ עדני]א־)53112.3

:(.work, deed; masc) עובדsg.abs.-l^V (4Q531 1.8) sg.cstr.4) עובד־Q203 8.10) sg.+2mp su ff.-]m 2W (4Q203 8.7)

™:(yet, still) עוד (4Q203 1.3; 4Q530 iii.2) :(.evil; masc) עול

sg.abs.4) עול־Q531 35.1?(לעו]ל־:(fallen Watcher’s name) עזאזל

b־Q203 7A.6עזאזל (4 [t]™ ):(.eye; fem., masc) עין

pl.+3mp suff.-\\4) ר1נ)י י Q530 ii.4&z'.s) pl.cstr.-'VV (4Q531 17.10)

:(.watcher; masc) עירpi. abs.-y 4) ניירQ203 7B i.3; 4Q532 2.7) pl.em ph.-X ^y (4Q203 7 A .7 ^ [n ^ )

:(.lord; masc) מרא+ lcs suff.-^K (4Q203 10.1; 4Q532 5.2)

:(to draw, drag) משךqal impf. 2mp-y'2W12T\ (6Q8 4.3)

:(.river; masc) נהרsg.emph.?1) (Q23 13.2נהר]א־ pl.abs.-y4) נהרQ531 1.6)

:(to flee) נודqal pf. 3fs-T)l4) נQ530 ii.4)

:(to rest; afel pass., to be laid to rest) נוחafel pass. ptc. ms-nm (4Q53011.23)

:(.fish; masc) נוןpl.emph.-WîM (4Q531 1.3)

:(.fire; masc) נורsg.emph.4) נורא־Q530Ü.10)

:(to descend) נחתqal pf. 34) ^מ1נחת־ Q530 ii.16) qal pf. 3mp^T\n1 (4Q530 iii.l 1(נ]חתו־

:(to lift) נטלqal pf. 3 ^ (Q26 3נטלו־ (2

:(to keep) נטרqal infin.+3mp suff-4) מצמרQ5301.5-

מטרהן):(fallen Watcher’s name) נעמאל

(Q531 f.3נעמאל (4:(nephil, giant) נפיל

p l .a b s .- y ^ l (4Q531 5.2; 46.3נפ[ילין־; (נקיל]יו־?2.3 2532)4

pl.emph.4) נפיליא־Q530Ü.6; 4Q531 5.8) pl.cstr.4) נפילי־Q530iii.8)

:(to fall) נפלqalpf. 7 « נ]פ[לת־)Q531 9.5נפלת־ (4

:(to come out, emerge) נפקqal pf. 34) ^מ7נפק־ Q532 1 i.8) qal pf. 3mp-'\pù2 (4Q530Ü.8;4Q531 46.3)

:(.life; soul; self; fem) נפש+3ms su ff-T l^ l (4Q530 ii.2)+lcp ^ ^ (Q530 ii. 1נפשנא־ (4

:(.female; fem) נקבהsg .abs.-ttp l (4Q531 1.9)

:(to blow) נשבqal pf. 3m s-2m (4Q531 23.3)

:(to lift up, carry) נשיhitp. impf. 34) יתנשון־?;?מQ203 7A.7)

:(to give) נתןqal impf. 3 ^ ־?Q531 19.2ינתן־ (4

ת]ן/נ (..ינqal impf. 2mp+lcs suff^HMnn

(4Q203 3.4) qal impf. lcs-]T)2 (4Q530 6 i.5) qal juss. 7< (Q530Ü.14נתן־ (4

251Glossary

:(.wisdom, reason; fem) ערימוsg.+3ms suff 4) ערימותה־Q531 7.3?־

ערימות]ה) :(qal and tip., to plan) עשת

qal ptc. 4) ןמ7עשיתין־/ Q532 2.6) itp. ptc. rn s -n m m (4Q206 31.1)

to be afraid; p) פחד a “el, to fear): p a ‘‘el impf. 7 ^ (Q530Ü.2אפחד־ (4

:(.escape; fem) פלטהsg.emph.4) פלטה־Q530 6 פלטא־)1.3

ם פ (mouth; masc.):sg.abs.-4) פםQ530Ü.24)

:(to cut) פסלqal pf/impf. 3ms3?02,'/m\ (6Q8 9.2)

:(.garden; masc) פרדסsg.emph.-XOllÜ (6Q8 2.3)

:(to fly) פרחqal pf. 34) פרח־«מQ530 iii.4)

:(to be fruitful) פריqal ptc. 4) פרא־«מQ531 1.4)

ר distinction; with) פרש פ ס , interpréta- tion):sg.emph.4) פרשא־Q203 8.4;

4Q530Ü.14; 11.22(פרש[א־:(.copy; masc) פרשגן

^ . ^ . (Q203 8.3פרשגן־ (4:(to interpret) פשר

qal impf. Sms-lWS'9 (4Q530 ii. 14) :(.interpretation; masc) פשר

sg.abs. פשר־ (4(353011.23פ]ש[ר־ ) sg.cstr.4) פשר־Q203 8.13) sg.+3mp ^ ^ -Q530iii.l0פשרהון־ (4פשרה]ו[ו)

:(to open) פתחqal pf. 3ms-T\T\% (6Q8 14.1?פת]ח־) qal pass. pf. 34) !/מ1פתיחו־ל Q530 ii. 18)

:(.thing, matter, affair; fem) צבוsg.abs.-4) צביQ203 9.4) sgemph.-xn^X (4Q203 8.13(צבות]א־

:(to wish) צביqal impf. 27^4) תצבא־Q203 10.3)

:(.form; masc) צורהsg.+lcp suff 4) צורתנא־Q531 14.3)

:(to pray) צליp a “el pf. 3mp-^X (4Q556 2.2) p a “el impv. ^ (Q203 8.15צלו־ק (4/

:(.affliction; masc) צערsg.abs.4) צער־Q530 61.2)

:(upon, concerning, to, against) על1) ;Q23 1+6+22.5; 1Q24 2.2על

4Q203 8.10;4 ;ע[ל־Q530 ii.l; ii.2; ii.5;ii. 19; ii.21;6i.4; 4Q531 4.6; 5.4; 9.4;9.5; 17.10; 32.2; 4Q532 3.4;4Q556 6.3)

+suff.- (עלי]־Q531 31.2צל (4+2ms suff.4) עליכה־Q531 2.2; 4.7) +2mp suff 4) עליכון־Q203 8.9ע[ליכ]ון־;

8.10; 8.14)+3ms 64) ן־# הי- (Q530ii.3Z>wעלו+3mp ^^/: עליהון־ (1(324 7.3ע[ליהון־ ;

4Q203 2.2)לא ע (above, over -with :(מןמן עלא (2 Q26 2)

:(above) עלוימן עלוי (4 Q203 4.4)

:(to enter) עללqalpf. 7 ^ (Q531 47.2עלת־ (4qal pf. 3 m s ^ (4Q530 i.8) qalpf. 3mp-^V (1Q23 17.1?)

:(.eternity; masc) עלםsg.abs.-4) צלםQ531 12.2; 4Q532 1 i.12) pl.abs.1) (Q23 20.3; 4Q531 17.4עלמין־

:(.wind storm; masc) עלעולpi.abs.-]'4) ל ^ ל צ Q530 iii.4)

:(together with) עם(Q530 i.2; 4Q531 1.4עם (4+lcs suff.-'!}6) צQ8 1.4)+lcp su f f -x iw (4Q531 17.5עמן־)+3mp suff.4) עמהון־Q531 17.4)

:(fallen Watcher’s name) עמיאל(Q531 4.3עמיאל (4

ן ע (sheep; fem.):sg.abs.-*[1) (Q23 1+6+22.3צ sg.emph.-XN (4Q531 1.6(ע[נא־

:(fallen Watcher’s name) ענאל(Q531 4.2ענאל (4

:(imQ\ fem.; with-'D, now\) ענה;Q203 7B ii.3; 8.14; 9.5; 10.1כען (4

4Q531 25.3; 29.2; 4Q532 2.13;4Q556 3.2)

:(.grapevine; masc) ?ע]נבsg.abs.?1) (Q23 1+6+22.4ע]נב־

:(to answer) עניqal pf. 3ms-T\N (4Q203 2.4=3.1?ענ[ה־;

(ענ[ה־Q8 1.2ע[נה־; 353011.156)4qal pf. 3mp-lN (4Q203 7B i.2)

:(.root, rootage; masc) עקרsg.abs./emph./+ suff -]4) עקרQ556 1 ii.3) sg.+3fp suff 4) עקרהין־Q530ii.8)

:(donkey, ass) ערד/? / .^ .1) (Q23 1+6+22.2ערדי]ן־

Glossary252

:(to approach) קרבqal impf. Is (4Q203 1.1 ? ]ב־,אקר ) qal impf. 2/3s/p (1Q23 4.2(].קרב]־

(.battle, war; masc) קרבsg.abs.-4) קרבQ531 17.4)

:(to read, call) קריqal p f 3mp-*\np (4Q530 ii.21)qal pass. pf. 3ms-X'np (4Q203 7B ii.3-

)קרי]אqal ptc. mp-ynp (4Q531 17.8)

:(great) רבsg.masc.abs.-2n (4Q532 2.9) sg.masc.emph.-xnn (4Q530 ii.2; ii. 17;

iii.5; 4Q532 2.13?4 ;]רבא־Q206 2.3) pl.masc.abs.-]')2n2n (4Q530 ii.8;

4Q531 4.6; 4Q532 4.3) pl.masc.emph.-X'2n2n (4Q531 1.3־

רבר]בי[א) :(.greatness; fem) רבו

+2ms suff 4) רבותכה־Q203 9.6):(to be great) רבי

qal p f 3ms-n2n (1Q23 9+14+15.3רב]ה־ 6Q8 3.1)

:(to be angry) רגזqal impf. 3mp-ynn'' (4Q531 31.1)

:(.prince; masc) רוזןpl.emph.-X'i'lvn (4Q530 ii.2)

:(.wind, spirit, direction; fem) רוחsg.+3m/fs.-T\n1n (6Q8 26.2)

:(.height; masc) רוםsg.cstr.-cni (4Q531 13.1)

:(.secret, mystery; masc) רזpl.emph.-XVn (4Q203 9.3)

:(.height; fem) רמוsg.emph.-xn'itn (4Q530ii.22)

:(the angel Raphael) רפאל(Q203 8.12רפאל (4

:(to shake) רעלqal ptc. mp-y^vn (4Q203 9.2(ר[עלין־

ע רע (to shatter):qal infin.4) מרע־Q531 37.1 ?(]מרע־

ע י רש (wicked, evil):masc.pl. 4) יא־ ע י רש Q531 18.2)

:(to write, seal) רשםqal pass. pf. 3ms-U^n (4Q530 ii. 19)

:(.inscription; masc) רשםsg.abs.-nwn (4Q530 ii. 19)

:(pa "el, to tremble) רתתpa"elptc. ms-nnnft (6Q8 1.3)

:(seven) שבעmasc.cstr.-T\V2W (4Q5301.5?שב[עת־)

קבל (to complain):qal ptc. /?4) קבלה־Q203 8.10) qal ptc. / (Q530 6 i.4קבלן־ק (4

:(hard, difficult) קדהsg.abs.4) קשה־Q531 1.8)

:(holy) קדישsg.masc.abs.4) ד'יש־ ק Q531 13.1; 48.2) sg.masc.emph.-XW'lp (4Q203 8.5;

4Q530 ii.l 7) pl.masc.+2ms-71V''W',lp (4Q531 14.4)

to be holy; pa"el and afel, to make) קדשholy)pa"el pf. 24) הקדשתה־^ןמQ531 12.1)

:(.holy place; masc) קדשpl.emph.-X'Unp (4Q531 17.6)

:(before) קודם;קו]דם־; Q203 4.69.2קודם (4

4Q53011.154 ;קדם־Q531 8.2)+2ms ^ /? ־Q203 9.5קודמיכה־ (4

(ק[ודמיכה+3ms ^ / / -Q530ii.l8קודמוהי־ (4

(קודמוה]י־Q531 6.3ק[דמוהי; 43mp ^ / / -Q556 2.2קודמיהון־ (4

קודמיהן) :(to arise) קום

qal pf. 3ms-Up (1Q23 11.1) qal pf. 3mp-M2p (4Q53011.4ק]מו־; ii.4-

(קמ]וqal ptc. ms-UXp (4Q203 1.4) qal ptc. mp-yftXp (4Q530 ii. 18;

4}(532 2.4)קאמ]ין־qal infin.-npn (4Q532 ii.5?)

qal and pa"el, to kill; itp., to be) קטלkilled):qal pf. 2ms-nrhup (4Q531 4.4?־

(קטל]תהqal pf. 3mp-Y?Up (1Q23 9+14+15.4) qal pass. pf. 3mp-'\Yvp (4Q203 5.3־

(קטילוqal pass. ptc. m p -y fv p (4Q530 6 i.4) pa"el infin.-ThVp (4Q203 3.4?לק]טלה־) itp. impf. / ^ (Q531 18.3אתקטל־ (4

:(.murderer; masc) קטלpl.'+Smp su ff-yw h vp (4Q530 6 i.4)

:(.voice; masc) קלsg.+3ms suff-Tlbp (4Q53011.23;4Q531 9.5)

(.endtime; masc) קץsg.cstr.-fp (1Q247.1)

:(.anger; masc) קצףsg.abs.-^p (4Q530 6 (ק[צף־1.6

253Glossary

qal ptc. mp emph.-X'W (4Q531 28.3?, or ms emph.)

:(itpa., to recount, tell} שעיitpa. infin.6) אשתעיה־Q8 1.5(א[שתעיה־

(to pour out; itp., to be poured out) שפךqal pass. pf. 3ms-y*>W (4Q206 3 i.2) itp. ptc. 4) משתפך־^מQ556 6.2)

:(to be enough, sufficient) שפקqal pf. 3ms-pSW (4Q531 5.5;

4Q532 2.10) :(to drink; afel, to water) שקי

afel ptc. mp-ypWK (4Q530 ii.7):(pa“el, to deceive} שקר

p a “el /«//«.( שקרה־ (4(3556 6.1ש[קרה]־? :(to loosen, dwell) שרי

qal ptc. m p-yiW (4Q531 17.6) qal impv. ^ שרוא־)Q203 8.14שרו־ל (4/

:(qal and itp., to begin} שריp a “el 3m s-^V (1Q23 17.3; 30.1) itp. impf. 7<:/>4) נשתרא־Q531 27.2) itp. impf. 34) מ15ישתרא־ Q532 3.3)

:(.creeping thing; masc) שרץsg.cstr.-y4) שרQ531 1.7; 21.2)רק שרק (vulture; masc.):sg.emph.-HplplW (4Q531 1.6)

שרר (to be established;p a “el, to establish, make strong; itpa., to prevail) itpa. infin.4) אשתררה־Q531 17.5)

:(.root, shoot; masc) שרשpl.abs.-yw^w (שר[שין־353011.8)4) pl.+3ms ^ ^ (Q8 2.1שרשוהי־ (6

:(to drink) שתיqal infin.-4) משתאQ531 30.1)

תוב (to return):qal pf. 3ms-2n (4Q53011.3)

:(again) תובא( תובה (1<323 24.2תוב]־?

:(.strength, power; masc) תוקףsg.cstr.4) תוקף־Q531 17.3) sg.emph./+suff-\hp'[n (4Q203 7A.3)

:(.ram; masc) תישsg.abs.-yW'T\ (1Q23 1+6+22.3)

:(three) תלת(Q8 2.1תלתת־.^.:<־ (256>

:(.wonder; masc) תמהpl.abs.-yr\72T) (6Q8 1.6)

:(to seize) תמךqal ptc. mp-] רכ7נ Γ (1Q23 21.2)

:(.here, with prep) תנה(לתנא־Q530111.7תנה (4

(to be much, many; afel, to increase) שגיafel p f מ7אשגית־׳^ (24 Q203 10.2)

(much; great) שגיאsg.abs.4) שגיא־Q5301.4; 6 i.6;

4Q531 5.6; 14.1)/? / .^ .1) ־Q23 9+14+15.4שגיאין־

שגי]אין) :(.desert regions; fem) שהוה

pl.abs.-y*\TW (4Q530 iii.5):(.moon; masc) שהר

sg.emph.-XlTW (4Q531 1.1):(to be like, even, prostrate) שוי

qal 3mp-VW (4Q203 4.6; 13.1?(שו[יו־ :(corrupt) שחית

sg.masc.emph.1) -Q23 3.3שחיתא־ שחית]א)

צי י ש (to complete, finish, destroy): pf. 3 m s - 'W (1Q23 29.2; 4Q530 61.5-

ש[יצי־)Q8 1.5שיציא; 6 (afel, to find; with infin., to be able} שכח

(h )afelpf. 3^/74) השכחו־Q530 ii. 13) (h )afel ptc. ^ ־Q531 17.5משכח־ (4

מ[שכח):(.eyelid; masc) שכן

p l.+ lcs suff-'ttW (4Q530 6 i.7):(to send) שלח

qal pf. 2 ^ (Q531 12.4שלחתה־ (4qal pf. 3mp+3ms su ff שלחוהי־

(4Q530 ii.21)ן לט ש (rule, ruler; masc.):

sg.cstr.-\&?W (4Q530ii.16):(.peace; masc) שלם

sg.abs.-rfrW (1Q24 8.2; 13.3(ש]לם־ :(fallen Watcher’s name) שמיחזה

(Q203 8.5שמיחזה (4:(.sky, heaven; masc) שמין

Heb. form-U'ftW (4Q531 1.4) abs.4) שמין־Q530 iii. 11) emph.-WKU; (4Q530 ii.16; 4Q531 17.6?־

(Q532 6.2שמי[א; 46.4; 4:(to hear) שמע

q a lp f Ics-nVKV (4Q531 9.5שמ]עת־;6Q8 1.6)

qal pf. 24) מ25שמעתה־ Q530ii.23- שמעתא)

:(pa“el, to serve} שמשp a ‘‘elptc. 4) מ1משמשין־ק Q530ii. 17)

:(.sleep; fem) שנהsg.cstr.-T)W (4Q530 ii.4; 4Q531 17.10)

:(to be different) שניqal ptc. ms emph.-W2U7 (4Q531 19.3;

28.3?, or mp emph.)

Glossary254

to be strong; p) תקף a “el, to overpower, defeat):p a “elpf. 3ms-*]pT) (4Q203 7B i.4) p a “el impf. 2fs+2ms .?«^תקפתכה־ (4Q203 9.4)

ץ תר (two):masc.abs.-)4) תריQ531 9.8) masc.cstr.-^n (4Q203 7B ii.2)+3mp suff-yin^n (4Q530 ii.3)

תנין (second):em ph.-xnn (4Q203 7B ii.3; 4Q203 8.3־

ת]ני[נא) ת תנינו (a second time):

ת (4 תנינו Q530 iii.7):(strong) תקיף

sg.masc.abs.-*\'pT\ (4Q532 2.14) plur.masc.abs.-y&pn (4Q531 17.7)

Bibliography

Alexander, Philip S., “Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish)”. In Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David N. Freedman. Garden City, N ew York: Doubleday, 1992. Pp. 977-88.

Allegro, John M., Qumrân Cave 4: I (4Q 158-4Q 186). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

Attridge, Harold W., “Historiography”. In Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael E. Stone. C RINT 2/2. Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/ Fortress Press, 1984. Pp. 157-84.

Avigad, N., “The Palaeography o f the Dead Sea Scrolls”. In Aspects o f the D ead Sea Scrolls, eds. Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin. Scripta Hierosolymatana, 4. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1965, 2nd ed. Pp. 56-87.

Baillet, Maurice, J. T. Milik, and Roland De Vaux, Les ‘petites g ro ttes’ de Qumran. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.

Barthélémy, D. and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave I. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.

Beyer, Klaus, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

- , Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Ergänzungsband. Göttingen: Vanden­hoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.

Black, Matthew, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967, 3rd ed.

- , Apocalypsis Henochi Graece. PVTG, 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Pp. 3-44.- , The Book o f Enoch or 1 Enoch. SVTP, 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985.Blanc, Cécile, Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean. Sources chrétiennes, 222. Paris:

Éditions du Cerf, 1975.Bonner, Campbell, ed. The L ast Chapters o f Enoch in Greek. London: Chatto and

Windus, 1937.Boyce, Mary, A Catalogue o f the Iranian Manuscripts in Manichean Script in the

German Turfan Collection. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, 45; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960.

Bruce, F. F. Review o f J. T. Milik, The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave 4. In Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 109 (1976/77), pp. 134-35.

Camponovo, Odo. Königtum, Königsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frühjüdi­schen Schriften. OBO, 58. Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

Cantinaeu, Jean, Grammaire du palmyrénien épigraphique. Publications de l’Institut d’Études Orientales de la Faculté des Lettres d’Alger, 4. Cairo: l’Institut Fran­çais d’Archéologie Orientale, 1935.

Bibliography256

- , “Tadmorea”. In Syria 14 (1933), pp. 169-202.Caquot, A ., “4QMess ar 1 i 8 -11”. In Revue de Qumran 15 (1991), pp. 145-55.Carmignac, Jean, “Les horoscopes de Qumran”. Revue de Qumran 5 (1965),

pp. 199-217.Chabot, J.-B. et al., eds. Répertoire d ’épigraphie sémitique. 8 volumes. Académie des

inscriptions et belles-lettres. Paris: Imprimérie Nationale, 1900-1968.Charles, R. H., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha o f the Old Testament. 2 volumes.

Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.- , The Book o f Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906.Charlesworth, James H. et al., Graphie Concordance to the D ead Sea Scrolls. Tü­

bingen/Louis ville: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)AVestminster John Knox Press, 1991.

- , The D ead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Trans­lations. Volume 1: Rule o f the Community and R elated Documents. Tübingen/ Louisville: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)/Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.

- , et al., eds. The D ead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with Eng­lish Translations. Volume 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Docu­ments. Tübingen/Louisville: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)/Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.

- , ed. The M essiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. M inneapo­lis: Fortress Press, 1992.

- , The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 volumes. Garden City, N ew York: D ou­bleday, 1983-1985.

- , The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with a Supplement. SCS, 7. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1981.

- , “The SNTS Pseudepigraphia Seminars at Tübingen and Paris on the Books o f Enoch”. In New Testament Studies 25 (1979), pp. 315-23.

Clarke, E. G., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch. Hoboken, N ew Jersey: KTAV, 1984.

Collins, John J., The Apocalyptic Imagination. N ew York: Crossroad, 1987.Colson, F. H. and G. H. Whitaker, Philo. 10 volumes. Loeb Classical Library. Cam­

bridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann, 1929-1943.Cowley, A. E., Aramaic Papyri o f the Fifth Century B. C. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1923.Cross, Frank M ., “The Development o f the Jewish Scripts”. In The Bible and the

Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor o f W. F. Albright, ed. G. Ernest Wright. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1961. Pp. 133-202.

D e Jonge, Marinus et al., eds., The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs. A Critical Edition o f the Greek Text. PVTG, 1/2. Leiden: Brill, 1978.

Delcor, Martin, “Le myth de la chute des anges et de l’origine des géants comme explication du mal dans le monde dans l’apocalyptique juive histoire des tradi­tions”. ln Revue de THistoire des Religions 190 (1976), pp. 3-53.

Denis, Albert-Marie, Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca. PVTG, 4. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Dimant, Devorah, “ 1 Enoch 6-11: A M ethodological Perspective”. ln Society o f Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 13 (1978), pp. 323-39.

- , “The Biography o f Enoch and the Books o f Enoch”. In Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983), pp. 14-29.

257Bibliography

- , “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181”. In Israel Oriental Studies 9 (1979), pp. 77-102.

Donner, Herbert and Wolfgang Rôllig, Kanaanâische und aramâische Inschriften. 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1962-1964.

Doran, R., “Pseudo-Eupolemus”. In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. JamesH. Charlesworth. 2 volumes. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983-85. Volume 2, pp. 873-82.

Driver, G. R., Aramaic Documents o f the fifth Century B. C. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957, 2nd ed.

Dupont-Sommer, A ., “La Secte des Esséeniens et les Horoscopes de Qoumran”. In Archéologie 15 (1967), pp. 24-31.

Eisenman, Robert and James Robinson, A Facsimile Edition o f the D ead Sea Scrolls. 2 volumes. Washington, D. C.: Biblical Archeology Society, 1991.

Eisenman, Robert and Michael O. Wise, The D ead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. Shaftes­bury, Maine: Element, 1992.

Elliger, K., W. Rudolph, et al., eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: D eut­sche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984.

Evans, Craig A., “A N ote on the 4First-Born Son’ o f 4Q369”. In D ead Sea Disco­veries 2 (1995), pp. 185-201.

Field, Fredericus, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. 2 volumes. Oxford: Claren­don Press, 1875.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. SBLMS, 25. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1979.

- , 44Implications o f the N ew Enoch Literature from Qumran”. In Theological Studies 38 (1977), pp. 332-45.

- , 44The Aramaic 4Elect o f G od’ Text from Qumran Cave 4”. In idem, Essays on the Semitic Background o f the New Testament. SBS, 5. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979. Pp. 127-60.

- , Essays on the Semitic Background o f the New Testament. SBS, 5. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979.

- , 44The Contribution o f Qumran Aramaic to the Study o f the N ew Testament”. In idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. SBLMS, 25. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1979. Pp. 85-113.

- , The D ead Sea Scrolls: M ajor Publications and Tools fo r Study. SBLRBS, 20. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. 2nd ed.

- , The Genesis Apocryphon o f Qumran Cave 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971, 2nd ed.

- , 44The Study o f the Aramaic Background o f the N ew Testament”. In idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. SBLMS, 25. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1979. Pp. 1-27.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Daniel J. Harrington, A Manual o f Palestinian Aramaic Texts. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978.

Franxman, T. W., Review o f J. T. Milik, The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave 4. In Biblica 58 (1977), pp. 432-36.

Freedman, David N., Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 volumes. Garden City, N ew York: Doubleday, 1992.

Bibliography258

Freudenthal, I , Hellenistische Studien: Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm er­haltenen R est iudäischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke. Breslau: Skutsch, 1875.

Fröhlich, Ida, “Les enseignments des veilleurs dans la tradition de Qumran”. In Revue de Qumran 13 (1988), pp. 177-87.

Gantz, Timothy, Early Greek M yth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources. Bal­timore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Garcia Martinez, Florentino, “4QMess Ar and the Book o f N oah”. In idem, Qum­ran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ, 9. Lei­den: Brill, 1992. Pp. 1^14.

- , “Contributions o f the Aramaic Enoch Fragments to Our Understanding o f the Books o f Enoch”. In idem, Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ, 9. Leiden: Bill, 1992. Pp. 45-96.

- , “Estudios qumranicos (1975-1985): Panorama critico (I)”. In Estudios Biblicos 45 (1987), pp. 125-206.

- , Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ, 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

- , “The Book o f Giants”. In idem, Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Ara­maic Texts from Qumran. STDJ, 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Pp. 97-115.

- , The D ead Sea Scrolls Translated. Trans, by Wilfred G. E. Watson from the 1992 Spanish edition. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Giessen, Angelo, ed., Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel. Kap. 5-12, zusam­men m it Susanna, Bel et Draco, sowie Esther Kap. 1,1 a -2 ,15 nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967. PTA, 5. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1968.

Grabbe, Lester L., “The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpreta­tion”. In Journal fo r the Study o f Judaism 18 (1987), pp. 152-67.

Greenfield, Jonas C. and Elisha Qimron, “The Genesis Apocryphon Col. X II”. In Studies in Qumran Aramaic, ed. T. Muraoka, Abr-Nahrain, Supplement 3. Leu­ven: Peeters, 1992. Pp. 70-77.

Greenfield, Jonas C. and Michael E. Stone, “Enochic Pentateuch and the date o f the Similitudes”. In Harvard Theological Review 70 (1977), pp. 51-65.

Grelot, Pierre, “Hénoch et ses Écritures”. In Revue Biblique 82 (1975), pp. 481-500.

Halperin, David, Faces o f the Chariot. Early Jewish Responses to E zekiel’s Vision. TSAJ, 16, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1988.

Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. Trans. John Bowden, 2 volumes. Philadel­phia: Fortress Press, 1974.

- , Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh. T. & T. Clark, 1995.Henning, W. B., “Ein manichäisches Henochbuch”. In Sitzungsberichte der Preussi-

schen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin, Phil.-Hist. Klasse. Berlin: Akade­mie der Wissenschaften, 1934, Pp. 3-11.

- , “Neue Materialien zur Geschichte des Manichäismus”. In Zeitschrift der Deut­schen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 90 (1936), pp. 1-18.

- , “The Book o f Giants”. In Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental and African Studies 11 (1943-1946), pp. 52-74.

Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume 1: Historians. SBLTT, 20. Chico, California, Scholars Press, 1983.

Huggins, Ronald V. “N oah and the Giants: A Response to John C. Reeves”. In Journal o f Biblical Literature 114 (1995), pp. 103-110.

259Bibliography

Isaac, Ephraim, “ 1 Enoch”. In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, 2 volumes. Garden City, N ew York: Doubleday, 1983-85. Volume 1, pp. 5-89.

Jastrow, Marcus, A Dictionary o f the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 2 volumes. N ew York: The Judaica Press, 1971. Reprint from 1903.

Jean, Charles־F. and Jacob Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de Touest. Leiden: Brill, 1965.

Karrer, Martin, Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief. FRLANT, 140. Göttingen: Van- denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.

Kaufman, Stephen A., The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Assyriological Stu­dies, 19. Chicago/London: University o f Chicago Press, 1974.

Kerényi, Carl, M yth and Man: The Heroes o f the Greeks. London: Thames and Hudson, 1959.

Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim, “Der Buddha Henoch: Qumran und Turfan”. In Z eit­schrift fü r Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 32 (1980), pp. 367-77.

Knibb, Michael A. with Edward Ullendorf, The Ethiopie Book o f Enoch. A New Edition in the Light o f the Aramaic D ead Sea Fragments. 2 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.

Kümmel, Werner G., ed. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. 5 vo­lumes (in fascicles). Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973-1984.

Laurence, Richard, Mahhafa Henok Nabiy, The Book o f Enoch the prophet. Oxford: University Press, 1821.

- , Mahhafa Henok Nabiy, Libri Enoch prophetae versio Aethiopica. Oxford: U ni­versity Press, 1938.

Licht, Jacob, “Legs as Characteristics o f Election”. Tarbiz 35 (1965-66), pp. 18-26. In Hebrew.

Lust, J., “Daniel 7,13 and the Septuagint”. In Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 54 (1978), pp. 62-69.

Milik, Josef Tadeuz, “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân: d’Hénoch à Amram”. ln Qumrân. Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. BETL, 45. Paris-Gembloux/Leuven: Duculot/University Press, 1979. Pp. 91-106.

- , “Le Testament de Lévi en araméen: fragment de la grotte 4 de Qumrân”. ln Revue Biblique 62 (1955), pp. 398-408.

- , “Les modèles araméens du Livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrân”. ln Revue de Qumran 15 (1992), pp. 321-99.

- , Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméens de Qumrân”. ln Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971), pp. 333-78.

- , Ten Years o f Discovery in the Wilderness o f Judaea. Trans. John Strugnell. London: SCM, 1958.

- , The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments o f Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Claren­don Press, 1976.

- , “Turfan et Qumran: Livre des géants ju if et manichéen”. ln Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt, edited by Gert Jeremias, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck M i­drash Rabbah. 11 volumes. Tel-Aviv: Yavneh, 1956-1967.

Bibliography260

Newsom , Carol, Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. HSS, 27. A t­lanta: Scholars Press, 1985.

Nickelsburg, George, W. E., ‘4Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6 -11”. In Journal o f Biblical Literature 96 (1977), pp. 383-405.

- , Review o f J. T. Milik, The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978), pp. 411-18.

- , 44The Bible Rewritten and Expanded”. In Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2/2. Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/ Fortress Press, 1984. Pp. 89-156.

Puech, Emil, 44Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi et le personnage eschatologique. 4QTestLévic־d (?) et 4QAJa”. ln The M adrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings o f the International Congress on the D ead Sea Scrolls, eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. STDJ, 11/2. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Pp. 449-501.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. 2 volumes in 1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesell­schaft, 1935.

Reed, Stephen A., The D ead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: Inventory L ist o f Photo­graphs. Leiden: Brill/IDC, 1993.

Reeves, John C., Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony. Studies in the Book o f Giants Traditions. Monographs o f the Hebrew Union College, 14. Cincinnati: Hebrew U nion College Press, 1992.

- , 44Utnapishtim in the Book o f Giants?” In Journal o f Biblical Literature 112 (1993), pp. 110-15.

Rosenthal, Franz, Die Sprache der palmyrenischen Inschriften. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft, 41/1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1936.

Rowland, Christopher E., The Influence o f the First Chapter o f Ezekiel on Judaism and Early Christianity. University o f Cambridge: Ph. D. Dissertation, 1975.

- , The Open Heaven. A Study o f Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. N ew York: Crossroad, 1982.

Sanders, James A., Review o f J. T. Milik, The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4. In Journal o f Biblical Literature 97 (1978), pp. 446^17.

Schiffman, Lawrence H., 44Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls”. In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, N ew York: Doubleday, 1992. Pp. 116-29.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf, Review o f J. T. Milik, The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Frag­ments from Qumrân Cave 4. In Biblische Zeitschrift 22 (1978), pp. 132-34.

Schroeder, Guy and Edouard des Places, Eusèbe de Cesarée: La Préparation Évan­gélique. Sources chrétiennes, 369. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1991.

Schürer, Emil, The history o f the Jewish people in the age o f Jesus Christ (175 B. C - A. D. 135). Revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman. 3 volumes. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-1987.

Smith (Margoliouth), Jesse Payne, ed. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903.

Sokoloff, Michael, Dictionary o f Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1992.

- , 44N otes on the Aramaic Fragments o f Enoch from Qumran Cave 4”. Maarav 1 (1978-79), pp. 197-224.

261Bibliography

- , The Targum to Job in Qumran Cave XI. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1974.

Sperber, Alexander, ed. The Bible in Aramaic. 4 volumes. Leiden: Brill, 1959-1973.Starcky, Jean, “Le Maître de Justice et Jésus”. In Le Monde de la Bible 4 (1978),

pp. 51-58.- , “Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumran”. ln Revue Biblique 70 (1963),

pp. 481-505.- , “U n texte messianique araméen de la grotte 4 de Qumrân”. ln École des lan­

gues orientales anciennes de VInstitut Catholique de Paris: M ém orial du cinquan­tenaire 1914-1964. Travaux de l’Institut Catholique de Paris, 10. Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1964. Pp. 51-66.

Stegemann, Hartmut, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus. Frei­burg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1993.

Stone, Michael E., “Apocalyptic Literature”. In Jewish Writings from the Second Temple Period, ed. idem. C RINT 2/2. Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1984. Pp. 383-441.

- , ed. Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period. CRINT, 2/2. Assen/Philadel­phia: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1984.

Stone, Michel E. and Jonas C. Greenfield, “The Prayer o f Lévi”. In Journal o f Biblical Literature 112 (1993), pp. 247-66.

Strugnell, John, “N otes en marge du volume V des Discoveries in the Judaean Desert o f Jordan”. In Revue de Qumran 1 (1976), pp. 163-276.

Stuckenbruck, Loren T., Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Juda­ism and in the Christology o f the Apocalypse o f John. W UNT, 2/70. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995.

- , “ O n e like a Son o f Man as the Ancient o f D ays’ in the Old Greek Recension o f Daniel 7,13: Scribal Error or Theological Translation?”. In Zeitschrift fü r die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 (1995), pp. 268-76.

- , “Revision o f Aramaic-Greek and Greek-Aramaic Glossaries in The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments o f Qumrân Cave 4 by J. T. M ilik”. In Journal o f Jewish Studies 41 (1990), pp. 13-48.

Sundermann, Werner, “Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch”. In Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata. Acta Iranica, 23 and Second Series, 9. Leiden: Brill, 1984. Pp. 491-505.

- , Mittelpersische und par tische kosmogonische und Parabeltexte der Manichäer. Berliner Turfantexte, 4. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973.

Testuz, Michael, “Deux fragments inédits des manuscrits de la Mer M orte”. ln Semitica 5 (1955), pp. 37-39.

Thackeray, H. S. J., et al. Josephus. 10 volumes. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann, 1926-1965.

Tigay, Jeffrey H., The Evolution o f the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University o f Pennsylvania Press, 1982.

Tov, Emanuel with Stephen J. Pfann, The D ead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Com­prehensive Facsimile Edition o f the Texts from the Judaean Desert. Leiden: Brill/ IDC, 1993.

Uhlig, Siebert, Apokalypsen: Das äthiopische Henochbuch. In Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Z e it, ed. Werner G. Kümmel, 5/6. Gütersloh: Gerd M ohn, 1984.

Bibliography262

Vanderkam, James C., “Some Major Issues in the Contemporary Study o f 1 Enoch: Reflections on J. T. M ilik’s The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4”. In M aarav 3 (1982), pp. 85-97.

- , Textual and Historical Studies in the Book o f Jubilees. HSM , 14. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977.

van der Woude, Adam S., “Fünfzehn Jahre Qumranforschung (1974-1988)”, Theo­logische Rundschau 54 (1989) 259-61.

Vermes, Geza, “Prophetic-Apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha”. In Emil Schürer, The hi­story o f the Jewish people in the age o f Jesus Christ, revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman. Volume 3. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. Pp. 204-307.

- , The D ead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin Books, 1995. 4th edition.- , “The Writings o f the Qumran Community”. In Emil Schürer, The history o f the

Jewish people in the age o f Jesus Christ, revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman. Volume 3. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. Pp. 380^169.

Viviano, Ben T., “Aramaic ‘Messianic’ Text”. In Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David N. Freedman. Garden City, N ew York: Doubleday, 1992. Volume 1, p. 342.

Wacholder, Ben Zion, Eupolemus: A Study o f Judaeo-Greek Literature. Cincinnati/ N ew York/Los Angeles/Jerusalem: Hebrew U nion College-Jewish Institute o f Religion, 1974.

- , “Pseudo Eupolemus’ Two Greek Fragments on the Life o f Abraham”. In He­brew Union College Annual 34 (1963), pp. 83-113.

Walter, Nicholas, Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistische Historiker. In Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Z e it, ed. Werner G. Kümmel. 1/2. Gütersloh: Gerd M ohn, 1976.

West, M. L., Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.

Index of Passages

Page numbers in italics represent citations which occur in footnotes. The italics fall out when a passage, subject, or author occurs on more than one consecutive page. Page numbers in bold indicate where a given passage is analyzed most fully.

Judges5:3 105

2 Samuel9:4 1479:5 14717:27 147

1 Kings20:10 181

1 Chronicles26:5 147

Ezra4:11 1244:12 1204:14 1244:17-18 1244:18 1195:6-7 1245:15 1245:17 124

Nehemiah

A. Old Testament

119

110

94-9571

Esther6:1

Job1:2141:12

262082626352626, 28, 39 35, 111 39, 111 216 28 216 35 35 35 39 35 35 34 34 110 29

78, 108 78, 108 78, 108

147111111

Genesis5

5:18-295:185:22-246-1466:1 46:46:4(LXX)6:76:127:2110:8-1110:8-910:810:8(LXX)10:911:1-91414:1831:4033:18-34:31

Leviticus16:816:1016:26

Numbers13:1213:3313:33(LXX)

Index o f Passages264

90, 122 113

30

105

7:227:28

Amos2:9

Habakkuk1:10

B. New Testament

4040

40

Mark1:45:7

James2:18b

C. Apocryphal Jewish Writings o f the Septuagint

10594-95

105105

215105

123111

6, 122-123 3294-95150113, 201143150143 1 Maccabees84, 88

5:3 308484 5:65 30

8484

7:39-50 30

84 Sirach

84143

16:7 38, ,

84, 88 Tobit84 3:15 14784 5:22 9384 6:3 95126 6:10-18 9390 8:2-3 9332 9:2 8890 12:12 93110 12:15 9331, 120, 122-123 113, 201

12:16 93

150 Wisdom of Solomon24, 31, 120-121 14:6-7 38113, 122-123, 201 14:6 166120120, 122-123 201 12690, 122 120

Psalms2:2113:2

Proverbs8:1531:4

Isaiah11:440:23

Ezekiel132:27

Daniel22:202:312:342:384:74:94:104:10 (Aq.) 4:10 (Sym.) 4:10 (Theod.) 4:13 4:144:17 (Theod.)4:184:204:20 (Aq.)4:20 (Sym.)4:23 (Theod.)4:244:3055:216:1977:47:87:9-107:97:10-117:107:117:127:137:14

265Old Testament

D. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 9:3 949:4-11 95-97

1 Enoch (Ethiopiej• 1-4, 24-26, 37, 55, 9:4-5 9460, 62-63, 82, 88, 9:4 9692, 96, 189, 191, 9:5-6 95208, 219, 222 9:5 96(cf. also under Dead 9:6-10 97Sea Scrolls) 9:6 79, 82, 96

9:7-9 92Book of Watchers 2, 12, 24-28, 30-31, 9:7 79, 82, 92

37, 67, 81-82, 88, 9:8-9 18, 2491-93, 96, 99, 108, 9:8 37, 151117-119, 133, 137, 9:9 27, 77, 151, 196144-145, 151-152, 9:10 18, 24, 77, 89, 130,191, 196 135-137

1-36 2 9:11 951:1-32:6 2 10 18, 38, 57-58, 791:2 84 10:1-16 1081:3 191-192 10:1-3 261:5 84 10:1 881:9 13 10:2-3 384:1 116 10:2 38, 2196-16 24, 26 10:4-5 826-11 26, 28, 82, 152 10:4 79, 816:2-3 82 10:5 816:3 92 10:7 26, 37, 1966:5 57 10:8 79, 81-826:6 156, 208 10:9-15 276:7 60, 68-69, 72, 79, 10:9 38, 84, 151

82, 92, 146, 198, 10:10 26, 160217-218 10:11-19 57

7 152 10:11 82, 92, 1517:1-4 18 10:12 79, 1527:1-2 111 10:15 38, 11, 847:1 50, 151, 156, 196 10:16 387:2-5 27, 37 10:17-22 577:2 30, 112, 151 10:17-19 57-587:3-5 59, 77, 144, 151 10:17 387:3-4 151, 181 10:18-19 577:3 59, 114 10:19 13, 15, 18, 24, 56-577:4-5 18, 24 10:20 387:4 50, 59 10:22 387:5 59, 151-152 12-16 27-288:1-3 37, 82, 156 12 1188:1 79, 82, 196 12:1-13:10 278:2 208 12:2-3 848:3 50, 60, 196 12:4 21, 84, 91, 115, 1199 25 12:4-6 26, 88, 919:1-3 97 12:5 24, 63, 1009:1-2 220 13:1-10 279:1 28, 11, 93, 151, 190, 13:1 13, 18, 24, 27, 79,

192, 194, 196, 220 1009:3—4 208, 220 13:2 82, 156, 196

Index o f Passages266

13:3 27 36:1 62, 99

13:4-6 91, 9313:7 27, 74 Similitudes 3, 82

13:9 74, 133 37-71 313:10 84 37:1 20814 118 39:12-13 8414:1-7 119 40:2 8414:1 84, 88, 117 42:3 6214:3-7 27 54:7-10 21914:3 84 60:24-25 21914:4-7 93 61:12 8414:4 91 63:2-4 9514:8-25 37, 119 63:2-3 9414:6-7 26 63:3 9514:6 79 65:6-11 3714:8-25 37 66:1 21914:8 27 69 8214:21 95 69:1 3715-16 38 69:2 6915 118, 152, 160 69:4-14 8215:1-16:3 27 69:5 15115:1-2 88, 91, 119 69:6-15 3715:1 27, 117 70:3 13315:2 27, 84, 97 71:3 3715:3-7 91 71:7 8415:3-5 2615:3-4 151 Astronomical Book 2, 92, 13415:4 151, 160, 196 72-82 215:8-12 27, 38, 706, 160 72:1-82:20 3715:8-9 160 76:8 62, 9915:9 151 76:11 6215:11 151 77:4 133-13416:1-2 8416:1 21, 38 Book of Dreams 2, 6716:3 27, 58-59, 91, 96, (=Animal Apocalypse)

156, 196 82:1-2 9216:4 63 83-90 316:7 63, 100 83:10 9217-36 37 84 9717:1-36:4 27, 37 84:2-6 96, 9820:1 84 84:2-4 4, 95-9622:3-13 93 84:2 9522:3-7 191 84:3-6 9322:6 88 84:3 95-9624:3-4 133 84:4 9728:1 134 84:6 4, 9828:3-29:2 191 86:4 11229:1 134 88:2 11231:2-32:3 191 88:3-89:17 19132:3 133-134, 191 88:6 16032:6 191 89:26-30 19133:3-34:1 191 89:42—49 234:2 99

267Old Testament

14421921913416016016016021922315121929 223223224222-22322422222322329-3030 199 30 29223, 237

7:247:297:338:161010:1-610:710:8-910:1319:1320:521:1030:1-430:13131:21-2932:21-2231:2132:24-2632:27-2932:3334:2-934:437:20-2338:1-138:1-1445:13

Prayer o f Joseph 222

‘Pseudo-Eupolemus ’Cf. under Eusebius, Praep.Evang.

36Sibylline Oracles 3.97-99

Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs

T. Reuben84151

219219219

84

5:6-75:6

T.Levi2:318:2

T. Naphtali 3:5

89:59 11490:1 114

Epistle of Enoch 3, 6791-107 391:15 8492:1 37, 9293:2 8496:6 8897:6-104:13 2106-107 220106:1-107:3 2106:1-7 37106:3 198106:10-12 37, 208106:10 220106:12 220106:13 156, 208106:14 151106:15 219-220106:17 38, 151107:2 124, 208108:1 92

2 Enoch 73:3-5 219

3 Maccabees 2:4 166

Jubilees 11, 24, 28

4:15

151, 210, 222-223 84, 114, 1

4:17-24 294:22 27, 1514:23 1344:24 264:28 197-1985:1 1515:2 144, 152,.5:6 1145:7-9 295:7 1485:9 1485:27-29 1515:28 211, 2157:1 211, 2157:21 1517:22 111-112, 17:23-25 1517:23-24 190, 196

Index o f Passages268

6767124

to 89:31 to 107:1 to 107:2

E. Philo

4Q206 (=4QEnoche) 193191 88, 97 191 191133-134, 191191191191191

190, 220

to 22:3-7 to 22:6 to 28:3-29:2 to 31:2-32:3 to 32:3 to 32:6 to 33:3-34:1 to 88:3-89:17 to 89:26-30

4Q208 (=4QEnochh) to 9:1

4Q209 (=4QEnoch*) 31, 50, 60, 68, 72191116156, 20869, 79, 146, 198, 217 77, 93, 190 94

163163

to 1:3 to 4:1 to 6:6 to 6:7 to 9:1 to 9:3

4Q212 (=4QEnochs)93:293:11

Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice

96

96

9696

4Q401 14 1.6

4Q403 1 1.25

4Q40523 ii .ll24 1.3

Temple Scroll

11 QT 142

Thanksgiving Hymns

951QH12.15

39393939

de Gigantibus 58-67 62-626566

F. Josephus

Antiquitates Judaicae 1.73 1661.118 3617.373 3217.346 32

Bellum Judaicorum 2.142 322.159 32

contra Apionem 1.194 38

G. Dead Sea Scrolls

Community Rule

IQS 29, 67

Damascus Document 24, 29-30

CDii. 17-21 38ii. 17-19 166ii.18-19 30ii. 18 29, 84ii. 19 304QDb 29

3, 25, 28, 31, 62, 66-68, 72, 142, 220 6768, 19, 146, 2177474

1177967

1 Enoch

4Q204 (-4QEnoch°)

to 2:2 to 6:7 to 13:7 to 13:9 to 14:1 to 14:6 to 14:10

269Old Testament

xxi.17 90xxi.18 90xxi.25-26 83xxi.25 95

1Q23 (IQGiants*) 3^1, 6-7, 41-42,43-59, 144

1+6+22 13, 17-19, 24, 43,53, 56-58, 145

1+22 451+6 15, 581 43-44, 45, 56-581.2 43, 45, 561.3-5 561.4 561.5 562 15, 443 15, 444 15, 454.1 685 456 43, 45, 567 15, 468 469+14+15 13, 15, 17-18, 21,

24, 37, 43, 46, 48, 50, 58-59, 144-147, 152-153, 182, 190, 216

9+14+15.2 599 46-47, 48-49, 589.1-3 469.2 4810 15, 4710.2 4711 15, 4712 4713 15, 4813.2 4514+15 4614 48-49, 5814.4 4914.5 4615 48, 49, 5815.1-2 4816+17 19, 43, 50, 18216 1516.3 49-5017 15, 49-5017.1 49-5017.1-2 5017.3 5018 51

War Scroll

1QM 142

lQIsaiaha 29, 67

lQIsaiahb 142

lQSb (-IQBlessings) 5.20-29 215

1Q19 (IQNoah 5, 219-220Apocryphon) 1-3 2191 2081.2-3 2192 2082.2 2202.4-5 2203 2083.4-5 2204-7 2208 208, 2199-10 22011 41, 219-221, 23212 22013 41, 219-221, 23213.3 23214 220, 23215 41, 219-221, 23215.2-3 23215.2 23216-21 220

1Q20 (lQapGen, 142, 223-224Genesis Apocryphon) ii.1-7 37ii.l 83-84ii.14-18 37ii.l 6 83-84iii.13 198x.13 211xii.13 211xvi.l 1 90xvii.9 90xvii.16 90xix.9 90xix.26 90xx. 13-14 98xxi.13 116xxi.l 90xxi.8 224xxi.10 224xxi.l 1-12 134xxi.l 5 90

Index o f Passages270

19 15, 51 81, 86, 93, 132, 20:19.1 51 203, 206, 21520 15, 51-52 1-2 65, 21520.1^1 51 1 6520.4 52 1.2 11321 15, 52 2 65-6622 15, 43, 52, 56 3 65-6622.123

5653 4Q157 (4QTgJob, Targum on Job)

24+25 43 41:12 712425

15, 53 53-54

4Q161 (4Qplsa*)

26 54 7-10 (iii.1-19) 215

27 15, 54-55 7.22 21527.1-2 54 4Q174 (4QFlorilegium)27.2 54 23 10527.4 5428 15, 55 4Q180 (lQ^ges 7929 14, 43, 55, 196 of Creation)29.129.2

74, 197 55, 197

4Q196 (4QTob ara)

30 15, 55 to 3:15 147

30.1 55 4Q197 (4QTob arh)31 15, 56 to 6:3 9531.1-2 56 to 9:2 8831.3 56

4Q203 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11, 25,1Q24 (1 QGiantsh) 3, 6, 41, 43, 59-63 (4QEnGiantsâ) 28, 41, 66-100, 1011 60 142, 218, 220, 2281.3-7 60 1-3 68-70, 2181.7 60 1 5, 13-15, 21, 66,1-8 15 68-69, 70, 2182 60-61 1.2 69, 1982.1 60 2-3 19, 66, 69, 703 61 2 13-15, 21, 69-70,3.4 61 2184 61 2.2-4 695 59, 61-62, 99 2.2 705.3-4 61 2.3 676 62 2.4 69-726.1 62 3 13-15, 22, 70-74,6 62 81, 108, 133, 146,8 19, 24, 57, 59, 63, 218

100 3.1 708.2 63 3.3 72

1Q39 (1 QLiturgical Fragment) 3.44

69, 1213-15, 74-76

10 105 4.1-6 742Q24 (IQNexv Jerusalem) 4.2 67

4.17 201 4.3 784.4 75

2Q26 (IQGiants) 3-4, 6-7, 15, 19, 22, 4.4-5 7527, 40-41, 63-66, 4.6 75-76, 100, 106

271Old Testament

66 8.6 90-91, 91, 19413 8.7-12 9213, 22, 76-77 8.7-11 9076 8.7-9 9213, 77 8.7-8 9117 8.7 89, 9115, 77, 81 8.9-11 9277-87, 132 8.9 91-9214, 78 8.10 89, 9166, 77 8.11-12 9376-77 8.12-15 9377-78 8.12-14 9014-15, 23, 27, 8.12-13 21578-79, 81, 84, 108 8.12 92, 14796(57, 80

8.13 27, 88-89, 93, 95, 118

80 8.14-15 9074, 81 8.14 68, 91, 93, 148, 16580-81, 92, 107 8.15 9378 9-10 94, 9877, 79, 81-83 1914, 78, 81, 131, 209,

9 4, 13, 15, 17, 21, 24, 26, 66, 94-97, 98, 156, 158, 169

224 9.1—4 9478, 108 9.1 2614-16, 23, 78-79, 9.2-6 9581, 84—85, 107 9.2 9567, 79, 81, 83 9.3 94-9583-85 9.4-6 9484, 224 9.4 94-9684-85, 91, 95-96 9.5 94, 9619, 84 9.6 9420, 66, 85-87, 92, 98 2387-88, 129, 131

10 4, 13, 15, 17, 21, 24, 26, 66, 96-97, 98, 158, 169

7 10.1 97-9813-14, 16 11 98-9998 11 i 6613-15, 17, 20, 23, 11 ii 62, 6627-28, 66, 82, 12 9985-86, 87-93, 98, 12.2 67100, 107-108, 118-119, 131-132,

13 13-15, 17-18, 23-24, 99-100, 145

148, 169-170 13.1 10088 13.3 63, 1006788, 90, 97 26, 87

4Q206 (4QEnoch*) 1, 7, 41, 118, 191-196, 221

86, 129, 131, 22487, 90

2-3 6, 28, 91, 118, 189, 192

27, 84, 88, 118, 124, 19382, 84, 86, 88, 91

2 13, 21, 25-26, 41, 186, 189, 191-192, 193-194

1 i“5+ 5-6 55.2-3

7-877A-B i־ii 7 i־ii (A+B)7 i (A+B)7 i (A+B).5-7 7 ii 7A

7A.37A.47 A. 5-77A.57A.67 A. 7-87A.77B-87B

7B i-ii 7B i

7B i.l 7B i.2—3 7B i.2 7B i.3 7B i.4 7B ii 7B ii.2-3 7B ii.3 7B ii8 ־7B ii (7B iii)

8.18.28.3-5 8.3 18.38.4-58.4

8.5

Index o f Passages272

10210138138138138-139139139139-140 16, 14010, 101140-141140 140101, 141 101, 141 101, 141 187 101-102, 104 23, 103-104 103103104103-104 103103, 113 1037, 17, 19, 26-27, 42,101, 108, 119, 199 510, 13-15, 17, 19, 27, 101-102,107-108, 114,119, 132, 134, 139, 167, 20123, 27, 38, 86,104-109, 132, 137, 148104, 166 79, 105102, 10514-15, 73, 106-108,120, 148, 165-166 81, 10723, 109-112, 149104, 10720, 79, 104, 106102-104, 109-110,125, 128, 137, 16310912479, 103, 106,109-110, 124

9-209-15910 11 121314151617-191717.1-2 17.3-4181920 i-iiii1.1-61.11.2-31.2 i.3^11.31.41.5 ii־iii

ii.l-iii, 10ii

ii. 1—3

118, 191-192, 194 191-192, 194 13, 21, 41^12, 186, 189, 191-193, 194-196191-192, 194 196189-190

2.22.33

3 i 3 i.l 3 i.3

4Q213 (4QTestament 219 o f Lev fi)

4Q214 (4QTestament o f Lévi6) ii.2 116

4Q244 (4QPseudo 211 Danielb)

4Q285 (4QSerek ha-Milkamah)

5.1-6 215

4Q287 215(4QBerakhoth)

4Q370 (4QAdmonition) i.6 160

4Q510 (4QCanticles3)5 160

4Q510 (4QCanticlesb)

11. 1 -211.111.2-311.2

11.3-2011.3-6 ii.3^t11.311.4

11.5-1011.5-611.5

160

l,.3-4 , 6-7, 10-11, 24, 28, 41, 67-68, 77, 100-141, 166, 185-187, 202-204 10110, 23-24, 102, 10416, 101, 134-13714, 16, 101134134131135-13613610, 18, 24, 77, 89, 97, 136-137, 139 105, 136137 140136-137, 164, 169 16, 101, 134101

35.7

4Q530(4QEnGiantsb)

6 i-ii 6 i6 i.1-6 6 i.1-5 6 i.l 6 i.2 6 i.3-5 6 i.4

6 i.5 6 i.6-7 6 i.6 6 i.7 6 ii 7-8

273Old Testament

124125, 132-133124, 134 88, 127127, 129, 132-133, 155125, 12714-15, 17, 28, 48, 86, 97, 101, 131, 133, 139, 146-147, 199 127 124 111124, 12812712824, 128-134, 156 130108, 110, 125, 133128, 133 130-131130-131127, 1317, 17, 20, 22, 108, 127-129, 131 128111, 129128129128, 130, 140 24

1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 41, 141-177,185-186, 228 10, 13, 16, 18, 21, 24, 37, 43, 46, 50, 59, 142-145, 152, 166, 190, 196, 216 145 144142 144 144143-14414414414314414510, 144 16, 18, 145

11.22-2411.22-2311.23-2411.2211.23

11.24 iii

iii.1-3 iii. 1-2 iii. 2 iii. 3111.3-11 iii. 3-8111.4-11111.4-5iii.4 iii. 5iii.6-10 iii. 6-7 iii. 6iii. 7

iii. 8-9iii.8iii. 10-11iii. 10iii. 11iii.l2ff.

4Q531(4Q EnGiants0)

1.1-91.11.2-91.31.4-51.41.6-71.71.8 1.9ff. 1.9-10

20393, 202 109-11015, 19, 23, 38, 40, 42, 111, 112-115,129-130, 132, 190, 196, 201-203, 215 114112, 114-116, 130, 140, 20414093, 115, 130, 187,201-203114115, 202 130, 20193, 112, 114-115113, 115 102134 112, 12023, 115-119, 194117126, 162102119, 12627, 88, 92, 118, 124, 193102, 115, 134 74, 110, 124 23, 31, 111, 119-123 122 102102, 110, 119-121 6, 19, 24 31, 119-121 119, 122 88, 106, 120-122 134 120105, 113, 116, 122,140121119-121, 132 23, 124-12776, 124113, 121, 126, 129 90 26 117 27 124 126

11.6-2011.6-12 ii.611.7-12

11.7-811.7

11.8-911.8

11.9-1111.9-1011.911.10 ii.11-1211.11ii. 12-14 ii. 1211.13-1611.13-15 ii. 13ii. 14—16 ii. 14—15 ii. 14

11.15-17 ii. 15ii. 16-2011.16-1811.16-17 ii. 16ii. 17-2011.17-1911.17-18 ii. 17ii. 18-2211.18-19 ii. 18

ii. 19-20 ii. 19ii.20־iii.311.20-2311.20 ii.21־iii ii.21־iii.711.21-2311.21-2211.21 ii.22ff.

274 Index o f Passages

2.1 163 10.4 103 16, 145-146 11 1573.1-2 10 12 21, 157-158, 159,3.3 145 1693.4 10 12.1-2 1584 10, 14-15, 19, 22, 12.1 158, 173

24, 146-149 12.2 158, 161, 1724.1-5 108 13 23, 157, 158-1594.2-3 146, 176 13.1 1634.3 146 13.1-2 1594.4 148 13.3 157, 159-161, 1734.5 142, 148 13.4 159-1604.7 148 13.5 105 13, 18, 21, 24, 27,

43, 46, 50, 59, 141,14 23-24, 157,

159-160, 168, 215144-145, 149-153, 14.3 38182, 190 14.4 163

5.1-4 152 15 1615.1-2 149, 152 15.1 105.2-3 181 15.3 157-158, 161, 1735.2 111, 124, 144, ISO-- 16 161

181 16.2 1615.3 83, 196 17 5, 7, 10, 14, 17-20,5.4 151 27, 84, 108, 141,5.5-8 151 161-1675.5-6 152 17.1-12 1615.6 77 17.1-8 1615.7 142, 152 17.1-4 1615.8 152 17.1-2 162, 165-1666 16, 153 17.2 142, 1656.1-2 153 17.3-10 1617 16, 153 17.3-7 22, 84, 165-1677.1 10 17.3 84, 96, 108, 1677.2 153 17.4-7 1657.3 10 17.4-6 1668 16, 154 17.5-6 1678.1-5 154 17.5 116, 163, 1668.1-3 154 17.6 1638.1-2 154 17.7-11 1618.2 154 17.7 84, 96, 1428.3ff. 154 17.8-11 161-1628.4-6 154 17.8-10 228.6 10 17.8-9 161, 1659 16, 22, 154-156 17.9-11 1659.2-8 154 17.9-10 1649.3-6 155 17.9 74, 108, 142, 1639.3 155 17.10 137, 145, 163, 1719.4 155 17.11-12 23, 27, 161, 165-1669.5 156 17.11 137, 162-163, 165,9.6 142, 155-156 16910 16, 156-157 17.12 27, 73, 105, 108,10.1-2 10 161-162, 165-16710.3 156 18 16, 23, 167-168

275Old Testament

45 21, 26, 176-17746 16, 17747 16, 17747.1 1047.2 11148 16, 17748.1 1048.2 163, 111

4Q532 3, 6-7, 9-11, 41,(4 QEnGiantsd) 178-185, 1861-6 1781 10, 178-1791 i.l 101 i.7-13 1781 i.10 91 ii 9, 1782 21-22, 24, 37, 178,

2.1-2180-182, 183, 216 10

2.3-14 1802.3 1782.7 84, 1802.9 1822.10 150, 1792.14 1823-5 1783 182-183, 1853.1 103.2-4 1823.2 1833.3 172, 1833.4 1833.5 104 22, 183-1844.1-4 1834.5 105 21, 184-1855.1 105.2-5 1845.2 184-1855.3 105.4 1845.5 106 1856.1-2 185

4Q533 8, 41, 186, 221,(4QPseudo Enoch ar) 233-2371 2331.2 2211.7 2211.8 2211.9 221

18.1-3 16718.1-2 16818.4 1019 16, 16819.2-3 16819.3 17220 16, 154, 168-16920.1 1020.2—4 16821 16, 21, 16921.1-3 16921.2-3 16921.3 169, 17321.4 1022 16, 22, 169-17022.1 10, 16922.2 169-17023 16, 17023.2-3 17023.2 16824 10, 17025 16, 170-17125.1-4 17025.5 1026 16, 17126.1-2 1026.3 17126.4 17127 16, 171-17227.1-2 17127.2 18228 16, 17228.2-3 17229 16, 17229.2 17230 16, 17230.2 10, 11131^15 1031 17332 17333 17334 17334.2 157-158, 16135 17436 17437 17438 174-17539 17540 17541 17542 175-17643 17644 176

Index o f Passages276

223222, 224 222 222 222237238224, 238224238239 239 239237, 239 224239 237240 240 240240240-241224241 224 241 241 241 241 241 241241242 242

3, 6-8, 11, 41, 97, 185-191, 22110187-188 188189188188-189 18913, 21, 42, 186,189-191, 192-193, 195190, 195, 223 190, 195 190, 224 13

1.21.31.4-61.41.5 2-28 235-85678 1012-1512+1314-16141516171819-281919.320 21 22232425262728

4Q548 (4QAmram)ii.1-2

4Q556(4QEnGiantse)1-5122.33456

6.16.26.36.7

2 233-2343 2343.4 2213.5 2214 2345 2356 2357 2358 2359 23610 23611 23611.2 22112 23613 23614 236-237

4Q534 10, 41, 214-217,(4QElect o f God) 225-228i.1-3 215i.7-8 215i.8 95i.10 214—215ii.l 216ii.l 6-17 216ii.l 6 84ii.l 8 84

4Q535 10, 41, 68-69,217-218, 228-22

1 69, 2281.1-3 2171.4-6 2172 2282.3 217

4Q536 10, 41, 215,217-218, 229-23

i.1-3 217i.l 217i.7 217i.10 217i .l l 217ii.9-12 2173.1-3 217

4Q537 (4QApocry- phon o f Jacob ar)

41, 222-224

1+4+9+11 237-2381+4+9+11.4 223, 2371+4+9+11.5 2371+4+9+11.6 223, 2371 2371.1 224

277Old Testament

22 20923 209-21024 21025 21026 16, 196, 210-211,

21526.1 21026.3-4 21026.3 20427 21128 21129 211-21230 21230.2-3 21231 21232 21233 213

6Q14 (6QApoc ar) 5, 16, 41, 218-219.231

1.5-7 2191.5 2191.6 2191.7 219

11Q10 (=l\QTargum on Job)xxviii.21 143xxxvi. 11 158

H. Aramaic Papyri

(texts listed according to existing collections)

Cowley, Aramaic Papyri26.23 105

I. Rabbinic, Hekhalot, and Medieval Jewish Literature

Babylonian Talmud

Niddah61a 38

Zebahim113b 38

Bereshit (Gen.) 82Rabbah26:7 112

1 10, 191

4Q557 8, 186

4Q561 10

6Q8 (6QGiants) 3-4, 7, 41, 68-69,196-213

1 7, 14, 17-20, 22,27-28, 55, 69, 85, 90, 119, 148, 167, 183, 196-200, 217-218

1.2 741.3 55, 68, 106,

199-200, 2051.4—5 43, 55, 1961.4 22, 74, 198, 199,2181.5 199, 2101.6 197-1992 13, 15, 19, 22, 27,

38, 40, 42, 66, 81, 86,93,114-115,132, 196, 200-203, 212, 224

2.1 115, 201, 203, 2162.2-3 1152.2 2022.3 2102.7 2033 203-2044 2045 16, 140, 2046 16, 2056.1 2057 2058 16, 2058.1 2059 16, 205-2069.2 20510 16, 20610.2 20611 20611.1 20612 20613 20714 20715 16, 20716 20717 20718 16, 156, 198, 20819 20920 20921 209

Index o f Passages278

111

3838

Numbers13:33

Deuteronomy2:23:11

2, 6, 19, 22, 64-66, 82, 92, 114, 132, 151, 201-203, 206 64 6464, 202

Midrash o f Shemhazai and eA zael 8910

K. Epigraphical Collections

Aramaic Documents of the fifth Century (Driver)7 iii.7 181

Berytusvol. 2 (1933), 110-112 2 117

Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicorum 4209 117

Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (Donner and Röllig)233.9 150233.11 150233.13 150270B.4 150

Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique, v. 3 1792.7-8 118

L. Early Christian and Gnostic Writings

Clementine Homilies 8.15 151

Eusebius o f Caesarea

Praeparatio Evangelica3333-3534 333334 3433-3434-35, 37 33

9.17.1-99.17.29.17.3 9.17.3-89.17.4 9.17.5-6 9.17.6b7־9.17.89.17.9 9.18.2

82

Mishnah

Yoma6:8

Geniza

Testament of Lévi6-7 110

Yalqut Shim ‘oni 82

J Targumic Literature

94

1 1 1

111

111110

111

Fragment Tar gum

Exodus 15:3 (ms. 110)

Targum Neophyti

Genesis6:4

Numbers13:33

Targum Onqelos

Genesis6:431:40

Numbers13:33

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

1561561 1 1

82

Genesis5:23-245:246:4

Leviticus16:21

279Greek and Roman Literature

Verso. 2-4 Verso.2-3 Verso. 3^·Verso. 5 Verso. 6ff.Verso. 6-7 Verso. 7ff.Verso.7-12 Verso. 8ff.Verso. 12

M625c(Henning, p. 66)

M 5900 (Sundermann)

Parthian M 35 M 291

Sogdian (Henning, p. 66)pp. 1-2 pp. 1-2, 1-18p.l, 1-10 p.2, 13

Sogdian T ii (Henning, pp. 68-69)

Sogdian 130(Henning, pp. 70-71)1-4—7 166

Uygur 129, 131, 199(Henning, p.65)pp. 1-2 132-133P-l 97, 99, 127, 134, 199p.2 199

N. Greek and Roman Literature

Aelian

On Animals12.21 109

Hesiod

Theogony617-719 36

Origen

Commentary on John to Jn. 1:18 208

M. Manichaean Sources

Middle Persian Kawan

9.30 34

c 18-20, 50, 54, 56, 198

c.pp. 1-2, 4-22 199c.p.l, 6 92c.p.l, 14 198-199g 18g. 77-8 3 199g. 84-89 25g.84-85 25g-84 26g. 86-94 97g.86ff. 26g-89 25i 73i.5-99 19

19, 22, 50, 72, 201jp -i 71j.p.l, 23-32 59, 147j.p.l, 23-28 72j.p.l, 24 146j.34-41 203j.p.l, 34-39 64-66j.p.l, 39-41 201j, P-2 6k. 60-66 166k.67-76 1991 19, 43, 45, 57, 631.7 561.50ff. 57

L (Sundermann) 2, 92, 107, 148, 200Recto 90Recto. 1-11 85Recto. 1-9 85, 200Recto.4-5 56Recto. 2-10 20Recto. 10 92Recto.9-11 22Recto. 11 73, 119Verso. 1-7 73Verso. 1-5 200Verso. 1-4 137

1661061657387137119 19 107120

130, 201-202

19, 73

1919

199

107200 75-76 199

19

Index of Subjects (with Proper and Place Names)

Archangels (primary angels) 15, 25, 26, 28, 11, 220

Archelaus 32 Ark 15, 58, 65, 210, 215 Army 155 Artapanus 33 Asses 44, 56-57 Assur 150 Assyria 240 Astrology 33-36 Atambi_ 73, 200 Athos, Mount 219 Atlas 34-35, 37 Atonement, Day of 66, 79-81 Axe 114, 202, 206‘Azazel ('Azaz’el, 'Asa’el, 'Aza’el, Ara-

ziel) 18, 23-24, 26, 66, 78-82, 93, 96, 100, 107-108, 111, 196

Babatha archive 71 Baby 109Babylon 34, 36, 39, 109 Babylonia 36Babylonian 5, 31-32, 34-39 Bar Cochba revolt 79 Baraki’el 197-198Baraq’el (Virogdad) 19, 22, 28, 55, 59-60,

68-69, 72, 132-133, 146, 183, 197-199, 217-218

Battle 240- against angels 15, 17, 19, 22, 27,

83-85, 138, 162, 164-167 Beast(s) 57, 59, 162, 164, 219 Beer Zait 240 Bel 39Beloved 79-80 Belos 33-36 Berossus 37, 39 Beth Gama 236-237 Bethel 222-223 Bethhoron 30 Bilingual 117

Abel-Mayya 74, 133-134Abel-Men 74, 133Abilene 74‘Abortions’ 111-112Abraham 33-36, 38-39, 109, 134, 151Adam, children of 196Adversaries 162-164Aelian 109Affliction 135-136Ahiram 14, 146-147Akkadian 82, 135Alexander ‘Polyhistor’ 33-34Alexander the Great 39Alkyoneus 138Altar 239Amalekites 221, 234 ‘Ammiel 146-147 ‘Anael 146-147Ancient of Days, see under God Angel(s)- of destruction 64, 115, 201-203, 206- fallen 68, 81-84, 92-93, 96, 100, 108,

147, 198, 216- guardian 114-115- good 32, 34, 37, 65-66, 73, 11, 83-84,

88, 91, 96-97, 114, 148, 158-160, 163, 167, 216

- ‘holy one(s)’ 77, 91, 759-160, 163, 221, 229

- intercessory 77, 220- messenger(s), mediary 192, 194, 222- Most High ones 229-230- sons of heaven 163 Anger 135-136, 173, 200 Animals 57-58, 143-144, 151, 199- wild 44, 57, 144, 165 Antiochus VII Sidetes 29 Arabic 129Aramaic passim- spoken 71Ararat, mountains of 211

281Index o f Subjects ( with Proper and Place Names)

Dead/Death 125, 132, 135-136, 146-147, 160, 166, 168, 180-181, 230

- of spirits/souls 93, 105-106, 135-136, 160

Deceit 189-190, 223, 237-238 Defilement, see under Watchers Deluge, see under Flood Demi-urge 112Demons, see under Giants and Watchers Deserts, desert regions 82, 90, 134- Syro-Arabian 134- the Great Desert 128, 130, 133 Destruction, see under Giants Dew 62, 99Diaspora, Jewish 32 Divination 234 Donkeys 44, 56, 60, 112 Dreams, see also under Giants- of Archelaus 32- of evil figures 32, 64-66- interpretation of 22-24, 27 Drinking 172Dudael, wilderness of 82

Eagle 128Earth 13, 24, 28, 34, 37, 51, 54, 58-59, 61,

64, 73-75, 77, 84, 87, 89-90, 93, 97, 108, 111-112, 114, 118-121, 128-129, 136, 142-144, 149-150, 152, 156, 160, 166, 178, 180-182, 189-190, 195-196, 219, 238-239, 241

- ends of 27-28, 73, 181 East 133-134Eating 73, 107, 138, 149-152, 162, 164,

180-181, 200, 239 Edomites 30Egypt 34, 37, 39, 181, 221, 235-236 Egyptian 36‘Elect of God’ 214-217, 226 Elephantine 105, 150 Elephants, see under Giants Elioud, see under Giants Enemies 95 Engedi 71 Enkidu 72Enoch 1, 10, 13-15, 17, 20-29, 34, 37, 48,

57-58, 63, 67, 73-76, 85-88, 90-93, 97, 100, 107-108, 111, 116-119, 124-134, 139, 147-149, 155-156, 158, 169, 176-177, 183, 185, 189, 191, 193-194, 199, 201-202, 204, 208, 215, 217, 220-221, 224

Bird(s) 57, 59, 108, 143-144 Birth- ‘Elect of God’ 225-226- giants (see under Giants)- in 4Q535 228- Noah 215-218 Bitenos 197-198 Bitter 238Blessing (eschatological) 15, 18-19, 24,

57-58, 224 Blood 13, 59, 77, 97, 118, 136, 149-151,

160, 171-172, 189-190, 193, 195-196 Board, see under Taxtag Body, see under Flesh Bond, see under Chain Bones 159-160Book(s) (writing) 119-120, 188, 225, 230 Bread 135-137Burning 113, 121, 132, 143-144, 233

Camels, see under Giants- appetite of Giants 151 Canaan (son of Noah) 35, 111, 151 Cattle 143-144Cedar 111 Cedar Forest 72 Cedar Mountain 74 Chain 89, 91, 181-182 Charms 82 City 239Cloud(s) 146, 231 Codicology- of 4Q203 66-68 Complaint, see under Giants Creature(s) (living beings) 44, 56-57, 72,

117-121, 144, 226, 231 Creeping thing(s) 59, 143-144, 169 Crying, see under Weeping Cult (sacrificial) 224 Curse 105, 107-108, 135-136

Dan 74Daniel, the prophet 122 Date- Book of Giants 5-6, 28-31, 121- Damascus Document 29-20- Jubilees 29- Similitudes 3 Dawn 133 Day(s) 228-231- eighth 238- of evil 230- period of 167-168

Index o f Subjects ( with Proper and Place Names)282

- lines not effaced from stone tab­lets) 64—65, 206

Fruit 143, 238

Gabriel 93Garden (Paradise) 64-65, 114-115, 134,

201, 215 garden of truth 133-134 Gardener(s) 109, 113-115, 128, 130, 140,

204 Garment 153 Gazelle 57 Gerazim 34 Giants passim- appetites (see also under Eating)

151-152, 181- assembly of 109-110, 124, 126,

135-136- birth 21, 79, 83-84, 114, 144, 149-151,

196, 201-202- camels 112- companions 60, 71, 78, 80, 105-106,

109-110, 124, 126, 154- complaint against to Enoch 13, 21, 24,

26, 135-137- conflict among 14, 17, 19, 22, 29,

147-149, 152, 197-200- conveyors of culture 33-35- demons 75-76, 85-87, 92, 107, 160,

200- destroyed by the flood 38^10, 57-58,

64-66, 106, 114-115, 159-160, 215- destructive activities 13, 17-19, 21,

24-25, 27-28, 36-37, 50, 58-59, 72, 76-77, 93, 97, 108, 112, 118, 136-137, 143-153, 159-160, 178, 180-182, 189-190, 192-196, 216

- discussions among 14-15, 21, 198— 199, 218

- donkeys 112- dreams of 13-17, 19-23, 27-28, 31, 40,

64-66, 87, 93, 97, 106-111, 113-124,126-127, 129-130, 132, 137-138, 140, !44, 148-149, 155, 162, 164-167, 183, 190, 200-204, 211

- elephants 112- Elioud (,Elyo) 111-112, 152- ‘fall’ of 169-170- hope for escape from 'destruction'

36-37, 106, 132, 148-149, 166-167- human and animal characteristics 72,

108- in Greek mythology 36

- as ״apostle“ 57, 75-76, 99, 107, 132-133

- as dream interpreter 25-27, 32, 111, 116-119, 124-127, 147, 149, 199, 204

- as founder of astrology 34-35- as intercessor (see under petition) 27,

63, 92, 97, 108- as ״scribe“ 73, 85, 87-88, 90-92,

116-119, 124, 126, 148, 155, 169, 193-194

- as visionary 25-27, 37, 93, 118, 191, 194

- knowledge 34-35, 37, 155-156- voice of 124, 126-127, 129, 132, 155 Esau 199Essenes 6, 32 Euhemeristic 34 Eumenes II 36 Eupolemus 33-34 Eusebius of Casesarea 33 Evil 32, 37-38, 40, 77, 88, 90-93, 108,

174, 198, 216-217, 223, 227, 230, 233, 237-238, 240

Evil spirits 38, 160 Eyelid(s) 135-136 Eyes 109-110, 137, 162-164

Fabricius, J.A. 2‘Fallen’ angels, see under Watchers Father 36, 51-52, 197-199, 208, 216-217,

226Fear 76, 105, 107, 124, 126, 197, 199-200,

240 Female 143 Fertility 57Fetter, see under ChainFire 93, 113-115, 121, 130, 132, 215First- journey 17, 20, 22, 127, 132-133- pair of dream visions 22, 86-87, 132- tablet 20, 22, 85-86 Fish 143-144, 233Flesh 38, 59, 106, 119-120, 157-160,

178-181Flood 15-16, 24, 26, 33-36, 38^10,

57-58, 64-66, 73, 93, 104, 106, 109, 114-115, 151, 160, 167, 190, 196, 203, 211, 215-216, 219, 224

- survivors of 34—38, 64-66 Food 59Forgiveness 81-82, 91 Format of presentation 42 Four

283Index o f Subjects (with Proper and Place Names)

Herodian script 28, 66, 142, 225, 228, 233, 237

Hesiod 36 Hinds 162-164 Historiography 32-38 Hobabish 5, 27, 31, 37, 59, 71-72, 74,

108-109 Holy 157-158, 177 Holy ones, see under Angels Holy places 162-164 Horeb, Mount 241 Horoscope 214-215, 225-226 Horses- appetite of Giants 151 House 162- of archives, see under Library- ‘House of escape’ 135-136 Humanity passim- as survivors of the flood 35-38, 64-66,

114-115, 201-202, 216- as victims of the giants 58-59, 92-93,

135-137, 143-145, 152, 182- human labor 59 Humbaba (Huwawa) 72 Hundred 58- a hundred hundreds 119-123 Hypnos 138

Idols 237 Idumaea 29Imprisonment 13-14, 17, 20, 59, 83, 85,

91, 145, 152 Impurity 238 Incantations 112 Insomnia, see under Sleep Israel 66

Jacob 199, 222-223, 257 Jared 156, 198, 208, 235 Jerusalem 34- temple 34 Jewish passim John Hyrcanus I 29 Joppa 221, 233 Joseph bar Hiyya 2 Josephus 32, 36, 39 Joy, see under Giants Jug(s) 56-57Judgment 14, 18, 20, 22, 26-28, 32, 39,

65-66, 80, 90, 93, 105-107, 119-123, 127, 129, 132, 144, 148, 151, 160, 167, 179, 188, 201, 203, 216, 224

- joy (gladness) 76, 105, 107-108, 137, 166

- Nephilim (Naphidim, Naphil)109-112, 124, 126, 128-130, 149-150, 152, 177-178

- pride 166- size of 29-30, 111- survival after the flood 34-35, 37-40,

106, 151, 160‘Gift-offering’ 179 Gigantomachy 36, 138 Gilgamesh (Gilgamow) 5, 14, 22-23, 27,

31, 37, 72-73, 104-106, 108-109, 127, 162, 164-167

Gilgamesh Epic 37, 72-74, 108-109, 133 Glory 94-96, 232 Glossary 4-5 Gnostic 112 Goat 108 God passim- as Ancient of Days 121-123- as Great (One) 88, 105-106, 108,

193-194- as Great Holy (One) 119-123, 191- as Holy (One) 87-88, 106- as Lord 184-185- as Lord of lords 184- as Most High 231, 238- as Ruler of the Heavens 119-121- omniscience of 94-96 Gomorrah 38 Grape(s) 52, 57 Greatness 94-96

Hahyah (Heyya, Nariman) 13-17, 20, 23,25-27, 52, 64-65, 75, 78, 80-81, 84-86, 92-93, 106-108, 110, 114-118, 127, 129-130, 132, 140, 147, 149, 166, 197,200-203, 215

Hair 121, 226 Ham (son of Noah) 35 Hasmonaean 29- script 142, 193Hebraism 79, 81, 105, 125, 208, 220 Hebrew original (Book of Giants) 5, 30 Hecataeus of Abdera 39 Height 125, 158-159 Hellenistic 35-39, 134, 137 Heracles 138Hermon, Mount 74, 133, 208 Hermopolis 150 Herod the Great 32

Index o f Subjects ( with Proper and Place Names)284

Monster 72 Moon 142-143 Moses of Narbonne 82 Mountain(s) 29-30, 111, 134, 175, 208,

210-211, 216- Kögmän 133Mourn (see also under Weeping)

157-158, 231 Mouth 126, 230 Murabba‘at 71 Murderer(s) 135-137 Myriad(s) 121-123Mystery (Secret) 37, 58, 73, 94-96, 226,

229-230

Nabataean 118- script 71 N a‘emel 146-147 Nahal Hever 71 Nariman (= Hahyah) 25-26 Near East 38-39 Neo-Assyrian 72 Nephilim, see under Giants Nicanor 30Night 109-110, 116, 228-231 Nimrod 35-36, 39Noah 26, 35-39, 58, 65-66, 69, 73, 114,

160, 168, 198, 201-203, 208, 211, 214- 220, 224

North 74, 99, 134, 240 Northwest 133

Offerings 238 Og 38,Ohyah (’Aheyyâ, Ahiyah, Sam) 13-14,

16-17, 19-20, 22-23, 27, 31, 38, 50, 52, 55, 59, 64-65, 73, 75, 78, 80-84, 87, 92, 105-108, 110, 116-117, 127, 132, 137, 139, 147, 149, 162, 164-167, 190, 197-201, 203, 218

Oil 57Old Babylonian 72-74, 108 Olympian gods 36 One hundred forty-seven- years of Jacob’s life 223, 237-238 Origen 208- Hexapla 111, 128 Orthography 67 Oryx 57Oxen- appetite of Giants 151

Kamarine 34Killing 50, 58-59, 71-72, 76-77, 135-136,

146-148, 152, 167-168, 200 King(s) 109, 155, 178-179, 221, 237 Kingdom 94, 237 Knife 64Knowledge 155-156, 183-185Kronos 34-36KRYPW (place name) 240

Lamech 197-198 Lebanon 74, 133 Letter 87-88, 90, 93 Library 126 Lies 189-190, 195-196 Lightning 60, 198 Lubar 198, 210-211, 215

Maccabeans 30-31 Mahaway (Mahawai) 27-28, 69-70,

72-73, 76, 85-87, 90-91, 106-108, 111, 117, 124-134, 139, 147-148, 155-156, 167, 183, 197-200, 217-218, 224

- message from 19-20, 22, 69(?), 72, 85-86, 91, 106-107, 197, 199-200

- conflict with ,Ohyah 14, 17, 19, 22, 167, 197, 199-200, 218

- journey(s) to Enoch 14-15, 17, 22-24, 27, 48, 76, 108, 117, 124-134, 139, 148, 199

Male 143 Mani 112 Manichaean passim- Cosmogony 112Manichaean Book of Giants fragments- Coptic 1- Middle Persian passim- Parthian 1- Sogdian 1- Uygur 1 Manichaeans 3 Mastema 160 Media 240Mediation, chain of 28, 90 Medicines 111 Melchizedek 34, 215 Merkabah 123 Messiah 214-215 Metatron 64, 156 Meteorological phenomena 62, 99 Methuselah 92, 198, 220 Michael 38, 51, 93 Moabites 221, 234

285Index o f Subjects (with Proper and Place Names)

Reproduction 57Reptiles, see under Creeping thing(s) Righteous ones 234, 236-238 Righteousness 57, 117 Rights, burial 117 River(s) 121, 146-147 Roots (rootage) 15, 22, 93, 113-115, 130,

187-188, 201-203, 215-216 Rule, see under Kingdom

Sacrifice(s) 224, 239 Sam (Sahm), see under ,Ohyah Samaria 29 Samaritan 34- dialect 71 Sathariel 68 Scaliger, Joseph Juste 2 Scapegoat 66, 81-82 Scorpion 44Sea creatures, see under FishSea(s) 90 240Second- journey to Enoch 15, 20, 22, 108,

127-133- tablet 14, 17, 20, 23, 83-87, 90, 118,

129, 155, 224Secrets, see under Mystery Sefire inscription 190 Seleucid kingdom 34, 39 Senir 74Sepulchre, inscription 117 Sequence of fragments 5-6, 10-24 Seven- days 103-104- leaders of the fallen angels 82- mountains 133-134- tablets 222, 224 Shechem 221, 233 Sheep 44, 57, 143Shemihazah (Shemhazai, Semyaza, Shah-

mizad) 14, 17, 19-20, 23, 38, 52, 64, 66, 82, 84-87, 90-93, 100, 110-111, 118, 151, 165-166, 199-200

Sheol 111 Shepherds 114 Shinar 35Shoots, see under Roots Shoulders 154 Sigla 42 Sihon 38Simon the Essene 32 Sin(s) 59, 81, 97, 107, 157-159, 161,

173-174, 224, 227, 238-239

Palaeography 3, 28-29, 67, 102, 142, 187, 193, 196

Palestine 32, 39Palestinian Archaeological Museum- photographic collection 8-9 Palm (trees) 113Palmyra 117 Palmyrene (Aramaic) 95 Panopolitanus, Codex 2, 50, 72, 79, 88,

96, 117, 134—135, 137, 151, 160, 198, 208

Paradise, see under Garden Peleg 109 Pergamon 36 Persecution, political 122 Persia 240Petition, see under Prayer Philo of Alexandria 39 Phoenicia 34, 36, 39 Photographic evidence 10, 42, 100- accessibility 8-10, 141, 165- inaccessibility 3-5, 7-8, 18, 31, 121,

141, 165, 185Potentates, see under Princes Prayer 13, 15, 17, 21, 25-26, 84, 93-98,

108, 137, 158, 188 Priest(s) 239Princes 105-106, 108, 166 Prometheus 82 Prophecy- of Enoch 15- of Essenes 32 Prophet 221, 233 Prostration 73, 75, 100Provenance (of the Book of Giants) 5-6,

31-39Pseudepigraphon 25-26, 29, 67 ‘Pseudo-Eupolemus’ 33-34, 36-39 Punishment, see under Judgment Pure 168, 239Purpose (of the Book of Giants) 39-40

Qumran passim- Cave 1 41, 223- Cave 2 41- Cave 4 1, 41- Cave 6 41

Rain 62, 99 Ramath Hazor 240 Rams 44, 57Raphael (Rufa’el) 87-90, 92-93 Repentance 66

Index o f Subjects (with Proper and Place Names)286

- giants slain 73- roots (shoots) 201-202, 216, 224- signs 65- sons of Noah 114,201-202,216 Three hundred and fifty shekels- weight of baby in 4Q535 217, 228 Throne(s) 118-123, 150, 153- wheels 121 Titanomachy 36 Titans 36 Tobias 93Tongues (of fire) 113, 130 Tower 33-37 Transjordan 29Tree(s) 15, 64-66, 114-115, 128-130, 143,

201-203 Trembling, see under Fear Truth 117 Turfan 1 Turkestan 1 Twenty- leaders of fallen Watchers 69 Two 20- dreams 16-17, 19, 22, 86, 109-110,

149, 203- giant brothers 20, 81, 109-110, 203- journeys of Mahaway to Enoch 86,

131-133- ‘tablets’ 17, 22, 8^86, 90, 131, 200, 224 Two hundred 44-45, 56-57, 114,

129-130, 169, 201-202, 208

Ubelseyael, see under Abilene Ur 158 Uriel 93 Utnapishtim 73

Vase paintings 138 Vegetation 57, 144 Vineyard 150,211 Violence 13, 76-77, 97, 108 Visions, see also under Giants- of Enoch 25 Vulture 143

Walls 239Watcher(s) 12-14, 17, 19-20, 22, 24-26,

29-30, 32, 37, 39-40, 50, 52, 57-59,63, 66, 68, 72-74, 78-84, 86, 88-93, 95, 97, 100, 107-108, 111-112, 115, 118-119, 129-130, 144, 146-153, 155-156, 158-160, 167, 169, 176, 178,

Sinai, Mount 221, 233 Six thousand 56-57 Sleep 109-110, 135-138, 162-165,

169-170, 172, 200, 228-231 Snake 44 Sodom 38 Solomon 34 ‘Son of man’ 3, 122-123 ‘Sons of a pit’ 216-217, 227 Sorrow 73Soul(s) 93, 105-107, 135-136 South 74, 99, 132, 134 Southwest 74 Spirit- mode of giants' existence 38^10, 106,

151, 160Splendor 94, 154 Stone 6, 64-65, 200, 202 Strength 78, 80, 94-96, 155, 162, 164,

166-167 Stubborn 238 Sumerian 82 Sun 59, 132-133 Suriel (Suryan) 93 Sword 29, 146-148, 218, 230 Syncellus, Georgius 2, 50, 72, 79, 82,

111-112, 135, 156, 208 Syria 39Syriac 95, 125-126, 128, 181, 208

Table 64‘Tablet(s)’ 6, 13-15, 17, 20, 22-23, 64-66,

84-87, 90-92, 97, 107, 118-119, 129, 131, 155, 169, 200, 206, 222-224, 237-239

- washing of 6, 64-66, 206, 215 Tachygraph 2Taxtag 65 Temple 223- Jerusalem 34 Testament 223 Theodore Bar Konai 109 Theophany 31, 106, 118-123 Thigh 226Thirty 47Thousand(s) 52, 56-57, 200- a thousand thousands 119-123,155- camels 151- horses 151- oxen 151 Three- books 226- branches 64, 114-115,202

287Index o f Subjects ( with Proper and Place Names)

Wine 56-57, 211Wings 108, 125, 128, 130, 132-133, 170 Wisdom (wise) 92, 215-216, 226, 229 Woman (Women) 197-198- related to the Watchers 50, 82, 84,

89-90, 108-109, 111, 114, 144,151-152, 160, 202

- related to the giants 59, 72, 87, 89 Wool 121World 128, 130- origin of 112 Worry 106-106, 137, 200 Worship, of God 119-123

Years 95, 103-104, 228-231

Zeus 36- Altar of 36 Zion 240

180-181, 183, 185, 190, 196, 198,201-203, 208, 215-217, 227

- as demons 130- defilement of 149-152- ‘fall’ of 21, 27, 97, 111-112, 130, 143,

149-153, 156, 208, 216- ‘gardeners’ 114-115- good 63, 88, 91, 180- ‘sons of God’ 111- teacher(s) of culture 37, 82, 156, 196 Water(s) 53, 57, 61, 64-65, 74, 93,

103-104, 113-115, 160, 215, 227, 240 Watering 113Weeping 73, 75, 97, 100, 150, 231Weight 228-229West 134Wheat 143Whirlwinds 128, 130White 121Wicked ones 230, 236-237

Index of Modem Authors

Donner, H. 150 Doran, R. 33-35, 37 Driver, G.R. 181 Dupont-Sommer, A. 214

Eisenman, R. 8-9, 120, 178-185, 215, 217Evans, C.A. 215-216Fabricius, J.A. 2Feuillet, A. 214Field, F. I l lFitzmyer, J.A. 3-4, 7, 41, 43-47, 48-52,

54, 59-64, 70, 84, 87-90, 102, 104,109, 112, 115-117, 119, 124-125,128-129, 131, 161-165, 185-186, 196-198, 200-201, 203-205, 210, 214-215, 217, 221-222

Franxman, T.W. 3 Freudenthal, J. 33

Gantz, T. 36Garcia Martinez, F. 4-8, 12-21, 30-32,

43, 45—46, 49, 54-55, 58-61, 63, 65, 67-71, 74-77, 80, 83, 87-90, 94-95, 98-99, 102, 104, 109, 112, 115-117, 119, 121, 124-125, 128-129, 131, 134, 136, 144, 149-150, 152-153, 161-166, 186, 189-190, 193-196, 198, 200, 208, 210-211, 214-215, 217-221, 228, 232, 239

Goodman, M. 4 Grabbe, L.L. 81 Greenfield, J.C. 211, 215, 220 Grelot, P. 134, 214-215

Halévy, J. 208 Halperin, D. 123 Hanson, P.D. 28, 82Harrington, D.J. 4, 43-52, 54-55, 59-64,

70, 87-90, 102, 104, 109, 112, 115-117, 119, 124-125, 128-129, 131, 161-165, 196-198, 200-201, 203-205, 210, 222

Hengel, M. 32-33, 36, 215-216

Alexander, PS. 134 Allegro, J.M. 79 Attridge, H.W. 33 Avigad, N. 142

Baillet, M. 63-64, 196-198, 200-201, 203-213, 218-219

Barrera, J.T. 129, 222 Beyer, K. 4-7, 9-10, 12-16 ,18, 21, 30-31,

41, 43-56, 58-71, 74-79, 83-85, 87-89, 94-95, 98-102, 104-106, 109-110,112-113, 115-116, 118-121, 124-125,127-131, 133-136, 140-141, 143-150,152-159, 161-172, 177-186, 189-190,192-197, 200-201, 203-208, 210, 214-219, 223-224, 239

Black, M. 2, 38, 74, 11, 87, 94-95, 98,111-113, 116-117, 133, 149, 189-190, 208

Blanc, C. 208 Boyce, M. 1 Brooke, A.E. 208 Bruce, F.F. 3

Camponovo, O. 94-95Cantineau, J. 126Caquot, A. 215Carmignac, J. 214Cazelles, H. 214Charles, R.H. 29, 74, 112Charlesworth, J.H. 8, 30, 186, 214, 221Clarke, E.G. I l lCollins, J.J. 30, 32Cowley, A.E. 105Cross, F.M. 28, 102, 142, 193, 196, 225

Delcor, M. 82, 214, 220 Denis, A.M. 33 de Jonge 219 de Vaux, R. 63 des Places, E. 33 Dimant, D. 3, 26, 67, 79

289Index o f Modern Authors

136, 140, 144, 149-152, 161-167, 186,189-190, 192-194, 196-197, 199-202, 223-224

Robert, A. 214 Robinson, J. 8, 120 Röllig, W. 150 Rosenthal, F. 126 Rowland, C. 123

Sanders, J.A. 3 Scaliger, J. 2 Schiffman, L.H. 214 Schnackenburg, R. 3 Schroeder, G. 33 Schürer, E. 4 Smith, R.R 125Sokoloff, M 4, 63, 77, 79, 87, 90, 109,

124, 128, 134, 140, 143, 146-147, 149, 151, 163, 190, 198

Starcky, J. 3, 7, 41, 101, 128-129, 141, 161, 178, 185, 187, 214, 221-222, 237

Stegemann, H. 1, 32 Stone, M.E. 3-4, 33, 220 Stroumsa, G.A.G. 112 Strugnell, J. 29, 79, 217 Stuckenbruck, L.T. 68, 72, 78, 87, 117,

123, 134Sundermann, W. 1, 77, 19, 63, 70-71, 73,

85-87, 90, 106, 119-120, 137, 148, 166, 200

Testuz, M. 222, 237 Tigay, J.H. 72, 109 Τον, E. 8-9, 120

Uhlig, S. 4, 43^15, 74-77, 80, 87, 94, 98-99, 149-150, 161, 164-165,196-197, 200

Ullendorf, E. 4

VanderKam, J.C. 3, 29-30 Vermes, G. 4, 8, 186, 196, 215, 221 Viviano, B.T. 215

Wacholder, B.Z. 33-36 Walter, N. 33 Watson, W.G.E. 8 West, M.L. 36Wintermute, O.S. 30, 148, 222 Wise, M.O. 9, 178-185, 215, 217 Wright, G.E. 28

Yadin, Y. 142

Henning, W.B. 1-2, 18-19, 25-26, 50, 57, 59, 64-65, 72-73, 75, 97, 99, 107, 130, 132, 146-147, 166, 199-201

Hoftijzer, J. 126, 150, 181, 190 Holladay, C.R. 33, 35, 37 Huggins, R.V. 8, 33, 35, 37, 73, 104, 198

Isaac, E. 92-93

Jastrow, M. 143, 146-147, 156, 163, 180 Jean, C.-F. 126, 150, 181, 190 Jeremias, G. 1

Karrer, M. 87-88 Kaufman, S.J. 135, 150, 161 Kerenyi, C. 138 Klimkeit, H.-J. 1Knibb, M.A. 4, 74, 77, 92-94, 98, 208 Kuhn, H.-W. 1 Kümmel, W.G. 33

Laurence, R. 2 Licht, J. 214 Lust, J. 123

Milik, J.T. 1-7, 13-14, 18-19, 21, 25-26, 28-31, 38, 43-72, 74-83, 87, 89-90, 94-95, 98-104, 108-110, 113-116,118-121, 124-125, 127-131, 133-136,140-141, 144, 150-152, 161-166, 178, 185-186, 189-199, 201-202, 204, 208, 214-215, 217-219, 221-223, 232, 237

Millar, F. 4 Mirakin, M. 112 Montaner, L.V. 129, 222

Newsom, C. 96Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 3-4, 38, 82

Odeberg, H. 215

Pfann, S.J. 8-9 Pirot, L. 214Puech, E. 129, 222-224, 237

Qimron, E. 211

Rabin, C. 142 Reed, S.A. 9, 186Reeves, J.C. 1, 4-6, 8, 12-18, 21, 26, 30,

33, 37, 40^41, 43, 46, 49, 53, 55, 58-59, 63, 68-71, 73-75, 77-78, 80, 83-85, 87-90, 94-95, 97-99, 104, 108-109,112-117, 119, 121, 124-125, 127-134,

Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum

Reeg, Gottfried (Hrsg): Die Geschichte von den Zehn Märtyrern. 1985. Volume 10.Renner, Lucie: see Schäfer, Peter Rohrbacher-Sticker, Claudia: see Schäfer, PeterSalvesen, Alison (Ed.): Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments. 1997. Volume 58.Samely, Alexander: The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums. 1992. Volume 27.Schäfer, Peter: Der Bar-Kokhba-Aufstand. 1981. Volume 1.- Hekhalot-Studien. 1988. Volume 19.- see Goldberg, Arnold.Schäfer, Peter (Hrsg): Geniza-Fragmente zur Hekhalot-Literatur. 1984. Volume 6.Schäfer, Peter, Rina Otterbach (Volume 2), Gottfried Reeg, Klaus Herrmann, Claudia Rohrbacher- Sticker, Guido Weyer (Hrsg): Konkordanz zur Hekhalot-Literatur. Volume 1.1986. Volume12. - Volume 2.1988. Volume 13.Schäfer, Peter, Hans-Jürgen Becker, Klaus Herrmann, Ulrike Hirschfelder (Volume 1), Gerold Necker (Volume 1), Lucie Renner (Volume 3), Claudia Rohrbacher-Sticker (Volume 2-4), Stefan Siebers (Volume 2-4) (Hrsg): Übersetzung der Hekhalot-Literatur. Volume 1: §§ 1-80. 1995. Volume 46. - Volume 2: §§ 81-334.1987. Volume 17. - Volume 3: §§ 335-597.1989. Volume 22. - Volume 4: §§ 598-985.1991. Volume 29.Schäfer, Peter, Hans-Jürgen Becker, Anja Engel (I), Kerstin Ipta (I), Gerold Necker (IV, V), Uta Lohmann (I), Martina Urban, Gert Wildensee (Ed.): Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi. - I: Ordnung Zeracim. 1/1-2: Traktate Berakhot und Pe a. 1991. Volume 35. -1/3-5: Traktate Demai bis Shevicit. 1992. Volume 3 3 - 1/6-11: Traktate Terumot bis Bikkurim. 1992. Volume 31. - IV/1-8: Ordnung Neziqin. V: Ordnung Toharot - Traktat Nidda. 1995. Volume 47. Schäfer, Peter, Margarete Schlüter, Hans Georg von Mutins (Hrsg): Synopse zur Hekhalot- Literatur. 1981. Volume 2.Schäfer, Peter, Martin Jacobs (I), Reimund Leicht (II), Claudia Rohrbacher-Sticker (I), Shaul Shaked, Giuseppe Veltri, Irina Wandrey (II) (Ed.): Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza. Volume 1.1994. Volume 42. - Volume II. 1997. Volume 64.Schlüter, Margarete: see Schäfer, Peter.- see Goldberg, Arnold.Schmidt, Francis: Le Testament Grec d’Abraham. 1986. Volume 11.Schroeder, Bernd: Die ,väterlichen Gesetze‘. 1996. Volume 53.Schwartz, Daniel R.: Agrippa 1.1990. Volume 23.Schwemer, Anna Maria: Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden. Vitae Prophetarum. Volume 1:1995. Volume 49. - Volume II: 1996. Volume 50.Shaked, Shaul: see Schäfer, PeterShatzman, Israel: The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod. 1991. Volume 25.Siebers, Stefan: see Schäfer, PeterStuckenbruck, Loren T.: The Book of Giants from Qumran. 1997. Volume 63.Swartz, Michael D.: Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism. 1992. Volume 28.Sysling, Harry: Tehiyyat Ha־Metim. 1996. Volume 57.Urban, Martina: see Schäfer, Petervan Loopik, Marcus (Übers, u. komm.): The Ways of the Sages and the Way of the World. 1991. Volume 26.Veltri, Giuseppe: Eine Tora für den König Talmai. 1994. Volume 41.- Magie und Halakha. 1997. Volume 62 Wandrey, Irina: see Schäfer, PeterWewers, Gerd A.: Probleme der Bavot-Traktate. 1984. Volume 5.Weyer, Guido: see Schäfer, Peter Wildensee, Gert: see Schäfer, PeterWilson, Walter T.: The Mysteries of Righteousness. 1994. Volume 40.

For a complete catalogue please write to the publisher Mohr Siebeck, P.O.Box 2040, D-72010 Tübingen.