Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Book of Giants Loren Stockenbruck
The Book of Giants Loren Stockenbruck
Stuckenbruck
Mohr Siebeck
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme
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 o f 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 writ
ing which the 9th־century chronographer Georgius Syncellus had de
scribed 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 re
covery 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 possi
ble allusions to the Manichaean Book of Giants have recently been sub
jected to a timely analysis by John C. Reeves {Jewish Lore and Manichaean
VIII Preface
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 photo
graphs, have often provided a starting point for reconstructions which I
have proposed. In addition, I have benefited significantly from the scho
larly contributions of Klaus Beyer and Florentino Garcia Martinez (espe
cially 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, dur
ing 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 aca
demic achievement. This has not prevented him from tirelessly devoting
X Preface
P reface.................................................................................................... VII
Abbreviations........................................................................................ XIII
Chapter One
Introduction
Chapter Two
The B ook o f Giants an d the Qumran F ragm ents
1Q24 = lQ G iants*.................................................................................... 59
2Q26 = 2Q G iants...................................................................................... 63
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa ............................................................................ 66
4Q530 = 4Q E nG iants*........................................................................... 100
4Q531 = 4Q EnG iantsc ........................................................................... 141
4Q532 = 4Q E nG iants^........................................................................... 178
4Q556 = 4Q EnG iantse ........................................................................... 185
4Q206 2-3 = 4QEnoche ......................................................................... 191
6Q8 = 6 Q G ian ts...................................................................................... 196
Part Two: Manuscripts Whose Identification with
the Book o f Giants is Unlikely..................................................... 214
4Q534 = 4QElect of G o d ...................................................................... 214
4Q535 and 4Q536.................................................................................... 217
6Q14 = 6QApoc a r ................................................................................. 219
1Q19 = IQ Book of N oah 11, 13, 15................................................... 219
4Q533 = 4QG iants or Pseudo-Enoch a r ........................................... 221
4Q537 = 4QApocryphon of Jacob a r ................................................. 222
Appendix: Texts and Translations o f Documents which have
not been assigned to the Qumran Book o f G ian ts.................. 225
4Q 534............ 225
4Q 535......................................................................................................... 228
4Q 536......................................................................................................... 229
6 Q 1 4 .......................................................................................................... 231
1Q19 11, 13, 1 5 ....................................................................................... 232
4Q 533......................................................................................................... 233
4Q 537......................................................................................................... 237
1 Chron. 1 Chronicles
1 En. 1 Enoch
1 Kgs. 1 Kings
1 Macc. 1 Maccabees
2 Sam. 2 Samuel
3 Macc. 3 Maccabees
ABD David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary
(6 vols.)
acc. accusative
act. active
Ant. Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae
Aq. Aquila
Aram. Aramaic
ATTM Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer
ATTM EB Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer.
Ergänzungsband
b. (before rabbinic text) Babylonian Talmud
BE J.T. Milik, The Books o f Enoch. Aramaic Fragments o f
Qumrân Cave 4
Bell.Jud. Josephus, Bellum Judaicorum
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BG Book o f Giants
Bib Biblica
Bibl.Heb. Biblical Hebrew
BibZeit Biblische Zeitschrift
BSOAS Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental African Studies
c.Apion Josephus, contra Apionem
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CD Cairo Genizah Damascus Document
Clem.Rec. Clementine Recognitions
Cod.Pan. Codex Panopolitanus
col.,cols. column, columns
CRINT Compendium rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum
Dam.Doc. Damascus Document
Dan. Daniel
Deut. Deuteronomy
Dictionary 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
XIV Abbreviations
Lev. Leviticus
LXX Septuagint
m. (before rabbinic text) Mishnah
Man. Manichaean
masc. masculine
MBG Manichaean Book o f Giants
Mid.Pers. Middle Persian
Midrash Midrash o f Shemhazai and 'Aza'el
Mk. Mark
M PAT Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Daniel J. Harrington, A Manuel o f
Palestinian Aramaic Texts
ms. ,mss. manuscript, manuscripts
MT Masoretic tradition
n. note
Neh. Nehemiah
N eof Targum Neofyti
Nid. Niddah
no. number
New 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 Version
N TS New Testament Studies
obj. object
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OTP James H. Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
(2 vols., 1983-1985)
p.,pp. page, pages
Palm. Palmyrene
PAM Palestinian Archaeological Museum
pass. passive
PEQ Palestinian Exploration Quarterly
perf. perfect
pers. person
plur. plural
Praep.Evang. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica
pron. pronominal
Prov. Proverbs
Ps. Psalms
PTA Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen
ptc. participle
PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece
QumApoc Florentino Garcia Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic. Stu
dies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran
rel.pron. relative pronoun
RevBib Revue Biblique
RevQum Revue de Qumran
RHR Revue de l'histoire des religions
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLMS Society o f Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature: Resources for Biblical Study
SBLTT Society o f Biblical Literature: Texts andTranslations
SB T Studies in Biblical Theology
XVI Abbreviations
sc Sources chrétiennes
Sem Semitica
sing. singular
Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles
Sir. Sirach
STDJ Studies on the Texts o f the Desert o f Judah
subj. subject
subst. substantive
suff. suffix
SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha
Sym. Symmachus
Syn. Georgius Syncellus
Syr. Syriac
T.Levi Testament o f Lévi
T.Naph. Testament o f Naphtali
T.Reub. Testament o f Reuben
Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos
Tg. Ps.-Jon. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Theod. Théodotion
ThRund Theologische Rundschau
ThStud Theological Studies
Tob. Tobit
Tools Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publica
tions and Tools for Study (1990)
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum
v.,w. verse, verses
Vet Test Vetus Testamentum
WsdSol. Wisdom o f Solomon
W UNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament
ZD M G Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
Zebah. Zebahim
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
Chapter One
Introduction
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 o f Chinese Turkestan, Henning began to give attention to the Manichaean BG in
“Ein manichäisches Henochbuch”, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wis
senschaften in Berlin, Phil.-Hist. Klasse (Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1934) 3 -
11 and “Neue Materialien zur Geschichte des Manichäismus”, ZD M 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
o f Giants”, B S O A S 11 (1943-1946) 52-74 (hereafter “Book o f 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 Wis
senschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, 45; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960)
no. 101 (p. 9). To Henning’s collection o f 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.
2 Introduction
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 pub
lished by W. B. Henning2 (and now also by Werner Sundermann3) and in a
Jewish writing designated the Midrash of Shemhazai and (A zael.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
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 Simili
tudes was a Christian composition from the late 3rd century C. E. Corre
spondingly, 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 back
ground for the use of “son of m an” in the New Testament, sparked con
siderable debate. As a result, references to the Qumran BG by reviewers of
Milik’s study have been frequently absorbed into their critique of his dat
ing 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 pub
lication of the material was conspicuously incomplete. While he did pro
vide 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 manu
script (4QEnGiantsQ10 while offering a number of readings and restora
tions 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 o f Enoch and the Books o f Enoch״,
VetTest 33 (1983) 16-17; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ״Implications o f 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 litera
ture”, 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 X XX -X X X II (but without phot, for Frgt. 1).
11 Ibid., pp. 236-38, 303-308.
4 Introduction
12 This no doubt accounts, e. g., for the very cursory discussion o f 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 M PAT); see
pp. 68-79 (2Q26 and selected portions o f 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.
I. Research on the Book o f Giants Fragments from Qumran 5
33 That is, Reeves is aware neither o f the Spanish version o f 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 o f 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 //b elow .
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 A TT M (Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994) 119-24 (hereafter ATTMEB).
8 Introduction
39 See QumApoc, pp. 104-105 and idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qum
ran 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 o f (for him) uncertain identifica
tion 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 S S T 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 cor
respond 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 D SS Rule); and Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls
in English (London: Penguin Books, 1995, 4th ed.) li-lii (hereafter D SSE). 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 o f photographs taken for the
Palestinian Archaeological Museum (hereafter PAM) during the late 1950’s and early
1960’s.
42 The same may be said o f Reeves’ further contribution, ”Utnapishtim in the Book
o f 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.
I. Research on the Book o f Giants Fragments from Qumran 9
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 photo
graphs. 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 frag
ments 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
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 comprehen
sive. His apparent aim to include the fragments containing legible vocab
ulary 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
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 commen
tary in Chapter Two; this discussion shall address the questions of order
ing the fragments, the character, and the date and provenance of BG.
G 1: Giants Dom inate the QG 1: Events A fter the 1: Summary o f the B ook o f
Earth Watchers ’ Fall Watchers
4Q531 5 4Q531 5 1Q23 9+14+15
+ + 1Q23 1+6+2255
1Q23 9+14+15 1Q23 9+14+15 4Q203 1356
(A T T M )
4Q531 1 (A T T M E B )
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 infer
ence, 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 o f 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 o f Enoch at the conclusion o f BG. Milik (.BE, pp. 316-17) does not attempt
to locate them.
59 Cf. Beyer’s Q 9.
14 Introduction
G 102-626:
Isolated Fragments
1Q23 2 -4 , 7, 10-11, 13,
16-17, 19-22, 24, 2 7 -
28, 30-31 (A T T M )
1Q24 1-8 (A T T M )
70 Cf. Beyer’s G 14, in which the fragments are interpreted as stemming from a pro
phecy 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 o f this section on the basis o f his interpretation o f 1Q23
9+14+15 (= his QG 10) and some o f 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 o f 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 o f 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 o f Hahyah
(4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12) or belongs to an interpretation o f it by Enoch (4Q530 col. iii).
16 Introduction
4Q530 16 (A T T M )
4Q531 2 -3 , 6-10,
12-16, 18-23, 25-30,
46-48 (A T TM E B )
4Q532 1-6 (A T TM E B )
4Q203 5 -6 , 11-12
(A T T M )
6Q8 5-6, 8-10, 15, 18,
26 (A T T M )
G 1000:
Prediction o f the Deluge
6Q14 (A T T M )
77 For a fuller discussion of the problematic sequences listed below see the analysis of
the pertinent fragments in the commentary.
II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG 17
78 That is, Reeves assumes on the basis o f 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.
18 Introduction
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 T T M , 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.
II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG 19
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 manu
script belonging to Qumran BG must have represented an identical recen
sion.
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) Compar
ison 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 o f 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 o f the Manichaean fragments preserve this motif: Mid. -
Pers. Kawan Frgt. i 95-99 (Henning, ‘T h e Book o f 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 o f Giants” 68-69); Parthian M 35 (= text “N ” in ibid. 71-
72); and Parthian M 291 (= text “T”, ibid. 73). The absence o f 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 o f the tradition.
83 E. g., Qumran BG may have contained up to four o f 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 l preserves 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 o f the two dreams found in 4Q530 col. ii.
84 For a fuller account o f the location o f individual Frgt.’s, consult the comments ad
hoc in Chapter Two.
85 N ot enough, however, is preserved in 1Q23 16 and 17 to indicate anything about
their location.
86 Cf. Milik, BE, p. 301.
20 Introduction
sections 1 to 4, less certainly 5 and 6S1 below) and those which are sub
sequent to their incarceration (sections 9-10). (b) Second, and more ex
plicit 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 succes
sively 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 pre
cipitated 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, func
tion 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 considera
tions 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.
* The placement o f the fragment within this part o f the Qumran BG is based
on inferences discussed in the commentary.
? The inferred sequence or placement is very uncertain; the fragment may
very well belong within another context o f BG.
[] Such brackets are placed around section headings and sub-headings for
which there is no direct textual evidence, but whose existence in the Qum
ran B ook 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 M ar
tinez, and M ilik respectively.
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).
22 Introduction
4Q203 3-(*,MS)
4Q203 5-(*)
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.
II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG 23
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,*)
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 tradi
tion 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. writ
ings 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.
III. The Character o f the Qumran Book o f Giants 25
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 ulti
mately 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 Watch
ers 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 stron
gest 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 char
acterize Qumran BG.
94 See Mid. Pers. Kawan, Frgt. g, 11.84-89 (esp. 1.89), which Henning assumes derives
from a “series o f visions” given to Enoch (“The Book o f 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 o f Frgt. 2 o f the ms. by Milik is discussed and
rejected.
26 Introduction
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 En
och; 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 com
posed 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 o f 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 o f victimized humans com
plaining against their oppressors and o f perpetrators o f 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 o f BG may ultimately reflect that o f the Book o f Watchers 6-11, in
which the story is concerned with an elaboration o f 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 o f 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.
III. The Character o f the Qumran Book o f Giants 27
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.
28 Introduction
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 a te
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 o f 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.
IV The Date o f the Qumran Book o f Giants 29
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” - וכהרים גויו תי ה ם... ) א ש רwhich 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
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 o f 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 pro
mulgation” (i. e., 100 years!).
113 Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, p. 115. This phrase thus substitutes the complemen
tary parallel phrase o f Amos 2:9: “and as strong as the oaks”.
114 ATTM , p. 259.
V Provenance and Purpose 31
115 On the dating o f the oldest ms. o f 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 o f 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.
32 Introduction
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 o f continuity from the authors
o f the Enochic and Daniel literature to the Essenes or, more specifically, to the commun
ity 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 Imagi
nation, 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.
V Provenance and Purpose 33
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 Frag
ments on the Life o f Abraham”, H U C A 3 4 (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 o f 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-röm
ischer 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 argu
ment favoring Walter’s thesis is that, formally, the essential difference between the Frgt.’s
is the nature o f 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 o f “Belos”; see below.
34 Introduction
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 lo
cated 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 Ba
bylon (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 G od” (υπό τής τού Φεοϋ ένεργείας; 9.17.2).
Although the location of Abraham’s birth-place is identified as “the Ba
bylonian 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) as
trology 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 Melchi
zedek 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 else
where to Eupolemus which affirm inter alia the primacy of the Jerusalem temple under
Solomon {Praep. Evang. 9.30). Though the interpretation o f the place-name may well
derive from the Gen. 14:18 identification of Melchizedek as a “priest o f the Most
High”, it is not necessary to suppose that therefore the assertions in the Frgt. are con
sistent with a pro-Jerusalem stance, as Doran has argued in “Pseudo-Eupolemus”,
pp. 874-76. It remains that the degree o f 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 o f 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.
V Provenance and Purpose 35
flood, the traditions in both MT and LXX neither account for how Nim
rod 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 under
score 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, Abra
ham’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 o f 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 Abra
ham 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 o f 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 o f 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 (prob
ably to be dated to the m id 2־nd cent. B. C. E.), in which the tower o f Babel in Genesis -
destroyed by “gods” (according to Josephus, citing the Sibyl in Ant. 1.118 - οί ύ εοί
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.
V Provenance and Purpose 37
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 in
structed Enoch in the sciences and the giants who learned this from En
och. 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 o f Giants?” 110-12; see 1 En. 106:1-7, 10-
12 and 1QapGen 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 tradi
tions which were associating Noah with giants, his thesis that the coordination o f bib
lical characters by “Pseudo-Eupolemus” with Greek and Near Eastern mythological
traditions depends on BG’s reference to “pagan” characters is less convincing. An im
portant difference ought not to be overlooked between the two; while Frgt. 1 o f “Pseu
do-Eupolemus” provides an equivalent for Enoch in the Greek hero Atlas (9.17.9), the
extant fragments o f 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 o f evil throughout the earth. This contrasts with the vi
sions shown to Enoch in ch.’s 17-36.
38 Introduction
141 Cf. the same emphasis in Sir. 16:7 a (ούκ έξιλάσατο περί των αρχαίων γιγάντων);
CD col. ii, 17-21 ( נפלו וכל ב שר אשר היה ב ח רב ה... ;) ו בני ה םand 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 o f
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 ( ; עו ג שפלט מדור מבולtext 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 o f Ahiyah the son o f 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 o f tradition which BG may
have sought to refute.
V Provenance and Purpose 39
144 E. g., the history o f Babylon written in Greek by the priest of Bel in Babylon,
Berossus, during the early 3rd cent. B. C. E.
145 On the basis o f content alone, provenance in Egypt cannot be excluded. In con
trast to the traditions of “Pseudo-Eupolemus” fragments, Philo of Alexandria {de Gi-
gantibus) during the 1st cent. C. E., put forth an allegorical interpretation o f 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 o f 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.
40 Introduction
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 Watch
ers’ progeny cognizant of their ultimate fate.
As significant as N oah’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 subor
dinated 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 G od’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 o f the materials, of course, cannot exclude this as a possibility. But the assump
tion that a narrative account must have formed part o f the story is not supported by
anything among the extant fragments.
Chapter Two
Part One
M aterials belonging to the Qumran B ook o f Giants
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 manu
scripts 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 A T T M , p. 268.
4 Ibid., p. 229 n. 1
5 Jewish Lore, p. 110.
42 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 iso
lated fragments while others allow for a greater degree of reconstruction.
In the former case, the presentation follows a numerical order in accor
dance 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 frag
ments 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 photogra
phic evidence, followed by a critical comparison with other proposed rea
dings 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 its
visibility 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 colum n or between columns
1Q23 = lQGiantsa 43
1Q231
M ilik, D JD I, 97-98 and “Turfan et Qum ran”, 120; BE, 301-302; Fitzmyer-Har-
rington, M PAT, 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 266 (and n. 3); U hlig, Henochbuch, 755-56;
Reeves, Jewish Lore, 60, 65, and 122-24; Garcia Martinez, D SST, 260 and Qum-
A poc, 100.
Photographs. Milik, D JD I, Plate X IX (all 1Q23 frgts.).
The fragment is combined with 1Q23 6 and 22 by M ilik {BE), followed by U hlig
and Garcia Martinez, with 1Q23 6 only by Beyer. See the combined text and trans
lation in section B below.
] . 1
־priKiD !n a n 2
p]nKa v w 'D pn«a !y 3
].*o rrn !a * r a 4
] a., 1?y 5
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 o f “Deux
Apocryphes en Araméen” (hereafter DJD I).
44 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1 [.]״
2 donkeys two hundred assefs ... two hundred
3 sheep, two hundred rams, two hu[ndred ... o f the
4 field from every living creature, and ’.[
5 upon/concerning ..g [
1Q232
M ilik, D JD I, 97: Fitzmyer-Harrington, M P AT, 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 267.
] אנין.[ l
]· 2 ]איו
1.1: Or אנ י ן.
1.2: Or [ און.
1 ]. they/these[
2 ]> .[
1Q233
M ilik, D JD I, 97; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 267.
]1 ]..מ נ ה
2 ] [ו הוי ת
3 ] ו ש חי ת[ א
1Q 234
M ilik, D JD I, 97; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 267.
]· 1 ]ה
2 ].[ ק ר ב
3 ][ל
1. 1: See the similar הin 1Q23 13 1.2. Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]. .[.
1. 2: M ilik, D JD I, and Fitzmyer-Harrington: ];[ ת ק ר בBeyer: ][ ת ק ר ב.
1 ]M
2 ](you/it [fern.]?) will approach[
3 ]/[
1. 2: Fitzmyer-Harrington: or “offer”.
1Q 235
Milik, D JD I, 97.
[.. ]ב 1
[]תב 2
1 ]/ ..[
2 M
1Q236
M ilik, D JD I, 97 and BE, 302; Beyer, A T T M , 266 and n. 3; Uhlig, Henochbuch,
755-56; Garcia Martinez, D SST, 260 and QumApoc, 100. See under 1Q23 1 above.
M ilik and Garcia M artinez com bine 1Q23 6 with 1Q23 1+22, while Beyer com -
bines it only with 1Q23 1. For the com bined text and translation, see section B for
1Q23 below.
]..[ 1
(end o f 1Q23 1 1.2?) 2]. מ א ת[ין
1. 2: Given a correct reconstruction and follow ing the M iddle Persian Kawan
(Frgt. I; cited under 1Q23 1+6+22), M ilik, followed closely by Beyer,
reads and restores: מ א תין ד כ רין. . . ] ן מ א ת[ין י ע לין מ א תין. ] ד י.
1 ]..[
2 ]. [two] hundred [
46 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1Q23 7
M ilik, D JD I, 97; Beyer, A T T M , 267.
]1 ] ו א רו
2 ][ל״
1. 1: Milik, D JD I, 97: ] ו א רי. If the word contained no further letters, א רוis
the more com m on form o f the word.
1 ] and behold[
2 ]/..[
1Q23 8
Milik, D JD I, 97.
1]
]דן
]n
]this?
[־
1Q239
M ilik, D JD I, 97; “Turfan et Qumran”, 120 and BE, 302-303; Fitzmyer-Harring-
ton, M PAT\ 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 260 (11. 1-3) and n. 1; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 57,
62, and 74-75; Garcia Martinez, D SST, 260 and QumApoc, 100.
M ilik (BE), Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, Reeves, and Garcia M artinez 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 4Q EnG iantsc 5 (4Q531 5)7; later, Beyer (A T T-
M EB, 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*[ 3
M ]V.[ 4
1. 1: M ilik (BE) and Fitzmyer-Harrington: nan n.[; Beyer: nan n[.
1. 2: Milik, BE; Fitzmyer-Harrington; and Beyer: na[.
1.3: Milik, D JD L ]xa. Milik, BE: ]a; Fitzmyer-Harrington: !]a; Beyer:
n[x]a, n being the visible letter on 1Q23 14 1.5.
1 ].h rb[
2 ]./z w # [
3 ]giants m.[
4 ]../[ ]/[
1Q 2310
M ilik, 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 2311
M ilik, D JD I, 98, “Turfan et Qumran”, 120 and BE, 302; Beyer, A T T 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[ i
H[ 2
•[ 3
1.1: Or: p or |־.
1 ]«
2 ]which/who
3 ] ·
48 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1Q 2313
M ilik, D JD I, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267.
1 ]. א ר ב[ ע
2 ]ת ק נ ה ר[ א
3 ]. [ אז ל
1 ]. fou[r
2 ]tq [the] river[
3 ] .h e went[
1Q23 14
M ilik, D JD I, 98, “Turfan et Qumran,” 120 and B E , 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 D SST\ 260.
M ilik (BE), Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, Reeves, and Garcia M artinez 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 ]ו י ד ע ו ר
3 ]. [ ב א ר
4 [[ ק ט ל ו ל ש
5 [[ ה
1 m
2 ]and they knew r[
3 ]. b r [
1Q23 = lQGiantsa 49
1Q2315
M ilik, D JD I, 98, “Turfan et Qum ran” 120 and B E , 302-303; Fitzmyer-Harring-
ton, M PAT, 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 260 and n. 1; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 57, 62, and
74-75; Garcia M artinez, QumApoc, 100 and D SST\ 260.
M ilik (BE), Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, Reeves, and Garcia Martinez all com -
bine 1Q23 15 with 1Q23 9 and 14. For the com bined text and translation, see sec-
tion B to 1Q23 below.
]1 ]ע א
2 ]שגי[ א
3 [ כ]ל די
1.2: Portions o f the same שare visible both here and 1Q23 141.4.
1 n
2 ]much/many[
3 everything which[
1Q2316
M ilik, D JD I, 98; Beyer, A T T M , 267; Garcia M artinez, QumApoc, 100. Garcia
M artinez proposed the com bination o f 1Q23 16 1.3 (top o f לvisible) with
1Q23 17 1.1 (see לin ]) ו ע ל ו. See com m ent in section B below.
(?)1 י א/לו ח[ א
2 |ואי
3 [][ל
1.1: With Beyer, M ilik, D JD /: ]rm .
1. 2: Milik, D JD T. ]. ;ו איBeyer: 1“( י אינbeautiful”-masc. / fern. abs. plur.).
1 [the] tablet[(s?)
2 w ’y [
3 []/[
1Q2317
M ilik, D JD I, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267; Garcia
M artinez, QumApoc, 100.
Garcia Martinez proposed the com bination o f 1Q23 17 1.1 (bottom portion o f
the visible לwith 1Q23 16 1.3 (top o f ) ל. See the com m ent below.
50 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
]1 ו ע לו
2 בי די הון. [
3 [ ו ש רי ל
1. 3: W ith Beyer. Milik: ו ש ר ו. The plural subject and pron. suffix in 11.1-2
m ight initially suggest a plural form here (= qal “they encam ped”).
However, the follow ing לmay suggest an infln. which would be consi-
stent with ( שריp a “el “he began”; the plur. form would be ש ריוand
hence is unlikely).
1Q2318
M ilik, D JD I, 98.
]· ···[ 1
]2 ]ת א ב ה
3 ]·[ ל
1.1: Milik: ] . [ ל ו ד ו
1.2: M ilik :][ ת א ב ר ת.
1 ] - ·[
2 ]you (shall) wish[
3 ]■/[
1Q2319
M ilik, D JD I, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (1.1
only).
1]ב א ר[ ע א
2 ].] ב ע
1Q2320
M ilik, D JD 7, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (11.1-4).
U 1
2 ]ב אדי[ן א בו הן
3 ]. ע ל מין. [
4 ][ כ ל בני
]. ..[ 5
1 ]«[
2 ]their father. The[n
3 ]. ages .[
52 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1Q2321
M ilik, D JD I, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT\ 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267.
]0[ ].[ 1
Y! paan[ 2
].......................3
1 ]·[ )m [
2 ]you are seizing everything which[
3 ] /....[
1Q2322
M ilik, D JD I, 98 and B E , 302; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT\ 70-71; Beyer, A T T M ,
267 and n. 3.
]![ 1
33]» 1» T>Q[‘7K 2
]!’1X3[ 3
1 ]«[
2 th ou san ds from a grfape cluster
3 ] Then [
1023 = IQGiants“ 53
1Q2323
M ilik, D JD I, 98.
]·1 ]פן א
2 ]ל. ·[
I.2: M ilik :].. [ ל.
1 ]from
2 ]/. .[
1Q2324
Milik, D JD I, 98; Beyer, A T T 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 1
)?(תוב[ה 2
[מין 3
].. 4
1 not[
2 again[
3 waters[
4 ..[
1Q23 25
Milik, D JD 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
] ...2 ].ל
] ·’·[ 3
] 4 ]·ב י
5 [ל א ר ע[ א
1 ]«[
2 ]./...[
3 ].y. [
4 ].bw [
5 ]to [the] earth[
1Q2326
M ilik, D JD I, 98.
] ...[ 1
[ ב ע ר. מ..] 2
]·· ··[ 3
1 ]...
2 ].. m. k'r[
3 ].. ..[
1Q2327
M ilik, D JD I, 98, “Turfan et Qumran”, 120 and BE, 302; Fitzmyer-Harrington,
M PAT, 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (11.1-2,4); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 100.
]1 ]. א לן א
2 ]מ הו י [
3 ]. ב..[
4 ] [עד
5 ] כ.[
1 ]. these ’[
2 ]Mahaway [
3 lb ..[
4 ] until[
5 ]k.[
occurs in 1 Enoch, its presence here provides added evidence for the iden-
tity of 1Q23 with BG.
1Q23 28
M ilik, D JD I, 98; Beyer, A T T M , 267.
[]ה ב ר ה 1
1 ]h his son[
Comment. ב ר ה: the substantive probably refers to a giant, while the suffix
denotes one of the Watchers.
1Q2329
M ilik, D JD I, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT\ 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 f
6Q8 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.
M ilik, 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
M ilik, D JD , 98; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (1.1).
[ ] שרי 1
[..] 2
1. 1: With Beyer. Milik: ][ ש ר ה.
1.2: Milik: [ ב י ן.
1 ]he began [
56 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 .[
1Q23 1+6+22
Notes on the combination. Milik {BE) has proposed placing 1Q23 22 som
ewhere 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 ac
count 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 combina
tion 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
][!־, ]n xa vw'n pn«» w 3
na]y !־a rrn hS !־a in n 4
]piK n[ ] a.. 17V 5
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 post
diluvium fertility to follow upon the destruction of the giants. This recon
structed 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 Mani
chaean 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 o f 1Q23 as belonging to
the Qumran BG.
9 We may ask whether the choice o f 200 to describe the extent o f reproduction is
intended as an antidote which reverses the fall o f the 200 Watchers as narrated in 1
En. 6:5.
10 See Henning, “Book o f 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.
58 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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:
14 1.1
14 1.2
15 1.1 + 14
14 1.3
1.3 ++ 99 1.1
1.1
15 1.2 + 14
14 1.4
1.4 ++ 99 1.2
1.2
15 1.3 + 14
14 1.5
1.5 ++ 99 1.3
1.3
9 1.4
]1[ 1
]2 ]ו י ד ע ו ר
3 ].ב א ר ע א ][ ה רב[ה
4 ].ה ו ק ט לו ל שגי[ א ץ
5 ][ ג ב ר י ן מאה [כ]ל די
6 ]..[ל[ ]ל
1. 2: M ilik (BE) restores: ; ר[זיin 1 Enoch 16:3 Enoch tells the Watchers that
they know “the rejected mysteries”.
1. 4: קin ו ק ט לוcan be reconstructed from visible traces on 1Q23 9 and 14.
The restoration follows Beyer.
1 M
2 ]and they knew r[
3 ].h [was] great on the earth[
4 ].h and they killed man[y
5 ]a hundred giants, [a]ll who[
6 ]../[]/[
1. 2: The translation o f Garcia M artinez (D S S T [ 260) follows M ilik’s recon-
struction: “and they knew the mysteries”. N o t enough is visible on
1Q23 14 to verify this reading.
12 As argued by Reeves (Jewish Lore, p. 122) on the basis o f 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 o f the Qumran BG.
1Q24 = lQGiants 59
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
)לקטלהand consume humanity (v. 4). They also (3) “sin against birds,
wild 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 ... im prisoned.”
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).
60 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1Q241
Milik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M P A T \ 126-27; Beyer, A T T M , 267-68
(11.3-7); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc , 101 n. 12.
[רוה. .]
[·וו ה ....................... ] 2
[.ו]ל[ ]יאולנה
[ולהמריא ול יא.] 4
[ולכול vacat .] 5
[.פיאולמ.]
[י]א ולברקיא
[ ··ל
1.1 Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ][ ן ו רו ח.
1.2 Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: j.m שין ו ב ח שין.[.
1.3 Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ] י א ו לנ הן.. ;[ לBeyer: ] ]יא..[ו]ל
א..ו ל
1. 4: With Beyer: ;ו ל ח מ רי אM ilik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ו ל ח ב רי א
(“and for the com panions”).
1 ]. .rwh[
2 ] .. nand 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 ] /. . [
1Q242
Milik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT\ 126-27; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (1.2).
1Q24 = lQGiantsb 61
]·[ 1
2 ]ע ל אר[ ע א
3 ][ ל
1 ]·[
2 ]upon [the] ear[th
3 ]/[
1Q243
M ilik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 128-29; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.3).
] ■[ 1
]2 ]ת א
3 ][ ל כ ו ל תעז
1 ]·[
2 r t
3 ]for every hsh[
1Q244
Milik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 128-29.
].1 ] מיא ה
1 ] water h.[
1Q245
M ilik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 128-29; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1 1 .3 -
4); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 101 n. 12.
]·[]· ·[ 1
].2 ]ו י צ רו ש
3 ].[ ר י ה ו ן ו ל כו ל
4 ] ל מ ט ר א ול טל[ א
5 ][ל[ ]ל
1. 3: W ith Fitzmyer-Harrington. Milik: ררהרן.[; Beyer: ( [ ר ה ו ןsic!).
1. 4: Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer: ו ל מ ט ר א.
62 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1 ]· ·[ ]■[
2 ]rwsh and y s. [
3 ]their .r[
4 ] the rain and [the] dew [
5 ]/[]/[
1Q246
M ilik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT,\ 128-29; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.1).
] 1 ]ל כ ר ל
2 ]גי פי. [ ל
1 ]for every [
2 ]/ ·gy py[
1Q24 7
Milik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT\ 128-29; Beyer, A T T M , 268.
]1 ]. לקץ יום
2 ] כו ל א ג מי רי[ן
3 [ ע] לי הון די
1Q248
M ilik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 128-29; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.2).
]·[ ]1 ]·ן
2 ][ לא שלם לכון
1 ln[ ].[
2 ]there (is/will) not (be) peace for you[
1.1: Milik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer: “he did not take vengeance on
you”.
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.
2Q26
Baillet, D JD III,™ 90-91 (“Fragment de Rituel [?]”); M ilik, BE, 309 and 334-35;
Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 72-73; Sokoloff, “N o tes” 210 and 213; Beyer,
A T T M , 266; Sundermann, “Ein weiteres Fragment”, 492; Garcia Martinez, Qum-
Apoc, 101; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 51 and 147 n. 19919.
Script. Herodian.
17 See a similar phrase (if correctly restored), but which uses the singular 2nd person
pronoun, in 4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 13 1.3: [ אי תי לכה ש[לם.
18 Abbreviation used hereafter for eds. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Dis-
coveries in the Judaean Desert: Les ‘p etites 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.
64 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1.1: Baillet, Milik, and Fitzmyer-Harrington interpret the verb form as a 3rd
person plural (whether as a perf. or impf.), while Beyer sees therein a
2nd pers. plur. impv. See the com m ent 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 ‘A za’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 ( ) א בן ג דו ל ה פ רו ס הover the earth as a table
() כ שו ל חן, and the whole o f it was engraved with lines. And an angel ( ) מ ל א ךde-
scended from the firmament with a knife in his hand, and he was erasing and
scraping o ff ( ) הי ה ג ו ר ר ו מו ח קeach o f the lines; he was not leaving (anything intact)
except for one line (com posed) o f four expressions ( ) ת י ב ו ת/ ’
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:
2Q26 - 2QGiants 65
“ ... 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.”
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 o f the verb “to
see”.
21 QumApoc, p. 101.
66 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 ‘A za’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 fore
boding prospects for the giants. The second dream about trees, mentioned
in the Kawan and Midrash, corresponds to the extant portions of 6Q8 2.
These possibilities are evaluated in the discussions under the relevant frag
ment 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 o f the destruc
tion o f 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 photo
graph.
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 67
4Q 2031
Milik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 124 and B E , 311 (without photograph on Plate X XX );
Beyer, A T T M , 263 and A T T M E B , 125-26 (= 4Q535!); Reeves, Jewish Lore, 60 and
65-66 (without comm ent on pp. 124-27); Garcia Martinez, Qum Apoc, 103 and
D SST, 260.
M ilik 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 M artinez in Qum-
Apoc.
Photographs: PAM 42.436 (= EE, 858); 43.572 (= FE, 1520).
?1 כדי א ק ר[ ב
2 ברקאל [
3 [ אנ פי עוד
4 [ אנ ה ק א ם
1.1: With Milik and Garcia Martinez (.D S S T ), whose translation follows
M ilik’s text. Beyer reads ].( אלןcf. Reeves: ] ) א קin A T T M , while in A T T -
M E B he reads the uncertain third letter as a ד, restoring א ק ד[ ש. The
third letter is barely visible and is itself more a matter o f reconstruction
than o f a reading. For the verb ק ר בsee 1Q23 4 1.1.
1.2: Beyer (A T T M ) restores ] א בי, apparently on the basis o f 6Q8 1 1.3; in
A T T 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 א
there suggests that the ptc. is from ק ו ם.
32 In 4QEnochc Iii 27=6:7, for the fourteenth fallen angel read ( ס תרי[ אלcf. Stucken-
bruck, “Revision” 31; Milik, BE, 347 has סתוא[לwhile Beyer, A TT M , 235 reads ) תו א ר.
4Q203 = 4QEnGicintsa 69
1 When I a[pproach?
2 Baraq’el [
3 my face still [
4 I rise/stand [
4Q203 2
M ilik, BE, 311; Beyer, A T T M , 263; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 60 and 66 (without com
m ent on pp. 124-27); Garcia M artinez, Q umApoc, 103 and D SST, 260; all provide
readings for only 11.2-4.
M ilik 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. M ilik further proposes that the
bottom right vertical stroke o f הafter the lacuna o f 4Q203 2 1.4 is visible on 1.1 o f
4Q203 3; there is thus a good case for com bining these two fragments. This combi-
nation is followed by Beyer.
Photographs: PAM 42.436 (= FE, 858); Milik, BE, Plate X X X .
]■*[ 1
[עלי הון 2
] vacat 3
4 ו ענ] ה מהו[י
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 M ilik) is more likely
than א נ ה, 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 vacat
4 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 3
Milik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 125 and B E , 311; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT\ 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-
A poc, 103 and D SST, 260.
M ilik 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. M ilik further proposes that the
bottom right vertical stroke o f הafter the lacuna o f 4Q203 2 1.4 is visible on 1.1
o f 4Q203 3. This fragment com bination 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 com bining these two fragments. This
com bination is followed by Beyer.
Photographs: PAM 42.436 (= FE, 858); M ilik, BE, Plate X X X .
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 71
]וענ] ה l
]2 ח ב רו ה
3 חו ב ב ש ו א דכ.[
4 ומה ת תנו[נ]ני ל ק[ ט ל ה
1 and answer]ed[
2 his com panions [
3 Hobabish and *dk.[
4 and what will you give me for kfilling
35 These examples are conveniently gathered and referred inBeyer, A TT M ,p. 451 and
ATTM EB, p. 288. All attested instances have the form ה- except for acession deed
(written in Nabataean script) which belongs to the Babatha archive o f Nahal Hever
(9X וה-).
36 Beyer (ATTM , pp. 297,451,635) interprets the form as a scribal error, apparently
because of the overwhelming use o f the form והיin 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 o f the spoken language cannot, there-
fore, be ruled out.
37 Sundermann’s reproduction o f 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: A D K [; 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.
72 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 o f 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 em
ployed in BG as a kind of as a kind o f 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 o f 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’ alterna
tive thesis is in part inspired by the fact that the brief narrative in Sundermann’s Frag
ment “L” does not provide any clues about the Atambis’s identity. The text o f “L”
(Verso, 11.1-7) reads:
“Then Sam said to the giants: ‘Come here that we may
eat and be glad!’ Because o f 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 o f the world where both live - , the use o f 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 o f 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 o f 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, accord
ing to Henning’s translation, to be “veiled”/“covered”/“protected” by angels. The im
pression is left that Atambis in the Manichaean BG is one o f 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) o f
Utnapishtim without calling attention to human characteristics o f the figure.
74 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
nian fragment of the Epic, which identifies the “Cedar M ountain” 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 choo
sing to include a “Hobabis” among the giants.45
4Q203 4
M ilik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 124 and BE, 312; Beyer, A T T M , 263 (11.1-6); Uhlig,
Henochbuch, 758; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 61 and 66 (11.1-6; w ithout comm ent on
pp. 124—27); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 103 and D SST, 260.
Photographs. PAM 41.287 (= FE, 228); 42.440 (= FE, 861); 43.201; Milik, BE,
Plate X X X .
[ !] ב הי 1
vacat 2
3 ]. א מ ר או הי ה ל ה[ הי ה
4 ]. מן ע לוי א ר ע א וש.[
כ[די vacat 5 א ר] ע א
6 ]שויו ו ב כו קו[ ד ם
7 ][ל
1.1: בis either the inseparable preposition or the last radical o f a substanti-
ve; the latter is possible since there is no visible space between בand the
edge o f the fragment.
1. 3: ; ל ה[ הי הcf. the spelling in 4Q203 7 A 1.5: ל ה הי[ ה. או הי הoccurs also in
4Q203 7 A 1.5; 1Q23 29 1.1; 6Q8 1 1.2,[4]; 4Q530 ii 1.15; and 4Q531 17
1.9. A t the beginning o f the line, M ilik restores ; ב א די]ןBeyer: ) ב) א די]ן.
1. 5: כ[ ד יis the m ost likely reconstruction for a word which begins a new
section 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 (ן/) א ב ל מיא, south and between Mt. Hermon and Lebanon. This, and not
Abilene = אביליןto 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 o f 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.
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 75
1. 6: שויוwith M ilik and Uhlig; Beyer: ח וי ו. The left vertical stroke o f the
first 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 p a “el “to put, place” - does not make sense. The term in qal might be
translated in a derived meaning, “to becom e even”, i. e. to prostrate
oneself. M ilik, Beyer, and Reeves read קו ד[ םat 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.
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 o f figures (thus not
including ’Ohyah). Unless something new has happened which makes ’Ohyah and Ha
hyah bow down and weep, the reconstruction put forward here is to be preferred.
76 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
[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. A lso, o f those that were tyrants and criminals, they were
[worried] and much afraid. Then ...
4Q203 5
Milik, B E , 312; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (11.2-3); U hlig, Henochbuch, 758; Garcia Mar-
tinez, Q umApoc, 260 and D SST, 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, B E , Plate X X X .
].. .[ 1
. 2 ]ו[ן°ח מ ס אנ
3 ] ק ט י ל ו. [
1 ]. ..[
2 ]he inflicted the[m] with violence[
3 ]they were killed .[
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 77
1.2: See textual note above; Milik: “the violence (inflicted) on me[n”.
4Q 2036
Milik, B E , 312; Beyer, A T T M , 268; Garcia Martinez, D SST, 260.
Photographs. PAM 42.440 (= EE, 861); M ilik, BE, Plate X X X .
]·[ 1
[]הרה לנ א 2
[..]ל 3
1 ].[
2 ]he was/[will] be to us[
3 ]/·.[
1.2: Garcia M artinez’s translation o f the verb is highly unlikely: “went for
us”.
4Q203 7 A and B I - I I
Milik, “Turfan et Qum ran”, 124 and B E , 312-14; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments
o f E noch” 206-207 (7 a, 1.7); Beyer, A T T M , 261 (7 ii) and 263 (7 ia, b); Uhlig,
Henochbuch, 758-59; Black, The Book o f Enoch, 121 and 221; Garcia Martinez,
Q umApoc, 103 and D SST\ 260; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 59+64 and 109-10 (7 ii),
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 com bination o f 3 fragments (all belon
ging 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 colum n (i) and o f the beginning o f
the 3 bottom lines o f the next colum n (ii). From B E , Plate X X X I (and p. 313) it is
apparent that M ilik assigned (1)=A to the right side o f a col. i whose left side is
preserved by the com bination o f (2) and (3)=B i-ii. A s 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 com bination “ib -ii” (= our “B i- ii”) is correct; however, the placement o f
“A” in the same colum n as “B i” may be questioned for reasons to be provided in
the com m ent 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 X X X I.
For 7 B i-ii: PAM 40.622 (= FE, 82; without the lower rt. Frgt. = 11.7-8); 41.354;
42.436 (= FE, 858); Milik, BE, Plate X X X I. For 7B i, missing in PAM 40.622:
PAM 41.643 (= FE, 364).
A
[ נ ש.] 1
[ ]כל 2
...[ ק פ1ת 3
vacat 4
ב אד[ין א מר ] או הי ה ל ה הי[ ה 5
]ה ל עז א[ז] ל ו ע ב ד ל[ה לנ א [ו 6
ג ב רי א ו ע[ירי]א י תנ שון כו ל ח ב[ רי הון 7
bottom margin
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) o f 4Q180
may have taken the figure from the atonement ritual and related it to the birth o f the
giants (following the tradition in 1 En. 107).
53 Milik translates the section from 1.1 o f Bi to A 7 as a string o f substantives acting
together as the subject of the verb י תנ שון: “[..., the sons] of the Watchers, the giants, and
all [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 * וand
preceding the verb. Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments o f Enoch” 206-207, apparently fol-
lows Milik’s reading of ול[ו]אbut proposes that the verb be rendered as the itpa. form of
נשיin the sense “to forget”: “they will not be forgotten”.
54 The visible part o f the second letter excludes reading a טwhich would have
suggested restoring חט[איהון.
80 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
3 [your/his ]strength[
4 vacat
5 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]. A ll [their] co[mpanions] will rise up
[against ...”
55 It is even more difficult to justify Reeves’ translation (“they have forgotten a l l ...”).
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 81
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 ( עזאלat the beg.) and עזז אל/עז אזל
(at the end) in the Bodleian ms. and ( עזאלbeg.) and ( עזאזלend) in the Yalqut Shim'oni,
the Midrash Bereshit Rabbati according to R. Moses o f 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”, o f which a similar place name o f the
desert region is designated as the scape-goat’s destination in m.Y0m a 6:8 (; ה רו רו בי ת
variants: הדודו, ) הו רוןand in the Tg. Ps-Jon. to Lev. 16:21 ( ;) בי ת הרודיsee M. Delcor,
“Le mythe de la chute des anges et de l’origine des géants”, RHR 190 (1976) 37.
60 A zazel and Shemihazah, outside the passage listing the names o f 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 o f the fallen angels are listed (vv. 4—14) which are
distinct from the foregoing list (v. 2). The addition o f these names no doubt reflects a
later development; in the actual list o f v. 2, “Semyaza” is placed at the beginning (as in
6:7), while “A zazel” 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 o f 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).
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 83
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 con
flict, 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 1
[.לכ ה מ ב] אדין ענו י ל דו 2
[לו חי א ל ת רי מן ] עירין 3
ו תנינ א עד כ ען לא ק רי[ א לכ[ה ]לה ע גננ א ו ת ק ף 4
bottom margin
col. i 1.2: י ל ד ו, instead o f Beyer’s ט) טלי אis unlikely) and M ilik’s ( ;)ו לו אsee
com m ent on A above. The verb, which in its qal stem means “to bear/
give birth to ” (as opposed to the a f e l stem = “to beget”), would expect
a fern. subj. Hence, either one should read ( או ל דוas 4Q531 5, 1.3, with
the Watchers as the subj.) or ( י ל ד הwith the women as the subj.). A lso
possible 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 ; ע י רsee 1QapGen col. 2, 11. 1,16
(also the basis for restoring מןhere),
col. i, 1.4: מ ^־ עגננ א/ perf. 3rd p ers.+ lst pers. plur. obj. suff.; ת ק ףfollowed by ל־
as nota accusativa is to be interpreted as p a ‘el, as in IQapGen col. 21,
25-26 ( ל מ ל ך סו ד ם ו ל סו ל ח ב רו הי... ) ת ק ף. Beyer reads/restores ע] לי[נ א,
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, כis preferable to a יor ו.
col. ii, 1.1: M ilik (with him, Garcia Martinez) reads/restores ( מה[ויsee comm ent
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 ~ לfunctions as a nota accusativa.
col. ii, 1.3: W ith M ilik, Beyer, and Reeves, read: ] =( ק ריqal perf. pass. 3rd pers.
sing.).
1 vacat
2 ]Then they answered, “They bore
3 from? ]Watchers
4 ]lh he has imprisoned us and defeated yo[u
84 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
63 Cf. Fitzm yefs discussion o f 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 (\Q apG en2A ,
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 קדי שאon 1.5 - refers to one o f
the archangels who addresses Shemihazah and the other fallen angels.
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 85
67 “Ein weiteres Fragment”, p. 495: “ Wenn Mahawai dort jedenfalls zuerst dem Nari
man eine Botschaft Henochs überbringt (I R 4-5 ) (d. h. den Brief auf der einen Stein
tafel?) 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).
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 87
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 “con
cerning 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 8
Milik, “Turfan et Qumran”, 125-26 and B E , 314-16; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Frag-
ments of Enoch”, 207 (1.12); Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 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, Q umApoc , 103 and D S S T \ 260-61;
Reeves, Jewish Lore , 59, 64-65, and 111-17; Martin Karrer, Johannesoffenbarung
als B rie f 70 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.
... ספ[ר I
vacat 2
פר שגן לוחא ת[ני]נא די אי[גרת א3
]עירא ... [ ב יד חנוך ספר פר שא
וקדי שא ל שמיחזה ול כול ח[ברוהי5
[]ל ידיע להוא לכון ד[י6
[ .... ועובדכון ודי נ ש7
אנון [ו]בני[הון ונ]שיא ד[י כולהון8
] ומזעקה... יכ[ון קאמה° בזנו ת כון ב ארע א והות[ ע]ל9
[ וקבל ה עליכון [וע]ל עובד בניכון10
...[ vacat חבל א די חבל תון בהII
] כול די ב שמיא ובארעא... עד רפ אל מטה ארו אבד[נא12
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 רבאat 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”).
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 89
72 See also the important observations o f 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.
90 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 de
struction 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 trans
late 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 Chap
ter 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 func
tion 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).
92 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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.
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 93
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 re
placed by Suryan/Suriel/Suriel (a corruption?); cf. Knibb, Enoch, 2.84 and Isaac, “1
Enoch”, p. 16.
94 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
4Q203 9
Milik, 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 G ottes in den Frühjüdischen Schriften ,77 248 n. 58; Black, The Book o f
Enoch , 150 and 257; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc , 103 and D S S T \ 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.]
ר]עלין מן קודם הדר יק[רכה
מב]רך די כול רזיא יד[ע אנתה 3
[]וכול צבו לא תקפתכה 4
[וכען ק ק]ודמיכה
[]מלכות ר בו ת כ ה לש
[ vacat ום.] 7
[.. ]ין 8
1. 1: With Milik and Garcia Martinez. Beyer, Knibb, and Reeves read only
כו ל. The letter before כולdoes 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 [ ר ךon 1.3 belongs to either הדרךor יקרךleads
him to restore the shorter יק[ רךinstead.
1. 3: Since the 2nd pers. pron. suffixes end in 11.4-6) כהand throughout the
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: אלהא מברך להוא שמה דיas well as to the formula in
Ps. 113:2 and Job 1:21 {A T T M , 538); see further the Fragment Targum
to Exod. 15:3 (ms. 110): יהא שמיה רבא מברך. מברךwould, 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.
1. 4: תקפתכ ה- qal perf. 3rd pers. sing. + 2nd pers. sing. obj. suff. A transitive
sense 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 (?)( ק[דישי שמיאcf. 1 En. 9:3=4QEnocha I
iv, 1.10 - ) קדי] שי ש[מיה, but this must be regarded as uncertain.
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 ( ;) ה ד ר כבוד־כהcf. 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 (Tana
ms. 9, as followed by Isaac); 84:3;
4Q M 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. ע ל הדר יקרה.
96 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1. 4: “nothing has defeated you ” Cf. 1 En. 9:5; 84:3 (but the sense is
quite different).
1. 5: “the rule o f your greatness” Cf. 1 En. 9:4. M ore com m on is “the
rule 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 תקףas 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 G od” (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.
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 97
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 evi
dence 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 Wat
chers and giants.82
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 Mani
chaean 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.
98 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
4Q203 10
Milik, 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 D SST’ 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.
]1 ו]כען מרי
2 ] א שגי ת ותן. [
3 ][ ת צ ב א דב
1. 1: With Knibb, Beyer, Garcia Martinez, Reeves contra Milik: מר א[י. The
visible lower right part of the letter is too vertical to make אa likely
reading. See 1 En. 84:6.
1. 2: Milik: ].. ; וKnibb: ]. ; וBeyer, Reeves: ]m. The initial letter could be יor
ו, the second הor ח, and the last one ך, ן, or ( ףnot enough space to the
rt. for ץor p). Given that יהךperhaps makes less sense here than ו הן,
the latter is more likely. At the beginning Milik reads: שגי ת.[.
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 the
beg., the verb is an a fe l form).
4Q203 11
Milik, BE , 317; Beyer, A T T M , 259 and 268; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 760; Garcia Mar
tinez, 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 evi
dence to the contrary, the fragments of this ms. at the bottom of a column may be
correlated wherever possible. Though possible, Milik’s location o f the fragment
must remain uncertain.
Photographs. PAM 42.436 (= FE, 858); 43.202; Milik, B E , Plate XXXII.
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 99
[ ·] 1
רטלא ומט[רא ]ר2
bottom margin
col. ii, 1.1: With Beyer contra Milik, Uhlig, and Garcia Martinez: Jn]*)DDT
(״frost ·)״See 1Q24 5 for the combination of Kbtt and *ntafc, though
there in reverse order. Ultimately, the second word is uncertain.
1 ]. [
2 ]r the dew and [the] rai[n
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, A T T M , 268.
Photographs. PAM 42.436 (= FE, 858); 43.202; Milik, B E , Plate XXXII (sha-
ded).
] ועד l
]vacat 2
]3 אד[י]ן
1. 1: Milik: ]ו ע ד. There may be a space after ( דso also Beyer).
1. 3: Milik: ] א דן. 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 יis minimal.
1 and unto [
2 vacat [
3 Th[e]n[
4Q203 13
Milik, B E , 317; Beyer, A T T M , 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, B E , Plate XXXII (shaded).
100 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 103
1.1: For ת, cf. the same in Frgt. 4 col. ii, 1.5: ו א תו. The final two letters are
unclear (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. מיאis made visible through the addition of
the tiny piece to 11.2-3 in 43.568.
1.3: ^ ^ ־without ן-, a jussive form; cf. 11.1,4).
1. 4: Beyer: שגי א. The second letter, with one vertical and horizontal stroke,
is clearly a נ. למןwas most likely followed by דיat the beginning of 1.5.
The verb ית ח שבוis a jussive form; cf. 11.1.3.
1.5: Restoration of שבע תwith Beyer, though, as Beyer admits, the number
could also be 4 ( ) א רב] ע תor 9 ((תש]עת. מטרis either (a) the substantive
for “rain” or (b) a qal infin. + suff. from ”( נטרto 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 א ל. Given the unlikelihood of having
אלand לאside by side, this line may be contrasting the privilege of one
group against the woes of the other.
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.
1 על מות נפשנא[ ] וכל חברו הי ו[או]היה אחוי אבון דנא די אמר לה
2 בה אפחד ומתאמר [ד]ין על נפ שה לנא רבא לט לרוזני א.] [ . ג לג מי ס ו
3 ]ל עלוהי [..חברי א ותב וא וחדו עלוהי
1.1: The last two letters of נפש נאare clearest in PAM 41.512. In the middle
o f the line, one might also restore ה] היה, but the longer name is chosen
because of the space required between fragments 5 and 2 i. Near the
end, Beyer reads: ( ) ד}מא די,’that which”), ד*־being a mistake made by
the scribe. The second letter, however, is not closed, as one would expect
of מin the manuscript; rather, the horizontal and vertical lines o f the
letter suggest a נ. For the reading ד נא די, cf. A. E. Cowley, Aramaic
Papyri o f the Fifth Century B .C .92, text no. 26, 1.23 ( ^ זיT = ”that
which”.93
1. 2: ( אפחדpa‘‘el imperf. 1st pers. sing, of פ ח ד, “to fear, be afraid o f”), contra
Beyer: “( אבירstrong”). The second letter curves down at the top as פ,
while the third letter is clearly a ח. For the term “( רוזןprince, poten־
tate”), see the heb. qotel (subst. < qal ptc.? from “ רזןto 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. לנאis
not read by Beyer, who simply has ו ר בא. The vertical stroke of a לis
distinguishable from the stroke of the final ןon the previous line, and
the following two letter traces are consistent with a small נand אre־
spectively. The phrase מתאמר [ד]יןanticipates “( דין אמירjudgment was
spoken”) in ,Ohyah’s dream on 1.18 below.
1. 3: ; ח ב רי אBeyer: ג ב רי א. The first letter is visible but illegible. Before the
end of Frgt. 5 Beyer plausibly suggests that the text has ]ו אזל.
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]dgment
will 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 גלג מי סis taken from the more conventio-
nal form with שfound in 4Q531=4QEnGiantsc 17, 1.12.
1. 3: ”On account of it”; the 3rd pers. pron. suff. refers to the substance of
the preceding statement which has been introduced with the substanti-
vizing relative clause “that which he said”.
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 demon
strative 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 on
1.2 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., נפשis 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 אתוat the beginning of 1.5; see below.
96 רבאprobably refers to God; cf. the theophanic epithet in 4Q530 col. ii, 1.17 below:
קדי שא רבא.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiants 107
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 רוזןcould 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
B i 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.
108 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
If such a distinction is presupposed in 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3, then the com
panions of ,Ohyah(?) can rejoice because “the Great One” has cursed the
other giants, i. e. those considered especially culpable for their evil activi
ties.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 infor
mation? 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 re
spect to Gilgamesh, the spelling with 0 ־in 4Q530 col. ii, 1.2 does not
preserve such an etymological derivation. Nevertheless, in the Old Baby
lonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic (tablet I ii, 1.1) Gilgamesh is charac
terized 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 possi
bility 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).
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 109
102 For the text and translation see Tigay, The Evolution o f 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).
110 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1. 4: The text o f 1.4b is difficult to make sense of, and Milik did not provide
a reading. Beyer (.A T T M E B , 120) posits a scribal hom oioarcton in
which the term עיני הוןhas been inadvertently repeated. Indeed, the
sequence שנ ת עיני הון מנ הון ו ק מוseems to occur twice on the line; mo-
reover, at the end o f the line it is possible that the scribe began to write
שנ ת ע יב יה ו ןonce 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 ^ שנ תי מ עיני- T g O n q ;) ו נ ד ת שנ תי מי עיניDan. 6:19
( ;) ו שנ ת ה ע לו הי נ ד תEsth. 6:1 ( ;) נ ד ד ה שנ ת ה מ ל ךand the Genizah Ara-
maic Testament o f Levi 6 -7 ( ) ת נ ו ד שנ ת עינ א.
1. 5: The first two letters o f א מרare illegible and spaced apart more than
other letters on the line. M ilik provides no readings after ח ל מי הון. On
the customary use o f ע לwith the verb א תיto denote movem ent towards
persons or a group o f persons, see Reeves (.Jewish Lore, 85; cf. Beyer,
A T T M , 656). After ע לMilik 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 M ilik
corresponds better to the reconstructed space between Frgt.’s 4 ii and
1. However, there is no immediate warrant for M ilik’s m ention 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 im possible 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 נ פי לי אon 1.6 in accor-
dance with the introduction o f the 3rd pers. sing, subject for א מ ר.
1. 6: נ פי לי אwas not included in M ilik’s published readings. On the restora-
tion o f ה הי ה, see the n. to 1.5; for האat the end o f the line, see the same
which introduces ’Ohyah’s dream on 1.16 ()ה]א.
Comment. After ,Ohyah(?) has separated himself from some of the giants,
lines 3b-6 report that the two giant brothers “dreamed dreams” whose
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb Ill
106 For a further association of נפליםand גב רי םsee Ezek. 32:27, though there the
reference, perhaps reflects an exegetical tradition o f Gen. 6:4 ( 6 ^ = ם נפלי ם
heroes in Sheol; in the MT the form is pointed as an active ptc.). In translation tradi-
tions to Num. 13:33 the ominous נפלי םin the land of Canaan are rendered as γίγαντες
(LXX) and ה/( ג ב רי אT. Onq., N eof).
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 נפילי םalso seems to be implied in CD 2.19,
in which the Watchers’ sons () בני ה ם, “whose height was like (that of) cedars and whose
bodies were like mountains,” are depicted as those who fell ()נ פ לו.
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: בי מי א האינון שמחזאי ועזאל הינון נפלן מן שמיא והוו בארעא. See also
the Rashi commentary to Num. 13:33.
112 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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): ש הפילו את העולם ו שנפלו מן העולם ושמלאו את העולם-נפילי מ
”‘( נפלים בזנו ת שלהםNephilim” - 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.
4Q530 - 4QEnGiantsb 113
fragment 1 includes empty space underneath, the traces o f letters in 1.1 o f 8 must
belong to at least the follow ing line; hence 8 11.1-2=11.11-12 o f colum n 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).
1+ 8
]א[ ] גננין ו הו א מ שקין [[]ל
[ שר] שין ר ב ר ב י ן נ פ קו מן ע ק ר הין
ר מן ל. ]]חדית עד ד[י חזא [ 9
ב כ ל מיא ונו ר א ד ל ק ב כ ל..] [ 10
] [·][לא ·] [ 11
א עד כא סו ף חל מ א.] [ 12
1. 7: The plur. ptc. מ שקיןrequires that the preceding הואbe emended to the
perf. plur. ( הוו אso correctly Beyer); the אfunctions to denote the voca-
lie pronunciation o f the previous consonant (see Beyer, A T T M , 117 and
411); see also ג ב רו אin 1.16 and the same spelling הואin 1.18 below.
1. 8: M ilik and Beyer: ( ע ק ר הןfern. 3rd pers. plur. poss. suff); thus Beyer
restores the feminine ( ת מ ר ץabs. plur. form for ת מ ר ה- 5^ 11! ןtrees”).
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 m ost difficult to read; until now no satis-
factory solution to the letter traces has been found. Milik suggested:
”( [ חז י ת עד די ל עינין ש כי ר מןI watched until the sources had been closed
by”). This reading is beset by several problems: (1) the preposition * לis
grammatically inexplicable; (2) the expected form o f the qal pass, verb is
plural; and (3) the first letter o f M ilik’s עיניןhas a vertical stroke quite
unlike the other ^ עo f the manuscript; the letter is more likely to be a ש
(cf. esp. the same in ח ש בןin col. i, 1.4 above).113 Beyer, on account o f
M ilik5s problematic text but w ithout the photographic evidence in
A T T M , suggested reading 55) חזא] הוי ת עד די ל שנין ש כנו מןI was [look-
ing] until tongues o f fire came down from 55). W hile ל שניןis a possible
reading, נ ו- 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 ייר/( וas M ilik) or simply ר. In
addition to these readings, there seems to be a sublinear part o f a letter
preceding the ( לnot 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. A t the beginning o f
the line the restoration, following Beyer (A T T M ) and Reeves, corre-
sponds to the wording in D an. 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. The
alm ost identical formula (used here and in 1.20 below) concludes D a-
n iefs dream vision in D an. 7:28 ( ) מ ל ת א עד כ ה סו פ א די.
113 Milik5s reading is apparently adopted in Black, The Book o f Enoch, p. 297.
114 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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
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).
1. 13: For the meaning o f שכ חin a f e l as “to be able”, see 4Q531 17, 1.5,
\Q apG en 21.13, 4Q E n och *ii8 (7 En. 4 : l־Aram. only), and 4Q 214=4Q
TLevi 2iVb (PAM 43.241 =77E, 1277 col. ii, 1.2).117 Milik restores the plur.
[ ל ה[ון. One would expect, however, that the lower part o f ןwould 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 T T M ) restored: [פ ש ר חל מ א ב א דין א מ רו
] נ ש א ל ל חנו ך. 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 A T T M E B ).
The words on this line are attributed to Hahyah, since the 3rd pers.
masc. suff. in א חו היin the following line suggests that he has just been
m entioned again. פ ר ש אmay be interpreted as an act. ptc. functioning as
a substantive.
1. 15: Beyer: ; ב א דין [ענ]ה תו ב הthe readings תand בin Beyer’s תו ב הare un-
likely; see M ilik’s reading instead: ( ב א דין [הו]ה הו ד הso also Fitzmyer-
Harrington, Reeves, and Garcia M artinez, D S S T ). The left base o f what
is perhaps a נis visible after the lacuna; thus ע]נ ה.
1. 16: Reeves {Jewish Lore, 91-92), given the som etim es indistinguishable si-
milarity between יand ו, suggests reading ( ג ב ר יאhence a vocative, “Oh
giants”) rather than the rarer ג ב ר ו א. This reading remains a possibility.
O f course, the vocalic use o f אin ג ב רו אdoes not present an orthogra-
phic problem; cf. also the note to 1.7 on הואabove (cf. also הו אin 1.18).
1. 13: Garcia Martinez translates the first verb w ithout the negative: “the
Giants were searching fo r som eone 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 o f the New Testament,” in idem, A Wande
ring Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS, 25; Chico, California: Scholars Press,
1979) 12-13 and 24-25 (n. 65).
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 117
[ ה]א של טן שמיא ל א ר ע א נ ח ת 16
א לפין לה מאה מ]אין לה מ ש מ שין אל ף ו כ ר סון י חי טו ו ק די ש א ר ב א י ת[ב
ודין ס פ ר]ין פ תי חו ודין א מי ר [[פל חין כ]ל[ ק] ד מו הי הוא ק א מין ו ארו
ועל ובסרא חיא ]לכל [. ו ב ר ש ם ר שי ם ב כ ת ב כ] תי ב [ר ב א
[סו ף חלמא כא עד ין.] [ 20
qal and should be distinguished from { מפר שpa“el pass, ptc.) in Ezra 4:18 (cf. the He-
brew in Neh. 8:8מפר ש־, 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 ‘z w ’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.
120 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
(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.
B G D aniel 7:9-10
(1 .16b) 9) ה]א ת עד די
(1 .16b) של טן שמיא ל א ר ע א נ ח ת
(1 .17a) ו כ ר סון י חי טו כ ר סון ר מיו
(1 .17b) ו ק די ש א ר ב א י ת[ ב ו ע תי ק יו מין י ת ב
ל בו ש ה כ ת ל ג חו ר
ו ש ער ר א ש ה כ ע מ ר נ ק א
כ ר סי ה ש בי בין די נו ר
ג ל ג לו הי נו ר ד ל ק
(10) נ ה ר די נו ר נ ג ד
ונ פ ף מן ק ד מו הי
)1 .17c( מאה מ]אין לה מ ש מ שין
)11.17d-18a ( ?אל ף א ל פין לה [סגדין אל ף א ל פי ם י ש מ שונ ה
ודין [ ב כ ת ב כ] תי ב ו ב ר ש ם ר שי ם
)11. 186- ^ (
] ל כ ל חיא ו ב ס ר א [.
)1.196(
)11.19c-20a ( ין.] [ ו על
130 In addition, Daniel and BG have the qal passive forms רמיוand יחיטוrespectively
following כ ר סון.
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 o f 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.
4Q530 - 4QEnGiantsb 123
133 The influence o f 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 o f 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 o f Man as the Ancient
of Days’ in the Old Greek Recension o f Daniel 7,13: Scribal Error or Theological Trans
lation?”, Z N W 86 (1995) 274-75.
124 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
134 For further examples outside BG of bv following verbs o f motion, see Beyer,
ATTM , 656. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 94, suggests the possibility o f restoring the more con
ventional IV following ,7TN, appealing to Ezra 5:15 and 4QEnochc 5 ii 29 (= 1 En. 107:2).
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 125
135 See s. v. in Robert Payne Smith et ah, Thesaurus syriacus (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1879); cf. רמתהas the emph. state (with the absol. plur. form )ר מווןo f =( רמה
“hill, height”) in Sokoloff, Dictionary o f JPA.
136 This difficulty is also recognized by Sokoloff, who places a question mark after
אחתin his list o f lexical items.
137 Jewish Lore, p. 103.
126 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
word from the Grk. αρχή or ά ρ χ ειο ν;138 nevertheless, Reeves retains
this sense in his translation (”authorization” [?]). Beyer’s association
o f א ר כ הwith the Bibl. Aram, term (= “length, duration”; Dan. 4:24;
7:12) is more plausible and followed here.
1. 22: On different attempts at restoring the text in the middle o f the line, see
the textual note above.
1. 3 Reeves suggests restoring: “[and when] you hear his voice, then you shall
recount [= ] ת חו אto him ... the dreams.” (Aramaic my own). This rende-
ring can only be correct if פ ש רis not read before ; ח ל ם י אmoreover, the
first דיis clearly followed by a verb beginning with a 3rd pers. impf.
preformative יinstead 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 ב ת ארכא, i. e. “house o f 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 o f this line nor do they
help explain the form ארכ תon its own.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 127
4 כ ע ל עו לין ו פ ר ח בי דו הי כ ע ל כנ ש[ ר
5 מדברא רבא ו ח ל ף ל ש הוין [ ח[ו]לד
6 ו[ח]זה[י] חנו ך וז ע ק ה ו א מר לה מ הוי. [
7 ל תנ א ו ל כ ה תני בו ת מ הוי בע[ א ל...
8 [ ל[ מ]ליך ו כ ל בפילי א ר ע א הן הו ב ל
9 ] ת הון וי תו ס[ פון מן יומ[י
10 [ [ נ]נ ד ע מנ ך פ שר ה[ו]ן
11 [ גנ]נין די מן שמין נ[ ח תו
1. 4: M ilik reads ב ע לand regards it a scribal error, in which the word was
copied before instead o f after ; כנ ש[ רM ilik thus restores: ב ע ל כנ פין
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-
m oioarcton (confusion o f the first letter o f the following word with כ
in ) כ ע ל עו לין, without any attempt to correct the text.
1. 5: Read ל ש הויןwith Milik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia M artinez, and
Reeves (absol. fern. plur.). Sokoloff suggests the possibility o f reading
ש היין. Beyer reads instead the constr. fern. sing. ( ש הווןA T T M , 704; =
qatl-an in Syr.); in this case, however, the double וbecom es difficult to
explain. The term ( ח ל דsee M ilik, Beyer, Garcia M artinez), nowhere
attested in Aramaic texts, is questioned by Sokoloff and Reeves.141
The photographs do confirm the term, but M ilik did not indicate that
a letter’s space separates the first two radicals. Given the Greek trans-
cription o f okh in the second colum n o f Origen’s Hexapla and the root’s
141 Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 211, and Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 104.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 129
־p j[tyb (”ton]gues [of fire]”; cf. Beyer’s reading for col. ii, 1.9); and Ree
ves: (”gard]eners?”). On orthographic grounds and consideration
o f context, one may exclude any reference to the “great roots which
came forth from their rootage” (col. ii, 1.8). Since Beyer’s restoration
depends on his rather uncertain reading o f col. ii, 1.8 (see above), it is
improbable. 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 m ost likely since it draws upon an extant
word o f H ahyah’s dream where it plausibly refers to the Watchers.
1.6: Whereas Milik takes Mahaway as the subj. o f the verbs, the restoration
o 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 M ilik renders “oracle” on 11.6-7 is given by Beyer and here as
“M ahaway”.
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 עקרrefers 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
(y r)” 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.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiants 131
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 j n 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 Mani
chaean Uygur fragment cited below; see “Turfan et Qumran” 123 and BE, pp. 306-307.
132 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 com e to rise over the Kogm an
mountains. And again a voice came from above. Bringing the comm and o f Enoch,
the apostle, it said: “I call you, son o f Virogdad, ... I known ... his direction ... you
... y ou ... N ow quickly ... people ... also ...
4Q 5306 I and II
M ilik, BE, 230; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments o f E noch” 214; Beyer, A T T M , 234,
260 (n. 2), 261 and A T T M E B , 120; Garcia Martinez, Q umApoc, 104; Stucken
bruck, “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 colum n i (assigned to 11.12-18) under
Frgt.’s 3 and 4 i. A s a result, 6 ii would have to be placed somewhere at the lower
part o f colum n 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 sm oothly to the top o f colum n 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 placem ent below
colum n i, 11.1-6 excludes Beyer’s reconstruction. A location o f 6 ii in colum n ii,
11.7-11 is codicologically im possible because o f (3); it cannot fit on colum n ii,
11.12-14 and 2 3-24 because o f (2); it cannot be placed on 11.18-22 because o f the
letters’ incom patibility with the readable text (1); and, obviously, it cannot be as
signed to 11.15-17 for which Frgt. 7 preserves the beginnings o f these lines. There
fore, 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 (A T T M E B ) was the first to publish readings for the alm ost 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: ליד פרדם קשט[א
=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
o f col. ii.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 135
colum n 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 m ost fully
preserved.
ii i
•■[]■[]?1[ 1
2 ל]לו ט ו ל צ ע ר אנ ה די ידי
3 ]ן ו כ ל בי ת פל ט א די א הך לה
4 [ נ פ ש ת ק טי]לין ק ב לן ע ל ק ט לי הון ו מז ע קן... ?לא
5 ].לפ ת א ונ מו ת כ ח ד א ונ תן שי צי א.[
6 ק] צף שגי א ו א הו ה ד מך ול ח ם
7 וא ף וקרת ל ש כני חזו ת א°]ה
8 ]ל כנ ש ת ג ב רי א על
1. 1: Traces o f four letters are visible on PAM 41.512; the ןcould also be a p.
1. 2: Restore ל]לו טwith Beyer in parallelism with the following ל צ ע ר. Contra
Beyer ( “ = אנ ה די ודיI, who have confessed . . . ”), the final word could
also be read as ; י ד יsee the translation below.
1. 3: Beyer reads פל ט אas the fern, absol. substantive ( פל ט ה.A T T M E B , 398).
There are no further indications in the ms. that אis ever used for a fern,
ending ( ;)־הnevertheless, because o f the following relative clause, פ ל ט א
cannot be read as a ptc. Beyer’s interpretation should be regarded as
valid. כ לperhaps anticipates the negative “ =( לאn o ”); this suggestion,
however, remains uncertain.
1. 4: The restoration accords with that o f M ilik and Beyer, who derived it
from the Greek Cod.Pan. to 1 En. 9:10. βωώσιν αί ψυχαι των τετη-
λευτηκότω ν και έν τ υ γχ ά νο υ σ ιν161; cf. the more derivative text in
Syncellus (τά πνεύματα των ψυχώ ν των άποΌανόντων ανθρώ πω ν
έντυγχά νουσιν). D espite som e differences, it is possible - but not
certain - that the Qumran BG is citing the Book o f the Watchers
here; see the com m ent below. The fern, absol. plur. ptc.’s ק ב לand
( מז ע קןp a “el) require the restoration o f a plur. subj.
1. 5: The text is problematic because the verb here, whether read as a
perfect+ n ( )ו נ ת ןor an imperfect ( ינ תןor )ו נ ת ןrequires a dir. obj. Since
the following term שי צי אis 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: נ ף.[. The first visible letter is identical in form to צin צ ע רon 1.2.
1. 7: Beyer: ”( ה]ו ק ר ת ל ש כני חזו ת אD as Sehen hat meine Lider schwer ge-
m acht.”). The first word could also be read ”( אח ד תit has seized”) but
the resulting text would then make less sense.
161 N o 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.
136 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1
1 M ]■[]··
2 will become? ]a curse and an affliction. I, whose hands
3 [... ]n and every house o f escape to which I
shall go
4 [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 destroyed
6 [... ]great [anjger. A nd I shall sleep and bread
7 [... ] The vision has [ma]de my eyelids heavy.
And also
8 ]he entered the assembly o f the giants
ii
5 to p.[
Comment. Once Milik had drawn attention to the text of 1.4, Beyer (see
ATTM , 260”־G 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 be
tween 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 im
mediately 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 o f BG in Qum-
Apoc, pp. 111-13.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 137
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 drea
ming 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 tired
ness and the vision which he experiences.
In 1.7 the giant speaks of becoming tired. Since the immediately fore
going 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
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).
Ill 1
]x’nru[ 2
1 M
2 ]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).
]·?[ 1
1 }q\
167 Therefore, there seems to be no connection between this function o f sleep in the
Qumran BG and gigantomachic legends preserved among some Hellenistic vase-pain
tings. 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 slee
plessness appear to be two aspects of their miserable existence. Sleep, during which the
giants experience their dream-visions, functions as the mode o f divine communication
and in itself does not play any immediate role within the narrative about the giants’
battle.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 139
4Q 53012
N 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[
4Q 53013
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 41.512 (= FE, 336); 42.439 (= FE, 860); 42.496 (= FE, 887);
43.568 (= FE, 1516).
1 ].yn to them?[
2 ]/[].w a n d .[
4Q 53014
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 41.512 (= FE, 336); 42.496 (= FE, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).
]1 ] ב הון
2 ] ה ת ח ל ק.[
1. 2: The קhas a distinctive flag at the bottom , as the קo f ק ט לי הוןin Frgt. 6,
1.4. If correctly read, ה ת ח ל קis the only extant early attestation in Ara-
maic texts o f the verb ח ל קin a passive stem.
1 ] am ong them[
2 ]was apportioned .[
4Q530 15
N 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).
140 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
].1 ].ס
2 ]. ס ב.[
3 ][ הו א
1. 3: If not a 3rd pers. masc. pron., the word is a perf. masc. form o f “( הויto
bei”) .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 ].4
2 ]. sb.[
3 ]he was/they were [
4Q530 16
M ilik, B E , 304; Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments o f E noch” 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).
]?עד l
]2 ג ננ י ן
?
1.2: This term also occurs in 6Q8 5 (in the emph. plur); col. ii, 1.7; and
perhaps col. iii, 1.11 (restoration at the beg.).
1 until?[
2 gardeners [
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 o f an impf. is unlikely since 4Q530 concludes Ill-weak verbs with
n- (cf. m nx in frgt. 6, 1.6).
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 141
1 ]t w..h[
2 ]hwy.[
3 ]yn. Let not yn[
4 vn
4Q53018
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 42.439 (= FE, 860); 42.496 (= FE, 887).
]1[ 1
h i 2
1 ]«[
2 ]ryn p[
4Q53019
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 42.439 (= FE, 860); 42.496 (= FE, 887).
]. Ka[ l
1 ]m’.[
4Q53020
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 42.439 (= FE, 860).
] rM !
]an !n[ 2
1 )lyk [
2 ]hn tan]
4Q 5311
Beyer, A T T M E B , 119 (11.2-9).
Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.569 (= EE, 1517).
]1 ]ש ה ר א
2 [ כו ל די ]ארע א ע ב ד ת
[. ]נוני א ר ב ר[ בי] א 3
[] ש מים ע ם כו ל די פר א 4
[א] ר ע א ו כו ל ד גנ א ו כו ל אילני א 5
[.כול? ע]נ א ב עי ר א ו ש ר ק ר ק א ע 6
[כו] ל שר ץ א ר ע א ו א ח רו כול 7
[כו] ל עו ב ד ק ש ה ו מ מ ר א מ 8
[[ד כר ונ ק ב ה ו ב אנ ש א ל 9
? ה ורא[ש...] [....] 10
1. 1: The third letter could also be “ י ש ה ד =) דw itness”); the reading chosen
is determined by the context, in which various phenom ena in creation
are being listed.
1. 2: Restore with Beyer; cf. כו ל+ rel. clause in 1.4. Following a catalogue o f
heavenly bodies (?) affected by the W atchers’ fall, the list now turns to
created phenom ena 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 ש מי ם. The phrase probably refers to flying creatures
and could be restored as either [( צ פ ריcf. D an. 4:9,18; and W QTgJob
col. 28, 1.21) or [( עו ףcollective־cf. D an. 2:38).
1. 6: The first two letters o f ו שר ק ר ק אare unclear, but are restored (with
Beyer) to produce a reference to “vulture, bee eater”.174
1. 7: Beyer interprets ו א ח רוas a f el for “( ח ר רto burn”). The word may also be
read as the preposition ( א ח ריtemporal 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 ה ובin the middle o f the line are unclear, but are
read in accordance with context; ב, if correct, is written so close to the
following אthat an expected horizontal line at the top is indistinguisha-
ble. “M ale and fem ale” refer to animals while a description o f suffering
am ong 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 m oon[
2 everything which] the earth produced
3 ]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. A nd am ong humanity /[
10 ]. . . [ ]. . . h and r\sh ?
174 See s. v. in Jastrow, Dictionary; Beyer, ATTM EB, p. 427 and s. v. in Sokoloff, Dic-
ionary o f JPA.
144 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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, per
haps 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 sec
tion 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 obser
vation 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 recon
struct 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
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 145
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.
4Q 5312
Beyer, A T T M E B , 122.
Photographs. PAM 41.956 (= FE, 534); 43.569 (= FE, 1517).
vacat/margin?
1 א]מר לה[ ] אנ ה ידע עד ד[י
2 ] ה ו כו ל די ע לי כ ה.[
1. 1: Following להBeyer reads ; ד יsince the one visible mark near the lacuna
o 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
א נ ה, cf. 4Q531 17, 1.10 below.
1. 2: Beyer: “gegen dich”. The precise sense o f ע לdepends on the word which
follows.
Comment. The speaker of the extant words is not known. The fragment
probably represents conversations among the giants about their plight.
4Q531 3
Beyer, A T T M E B , 122 (1.3).
Photographs. PAM 43.569 (= FE, 1517).
]■■[ 1
]. ?]. י ב דון 2
א דנ ה. .. י ה ב ת ה לה מ.[ 3
א ל.. ק .[ ]. ..[.. 4
1. 4: Because o f the similarity between the first four letters with others, the
reading o f ( י ב דוןfrom ) א ב דis uncertain.
(9+14+15 and 1+6+22) and 4Q203 13 summarize the Book o f Watchers at the beginning
o f 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.
146 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1. 3: The second letter of the third word could be either חor כ. Reading the
former, it might be possible to restore “ =( מחויאexplanation”), 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 .[ ] ...[
4Q 5314
Beyer, ATTM EB, 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 maybe argued that the Frgt. belongs to another part of BG (see comment
below).
Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.569 (= FE, 1517).
... 1 ]ו ל א חי ר ם ו[ל
2 [ ]ן.] [..ולם [ ול]ענ אל
3 ... אל] ולע מי אל.[.לנע מ אל ול [ א]ל
4 ל]כול אלין ג ב רי א מה חו[י]א לכה די קטל[תה
5 ]. [ הלא כול אלין אזלו ב חרב א
6 ][ כנ ה רין ר ב ר בין על א
7 ] ע לי כ ה. [
1.1: “ =( אחירםthe exalted one is my brother”), a giant’s name; cf. the text-
ual 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 ]. אדכin
4Q203 3. The ~ לthroughout the Frgt. is a nota accusativa and may be
restored (with Beyer) before each name in the lists.
1. 2: Beyer reads ול ב ר ק א[ל. At the most, three (perhaps only two) letters o f
the name are visible. The first letter is more likely to be read as a פand
there is no sublinear stroke to indicate a קwhere Beyer places it; hence
the name is left undeciphered. ענ א ל, a Watcher’s name, means “God
answered” or, if derived from ( עננ אלcf. 4QEnocha 1 iii 10; 4QEnochcl
ii 27 to 1 En. 6:7), it could mean “cloud of God”.
1. 3: א ל, 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. נ ע מ א ל, Watcher’s name, may mean either
176 See s. v. in Jastrow, Dictionary. There is no entry for this word in Sokoloff, D ictio
nary o f JPA.
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 147
“God has shown favor” or, if interpreted with a cstr. noun, “pleasant
ness o f G od”; = “God is my father’s brother” (cf the personal
name 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 o f the certainty
of 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 denote
death 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: Beyerplausibly restores: “alle diese Engel und] allediese Riesen.” Since
the foregoing names include both giants and Watchers, the summative
reference would probably have included the Watchers as well.
1. 7: Beyer: “...] gegen dich.”
177 So s. v. in Jastrow, Dictionary and Sokoloff, Dictionary of JPA (no. 3). This mea-
ning for אזלis now attested in 4QT0b ara = 4Q196 (= Tob. 3:15; see PAM 43.176 = FE,
1231, where this reading is confirmed by the legible לin the lacunae); cf. further Beyer,
ATTMEB, pp. 137, 305.
178 Henning’s translation is cited in the commentary to 1Q23 9+14+15 above.
148 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 sur
vival. 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 Be
yer), 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 T T M , 260; Uhlig, Henochbuch, 757-58; Black, The Book o f Enoch, 154;
Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104—105 and 111-12; D SST, 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.]
[ . ]גברין ונפילין
[. אולדו אלו כ.]
[]בדמה ועל יד מה
[]ין די לא שפק להון ול
[ ] ובעין למאכל שגיא מל. . . הוו 6
vacat 1
[ ]מחוה נפיליא 8
1. 1: Milik reads ;[ןthe letter could also be ף. Beyer (followed by Reeves) has:
] ;[ א טמיוwhile 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 ( אטמיוwith 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 נ פי לין, see the comment under 4Q530 col. ii, 11.3-6. Black
holds that ג ב ריןand נפיליןmay be understood in apposition.
1. 3: אולדוist the a f e l stem, 3rd pers. plur. masc. perf. of י ל ד. The masc. form
of 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: כו[ ל.
150 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
180 Furthermore, Beyer argues that as an interjection, אלוis always combined with the
conjunction ~ וin the Daniel texts 2:31; 4:7,10; 7:8 {ATTM , p. 522). In earlier Aramaic
texts, however, the earlier form of the interjection ( )הלוoccurs 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.
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 151
181 Reeves, Jewish Lore , pp. 72-73; cf. Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 209
and The Targum to Job in Qumran Cave X I (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 γυ
ναικών ... 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).
152 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 N ot 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 presuppo
sing 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 repre
sent a way of accounting for an apparent correspondence of content be
tween 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.
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 153
4Q531 6
Beyer, ATTM EB, 122 (11.2-3).
Photographs. PAM 43.569 (= FE, 1517).
] P1 ]״
2 ] ת כרסי ה.[
3 ח]משה קוידמוה[*־
1. 2: Beyer: ; כו ר סי הa וis not visible. The final letter before the lacuna could
be הor ח.
1 U [
2 ]t his throne .[
3 f]ive before hi[m
4Q531 7
Beyer, ATTM EB, 122 ( לבו שהin 1.2).
Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.569 (= FE, 1517).
]1 ].. כול.ת
2 ] לבו ש ה.[ פל
3 ]. ?וכערימות[ה
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 ( גi. e., “he divided”) or to a “( חhe 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.”
154 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
4Q531 8
Beyer, ATTM EB, 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 ]כ ת פ ת ה ואשד
2 ]? א קודם חב[רוהי
3 [ ־ו]הי יקירין
4 ]. [מן זיוא כ
5 ] [ בד מו ת ה
]...[ 6
1. 2: Beyer: ] ח ד. The second letter appears to have a base which, if not dama-
ged, may represent an unusual form of ( מas in Frgt. 20), or, if damaged,
could also be a כor ב. The restoration suggested is uncertain. The term
אשדoccurs most often in conjunction with blood.
1. 4: Beyer: מן הוא. What Beyer reads as a הconsists of two unconnected
strokes corresponding to זand וrespectively.
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 note
above.
4Q531 9
Beyer, ATTM EB, 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 1
vacat 2
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 155
[. ג בו] ר ת ה אלף אל פ ץ 3
[.ת..] []והי לא ב חיל על כול מלך 4
[אחדת ואנה נ[פ]לת על אנפי קלה שמ[עת 5
[[ן י תב בין בני אנ ש ולא אלף מנהון 6
meat 7
]8 [אן תריו.] [...] [. :ה
9 ].[ ].[ ש
1. 4: Beyer: “ohne Kraft gegen alle Engel”; see textual note above.
1. 8: Beyer: “zwei Namen”.
4Q 53110
Beyer, A T T 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
]2 ]. ..לא
3 ][ ו או ח ר ת
]..[ 4
1. 2: After the space the vertical stroke could belong to the rt. part o f a ,כ, ר
ד, or ח.
1. 3: 0 ־ או חר ת/> / perf. 1st pers. sing, from ; א ח רthe meaning o f the qal and
a f e 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 ( )סליקand transformation into “Metatron the great scribe” (מיטטרון ספרא רבא
) וקרא שמיהis preceded by a description of his earthly life as being “together with the
dwellers of the earth” ( ) עם דיירי ארעאfrom which he is removed (v. 24).
196 See s. v. in Jastrow, Dictionary ; Beyer, ATTM EB , p. 305.
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 157
1 ].^ .[
2 ]. ../'[
3 ]and I was late
4 ]··[
4Q 53111
N o readings published to date.
Photographs . PAM 42.440 (= FE , 861); 43.569 (= FE,, 1517).
].[ 1
[.]ואב 2
[.]ארי 3
[ ]כה 4
1 ]·[
2 ]wft.[
3 ]77.[
4 ]your(?)[
4Q 53112
Beyer, A T T 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 (A T T M E B , 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 ]ח טין ה<ק>ד שתה
2 ] עבדת[ה עלם לי
3 ו]למאבל כול עדני[א
4 ] ל..] [ [ שלחתה
5 ][ ב ש ר א ול
1. 1: The first letter, without a visible lower left stroke, resembles a ; רbut
resulting restorations - “( י]רטוןthey will run”), “( מ]רטיןthey tear
out”), “( ימ]רטוןthey 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 be
either a nota accusativa or the preposition. Beyer interprets the last
158 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
word, which he reads and restores ]]( עדניcf. WQTgJob col. 36, 1.11־
“joy”), perhaps influenced by the meaning of the foregoing verb.
1. 3: The third letter could also be a ח: ל מ ח ב ל. The expected form of the
infinitive for the verb ח ב ל, attested predominantly in the p a “el, would
be without the * מprefix. ־מ אבל#«/ 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.” ליmay also be translated “for me”.
1. 3: Beyer: “zu trauern alle Freuden”.
Comment. The verbs on 11.1-2 (esp. ה קד ש תהon 1.1) indicate that the
words of this fragment are addressed to God. The speaker of this prayer
refers to himself on 1.2 as the object of G od’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.
4Q 53113
Beyer, ATTM EB, 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 ]ק די ש רום מקם
2 ].[ או ר חרבן אבדן
3 ]י[ן°י א אנחנ א די חט
4 ][ ו אנ ה מ חבל וה
] [ 5
1. 2: Beyer reads או ר, interpreting it as a place name (“U r”). Line 3 in PAM
40.607, however, reveals the presence of a letter before אno longer
visible in 43.569.
1. 3: Beyer: א.[. The reading of יhere assumes that the word isa predicative
adjective. The form חטיןalso 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.
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 159
C om m ent. 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 apart (1.3).Whichever be the
case (see under 4Q531 14 below), the phrase in 1.4seems incompatible
with 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 group
1.3, 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, ATTM EB, 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. 1: The ״־־וending may belong to a 3rd pers. plur. masc. verb. The trace
before וvisible in PAM 40.619 is consistent with a רor 7; could the
letters belong to the verb ? ע ב דו
1. 2: Restoration of לאbefore גר מי ןis with Beyer in light of the following
negative.
1. 4: Beyer: ( ק ד יש יכהwithout the conjunction). The phrase seems to require
a 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.
160 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 de
stroyed. 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 judg
ment brought about through the deluge. These notions of the giants’ post-diluvian exi
stence 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”).
4Q53J = 4QEnGiantsc 161
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, 1.3
and perhaps 4Q531 34, 1.2. The form could also be read as an impf.:
,pttrp. Likewise, the following letters may also be the beginning o f an
impf. verb: (?).. .]V*».
1 ]·?·/·[
2 vacat
3 ]and (who) sin and /[
4Q 53116
Beyer, ATTM EB, 123.
Photographs. PAM 43.569 ( - FE, 1517).
ואנתון
נת עלמין.]
vacat?
4Q 53117
Milik, “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 o f 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 sepa
rately 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).
162 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 to
publish readings on 11.1-2, 11, and the 2nd and 3rd words of 1.12.
]יק לא [ בי ת ]כול [ ימינא..] 1
vacatהון.]
] ג ב ר וב ת קו ף חיל דרעי ובחסן ג ב רו תי
לא ברם קרב ב שר ו עב ד ת עמהון כ]ול
עמן ל א שתררה דב עלי דיני אנה ולא מ]שכח 5
ולא אנון שרין בשמי]א יתבין ובקד שיא
vacat אנו]ן תקיפין מני
קרץ ]רה די חיות בר א אתה ואילי בר א
]אוהיה חלמי אנסנ[י vacat ]וכדן אמר לה
נד ת ש]נת עיני למחזא [חז]וה ארו ידע אנה די על
[לא א]דמוך ולא אכל
[.. ג]לגמי ש אמר חלמכה
1st pers. plur. pron. suff. (here without the final א-). As of yet, I am unaware of a sub-
stantive עמןin Aramaic; cf. Sokoloff, “Aramaic Fragments of Enoch” 215.
205 So also Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez, and Reeves. However, if קדשhere
means “holy one”, it is the exception in 4Q531. Elsewhere in 4Q531 the term קדישis
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.
164 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
of the negative לאis 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 א ל. The pro-
posed restoration chooses the 1st pers. sing., given the same in 11.9-10.
In addition, the orthographically possible reading ( אכלgal 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 חare hardly visible in חל מ כ ה, while the
lower part of a לis distinguishable. The 2nd pers. pron. poss. suff. sug-
gests that אמרis an impv. rather than a qal perf.
1 ]..the right [ ]every house of [ ]yq not
2 ]their.[...] vacat
3 ] giant/became strong, and by the power of the might o f my
arms and by the force of my strength
4 a]ll flesh, and I waged war with them, but (did) not
5 And ]1 [am not] able to prevail together with ourselves because
my adversaries
6 and in t]he[ heavens] are seated, and among the holy places they
dwell. And not
7 the]y are more powerful than I.” vacat
8 ]rh of the beasts of the field is coming and the hinds o f the field
are calling
9 ]and according to this Ohyah said to him: “My dream oppressed
m[e
10 the slee]p of my eyes [fled] to see a [vis]ion. Behold, I know that against
11 I will not ]sleep, nor will I eat[
12 Gi]gamesh, tell your dream[
1. 3: Milik reads the letters ג ב רas 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 אשכחas “to be able” and reject rendering עמןas a substantive.
1. 6: See textual note above.
1. 8: The varying translations depend on the readings assigned, o f 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.
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 165
(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: insom
nia 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 from
11.3-7?) how his dream has “oppressed” him.
166 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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
( = עמןpref. -1- 1st pers. plur. suff.) could suggest that the speaker and his
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-
4Q 53118
Beyer, A T T M E B , 123 (11.1-3).
Photographs . PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
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[ ].[
4Q 53119
Beyer, ATTM EB, 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 + 1st
per s. plur. impf. preformative for the itp. stem.
1. 3: *007 (Beyer); the first two letters have an unusual shape; cf. a similar 0
in 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?
4Q 53120 ״
Beyer, ATTM EB, 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
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 169
1 ]· b\
2 ]... ./[
3 ]. ..wp all/every[
4 ] [
4Q 53121
Beyer, ATTM EB, 123 (11.1-3).
Photographs. PAM 41.949 (= FE, 529); 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
][ מ בו ע א l
]2 ]ו כו ל שרץ
3 ] ע ב ד ת ה כול. [
4 ]..רב א.[
4Q 53122
Beyer, ATTM EB, 123 (1.2).
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
]. [ י ד מו ך מלי l
]2 ]מ פ ל ת בני כון ו
1. 1: The first three letters are unclear; for an impf. o f ד מ ך, 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 מליon 1.1 may have been
a proper noun, perhaps ; חנו ךcf. 4Q203 8 (the “tablet” dictated to Enoch
addressed to the Watchers).
213 This is suggested by the combination of 11.2-3) )כו לwith 1.3) ) ע בד ת ה.
170 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 T T M E B , 123 (11.2-3).
Photographs. PAM 41.956 (= FE, 534); 43.570 (= EE, 1518).
ן.·] []ו כו ל
נ שב זרע
1 ]·[
2 ]and all/every [ ]..[
3 ] (it) blew seed .[
4Q531 24
N o 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
<־..] 4
1 ]m to you
2 ].the wings(?) b.[\
3 vacat
4 ]../
4Q531 25
Beyer, A T T M E B , 123 (11.1-4).
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= EE, 1518).
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 171
?1 ] בדמה[ון
2 ][ י א כדן
3 [? כעך לכ[ה
4 [ א מר. [
5 ] לט.[
4Q531 26
Beyer, Ä T T M E B , 123 (1.3).
Photographs. PAM 41.956 (= FE, 534); 43.570 (= FE , 1518).
]·[ 1
]2 ]לי
3 ][ ל מחז א
4 ] ..[· ש
1. 3: Beyer: “( למחנ אzum Lager”). The fourth letter does not have the base o f
a נ. For ( למחזאqal infln.), see 4Q531 17, 1.10.
1 ]·[
2 ]ly[
3 ]to see (a vision) [
4 ] ..sh .[
4Q531 27
Beyer, A T T M E B , 123 (11.1-2).
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
1. 1: Beyer: ] ו ל א.
1. 2:1 .?/7ן־נ שתראst pers. plur. impf.; cf. 4 ית שראQ532 3, 1.3.
1 ]. and you will not .[
2 ]because/that we shall begin[
3 vacat
4Q531 28
Beyer, A T T M E B , 123 (11.2-3).
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE , 1518).
vacat? 1
] 2 ]הי וכמדמא
3 ]שניא ב י ה.[
4Q 53129
Beyer, A T T 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 T T M E B , 124 (1.2).
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
] 1 ] מ שתא
2 ]][ל...[
1.1: ^־מ שתא/ infin. from ש תי. The first letter resembles a large ; בa word
spelled ב שתאor * ב+ “( שתאyear” with assimilated )נis less likely.
1 ] drinking [
2 ]/[]...[
4Q531 - 4QEnGiantsc 173
4Q531 31
N o readings published to date.
Photographs ,. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
[]ירגזון 1
[ עלי.] 2
1 ]they will be angry(?)[
2 ]. upon[
4Q 53132
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE , 1518).
].1].א ק
2 [ ע]בדתה ועל
3 [[ · די ה
1 ]■’ q■[
2 ]you have [m]ade and upon[
3 ]ryh .[
4Q 53133
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
vacat 1
[.־71,] 2
1 vacat
2 ].wl.[
4Q531 34
N o 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 form
could also be י]חטון.
174 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1 ]unto .[
2 ](are) sinning[
4Q531 35
N o 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
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 42.440 (= FE, 861); 43.570 (= FE 1518).
]1 ]בה
2 ] סחו[ר
4Q 53137
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
]מרע 1
]ל 2
4Q 53138
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
4Q531 - 4QEnGiantsc 175
[] נה 1
[ סחר.] 2
1 ] nh\
2 ]. went around[
4Q531 39
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518):
[.]מהג 1
]לטור[א 2
1 ]mhg.[
2 ]to [the(?)] mountain[
4Q531 40
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
].1 ]ד י ג
2 ]]·לח
1. 1: The letter following גcould be either עor ש. יmay also be a 1st pers.
sing. pron. suff. to a word ending in 7.
1 ]who/which/because(?) g.[
2 [//־.]
4Q 53141
N o 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 M
2 ]the [ ]wm [
4Q 53142
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
176 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
[ ת ח.] 1
[. עין.] 2
1 ]tm [
2 ]. ‘yn .[
4Q53143
N o 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
4Q 53144
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
].*?! bit[ 1
M 2
1. 1: 1?K[-either the juss. negative particle (the following letters would then
have 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 45
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
] [ 1
[ ל חנו ך..] 2
[··ה רק.·] 3
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 177
1 ] [
2 ]..to Enoch [
3 ]..h wq..[
4Q 53146
Beyer, ATTM EB, 124.
Photographs.. PAM 43.570 (= 1518).
[ ]א 1
vacat 2
] . 3 ].ן נ פ קו מ[נפ]ילין
4 ].שמיא עד [ א
]..[ 5
1 ]’ [
2 vacat
3 ].« they came forth from nephilim .[
4 ].’ unto the heavens [
5 ]··[
4Q 53147
Beyer, ATTM EB, 124 (1.2).
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
].. 1 ] אנה
2 ] ס ל ק ת ו על ת ל.[
1. 2: The third letter resembles a ל, but the supralinear vertical line is actually
a fold in the Frgt.
1 ] 1 ..[
2 ]1 went up and entered into .[
4Q 53148
Beyer, ATTMEB, 124 (1.2).
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
|.]להון ב 1
]קדיש 2
1 ]for them in .[
2 ]holy [
178 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran 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 re
garded 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 descrip
tion of their exploits adds credence to the possibility that the manuscript
stems from Qumran BG.
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 De
spite 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-
dings of each fragment.216
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 subse
quent columns (Frgt.’s 3-5). Due to the lack of context and barring fur
ther evidence, this placement hardly exceeds the bounds of speculation.
4Q 5321
Eisenman-Wise, DSSU, 95 (col. ii); Beyer, ATTM EB, 124 (col. i, 11.7-13).
Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).
11
]·
·[ 2
1?]b 3
]* ·[ 4
ajpa1? ?5Wa[ 5
]an 6
]nVi 1* I[· ״ 7
217 On the concurrent use o f the spelling with and without 1, see Beyer, A T T M , p. 604.
180 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
4Q5322
Eisenman-Wise, DSSU, 95; Beyer, ATTMEB, 124 (11.3-14).
Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).
][מ l
2 ]ב ב ש[ ר א
3 ג ב רין ]ונפיל[ין
4 ]הוו קאמ[ין
5 ][ א ר ע א תר
6 ]<[ הוו> ע שיתין ל
7 ]. מן עירין על.[
8 יס]וף ואבד ומית ו.[
9]ח ב ל ר ב חנ ב לו בא[רעא
10 לא] שפק לה למא[כל
11] י ארעא ועד.[
12][ ב א ר ע א ב כ ל ב
13][ ר ב א וכען לא ש
14].ו אסור תקי[ף
1. 10: Eisenman-Wise translate שפקas if it were the verb “( שבקto 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 שפקin Bibl. Heb. (1 Kgs. 20:10) and
the same s p ( y ) q m Syr. At the end Eisenman-Wise restore “( למא[תאto
come”) which is a consequence of their questionable interpretation of
ש פ ק. The restoration of למא[כלis derived from the phraseology of
4Q531 5, 11.2-3 ( בעין ל מאכל לא שפק...) and, more importantly, from
the description of the giants’ insatiable appetites in 1 En. 7:3-4. The
suff. in להcould 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 שמיא/“( עד סיפ]י ארעא ועד ק[ צויbis zu] den Enden der Erde
und bis zu den Enden [des Himmels”); Eisenman-Wise: מן] ארעא ועד
“( ש[מיאfrom] the earth as far as He[aven”).
1. 12: Eisenman-Wise restore: ב[ ש ר.
1. 13: With Beyer; Eisenman-Wise: [ ב א. The verb following ל א, which begins
with ש, is perf. (not impf.; cf. translation n. below).
1. 14: Eisenman-Wise: =( אסיר תקי[פאbound is [the] stron[g one”; א סי ר-#«/
perf. pass, or qatil adj.); Beyer: “( אסור תקי[ףeine starke Fessel”). If the
preceding וbelongs to a perf. verb, Beyer’s reading is the more probable.
1 ]m[
2 ]with [the] flefsh
3 giants ]and nephilfim
4 ]they were stanfding
5 ]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[th
10 ]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 [
4Q5323
Eisenman-Wise, D SSU 95 ;יBeyer, ATTM EB, 124 (11.2-4).
Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).
]1 ]..ו ה
2 ] [ חסיר מנדע
3 ][ י < ש >עתרא ב רי
4][ רך על ש
5] פ.[ ]..[
1. 1: Eisenman-Wise: ל הוון. Neither לnor ןare visible and הis preceded (not
followed) by a ו.
1. 2: With Beyer. Eisenman-Wise: “( חסידpious”, i. e. a Heb. term). Both
Beyer and Eisenman-Wise read the adj. as an attributive, but a predica-
tive adj. is possible as well.
1. 3: The supralinear שis a correction placed between תand ; רthe copyist
thus makes clear the root (before metathesis) from which the form is
derived. For another itp. to “( שריto begin”), see 4Q531 27, 1.2
()נ ש ת ר א. At the end, Beyer reads/restores ; ב ר הthe slightly bent trace
of the third letter corresponds more closely to the right portion o f a ו, י,
4Q532 = 4QEnGiantsd 183
פ, or ת. Since the first visible letter of the line is incompatible with a ת
(i. e. ) ת ש תר א, the second word is probably not the fem. ( ב ר תcstr. state,
i. e. “the daughter o f”). Hence read/restore “( ב ריmy son”); is one o f the
Watchers (i. e. Baraq’el; cf. n. to 1.4 below) referring to his son?
1. 4: Beyer: [י ך. If the first letter is ו, it is possible, but quite uncertain, that
the word may be restored as “( חנוךEnoch”). 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.
4Q5324
Eisenman-Wise, D SSU , 95 (11.1-4); Beyer, ATTM EB, 124 (11.1-4).
Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).
].1 ]. ק ר
2 ][ ב די ל כדי מלי
3 ] [ ר ב ר בין
4 ] ][ א ואנה.[
]...[ 5
Beyer: ; כ דןthe wedge shape at the top o f the third letter makes the
reading of ןless probable than a י.
1. 4: Eisenman-Wise: ] ;ו אנ אBeyer:ו אנו[ן. The visible trace before the lacuna
is unlikely to be אor 1; more probably, it is either “ =( חwe”) or =( ה
“I”)·
1 ]. qr.[
2 ] so that when my(?) words [
3 ] great [
4 ]’ and 1[ ] .[
5 ]...[
Com m ent. 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.
4Q 5325
Eisenman-Wise, DSSU, 95 (11.2-5); Beyer, ATTM EB, 124 (11.2,4).
Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).
].[ מ l
] 2 א]מר מרי
3 ] מן ב.. ח.[
4 ].[ זר[ ]מנדע מ
5 ][■ ·ל
1.2 With Beyer. Eisenman-Wise: “( [ מר מריLord of Lords”).
1.3 Eisenman-Wise: ] [ ]בן ב. [ ו.
1.4 Eisenman-Wise: ] ;[ ור[ב] מנדע מBeyer: ] מנ ד ע כל. The last fully visible
letter is too compact for מor ב ;כis more likely.
]m.[
]he [s]aid, “My lord, [
]h..mn b \
]. zr[ ]knowledge m[
]/..[
1. 2: See textual note above.
1. 4: Beyer: (“Wissen von allem”).
4Q556 = 4QEnGiantse 185
4Q 5326
Eisenman-Wise, DSSU, 95 (11.1-2); Beyer, ATTM EB, 124 (11.1-2).
Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).
[ ביו.] 1
[א. ]בשמיא 2
]■[ 33
1.1: Eisenman-Wise: ] “([ ביןbetween”);Beyer:רב] רבין t A
(“viele”). A letter
Ipftpr
immediately before בexcludes the possibility of reading בין.
1. 2: Eisenman-Wise: ]. ו. The traces o f two lettersare illegible.
1 ].byn [
2 ]in the heavens .’[
3 ]·[
1. 1: See textual note above.
4Q5561
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.754 (= FE, 1522).
11 1
(?)·[
].a1? 1
]..־r 2
r
I
hp» 3
i. 1. 4: A more remote possibility for the first letter is ft, in which case the word
would 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 a
subst. 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 ]t
2 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 intersec
ting 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).
188 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
3 ]
3 roota[ge
4 when
4Q556 2
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530); 43.754 (= FE, 1522).
]1[ 1
]2 ] צלו יתדין מן קדמיהן
3]ליב תפין. או אג.[
4 ]. תי ב ע בין כ תב ה.[
1. 3: A line is drawn through the first four letters which the scribe must have
considered 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 M
2 ] 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
N o 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 ].n h .[
4 ]we[
4Q5564
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530; text from 3 lines); 43.574 (= FE, 1522;
text from 2 lines).
4Q556 = 4QEnGiantse 189
[] על 1
[]הוו 2
1.]״ 3
1 ] upon[
2 ]they were[
3 ]..·[
4Q5565
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530); 43.574 (= FE, 1522).
[]ין ת 1
1 ]yn ?[
4Q 5566
Milik, BE, 237-38; Beyer, A T T M , 260; Black, The B ook 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 הוה שפיך־represents a variant of the text in 1.3: ) הרה מ שתפך,
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 o f the overlap. Therefore, a commentary is
reserved for the section on the 4QEnoch£? fragments.
Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530); 43.574 (= FE, 1522).
230 So Reeves, Jewish Lore p. 62, 77: “[to practice deceit upon] the earth.”
190 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 first
word as “flood”; cf. the textual note above.
231 See Jean-Hoftijzer, DISO , p. 319 (the Sefire inscription, i B 38); Sokoloff, Dictio
nary o f JPA , p. 566.
232 See Beyer, A T T M , p. 604 and ATTM , pp. 363-64.
233 So Garcia Martinez.
4Q206 2-3 = 4QEnoche 191
4Q556 7
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530); 43.574 (= FE, 1522).
[]מ 1
1 ]m[
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 o f 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 הא רבאon 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: ינ פ ק קדי ש[ה ר]בה, “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
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.
4Q 2062-3 = 4QEnoche 193
4Q 2062
Milik, BE, 235-36; Beyer, A T T M , 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.
][ ין וכל l
2 אתח]וית ל חנוך ס[פר פר שא
3 ].[ ו ה א רבא
1. 1: The traces of the last two letters, though faint, are consistent with כand
לrespectively.
1. 2: AT from the verb ( חזיin Milik-n ; אח] זיBeyer and Reeves-rp?[nrw) is
not distinguishable; the visible wedge shape angling to the left makes ו
(from ) ח ויthe more probable reading. Thus the verb may well an a fel
pass, form (i. e. ) א חוי ת. The verb is a 3rd pers. fern. sing, perf.; the
possibility of a 1st pers. form is excluded by the prefixed לbefore
“Enoch”. The םat 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 בני א] ד םand Beyer reads simply
“( דםBlut”).240 The second visible letter has no vertical line on the left
and is thus more consistent with a ר. Despite the alternative readings of
Beyer (] )מ[ן] רבand Reeves (] רב... מ,), the case for reading with Milik a
הbefore the lacunae is much better than a 241. מFurthermore, 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 o f script is the enlarged final mem (□). For a full
physical description and orthography o f 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 o f the vertical stroke
on the right; this is consistent with n.
194 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
faint traces above the lacunae could represent ( ווi. e., as in ;) הווbut,
given the following ( רב אPlate XIX in B E 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 interpretation
3 ]. 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.
4Q2063
Milik, BE, 235-37; Beyer, A T T 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 pre
serves the bottom part of one column, the line numeration begins with “ 1” in both
columns; despite M ilik’s attempts at being precise about the length o f 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.
4Q 2062-3 = 4QEnoche 195
[. מ3
[. א4
[ 5
[ 6 []ם מתע שת.] [.] [..]
שפיך הוה ו]בה דם
ין בה[ כ]ל.] []הוו מ 3
bottom margin
i, 1. 1: Milik reads/restores י אר]עא כ[ל] ב[ני אד]ם מן בא שתof which the first
four words are impossible to verify. Milik’s מן בא שתshould be correc-
ted to מ ת ע ש ת, as the second letter is clearly a ( תthere is no sublinear
trace corresponding to a )ןand the following V and שare decipherable.
i, 1. 2: The 3rd pers. pron. suff. in בהis no doubt fem. and has it antecedent in
4) ארעאQ556 6, 1.1). Cf. ( שפיךqal pass, ptc.) with the parallel מת שפךin
4Q556 6, 1.2.
i, 1. 3: Milik: “( [ הוו מ[תע]בדיןwere being perpetrated ;)״Beyer: [ הוו מ[ש]קרין
(“sie betrogen dauernd”). Neither reading is certain; following הווthe
form is no doubt a ptc., and one may infer from the number o f spaces
for the word that it began with ( מpa“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 o f 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).
i
1 ]··[].[]·[ ]m devising
2 ]in it blood was being poured
3 ]they were m[ ].yn in it all
ii
1 ·[
2 t'l
3 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.
“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
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”.
6Q 81
Baillet, D JD 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 N ew Schürer, III. 1. 332; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 59, 64,
and 107-108; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 43, 101-102; D SST, 262.
Beyer, followed by Reeves, finds an overlap between 1Q23 29 and 11.4-5 of
6Q8 1.
Photographs. PAM 41.736; D JD 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.
6Q8 = ôQGiants 197
]■[ I
[. ענ]ה אוהיא ואמר למהוי 2
]וענה מהרי []ולא מרתת מן אחזיך כלא א 3
vacat ואמר לאוהי]א ברקאל אבי עמי הוה 4
]]ל[ ] לא[ ש]יצי מהוי [לא]שתעיה מה די[ אחזי ברקאל לה 5
תמהין שמעת הן ילדת סרי[קה וענה אוהיא ואמר ל]ה ארו 6
bottom of column
1.2: With Milik and restoring with Beyer. Baillet originally read: ].אי הוא
ואמר למהוי. (“... lui, et il dit d’être ...”, taking למהויas an infinitive);
Beyer restores further: ] באדין ענ]ה אוהיא ואמר למהוי.
1. 3: מר ת ת: p a “el ptc. masc. sing, from “( רתתto tremble”). Milik, followed
by Fitzmyer-Harrington, restores: “( אח[ ויtell [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]אis restored on the basis
of 1Q23 29 1.1.
1. 5: לא[ ש]יציoverlaps with 1Q23 29 1.2. Baillet: ].[ יצו מהו.
1. 6: With Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer. Baillet,
]. “( ילדת מרif j ’avais enfanté ”246) יfollowed 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.” vacat
5 ]/[ ] Mahaway had not [finished tellfing] what Baraq’el had
shown him, when
6 ’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).
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. Ver
mes 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.
6Q8 = 6QGiants 199
was ...” (page 2, 1.14).251 Moreover, in the Uygur version printed by Hen
ning (“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 author
ity 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 ex
presses 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 re
spectively 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 k
11.67-76 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.
200 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 ...
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.
6Q 82
Baillet, D JD III, 117; Milik, BE, 309; Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 192;
Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 78-79; Beyer, A T T M , 265 and n. 1; Uhlig, Henoch-
buch, 758; Garcia-Martinez, QumApoc, 101-102; D SST\ 262; Reeves, Jewish Lore,
58, 63, 87, 95-102.
254 “Ein weiteres Fragment aus dem Gigantenbuch”, pp. 495-97. Sundermann descri
bes 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.
6Q8 - 6QGiants 201
257 The formula which combines a ptc. of חזיwith הויin the perfect followed by עד די
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 ( )חזיis 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)שר]שין רברבין נפקו מן עקרהן־. 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.”
202 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
... 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 ( ) פררס כולוplanted 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 (אילן אחד
) של שלשה ענפים.
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.( ר ב ר בין נפקו מן ע ק רהןIf 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” ( = שר] שין ר ב ר ביןthe giants or
Watchers) which are threatened with divine punishment (4QEnGiants^
col. ii, 11.9-10) with the “three shoots” of a tree ( = תלת ת שר שו היN oah’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
( ) א תוis a “reference either to the advent of the two hundred Watchers
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^7is 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.
6Q8 = 6QGiants 203
6Q 83
Baillet, D JD III, 118; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 78-79.
top margin
[ רבה l
2 ]תה...>לע<ע
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.
204 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
6Q 84
Baillet, D JD I l f 118; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M P A f 78-79.
].[ 1
].,,I nn. 2
]־pDWDi) 3
]. kVi ... 4
1. 3: With Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: the letter n is uncertain
(but probable due to the form required by thefinal ]), while IP is deci
pherable onthe basis of other ttfs in 6Q8(cf.esp. 6Q8 26 1.3).
1 ]·[
2 .bh wy.[
3 you will draw[
4 ... and not .[
6Q 85
Baillet, D JD I l f 118; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 78-79; Milik, B E , 304; Beyer,
A T T M , 268.
top margin?
} V in 1? i ![ 1
P- ( 2
1. 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 ] ./[
6Q 86
Baillet, D JD III, 118; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 78-79; Beyer, A T T M , 268.
[]להון כמסת 1
bottom margin
6Q8 7
Baillet, D JD III, 118.
[..] ביר 1
[.ד.. ] 2
1 ] in yr..[
2 ] ..d\
6Q8 8
Baillet, D JD III, 118; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.1).
] !1 ] ימרו
2 ]. ע. .[
1. 1: With Baillet. Beyer: “( ימטוןthey will arrive”). As there is no other in-
stance in 6Q8 8 of טfor a comparison268 and the form of רis 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 spelled
according to pronunciation rather than etymology.269 The second trans־
lation possibility accords with the impf, form of מ ר ר.
6Q 89
Baillet, D JD III, 118; Beyer, A T T M , 266 n. 1, 268 (1.2).
[· י1] 1
]יפסל/]ו 2
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 ‘A za’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.
6Q 810
Baillet, D JD I l f 118; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.2).
]·[ ]··[ 2
]2 ].ון לכי
1.2: Baillet: ].[ פין לבי, the second word also possibly לכול.
1 ]··[ ]·[
2 ].wn for ky[
6Q811
Baillet, D JD I I f 118 (1.1).
]..[ 1
[· [ל2
1 [..]
2 [/·]
6 Q 8 12
Baillet, D JD III, 118.
[· ·] 1
[.[ם ש 2
6 Q 8 13
Baillet, D JD III, 118.
i. i
1.1: Baillet: , a[.
1 [·*·]׳
6Q 814
Baillet, D JD III, 118.
6Q 815
Baillet, D JD III, 118; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.1).
r» n [ i
1]״ 2
1. 2: Baillet: ]n[.
1 \h all/every[
2 ]··[
6 Q 8 16
Baillet: D JD III, 118.
1. 2: Baillet: ]»’[
1 ]./[
2 M
6 Q 8 17
Baillet, D JD III, 118.
]m[?־ i
]...[ 2
1 ]but[
2 ] ..·[
208 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
6Q 818
Baillet, D JD III, 118; Beyer, A T T M , 268; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 43.
!1 ]ל י ר ד
1 ] for/to Jared [
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. 37:1
272 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 ירדand 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.
6Q8 = 6QGiants 209
6 Q 8 19
Baillet, D JD III, 118.
]..[ 1
vacat? 2
6Q 820
No readings attempted by Baillet (D JD III, 118).
]0[ 1
]·[ 2
]·[ 3
1 ]m [
2 ]· [
3 ].[
6Q 821
Baillet, D JD III, 118.
]b*i[ 1
6Q 822
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
a־l
b.. ] 2
1. 2: Baillet: ]nib.[.
1 m
2 ] /··[
6Q823
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
210 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
[.«־7] 1
1. 1: Baillet: ]s’?[.
1 ]Im.[
6Q 824
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
ni l
.[ 2
1.1: Baillet: 1. [ה
6Q 825
No readings attempted by Baillet (D JD III, 119).
[.]רב 1
1 ]rb.[
6Q8 26
Baillet, D JD III, 119; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 78-79; Beyer, A T T M , 626
(11.3-4); Garcia-Martinez, QumApoc, 43.
].. 1 לובר
2 לרוחה.[
3 ובחר ש[פיר...
]. ... 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: ]. וב חן. The final
letter of the first word is more likely a רbecause one would expect ןto
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
too indistinct to be deciphered.
1 Lubar..[
2 in its direction .[
3 and he chose a bfeautiful?
4 ... .[
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.
6Q 827
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
[ר עד ב.] 1
1 ..רת..] 2
1. 1: Baillet: ] ר עי מ.
1.2: Baillet: \ ... [.
1 \ r unto b[
2 ]..rt.. [
6Q8 28
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
].. ר...[ l
1. 1:Baillet:].וי...[.
1 ]... r..[
6Q8 29
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
[]ר דן 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: “( תבותא נחת חד מן טורי האררטthe ark descended
(upon) one of the mountains of Ararat)״, where unfortunately the name of the mountain
is not given.
275 לוברis also named as the place where Noah planted a vineyard in IQapGen
(=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: נ]וח מן לובר... [ )[ מן בתר מבולאallows one to infer the same
association.
276 See Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, p. 43.
212 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
1 (vb.+obj.?)]you this[
2 ]/[
1. 1:Cf.6Q82: TTnx (2nd sing. obj. suff. ending); if correct, then *p may be
the direct object of a preceding verb.
6Q 830
Baillet, D JD I l f 119 (11.2-3).
]![ 1
]2 ]י/ל דורו
3 ]. [הש
1. 3:Baillet:].ה .[.
1 M
2 ]/ generation[s?
3 ]. hsh[
6Q831
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
[ ·ג.] 1
] [ע ל.] 2
. 1: Baillet: ] רג.[.
.2: Baillet: 1. ע ל.[
1 ]· ·£[
2 ].‘ /[ ]·[
6Q 832
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
]·[ 1
].s n[ 2
11.1-2: With Baillet.
1 ]·[
2 ]t [·׳
6Q8 = 6QGiants 213
6Q8 33
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
x[ l
.. ]?־2
1.1: Baillet: .[.
1 ]’
2 ]/..
Part Two
The following manuscripts each contain texts which scholars have associa
ted 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 mate
rials 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.
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 בחיר אלהאin 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.
4Q534 = 4QElect o f God 215
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 A ra
maic 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 consi
sting 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, D SSU , 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 נשמוהי רוחin col. i, 1.10, if an allusion to Isa. 11:4 () ברוח שפתיו, 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.
216 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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, A TTM , p. 270.
4Q535 and 4Q536 217
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 occur
rence 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 corre
sponds 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, Be
yer’s proposal represents an unlikely possibility.
17 Cf. D SST ' 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 Micro
fiche 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).
1Q19 = IQBook o f Noah 11, 13, 15 219
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
220 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
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 Exem
plar” of the same.27
The Case for an Identification with the Book of Giants. Beyer’s attribu
tion 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 sugge
stion 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, howe
ver, 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 manu
script to BG. An analogy with the case of non־/ Enoch material in 4QEn-
ochc (= 4Q204) belonging to BG (4QEnGiantsö) should not, barring evi
dence from the fragments themselves, be allowed to function as an opera
ting assumption in other manuscripts. Finally and most importantly, not
hing 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 A TTM , 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.
4Q533 = 4QGiants or Pseudo-Enoch ar 221
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
4Q537 - 4QApocryphon o f Jacob ar 223
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;( ) שק רthe 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 A T T M , 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 A TT M , 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 ATTM EB , 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.
224 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments
(*rm1?);47 and (3) a motif concerning the survival of the righteous.48 Rela
ting 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
(1.3“־the s[ec]ond tablet”), the number envisaged in 4QTestuz may actually be two; see
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.
50 שקרand לוחיאmay be consistent with the flood story, but are far too generic to
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) רמת חזורQ0/?-
Geflxxi.8,10 and 4Q537 19, 1.3) - has little positive evidence to support it.
Appendix
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)
]י שומה ישמק [..מ ] [ . די ידא תרתין 1
vacat ] [ו]טלופחין ע[ל שערה 2
ליה.. ]ן שנין <דן> מן דן ידע [ ושומן זועירן על ירכתה 3
וש די לא ידע מדע [ע]ד עדן די°]בעלימותה להוון כלהון [עלוהי כאנ 4
vacat [י]דע תלתת ספריא 5
ון חזין למאתה לה על ארכובה°][וב]אדין יערם וידע שג[יאין יבע 6
]חי וזקנונה עמה להוין מלכה וערמונ[ה.] [. ובאבוהי וב[אב]התוהי 7
[ו]ידע רזי אנשא וחוכמתה לכול עממיא תהך וידע רזי כול חייא 8
[·]ה [.ל
ורוח נשמ[והי
[ לעלמין
[ ]·[ ]· 8
10 are lost
[ [. ומדינן 11
] [.. די ...י לן.ב.] []מ [.ויחרבון ת 12
]]מן במן יחרבן כול אלן יהכ[ון [ מין יסופון 13
vacat? [ נ- 14
]יתבנון כעירין עובדה [.וב.] [·] [ 15
]]וסודה עלוהי יסדון חטאה וחוב[תה [.קל חלף 16
.מ..] קדיש ועירי[ן.] [ לי.] [ 17
vacat א]מרו עלוהי ] 18
]פון []ר מי [ ... ] ] 19
זה.[ ] 20
1 .[ \.dy .«[ ].. he fell first. Sons of a pit [
]..’ Evil (is) the lentil-like mark /..[
vacat?
to] come [
/.[ M ]..[
and the wind of [his] breath[
forever [
·[ ]·[
11.9-10 are lost
11 and provinces .[
12 and they will lay waste .[ ]m [ ].b.ln y ... which ..[
13 waters will come to an end ]mn bmn will lay waste. All these
will g[o
14 ...[ ] vacat?
15 [ ].[ ].kw \ ] they will be built. As (that of) the
Watchers (will be) his work.
16 Instead of q l \ ]and its foundation theywill lay upon him.
Its sin and [its] guilt
17 [ \d y [ ].a holy oneand the Watchers[ ]..m.
18 [ ]they [s]aid against him vacat
19 [ ]... [ ]r my[ ]pwn
20 [ \z h
228 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants
4Q5346
]·[] 1
]. .2 די לכו
3 חובה לב.[
4 [ דן ינטור
1 [ ].[ vacat or bottom margin
2 which Ikw. .[
3 guilt lb.[
4 this. He will guard [
4Q534 7
[לון.] 1
1 ]Jwn [
4Q535 (2 3 Fragments)4
4Q 5351
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 some
time during the years just preceding the turn of the common era.
4Q 536 229
4 during] the [night] (he) sleeps until half [his] da[y ]..’ .[
5 ] during the day until the completion of [... years
6 ](it) moves (away) from him [and] /.[
4Q535 2
vacat or top margin
[ובעשרה 1
[]מתק[ל. 2
1 and about ten[
2 .[]weigfht
4Q536 (3 Fragments)t
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
4Q5363
1 ב לי לי] א ד מך עד מ פ ל ג יו מו הי [
2 יממא עד מ של ם שנין°]ב. . [
[ ... [ ] ש..ו ל נז ח]ה לה מנ ה 3
6Q14 231
6Q 14 (2 Fragm ents)
6Q141
] . . 1 ]ב ל
2 ][· מן די
3 ][ ב ה לג ב ה[ ] כ פי ל
4 על]יא י פו ק מן א.[
5] ה י ב ד ה.[
6] כ ו ל חי ת.[
7 ] ע נ נ י ן מן. [
8 ].[ א
1 \b l..[
2 ]w h oever.[
3 ]bh to a double height[
4 ]the [M ost High] will com e out from \ [
5 Ih will perish .[
6 ]every living thing o f .[
7 ]clouds from .[
8 ].’[
6Q 142
[. ק י קו ם.] 1
[ד די כ.]
[ . א] ב ל ו ב כי
[. . ל...] 4
[. q will arise.\ 1
[d which k .] 2
mou]rning and crying 3 .]
4 [ .../. .]
232 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants
1Q1911
} 1 כ]ל בני
2 ]ל הקד[ש
1 a]ll the sons of [
2 ]/ o f holfiness
1Q 1913
1Q 1915
]·[ 1
]רי כי אל כונן.] 2
][ ]ם לב..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 reconstruc
tion is justifiably questioned on grounds o f differences o f line spacing by Garcia Marti
nez, 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”.
4Q533 233
4Q533 1
] IV..[ 1
] ,r o mu’?[ 2
],mam ]...«?a[ 3
] n w ta un.[ ]..a 7p’i .[ 4
] vacat nn i x ’i m a i p 1?[ 5
]a sin h ,?a natp ’7 sm n sn r ia [ 6
].·> ,t s s ’aa nas n n b y .[ 7
X]mb 178 M U 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 ..[
4Q 5332
]..’7,[ 1
] Pb..[ 2
]1373 .[ 3
],3? by .n.[ 4
1 ]. which ..[
2 ]..lq [
3 ]. they wanted [
4 \ t . upon ‘.[
4Q533 3
!. א.] 1
])?(]י הכון בא[רעא 2
] ע מ מין די ס פ ר 3
]]יא ו מו א בי א ע מלק[י א 4
נ הו ב ד אבון..] 5
צ ד י ק י א..........] 6
]מ מר הא אלין 7
] ד א הו א חל[ק..ה ה.] 8
]אדיו י ר ד ף חר ש 9
]לא י ש ב קון 10
1 ]. ’.[
2 ]they will go in ’[
3 ]peoples [to] whom a book
4 1y ' and M oabites and Amalek[ites
5 “ ]..w e will be destroyed.” They
6 ] .., . the righteous ones
7 ]a word. Behold, these
8 ] . h h . . d’ is divifding
9 ]then he will put out divination
10 ]they will not leave
4Q533 4
[.כל א.] 1
[. ש ת א.] 2
[]א דא 3
]כו מן.] 4
[ ■■] 5
[] ה א 6
1 }.kl ’.[
2 \shf .[
3 ]’ d\
4 \ k w from[
5 ].. [
6 ]h’ [
4Q533 235
4Q5335
[]ירד 1
[]אדיו 2
[ור ול.] 3
[)?(Jared ] 1
[ then ] 2
wr and .] 3 /]
4Q533 6
].[ 1
]..2 ].]ת ]ל
3 ].ע מ.. נ א.] ].[
4 ].]יז [.. ם כ.[
5 ].. ועבד מ..[
6 ]...] ן
1 ]·[
2 ]./[ ]/..[
3 ] .n ' ..‘ m.[ ].[
4 ]״y k ..\ ]yz.[
5 ].. and he made m..[
6 ]...«[
4Q533 7 4Q5338
[ק ש 2
1 ]/ Imd[ 1 h[
2 qsh[
236 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants
4Q533 11
4Q533 14
9]מ ל כו ת ה וא ף
10]א מן קו ד ם ר ש עי א
11]. ו ת א.. ] ]לאר
12 ]ס י ם ו מל כ א דך
13 ].[] ח.
1 ]peoples will hear
2 ] which is an idol. And the upright ones
3 ].[ ]the king o f Egypt
4 ].m r'T hey
5 ] vacat
6 ].w. Beth Gam a (?). N o t
7 ]y . who remain
8 ]. eating the meat o f a pig
9 ]his kingdom , and also
10 ]’ before the wicked ones
11 ] ./> [] · . wt'
12 ]sym and that king
13 [.][/־.
4Q5371+4+9+1111
top margin
1 ז ר ע ך וי ש ת א רון כ ל צ די קי א וי שי רי[ א
2 [ עו ל ו כ ל ש ק ר לא עוד י ש ת כ ח
3 וכ ען ס ב לו חי א ו ק רי א כול א[ די כ תי ב ב הון
4 [ ו כ ל ע ק תי ו כ ל די י ת א על[י כ ל מאה ו א ר ב עין ו שב] ע שני חיי
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 o f 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
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 them
4 and all my troubles and everthing which would com e 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
4Q5373
4Q5375
4Q5376
].. .[ 1
2 ]ת כו ן בי ד פ ש עי[ כון
1 ].
2 ]your[ ]through [your] trespasses[
4Q537 7
] 1]טי א
2 ] ... ל ר ח צן ע ל מין. . . [
1 ]O׳ ׳ [
2 ] ... for an eternal security ... [
4Q5378 4Q53710
4Q53712+1312
12 This combination, which is suggested by the juxtaposition o f 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.
Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants
4Q 53714 4Q 53715
[.]ע 1 [.]כת ק 1
הוא/ה והין ל[הוון.] 2 [ . . א]רבעא 2
[.k t q ] 1 [.‘] 1
[.. 2 ]four h and how [it/they wi]ll [be\ 2
4Q53716
4Q53717
4Q53718
[ ] . . . 1 ]ב
2 ]עמק רמת חזור ואזל
3 ]כ ל דנה אחרא אחזיני די
4 ] להוא ]להון רשמת
1 ] &. . . [ ]
2 ]the valley of Ramath Hazor. And he went
4Q537 241
4Q53719 4Q53720
4Q53721 4Q53722
4Q53723 4Q53724
xsn]« by ־,i [ 1 ] .1
].a 2
]· r a 3
4Q53725
[.־IS. ...] 1
[·■■][« ־I*] 2
[····] 3
1 [... . ‘ [. d
2 earth] ] [ ...]
3
4Q53726
]. ’ ״T .[ 1
]»3 P ־tA[ 2
1 ]. the leaders o f .[
2 ]then b ‘[
242 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants
4Q53727 4Q537
!.. .[ 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 uncertain
m /fs masculine/feminine singular
m/fp masculine/feminine plural
cs/p com m on singular/plural
im pf/pf imperfect/perfect
Partial reconstructions, alternative spellings, or forms with an uncertain inter
pretation are provided am ong the pertinent citations.
Only words which are fully or partially visible are included. Lexical items (spel
led in plene) are strictly alphabetical.
+3ms suff-Td (4Q203 13.2; 4Q530 ii.l; ( מותdeath; masc.):sg.cstr.-T\V2 (4Q530 ii.l)
ii. 13; nAlbis', ii.22; ii.23; iii.6; 61.3; ( מחיto smite; itp., to be blotted out):
4Q531 2.1; 3.3; 17.9; 4Q532 2.10; qal pf. 3mp+3ms suff-7\1T\'n (4Q531 5.8)
6Q8 1.6)ל]ה־ qal infin.-nmto (4Q531 18.1)מחה־
+2mp su ff-1) לכרךQ24 8.2; 4Q203 8.6; itp. impf. 7<:/?4) נתמחה־Q531 14.3)
4Q531 24.1) ( מטיto arrive, reach):
+3mp su ff-v rh (2Q26 4;להן־ qal pf. 3m s-nm (4Q203 8.12)
4Q530 13?; 4Q531 5.5; 48.1; 6Q8 6.1) ( מטרrain; masc.):
( לאnot; with כ ל, nothing):1) לאQ23 24.1?־ sg.emph.-xnm (1Q24 5.4;
1 ;29.2 ;[ ל אQ24 8.2; 4Q203 7B ii.3; 4Q203 11 11.2(מט[רא־
4Q530 ii.l 1?4 ;לא[־Q531 5.5; 9.4; 9.6; ( מיןwaters; masc.):
14.2; 17.1; 17.6; 35.2;לא[־ abs.-yn (1Q23 24.3)
4Q532 2.13; 6Q8 1.3; 1.5; 4.4) em p h .-W (1Q244.1; 2Q26 2; 3;
with 4) כלQ203 9.4) 4Q530 i.2; ii.10)
with 4) ה־Q531 4.5) ( מלהword; fern.):
( לבו שclothing; masc.): p l.+ lc s su ff-^ ft (4Q532 4.2)מלי[־
sg.+3ms s u f f - n ^ ^ (4Q531 7.2?־ pl.+2ms s u f f-r i^ ft (4Q 530 111.8)מ]ליך־
([לבו ש ה pl.cstr.-^K (4Q531 22.1)
( לו ברname of mountain): ( מלךking; masc.):
6) לו ב רQ8 26.1) sg. abs./cstr.4) מלך־Q5319.4)
( לוחtablet; masc.): pl.cstr,4) מלכי־Q 53211.5(מ[ל]כי־
sgemph.-xnY? (1Q23 31.3; 2Q26 1; ( מלכו תkingdom; rule; fern.):
2Q26 23 ;(לו]חא־bis; 4Q203 8.3) sg.cstr.-'nivb'n (4Q203 9.6)
sg./pl.abs./emph.-X^/ 1) לוח[אQ23 16.1) ( מללpa "el, to speak):
pl.emph.4) לוחיא־Q203 7B ii.2) pa ‘elptc. pass. ?4) מ/?ממללין־Q556 6.2?־
( לוטto curse): (מ[מללין
qal pf. 3ms-vf> (4Q530 ii.2) ( מןfrom; comparative, than):
( לוטcurse; masc.): 1) מןQ23 1+6+22.46W; 23.1; 2Q26 2; 3;
sg.abs.-uil (4Q530 6 i.2) 4Q203 4.4;9.2; 13.1; 4Q530 ii.8; ii.9;
( לחםbread, food; masc.): iii.9; iii.l 1; 4Q531 8.4; 14.3; 18.2;
sg.abs.-urh (4Q530 61.6) 46.3-4 ; מQ532 2.7; 5.3; 4Q556 2.2)
( לילהnight; masc.): + lc s suff.-'M (4Q531 17.7)
sg.emph.-X^fb (4Q530 ii.6; ii. 16) +2ms s u f f (4Q530 iii.10)
+3ms suff.-nin (1Q23 3.1)
( מאהhundred; fem.):sg.abs.-TlXfi (1Q23 +3mp suff-YTttft (4Q530 nAbis;
9+14+15.5) 4Q531 9.6)
du.pl.1) מאת יין־Q23 1+6+22.2bis,3bis) ( מןwho?):
pl.abs.-yx'n (4Q 530ii.l7) 6) מןQ 8 1.3)
( מאמרword; masc.): ( מנבו עsource; masc.):
sg.emph.-xnmn (4Q 5311.8(ממרא־ sg.ernph.-xvmm (4Q531 21.1(מבו עא־
( מדברwilderness, desert region; masc.): ( מ נד עknowledge; masc.):
sg.emph.-Xnnift (4Q530 iii.5) sg.abs.-Vllft (4Q532 5.4)
pl.em ph.-w nnift (4Q203 8.13) sg.abs./emph.-(x)V12fc (4Q532 3.2־
( מהwhat?; with די, whatever): ()מנדע[(א
4) מהQ203 3.4; 4Q531 4.4) ( מניto count, number; itp., to be
6) מה דיQ8 1.5) numbered):
( מ ה ויgiant’s name): itp. juss. 3?4) מ/יתמנו־גQ530 i.3)
1) מהויQ23 27.2; 4Q203 2.4;מהו[י־ ( מנפלהfal\;fem.):
4Q530 ii.20; iii.6; iii.7; 6Q8 1.2; 1.5) sg.cstr.4) מנפלת־Q531 22.2(מפלת־
( מוחto die): ( מס תenough; poss. fern.):
qal pf. 3ms-W12 (4Q532 2.8) sg.abs.-m n (6(28 6. 1(כמס ת־
qal impf lcs-TWZX (4Q531 18.3) ( מקםplace; masc.):
qal impf. lcp-TW^I (4Q530 61.5) sg.abs.-Upft (4Q531 13.1)
250 Glossary
( שגיto be much, many; afel, to increase) qal ptc. mp emph.-X'W (4Q531 28.3?,
a fe l p f 24) מ7^אשגית־׳Q203 10.2) or ms emph.)
( שגיאmuch; great) { שעיitpa., to recount, tell):
sg.abs.4) שגיא־Q5301.4; 6 i.6; itpa. infin.6) א שתעיה־Q8 1.5(א] שתעיה־
4Q531 5.6; 14.1) ( שפךto pour out; itp., to be poured out)
/ ? / .^ .1) שגיאין־Q23 9+14+15.4־ qal pass. pf. 3ms-y*>W (4Q206 3 i.2)
(שגי[אין itp. ptc. 4) משתפך־^מQ556 6.2)
( שהוהdesert regions; fem.): ( שפקto be enough, sufficient):
pl.abs.-y*\TW (4Q530 iii.5) qal pf. 3ms-pSW (4Q531 5.5;
( שהרmoon; masc.): 4Q532 2.10)
sg.emph.-XlTW (4Q531 1.1) ( שקיto drink; afel, to water):
( שויto be like, even, prostrate): a fe l ptc. mp-ypWK (4Q530 ii.7)
qal 3mp-VW (4Q203 4.6; 13.1?(שו]יו־ { שקרpa“el, to deceive):
( שחיתcorrupt): p a “el /«//«.() שקרה־4 )3556 6.1 ?ש]קרה[־
sg.masc.emph.1) שחיתא־Q23 3.3- ( שריto loosen, dwell):
(שחית[א qal ptc. m p-yiW (4Q531 17.6)
( ש י ציto complete, finish, destroy): qal impv. ^ /4) שרו־לQ203 8.14(שרוא־
pf. 3 m s - 'W (1Q23 29.2; 4Q530 61.5- { שריqal and itp., to begin):
6 ; שיצי אQ8 1.5(ש]יצי־ p a “el 3m s-^V (1Q23 17.3; 30.1)
{ שכחafel, to find; with infin., to be able) itp. impf. 7<:/>4) נ שתרא־Q531 27.2)
(h )a felp f. 3^/74) השכחו־Q530 ii. 13) itp. impf. 34) מ15 ישתרא־Q532 3.3)
(h )a fel ptc. ^ 4) משכח־Q531 17.5־ ( שרץcreeping thing; masc.):
(מ]שכח sg.cstr.-y4) שרQ531 1.7; 21.2)
( שכןeyelid; masc.): ( שרק רקvulture; masc.):
p l.+ lcs su ff-'ttW (4Q530 6 i.7) sg.emph.-HplplW (4Q531 1.6)
( שלחto send): ( שררto be established;p a “el, to establish,
qal pf. 2 ^ 4) שלחתה־Q531 12.4) make strong; itpa., to prevail)
qal pf. 3mp+3ms su ff שלחוהי־ itpa. infin.4) א שתררה־Q531 17.5)
(4Q530 ii.21) ( שרשroot, shoot; masc.):
( ש לט ןrule, ruler; masc.): pl.abs.-yw ^w (4(353011.8)שר]שין־
sg.cstr.-\&?W (4Q530ii.16) pl.+3ms ^ ^ 6) שרשוהי־Q8 2.1)
( שלםpeace; masc.): ( שתיto drink):
sg.abs.-rfrW (1Q24 8.2; 13.3(ש[לם־ qal infin.-4) משתאQ531 30.1)
( שמיחזהfallen Watcher’s name):
4) שמיחזהQ203 8.5) ( תובto return):
( שמיןsky, heaven; masc.): qal pf. 3ms-2n (4Q53011.3)
Heb. form-U'ftW (4Q531 1.4) ( תובאagain):
abs.4) שמין־Q530 iii. 11) ( ) תוב ה1>323 24.2 ?תוב[־
emph.-WKU; (4Q530 ii.16; 4Q531 17.6?־ ( תוק ףstrength, power; masc.):
4 ;46.4 ;שמי]אQ532 6.2) sg.cstr.4) תוקף־Q531 17.3)
( שמעto hear): sg.emph./+suff-\hp'[n (4Q203 7A.3)
q a lp f Ics-nVKV (4Q531 9.5; שמ[עת־ ( תישram; masc.):
6Q8 1.6) sg.abs.-yW'T\ (1Q23 1+6+22.3)
qal pf. 24) מ25 שמעתה־Q530ii.23- ( תל תthree):
(שמעתא ^<256) >־:.^.תלתת־Q8 2.1)
{ שמשpa“el, to serve): ( תמהwonder; masc.):
p a ‘‘elptc. 4) מ1 משמשין־קQ530ii. 17) pl.abs.-yr\72T) (6Q8 1.6)
( שנהsleep; fem.): ( תמךto seize):
sg.cstr.-T)W (4Q530 ii.4; 4Q531 17.10) qal ptc. mp-] כר7 נΓ^ (1Q23 21.2)
( שניto be different): ( תנ הhere, with prep.):
qal ptc. ms emph.-W2U7 (4Q531 19.3; 4) תנהQ 530111.7)ל תנא־
28.3?, or mp emph.)
254 Glossary
Alexander, Philip S., “Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish)”. In Anchor Bible
D ictionary, ed. David N. Freedman. Garden City, N ew York: Doubleday, 1992.
Pp. 977-88.
Allegro, John M ., Qumrân Cave 4: I (4 Q 1 5 8 -4 Q 1 8 6 ). Discoveries in the Judaean
Desert, 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.
Attridge, Harold W., “Historiography”. In Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple
Period, ed. M ichael E. Stone. C R IN T 2/2. Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum /
Fortress Press, 1984. Pp. 157-84.
Avigad, N., “The Palaeography o f the D ead Sea Scrolls”. In A spects o f the D ead
Sea Scrolls, eds. Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin. Scripta Hierosolymatana, 4.
Jerusalem: M agness Press, 1965, 2nd ed. Pp. 56-87.
Baillet, Maurice, J. T. Milik, and Roland D e Vaux, Les ‘p etites g ro tte s’ 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.
- , D ie aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Ergänzungsband. Göttingen: Vanden
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.
Black, Matthew, An Aram aic 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 M anuscripts in Manichean Script in the
German Turfan Collection. D eutsche Akadem ie der W issenschaften zu Berlin,
Institut für Orientforschung, 45; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960.
Bruce, F. F. Review o f J. T. M ilik, The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from
Qumran Cave 4. In Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 109 (1976/77), pp. 134-35.
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 m onde dans l’apocalyptique juive histoire des tradi
tions”. ln Revue de THistoire des Religions 190 (1976), pp. 3-53.
Denis, Albert-Marie, Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca. PVTG,
4. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
D im ant, D evorah, “ 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 E noch”. In Vetus Testamentum 33
(1983), pp. 14-29.
Bibliography 257
- , “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q 181”. 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.
D oran, R., “Pseudo-Eupolem us”. In The O ld Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James
H. Charlesworth. 2 volumes. Garden City, N ew York: Doubleday, 1983-85.
Volume 2, pp. 873-82.
Driver, G. R., Aram aic Documents o f the fifth Century B. C. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1957, 2nd ed.
Dupont-Somm er, A ., “La Secte des Esséeniens et les Horoscopes de Qoum ran”. In
Archéologie 15 (1967), pp. 24-31.
Eisenman, Robert and James Robinson, A Facsimile Edition o f the D ead Sea
Scrolls. 2 volumes. W ashington, D. C.: Biblical A rcheology Society, 1991.
Eisenman, Robert and M ichael O. Wise, The D ead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. Shaftes
bury, Maine: Element, 1992.
Elliger, K., W. Rudolph, et al., eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: D eu t
sche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984.
Evans, Craig A ., “A N o te on the 4First-Born Son’ o f 4Q 369”. In D ead Sea D isco
veries 2 (1995), pp. 185-201.
Freudenthal, I , Hellenistische Studien: Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm er
haltenen 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 A rtistic Sources. Bal
timore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
Garcia Martinez, Florentino, “4QM ess Ar and the B ook o f N o a h ”. In idem, Qum
ran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ, 9. Lei
den: Brill, 1992. Pp. 1^14.
- , “Contributions o f the Aramaic Enoch Fragments to Our Understanding o f the
B ooks o f E noch”. 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 B ook o f G iants”. In idem, Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the A ra
maic 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, A ngelo, ed., Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel. Kap. 5-12, zusam
men m it Susanna, Bel et Draco, sowie Esther Kap. 1,1 a -2 ,15 nach dem Kölner Teil
des Papyrus 967. PTA, 5. Bonn: R udolf Habelt, 1968.
Grabbe, Lester L., “The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpreta
tion”. In Journal fo r the Study o f Judaism 18 (1987), pp. 152-67.
Greenfield, Jonas C. and Elisha Qimron, “The Genesis A pocryphon Col. X II”. In
Studies in Qumran A ram aic, ed. T. M uraoka, Abr-Nahrain, Supplement 3. Leu
ven: Peeters, 1992. Pp. 70-77.
Greenfield, Jonas C. and M ichael E. Stone, “Enochic Pentateuch and the date o f
the Sim ilitudes”. In H arvard 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 zek iel’s Vision.
TSAJ, 16, Tübingen: J. C. B. M ohr (Paul Siebeck), 1988.
Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. Trans. John Bowden, 2 volumes. Philadel
phia: Fortress Press, 1974.
- , Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh. T. & T. Clark, 1995.
Henning, W. B., “Ein manichäisches H enochbuch”. In Sitzungsberichte der Preussi-
schen A kadem ie der Wissenschaften in Berlin, Phil.-Hist. Klasse. Berlin: A kade
mie der W issenschaften, 1934, Pp. 3-11.
- , “N eue Materialien zur Geschichte des M anichäism us”. In Z eitschrift der D eut
schen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 90 (1936), pp. 1-18.
- , “The B ook o f G iants”. 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.
Bibliography 259
Laurence, Richard, Mahhafa Henok Nabiy, The B ook o f Enoch the prophet. Oxford:
University Press, 1821.
- , Mahhafa Henok Nabiy, L ibri Enoch prophetae versio Aethiopica. Oxford: U n i
versity Press, 1938.
Licht, Jacob, “Legs as Characteristics o f Election” . Tarbiz 35 (1965-66), pp. 18-26.
In Hebrew.
Lust, J., “D aniel 7,13 and the Septuagint”. In Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
54 (1978), pp. 62-69.
N ew som , Carol, Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice: A C ritical Edition. HSS, 27. A t
lanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
Nickelsburg, George, W. E., ‘4Apocalyptic and M yth in 1 Enoch 6 -1 1 ”. In Journal
o f Biblical Literature 96 (1977), pp. 383-405.
- , Review o f J. T. Milik, The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments fro m 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
P eriod, ed. M ichael E. Stone. C R IN T 2/2. Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum /
Fortress Press, 1984. Pp. 89-156.
Sanders, James A., Review o f J. T. Milik, The Books o f Enoch: Aram aic Fragments
fro m Qumrân Cave 4. In Journal o f Biblical Literature 97 (1978), pp. 446^17.
Schiffman, Lawrence H., 44M essianic 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 Frag
m ents from Qumrân Cave 4. In Biblische Zeitschrift 22 (1978), pp. 132-34.
Schroeder, Guy and Edouard des Places, Eusèbe de Cesarée: La Préparation Évan
gélique. 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 G oodm an. 3
volumes. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-1987.
Smith (M argoliouth), Jesse Payne, ed. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1903.
Sokoloff, M ichael, D ictionary 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 ”. M aarav 1
(1978-79), pp. 197-224.
Bibliography 261
- , 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 L e M onde 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 Qum rân”. ln École des lan
gues orientales anciennes de VInstitut Catholique de Paris: M ém orial du cinquan
tenaire 1914-1964. Travaux de l’Institut Catholique de Paris, 10. Paris: Bloud et
Gay, 1964. Pp. 51-66.
Stegemann, Hartmut, D ie Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus. Frei
burg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1993.
Stone, M ichael E., “Apocalyptic Literature” . In Jewish Writings from the Second
Temple Period, ed. idem. C R IN T 2/2. Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress
Press, 1984. Pp. 383-441.
- , ed. Jewish Writings o f the Second Temple Period. CRINT, 2/2. A ssen/Philadel
phia: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1984.
Stone, M ichel 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 volum e V des Discoveries in the Judaean
D esert o f Jordan”. In Revue de Qumran 1 (1976), pp. 163-276.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T., Angel Veneration and C hristology: A Study in Early Juda
ism and in the Christology o f the Apocalypse o f John. W U N T , 2/70. Tübingen:
J. C. B. M ohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995.
- , “ O n e like a Son o f M an as the A ncient o f D ays’ in the Old Greek Recension
o f D aniel 7,13: Scribal Error or T heological 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 M anis Gigantenbuch”. In
Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata. A cta Iranica, 23 and Second
Series, 9. Leiden: Brill, 1984. Pp. 491-505.
- , M ittelpersische und pa r tische kosmogonische und Parabeltexte der Manichäer.
Berliner Turfantexte, 4. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973.
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.
Ezekiel Mark
1 123 1:4 40
32:27 111 5:7 40
27 36:1 62, 99
13:3
13:4-6 91, 93
27, 74 Similitudes 3, 82
13:7
13:9 74, 133 37-71 3
13:10 84 37:1 208
14 118 39:12-13 84
14:1-7 119 40:2 84
14:1 84, 88, 117 42:3 62
14:3-7 27 54:7-10 219
14:3 84 60:24-25 219
14:4-7 93 61:12 84
14:4 91 63:2-4 95
14:8-25 37, 119 63:2-3 94
14:6-7 26 63:3 95
14:6 79 65:6-11 37
14:8-25 37 66:1 219
14:8 27 69 82
14:21 95 69:1 37
15-16 38 69:2 69
15 118, 152, 160 69:4-14 82
15:1-16:3 27 69:5 151
15:1-2 88, 91, 119 69:6-15 37
15:1 27, 117 70:3 133
15:2 27, 84, 97 71:3 37
15:3-7 91 71:7 84
15:3-5 26
15:3-4 151 Astronomical Book 2, 92, 134
15:4 151, 160, 196 72-82 2
15:8-12 27, 38, 706, 160 72:1-82:20 37
15:8-9 160 76:8 62, 99
15:9 151 76:11 62
15:11 151 77:4 133-134
16:1-2 84
16:1 21, 38 Book o f Dreams 2, 67
16:3 27, 58-59, 91, 96, (=Animal Apocalypse)
156, 196 82:1-2 92
16:4 63 83-90 3
16:7 63, 100 83:10 92
17-36 37 84 97
17:1-36:4 27, 37 84:2-6 96, 98
20:1 84 84:2-4 4, 95-96
22:3-13 93 84:2 95
22:3-7 191 84:3-6 93
22:6 88 84:3 95-96
24:3-4 133 84:4 97
28:1 134 84:6 4, 98
28:3-29:2 191 86:4 112
29:1 134 88:2 112
31:2-32:3 191 88:3-89:17 191
32:3 133-134, 191 88:6 160
32:6 191 89:26-30 191
33:3-34:1 191 89:42—49 2
34:2 99
Old Testament 267
E. Philo to 89:31 67
to 107:1 67
de Gigantibus to 107:2 124
58-67 39 4Q206 (=4QEnoche) 193
62-62 39 to 22:3-7 191
65 39 to 22:6 88, 97
66 39 to 28:3-29:2 191
to 31:2-32:3 191
to 32:3 133-134, 191
F. Josephus to 32:6 191
to 33:3-34:1 191
Antiquitates Judaicae to 88:3-89:17 191
1.73 166 to 89:26-30 191
1.118 36 4Q208 (=4QEnochh)
17.373 32
to 9:1 190, 220
17.346 32
4Q209 (=4QEnoch*) 31, 50, 60, 68, 72
Bellum Judaicorum to 1:3 191
2.142 32 to 4:1 116
2.159 32 to 6:6 156, 208
to 6:7 69, 79, 146, 198, 217
contra Apionem to 9:1 77, 93, 190
1.194 38 to 9:3 94
4Q212 (=4QEnochs)
93:2 163
G. Dead Sea Scrolls 93:11 163
CD 4Q403
ii. 17-21 38 1 1.25 96
ii. 17-19 166
4Q405
ii.18-19 30
ii. 18 29, 84 23 ii.ll 96
ii. 19 30 24 1.3 96
4QDb 29
Temple Scroll
1 Enoch
11 QT 142
4Q204 (-4QEnoch°) 3, 25, 28, 31, 62,
66-68, 72, 142, 220 Thanksgiving Hymns
to 2:2 67
to 6:7 68, 19, 146, 217 1QH
to 13:7 74 12.15 95
to 13:9 74
to 14:1 117
to 14:6 79
to 14:10 67
Old Testament 269
Mishnah
K. Epigraphical Collections
Yoma
6:8 82 Aramaic Documents of the fifth Century
(Driver)
Geniza 7 iii.7 181
Testament of Lévi
Berytus
6-7 110
vol. 2 (1933), 110-112
Yalqut Shim ‘oni 82 2 117
Bird(s) 57, 59, 108, 143-144 Dead/Death 125, 132, 135-136, 146-147,
Birth 160, 166, 168, 180-181, 230
- ‘Elect of God’ 225-226 - o f spirits/souls 93, 105-106, 135-136,
- giants (see under Giants) 160
- in 4Q535 228 Deceit 189-190, 223, 237-238
- Noah 215-218 Defilement, see under Watchers
Bitenos 197-198 Deluge, see under Flood
Bitter 238 Demi-urge 112
Blessing (eschatological) 15, 18-19, 24, Demons, see under Giants and Watchers
57-58, 224 Deserts, desert regions 82, 90, 134
Blood 13, 59, 77, 97, 118, 136, 149-151, - Syro-Arabian 134
160, 171-172, 189-190, 193, 195-196 - the Great Desert 128, 130, 133
Board, see under Taxtag Destruction, see under Giants
Body, see under Flesh Dew 62, 99
Bond, see under Chain Diaspora, Jewish 32
Bones 159-160 Divination 234
Book(s) (writing) 119-120, 188, 225, 230 Donkeys 44, 56, 60, 112
Bread 135-137 Dreams, see also under Giants
Burning 113, 121, 132, 143-144, 233 - o f Archelaus 32
- of evil figures 32, 64-66
Camels, see under Giants - interpretation o f 22-24, 27
- appetite of Giants 151 Drinking 172
Canaan (son of Noah) 35, 111, 151 Dudael, wilderness o f 82
Cattle 143-144
Cedar 111 Eagle 128
Cedar Forest 72 Earth 13, 24, 28, 34, 37, 51, 54, 58-59, 61,
Cedar Mountain 74 64, 73-75, 77, 84, 87, 89-90, 93, 97,
Chain 89, 91, 181-182 108, 111-112, 114, 118-121, 128-129,
Charms 82 136, 142-144, 149-150, 152, 156, 160,
City 239 166, 178, 180-182, 189-190, 195-196,
Cloud(s) 146, 231 219, 238-239, 241
Codicology - ends of 27-28, 73, 181
- o f 4Q203 66-68 East 133-134
Complaint, see under Giants Eating 73, 107, 138, 149-152, 162, 164,
Creature(s) (living beings) 44, 56-57, 72, 180-181, 200, 239
117-121, 144, 226, 231 Edomites 30
Creeping thing(s) 59, 143-144, 169 Egypt 34, 37, 39, 181, 221, 235-236
Crying, see under Weeping Egyptian 36
Cult (sacrificial) 224 ‘Elect o f G od’ 214-217, 226
Curse 105, 107-108, 135-136 Elephantine 105, 150
Elephants, see under Giants
Dan 74 Elioud, see under Giants
Daniel, the prophet 122 Enemies 95
Date Engedi 71
- Book of Giants 5-6, 28-31, 121 Enkidu 72
- Damascus Document 29-20 Enoch 1, 10, 13-15, 17, 20-29, 34, 37, 48,
- Jubilees 29 57-58, 63, 67, 73-76, 85-88, 90-93, 97,
- Similitudes 3 100, 107-108, 111, 116-119, 124-134,
Dawn 133 139, 147-149, 155-156, 158, 169,
Day(s) 228-231 176-177, 183, 185, 189, 191, 193-194,
- eighth 238 199, 201-202, 204, 208, 215, 217,
- o f evil 230 220-221, 224
- period of 167-168
28 2 Index o f Subjects ( with Proper and Place Names)
- as ״apostle“ 57, 75-76, 99, 107, - lines not effaced from stone tab
132-133 le ts) 64—65, 206
- as dream interpreter 25-27, 32, 111, Fruit 143, 238
116-119, 124-127, 147, 149, 199, 204
- as founder of astrology 34-35 Gabriel 93
- as intercessor (see under petition) 27, Garden (Paradise) 64-65, 114-115, 134,
63, 92, 97, 108 201, 215
- as ״scribe“ 73, 85, 87-88, 90-92, garden of truth 133-134
116-119, 124, 126, 148, 155, 169, Gardener(s) 109, 113-115, 128, 130, 140,
193-194 204
- as visionary 25-27, 37, 93, 118, 191, Garment 153
194 Gazelle 57
- knowledge 34-35, 37, 155-156 Gerazim 34
- voice of 124, 126-127, 129, 132, 155 Giants passim
Esau 199 - appetites (see also under Eating)
Essenes 6, 32 151-152, 181
Euhemeristic 34 - assembly of 109-110, 124, 126,
Eumenes II 36 135-136
Eupolemus 33-34 - birth 21, 79, 83-84, 114, 144, 149-151,
Eusebius of Casesarea 33 196, 201-202
Evil 32, 37-38, 40, 77, 88, 90-93, 108, - camels 112
174, 198, 216-217, 223, 227, 230, 233, - companions 60, 71, 78, 80, 105-106,
237-238, 240 109-110, 124, 126, 154
Evil spirits 38, 160 - complaint against to Enoch 13, 21, 24,
Eyelid(s) 135-136 26, 135-137
Eyes 109-110, 137, 162-164 - conflict among 14, 17, 19, 22, 29,
147-149, 152, 197-200
Fabricius, J.A. 2 - conveyors o f culture 33-35
‘Fallen’ angels, see under Watchers - demons 75-76, 85-87, 92, 107, 160,
Father 36, 51-52, 197-199, 208, 216-217, 200
226 - destroyed by the flood 38^10, 57-58,
Fear 76, 105, 107, 124, 126, 197, 199-200, 64-66, 106, 114-115, 159-160, 215
240 - destructive activities 13, 17-19, 21,
Female 143 24-25, 27-28, 36-37, 50, 58-59, 72,
Fertility 57 76-77, 93, 97, 108, 112, 118, 136-137,
Fetter, see under Chain 143-153, 159-160, 178, 180-182,
Fire 93, 113-115, 121, 130, 132, 215 189-190, 192-196, 216
First - discussions among 14-15, 21, 198—
- journey 17, 20, 22, 127, 132-133 199, 218
- pair of dream visions 22, 86-87, 132 - donkeys 112
- tablet 20, 22, 85-86 - dreams o f 13-17, 19-23, 27-28, 31, 40,
Fish 143-144, 233 64-66, 87, 93, 97, 106-111, 113-124,
Flesh 38, 59, 106, 119-120, 157-160, 126-127, 129-130, 132, 137-138, 140,
178-181 !44, 148-149, 155, 162, 164-167, 183,
Flood 15-16, 24, 26, 33-36, 38^10, 190, 200-204, 211
57-58, 64-66, 73, 93, 104, 106, 109, - elephants 112
114-115, 151, 160, 167, 190, 196, 203, - Elioud (,Elyo) 111-112, 152
211, 215-216, 219, 224 - ‘fall’ of 169-170
- survivors o f 34—38, 64-66 - hope for escape from 'destruction'
Food 59 36-37, 106, 132, 148-149, 166-167
Forgiveness 81-82, 91 - human and animal characteristics 72,
Format of presentation 42 108
Four - in Greek mythology 36
Index o f Subjects ( with Proper and Place Names) 283
- joy (gladness) 76, 105, 107-108, 137, Herodian script 28, 66, 142, 225, 228,
166 233, 237
- Nephilim (Naphidim, Naphil) Hesiod 36
109-112, 124, 126, 128-130, 149-150, Hinds 162-164
152, 177-178 Historiography 32-38
- pride 166 Hobabish 5, 27, 31, 37, 59, 71-72, 74,
- size of 29-30, 111 108-109
- survival after the flood 34-35, 37-40, Holy 157-158, 177
106, 151, 160 Holy ones, see under Angels
‘Gift-offering’ 179 Holy places 162-164
Gigantomachy 36, 138 Horeb, Mount 241
Gilgamesh (Gilgamow) 5, 14, 22-23, 27, Horoscope 214-215, 225-226
31, 37, 72-73, 104-106, 108-109, 127, Horses
162, 164-167 - appetite of Giants 151
Gilgamesh Epic 37, 72-74, 108-109, 133 House 162
Glory 94-96, 232 - o f archives, see under Library
Glossary 4-5 - ‘House of escape’ 135-136
Gnostic 112 Humanity passim
Goat 108 - as survivors o f the flood 35-38, 64-66,
God passim 114-115, 201-202, 216
- as Ancient of Days 121-123 - as victims o f the giants 58-59, 92-93,
- as Great (One) 88, 105-106, 108, 135-137, 143-145, 152, 182
193-194 - human labor 59
- as Great Holy (One) 119-123, 191 Humbaba (Huwawa) 72
- as Holy (One) 87-88, 106 Hundred 58
- as Lord 184-185 - a hundred hundreds 119-123
- as Lord of lords 184 Hypnos 138
- as Most High 231, 238
- as Ruler of the Heavens 119-121 Idols 237
- omniscience of 94-96 Idumaea 29
Gomorrah 38 Imprisonment 13-14, 17, 20, 59, 83, 85,
Grape(s) 52, 57 91, 145, 152
Greatness 94-96 Impurity 238
Incantations 112
Hahyah (Heyya, Nariman) 13-17, 20, 23, Insomnia, see under Sleep
25-27, 52, 64-65, 75, 78, 80-81, 84-86, Israel 66
92-93, 106-108, 110, 114-118, 127,
129-130, 132, 140, 147, 149, 166, 197, Jacob 199, 222-223, 257
200-203, 215 Jared 156, 198, 208, 235
Hair 121, 226 Jerusalem 34
Ham (son of Noah) 35 - temple 34
Hasmonaean 29 Jewish passim
- script 142, 193 John Hyrcanus I 29
Hebraism 79, 81, 105, 125, 208, 220 Joppa 221, 233
Hebrew original (Book of Giants) 5, 30 Joseph bar Hiyya 2
Hecataeus of Abdera 39 Josephus 32, 36, 39
Height 125, 158-159 Joy, see under Giants
Hellenistic 35-39, 134, 137 Jug(s) 56-57
Heracles 138 Judgment 14, 18, 20, 22, 26-28, 32, 39,
Hermon, Mount 74, 133, 208 65-66, 80, 90, 93, 105-107, 119-123,
Hermopolis 150 127, 129, 132, 144, 148, 151, 160, 167,
Herod the Great 32 179, 188, 201, 203, 216, 224
284 Index o f Subjects ( with Proper and Place Names)
Kamarine 34 Monster 72
Killing 50, 58-59, 71-72, 76-77, 135-136, Moon 142-143
146-148, 152, 167-168, 200 Moses o f Narbonne 82
King(s) 109, 155, 178-179, 221, 237 Mountain(s) 29-30, 111, 134, 175, 208,
Kingdom 94, 237 210-211, 216
Knife 64 - Kögmän 133
Knowledge 155-156, 183-185 Mourn (see also under Weeping)
Kronos 34-36 157-158, 231
KRYPW (place name) 240 Mouth 126, 230
Murabba‘at 71
Lamech 197-198 Murderer(s) 135-137
Lebanon 74, 133 Myriad(s) 121-123
Letter 87-88, 90, 93 Mystery (Secret) 37, 58, 73, 94-96, 226,
Library 126 229-230
Lies 189-190, 195-196
Lightning 60, 198 Nabataean 118
Lubar 198, 210-211, 215 - script 71
N a‘emel 146-147
Maccabeans 30-31 Nahal Hever 71
Mahaway (Mahawai) 27-28, 69-70, Nariman (= Hahyah) 25-26
72-73, 76, 85-87, 90-91, 106-108, 111, Near East 38-39
117, 124-134, 139, 147-148, 155-156, Neo-Assyrian 72
167, 183, 197-200, 217-218, 224 Nephilim, see under Giants
- message from 19-20, 22, 69(?), 72, Nicanor 30
85-86, 91, 106-107, 197, 199-200 Night 109-110, 116, 228-231
- conflict with ,Ohyah 14, 17, 19, 22, Nimrod 35-36, 39
167, 197, 199-200, 218 Noah 26, 35-39, 58, 65-66, 69, 73, 114,
- journey(s) to Enoch 14-15, 17, 22-24, 160, 168, 198, 201-203, 208, 211, 214-
27, 48, 76, 108, 117, 124-134, 139, 148, 220, 224
199 North 74, 99, 134, 240
Male 143 Northwest 133
Mani 112
Manichaean passim Offerings 238
- Cosmogony 112 Og 38
Manichaean Book o f Giants fragments ,Ohyah (’Aheyyâ, Ahiyah, Sam) 13-14,
- Coptic 1 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, 27, 31, 38, 50,
- Middle Persian passim 52, 55, 59, 64-65, 73, 75, 78, 80-84,
- Parthian 1 87, 92, 105-108, 110, 116-117, 127,
- Sogdian 1 132, 137, 139, 147, 149, 162, 164-167,
- Uygur 1 190, 197-201, 203, 218
Manichaeans 3 Oil 57
Mastema 160 Old Babylonian 72-74, 108
Media 240 Olympian gods 36
Mediation, chain o f 28, 90 One hundred forty-seven
Medicines 111 - years of Jacob’s life 223, 237-238
Melchizedek 34, 215 Origen 208
Merkabah 123 - Hexapla 111, 128
Messiah 214-215 Orthography 67
Metatron 64, 156 Oryx 57
Meteorological phenomena 62, 99 Oxen
Methuselah 92, 198, 220 - appetite o f Giants 151
Michael 38, 51, 93
Moabites 221, 234
Index o f Subjects ( with Proper and Place Names) 2 85
Baillet, M. 63-64, 196-198, 200-201, Eisenman, R. 8-9, 120, 178-185, 215, 217
203-213, 218-219 Evans, C.A. 215-216
Barrera, J.T. 129, 222 Fabricius, J.A. 2
Beyer, K. 4-7, 9-10, 1 2 -1 6 ,18, 21, 30-31, Feuillet, A. 214
41, 43-56, 58-71, 74-79, 83-85, 87-89, Field, F. I l l
94-95, 98-102, 104-106, 109-110, Fitzmyer, J.A. 3-4, 7, 41, 43-47, 48-52,
112-113, 115-116, 118-121, 124-125, 54, 59-64, 70, 84, 87-90, 102, 104,
127-131, 133-136, 140-141, 143-150, 109, 112, 115-117, 119, 124-125,
152-159, 161-172, 177-186, 189-190, 128-129, 131, 161-165, 185-186,
192-197, 200-201, 203-208, 210, 196-198, 200-201, 203-205, 210,
214-219, 223-224, 239 214-215, 217, 221-222
Black, M. 2, 38, 74, 11, 87, 94-95, 98, Franxman, T.W. 3
111-113, 116-117, 133, 149, 189-190, Freudenthal, J. 33
208
Blanc, C. 208 Gantz, T. 36
Boyce, M. 1 Garcia Martinez, F. 4-8, 12-21, 30-32,
Brooke, A.E. 208 43, 45—46, 49, 54-55, 58-61, 63, 65,
Bruce, F.F. 3 67-71, 74-77, 80, 83, 87-90, 94-95,
98-99, 102, 104, 109, 112, 115-117,
Camponovo, O. 94-95 119, 121, 124-125, 128-129, 131, 134,
Cantineau, J. 126 136, 144, 149-150, 152-153, 161-166,
Caquot, A. 215 186, 189-190, 193-196, 198, 200, 208,
Carmignac, J. 214 210-211, 214-215, 217-221, 228, 232,
Cazelles, H. 214 239
Charles, R.H. 29, 74, 112 Goodman, M. 4
Charlesworth, J.H. 8, 30, 186, 214, 221 Grabbe, L.L. 81
Clarke, E.G. I l l Greenfield, J.C. 211, 215, 220
Collins, J.J. 30, 32 Grelot, P. 134, 214-215
Cowley, A.E. 105
Cross, F.M. 28, 102, 142, 193, 196, 225 Halévy, J. 208
Halperin, D. 123
Delcor, M. 82, 214, 220 Hanson, P.D. 28, 82
Denis, A.M. 33 Harrington, D.J. 4, 43-52, 54-55, 59-64,
de Jonge 219 70, 87-90, 102, 104, 109, 112, 115-117,
de Vaux, R. 63 119, 124-125, 128-129, 131, 161-165,
des Places, E. 33 196-198, 200-201, 203-205, 210, 222
Dimant, D. 3, 26, 67, 79 Hengel, M. 32-33, 36, 215-216
Index o f Modern Authors 289
Henning, W.B. 1-2, 18-19, 25-26, 50, 57, 136, 140, 144, 149-152, 161-167, 186,
59, 64-65, 72-73, 75, 97, 99, 107, 130, 189-190, 192-194, 196-197, 199-202,
132, 146-147, 166, 199-201 223-224
Hoftijzer, J. 126, 150, 181, 190 Robert, A. 214
Holladay, C.R. 33, 35, 37 Robinson, J. 8, 120
Huggins, R.V. 8, 33, 35, 37, 73, 104, 198 Röllig, W. 150
Rosenthal, F. 126
Isaac, E. 92-93 Rowland, C. 123
Jastrow, M. 143, 146-147, 156, 163, 180
Sanders, J.A. 3
Jean, C.-F. 126, 150, 181, 190 Scaliger, J. 2
Jeremias, G. 1 Schiffman, L.H. 214
Karrer, M. 87-88 Schnackenburg, R. 3
Kaufman, S.J. 135, 150, 161 Schroeder, G. 33
Kerenyi, C. 138 Schürer, E. 4
Klimkeit, H.-J. 1 Smith, R.R 125
Knibb, M.A. 4, 74, 77, 92-94, 98, 208 Sokoloff, M 4, 63, 77, 79, 87, 90, 109,
124, 128, 134, 140, 143, 146-147, 149,
Kuhn, H.-W. 1
Kümmel, W.G. 33 151, 163, 190, 198
Starcky, J. 3, 7, 41, 101, 128-129, 141,
Laurence, R. 2 161, 178, 185, 187, 214, 221-222, 237
Licht, J. 214 Stegemann, H. 1, 32
Lust, J. 123 Stone, M.E. 3-4, 33, 220
Stroumsa, G.A.G. 112
Milik, J.T. 1-7, 13-14, 18-19, 21, 25-26, Strugnell, J. 29, 79, 217
28-31, 38, 43-72, 74-83, 87, 89-90, Stuckenbruck, L.T. 68, 72, 78, 87, 117,
94-95, 98-104, 108-110, 113-116, 123, 134
118-121, 124-125, 127-131, 133-136, Sundermann, W. 1, 77, 19, 63, 70-71, 73,
140-141, 144, 150-152, 161-166, 178, 85-87, 90, 106, 119-120, 137, 148, 166,
185-186, 189-199, 201-202, 204, 208, 200
214-215, 217-219, 221-223, 232, 237
Millar, F. 4 Testuz, M. 222, 237
Mirakin, M. 112 Tigay, J.H. 72, 109
Montaner, L.V. 129, 222 Τον, E. 8-9, 120
Reeg, Gottfried (Hrsg): Die Geschichte von den Zehn Märtyrern. 1985. Volume 10.
Renner, Lucie: see Schäfer, Peter
Rohrbacher-Sticker, Claudia: see Schäfer, Peter
Salvesen, 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. Volume
12. - 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, Peter
Shatzman, Israel: The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod. 1991. Volume 25.
Siebers, Stefan: see Schäfer, Peter
Stuckenbruck, 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, Peter
van 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, Peter
Wewers, Gerd A.: Probleme der Bavot-Traktate. 1984. Volume 5.
Weyer, Guido: see Schäfer, Peter
Wildensee, Gert: see Schäfer, Peter
Wilson, Walter T.: The Mysteries of Righteousness. 1994. Volume 40.