Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

www.brill.nl/dsd

Gilgamesh the Giant: The Qumran Book of Giants Appropriation of Gilgamesh Motifs
Matthew Go
Dodd Hall M05, Department of Religion, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, U.S.A. [email protected]

Abstract The Qumran Book of Giants shows familiarity with lore from the classic Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh. It has been proposed that the author of the Book of Giants drew from the epic in order to polemicize against it. There is much to commend this view. The name of the hero of the tale is given to one of the murderous, wicked giants of the primordial age. Examination of fragments of the Book of Giants, in particular 4Q530 2 ii and 4Q531 22, however, suggest that key aspects of its portrayal of Gilgamesh the giant cannot be explained as polemic against Mesopotamian literary traditions. The Book of Giants creatively appropriates motifs from the epic and makes Gilgamesh a character in his own right in ways that often have little to do with Gilgamesh. Keywords Book of Giants; Gilgamesh

1. Introduction1 Many writings of the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism can be elucidated through comparison with ancient Near Eastern texts, but few mention specic details from them. One exception is the fascinating but fragmentary Aramaic composition from Qumran known as the Book of Giants.2
I thank Eibert Tigchelaar for his assistance in helping me think through the main Book of Giants texts discussed in this article and Clare Rothschild for her comments on an earlier draft. 2 The following manuscripts are generally considered to comprise the Book of
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/156851709X395740
1

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 21

12/15/2008 8:08:38 AM

22

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

This work contains a narrative involving the ante-diluvian giant ospring of the angelic Watchers known from the Enochic Book of the Watchers. The Book of Giants recounts the iniquitous exploits of the giants, like Watchers, but also describes visions they receive and their reactions to them. The composition gives the names of several giants: Ohyah, Hahyah, Ahiram, Mahaway, Gilgamesh and H obabish. The latter two resonate with the Gilgamesh epic. The name H obabish derives from Humbaba, the powerful monster slain by Gilgamesh and Enkidu. J.T. Milik, a scholar of enormous importance for the study of the Book of Giants, was the rst to make this identication.3 This article poses three research questions. What are the anities between the Book of Giants and the epic of Gilgamesh? On the basis of these similarities, how should the relationship between these two texts be understood? What do the only two fragments of the Book of Giants that mention Gilgamesh, 4Q530 2 ii 13 and 4Q531 22, contribute to the question of how the composition should be understood vis--vis the epic? Scholars who work on the scrolls are now in a good position to address
Giants: 1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q530, 4Q531, 4Q532, 4Q533, 4Q206a 23 and 6Q8. The Giants fragments are available in S.J. Pfann et al., Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 894; . Puech, Qumrn Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Aramens, Premire Partie (4Q529549) (DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 9115 (the relevant fragments in these volumes are edited, respectively, by Stuckenbruck and Puech). Core scholarship on the Book of Giants includes J.T. Milik, Turfan et Qumran: Livre des gants juif et manichen, in Tradition und Glaube: Das frhe Christentum in seiner Umwelt (ed. G. Jeremias et al.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 11727; idem, Problmes de la littrature hnochique la lumire des fragments aramens de Qumrn, HTR 64 (1971): 33378 (esp. 36672); idem, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrn Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 298339; K. Beyer, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 25868 (= ATTM ); idem, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Ergnzungsband (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 11924 (= ATTME ); F. Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 97115; J.C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 14; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992); L.T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Text, Translation, and Commentary (TSAJ 63; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). 3 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 313.

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 22

12/15/2008 8:08:39 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

23

these issues because of the publication of A.R. Georges excellent comprehensive edition of Gilgamesh.4 Reeves argues that the Book of Giants attests the vitality of Mesopotamian literary traditions among learned scribal circles in the nal centuries before the Common Era.5 The author of the Qumran text, he proposes, worked with an Aramaic copy of Gilgamesh, which he draws from polemically. The venerated hero of Mesopotamian culture is transformed into an evil giant. The Book of Giants is, in Reeves formulation, an anti-pagan, particularly an anti-Gilgamesh, text. Puech has put forward a compatible but dierent opinion.6 The Book of Giants is for him a negative response to Hellenistic Upper Galilean cultic practices. In a similar vein, Jackson imagines Gilgamesh was originally one of a larger sequence of Gentile gures who are parodied as demons in the Book of Giants.7
A.R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Unless otherwise noted, translations and citations of Gilgamesh are from this edition of the Standard Babylonian Epic (SB). Scholarship on the epic includes: T. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), 195219 (reprinted in Foster, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 183207); A. Shaer, Gilgamesh, the Cedar Forest and Mesopotamian History, JAOS 103 (1983): 30713;W. Moran, The Gilgamesh Epic: A Masterpiece from Ancient Mesopotamia, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (ed. J.M. Sasson; 4 vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995), 4.232736 (reprinted in Foster, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 17183); B.G. Foster et al., eds., The Epic of Gilgamesh (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001); T. Abusch, The Development and Meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh: An Interpretive Essay, JAOS 121 (2001): 61422; J.H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 2002); A.R. George, The Epic of Gilgame: Thoughts on Genre and Meaning, in Gilgame and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference held at Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 2123 July 2004 (ed. J. Azize and N. Weeks; ANES 21; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 3765. 5 Reeves, Jewish Lore, 126. See also Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 7274. 6 DJD 31:15. 7 D.R. Jackson, Demonising Gilgame, in Azize and Weeks, Gilgame and the World of Assyria, 10714 (esp. 113). Contrast the assessment of L.T. Stuckenbruck, who has argued that the Qumran text borrows general motifs from the story-line of Gilgamesh without stressing any polemical engagement with the work. See his Giant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Die Dmonen. The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and
4

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 23

12/15/2008 8:08:39 AM

24

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

The rst section of this essay demonstrates that there are several parallels between the Book of Giants and Gilgamesh aside from having names in common. These topics include archaic protagonists of divine-human parentage, wicked spirits, dreams, warriors of giant stature and Mount Hermon. From these anities, it is reasonable to conclude with Reeves and other scholars that the author of this Qumran text was to some extent familiar with the epic. The exact mode of transmission remains unclear and, I will argue, there does not appear to be enough engagement with the epic to agree with Reeves opinion that the Qumran author used an Aramaic translation of Gilgamesh. Reeves reasonably concludes that the Book of Giants adapts elements from Gilgamesh for polemical purposes, but the point is in genuine need of qualication. The portrayal of Gilgamesh in 4Q530 2 ii 13 and 4Q531 22 indicates that the Book of Giants borrows from Gilgamesh but makes its giants characters in their own right in ways that often have little to do with the epic. Gilgamesh, I shall argue, is a giant who is defeated and then cursed because of the machinations of Ohyah, who attempts to pin the impending punishment of the giants on Gilgamesh alone. These events resonate less with the epic and more with core themes in the Book of Giants such as the inevitability of the giants judgment and punishment, and their reactions to this fate. Important aspects of the Qumran text are better viewed as an exercise in creative adaptation of Gilgamesh motifs than polemical repudiation of revered Mesopotamian lore. The Qumran texts use of the epic is similar to other instances of familiarity with Gilgamesh outside of cuneiform literature, such as Aelians On the Nature of Animals and Lucians De Dea Syria.8
Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment (ed. A. Lange et al.; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 31338 (esp. 332). 8 On the Nature of Animals and possibly De Dea Syria (both 2d c. C.E.) recongure elements from the epic in ways that have little to do with the Mesopotamian poem itself. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 313, incorrectly observes that the Book of Giants contains the only mention of Gilgamesh outside the cuneiform literature. In On the Nature of Animals 12.21 a child named Gilgamos is thrown from a citadel and saved by an eagle. He is raised by a gardener and grows up to become a king of Babylon. This story is nowhere in the epic itself but Aelian attests a degree of legitimate tradition since he understands Gilgamos to be a king of Babylon. For other anities between this text and the epic, see George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.61. Lucians De Dea Syria 1727 contains a lengthy story of Combabos. This name may derive from Humbaba, although this is a disputed point. Combabos is not a monster but a handsome man who is a

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 24

12/15/2008 8:08:40 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

25

2. Thematic Similarities between the Qumran Book of Giants and the Epic of Gilgamesh 2a. Ancient Protagonists of Divine-Human Parentage Several core features of Gilgamesh are broadly compatible with the Book of Giants. The epic is set in hoary antiquity. In Tablet XI the hero speaks with Utnapishtim, who survives the ood. The primordial time-frame of Gilgamesh is consistent with the ante-diluvian setting of the Book of Giants. It is reasonable to speculate that the Qumran Book of Giants originally included a giant whose name derives from Utnapishtim, as Reeves has argued, although this gure does not appear in any of its extant texts.9
friend of King Seleucus. J.L. Lightfoot argues against a connection between this gure and Humbaba. C. Grottanelli contends, by contrast, that there are several thematic parallels between De Dea Syria and Gilgamesh and that Combabos has much in common with several characters from the epic, including Enkidu. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.6465, does not think that De Dea Syria draws on any specic episode of Gilgamesh but rather that the text loosely incorporates elements from the cultural heritage of the ancient Near East and reformulates them in a new way. See J.L. Lightfoot, Lucian on the Syrian Goddess (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 393; C. Grottanelli, The Story of Combabos and the Gilgamesh Tradition, in Mythology and Mythologies. Methodological approaches to intercultural inuences (ed. R.M. Whiting; Melammu Symposia 2; Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001), 1927 (esp. 24); Lucian, De Dea Syria (Harmon, LCL) 4.366. There also are references to Gilgamesh in later Christian and Islamic texts. An example of the former is the scholia to Genesis written by the 9th-century Nestorian bishop Theodore bar Konai, which contains a list of ancient kings, one of which is named Gilgamesh. The tale of Buluqiya, which is in some versions of the Arabian Nights, contains numerous motifs that are similar to the epic of Gilgamesh. See S. Dalley, The Tale of Bulqiy and the Alexander Romance in Jewish and Su Mystical Circles, in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (ed. J.C. Reeves; SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 23969. For criticism of her views, see George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.6568. Consult also Reeves, Jewish Lore, 12021; Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 109; Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 25253; M. Schwartz, Qumran, Turfan, Arabic Magic, and Noahs Name, in Charmes et Sortilges. Magie et Magiciens (ed. R. Gyselen; Res Orientales 14; Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour ltude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 2002), 23138. 9 J.C. Reeves, Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants? JBL 112 (1993): 11015.

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 25

12/15/2008 8:08:40 AM

26

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

In the epic Gilgamesh, like the giants, is the product of divine-human parentage. This lineage is not treated as an unnatural mixing of separate realms, in marked contrast to the giants. Gilgamesh is two-thirds divine and one-third mortal (I.48). His mother Ninsun is a goddess whose name
See also idem, Jewish Lore, 126. He suggests that the giant Atambsh, a gure attested not in the Qumran Book of Giants but in the later Manichean Book of Giants (Kawn), can be derived from Utnapishtim. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 298300, recognized that the Qumran Book of Giants has numerous points of similarity with the former text, suggesting that the Early Jewish work attests traditions that shape the Kawn. See also his Turfan et Qumran, 12425. In one text of the Manichean Book of Giants, named frg. L (for Leningrad, where it is housed), Mahaway goes to Atambsh to relate everything to him. In another Middle Persian fragment, classied as M5900, Atambsh is associated with two hundred (Watchers presumably, but the text is broken o at this point). Three giants associated with him are slain. For frg. L, see W. Sundermann, Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch, in Hommages et opera minora 9: Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata (Acta Iranica 23; Leiden: Brill, 1984), 491505 (esp. 49798); for M5900, idem, Mittelpersische und parthische kosmogonische und Parabeltexte der Manicher (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 8, Berliner Turfantexte 4; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973), 7778. R.V. Huggins argues that Atambsh in the Manichean material should be understood as a reference not to a giant but rather to Enoch. See his Noah and the Giants: A Response to John C. Reeves, JBL 114 (1995): 10310. He agrees, however, in the basic Atambsh = Utnapishtim identication proposed by Reeves, modifying it as Atambsh = Utnapishtim = Enoch. It is reasonable to posit, with Reeves and Huggins, that the name Atambsh in the Manichean Book of Giants corresponds to a name in the Qumran Book of Giants that is not attested in any surviving fragment. But the lack of evidence regarding such a gure limits the contribution of this possibility to the interpretation of the composition. See also W. Sundermann, Manis Book of the Giants and the Jewish Books of Enoch: A Case of Terminological Dierences and What It Implies, in Irano-Judaica III. Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture throughout the Ages (ed. S. Shaked and A. Netzer; Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 1994), 4048; George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.60, 155; L.T. Stuckenbruck, The Angels and Giants of Genesis 6:14 in Second and Third Century B.C.E. Jewish Interpretation: Reections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions, DSD 7 (2000): 35477 (esp. 360); W.B. Henning, The Book of Giants, BSOAS 11 (194346): 5274; J.C. Reeves, Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Manichean Literature: The Inuence of the Enochic Library, in Tracing the Threads, 173203.

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 26

12/15/2008 8:08:40 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

27

means Queen of the wild cows.10 His father Lugalbanda is a sly hero who is a leading character in Sumerian epics.11 Perhaps due to his divine lineage, Gilgamesh was over time deied, and by the Old Babylonian period his name appears in god lists.12 2b. Evil Spirits In Mesopotamian lore, more than in the epic itself, Gilgamesh was hailed as a judge and ruler of the shades in the underworld.13 It was common to exorcise evil spirits by beseeching Gilgamesh to accept them under his jurisdiction in the netherworld. One prayer, classied as KAR 227, reads: O King Gilgamesh, superb judge of the Anunnaki, judicious prince . . .
T. Jacobson, Lugalbanda and Ninsuna, JCS 41 (1989): 6986 (esp. 74); S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 4041. 11 The two Sumerian epics in which he is prominent are Lugalbanda in Khurrumkurra and Lugalbanda and Enmerkar. There are other Mesopotamian traditions in which Lugalbanda is not simply a human being. He has been depicted as a wicked spirit known as a lillu-demon. There is another tradition preserved in the Sumerian King List in which Lugalbanda is a divine king of Uruk who reigned 1,200 years. According to one motif in the epic, Lugalbanda is the personal god (ilum) of Gilgamesh. See, for example, OB III.271 and SB VI.165. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 129, suggests this refers to a statue of his father and reects a degree of ancestor worship. Consult further George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.215, 244, 2.822; B. Alster, Epic Tales from Ancient Sumer: Enmerkar, Lugalbanda, and Other Cunning Heroes, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 4.231526 (esp. 231617); S.N. Kramer, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture and Character (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), 27374; P.P. Vrtesal-ji, La desse nue lamite und der Kreis der babylonischen LilDmonen, Iranica Antiqua 26 (1991): 10148 (esp. 136); W. Farber, Lil, Liltu, Ardat-lil. A. Philologisch, Reallexikon der Assyriologie (ed. E. Ebeling et al.; 10 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 19282005), 7.2324, and, in the same volume, E. Porada, Lil, Liltu, Ardat-lil. B. Archologisch, 2425; K. van der Toorn, The Theology of Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel. Popular Belief and Scholarly Speculation, in Die Dmonen, 6183; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 158. 12 George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.11935. 13 Ibid., 1.12735. This tradition is associated with Tablet XII of the epic, which is generally regarded as a translation of the Sumerian myth Bilgames and the Netherworld that was appended to the composition. See ibid., 1.4754; Foster, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 12943.
10

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 27

12/15/2008 8:08:40 AM

28

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

overseer of the underworld, lord of the nether regions . . . Eradicate the sickness [of my] body, drive out the Evil Thing . . . [expel ] the evil that [resides] in my body.14 In the Book of Giants Gilgamesh is not a ruler of evil spirits but rather one of the giants who eventually become spirits.15 A fuller version of this tradition is in the Book of the Watchers, in which the giants are forced after their physical destruction to roam the earth as evil spiritsthe sort that cause diculties for ordinary people, much like those over whom Gilgamesh rules in Mesopotamian tradition.16 The Book of Giants reliance on basic elements of the narrative in Watchers makes it a valid possibility that the author of the former text was familiar with the fate of the giants presented in Watchers, and that in its fuller form the Book of Giants attested this motif. In this case, the spirits of the giants in the Book of Giants would be functionally similar to the kind over which Gilgamesh has dominion in Mesopotamian tradition. 2c. Dreams Gilgamesh has several dreams in the epic. In Tablet I, for example, he describes his dreams to his mother Ninsun, who interprets them for him (ll. 24597). An important cluster of Gilgameshs dreams occurs before the battle with Humbaba. While the exact number and precise content of the dreams is obscured by the fragmentary condition of Tablet IV, in general the dreams terrify Gilgamesh and presage his ght with Humbaba. They take place when Gilgamesh and Enkidu journey to the Cedar Forest in Lebanon. The dreams are a result of Gilgameshs attempts to receive a night-vision, suggesting that he is trying to learn from the gods what the outcome of the battle will be. In them he confronts his fear of the monGeorge, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.13235. 4Q531 19 24 reads many [dee]ds of violence on the dry land . . . n[ot] bones are we and not esh . . . and we shall be wiped out from our form. Cf. 4Q511 35 7; 4Q511 48, 49 + 51 23. Consult DJD 31:7172; Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 15960; DSSR, 3.493. 16 But now the giants who were begotten by the spirits and eshthey will call them evil spirits upon the earth, for their dwelling will be upon the earth . . . And the spirits of the giants <lead astray>, do violence, make desolate, and attack and wrestle and hurl upon the earth and <cause illnesses> (1 En. 15:8, 11). See G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 136, 81108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 26775.
15 14

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 28

12/15/2008 8:08:40 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

29

ster, which he must overcome before he can defeat him (cf. IV.241242). Core elements of the dreams are interpreted as references to Humbaba. He is likened to a mountain in Enkidus interpretation of one of Gilgameshs dreams (IV.3031).17 According to an Old Babylonian fragment from Nippur, in one dream Humbaba is symbolized by an Anz-bird, a fearsome grin-like creature with wings and a lions head: I watched an Anz-bird in the sky . . . it rose like a cloud, soaring above us . . . its face was very strange, its speech was re, its breath was death (ll. 1114).18 Ironically, given Gilgameshs intense response to Enkidus death, to defeat Humbaba he must transcend his fear of dying in battle.19 Dreams are a major theme in the Qumran Book of Giants. Important aspects of the extant narrative revolve around dreams and the giants reaction to them. The core text for this topic is 4Q530 2 ii, which describes two visions, one disclosed to the giant Hahyah and the other to his brother Ohyah.20 Hahyah has a dream of a large garden that is tended by gardeners (ll. 612). Fire and water destroy the grove, except for one tree with three branches.21 Ohyah has a dream in which he sees God descend and sit on a throne, with a heavenly host in attendance (ll. 1520). In language reminiscent of Dan 7, books are opened and judgment is uttered

Lines 1415 of an Old Babylonian fragment of the epic, now in the Schyen collection, read: Now, my friend, the one to whom we go, is he not the mountain? He is something very strange! See George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.227, 235. 18 The description of the birds speech and breath evokes a refrain used for the voice of Humbaba (e.g., II.29192). See Alster, Epic Tales from Ancient Sumer, 4.231617; J. Goodnick Westenholz, Dragons, Monsters, and Fabulous Beasts (Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 2004), 3233; Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 124; George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.24344. 19 IV.245 reads Forget death and [seek] life! 20 DJD 31:2838. Several fragments of 4Q530 comprise this text: 2, 6, 7, 811, and possibly 12. For the sake of convenience I refer to this text as 4Q530 2 ii, which contains the rst large amount of text in the column. 21 Reeves, Jewish Lore, 95102, argues that this tree becomes a Tree of Life in Central Asian Manichaeism. See also H.-J. Klimkeit, Der Buddha Henoch: Qumran und Turfan, ZRG 32 (1980) 36777; A.A. Orlov, The Flooded Arboretums: The Garden Traditions in the Slavonic Version of 3 Baruch and the Book of Giants, in From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism: Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha (JSJSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 289309.

17

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 29

12/15/2008 8:08:40 AM

30

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

(ll. 1819).22 These dreams are recounted before the assembled giants (4Q530 2 ii 5; cf. l. 15). They become afraid (l. 20), and they want to learn the interpretation of the visions. They commission the giant Mahaway to journey across the great wilderness ( )to reach Enoch, who, the text assumes, can interpret the dreams (4Q530 7 ii 5; 4Q530 2 ii 2124; cf. l. 14).23 The dreams clearly refer to the giants destruction in the ood.24 The surviving evidence is sparse but suggests that they realize judgment is inevitable.25 The dreams establish that the giants are given the opportunity to know their fate. Their reaction of fear to the visions is thematically similar to Tablet IV of the epic when Gilgamesh journeys to ght Humbaba. In both texts dreams are the medium through which the protagonists confront the possibility that they will be destroyed.26 In the case of the epic, Gilgameshs fears prove to be unfounded. The giants of the Qumran text are not so lucky.27
R.E. Stokes, The Throne Visions of Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 14, and the Qumran Book of Giants (4Q530): An Analysis of Their Literary Relationship, DSD 15 (2008): 34058; L.T. Stuckenbruck, The Throne-Theophany of the Book of Giants: Some New Light on the Background of Daniel 7, in The Scrolls and The Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S.E. Porter and C. Evans; Sheeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 1997), 21120; Milik, The Books of Enoch, 305. 23 This is dierent from the Book of Watchers, in which Enoch is a recipient, rather than a source, of divine knowledge. The portrait of Enoch in the Book of Giants is closer to that of the birth of Noah story in 1 En. 106107 and the Genesis Apocryphon (e.g., 2:1925), in which Methusaleh travels to Enoch for an explanation of the strange appearance of Noah when he is born. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 541. 24 Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 65. 25 4Q531 19 4, for example, reads we shall be wiped out from our form. 4Q530 1 i 5 states we will die together () . 4Q533 4 3 asserts that a ood is upon the earth ( ) and line 2 mentions crimes of deceit and bloodshed. 26 J.C. Reeves suggests that the prominence of dreams in the Book of Giants is a conscious parody of the Gilgamesh epic. See his Review of L. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, JQR 90 (1999): 22326 (esp. 226). Reeves proposal merits further consideration but is weakened by the likely interpretation that Gilgamesh does not receive visions in the Book of Giants, a position I argue below. 27 No account of the giants destruction is extant in the text. Given their realization that they will die, it is reasonable to infer that originally the composition did assert that most or all of the giants perished in the ood. Stuckenbruck has
22

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 30

12/15/2008 8:08:41 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

31

2d. Giant Warriors In the Mesopotamian poem Gilgamesh is praised as a great warrior. This reputation is borne out in his defeat of Humbaba, a legend also found in Sumerian myth.28 This is compatible with the giants of Jewish tradition, who are regarded as mighty warriors (). In the epic Gilgamesh is incredibly large. This is most explicit in a Hittite version of Gilgamesh, which opens with an account of his height: His body was eleven yards [in height]; his breast was nine [spans] in breadth (2).29 This would make him almost twice as tall as Goliath, whose height is six cubits and a span, according to 1 Sam 17:4. The beginning of the Standard Babylonian version emphasizes the size of Gilgameshs stride: A triple cubit was his foot, half a rod his leg. Six cubits was [his] stride (I.5657). He is also described as Gilgamesh so tall, perfect and terrible (I.37; cf. II.164). The most striking account of Gilgameshs giant stature occurs during his ght with Humbaba. The battle is an etiological legend that explains the formation of the Rift Valley of Lebanon: At the heels of their feet the earth was splitting apart, as they whirled around Sirara and Lebanon were sundered (V.133134).30 The weaponry of Gilgamesh and Enkidu is incredibly heavy. They have swords and hatchets fashioned that each
made the observation that Gilgamesh in the epic tries and fails to attain eternal life and the giants in the Book of Giants try and fail to avoid destruction in the ood. He writes that the motif of Gilgameshs illusionary search for immortality inuences the basic story-line of the Book of Giants. See his Giant Mythology and Demonology, in Die Dmonen, 31338 (esp. 332). 28 The tales are Gilgamesh and H uwawa A and Gilgamesh and H uwawa B. Translations are in Foster, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 10420. Consult also Alster, Epic Tales from Ancient Sumer, 4.2317; George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.911; D.O. Edzard, Gilgames und Huwawa: Zwei Versionen der sumerischen Zedernwaldepisode nebst einer Edition von Version B (Mnchen: Verlag der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1993). 29 This translation is from Foster, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 158. See also George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.447; Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 11018; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 120. 30 In an earlier version the mountains are split by the deafening yell of Humbaba (H uwawa) (Old Babylonian Ischchali fragment, l. 31, rev.). See George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.263, 266. The signicance of this region is examined below.

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 31

12/15/2008 8:08:41 AM

32

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

weigh seven talents. This is approximately two hundred kilograms, which would make each weapon much heavier than Goliaths spear.31 The portrayal of Humbaba as a gigantic creature is also conveyed by associating him with a massive cedar tree. When he is defeated they fell a lofty cedar, whose top abutted the heavens (V.293294).32 From the tree they make a giant door. Enkidu says to Gilgamesh that he made (or will make) a doorsix rods is its height, two rods its breadth, one cubit its thickness, its pole, its top pivot and its bottom pivot are all of a piece (ll. 295296).33 2e. Mount Hermon Both the Qumran Book of Giants and the epic of Gilgamesh, at least according to one Old Babylonian tablet, can be related to Mount Hermon. There is no surviving connection between the giants and Mount Hermon in the Book of Giants, but it is reasonable to speculate that there was such an association in the original text since the Book of the Watchers situates the descent of the Watchers and their pact to sleep with women (the mothers of the giants) at this mountain (cf. 1 En. 6:6; 13:79; 4QEna 1 iii 45).34 An Old Babylonian fragment of the Gilgamesh epic (OB IshI base this on Late Bronze Age Mesopotamian copper ingots that signify talents which weigh 2830 kilograms. West of the Euphrates in this period the talent was often reckoned as 3,000 shekels. Following this standard, each weapon of Gilgamesh (7 talents = 21,000 shekels) is roughly 35 times heavier than Goliaths spear, which, according to 1 Sam 17:7, weighs 600 shekels. See further M.A. Powell, Weights and Measures, ABD, 6.897908 (esp. 905); Foster, The Gilgamesh Epic, 20. 32 As with Humbaba in Gilgamesh, the stature of the giants of Enochic legend is compared to both mountains (cf. IV.3031) and cedar trees in Early Jewish literature: And their [the Watchers] sons, whose height was like that of cedars and whose bodies were like mountains, fell (CD 2:19; cf. Amos 2:9). These tropes are not present in the Book of Giants. Also note the later Hebrew term , which refers to a type of cedar tree (e.g., b. Sanh. 108b). 33 George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.613, suggests that the preterite construction of the verb is corrupt. He also argues (2.828) that the explanation that the pivots and pole are of a single piece implies that the entire door and its constituent parts are from a single, very large tree. 34 Reeves, Jewish Lore, 124, 161. See also Stuckenbruck, Giant Mythology,
31

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 32

12/15/2008 8:08:41 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

33

chali) considers the location of the Cedar Forest guarded by H uwawa to be Sirion and Lebanon (sa-ri-a la-ab-na-an), that is, Hermon and Lebanon (l. 31, rev.; cf. SB V.134).35 While this fragment is too old to be directly linked to the Book of Giants, it does establish an archaic connection between giant warriors and Mount Hermon.36

3. Possible Modes of Transmission The parallels reviewed above between the Book of Giants and Gilgamesh suggest that the author of the Qumran text shows familiarity with the epic beyond the utilization of the names Gilgamesh and Humbaba. Regarding how its author was exposed to Gilgamesh traditions, several possibilities are available. The Middle Babylonian Gilgamesh fragment
32627. G.W.E. Nickelsburg argues that 1 En. 1216 were produced in northern Galilee and that these chapters reect visionary activity in the area of Dan and Hermon. See his Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee, JBL 100 (1981): 575600 (esp. 586); idem, 1 Enoch 1, 23031. See also M.A. Knibb, Interpreting the Book of Enoch: Reections on a Recently Published Commentary, JSJ 33 (2002): 43750 (esp. 44950). 35 George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.263; T. Bauer, Ein viertes altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgame-Epos, JNES 16 (1957): 25462 (esp. 256). The name Hermon derives from a Hebrew root referring to a ban or taboo and is not attested in other ancient Near Eastern literatures. Names such as Senir or Sirion for the mountain are much more common (cf. Deut 3:9). It is not clear that older versions of the epic situate the forest in Lebanon. See J. Hansman, Gilgamesh, Humbaba and the land of the ERIN-trees, Iraq 38 (1976): 2335; J. Klein and K. Abraham, Problems of Geography in the Gilgame Epics: The Journey to the Cedar Forest, in Landscapes: Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East. Papers presented to the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Venezia, 711 July 1997. Part III. Landscape in Ideology, Religion, Literature and Art (ed. L. Milano et al.; Padova: Sargon, 2000), 6373; R. Arav, Hermon, Mount, ABD, 3.15860; E. Lipiski, Els Abode: Mythological Traditions Related to Mount Hermon and to the Mountains of Armenia, OLP 2 (1971): 1369. 36 The Canaanite kings Og and Sihon, who are identied as giants in later Judaism, are both associated with Mount Hermon in Joshua (12:45; 13:1011). In rabbinic tradition Og and Sihon are called the sons of Ahijah the son of Shemhazai, one of the leading Watchers (Tg. Ps-Jon. Deut 2:2; 3:11).

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 33

12/15/2008 8:08:41 AM

34

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

from Megiddo, written in the 14th c. B.C.E., if not earlier, establishes that the text was in the region long before the composition of the Book of Giants.37 One could conclude that knowledge of the epic entered Palestine in the Late Bronze Age. Although, if one adopts this position, it is dicult to explain why there is such a large chronological gap, well over a thousand years, between the Book of Giants and the Megiddo fragment, during which Palestinian literature shows little if any direct knowledge of Gilgamesh.38 Aside from the possibility of older tradents, knowledge of the epic surely was brought to Palestine by Jews who returned from the eastern Diaspora. Daniel and several other Jews are taught the literature and language of the Chaldeans (Dan 1:4). While a ctional tale, it suggests that its author considered it possible for at least some Jews in Babylon to receive such an education. Gilgamesh would have been an important text they would have learned.39 Even if one does not grant that the book of Daniel implies that some Jews acquired a Babylonian education, the Murashu archive attests Jews in the fth c. B.C.E. who were immersed in the local economy.40 They doubtlessly came into contact with people who had an education in which Gilgamesh was part of the curriculum. In the exilic period, and well into the second c. B.C.E., copies of the epic were

George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.33947. L.T. Stuckenbruck and K. van der Toorn have expressed doubt that one can conclude that knowledge of the epic was in Palestine in the last few centuries B.C.E. on the basis of the Megiddo fragment. See respectively, Giant Mythology, 33233, and Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Book of Qohelet? in Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. W.H. van Soldt et al.; Leiden: Netherlands Institute of the Near East, 2001), 50314 (esp. 512). R.C. van Leeuwen argues that Isa 14 reects familiarity with the epic. He contends that this chapter constitutes an inversion of elements from Gilgamesh, a conscious eort to recast elements from the epic in a way that unmistakably distinguishes the one group from the other. See his Isa 14:12, h l al gwym and Gilgamesh XI,6, JBL 99 (1980): 17384. 39 George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.3339; D.M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 1746 (esp. 41). 40 M.D. Coogan, West Semitic Personal Names in the Murash Documents (HSM 7; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976); M.W. Stolper, Entrepreneurs and Empire: The Murash Archive, the Murash Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia (Leiden: Brill, 1985).
38

37

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 34

12/15/2008 8:08:41 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

35

being produced.41 Knowledge of Gilgamesh may have also entered into Early Judaism in the Persian and/or Hellenistic periods. There is not enough evidence to endorse Reeves suggestion that the author was working with an Aramaic copy of Gilgamesh, although this possibility cannot be dismissed outright.42 More familiarity with the epic, in my judgment, would be required for this conclusion. The Book of Giants does not demonstrate knowledge of core elements of the plot of the epic, Mesopotamian deities who are prominent in Gilgamesh, such as Ishtar, or other key characters such as Enkidu. A reasonable assessment is that the author had indirect knowledge of Gilgamesh, perhaps because Jews returning from the Eastern Diaspora brought this knowledge to Palestine with them.43

4. The Book of Giantsan Anti-Pagan Text? Having established that the author of the Book of Giants was familiar with Gilgamesh traditions, the question becomes why he was drawing upon them. Puech and Reeves have argued that the composition appropriates Gilgamesh lore for polemic ends. mile Puech contends that the Book of Giants was written in response to mythological and cultic developments in northern Syro-Palestine, especially in the region of Banias and Hermon.44 Drawing on the Phoenician History by Philo of Byblos (preserved by Eusebius), Puech argues that by 200 B.C.E. cultic practices in Dan and Banias promoted syncretism of Hellenistic and Phoenician myth. Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica 1.10.29 reads: In the thirty-second year of his own assumption of royal authority Elos, i.e., Kronos, trapped his father Ouranos in a certain inland
Most of the available Babylonian copies of the epic are written after the destruction of the Assyrian empire (612 B.C.E.) and attested up to the Arsacid period (2d1st c. B.C.E.). The latest Gilgamesh text has a colophon that dates it to 130 B.C.E. See George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.381. 42 Reeves, Jewish Lore, 120. 43 Beyer, ATTM, 1.259, pointing to the names Gilgamesh and H obabish, suggests that the Book of Giants has a Babylonian provenance. Their names do not comprise sucient evidence to support this conclusion (cf. 1Q23 13 2). 44 DJD 31:1416. See also . Puech, Les songes des ls de emihazah dans le livre des Gants Qumrn, CRAIL (2000): 725.
41

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 35

12/15/2008 8:08:41 AM

36

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

place. He overpowered and castrated him near springs and rivers. There Ouranos was made an object of worship and breathed his last and the blood from his genitals dropped into the springs and the rivers waters. Even now the place is shown.45 According to Puech, this text preserves knowledge of actual cultic practices carried out in the vicinity of Hermon in the second c. B.C.E. The Book of Giants, he argues, represents an eort to denounce this worship. The Qumran text was, in his view, written by ocial leaders, prtres ou sages de Jrusalem, who were critical of northern heterodox cults: en situant dans cette rgion lorigine des pratiques dmoniaques, Gilgamesh tant lui-mme un dieu chtonien, rgent des Enfers.46 Following this formulation, the Book of Giants portrayal of Gilgamesh is not polemic against Mesopotamian culture but rather against northern Syro-Palestinian traditions, one of which is Gilgamesh.47 In a similar vein, David Jackson has suggested that the Book of Giants is an anti-Gentile text.48 According to his reading the entire composition becomes a kind of in joke with which oppressed Jews make light of their foreign dominators. It is not clear that Philo of Byblos preserves reliable knowledge of Upper Galilee cults active in the second c. B.C.E.49 Even if one were to
Philo of Byblos account also associates mountains in this region with giants (1.10.9). In Greek tradition, as recounted by Hesiod, the giants are formed from the drops of blood that fell when Ouranos was castrated (Theog. 183187). See H.W. Attridge and R.A. Oden, Jr., Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History (CBQMS 9; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 4143, 55. 46 DJD 31:15. 47 Important for this viewpoint is the Megiddo Gilgamesh fragment and the epics placement of Humbaba in a grove in Lebanon. 48 Jackson, Demonising Gilgame, 113. In particular, he stresses that the gure of Gilgamesh is a veiled eort to demonize the Seleucid Empire. 49 The issue of Philo of Byblos aside, Hellenistic cultic practices were carried out in Upper Galilee during the late Second Temple period. This does not mean, of course, that the Book of Giants was written in response to them. A cult devoted to Pan at Banias near Mount Hermon was in operation in the second c. B.C.E. Writing in this century, Polybius mentions the Paneion, a cave devoted to Pan, in Banias when discussing Antiochus III, who defeated an Egyptian general in this region in 200 B.C.E. (16.18.2; cf. 28.1.3). Excavations conrm the sites antiquity. Z.U. Maoz suggests that the worship of Pan at this site may have been started by the Ptolemies in the third c. B.C.E., perhaps installed to compete with
45

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 36

12/15/2008 8:08:41 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

37

grant that point, to endorse Puechs argument one must take the questionable position of viewing the Book of Giants as a kind of orthodox book written against religious developments not in line with the views of Jerusalem ocials. The composition is normative in that it recounts the proclamation of judgment against creatures who are wicked. But one looks in vain for other indicators that the text asserts the viewpoint of Jerusalem ocials. Proper worship or ritual purity are never explicit issues. The assertion of judgment against the giants never functions as an opportunity to emphasize the sovereignity of God or that his temple is in Jerusalem. The text is not, it seems to me, designed to describe polemically political powers or syncretistic cults as, respectively, Jackson and Puech have argued. Allusions to contemporary Hellenistic Phoenician worship or foreign rulers are weak at best.50 Reeves understands the Book of Giants to be a self-consciously antipagan text. He argues that the compositions appropriation of the names Gilgamesh and Humbaba represents a bold polemical thrust against the revered traditions of a rival culture, analogous to the denigration of pagan deities or idol-worship found in Jewish writings like the Book of Jubilees

and replace the worship site at Dan, which is only four kilometers away from Banias and in use at least up to the third c. B.C.E. See his Banias, in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (ed. E. Stern; 4 vols.; Jerusalem; The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 1.13643 (esp. 137). T. Vassilias argues that it is an established historical fact that there was a sanctuary of Pan in operation at the site by the early 2d c. B.C.E. See his The God Who Is in Dan and the Cult of Pan at Banias in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, ErIsr 23 (1992): 12835 (esp. 133). Consult further S. Dar, Settlements and Cult Sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Oxford: Hadrian Books, 1993); Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 23847. Though I do not advocate this possibility, one could speculate that the passage of Philo of Byblos cited above, which associates the castration of Ouranos with a Levantine river, can be connected to Banias with the help of b. Sanh. 98a. This text states that the students of R. Jose b. Kisma ask him for a sign of the advent of the messiah and, among other things, he responds by invoking the waters of Banias (the headwaters of the Jordan) to turn to blood. See Maoz, Banias, 138. 50 Additionally, the fact that the giants are not punished with banishment to the netherworld argues against the view that the Book of Giants portrays Gilgamesh as, in the words of Puech, a rgent des Enfers.

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 37

12/15/2008 8:08:41 AM

38

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

or Bel and the Dragon.51 The fact that Gilgamesh, a heroic warrior in the epic, is presented in the Qumran text as one of the wicked giants conrms the basic contours of this thesis. An examination of the Gilgamesh fragments of the Book of Giants, 4Q530 2 ii 13 and 4Q531 22, indicates, however, that important elements of the works portrayal of Gilgamesh have little to do with the epic itself. 5. Gilgamesh and H obabish in the Book of Giants 5a. 4Q530 2 ii and 4Q531 22 Gilgamesh and H obabish are each attested in two passages of the Book of Giants. The name Gilgamesh is found in 4Q530 2 ii 2 ( ) and 4Q531 22 12 (] ;)H obabish is in 4Q530 2 ii 2 ( [ ] ) and 4Q203 3 3 (). 4Q530 2 ii 13, while poorly preserved, sets the stage for the two crucial visions of the garden and theophanic judgment that occur later in the column. The pericope has not received much scholarly attention.52 It is the only fragment of the work in which the names Gilgamesh and H obabish occur together. 4Q530 2 ii begins: . . . concerns the death of our souls. [And] all his companions [ent] ered and [Ohy]ah told them that which Gilgamesh ( ) had said to him. H [o]babish ( [ ] ) opened his mouth ( )and [judg] ment was pronounced against his soul. The guilty one cursed the princes ( )and the giants rejoiced over it. He returned, he was curs[ed and he brought a comp]laint against him. (4Q530 2 ii 13)53
Reeves, Jewish Lore, 126. Several commentators on 4Q530 2 ii, working before the critical edition of its fragments were published, show no knowledge of the opening pericope of the reconstructed column. See, for example, Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58; Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 104, Milik, The Books of Enoch, 304; Beyer, ATTM, 1.264 (his G9). For the ocial transcription of 4Q530 2 ii, see Puech, DJD 31:28. Note also DSSR, 3.48485. 53 The ink on this fragment is faded in places and the leather surface is wrinkled, making it dicult to read. Earlier transcriptions of this passage include Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 105; Beyer, ATTME, 120. Several aspects of the transcription of this pericope require comment.
52 51

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 38

12/15/2008 8:08:41 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

39

Several details of this passage are obscure: (1) what Ohyah says to the other giants; (2) what H obabish does; (3) against whom judgment is pronounced; (4) the identity of the guilty one; (5) the identity of the princes; (6) why the giants rejoice; (7) who returns in line 3, and if this is the same gure who is then cursed or the one who brings a complaint. Underlying all of these questions is how the pericope functions as an occasion for the disclosure of the visions of the garden and the theophany.
1. The word ent]ered (] ) has poor material support and is not transcribed in the editions of Beyer and Stuckenbruck. Another word could be envisioned here but it is a reasonable reconstruction since after this word the giants are together (cf. 4Q530 1 i 8, ) . 2. The word [Ohy]ah ([ )]is not well preserved, even though all commentators accept this reconstruction. Another possible reconstruction is Hahyah ([)], who is also prominent in 4Q530 2 ii. If one follows the placement of fragments 6 and 7 in Puechs edition of this composite text, the lacuna is better lled with two letters than one. This supports the consensus view. 4Q531 22, discussed below, also suggests that it is Ohyah who reports to the other giants what Gilgamesh said. 3. Another important term, H obabish ( [ ] ), has very poor material support (and depends on the placement of fragments 6 and 2 in relation to one another). Beyer and Stuckenbruck do not transcribe this name but only ]. The nal letter appears to be a samek, in support of Puechs transcription, but one must grant that this reading is obscured by a crack in the leather and ink erosion. No other name of a giant could end with these letters (in 4Q203 3 3 the name of H obabish ends with a in), with Atambsh (see above) being a possible exception. 4. Transcribing the word [judg]ment( )[ relies on scant physical evidence. The reading is in Puech and Stuckenbruck but not Beyer. Context supports this transcription. That someone is judged is implied by the term that follows, , the guilty one. The parallelism of and ] [ suggests that the giant opens his mouth to utter judgment against someone else, and that both statements refer to the same act of uttering judgment. 5. Reading ( the guilty one) is complicated by ink erosion and a crack on the leather surface. Beyer reads and Stuckenbruck . The upper stroke of a lamed that Stuckenbruck discerns follows a crack in the leather that travels up past line 1 and is better understood as a shadow rather than ink. 6. Regarding the phrase ] [ I tentatively follow Puech, but there is very little physical evidence upon which to base a reconstruction. Stuckenbruck does not attempt a reconstruction for these words and Beyer transcribes [.

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 39

12/15/2008 8:08:42 AM

40

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

Stuckenbruck entitles the opening section of 4Q530 The Giants are Reassured through Gilgamesh.54 He suggests that the giants rejoice because Gilgamesh has received a vision that leaves some room for hope with regard to the fate of the giants.55 The argument relies on an interpretation of 4Q531 22 12, which Stuckenbruck translates as Gi]lgamesh, tell your [d]ream ( ][] ).56 So understood, Gilgameshs vision oered a measure of hope to the giants when they were told about it in 4Q530 2 ii. Upon hearing of it, they celebrated. The claim that Gilgamesh is a visionary would provide a strong parallel to the Gilgamesh epic. I agree with Stuckenbruck that 4Q531 22 bears on the interpretation of 4Q530 2 ii, but not with his opinion that the former text depicts Gilgamesh as a visionary.57 A key passage of 4Q531 22 reads: [When I was mig]hty, with the powerful strength of my arm and my great strength, [I attacked a]ll esh and made war against them (cf. Dan 7:21). But [I was] not [strong (enough) and] I, with us, was [not] able to prevail because my accusers [are the angels who] reside [in] the [heavens] and in the holy places they encamp. [They were] not [wiped out because the]y are stronger than me. vacat [Behold, a roar]ing [voice] of the beasts of the eld has come and the men of the eld cry out (for) [their revenge]. (4Q531 22 39)58
Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 104. Ibid., 108. 56 Ibid., 164. So also Beyer, ATTME, 119. In the presentations of 4Q531 22 1112 in Reeves, Jewish Lore, 60, and Beyer, ATTM, 1.262, only the word Gilgamesh is visible. See also Milik, The Books of Enoch, 313; Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 105. In Stuckenbrucks arrangement the fragment in question is 4Q531 17. 57 S. Dalley also understands Gilgamesh as a visionary in the Book of Giants. She briey asserts that the composition relates a dream of Gilgamesh about a divine court of judgment set in a heavenly garden with trees. See her Occasions and Oppor-tunities. 2. Persian, Greek, and Parthian overlords, in The Legacy of Mesopotamia (ed. S. Dalley et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 3555 (esp. 43). George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.62, is justly critical of Dalleys claim. The vision of a garden in 4Q530 2 ii 612 is disclosed to Hahyah, not Gilgamesh. 58 For the ocial edition of this text, see Puech, DJD 31:7478. Other transcriptions include Reeves, Jewish Lore, 60; Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 162;
55 54

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 40

12/15/2008 8:08:42 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

41

In response the giant Ohyah claims that he has had a vision: And then Ohyah said to him my dream has oppressed [me] (l. 9).59 Considering this giant to be the visionary here makes sense given his prominent vision in 4Q530 2 ii.60 Ohyah replies to what the speaker of lines 37 has said. Ohyah asserts that he knowsthis knowledge pertains to his vision but what exactly he knows is not clear (l. 10). Puech reconstructs line 11 as the giant saying that the judgment of the assembly will not hasten. The Aramaic here, however, is very fragmentary and not enough evidence survives to endorse his reconstruction. But semantically it is a reasonable suggestion, since the core visions of the Book of Giants, those of 4Q530 2 ii, signify the judgment of the giants.61 Milik, without elaboration, asserted that the speaker in lines 37 was the Watcher emihazah.62 Reeves argues that the speaker is more likely a
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 307, Beyer, ATTM, 1.262. With the exception of line 8, there are no major dierences in the transcriptions of this pericope in these editions. In line 8 the important expression [] (a roar]ing [voice]) has very little material support. A reconstruction of ] is not attempted in Stuckenbruck or Reeves. Beyer reads ( [zur Bewachung). Milik, like Puech, suggests [. The transcripton of Puech makes sense on semantic grounds. The speaker of ll. 37 has fought against a]ll esh and he has been defeated; it is reasonable to suppose that some sort of rebuke has been uttered against him (this also makes Puechs supplement at the beginning of line 9, their revenge, plausible). If one understands beasts of the eld and the men of the eld to be in parallelism, one would expect the subject of to be similar in meaning to the participle modifying men, , cry out. See further Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 186. 59 Most commentators, despite a vacat separating the word Ohyah from the verb of the sentence, take Ohyah as the subject in line 9. See, for example, Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 164; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 65; Puech, DJD 31:75; Beyer, ATTM, 1.262. The claim that the dream oppressed him (( ]probably means that it overwhelmed him, in the sense that at rst he did not understand the dream. In Dan 4:6 [v. 9 Eng] Daniels interpretative prowess is praised: No mystery overwhelms you (( ) cf. 1QapGen 2:13). 60 This argues against taking Ohyah as a vocative (which would make him the giant who is told about the oppressive dream rather than the one who has it), a possibility that Tigchelaar has stressed (oral communication; see also DJD 31:77). 61 He reconstructs the key phrase as [] [. See DJD 31:74. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 162, oers no transcription for this part of 4Q531 22 11. 62 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 307. So also Beyer, ATTM, 1.262, who calls this text Das Gesprch des Semiasa mit seinem Sohn Uhja. This title is given in

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 41

12/15/2008 8:08:42 AM

42

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

giant, appealing to the tradition that the giants were arrogant (cf. 3 Macc 2:4; Wis 14:6; Josephus, Ant. 1.73).63 Stuckenbruck agrees with Reeves analysis but does not identify who is speaking.64 Aside from Ohyah, the only other giant named in 4Q531 22 is Gilgamesh. It is more reasonable to consider him Ohyahs interlocutor, and thus the speaker of lines 37, than to insert another gure into the story. The motif of warfare is also compatible with the view that the speaker is a giant. 4Q531 22 as a whole should be understood as a conversation between Gilgamesh and Ohyah. For this interpretation one key issue is how line 12 should be understood. Puech reconstructs line 12 as stating Then G]ilgamesh said your [d]ream is com[plete (?). 65 So translated, Gilgamesh is talking to someone else to whom the vision was disclosed presumably to Ohyah who speaks of a vision in lines 911. Stuckenbruck, by contrast, understands Gilgamesh as a vocative and the verb as an imperative (Gi]lgamesh, tell your [d]ream). Puechs understanding of the line is to be preferred. 4Q530 2 ii establishes that Ohyah is a recipient of visions in the composition, but there is no unambiguous evidence elsewhere in the text that Gilgamesh receives a vision.66 Stuckenbrucks
idem, ATTME, 119, as well. See also Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 105. 63 Reeves, Jewish Lore, 118, 158. Arrogance is certainly a motif in 4Q531 22 37 but this should be qualied with the observation that such condence is very much in the past; the speaker realizes that he was not strong enough against his opponents. His condence has collapsed. 64 Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 16667. 65 Unfortunately, it is not at all clear what Gilgamesh says about Ohyahs dream. The word com[plete has extremely poor material support. Puech, DJD 31:74, suggests transcribing ]] . Below I argue that, while there is not enough physical evidence to endorse this reconstruction, semantically it is a reasonable suggestion. 66 4Q531 46 may recount another vision of Ohyah, but the evidence is too meager to state this conclusively. This suggestion is made by Puech, DJD 31:93. Portions of two lines of 4Q531 46 survive: And I, O[hyah . . .] I went up and entered he[aven. Puechs reconstruction is supported by the L fragment of the Manichean Book of Giants, which states that the giant Shm had a dream. He came up to heaven. Ohyah and Hahyah are at times referred to in the Kawn as Shm and Narmn, respectively, who are gures from Iranian epic tradition. See further Henning, The Book of Giants, 57; P.O. Skjrv, Iranian Epic and the Manichean Book of Giants. Irano-Manichaica III, ActaOrHung 48 (1995):

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 42

12/15/2008 8:08:42 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

43

opinion that a vision was disclosed to Gilgamesh requires positing two visionariesOhyah in lines 911 and Gilgamesh in line 12. This is possible but it would be simpler to interpret line 12 not as introducing a new vision but referring to the one of lines 911. Gilgamesh states that he has been defeated (ll. 37), this reminds Ohyah of a vision (ll. 911), and Gilgamesh then says something about Ohyahs vision (l. 12).67 There is no explicit example of Gilgamesh having a dream or vision in the Book of Giants. This constitutes a signicant dierence from the epic of Gilgamesh. The trope of 4Q531 22 that Gilgamesh despairs from his loss in combat has no strong parallel in the Gilgamesh epic. There the heros sorrow is legendary, but it is triggered by the death of Enkidu, not by a defeat in battle. In the epic Gilgamesh never suers a major loss when ghting. His defeat in the Book of Giants could be a conscious eort to reverse his victorious exploits in the epic. This possibility is weakened, however, by the fact that Gilgameshs defeat is only reported, not recounted. If it had been important for the author of the Qumran text to reverse the heros status as a victor, it is likely that more narratival focus would have been placed on his defeat. In 4Q531 22 Gilgamesh, while his exploits probably involved other giants, emphasizes his own defeat and an outcry against him rather than the giants as a whole.68 The fragment, unlike other rst person acknowledgments of imminent destruction in the composition, does not stress that Gilgamesh and his plight are part of the judgment of a larger community of giants or the Watchers.69 This realization can shed light on the statement in 4Q530 2 ii 1 that Ohyah tells the assembled giants that which Gilgamesh had said to him. Ohyah, I suggest, told the giants that

187223 (esp. 199); Sundermann, Ein weiteres Fragment, 497; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 121. 67 I address below the issue of identifying this vision. 68 He says he was not be victorious with us (l. 5), presumably referring to other giants. 69 4Q531 18 4 reads I am ruined ( ) and they de[stroy . . . Line 3 reads we, for [our] sins . . . 4Q531 23 3: I will be killed and I will die ( ). The only legible expression of line 2 reads all the wicked, suggesting that the speaker realizes his own demise is part of a larger judgment against the wicked. In these instances the identity of the speaker can not be established.

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 43

12/15/2008 8:08:42 AM

44

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

Gilgamesh alone has been singled out for judgment.70 Gilgamesh states in 4Q531 22 that he has been defeated, not that he will be judged by God. Positing that Ohyah twists what Gilgamesh told him would explain why the giants rejoice in 4Q530 2 ii 3they (mistakenly) think that they as an entire group are not to be punished for their crimes.71 Drawing from 4Q531 22 8, Ohyah may have said that Gilgamesh asserted that the animals and men of the eld cried out against him.72 The issue is not that Gilgamesh had a vision that oered hope to the giants, as Stuckenbruck suggests. Rather Ohyah attempts to turn Gilgamesh into a scape-giant. This in turn explains why the dreams of the garden and the theophany follow in 4Q530 2 ii. They establish that there are no grounds for the giants to rejoice. The visions arm that a broader indictment has been made against the giants. God sends them these visions because their conduct in the beginning of 4Q530 2 ii indicates that they did not
This would mean that 4Q531 22 precedes 4Q530 2 ii in the narrative sequence of the composition, as Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 167, has suggested. With regard to 4Q530 2 ii vis--vis 4Q531 22, the former is placed before the latter by Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58, 60, for whom they are QG4 and QG 9, respectively, in his arrangement of the fragments. 4Q531 22 comes before 4Q530 2 ii in the sequence of Beyer, ATTM, 1.262, 264, for whom they are, respectively, G6 and G9. Consult also L.T. Stuckenbruck, The Sequencing of Fragments Belonging to the Qumran Book of Giants: An Inquiry into the Structure and Purpose of an Early Jewish Composition, JSP 16 (1997): 324. 71 Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 107. 4Q530 1 i 4 asserts that those who have been killed have made a complaint and cry out against their killers and then line 5 states we will die together. If one takes this as chronologically prior to 4Q530 2 ii, 4Q530 1 i portrays all of the giants as concerned that they will be killed for their crimes. 4Q530 2 i + 3, if it were better preserved, could also shed light on the mood of the giants. Line 4 mentions the counting of years (the giants are counting the years until they are judged?). Line 6 is transcribed in DJD 31:25, as Do [n]ot rejoice (] ). Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 1034, transcribes instead [ , a]ll (?) will rejoice. Puechs reading is more likely but there is not sucient evidence to interpret the phrase. 72 In 1 En. 7:6 the earth makes an accusation against the lawless ones, who are presumably the Watchers and the giants. Cf. 8:4; 9:2; 4Q531 14 3; 4Q532 2 9; 4Q533 4 1. The themes of bloodshed on the earth and a cry for judgment reaching the angels are present in the recently published XQpapEnoch (1 En. 8:49:3). See E. Eshel and H. Eshel, New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGenf, 4QIsab, 4Q226, 8QGen, and XQpapEnoch, DSD 12 (2005): 13457 (esp. 15157).
70

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 44

12/15/2008 8:08:42 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

45

understand earlier visions. Major themes of this pericope, such as the actions of Ohyah against Gilgamesh, the fear of Ohyah and other giants that they will be destroyed, and the false hope that this fate has been averted, provided at Gilgameshs expense, do not have strong parallels in the Gilgamesh epic. Understanding Gilgamesh as the speaker in 4Q531 22 can help explain the obscure cursing language of 4Q530 2 ii 23. After the giants listen to Ohyah, H obabish opens his mouth and judgment is pronounced against his soul (l. 2).73 A clear answer regarding the antecedent of his is not available. I propose that it is Gilgamesh who has been singled out by Ohyah.74 The phrase the death of our souls of line 1 suggests that the giants assembled because of concerns about their fate. Anxious that they will be punished for their crimes, they are relieved to hear that Gilgamesh alone has been designated for punishment. They respond by cursing him and rejoicing. It is signicant that H obabish speaks out against Gilgamesh, since this evokes the archaic trope of conict between Gilgamesh and Humbaba. In response, the guilty one cursed the princes (( ) l. 2). If the interpretation Ive proposed is correct, the guilty one would be Gilgamesh. Angered by being singled out for judgment, Gilgamesh curses the other giants. I agree with Stuckenbruck that the word refers to the giants rather than human princes, although the term is admittedly not used elsewhere to denote giants.75 Human kings play no role whatsoever in the text. In the Hebrew Bible and Ben Sira the term refers to Gentile

Puech, DJD 31:30, proposes that H obabish roars, translating the Aphel as hurla. As he notes, this would portray him as similar to the monster Humbaba, whose voice is the Deluge, his speech is re, his breath is death. DSSR, 3.485, translates shouted (?). See also George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.266. 74 Puech, DJD 31:32, tentatively suggests that the judged gure is Azazel. One could argue that another giant, perhaps Ohyah, is cursed by H obabish, but I see scant warrant for positing that he has any other giant in mind aside from Gilgamesh. One could also speculate that H obabish pronounces judgment against himself, but there is no evidence in the text that would support this reading. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 107, suggests that his may refer to one of the Watchers, possibly Azazel. 75 Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 107. The princes for him are a group of giants that does not include Hahyah and Ohyah.
73

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 45

12/15/2008 8:08:42 AM

46

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

kings, so the use of this word may reect the tradition that the old kings of the land were giants.76 There is not enough evidence to interpret satisfactorily the statement following the rejoicing of the giants which Puech reconstructs as He returned and he was curs[ed and he brought a comp]laint against him (4Q530 2 ii 3). With considerable hesitation, I suggest the following scenario. Gilgamesh is not at the assembly of giants but hears the powerful voice of H obabish utter judgment against him, not unlike the cry of the beasts that has gone up against him. He then in line 2 curses the giants and in line 3 returns to the assembly of giants, where he is cursed again, and, in response he lodges a complaint against H obabish.77 It is also possible that he was present at the assembly of 4Q530 2 ii when judgment was spoken against him, then left (an action not mentioned in the text) and returned. The giant bringing the complaint against Gilgamesh in line 3 would likely be either H obabish or Ohyah, but there is not enough evidence to decide which of these two. 5b. Deceit and Visions Following the hypothesis that what Ohyah tells the giants in 4Q530 2 ii 13 is based on his encounter with Gilgamesh in 4Q531 22, the vision of Ohyah mentioned in lines 912 of this fragment cannot be the one he receives in 4Q530 2 ii 1520. Mahaways journey to Enoch for an interpretation of the visions of 4Q530 2 ii is not the rst time the giant traveled to the scribe of righteousness. The giants explain the selection of Mahaway for this task by stating because an earlier ti[me] you have heard his voice (ll. 2223). When speaking to Enoch, Mahaway describes his visit as his second ( )request for an interpretation of a vision (4Q530 7 ii 7; cf. 4Q203 8 3).78 Given the intent of the second visit, one
E.g., Deut 3:11; Num 13:33. For the word used for Gentile kings, see Ps 2:2; Isa 40:23; Prov 8:15; Sir 44:4 (cf. Prov 14:28; 31:4). 77 Following Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 105, and Puech, DJD 31:30, I regard as a nite verb phrase, And he returned. can mean again but since the word immediately precedes a waw plus nite verb ((] , I understand in a similar way. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 106, understands the subject of to be Ohyah. I see little justication for this view, although it is a possible option. 78 DJD 31:38. Despite its fragmentary nature, 4Q530 7 ii appears to contain
76

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 46

12/15/2008 8:08:42 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

47

can reasonably assume that the purpose of the rst was to seek an interpretation of a vision. The vision mentioned in 4Q531 22 912 is probably recorded in 2Q26, and this is likely the subject of Mahaways rst visit to Enoch.79 This poorly preserved fragment mentions a tablet which is submerged in water so that it may be eaced (] ) (l. 1).80 The waters rise above it (l. 2) and it is then lifted from the waters (l. 3). No extant word in 2Q26 describes it as a vision but it has been reasonably understood in this way.81 Later texts that contain traditions attested in the Book of Giants describe a vision of an erased tablet.82 In The Midrash of emh azai and Azael the angel emhazai has two sons, Heyya ( )and Aheyya ().83 The names correspond, respectively, to the brothers Hahyah ( )and Ohyah ( )of the Qumran Book of Giants. Heyya and Aheyya each have a vision. One is of a at stone like a table on the earth, the writing upon which is erased by angel (except for four words) and the other is of a garden that is destroyed, except for a tree with three branches.84 A variant of this pair of visions is attested in the Middle Persian Kawn, frg. j.85
a request for interpretation of the dreams of 4Q530 2 ii. This is suggested by the admittedly poorly preserved word [, gar]deners in line 11. Hahyahs dream in 4Q530 2 ii includes gardeners, who water the trees of the garden (ll. 78). See Reeves, Jewish Lore, 9596. 79 DJD 36:7375. This text was originally published in M. Baillet et al., DJD 3:9091. 80 The key word wash ( ) has been understood as a perfect (Milik, The Books of Enoch, 335) and as an imperative (Beyer, ATTM, 1.266; Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 64; idem, DJD 36:74). 81 Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 66. Beyer, ATTM, 1.266, argues that this text describes the destruction of the Watchers and the giants. 82 The anities of these later texts to 2Q26 indicate that the fragment is reasonably considered part of the Qumran Book of Giants, contra Reeves, Jewish Lore, 51, who does not include it in his analysis of the composition. 83 This is according to the Oxford Bodleian manuscript version of the text (the B text). See further Milik, The Books of Enoch, 32129; M. Gaster, The Chronicles of Jerahmeel Or, The Hebrew Bible Historiale (Whitesh, Mont.: Kessinger Publishing, 2007) 5254; Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:7475; Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 101. 84 Their father emhazai interprets them to mean that God is about to bring a ood. See Reeves, Jewish Lore, 8688. 85 This fragment states that a txtg threw something (or was thrown) in the

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 47

12/15/2008 8:08:42 AM

48

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

The second vision in The Midrash of emh azai and Azael corresponds to Hahyahs vision of a garden that is destroyed (except for a tree with three branches) in 4Q530 2 ii. The best analogue in the Book of Giants for the other vision in this midrashic text is the submerged tablet of 2Q26. The Midrash of emh azai and Azael does not say which brother has which dream, but on the basis of 4Q530 2 ii one can posit that in the later midrash Heyya has the vision of the garden. This would mean that Aheyya has the vision of the stone tablet. Thus one can infer that 2Q26 contains remnants of a vision of a tablet disclosed to Ohyah. Milik interpreted 2Q26 as referring to two tablets, one representing the sinking of the wicked generation in the ood, the second the board of salvation, the ark of Noah and his three sons.86 Multiple tablets, however, are not explicit in the text and there is no clear warrant in the text to assert that it mentioned more than one.87 But Milik was right to think that there are positive and negative elements in the vision. In the vision of the at stone in The Midrash of emh azai and Azael, the tablet is erased but not entirely, since an angel scrapes away the writing except for one line with four words. This is reasonably interpreted as signifying the destruction caused by the ood, which will wipe out most but not all of humankind. The tablet of 2Q26, which is submerged and then lifted from the waters, can be understood along similar lines.88 This interpretation is supported by the vision of the garden in 4Q530 2 ii, all the trees of which are obliterated except for one with three shoots, which is, as mentioned above, probably a reference to Noah and his three sons. 2Q26 is plausibly interpreted as a vision that foretold the destruction of all or

water. Soon after this the giant Narmn (= Hahyah) sees a garden with rows of trees. Henning, The Book of Giants, 60, notes that the Persian word txtg may mean board. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 334, argues that this must be the case on the basis of 2Q26. Miliks suggestion is endorsed by Sundermann, Ein weiteres Fragment, 492. See also Henning, The Book of Giants, 57, 60. 86 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 335. 87 ( the tablet) occurs four times in four partially preserved lines, always in the singular. The term also occurs in 1Q23 31 2, again in the singular. 88 This is also suggested by 4Q203 8, in which a proclamation of judgment written by Enoch is read out to the giants from a tablet (cf. 4Q203 7b). See A.A. Orlov, Overshadowed by Enochs Greatness: Two Tablets Traditions from the Book of Giants to Palaea Historica, in From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism, 10931.

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 48

12/15/2008 8:08:43 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

49

most of the giants in the ood.89 No other vision in the Book of Giants can be better understood as the topic of Mahaways rst trip to Enoch than that of 2Q26. 2Q26, so interpreted, provides a context for Ohyahs actions in 4Q530 2 ii and 4Q531 22. When Ohyah learns about Gilgameshs defeat, he responds by speaking of a vision that probably signies the destruction of all or most of the giants in the ood.90 This would not be a cause for celebration among the giants. Identifying the vision of Ohyah in 4Q531 22 912 explains why he stresses in 4Q530 2 ii 13 what Gilgamesh said while omitting a key part of the conversationthe vision he himself mentioned to Gilgamesh. Ohyah does not tell an outright lie but is deceitful regarding what he tells the other giants about his conversation with Gilgamesh. He emphasizes what Gilgamesh said, construed to the eect that he alone has been defeated. The eect of Ohyahs spin is to make it appear that only Gilgamesh is to be punished. There is no reason to think that he was successful in his bid to plant blame on Gilgamesh. This scape-giant role of Gilgamesh and his interactions with Ohyah have no parallel in the epic of Gilgamesh. Two items support the claim that Ohyah dishonestly attempts to place judgment on Gilgamesh alone. One is the theme of deceit in the Book of Giants and the second regards internecine strife between Ohyah and other giants. First, one of the stated crimes of the giants is deceit. 4Q533 4, which refers to the ood in line 3 ( ), contains the following in lines 12: to de]ceive ( [[ )upon] the earth all which . . . [blood] was poured and lies ( ) they were s[peaking (cf. 4Q530 20 1).91 This preserves two charges raised against the giants that are associated with the
Line 4 of 2Q26 is very poorly preserved and may read for them all ( ). This reading is in Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:74; idem, The Book of Giants, 64; Beyer, ATTM, 1.266, but there is not enough material evidence to endorse the transcription. If one grants this reading, it may refer to the destruction of all the giants. A later Jewish tradition posits that at least some of the giants survived the ood. See further Stuckenbruck, The Angels and Giants of Genesis 6:14, 358; idem, The Book of Giants, 38. 90 This supports the reconstruction of 4Q531 22 12 of Puech, DJD 31:74: your [d]ream is com[plete (?). 91 DJD 31:110. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 189, gives essentially the same transcription but classies the fragment in question as 4Q556 6. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 237, transcribes ( [to examine). See also Beyer, ATTM, 1.260.
89

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 49

12/15/2008 8:08:43 AM

50

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

oodmurder and deceit.92 The era of the giants is characterized by deceit in 1 Enoch and other Early Jewish texts.93 The thesis that Ohyah engaged in deceit at the expense of Gilgamesh is also supported by 6Q8 1 (cf. 1Q23 29).94 This fragment contains remnants of an altercation between Ohyah and Mahaway.95 Line 2 establishes that the former giant is speaking to the latter. Line 3 has the statement Who has shown you everything? Line 4 reads Baraqel my father was

Both of these topics may be in the text Milik identied as 4Q206 3, but the transcription of the core passage is in dispute. According to Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:46, 4Q206 3 i 6 mentions the shedding of blood ( ) and line 7 is too fragmentary to yield a transcription. See also idem, The Book of Giants, 195. Beyer and Puech, however, transcribe in line 7 the phrase [] , they were deceitful (cf. 4Q533 4). See, respectively, ATTM, 1.260, and DJD 31:111. Puech calls the text in question 4Q206a 1 (Miliks 4Q206 3) to distinguish the fragment from Miliks reconstruction. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 237, as part of his thesis that the Book of Giants was the second book of an Enochic Pentateuch, placed 4Q206 2 and 3 just after the end of the Book of the Watchers (or the Aramaic material that preserves the nal material available in Watchers, 4QEne 1 xxvii). Thus he understood these two fragments as comprising the beginning of the Book of Giants. See further E.J.C. Tigchelaar, Notes on Fragments of 4Q206/206a, 4Q203204, and Two Unpublished Fragments (4Q59?), Meghillot 56 (2007) (= Dimant volume): *187*199. 93 In the Apocalypse of Weeks, the second week is the era of the ood: there will arise a second week, in which deceit and violence ( ) will spring up, and in it will be the rst end, and in it a man will be saved (Noah) (1 En. 93:4; 4QEng 1 iii 25). The word is prominent in the biblical ood story (Gen 6:11, 13). Second Baruch 56, while it does not mention the giants specically, characterizes the time of the Watchers and giants as one of deceit (vv. 2, 1113; cf. Sib. Or. 1.177178). See Reeves, Jewish Lore, 7778; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 443; Milik, The Books of Enoch, 264; K. Koch, History as a Battleeld of Two Antagonistic Powers in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in the Rule of the Community, in Enoch and Qumran Origins (ed. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 18599 (esp. 192). 94 DJD 36:7880. This is a re-edition; the fragment was originally published in DJD 3:11619. See also Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 196200; Beyer, ATTM, 1.262; . Puech, Les Fragments 1 3 du Livre des Gants de la grotte 6 (pap6Q8), RevQ 19/74 (1999): 22738. 95 Commentators have observed that there is a conict between these two giants. See Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 199; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 107.

92

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 50

12/15/2008 8:08:43 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

51

with me. This is a claim uttered by Mahaway in response to Ohyah.96 The statement seems to be uttered in light of line 3Who has shown you everything? Ohyah is apparently questioning Mahaways account of his journey to Enoch. Either disputing that Mahaway went to Enoch or questioning the value of what Mahaway learned from him, Ohyah interrupts him: Mahaway had not []nished [te]lling what [Enoch had shown him . . . and Ohyah answered and said to] him, I have heard of fou[r] wonders! If [a] barren [?] [woman] were to give birth . . . (ll. 56; cf. Jub. 37:2023).97 Ohyahs statement is not fully preserved, but he seems to assert that he, not Mahaway, possesses access to divine knowledge. Ohyah
4Q530 7 ii, however, gives no indication that Mahaway journeyed to Enoch accompanied by his father. It is possible that Mahaway is lying in 6Q8 1 4 in response to the hostile questioning of Ohyah. Baraqel is the ninth Watcher mentioned in 1 En. 6:7 (cf. 4QEna 1 iii 8). In a Uighr version of the Manichean Book of Giants, the son of Virogdad is associated with making a great journey to Enoch, as Mahaway does in 4Q530 7 ii. In fragment c of the Kawn Mahaway appears to state that Virogdad is his father. Virogdad means from lightning [it is] given, and thus approximates the meaning of Baraqel (lightning of God). In the Midrash of emh azai and Azael the father of Heyya and Aheyya is emhazai. While no surviving portion of the Qumran Book of Giants states so, it is reasonable to assume that the father of the brothers Ohyah and Hahyah is emihazah, not Baraqel. See further W.B. Henning, Neue Materialien zur Geschichte des Manichismus, ZDMG 90 (1936): 118 (esp. 4); idem, The Book of Giants, 60, 65; Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 198; Puech, Les Fragments 1 3, 231. 97 The term barren (( ] is very dicult to decipher and cannot be taken as a conclusive reading. The word four follows the transcription[ ]of Puech, Les Fragments 1 3, 230. Most commentators follow Milik, The Books of Enoch, 300, who transcribes , behold. See, for example, Stuckenbruck, DJD 36:78; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 59; Beyer, ATTM, 1.262. Baillet, DJD 3:117, did not oer a transcription for the term in dispute. I follow Puech because on the photograph there is a bottom hook on the nal visible letter of the disputed word that one would nd in a bet not a waw. Also the space between the word in question and the next allows for an additional letter after the last visible traces. In either reading, there is not enough material to interpret suciently what Ohyah says to Mahaway. According to Stuckenbrucks reconstruction of 6Q8 1 5, Mahaway is interrupted when saying what Baraqel had shown him. But 4Q530 7 ii establishes that Mahaway travels to get knowledge from Enoch, not Baraqel. See also idem, The Book of Giants, 197.
96

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 51

12/15/2008 8:08:43 AM

52

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

certainly does not want to hear about what Mahaway learned from Enoch.98 This ts perfectly with the understanding of Ohyahs conduct sketched above. He would not have been happy to learn from Mahaway that Enoch has interpreted a vision to signify that most or all of the giants are to perish in the ood.

6. Conclusion There are thematic similarities between the Gilgamesh epic and the Book of Giants. Both are set in deep antiquity and contain a character named Gilgamesh who is a gigantic warrior. Dreams are a major theme in both compositions. Gilgamesh in the Book of Giants is a wicked gure, like the giants in general, whereas in the epic Gilgamesh is a hero and revered king. The Gilgamesh of the Qumran text loses his battle against humans and angels in 4Q531 22, and in the literary epic he is victorious in combat against Humbaba. Such contrasts suggest not only a degree of knowledge of the Mesopotamian epic on the part of the Qumran texts author, but also that there is a polemical edge in his adaptation of motifs from this epic, as Reeves has stressed. The present article suggests this realization should be qualied by two points. (1) Core elements of the epic have no analogue in the Book of Giants. In the Qumran text Gilgamesh is not a king and has no friend who could be compared to Enkidu. H obabish never guards a forest and there is no grand battle between him and Gilgamesh. Other giants such as Ohyah and Mahaway are more prominent in the composition than Gilgamesh and H obabish. The knowledge of the author of the Book of Giants of the Gilgamesh epic does not seem to be informed by an Aramaic text of Gilgamesh which the author consults and polemically reworks, as Reeves proposes. The authors familiarity with the epic is better attributed to indirect knowledge of Mesopotamian legends regarding the gure of Gilgamesh.
A Sogdian fragment of the Manichean Book of Giants (Henning frg. C) attests an account of the giant Shm (= Ohyah) attempting to kill Mahaway. Strife among the giants is also attested in frg. j of the Kawn: Thereupon the giants began to kill each other and [to abduct their wives]. See Henning, The Book of Giants, 60, 66. Also note 4Q530 5 1, which may refer to Ohyah: his brother [will ru]le ov[er . . . (]] ).
98

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 52

12/15/2008 8:08:43 AM

M. Go / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153

53

(2) Major aspects of the portrayal of Gilgamesh in the Book of Giants are shaped by larger themes in the composition rather than a hostile stance towards the epic of Gilgamesh. In 4Q531 22 the giant Gilgamesh tells Ohyah about his defeat, and Ohyah replies by mentioning a vision previously disclosed to him, the content of which is probably in 2Q26. Motivated by the fear that he and the giants in general will be destroyed in the ood, Ohyah attempts to plant the blame for their crimes on Gilgamesh alone. The futile attempt to single out Gilgamesh for judgment is the occasion for the two visions of 4Q530 2 ii, which emphasize that most or all of the giants will be judged and destroyed in the ood. Knowledge of the epic of Gilgamesh oers little assistance in the interpretation of these key events of the Book of Giants. The core goal of the composition is to portray the ante-diluvian giants as evil and recount their exploits and punishment, not to polemicize against the Gilgamesh epic, or, as Puech argues, against Hellenistic pagan worship in the Upper Galilee.99 The text creatively appropriates motifs from the epic and makes Gilgamesh a character in his own right. The composition constitutes an important example of the recrudescence of ancient Near Eastern tradition in Early Jewish literature.100

This assessment is consistent with the views of George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.6970. He argues that no post-cuneiform text reveals certain knowledge of the Babylonian epic. He grants that Aramaic papyri of Gilgamesh may have existed but concludes all one can say is that individual themes and episodes of Gilgame, where they are suspected of surviving in later literatures, were transformed by a variety of intermediate stages, about which we can know almost nothing, into the very dierent tales of very dierent worlds. 100 F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 34346; J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1819.

99

DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.indd 53

12/15/2008 8:08:43 AM