Sunteți pe pagina 1din 305

Loren T.


The Book of Giants

from Qumran
Texts, Translation, and Commentary

Mohr Siebeck
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Stuckenbruck, Loren T.:

The book of giants from Qumran : texts, translation, and commentary / Loren T.
Stuckenbruck. - Tbingen : Mohr Siebeck, 1997
(Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum ; 63)
ISBN 3-16-146720-5

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

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted
by copyright law) without the publishers 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 Tbingen on non-aging paper from Papierfabrik Niefern and bound by Heinr.
Koch in Tbingen.

ISSN 0721-8753
for Otto Betz
honour o f his 80th birthday
8. June 1997

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 Maniche et du Manichesme,
p. 429 . 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 9thcentury chronographer Georgius Syncellus had de
scribed as . The latter work was, in turn, said to
have been discovered after the flood by a certain (Noahs 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:
). 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

Cosmogony. Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions [Monographs of the

Hebrew Union College 14; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press,
1992]), the present volume takes its point of departure in the Book of
Giants as an early Jewish work from the Second Temple period.
My interest in the Book of Giants was triggered ten years ago while I
was engaged in a lexical analysis of the Greek recensions to 1 Enoch (esp.
Codex Panopolitanus, Syncellusab, and the Chester Beatty ms.) and the
Enochic Aramaic fragments from Qumran in Tbingen and Heidelberg.
Several years later, in the context of a doctoral seminar with Professor
James H. Charlesworth at Princeton Theological Seminary, I was able to
engage in an initial study of some of the published fragments which J. T.
Milik had identified with the Book of Giants (The Books of Enoch [Ox
ford: Clarendon Press, 1976]). However, the possibility of any publication
at that time was precluded, as analysis was frustrated by the unavailability
of the pertinent photographic evidence. Of course, this situation changed
dramatically with the publication and itemization of the Rockefeller col
lection (formally PAM) in 1993 by Emanuel Tov, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls
on Microfiche (Leiden: E. J. Brill). This provided an opportunity for me -
at first through the encouragement of Professor Peter Lampe at the Uni
versity of Kiel - to resurrect a dormant study and to pursue a more thor
oughgoing analysis.
It is here appropriate to stress that the investigation carried through in
this book should in no way be confused with an official publication of
those Book of Giants fragments which have yet to appear in the Dis
coveries in the Judaean Desert series. For one thing, this volume as such
is wider in scope in that it embraces virtually all fragments (unpublished
and published) which have been related to the Book of Giants. Moreover,
some features which have accompanied the publication of the Qumran
fragments have not been included: most obviously, plates; measurements
of the individual fragments; and, in some cases, a detailed discussion of
palaeography and orthography (though these considerations are not en
tirely excluded).
It is hoped that the present study has been able to throw further light on
the Book of Giants as an early Jewish document to be taken seriously in
its own right. The main body of the volume - i. e. the text, English transla
tion, notes, and commentary of the relevant manuscript fragments from
Qumran - is to be found in Chapter Two (pp. 41-224), with Chapter One
providing an introduction to the study of the document along with a con
sideration of the milieu (provenance and date) which may be posited for
the work. In order to distinguish degrees of likelihood concerning the
identification of manuscript fragments with the Book of Giants (see
Preface IX

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 Schfer. Further, I am most grateful to Mr. Georg Sie-
beck at J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) in Tbingen 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 Tbingen, on the occasion of his 80th
birthday (8. June 1997). During a period of study in Tbingen (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

himself to the encouragement of young scholars in both Germany and

abroad. Many - not least myself - shall remain in his debt.

Easter 1997 Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Table of Contents

P reface.................................................................................................... VII
Abbreviations........................................................................................ XIII

Chapter One

I. Research on the B ook o f G iants Fragm ents from Q u m ra n ... 1

A. The Work of J. T. Milik (1971 and 1976)..................................... 1
B. Research Subsequent to Milik........................................................ 4
7. 1976-1992.................................................................................... 4
2. 1991 to the Present ................................................. 8
3. The Purpose of the Present Volume........................................ 10
II. A n Investigation into the Sequencing o f the
Q um ran Book of G iants F ra g m e n ts. ......................... 11
A. The Significance of the Problem ................................................. 11
B. Synoptic Comparison of Three Reconstructions...................... 13
C. Proposed Sequence of the
Qumran Book of Giants Fragments ........................ 20
III. The C haracter of the Q um ran Book of G ia n ts ............. 24
A. Its Relation to the Book of W atchers........................... 24
B. Distinguishing Characteristics of Qumran B G .............. 25
IV. D a t e .................................................................................... 28
V. Provenance and P u rp o se ................................................. 31

Chapter Two
The B ook o f Giants an d the Qumran F ragm ents

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

1Q23 = lQ G iants*................................................................................. 43
XII Table o f Contents

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

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

Bibliography.............................................................................................. 255
Index of Passages ......................................................................... 263
Index of Subjects...................................................................................... 280
Index of Modern A uthors........................................................................ 288

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

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 aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer
ATTM EB Klaus Beyer, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer.
b. (before rabbinic text) Babylonian Talmud
BE J.T. Milik, The Books o f Enoch. Aramaic Fragments o f
Qumrn 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

DISO CharlesR. Jean and Jacob Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des in

scriptions smitiques de Iouest
DJD Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert
D SSE Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (1995)
D SS on Microfiche Emanuel Tov, ed., TheDead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A
Comprehensive Facsimile Edition o f the Texts from the Ju
daean Desert (1993)
D SST Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Trans
lated. The Qumran Texts in English (1994)
D SSU Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls
Enoch Michael A. Knibb with Edward Ullendorf, The Ethiopie
Book o f Enoch (2 vols.)
EstBib Estudios Biblicos
Eth. Ethiopie
ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
Exod. Exodus
Ezek. Ezekiel
FE Robert Eisenman and James Robinson, A Facsimile Edition
o f the Dead Sea Scrolls
fern. feminine
fig. figure
frgt., frgt.'s Fragment, fragments
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
GCS Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller
Gen. Genesis
Grk. Greek
Hab. Habakkuk
Heb. Hebrew
Henochbuch Siebert Uhlig, Apokalypsen: Das thiopische Henochbuch
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HTR Harvard Theological Review
H U CA Hebrew Union College Annual
Imp.Aram. Imperial Aramaic
impf. imperfect
impv. imperative
infin. infinitive
Isa. Isaiah
itpa. itpa"el
Jas. James
JBL Journal o f Biblical Literature
Jewish Lore John C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony. Stu
dies in the Book o f Giants Traditions
JJS Journal o f Jewish Studies
JSHRZ Jdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit
JStJud Journal fo r the Study o f Judaism
Jub. Jubilees
Judg. Judges
KAI Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Rllig, Kanaanische und
aramische Inschriften (3 vols.)
.,. line, lines
Abbreviations XV

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 Schrer Emil Schrer, 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 chrtiennes
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 Lvi
T.Naph. Testament o f Naphtali
T.Reub. Testament o f Reuben
Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos
Tg. Ps.-Jon. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Theod. Thodotion
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 Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft
Zebah. Zebahim
ZNW Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
Chapter One


I. Research on the B ook o f Giants Fragm ents fro m Qumran

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

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

1 See Milik, The Books o f Enoch. Aramaic Fragments o f Qumrn Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1976), esp. pp. 4, 6-7, 57-58, 230, 236-38, and 298-339 (hereafter,
BE). Miliks presentation here brought together the results of studies which he had
published several years earlier: Turfan et Qumran: Livre des gants juif et manichen,
in eds. Gert Jeremias, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann, Tradition und
Glaube. Das frhe Christentum in seiner Umwelt (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1971) 117-27 and Problmes de la littrature hnochique la lumire des fragments
aramens de Qumrn, 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 manichisches 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 Manichismus, 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 fr Orientforschung, 45; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960)
no. 101 (p. 9). To Hennings 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 fr 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 Miliks 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 Miliks work.
Second, on first glance the Qumran BG fragments would appear to
have formed but a tangential part of Miliks main focus on the Aramaic
fragments corresponding to the 1 Enoch corpus (Book of the Watchers -
ch.s 1-36; Astronomical Book, cf. ch.s 72-82; Book of Dreams - ch.s

3 See Sundermann, Mittelpersische und panische kosmogonische und Parabeltexte der

Manicher (Berliner Turfantexte, 4; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973) 76-78 (esp.
M 5900) and Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch, in Orientalia J.
Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata (Acta Iranica, 23 and Second Series, 9; Leiden: Brill,
1984) 491-505 (esp. Frgt. L); see further p. 200 and John C. Reeves, Utnapishtim in
the Book of Giants?, JBL 112 (1993) 114 n. 17. The most important recent study o f the
Manichaean BG sources is now Reeves published dissertation, Jewish Lore in Mani
chaean Cosmogony. Studies in the Book o f Giants Traditions (Monographs o f the Hebrew
Union College, 14; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992), hereafter Jewish
4 For an initial text with translation based on 4 medieval Hebrew mss. (provisionally
collated), see Milik, BE, pp. 321-31 and 338-39. Milik hypothesizes that the Midrash is
an adaptation of the Manichaean BG and attributes it to R. Joseph bar Hiyya (d. 333
C. E.) because he is mentioned as the story-teller at the beginning. The significance of
the Midrash for Qumran BG becomes more apparent if Miliks thesis of its derivation is
questioned (as by Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 88) and if it is regarded as another - abbre
viated and clearly later - version o f the BG story.
5 The translation was initially published in 1821 by Richard Laurence, Mashafa He-
nok Nabiy, The Book o f Enoch the prophet (Oxford: Univ. Press), while an edition o f the
Ethiopic ms. (Oxford Bodleian no. 4) was not published until 1838 by Laurence,
Mashafa Henok Nabiy, Libri Enoch prophetae versio Aethiopica (Oxford: Univ. Press).
Previous to this corresponding Enoch materials in Greek had been known through the
Chronography of Georgius Syncellus (808-810 C. E.), which had been edited by Joseph
Juste Scaliger in 1606 and J. A. Fabricius in 1703 and 1722 (cf. Milik, BE, pp. v-vi); this
material and ms. evidence from Greek recensions published near the end of the 19th
century (esp. a tachygraph for 89:42-49; Codex Panopolitanus for 1:1-32:6; and the
Chester Beatty Papyrus for 97:6-104:13; 106:1-107:3) have been conveniently gathered
by Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG, 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 3-44.
6 See n. 2.
I. Research on the Book o f Giants Fragments from Qumran 3

83-90; and the so-called Epistle of Enoch - ch.s 91-107). And yet, Miliks
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
Miliks 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 Miliks 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, ,,Littrature hnochique373-78 ( 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. Miliks The
Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments o f Qumrn 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

fragments was generally inaccessible, most specialists in the field were in

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

B. Research Subsequent to Milik

1. 1976-1992
Subsequent to Miliks edition of the Qumran Enoch materials, BG was
recognized as an independent work, and references to vocabulary, texts,
and ideas from its fragments were soon included in several publications.
Whereas Michael A. Knibb, unlike Milik, made limited use of BG in his
1978 edition of the Ethiopic manuscripts of 1 Enoch^ in 1984 Sieberg
Uhlig reserved an appendix for a German translation of BG fragments
in his translation and study of the same.14 The first, however, to present
both texts and translation of some BG fragments after Milik were Joseph
A. Fitzmyer and Daniel J. Harrington in their A Manual of Palestinian
Aramaic Texts (1978).15 In the same year, Michael Sokoloff published a
largely philological evaluation of Miliks edition; here he incorporated
some of the BG fragments from Miliks clearer readings in a glossary, in
which he proposed a few lexical and morphological corrections.16
Despite the impediments described in section I. A above, several scho
lars have managed to make significant contributions to the study of the
Qumran BG; they are Klaus Beyer, Florentino Garcia Martinez, and John

12 This no doubt accounts, e. g., for the very cursory discussion o f Qumran BG
among Heb.-Aram. Jewish Prophetic-Apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha by Geza Vermes
in the revised edition of Emil Schrer, 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 Schrer). 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 thiopische Henochbuch (JSHRZ 5/6; Gtersloh: 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 4QEnGiants^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

C. Reeves. It is appropriate, then, that the scope, purpose, and contribu

tion of their respective publications are briefly outlined and reviewed.
In his monumental work on Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer
(1984),17 Beyer presented the BG fragments in his attempt to collect
alle aramischen Texte, die vom 2. Jh. v. Chr. bis zum 7. Jh. n. Chr. in
Palstina abgefat wurden und in Niederschriften ihrer Zeit erhalten
sind.18 Therein Beyer not only included BG among his independent read
ings and translation of all these texts,19 but also incorporated his lexico
graphical and morphological analyses of all vocabulary items in a glossary
at the end of the work.20 In the case of the Qumran BG fragments Beyer
provided stimulus for later discussion in four main ways: (1) In several
instances he suggested readings and reconstructions which differed from
those of Milik, even for some fragments for which no photographs were
available (esp. 4Q530 ii, 1.3-iii, 1.10 and 4Q531 17). (2) In addition to the
manuscripts Milik had assigned to BG, Beyer suggested that fragments of
6Q14 (Aram.) and from 1Q19 (Heb.) may have belonged to BG as well.21
(3) Beyer attempted to arrange the fragmentary BG texts into a coherent
order which reflects how the work may have been structured (see section
II. B below). (4) Beyer has interpreted Hebraisms in the language of the
texts and 1Q19 as indications that BG was originally composed in Hebrew
during the 3rd century B. C. E.,22 while the names of the giants Gilgamesh
and Hobabish betray a Babylonian provenance.23
In 1987, BG was treated by Garcia Martinez in his review of Qumran
materials published between 1975 and 1985,24 a discussion which in Eng
lish translation he updated as an independent chapter for a collection of
essays entitled Qumran and Apocalyptic.25 Here Garcia Martinez provides
an overview of critical problems involved in interpreting Qumran BG and

17 Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 (hereafter ATTM).

18 ATTM , p. 21.
19 For BG, see ibid., pp. 258-68.
20 Ibid., pp. 499-763.
21 See ibid., pp. 229, 259, and 268. Unlike Milik, who had considered up to 11 mss. for
inclusion in BG, Beyer thus ended up with 13; see this section below.
22 Beyer is also o f the opinion that the other Enoch writings found at Qumran were
also composed in Hebrew. Thus he maintains that BG is das jngste Stck des heb
rischen Henoch {ibid., p. 259). Concerning the difficulties of assigning 1Q19 to BG,
see Chapter Two, Part Two below.
23 Ibid.
24 Garcia Martinez, Estudios qumranicos (1975-1985): Panorama critico (I), Est-
Bib 45 (1987) 175-92.
25 Subtitled Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992)
97-115 (The Book o f Giants), hereafter QumApoc.
6 Introduction

comments on the contents of each of the more clearly identifiable manu

scripts mentioned by Milik (1Q23, 2Q26, 6Q8, 4QEnGiants^ b>c>d>e, and
4QEnoch^ 2-3).26 After devoting a brief section to the Manichaean
sources, he then attempts to arrange some of the Qumran fragments
into a sequence which differs from that suggested by Beyer. His comments
in these sections demonstrate a methodical consideration of criteria for
which a broad outline of events may be derived.27 Finally, he discusses
provenance and date, proposing an origin among Essene circles sometime
during the middle of the 2nd century B. C. E. after the composition of
Daniel.28 Garcia Martinez treatment is well balanced and remains
throughout aware of problems posed for interpretation by the fragmen
tary nature of the evidence as well as their incomplete publication.
The study by Reeves on Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony (1992)29
consists of an analysis of BG in the later Manichaean sources. As the
Qumran BG fragments are illuminative for culling the source-critical
and traditio-historical background for Manichaean BG, Reeves devotes
his longest chapter to a running text, translation and commentary on
the Qumran fragments and relates them to parallels among the Mani
chaean materials.30 He, too, has presented the fragments in an arrange
ment which he thinks at places is preferable to the one proposed by Beyer.
Reeves, as Beyer and Garcia Martinez before him, was of course quite
aware of the frustrating incompleteness of the pertinent manuscripts from
Qumran. This limitation aside and despite the excellence of his discussion
on the Manichaean and related sources, his treatment of the Qumran
fragments is somewhat disappointing. While one might be sympathetic
with his principled exclusion of less certain Qumran manuscripts from
consideration,31 it is not clear why he can ignore these fragments when
they could have contributed to his argument.32 Moreover, his alternative
suggestions concerning the possible order of events in Qumran BG, which

26 Though Garcia Martinez questions the certainty of 4QEnGiantse and 4QEnoche

2-3 (ibid., p. 105).
21 Ibid., pp. 106-113.
28 Ibid., pp. 113-15. On this further, see section IV below and Chapter Two, under
4Q530 col. ii, 11.17-20.
29 See full bibl. in n. 3 above.
30 Jewish Lore, pp. 51-164.
31 Ibid., p. 51.
32 Reeves ends up including 4QEnoche 2-3 under QG2 after all, while none o f the
1Q24 fragments receive further mention. Most conspicuously absent from his discus
sions concerning use of ,,tablet in BG is 2Q26 (a repeated washing o f ,,tablets in
water) which Milik had associated with the Midrash o f Shemhazai and Aza ,el (oblitera
tions o f writing on a large stone) and the Man. Mid. Pers. Frgt. j Page 2; see also his
discussion of tablets in n.s 291 and 306 {ibid., pp. 153-54).
I. Research on the Book o f Giants Fragments from Qumran 7

seem unaware of Garcia Martinez contribution to the problem33 and rely

on a questionable reading,34 are problematic at several points.
The inevitable tenuousness of the three works just reviewed rests mainly
in the fact that none of them were in a position to refer to the remaining
unpublished Qumran materials. Nevertheless, all three make contributions
in specific areas which should be taken into account in any further study
of Qumran BG.
Between 1976 and 1992, the dependence of scholars on the study of BG
by Milik meant that some of his statements about the fragments were
subject to conflicting interpretations. This is nowhere more true than the
various construals of Miliks frequently cited comment about the manu
script evidence itself:
U p to the present I have located six copies o f the Book o f Giants among the m anu
scripts o f Qumrn: the four manuscripts cited above (1Q23, 6Q8,4QEnGiants^ c), a
third manuscript from the Starcky collection, and 4Q EnG iantsfl published below.
There are also five other manuscripts too poorly represented to allow a sufficiently
certain identification o f the fragments: Ene 2 -3 (above, pp. 236-8), 1Q24 (D JD i,
p. 99 and pl. IX), 2Q26 (D JD iii, pp. 90-1 and pl. XVII; see below, pp. 334-5), and
two groups o f small fragments entrusted to the Starcky edition.35

What materials did Milik specifically have in view when referring to a

third manuscript from the Starcky collection and to the two groups of
small fragments entrusted to the Starcky edition? Since Milik does not
clarify his statement any further, others have interpreted them in various
third manuscript two groups o f mss.

Fitzmyer36 4Q EnG iantse(4Q556) 4Q EnG iantsi/ (4Q532)

4Q EnG iantsf (?)

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

4QEnGiants (?)38

33 That is, Reeves is aware neither o f the Spanish version o f Garcia Martinez essay
nor of Adam S. van der Woudes review of it in Fnfzehn 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). Fitzmyers construal is followed by
Reeves (Jewish Lore, p. 51).
37 ATTM , pp. 259-60.
38 Beyers nomenclature becomes explicable if he assumes that 4QEnGiants>has al
ready been covered by Miliks reference to Ene (= 4Q206). In any case, Beyer has
rightly dropped these designations in his Ergnzungsband to A TT M (Gttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994) 119-24 (hereafter ATTMEB).
8 Introduction

third manuscript two groups o f mss.

Garcia M artinez39 4Q EnG iantsi/ (4Q532) 4Q533 (4Q G iantse ar?)

4Q EnG iants?40 (4Q556)

Without further and relevant information from someone having direct

access to the sources, it was nearly impossible to proceed with sufficient
clarity. Only an independent inspection of the photographs and of the
designations assigned to the fragments they contain would make it possi
ble to shed light on the manuscripts to which Milik in fact referred.

2. 1991 to the Present

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

39 See QumApoc, pp. 104-105 and idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The 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 Miliks 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 1950s and early
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 Beyers Erganzungsband to
his ATTM (.ATTMEB).47 Adopting an identical format of presentation

44 Leiden: Brill/IDC. The edition is accompanied by an Inventory List o f Photographs

compiled by Stephen A. Reed (hereafter Microfiche Inventory) and the Microfiche Com
panion Volume (mainly a catalogue o f photographs and publications corresponding to a
comprehensive list o f the documents) edited by Tov with Pfann (cf. n. 40 above). As is to
be expected of any work which amasses such detail, there are occasional mistakes (e. g.
PAM number, document alleged to be in a photograph, etc.) in both of the companion
volumes. A second edition has been announced which will attempt to correct some o f
45 The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Shaftesbury: Element) 94-96, without photo
graph (hereafter DSSU).
46 Except, o f course, for Frgt. 1; the Frgt.s are thought to belong to col. ii o f this
Frgt. See the discussion under 4Q532, Chapter Two.
47 ATTM EB, pp. 119-124 (bibl. in n. 38 above).
10 Introduction

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 Beyers 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 Baraqel, may actually belong to BG instead.50
Nevertheless, Beyers 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

3. The Purpose of the Present Volume

Since the PAM photographs have only recently become available, as yet no
work has appeared in which all of the probable and possible Qumran BG
materials have been collected, analyzed, and commented upon. In this
study an attempt has been made to fill this void, based on my reading
of the photographs in DSS on Microfiche and the incomplete and com
plete collections of the PAM materials at Princeton Theological Seminary
and The Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies respectively.
Though this work is intended to go a long way towards an edition of
the hitherto unpublished fragments, it should be remembered that it does
not constitute an official publication of the materials: the PAM photo
graphs are not printed here, and the author himself has not worked di
rectly with the fragments and thus can provide neither a thoroughgoing
analysis of the palaeography of the scripts nor a physical description of the

48 On.grounds of the physical evidence, Beyers placement of 4Q530 6 in G 8 - i. e.

the column immediately preceding 4Q530 ii - may be questioned; cf. under 4Q530 6 in
Chapter Two.
49 ATTM EB, pp. 125-27.
50 This and other such possibilities are discussed in Chapter Two, Part Two.
51 E .g. 4Q532 1 (11.1,10); 2 (11.1,2); 3 (11.1,5); 4 (1.5); 5 (11.1,3,5); 4Q531 1 (1.9); 3
(11.1,2,4); 7 (11.1,3); 8 (1.6); 10(11.1,2,4); 13(1.5); 15(1.1); 18(1.4); 20 (1.1); 21 (1.4); 22
(1.1); 23 (1.1); 25 (1.5); 26 (11.1,2,4); 30 (1.2); 47 (1.1); and 48 (1.1).
52 So 4Q531 24 and 31-45; 4Q530 9-15 and 17-19. Cf. also 4Q556 1-5 and 7.
II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG 11

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.

II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f the Qumran B ook

o f Giants Fragm ents

A. The Significance o f the Problem

At a number of points throughout the present study, suggestions are made
about the relative sequence of the Qumran BG fragments to one another.
The purpose of the discussion here is to provide a synthesis concerning
this issue on the basis of Chapter Two. A necessary part of the analysis
will, of course, consist of a presentation and evaluation of ways others
have attempted to arrange the fragments. It is initially appropriate, how
ever, to consider the significance of such an enterprise.
A quest to discover a sequential relationship among a large number of
codicologically isolated fragments may seem to involve an ultimately fruit
less exercise of imagination! Given the very fragmentary evidence stem
ming from some ten manuscripts, each arrangement of the materials is
to some degree going to be speculative. Moreover, placing the pieces
into a relative sequence can easily be made to reflect an assumption that
the various manuscripts preserve different portions of a largely homoge
nous text.
These difficulties notwithstanding, there are several reasons for giving
consideration to the sequencing of the Qumran BG fragments. Firstly, the
attempt itself is not entirely unfounded: two of the manuscripts (4Q203
and 4Q530) preserve something of an internal sequence which, however
meager, provides clear evidence concerning the narrative structure of those
parts of BG. In addition, some of the fragments contain apparent refer
ences to other parts of the composition and hence offer some important
clues about the documents structure. At times, sequences contained with
in individual fragments from the Manichaean recensions of BG, insofar as
they may be thought to reflect the order of a Semitic Vorlage such as in the
Qumran BG, may provide a further basis for an approach. This may be
12 Introduction

particularly significant in cases where one Manichaean fragment overlaps

with at least two of the Qumran fragments. However, such a basis for
reconstructing the Qumran BG must be applied with caution since BG
undoubtedly underwent considerable change as it was transmitted among
varied socio-cultural and linguistic contexts over hundreds of years. Final
ly, inferences about the general structure of the narrative can be adduced
by comparing the fragments with traditions about the Watchers and giants
preserved among other early Jewish materials; this is most conspicuously
the case with the Book of Watchers and Jubilees. If the Qumran BG pre
supposes a knowledge of the Book of Watchers - as appears to be the case
- then this comparative approach cannot be ignored.
A second reason for trying to establish a relative order of the BG frag
ments is that it obliges the interpreter to enquire more rigorously into the
essential character of the document. What motifs are borrowed from a
common stock of early Jewish tradition, and which themes reflect a dis
tinctive perspective of the writer(s)? As the structure itself can betray the
compositional technique of the author(s), so the attempt to reconstruct a
narrative sequence - insofar as this is possible - constitutes an important
aspect of interpretation.
Thirdly, and following on the second point, the various proposals for
assigning a particular sequence to the BG materials bring into focus the
major interpretive issues which scholarly analysis has raised. As shall be
presently demonstrated in section II. B, the structure attributed to BG
corresponds closely to the interpreters views concerning the purpose
and function of the composition.
After a synoptic presentation of the differing sequences suggested by
Beyer, Reeves, and Garcia Martinez, their proposals are each evaluated.
In the discussion a method of approach to the problem is delineated and,
on that basis, an alternative arrangement of the materials shall be pro
II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG 13

B. Synoptic Comparison o f Three Reconstructions

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

Beyer Reeves53 Garcia M artinez54

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 )

G 2: L ies and Shedding o f Q G 2: Earthly Violence 2: A ctivities o f the Giants

B lood R eported to Enoch Before Their Imprison
4Q206 2 (A T T M ) 4Q206 2 ment
4Q556 6 4Q556 6 4Q203 1
+ + 4Q203 2
4Q206 3 (A T T M ) 4Q206 3 4Q203 3
4Q530 6, 1.7 4Q530 6, 1.7 (following 4Q203 4
(so A T T M ; in Beyer, A T T M ) 4Q203 5
A T T M E B under G < 4Q203 657
= 1 En. 9: 10) 4Q531 5

G 3: Second Tablet Q G 3: Petition by Enoch

not y e t R ead fo r Divine Intervention58
4Q203 7 ii (A T T M ) 4Q203 9 and 10

G 4: Second Tablet Q G 4: Dream s o f Hahyah

o f Enoch (A T T M ) and Ohyah59
4Q203 8 Q G 4A: 4Q530 ii
Q G 4B: 6Q8 2 (belongs
to Hahyahs dream)

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. Beyers Q 9.
14 Introduction

Beyer Reeves Garcia M artinez

G 5: Conversation Between Q G 5: M ah aw ays Journey 3: Dreams and Speeches o f

Ohyah and M ahaway to Enoch60 the Im prisoned Giants
Concerning the Immi 4Q530 iii and M ahaway s
nent Judgment M essages to Enoch
(A T T M ) 6Q8 1
6Q8 1
1Q23 29

G 6: Shemihazah Speaks Q G 6: Conflict Between

with Ohyah Ohyah and M ahaw ay61
4Q531 17 {A T T M , 6Q8 1 4Q531 1762
ATTM EB) 1Q23 29

G 7: Discussions Among Q G 7: Second Tablet not

the Giants (A T T M ) y e t R ea d 64
4Q203 1 4Q203 7 ii 4Q203 7 i- ii65
4Q203 2
4Q203 3
4Q203 4
4Q203 7 i, Frgt. a
4Q203 7 i, Frgt. b
4Q203 13
4Q530 col. ii, 1.263
4Q531 4 (DvnK)

G 8: A Giant A nticipates Q G 8: Second Tablet o f

Punishment Enoch66
(A T T M E B ) 4Q203 8 4Q203 867
4Q530 6=col. i

G 9: Dreams o f Hahyah Q G 9: Reaction o f Watch

and Ohyah ers and Giants to the
4Q530 ii (A T T M , Oracle68
ATTM EB) 4Q531 17 4Q530 it

60 Cf. Beyers G 10.

61 Cf. Beyers G 5.
62 Cf. Reeves QG 9.
63 Beyer was unaware in A T T M that the reading O'5Baba occurs in col. ii. Thus in
ATTM EB this text is more correctly placed under G 9.
64 C f Beyers G 3.
65 Whereas Beyer (G 3, G 7) and Reeves (QG 7, QG 11) separate the 4Q203 7 Frgt.s
A from B, Garcia Martinez follows Miliks reconstruction by reading them together.
66 Cf. Beyers G 4.
67 Cf. Beyers G 4.
68 Cf. Beyers G 6.
69 Cf. Reeves Q G 4.
II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG 15

Beyer Reeves Garcia M artinez

G 10: M ah aw ays Second Q G 10: Loading up the

Journey to Enoch A rk70
4Q530 iii (.A T T M ) 1Q23 1+6 4Q530 iii72
4Q531 4 (A T TM E B )
[The Deluge; Final
Battle Between the
Giants and A rch

G 11: Dream About the Q G 11: Isolated Fragments

Tree with Three R oots Whose Precise Position
6Q8 2 (A T T M ) in BG is Impossible to 2Q2675
D eterm ine74
G 12: Dream A bout a 4Q203 1
R insed Tablet 4Q203 2
2Q26 (A T T M ) 4Q203 3 6Q8 276
4Q203 4

G 13: Enochs Prayer 4Q203 7 i, Frgt. a 4. Enoch ,s prayer (?)

4Q203 9 and 10 4Q203 7 i, Frgt. b 4Q203 9 and 10
(A T T M ) 4Q203 13
4Q530 c o lii, 1.2
G 14: Enochs Prophecy o f
Future Blessing
1Q23 1+6 (A T T M )13,

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. Beyers 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 Gesprche 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

Beyer Reeves Garcia Martinez

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 )

Some comments are presently devoted to each of the sequences presented

above. My analysis of the materials (Chapter Two) demonstrates that at
some points - sometimes on the basis of the physical evidence, sometimes
through inference - all three represent possible ways of sequencing the
materials. In several instances, however, the proposals may be questioned.
A brief discussion of these cases shall help clarify why it has occasionally
seemed necessary to adopt a different sequence below.77
Beyers reconstruction makes use of more of the fragments than the
other two, even if the supplementary ATTMEB is not taken into consid
eration. As such, his suggested order is primarily based on a series of
inferences which attempt to make some logical sense of the material.
While many of Beyers suggestions remain plausible, in two places - where
the physical evidence has not been adequately considered - there is strong
reason to reject it: (1) Beyer has assigned 4Q203 7 col. ii to his G 3 while
4Q203 7 col. i fragment b is placed under G 7. Since both columns
belong to the same fragment 7, the sequence assigned to them must be
the reverse: contra Beyer, 4Q203 7 col. i b is followed by 4Q203 7 col. ii. (2)
Beyer has placed the main portion of text in 4Q530 fragment 6 col. i (G
8) in the column immediately preceding the one containing the two
dreams of Hahyah and Ohyah. Despite the fact that this corresponds to
the arrangement of the fragments in PAM 42.496, this location is highly
improbable. The visible portion of 4Q530 6 col. ii occurs at a point which
is irreconcilable with even his own reconstruction of fragments belonging
to 4Q530 col. ii. 4Q530 6 cols, i-ii may, therefore, belong to an even earlier
part of the manuscript.

77 For a fuller discussion of the problematic sequences listed below see the analysis of
the pertinent fragments in the commentary.
II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG 17

Reeves sequence is problematic in two ways which are closely bound up

with the interpretation of the text: (1) He assigns the two dreams of H a
hyah and Ohyah (4Q530 col. ii) to a relatively early part of the narrative.
This is based on his unconvincing attempt to interpret 4Q530 col. iii so
that it describes Mahaways first (<contra the adverbial second time on
1.7 of the text), perhaps only, journey to Enoch. (2) On the basis of this
interpretation of 4Q530 col. iii, the conflict between Mahaway and Ohyah
(6Q8 1), the reading of a second tablet (4Q203 8), and a description of
the angels victory over one of the Watchers (4Q531 17) are all postponed
to a later part of the narrative. More convincing is perhaps Reeves sugges
tion that the prayer fragments, 4Q203 9 and 10, are consistent with a
petition whose most plausible context may have been as a response to
reports of the giants treacherous and destructive activities on the earth
(cf. section 3 of the proposed sequence below).
Garcia Martinez orders the fragments into four sections. He is careful
to begin with internal sequences in 4Q203 7-8 and 4Q530 cols, ii-iii, and
then goes on to make suggestions by inferring from the content of the
other fragments how the other fragments might be related. Here he dis
tinguishes between fragments which reflect giants activities before and
after their imprisonment. Finally, he draws on Fragment c from the Mid
dle Persian Kawan to situate the conflict between Ohyah and Mahaway in
6Q8 1 within the same context as the content of 4Q531 17, in which the
prominent Watcher Shemihazah tells of his battle against the heavenly
angels. Though not explicitly delineated, Garcia Martinez arguments per
taining to the order of elements reflect a methodology which rightly com
mence with the physical evidence followed by a consideration of clues
within the Qumran fragments, and then - lastly - he considers whether
or not the Manichaean fragments can be illuminative. From the latter, we
may observe that his use of the Manichaean BG is not made to depend on
an additional reconstruction of these later materials, but is limited to in
stances where one of the Middle Persian Kawan fragments contains ele
ments which has parallels with otherwise disparate pieces from Qumran.
Thus, as a whole, Garcia Martinez reflections concerning sequence are
preferable, especially if compared to those of Reeves, whose method of
interpreting the elements of the Qumran BG tends to be more eclectic.78

78 That is, Reeves assumes on the basis 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

Nevertheless, in one main section the order and placement of fragments

proposed by Garcia Martinez has not been adopted here. He notes that
fragments 1Q23 9+14+15, 1Q23 1+6+22, and 4Q203 13 correspond, in
this order, to the general content of 1 Enoch 7:4-5, 10:19, and 13:1 respec
tively. From this he suggests that these fragments may have belonged to a
summary of the Book of Watchers located at the beginning of Qumran
BG.79 If a new literary context of Book of Watchers traditions may be
granted, one is not mistaken in querying the assumption that such tradi
tions merely rehearse a previously known work, that is, that they have not
been rearranged within the new literary context.80 Thus it is proper to
explore whether the motif of eschatological productivity in 1Q23
1+6+22 - whatever is relationship to 1 Enoch 10 - may have been given
a new setting in Qumran BG, just as the content of 1Q23 9+14+15, if
compared with that of the fragments 4Q531 1 and 4Q532 2, can be under
stood as a specific part of an elaborate description of the giants misdeeds
rather than as a mere summary of their activities in the Book of Watchers.
Even if 4Q203 13 is best correlated with the punitive sentence pronounced
against 4Azazel in 1 Enoch 13:1, no further grounds exist which might lead
one to assign the fragment to an introductory overview of the Book of
Watchers. The most to be said is that the existence of such a section at
the beginning of Qumran BG seems only to be remotely possible.
A methodology of ordering the fragments should, at base, reflect a two
fold awareness that the relationship between the Qumran fragments and the
Manichaean Book of Giants, on the one hand, and the relationship among
the Qumran materials themselves, on the other, may very well have been
more complicated. It cannot, for instance, be taken for granted that even
one Manichaean fragment bears a sequence that faithfully reflects that of
the Aramaic Book of Giants extant at Qumran; consequently, the possibi
lity has to be entertained that the materials may well have been retold or
recomposed in a different form. Not only does one have to reckon with the
likelihood that over time parts of the Book of Giants were abbreviated,81

79 It is perhaps interesting that Garcia Martinez does not include 4Q531 5 which also
seems to allude to the Book o f Watchers (1 En. 7:1-4 and 9:8-9).
80 This is, e.g. the case with 4Q530 6, 1.4; cf. Mid. Pers. Kawan Frgt. g (Henning,
The Book of Giants 62). Before the photographs were accessible, scholars, simply
following Miliks 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
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 Baraqel) is followed by a Watchers (Shemihazahs?)
confirmation of Mahaways 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 Mahaways
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.

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

Sigla: The following list o f abbreviations (placed after each fragment) is adopted in
the ordering o f fragments below. A s a whole, the list has a two-fold function: (1) it
denotes the kind o f reasoning used to place a given fragment and (2) where applic
able, it indicates when this placement diverges from the other proposed sequences
(provided above). For a fuller argument with respect to possible locations o f frag
ments with BG, the reader is refered to the relevant discussions in the text and
MS: The sequence between this and another fragment is based on their physical
relationship within one Qumran manuscript.
MBG: The order is based on sequences within one o f the M anichaean BG frag

87 Garcia Martinez (QumApoc, p. I l l ) argues, in view of the parallel between 6Q8 1

and Mid. Pers. Kawan Frgt. c - both contain the conversation between ,Ohyah and
Mahaway - that the former presupposes the giants and some o f the Watchers impri
sonment because the latter text speaks o f Shemihazahs intervention. The relation,
however, of Shemihazahs confirmation of Mahaways message (cf. 4Q531 17) to a sup
posed imprisonment o f giants is not immediately apparent.
II. An Investigation into the Sequencing o f Qumran BG 21

* 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.

1. Narrative Account of the Fall of the Watchers, Birth of the Giants,

and the Giants' Misdemeanors on the Earth
(a) General Introduction Recounting the Fall of the Watchers and the
Birth of the Giants
4Q531 5-(*, XXXX)
4Q206 3 + 4Q556 6-(*,X,XX,XXX,XXXX88)
(b) Elaborate Account of the Giants Misdemeanors
4Q531 1-(*,X89)
1Q23 9+14+15-(*,X,XX,XXX)
4Q532 2-(*)

2. Report of These Events to Enoch

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

3. Enoch's Petitionary Prayer

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

4. Conversations Among the Giants Concerning Their Deeds

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

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-(*)

5. First Pair of Dream-Visions91

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

6. [Mahaways First Encounter With Enoch]; [Mahaway Returns with Two

Tablets]; [The First Tablet from Enoch to the Watchers and Giants Is
Read\ ; ,Ohyah Is Incredulous about the Message from Mahaway
(a) [Mahaway, with Baraqel, Encounters Enoch the First Time.]
4Q532 2,4-(?)
Cf. 4Q531 9-(?)
4Q531 4-(?)
Cf. 6Q8 1, 1.4. Cf. 4Q530 col. iii, 1.7reference to Mahaways en
counter with Enoch for a second time .
(b) [Mahaway Returns from Enoch with Two Tablets.]-(MBG)
Cf. Manichaean Fragment L Recto, 11. 6-8; 4Q203 6Bii, 1.2.
4Q531 9-(?Mahaway Reports to the Giants about the En
(c) [The First Tablet from Enoch to the Giants Is Read by Mah-
Cf. Manichaean Fragment L Recto, 11. 9-11. Cf. also 4Q531 22?
(d) Initial Resistance to the Message
6Q8 1 (Conflict Between ,Ohyah and Mahaway)-(MBG,*)

7. A Watcher Tells of His Powerlessness Against God's Angelic Forces;

,Ohyah and Gilgamesh Express Conflicting Interpretations of Their
4Q531 17, 11. 3-7 (A Watcher Speaks of His Own Powerlessness)-
4Q531 17, 11. 8-10 (,Ohyahs Depression Because of His Dream)-

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

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

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

9. Initial Punishment of Giants

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

10. The Second Tablet

4Q203 7B ii, 11. 2-3 (The second tablet until now has not been
read. -(MS,*)
4Q203 8 (A Copy of the Second Tablet to Shemihazah and all His

11. Gilgamesh Remains Hopeful

4Q530 col. i, 11. 1-6 (Hopeful Words to Gilgamesh? or Gilgameshs?
Optimistic Interpretation of a Divine Message)-(MS,*)
4Q530 col. ii, 11. 1-3 (Gilgameshs Report Gives Giants Reason to

12.Second Pair of Dream-Visions

4Q530 col. ii, 11. 3-6 (Dreams Introduced)-(MS,*)
4Q530 col. ii, 11. 7-12 (Hahyahs Dream)-(MS,*)
4Q530 col. ii, 11. 13-16 (Giants Response to Hahyahs Dream)-
4Q530 col. ii, 11. 16-20 (Ohyahs Dream)-(MS,*)
4Q530 col. ii, 1.20-col. iii, 1.3 (Giants Decision to Send Mahaway to
24 Introduction

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

the Dreams
4Q530 col. iii, 11. 4-11 (the Encounter)-(MS,*)
[4Q530 col. iii, 11. 12ff.] (Announcement of the Deluge)
4Q531 4 (The Certainty of Punishment is Underlined by Previous De
struction of Watchers and Giants. This fragment could also belong
under 6 b above.)-(?)
1Q24 8 (A Final Pronouncement Addressed to the Watchers and

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

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

III The Character o f the Qumran B ook o f Giants

A. Its Relation to the Book o f Watchers

Several of the fragments preserve literary details otherwise only known
through the Book of Watchers.93 These are:
1Q23 9+14+15 Cf. 1 Enoch 7:4-5 (giants violent activities)
4Q531 5 Cf. order o f motifs in 1 Enoch 9:8-9; 7:4-5 (giants
violent activities)
4Q530 6, 1.4 1 Enoch 9:10 (cf. Cod. Pan.; com plaint against the
1Q23 1+6+22 Cf. 1 Enoch 10:19 (eschatological fruitfulness)
1Q24 8 1 Enoch 12:5 (cf. Cod. Pan.?; announcem ent that
Watchers will not have peace)
4Q203 13 1 Enoch 13:1 ? (announcem ent that 'A zazel will not
have peace)

If compared with the Book of Watchers 6-16, these and other fragments -
see also 4Q531 1; 14; and 4Q532 2 - are more elaborate, especially where
the unhindered atrocities of the giants are concerned. Moreover, the 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.
Miliks 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 BGs 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.

B. Distinguishing Characteristics o f Qumran BG

The various attempts to ascertain some coherent ordering of fragments
(see section 77), however problematic, do reveal an independent work
which is comprised by its own emphases. These may be conveniently dis
cussed when the function of Enoch and the authors (or authors) interest
in the giants are considered. Since BG seems to have depended on the
Book of Watchers, its character may be at least partly delineated on the
basis of a comparison with it.
First, the role of Enoch in BG differs from that which is found in the
other Enochic writings. To be sure, Enoch figures prominently in BG, but
- contra Milik - it is nowhere clear from the extant fragments that BG is
regarded as a story recorded by Enoch.97 The importance of the ante
diluvian patriarch in the story is without doubt the reason why BG may
have been included within a copy of other Enochic works, but that it

94 See Mid. Pers. Kawan, Frgt. g, 11.84-89 (esp. 1.89), which Henning assumes derives
from a series 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 (=
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
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 Miliks 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. 'Azazel,
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

giants ante-diluvian activities (7 En. 7:2-5; 9:9), speculates about their

post-diluvian existence (15:8-12; 16:1), and anticipates their destruction
by means of divine judgment (10:9-15). Likewise, the Qumran BG frag
ments contain accounts of and allusions to the Watchers fall from heaven
(4Q531 5), underline their powerlessness in the face of Gods angels
(4Q531 17), and announce their punishment (4Q203 7A and 8). Without
the expansive traditions from the Book of Watchers (based on the biblical
narrative in Gen. 6:1^1), the mythical context of the BG fragments would
not be comprehensible. But, whereas 1 Enoch 12-16 are composed of
Enochs announcements of punishment to the Watchers, BG tells how
the giants come to learn about their doom.
It remains, however, that this dependence should not be allowed to
detract from the presence of several details unparalleled in other early
Jewish literature. Most conspicuous is the fact that in BG the giants are
given names (e. g. Ohyah, Hahyah, Mahaway, Gilgamesh, Hobabish). In
turn, these characters seem to have been assigned specific roles in the
story: for instance, Mahaway acts as an mediary who is sent to Enoch
by the giants and who returns with Enochs interpretations of their dreams
(4Q530 cols, ii-iii; 6Q8 1?); Ohyah and Hahyah are the primary recipients
of the dream visions (4Q530 col. ii); and it is possible that the figure of
Gilgamesh represents one whose interpretation of his(?) dream(s) is decep
tively optimistic (see under 4Q531 17, 1.12; 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3). In this
connection, it is significant to note that in Qumran BG it is the giants who
learn about their fate, and this through dream visions given to them (see
4Q530 col. ii; 2Q26; 6Q8 2; 4Q531 17, 11.11-12).101
Third, the emphasis on giants dreams among the Qumran BG frag
ments is consistent with the function of Enoch. Less a visionary,102 Enoch
acquires in the narrative the role of a dream interpreter par excellence (i. e.
for the visions of others; see comments below under 4Q530 col. ii,
11.14,21-22; 4Q203 8, 11.4,13). Whereas he announces doom to the
Watchers directly in Book of Watchers (12:1-13:10; 14:3-7; 15:1-16:3; cf.
Jub. 4:22) and intercedes to God on their behalf (13:1-10), in BG his re
lationship with the giants seems to be more detached. Barring an occur
rence within the lost part of the work, Enoch does not communicate with
them all at once. Contrary to the Book of Watchers, not Enoch, but the
giant Mahaway, makes mediating journeys103 to Enoch near the ends of

101 For either the Watchers or giants to have dreams about their fate is singular in
extant early Jewish literature.
102 Contra 1 En. 12:4; 14:8; 15:1.
103 Contra 1 En. 12:4; 13:1,3,7; 15:2.
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 (Enochs 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

The date of the original composition of BG cannot be established with

certainty. For Milik, this question was made contingent on his claims
based on codicology and palaeography, on the one hand, and on his dat
ing of other writings, on the other. With respect to the physical evidence,
Milik suggests a terminus ante quem for the earliest manuscript, 4QEn-
Giants^7 (4Q530), which he assigns to the first half of the first century
B. C..107 In addition, he argues that the early Herodian script of 4QEn-
Giants^ (4Q203), which he believes formed part of the scroll 4Q204 (4QEn-
oclF), suggests a date for that manuscript sometime during the last third of
the 1st century B. C. E. Mainly due to archaizing orthographic features in
4QEnochc, Milik finds justification for asserting that it was copied from
an old manuscript, doubtless belonging to the last quarter of the second

104 This Frgt., if alluding to an encounter with Enoch, implies that Mahaway was
accompanied by his father Baraqel.
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 :ls 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 Enochs 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 - ... ) which he thinks
may well betray a dependence on a work devoted more particulary to the
descendants of the Watchers, that is, on BG. By further assigning to the
Damascus Document a composition date of 110-100 B. C. E., Milik arrives
at the conclusion that BG must have been written sometime between 128
at the earliest (Jub.) and 100 B. C. E. at the latest (Dam. Doc.).109
Miliks 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 Miliks
use of Jubilees for dating BG can be identified: (1) Miliks assumption that
BG, in a strict sense, is an Enoch pseudepigraphon (see section III.B
above); (2) the related assumption that Jubilees would have alluded to
BG were it already composed110; and (3) the dating of Jubilees itself. Re-
garding the last point, Milik appeals to Jubilees 34:2-9 and 38:1-14,
wherein he finds historical allusions to the military activities after the
death of Antiochus VII Sidetes in 129 B. C. E. led by John Hycanus I in
the Transjordan, Idumaea, and Samaria.111 This interpretation has, for
good reasons, been contested. For one thing, this later date would require
one to suppose that the author of Jubilees is casting the Hasmonaean
Hyrcanus in a positive light. Even more problematic are the supposed
allusions to Hyrcanus. On the contrary, James Vanderkam, after a detailed

108 Ibid., pp. 178 and 310.

109 Ibid., p. 58. On his own dating for CD to 110-100 B. C. E. see further Milik, Ten
Years o f Discovery in the Wilderness o f Judaea, trans. John Strugnell (London: SCM,
1959) 38 and 58 (4QD^, the oldest ms. was copied in 75-50 B. C. E.).
110 It is in fact possible that Jub. presupposes a knowledge of BG tradition in 5:7-9, in
which the infighting among the giants because o f Gods sword is described; cf.
4Q531 4, 11.4-5. But this does not have to be an allusion to BG itself. This does not
therefore bring us closer to addressing the question o f when BG was originally written.
111 BE, p. 58 n. 1. Finding in Jub. 30:1-4 an allusion to the destruction o f Samaria by
Hyrcanus in 109 B. C. E., R. H. Charles pushed for an even later date o f composition
(the final years of Hyrcanus reign); see his Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha o f the Old
Testament (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 2.6. It is far from clear that 30:1^1,
which abbreviates the biblical narrative (Gen. 33:18-34:31) considerably, should be
thought to contain a specific reference to any event.
30 Introduction

study of the place-names in Jubilees 34:4 and of the historical allusions

throughout the work, cannot identify any event after 161 B. C. E.; the
accounts in 34:2-9 and 38:1-17 were influenced by the Maccabean vie-
tories during that year over Nicanor at Bethhoron and over the Edomites
(so 1 Macc. 7:39-50 and 5:3,65).112
As for the Damascus Document (CD col. ii, 11.18-19) - the difficulty of
dating this work aside -, there is little therein which suggests that the
passage actually alludes to or cites BG. While the passage clearly refers
to the Watchers ( ) and their sons () , the description of
the latter recalls the description of the Amorites in Amos 2:9 (his height
like the height of cedars; cf. 1.19-whose height was as the height of
cedars). Garcia Martinez has argued that the second parallel phrase
(whose bodies were as mountains), which Milik derives from BG, is
sufficiently explicable as a poetic extension of the first.113 Even if, how-
ever, one grants that the Damascus Document is citing a recent tradition
concerning the giants, we may ask why this tradition should necessarily be
BG (cf. 1 En. 7:2) or why such a tradition should necessarily be a literary
one. Miliks proposal that BG was composed between the respective pro-
ductions of Jubilees and the Damascus Document rests on a series of ques-
tionable hypotheses which are extrinsic to any of the data within the Qum-
ran BG fragments themselves.
Beyers dating of BG to the latter part of the 3rd century B. C. E. offers
an alternative to Miliks view. His date involves the debatable hypothesis
that (1) BG was originally composed in Hebrew and the related assump-
tion that (2) BG would already have been copied alongside other Enoch
literature as das jngste Stck des hebrischen Henochs in the 3rd cen-
tury B.C. E.114. Nevertheless, the advantage of Beyers proposal is the
literary dependence of BG on the Book of Watchers which it implies (see
section III.B). If composition of the latter occurred sometime during the

112 Vanderkam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book o f Jubilees (HSM, 14;
Missoula, Mont.: 1977) 220-29 and 283. See further O. S. Wintermute, Jubilees, in
ed. James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City,
New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985) 2.44 (hereafter the volumes are cited as OTP);
Vermes, New Schiirer, III. 1, p. 313; and John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination
(New York: Crossroad, 1987) 67 and 228 n. 105. The attempt by Reeves to push the
date 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

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

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

V Provenance and Purpose

In the absence of more materials from BG, the possible provenance of BG

constitutes an even more elusive problem. Beyers postulate of a Babylo
nian origin is possible, but seems for him to be based on the mere occur
rence of Gilgamesh and Hobabish as names for two of the giants.121 Since

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 Miliks 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
121 ATTM , p. 259.
32 Introduction

these names may merely represent the use of Babylonian traditions, it is no

less likely that BG was written somewhere else in the eastern Jewish dia
spora or in Palestine.
BGs specific interests in providing an abundance of names for fallen
Watchers and giants and in having Enoch function as an interpreter of
dreams for figures associated with evil might seem to be compatible with
an origin within an Essene milieu. In his lengthy description of the Essene
(Bell Jud. 2.142), Josephus attributes to its members a careful
preservation of their books and the names of the angels (
... ). In the same
context and elsewhere Josephus refers to the ability of some Essenes to
foretell the future (Bell Jud. 2.159; Ant. 17.373). In another place he
writes about a certain Simon, an Essene, who in interpreting a dream of
Herods son Archelaus announced the end of his rule (Ant. 17.346).
But nothing in these statements of Josephus is specific enough to single
out an Essene provenance for BG.122 The immediate context of Josephus
mention of the Essenes interest in angels names suggests that he has
good, not bad, beings in view; in any case, there is no reference to either
the Watchers or the giants.123 Moreover, the traditional m otif of a wise
man who interprets the dreams or visions of evil figures (thus announcing
their punishment) is also consistent with the stories in Daniel 2 and 5, that
is, with a non-Essene writing. If the date sometime during the early 2nd
century B. C. E. suggested above is accepted, then the origin of BG would
likely have to be sought outside of the Essene movement, and certainly not
at Qumran. Whether the author(s) is/are to be characterized as proto
or simply pre-Essene remains unclear,124 nor is it apparent that the cir
cles in which BG arose necessarily lived in Palestine.
It is perhaps possible to make some headway if the question of prove
nance centers on the cultural milieu of BG. In turn, the matter of context
may shed light on the purpose of BG. Fortunately for us, two sources going

122 Hartmut Stegemanns 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 with the article, in parallel with the groups 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 Tufer 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

back at least to the mid-second century B. C. E. presuppose a particular

interest in giants around the time of the flood and their role in the spread
of culture. These are preserved by Eusebius of Ceasarea, in his Praeparatio
Evangelica 9.17.1-9 and 9.18.2, who cites the pagan historiographer Alex
ander Polyhistor (ca. 112-30 B. C. E.) who, in turn, cites these sources
mentioning the . In them the giants are related to the biblical tradi
tions concerning the great flood (9.18.2) and the building of a tower (so in
9.17.2; 9.18.2); moreover, the biblical figures Enoch (9.17.8) and Abraham
(9.17.3-8) are linked with the dissemination of astrological lore.125
A number of scholars have attempted to derive both passages from the
same author and, therefore, they are often jointly referred to as Pseudo-
Eupolemus.126 However, the varied attributions in Alexander Polyhistor,
which derive the first fragment from a lost work On the Jews of Assyria by
a certain Eupolemus and the second fragment, more generally, from
anonymous traditions, should caution one from assuming a single
author.127 Indeed, the contrasting representations of the giants suggest

125 For the text within its Eusebian context, see now eds. Guy Schroeder and Edouard
des Places, Eusbe de Csare: La Prparation Evanglique (Sources Chrtiennes, 369;
Paris: ditions 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 judischer 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 Walters study, Zu Pseudo-Eupolemus, Klio: Beitrge zur alten Geschichte
43-45 (1965) 282-90; see more recently Walter, Bseudo-Eupolemos (Samaritanischer
Anonymus), in ed. Werner Georg Kmmel, Jdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rm
ischer Zeit (vol. 1, pt. 2; Gtersloh: 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 Walters 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 (). See
more recently R. Dorans 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; Abrahams encounter with Melchizedek (Gen. 14) is lo
cated in Gerazim instead of Jerusalem.128 According to this fragment the
, identified as those saved from the deluge (
), 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 ( ; 9.17.2).
Although the location of Abrahams 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 () 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 Abrahams journeys provided the
conduit for this dissemination (9.17.4, 6b-7). This explanation for the
development of culture is associated with the writers assignment of
Belos genealogical origin to Babylon. The precise relation of the first-
mentioned Belos=son of Kronos to the , however, is not clarified,
that is, it is not clear whether he is the first of the 130 or simply the

128 The passage in Praep. Evang. 9.17.5-6 places Abrahams encounter with Melchi
zedek in the temple of (= 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 (
; 9.17.9). The euhemeristic identification of Enoch with Atlas
is based on the latters 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

first human ( ).131 Insofar as the are

linked to the astrology and learning of Abraham, they are cast in a posi
tive light. Not surprisingly, the link between the giants and the traditional
motif of their culpability - retained primarily in relation to the giants
building of the tower132 - occurs without special emphasis.133
These sections of the fragment clearly reflect a fusion of the biblical
narrative (in Gen. 6-14), Jewish midrash (esp. in the connection of Enoch
with astrology), Babylonian chronology (Babylonian origin of Belos gen
ealogy), and Hellenistic tradition (association of Atlas = Enoch with as
trology).134 The surviving become therein an important link in
the introduction of culture and are not singled out for overt vilification.
As participants in the transmission of learning, the giants are assumed to
have had contact with Enoch. Nevertheless, the fragment makes no at
tempt to coordinate either the giants who escaped the flood or Belos
who lived first135 with any of the biblical characters, such as Noah or
Nimrod who are nowhere referred to in the fragment.136 Though biblical
tradition may explain how Nimrod could be identified as a giant
(Gen. 10:8-9) or how Noah, Nimrods ancestor, could have escaped the

131 As argued by Doran, Pseudo-Eupolemus, p. 881 n. t.

132 The identification o f the tower builders as giants is, o f course, explicable on the
basis of exegesis of the text in Gen. 10:8-11 and 11:1-9. Whereas the shared place-name
Shinar in the biblical text can be taken to imply that the tower was built at the instiga-
tion o f Nimrod, the designation o f that figure as a 10:8) -L X X ; cf. v. 9)
would explain why he could be linked to the ante-diluvian ( Gen. 6:4). This
exegetical tradition also probably underlies the link between the giant Belos and the
tower in second fragment. This must not mean, however, that the fragments themselves
constitute specific allusions to Nimrod; see below.
133 The flood (9.17.2) is not portrayed as the outcome o f divine punishment; in itself
the motif does not imply that the giants were bad. Rather, it is the giants existence
before the deluge which establishes their link with Enoch, and their escape is made to
explain the continuity o f Babylonian learning with the patriarch.
134 These traditio-historical connections are epitomized in Wacholder, Pseudo-Eu-
polemus 96 n.s 82-83; Holladay, Fragments, 1.185-87; Doran, Pseudo-Eupolemus,
pp. 876-78; and Huggins, Noah and the Giants 105-106.
135 The text reads: (9). The reference to Belos is indepen-
dent o f the flood, which is only mentioned in v. 2. It remains unclear whether Belos is
thought to be the first giant (Wacholder, Eupolemus, p. 314) - without association with
the deluge - or the first human (as argued by Doran, Pseudo-Eupolemus, p. 881 n. t).
136 The fragment as it stands actually refers to two figures as Belos. The first is
identified with Kronos ( ), while the second, mentioned in the
next phrase, is his son and the brother o f Canaan (
). Under the assumption that fragment 2 was written by the same author, several
have emended the text from Canaan to Ham (the son o f Noah). The present text,
however, would appear to identify the first Belos as Ham (along with Kronos), who in
the biblical tradition is the father o f Canaan. On this see Doran, Pseudo-Eupolemus,
p. 881 n. u and Huggins, Noah and the Giants 105.
36 Introduction

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 . 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
hams lineage is more explicitly derived from the giants (
). 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 ( ).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 ( ); 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 Hesiods 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 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 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 by the gods in Frgt. 2. Cf. further Sib. Or. 3.97-99 (prob
ably to be dated to the m id 2nd 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 -
) 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 Hesiods 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,
Enochs 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
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 BGs 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

Another difference between Enochic tradition and the Pseudo-Eupo-

lemus fragment 1 obviously lies in the fate of the giants. Whereas in the
latter a number of giants are thought to have escaped the flood, BG
(4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12; 6Q8 2) and the Book of Watchers (10:2, 9,17,20;
16:1) draw on flood imagery to underline the theme of the giants eradica-
tion.141 In 1 Enoch 15:8-12 there may be an admission of giants survival
of the cataclysm, but the recensions all insist that this would have involved
an essentially different mode of existence, that is, as evil spirits (cf. also in
BG 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3 and 4Q531 14, 1.3).142
Though the flood inspires imagery which may have been related to the
eschatological destruction of evil (7 En. 10:2-3,16,20,22), it is tempting to
consider whether BG and 1 Enoch 15-16, within the context of the devel-
oping order, underscore the singularity of a human N oahs survival of the
event and preclude any genetic link between the giants and humanity
thereafter.143 If so, then it is possible that BG presupposes traditions
known through Greek and Babylonian historiographical works which,
from the perspective of its author(s), are thought to espouse views about
the history of culture at the expense of an adherence to the framework of
the biblical narrative.
Although these considerations do not permit one to situate BG geogra-
phically, they nevertheless enhance the possibility that BG, with respect to

141 Cf. the same emphasis in Sir. 16:7 a ( );

CD col. ii, 17-21 ( ... ;) and Wisd. Sol. 14:6-7 (
). 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
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 ,
survives the flood ( ; text cited by Milik, BE, p. 320) and is identified
as the escapee who reported the destruction (of Sodom and Gomorrah!) to Abraham.
Because Sihon and Og are identified as the sons 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

Noah and the giants, marks a critical response to a particular form of

coordinating Hellenistic and Babylonian-Jewish ideas in the Near East
during the early 2nd century B. C. E. Such a Jewish reaction is conceivable
in regions of the Near East which saw the interpenetration of Hellenistic
and Babylonian cultures.144 Such conditions need not, of course, be lim
ited to the Seleucid-Babylonian kingdom alone. If there is anything in the
report of Hecataeus of Abdera (ca. 300 B. C. E.) cited by Josephus
(c. Apion 1.194), the political instabilities following the death of Alexander
the Great resulted in the emigration of many Jews from Babylon-Syria to
Phoenicia and Egypt. Such emigrations, if they occurred, would have in
cluded a destination of Palestine as well. Except for Egypt, where the
composition of a work in Aramaic would have been less likely,145 any of
the other regions, including Palestine, remains possible. Unless more spe
cific evidence turns up, the provenance of BG shall continue to be a pro
blem for which answers are elusive.
It is difficult to assess the purpose of a work whose remains are as
fragmentary as those of Qumran BG. Nevertheless, the above discussion
allows for brief comment. The attempt here to identify the cultural frame
work within which this writing was composed has already suggested that
BG may have been an early response to what its author(s) regarded as a
misperception (known, e. g., in the Pseudo-Eupolemus fragments): the
notion that one or more of the ante-diluvian offspring of the rebellious
angels survived or escaped divine punishment. By leaving these giants
without exit and, more specifically, by having the giants participate in
the revelations concerning their own judgment, the writer(s) may have
wished to reenforce the culpability of spiritual powers which in mythology
were associated with the of Genesis 6:4 (LXX).
This much seems clear. But our understanding of BG may be taken a
step further. If a continued spirit-existence of the giants following the
deluge formed part of the mythological framework for the author(s),
then BGs repeated reference to the giants culpability and their inescap
able destruction through the deluge would have reflected the belief that

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 () and the giants
(; 62-64), a distinction which without doubt for him, as in BG, would have included
Noah (1-5). In the course o f Philos argument, Nimrod (interpreted as desertion,
; 66) is identified as a (cf. LXX Gen. 10:8) who, as ,
inaugurated ( ) 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 oahs 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 BGs 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 ods
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

The Book of Giants and the Qumran Fragments

Part One
M aterials belonging to the Qumran B ook o f Giants

The following readings of and comments on the fragments from Caves 1,

2, 4, and 6 near Khirbet Qumran shall assume the following format. First
ly, I shall present those materials which may be used for an interpretation
and analysis of the Qumran BG (Part I) before drawing attention to m a
nuscripts identified with BG but of much less certain origin (Part II). The
present analysis of fragments from each manuscript has resulted in the
postulation of several degrees of certainty concerning their identification
as belonging to the Qumran BG. These degrees may be distinguished as
(1) Manuscripts whose identification with BG is virtually certain:
1Q23; 6Q8; 4Q203; 4Q530; 4Q531.
(2) Manuscripts whose identification with BG is probable:
2Q26; 4Q532.
(3) M anuscripts whose identification with BG is plausible:
1Q24; 4Q556; 4Q206 2 and 3.
(4) M anuscripts considered for inclusion in BG, o f which identification with it
is possible, but for which there exists no positive evidence to support it:
4Q534 (Fitzm yer1); 4Q 535-536 (Beyer2); 6Q14 (Beyer3); 1Q19 fragments 11,
13, and 15 (Beyer4).
(5) Manuscripts suggested for possible inclusion in BG, but whose content is
inconsistent with that o f the manuscripts in categories 1-3 above, thus m a
king an identification with B G highly improbable:
4Q533 (Starcky); 4Q537 (Reeves5).

In Part One it is the manuscripts belonging to categories (1), (2), and (3)
which shall be analyzed and discussed; these materials shall be considered
as usable for interpreting and reconstructing the Qumran BG. The 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

1Q 23 = lQ E n G ia n tsa - (31 F ragm en ts)6

Proposed combinations of fragments. Milik has proposed the following

groupings of 1Q23 fragments: (a) 1+6+22 {BE, 301-302); (b) 9+14+15
{BE, 302-303). Beyer also suggests the combination (c) 24+25 {ATTM,
267 n. 1), while Garcia Martinez has proposed (d) 16+17. These fragments
are treated both individually (section A) and, when justifiable (i. e. in the
first two of these proposed combinations), in their combined forms (sec
tion B), with commentary being reserved for the latter.
Overlaps and associations with other Qumran Book of Giants materials:
(a) On the basis of similar content, Beyer (followed by Reeves) suggests
that the combination 1Q23 9+14+15 is preceded by 4QEnGiantsc 5 in BG;
(b) to the group in (a), Beyer adds the contents of 4QEnGiantsc 1 {ATT-
MEB, 119); (b) Beyer (again followed by Reeves) finds in 1Q23 29 a pos
sible overlap with the text of 6Q8 1 11.4-5.

A. Individual Fragments from 1Q23

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 pna !y 3
].*o rrn !a * r a 4
] a., 1?y 5

I. 1: M ilik {BE): ]m[.

II. 2-3: It is unclear whether the number precedes or follows the noun (Beyer,
A T T M , 266 n. 3); for the number follow ing the substantive in 1Q23 see
1Q23 9+14+15 in section B below. For M iliks restoration o f 1.2, which
follows the M iddle Persian Kawan fragment (cited below), see under
1Q23 1+6+22.

6 Together with 1Q24, 1Q23 was originally designated by Milik, Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert: Qumran Cave I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955) 97, as one o f Deux
Apocryphes en Aramen (hereafter DJD I).
44 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

1. 4: Milik, D JD /: ( its part). M ilik (B E ), Fitzmyer-Harrington, and

Beyer: ( every snake); Uhlig: von jedem wilden Tier (=
) . Fitzmyer-Harrington: ... ( [ from eve[ry bird, from
every5); Beyer: ( [ and scorpion).
1.5: M ilik, D JD I: . M ilik (BE), Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer

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 [

1.4: Beyer: auer jeder Schlange und (jedem) Skorpion.

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

] .[ l
] 2 ]
1.1: Or .
1.2: Or [ .

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

M ilik, D JD I, 97; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 267.

]1 ]..
2 ] [
3 ] [

1.1: Milik, D JD I, and Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]( [ all from it).

1 ].. from it[

2 ] and I w as/you were[
3 ] and [the] corrupt [one

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

1Q23 = lQGiantsa 45

1Q 234
M ilik, D JD I, 97; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 68-69; Beyer, A T T M , 267.

] 1 ]
2 ].[

3 ][
1. 1: See the similar in 1Q23 13 1.2. Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]. .[.
1. 2: M ilik, D JD I, and Fitzmyer-Harrington: ];[ Beyer: ][ .

1 ]M
2 ](you/it [fern.]?) will approach[
3 ]/[

1. 2: Fitzmyer-Harrington: or offer.

1Q 235
Milik, D JD I, 97.

[.. ] 1
[] 2
1 ]/ ..[
2 M

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]. [

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: . . . ] [ . ] .

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 ]
2 ][
1. 1: Milik, D JD I, 97: ] . If the word contained no further letters, is
the more com m on form o f the word.

1 ] and behold[
2 ]/..[

1Q23 8
Milik, D JD I, 97.



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.

7 See the treatment of this fragment below.

1Q23 = lQGiantsa 4

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

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 ]. [
2 ] [
3 ]. [

1. 1: M ilik (D JD I) and Fitzmyer-Harrington: [ [ .

1. 2: M ilik (D JD I) and Fitzmyer-Harrington: ; ] Beyer: [ .

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

1. 3: Or: 2ps impv. G o! .

Comment: The vocabulary may suggest that the fragment belongs to an

account of a journey; if so, could this belong to one of Mahaways flights
to Enoch (cf. 4Q530=4QEnGiants^ col. iii)? The scant evidence here,
however, makes this suggestion little more than speculation.

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 ]
3 ]. [
4 [[
5 [[

1.1: M ilik, D JD I: ]]
I. 2: M ilik (BE), followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington, restores: [.
II. 2-3: The restorations following ] and ] depend on the fragments com -
bination with 1Q23 15 11.1-2. See section B to 1Q23 9+14+15 below.
1. 4: The reading o f at the beginning depends on the com bination with
1Q23 9 1.2; both fragments preserve part o f the letter. M ilik (D JD I)
originally read ][ .

1 m
2 ]and they knew r[
3 ]. b r [
1Q23 = lQGiantsa 49

4 ]they killed Is[

5 M

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 ]
2 ][
3 [ ]

1.2: Portions o f the same are visible both here and 1Q23 141.4.

1 n
2 ]much/many[
3 everything which[

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 visible) with
1Q23 17 1.1 (see in ]) . See com m ent in section B below.

(?)1 / [
2 |
3 [][
1.1: With Beyer, M ilik, D JD /: ]rm .
1. 2: Milik, D JD T. ]. ; Beyer: 1( beautiful-masc. / fern. abs. plur.).

1 [the] tablet[(s?)
2 w y [
3 []/[

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 with 1Q23 16 1.3 (top o f ) . See the com m ent below.
50 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

2 . [
3 [

1. 3: W ith Beyer. Milik: . 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 may suggest an infln. which would be consi-
stent with ( p a el he began; the plur. form would be and
hence is unlikely).

1 and they entered[

2 through their hands .[
3 and he began to[

1. 3: M ilik {DJD I ), followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: and they encamped

at. See comm ent on 1.3 above.

Comment. The combination 1Q23 16+17 rests on two considerations: (1)

both fragments preserve the right side of a column and (2) a can be
reonstructed from visible portions of 16 1.3 and 17 1.1. The join, however,
remains uncertain.
1Q23 17 perhaps offers some hint about the context of the fragments:
the 3rdperson verbs and pronominal suffix indicate a narrative which
recounts the activities of a group and oneof itsmembers. This fits well
into the context of the giants or Watchers activities as recounted in 1Q23
9+14+15 and 4QEnGiantsc (=4Q531) fragments 1 and 5. The verb in
the pa el (= to begin) occurs several times in describing the Watchers
and giants deeds: 1 Enoch 7:1 - they (the Watchers) began to go unto
them (the women) and to defile themselves among them (cf. 4QEnocha
[BE, 342], Cod. Pan., and Syn.a); 7:4 - they (the giants) began to kill
humanity (4QEnoch^ [BE, 150], contra Cod.Pan., Syn.a, Eth.); and 8:3
- they (the Watchers) began to reveal secrets to their wives (so
4QEnocha=Syn.a). See also the Middle Persian Kawan in Henning
(Book of Giants 60), which preserves such language in a comparable
(Frgt. c) Sam thereupon began ...
(.Frgt. j) Thereupon the giants began to kill each other and [...]
The creatures, too, began to kill each other.
1Q23 = IQ G m n tf 51

M ilik, D JD I, 98.

] [ 1
]2 ]
3 ][

1.1: Milik: ] . [
1.2: M ilik :][ .

1 ] - [
2 ]you (shall) wish[
3 ]/[

M ilik, D JD I, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (1.1

1] [
2 ].]

1. 1: With Beyer.Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]( [ the

w ell)
1. 2: Milik: ][ , closely followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ( [ [he
returned un[to).

1 ]on [the] ear[th

2 lb [

M ilik, D JD 7, 98; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 70-71; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (11.1-4).

U 1
2 ] [
3 ]. . [
4 ][
]. ..[ 5

1. 2: M ilik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer: [ .

1. 5: M ilik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]. [ .

1 ][
2 ]their father. The[n
3 ]. ages .[
52 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

4 ]all the children of!

5 ].. .[

C o m m e n t. Their father could be referring to Shemihazah, the father of

Hahyah and Ohyah, while all the children o f in 1.4 may refer either to
humanity as a whole or to theWatchersoffspring, the giants. The frag
ment preserves too little,however, to establish the probability of these

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

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

1. 2: M ilik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: p 5 a n [ (< ! a n to seize). Be

yer: ]*!Dav (with you ). Because o f the following ,?D3, M iliks reading is
to be preferred, while Beyers reading requires b in to be read locatively.

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

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: M ilik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]. !a. Beyer: ] p .

1. 3:M ilik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: j. ]"7X3.

1 ][
2 th ou san ds from a grfape cluster
3 ] Then [
1023 = IQGiants 53

M ilik, D JD I, 98.

]1 ]
2 ]. [
I.2: M ilik :].. [ .

1 ]from
2 ]/. .[

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.

[ 1
)?([ 2
[ 3
].. 4

II.2^1: Beyer (+1Q 23 25): ] ( [ ] sic!).

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 ].
] [ 3
] 4 ]
5 [ [

I. 2: Milik: ]. .
II.4-5: Beyer (+1Q 23 24): ] ( [ ] sic!).
1.5: Milik: ].... [ .
54 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

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

M ilik, D JD I, 98.

] ...[ 1
[ . ..] 2

] [ 3

1.2: M ilik :]. . ..[.

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

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 ].
2 ] [
3 ]. ..[
4 ] [
5 ] .[

1.1: Beyer: [ .
1. 3: M ilik, D JD I : .[; Fitzmyer-Harrington: .[ (between?).
1. 5: Milik, D JD I: ][ .

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

Comment. Since the giants name Mahaway (1.2) is only otherwise

known through Manichaean (Middle Persian Kawan, Frgt. c: Maha-
wai) and other Qumran BG materials (see s. v. in the index) and nowhere
1Q23 - lQGiantsa 55

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.

[] 1
1 ]h his son[

Comment. : the substantive probably refers to a giant, while the suffix

denotes one of the Watchers.

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[raqel . . .
2 ]he did not finish[

1Q23 30
M ilik, D JD , 98; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (1.1).

[ ] 1
[..] 2
1. 1: With Beyer. Milik: ][ .
1.2: Milik: [ .

1 ]he began [
56 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

Milik, DJD I, 98 (11.1-2) and BE, 335; Beyer, ATTM, 267 (1.3).
][ 1
]n n.. [ 2
]. Km*?[ 3
1 ].[
2 ] ..t h[
3 ]the tablet .[

B. Fragment Combinations from 1Q23

1Q23 1+6+22
Notes on the combination. Milik {BE) has proposed placing 1Q23 22 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 Miliks reading jny in 1Q23 1
1.5 and of his problematic translation of the term as pitcher. On ac
count of consideration (1), Miliks 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 Miliks 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
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

1. 2: Identification o f *! in *pn y and D in p]nKft depends on the correctness

o f 1Q23 6 being joined to 1Q23 1.
1. 4: Identification o f 17 in derives from the join o f 1Q23 1 to 1Q23 22
1 ]. .[
2 donkeys two hundred wild asses, [two] hundred[
1Q23 = lQGiantsa 57

3 sheep, two hundred rams, t[w]o hundred[ ... of the

4 field from every living creature, and thousands from a gr[apevine
5 upon/concerning ..g [ ]Then[

Comment. The list of animals in groups of 200 corresponds closely to a list

in the Middle Persian Kawan fragment of BG published by Henning
(Book of Giants, p. 61 Frgt. /):
(50) ... wild ass, ibex ... ram goat (?), gazelle, ... oryx, of each two hundred, a pair
... the other wild beasts, birds, and animals ... and their wine [shall be] six thou
sand jugs ... irrigation(?) of water(?) ... and their oil [shall be ....8

In the context of the Middle Persian Kawan fragment, the passage occurs
within a message from Enoch, the apostle, possibly to the Watchers and
their giant offspring. Since in the Kawan fragment the previous part of
Enochs 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

Flood containing a list of animals which might represent a portion of

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

1Q23 9+14+15
Notes on the combination. This join was first proposed by Milik, BE, 302.
The combination is consistent with the physical evidence of the fragments
(space between lines) and allows for the reconstruction of a coherent text:
14 1.1
14 1.2
15 1.1 + 14
14 1.3
1.3 ++ 99 1.1
15 1.2 + 14
14 1.4
1.4 ++ 99 1.2
15 1.3 + 14
14 1.5
1.5 ++ 99 1.3
9 1.4
]1[ 1
]2 ]
3 ]. ][ [
4 ]. [
5 ][ []
6 ]..[[ ]
1. 2: M ilik (BE) restores: ; [in 1 Enoch 16:3 Enoch tells the Watchers that
they know the rejected mysteries.
1. 4: in can 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 iliks 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. Miliks 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^ -
)and consume humanity (v. 4). They also (3) sin against birds,
wild beasts, reptiles, (4) were devouring one anothers 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.

In all likelihood, then, the fragments 1Q23 9+14+15 preserve an account

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

1Q 24 - lQ E n G ia n tsb - (8 F ragm en ts)15

Identification. The identity of 1Q24 is admitted by Milik as uncertain:

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

14 I. e. the giants consume the food produce grown through human labor.
15 Together with 1Q23, 1Q24 was originally entitled Deux Apocryphes en Aramen
by Milik {DJD I, pp. 97-99).
60 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

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.
[. .]
[ ....................... ] 2
[.][ ]
[ .] 4
[ vacat .] 5
1.1 Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ][ .
1.2 Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: j.m .[.
1.3 Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ] .. ;[ Beyer: ] ]..[]
1. 4: With Beyer: ; M ilik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington:
(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 ] /. . [

Comment. Garcia Martinez maintains that the identity of 1Q24 as part of

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

Milik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT\ 126-27; Beyer, A T T M , 267 (1.2).
1Q24 = lQGiantsb 61

][ 1
2 ] [
3 ][
1 ][
2 ]upon [the] ear[th
3 ]/[

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

] [ 1
]2 ]
3 ][

1. 3: Beyer: ]; Milik: ; [ Fitzmyer-Harrington: [ .

1 ][
2 r t
3 ]for every hsh[

Milik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 128-29.

].1 ]

Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ] .

1 ] water h.[

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 ]
3 ].[
4 ] [

5 ][[ ]
1. 3: W ith Fitzmyer-Harrington. Milik: .[; Beyer: ( [ sic!).
1. 4: Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer: .
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 ]/[]/[

Comment. The emphatic state and order of the meteorological phenomena

the rain and the dew corresponds to that of another manuscript from
BG, 4QEnGiantsf c 4Q203 11 col. ii, which reads [. These
phenomena are also combined among the Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch;
however, in the extant examples the words appear in the absolute state and
are given in the opposite order.16

M ilik, D JD I, 99; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT,\ 128-29; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.1).

] 1 ]
2 ] . [

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

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 ].
2 ] [
3 [ ]

1. 2: Milik: ( [ accom plishm ents/destruction); Fitzmyer-Harrington:

]( decision o f ).
1.3: M ilik :( ]sic!).

1 ]. day at the end time[

2 ] everthing completefd
3 u]pon those who[

16 See 4QEnochc to 1 En. 36:1 ( ) [and 4QEnastri to 1 En. 76:8 ( ) [. In

the context o f the latter example, all meteorological phenomena are given in the absolute
form. The argument from order is not clearcut; in 1 En. 76:11 the Eth. twice preserves
the rain, dew sequence (cf. also the parallelismus membrorum in 42:3).
2Q26 = 2QGiants 63

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

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

1.1: Milik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer: he did not take vengeance on


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.- , 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.

2 Q 26 - 2Q E nG iants (1 F ragm ent)

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.

] [ 1
[] [] 2

17 See a similar phrase (if correctly restored), but which uses the singular 2nd person
pronoun, in 4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 13 1.3: [ [.
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 Qumrn (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
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

]3 ]..
4 ].[ ] .[

1. 1: W ith Beyer. Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ( ] they

[will] w ash); M ilik : ] .
1. 2: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: .
1. 3: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: . Milik: [ .
1.4: Baillet: ]. . . . .[.

1 ] Wash the tablet in order to ef[face it!

2 ]and the waters rose up over the [tabjlet[
3 ].. and they lifted the tablet from the waters, the tablet which[
4 ].hr.[ ]for them all[

1.1: Baillet, Milik, and Fitzmyer-Harrington interpret the verb form as a 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 fragments identity.
The first text to which Milik draws attention is the Midrash of Shemha
zai and A zael, 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 ( ) over the earth as a table
() , and the whole o f it was engraved with lines. And an angel ( ) de-
scended from the firmament with a knife in his hand, and he was erasing and
scraping o ff ( ) each o f the lines; he was not leaving (anything intact)
except for one line (com posed) o f four expressions ( ) /

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.

Immediately following, a vision of Nariman (the Kawan designation cor

responding to Hahyah) is recounted, which is concerned with a garden of
Following a note by Henning (Book of Giants 60 n. 7), Milik reads
Taxtag of the Middle Persian fragment not as a proper name,20 but as
a board which is thrown into the water and which (according to Miliks
emendation) is seen by the sleeping Ohyah to have three signs on it (BE,
334). Milik regards the board thrown into the water as an equivalent to
the engraved great stone in the Midrash, which has adapted the story by
doing away with the water imagery. Thus this board in the Kawan frag
ment, analogous to the Midrash, is undergoing effacement through the
water, which represents destruction from the flood. Milik goes on to sur
mise that the board with three signs on it must refer to a different board, a
board which represents that which has not been destroyed by the flood,
i. e. the ark of Noah and his three sons. This scheme is transferred to
2Q26: in 11.1-2 the tablet is being effaced by washing (hence the restora
tion in 1.1 on the basis of the Midrash), a reference to the evil
generation submerged by the flood waters; in 1.3 a second (or perhaps
even a third) tablet, which is lifted out of the waters, signifies the ark.
Miliks interpretation of at least two tablets, however, appears to be
contradicted by the Midrash and 2Q26. In the former, only one stone is
mentioned, i. e. the stone which is effaced except for four lines. In the
Qumran fragment the tablet emerging from the water in 1.3 appears to
be the same tablet over which the waters have risen in 1.2. Such considera
tions have perhaps led Garcia Martinez to suppose that the fragment
repeatedly mentions the immersion of a tablet in the water, no doubt
with the intention of erasing what was written on its surface.21 Garcia
Martinez may be correct in his assumption of one tablet, since neither the
Midrash nor the Kawn demand that one think of any more. But a de
scription of an extended washing process in 11.1-2 is likewise unnecessary
to the dream vision. Beyers suggestion that the verb of 1.1 be understood
as the imperative command from a heavenly voice removes the problem.
The 2nd person imperative form is probably directed towards agents of

20 Henning, as indicated in his translation provided above, interpreted the letters txtg
as a proper name, since in the fourth occurrence the word is the subject o f the verb to
21 QumApoc, p. 101.
66 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

Gods 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 zael), then it is a vision with both positive and negative
dimensions.22 From the perspective of humanity, the dream reflects Gods
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.

4Q 203 - 4Q E nG iantsa - (13 Fragm ents)

Photographs. 4QEnGiants^ is the only BG manuscript which Milik edited

by providing both readings and photographs.23 The readings offered here
are based on a comparison of the Plates published by Milik (BE, XXX-
XXXII) and other photographs in the PAM series which contain the in
dividual fragments (specified below).
Proposed groupings of fragments. Milik has proposed the following as
sociations of fragments:
(a) 1,2+3 (BE, 311);
(b) 5 + 7 i (BE, 312);
(c) M iliks 7 i (BE, 312-14) consists o f two fragments (designated 7 A
and 7 B below) which he assigned to two sides o f the same column;
(d) 8 belongs to the colum n immediately following 7 ii (designated 7 B ii
(e) 11 i belongs to 7 ii (designated 7 B ii below), while 11 ii belongs at the
bottom o f 8 and would thus correspond to 7 iii (BE, 317); and
(f) 10 is placed by M ilik to the left o f 9 on the same colum n (BE, 316-17),
while Beyer places 10 below 9 (A T T M , 266).

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 Azael
does not (an explanation for the scapegoat Azazel to bear Israels 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
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 67

phy, state of preservation of the fragments, and a parallel arrangement of

the text that it is quite certain that 4QEnGiantsa formed part of the
same scroll as that of Enc.24 These similarities are indeed striking. Per
haps inconclusive, however, is the question of an identical arrangement
of the text. Whereas 4QEnochc often marks new sections either by
indenting lines,25 concluding lines before reaching the margin,26 or by
leaving space between words on the same line,27 4QEnGiantsa seems in
addition to be more likely to leave whole lines blank.28 Nevertheless, too
much should not be made out of these observations, since the supposed
difference is only based on fragmentary evidence and, hence, scribal con
ventions observed in either 4QEnochc or 4QEnGiantsfl might actually
have been used in the other. Thus, unless further evidence to the contrary
is produced, the extant materials all point in the direction of Miliks thesis.
It is thus likely that BG was included in a manuscript which also contai
ned the Enochic Book of Watchers, Book of Dreams, and the so-called
Epistle of Enoch.
Garcia Martinez has concluded from Miliks observations of older or
thographic features in 4QEnochc that this manuscript must have derived
from a Vorlage which contained the same collection of Enochic works,
including BG. If correct, this supposition would mean that BG belonged
to the Enochic corpus well before the production of 4QEnochc=4QEn-
Giants^, i. e. perhaps as early as the late 2nd century or early 1st century
B. C. E. Milik (BE, 180-81) related the following orthographic elements to
a phase prior to the manuscript: (1) the repeated, though not consistent,
use of K as a final vowel following and 1 - as in IQS and lQIsa^;29 (2) an
occasional use of n to mark the emphatic state for a masculine noun30 - as
in the earlier manuscripts 4Q E noch^31; and (3) a single use of 0 in place

24 BE, p. 310 (see also pp. 178-79).

25 See BE, Plate XII frgt. g 11.7,9.
26 Ibid., Plate XI, frgt. g, col. i, 1.3.
27 Ibid., Plate XIII frgt. n, col. i 1.3.
28 For at least six clear instances, see frgt.s 2, 1.3; 4, 1.2; frgt. 7 A, 1.4 from bottom;
7 B i, 1.4 from bottom; 8, 1.2; and probably 12, 1.2. Dimant, The Biography o f Enoch
and the Books of Enoch 16 n. 8, cautions that the photographs in BE are not of
sufficient quality to verify Miliks codicological identification o f 4Q203. To this she
adds the literary consideration that, unlike the other Enochic works, BG does not
seem to have been written as a pseudepigraph^ work ascribed to Enoch and therefore
would not have lent itself to inclusion in a collection of Enochic works.
29 So the clear instances ( impv. plur.; 4QEnochc I i 18=2:2); ( pf. 3rd pers.
plur.; 4QEnochc4 1=89:31); ( absol. sing.; 4QEnochc I vi 23=14:10).
30 In 4QEnochc there are two instances, both o f which correspond to the so-called
Epistle o f Enoch, they occur together in 5 ii 28=107:1: ( and evil
and wickedness shall come to an end).
31 See Milik, BE, 180 and Beyer, ATTM , 227.
68 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

of the etymological - as in 4QEnocha.32 In 4QEnGiants^ feature (1)

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

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

?1 [
2 [
3 [
4 [

1.1: With Milik and Garcia Martinez (.D S S T ), whose translation follows
M iliks text. Beyer reads ].( cf. Reeves: ] ) in A T T M , while in A T T -
M E B he reads the uncertain third letter as a , restoring [ . The
third letter is barely visible and is itself more a matter o f reconstruction
than o f a reading. For the verb see 1Q23 4 1.1.
1.2: Beyer (A T T M ) restores ] , 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
there suggests that the ptc. is from .

32 In 4QEnochc Iii 27=6:7, for the fourteenth fallen angel read ( [ cf. Stucken-
bruck, Revision 31; Milik, BE, 347 has [while Beyer, A TT M , 235 reads ) .
4Q203 = 4QEnGicintsa 69

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

1. 1: Beyer (A T T M E B ): Wenn ich heiligen werde [.

1. 3: Reeves translation is improbable: face o f [.
1. 4: Garcia Martinez (to 4Q535): I arose.

Comment. This small fragment contains three clear references to a first

person speaker. If Miliks association of 4Q203 1 (cf. 1.2) and 2 (cf. 1.4)
is correct, then the mention of Baraqel on 1.2 suggests that the speaker
may be his son, the giant Mahaway (see also the discussion under
6Q8 l).33 As it is unlikely that Baraqel is being addressed in the fragment,
Mahaway may be addressing one or more of the other giants34 - this
possibility, however, remains uncertain. If Mahaway in 4QEnGiantsa 2
1.4 is being introduced as a speaker (i. e. if the restoration there of T\[lV
is right) and if Milik is correct that fragments 1-3 originally belonged to
the same column, then this fragment containing words spoken by M ah
away may be assigned to a place below fragments 2-3.
The name *7Kp*Q refers to the fallen watcher who appears ninth on the
list of the twenty leaders in 4QEnocha to 1 Enoch 6:7 (so also in 1
En. 69:2). On the form of the name, see the discussion under 6Q8 1.

4Q203 2
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

33 Without providing any indication or explanation Beyer, in ATTMEB, has isolated

4Q203 1 from the other 4Q203 frgt.s and has placed it within E 5,13, i. e. 4Q535. The
result is a discrepancy with ATTM . Beyer seems to have been followed by Garcia Mar
tinez (DSST, p. 260 - 4Q203 frgt. 1 - and p. 263 - 4Q535 frgt. 1) who likewise has placed
the same fragment within two different manuscripts. In proposing his interpretation in
ATTMEB, Beyer may have been influenced by the placement o f 4Q203 1 alongside the
three 4Q535 frgt.s in PAM 43.572. The inclusion o f 4Q203 1 in PAM 43.572 may reflect
Baillets view in the editio princeps to 6Q8 (DJD III, p. 117) that 6Q8 1, which mentions
Baraqel, is concerned with the birth of N oah. The association of Baraqel with his
son Mahaway in 6Q8 1 coheres more naturally with Miliks proposal that 4Q203 1 and 2
are related to each other than with the identification o f 4Q203 1 as part of 4Q535. See
further, Part Two of this chapter below (under 4Q535).
34 Cf. 4Q203 3 1.4 below, from which may be inferred that one o f the giants is ad
dressing a group of others.
70 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

bottom right vertical stroke o f after the lacuna o f 4Q203 2 1.4 is visible on 1.1 o f
4Q203 3; there is thus a good case for 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
[ 2
] vacat 3
4 ] [

1. 1: There are faint traces o f a letter in the line above 1.2) ).

1. 3: The space at the beginning may suggest that the whole line was left
1. 4: This line = 4Q203 3 1.1. The restoration (following M ilik) is more likely
than , especially since 1.4 marks the beginning o f a new section. A
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 after 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

]] l
3 .[
4 [] [

1. 1: This line = 4Q203 2 1.4.

1. 2: There is space before the edge o f the Frgt. for the expected . The -
form o f the 3rd pers. plur. possessive suffix is either (a) a simple scribal
oversight or (b) an inadvertent approximation to spoken Aramaic, in
which the stress o f an originally penultimate syllable -oh led to the
loss o f the final y. In favor o f the latter possibility might be som e ex-
amples from the early 2nd century C. E. in the legal documents from
Wadi M urabbaat and N ahal Hever which, using both - and , attest
this pronunciation for the 3rd pers. plur. suffix. But this somewhat later
evidence may reflect a local dialectical feature.35 See a further instance
o f this form in AQTgJob to Job 41:12: ( nostrils).36
1. 3: ]. is the beginning o f a personal name. The last visible letter could be
a , , or and clearly belongs to the word.37
1. 4: is an ambiguous form: either (a) from , qal impf. 2nd pers.
plur. + 1st pers. sing, object suff.38 or (b) from , p a el impf. 2nd pers.
plur. + 1st pers. sing, object su ff, as in Beyers interpretation (.A T T M ,
263, 725). Before the lacuna ] could be the preposition + substantive
(with Beyer); Milik, however, interpreted the letters as - attached to a
p a el infinitive form, e. g., perhaps from the root . If there is any
literary connection between this fragment and a text in the M iddle Per-
sian Kawan (Frgt. j, p. 1), M iliks proposal is the possibility which more
immediately suggests itself (see the com m ent below).

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 - except for acession deed
(written in Nabataean script) which belongs to the Babatha archive o f Nahal Hever
(9X -).
36 Beyer (ATTM , pp. 297,451,635) interprets the form as a scribal error, apparently
because of the overwhelming use o f the form in the other Qumran texts and because
the pronunciation -oh seems to have been an orthographic feature in texts penned near
Engedi. The pronunciation, however, seems to have been more widespread (as in the
Samaritan dialect). An orthographic anticipation o f the spoken language cannot, there-
fore, be ruled out.
37 Sundermanns reproduction o f Miliks reading (Ein weiteres Fragment, p. 492)
separates the letter from the preceding ones: 'dk .[; Reeves, Jewish Lore, pp. 60 and 124,
only reads ]. 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

1. 1: On the reconstruction, see the text note to 4Q203 2 1.4 above.

1. 4: Beyer: was werdet ihr mir berichten ber [; see text note to 1.4 above.

Comment. It is impossible to know how far the words of Mahaway intro-

duced in 1.1 (=4Q203 2 1.4) may be extended into the next three lines. The
text in 1.4 is without doubt spoken by a giant, and the 1st pers. sing,
object me indicates a self-reference. The speaker in 1.4 poses a question
to a plurality of addressees, who are probably other giants. The dialogue
has its context in the violence being committed by the giants.
Fragment j (p. 1, 23-28) of the Middle Persian Kawn, according to
Hennings translation (The Book of Giants 60), contains elements
which also converge in 4Q203 3:
... Virogdad ... Hobabis robbed Ahr. ... o f ... - naxtag, his wife. Thereupon the
giants began to kill each other and [to abduct their wives]. The creatures, too,
began to kill each other.

This passage contains the name Hobabis (= hwb()bysh) and an incom-

plete name Ahr. [, which either correspond or approximate closely those
names on 1.3 of 4Q203 3 (].) . The following reference to kil-
ling may add contextual (but not textual!) support for the restoration
suggested at the end of 1.4 (see text note). These few correspondences
between 4Q203 3 and the Kawn Fragment j are not of such an extent
that a literary dependence of the latter on the former can be established.
The name Hobabish was originally thought by Henning to be that of
one of the fallen watchers in 1 Enoch 6:7. He speculated that the Mani-
chaean fragment preserves a variation of the name XcoxapiqX (Cod. Pan.)
= Xcoaif]^ (Syn.).39 The Greek forms, however, represent variations that
derive from the Aramaic form , as attested in 4QEnochf 40 Clear-
ly, then, the names of the watcher and the giant are distinct. Milik has
instead proposed that the name Hobabish may be a composite form:
Hobab + (fish .41 As such, the name would call attention to the giant as
an embodiment of human (< Heb. ) and animal characteristics. Milik
has derived Hobab from the power-wielding and ferocious monster known
through the Gilgamesh Epic as Humbaba (the Neo-Assyrian form; the Old
Babylonian version has Huwawa). In tablets 4 and 5 of the ancient epic,
this creature engages in a fierce battle against Gilgamesh and Enkidu in
order to prevent access to the Cedar Forest which he was guarding.42

39 The Book of Giants 60 n. 3.

40 See Stuckenbruck, Revision 28 and 48.
41 BE, p. 313.
42 For the text and translation, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution o f the Gilgamesh
Epic (Philadelphia: University o f Pennsylvania Press, 1982) 32-33 and 93-95 respective
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 73

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 Sundermanns Frag
ment L does not provide any clues about the Atambiss 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 Hennings translation, to be veiled/covered/protected by angels. The im
pression is left that Atambis in the Manichaean BG is one o f Enochs 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. 12427); 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 .

[ !] 1
vacat 2
3 ]. [

4 ]. .[
[ vacat 5 ]
6 ] [

7 ][
1.1: is either the inseparable preposition or the last radical o f a substanti-
ve; the latter is possible since there is no visible space between and the
edge o f the fragment.
1. 3: ; [ cf. the spelling in 4Q203 7 A 1.5: [ . occurs 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 ; ]Beyer: ) ) ].
1. 5: [ is the m ost likely reconstruction for a word which begins a new
section and begins with .

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 ... ()[. The Aramaic probably followed
with a place name which reflects a word-play on the foregoing verb: Abel-Mayya or
Abel-Men (/) , south and between Mt. Hermon and Lebanon. This, and not
Abilene = to the north - initially conjectured by R. H. Charles (The Book o f
Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906] 35) and followed by Knibb (Enoch, 2.94) - , is
preferable if Enochs 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 Lvi en aramen: 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: with M ilik and Uhlig; Beyer: . 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 - 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 [ at the end o f the line. It
is not clear from the photograph whether the dark part o f this side o f
the Frgt. is all shading or also includes faintly visible traces o f a letter.

1 ]their ... &/among them [

2 vacat
3 ]. Ohyah said to Ha[hyah
4 ]. from above the earth and s h \
5 ]the[ earjth. vacat W[hen
6 ]they prostrated and wept beffore

1. 4: The translations for differ. In his lexicon Beyer translates the

phrase herunter von (.A T T M , 627; cf. A T T M E B , 391) and renders
here simply von ; M ilik and Garcia M artinez have above and on
top o f respectively; Uhlig: uber. I have chosen a literal rendering
whose meaning is made dependent on the (no longer extant) preceding
1. 6: On the choice o f the first verb, see the text note above. The context
requires an intransitive verb; the translation o f Reeves (they sat) is
strained. Milik, followed by Garcia Martinez (.DSST\ 260; but see Qum-
A poc, 103!), suggests that the giants may be weeping before Enoch (see
com m ent below).

Comment. This fragment contains the conclusion of one section (possibly

written in a 3rd pers. narrative) and the beginning of another, in which the
,Ohyah addresses his brother. Lines 4-5 suggest that ,Ohyah is relating a
frightening portent. The 3rd pers. plur. in 1.6 makes it possible to infer
that ,Ohyahs report is not only heard by Hahyah but by other giants as
In 1.6 Milik (BE, 312; cf. also Uhlig and Garcia Martinez, DSST) has
put forth the suggestion that, perhaps because of their posture, the giants
are bowing and weeping before Enoch. This proposal finds for Milik fur-
ther support by a supposed similarity of context between this fragment
and page 1 of a Sogdian fragment published by Henning (The Book of
Giants 66, 11.1-10):

46 Garcia Martinez assumes that the prostrators are Ohyah and Hahyah. This is
likewise possible. I am assuming, however, that after the vacat o f 1.4 the new paragraph
opens with a verbal subordinate clause (i. e. When they heard [what Ohyah said] ...),
which would denote a reaction the preceding words by a plurality 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 ...

However, in other parts of the Qumran BG Mahaway is sent by the giants

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

4Q203 5
Milik, 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 ][
3 ] . [

1. 1: Milik: ]..[ .
1. 2: Milik (followed by U hlig and Garcia M artinez) restores: [ . Milik
interprets as a substantive in the construct state and the following
word as an object o f its action. This reconstruction opts for the longer
o f two possible spellings o f the term: () . Hence the reading here
corresponds to that o f Beyer (an alternative also considered by Milik),
who takes as a verb. The fragment is, in any case, so shaded at the
end o f this 1. that both alternative readings remain uncertain.
1. 3: Though none o f the letters are completely visible, the reading is alm ost
certain. The verb is qal pass. 3rd pers. plur.

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.

Comment. Miliks placement of the fragment in 11.5-7 of 4Q203 7 col. i

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

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
[] 2
[..] 3
1 ].[
2 ]he was/[will] be to us[
3 ]/.[

1.2: Garcia M artinezs translation o f the verb is highly unlikely: went for

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),

47 Miliks proposal is especially problematic on account o f 1.3, for which in frgt. 7 A

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

61+66 and 126-27 (7 ia, b); Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology ,49 236
n. 94.
M iliks 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 iliks ib -ii) consists o f two originally separate fragments.
M iliks 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 iliks 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).

[ .] 1
[ ] 2
...[ 1 3
vacat 4
[ ] [ 5
] [] [ [ 6
[] [ 7
bottom margin

1. 1: Milik: ].[ .
1. 2: Milik: ] .[. Since all/every is spelled in the manuscript with the
internal , [ is to be taken as the final letters o f another word.
1.3: M ilik and Beyer: [ ] . Where they read , it is difficult to discern
whether the dark traces are parts o f a letter or folds in the fragment.
1.5: On see 4Q 2 0 4 4 n. to 1.3. [is the fullest preserved spelling for
Ohyahs brothers name; hence: H ahyah. For the reconstruction o f
, see 4Q 2044 1.3: ] [ .
1.6: If there is any parallelism with the following phrases, is more likely
the dir. obj. o f a verb than ~ denoting a preposition (with e. g. an indir.
obj. suffix). The spelling o f []follow s that o f biblical tradition (cf.
Lev. 16:8,10,26). In the Aramaic Frgt.s o f the Book o f Watchers a form

49 WUNT, 2.70; Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995.

50 Beyer and Reeves reject Miliks 7 ia + ib reconstruction, though Reeves adopts the
line numeration for 7 ii (11.5-7) based on the reconstruction.
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 79

corresponding to a form o f A sa e l predominates ( / En. 6:7-4QEn-

ocha I iii 9 [4 ,[ Q Enochc I ii 26 [)] , which in Syn. and Cod.
Pan. appears as 9A^ctA^X and A o za X respectively.51 The 4Q180 He-
brew text contains the name twice as 52. Before this word Milik
reconstructs ( ] ] but), a term unattested in extent Aramaic sources
before the Bar Cochba revolt. M iliks proposal is the result o f both (1)
his ascription o f fragments A and B i to the same colum n and (2) the
readings he has adopted for B i 1.1; see the comm ents on A and B i
1. 7: After the first word M ilik reads and restores: [] . M ilik acknowled-
ges that this spelling o f the negative particle would be a Hebraism, but
its occurrence is nevertheless more explicable given his questionable rea-
dings in B i, 1.1 (see n. there). It is therefore preferable to posit
with Beyer the end o f a sentence at this word,53 so that opens a
new one. Beyer offers no reconstruction, but it is possible, given the
semi-cursive script, to find sufficient space in the lacuna for
(with the , s attached to the preceding letters and ) . A t the end o f
the line M ilik reconstructs [ while Beyer has 54. [ If the
term refers exclusively to the giants, then M iliks restoration is possible;
in contrast to the Watchers, beloved ones is reserved in Enochic lite-
rature for the giants (cf. 1 En. 14:6=4Q Enochc I vi, 1.16 [ ] [and
10:12, refering specifically to the giants as beloved ones o f the Wat-
chers). Beyers restoration adopts the more neutral term, as is con-
ceivable as a reference to either the Watchers (cf. 1 En. 9:7) or the giants
(see below, 4QEnGiants^=4Q530 col. ii, 11. 1,3,5). If the restoration
adopted here for the beginning o f the line is correct, then may be
the more likely reconstruction.

1 ].nsh[
2 ]kl [

51 The form Azazel in the Eth. witnesses (1 En. 8:1; 9:6; 10:4,8; and 13:1) no doubt
represents an accommodation to the biblical tradition.
52 Published originally by John M. Allegro in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert o f
Jordan, V: I (4Q158-4Q186) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) 77-79 (esp. p. 78) and
improved by John Strugnell, Notes en marge du volume V des Discoveries in the Ju-
daean Desert o f Jordan, RevQum 7 (1970) 252-54 (esp. p. 253). See also Milik, BE, 314
and esp. pp. 249-51. More recently, see Devorah Dimant, The Tesher on the Periods
(4Q180) and 4Q181, Israel Oriental Studies 9 (1979) 77-102. The author(s) 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 : [..., 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 * and
preceding the verb. Sokoloff, Aramaic Fragments o f Enoch 206-207, apparently fol-
lows Miliks reading of []but proposes that the verb be rendered as the itpa. form of
in the sense to forget: they will not be forgotten.
54 The visible part o f the second letter excludes reading a which would have
suggested restoring [.
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 ...

1.2: See text note above.

1. 7: The translations differ for the itp. o f . The basic sense o f M iliks
rendering (will not be spared) is followed by Garcia M artinez
(none ... will be forgiven), whose translation betrays an attempt to
relate the verb to the atonem ent m otif associated with the name A zazel
occurring on 1.6 (see comm ent below ).55

Comment. Here an attempt must be made to explain why the reconstruc-

tion of A and B by Milik has not been followed. For this we may repro-
duce the relevant 11. of Miliks text:
colum n i
vacat vacat
] ... 5
] [] [] [ 6
[] [ 7
margin margin

Miliks running text primarily merits consideration on the basis of the

respective formats of the fragments: (1) A and B both belong at the bot-
tom of opposite sides of a column and (2) the 4th lines from the bottom of
each piece are blank. Furthermore, the fragments both contain 1st pers.
plur. suffixes as self-references for the speakers. Given these similarities,
the fragments either preserve parts of one coherent text or stem from
different columns of the manuscript, in the latter case converging in for-
mat through sheer coincidence.
Awkward attempts to produce a coherent translation through Miliks
combination leave little doubt concerning its improbability. The similar
renderings of Milik (and with him, Uhlig) and Garcia Martinez are as
Milik: Then, he (sc. God?) punished, not us, but 'Azazel, and has made him [...,
the sons] o f the Watchers, the giants, and all [their] beloved ones will not be spared
G. M.: Then he punished not us but Azazel and made him [... the sons] o f the
Watchers, the Giants; and none o f their [beloved beings] will be forgiven [...

55 It is even more difficult to justify Reeves translation (they have forgotten a l l ...).
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 81

The reconstruction behind these respective translations creates several for-

midable difficulties for the text: (1) God is a most unusual subject for the
p a <(el of the verb ( to oppress, afflict); (2) the following clause
would have to function as an interruptive phrase, most uncommon when
following a verb which takes a dir. obj.; (3) the reading of , though one
of several possible ways to read the letters at the end of the line, would
have to be understood as a Hebraism (see n. to text B i, 1.1 below); and (4)
the emphatic plur. for giants at the beginning of 1. 7 does not cohere
well with the use of the absol. plur. form for Watchers (one would ex-
pect ) in Miliks reconstructed previous line. In view of these pro-
blems, the ascription of fragments A and B i to the same column is to be
rejected. Rather, it seems safer to assign fragments A and B to different,
perhaps successive, columns which were similarly torn near the bottom;
the placement of vacats in both fragments is simply a matter of coinciden-
Line 5. A new section opens with words addressed by Ohyah to Ha-
hyah his brother. The interaction between these two giants is also found
on fragment 3 above, where the words of Ohyah to his brother also in-
troduce a new section in the manuscript. Here we have to do with a con-
versation between them, while in other fragments it is their respective
dreams which come into focus; see 4QEnGiants^=4Q530 col. ii, 11. 3-20
and comments on 2Q26 and 6Q8 2.
Line 6. The 1st pers. plur. suffix, spoken by Ohyah, is either a reference
to the two giant brothers or to the giants as a whole. was probably
preceded by a verb, just as the following poorly preserved [ ... must be
regarded as a verb with Azazel as its object (parallel to ] at the end
of the line). The reason for singling out the Watcher 'Azazel in conjunc
tion with the giants is not clear. The possibility that in this passage Azazel
is being assigned an expiatory role57 cannot be categorically ruled out.
Indeed, in the Book of Watchers this figure (though in the Qumran Ara-
maic probably in the form Asael) is associated with the atonement motif
(1 En. 10:4,5,8). Moreover, correspondence with the spelling in biblical
tradition may suggest a deliberate connection with the Yom Kippur ritual.
However, Lester L. Grabbe, who builds on Miliks reconstruction of the
text, may be overstating the case when he concludes that 4Q203 7 clearly
states that punishment for all the sins of the fallen angels is placed on
Azazel.58 If the dissociation of the fragments advanced above is correct,
56 The possibility o f such a coincidence is not as far-fetched as might initially seem,
given the frequency o f vacat lines in the ms.; see the codicological comments above.
57 Miliks conclusion in BE, p. 313.
58 Lester L. Grabbe, The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interprta-
tion, JStJud 18 (1987) 155.
82 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

there is actually no visible evidence here to support such a claim. Judging

from the other references to 444Asael in 1 Enoch,59 the special mention of
this figure here may simply be due to his prominence among the fallen
angels as a revealer of sinful arts (1 En. 8:1; 9:6; 10:8; 13:2), whereas She
mihazah - who is given the role as leader in 4Q203 8, 1.5 (see below) - is
specifically linked with the union with women and the teaching of charms
(7 En. 6:2-3; 9:7; 10:11; cf also 8:1b Syn.b).60 It may be that the Qumran
BG preserves 4Azazel and Shemihazah traditions in a way that (1) retains
the ambiguity or tension in the Book of Watchers61 concerning which of
them is the chief of the fallen angels or (2) while preserving both tradi
tions, specifically singles Shemihazah out as the chief62
Line 7. Reservations about rendering the verb in the sense of 44to forgi
ve have been noted above. In the previous line, Ohyah has apparently
recounted retributory events which have already been carried out against
themselves and 4Azazel (perf. verb). From the imperfect form of the verb

59 The identification of As/zael or a comparable form (see e. g., Milik, BE, p. 131)
as the biblical Azazel does not constitute a problem as may initially seem. In the Midrash
o f Shemhazai and'Azael, in which the latter is spelled ( at the beg.) and /
(at the end) in the Bodleian ms. and ( beg.) and ( end) 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-goats destination in m.Y0m a 6:8 (;
variants: , ) and in the Tg. Ps-Jon. to Lev. 16:21 ( ;) see M. Delcor,
Le mythe de la chute des anges et de lorigine des gants, 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. 414) 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
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 ,Ohyahs 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.

i (1 1.2-3=later addition)

vacat 1
[. ] 2
[ ] 3
[ [ ] 4
bottom margin

col. i 1.2: , instead o f Beyers ) is unlikely) and M iliks ( ;) see

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 ( as 4Q531 5, 1.3, with
the Watchers as the subj.) or ( with 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 ; see 1QapGen col. 2, 11. 1,16
(also the basis for restoring here),
col. i, 1.4: ^ / perf. 3rd p ers.+ lst pers. plur. obj. suff.; followed by
as nota accusativa is to be interpreted as p a el, as in IQapGen col. 21,
25-26 ( ... ) . Beyer reads/restores ] [ ,
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, is preferable to a or .
col. ii, 1.1: M ilik (with him, Garcia Martinez) reads/restores ( [see 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 ~ functions as a nota accusativa.
col. ii, 1.3: W ith M ilik, Beyer, and Reeves, read: ] =( qal perf. pass. 3rd pers.

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

you/to you m.[

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

Comment on column i. On the dissociation of this part of the fragment

from fragment A, see the comment on A above. Following a vacat in the
manuscript and a short introduction, a plural subject (mentioned earlier in
the line) recounts a brief resume the giants birth due to the Watchers
sexual activity with the women on earth. This reading may be suggested
by the convergence of and ^( Watchers63) in 11.2-3, but re
mains uncertain. Line 3 continues with the words of the verbal subject
from 1.2. The direct object references us and you probably indicate
the distinction between the giants and Watchers. The last word could hy-
pothetically be restored as ( [you plur.), but this would require an
extension of the line well into the margin between the columns; thus it is
safer to follow the slightly shorter restoration of . Perhaps, then, the
giants (or some of them, perhaps Ohyah and Hahyah) are addressing
one of the Watchers. 4QEnGiantsc = 4Q531 17, 11.3-7 preserves portions
of a Watchers (Shemihazah?) 1st pers. account of his battle with the an-
gelic hosts of heaven. In the narrative there the force of both the fighting
sides is described by drawing on forms from the root ) 1.3
;1.7) ] . If there is an allusion here to the conflict told
in 4Q531 17, then the content of the latter may be assigned to a previous
part of the story and perhaps - by way of conjecture - just prior to this
section (i. e., corresponding to the upper part of the missing column in
Line 4 reflects an acknowledgement of defeat and implies that the pos-
ture of the Watchers and their progeny before God is going to be a matter
of petition for mercy.
Comment on column ii. The separation of the content on this column
from that of B ii by Beyer (followed by Reeves) within his ordering of the
fragments is codicologically impossible; Beyer (.ATTM, 261 and 263) has

63 Cf. 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 - in parallelism with on 1.5 - refers to one o f
the archangels who addresses Shemihazah and the other fallen angels.
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 85

placed B ii (= his G3, Die beiden beschriebenen Tafeln) and therefore

also 4Q203 8 (= G4) before B i (= G7, Gesprche der Riesen). Though
Beyers G7 may simply represent for Beyer a collection of fragments not
easily placed into a coherent sequence of the Qumran BG, the splitting up
of B i from B ii has important consequences for construing the ordering of
the fragments. Reeves, in adopting Beyers separation of B i from B ii,
places the former along with other smaller fragments in a section
(QG11) which he describes as very fragmentary pieces whose precise
position in the narrative sequence of the Book of Giants is impossible to
determine.64 B i is left out of consideration in the attempt to reconstruct
the order of the Qumran BG. According to Reeves sequence, then, a
battle between the giants and archangels and the resulting defeat does
not occur until after the second tablet has been read (B ii), a notion con
tradicted by the references to a prior imprisonment (X33}y) and overpow-
erment (f? qpn) on Bi, 1.3.
Lines 2-3. Grammatically, the two tablets are the direct object of a
verb. In the Manichaean Fragment L published by Sundermann (super-
scription+11.1-9 also cited under 6Q8 1 below), both tablets are brought
before the giants.
Here it is worth citing the extant lines of the Recto side of L in their
entirety (11.1-13):65
(Superscription) concerning the demons
... not remain. Again he said, Bring these two stone tablets which are inscri
bed. First, bring Nariman <=Hahyah> the message. Why are you running in such
fright? I have now come, and I have brought these two tablets in order that I might
read the one to the demons before the giants. Shahmizad said, Read the writing
o f Enoch the scribe66 before ... which [has to do] with the message [concerned with
the demons ...

As to be discussed under 6Q8 1, the bringer of these tablets is probably the

giant Mahaway who has apparently come from Enoch.
The fragmentary Qumran and Manichaean materials lead one to ask
two primary questions, for which there is but little evidence to go on: (1)
of what did the first tablet consist - i. e. how is the content of the two
tablets related - and (2) are both tablets read before the giants in succes
sion within the story or are they read at different parts of the story?
The first question cannot be answered with any certainty on the basis of
the extant evidence. In view of the Manichaean text just cited and of
4Q203 7 B ii and 8, there are two possible answers. First, if we follow
64 Jewish Lore, p. 124.
65 Ein weiteres Fragment, pp. 495-96.
66 On the meaning of the designations attached to Enoch in the Book of Giants, see
the discussion under 4Q203 8 below.
86 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

the Manichaean text, it is possible that Mahawai is repeating Enochs

instruction to bring the first tablet to Nariman (=Hahyah), while in this
text the second tablet is being addressed to the demons = giants. This
seems to be the judgment of Sundermann.67 The text, however, does not
clarify whether Mahawai is to bring Nariman the first tablet or bring him
first the same message which he subsequently delivers to the giants. A
second alternative is likewise possible, if the Manichaean fragment is sup
plemented by details in 4Q203 8, which purports to be a copy of the
se[cond] tablet (1.3) from Enoch. A comparison of addresses among
these materials suggests a contrast; whereas the message read in the Mani
chaean fragment is specifically directed toward the demons = giants, the
second tablet of 4Q203 8 is addressed to Shemihazah and all [his com
panions (1.5), i. e. to the Watchers (see further under 4Q203 8 below). If
the Manichaean fragment is preserving the story at this point with details
as originally contained in Qumran BG, then one may ask whether Sunder-
m anns fragment corresponds at all to the context of 4Q203 7 B ii and 8.
Could not the Manichaean fragment introduce the reading of the first
tablet to the demons upon Mahaways initial arrival, while - by way of
contrast - 4Q203 7 B ii and 8 set the scene for and provide the text for the
second tablet?68
While advancing the second alternative proposal, it is important to state
two assumptions to which it is related: (1) that the details concerning the
addressees in the Manichaean fragment faithfully reflect what was contai
ned in the Qumran BG and (2) that the fates of the Watchers and giants69
could be distinguished in BG and that therefore these groups could be
addressed separately. Taken together, these considerations reflect the pos
sibility - being explored throughout the commentary here - that the nar
rative of the Qumran (and Manichaean) BG contained a sequence in
which the story unfolds slowly through the repetition and further develop
ment of narrative elements consisting of common motifs (two pairs of
dreams [see under 2Q26, 6Q8 2], two tablets, Mahaways two journeys to
Enoch [see under 4Q530 col. iii]).

67 Ein weiteres Fragment, p. 495: Wenn Mahawai dort jedenfalls zuerst dem Nari
man eine Botschaft Henochs berbringt (I R 4-5 ) (d. h. den Brief auf der einen Stein
tafel?) und dann (auf der zweiten Steintafel?) eine Botschaft an alle Dmonen , so deutet
dies vielleicht darauf hin, da ein Traum Narimans (Ahyahs) Anla 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
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
Sams (= Ohyahs) 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 Enochs 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-
4Q203 8, the most extensive of the fragments of this manuscript, consists of
three joined pieces. The PAM photographs of 4Q203 8 show that a large fragment
was joined with a smaller one at the end of 11.3-4; to the latter, a tiny fragment at
the top left of PAM 43.201 is joined by Milik to the end of 11.4-5. This combina-
tion fits well with the evidence in the larger fragment and is adopted here.
Photographs. PAM 41.444 (= FE, 302); 42.436 (= EE, 858); 43.201; and Milik,
BE, Plate XXXII.
... [ I
vacat 2
[] [ 3
] ... [
[] [6
[ .... 7
[][ ] [ 8
] ... [ [ ]9
[ [] 10
...[ vacat II
] ... [12

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

88 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

[13 ... [] [
14 [
] vacat 15

1. 1: If 4Q203 7 B ii, 1.3 (bottom of a col.) contains an introduction to the

second tablet, then it is quite possible that this fragment belongs near
the top of the column which follows. The word could be restored
within the context of two possible phrases: (1) a reference to Enoch the
scribe of interpretation ( ; cf. 1.4 and 4Q530 col. ii, 11.14
and 22?), so that the name would have to occur on the previous line of
this or the preceding column; and, as Milik proposed, (2) part of a title
to the new section of BG as in 4QEnochc I vi, 1.9 (1 =
En. 14:1). Since 11.3-5 serve as an introduction to the text o f the mes-
sage, 1.1 must have contained a title encompassing a larger section;
therefore, alternative (2) is the more probable. If this is correct, then
o f course the wording would have differed from that of 1 En. 14:1.
1. 3: [ with Milik and Fitzmyer-Harrington (cf. Garcia Martinez in
D SS T and Karrer) contra Beyer: [. For the latter there is no con-
temporary evidence for the construction of the relative particle folio-
wed by ( the same idea - i. e. which is - would more often be
expressed without the latter term).
1. 4: []with Milik rather than with the preposition ~( so Beyer), since
the first letter has a higher base than the second. refers to a
document containing Enochs own handwriting; in a similar sense, cf.
the phrase [corresponding to Tob. 9:2 in 4Q197 = 4QTob arb
(PAM 42.217 = FE, 718, bottom middle Frgt., 1.5). On the meaning of
, see the discussion on 4Q530 col. ii, 1.14 below; for the mo-
ment note that this description of Enoch is closely related to the func-
tion of the message as a ( see 1.13).
1. 6: implies a foregoing substantivized adjective ( ; cf.
in 4Q530 col. ii, 1.17 = God) or an equivocal substantive ( ; cf.
in Dan. 4:10,20=an angel; = Raphael in 4QEn-
oche I xxii, 1.5=7 En. 22:6. The affinity with 1 En. 22:6 could favor the
view that one of Gods archangels is dictating the letter. On the other
hand, of the two passages in the Book o f Watchers in which Enoch is
commissioned by the Watchers and holy ones (7 En. 12:4-6) and God
(15:1-2) respectively, the latters direct address to the Watchers in the
2nd pers. plur. corresponds more closely to the similar style of this
fragment (so Reeves, Jewish Lore).11 At the end Milik restores [[
(also Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez, DSST) and Beyer has
; ] though the space of the lacuna corresponds more to the latter,
there is too little context for an attempt at restoration here.

71 Reeves emphasizes the divine epithet the holy and great one in 7 En. 10:1 and
97:6 (Eth. in both: abiy wa-qeddus), which leads him to reconstruct at the end of
1.5. These considerations are possible but must remain inconclusive. The lack of refe-
rences to primary angels as the holy one in 7 Enoch may be due to retiscence on the
part of the Grk. translators; see the Eth. and Grk. Cod. Pan. to 22:6 which refer to
Raphael merely as (vis--vis the Aram, the watcher and holy one).
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 89

1. 7: as the third word is probably correct (so Milik, Fitzmyer-Har-

rington, Beyer, Reeves, and Garcia Martinez, D SST), but in the availa-
ble photographs the final four letters are either invisible or illegible.
1. 8: Milik and Fitzmyer-Harrington: ; ][] though Beyer and
Reeves read less letters here, they have the same text. is masc.
plur. and probably refers to the giants; grammatically, it could be func-
tioning as a simple pers. pronoun, as a resumptive emphatic pronoun,
(i.e. the giants, they), or as a demonstrative (i.e. those [giants]).
The restoration follows that of Beyer; Miliks would re-
quire that 1.7 had enough space for the wives of the giants to have been
1. 9: with Beyer and Reeves; Milik followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington:
. The rt. vertical stroke of the last letter is slightly diagonal, which
is more likely in 4Q203 for than for . The subject of the verb would
be the fern. ; Beyers restoration of a fern. sing. ptc. with the verb,
but following the prep.+suff, is thus a possibility which coheres with the
ptc.s at the end of the line and at the beginning o f 1.10 (see n. to 1.10).
1. 10: The fern. sing. ptc. form with * favors restoring with Milik a parallel
verb at the end o f the preceding line; the verbs and in the same
stems are paralleled within an almost identical context in 4Q530 6, 1.4
( ] - a citation of 1 En. 9:10?). Read
with Milik (and Fitzmyer-Harrington, Reeves) contra Beyer: only
1. 12: The beginning of the line presupposes that the vacat on 1.11 ended soon
after the lacuna there begins. Milik: [ . On rendering the phrase
, see the translation note below.
1. 13: Beyer: =( [every creature whfich; M ilik: ( [cf.
Garcia-Martinez, DSST; Reeves does not include the last part o f this
line). The visible parts of the letters clearly favor and exclude ; if
there, the final words only remains visible as a tiny dot.
1. 14: The readings and translations diverge here. Milik: ( [the
bonds which tie [you] up; Fitzmyer-Harrington - your bond that ro-
pes you; and Garcia Martinez, D SS T - your chains); Beyer:
(was ihr gefangen haltet; similarly Reeves: your prisoners). A rea-
ding o f ( - chain, fetter) would imply that in response to the
message, the Watchers are told to disengage themselves from their
chains, which seems odd if the Watchers are being expected to undo
their own fetters and if the letter in fact is concerned with their further
punishment.72 Beyer and Reeves are surely correct in reading a substan-
tivized adjectival form derived from a qal pass. ptc. (A T T M , 519): that
which is captive. The resulting meaning is, then, that the Watchers are
told to set free that which they still have under their control/grasp.73
1 The boo[k of ...
2 vacat

72 See also the important observations 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

3 A copy of the s[ec]ond tablet of the le[tter

4 in a document (written by) the hand of Enoch, the scribe o f interpreta-
tion [ ... the
5 and Holy One to Shemihazah and all [his] co[mpanions ... :
6 Let it be known to you th[at ]/[
7 your activity and that of [your] wivefs and of your children and of
8 those [giants and their ]son[s and] the [w]ives off all of them
9 through your fornication on the earth, for it (the earth) has [risen
up [ag]ainst y[ou ... and crying out]
10 and raising accusation against you [and ag]ainst the activity of your
11 the corruption which you have committed on it. vacat [
12 has reached Raphael. Behold, destruction will come upon ... all who
are in the heavens, and who are on the earth,]
13 and who are in the deserts, and wh[o] are in he seas. And the in-
terpretation of [this] matter [... will become
14 evil upon you. So now, set loose what you hold captive mh[
15 and pray. vacat [

1.9: The is rendered in an explicative sense.

1.12: Milik: until the coming of Raphael; the translation agrees with Soko-
loff, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, and Reeves on the grounds of two
primary considerations: (1) Miliks rendering corresponds better with
a temporal construction such as + verb (so Dan. 7:22; cf.
Dan. 4:30, 5:21; \QapGen 16.11; 17.9,16; 19.9,26; 21.1,15,17, 18); (2)
the rendering adopted corresponds to the word order in Dan. 7:13
1.14: See the textual note above.

Comment. The second tablet is presented in the form of an official letter

decree. It contains an opening address formula (11.4-5; sender to reci-
pients); a decree formula (1.6; let it be known ...); a densely-worded
summary of culpability (11.7-11); a heralding of judgment (11.12-14);
and at the end, a summons that the recipients capitulate (11.14-15). These
formal elements provide the message a tone of seriousness to be associated
with the communication.
Lines 3-5. If one considers the fact that Mahaway in BG is the bringer
of the two tablets from Enoch (cf. Sundermanns Manichaean Frgt. L Recto
and discussions of 6Q8 1 and 4Q530 col. ii, 1.21-col. iii), this message re-
fleets an elaborate chain of mediation between the sender and recipients:
God/A Primary Angel - Enoch the Scribe - Mahaway - Watchers/Giants

In BG as a whole, this chain is flanked on both sides by God (either the

immediate or ultimate source of the message), on the one hand, and by the
giants (the Watchers progeny), on the other. Here the giants are, however,
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 91

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-
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., Mahaways function as mediator and Ohyah and
Hahyahs 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 Enochs 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 Enochs 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
(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

for future generations mentioned in the remainder of 1 Enoch,15 and per

haps this may reflect a certain retiscence on the part of subsequent au
thors of Enochic literature to have their religious hero appearing to take
up the cause of fallen angels. However, like the Book of Watchers, Enochs
scribal function remains closely interwoven with the Watcher myth, sug
gesting that BG presupposes (and thus adjusts) the representation of
Enoch contained there. On the epithet scribe of interpretation see the
comment under 4Q530 col. ii, 1.14 below.
Shemihazah (in the Man. BG = Shahmizad in L, Recto 1.10 and the
Middle Persian Kawan Frgt. c, 11.6 and 15) is the progenitor of the giant
brothers Ohyah and Hahyah (Kawan, Frgt. c, 1.6; cf. also the Midrash of
Shemhazai and 'Azael) and, in one strand of tradition preserved in the
Book of Watchers, is introduced as the leader of the rebellious angels in
heaven (7 En. 6:3,7; 9:7; cf. 10:11); see comment on 4Q203 7 A, 1.6 above.
The association of him here with fornication with human women (1.9) is
in continuity with statements of his culpability in the Book of Watchers (7
En. 9:7-9; 10:11). Though no further explicit reference to this Watcher is
made in the extant Qumran BG fragments, occurrences in the Mani
chaean fragments (esp. in L) suggest that he is a recurring character in
the story. In the text from L cited under fragment 7 B ii above, Shahmizad
is the one who requests that Mahaway read one of his tablets addressed
to the demons. It is doubtful, however, that the Manichaean passage
corresponds to this part of the Qumran BG, since the 2nd pers. plur.
suffixes and verbs throughout the letter clearly have the Watchers, not
the giants, in view as addressees. If, then, the Manichaean text has not
transformed its Vorlage from a communication to Shemihazah to a mes
sage for the giants, then the L passage may refer to a different section of
BG, during which the leader of the fallen angels functions to call forth the
reading of the (first) tablet.
Lines 7-12a. After alluding to the rampant evil engendered by the re
bellious Watchers (11.7-9), the letter draws attention to the complaint of
the earth (11.9-11) through which this evil has been made known to Ra
phael (1.12a). The mention of Raphael as an angel who listens to cries of

75 Passages which specifically narrate Enochs 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

the victims of violent wrongdoing on earth is already implied in the Book

of Tobit (12:12,15,16), where his intercessory role augments his function as
protector of Tobias from harm in the story (5:22; 6:10-18; 8:2-3). In the
Book of Watchers Raphael is also accorded a prominent role in the de
struction of evil; he is the first among the angels to enforce the punish
ment decreed against one of the fallen angels (Azazel; 13:4-6). In addition
the Book of Watchers highlights even further his involvement with cries of
complaint in two passages. (1) In Greek recensions and 4QEnoch 1 iv 6
to 1 Enoch 9:1, Raphael appears alongside Michael, Gabriel, and Uriel
who observe the violence and relay the earths complaints through a pra
yer of intercession to God.76 (2) In 22:3-13, Enoch is transported to a
place where the souls of the dead are gathered. Here he sees the spirits
of the dead raising their complaints toward heaven, and Raphael acts as
his interpreter. Given the emphasis on Raphael there, the choice of this
angel by the author(s) of BG here may reflect a familiarity with Raphaels
connection with the complaint motif in the Book of Watchers. The short
reference to the complaints reaching Raphael in ll.llb - 1 2 a presupposes
that Raphael has passed them on to God or has interceded on the victims
Lines 12b-15. The message ends with an announcement of destruction
and a demand that the Watchers capitulate and pray. From 1.13 it may
be inferred that the coming destruction is going to be complete; it is likely
that the divine ultimatum to the Watchers is heralding the Noahic deluge.
This cataclysmic event will not only destroy the world, but is going to have
evil 1.14) consequences for the Watchers as well. The summons to
pray at the end of the letter (1.15) does not mean that the possibility of
forgiveness is being left open for Shemihazah and his companions. Rather,
as in the Book of Watchers, their praying is a sign of defeat signalling a
contrast with the ultimate lot of the earths victims. Whereas the latters
cries have been heeded, the Watcherss pleas for divine mercy for themsel
ves and their children cannot escape the decisive results of divine judg
ment (cf. 1 En. 14:4-7). The inclusion of the Watchers in the destruction
of the flood appears to cohere with the substance of Hahyahs dream in
4Q530 col. ii, 11.6-12 in which water and fire everything in the gar
den (1.10) so that presumably the large shoots (1.8) growing there are
destroyed; cf. also 2Q26 and 6Q8 2 discussed above.

76 In the Eth. recensions (except for the 18th cent. Bodleian ms. 5 and EMML 2080
from the 14th/15th cent.) the name Raphael/Rufael 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, Knigtum , Knigsherrschaft
und Reich G ottes in den Frhjdischen 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.

[ ..]
] [
] [ 3
[] 4
[ ]
[ vacat .] 7
[.. ] 8
1. 1: With Milik and Garcia Martinez. Beyer, Knibb, and Reeves read only
. The letter before does not have a base low enough for a ~ , and
the visible part of a small lower diagonal horizontal stroke does not rule
out reading .
1. 2: The 2nd pers. pron. suff. is restored in line with those on 11.4, 5, and 6.
Miliks assumption that [ on 1.3 belongs to either or leads
him to restore the shorter [ instead.
1. 3: Since the 2nd pers. pron. suffixes end in 11.4-6) and 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: as 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): . would, then, be a
p a el pass. ptc. For the sequence blessing-divine omniscience in prayer,
see 1 En. 9:4-5 and 63:2-3.
1. 4: - 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 .
Milik posits a restoration of (?)( [ cf. 1 En. 9:3=4QEnocha I
iv, 1.10 - ) ] [, but this must be regarded as uncertain.

77 Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 58; Freiburg and Gttingen: Universittsverlag and

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.
4Q203 = 4QEnGiantsa 95

1. 6: Milik: [( [ everlasting] y[ears]); Beyer on the other hand,

restores [( [your] e[nemies],). N o restoration is attempted
here for lack of further evidence.
1. 7: With Milik; Beyer proposes ] .
1 ]./ and all [
2 ](they)[ sh]ake before [your] glofrious] splendor [
3 be bl]essed because [you] kno[w] all mysteries [
4 ]and nothing has defeated you[
5 b]efore you. And now q[
6 ]the rule of your greatness Ish[
7 ].wm [
8 ]yn ..[

1. 3: See textual note above.

1. 4: Milik and Garcia Martinez: is stronger than you ( taken as a
stative verb); Reeves: is too difficult for you ( the Aramaic equi-
valent behind 1 En. 84:2c Eth .-w a-i-yesanaaka)n \ and Beyer (.A T T M ,
538; see also Camponovo): hat dich besiegt ( is transitive, as in
biblical Heb. and IQapGen 21.25 and Tob.6:3 in 4Q197=4Q7b& arb
(PAM 42.216 = FE, 717, 1.1 of the largest Frgt.: )?[ [] [. For
the qal perf. of in this sense, see esp. 4Q203 7 B i, 1.3 discussed
above. These analogous occurrences lend credence to Beyers transla-
tion. Beyer interprets as living creature (as in his doubtful reading
of 4Q203 8 1.13; see the textual note); see, however, Milik (.BE , 317:
^ = thing in Syr. and Palm.) and Beyer {ATTM , 674: with ,
means nothing).
1. 6: See textual note above. Beyer5s suggestion that one restore your ene-
mies is not impossible, but introduces a term not found in the context
of any of the comparable texts in 1 En. 9:4-11, 63:2-4, and 84:2-4.

Comment. The extant parts of this text indicate that the fragment belongs
to a prayer. This interpretation of genre initially suggests itself, as 11.2-6
are dominated by the extolling of divine traits, but is made certain by the
2nd pers. sing, address and the existence of comparable prayer texts. In
this connection, the following formal parallels may be noted:
1.2: your glorious splendor 1QH 12.15 ( ;) cf. 1 En.
1.3: may your name be blessed5 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 Miliks 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
here ultimately derives from Aram. .
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 as a
category by which the strength of the opposing forces (God-angels vs.
Watchers-giants) is measured; cf. 4Q203 7A , 1.3; Bi, 1.3; and 4Q531 17,
11.3 and 7. Second, the phrase extolling God, because [you] kn[ow] all
mysteries in 1.4, may emphasize Gods 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.- ) which were in heaven (Cod. Pan.,
Eth.). In chapter 16:3 this tradition is reinterpreted in order to clarify that
actually not every mystery ( ; Eth.-plur.) was revealed to
the Watchers. Instead, according to the Panopolitanus recension, they
know the mystery which comes from G od (
), 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
prayers assertion of Gods knowledge of all mysteries is specifically con-
cerned with expressing Gods 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 Enochs petition. If 4QEnGiantse and 4QEno-
ch6 have been correctly correlated and identified as belonging to BG, then
the petition may be understood as Enochs 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, Knigtum, 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 ]
2 ] . [
3 ][

1. 1: With Knibb, Beyer, Garcia Martinez, Reeves contra Milik: [. The

visible lower right part of the letter is too vertical to make a likely
reading. See 1 En. 84:6.
1. 2: Milik: ].. ; Knibb: ]. ; Beyer, Reeves: ]m. The initial letter could be or
, the second or , and the last one , , or ( not enough space to the
rt. for or p). Given that perhaps makes less sense here than ,
the latter is more likely. At the beginning Milik reads: .[.
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).

C om m ent. See the comment under fragment 9 above. To the comparisons

listed there, one may add the following formal correspondence to this text:
1.1. and ]now, my Lord 1 En. 84:6. Cf. also IQapGen 20.13-14
) . . . .

The wording of 1.1 is consistent with that of a petitionary prayer.

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, Miliks 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
[ ]2
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-
] l
]vacat 2
]3 []
1. 1: Milik: ] . There may be a space after ( so also Beyer).
1. 3: Milik: ] . 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 is 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

].. 1 (?) ]
2 (?)[ ]
3 ] [
4 ] .[

1. 1: Restore at the beginning with Milik; the restoration recalls vocabulary

in 4Q203 4 1.6: [ [. The two visible letters at the end may
be part of the preposition .
1. 2: The suff. with ~ is sing, because of the address in 1.3.
1. 4: Milik: ] ;[ Beyer: ][ . There is space between the second and
third visible letters. If BeyeEs reading of is correct, the first word is
either the negative particle or the last part of a substantive in the em-
phatic state.
1 and] they [prostrajted(?) from ..[
2 Th]en he said to him[
3 ]there is [not] pfeace] for you[
4 ]/. it/he was [

Comment. The fragment describes the actions of a group in 1.1 which

could be the Watchers or the Watchers with the giants. In any case, it is
likely that the address in the 2nd pers. sing, in 1.3 is spoken to one of the
Watchers who has a leading role, whereas the 2nd person plural address
preserved in 1Q24 8 would likely have the Watchers as a group in view (see
1 En. 16:7; cf. 3rd pers. plur. in Eth. and 2nd pers. plur. in Cod. Pan. in
12:5). In 1 Enoch 13:1 Asael (Cod. Pan.- ; Eth. has Azazel) is told
these words (Cod. Pan.- ) at the outset of Enochs
reprimand. If, however, in Qumran BG Shemihazah functions as the chief
of the fallen angels, then he is probably the one addressed in 1.3. The
singular address here excludes the possibility that this fragment may be
assigned to the second tablet (Frgt. 8: plur. verbs and suffixes).

4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb - (20 Fragments)

Photographs. The initial readings and proposed restorations of the manu-

script by Milik (BE) and Beyer (.ATTM) were not accompanied by a pub
lication of photographs; the photographs from the PAM collection were
first made available in FE and the DSS on Microfiche respectively. Beyers
readings in have subsequently taken the photographic editions
into account.
Numeration and arrangement of the fragments. The numbers assigned to
the 4Q530 fragments throughout the analysis below reflect the order of
their arrangement found in PAM 43.568 (going from right to left, top to
4Q530 = 4QEnGiants 101

bottom of the photograph). 4Q530 18 and 19 represent fragments in PAM

42.496 not taken up in 43.568. 4Q530 20 is an isolated fragment in PAM
4Q530 was originally assigned to Jean Starcky for publication. Starcky
then made his transcriptions of this manuscript available to assist Miliks
analysis of the Qumran BG.83 Of these materials, Milik mentioned and
pieced together some six fragments belonging to two columns (ii-iii).84
In addition, he mentioned a third column (i) but did not provide any
readings.85 Miliks study represents an a stage of arrangement which
marks an improvement on the placement of the fragments in the PAM
photographs 42.496 and 43.568. With minor adjustments the arrangement
proposed by Milik, which represents a largely coherent text, is followed
For purposes of reconstruction, it is important to note that Miliks
reference to three columns was based on his analysis of only six fragments.
4Q530 is extant, however, in at least twenty fragments,86 and there is good
reason to posit that they belong to at least fo u r columns of the manu
script. From the arrangement of fragments on the PAM photograph
43.568, however, one might be led to think that the larger fragments be
long to only three columns. This is in fact what Beyer has done in his
placement of fragment 6 i within column i under fragments 3 and 4 i,87
with the result that 6 ii would have to belong to column ii. For reasons
given below this arrangment should be rejected. Just as Milik found it
necessary to reconstruct column ii according to an arrangement of frag
ments beyond that of PAM 43.568, so also it is necessary to correct the
PAM photo in relation to what one does with fragment 6 i-ii, which may
be assigned to an even earlier column in the manuscript.
Although fragment 6 i is probably prior to column i, uncertainty con
cerning its precise location affects the sequence in which the 4Q530 frag
ments will be analyzed here. The treatment below begins with those frag
ments which have been assigned to the three successive columns (men
tioned by Milik) - fragments 1-5 and 7-8 - and then proceeds to analyze

83 See Milik, BE, p. 303.

84 I. e., columns ii and iii are reconstructed by Milik on the basis of frgt.s 1,2 i,4 ii,5,7,
and 8; ibid., pp. 304307.
85 Ibid. p. 303. Belonging to column i are frgt.s 3 and 4 i.
861, e., sixteen frgt.s in PAM 43.568 and three tiny frgt.s in PAM 42.496 (at the
bottom, numbered from right to left, 17-19) not included in the former. Frgt. 20 is in
PAM 42.439. Of course, several of the twenty frgt.s are themselves comprised of origi
nally separate pieces which Starcky had joined during the earlier stages of analysis.
87 Beyer, ATTMEB, p. 120 (11.12-19). Beyer subsumes under the same column (=
G 8) frgt.s 3 (11.4-6) and 4 i (11.14).
102 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

the remaining fragments of the manuscript - i. e., fragments 6 and 9-20.

Unlike the other Qumran BG manuscripts, therefore, the sequence below
does not strictly correspond to the actual numeration of fragments.
The importance of the 4Q530 fragments for a study of the Qumran BG
cannot be overestimated. Though the fragments in combination nowhere
reproduce an entire line intact, their combination with respect to column ii
(a) allows for a reasonably accurate restoration of several full lines from
the column (11.4 and 15-17), (b) produces readable portions from each
one of its lines (except perhaps for 1.11), and hence (c) makes it possible at
this point to provide an almost continuous text.
Script. Judging from the length of column ii, which according to its
reconstruction contains 24 lines, the columns of this manuscript consisted
of some 22-25 lines, allowing for some variation of spaces between lines
within columns (as col. ii) as well as variation of space between the co
lumns as well.88
In his analysis of paleography at Qumran, Cross already included
4Q530, referring to it with the provisional designation 4Q Ps.Enocha
and characterizing the hand as an unusual semicursive script to be
dated ca. 100-50 B. C. E.89 Crosss script chart appears to have been
limited to only a portion of the fragments, as some of the letters appear
to have varied more in form than is given in the chart. It is not surprising,
therefore, that on the basis of his reconstruction of column ii, Milik has
estimated that the length of the lines vary between 42 and 48 letters per
line.90 Indeed, if the readings and restorations suggested here for the most
complete lines of column ii may be taken as a point of departure (11.4 and
16-17), the number of letters seems to have varied even more, i. e. from 43
(1.16) to 52 (1.4) letters. This variation of length in 4Q530 seems to de
pend on four main factors: (1) the abundance or absence of shorter
letters on the line (such as 1, or *|); (2) the use of vacat on the lines to
mark the shift to a new thought; (3) the variation of the sizes of letters
within the scribes handwriting; and, of course, (4) the varied length of the
lines themselves. On account of these variables, an attempt has been made
here to leave compensatory space between some of the words (see, e. g.,
col. ii, 11.2-3 and 14-16) in order to present some idea of the different
lengths of lines and sizes of the letters.

88 In col. i the lines are further spread apart than in col. ii (cf. frgt. 4 i with 4 ii).
89 The Development of Jewish Scripts, pp. 149 (fig. 4, line 3) and 181-88 for indi
vidual comparisons of the letter forms.
90 BE, p. 304.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 103

The scribal dittography through homoioarcton in column ii, 1.4 demon

strates that the manuscript represents a copy from an earlier Vorlage. The
re is no indication that this error and the further mistakes on col. iii, 11.3-
4 were corrected in the manuscript by the scribe.

4Q530 Reconstructed Column I (Fragments 3-4 I)

Beyer, ATTMEB, 120 (G 8, 11.1-6); cf. Milik, Turfan et Qumran 121 and BE,
303; Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT\ 74-75; Beyer, A T T M , 264 and n. 1; and Garcia
Martinez, QumApoc, 104.
As already suggested in PAM 42.496 and 43.568 (= FE, 887, 1516), the top line
of fragment 3 may be joined to 1.4 of fragment 4 col. i. A comparison of 3 in PAM
42.496 and 43.568, on the one hand, with the same fragment in the earlier 41.512
(FE, 336), on the other, shows that a piece containing 4 letters was eventually
added to the bottom line of the fragment. Furthermore, between 42.496 and
43.568 a piece was added to 4 at 11.2-3.
Photographs. PAM 41.512 (separate Frgt.s 3 and 4; = FE, 336); 42.496 (= J?E,
887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).
top margin, column i
] 1
] 2
] 3
] 4
[] 5
[] 6

1.1: For , cf. the same in Frgt. 4 col. ii, 1.5: . The final two letters are
unclear (esp. ), but are chosen (with Beyer) for because the reading
provides the only meaningful alternative. The 3rd pers. obj. suff. -
indicates a jussive form (see further jussives on 11.3-4)
1.2: Beyer: ..[; cf. PAM 42.496. is made visible through the addition of
the tiny piece to 11.2-3 in 43.568.
1.3: ^ ^ without -, a jussive form; cf. 11.1,4).
1. 4: Beyer: . The second letter, with one vertical and horizontal stroke,
is clearly a . was most likely followed by at the beginning of 1.5.
The verb is a jussive form; cf. 11.1.3.
1.5: Restoration of with Beyer, though, as Beyer admits, the number
could also be 4 ( ) ] or 9 ((]. is either (a) the substantive
for rain or (b) a qal infin. + suff. from ( to guard, keep). If the
latter, the suff. may be either possessive (as Beyer) or objective.
1. 6: Beyer: .[ . 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 . Given the unlikelihood of having
and side 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

1 ]let him cause him to dwell/sit

2 ]the waters from/together with
3 ], let them be numbered among the whole
4 ] let them be reckoned according to the reckoning of years for the
5 [who ... ]these [sev]en days through keeping them[
6 a]ll(?) will rejoice, but let[ ] not[

1. 4: On years (Beyer: viel), see the textual note above.

Comment. These lines do not preserve a sufficient amount from the lite-
rary context to establish the speakers identity or to be certain about their
precise content. Since the verbal forms are in the imperfect throughout,
the words and phrases may be concerned with future events (from the
perspective of the speaker).
The mention of waters (1.2), the reference to counting (1.3), and
the chronological expressions (11.3^4) are perhaps consistent with events
associated with the deluge which is expected to be a decisive moment in
history. Beyer ascribes these words to a giant,91 a plausible supposition
which, however, is based by him on his questionable placement of frag-
ment 6 - where a 1st pers. speaker is explicit - under fragments 3-4 i on
the same column.

4Q530 Reconstructed Column II, LL.1-3A (Fragments 4 II, 5, 2 I):

The Giants are Reassured Through Gilgamesh
Beyer, A T T M E B , 120-21; cf. Milik, Turfan et Qumran 121 and BE, 304, 313;
Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 74-75; Beyer, A T T M , 259, 263-64; Garcia Martinez,
QumApoc, 104 and D SST, 261; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 120-21; Utnapishtim 114;
and Huggins, Noah and the Giants 108.
The text produced in A T T M E B by Beyer follows the association of fragments
by Milik reflected in his readings offered for later lines in the column (followed by
Beyer for those lines in A T T M ). The joining of fragments 4 ii and 5 is made plau-
sible through (a) the location of both at the top of the column; (b) the coherent
sequence + in 1.4 of both fragments; and (c) the smooth transition
from to in 1.3. The relationship between fragments 2 i and 4 ii seems
confirmed by (a) the formers position at the top of the column and (b) the cohe-
rence of the text from words at the end to the beginning of the following lines (so
esp. 11.1-2 and 3-4).
Photographs. PAM 41.512 (= FE, 336); 42.496 (= EE, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

91 Beyer entitles the section, Die schlimmen Ahnungen eines Riesen.

4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 105

top margin, column ii

2i 5 4 ii

1 [ ] []
2 [] .] [ .
3 ] [..

1.1: The last two letters of are clearest in PAM 41.512. In the middle
o f the line, one might also restore ] , but the longer name is chosen
because of the space required between fragments 5 and 2 i. Near the
end, Beyer reads: ( ) } ,that which), *being a mistake made by
the scribe. The second letter, however, is not closed, as one would expect
of in the manuscript; rather, the horizontal and vertical lines o f the
letter suggest a . For the reading , cf. A. E. Cowley, Aramaic
Papyri o f the Fifth Century B .C .92, text no. 26, 1.23 ( ^ T = that
1. 2: ( pael imperf. 1st pers. sing, of , to fear, be afraid o f), contra
Beyer: ( strong). The second letter curves down at the top as ,
while the third letter is clearly a . For the term ( prince, poten
tate), see the heb. qotel (subst. < qal ptc.? from to be weighty):
Ps. 2:2 (and 4Q174, 1.23); 1Q39, 1.10; Judg. 5:3; Hab. 1:10; Prov. 8:15,
31:4; Isa. 40:23. The use of this term may betray Heb. influence. is
not read by Beyer, who simply has . The vertical stroke of a is
distinguishable from the stroke of the final on the previous line, and
the following two letter traces are consistent with a small and re
spectively. The phrase []anticipates ( judgment was
spoken) in ,Ohyahs dream on 1.18 below.
1. 3: ; Beyer: . The first letter is visible but illegible. Before the
end of Frgt. 5 Beyer plausibly suggests that the text has ] .
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 is taken from the more conventio-

nal form with found 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.

Comment. Questions of interpretation arise in the attempt to infer the

movement of the narrative. The first person plural suffix in 1.1 allows

92 Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923.

93 See further examples in Beyer, ATTM, 550 and ATTMEB, 330.
106 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

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 Ohyahs(?) 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 One96 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 Sundermanns Manichaean Fragment L Verso, 11.2-3, Sam (=
Ohyah) seems to be reacting similarly to Mahawais reading of the second

94 With the 1st pers. plur. possessive suff., is to be interpreted either as a collec-
tive singular (,,our souls) or as an elliptic self-reference (ourselves; with the preceding
subst. in construct, our own; cf. Beyer, ATTM, 370 for this sense). If the tradition in 1
En. 15:8-12 distinguishing between the giants spirits and their bodily existence (no Ara-
maic extant; Cod. Pan.-, ) 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 at the beginning of 1.5; see below.
96 probably refers to God; cf. the theophanic epithet in 4Q530 col. ii, 1.17 below:
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.Sams dream; 4Q530 col. ii, 3b20Hahyah and Ohyahs
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 could refer to human rulers, but the
context suggests that the Great One has cursed other giants, while ap
parently having spared Hahyah, Ohyah, and their immediate companions.
Is one to suppose, then, that the author(s) of BG distinguished factions
among the giants to whom punishment should be meted out accordingly?
Such differentiation has already been inferred on the basis of 4Q203 A and
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 Gilgameshs 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 Gilgameshs 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 Mahaways 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 iiiii - 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 Gods initial response the violence on earth and to Enochs intercessory
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

women.102 The inclusion of characters from the ancient epic tradition is

singled out as remarkable by Milik who claimed that the Qumran BG
contains the only mention of Gilgamesh outside the cuneiform literat-
ure.103 More accurately, however, the occurrence of Gilgamesh (and Ho-
babis) presupposes that these literary figures continued to be known du-
ring the period of the Second Temple, a notion for which Reeves has been
able to adduce important evidence. Though the name Gilgamesh does
not occur anywhere in extant early Jewish literature, it is known that the
Gilgamesh Epic continued to be copied as late as the 2nd or 1st centuries
B. C. E .104 and references to Gilgamesh are, most significantly, made in
Aelians On Animals (ca. 200 C. E.; see 12.21-Gilgamow, a baby raised
by a gardener who eventually became the king of Babylon) and in the
notes to Genesis by the 8-9th century bishop Theodore Bar Konai (as
the 10th king following the flood between Peleg and Abraham).105

4Q530 Column II, LL.3B -6 (Fragments 4 II, 5, 2 I, 1):

Hahyah and ,Ohyah have Dreams
Milik, Turfan et Qumran, 121 and BE, 304 (11. 3b-5a, 6); Beyer, ATTM EB, 120-
21; cf. Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT, 74-75; Beyer, A T T M , 264; Garcia Martinez,
QumApoc, 104 and DSST\ 261; Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58, 63, and 84-85.
None of the PAM photographs display the reconstruction of fragments adopted
by Milik. According to the latter, fragment 1 belongs at the left o f the column at
11.5-10 (in accordance with the margin to the left of the fragment), with traces of
letters visible from 1.4 which are consistent with the visible traces of letters on 1.4
of fragment 2. The relationship between fragments 1 and 4 ii (and hence the posi-
tion assigned to fragment 1) seems confirmed by the text running from the end of
1.5 to the beginning of 1.6.
Photographs. PAM 41.512 (= FE, 336); 42.496 (= FE, 887), esp. good for Frgt. 1;
43.568 (= FE, 1516).
2 1+ 1 5 4 ii
..] [ ] [
] [ ] [
]] [ [

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 has been inadvertently repeated. Indeed, the
sequence seems to occur twice on the line; mo-
reover, at the end o f the line it is possible that the scribe began to write
once again! This kind o f scribal error provides evidence that
4Q530 represents a copy from an earlier manuscript; cf. also col. iii, 1.4.
The expression the sleep o f their eyes fled from them denotes the
giants5 inability to sleep anymore on account o f their dreams; cf.
Gen. 31:40 (11 ^ - T g O n q ;) Dan. 6:19
( ;) Esth. 6:1 ( ;) and the Genizah Ara-
maic Testament o f Levi 6 -7 ( ) .
1. 5: The first two letters o f are illegible and spaced apart more than
other letters on the line. M ilik provides no readings after . On
the customary use o f with the verb to denote movem ent towards
persons or a group o f persons, see Reeves (.Jewish Lore, 85; cf. Beyer,
A T T M , 656). After Milik restores: [Shemihazah their father and
they reported to him] their dreams while Beyer suggests [their compa-
nions in order to make known to them] their dreams5. Beyers 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 iliks 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
Ohyahs dream begins) may be restored after on 1.6 in accor-
dance with the introduction o f the 3rd pers. sing, subject for .
1. 6: was not included in M iliks published readings. On the restora-
tion o f , see the n. to 1.5; for at the end o f the line, see the same
which introduces Ohyahs dream on 1.16 ()].

3 Then the two o f them dreamed dreams.

4 And the sleep o f their eyes fled from them and [they] afrose {{the
sleep of] their[ eye]s from them
and [they] arose}} [{{sleep?] o f
their eyes}}
5 and came to[ ]their dreams. And [Hahyah]
said in the assembly o f [his] co[m-
6 the nephilim[ in] my dream I saw in this
night: [Behold

1. 4: On {{the ... eyes}}, see the textual note above.

1. 5: The speaker Hahyah isplaced here on the basis o f the restoration in 1.6.

Comment. After ,Ohyah(?) has separated himself from some of the giants,
lines 3b-6 report that the two giant brothers dreamed dreams whose
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb Ill

content is provided in the remainder of the column (11.7-12 and 16-20

Line 6: . The term, in 4Q531 5, 1.2, occurs in the absolute plural
in parallel with and thus seems to refer there to the giants; in 4Q530
col. iii, 1.8 it occurs in the phrase as Mahaway seeks to
learn Enochs interpretation of the brothers dreams (see below). The
word, of course, is used in Genesis 6:4a as a designation ( ) for a
group whose relationship with ( the offspring of the sons of G od
and the daughters of humanity) is not immediately clear in the biblical
text: are the nephilim to be identified with men of renown ( ,
v. 4c = ) or do they represent a separate class of beings?
Clearly, the Septuagintal and Aramaic targum traditions (Onqelos and
Neophyti) have coalesced the nephilim in Genesis 6:4a into their respec-
tive terms for the giants (, 106.( , Though not cer-
tain, this may also be the understanding presupposed in 4Q531 5, 1.2, in
which the two terms () , denoting the Watchers offspring,
may well be appositional.107 There the term is made to represent the giants
as a whole. On the other hand, the Aquila column of Origens Hexapla
interprets as a substantival participle, , which opens
up the possibility of an association with the , i. e. the Wat-
chers.108 The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has in fact followed this line of
interpretation by opening v. 4 with the statement that Shemhazai and
cAza5el, they fell ( ) from heaven, and they were upon the earth in those
days. 109 Another strand of early Jewish interpretation seems to have un-
derstood the term as a kind of sub-group among (or better, progeny of)
the giants. This perspective is reflected in the Syncellus version to 1
Enoch 7:1-2 which distinguishes between the and the progenitors
of the , who in turn are the progenitors of the ; all of
these groups are made responsible for teaching medicines (!)

106 For a further association of and see Ezek. 32:27, though there the
reference, perhaps reflects an exegetical tradition o f Gen. 6:4 ( 6 ^ =
heroes in Sheol; in the MT the form is pointed as an active ptc.). In translation tradi-
tions to Num. 13:33 the ominous in the land of Canaan are rendered as
(LXX) and /( T. 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 also seems to be implied in CD 2.19,
in which the Watchers sons () , whose height was like (that of) cedars and whose
bodies were like mountains, are depicted as those who fell () .
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: . See also
the Rashi commentary to Num. 13:33.
112 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

and incantations (87rao15ia1). Similarly, the tradition in Jubilees 7:22 re-

fers to the Naphidim as the offspring of the Watchers and mentions
fierce conflicts among the giants, Naphil, and Elyo, whose violent
activity provoke suffering on the earth.110 A fourth understanding asso-
ciated the nephilim with abortions{ nephalim-U^'l).nx This inter-
pretation seems to have influenced gnostic speculation on the origin of
the world (material existence is ultimately due to an inadvertent abor-
tion producing the demi-urge) and Manichaean cosmogony according
to which the giants represent a multiplicity of abortions.112
The close association of the nephilim with the giants in the Qum-
ran BG means that the possibility of an equivocation with the Watchers
may be excluded. Less clear is whether they denote the giants as a whole or
one of the related groups. The consistent spelling of / and the
absence of further etymological clues among the Qumran BG fragments
make it precarious to speculate whether the specific interpretation as
( abortions) underlies this early Jewish work. In any case, nephi-
lim is best understood as a derogatory designation related to the root
, though its exact meaning remains unclear.

4Q530 Column II, LL.7-12 (Fragments 1, 8):

Hahyah ,s Dream
Milik, Turfan et Qumran, 122 and BE , 304-305; cf. Fitzmyer-Harrington,
MPAT\ 74-75 (11.7,10,12); Beyer, A T T M , 264 (departures from M ilik not based
on photographs) and n. 1 and A T T M E B , 120-21 (1.7); Black, The Book o f Enoch,
297 and n. 1; Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104 and D SST, 261; Reeves, Jewish Lore,
58, 63, and 85-90.
Fragment 8 belongs at the left o f the colum n just below fragment 1; 1.2 o f 8
concludes the dream with the formula . Since the bottom line o f

110 In the Book o f Dreams the giants are divided into three categories as elephants,
camels, and donkeys (1 En. 86:4; 88:2); see R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigra-
pha o f the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 2.24 n. to Jub. 7:22. The
Syncellus version to 1 En. 7:2 comes very close to Jub. 7:22: !
, ...
111 So in the Bereshith Rabba 26:7 (ed. Moshe A. Mirakin, Midrash Rabba [Tel-Aviv:
Yavneh, 1956] 1.198): -
( Nephilim - who caused the world to fall and who fell from the
world, and who filled the world with abortions by their own fornication.).
112See Reeves excellent discussion and the literature cited there in Jewish Lore,
pp. 71-72 and 135-36 (n.s 68-77). Reeves argues with G. A. G. Stroumsa (Another
Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology [Leiden: Brill, 1984] 160-63) that since Manichaean
literature, unlike the gnostic sources, emphasizes abortions instead of one abortion,
Mani must have drawn directly on Jewish tradition rather than having acquired it
through its gnostic adaptation.
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
][ ] [[]
[ ]
. ]] [ [ 9
..] [ 10
] [][ ] [ 11
.] [ 12

1. 7: The plur. ptc. requires that the preceding be emended to the

perf. plur. ( so correctly Beyer); the functions to denote the voca-
lie pronunciation o f the previous consonant (see Beyer, A T T M , 117 and
411); see also in 1.16 and the same spelling in 1.18 below.
1. 8: M ilik and Beyer: ( fern. 3rd pers. plur. poss. suff); thus Beyer
restores the feminine ( abs. plur. form for - 5^ 11! trees).
Whatever the restoration, the fern. suff. suggests a reference to the wo-
men who gave birth to the giants.
1. 9: The letters on this line are m ost difficult to read; until now no satis-
factory solution to the letter traces has been found. Milik suggested:
( [ I watched until the sources had been closed
by). This reading is beset by several problems: (1) the preposition * is
grammatically inexplicable; (2) the expected form o f the qal pass, verb is
plural; and (3) the first letter o f M iliks has a vertical stroke quite
unlike the other ^ o f the manuscript; the letter is more likely to be a
(cf. esp. the same in in 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) ] I was [look-
ing] until tongues o f fire came down from 55). W hile is a possible
reading, - 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 /( as M ilik) or simply . In
addition to these readings, there seems to be a sublinear part o f a letter
preceding the ( not taken into account by the readings above), perhaps
a . 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 , , , or . The
alm ost identical formula (used here and in 1.20 below) concludes D a-
n iefs dream vision in D an. 7:28 ( ) .

7 V[ ][ ] gardeners, and they were water-


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

8 ]great [shoo]ts came forth from their rootage[

9 ]1 [lookjed until../.........r from
10 ].. in all the waters, and the fire was
burning in the whole[
11 ]n ot(?)[].[
12 ]. Here (is) the end o f the dream.

1.9: On the problem o f providing a rendering, see the textual note.

Comment. This very fragmentary dream vision involves the context of a

garden. The term gardeners (1.7) has been interpreted by Milik as
guardian angels, much like the shepherds in the Book of Dreams
(e.g. 1 En. 89:59; 90:1).114 There is reason, however, to question whether
the gardeners are meant to represent good angelic beings. According to
I.8 the ultimate outcome of their work in the garden seems to be the
production of great [shoo]ts from their root source (fern, suff.!), that
is, the birth of the giants from the women.115 The watering activity is
hence a metaphor for impregnation and the gardeners represent the
The next part of the dream, preserved in 11.9-11, is difficult to read.
From 1.10, however, one can infer that the garden in which the events of
II.7-8 have taken place undergoes a complete destruction through water
and fire. It is apparently with a description of this destruction that the
dream comes to a close.
On the basis of Hiyyas dream about a garden in the Midrash of
Shemhazai and A zael, Reeves has tried to establish a link between this
dream and 6Q8 2 which, in its reference to three of its shoots, contains
an allusion to the preservation of Noah and his three sons. The passage
from the Midrash, cited under 6Q8 2 below, states that Hiyya saw (1) a
flourishing garden with trees and stones in it; (2) an angel descending with
an axe to cut down the trees; and (3) the preservation of only one tree with
three branches. Reeves combination of these texts with Hahyahs dream
in 4Q530 col. ii leads him to the following reconstruction of the dream
(references to texts are inserted by myself):
Hahyah beholds in his vision a grove o f trees carefully attended by gardeners
[4Q530 ii 7]. This tranquil scene is interrupted by the sudden appearance (or trans
formation?) o f two hundred figures within this garden. The result o f this invasion
was the production o f great (rbrbyn) shoots sprouting up from the roots o f the

114 Milik, BE, p. 304.

115 The term p3*n n is to be interpreted as a reference to the size rather than the
number of the shoots; cf. 1 En.1'3. Reeves, referring to Jub. 4:15 and 5:6, suggests
plausibly that the gardeners may well represent the Watchers performing their task
as angelic protectors of the earth-garden before their rebellion.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 115

trees [4Q530 ii 8]. While Hahyah viewed this scene, emissaries from Heaven arrived
and ravaged the garden with water and fire [4Q530 ii 10], leaving only one tree
bearing three branches as the sole survivor o f the destruction [6Q8 2, l] .116

According to Reeves reconstruction of the dream, fragment 6Q8 2 provi

des supplementary details for the end of this dream. Despite the thematic
coherence (garden imagery) between the texts, this interpretations does
not correspond to the physical evidence. First, it appears from 6Q8 2
that the 44three shoots are mentioned at or near the beginning of the
vision (1.1), that is, before the destruction of the garden is described
(11.2-3). Second, the sequence of 44three roots, the arrival of angels(?),
and a reference to 44the whole garden in successive lines of 6Q8 2 cannot
be made to supplement the fragmentary text of 4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12. This
is especially the case if, with Reeves, one places the three branches near the
end of the dream vision; one would have to suppose that Hahyahs dream
contained two destructions in 11.9-10 and 11-12 separated by the mention
of the 44three roots. There is simply no room at this point in 4Q530 for
the length of text presupposed by 6Q8 2. Third, if one places the text of
6Q8 2 at the beginning of Hahyahs dream in 4Q530, then there is insuffi
cient space at the beginning of line 7 for the advent of the Watchers (=
gardeners?) preceded by the introduction of a tree with 44its three shoots.
These considerations thus throw doubt on Reeves suggestion that 6Q8 2
supplements or overlaps with Hahyahs dream. Unless 6Q8 2 could be
thought to contain a very different recension of BG at this point, it seems
that these materials actually contain separate visions which have distinct
emphases (cf. the comment under 6Q8 2 above).

4Q530 Column II, LL. 13-16A (Fragments 7, 8):

The Giants' Response to Hahyah's Dream
Milik, Turfan et Qumran, 122 and B E , 305; cf. Fitzmyer-Harrington, M P A T [ 7 4 -
75; Beyer; A T T M , 264; Garcia M artinez, QumApoc, 104 and D SST, 261; Reeves,
Jewish Lore, 58, 63, and 90-91.
Fragments 7 and 8 belong to two sides o f the same colum n, as can be established
by the running text produced in 11.15-17 (= 7,11.5-7 + 8,11.2-4). PAM photograph
41.512 reveals that Frgt. 7 originally consisted o f 2 pieces later joined together in

Photographs. PAM 40.620 (= FE, 80; top part of Frgt. 8); 41.444 (= FE,
302; Frgt. 8); 41.512 (= FE, 336; top part of Frgt. 7); 42.496 (= FE, 887);
43.568 (= FE, 1516).

116 Reeves, Jewish Lore, 95; cf. also p. 96.

116 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

13 ]
14 [ ] [ ]
[] vacat 15

1. 13: For the meaning o f in 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 : lAram. only), and 4Q 214=4Q
TLevi 2iVb (PAM 43.241 =77E, 1277 col. ii, 1.2).117 Milik restores the plur.
[ [. One would expect, however, that the lower part o f would be
visible; moreover, the context demands that the giants are responding to
Hahyah who has just told them his dream.
1. 14: A t the beginning, Beyer (A T T M ) restored: [
] . 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 in the following line suggests that he has just been
m entioned again. may be interpreted as an act. ptc. functioning as
a substantive.
1. 15: Beyer: ; [] the readings and in Beyers are un-
likely; see M iliks reading instead: ( [] so also Fitzmyer-
Harrington, Reeves, and Garcia M artinez, D S S T ). The left base o f what
is perhaps a is visible after the lacuna; thus ] .
1. 16: Reeves {Jewish Lore, 91-92), given the som etim es indistinguishable si-
milarity between and , suggests reading ( hence a vocative, Oh
giants) rather than the rarer . This reading remains a possibility.
O f course, the vocalic use o f in does not present an orthogra-
phic problem; cf. also the note to 1.7 on above (cf. also in 1.18).

13 ]the giants were [not] able to explain to

14 [the dream. Then Hahyah said to them, Let us give [th]is[ dream to
Eno]ch, the scribe o f interpreta-
tion, so that he may interpret for us
15 the dream. vacat Then [an]swering his brother Ohyah acknowledged
and said before the giants, I too
16 saw som ething amazing in my dream during this night:

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

1.14: Milik: the distinguished scribe118 ; M iliks rendering is followed by

Fitzmyer-Harrington: the scribe o f distinction and Garcia Martinez:
the celebrated scribe. This interpretation stresses that Enoch is able to
illuminate divine com m unications which are difficult to interpret. Ree-
ves argues that the scribe set apart is more appropriate, stressing that
the expression underlines that Enoch is separated from intercourse with
human society.119 This interpretation, however, does not adequately
take E nochs scribal function (i. e. the com bination with the construct
noun ) into account. On the translation offered here, which corre-
sponds more closely to Beyers rendering (der Schreiber, der deuten
kann), see the com m ent below.

Comment. This section provides a narrative transition from Hahyahs to

Ohyahs dream. Once Hahyah has recounted his dream, the giants are
described as unable to explain its meaning, a lack of insight which is con-
strasted sharply by the description of Enoch as . The suggestion
that Enoch be consulted for an interpretation anticipates the giants5 deci-
sion to send Mahaway to Enoch after the vision of Ohyah (11.21-23); thus
in itself, the mention of Enoch does not introduce the following vision; the
copyist has left a space blank before ,Ohyah relates the substance of his
Lines 13b-15a may provide a clue for explaining the curious design-
ation of Enoch as , an explanation which is appropriate here
given the absence of specific evidence in designations used for Enoch
elsewhere as well as in the other Qumran BG passages where this epithet
occurs. In Codex Panopolitanus of the Book of Watchers, Enoch is given
the titles and (7 En. 15:l 120),
(12:4). Since
among corresponding Enochic materials the most common underlying
Aramaic root for the Greek stem - is 121, Milik is probably cor-
rect in postulating as the underlying equivalent in the Aramaic
version.122 As such, the title may have reflected or given rise to the desig-
nation for Enochs vision as [in 4QEnochc I vi9 (= 1
En. 14:1; Cod. Pan.- ); moreover, in 1 Enoch
118 See BE, pp. 305, 315, and 262: a professional, distinguished, copyist who writes
distinctly, clearly, and perhaps, at the same time, as a redactor o f laws which have the
force of judges decisions. \
119 Jewish Lore, p. 77. / I
120 The Eth. mss. here accommodate the designation to 12:4: scribe of righteous-
121 For the evidence, see Stuckenbruck, Revision o f Aramaic-Greek and Greek-Ara-
maic Glossaries 34-35 (and n. 54) and 42. See, moreover, the bilingual sepulchre in-
scriptions from Palmyra, in which the corresponding texts consistently refer to the burial
rights using the terms and ; cf. CIS no. 4209 (236 + C. . /
)[]and Berytus 2 (1933) 110-12 no. 2 (263 C. E.- 61^ 10^;/).
122 BE, p. 191; cf. also Black, The Book o f Enoch, pp. 139 and 143.
118 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

12 and 15 , if correct, would have been the designation given to

him as he was being summoned to reprimand the Watchers. The reason
for Enochs function as both visionary of a throne theophany (7 En. 14)
and as mediator of a divine rebuke consists, according to Milik, in his
44moral rectitude as expressed by the phrase.123 Though the intermediary
role is likewise associated with Enoch as , the epithet in the
Book of Watchers does not throw much light on in BG.
The expression is applied to Enoch in at least one, perhaps
two, further Qumran BG fragments. In one instance, 4Q206=4QEnoch?2,
1.2 (= 1.6 in the combination with Frgt. 3 of the manuscript), its occur-
rence depends on the correctness of the restoration: ; [ see
under 4QEnoch6?below. Even if the lacuna has been correctly restored, the
context is here so broken that, unfortunately, it is impossible to learn
whether the text originally contained any hint to explain why the expres-
sion was chosen.124 A clearly preserved instance of Enoch as
occurs, of course, in 44the second tablet treated above under 4Q203 8, 1.4.
Here Enoch is the one to whom the divine rebuke addressed to Shemiha-
zah and the other Watchers has been dictated; similar to 7 Enoch 12 and
15, Enochs role is intermediary, and a precise meaning for seems to
be presupposed rather than explained. On 1.13 of the fragment, however,
it appears that the message contained in 44the second tablet is interpreted
by Enoch ( [-and the interpretation of [the] matter (is) [...).
The association of Enoch the with one who provides a is
strengthened by a consideration of 4Q530 col. ii, 1.14. On 1.14 the reason
provided for bringing the Hahyahs dream to Enoch is the confidence that
he will be able to interpret it for the giants. Here the paranomasia word-
play, hinted at in 4Q203 8, 11.4 and 13, is brought into sharp relief in
4Q530 through a direct juxtaposition of the terms: ]
. The choice of , on the basis of the two BG texts, may
be a creative attempt to underline Enochs role as dream interpreter for
the giants. Indeed, the root is attested elsewhere in the sense of 44to
interpret,125 and thus the author(s) may have been drawing upon a derived
meaning of the term.

123 BE, p. 262.

124 4QEnoch<? 2+3 apparently preserve a part of the report brought to Enoch about
the bloodshed wrought on earth as a result of the giants activities. The phrase
, as its occurrence in 4Q203 8, seems to represent a designation whose precise
meaning is being assumed.
125 In particular, see the Nabataean inscription edited in Repertoire d pigraphie smi-
tique (Acadmie des inscriptions et belles-lettres; Paris: Imprimrie Nationale, 1916-
1918) vol. 3, no. 1792 B, 11.7-8: Imprsh ly m it (to interpret for me the matter=#a/
infin.), referred to by Beyer (A T T M , 672). As in the Qumran BG, the form is a
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 119

This, in turn, may throw light on the distinctiveness of BG in relation to

the Book of Watchers. Whereas in the latter the visions and communica-
tions are given to Enoch (not to the Watchers or their children; cf. 1
En. 12:4, 14:1-7, 8-25; 15:1-2), in the extant evidence of the Qumran
BG the dream visions are experienced by the giants themselves (6Q8 1;
4Q530 col. ii; cf. the Manichaean Frgt. L Verso, 11.7ff.126). Stated an-
other way, whereas Enoch communicates G ods reprimands to the Wat-
chers directly in the Book of Watchers, Enochs scribal function is expan
ded to include the interpretation of divine communiqus sent to the Wat-
chers (4Q203 8the second tablet) or to the giants themselves (4Q530
col.s ii-iii).

4Q530 Column II, LL.16B-20A (Fragments 7, 8):

,Ohyah s Dream
Milik, Turfan et Qum ran122 and B E , 305 (1.16b); Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT\
74-75 (1.16b); Beyer, A T T M , 264 (1.16b) and n. 1 and A T T M E B , 120-21; Garcia
M artinez, QumApoc, 104 and 115 and D SST\ 261 (1.16b); and Reeves, Jewish Lore,
58,63, and 92 (1.16b). N o readings for 11.17-19 were available until Beyer in A T T -
A s 11.14-15, the letters o f the left o f the colum n on 1.16 (Frgt. 8) are spread out
more than those on the right (Frgt. 7); the same obtains for the letters on 1.19 on
the right and extreme left (Frgt. 7). This variation o f letter size makes it difficult to
reproduce the vertical relationships o f the letters and lacunae o f adjacent lines. The
text on 11.17-18 after the lacunae between F rgt/s 7 and 8 ( ]... )[ belongs to a
tiny piece (see PAM 42.439) which was joined to Frgt. 7 in PAM 42.496.
Photographs. PAM 40.620 (= FE, 80; top part o f Frgt. 8); 41.444 (= FE, 302;
Frgt. 8); 42.496 (= FE, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

[ ] 16
] [
] [[ ][ ]
] [. ] [
[ .] [ 20

qal and should be distinguished from { pael pass, ptc.) in Ezra 4:18 (cf. the He-
brew in Neh. 8:8 , pual 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
Miliks translation of the Aramaic term.
120 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

1. 16: ( sing.), in contrast with Sundermanns M anichaean Frgt.

L Verso, 1.12, according to which Sam (= Ohyah) sees the rulers
o f heaven (plur.-p d x sh y n [](y) ,sm n ).
1. 17: ^ = / pass. 3rd pers. masc. plur. o f ( cf. Ezra 4:12 ,
the foundations were erected); see further Beyer, A T T M E B , 357.
1. 18: The sequence o f number, dir. obj., and ptc. on 1.17 makes the restora-
tion o f a ptc. at the beg. o f this line likely; Beyer suggests restoring
( ; cf. D an. 7:14c) is also possible. The top part o f a is
visible below the o f on 1.17 (not read by Beyer), resulting in a
restoration here o f ] . In any case, the presence o f a excludes the
possibility o f restoring ( cf. D an. 7:10d) at the beginning o f
the line. Beyers restoration o f ] ]is too long for the
required space between the fragments; ( ]cf. D an. 7:lOf) is suffici-
ent. For a variation o f , see []on 1.2 above. N ote the
series o f qal perf. passive verbs on 11.18-19: , ] , and .
1. 19: Beyer: ] ] in analogy with the following ; there is
further space for several letters at the beginning o f this line, thus requi-
ring restoration o f another word. After the lacuna Beyer reads ,
apparently under the influence o f at the end o f the line. However,
the first is preceded by a space and no is visible.
1. 20: The same concluding phrase occurs on 1.12 (see n. there).

16 Be]hold, the ruler o f the heavens descended

to the earth,
17 and thrones were erected, and the Great H oly One s[at down. A hun-
dred hu]ndreds were serving him; a thou-
sand thousands [were worshiping?] him;
18 [a]ll were standing [b]efore him. And behold, [book]s were opened,
and judgm ent was spoken; and the
judgm ent o f
19 [the Great One] was [wr]itten [in a book] and sealed in an inscription.
.[ ]for every living being and
(all) flesh, and upon
20 [ ].yn. Here (is) the end o f the dream.[

Comment. In 1971 Milik opined that the description of judgment in 11.17-

19 sinspire de Dan 7,9-10.127 Nowhere, however, did he provide rea-
dings for any part of Ohyahs dream vision except for lines 16 and 19.
It was not until 1994 that Beyer, after the PAM photographs were made
available through Robinson and Eisenmans Facsimile Edition and Tovs
Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche, published readings for the text in
Miliks view that the phraseology of Ohyalfs dream is derived from the
throne-theophany of Daniel 7 inevitably determined the direction some
subsequent discussion concerning these lines would take. While Beyer

127 Turfan et Qumran, p. 122. See also BE, p. 305.

4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 121

(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 dreams 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 Miliks 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) ]
(1 .16b)
(1 .17a)
(1 .17b) [


)1 .17c( ]
)11.17d-18a ( ? [

)1.186 ( ][ ] 7
)0 1.176 (
)1.180 ( [ ]
)1.184 (

[ ]
)11. 186- ^ (
] [.
)11.19c-20a ( .] [

A comparison demonstrates correspondences between the passages in four

ways: (1) identical vocabulary (, , , , , , ,

128 Beyer, A T T M , p. 264 n. 1 and Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 92.

129 Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, p. 104. See the discussion concerning the date o f BG
in Chapter One section IV above.
122 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

2) ;( )identical grammatical forms (esp. ,, , ,

3) ;(130, , / ) the sequence of phrases131; and (4)
the order of words within the parallel phrases (1.17a=7:9b; 17b=7:9c;
17c=10c [subst.+verb]; 18b=10d; and 18c=10f). These similarities demon-
strate sufficiently that a relationship exists between the passages. This does
not yet, of course, determine the nature of this relationship, of which there
are several possibilities: (a) BG has adapted the Daniel text; (b) the Da-
nielic vision adapts and extends the text in BG; (c) Daniel preserves a
form of the tradition that antedates BG; and (d) BG preserves a form of
the tradition that antedates Daniel. Whereas alternatives (a) and (b) are
closely related to arguments concerning the relative dating of both wri-
tings, (c) and (d) posit a dependence of both upon an underlying tradition
which one has preserved more intact than the other.
In order to evaluate these options, it is first necessary to consider the
major differences between the passages. These may be listed as follows: (1)
whereas in BG the subject of the theophany is designated the Great Holy
One, Daniel 7:9 (and vv. 13,22) refers to an Ancient of Days (
2) ;( ) BG speaks of an advent - or better, descent ( ) - of this
enthroned figure, whereas in Daniel he is simply observed (7:9c; cf. howe-
ver, v. 22-3) ;( ) unlike Daniel, the BG text does not
provide any details about the appearance of either the enthroned figure or
his throne; (4) the scene described in BG numbers the worshipers in hun-
dreds and thousands (1.17c-d) while in Daniel they are numbered as
thousands and myriads (7:10c-d); (5) BG uses three verbs to depict
the worship activity ( , [?, and 11.17- c-
18b), Daniel makes use of two (6) ;(^- , 7:10))
while BG ascribes the seated posture to 44the Great Holy One (1.17b),
Daniel apportions the act to both the 44Ancient of Days (v. 9c) and to
the heavenly court (v. lOe); and (7) unlike Daniel the vision in BG does
not contain a 44son of man figure.
As a whole, the differences adduced in this comparison demonstrate
that the vision in BG is both structurally and theologically less complex
that its counterpart in Daniel.132 Correspondingly, it would seem less like

130 In addition, Daniel and BG have the qal passive forms and respectively
following .
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

ly that the BG vision involved a removal of speculative details concerning

the seated figure and his throne and of the son of m an figure than to
suppose that Daniel 7 represents an addition of these elements inspired by
the vision of the Merkabah in Ezekiel l .133 Contrary to this line of reaso
ning, and in the direction of Miliks thesis, one might argue that BG may
have deliberately deleted details which allude to the Ezekiel vision (cf
Dan. 7:9c-g, lOa-b). This deletion would presumably have been introdu
ced into the tradition out of a conviction that a throne-chariot vision
should only be the privilege of a righteous visionary. Could, then, a reluc
tance to ascribe a Merkabah vision to a culpable giant - one whose
dream is communicating a message related to his own culpability - have
resulted in the construction of the version extant in BG? This argument
from context is what would have to be supposed if Miliks view on the
priority of the Danielic vision were to be followed. The likelihood of the
derivation of BG from Daniel is, however, significantly diminished on the
basis of difference (4) listed above. It seems more likely that in the trans
mission (oral or written) of a theophanic vision that hundreds and
thousands would have been transformed into thousands and my
riads than for the numeration of worshipers before the divine throne to
have been reduced.
If this argument is correct, then the relationship between the passages
favors options (b) or (d). It is not necessary to conclude from the observa
tions made here that BG as a whole antedates Daniel 7. For lack of evi
dence from which a precise date relative to Daniel can be ascertained (see
the discussion on date in Chapter One section IV), it is hence more safe to
conclude that BG preserves a theophanic tradition in a form which has
been expanded in Daniel, in which case it remains open whether the com
position of BG pre- or postdates the form and content of the vision as
preserved in Daniel 7. Whatever the temporal relationship between these
writings, it is significant that the theophany of BG may well provide a
piece of tradition which illumines the traditio-historical background of
Daniel 7, thus throwing possible light on that authors redactional activity.

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 Ezekiels Vision (TSAJ, 16; Tbingen: 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

4Q530 Column II, L.20B-Column III, L.3 (Fragments 7, 8, and 2 II):

The Giants Send Mahaway to Enoch
M ilik, Turfan et Qumran, 122-23 (col.sii, 11.20-23b; iii, 1.3) and BE, 305-306;
Fitzmyer-Harrington, M P A T 74-77; Sokoloff, Aramaic Fragments o f E noch
201 (1.21); Beyer, A T T M , 265 (same text as M ilik) and A T T M E B , 120-21 (col.s
ii, 11.22-24); Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, 104 and D SST\ 261 (same text as Milik);
and Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58, 63-64, 93-94, and 102-103. The first published rea-
dings to col. ii, 11.23c-24 are found in Beyer, A TT M E B . U ntil now, no readings o f
col. iii, 11.1-2 have been published.
In the PAM photographs 42.496 and 43.568 Frgt.s 7 and 8 are aligned from the
bottom visible lines o f the column; however, a comprehensible text can only be
achieved by repositioning the Frgt.s, so that the bottom 1. o f Frgt. 7 is placed
one 1. below the bottom visible 1. o f Frgt. 8; hence it is necessary to place a vacat
on 1.24.
Photographs. PAM 41.444 (= EE, 302; Frgt. 8); 42.496 (= EE, 887); 43.568 (=
EE, 1516).

] vacat 20
21 [ ] [] [ ]
22 [ ] [ ] [ ]
23 [ ] [ ] [ ]
vacat []24 [ ... ]
bottom margin, colum n ii
top margin, colum n iii
[ ]1
2 [ ]
3 .[ ]

1. 20: Restore with M ilik following a vacat as required by the space o f

the lacuna between Frgt.s 7 and 8; cf. vacat + in 1.15 above.
1.21: Restore with Milik, Garcia M artinez, and Beyer; cf.
in 4Q531 5, 1.2. The restoration in the middle o f the line
(cf. 11.5-6: ) [ ] remains uncertain; M iliks restora-
tion o f [ [] [ , followed in Garcia M artinez translation, seems
somewhat short - unless there was originally a vacat or extra spacing
here - for the space between the Frgt.s. S okoloff and Beyer have rightly
corrected the obj. suff. in M iliks reading o f . The construction
+ is frequently used in the Biblical Aramaic o f Ezra (4:11,14,17-
18; 5:6-7,17).
1. 22: On ] ] , cf. 1.14 above and 4Q203 8, 1.4. The restoration in the
middle o f the line follows that o f Beyer. For see 1.21 (cf. this
meaning o f in 1.5 above134). accords well with the context, if
the giants are stating reasons for why M ahaway should be the one to

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

enquire o f Enoch on their behalf; concerning the meaning o f 11.22-23

see the com m ent below. Towards the end o f the line Beyer corrected his
text from ( ] A T T M -D enn d a z u ]... Fhigkeit to
( ] .A T T M E B -dQnn ... die Kenntnis] des Ortes und des Be-
zirkes); on the other hand, M ilik had read here ...[, translating
loosely, and under the pain o f death (cf. Garcia Martinez, D S S T -
and death). The shapes o f the letters favor M iliks reading over that
o f Beyer; nevertheless the preceding is quite clear, making a refe-
rence to death less intelligible. Therefore, the orthographically possible
( taken as height) is read here, a sense m ost frequently attested
in Syriac literature.135 The term would presuppose that M ahaway
is capable o f flying since he has wings (col. iii, 1.4).
1. 23: Beyers restoration o f at the beginning o f the line makes logical
sense; one might also restore , for which would also serve as
the dir. obj. In the middle, restore with Beyer contra M iliks longer text:
[ ] []. The form ( without the stem vowel and accompa-
nying subject) is to be read as an a fe l pass. ptc.
1. 24: Beyers reading for the beginning o f the line ( ]... [ ) does not take the
traces o f preceding letters into account.
1.1: introduces another protasis as on 1.24; this line, then, still belongs to
the giants words o f instruction to Mahaway.
1. 3: Milik (and with him Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez, and Ree-
ves) all read ( fern.), which is interpreted as a feminine form for the
cardinal number one. A s such it would presuppose a foregoing fern,
sing. noun. However, in A T T M Beyer initially had =( schlie-
lieh), which in A T T M E B he corrected to . . . Beyers apparent diffi-
culty with reading a number here is that the letters represent the Hebrew
form for the word rather the expected Aramaic 136. While the use o f
a Hebrew form in an Aramaic document is not an impossibility, neither
is it probable; a number spelled in Aramaic literature and epigra-
phy is w ithout analogy. Orthographically possible would be =(
with the signs/marks o f ), but this would require that the noun ,
as in Heb. and Syr. but contrary to Aramaic texts, be interpreted as
feminine. In the absence o f a convincing way to read or interpret the
letters, it is perhaps better not to offer a tenuous solution at this point.
One final possibility, then, suggests itself: the letters may represent a
scribal error which, as other errors in the manuscript (see col. ii, 1.4;
iii, 1.4), has not been corrected in the text by the copyist. The term
( fern, constr.) is apparently interpreted by M ilik as a letter gran-
ting [Mahaway] full powers which M ahaway brings with him, a mea-
ning taken over by Fitzmyer-Harrington. Reeves correctly questions this
interpretation,137 since it ultimately depends on the derivation o f the

135 See s. v. in Robert Payne Smith et ah, Thesaurus syriacus (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1879); cf. as the emph. state (with the absol. plur. form ) o f =(
hill, height) in Sokoloff, Dictionary o f JPA.
136 This difficulty is also recognized by Sokoloff, who places a question mark after
in his list o f lexical items.
137 Jewish Lore, p. 103.
126 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

word from the Grk. or ;138 nevertheless, Reeves retains

this sense in his translation (authorization [?]). Beyers association
o f with the Bibl. Aram, term (= length, duration; Dan. 4:24;
7:12) is more plausible and followed here.

20 vacat Then ]all the giants [and the

nephilim] became frightened,
21 [and ]they summoned Mahaway. And he came to the[ assem b ly [of his
com panions ] the giants, and they
sent him to Enoch
22 the [scribe o f interpretation.] And they said to him, G o [to Enoch, be-
cause knowledge of] the location
and height are yours (and)
23 [you know and] have heard his voice. And speak to him so that he
sha[ll] explain [to] you the inter-
[pre]tation o f the dreams and so
that everything is laid to rest
24 [concerning] the m ... o f our house. If there is a m outh o f cunning[
..., ] vacat
1 if[ ]
2 still[ .]
3 b .t the life-span o f the giants [ ]

1. 22: On different attempts at restoring the text in the middle o f the line, see
the textual note above.
1. 3 Reeves suggests restoring: [and when] you hear his voice, then you shall
recount [= ] to him ... the dreams. (Aramaic my own). This rende-
ring can only be correct if is not read before ; moreover, the
first is clearly followed by a verb beginning with a 3rd pers. impf.
preformative instead o f a .
1. 3: See textual note above.

Comment. Whereas the giants reaction to Hahyahs 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 (<
) and Jean Cantineau, Grammaire du palmyrnien pigraphique (Publications de
lInstitut dtudes Orientales de la Facult des Lettres dAlger, 4; Cairo: lInstitut Fran-
ais dArchologie Orientale, 1935) 155 (< = 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 , 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 smitiques 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 on its own.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 127

engage one of their own, Mahaway, to journey on their behalf to Enoch,

who will be asked to interpret the meaning of both dreams. Despite their
fears, the giants words to Mahaway imply a certain incredulity that the
visions in fact contain a foreboding message for them; in 1.23 they still
seem to entertain the hope that everything will be laid to rest with
respect to their fate. Had they not just received some reassurance from one
of their own, Gilgamesh, that divine judgment had apparently been pro
nounced upon others (cf. col. ii, 11.1-3)7 Though the text of 1.24 through
to col. iii, 1.2 cannot be restored with any confidence, it probably ex
pressed a defensive posture of the giants who, though aware of their
own wrongdoing, nevertheless thought that they might not be the prime
targets of the judgment motif depicted in the dreams. Wherever one
chooses to place Hahyah and Ohyahs dreams within BG as a whole
(see the commentary on col. iii, 11.3-11 below), it is at least clear that,
with respect to the giants ultimate fate, these visions mark a decisive
turning point in the narrative.
The commissioning of Mahaway as an intermediary between the his
fellow-giants and Enoch at first seems odd. The text does not answer how
it is that Mahaway - and not one of the other giants, such as e. g. Gilga
mesh, Hahyah, or Ohyah - has been placed in a position to act as media
tor. Reeves finds the notion of one giant enjoying a special relationship
with Enoch improbable, and therefore suggests that according to this
passage the giants are merely giving Mahaway travel instructions.139
However, this interpretation may now be refuted on the basis of a reading
of 1.23 from the available photographs (see textual and translation notes
above). It seems instead that 11.22 and 23, on the basis of the visible letters,
make most coherent sense if one posits that here the giants are providing
reasons why Mahaway is the one to be sent on a mission to Enoch. The text
suggests that Mahaway has previously had contact with Enoch (so also
Milik, Beyer); if any of the restorations proposed for these lines are correct,
then Mahaway has already travelled to Enoch before and is thus capable of
recognizing his voice when he hears it again. That Mahaway has previously
been with Enoch is confirmed in col. iii, 1.7 by the adverbial form m r jf l
(a second time) which presupposes the earlier encounter (see below). In
addition, Mahaways ability to recognize Enochs voice would be appro
priately picked up in the narrative of col. iii, according to which the com
munication occurs once the Enoch has called out to Mahaway (1.6).140
139 Jewish Lore, p. 94.
140 See further the Manichaean Uygur fragment (first page) cited in the comment to
col. iii, 11.4-11 below, according to which Enoch is said to call out Mahaways name
very lovingly in contrast to another voice which warns him from proceeding any
further on his journey.
128 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

4Q530 Column III, LL.4-11 (Fragment 2 II):

Mahaways Journey to Enoch
M ilik, Turfan et Qumran 122-24 and BE, 306-307; Sokoloff, Aramaic Frag-
ments o f Enoch, 209 (1.3), 211, 215, and 224 (1.5); Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT\
76-77 (11.3-8,11); Beyer, A T T M , 265 and A T T M E B , 121 (1.3); Garcia Martinez,
Q umApoc, 104, 111 (1.7) and D S S T ' 261-62; and Reeves, Jewish Lore, 58-59, 68,
and 102-107.
PAM 43.568 contains the additions by Starcky o f a tiny Frgt. on the end o f 1.6
and o f two Frgt.s at the end o f 11.8-9 (see PAM 41.512 and the bottom o f PAM
42.496, Frgt. 6 from rt. respectively). Moreover, 11.10-11 originally belong to a
fragment photographed separately in PAM 41.512 and added by Starcky in
42.496. Finally, the text near the beginning o f 11.8-9 ( ]... [ ) originates
from a joined Frgt. photographed separately in PAM 42.439.
Photographs. PAM 41.512 (= FE, 336); 42.439 (= FE, 860; beg. o f 11.8-9); 42.496
(= FE, 887); 43.568 (= FE, 1516).

4 [
5 [ []
6 [][] . [
7 [ ...
8 [ [ ]
9 ] [ [
10 [ [ ] []
11 [ ] [

1. 4: M ilik reads and regards it a scribal error, in which the word was
copied before instead o f after ; [ M ilik thus restores:
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 copyists error through ho-
m oioarcton (confusion o f the first letter o f the following word with
in ) , without any attempt to correct the text.
1. 5: Read with Milik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia M artinez, and
Reeves (absol. fern. plur.). Sokoloff suggests the possibility o f reading
. Beyer reads instead the constr. fern. sing. ( A T T M , 704; =
qatl-an in Syr.); in this case, however, the double becom es difficult to
explain. The term ( see 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 letters space separates the first two radicals. Given the Greek trans-
cription o f okh in the second colum n o f Origens Hexapla and the roots

141 Sokoloff, Aramaic Fragments of Enoch 211, and Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 104.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiantsb 129

attestation in Arabic, it may be that the substantive takes a qutl forma-

tion .142 Hence the restoration here o f 143.
1. 6: M ilik (Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez): ... ( [] and
he [= Mahaway] saw Enoch ... an oracle). There is sufficient space for a
further letter on the first word, which results in a form parallel to that
o f the next verb with its 3rd pers. masc. sing. obj. suffix (Beyer). Thus
Enoch, not Mahaway, would be the m ost likely subject (so also the
Uygur Frgt. cited below); cf. col. ii, 1.23 where the giants speak to M ah-
away about his having heard E nochs voice.144 Orthographically,
(M ilik) is possible, given the form o f the second letter; however, in
the manuscript can vary in form (see in in 1.7) and is read
here in line with the considerations just stated. Since 1.8) ) seems
to introduce a new thought, the previous may be under-
stood as an equivalent to the subject o f the verb preceding the beg. o f
this line. The context here allows for the inference that the giants are
addressing Enoch through M ahaway in the first pers. plur.145
1. 7: Reeves proposes reading the as an adjective refering to the se-
cond tablet mentioned in 4Q203 7 B ii, 1.3 ( ) and 4Q203 8, 1.3
() [] . The adverbial ending - simply precludes this interpretation;
see further the com m ent below. Before the lacuna both M ilik and Beyer
have a and M ilik restores ( [ I ask; so also Fitzmyer-Har-
rington, Garcia Martinez, and Reeves). For the verb , M ilik provi-
des a supplementary infinitive by reading on the tiny piece added
in PAM 43.568 (see com m ent on Starckys joinings above). Mahaway is
thus made to ask Enoch twice for an explanation. The presence o f a
on the Frgt. is, however, far from clear. If the name is read here
instead, then the words here may be attributed to the giants who inform
Enoch o f the reason for M ahaways m ission (Beyer).
1. 9: { [ itta fa l o f ) agrees with Beyer,146 whereas M ilik reads
( [ that they may be punished). These translations, both pos-
sible, represent different emphases: whereas Beyers rendering may take
up the theme o f reprieve (but whose?) from immediate punishment,
M ilik has the text refer to their - the Watchers and/or the giants?
- punishment. In neither case, is the precise relationship between the
text and the giants themselves clear.
1. 11: This line, which no doubt alludes back to H ahyahs dream in col. ii
(11.7-12), has been variously restored. Milik: ( ] ]two hun-
dred tre]es; so also Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez); Beyer:

142 See Beyer, ATTM , p. 579.

143 In 4Q530 another qutl noun, ( col. ii, 1.20), is written without the internal
mater. If the proposed restoration here is correct, one would have to assume that the
orthography for such instances must have varied. Unfortunately, there is not enough
evidence to confirm or question this suggestion.
144 So also Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 105.
145 So also Milik, BE, p. 306: ... we shall listen to] your words, and all the nephilim
o f the earth also. Hence the restoration o f the 1st pers. plur. after the lacuna on 1.10.
146 So also Emile Puech, Fragments dun apocryphe de Lvi et le personnage escha-
tologique. 4QTestLvicd(?) et 4QAJa, in eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas
Montaner, The M adrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings o f the International Congress on
the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 11/2; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992) 470.
130 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

p j[tyb (ton]gues [of fire]; cf. Beyers 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 Beyers restoration
depends on his rather uncertain reading o f col. ii, 1.8 (see above), it is
improbable. M iliks 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 ahyahs dream where it plausibly refers to the Watchers.

4 as whirlwinds, and he flew with his hands/wings k l as [an] eag[le

5 the earth, and crossed over bare regions, the Great D esert [
6 And Enoch [s]aw h[im] and called out to him. And Mahaway said to
him .[
7 to here, and to you for a second time M ahaway wan[ts to recount ...
We shall listen to]
8 your [w]ords, and all the nephilim o f the earth. If he has brought[
9 from the day[s of] their[ ], then they will be ad[ded to
10 [ that we] may learn from you th[e]ir interpretation. [
11 [ gard]eners(7) who descended] from heaven[

1.6: Whereas Milik takes Mahaway as the subj. o f the verbs, the 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 Mahaways
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 Enochs interpretation of
Hahyahs 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 refers to
the women who bore great shoots, and the Middle Persian Frgt. M625c (see Milik,
BE, p. 299 and Henning, The Book of the Giants 66) merely identifies the Egregoroi
(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

With respect to the passage, the readings and translations of scholars

reveal differences of interpretation in two main areas. First, despite virtual
unanimity among scholars that Mahaway is addressing Enoch in 11.6-10,
there are two main ways of construing precisely the literary form in which
his words occur. Is Mahaway himself the one who formulates the words on
behalf of the giants (Milik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez) or is
Mahaway repeating a message previously formulated by the giants (Be
yer)?149 These readings depend on whether oracle Qinft) or Mahaway
(*,inft) is read on lines 6 and 7. If the latter, then the presence of M ah
away on 1.7 is best explicable as words of Mahaway150 if it is the giants
message to Enoch which Mahaway is communicating. To read oracle on
11.6-7, however, would mean that Mahaway is himself stating what he
wants him for the giants Enoch to provide.
The reading Mahaway is chosen here for both the orthographic con
siderations stated in the textual notes above and the argument from con
text. This is directly related to a second major difference among interpre
ters: the activity which the temporal adverb m r j n may be thought to
describe. Whereas a reading of Mahaway on 1.7 can be thought to
mean that the giants have sent this giant to Enoch for a second time (Beyer)
or that Mahaway is requesting an interpretation of visions from Enoch for a
second time (the view taken here), Miliks translation could suggest that
for a second time refers to Mahaways repetition on 1.7 of his request for
an oracle on 1.6.151 Since in 4Q203 7 B ii, 1.3 and 4Q203 8 1.3 a distinc
tion seems to be presupposed between a second tablet from Enoch and
a first one which has already been communicated, it makes good sense to
suppose that the adverb provides a clue to the overall structure of the
narrative; Mahaway has been with Enoch before and is now asking him
again for an interpretation. Miliks reading, of course, does not exclude
the possibility that Mahaway journeyed to Enoch before, but reduces the
adverb to a repetition within the immediate context.152
Reeves view that m r a n should not be read as an adverb, but as an
adjective, has been mentioned and rejected in the textual note to 1.7
above. On the basis of his reading, Reeves finds here a direct reference
to the second tablet mentioned in 4Q203 7 B and 8; this would that

149 Reeves rendering in Jewish Lore, p. 64 does not commit itself to either construal.
150 The underlying assumption is that a self-reference by Mahaway by using his own
name is unlikely.
151 However, refering to the adverb m r 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
Mahaways 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

the second tablet contains Enochs response to the giants request

through Mahaway that he interpret the dreams in 4Q530. Reeves argues
that if Mahaway had visited Enoch prior to this occasion, there would
have been no need for the Giants to provide him with travel instructions
in column ii of 4Q530 (see however the comment on col. ii, 11.22-23 abo
ve).153 As a result, Reeves places the dream sequence in 4Q530 relatively
early in the BG narrative; in fact, he holds the view that the dreams of
Hahyah and Ohyah are the only ones the giants have in BG. With respect
to the structure of the Qumran BG, Reeves is apparently influenced by the
simplicity of the Midrash of Shemhazai and cAza'el, in which only two
dreams are mentioned. He is inclined both to absorb the fragmentary
vision in 6Q8 2 into Hahyahs dream in 4Q530 col. ii and to leave the
vision in 2Q26 out of consideration for BG altogether (see comments
under 6Q8 2 below and 2Q26 above). However, a close reading of the
Midrash reveals that while elements from the visions in 6Q8 2 and 2Q26
predominate, there the dream visions from 4Q530 are not included; in
other words, the Midrash apparently represents a simplification of a
longer and more complicated BG narrative.
In contrast with Reeves reconstruction, a previous visit to Enoch by
Mahaway means that columns ii and iii of 4Q530 may placed at a stage of
the narrative when the giants, through dreams (6Q8 2 and 2Q26), have
already been recipients of visions threatening their destruction. Whereas
the earlier dreams apparently may have failed to convince all the giants
that their punishment is inescapable - they seem to have held out the hope
that not all of them or perhaps only the Watchers were to be destroyed
(see 4Q203 7 A and B; 4Q203 8; and most clearly in 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3
and their attempt to seek reassurance on 1.23) -, the thrust of these
dreams focusses more exclusively on Gods judgment.154
Mahaways journey to Enoch is also preserved on two pages of a M a
nichaean Uygur fragment. Hennings translation is given below:155
(First Page) ... fire was going to com e out. And [I saw] that the sun was at the point
o f rising, and that [his?] centre without increasing (?) above was going to start rolling.
Then came a voice from the air above. Calling me, it spoke thus: Oh son o f Virog-
dad, your affairs are lamentable (?). M ore than this you shall [not] see. D o not die
now prematurely, but turn quickly back from here. A nd again, besides this (voice), I
heard the voice o f Enoch, the apostle, from the south, without, however, seeing him
at all. Speaking my name very lovingly, he called. And downwards from ... then
(Second Page) ... ... for the closed door o f the sun will open, the suns light and
heat will descend and set your wings alight. You will burn and die, said he. Having

153 Jewish Lore, p. 105.

154 See the comment under col. ii, 11.7-12 above and 1.19.
155 The Book of the Giants 65.
4Q530 = 4QEnGiants 133

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 ...

Milik opines that the Manichaean text contains a description of Maha-

ways first journey to Enoch.156 Reeves, who rejects the notion of two
journeys as far as the Qumran BG is concerned, relates the Uygur mate-
rial directly to the 4Q530 text. For purposes of analyzing 4Q530 it is not
necessary to decide between these views. Nevertheless, an attempt to infer
the context of the Manichaean passage within BG may corroborate argu-
ments made about the context of 4Q530 column iii made above. If Reeves
correlation is correct, then the Manichaean fragment contains an elabo-
rated account of the 4Q530 journey and encounter. If Milik is correct that
the fragment refers to Mahaways first encounter with Enoch and if the
numerous details in the Manichaean source may be thought to have deri-
ved from the first journey as described in a (now lost) portion of the
Qumran BG, then the more cursory description in column iii is explicable.
In any case, common to Milik and Reeves respective interpretations is the
view that the Manichaean fragment is concerned with an initial encounter
between Mahaway and Enoch. If the arguments advanced above about
4Q530 column iii describing a second encounter are correct, then the con-
text assigned by Milik to the Uygur fragment appears to be valid.
Whether part of a first or second journey of Mahaway, the Manichaean
text, in addition to the correspondence of the characters (the son of Vi-
rogdad=Mahaway and Enoch occurs in both), contains further elements
and motifs also found in 4Q530: (1) the initiation of the encounter
through Enochs calling Mahaway (cf. col. ii, 1.23; col. iii, 1.5); (2) the
attribution to Mahaway of an ability to fly with wings (cf. , col. iii,
1.4); and (3) hints that Mahaway is or has been the recipient special treat-
ment from Enoch (cf. col. ii, 11.22-23).
In 1.5 Mahaway is described as crossing a wasteland referred to as the
Great Desert. The words imply that Enochs abode is being located som-
ewhere beyond this region. Under 4Q203 3 above, it is suggested that hints
of BGs reliance on the Gilgamesh Epic and the Book of the Watchers { - 1
En. 13:9), presuppose a location of the Watchers in Abel-Men/Mayya (to
the south of and between Lebanon and Mt. Hermon). In addition, accor-
ding to the Book o f the Watchers, Enoch travels east toward the garden of
truth157 (1 ; En. 32:3=4QEnoche 1 xxvi21) which in an Ara
156 So also Beyer, A TT M , p. 264 n. 1.
157 Here in the east, this garden is assumed to be in the northwest in I En. 24:3^1
(near the seven mountains) and, according to Black {The Book o f Enoch, p. 179) in 70:3,
134 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

maic manuscript of the Astronomical Book - though in the north - is

placed beyond deserts ( ) and the seven mountains (4QE-
nastr^23 9158; cf. 1 En. 77:4) and which in the Ethiopic recensions and
the Greek Codex Panopolitanus to 1 Enoch 28:1 and 29:1 - toward the
east - is bordered by a desert. Since in the Genesis Apocryphon col. xxi
11.11-12 the included in the land promised to Abraham refers
to the Syro-Arabian desert to the east, it may well be that Mahaways
journey takes him from Abel-Mayya across this desert toward the para-
disical garden in the east where Enoch may be thought to live.159

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 Beyers 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 gographie mythique dHnoch et ses sources orientales, RevBib 65 (1958) 63;
Milik, Hnoch au pays des aromates (ch. XXVII XXXII). Fragments aramens de
la grotte 4 de Qumrn, 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 Enochs journey through the world does not actually
take him into the garden (see esp. the Aram, in 4QEnoclF 1 xxvi21: [
=Cod. Pan. ); 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

ii i

[][]?1[ 1
2 ]
3 ]
4 [ ] ... ?
5 ]. .[
6 ]
7 ]
8 ]

1. 1: Traces o f four letters are visible on PAM 41.512; the could also be a p.
1. 2: Restore ] with Beyer in parallelism with the following . Contra
Beyer ( = I, who have confessed . . . ), the final word could
also be read as ; see the translation below.
1. 3: Beyer reads as the fern, absol. substantive ( .A T T M E B , 398).
There are no further indications in the ms. that is ever used for a fern,
ending ( ;)nevertheless, because o f the following relative clause,
cannot be read as a ptc. Beyers interpretation should be regarded as
valid. perhaps anticipates the negative =( n 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. -
161; cf. the more derivative text in
Syncellus (
). 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 and
( p 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 ( ) or an imperfect ( or ) requires a dir. obj. Since
the following term is not a substantive but a verb,162 Beyer sup-
poses that a dir. obj. is missing from the text (a scribal error?). For
absence o f any better solution within the text itself, Beyers suggestion
may be taken seriously.
1. 6: Beyer: .[. The first visible letter is identical in form to in on 1.2.
1. 7: Beyer: ( ] D as Sehen hat meine Lider schwer ge-
m acht.). The first word could also be read ( it 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 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
5 to p.[

1.2 Beyer: ... ich, der bekannt hat.

1.3 On ... every house ... [will not(?) see the textual note above.
1.6 Beyer: ... und ich werde schlafen. U nd Brot . . . .

Comment. Once Milik had drawn attention to the text of 1.4, Beyer (see
ATTM , 260G 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.
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
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

result of the petitionary prayers of their human victims. The expression

their murderers, which marks a departure from the Greek and Ethiopic
recensions of 1 Enoch 9:10 (see textual note to 1.4), is thus to be under
stood as a reference to the giants. If Codex Panopolitanus faithfully re
flects a Vorlage originally contained in the Aramaic manuscripts to Enoch
at Qumran, then this departure is comprehensible as an attempt to relate
more specifically the human cries for help to the giants violent activity.
Thus it may not be misleading to suppose that the particular focus of BG
on the giants has affected the way the Book of Watchers tradition has been
Lines 6-7. The combined motifs of oncoming sleep and bread also oc
cur in the Manichaean Fragment L published by Sundermann (cf. under
4Q530 columnii, ll.l-3a above).164 Lines 1-4,6-7 of the Verso read as
Then Sam said to the giants, Come here, so that we may eat and be glad!
Because o f worry they ate no bread. They fell asleep. ... Sam had a dream.

In this brief text the giants eating activity is associated with confidence,
however illusory, in their well-being. Conversely, if they are unable to eat,
it is because of their worry about the future.165 Less clear is how, if at all,
the lack of food is related to falling asleep. Does the Manichaean text
imply that, without food, the giants tire to the point of sleeping and 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 giants 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

164 Ein weiteres Fragment, p. 497.

165 This is also implied in 4Q531 17, 1.11: after Ohyah mentions the ominous nature
o f his own dream, this broken text alludes to an apparent inability to sleep (he will not]
sleep and he will not[).
166 On this meaning for the expression , see the textual note to 4Q530
col. ii, 1.4 above.
138 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

themselves in a state of restlessness dominated by worry, tiredness, the

inability to eat(?), and the inability to sleep peacefully.167

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

]xnru[ 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
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[

Comment. Since there is no lacuna on column ii where the giants name

could conceivably be assigned and since column iii is concerned with the
journey of Mahaway to Enoch, this fragment probably belonged to one of
the earlier columns.

4Q 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 ].
2 ] .][.[
1.1: - - perhaps represents a plur. ptc. ending.

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 ]
2 ] .[

1. 2: The has a distinctive flag at the bottom , as the o f in Frgt. 6,

1.4. If correctly read, is the only extant early attestation in Ara-
maic texts o f the verb in 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 ].
2 ]. .[
3 ][

1. 3: If not a 3rd pers. masc. pron., the word is a perf. masc. form o f ( to
bei) .168 The form is probably sing., but could also be a plur. (cf. =
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).

]? l
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 [

Comment. The term gardeners comprises one of the main elements of

Hahyahs vision (col. ii, 1.7). This fragment may either have originally
been part of column ii (at the beginning of 11.8-9?) or somewhere in co
lumniii (below 1.11) where Hahyahs dream is being interpreted.

N o readings published to date.
Lines 1-2 and 3 -4 belong to separate fragments which have been joined in PAM
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. 3: 1?K represents a negative prohibition and is followed by a jussive verbal


1 ]t w..h[
2 ]hwy.[
3 ]yn. Let not yn[
4 vn

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[

N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 42.439 (= FE, 860); 42.496 (= FE, 887).

]. Ka[ l
1 ]m.[

N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 42.439 (= FE, 860).

] rM !
]an !n[ 2
1 )lyk [
2 ]hn tan]

4Q 531 - 4Q E nG iantsc - (48 Fragm ents)

Photographs. As the case with 4Q530, 4Q531 was originally assigned to

Starcky, who was responsible for the collection and arrangement of its
fragments in PAM photographs 43.569 and 43.570. The readings of frag
ments 5 and 17 published by Milik (Turfan et Qumran; BE), reproduced
and corrected by Beyer (.ATTM), were unaccompanied by photographs,
which were not generally available until their publication in FE and the
Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche. Based on the photographic editions Beyer
(ATTMEB) has offered a few corrections to his earlier text and has pro
142 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

vided readings, though incomplete, to many of the other fragments be-

longing to 4Q531.
Numeration. Since a sequence among the fragments is not immediately
apparent, they shall be analyzed in accordance with their appearance in
PAM 43.569 and 43.570 (moving from right to left, top to bottom).
Script. No comments concerning the palaeographical context of 4Q531
have as yet been published. If the forms of the letters are compared with
the script charts produced by Cross169 and N. Avigad170, the semi-for-
mal hand171 contains features which are most often characterized as
very early172 to mid-late Herodian hands.173
From the limited size and number of fragments, one can observe a
liberal use of space. The copyist, in a way similar to 4Q203=4QEnGiantsa
(cf. above), seems to have left spaces between words (so e. g. Frgt.s4, 1.5
and 17, 1.9), to have indented lines (so Frgt. 17,11.2,7), or perhaps even to
have left them entirely blank (cf. Frgt.s 5, 1.7 and 9, 1.6?) as a means of

4Q 5311
Beyer, A T T M E B , 119 (11.2-9).
Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.569 (= EE, 1517).

]1 ]
2 [ ]

169 ^Development of the Jewish Scripts, pp. 138-39 and 148^49.

170 The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in eds. Chaim Rabin and Yigael
Yadin, Aspects o f the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 4; Jerusalem: The
Hebrew University, 1965, 2nd ed.), esp. pp. 67,75.
171 The use of this term arises from the closer correspondences between the letters of
4Q531 to formal than to semi-cursive Hasmonaean and Herodian scripts, but also
attempts to recognize that these letter forms are frequently connected through horizon-
tal and diagonal strokes on the left.
172 So esp. the letters ( the loop at the rt. varies between open and closed) and final
(the left main vertical stroke rises above the upper horizontal stroke); cf. lQIsab (Avigad,
Palaeography, p. 75, col. IX). See also final ( similar to the medial form, the sublinear
line concludes with a horizontal stroke to the left) and ( the form varies threefold: with
a ligature toward the inside on the left, with a ligature toward the inside on the right,
without ligatures).
173 The most developed (thus relatively late) forms include and 4) QDeutJ). Since
many of the letter forms vary more than in the highly standardizing representations of
the Herodian script (i. e., 1QM, IQapGen, and HQTemple), 4Q531 was probably copied
some time during the very early Herodian years (5 0 -1 B. C. E.). An extant script to
which 4Q531 comes close (though not identical, being slightly less consistent in the letter
forms) is the hand o f 4QEnochc=4Q203 (4QEnGiantsa): this is apparent in the abun-
dant, but measured use, of ligatures at the extremities o f the letters (, , , and /) , as
well as a striking similarity of the letters , , , , , , and .
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 143

[. ] [ ] 3
[] 4
[] 5
[.? ] 6
[] 7
[] 8
[[ 9
? [...] [....] 10

1. 1: The third letter could also be =) w 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. + 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 . The phrase probably refers to flying creatures
and could be restored as either [( cf. D an. 4:9,18; and W QTgJob
col. 28, 1.21) or [( collectivecf. D an. 2:38).
1. 6: The first two letters o f are unclear, but are restored (with
Beyer) to produce a reference to vulture, bee eater.174
1. 7: Beyer interprets as a f el for ( to burn). The word may also be
read as the preposition ( temporal or locative), but on the basis o f
1.8, which alludes to destructive activity, Beyers reading is to be upheld.
1. 9: The damaged letters in the middle o f the line are unclear, but are
read in accordance with context; , if correct, is written so close to the
following that 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
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
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, 11.9b10). On the basis of the content in 4Q531 1,
then, Beyers 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).

1 ] [ ] [
2 ] .[

1. 1: Following Beyer reads ; since 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
, cf. 4Q531 17, 1.10 below.

1 ]he [s]aid to him, I know until [

2 ]h and everything which (is) upon you .[

1. 2: Beyer: gegen dich. The precise sense o f depends on the word which

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
]. ?]. 2
. .. .[ 3
.. .[ ]. ..[.. 4

1. 4: Because o f the similarity between the first four letters with others, the
reading o f ( from ) is 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 or . Reading the
former, it might be possible to restore =( explanation), but the
form is rare and only attested in later sources.176

1 ]..[
2 ]. they will perish .[
3 you have given to him this m ... .[
4 * ..7 .[ ] ...[

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 Beyers placement is not immediately apparent;
it maybe argued that the Frgt. belongs to another part of BG (see comment
Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.569 (= FE, 1517).
... 1 ] [
2 [ ].] [.. [ ]
3 ... ] .[. [ ]
4 ] [] [
5 ]. [
6 ][
7 ] . [

1.1: =( the exalted one is my brother), a giants 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 ]. in
4Q203 3. The ~ throughout the Frgt. is a nota accusativa and may be
restored (with Beyer) before each name in the lists.
1. 2: Beyer reads [. 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 and
there is no sublinear stroke to indicate a where Beyer places it; hence
the name is left undeciphered. , a Watchers name, means God
answered or, if derived from ( cf. 4QEnocha 1 iii 10; 4QEnochcl
ii 27 to 1 En. 6:7), it could mean cloud of God.
1. 3: , 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. , Watchers 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 fathers 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 aemel, 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.

Comment. The fragment commences at the conclusion of a list of giants

and Watchers, respectively, who have died through violence. Much about
the fragment, however, remains unclear. The fragmentary lines neither
reveal by whom these giants and Watchers have been killed - that is,
whether by one of G ods chief angels (cf. 4Q203 8, 1.12) or by one another
(cf. the Middle Persian Kawan, Frgt.y 178) - nor do they provide unambi
guous clues which suggest the identities of the speaker and addressee. The
text, however, does provide several hints which shall be detailed here.
Beyer locates these lines within Enochs interpretation of Ohyah and
Hahyahs dreams preserved in 4Q530 col. iii, assigning them to a text
corresponding to G 10, 11.21-27 (of which manuscript?). While Beyers
line numeration seems derived from the speculative supposition that the
text belongs at the conclusion of Enochs message to Mahaway - and,

177 So s. v. in Jastrow, Dictionary and Sokoloff, Dictionary of JPA (no. 3). This mea-
ning for is now attested in 4QT0b ara = 4Q196 (= Tob. 3:15; see PAM 43.176 = FE,
1231, where this reading is confirmed by the legible in the lacunae); cf. further Beyer,
ATTMEB, pp. 137, 305.
178 Hennings translation is cited in the commentary to 1Q23 9+14+15 above.
148 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

therefore, should be viewed with caution -, his interpretation of its context

merits serious consideration. That Enoch is addressing Mahaway here is
based on the following threefold line of reasoning. First, the third person
reference to the (1.4) would seem to exclude one of the giants as the
speaker and, since Watchers are also included in the list of names, they
might be excluded as well. Moreover, the second person address (11.4,7)
indicates that these lines do not, in the story, represent the perspective
of a third person narrator. These observations hence suggest that the
speaker is either one of the primary angels or Enoch. Given Enochs
prominent role as interpreter of the giants dreams, he is the more proba
ble speaker. Second, Beyers interpretation is related to the translation of
in 1.7 as against you rather than upon you. As such, the term
would be reminiscent of the concluding pronouncement in the second
tablet against the Watchers (4Q203 8, 1.14-'p:rby) dictated to Enoch
and, if one follows the Sundermann Fragment L, mediated through
Mahaway (see comment under 4Q203 8). Third, the question on 1.5 con
tains a speakers attempt to persuade the addressee about the validity of
something by appealing to the fact that the giants and Watchers names
just listed have been killed. Of course, 6Q8 1 and 4Q530 col. ii, 11.1-3 both
contain conversations among the giants in which they disagree about their
fate. If, then, this point is considered apart from the other two considera
tions just made, one might have grounds to suppose that this text is simply
another instance of one giant attempting to convince another. However, if
all three arguments are taken together, it is difficult to imagine what more
fitting context there is in BG than that Enoch is communicating to M ah
away that the dreams herald doom for the giants. The deaths recounted by
Enoch are likely to have occurred through intramural fighting among the
Watchers and giants, as suggested by the 2nd person subject of the verb in
1.4. The violence, however, is ultimately to be regarded as a manifestation
of divine punishment.179
If the general reconstruction of context presupposed by Beyer can be
upheld, it remains uncertain whether Enoch is addressing Mahaway du
ring their first or second encounter. From 4Q531 4 it may be inferred
that destruction inflicted on the Watchers and giants is not complete; it is
thus possible that the remaining giants held out the hope that they might
escape this judgment (cf. 4Q530 col. ii, 1.2). If this is so, the fragment
might correspond to an earlier communication by Enoch to Mahaway in
179 Cf. Jub. 5:7,9 (trans. Wintermute, OTP 2.64): And against their children a word
went forth from before his presence so that he might smite them with the sword and
remove them from under heaven. ... And he [God] sent his sword among them so that
each one might kill his fellow and they began to kill one another until they all fell on the
sword and they were wiped out from the earth.
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 149

BG. In such a case, Enochs 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 Enochs interpretation, to remove their hope for sur
vival. On the other hand, if this fragment were regarded as part of Enochs
interpretation of Ohyah and Hahyahs dreams in 4Q530 col. ii (with Be
yer), then the persuasiveness of Enochs 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, 104105 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).

[ .]
[ . ]
[. .]
[ ] . . . 6
vacat 1
[ ] 8

1. 1: Milik reads ;[the letter could also be . Beyer (followed by Reeves) has:
] ;[ while Beyer reads the form as a transitive p a 1el 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
and its proximity to . Read ( with Milik, followed by Sokoloff
and Garcia Martinez) = itpa. stem 3rd pers. plur., with the infixed -
assimilated into the dental consonant of the first radical.
1. 2: On the term , see the comment under 4Q530 col. ii, 11.3-6. Black
holds that and may be understood in apposition.
1. 3: ist the a f e l stem, 3rd pers. plur. masc. perf. of . 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: [ .
150 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

The reading, though possible, is uncertain. is interpreted by Milik as

if , a form derived from , while Beyer sees therein a 3rd pers. plur.
masc. perf. verb from ( to wail). These interpretations are appa-
rently chosen because of a retiscence to read the alternate form for the
interjection 180 . Reeves is no doubt correct, however, to interpret this
form as derived from attested in Imperial Aramaic sources.181
1. 4: Milik (followed by Garcia Martinez): ( [ in his blood); Beyer and
Reeves: ( [ its blood). The pron. suff. may be either masc. or fern.
If the former, then the suff. would refer to one of the Watchers or to a
collective contingent of them. If a fem. suff, then the expression proba-
bly refers to bloodshed on earth (fem.). Other possible readings, but
which are less suitable to the context, would result from reading in-
stead of : ( sg. absol., throne), ( its/his/her vineyard).
On the instrumental sense of , see Beyer, A T T M , 593. At the end
o f the line, Reeves suggests reading and restoring: ( [turmoil).
As the final letter on the line could also be , the word remains uncer-
1. 5: Milik restores: ( ]cf. Beyer and Reeves: )[. The visible letters may
also belong to a plur. ptc. denoting one of the giants misdeeds. On the
meaning of as to be enough, see the same in 4Q532 2, the textual
note to 1.10.
1. 8: If the first letter is correctly read, is the perf. 3rd pers. plur. of
+ the fem. 3rd sing. acc. obj. (= earth?).
1 ]. they defiled themselves[
2 ]giants and nephilim[
3 ]. they begat. Behold, k.[
4 ]in its blood(?), and by means of mh[
5 ]yn because it was not enough for them and for[
6 ] and (they were) wanting to eat much m/[
7 vacat
8 ]the nephilim smote it (the earth?)

1. 1: Translated with Milik, Uhlig, and Garcia Martinez. Concerning the

renderings of Beyer (sie befleckten) and Reeves (they became defi-
led), see the textual note above.
1. 3: The masc. form of the verb presupposes the Watchers as the subject.
Garcia Martinez translation (they shall sire) reads the form as if it
were in the impf.
1. 4: See the textual note above.

180 Furthermore, Beyer argues that as an interjection, is always combined with the
conjunction ~ in the Daniel texts 2:31; 4:7,10; 7:8 {ATTM , p. 522). In earlier Aramaic
texts, however, the earlier form of the interjection ( )occurs independently: see Jean-
Hoftijzer, DISO, p. 65; Donner and Rollig, KAI, no.s 233, 11. 9,11,13 (3X) (Assur, mid-
7th cent. B. C. E.); 270B 1.4 (Elephantine, 5th cent. B. C. E.). The reading of the Her-
mopolis papyrus 1, 1.7 is disputed; see Kaufman, Akkadian Influences on Aramaic , p. 69
and n. 190.
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 151

Comment. This fragment recounts motifs concerning the giants known

through other early Jewish literature, especially the Book of Watchers.
Thematic correspondences with the latter are provided here, while further
parallels with early Jewish sources are noted in parentheses:
1.1: (The Watchers) defiled themselves.
1. En. 9:8; 15:3-4;182 {Jub. 4:22; 7:21; 1 En. 106: 14;
cf. 7:1 and 10:11 1 En. 69:5)
1. 3: (The Watchers) begat (giants).
1 En. 15:3-4;183 {Jub. 7:22; 1 En. 106:17; cf.
cf 7:2; 9:9; 10:9.184 Jub. 5:1; T.Reub. 5:6)

1. 4: its (the earths?) blood

1 En. 9:1; 9:9; {Jub. 7:23-25)185
cf. 7:5; 15:9.186
1. 5: (The giants appetites) are insatiable.
1 En. 7:3-4;187

1. 6: (The giants) were eating much.188

1 En. 7:3-5.

181 Reeves, Jewish Lore , pp. 72-73; cf. Sokoloff, Aramaic Fragments of Enoch 209
and The Targum to Job in Qumran Cave 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
... ... ). 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

1. 8: The nephilim smote it (the earth?).

Cf. 1 En. 7:5. The texts referring to the giants fighting activity focus
mostly on intramural violence (1 En. 10:12; Jub . 5:2, 7:22189).

The parallels show special affinities between the BG fragment and several
passages in the Book of Watchers,190 especially with those from chapters
6-11.191 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

giants violence focussing on non-human creatures).193 The content of

these materials, however, may be regarded as supplementary and does
not necessitate that a separate section be supposed.

4Q531 6
Beyer, ATTM EB, 122 (11.2-3).
Photographs. PAM 43.569 (= FE, 1517).

] P1 ]
2 ] .[
3 ] [*

1. 2: Beyer: ; a is not visible. The final letter before the lacuna could
be or .

1 U [
2 ]t his throne .[
3 f]ive before hi[m

Comment. The masculine pronominal suffixes in 11.2-3 suggest that the

fragment belongs to a narrative section of BG. It remains possible, howe-
ver, that the events in the fragmentary text are being recounted by one of
the giants or Watchers.

4Q531 7
Beyer, ATTM EB, 122 ( in 1.2).
Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.569 (= FE, 1517).
]1 ].. .
2 ] .[
3 ]. ?[

1. 2: A fold in the fragment impedes reading the third letter of the first word;
the visible vertical trace on the right part of the letter may correspond to
a ( i. e., he divided) or to a ( he served), with the former possi-
bility, given the following term, would seem more likely.
1 ]..t. all[
2 ] pi. his garment[
3 ]. and according to [his?] reason[

193 Garcia Martinez reasoning for positing a section shich does not include 4Q531 5
at the beginning of BG is not convincing: Fragments 9+14+15 of 1Q23 seemingly
correspond to the summary of the Book of Watchers and would, therefore, have their
origin at the beginning of the work.
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 -
Photographs. PAM 41.361; 43.569 (= FE, 1517).
]1 ]
2 ]? [
3 [ ]
4 ]. [
5 ] [
]...[ 6
1. 2: Beyer: ] . The second letter appears to have a base which, if not dama-
ged, may represent an unusual form of ( as in Frgt. 20), or, if damaged,
could also be a or . The restoration suggested is uncertain. The term
occurs most often in conjunction with blood.
1. 4: Beyer: . What Beyer reads as a consists of two unconnected
strokes corresponding to and respectively.
1 ]his shoulders. And he poured [
2 ] before [his?] co[mpanions?
3 h]is [...] (are) weighty[
4 ]. from the splendor k[
5 ] in its/his likeness [
6 ]...[
1.4: Beyer renders with an interrogative: Wer is dieser [...? See textual note

Comment. The context of this fragment cannot be determined with any

confidence. It is possible, especially if the restoration on 1.2 is correct,
that activity of a giant is narrated in 11.1-2 and that 11.3fif. record what
this giant says to his companions.

4Q531 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.

[] 1
vacat 2
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 155

[. ] 3
[...] [] 4
[ [] [ 5
[[ 6
meat 7
]8 [ .] [...] [. :
9 ].[ ].[

1. 3: A possible restoration at the beginning is ; ] hence the words may

refer to the size of an army: its [strenjgth (was) a thousand thousands.
See textual note to 1.4.
1. 4: Beyer: []. In PAM 41.956 the sublinear stroke o f what may be a
is visible. The traces of letters at the end of the line are illegible. The
term may refer to host, as in Heb.; cf. textual note to 1.3.
1. 5: nbpin 4Q530 col. ii, 1.23, this refers to EnoclTs voice heard by Mah-
1. 6: Beyer: .[. The conjunction in may be interpreted in an adversative
1. 8: Beyer: ( absol. plur. of ). The represents the absol. plur. -a-
vowel. An absol. plur. form is to be inferred from the number which
1 M
2 vacat
3 ]its[ strenjgth (was) a thousand thousands .[
4 ]its[...] not by an army against every king of[ ]..h.[
5 ]1 grasped. And I fell down upon my face. [I] heafrd] his voice [
6 ]n he dwelt among humanity and did not learn from them[
7 vacat
8 ]h. .[ ]...[ ].7 1 two [
9 ].[ Ish[

1. 4: Beyer: ohne Kraft gegen alle Engel; see textual note above.
1. 8: Beyer: zwei Namen.

Comment. The context of this fragment within BG is difficult to posit. The

words from 11.3-6 are spoken in the first person, perhaps by a Watcher or
one of the giants (Mahaway?). The speaker mentions another figure whom
he has apparently encountered. The description of this figure in 1.6 refers
to his life among human beings, but distinguishes him in that his source of
knowledge came from elsewhere.
This combination of details in 1.6 is most likely to be understood as a
reference to Enoch who in BG interprets the giants dream visions and
functions as a scribe to whom the second tablet to the Watchers is
156 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

dictated. The divine origin of the knowledge to which he is privy is, of

course, a feature assumed throughout early Jewish Enoch literature. The
claim that he did not learn from human beings (1.6b), in expressing this
point in the negative, perhaps presupposes the corruption of humanity. If
BG adopted the tradition that the Watchers descent had occurred in the
days of Jared,194 then Enochs life on earth as Jareds son would have
been thought to coincide with the time when humans were being taught
by the Watchers (7 En. 7:1, 8:1-3; 13:2). Given such an assumption, one
might have found it necessary to explain that the knowledge attributed to
Enoch was not compromised by the fact of his earthly existence (1.6a).195
This, in turn, reinforces the claim that Enochs learning was categorically
cut off from the Watchers influence (cf. 1 En. 16:3; see also the comment
under 4Q203 9).
The identification of the figure in 1.6 as Enoch as well as elements
indicating that the speaker tells of his encounter with him (1.5) may sug-
gest that 4Q531 9 records part of Mahaways initial encounter with Enoch
(see comment under 4Q530 col. iii, 11.4-11). Due to the limited context
preserved, however, this possibility should not be regarded as any more
than speculation.

4Q 53110
Beyer, A 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.
]. .[ l
]2 ]. ..
3 ][
]..[ 4

1. 2: After the space the vertical stroke could belong to the rt. part o f a ,,
, or .
1. 3: 0 /> / perf. 1st pers. sing, from ; the 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: Enochs ascen-
sion ( )and transformation into Metatron the great scribe (
) is preceded by a description of his earthly life as being together with the
dwellers of the earth ( ) from 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
[.] 2
[.] 3
[ ] 4

1. 4: The first letter could also be a b.

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 ] <>
2 ] [
3 ] [
4 ] ..] [ [
5 ][

1. 1: The first letter, without a visible lower left stroke, resembles a ; but
resulting restorations - ( ]they will run), ( ]they tear
out), ( ]they will tear out) - do not make sense in relation to
the following word. One may suppose, then, that the letter is a damaged
n. y m - q a l act. plur. masc. ptc.; cf. 4Q531 13, 1.3; 15, 1.3; 34, 1.2.
1. 2: With Beyer: [. , 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 ]]( cf. WQTgJob col. 36, 1.11
joy), perhaps influenced by the meaning of the foregoing verb.
1. 3: The third letter could also be a : . The expected form of the
infinitive for the verb , attested predominantly in the p a el, would
be without the * prefix. #/ 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. may also be translated for me.
1. 3: Beyer: zu trauern alle Freuden.

Comment. The verbs on 11.1-2 (esp. on 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 ods 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 ]
2 ].[
3 ][
4 ][
] [ 5
1. 2: Beyer reads , interpreting it as a place name (U r). Line 3 in PAM
40.607, however, reveals the presence of a letter before no longer
visible in 43.569.
1. 3: Beyer: .[. The reading of here assumes that the word isa predicative
adjective. The form also occurs in 4Q531 12, 1.1; 15, 1.3; 34, 1.2.
1. 4: Beyer: ]. . The final visible letter may also be a .

197 Microfiche Companion Volume, p. 47, mistakenly lists the PAM no. as 42.607; cf.
Microfiche Inventory, pp. 6465.
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 159

1 ]holy (is) height o f position[

2 ]. wr ruin, destruction [
3 ]y (are) we who sin[
4 ]and I am destroying and h[
5 ]....... [

1. 2: Beyer: Ur, Zerstrung, Untergang.

1. 3: Beyer: wir, da sndig.

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.

2 ]
4 ].

1. 1: The ending may belong to a 3rd pers. plur. masc. verb. The trace
before visible in PAM 40.619 is consistent with a or 7; could the
letters belong to the verb ?
1. 2: Restoration of before is with Beyer in light of the following
1. 4: Beyer: ( without 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. 6465.
160 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

1 ]they(?)[...] much violence in[

2 ]we (are) [neither] bones nor flesh
3 fl]esh, and we will be blotted out from our form
4 ]. and your holy ones to us

Comment. As the case with 4Q531 13, the fragmentary text preserves
words of an individual or a group.199 On 1.3 the speaker(s) anticipate(s)
the eventual destruction from our form. This means, not that they will
be completely destroyed, but that their current mode of existence will be
altered. In view of the tradition in the Book of Watchers (7 Enoch 15:8-12),
according to which the post-diluvian existence of the giants will be as evil
spirits (w. 8-9), this text could well refer to the eventual fate of the
giants.200 Whereas the giants initially represent the union of spirit (the
Watchers) with flesh (the women),201 they can only exist in spiritual
form after the deluge after which the bodies they inhabited have been 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
), have themselves produced beings of flesh and blood who die and perish
(Cod.Pan- ).
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 Mastemas 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).


1. 2: On the sense o f forms of following a substantive, see Beyer, ATTM ,

658 (cf. ATTM EB, 392).
1. 3: There is sufficient space below 1.2 on the Frgt. to suggest either the
bottom margin of a column or a vacat on at least part of a lower line.
1 ] and you
2 ].nt eternal[

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.
] [ ] [ ..] 1
] 5
vacat ]
] [ vacat ]
] []
[ ]
[.. ]

1. 1: Beyer: [ . The first two letters cannot be and respectively.

What Beyer reads as is more likely to be the conjunction * . At the
end of the line, Beyer reads: ..[. In PAM 42.079 a is distinguishable,
while the preceding letter may be a or ;hence one could restore either
( ] qal perf. 3rd pers. sing, of , to be empty, vain) or ( ] subst.,
1. 2: Beyer: [ .
1. 3: Milik: ( ] I have shown myself more] powerful) and Fitzmyer-
Harrington: ( ]I was growing] stronger). Since is not
immediately preceded by a letter, it is better to read ( with Beyer,
followed by Reeves). Beyer restores as a way of accounting for the
absol. sing. form. Reeves suggests that the noun could more specifically
mean giant; if this is right, then the figure may be refering to himself
as a giant who (therefore) is capable of waging a powerful battle. This is
ultimately uncertain, however, as could also be a qal verb (to be
strong). At the end of the line should be emended to
with Beyer and Milik (who does not mention the emendation).
1.4: Restore ] with Milik and Beyer. Fitzmyer-Harrington: ] .
1. 5: The ending of the first word and the pronominal subject indicate that it
should be restored as a ptc. ( ]a f el masc. sing.), which is supple-
mented by the following infinitive ( , an itp a el infin. from
203.( On the meaning of the a f e l of as to be able, see the
textual note to 4Q530 col. ii, 1.13.204 The expression with the

203 Fitzmyer-Harringtons addition of before the ptc. in the restoration, though

possible, is superfluous.
204 Milik, in Turfan et Qumran and BE, translates the term literally to find; this
apparently led him to regard as a noun (support) rather than as a preposition +
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 163

meaning adversaries in court quite likely an Assyrian loan-word (so

1. 6: Milik restores ( ]so also Fitzmyer-Harrington), which is expan-
ded by Beyer to ]. These restorations attempt, plausibly, to
produce a phrase parallel to . Though Miliks restora-
tion provides a synonym which more exactly corresponds to
(W lp-qutl subst., holy place), Beyer, who interprets as a defec-
tiva spelling of the adj. ( as in 4QEnoch 1 iii 21 and l v 16=7
En. 93:2 and l l ) , 205 attempts in his restoration both to find a synonym
( ) and to reconstruct a running text continuous with 1.5. As a
result, the immediate subj. for is the . However, unless
1.6 originally contained a vacat, the lines of this column must have been
longer; the final word on 1.10 requires a substantive to follow, before
the text visible on 1.11 commences (beginning with the restored nega-
tive). Similarly, a longer beginning to 1.9 seems requires by the text at
the end o f 1.8.
1. 7: Milik restores 1[ , while Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, and Reeves
simply propose ;]the restoration picks up the same pronoun on 1.6.
1. 8: Beyer restores: 1) ... ]st zur Bewachung] ... gekommen);
Milik (followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington and Garcia Martinez): ]
(roar). The sing. verb. may have led Milik to finds a substantive
ending in [ or [ . The difficulty with Miliks restoration is that the
fern. ( cf. g r t in Syriac) would require the corresponding 3rd pers.
fern. sing, form of the verb: ; hence Beyers proposal. In any case,
is to be taken as a masc. sing. ptc. A plausible reconstruction o f the
context here remains elusive. Later in the line Miliks reading of ,
which he translated as multitude, is linguistically206 improbable. On
the other hand, Beyers reading of is problematic since the final
letter resembles more a instead of or ; given the difficulty with
reading , however, ( with the final letter uncertain), which pro-
vides a better parallel for the preceding , poses the preferable al-
1. 10: Beyer reconstructs a text continuous with the preceding line: ]
, i. e. und] der Schlaf meiner Augen [1st von mir geflohen;
Beyer wants to retain the full idiom as found in 4Q530 col. ii, 1.4 where,
however, ~ is the last element in the construction. Milik and Fitzmyer-
Harrington simply restore ]. For the ptc. with , cf. also
4Q5312, 1.1.
1. 11: Beyer: ] ] . The preposition at the conclusion o f 1.10
requires at least a substantive at the beginning of this line. Restoration

1st pers. plur. pron. suff. (here without the final -). As of yet, I am unaware of a sub-
stantive in Aramaic; cf. Sokoloff, Aramaic Fragments of Enoch 215.
205 So also Fitzmyer-Harrington, Garcia Martinez, and Reeves. However, if here
means holy one, it is the exception in 4Q531. Elsewhere in 4Q531 the term is
spelled with the adjectival 4 : Q531 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. , .
164 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

of the negative is plausible here. Beyer has restored a 2nd pers. pre-
formative for the impf., perhaps because a 3rd pers. might go well with a
jussive which, in turn, would be preceded by the negative . The pro-
posed restoration chooses the 1st pers. sing., given the same in 11.9-10.
In addition, the orthographically possible reading ( gal impf. 1st
pers. sing.207) coheres with the lack of sleep and food which accompany
the giants troubling dreams; see the comment to 4Q530 Frgt. 6, 1.7
1.12: Read with Beyer; traces of a are hardly visible in , while the
lower part of a is distinguishable. The 2nd pers. pron. poss. suff. sug-
gests that is 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
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 as part of a verb: I have shown myself more]
powerful. (cf. Uhlig; Garcia Martinez, DSST); similarly, Fitzmyer
Harrington: I was growing] stronger, .... Others find therein a sub-
stantive: Beyer (Mann); Reeves (Giant?); cf. textual note above.
1. 4: Milik, Garcia Martinez, Beyer: ... with them. But ...; Fitzmyer-Har-
rington and Reeves: ... with them, but ....
1. 5: Milik (similarly Uhlig, Garcia Martinez208): I do not find any sup-
port(?).... Fitzmyer-Harrington, Beyer, and Reeves render with the
idiom as to be able and reject rendering as a substantive.
1. 6: See textual note above.
1. 8: The varying translations depend on the readings assigned, o f which
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. 9: Milik, Fitzmyer-Harrington, Uhlig: has overwhelmed(?) [me; Garcia

Martinez: depressed [me; Reeves: baffled [me.
1. 10: 1?V is either not translated (Milik, Garcia Martinez) or variously rende
red: upon (Fitzmyer-Harrington), regarding (Reeves), gegen (Be
yer), wegen/ber (Uhlig). In 4Q203 8, 1.14, the interpretation o f the
message to Shemihazah and his companions is described as being
against you (IlD^y); cf. also 1?V in 4Q530 col. ii, 1.2.
1. 11: Beyer: Du] wirst [night] schlafen und nicht [.... See the textual note

Comment. Number 17 is the largest piece from 4Q531 and, corresponding

ly, has received the most attention among the fragments of this manu
script. Though the unavailability of the photographs no doubt initially
inhibited scholarly discussion, Beyers initial text (ATTM) and the discus
sions by Garcia Martinez (QumApoc) and Reeves (Jewish Lore) already
anticipated where the interpretive questions would lie: (1) the immediate
context of the fragment (11.1-2 and 11-12); (2) the identity of the speaker
in 11.4-7; and (3) the possible location of the fragments contents within
Qumran BG.
Before exploring these issues, the contents of 4Q531 17 are summarized
Lines 1-2: words of uncertain content.
Lines 3-7: A figure tells of a conflict between himself and those with him, on the
one hand, and heavenly forces, on the other.
Lines 8-9 a:
words invoking the imagery of wild animals, the speaker o f which is
either the figure in 11.3-7 or the narrator.
Lines 9 b - ll: Ohyah the giant mentions his troubling dream and its effects on
Line 12: The giant Gilgamesh is asked (by Ohyah?) to describe what he has

(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 Gilgameshs 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,
(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 Miliks
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
( = pref. -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-

209 So Beyer, A T T M and Garcia Martinez, QumApoc. Even in ATTM EB , in which

readings of 11.1-2 and 11-12 are included, no attempt is made to confirm or support this
description of 11.3-7. Reeves takes exception to this view; see below.
210 Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 118, appeals to the following passages: 3 Macc. 2:4 (giants
confident of might and boldness); Wisd. Sol. 14:6 (while arrogant giants were dying);
the Damascus Document col. ii, 11. 17-19 (by persisting in their own stubborness); and
Josephus, Ant. 1.73 (many angels of God ... engendered sons who were arrogant and
contemptuous of all that was good, placing confidence in their strength).
211 Reeves also refers to several of the Manichaean frgt.s which refer to the giants
strength and defiant behavior (esp. of the brothers Sa(h)m=Ohya and Ahya): Sunder-
mann Frgt. L Verso, 11.2-4; Henning, Sogdian Frgt. I, 11.4-7 (The Book of Giants
70); and Henning, Middle Persian Kawn, Frgt. k, 11.60-66 (The Book of Giants 57
and 61).
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 167

mentation is, however, problematic; it begins with the questionable as-

sumptions that the Watchers and giants have different spheres of activity
and that neither group collaborated with the other. The speakers boastful-
ness of his own strength (1.3) and his account of having been defeated by
angelic beings who, after all, live in a categorically more potent realm of
the cosmos (11.5-6) betray his admission that, from the start, the conflict
waged was a hopeless endeavor for him and his companions. Given the
traditio-historical considerations adduced by Reeves and the clear distinc-
tion between the opposing groups, the content of 11.3-7 seems to fit best
with the words of one of the giants.
(3) Relative location in the Qumran BG. Here, the text in 1.12 referred to
above is significant. Though the content of Gilgameshs dream-vision does
not survive, the mention of Gilgamesh in 4Q530 col. ii as the source of
hopeful news may be an allusion to this dream. If this is so, then there is
little doubt that 4Q531 17 preceded 4Q530 col. ii in the narrative.212
4Q531 17, then, perhaps records part of a series of conversations through
which the giants inform each other about their conflicts and dream-vi-
sions. At this point, the fate of the giants looks bleak, but what Gilgamesh
relates from his dream provides hope for thinking otherwise. A section in
which the giants sense their defeat and imminent punishment while, at the
same time, being given a reason for hope, is best assigned to an earlier part
of the narrative, but, of course, after the opening account of the giants
culpable activities and perhaps following the initial confrontation between
Mahaway and Ohyah (cf. 6Q8 1).

4Q 53118
Beyer, A T T M E B , 123 (11.1-3).
Photographs . PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

2 [
3 .[
4 ][ ][
1. 1: Beyer, ( du wirst schlagen). The first letter is clearlya which
denotes an infinitive from , in which case the qal infin. has been
written without the preformative . It is possible that the absol. plur.
of was followed by a number (Beyer).
1. 2: Beyer: ] . The before the lacunae is clearly decipherable.
1. 3: Beyer: ( ich werde aufgenommen). The first letter could be
either or ;is chosen, assuming a synonymous meaning with the

212 Contra Reeves, Jewish Lore, pp. 119-20.

168 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

following verb. The looped closure on the rt. and the vertical trace on
the It. excludes a 0 and is best read as a 13.
1 in order to blot out for a period of days[
2 all the wicked ones from[
3 I will be killed and I will die .[
4 ]all/every[ ].[

11.1,3: See textual notes above.

C om m ent. In this fragment the speaker (a giant?) contemplates a future

destruction of the wicked (11.1-2) at which time he expects to die. The
reference to a period of days, which implies a limited amount of time,
may be an allusion to the Noahic deluge; cf. the comment under
4Q531 14.

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

1.3.[ 1
I? 2 ]
r?13TI.. .[ 3
] [ 4
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 169

1. 2: Beyer: ].( machten).

1. 3: Beyer: ] ( [ nicht wird aufhren irgendein).
1. 4: Beyer: ( [ sie zweihundert).

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).
][ l
]2 ]
3 ] . [
4 ].. .[

1. 1: With Beyer; the last two letters are, however,uncertain.

1. 2: The , which occurs on a damaged portion o f the Frgt., is illegible; its
identity is derived from the following letters .
1 ]the source?[
2 ]and every creeping thing[
3 ]you have made all .[
4 ].. rb.[

Comment. It is possible, but not certain, that this fragment belongs to a

prayer.213 Cf. 4Q203 9 and 10 and 4Q531 12.

4Q 53122
Beyer, ATTM EB, 123 (1.2).
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
]. [ l
]2 ]

1. 1: The first three letters are unclear; for an impf. o f , 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 on 1.1 may have been
a proper noun, perhaps ; cf. 4Q203 8 (the tablet dictated to Enoch
addressed to the Watchers).

213 This is suggested by the combination of 11.2-3) ) with 1.3) ) .

170 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

1. 2:WithBeyer.Thisis a clear reference to the giants. Is ( fall)

derived from the designation or does it reflect a mythical element
which gave rise to it?
1 ]he will sleep(?). The words o f .[
2 ]the fall of your sons and[

Comment. It is probable that the Watchers are being addressed in 1.2. Less
clear is whether these words are being spoken or written to them by
Enoch; cf. 4Q203 8.

4Q531 23
Beyer, A T T M E B , 123 (11.2-3).
Photographs. PAM 41.956 (= FE, 534); 43.570 (= EE, 1518).

.] []

11.2-3: With Beyer.

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 ] [
2 ][
3 [? [
4 [ . [
5 ] .[

1. 1: Restoration with Beyer.

1. 2: The final letter may also be ( so Beyer: ).
1 ] through their(?) blood[
2 ] / according to this:[ ...
3 ]Now to y[ou(?)
4 ]said[
5 ] lm.[

4Q531 26
Beyer, T T M E B , 123 (1.3).
Photographs. PAM 41.956 (= FE, 534); 43.570 (= FE , 1518).

][ 1
]2 ]
3 ][
4 ] ..[

1. 3: Beyer: ( zum Lager). The fourth letter does not have the base o f
a . For ( qal infln.), see 4Q531 17, 1.10.

1 ][
2 ]ly[
3 ]to see (a vision) [
4 ] .[

1. 3: See textual note above.

4Q531 27
Beyer, A T T M E B , 123 (11.1-2).
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

[. .] 1
[] 2
margin or vacat 3
172 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

1. 1: Beyer: ] .
1. 2:1 .?/7 st pers. plur. impf.; cf. 4 Q532 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 ]
3 ] .[

1. 2: ^/ infin. from .
1. 3: Beyer: ( mein Schlaf). ^ . the same in 4Q531 19, 1.3.
1 vacat?
2 ]hy and as being like[
3 1yh (are) different b.[

1.3: See textual note above.

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 ]
2 ]][...[
1.1: ^ / infin. from . The first letter resembles a large ; a word
spelled or * + ( year with assimilated )is less likely.
1 ] drinking [
2 ]/[]...[
4Q531 - 4QEnGiantsc 173

4Q531 31
N o readings published to date.
Photographs ,. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).

[] 1
[ .] 2
1 ]they will be angry(?)[
2 ]. upon[

4Q 53132
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE , 1518).

2 [ ]
3 [[

1. 2: For , cf. 4Q531 12,1.2; 21, 1.3.

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).

. ] 1
] 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 ].
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 ]
2 ] [

1. 2: If the third letter is 1, then the likely restoration is ( usually combi

ned with - and/or ) .
1 M
2 ] roun[d about(?)

4Q 53137
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
] 1
] 2

1. 1: V~\'a-qal infin. from .

1 ]shattering [
2 ]/ [
3 ][

4Q 53138
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
4Q531 - 4QEnGiantsc 175

[] 1
[ .] 2
1 ] nh\
2 ]. went around[

4Q531 39
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518):
[.] 1
][ 2
1 ]mhg.[
2 ]to [the(?)] mountain[

4Q531 40
N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.570 (= FE, 1518).
].1 ]
2 ]]
1. 1: The letter following could be either or . may 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).
[] 1
[ ] 2
][ 3
1.2: The first letter may also be .

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

[ .] 1
[. .] 2
1 ]tm [
2 ]. yn .[

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
[ ..] 2
[ .] 3
4Q531 = 4QEnGiantsc 177

1 ] [
2 ] Enoch [
3 ]..h wq..[

4Q 53146
Beyer, ATTM EB, 124.
Photographs.. PAM 43.570 (= 1518).

[ ] 1
vacat 2
] . 3 ]. []
4 ]. [
]..[ 5

1. 3: Beyer: ; []read/restore , since there is insufficient space

for two 3s.

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 ]
2 ] .[

1. 2: The third letter resembles a , 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).
|.] 1
] 2
1 ]for them in .[
2 ]holy [
178 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

4Q 532 - 4Q E nG iantsd (6 Fragm ents)

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).

[ 2
1?]b 3
]* [ 4
ajpa1? ?5Wa[ 5

]an 6
]nVi 1* I[ 7

214 BE, p. 309.

215 Eisenman-Wise, DSSU, 95.
216 Beyer, ATTMEB, p. 124.
4Q532 = 4QEnGiantsd 179

].8 ]..
[ 9 ]
[ 10 ].
[ 11 ]
12 ].
13 ].
[ 114 ]
ii, 1. 3: With Eisenman-Wise. The second letter, of which the top o f the vertical
line is slightly bent toward the left, could also be a . If the word is ,
then this spelling varies with in the manuscript; cf. in 4Q532 2,
i, 1. 5: Also possible, though less likely, is the spelling 3 ]( [absol. nom.,
rule, reign, kingdom).
ii, 1. 5: Restore the qal infin. of .
ii, 1. 7: Eisenman-Wise speculate: [.
i, 1. 8: The subj. of cannot be plur.; the first word is likely to be a proper
name (e. g., )? . Beyer reads [ , of which the first letter, since it
is without the horizontal base, is improbable.
i, 1. 9: Or: ( ]gift-offering).
ii,l. 10: Or perhaps a verbal or substantival form from the root ( to judge),
i, 1. 13: W - q a l perf. 3rd masc. sing.; if followed by a sing. pers. pron., the form
would be a ptc..
1 ]
2 ]. r[
3 ] al[l(?)
4 ].
5 ]k[i]ngs of to ri[se
6 ]<dyn bh[
7 ].hn. Therefore and lh[
8 ]..ryh came forth and .[
9 destruction he inflicted h[
10 ]. flesh who/which[
11 ] he gave may they be[
12 ].y eternal .[].[
13 ]. and he knew
14 ]/[]
i, 1. 7: Beyer: euch (= 2 + nd pers. plur. pron. suff. spelled defectively.

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

Eisenman-Wise, DSSU, 95; Beyer, ATTMEB, 124 (11.3-14).
Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).

][ l
2 ] [
3 ][
4 ] [
5 ][
6 ]<[ >
7 ]. .[
8 ] .[
9] [
10 ] [
11] .[
14]. [

1. 3: Beyer: ;[ with Eisenman-Wise, the plur. absol. is restored in accor-

dance with on 1.7. Before the a trace of the lower part of
suggests that, as in 4Q531 5, 1.2, a synonymous term ( ) may be
1. 4: in [represents the long -a- vowel in the ll-waw verb ptc.
1. 6: , though passive in form, may carry an active meaning, as in the
itp. stem.218 Given the verb, * probably belongs to an infin.
1. 7: Eisenman-Wise restore ( [eternal), which would imply a refer-
ence to good Watchers. The letters, however, may also be the preposi-
tion + a pron. suff. At the beginning Beyer reads =( rel. pron.).
1. 8: Beyer: ( [ er endete und kam um und starb); Beyer
accommodates the verb to the perf. form of the following verbs. Howe-
ver, the first visible trace does not belong to and is consistent with a .
Eisenman-Wise read/restore: ; ] reading a noun (in the absol.) leads
them to read instead of + a perf. . As a result the synony-
mous verbs are given impf, and perf. forms. The chosen reading at-
tempts to avoid the inconsistency of impf.+perf. verb forms while rejec-
ting an improbable reading on the first verb as a perf.
1. 9: As the adj. follows the noun it modifies, is interpreted as a
verb. Beyer suggests, analogous to Mandaean Aramaic , that the
verb represents a pan el stem (perf. masc. plur.).219 Eisenman-Wise offer
no translation of the term.

218 See Beyer, ATTM , p. 666; Jastrow, Dictionary, s. v.

219 Beyer, ATTM EB , p. 343.
4Q532 - 4QEnGiantsd 181

1. 10: Eisenman-Wise translate as if it were the verb ( to permit,

allow). Beyer correctly derives the term from the less frequently atte-
sted root attested in a qal pass. ptc. form in Imp. Aram, correspondence
in Egypt from the late 5th cent. B. C. E.220 See the same verb in 4Q531 5,
1.2. This meaning corresponds to in Bibl. Heb. (1 Kgs. 20:10) and
the same s p ( y ) q m Syr. At the end Eisenman-Wise restore ( [to
come) which is a consequence of their questionable interpretation of
. The restoration of [is derived from the phraseology of
4Q531 5, 11.2-3 ( ...) and, more importantly, from
the description of the giants insatiable appetites in 1 En. 7:3-4. The
suff. in could refer to a giant or denote (collectively) human beings
who, because of the giants volumnious appetites, no longer have enough
to eat.
1.11: Beyer: /( ] [ bis zu] den Enden der Erde
und bis zu den Enden [des Himmels); Eisenman-Wise: ]
( [from] the earth as far as He[aven).
1. 12: Eisenman-Wise restore: [ .
1. 13: With Beyer; Eisenman-Wise: [ . The verb following , which begins
with , is perf. (not impf.; cf. translation n. below).
1. 14: Eisenman-Wise: =( [bound is [the] stron[g one; -#/
perf. pass, or qatil adj.); Beyer: ( [eine starke Fessel). If the
preceding belongs to a perf. verb, Beyers 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 [

1. 7: Eisenman-Wise: by the Etefrnal] Watchers; Beyer, reading at the

beginning of the line: die von Engeln auf.
1. 8: See textual note above.
1. 9: Eisenman-Wise do not attempt a translation. See textual note above.
1. 10: Eisenman-Wise: who ... allowed him to co[me; Beyer: nicht] gengte
es ihm zu [. See textual note above.

220 Beyer, A T T M , p. 717; ATTMEB, p. 426. Cf. G. R. Driver, Aramaic Documents o f

the fifth Century B. C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957, 2nd ed.) n. 7.3, 1.7 and Jean-
Hoftijzer, DISO , p. 317.
182 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

1. 11: See textual note above.

1. 13: Eisenman-Wise: then there will not (presupposes an impf. form); cf.
textual note above.
1. 14: See textual note above.

Comment. The words preserved on these lines stem from a narrative in

which the giants destructive activities on earth are described (see
esp. 1.9). Since the apparent focus on the giants in 4Q532 2 is consistent
with the emphasis of other Qumran BG materials, the case for assigning
this manuscript to BG may be regarded as strong. If this literary context is
valid, then this fragment probably belonged to the section of BG which
described the giants deeds. Among the Qumran BG materials a number
of fragments reflect such an account: in addition to 4Q532 2, one may
include 4Q531 1; 5; 1Q23 9+14+15; 16+17. If these various fragments
may be allowed to augment one another - i. e. they do not represent
different recensions or versions of BG -, one may reason that this part
of BG was of considerable length.
It is difficult to know how to interpret the reference to a chain in 1.14.
Does this refer to what the giants were doing to suppress human beings on
earth or does the text at this point narrate what happens to the giants as
they are beginning to be subdued? If the latter is the case, then 4Q532 2
would belong near the conclusion of the account of the giants unhindered
violent behavior.

Eisenman-Wise, D SSU 95 ;Beyer, ATTM EB, 124 (11.2-4).
Photographs. PAM 40.956; 41.945 (= FE, 525); 43.573 (= FE, 1521).
]1 ]..
2 ] [
3 ][ < >
5] .[ ]..[

1. 1: Eisenman-Wise: . Neither nor are visible and is preceded (not

followed) by a .
1. 2: With Beyer. Eisenman-Wise: ( pious, 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 is a correction placed between and ; the copyist
thus makes clear the root (before metathesis) from which the form is
derived. For another itp. to ( to begin), see 4Q531 27, 1.2
() . At the end, Beyer reads/restores ; the slightly bent trace
of the third letter corresponds more closely to the right portion o f a , ,
4Q532 = 4QEnGiantsd 183

, or . Since the first visible letter of the line is incompatible with a

(i. e. ) , the second word is probably not the fem. ( cstr. state,
i. e. the daughter o f). Hence read/restore ( my son); is one o f the
Watchers (i. e. Baraqel; cf. n. to 1.4 below) referring to his son?
1. 4: Beyer: [ . If the first letter is , it is possible, but quite uncertain, that
the word may be restored as ( Enoch). The mention of Enoch
here might suggest that the figure speaking in 1.3 is refering to Mah-
away. The Frgt. may belong on a column subsequent to the text in
4Q532 2.
1 ]..wh[
2 ] insufficient is [the] knowledge[
3 ] my(?) son will begin [to ...
4 ]wk upon sh[
5 M U
1. 2: Eisenman-Wise: Pious Knowledge; Beyer: mangelhaft Wissen. Cf.
textual note above.
1. 3: Eisenman-Wise offers no translation; Beyer: sein Sohn wird begin-
nen. Cf. textual note above.

Comment. The interpretation proposed for this fragment depends on rea-

dings and/or restorations which, for lack of further evidence, remain un-
certain: my son in 1.3 and a restoration of Enoch in 1.4. If both are
correct, then the words of 1.3 might be attributed to Baraqel whose son
Mahaway has just encountered or is about to encounter Enoch; cf. 6Q8 1.
In this light, 1.2 may belong within a context concerned with the giants
inadequate ability to ascertain the meaning of their dream visions.

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 ].
2 ][
3 ] [
4 ] ][ .[
]...[ 5

1. 1: Eisenman-Wise: ]( [ no translation); Beyer: . Only the second

and third letters can be read with any degree of certitude. There is no
trace of immediately before p.
1.2: Eisenman-Wise: ]. ; Beyer reads/restores ( [his words). The
third letter could also be ( hence my words or words o f); this
reading is prefered because of an apparent space after the third letter.
184 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

Beyer: ; the wedge shape at the top o f the third letter makes the
reading of less probable than a .
1. 4: Eisenman-Wise: ] ; Beyer: [. The visible trace before the lacuna
is unlikely to be or 1; more probably, it is either =( we) or =(
1 ]. qr.[
2 ] so that when my(?) words [
3 ] great [
4 ] and 1[ ] .[
5 ]...[

1. 2: Eisenman-Wise: so that when; Beyer: deswegen seine Worte. C f

textual note above.
1. 3: Eisenman-Wise: Mighty Ones.
1.4: Eisenman-Wise: And I ( ;) Beyer: und sie. Cf. textual note

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

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).
].[ l
] 2 ]
3 ] .. .[
4 ].[ [ ]
5 ][
1.2 With Beyer. Eisenman-Wise: ( [ Lord of Lords).
1.3 Eisenman-Wise: ] [ ] . [ .
1.4 Eisenman-Wise: ] ;[ [] Beyer: ] . The last fully visible
letter is too compact for or ;is more likely.
]he [s]aid, My lord, [
] b \
]. zr[ ]knowledge m[
1. 2: See textual note above.
1. 4: Beyer: (Wissen von allem).
4Q556 = 4QEnGiantse 185

Comment. The vocabulary ( , knowledge) links this fragment with

4Q532 3 within the manuscript. If the expression my lord (1.2) is direc-
ted to God, it is more likely that Enoch is the speaker than one of the
Watchers or giants.

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).

[ .] 1
[. ] 2
][ 33
1.1: Eisenman-Wise: ] ([ between);Beyer:] t A
(viele). A letter
immediately before excludes the possibility of reading .
1. 2: Eisenman-Wise: ]. . The traces o f two lettersare illegible.
1 ].byn [
2 ]in the heavens .[
3 ][
1. 1: See textual note above.

4Q 556 = 4Q E nG iantse (7 F ragm ents)

The designation 4QEnGiantse. The identification of this manuscript has

been subject to some confusion since Milik made a reference to one of its
fragments while editing two apparently overlapping fragments belonging
to 4QEnochf221 While citing the 4QEnGiants? fragment Milik (a) offered
no information about the number and size of fragments identified with the
manuscript, (b) did not provide any photographs thereof among the pla
tes, and (c) left no clues about the manuscripts numerical designation.
Later, in his discussion of the extant BG materials at Qumran, Milik lists
the Starcky materials 4QEnGiants^c and goes on to mention a third
manuscript from the Starcky collection and two groups of small frag
ments entrusted to the Starcky edition the contents of which are ultima
tely uncertain.222
These ambiguous references have been interpreted differently. In both
editions of his bibliography on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1975, 1990), Fitz-

221 Milik, BE, p. 237.

222 Ibid., p. 309.
186 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

myer relates Miliks two groups of small fragments to 4QEnGiants^ and

a 4QEnGiants/r respectively, while he correlates 4QEnGiantse with the
third manuscript.223 This interpretation of Miliks statements was no
doubt based on the apparent distinction Milik was making between one
manuscript of certain identification and the two less easily identifiable
ones. Since Milik had confidently referred to a fragment of 4QEn-
Giants^ {BE, 237), this was likely to be the third manuscript. Garcia
Martinez, however, has applied Miliks references in another way: 4QEn-
Giants^ is the third manuscript while 4QEnGiants? apparently repre
sents one of the two groups of small fragments.224 Two primary reasons
seem to have accounted for this correlation: (1) the natural tendency to
associate a third manuscript with a designation that follows sequentially
upon 4QEnGiants^c and, perhaps, (2) Garcia Martinezs own view which
questions the association of 4QEnGiants<? with BG.225 Finally, in ATTM
Beyer may have excluded 4QEnGiants>from Miliks references altogether,
a calculation which would explain why he ended up positing the existence
of a 4QEnGiants.226
The confusion continues when one consults the inventory lists in the
DSS on Microfiche compiled by Reed. Here the nomenclature 4QEn-
Giants6 occurs nowhere among the titles assigned, and the manuscript
fragments labelled 4Q533= Book of Giants or Pseudo Enoch ar do
not, upon consultation, contain anything which corresponds to Miliks
4QEnGiantse. The text of the latter, however, may be found on a frag
ment which comes under the numerical title 4Q556, a manuscript which
DSS on Microfiche lists as Vision a ar.227 On arguments for an identi
fication with BG see under 4Q556 6 below.
On one PAM photograph (41.951) 4Q556 represents the grouping of
some ten fragments, and on the later photograph (43.754) one piece is
removed while another one has been added. The numerology assigned to
the fragments below is based on PAM 43.754, moving from right to left.
223 Cf. Fitzmyer, Tools, pp. 52-53; this corresponds also to the view of Reeves, Jewish
Lore , p. 51.
224 Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, p. 105.
225 Ibid. Garcia Martinez maintains that the designation 4QEnGiantse is dependent
on the correctness of assigning 4QEnochc (sic!) 2 and 3 to BG; since nothing compels the
latter identification, neither can 4QEnGiants be deemed as certain. In QumApoc
Garcia Martinez does not include either ms. within his presentation of Qumran BG.
226 Beyer, A T T M , p. 260; i. e., 4QEnGiantsJ would have been the third manuscript
and 4QEnGiants^ s in Beyers scheme corresponded to the two groups of small frag
227 See also the list in Charlesworth, D SS Rules, p. 183 (Vision* ar); Vermes, D SSE ,
p. lii (Visionb); and Garcia Martinez, DSST, p. 507 (with 4Q557 = 4QVisions). The
materials in 4Q556 (one frgt. of which is used in A T T M , p. 260) are not included in
Beyer, ATTM EB .
4Q556 = 4QEnGiantse 187

Script. The fragments of 4Q556 are too small to make an adequate

palaeographical analysis possible. Indeed, in a number of cases the letters,
although fully visible, remain indecipherable. Both the size of the script
and some of the features (i. e. the shapes of X, V, *7, and esp. the unusual
ttf228)are, with some exceptions, strongly reminiscent of the distinctive
script in 4Q530.229 A date for 4Q556 of sometime during the first half of
the 1st cent. B. C. E. would thus not be unreasonable (see comments on
the script under 4Q530).

N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 43.754 (= FE, 1522).
11 1
].a1? 1

]..r 2
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 Ohyahs 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 iiiiii 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 ]
3] . .[
4 ]. .[

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 .[

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[

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

[] 1
[] 2
1.] 3
1 ] upon[
2 ]they were[
3 ]..[

N o readings published to date.
Photographs. PAM 41.951 (= FE, 530); 43.574 (= FE, 1522).

[] 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 represents a variant of the text in 1.3: ) ,
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).

]. ][ ] l
(?)2 ] [
3 ] [

1. 1: Restore th e p a el infin. of with Beyer (followed by Reeves); Milik:

( ]p a el infin. from , to inspect). A restoration o f ( to
act fraudulently, practice deceit + as a prep, or to deceive + to
denote the dir. obj.) is consistent with the mention of lies on 1.2.
Miliks restoration has in view the inspection of humans on the earth
whose evil behavior was generated by the giants. in the p a el stem
in the sense of to lie could conceivably be followed by a preposition
such as -230 , but in the sense to deceive it is frequently attested with

230 So Reeves, Jewish Lore p. 62, 77: [to practice deceit upon] the earth.
190 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

before its object;231 in this case, a restoration of would signify that

the earth was being subjected to deception (by the Watchers or giants),
the evidence for which is given in the description of the activities refer-
red to in 1.2.
1. 2: The restoration of ( blood) accords well with the meaning of the
first verb and corresponds to the text in 4QEnoch<?3 col. i, 1.3. In 1
En. 9:1 the four chief angels observe much blood being poured upon
the earth ( [ ] , the combination o f 4QEnoch 1 iv 7
and 4QEnoch6 1 iii 8); cf. also Jub. 7:23-24. At the end of the line, the
probably represents a pass. ptc. (probably in the p a el stem: perhaps
, were spoken?).
1. 3: Milik (followed by Black) read the first conglomeration of letters as
( flood) as if certain and, in the unavailability o f photographic
evidence, was followed by Beyer, Garcia Martinez, and Reeves. The
visible trace of the first letter is, however, inconsistent with a and
corresponds more readily to . It might be argued that reading
would produce an orthographic inconsistency with ( if this means
all!) on 1.1. This problem is not insurmountable: the occurrence of
and in the same manuscript among the Qumran materials,
though relatively rare, is attested in several manuscripts.232
1 to de]ceive the earth. All/every .[
2 blood] was being shed, and lies were being m[
3 ] And everything upon [the] earth[

1. 1: Milik: to] inspect upon the earth all; Reeves: to practice deceit upon]
the earth, all; and Beyer: zu] betrgen 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.

Comment. The main significance attached to this fragment has depended

on the reading of ( flood) in 1.3. If the previous lines refer to the
corruptive deeds of the giants, then the flood is here understood to be the
heavenly punishment for this activity.233 This direct relationship between
the misdemeanors on earth and the ensuing deluge may in fact be the case
in BG (see, e. g., Ohyahs dream in 4Q530 col. ii, 11.7-12), but it is quite
unlikely that this point is being emphasized here. 4Q556 6 seems, rather, to
belong to the section which elaborates the giants deeds in theearly part of
BG (along with 1Q23 9+14+15; 4Q531 1; 5).

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).
[] 1
1 ]m[

4 Q 206 - 4Q E noche (2 Fragm ents)

Codicology and Numeration. The two fragments treated here are design-
ated by Milik with the numbers 2 and 3 respectively. These numbers reflect
Miliks 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 Miliks 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 on 4Q206 2, 1.3 for which he finds an analogous
phrase near the outset of the Book of Watchers ( - 1 En. 1:3; cf. 4QEn-
ocha 1 i 5: [ ], the Great Holy One shall bring forth).
In Miliks view the verb in 1.2, reconstructed as ], can be taken in
his context to mean that BG is introduced as a vision given to Enoch. This
argumentation, however, seems to push the meager evidence too far: even
if the reading proposed by Milik for 1.3 is correct, it does not provide

234 Milik, BE, pp. 57-58.

235 Ibid., p. 237.
192 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

sufficient basis for confidently assigning 4Q206 2 to the beginning of BG.

Thus Miliks interpretation of 4Q206 2 and 3 ultimately raises three pri
mary issues: (1) the identification of these fragments as belonging to BG;
(2) granted an inclusion within BG, the possible location of fragment 2;
and (3) the relationship, if any, between fragments 2 and 3. While the first
issue is reserved for the comments on the fragments, questions (2) and (3)
require some discussion here.
The location of 4Q206 2 by Milik at the beginning of BG has been
disputed by Beyer and Reeves. Beyer (ATTM, 260) proposes a more am
biguous text than Miliks for 1.3: ]3]![ !a. With an analogy with 1
Enoch 1:3 no longer in view, Beyer places the fragment in his G 2 , that
is, in a section subsequent to the account of the giants unhindered earthly
activities. According to Beyers translation, 4Q206 2 records how Enoch
observed the misdemeanors of the giants. Reeves essentially follows
Beyers reading (]ftl ...ft)236 and hence also resists assigning fragment 2
to the opening of BG. Assuming the correctness of Miliks proposed as
sociation of fragments 2 and 3, Reeves suggests a context which he derives
from a parallel text in 1 Enoch 9:1: According to fragment 2 God, chief
angels, or an angelic messenger report to Enoch about the giants deeds.
As stated above, Miliks reading of 4Q206 2, 1.3 does not compel one to
locate it at the beginning of BG. Likewise, the different readings of Beyer
and Reeves do not provide evidence which favors the context they pro
pose. The view taken here follows Milik for 1.3 (see under 4Q206 2 below)
while adopting Reeves suggestion concerning its location. The primary
reason for this is the reading/restoration in 1.2 of n*o[nK (it was repor
ted)237 rather than Miliks JTT[nN or Beyers rPT[nnx (it was seen, ap
peared). This verb, if correctly read/restored, seems to presuppose events
which, given the material in Qumran BG devoted to describing the giants
exploits, have already been narrated in a preceding section.
The grounds for associating 4Q206 2 with 3 as presented by Milik and
assumed by Beyer and Reeves are not transparent. Nothing compels one
to suppose that fragment 2 should be specifically assigned to 11.14-16 wi
thin column i of fragment 3.238 If fragment 2 tells of something being
reported to Enoch, the narrative style of fragment 3 (,,in + ptc., as in
the overlapping 4Q556 6) does not fit well within the context of such a
report. If the content of fragment 3 actually belongs to the elaboration

236 Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 57; cf. also p. 62, where there is no attempt to provide a
translation. Reeves readings posit the existence of two letters more than the space on
the line allows.
237 One the reading of 1 instead of T, see the textual note to 4Q206 2, 1.2 below.
238 It is odd that, while attempting to provide alternative readings for 1.3 of frgt. 2,
Beyer and Reeves have not questioned Miliks reconstruction.
4Q 2062-3 = 4QEnoche 193

of the gigantuan misdemeanors, then - and contra Miliks reconstruction

- there is a likelihood that it (as the case with 4Q556 6) preceded fragment
2. This means that fragment 2 may have originally belonged either on
fragment 3 ii or on a subsequent column; see the comment under
4Q206 3 below.
Script. The semi-cursive hand of 4QEnochi?has been described by Milik
as dating from the Hasmonaean period, probably from the first half of
the first century B. C.239

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.
][ l
2 ] [
3 ].[

1. 1: The traces of the last two letters, though faint, are consistent with and
1. 2: AT from the verb ( in Milik-n ; ] Beyer and Reeves-rp?[nrw) is
not distinguishable; the visible wedge shape angling to the left makes
(from ) the more probable reading. Thus the verb may well an a fel
pass, form (i. e. ) . The verb is a 3rd pers. fern. sing, perf.; the
possibility of a 1st pers. form is excluded by the prefixed before
Enoch. The at the end is distinguishable; if the fragment belongs
to BG, then the designation applied to him elsewhere may be restored;
cf. 4Q530 col. ii, 1.14 (a discussion of the expression); 4Q203 8, 1.4.
1. 3: At the beginning Milik reads/restores ] and Beyer reads simply
( Blut).240 The second visible letter has no vertical line on the left
and is thus more consistent with a . Despite the alternative readings of
Beyer (] )[] and Reeves (] ... ,), the case for reading with Milik a
before the lacunae is much better than a 241. Furthermore, the two

239 BE, p. 225; Milik bases his conclusion on comparisons with the scripts chart in
Cross, The Development of Jewish Scripts, p. 138, fig. 2,11.2-3 and p. 149, fig. 4, 11.2,
4. Especially characteristic of this kind 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 Beyers readings but does not offer a
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 ( i. e., as in ;) but,

given the following ( Plate XIX in B E provides the superior photo-
graph), it is more likely that these traces belong to an . If correct,
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.

Comment. Reeves has suggested that this fragment preserves a section in

the narrative when the angels are reporting to Enoch the events which
have transpired on the earth.242 Since he assumes that 4QEnochi?3 also
belongs to this context, that fragment would belong to their account.243
Reeves proposal would represent a viable interpretation, and might
seem to find support in his adaptation of Beyers text for 4QEnoche 2, 1.3.
Beyer places the fragment in a similar context; the destructive events nar-
rated in a foregoing section are now seen by Enoch. Beyer and Reeves
readings for 1.3 are rejected here in favor of a text similar to that of Milik.
Nevertheless, as argued above (the section Location within BG), since the
readings of 1.3 point do not necessitate that, with Milik, the fragment be
assigned to the beginning of BG and given the likelihood of reading the
verb in 1.2, the placement proposed by Beyer and Reeves is to be
preferred. 4Q206 2 may be thought to presuppose a narrative account in
the section which immediately precedes.

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 iliks 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

[. 3
[. 4
[ 5
[ 6 [] .] [.] [..]
[ ].] [] 3
bottom margin

i, 1. 1: Milik reads/restores ] [] [ ] of which the first

four words are impossible to verify. Miliks should be correc-
ted to , as the second letter is clearly a ( there is no sublinear
trace corresponding to a )and the following V and are decipherable.
i, 1. 2: The 3rd pers. pron. suff. in is no doubt fem. and has it antecedent in
4) Q556 6, 1.1). Cf. ( qal pass, ptc.) with the parallel in
4Q556 6, 1.2.
i, 1. 3: Milik: ( [ []were being perpetrated ;)Beyer: [ []
(sie betrogen dauernd). Neither reading is certain; following the
form is no doubt a ptc., and one may infer from the number o f spaces
for the word that it began with ( pael, a fe l, or itp. [)]. Thus the
different restorations of Milik and Beyer reflect alternative views on the
length of the word. Beyers 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).
1 ][].[][ ]m devising
2 ]in it blood was being poured
3 ]they were m[ ].yn in it all
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.

Comment. The overlap between 4Q206 3 and 4Q556 6 is presented by Mi-

lik through a combined translation and by Beyer through a combined
text. The text as analyzed above yields the following result (with the
4Q556 variant in parentheses):
) ] (... [ ] ... [. ][ ]
] [...[ ] [ ] [ ] ... )?( [
196 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

to de]ceive the earth. All/every.[ ... ]m devising [ ... and ]in it

blood was being poured, and lies were being [spoken(?) ... ]they were
m[ ]yn [ev]ery/[a]ll [... ]. And everything upon [the] earth[244

The fragmentary account of malevolent deeds seems to be summative or

comprehensive in character, referring to the activities of both the Watchers
and the giants. In the Book of Watchers the motif of deception or false
teaching is associated with Watchers (7:1; 8:1,3; 10:7; 13:2-Asael; 16:3)
while bloodshed and violence on earth is specifically related to the giants
(1 En. 9:1, 9; 15:4; Jub. 7:23-24). This text thus presupposes the prior birth
of the giants in the narrative (4Q531 5, 1.3), and, in its compactness, seems
to anticipate an elaboration of their ensuing activities (as e. g. in 4Q531 1).

6Q 8 - 6Q G iants (33 Papyrus Fragm ents)

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 sicle ap. J.-C. In its combination of
formal and cursive elements, the manuscript may be characterized as se-

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 Schrer, 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 Miliks 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. . 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 6Q8s letter
6Q8 = QGiants 197

][ I
[. ] 2
] [] 3
vacat ] 4
]][ ] [ ] [] [ 5
[ ] 6
bottom of column

1.2: With Milik and restoring with Beyer. Baillet originally read: ].
. (... lui, et il dit dtre ..., taking as an infinitive);
Beyer restores further: ] ] .
1. 3: : p a el ptc. masc. sing, from ( to tremble). Milik, followed
by Fitzmyer-Harrington, restores: ( [ tell [us).
1. 4: It is not clear whether the text on the line continues after the vacat.
Milik (BE, 300) assumes that it does. ]is restored on the basis
of 1Q23 29 1.1.
1. 5: [ ]overlaps with 1Q23 29 1.2. Baillet: ].[ .
1. 6: With Milik, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington, and Beyer. Baillet,
]. ( if j avais enfant 246) followed by Reeves.247

1 ][
2 ] Ohyah [answer]ed and said to Mahaway .[
3 ]and does not tremble? Who has shown you everything? .[
4 and Mahaway said to Ohyjah, Baraqel my father was with
me. vacat
5 ]/[ ] Mahaway had not [finished tellfing] what Baraqel 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 Barakiel (cf.
Jub. 4:28).

Comment. The identification of this fragment as part of BG, initially made

by Milik, was at first doubted by Garcia Martinez who, under the influen-
ce of Baillets readings and notes to the text, initially argued that it, along
246 This reading is also adopted by Fitzmyer in The Genesis Apocryphon, p. 191 (cf.,
however, Fitzmyer-Harrington, MPAT). The first person verb leads Baillet to attribute
the comment to Bitenos Lamechs wife (Jub. 4:28). Baillet notes the possibility of rea-
ding [, in which case the statement would be that of Lamech.
247 Reeves, though retaining Baillets translation, emphasizes nevertheless that the
meaning of 1.6 is obscure (Jewish Lore, 108). Reeves 1st pers. translation, however,
is irreconcilable with his (correct) interpretation that here Ohyah is reacting to Maha-
ways message with some hostility (ibid., 107).
198 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

with the remaining 6Q8 fragments, belongs to the Book of Noah.1A%Contra

Bailiet249, however, we may argue the following: (1) The reading of an
infinitive rather than a personal name ( ) is awkward, and nothing
in the fragment (1.6) suggests that a wondrous birth is actually being de-
scribed. (2) Unless there has been an orthographic error, it is mistaken to
read as Barakiel and thus to take this name as a reference to the
father of Bitenos {Jub. 4:28). The Aramaic materials from Qumran are
consistent in spelling the name of the ninth fallen angel as ( cf.
1.4 with 4QEnocha to 1 En. 6:7 and 4QEnGiantsa 1 1.2), while only in
the Greek recension of Codex Panopolitanus is the name of this Watcher
first attested with the pronunciation BapaKip^ (to 1 En. 6:7).250 (3) The
reading of on 1.2, taken together with the likelihood of as a
personal name, certifies that 6Q8 1 records a conversation among the
To the evidence from Qumran, we may add a consideration from the
Middle Persian Kawan: (4) The fallen angels name , which means
lightning of God, is rendered in the Middle Persian versions of BG
according to sense rather than being transliterated: Virogdad (= gift
of lightning). In a passage of the Kawan (Frgt. c) in which Mahawai and
Sam { - Ohyah) are mentioned together, there occurs a statement similar
to 1.4 above which may be ascribed to Mahawai: As my father Virogdad,

248 See QumApoc, p. 43 (in 4QMess Ar and the Book o f N oaK \ pp. 1-44; Engl,
translation of Spanish article originally published in 1981): Milik pretends to see in it
a copy of the Book o f Giants, but it is difficult to accept his reading of lines 1 and 5. The
contents of fragment 1 speak well for its Noachic ascription, as it describes a marvellous
birth; this thesis is also favoured by the mention of Barakiel, 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 Schrer, III. 1, pp. 332 and 254 n. 6. Apparently, the name ,?Kp*):} in 6Q8 1
also led Fitzmyer (who transliterates Baraqiel) 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 tonnement des assistants, en prsence
des qualits extraordinaires de No au moment de sa naissance ....
250 It is thus misleading to suppose that Barakiil (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 Baraqel 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 <= Barakel>, 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 Enochs 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 Enochs 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 ...

Another Manichaean Middle Persian text, this one published by Sunder-

mann and designated L,254 helps to place the conflict among the giants
within a narrative setting and thus augments the allusion to Mahaways
mediating role referred to in 6Q8 1 1.3. The relevant portions are cited
Page 1 Recto 11.1-9 (the superscription for the page reads: concerning the de
Again he said: Bring there these two stone tablets, which are inscribed.255 First,
bring Nariman <= Hahyah> the message. Why are you running in such fright? I
have now come, and I have brought these two tablets in order that I might read the
one to the demons before the giants.
Page 1 Verso 11.1-5 (superscription: Sam, the giants):
There Sam <= Ohyah> said to the giants, Come here, so that we might eat and
be content. Because of worry they ate no bread. They fell asleep. Mahawai went
to Atambish (and) told (him) everything.

A consideration of 6Q8 1 leaves little doubt that the speaker in the Recto
side of this Manichaean fragment is Mahawai, who is mediating a message
on two tablets,256 one of which is addressed to the demons (= giants).
As the bottom of this side of the page probably contained this message,
the extant top of the Verso side records that the giants apparent reaction
to the message is one of worry. If we follow the Manichaean text here,
their fright sets the stage for the giants dreams.

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

[1 [
2 [
3 .[
11. 1-2: may be restored in accordance with a reconstruction of this formula
in 4Q530=4QEnGiants^ ii, 1.9: 257.]
1. 2: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]( qal perf. 3rd pers. fern,
sing.). Milik first proposed the plur. form which, if correct, may refer to
the appearance of angelic mediators of divine punishment.258
1. 3: Baillet: prefers ( to destroy) to .
1 its three shoots[
2 I was [looking] until they came[ <+subj.>
3 this garden, all of it, and .[

Comment. If we follow the Middle Persian Kawan Frgt.y,259 this fragment

might initially be thought to correspond to the second within a pair of
dream visions given to Sam (= ,Ohyah; cf. under 2Q26) and Nariman (=
Hahyah) respectively. With respect to the latter, Hennings translation of
the Kawan fragment reads (Frgt.y, 11.39-41):260
Nariman saw a gar[den full of] trees in rows. Two hundred ... came out, the trees ...
Henning suggested that this passage may be supplemented by the content
of another Middle Persian fragment (M 625c = Hennings text D):261

257 The formula which combines a ptc. of with in the perfect followed by
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 ( )is less likely, as the orthography
for the ptc. masc. sing, of the verb concludes with either - or .
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 Hahyahs 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)] . 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 Hahyahs 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 ( ) planted with different kinds
of trees and different kinds of stones. And an angel was descending from the
firmament with an axe in his hand, and he was cutting (the trees), so that nothing
remained in it (the garden) except for one tree having three branches (
) .

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 (1.8]
263.( If each fragment may be thought to supply
details of one dream which are not extant in the other, then the dream
would have contrasted the great shoots ( = ] the giants or
Watchers) which are threatened with divine punishment (4QEnGiants^
col. ii, 11.9-10) with the three shoots of a tree ( = N oahs
sons) which are saved from cataclysmic destruction. Reeves, who with
Milik maintains that 6Q8 2 is another textual fragment of Hahyahs
dream in 4QEnGiants^, thus suggests that those who come in 1.2
( ) is 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 Hahyahs 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 Miliks critical synopsis of
manuscripts in BE, p. 325 (for Miliks 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 Hahyahs dream which are not
extant in 4QEnGiants^.
264 Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 148 n. 217.
6Q8 = 6QGiants 203

destruction appears to have been subsequent to a mention of the tree with

its three shoots.265 Thus, unless one is to assume that 6Q8 and 4QEn-
Giants^7 represent two very different recensions of BG, the manuscript
evidence of 4QEnGiants^ is telling. If in 4QEnGiants^ col. ii, 1.8 the great
shoots refer to the Watchers themselves or to their offspring the giants,
the space in the lacuna of 1.7 is not sufficient to have included both a
mention of an arrival of the Watchers and a preceding appearance of the
three Noahic shoots (6Q8 2 l.l) .266 Second, if our observations on se-
quence are thus far correct, then the content of 6Q8 2 may be thought to
have a different emphasis than Hahyahs dream in 4QEnGiants^. Whereas
the latter seems to be an account which accentuates divine punishment of
the Watchers and their progeny, the former shows at least more of an
interest in the survival of the righteous after the cataclysmic event (= the
These considerations, therefore, lend credence to Beyers opinion that
6Q8 2 and 4QEnGiants^ represent not one, but two distinct dream visions
in the Qumran BG.267 Accordingly, the Qumran BG must have contained
two pairs of such visions, one pair found in 4QEnGiants^ col. ii (11.6-20
dreams of Hahyah and Ohyah respectively) and another pair represented
by 2Q26 and 6Q8 2 (also given to the two giant brothers?). Whereas the
medieval Midrash preserves an adaptation of the latter, the Manichaean
BG (Middle Persian Kawan Frgt.y, 11.34-41) may preserve one dream
from each of the pairs, corresponding to 2Q26 and to 4QEnGiants^ col. ii,
11.7-12. If this is correct, then the Manichaean BG fragments represent a
more compact version at this point of the narrative than the Qumran

6Q 83
Baillet, D JD III, 118; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 78-79.
top margin
[ l
2 ]...><

265 This reconstruction holds regardless of whether 1.2 is taken to describe the advent
of the fallen Watchers or destroying angels.
266 We may thus attempt to reconstruct the dream underlying 6Q8 2 as follows: (1)
The garden is described (as at the beginning of the Midrash), including the presence of
one tree with three shoots. (2) Angelic beings arrive on the scene and completely destroy
the garden. (3) Of this garden only the tree with three shoots remains. According to this
reconstruction, the tree with three shoots is mentioned twice; the later Midrash has
removed it from the opening description of the garden.
267 Beyer, ATTM , p. 265 n. 1.
204 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

1. 2: The top of a *7 is clearly visible following the lacuna. Baillet: nn ... V

1 ] (was?) great
2 ]for his/her ... t

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 ] ./[

Comment. The term is only preserved in BG in the absolute plural form;

see the two instances in 4Q530=4QEnGiants^ (in an isolated fragment and
col. ii, 1.7). As 1?D in 6Q8 5, unless we have to do with different recensions,
does not allow it to be considered an overlap with 4QEnGiants^ col. ii,
1.7, the fragment may belong to a later allusion to the dream, possibly to
Enochs interpretation.
6Q8 = QGiants 205

6Q 86
Baillet, D JD III, 118; Fitzmyer-Harrington, M PAT, 78-79; Beyer, A T T M , 268.
[] 1
bottom margin

1. 1: With Beyer. Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ].. The first

letter of the second word is too rounded at the top to be a ( cf., e. g.,
in 6Q8 6, 1.1 and in in 6Q8 1 1.3).
1 ]their [ ]//to them sufficiently[

6Q8 7
Baillet, D JD III, 118.
[..] 1
[... ] 2
1 ] in yr..[
2 ] ..d\

6Q8 8
Baillet, D JD III, 118; Beyer, A T T M , 268 (1.1).
] !1 ]
2 ]. . .[

1. 1: With Baillet. Beyer: ( they will arrive). As there is no other in-

stance in 6Q8 8 of for a comparison268 and the form of is subject to
variability throughout 6Q8, the reading of Baillet is to be preferred.
1 ] they will say/they will be bitter [
2 ].. .[
1. 1: Baillet chooses the first option, in which case the word has been spelled
according to pronunciation rather than etymology.269 The second trans
lation possibility accords with the impf, form of .

6Q 89
Baillet, D JD III, 118; Beyer, A T T M , 266 n. 1, 268 (1.2).

[ 1] 1
]/] 2

268 If 0, the letter is only visible above its horizontal base.

269 For analogous instances, see Beyer, ATTM , 514 and ATTMEB, 309.
206 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

1. 2: Beyer: ] [ .
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 zael (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 ].
1.2: Baillet: ].[ , the second word also possibly .

1 ][ ][
2 ].wn for ky[

Baillet, D JD I I f 118 (1.1).
]..[ 1
[ [2
1 [..]
2 [/]

6 Q 8 12
Baillet, D JD III, 118.

[ ] 1
[.[ 2

1.1: Baillet: ]. [.
1 ]. .[
2 \m sh/s.[
6Q8 = 6QGiants 207

6 Q 8 13
Baillet, D JD III, 118.

i. i
1.1: Baillet: , a[.

1 [*]

6Q 814
Baillet, D JD III, 118.

1 ]and [he] ope[ned?

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 ]

1. 1: W ith Beyer. Baillet: .[.

1 ] for/to Jared [

Comment. Garcia Martinez initially interpreted this fragment as evidence

that 6Q8 belonged to the Book of Noah. The mention of this ante-diluvian
figure is, however, more immediately consistent with the story about the
Watchers and their progeny. According to the Aramaic 4QEnocha and
Greek Synchellus versions to the Book of Watchers (7 En. 6:6) and to
Jubilees 4:15 the descent of the 200 Watchers to Mount Hermon is said
to have occurred in the days of Jared.270 Moreover, in the biblical nar-
rative (Gen. 5:18-19) Jared is less immediately linked with Noah than with
Enoch, being the latters father.271 Finally, calling attention to a reference
to 1 Enoch 6:6 in Origens Commentary on John (to Jn. 1:18),272 several
have already noted that the name lends itself to a wordplay (in Hebrew)
which denotes the Watchers descent.273 Thus, if the reading of this
fragment is correct, the proper name is consistent with what one might
expect of a writing whose theme centers on the Watcher-giants tradition.

270 See also 1 En. 106:13. The omission of this phrase in Codex Panopolitanus, Syriac,
and the Ethiopie recensions to 1 En. 6:6 is to be explained by a homoioteleuton during
the Greek stage of transmission. Thus 4QEnocha and Synchellus most probably repre-
sent the original text.
271 See e. g. also 1 En. 37:1
272 For the text see the editions of Ccile Blanc (Origne. 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): ...
, ,
, ... -
273 This etymological wordplay, as well as that of Mt. Elermon (< the root , in
afel=to swear an oath) later in 1 En. 6:6, led Halvy in 1867 (.Journal Asiatique 6/9,
pp. 356-57) to conclude that 1 En. derives from a Hebrew original. Beyer {ATTM, 230),
based on and other Hebraisms among the Aramaic fragments, has more recently
agreed with this hypothesis. It is true that several fragments of the Hebrew 1Q19
(1,2,3,8) seem to preserve portions of 1 En. (8:2; 9:3-4; 106:10-12; and 107:2 respecti-
vely). However, others have correctly noted that it is not unusual for an Aramaic com-
position to draw occasionally on a Hebrew term; see e. g. Knibb, Enoch, 1.68; and Black,
The Book o f Enoch, p. 117. The comment of Milik {BE, p. 214) is more specific; the
etymology in 1 En. 6:6 reflects an authors 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

1.1: Baillet: ]bn[.

1 ]..[
2 vacat?

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

1.1: Baillet: ],5[.

1 ]belonging to[

6Q 822
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
b.. ] 2

1. 2: Baillet: ]nib.[.

1 m
2 ] /[

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. [

6Q 825
No readings attempted by Baillet (D JD III, 119).
[.] 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
2 .[
3 [...
]. ... 4
1. 1: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]. .
1.2: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: j ... ...
1. 3: With Beyer. Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington: ]. . The final
letter of the first word is more likely a because one would expect to
go below the line (as in 6Q8 1 1.5 and 2 1.3).
1. 4: Baillet, followed by Fitzmyer-Harrington and Beyer: .The letters
too indistinct to be deciphered.
1 Lubar..[
2 in its direction .[
3 and he chose a bfeautiful?
4 ... .[

Comment. The reading Lubar in 1.1 is clear enough to suggest a refe-

rence to the mountain on which, according to Jubilees, the ark came to
6Q8 = 6QGiants 211

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

6Q 827
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
[ .] 1
1 ....] 2

1. 1: Baillet: ] .
1.2: Baillet: \ ... [.
1 \ r unto b[
2 ]..rt.. [

6Q8 28
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
].. ...[ l
1. 1:Baillet:]....[.
1 ]... r..[

6Q8 29
Baillet, D JD III, 119.
[] 1
[] 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: ( the ark descended
(upon) one of the mountains of Ararat), where unfortunately the name of the mountain
is not given.
275 is 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: ] ... [ )[ allows one to infer the same
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 ]/
3 ]. [

1. 3:Baillet:]. .[.
1 M
2 ]/ generation[s?
3 ]. hsh[

Baillet, D JD III, 119.
[ .] 1
] [ .] 2
. 1: Baillet: ] .[.
.2: Baillet: 1. .[

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

Manuscripts Whose Identification with the Book o f Giants

is Unlikely

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.

4Q534 - 4Q Elect o f God1 (7 Fragments)

Proposed Identifications. This manuscript was originally interpreted by

Starcky as a horoscope of the Messiah (= 4QMess ar).2 Subsequently,
however, Milik,3 Pierre Grelot4, Fitzmyer5, Beyer,6 and Garcia Martinez7

1 The manuscript was originally designated 4QMess ar by the first editor, Starcky,
in Un texte messianique aramen de la grotte 4 de Qumrn, in cole des langues
orientales anciennes de VInstitut Catholique de Paris: Mmorial du cinquantenaire 1914-
1964 (Travaux de lInstitut Catholique de Paris, 10; Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1964) 51-66
(with 2 Plates). On the problem of Starckys description, see the discussion below. The
designation Elect of God is taken from the expression in col. i, 1.10.
2 Ibid. Starckys first published analysis of 4Q534 appeared, however, in Les quatre
tapes du messianisme Qumran, Rev Bib 70 (1963) 502-504. Starcky has been follow'
ed by Jean Carmignac, Les horoscopes de Qumrn, 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 Esseniens et les Horoscopes de Qoumrn, Archo-
logie 15 (1967) 24-31; and, with some nuancing, by Martin Delcors contribution on
Qumrn in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplment, 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 Matre de Justice et Jsus, Le Monde de la
Bible 4 (1978) 53-55.
3 BE, p. 56.
4 Hnoch 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, Fitzmyers 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 (Hahyahs 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 floods
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 Schrer, 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 Hengels 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 in col. i, 1.10, if an allusion to Isa. 11:4 () , 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 Fitzmyers 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

giants is described in terms of a complete destruction of the created order

and thus may be taking up the deluge motif (cf. Gen. 6:7; 7:21). These
allusions, which call attention to a divine destruction of evil, are appro-
priate to a story in which the giants destructive misdemeanors find consi-
derable elaboration (e. g., 4Q531 1; 1Q23 9+14+15; 4Q532 2). Divine pun-
ishment (through the deluge) must supercede the extent and kind of de-
struction wrought by the giants. Finally, the three shoots in 6Q8 2 1.1
may refer directly to N oahs three sons who with their father survived the
A further reason for assigning 4Q534 to BG might be the references to
a figure who fell ( ) and to sons of a pit ( ) on col. ii, 1.1. It
may be possible that the Elect of G od is being contrasted with a fallen
Watcher or Watchers/giants upon whom G ods punishment (depicted with
flood imagery) is expected.
Evaluation. The presence of these Noahic features among the BG ma-
nuscripts does demonstrate the importance which the author(s) attached
to the flood motif in BG. To say nothing of the uncertainty that 4Q534
refers specifically to N oah,10 the cumulative weight of several considera-
tions make it unlikely that BG included alongside this motif an account of
N oahs birth and extraordinary wisdom. First, none of the BG fragments
contains an allusion to such details about Noah himself. Second, none of
the 4Q534 materials preserve any apparent reference or allusion to the
giants.11 Third, there is the argument from context: it is difficult to posit
how a speculative description of Noah would have functioned within a
work which otherwise seems specifically concerned with the giants them-
selves, their deeds, and their plight in the face of divine judgment. On the
contrary, the deluge imagery in BG seems to have been more directly
bound up with the giants punishment and, hence, this motif would have
been more immediately suitable to such a literary framework.
As for the possible reference to one or more Watchers/giants, the Ian-
guage is not specific enough to confirm such an identification. The text
does not preserve the subject of - that is, whether the verb refers to the
Elect of God figure or, for example, to a prominent Watcher - nor is it
clear that the expression sons of a pit should necessarily refer to either
the Watchers or giants. Even if the Watcher s/giants myth is in view, an
association with the Qumran BG does not follow, since the references to
them abound in other early Jewish literature.

10 See Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, pp. 100-101 and Evans, A Note on the
First-Born Son in 4Q369 192.
11 The Watchers mentioned in col. ii, 11.16-17 most likely refer to Gods angels
rather than to the giants progenitors. See Beyer, A TTM , p. 270.
4Q535 and 4Q536 217

Though these arguments do not entirely preclude N oahs birth being

mentioned in BG, they render the notion that 4Q534 comprises a (signi
ficant) part of BG little more than a remote possibility.

4Q535 (2 Fragments) and 4Q 536 (3 Fragments)

Proposed Identifications. The word-for-word overlap between 4Q535 1,

11.46 and 4Q536 3, 11.1-3 leaves beyond doubt that both manuscripts be
long to the same work. Of these manuscripts, it was apparently 4Q536, the
larger of these manuscripts, which was first attributed to a work which
describes the birth of Noah by Milik.12 This characterization was subse
quently accepted by Fitzmyer,13 Beyer,14 and Eisenman-Wise.15 The Noa-
hic identification has been based on (1) the reference in 4Q536 1, 1.11 to a
figure who will not die in the days of evil and (2) the shared interest in
characteristics marking the birth of an ideal figure between 4Q535 1,11.1-3
and 4Q534 (col. i, 11.1-3,10), which is discussed above.
The Case for an Identification with the Book of Giants. In ATTMEB
Beyer has put forward for consideration the possibility that 4Q535-536
may actually stem from the Book of Giants. His suggestion takes the
text of a small fragment on the bottom right of PAM 43.572 as its point
of departure, in which the fallen Watcher bKpHU (Mahaways father; cf.
6Q8 1) is probably being addressed by Enoch. The mention of Baraqel, in
turn, leads Beyer to restore (the ninth, i. e. the same ordinal
number associated with Baraqel in 1 En. 6:7=4QEnochfl 1 iii, 1.8 and
4QEnochc 1 ii, 1.26) in 4Q536 col. i, 1.1.
Evaluation. An apparent advantage of Beyers proposal could be that, if
one follows his text, in 4Q536 col.s i (1.7?) and ii (11.9-12) a culpable

12 So in Ten Years o f Discovery in the Wilderness o f Judeae, translated by John Strug-

nell (SBT, 26; London: SCM Press, 1959), esp. p. 35. See further idem, BE, p. 56 and,
most recently, Les Modles Aramens du Livre dEsther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumrn,
RevQum 15 (1992) 357. Milik drew special attention to the weight of the baby (three
hundred shekels4Q535 frgt. 2, 1.3).
13 The Aramaic Elect of God Text from Qumran Cave 4 in his Essays on the
Semitic Background, pp. 158-59. Fitzmyers view was indebted to the pre-publication
observations of Milik (cf. the previous note).
14 A T T M , pp. 269 and 271; ATTM EB , pp. 125-26.
15 DSSU, pp. 34-37.
16 This reading holds if one grants Beyers grammatical interpretation of the text
(ATTMEB, p. 126); Garcia Martinez (DSST, p. 264) translates: he will strengthen its
concealment at the end of your powers. The disputed text reads: nm/lOD
Hpna ,pjonB.
218 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

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
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 *?XpQ 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 Baillets 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 Mahaways conversation
with Ohyah, belongs to BG. Although an association with 4Q535 is not
impossible, Miliks 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
yers proposal represents an unlikely possibility.

6Q14 - 6QApoc ar (2 Fragments)

Proposed Identifications. In the editio princeps, Baillet designated the two

small surviving fragments of 6Q14 as a texte apocalyptique.19 Later,

17 Cf. 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;
1Q19 = IQBook o f Noah 11, 13, 15 219

Beyer (ATTM) has offered a more specific description of the manuscript,

terming it Die Ankndigung der Sintflut.20 The strongest evidence for
Beyers claim comes from fragment 1, on the broken 11.5-7 of which there
is an apparent reference to a future destruction ( 1 . 5 - ) which will pro
bably include every beast of [the field ( 1 . 6 ) [and
( 1 . 7 ) . Although these elements are consistent with the story of th
deluge, they are not sufficiently unambiguous for such an interpretation.21
The Case for an Identificiation with the Book of Giants and Evaluation.
Because of his interpretation of 6Q14 as an announcement of the great
flood, Beyer proposes that the manuscript may have formed part of the
Qumran BG. However, this possibility is weakened if one remembers that
language which anticipates a deluge is far from exclusive to BG.22 Hence it
remains least problematic to refer to 6Q14 more generally as an apoca-
lyptic text. Given the difficulty of finding in 6Q14 clear allusions to the
Noahic flood and the occurrence of the motif (in an anticipatory sense) in
contemporary literature, the identification of this manuscript with the
Qumran BG represents at best only a questionable possibility.

1Q19 = 1Q19 Book o f Noah (Fragments 11, 13, and 15)

Proposed Identifications. When the twenty-one fragments of 1Q19 were

first published, Milik suggested that they may have belonged to a lost
Livre de Noe.23 He postulated that this work, referred to in Jubi-
lees 10:13 and 21:10 and in an expansion to the Testament of Levi which
survives in an 11th century manuscript from M ount Athos.24 Given that
several fragments (1-3, 8) of 1Q19 appear to bear similarities with some
Noahic portions (interpolations?) of 1 Enoch while, at the same time, not
corresponding word for word with the surviving recensions,25 Milik ar

20 ATTM , p. 268.
21 Similarly, Garcia Martinez, QumApoc, p. 102 n. 13.
22 The destruction of the earth through the flood is also anticipated in 1 En. 10:2;
54:7-10; 60:24b-25(?); 66:1; 106:15; Jub. 7:29,33. Cf. further 2 En. 73:3-5.
23 DJD I, pp. 84-87 and 152 (photographs on Plates XVI-XVII).
24 I. e., ms. e (= Athos Koutloumous 39) edited by Marinus de Jonge in The Testa-
ments o f the Twelve Patriarchs. A Critical Edition o f the Greek Text (PYTG, 1/2; Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1978) 47 (section 57). The possibility of the textual antiquity of the recension
contained in this ms. should be taken seriously, since it preserves two additional passages
(after the Grk. T. Levi 2:3 and 18:2) which correspond, though not word-for-word, with
4Q213 (= 4QTLevi); 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 hebrisches Exem
plar of the same.27
The Case for an Identification with the Book of Giants. Beyers 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
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 (4QEnGiants) 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 presseniens de Qumrn: dHnoch Amram, in ed. M. Del-
cor, Qumrn. Sa pit, sa thologie et son milieu (BETL, 46; Paris-Gembloux/Leuven:
Duculot/University Press, 1979) 94-95 and BE, p. 55. Miliks 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

4Q533 = 4 Q G iants or Pseudo-Enoch ar (14 Fragments)

Proposed Identifications and Evaluation. In the Microfiche Companion Vo-

lume, 4Q533 is listed with the title provided above.29 As the manuscript
was originally assigned to Starcky for editing, one may infer that the de-
signation, which holds open the possibility of its belonging to Qumran
BG, was his own. Though some recent listings of Qumran manuscripts
have continued to include Giants or Book of Giants in designations
of 4Q5 33,30 there is little reason for this.
Several considerations make the non-inclusion of 4Q533 within the
Qumran BG highly probable. First, in Garcia Martinez list of Qumran
manuscripts (DSST), the possibility of 4Q533 (entitled 4QGiantse ar?)
belonging to BG is derived from Miliks discussion of 4QEnGiantse in
BE (pp. 237-38).31 Now that the designations can be checked against the
photographs, it is clear that this association with Miliks 4QEnGiants>is
wrong. As has been demonstrated in the analysis of 4Q556 above, Milik
was in fact referring to 4Q556, a manuscript which overlaps with 4Q206
(4QEnoclF). Hence the perpetuation of the Giants title for 4Q533 seems
to have rested on the assumption that Milik must have discussed this
manuscript in his treatment of the Qumran BG. Second, as the decisive
criterion for assessing the character of any manuscript is the text itself, it is
significant that among the some 14 fragments attributed to 4Q533 on
PAM 43.601 (= EE, 1548)32 there seems to be no recognizable allusion
to either the Watchers/giants myth or to the figure of Enoch.33 Instead,
the fragments appeal to the words of a prophet (1, 1.7-;)
mention place names such as M ount Sinai (1, 1.2-) , Joppa (1,
1.9-) , and Shechem (1, 1.8- ;) refer to a king of Egypt (11, 1.2-
;) and, among other people groups, speak of the Moabites
and Amalekites (3, 1.4-)[ [. This is language which the
texts belonging to BG do not lead one to expect.

29 The D SS on Microfiche. Companion Volume, p. 47.

30 For example, cf. Vermes, DSSE, p. Ii (= psEn, Book of Giants or Pseudo-
Enoch); Garcia Martinez, DSST, p. 505 (4QGiants^ ar?); and Charlesworth, DSS.
Rule o f the Community, p. 182 ("Giants or Pseudo-Enoch a r).
31 Since in his Tools for Study (1990) Fitzmyer does not provide the manuscript num
bers at this point (p. 52), it is not apparent whether, as Garcia Martinez, he is identifying
his 4QEnGiantse with 4Q533.
32 In Microfiche Inventory (p. 83), 4Q533 is the only manuscript listed as contained in
this photograph. Fragment numbers of the citations below follow their order of appea
rance on PAM 43.601 (right to left, top to bottom).
33 The phrase 7:nnJ in 3, 1.5 (we will destroy them) might be consistent with
the accounts of destructive activities in BG, is but a weak argument for inclusion in BG,
givent he other elements extant among the fragments (see below).
222 The Book o f Giants and the Qumran Fragments

4Q537 - 4QApocryphon o f Jacob ar34

Proposed Identifications. The photographs of 4Q537 only became general

ly accessible through the Facsimile Edition and the DSS on Microfiche.
When Michel Testuz published one of the fragments in 1955,35 he noted
the references to apparently celestial tablets on 1.3 and to a tablet on
1.5 (see below, pp. 237-38). Although he did not advance a hypothesis
about either the identification or the literary context of the fragment, he
noted that such tablets are frequently mentioned in Jubilees and 1 Enoch.
In an article on Essene literature predating the settlement of a commu
nity at Qumran, Milik republished the text, having added a tiny piece
joined to the fragment by Starcky as well as two further fragments on
his own.36 These additions (cf. 11.4-6), as well as his reconstructed text
(esp. 1.4), corresponded to Miliks view that the manuscript belongs to a
previously unknown work which he labelled Visions de Jacob in which
the patriarch is being addressed by an angel during his dream at Bethel.37
Milik derived his association of the document with Jacob from two sour
ces, the Prayer of Joseph as cited by Origen - in which Jacob, speaking in
the 1st person, reads in the tablets of heaven about what will happen to
his progeny - and from Jubilees 32:21-22:38
(21) And he saw in a vision of the night, and behold an angel was descending
from heaven, and there were seven tablets in his hands. And he gave (them) to
Jacob, and he read them, and he knew everything which was written in them, which
would happen to him and to this sons during all the ages. (22) And he showed him
everything which was written on the tablets.
Since in 32:24-26 Jacob is said to have recorded the substance of this
vision according to the angels instruction, Milik surmised that the author
of Jubilees must have known this work.39 More recently, with several
refinements, Emile Puech - who wisely admits a degree of incertitude -
has endorsed the main features of Miliks analysis,40 stressing in addition

34 With the publication of frgt. 1 by Michel Testuz in Deux fragments indits 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 pres-
seniens de Qumrn, pp. 103-104.
35 See his publication referred to in the previous n.
36 crits pressniens de Qumrn, p. 103.
37 Ibid., p. 104.
38 The translation below follows that of O. S. Wintermute, Jubilees, in OTP 2.118.
39 crits pressniens de Qumrn, p. 104.
40 See Puech, Fragments dun apocryphe de Lvi et le personnage eschatologique.
4QTestLvicd (?) 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, rvla-
tions, parnse et eschatologie.41
In ATTM (186-87) Beyer retained both Miliks 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
Puechs conclusion - that the fragments coincide with characteristics of an
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;( ) the reference to the tablets

Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 11/2; Leiden: E. I Brill, 1992) 489-90; in addition, the present author
gratefully acknowledges correspondence from Puech on 4Q537 dated to Feb. 12, 1990.
Puech differs from Milik in two ways: (1) he follows Beyers proposed restoration for
Jacobs 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 Jacobs 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 Jacobs 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 auditors 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 addressees
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
(1.3the 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 and may be consistent with the flood story, but are far too generic to
suggest it.
51 Ibid., p. 110.
52 Beyers attribution of 4Q537 to the Genesis Apocryphon remains a possibility, but
this is a connection which - other than perhaps the shared place name 1) Q0/?-
Geflxxi.8,10 and 4Q537 19, 1.3) - has little positive evidence to support it.

Texts and Translations of Documents Which Have not

Been Assigned to the Qumran Book of Giants1

The following texts and translations, based on independent readings of the

photographs, are not reproduced with the critical detail which accompa-
nies the materials which more properly belong to Qumran BG. The mate-
rial here is instead presented to provide the reader with the textual basis
for the discussion in Chapter Two, Part Two. It is in that discussion where
the bibliographies for each of the manuscripts may be found. Given the
non-identification of this material with BG, the vocabulary of the texts has
not been included in the glossary.

4Q534 (7 Fragments)2

Photographs . PAM 41.917 (= EE, 514); 42.435 (= FE , 857); 43.590; 43.591 (= FE,
1537, 1538).
column i, top margin
(frgt.s 1 = 11.1-15 and 4 = 11.16-17)
] [.. ] [ . 1
vacat ] [] [ 2
.. ] <> [ 3
[] ] [ 4
vacat [] 5
][] [ 6
] [.] [. [] 7
[] 8

1 Discussed in Chapter Two, Part II.

2 The script is clearly Herodian; Cross (The Development of the Jewish Scripts,
p. 138) characterizes it as round semiformal hand which may be dated during the
period 30 B. C. E. - 20 C. E. Concerning the number of fragments: as is frequent among
the Qumran manuscripts, many fragments are themselves composed of pieces which
have been joined together.
Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

9[] [*]
10 [ ]
vacat []11 [ ]
12 [ [.] [
13[ [
14[ ]
15 [ [
16 [ ]
17 [ ]
1 of the hand, two .[ ] m .\ ]y a mark. Red will be
2 his hair. And lentil-like marks (will be) up[on
3 small marks (will be) upon his thigh [ ]n (will be) differ-
ent one from another. He will know ..lyh.
4 During his youth all of them will be [upon him as (upon) a m]an
who does not known anything un[til] the time when
5 he has [lejarned the three books. vacat
6 [And t]hen he will become wise and know gr[eat things.] They
[will see]k visions, in order to come to him on his knee.
7 And with his father and with his fore[father]s .[ \.hy and old
age. And with him will be counsel and prudence.
8 [And] he will know the secrets of humanity, and his wisdom will
go out to all the peoples. And he will know the secrets of
all living things.
9 [And al]l their plots against him will come to an end, though the
opposition of all living things will be great.
10 [ ]his [pl]ans, because he is the Elect of God. His birth and
the spirit of his breath
11 [ ]his [p]lans will be eternal. vacat
12 [ ] which /[ ].lyn
13 [ ]/a plan
14 [ lb
15 [ ]his
16 [ ]h
17 [ ].sh
column ii, top margin
(frgt.s 1-5)
] [ ..] [. .] [. 1
] [.. ..] [ ... ] [ 2
vacat? 3
] [ ] [ 4
4Q534 221

[] [.
[ ][ ] 8
10 are lost
[ [. 11
] [.. ... ..] [] [. 12
]] [ [ 13
vacat? [ - 14
] [..] [] [ 15
]] [ [. 16
...] [.] [ .] [ 17
vacat ] ] 18
] [] [ ... ] ] 19
.[ ] 20
1 .[ \.dy .[ ].. he fell first. Sons of a pit [
].. Evil (is) the lentil-like mark /..[
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

][] 1
]. .2
3 .[
4 [
1 [ ].[ vacat or bottom margin
2 which Ikw. .[
3 guilt lb.[
4 this. He will guard [

4Q534 7

[.] 1
1 ]Jwn [

4Q535 (2 3 Fragments)4

Photographs. PAM 43.572 bottom (= FE, 1520).

4Q 5351

top margin or vacat

[ ... .]
] [
?] [ 3
[. ..] [] 4
] [ 5
[. ] [] 6
vacat or bottom margin
1 ]. born. And they are m.m.. together [
2 ]sh born in the night, and he came out complete
3 with a [w]eight of three hundred and fiffty(?)] shekels [

3 Garcia Martinez (DSSE , pp. 263-64) ascribes 4 frgt.s to 4Q535. Frgt. 1 (PAM
43.572 bottom right) actually belongs to 4Q203, while frgt. 2 appears to have been copied
by a different hand. Thus the text presented below is based on the other two frgt.s.
4 The script is early-middle semi-formal Herodian, which reflects a slighter greater
degree of standardization than, e. g., 4Q531. The text may thus have been copied 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
[ 1
[][. 2
1 and about ten[
2 .[]weigfht

4Q536 (3 Fragments)t

Photographs. PAM 43.575 top (= FE, 1523).

column i, top margin?

(fragments 1-2)
] .] 1
[ ] 2
] [ 3
]] [ 4
] 5
] 6
] 7
] 8
.] 9
.. ] ... ] 10
] 11
] 1 rati?1?[ 12
] ].tp pjaa ioa ,r x[ 13
bottom margin bottom margin
] .y you will be[
h]oly ones. He will remember [
]to him [the] ligh[ts] will revealed
]all his teaching. Splen[dor
wi]sdom of humanity, and every wise man

5 The script appears to represent a semi-formal form of the late Hasmonaean type.
>30 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

6 ]you will make humanity tremble, and

7 ]in the provinces. A nd he will be great
8 ]he will reveal secrets like the m ost high
9 ].yn and through an understanding o f the
secrets o f
10 ]... ./[ ].. and also
11 ].[ ]in the dust
12 ]at first .[ ]the secret has [go]ne up
13 ] because he has placed me am ong a number. Sh.[ ]and
a gift
column ii
(fragment 1)
[ 7
[ 8
[ 9
[. ... ] [ 10
[. 11
[ 12
[ 13
bottom margin
from h[
8 he did. [
9 concerning whom you are troubled for the sake o f all humanity[
10 you have hidden yourself. The sword o f those w hom you hold he has
overpowered [ ] Blessed is he ... q.[
11 and he will not die in the days o f evil. Woe to you, O fool, because your
m outh will throw you .[
12 guilt to death. W ho will write these words o f mine in a book which will
not wear away, and my words y[
13 pass away? Behold, and (in) a period o f wicked ones he will know
you forever. A man who for your servants, [your] son[s


1 ] [
2 ]. . [
[ ... [ ] .. ] 3
6Q14 231

1 during [the] night he sleeps until half o f his day [

2 during ]the day until the com pletion o f years ..[
3 (it) moves (away)] from him and /..[] sh ...[

6Q 14 (2 Fragm ents)

Photographs. PAM 41.510; 42.949; D JD III, Plate X XV I.


] . . 1 ]
2 ][
3 ][ [ ]
4 ] .[
5] .[
6] .[
7 ] . [
8 ].[
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

[. .] 1
[ .]
[ . ]
[. . ...] 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

1Q19 (Fragments 11, 136 and 157)

Photographs. PAM 40.444; DJD I, Plate XVI.


} 1 ]
2 ] [
1 a]ll the sons of [
2 ]/ o f holfiness

1Q 1913

].1 ].] [.
2 ] ]
3 ]. [
1 \.by glory and also .[ ]to the glory of God b.[
2 he will] be lifted up in the splendor of glory and o f beauty[
3 ]. he will be glorified in the midst of

1Q 1915

][ 1
] .] 2
][ ] ...] 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 (14 Fragments)8

Photographs. PAM 41.444; 41.512; 42.440; 43.601.

A full reading o f these fragments has not been published. For readings o f in
dividual words, see Beyer, A T T M E B , p. 107.

4Q533 1

] IV..[ 1
] ,r o mu?[ 2
],mam ]...?a[ 3
] n w ta un.[ ]..a 7pi .[ 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 [

8 The script is a semi-formal and early-middle Herodian.

234 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

3 ]. they wanted [
4 \ t . upon .[

4Q533 3

!. .] 1
])?(] [ 2
] 3
]] [ 4
..] 5
..........] 6
] 7
] [.. .] 8
] 9
] 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

[. .] 1
[. .] 2
[] 3
] .] 4

[ ] 5
[] 6
1 }.kl .[
2 \shf .[
3 ] d\
4 \ k w from[
5 ].. [
6 ]h [
4Q533 235


[] 1
[] 2
[ .] 3
[)?(Jared ] 1
[ then ] 2
wr and .] 3 /]

4Q533 6

].[ 1
]..2 ].] ]
3 ]. .. .] ].[
4 ].] [.. .[
5 ].. ..[
6 ]...]
1 ][
2 ]./[ ]/..[
3 ] .n ' .. m.[ ].[
4 ]y k ..\ ]yz.[
5 ].. and he made m..[
6 ]...[

4Q533 7 4Q5338

]] 1 [ 1

[ 2

1 ]/ Imd[ 1 h[
2 qsh[
236 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

4Q533 9 4Q533 10

][... 1 ][ 1
]. ..[. 2
][][ 3
1 []m ... [ ] 1
2 ].[.. ./
3 []!]6

4Q533 11

] [ 1
] . [ 2
].[ 3
1 ]y trembled b
[2 ]. from Egypt m
3 []. m.

4Q 53312 4Q 53313

]] [..[|?) 1 ][ 1
[] [] 2 [. ]. 2
][ 3
][ 4
1 )?(].[Egy[pt 1 ][
2 [] [] 2 [Vb.
3 []/
4 []h

4Q533 14

] 1
] 2
] ] [. 3
]. 4
vacat [ 5
]. . 6
] . 7
] . 8
4Q537 237

11]. .. ] ]
12 ]
13 ].[] .
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 [.][/.

4Q 537 (28 Fragments)9

Photographs. Testuz, D eux fragments indits, Figure 1 opposite p. 38 (frgt. 1);

PAM 43.599 (= FE, 1546; frgt.s 2 -2 8 10).
N o readings thus far have been published for fragments 10, 14-16, and 19-28.


top margin
1 [
2 [
3 [
4 [ [ ]

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 pres-
sniens de Qumrn, p. 103) which have been followed by Puech (Fragments dun
apocryphe de Lvi, po. 489-90). The restorations on 11.4,6 largely follow those adopted
by Puech. On 1.5 the number of Jacobs years is restored on the basis of Jub. 45:13.
238 Documents Which Have not Been Assigned to the Qumran Book o f Giants

].. 5 [] ] [
6 [] [ [ ]

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.


[] 1
[] 2
[] [] 3
WW 4
1 ]the earth. And you shall eat its fruit and all its produce. And you shall
2 to ]be foolish and to wander astray and to walk in the ways o f error and
3 ]and your evil ways until you become before him[
4 ]/[]/[


].[ ] 1 ]] [
2 [ ] [ ]
1 ]his which[ ]your [ ].[
2 y]ou will be bitter and stubborn over against him and


[. ] 1
all] your [s]ins and all your guilty deeds and all 1 .]
4Q537 239


].. .[ 1
2 ] [
1 ].
2 ]your[ ]through [your] trespasses[

4Q537 7

] 1]
2 ] ... . . . [
1 ]O [
2 ] ... for an eternal security ... [

4Q5378 4Q53710

]pajoan k.[ 1 m]T !a sm 1?[ aonxi 1

1 ]. it will reach you[ 1 and I took ]the tablet from [his] hand[s


[ ] ] [ 1
[ ] [.] 2
[. .] 3
vacat 4
]5 ]
1 ]and how [the] builfding] will be[ ]their[ priests ] will be
clothed, and pure [their hands
2 ]bringing the sacrifices to the altar and .[ ]the[ ear]th
eating from a portion o f their sacrifices [
3 ].y will be going out from the city and from underneath its walls. And
then they will be m \
4 vacat
5 ] before me a land o f two quarters and [

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

[.] 1 [.] 1
/ [.] 2 [ . . ] 2
[.k t q ] 1 [.] 1
[.. 2 ]four h and how [it/they wi]ll [be\ 2


[.. ..] 1
[] [ .] 2
vacat 3
[ ..] 4
bottom margin
1 ].. from the north evil will frighten ..[
2 ] .[] from it Zion, and in it all the peoples will hide[
3 vacat
4 ].. above it K R Y P W between Media, Persia, and Assyria, and
to the sea [


].1 ].
2 ] .] [.] [.. [
3 ] [
1 ].k sy and he went out s h \
2 ] t ..[ ].[ ]. Beer Zait on the waters of [
3 ] truth according to the matter of the battle. And he went out to the right


[ ] . . . 1 ]
2 ]
3 ]
4 ] ]
1 ] &. . . [ ]
2 ]the valley of Ramath Hazor. And he went
4Q537 241

3 ]this whole place he showed me because

4 it will be] for them a sign of[

4Q53719 4Q53720

]1?by XB57 bD[ 1 ]. poiay[ 1

1 ]every nation entering[ 1 ]peoples .[

4Q53721 4Q53722

K]snK Vd[ 1 ]3/1 n-nn [bijDb pib.[ 1

1 ]all [the] earth[ 1 ].Iwn to Mo[unt] Horeb and

4Q53723 4Q53724
xsn] by ,i [ 1 ] .1
].a 2
] r a 3

1 .[ 1 ] which (is) upon [the] ear[th

2 .[
3 between .[


[.IS. ...] 1
[][ I*] 2
[] 3
1 [... . [. d

2 earth] ] [ ...]


]. 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 ]. .[
(For Texts probably belonging to the Book of Giants)

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.

( father; masc.): ( to go):

sg.+lcs suff -6) Q8 1.4) q a lp f 3ms-'KX (1Q23 13.3)
sg.+3mp su ff.-)m m (1Q23 20.2) q a lp f 5/4) /?Q531 4.5)
( to perish): qal impv. ?4) 5- Q530 ii.22)
qal pf. 3m s-l4) Q532 2.8) ( brother; masc.):
qal impf. 3mp-)T pl.+3ms su ff.-'m m (4Q 530ii.l5)
(4Q531 3.2?-( ( to grasp, seize):
( destruction; masc.): qal pf. 7 ^ 4) Q531 9.5)
sg.abs.-]7m (4Q531 13.2) ( giants name):
( to wish): 4) Q5314.1)
qal 2 ^ - 1) Q23 18.2?-](] ( qal and a fe l, to be late):
( to mourn): a fe l p f 7(4) 5 Q531 10.3)
qal infin.-4) Q531 12.3) ( hind; masc.):
( letter; fern.): pl.cstr.-4) Q531 17.8)
sg.emph.-xn^M (4Q203 8.3?-([ ( tree; masc.):
( then): pl.emph.-Wl'r'X (4Q531 1.5)
4) Q203 12.3- ;[]13.2?-) ] ( there is):
with -1) Q23 1+6+22.5; 20.2- 4) Q203 13.3; 4Q530ii.24)
4 ; [Q203 7 ^ 5 -7 ; [B i.27- ( to eat):
4 ;] Q5301i.3; ii.15) qal impf. 7 ^ 4) Q531 17.11)
7].( giants name): qal infin.-4) Q531 5.6; 4Q532 2.10-
?].4) Q203 3.3) ([
( destruction; masc.): ( not, with negative prohibition):
sg.em ph .-itti (4Q203 8.12-([ 4) Q530 i.6; 17.3)
( giants name): ( behold):
4 ; ) 1)323 29.1 - ]Q203 4.3; 4) Q5315.3)
7A.5; 4053011.1- ;]ii.15; 12.2; ( these; masc.):
4Q531 17.9; 6Q8 1.2- ;1.4-) ] 1) Q23 27.1; 4Q5301.5; 4Q5314.4-
;4.5 )
244 Glossary

( to learn): ( four):
qal pf. 3ms-v\x?X (4Q531 9.6) fem.abs.-V]21X (1Q23 13.1?)
( thousand; masc.): ( behold):
sg.abs.-rfrx (4Q530ii.l7; 4Q531 9.3) 1) Q23 7.1; 4Q203 8.12;
pl.abs.-X'ShX (1Q23 1+6+22.4; 4Q530 ii.18; 4Q531 17.10; 6Q8 1.6)
4Q530 ii. 17; 4Q531 9.3) ( length, duration; fem.):
( to say; itp., to be said): sg.cstr.4) Q530 iii.3)
qal pf. 3m s-1m (4Q203 4.3; 13.2; ( earth, fem.):
4Q530 ii.l; ii.5; ii.15; iii.6; sg.emph.1) Q23 9+14+15.3; 19.1
4(}5312.125.4 ;17.9 ;;] 1 ; ;[25.5 [Q242.2-
4Q532 5.26 ;]Q8 1.2) 4 ;[ Q203 4.4; 4.58.9 ;;]
qal pf. 3m pA 1m (4Q530 ii.22) 4Q530 ii.16; iii.8; 4Q531 1.2; 1.5
qal impv. ms-lftX (4Q530 ii.23; 4 ;1.7 ;] Q532 2.5; 2.9;[
4Q531 17.12) 2.11; 2.12; 4Q556 6.1; 6.3([
qal pass. pf. 3ms-^ftX (4Q530 ii.18) ( to pour):
qal im pf 36) ?/?Q8 8.1) qal p f 34) ^Q531 8.1)
itp. ptc. 4) Q 53011.2) ( to come):
( I): qal p f 3ms-T\T)X (4Q530 ii.21)
4) Q203 1.4; 4Q530 ii.16; 6 i.2; qal p f 5^4) /?Q530 ii.5; 6Q8 2.2)
4Q531 2.1; 9.5; 13.4; 17.5; 17.10; qal ptc. ms-T\T)X (4Q531 17.8)
4Q532 4.4) ( place; masc.)\
( they, masc.; emphasis o f preceding sg.emph.4) Q530ii.22)
( lQ23 2.1or fem. ; *( in, on, through):
4Q531 17.6; 17.7?(] as prep, with substantives
4) . ^ ^ Q203 5.2;[ (1Q23 9+14+15.3 ;17.2
4Q530 ii.l) ;19.1 ;[21.2 ;
emphasis4) Q203 8.8) 4Q203 8.4 ;[]8.9
( we): ; 8.13^ ... ;
4) Q 53113.3 ;14.2; 4Q 5301.3 ; 1.4 ;1.5
4(3556 3.4( ; 11.5 ; 11.6;
( to oppress): 11.10^ ;ii.l 66/5;
qal pf. 3m s+lcs su ff 11.194 ; ; 111.4 Q 5311.9
(4Q 53117.9([ ;4.5 ;5.4 ;8.5
( nose; i/w.face; fern.). ;9.4 ;17.3 ;17.3 cs suff.-'SilX (4Q203 1.3; ;17.6 ;25.1 ; [
4Q531 9.5) 29.24 ; Q532 2.2 ;][2.9
( human being, humanity; masc.)'. ;[2.106/5 ; 6.2
sg.abs.-WM (4Q531 9.6) 6 ; Q8 7.1 [..)
sg.emph.4) Q531 1.9) +3fs suff.-7\4) Q203 8.11; 4Q206 3
( woman, wife; fem.): i.2; 3 i.3)
pl.em ph .-w m (4Q203 8.8(] +3mp su ff ) 4 )3203 4.1 ?;[
( you, 4Q530 14.1)
4) Q 53116.1) ( bad, evil):
( bond, chain, imprisonment; masc.): sg.masc.abs.-W')X2 (4Q203 8.14)
sg.abs.-^OX (4Q532 2.14) ( because):
( bound, fettered): 4) Q532 4.2)
sg.+2mp 5 1 # 4) Q203 8.14) ( to choose):
( also): qal pf. 3m s^n2 (6Q8 26.3)
4) Q530 ii.15; 6 i.7) (( ( house):
( cunning; masc.): sg.+lcp sujf-MW n (4Q530ii.24)
sg.emph.-X^X (4Q530ii.24) s g . c s t r . 4 ) Q530 6 i.3; 4Q531 17.1)
Glossary 245

( between, among): 4Q 53011.13; ii.15; ii.20; 11.21; iii.3;

4) Q531 9.6; 4Q556 2.4) 61. 8; 10.2; 4Q5314.4)
( to weep): ( something great; fem.):
qal 34) 1/?Q203 4.6) sg.abs.4) Q 53011.16(
( to want): ( giants name):
qal ptc. m s-n m (4(3530111.7)[ ) 4 )( 53011.2;
qal ptc. m p-^vn (4Q531 5.6) 4Q 53117.12(]
( cattle; masc.): ( full; complete):
sg.emph.4) Q531 1.6) p l.a b s .-v ^ m (1(324 7.2-([
( lord, master, husband; masc.): ( gardener; masc.)'.
pl.cstr.-'bvn (4Q531 17.5) pl.abs.-X'l'l'X (4Q530 ii.7; 111.11;]
( field; masc.): 17.2; 6Q8 5.1)
sg.emph.-X1) Q23 1+6+22.4; ( wing; masc. or fem.)'.
4Q531 17.8 bis) pl.emph.-WZM (4Q531 24.2?(].
( son; masc.): ( bone; fem.)'.
sg.+lcs suff.-^n (4Q532 3.3?)[ pl.abs.-v4) Q531 14.2)
sg.+3ms suff.-71) Q23 28.1)
pl.cstr.1) Q23 20.4; 4Q531 9.6) ( wheat; masc.):
pl.+2mp ^ ^ 4) Q203 8.10; sg.ernph.-xm (4Q531 1.5)
4Q53122.2) ( to wash):
pl.+3mp suff.-]'17\',22 (4Q203 8.8 (h )a fe l impv. m p-W lTl (2Q26 1)
([ ( generation; masc.):
( to bless): pl.cstr. or with s u f f .- Y /^ l (6Q8 30.2)
p a el pass. ptc. *71?4) Q203 9.3? ( to be frightened):
(] qal pf. 3mp-'hn1 (4Q530 ii.20)
( but): ( rel.pron.; gen.; because; with , when;
4) Q 53117.4) introd. to final clause).
( lightning bolt; masc.): rel.pron.1) Q23 12.2; 9+14+15.5;
pl.emph.-Wp1) Q24 1.7) 21.2; 1Q24 7.3; 2Q26 3; 4Q203 8.11;
( fallen Watchers ^ 116(: 8.13bis; 4Q 530ii.l; iii.ll; 61.2; 6i.3;
(1Q23 29.14 ;[ Q203 1.2; 4Q531 1.4; 2.14 ;2.2 ;[Q531 13.3;
6Q8 1.4) 4Q532 1 11.10?6 ;[Q8 2.2)
( flesh): gen.-''1 (4Q203 8.3; 8 . 7 ? 7 ;8.8 -
sg.abs.4) Q531 14.2; 14.3;] 4Q531 17.8)
17.4; 4Q532 1 i.10) +final clause4) Q203 8.6;[
sg.emph.-XW2 (4Q 53011.19 : 4Q 530ii.23fc; 4Q531 4.4; 17.10;
4Q531 12.5; 4Q532 2.2?( [ 27.2?or because)
4) Q203 1.1; 4Q203 4.5?;[
( strength; fem.): 4Q532 4.2; 4Q556 1 1.4?)[
sg.+lcs 51(//!4) Q 531 17.3 because (4Q203 9.3; 4Q530ii.22;
) 4Q531 5.5; 17.5 - 27.2 ;? -or final
sg.+3ms ^ ^ 4) Q531 9.3 clause)
( ] ( belonging to):
( to be strong): 6) Q8 21.1?([
qal pf. 34) 75 Q531 17.3?see also ( to judge):
subst. ( itp. impf. 3m5T4) Q556 2.2)
( main; giant; masc.): ( judgment, masc.):
sg.abs.^2* (4Q531 17.3?see also vb. sg.abs.4) Q 53011.2 ;]ii. 18)
) sg.cstr.4) Q530ii. 18)
p l.a b s.-r1) Q23 9.3; 9+14+15.5; sg.+lcs s u f f e r ! (4Q531 17.5)
4Q531 5.2) ( pure):
pi. abs./emph.1) / [ Q23 11.2) pl.masc.emph.-W'Sl (4Q531 19.3)
pi.emph.4) Q203 7A.7;
246 Glossary

( male; masc.): ( if; with , but, rather):

sg.abs.-4) Q531 1.9) 4) Q203 10.2; 4Q530ii.24; iii.l; iii.8;
( to burn): 6Q8 1.6)
qal ptc. ms-p'y! (4Q530 ii. 10) 6) Q8 17.1?[[
( blood; masc.):
sg.abs.-Ul (4Q206 3 i.2) 1 (and): passim
sgemph.-Xftl (4Q531 29.2) { a f e lp f 3 ^ - () 4 )353011.15-
sg.+3ms su ff-n n i (4Q531 5.4; 25.1?- ( splendor; masc.):
] or 3mp suff) sg.emph.-XV1 (4Q531 8.4)
sg.+3mp su ff-Y n ftl (4Q531 25.1?- ( period, time; masc. or fern.):
[or 3ms suff.) sg.cstr.-\n1 (4Q531 18.1)
( likeness, image; fern.): ( prostitution, fornication; fern.):
sg.+3ms suff-TlTVZil (4Q531 8.5) sg.+2mp s u f f-v v r v v (4Q203 8.9)
( to be like) ( to call; p a el, cry out):
qal infin.-$4) Q531 28.1) qal pf. 3ms+3ms suff-7\\?V1
( to sleep): (4Q530 iii.6)
qal impf. 7 ^ -4) Q531 17.11- p a el ptc. fp-]pV1ft (4Q530 6 i.4)
)] ( seed; masc.):
qal impf. 3 ^ - 4) Q531 22.1) sg.abs.-vni (4Q531 23.3)
qal ptc. ms-~\ftl (4Q530 6 i.6)
( this; masc.): ( to corrupt):
1) Q23 8.2?; 4Q530ii.6; ii.1 4 -^ ; p a elpf. 24) ?/?Q203 8.11)
ii.l6; 4Q531 17.9; 25.2; 6Q8 2.3; p a elpf. 3m p-^2n (4Q532 2.9)
29.1) p a elptc. ^ 4) Q531 13.4)
( this; masc.): ( corruption; masc.):
4) Q 5 3 0 ii.l^ n ; 4Q531 3.3) sg.abs.-^n (4Q532 2.9)
( arm; fern.): sg.emph.-tf?2n (4Q203 8.11)
sg.+lcp su ff-'V ni (4Q531 17.3) ( companion; masc.):
pl.em ph.-a^^n (4Q530 ii.3)
~( interrogative particle): pl.+3ms suff-'Tiinnn (4Q203 3.2
with 4) Q531 4.5) 4 ; ;8.5?- [Q530 ii.l; ii.5-
( behold): 4 ; [ Q531 8.2?)[
4) Q 53011.16-4 ;]Q206 2.3-( pl.+3mp ^1# 4) Q203 7A.7-
( splendor; masc.): ([
sg.cstr.-n!7\ (4Q203 9.2) ( one; with ~ , together):
( giants name): fem.abs. with ~4) Q530 6 i.5-
4) Q203 4.3-7 ;[A . 5 ^ ] ^ cf. (
4Q530 ii.415) ( to rejoice):
( to be): qal pf. 3mp-)1n (4Q5301i.3)
qalpf. lcs-T\V7\ (1Q23 3.2; 4Q530 ii.6; qal impf. 374) /7 Q530 6 i.6)
ii.9; 6Q8 2.2) ( giants name):
qal pf. 3ms-7\4) Q203 13.4; 4) Q203 3.3)
4Q556 6.2; 4Q206 3 i.2; 6Q8 1.4) ( pael and afel, to inform, report,
qal pf. 3fs-TV7\ (4Q203 8.9) make known):
qal pf. 3mp-V7\ (4Q530 11.7 ;ii.l 8- p a elpf. 3ms-VT\ (4Q531 4.4)[]
4 ; Q532 2.4; 2.6; 4Q556 6.2; p a el impf. 3ms-1VT\4) Q530ii.23-
4Q206 3 i.3) )[
qal impf. Ics-7\V1X (4Q530 6 i.6) p a el infin.-avn (4Q530 ii. 13)
qal impf. 3ms-1Vr\h (4Q203 8.6) a fe l pf. 3ms-VTia (4Q 530ii.l)
qalpf/im pf. 3ms-^7\[ (4Q203 6.2) itpa. pf. 3mf-T\VT\T\X (4Q206 2.27-
qal juss. 3/?24) -Q532 1 ii.ll) ( ]
( to go): ( vision; fern.):
impf. lcs-l^X (4Q530 6 i.3) sg.abs.-7\MT\ (4Q531 17.10)]
Glossary 247

( to see; afel, to show): ( ruin, destruction; masc.):

qal p f lcs-N tn (4Q530 ii. 16) sg.abs.-4) Q531 13.2; 4Q5321.9-
qal pf. 3ms+3ms suff-^7\\T\ (4Q530 iii.6- (]
(][ ( to burn; afel, trans.):
qal ptc. ms-mr\ (4Q530 ii.6) a f e l p f 3 m p -^ m (4Q531 1.7)
qal infin.-w m (4Q531 17.10; 26.3) ( to count, reckon; itp., to be
a fel pf. 3ms+2ms ^/^ reckoned):
(6Q8 1.3( itp. juss. 3/4) /?Q530 i.4)
( to sin): ( reckoning; masc.):
qal ptc. mp-yun (4Q531 12.1; 13.3 sg.abs.-]2wn (4Q5301.4)
(34.2 ;15.3 ;[
( living): ( mountain; masc.):
sg.emph.-Wn (4Q530 ii. 19) sg.abs./ e r a / ? / * . 4 ) ()Q531 39.2
( beast, animal; fem.): ()[(
sgabs.-w n (1Q23 1+6+22.4) ( dew; masc.):
pl.cstr.4) Q531 17.8) sg.emph.1) Q24 5.4;[
( army, power; masc.): 4Q203 11 ii.2)
sg.abs.-fr\ (4Q531 9.4) ( to be unclean; itpa., to be made
sg.cstr.4) Q531 17.3) unclean)
( inhabited world; masc.): itpa. pf. 3 m p -v n m (4Q531 5.1)
sg.abs.4) Q 530111.5([]
( to dream): { afel, bring):
qal pf. 3mp-Mf?T\ (4Q530 ii.3) (h )a felp f. 4) Q530 iii.8)
( dream; masc.): ( hand; fem.):
sg.emph.4) Q530 ii. 12; ii. 14; 11.20) sg.cstr.-V (4Q203 8.4; 4Q531 5.4)
sg.+lcs s u f f - ^ n (4Q530 ii.6;ii.l6; p l.+ lcp su ff-'V (4Q530 6 i.2)
4Q531 17.9) pl.+3ms suff.4) Q530 iii.4)
sg. + 2ms su ff 4) Q531 17.12) pl.+3mp s u f f - y w (1Q23 17.2)
pi. abs.4) Q530 ii.3) ( to know):
pl.emph.-WTfrn (4Q530 ii.23) qal pf. 3ms-VV (4Q532 1 i.13)
pl.+3mp suff.-]'\7]'>74) \Q530ii.5) qalpf. 3mp-'WV (1Q23 9+14+15.2)
( to cross over): qal im pf lcp-Vl'l'l (4Q530111.10)]
qal pf. 3 m s ^ n (4Q530 iii.5) qal ptc. m s -W (4Q203 9.3;[
( to divide; itp.): 4Q531 2.1; 17.10)
(h)itp. pf. 3m s-pbnm (4Q530 14.2) qal ptc. pass. m s-y'V (4Q203 8.6)
( to inflict violence on): ( to give):
qal pf. 3ms-Q'ftT\ (4Q203 5.2) qal pf. 2^^4) Q531 3.3)
( violence; masc.): q a lp f 3ms-2W (4Q532 1 i.l l)
sg.abs.4) Q531 14.1) ( day; masc.):
( donkey, ass; masc.): sg.abs.-UV (1Q24 7.1)
pl.abs.-y^fch (1Q23 1+6+22.2) p l.a b s.-yn v (4Q531 18.1)
pl.emph.-W^ftn (1Q241.4) pl.emph.-\H')ftV (4Q5301.5)
( five): pl.cstr.-'ftV (4Q530111.9([
4) >^?:.Q531 6.3(] ( to erect):
( Enoch): qal pass. pf. 34) ?/?Q530 ii. 17)
4) Q203 8.4; 4Q 53011.14;] ( to bear; afel, to beget):
1 1 .2 1 ; iii.6; 4Q531 45.2; 4Q206 2.2) qal p f 3 f s - r \lf (4Q531 43.2?[, or
( force; masc.): subst.; 6Q8 1.6)
sg.cstr.-]0n (4Q531 17.3) qal pf. 3 m p -M f (4Q203 7B i.2)
( lacking, insufficient): a fe l pf. 5^ /4) Q531 5.3)
sg.masc.abs.-n'On (4Q532 3.2) ( child; masc.):
( sword; masc. or fem.): sg.abs./m asc.-{x)lf (4Q531 43.2?
sg.emph.-X^ft (4Q5314.5) \)[(or vb.)
248 Glossary

( sea; masc.): 6Q8 1.3-)

pl.emph.4) Q203 8.13) +3ms suff.-T6) Q8 2.3)
( right side; fem.): ( thus, so; with , therefore)
sg.emph.4) Q531 17.1) with 4) Q532 1 i.7)
(( afel, to add; itaf., to be added): ( assembly; fem.):
itaf. impf. 3^/?4) Q530iii.9- sg.cstr.-num (4Q530 ii.5 ;11.216 ;]
([ i.8)
( glorious, weighty): ( throne; masc.):
pl.m asc.abs.-y^p' (4Q531 8.3) sg.+3ms suff.-4) Q531 6.2)
( to be heavy; a fe l, to make heavy, to pl.abs.-^ O ^ (4Q530 ii. 17)
honor): ( to write):
(h )a fel pf. 5 > 4) Q530 6 i.7- qal pass, p f 3ms-^T\'D (4Q530 ii. 19)
(] ( book, document; masc.):
( glory; masc.): sg .c s tr.-ttl (4Q203 8.4))[]
sg.+2ms suff.-Ti^p'' (4Q203 9.2? sg.+3ms suff.-7\4) \Q556 2.4)
(] ( shoulder; fem.):
( Jared): pl.+3m s suff.-7\4 ) \^\Q5318.1)
6) Q8 18.1)
( to sit, dwell; afel, to cause to sit, ( to; for; at; sign o f accusative; with in-
dwell) finitive)1:
qal pf. 34) 7^Q530 ii.l 7;[ +acc. (1Q23 9+14+15.4); [
4Q531 9.6) 1Q241.36W?[. ... ; ][ ]
qal ptc. ^/?4) Q531 17.6) 1.4^ 5 ; [1.5 ;1.7
a fe l impf. 3ms+3ms suff-'T\2nv ; 1>224 3.3 ;5.3 ;
(4Q530 i.l) 5.46^ ; [6.1 ;
4Q203 7A.6 ;[7811.2;
~( as, like, according to): 4053011.2 ;11.19 ; iii.5-
with substantives (4Q530111.465[ 4 ; ; 61.7 Q 5314.1-
4 ; . . . Q 5314.6 ;(7.3 ;4.2 [.. ;4.3 ^ [
;[17.8 ;25.2 ; .[. ; 18.1 ;35.1 ?]
6Q8 6.1) ;[47.2 ?[.)
+infin. (4Q531 28.2( +infin. (1Q23 17.32 ; [Q26-
( here): 4 ;[Q203 3.4;[
4) Q 530ii.l2; ii.20) 4Q531 5.64 ; Q531 12.3
( lie; masc.): ; 17.5 ; 17.10;
p l.a b s .- V tt (4Q556 6.2) 18.14 ; ;26.3 Q532 1 ii.5-
: see under ;[2.10 ) [
( all, every): as prep, with substantives/adjectives
defective-bl (1Q23 1+6+22.4; (1Q23 25.5 ;[1){ 24 7.1 ;
9+14+15.521.2 ;20.4 ;;[ 4Q203 4 . 3 7 ;[A.5;[
4Q530 i.3 ;1.5 ;]ii.l; ii.lO fe; ii.18? 7A .6 ^ [t]& ^ ; 8 . 5 ^
;]ii.l9; ii.20; iii.8; 6 i.3; 4 ; ; 8.14 Q 530ii.l4
4Q 5322.12; 4Q5566.1; 4Q206 2.1; 3 ; 11.16 ; 11.21; []
1.36 ;]Q8 5.1; 15.1) 61.24 ; ;61.8 Q531 5.5?
plene-bM (1Q24 1.5; 3.3; 5.3; 6.1; ; 39.2 ; [45.2 ?;[
2Q264; 4Q203 7A.7; 8.5; 9.1; 9.3; 4Q206 2.26 ; Q8 1.2;
9.4; 4Q531 1.4; 1.5bis; 1.7; 1.7;] 18.1 ;]26.2 )
1.812.3 ;9.4 ;7.1 ;4.5 ;4.4 ;2.2 ;;] +1 CS suff 4) Q531 12.2)
17.1; 17.421.2 ;20.3 ;18.4 ;18.2 ;;] + lcp suff-Kfr (4Q203 6.2; 7A.6;
21.3; 23.2; 4Q532 1 11.3?;[ 4Q530 ii.2; ii.14; 4Q531 14.4)
4Q5566.3) +2ms suff,4) Q203 7B ii.l; 13.3;
emph.1) Q24 7.2; 4Q 53011.23; 4Q530 ii.22; 11.23 iii.7;
4Q531 4.4; 25.3?)[
Glossary 249

+3ms suff-Td (4Q203 13.2; 4Q530 ii.l; ( death; masc.):sg.cstr.-T\V2 (4Q530 ii.l)
ii. 13; nAlbis', ii.22; ii.23; iii.6; 61.3; ( to 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)] qal infin.-nmto (4Q531 18.1)
+2mp su ff-1) Q24 8.2; 4Q203 8.6; itp. impf. 7<:/?4) Q531 14.3)
4Q531 24.1) ( to arrive, reach):
+3mp su ff-v rh (2Q26 4; qal pf. 3m s-nm (4Q203 8.12)
4Q530 13?; 4Q531 5.5; 48.1; 6Q8 6.1) ( rain; masc.):
( not; with , nothing):1) Q23 24.1? sg.emph.-xnm (1Q24 5.4;
1 ;29.2 ;[ Q24 8.2; 4Q203 7B ii.3; 4Q203 11 11.2([
4Q530 ii.l 1?4 ;[Q531 5.5; 9.4; 9.6; ( waters; masc.):
14.2; 17.1; 17.6; 35.2;[ 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) Q203 9.4) 4Q530 i.2; ii.10)
with 4) Q531 4.5) ( word; fern.):
( clothing; masc.): p l.+ lc s su ff-^ ft (4Q532 4.2)[
sg.+3ms s u f f - n ^ ^ (4Q531 7.2? pl.+2ms s u f f-r i^ ft (4Q 530 111.8)]
([ pl.cstr.-^K (4Q531 22.1)
( name of mountain): ( king; masc.):
6) Q8 26.1) sg. abs./cstr.4) Q5319.4)
( tablet; masc.): pl.cstr,4) Q 53211.5([]
sgemph.-xnY? (1Q23 31.3; 2Q26 1; ( kingdom; rule; fern.):
2Q26 23 ;(]bis; 4Q203 8.3) sg.cstr.-'nivb'n (4Q203 9.6)
sg./pl.abs./emph.-X^/ 1) [Q23 16.1) ( pa "el, to speak):
pl.emph.4) Q203 7B ii.2) pa elptc. pass. ?4) /?Q556 6.2?
( to curse): ([
qal pf. 3ms-vf> (4Q530 ii.2) ( from; comparative, than):
( curse; masc.): 1) Q23 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;
( bread, food; masc.): iii.9; iii.l 1; 4Q531 8.4; 14.3; 18.2;
sg.abs.-urh (4Q530 61.6) 46.3-4 ; Q532 2.7; 5.3; 4Q556 2.2)
( night; 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)
( hundred; fem.):sg.abs.-TlXfi (1Q23 +3mp suff-YTttft (4Q530 nAbis;
9+14+15.5) 4Q531 9.6) Q23 1+6+22.2bis,3bis) ( who?):
pl.abs.-yx'n (4Q 530ii.l7) 6) Q 8 1.3)
( word; masc.): ( source; masc.):
sg.emph.-xnmn (4Q 5311.8( sg.ernph.-xvmm (4Q531 21.1(
( wilderness, desert region; masc.): ( knowledge; 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
( what?; with , whatever): ()[(
4) Q203 3.4; 4Q531 4.4) ( to count, number; itp., to be
6) Q8 1.5) numbered):
( giants name): itp. juss. 3?4) /Q530 i.3)
1) Q23 27.2; 4Q203 2.4;[ ( fal\;fem.):
4Q530 ii.20; iii.6; iii.7; 6Q8 1.2; 1.5) sg.cstr.4) Q531 22.2(
( to die): ( enough; poss. fern.):
qal pf. 3ms-W12 (4Q532 2.8) sg.abs.-m n (6(28 6. 1(
qal impf lcs-TWZX (4Q531 18.3) ( place; masc.):
qal impf. lcp-TW^I (4Q530 61.5) sg.abs.-Upft (4Q531 13.1)
250 Glossary

( lord; masc.): ( to end):

+ lc s suff.-^K (4Q203 10.1; 4Q532 5.2) qal impf 34) 25 Q532 2.8?( ]0
( to draw, drag): ( end; masc.):
qal impf. 2mp-y'2W12T\ (6Q8 4.3) sg .c str.^ 0 (4Q530 11.12; ii.20)
( around):
( river; masc.): 4) Q531 36.2-([
sg.emph.?1) [Q23 13.2) ( to go around):
pl.abs.-y4) Q531 1.6) qal pf. 34) ?!-Q531 28.2?([
( to flee): ( to go up; ascend):
qal pf. 3fs-T)l4) Q530 ii.4) qal pf. 7 4) Q531 47.2)
( to rest; a fe l pass., to be laid to rest): qal pf. 22) 2/7- Q26 2)
a fe l pass. ptc. ms-nm (4Q 53011.23) ( book, document; masc.):
( fish; masc.): sg.abs./emph.-^O (4Q203 8.1?)[
pl.emph.-WM (4Q531 1.3) pI.abs.-() 4 )353011.18]
( fire; masc.): ( scribe; masc.):
sg.emph.4) Q530.10) sg.cstr.-^O (4Q203 8.4; 4Q530 ii. 14;
( to descend): 4(3206 2.2([
qal pf. 34) 1^Q530 ii.16) ( empty):
qal pf. 3mp^T\n1 (4Q530 iii.l 1([ sg.fem.abs.6) Q8 1.6?([
( to lift):
qal pf. 3 ^ 2) Q26 3) ( to do, make):
( to keep): qalpf. Ic s-m n v (4Q531 17.4)
qal infin.+3mp su ff-4) Q5301.5- qal pf. 2ms-T\nmv (4Q531 12.2
( ;[21.3 ; 32.2 ) ]
( fallen Watchers name): qal pf. 3ms-12V (4Q203 7A.6;
4) Q531 f.3) 4Q532 1 i.9)
( nephil, giant): qalpf. 3fs-n12V (4Q531 1.2)
p l.a b s .- y ^ l (4Q531 5.2; 46.3;] ( to imprison):
4(2532 2.3?)[ qal pf. 3m s+lcp su ff-X m v
p l.emph.4) Q530.6; 4Q531 5.8) (4Q203 7B i.4)
pl.cstr.4) Q530iii.8) ( unto; with id, until):
( to fall): 1) Q23 27.4?4 ;[Q203 7B ii.3;
qalpf. 7 4) Q531 9.5([] 8.12; 12.1; 4Q530 ii.9; ii.12; ii.20;
( to come out, emerge): 16.1?; 4Q531 2.1; 46.4; 4Q532 2.11;
qal pf. 34) 7^Q532 1 i.8) 6Q8 2.2; 27.1)
qal pf. 3mp-'\p2 (4Q530.8; ( time; masc.):
4Q531 46.3) pl.em ph.-w4) Q 5 3 1 12.3([
( life; soul; self; fem.): ( work, deed; masc.):
+3ms su ff-T l^ l (4Q530 ii.2) sg.abs.-l^V (4Q531 1.8)
+ lcp ^ ^ 4) Q530 ii. 1) sg.cstr.4) Q203 8.10)
( female; fem.): sg.+2mp su ff.-]m 2 W (4Q203 8.7)
sg .a b s.-ttp l (4Q531 1.9) ( yet, still): (4Q203 1.3; 4Q530 iii.2)
( to blow): ( evil; masc.):
qal pf. 3m s-2m (4Q531 23.3) sg.abs.4) Q531 35.1?([
( to lift up, carry): ( fallen Watchers name):
hitp. impf. 34) ?;?Q203 7A.7) 4) Q203 7A.6b [t] )
( to give): ( eye; fem., masc.):
qal impf. 3 ^ 4) Q531 19.2? pl.+3mp suff.-\\4) 1(Q530 ii.4&z'.s)
/ [..) pl.cstr.-'VV (4Q531 17.10)
qal impf. 2m p+lcs suff^HM nn ( watcher; masc.):
(4Q203 3.4) pi. abs.-y 4) Q203 7B i.3; 4Q532 2.7)
qal impf. lcs-]T)2 (4Q530 6 i.5) p l.em p h .-X ^ y (4Q203 7 A .7 ^ [ n ^ )
qal juss. 7<^4) Q530.14)
Glossary 251

( upon, concerning, to, against): ( wisdom, reason; fem.):

1) Q23 1+6+22.5; 1Q24 2.2; sg.+3ms suff 4) Q531 7.3?
4Q203 8.10;4 ;]Q530 ii.l; ii.2; ii.5; ( [
ii. 19; ii.21;6i.4; 4Q531 4.6; 5.4; 9.4; ( qal and tip., to plan):
9.5; 17.10; 32.2; 4Q532 3.4; qal ptc. 4) /7 Q532 2.6)
4Q556 6.3) itp. ptc. r n s -n m m (4Q206 31.1)
+suff.- 4) Q531 31.2)[
+2ms suff.4) Q531 2.2; 4.7) ( to be afraid; p a el, to fear):
+2mp suff 4) Q203 8.9;][ p a el impf. 7 ^ 4) Q530.2)
8.10; 8.14) ( escape; fem.):
+3ms 64) # - Q530ii.3Z>w) sg.emph.4) Q530 6 1.3(
+3mp ^^/: ) 1)324 7.3 ; ] ( mouth; masc.):
4Q203 2.2) sg.abs.-4) Q530.24)
( above, over -with :( ( to cut):
2) Q26 2) qal pf/im pf. 3ms3?02,'/m \ (6Q8 9.2)
( above): ( garden; masc.):
4) Q203 4.4) sg.emph.-XOll (6Q8 2.3)
( to enter): ( to fly):
qalpf. 7 ^ 4) Q531 47.2) qal pf. 34) Q530 iii.4)
qal pf. 3 m s ^ (4Q530 i.8) ( to be fruitful):
qalpf. 3mp-^V (1Q23 17.1?) qal ptc. 4) Q531 1.4)
( eternity; masc.): ( distinction; with , interprta-
sg.abs.-4) Q531 12.2; 4Q532 1 i.12) tion):
pl.abs.1) Q23 20.3; 4Q531 17.4) sg.emph.4) Q203 8.4;
( wind storm; masc.): 4Q530.14; 11.22(]
pi.abs.-]'4) ^ Q530 iii.4) ( copy; masc.):
( together with): ^ . ^ . 4) Q203 8.3)
4) Q530 i.2; 4Q531 1.4) ( to interpret):
+ lcs suff.-'!}6) Q8 1.4) qal impf. Sms-lW S'9 (4Q530 ii. 14)
+ lcp s u f f - x iw (4Q531 17.5) ( interpretation; masc.):
+3mp suff.4) Q531 17.4) sg.abs.) 4 )353011.23) []
( fallen Watchers name): sg.cstr.4) Q203 8.13)
4) Q531 4.3) sg.+3mp ^ ^ 4) Q 530iii.l0-
( sheep; fem.): ( []
sg.abs.-*[1) Q23 1+6+22.3) ( to open):
sg.emph.-XN (4Q531 1.6(] qal pf. 3ms-T\T\% (6Q8 14.1?)[
( fallen Watchers name): qal pass. pf. 34) 1!/Q530 ii. 18)
4) Q531 4.2)
\( imQ\ fem.; with-'D, now): ( thing, matter, affair; fem.):
4) Q203 7B ii.3; 8.14; 9.5; 10.1; sg.abs.-4) Q203 9.4)
4Q531 25.3; 29.2; 4Q532 2.13; sgem ph.-xn^X (4Q203 8.13([
4Q556 3.2) ( to wish):
( ? [grapevine; masc.): qal impf. 27^4) Q203 10.3)
sg.abs.?1) [Q23 1+6+22.4) ( form; masc.):
( to answer): sg.+lcp suff 4) Q531 14.3)
qal pf. 3ms-T\N (4Q203 2.4=3.1?;] ( to pray):
4(353011.156 ;]Q8 1.2)] p a el pf. 3mp-^X (4Q556 2.2)
qal pf. 3m p-lN (4Q203 7B i.2) p a el impv. ^ /4) Q203 8.15)
( root, rootage; masc.): ( affliction; masc.):
sg.abs./emph./+ suff -]4) Q556 1 ii.3) sg.abs.4) Q530 61.2)
sg.+3fp suff 4) Q530ii.8)
( donkey, ass):
/? / .^ .1) [Q23 1+6+22.2)
252 Glossary

( to complain): ( to approach):
qal ptc. /? 4) Q203 8.10) qal impf. Is (4Q203 1.1 ?[,)
qal ptc. / 4) Q530 6 i.4) qal impf. 2/3s/p (1Q23 4.2(].[
( hard, difficult): ( battle, war; masc.)
sg.abs.4) Q531 1.8) sg.abs.-4) Q531 17.4)
( holy): ( to read, call):
sg.masc.abs.4) 'Q531 13.1; 48.2) qal p f 3mp-*\np (4Q530 ii.21)
sg.masc.emph.-XW'lp (4Q203 8.5; qal pass. pf. 3ms-X'np (4Q203 7B ii.3-
4Q530 ii.l 7) ([
pl.masc.+2ms-71V''W',lp (4Q531 14.4) qal ptc. m p-ynp (4Q531 17.8)
( to be holy; pa"el and afel, to make
holy) ( great):
pa"el pf. 24) ^Q531 12.1) sg.masc.abs.-2n (4Q532 2.9)
( holy place; masc.): sg.masc.emph.-xnn (4Q530 ii.2; ii. 17;
pl.emph.-X'Unp (4Q531 17.6) iii.5; 4Q532 2.13?4 ;] Q206 2.3)
( before): pl.masc.abs.-]')2n2n (4Q530 ii. 8;
4) Q203 4.69.2 ;;[ 4Q531 4.6; 4Q532 4.3)
4Q 53011.154 ; Q531 8.2) pl.masc.emph.-X'2n2n (4Q531 1.3
+2ms ^ / ? 4) Q203 9.5 ([]
)] ( greatness; fem.):
+3ms ^ / / 4) Q 530ii.l8- +2ms suff 4) Q203 9.6)
4 ;] Q531 6.3)[ ( to be great):
3mp ^ / / 4) Q556 2.2- qal p f 3ms-n2n (1Q23 9+14+15.3[
( 6Q 8 3.1)
( to arise): ( to be angry):
qal pf. 3ms-Up (1Q23 11.1) qal impf. 3mp-ynn'' (4Q531 31.1)
qal pf. 3mp-M2p (4Q53011.4 ;[ii.4- ( prince; masc.):
)[ pl.emph.-X'i'lvn (4Q530 ii.2)
qal ptc. ms-UXp (4Q203 1.4) ( wind, spirit, direction; fem.):
qal ptc. mp-yftXp (4Q530 ii. 18; sg.+3m/fs.-T\n1n (6Q 8 26.2)
4 ){ 532 2.4 ([ ( height; masc.):
qal infin.-npn (4Q532 ii.5?) sg.cstr.-cni (4Q531 13.1)
( qal and pa"el, to kill; itp., to be ( secret, mystery; masc.):
killed): pl.emph.-XVn (4Q203 9.3)
qal pf. 2ms-nrhup (4Q531 4.4? ( height; fem.):
)[ sg.emph.-xn'itn (4Q530ii.22)
qal pf. 3mp-Y?Up (1Q23 9+14+15.4) ( the angel Raphael):
qal pass. pf. 3mp-'\Yvp (4Q203 5.3 4) Q203 8.12)
) ( to shake):
qal pass. ptc. m p - y f v p (4Q530 6 i.4) qal ptc. m p-y^vn (4Q203 9.2(]
pa"el infin.-ThVp (4Q203 3.4?)[ ( to shatter):
itp. impf. / ^ 4) Q531 18.3) qal infin.4) Q531 37.1 ?(]
( murderer; masc.): ( wicked, evil):
pl.'+Smp su ff-y w h v p (4Q530 6 i.4) 4) Q531 18.2)
( voice; masc.): ( to write, seal):
sg.+3ms suff-Tlbp (4Q53011.23; qal pass. pf. 3m s-U ^n (4Q530 ii. 19)
4Q531 9.5) ( inscription; masc.):
( endtime; masc.) sg.abs.-nwn (4Q530 ii. 19)
sg.cstr.-fp (1Q247.1) ( pa "el, to tremble):
( anger; masc.): pa"elptc. ms-nnnft (6Q 8 1.3)
sg .abs.-^ p (4Q530 6 1.6)]
( seven):
masc.cstr.-T\V2W (4Q 5301.5?) ]
Glossary 253

( to be much, many; afel, to increase) qal ptc. mp emph.-X'W (4Q531 28.3?,

a fe l p f 24) 7^Q203 10.2) or ms emph.)
( much; great) { itpa., to recount, tell):
sg.abs.4) Q5301.4; 6 i.6; itpa. infin.6) Q8 1.5(]
4Q531 5.6; 14.1) ( to pour out; itp., to be poured out)
/ ? / .^ .1) Q23 9+14+15.4 qal pass. pf. 3ms-y*>W (4Q206 3 i.2)
([ itp. ptc. 4) ^Q556 6.2)
( desert regions; fem.): ( to be enough, sufficient):
pl.abs.-y*\TW (4Q530 iii.5) qal pf. 3ms-pSW (4Q531 5.5;
( moon; masc.): 4Q532 2.10)
sg.emph.-XlTW (4Q531 1.1) ( to drink; afel, to water):
( to be like, even, prostrate): a fe l ptc. mp-ypWK (4Q530 ii.7)
qal 3mp-VW (4Q203 4.6; 13.1?(] { pael, to deceive):
( corrupt): p a el ///.() 4 )3556 6.1 ?][
sg.masc.emph.1) Q23 3.3- ( to loosen, dwell):
([ qal ptc. m p-yiW (4Q531 17.6)
( to complete, finish, destroy): qal impv. ^ /4) Q203 8.14(
pf. 3 m s - 'W (1Q23 29.2; 4Q530 61.5- { qal and itp., to begin):
6 ; Q8 1.5(] p a el 3m s-^V (1Q23 17.3; 30.1)
{ afel, to find; with infin., to be able) itp. impf. 7<:/>4) Q531 27.2)
(h )a felp f. 3^/74) Q530 ii. 13) itp. impf. 34) 15 Q532 3.3)
(h )a fel ptc. ^ 4) Q531 17.5 ( creeping thing; masc.):
(] sg.cstr.-y4) Q531 1.7; 21.2)
( eyelid; masc.): ( vulture; masc.):
p l.+ lcs su ff-'ttW (4Q530 6 i.7) sg.emph.-HplplW (4Q531 1.6)
( to send): ( to be established;p a el, to establish,
qal pf. 2 ^ 4) Q531 12.4) make strong; itpa., to prevail)
qal pf. 3mp+3ms su ff itpa. infin.4) Q531 17.5)
(4Q530 ii.21) ( root, shoot; masc.):
( rule, ruler; masc.): pl.abs.-yw ^w (4(353011.8)]
sg.cstr.-\&?W (4Q530ii.16) pl.+3ms ^ ^ 6) Q8 2.1)
( peace; masc.): ( to drink):
sg.abs.-rfrW (1Q24 8.2; 13.3([ qal infin.-4) Q531 30.1)
( fallen Watchers name):
4) Q203 8.5) ( to return):
( sky, heaven; masc.): qal pf. 3ms-2n (4Q53011.3)
Heb. form-U'ftW (4Q531 1.4) ( again):
abs.4) Q530 iii. 11) ( ) 1>323 24.2 ?[
emph.-WKU; (4Q530 ii.16; 4Q531 17.6? ( strength, power; masc.):
4 ;46.4 ;]Q532 6.2) sg.cstr.4) Q531 17.3)
( to hear): sg.emph./+suff-\hp'[n (4Q203 7A.3)
q a lp f Ics-nVKV (4Q531 9.5; [ ( ram; masc.):
6Q8 1.6) sg.abs.-yW'T\ (1Q23 1+6+22.3)
qal pf. 24) 25 Q530ii.23- ( three):
( ^<256) >:.^.Q8 2.1)
{ pael, to serve): ( wonder; masc.):
p a elptc. 4) 1 Q530ii. 17) pl.abs.-yr\72T) (6Q8 1.6)
( sleep; fem.): ( to seize):
sg.cstr.-T)W (4Q530 ii.4; 4Q531 17.10) qal ptc. mp-] 7 ^ (1Q23 21.2)
( to be different): ( here, with prep.):
qal ptc. ms emph.-W2U7 (4Q531 19.3; 4) Q 530111.7)
28.3?, or mp emph.)
254 Glossary

( second): ( to be strong; p a el, to overpower,

em ph .-xn n (4Q203 7B ii.3; 4Q203 8.3 defeat):
([] p a elpf. 3ms-*]pT) (4Q203 7B i.4)
( a second time): p a el impf. 2fs+2ms .?^
4) Q530 iii.7) (4Q203 9.4)
( strong): ( two):
sg.masc.abs.-*\'pT\ (4Q532 2.14) masc.abs.-)4) Q531 9.8)
plur.masc.abs.-y&pn (4Q531 17.7) masc.cstr.-^n (4Q203 7B ii.2)
+3mp su ff-yin ^ n (4Q530 ii.3)

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 ., Qumrn 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.
Barthlmy, D. and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave I. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,
1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.
Beyer, Klaus, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1984.
- , D ie aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Ergnzungsband. Gttingen: 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, Ccile, Origne. Commentaire sur saint Jean. Sources chrtiennes, 222. Paris:
ditions 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 fr 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.

C am ponovo, Odo. Knigtum, Knigsherrschaft und Reich G ottes in den frhjdi

schen Schriften. OBO, 58. Freiburg/Gttingen: Universittsverlag/Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1984.
Cantinaeu, Jean, Grammaire du palmyrnien pigraphique. Publications de lInstitut
d tudes Orientales de la Facult des Lettres d Alger, 4. Cairo: lInstitut Fran
ais dA rchologie Orientale, 1935.
256 Bibliography

- , Tadmorea. In Syria 14 (1933), pp. 169-202.

Caquot, A ., 4QM ess ar 1 i 8 -1 1 . In Revue de Qumran 15 (1991), pp. 145-55.
Carmignac, Jean, Les horoscopes de Qumran . Revue de Qumran 5 (1965),
pp. 199-217.
Chabot, J.-B. et al., eds. Rpertoire d pigraphie smitique. 8 volumes. Acadm ie des
inscriptions et belles-lettres. Paris: Imprimrie Nationale, 1900-1968.
Charles, R. H., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha o f the O ld Testament. 2 volumes.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.
- , The Book o f Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906.
Charlesworth, James H. et al., Graphie Concordance to the D ead Sea Scrolls. T
bingen/Louis ville: J. C. B. M ohr (Paul Siebeck)AVestminster John K nox Press,
- , The D ead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Trans
lations. Volume 1: Rule o f the Community and R elated Documents. Tbingen/
Louisville: J. C. B. M ohr (Paul Siebeck)/Westminster John K nox Press, 1994.
- , et al., eds. The D ead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with Eng
lish Translations. Volume 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll and R elated Docu
ments. Tbingen/Louisville: J. C. B. M ohr (Paul Siebeck)/Westminster John
K nox Press, 1995.
- , ed. The M essiah: Developm ents in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. M inneapo
lis: Fortress Press, 1992.
- , The O ld Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 volumes. Garden City, N ew York: D o u
bleday, 1983-1985.
- , The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with a Supplement. SCS, 7. Chico,
California: Scholars Press, 1981.
- , The SNTS Pseudepigraphia Seminars at Tbingen and Paris on the Books o f
E noch. In N ew Testament Studies 25 (1979), pp. 315-23.
Clarke, E. G., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch. H oboken, N ew Jersey:
KTAV, 1984.
Collins, John J., The Apocalyptic Imagination. N ew York: Crossroad, 1987.
C olson, F. H. and G. H. Whitaker, Philo. 10 volumes. Loeb Classical Library. Cam
bridge, M ass./London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann, 1929-1943.
Cowley, A. E., Aramaic Papyri o f the Fifth Century B. C. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
Cross, Frank M ., The D evelopm ent o f the Jewish Scripts . In The Bible and the
Ancient N ear East: E ssays in Honor o f W. F. A lbright, ed. G. Ernest Wright.
Garden City, N ew York: Doubleday, 1961. Pp. 133-202.

D e Jonge, Marinus et al., eds., The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs. A Critical
Edition o f the Greek Text. PVTG, 1/2. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Delcor, Martin, Le myth de la chute des anges et de lorigine des gants comme
explication du mal dans le m onde dans lapocalyptique 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 Rllig, Kanaanische und aramische 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 Esseniens et les Horoscopes de Qoum ran. In
Archologie 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.

Field, Fredericus, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. 2 volumes. Oxford: Claren

don Press, 1875.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A., A Wandering Aramean: C ollected Aramaic Essays. SBLM S,
25. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1979.
- , 44Implications o f the N ew Enoch Literature from Qumran. In Theological
Studies 38 (1977), pp. 332-45.
- , 44The Aramaic 4Elect o f G o d Text from Qumran Cave 4 . In idem, E ssays on
the Semitic Background o f the N ew Testament. SBS, 5. M issoula, Montana:
Scholars Press, 1979. Pp. 127-60.
- , E ssays on the Sem itic Background o f the N ew Testament. SBS, 5. M issoula,
M ontana: Scholars Press, 1979.
- , 44The Contribution o f Qumran Aramaic to the Study o f the N ew Testam ent.
In idem, A Wandering Aramean: C ollected Aramaic Essays. SBLMS, 25. Chico,
California: Scholars Press, 1979. Pp. 85-113.
- , The D ead Sea Scrolls: M ajor Publications and Tools fo r Study. SBLRBS, 20.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. 2nd ed.
- , The Genesis Apocryphon o f Qumran Cave 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1971, 2nd ed.
- , 44The Study o f the Aramaic Background o f the N ew Testament. In idem, A
Wandering Aramean: C ollected Aram aic Essays. SBLM S, 25. Chico, California:
Scholars Press, 1979. Pp. 1-27.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and D aniel J. Harrington, A M anual o f Palestinian Aramaic
Texts. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978.
Franxman, T. W., Review o f J. T. M ilik, The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments
from Qumran Cave 4. In Biblica 58 (1977), pp. 432-36.
Freedman, David N ., Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 volumes. Garden City, N ew York:
Doubleday, 1992.
258 Bibliography

Freudenthal, I , Hellenistische Studien: Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm er

haltenen R est iudischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke. Breslau: Skutsch,
Frhlich, 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 Klner 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, Hnoch et ses critures. In Revue Biblique 82 (1975), pp. 481-500.

Halperin, David, Faces o f the Chariot. Early Jewish Responses to E zek iels Vision.
TSAJ, 16, Tbingen: 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 manichisches 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 anichism us. In Z eitschrift der D eut
schen Morgenlndischen 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

Isaac, Ephraim, 1 E noch. In The O ld Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H.

Charlesworth, 2 volumes. Garden City, N ew York: Doubleday, 1983-85. Volume
1, pp. 5-89.
Jastrow, Marcus, A D ictionary o f the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi,
and the Midrashic Literature. 2 volumes. N ew York: The Judaica Press, 1971.
Reprint from 1903.
Jean, CharlesF. and Jacob Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions smitiques de
Touest. Leiden: Brill, 1965.

Karrer, Martin, D ie Johannesoffenbarung als Brief. FR L A N T , 140. Gttingen: Van-

denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.
Kaufman, Stephen A ., The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Assyriological Stu
dies, 19. Chicago/London: University o f Chicago Press, 1974.
Kernyi, Carl, M yth and M an: The H eroes o f the Greeks. London: Thames and
H udson, 1959.
Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim, Der Buddha Henoch: Qumran und Turfan. In Z e it
schrift f r Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 32 (1980), pp. 367-77.
Knibb, M ichael A. with Edward Ullendorf, The Ethiopie Book o f Enoch. A New
Edition in the Light o f the Aramaic D ead Sea Fragments. 2 volumes. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1978.
Kmmel, Werner G., ed. Jdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rmischer Z eit. 5 vo
lumes (in fascicles). Gtersloh: Gerd M ohn, 1973-1984.

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.

Milik, Josef Tadeuz, crits pressniens de Qumrn: d H noch Am ram . ln

Qumrn. Sa pit, sa thologie et son milieu. BETL, 45. Paris-Gembloux/Leuven:
D uculot/U niversity Press, 1979. Pp. 91-106.
- , Le Testament de Lvi en aramen: fragment de la grotte 4 de Qumrn . ln
Revue Biblique 62 (1955), pp. 398-408.
- , Les m odles aramens du Livre d Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrn. ln
Revue de Qumran 15 (1992), pp. 321-99.
- , Problmes de la littrature hnochique la lumire des fragments aramens de
Qum rn. ln Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971), pp. 333-78.
- , Ten Years o f Discovery in the Wilderness o f Judaea. Trans. John Strugnell.
London: SCM, 1958.
- , The Books o f Enoch: Aramaic Fragments o f Qumrn Cave 4. Oxford: Claren
don Press, 1976.
- , Turfan et Qumran: Livre des gants ju if et m anichen. ln Tradition und
Glaube: D as frhe Christentum in seiner Umwelt, edited by Gert Jeremias,
Heinz-W olfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck M i
drash Rabbah. 11 volumes. Tel-Aviv: Yavneh, 1956-1967.
260 Bibliography

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 Qumrn
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.

Puech, Emil, 44Fragments d un apocryphe de Lvi et le personnage eschatologique.

4QTestLvic d (?) et 4QAJa. ln The M adrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings o f
the International Congress on the D ead Sea Scrolls, eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera
and Luis Vegas Montaner. STDJ, 11/2. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Pp. 449-501.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. 2 volumes in 1. Stuttgart: D eutsche Bibelgesell

schaft, 1935.
Reed, Stephen A ., The D ead Sea Scrolls on M icrofiche: Inventory L ist o f Photo
graphs. Leiden: Brill/IDC, 1993.
Reeves, John C., Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony. Studies in the Book o f
Giants Traditions. M onographs o f the Hebrew U nion College, 14. Cincinnati:
Hebrew U nion College Press, 1992.
- , 44Utnapishtim in the B ook o f Giants? In Journal o f Biblical Literature 112
(1993), pp. 110-15.
Rosenthal, Franz, D ie Sprache der palmyrenischen Inschriften. M itteilungen der
Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft, 41/1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1936.
Rowland, Christopher E., The Influence o f the First Chapter o f E zekiel on Judaism
and Early Christianity. University o f Cambridge: Ph. D. D issertation, 1975.
- , The Open Heaven. A Study o f Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity.
N ew York: Crossroad, 1982.

Sanders, James A., Review o f J. T. Milik, The Books o f Enoch: Aram aic Fragments
fro m Qumrn 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 Qumrn Cave 4. In Biblische Zeitschrift 22 (1978), pp. 132-34.
Schroeder, Guy and Edouard des Places, Eusbe de Cesare: La Prparation van
glique. Sources chrtiennes, 369. Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1991.
Schrer, 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,
Sperber, Alexander, ed. The Bible in Aramaic. 4 volumes. Leiden: Brill, 1959-1973.
Starcky, Jean, Le Matre de Justice et Jsus. In L e M onde de la Bible 4 (1978),
pp. 51-58.
- , Les quatre tapes du messianisme Qumran. ln Revue Biblique 70 (1963),
pp. 481-505.
- , U n texte messianique aramen de la grotte 4 de Qum rn. ln cole des lan
gues orientales anciennes de VInstitut Catholique de Paris: M m orial du cinquan
tenaire 1914-1964. Travaux de lInstitut Catholique de Paris, 10. Paris: Bloud et
Gay, 1964. Pp. 51-66.
Stegemann, Hartmut, D ie Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Tufer 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 Lvi. 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. Tbingen:
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 f 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 Qumrn 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 Manicher.
Berliner Turfantexte, 4. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973.

Testuz, M ichael, D eux fragments indits des manuscrits de la Mer M orte. ln

Sem itica 5 (1955), pp. 37-39.
Thackeray, H. S. J., et al. Josephus. 10 volumes. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge,
M ass./London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann, 1926-1965.
Tigay, Jeffrey H., The Evolution o f the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University o f
Pennsylvania Press, 1982.
Tov, Emanuel with Stephen J. Pfann, The D ead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Com
prehensive Facsimile Edition o f the Texts from the Judaean D esert. Leiden: Brill/
ID C , 1993.

U hlig, Siebert, A pokalypsen: D as thiopische Henochbuch. In Jdische Schriften aus

hellenistisch-rmischer Z e it, ed. Werner G. Kmmel, 5/6. Gtersloh: Gerd
M ohn, 1984.
262 Bibliography

Vanderkam, James C., Some M ajor Issues in the Contemporary Study o f 1

Enoch: Reflections on J. T. M iliks The Books o f Enoch: A ram aic Fragments
fro m Qumrn Cave 4. In M aarav 3 (1982), pp. 85-97.
- , Textual and H istorical Studies in the B ook o f Jubilees. H SM , 14. M issoula,
M ontana: Scholars Press, 1977.
van der Woude, A dam S., Fnfzehn Jahre Qumranforschung (1974-1988), Theo
logische Rundschau 54 (1989) 259-61.
Vermes, Geza, Prophetic-Apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha. In Emil Schrer, The hi
story o f the Jewish people in the age o f Jesus Christ, revised by G eza Vermes,
Fergus Millar, and Martin G oodm an. Volume 3. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1986. Pp. 204-307.
- , The D ead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin Books, 1995. 4th edition.
- , The Writings o f the Qumran Com m unity. In Emil Schrer, The history o f the
Jewish people in the age o f Jesus Christ, revised by G eza Vermes, Fergus Millar
and Martin G oodm an. Volume 3. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. Pp. 380^169.
Viviano, Ben T., Aramaic M essianic Text. In Anchor Bible D ictionary, ed. David
N. Freedman. Garden City, N ew York: Doubleday, 1992. Volume 1, p. 342.

Wacholder, Ben Zion, Eupolemus: A Study o f Judaeo-Greek Literature. Cincinnati/

N ew York/Los Angeles/Jerusalem: Hebrew U nion College-Jewish Institute o f
Religion, 1974.
- , Pseudo Eupolem us Two Greek Fragments on the Life o f A braham . In H e
brew Union College Annual 34 (1963), pp. 83-113.
Walter, N icholas, Fragmente jdisch-hellenistische Historiker. In Jdische Schriften
aus hellenistisch-rmischer Z e it, ed. Werner G. Kmmel. 1/2. Gtersloh: Gerd
M ohn, 1976.
West, M . L., Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.
Index of Passages

Page numbers in italics represent citations which occur in footnotes. The italics fall out
when a passage, subject, or author occurs on more than one consecutive page. Page
numbers in bold indicate where a given passage is analyzed most fully.

A. Old Testament Judges

5:3 105
5 2 Samuel
26 9:4 147
5:18-29 208 9:5 147
5:18 26 17:27 147
5:22-24 26
6-14 35 1 Kings
6 26 20:10 181
6:1^4 26, 28, 39
6:4 35, 111 1 Chronicles
6:4(LXX) 39, 111
26:5 147
6:7 216
6:12 28
7:21 216
10 :8-11 35 4:11 124
10:8-9 35 4:12 120
10:8 35 4:14 124
10:8(LXX) 39 4:17-18 124
10:9 35 4:18 119
11:1-9 35 5:6-7 124
14 34 5:15 124
14:18 34 5:17 124
31:40 110
33:18-34:31 29 Nehemiah
16:8 78, 108 Esther
16:10 78, 108 6:1 110
16:26 78, 108
Numbers 1:21 94-95
13:12 147 41:12 71
13:33 111
13:33(LXX) 111
264 Index o f Passages

Psalms 7:22 90, 122

2:2 105 7:28 113
113:2 94-95
Proverbs 2:9 30
8:15 105
31:4 105 Habakkuk
1:10 105
11:4 215
40:23 105 B. New Testament

Ezekiel Mark
1 123 1:4 40
32:27 111 5:7 40

Daniel 6, 122-123 James

2 32 2:18b 40
2:20 94-95
2:31 150
2:34 113, 201 C. Apocryphal Jewish Writings o f
2:38 143 the Septuagint
4:7 150
4:9 143 1 Maccabees
4:10 84, 88
5:3 30
4:10 (Aq.) 84
5:65 30
4:10 (Sym.) 84
7:39-50 30
4:10 (Theod.) 84
4:13 84
4:14 84 Sirach
4:17 (Theod.) 84 16:7 38, ,
4:18 143
4:20 84, 88 Tobit
4:20 (Aq.) 84 3:15 147
4:20 (Sym.) 84 5:22 93
4:23 (Theod.) 84 6:3 95
4:24 126 6:10-18 93
4:30 90 8:2-3 93
5 32 9:2 88
5:21 90 12:12 93
6:19 110 12:15 93
7 31, 120, 122-123 12:16 93
7:4 113, 201
7:8 150 Wisdom o f Solomon
7:9-10 24, 31, 120-121 14:6-7 38
7:9 113, 122-123, 201 14:6 166
7:10-11 120
7:10 120, 122-123
7:11 201
7:12 126
7:13 90, 122
7:14 120
Old Testament 265

D. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 9:3 94

9:4-11 95-97
1 Enoch ( Ethiopiej 1-4, 24-26, 37, 55, 9:4-5 94
60, 62-63, 82, 88, 9:4 96
92, 96, 189, 191, 9:5-6 95
208, 219, 222 9:5 96
(cf. also under Dead 9:6-10 97
Sea Scrolls) 9:6 79, 82, 96
9:7-9 92
Book of Watchers 2, 12, 24-28, 30-31, 9:7 79, 82, 92
37, 67, 81-82, 88, 9:8-9 18, 24
91-93, 96, 99, 108, 9:8 37, 151
117-119, 133, 137, 9:9 27, 77, 151, 196
144-145, 151-152, 9:10 18, 24, 77, 89, 130,
191, 196 135-137
1-36 2 9:11 95
1:1-32:6 2 10 18, 38, 57-58, 79
1:2 84 10:1-16 108
1:3 191-192 10:1-3 26
1:5 84 10:1 88
1:9 13 10:2-3 38
4:1 116 10:2 38, 219
6-16 24, 26 10:4-5 82
6-11 26, 28, 82, 152 10:4 79, 81
6:2-3 82 10:5 81
6:3 92 10:7 26, 37, 196
6:5 57 10:8 79, 81-82
6:6 156, 208 10:9-15 27
6:7 60, 68-69, 72, 79, 10:9 38, 84, 151
82, 92, 146, 198, 10:10 26, 160
217-218 10:11-19 57
7 152 10:11 82, 92, 151
7:1-4 18 10:12 79, 152
7:1-2 111 10:15 38, 11, 84
7:1 50, 151, 156, 196 10:16 38
7:2-5 27, 37 10:17-22 57
7:2 30, 112, 151 10:17-19 57-58
7:3-5 59, 77, 144, 151 10:17 38
7:3-4 151, 181 10:18-19 57
7:3 59, 114 10:19 13, 15, 18, 24, 56-57
7:4-5 18, 24 10:20 38
7:4 50, 59 10:22 38
7:5 59, 151-152 12-16 27-28
8:1-3 37, 82, 156 12 118
8:1 79, 82, 196 12:1-13:10 27
8:2 208 12:2-3 84
8:3 50, 60, 196 12:4 21, 84, 91, 115, 119
9 25 12:4-6 26, 88, 91
9:1-3 97 12:5 24, 63, 100
9:1-2 220 13:1-10 27
9:1 28, 11, 93, 151, 190, 13:1 13, 18, 24, 27, 79,
192, 194, 196, 220 100
9:34 208, 220 13:2 82, 156, 196
266 Index o f Passages

27 36:1 62, 99
13:4-6 91, 93
27, 74 Similitudes 3, 82
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