giant mythology and demonology-libre
DESCRIPTION
Giant_Mythology_and_Demonology-libreTRANSCRIPT
-
I ,A, \+ )::... ..\=. 1),
R';b .....ht.\l) /S>e..('r.Of"lS,
Tu os - S"3
'1 i
Giant Mytho16gyand Demonology:
From theAncient N ear East to tlie
Dead Sea Seroils
LOREN T. SruCKENBRUCK,Durham, UI{
A. Introduction
Ever since the Book ifGiatits was identified among the fragments ofQum-
ran caves, l the distinguishing features of its account ofthe fallen 'watch- Iers' and their off spring, thc 'giants' or 'nephilim: havebeen increasingly
recogniscd:A1though a numberof early J eWish documents refer to the I tradition about the giantsin some form,2 theBook ifGiants (hericeforth
BG), when compared with these sources, represcnts a unique development I ofthe watchersmyth tradition. In the following discussion I would like to drawattention to the distinctivenessofBG in several areas and,' in turn,
explore--with the question ofdemonology in mind-the degree to which
1 . For a partial edition, mostlyof 4QEnGiants' (= 4Q203), see already J6zefTaddeusz Mi-
lik,TIle BoohojEllocl!: Aramaie FragmeutsJrom Qumran Callf 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976),
hereafter BE. Preliminary discussions, 011 some and all of the materials, were published, re-
spectively, by John C. Reeves,]ewisll Lore in ManidlaeimCosl1lo1ogy: Studies in the Book ojGiants
Tradition (HUCM 14; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992) and Loren T. Stuck-
enbruck, TI,e Book ojGiantsJrom Qlllllran (TSAJ 63; Tbingen:]. C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
1997). These discussions have been updated and substantially corrected by Stuckenbruck,
"4Q203; lQ23-24; 2Q26; 6Q8," in Miscellanea (ed St.]. Pfann; vol. 26 of Qmllrdll Cave4;
. Discoveries in theJudaean Desert XXXVI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 8-94 and, now, es-
- pecially Emile Puech, "4Q530; 4Q531;'4Q532; 4Q533 [and 4Q206a 1-:2]," in 4Q529-549
1 of Textes ammeellS; ed. E. Puech; vol. 22 of QllmralJ Cave 4; Discoveries in the Judean Desert XXXI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001),1-115. For the sake ofc1arity, ie is important to
note here that the numerkal designations for fragments in the case of 4Q53-4Q533 and
4Q206a 1-2 should now be taken from the editio princ;ps ofD]D XXXI. One exception
to Puech's numeration offragments is folIowed below, for the sake ofconvenience: 4Q530
coI. II (= Puech: 2ii + 6-7 i + 8-12) and 4Q530 col. III (= Puech: 7 ); 2 See 1 Eil. 7-8; 10; 15-16; 86-89;]ub. 5; 7-10; Sir 16:7; 3 Mace 2:4; Wis 14:6;Phllo,
Gig.; 3 Bar. 4:10 (Gk., Slav.); 4QExltortatioll Based on theFlood coI. i, 6 (= 4Q370); Ps.-Eup. '(Eusebius, Prap. ev. 9.17.1-9; 9.18.2); 4Q18G-181; CD 2; llQll; 4Q51O-511; 4Q444.
Giani Myt/lOlogy aud DemO?!0logy
they pick up or reflect some traditions attested in sources from the Ancient
NearEast. . . . ,
The fragmentaryremains ofBG, preserved in versions transmitted in
Manichacan circles and among the Dead Sea materials, provide evidence
.for a document to be taken seriously in its own rightJI:hc ways that
distinguish it from.contemporaryJewishworks may be foundin at least
threebasic areas. The first has to dowith the role assigned to thepre-
diluvian patriarch Enoch. Whereas the .other early Enochic compositions
(1 Enoch; 2 Enoch) are 'pseudepigrapha' in the technical sense,3 BG seems
not to have been a first-person account attributcd to Enoch himself(contra
the view ofMilik based on 4Q206 2-3, now dcsignated byEmile Puech as
4Q206a 1-2 [DJD XXXI, 111-113]).4 Admittedly, it is possible that the
Book ifGian,ts was included within copies of other Enochic writings,5 .as /
was supposed by Milik; however, that it represents the same literary genre
in the strict sense is urilikely.6 . In HG Enoch is never clearly portrayed
as. a first person, narrator7 and, furthermore, none. of the . BG materials
unambiguously cast Enoch in the role of being a recipient of visionsor
dreams. Thisis'much in contrast, for example, with the Book if Watchers
(hereafter BW), as weIl as with the remainding sections of 1 Enoclt.
Secondly, BG distinguishes itself in thc role assigned to Enoch. As just
mentioned; he isnot the recipient ofdreams; instead, he functions in the
narrative as adream interpreter par excellence as he cIarifies the meaning of the ominous visions given to the giants. To be sure, as inBW (1 Eil: 12-13),
Enoch is made to act as a kind ofmedi:ltor. But whereas he
to intercede on behalf ofthefallen an gels in BW (13:1":'10), his relaHonship
tri the watchers giants in BG seems more distanf: In fact, the fragnlents
J The account about the watchers,giants andEnoch in]llbilees is third person; as the
largerframework of the document takes the form ofa revelation given to '
4 See my discussion in DJD XXXVI, pp. 45-46: ' 5 This is possible. for example, in the case of4Q203 (4QEnGiants:i), which was copied
hy thesame hand as 4Q204 (4QEnochC); however, an identical band does not necessarily
mean that 4Q203-204 formed part ofthe same rnauuscript.The case of4Q206a 1-2 as part
of4Q206 (4QEnoche) is less certain; cE Puech, DJD XXXI, p. 112. . . 6 Though not in the first person is, e. g., Book ofWatchers at 1 EIl; 6-11, 12-13, and
15-16 (i. e. watcher narrative). The genre ofthird person account reflects the use ofcarHer
source materials which have been incorporated into the pseudepigraphic framework ofEook
ofWatchers as a whole. .
. 7 I am convinced by Devorah Dimant, "The Biography and the Books VT33
(1983): 14-29, esp. p. 16 n. 8, who descries as an "unquestioned assumption" Milik's view
that the Book ofGiants was wi:itten as ifcompiled or composed by Enoch. The first person
in 4Q203 fr. 9 and 10 is to be explained as a prayer, perhaps attributed to Enoch, and so forms a small part larger narrative told in the thin! person.' .
-
'\
Loren 1: Stucketibrnck320
have him conimunicating with only one of the giants, Mahaway, who has
to cross over a great desert to reach the ends ofthe earth in order to consult
him(4Q530 coI. m). The chain of meditation ends up being somewhat
complex: God (oran angel) toEnoch to Mallaway (4Q530 coI. m) to the
watchers (4Q203 8) or giants (4Q530 col.n, line 23 and coI. III, line 10).
Thirdly, and most significarit for the discussion to follow, the author(s)
ofBG cast the on thegigantic offspring ofthe watchers more
than any other extint Jewish document written or copied du ring the Sec-
ond Temple period.8 Ofcourse, its tradition-historicalpredecessor,'BW,
also shows aninterest in these giants; here there is mentionoftheir pre-
diluvian activities (1 En. 7:2-5; 9:9), thdr existence as evil
spirits (15:8..:..12; 16:1), arid their ultimate destruction (10:9-15). BG has
or presupposes all, this and more. Sirnilar to BW, die BG fragments refer to
ihe watchers' fall from heaven (4Q5311); Uliderscore their powerlessness
when in conflict with God's angels (4Q53122), and contain an announce:-
ment ofthdr punishment (4Q203 7 A ::ind 8). Whereas, however, BW at
1 En. 12-16 was concerned with 'the announcement of punishment to
the watchers, much ofthe story inBGrevolved aioundhow it was.that
the giants came to realise that they were doomed as weIl. This shift ofthe
spOtlight is reflected, in particular, by an extensive elaboration of the . gi- '
ants' exploits before the great deluge (e. g., in 1Q23 9+14+15; 4Q206a 1;
4Q532-533), their orninous visions ofjudgment (esp. 4Q530 coI. 11), and
theirworries as they come to terms with God's Wrath against them. While'
it is eIear thatthe very fragmentary narrative ofBG cahnot, in many ways,
be properly understood or even reconstructed withoutreference to BW
orJllbilees, the intense focus on the giants themselves is not fully explained,
'on this account alone. Why have the giants been singledout forsuch at-
tention? What was itabout them that incited special interestofthose who
wrote, toId, and retold BG?
One eIue in answering thisquestiori may reside in one means by which
, BG demonstrates its specificconcern with thegiants: In additionto the
mention' of what is possibly a few pieviously unknoWn names of fallen
'angeIs (cf. 4Q531 fr. 7),9 it is only in BG thatany ofthe giauts are actually
8 . This is very different from the of Gen 6: 1-4 in DW (1 Etl. 16), which
, fucusses much ruore on the watchers' deeds and which teIls the resulting threat and execution
ofjudgement from their point ofview. The periodic mention ofthe giants in the DW thus
, only serves to ieenforce this perspective; see especially 1 En. 10:7,10; 12:4-6; and
15:3-5. ' 9 4Q531 7 refersto 'Ana'eI, P . [, Na'am'el, and 'Ami'et. Though the contextofthe
lacuna-ridden fragme,nt do'es notdireccly tell usjust who theyare (watchersor giants), their
, GiantMythology and
given proper names. These names include the following: , 4Q531 fr. 7, line 1); "Adk. (from 4Q203 fr.3,line 3); Mahaway
('1i1t.), 1Q23 fr. 27, line 2;4Q203 fr. 2, line 4; 4Q530 coI. H, line 20 and
coI: m, lines 6-7; 6Q8 fr. 1, lines 2 and 5); 'Ohyall lQ23 fr. 29,
line 1; 4Q204 fr,-4, line 3; fr. 7A, line 5; 4Q530 coI. Ii, Iines 1 and 15;' fr. 12, line 2; 4Q531 fr: 17, line 9; 6Q8 fr. 1, lines 2 and 4); HahyaTt (iT'iTi],
4Q203 fr. 4, line 3; 7A, line 5); lfobabis(lt) (wlo::l:nn 4Q203, fr. 3, line 3; 4Q530 fr. 2 coI. II, line2 + fr. 6, line 211); and Gilgames(f1) (W/O't.)l7l,4Q530
fr. 2 coI. 11, line 2 arid 4Q531 fr. 22,line 12 respectively). Inthis paper, I -'
would like to inquire into the possible significance of the giants referred
to in BG by discussing the question oftheir names and character proftles.
The eonsiderations to follow shall be based on clues taken from linguistic
inferences, a. reconstruction of the . BG narrative; comparison with the
j later ManichaeanBG fragments, and, finally, a comparison with ancient Near Eastern'traditions. Together,.these iridications mayprovide some,
I basis forinferences that supplement our understanding ofthe,background of demonology as it was taking shape among Jewish apocalyptic circles during the last three centuries B. C. E. '
, '
B. Inferrelabout Individual Giants
In the case of some of the giants, very linIe can be observed oe even
inferred on the basis ofthe name and context. Very little, for example, can
.be saidabout the partially visible name "Adk. [in 4Q203 3 (line 3),12 except 0
, . that, 'due to its occurrence immediately following the name lfobabisll (see
below), itlikely serves as one ofthe names ofthe giants.
A little more rnight be said about the name which means "my
brother is exalted." The name itself corresponds to theancient'king of
Byblos, the port city in the northern Phoenician coast known for its ex-
- 'ei endings correspond to the namesassigned to the rebellious angels listed in 1 EtI. 6:7;
cE Stuckenbruck, BG, 146 .. Unless 'evidence emetges CO the contrary, therefore, I assume
that these names did not designate giants, though the has to remain uncertain. In
addition, it seems that Milik (BE, 313) has treated 'Auzel(see 4Q203 7A 6) as one ofthe.
giaut5 (because ofhis identity as a goat-man, a mixed being as the othergiants); 'though this
is possible, the name more probably refers to one ofthe chiefleaders ofthe watchers (called 'Asa'er in the Ar:unaic fragments ofBW, hut bter 'Azazel in the Ethiopic tradition, perhaps under the influence ofthe scapegoat by that name in Lev.' 16:8,10,26). '
, 10 The name here remains uncertain despite the suggestions made by Puech, DJD XXXI,
p. 32 n. 13, O{')]T::l'K, which requires an emendationofan unmistakabl!: daletft to reI. 11 So tbe plausible suggestion and reading by Puech, DJD XXXI, p. 28. 12 See n. 10 above. -'
-
Loren T. Silickenbr'tu;k322
port of eedar wood. A similar or identieal name perhaps oeeurs in the
fragmentary text ofthe iater Middle Persian Kawan (fr.j, line 24: "Hobabi! '
robbed "Altr. [").13 IftheManichaean text refers here tothe same figure , in the fragment from Qumran Cave 4, then the likelihood that the name
belongs to agiant is strengthened. Orie similarity between the later and
earlier versions of BG presents itself: both. the eontext of 4Q531 7 and'
the Kawan fragment direetly relate this gargantuan figure (if the same one)
to some sortofviolenceamong the giants, \Vhetherthrough interneeirie
conflict (the Kawan version) or through fighting with an angel or angels
of God (cC 4Q531 2;2, lines 3-:7); While' in the Kawan text '''Abr. [" is the target ofill-treatment by ijobabis, in 4Q531 7 Al!iram occurs in a list of giants (and perhaps watchers)who haveperished "bythe sword" (Une 5).
The cause ofthe deaths in the 4Q531fuigment is, hqwever, not explicitly
given, though either infighting and Ior conflict with divine emissaries (see e:g.}lIb.5:7,9): .....
The name "Malzaway" ('';'1.l, spelled "Mahawai" in the Manichaean frag-ments) is impossible to decipher with respeet to meaning, though perhaps
some derivation from the Aramaic verb. "to be" ("il) in conjunction with a
mem prefix is not impossible. important, however, is what can be about this giant on the basis ofthe fragments.from Qumran. The broken
text of6Q81 records a petween Mahawayand an()ther giant, 'Ohyah. The text is fragffientary, but may be reconstructedasfollows: It seems that Mahaway has delivered a message of sort to 'Oltyah (it is not dear whether further giants are being addressed as weH). 'Olzyalr responds to Mahaway bychaUenging his or his information souree's authority (line 3: "Who.has shown you everything ... ?"). Mahaway replies by appealing to the fact thathisfather Baraq 'e114 (i. e: one of thewatchers) was with him at the time (line 4). On Une 6 the defense of Mahaway is apparently in": terruptedby wordsof 'Ohyah who expresseshis own disbelief at what his fellow giant has just communicated. This text thus represents what seems
to havebeen an emergingconfliet betWeen Maltaway, on the one hand, and other giants, on theother. Twoofthe Miuiichaean fragments, 0lle from the
MiddlePersian Kawanand another from the Sogdian version ofBG,may
preserve parallel texts: they, respectively, reeord the name' of Mahaway's
13.C( Walter B. "TheBook ofGiants," BSOAS 11 (1943-1946): 52-74,here
pp. 57and 60 fur the text and translatio,n. respectively: .' . " .. , . 14 ?Ni":J (4Q203 l,line 2; 6Q8 i,line .4), as in the spelling ofthe fllen angel in 4Q201
to 1 Bn, 6:7, not Baraki'el as inJub, 4:28. Only in Cod. Panopolitanus to 1 Eil, 6:7 is the pronounciation Ba.pa.xt'IJl attested for the fallen angeL" ,
Giant Mythology amI Demanology
father, herecaHed Virogdad(meaning "gift oflightning,'! etymologically.
related to the meaning of Baraq 'e!, "lightning of God"); moreover, they mehtion the conflict between 'O/fyaTz and Mahmvai (= Mallmvay amoung. the DSS):
.Sam 'Ohyah) said: "Blessed be ... had [he?] seen this, he wouldnot luve died." Then Sllahmizad said to Sam, his [son]:' "All that Mahawai ... is spoilt (?)." Thereupon he said to ... ' "Weare. " until ... and ... that are in (?) the fieryhell (?) .. . As my father, Virogdad (= Barak'eQ. was .. " Slzahmizad said: "It istrue what he says. He says oneof thousands.For one
of thousarids ..... Sam thereupon began. ;. Mahawai, too, in . many places ... until to thatplace ... he might escape(?) and
.... (MiddlePersian Kawan fr. c, pp. 1-2, lines 4-22)15
. . . I shaH see. Thereupon now S[alzm (= 'lzyall), thegiant] was [very] angry, and laid hands on M[allawai, thegiantJ, with the . I. shall ; . and kill [you] . Then . " the., other
. g[iants]. ... 'do not be afraid, for ... [Sa]Tzm, thegiant, wiU want to [kill] you, butI shall not let hirn ... I myself shaH damage .. ; Thereupon Mahawai, the g[iant], was satisfied ... . (Sogdian; pp. 1-2, lines 1-18 pp.1-2 Z.1-18)16
The eonflict between Mahaway and 'Olzyalz seems to have arisen from the former's mediating role. The fragmentary evidence allows for the inference
that BG eontained an aeeount oftwojourneys in which Mahaway traveUed' to Enoeh, in order to inquire about the meaning ofdreams which thegiants
have had. 4Q530 .cols. n-III narrate theseeond of these journeys which
follows upon two dream-visions given to Halzyah and, 'Olzyah and' upon the giants' subsequent decision to send Maltaway onee again to Enoch, the very one whocan p'rovide the right interpretation. Ofspecial interest
for us here is the text in 4Q530 coL UI, line 4: "as whirlwind, and he
(= Ma/unvay) flew with his hands Iwingsas [an] eag[le." The description of this giant as one who has wings suggests that he was regarded as a ereature
with charaeteristies ofa bird. In one of the Maniehaean Uygur fragments
published by referenees are likewise l11ade to Mahawai's "wrngs" in the context ofajourney to Enoch(eC p: 2).17 Mahaway's fe:ltures may
15. See text and translation in Henning, "The BookofGiants," 56-57 and 60. 16 Ibid., 65-66., '. ' ' .
17 Ibid.; 65. The Manichaean text describes what may have been the giant'sfintjourney
to. Enoch; cf: Milik, BE, 307.
-
324 wren T. Stuckenbruck
have beendue to his being the offspring ofa human mother, on the. one
hand, and especially of Baraq 'e! the fallen angel, on the other; from whom
he presumably derived his wings.
'Ohyah and Hahyah may be treated together, as they are referred to
as prominent giant brothers (cE 4Q530 11, line 15).' They are sons of
Shemiq:azah18 who, according to one of the traditionspicked up inBW,
was the chiefofthe fallen angels (1 En. 6:3,7; 9:7; cE 10:11). The meaning
oftheir names has two possible explanatioris: (1) like Mahaway, the names
of the brothers may be different forms related to the verb "to be", (but
from the Hebrew il'il). Or, (2) given the ending il'-, it is their names might
also be regarded as theophoric. The matter remains uncertain. If, how7ver, there is any analogy With thenames ofmany ofthe watchers (- 'ei suff1Xes),19
then the latter view is to bc:! preferred.
, It could be argued that the heart of BG narrates the experiences of
the giant siblings as they discover, to their horror, that they are going to
be punished for the atrocities they have comlnitted.20 The means through
, they learn oftheir irreversible fate is two-fold: first, dream visions ofwhich
they have at least one pair (so 4Q530 co!. 11, lines 12 and 16-20, respec-
tively);21 and second, the interpretation of the dreams is given to them . . .. .' .
by Enoch through the mediation of Mahaway. The incredulity shown by
'Ohyah towards Mahaway' s apparently foreboding message (6Q1) seems to
contribute to development ofthe plot. The story unfolds as he and Hahyah
his brother initially resist message of punishmerit againstthem,' hut
18 So according to the Middle Persian Kaw.in fr. c, 1. 6 and the Midmsh oJShem{lazai and
'Aza'e!.
19 See Milik, BE, pp. 152-156; Michael Knibb, The Ethiopic Book oJEnoch: A'New
Edition in the Light oJ the Aramau Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978),
2, 69-76; Matthew Black, "The Twenty Angel Dekadarchs and I Enoch 6,7 and 69,2,"
lJS 33 (1982): 227-235, and The Book oJEnoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition (SVTP 7;
Leiden: Brill, 1985),118-24; and George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enodl 1: A Commentary on
the Book oJ 1 Enoch, Chaptm 1-36; 81-108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: AugsljJUrg Fortress,
2001),179-181. In addition to the names ofthe watchers in 1 En. 6:7 and 69:2, BG from
Qumran includes a number oftheophoric names: Baraq'eI (4Q531 7,line 2; 6Q8 l,Hne 4);
'Ana'eI (4Q531 7,line 2: ;Nl17 =;Nll17 in 1 6:7? Cf. Puech, DJD XXXI, p.:60); Na'am'eI
(4Q531 7,line 3); 'Ami'e! (4Q531 7,line 3). .
20 On this, see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, "Sequencing the Fragments in the Qumran Book oJ
Gia'nts: An Inquiry into the Structure and Purpose ofan Early J ewish Composition," JSP 16
(1997): 3-24. .
21 It is possible that 'Ohyah has seen vision. i. e. the one extant in the fragment
2Q26; cf. the .correspondences betweeri this fragment and the dream given to L1heyyd in
the Midrash oJ Shem{lazai and .'Aza'e! (Oxford Bodleian Hebrew manuscript [1325 C.E.],
section
:;.
Giani Mythology and Demonology
. then learn that there is nothing either ofthem (or any ofthe other giants)
. can do to escape the divine wrath which their dreams describe ..
The Qumran fragments to BG do not provide any hints concerning the
appearance ofeither ofthe giant brothers. The Middle Persian Kawan (fr. k,
p. 1), mentions them in connection with "their nest (?). "22 Thus,
at least according to the later version, 'Ohyah and Hahyah are assumed to
have animal features, perhaps' characteristics ofa bird.23 If this is the case,
they may have shared the general sort ofprofile we haveobserved in relation
to the winged Ma,haway. . .
The two names which stand out among the BG fragments are I;Iobabis(lz)
and Gilgames(lz). They are herewith discussed in turn. The name I;Iobabis(h)
., (O/lU:l:nn) occurs twice among the Qumran frgments, in one case the'
reading being incontestable (4Q203 3; line 3) and in another where,the
letters are less clear and require partial restoration (4Q530 2 co!. II, line 2) 24
The text of4Q203 3 is so fragmentary that hardly more than thre'e words
at the beginning offour lines on the right margin ofa column are visible.
The fragment contains what may derive from a discussion among the
giants during their days of pre-diluvian on line, 4, one giant
apparently asks another, "And what give me k[illing ... ]?"
These few lines are consistent with thecontent'preservelin the Middle
Persian Kawan (fr.j, p. J, lines 23-28):25
... Virogdad ... Hobabi! robbed Ahr. . .. of... -naxtag, his
wife. Thereupon the giants began to kill each other and [to,
abduct theirwives]. The creatures, too, began to kill each other.
In the other, though less clear, instance of the name, the name is spelled
with samek instead ofsill (corresponding to the orthography ofthe copyist
behind 4Q530). IfI;Iobabis is be read here, then the giant is depicted as
uttering a howlor cry in response to 'Ohyalz's report to the giants about
what Gilgamesh had told him. The verb, whichmight be read as xnnx
(though the form would have to be an otherwise unattested 'aphce! of'nn,
22 Sothe translation ofHenning, "The Book ofGiants," 61.
23 .So the inference by Milik, BE, 313.
24 Puech (DJD XXXI, pp. 28-29, 32) reads and restores D:J:J[l]nl, in which the first three
visible cannot be recognised beyond traces:
25 See Henning, "The Book ofGiants," 60. The correspondence is primarily thematic
. and cannot be traced to literary dependence on the version at Qumran, for which insufficient text is preserved .
. 1
http:comlnitted.20 -
.',
"
,326 Loren T. Stilckenbmck
in analogy with the related root 'YD26), would be fitting for the sounds
made by an animal.27
. In his publication ofthe Manichaean fragments, Henning supposed that
the name ljobabi! refered to 'one ofthe fallen watchersof 1 En. 6:7: "Hoba-
bis, " he thought; might be derived from a variation (4Q201, 204)
rendered in the Greek translations as XWXCXPLT}A. (Cod. Panopolitanus)or
XWCXLT}A. (Syncellus).28 However, the name of the wateher and ljobabi!
should notbeconfused, As hasnow become clear, the derivation of the
giant's name lies somewhere else..
J. T. Milik was no doubt correct that the name l;Iobabish (ar, rather, the ljobab-'part ofthe riame) is an allusion to the Gilgamesh Epic, according .
towhich the power-wielding and ferodous monster who guarded the
Cedar Forest was called Humbaba (in the Neo-Assyrian tradition; the Old
Babylonian form is Huwawa).29 In the Epic, this creature loses outin a
fierce battle against Gilgamesh and his companion Enkidu as they seek
to gain access.tothe:CedarForest. The focus ofthe Epic on Humbaba's
power and propensity to violence makes it thematically appropriate that his
name be assigued to one ofthe gargantuan off spring ofthe watchers in BG.
Moreover, the name Humbabaalso occurs frequentlyon Old Babylonian
incantaUon materials (seals and clay plaques) in which he functions as
a .demonic eritity expected to exercise authority over other malevolent
demons.30 While it is thus clear that the figure behind the name ljobabish .
has Babylonian roots, it is less apparent whether on this basis BG betrays
any knowledge ofthe GilgameshEpic itselE
However, the significance of the Epic in relation to ljobabish requires .
consideration of afurther point. According to the 'Epic, as
. above, Humbaba is associated with the Cedar Mountain. According to
of tl'le Epic in the Old Babylonian Ishehali Tablet discovered in 1947 at Tel Harmal (18th cent. B. C.E.), the area which Huwawa
guards from trespassers includes "the peaks ofSirion (sa-ri-a) and Lebanon
. 26 See Puech, D]D XXXI, p. 32 and n. 16. . ' . 27 See especially Marcus ]astrow, Dietiotlry cft/Je Targllmim, tlle TalmIld Habli and YeTlIshalmi,
and t!te Midrasflic Literotl/re {Philade!phia:]udaicaPress, 1903; repr. New York: ]udaica Press,
1971),1202. .
28 "The Book ofGiants," 60 n. 3. 29 Milik,BE,313. '. ..' .,
30 On this, conveniently Kare! van der Toom, "Humbaba," in Dictiollary cfDeities alld
DemotlS ill the Bible (ed K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, andP. W. van der Hont; 2nd.ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 431-432and the literature cited there.
Giam Mytliology ami Demonology
(la.:ab-na-ani)."31, J. Reeves has argued that this of corresponds to BW.at 1.Eu. 13:9. which. places the watehers "at
Ubelseyael, ... between Lebanon and Senir ... Senir referring to Mt. Her-
mon.32
NoO:e ofthese plaee names are extant among the Einach Aramaie
fragments, but.the broken text of 4Q204 I VI to 13:9 reads:, "I (Enoeh) .
came] unto themand all of them (the watchers) and aU of them were
assembled togetherand sitting and c[rying .:." The last word is on-
ly partly visible:, orily' the first letter of ";hat may be restored as P7:J1N.
The weeping of the watchers thus reflects a word':'play on the the plaee
name to follow, as "Ube1seyael" may be a corruption ofa place name.33
Though R. H. by Knibb and Reeves, regarded theorig:..
inal place name'as "Abilene" to the north, anotl!er cluemaybe provided
by 13:7, whichlocates Enoeh "by the waters ofDan whieh is southwest
ofHermon." Thus the place namemay in fact have been Abd-Mayya or
Abel-Men in the Aramaic;which wasloeated south, between
Lebanon and Mt. Hermori.34 Iftlle loeation of the watchers arid giants
in this region aeeording to BWis assumed in BG, thenthe geographi-
cal correspondence virith the Ishchali Tablet of the Epic may
have provided stimulus for the author(s) ofBG to have included Humbaba "among hiscastof '
Milik has gone even further than this by arguing that samething abou t the
natu;e ljobabisil n;ay be inferred by: the nime itselC Whereas "ljobab-"
.31 Ishchali strophe 3LThe here'are drawn from Andrew George, 77le
Epic cf Gilgamesli: 77le Babylo/lian Ep;c Poem and Odler Texts in Akkadian and SlIIlIerian (New . . York: Barnes & Noble, 1999), 120. For further texts and translation, see ]effrey Tigay,
77leEvolll!ion cf Ilte Gilgamesll Epic (Philadelphia: University of PeniIsyIvania Press, 1982), 32-33 and ' . '.
32 'Rl!eves,]etvis1i Lore in Cosmogony, pp. 124 and 161 (n. 400)., .
33 So Knibb, 77le Edliopic Book qfEnocll, 2, 94. . ..
34 I follow, therefore, the suggestion Milik, "Le Testament de Uvi en
arameen: frament de Ja grotte 4 de Qumran," RB 62 (1955):.404 and BE, 196; see also Matthew Black, 77le Book cfEnocll or 1 BtIOch, p. 144 and now Nickelsburg,' 1 Enocli 1: A . Commentary, p. 250. . '
35 Reeves,]ewish Lore in ManidIean Cosll1ogony, 125. Signilicantly, Reeves catalogues evi-
dence for the name Humbaba outside the cuneirorm tradition in antiquity.The Manichaean
fragments aside (which derived their use of the from the Book of Giants itself), the
name-taking the form and being paiauelamong ;mcient Greek docu-
rnents--is given in de Dea Syria 1 (Lucian ofSamosata, 2nd cent. C. E.) to theyoung man commissioned to protect a beautiful queen. In addition to the name and guardian function
ofthis character, the story's Iocation in and around Syria has convinced a number ofschlars
of a derivation from the GiIgamesh EpiC; see ibid., 161-162 (n. 403) and A. M. Harmon, LI/dil (8 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Pre;;s, 1969),4,378-379 (n. 1).
http:Hermori.34http:demons.30http:Huwawa).29http:Syncellus).28http:animal.27 -
"'
Giant Mythology and Demollology.Loren T. Stuckenbruck328
The fragments do notfurnish any immediate due for such information and,
suffIx .;.i!does not And so Milikhas suggested that the suffix may derive
may explain the derivation from themonster ofthe Gilgamesh Epic, the unfortunately, ibis name is not preserved among any of the Manichaean
from the Hebrew W'N. ("man") wbich, added to l:Iobab, results in a com- fragments published thus [ar. Sigillficandy, however, the. Gilgamesh Epic
posite'name. Thus for the author(s) ofBG, the name would have signified itsdfdescribes its protagonist at several pointsas part-divine e/3) and part-the mixed nature ofthegiant(part monster, part human).36 1ftbis were human eh).40 Perhaps this miXed nature is part ofwhat has motivated the
. indusion of Gilgamesh among the giants; although there is no evidence then the is consistentwith the picture ofhybrid
identity which we have been able to draw in relation to the giants Mah- in the Epic or in any ofthe extant versions thereof that animal features are
been assigned to the hero. Furthermore, thegigantic stature ofGilgamesh away, 'Ohyall, and Halzyah.37 Milik's argument falters, however, because may have furnished reason for his indusion. His size (height?) is actually!in has been shown to be common suffIx for personal names of people
in materials excavatedfrom ancient Pbilistia.38 Significandy, it has been referred to in a fragmentaryHittite version of the Epic (dated to the ca.
1500 B. C. E.)as"eleven cubits."41'" argued byN. Na'aman and B.Zadok that the suffix constitutes evidence Nevertheless, the notion ofancient orantediluvian sages bearing animai,. for lIon-Semitic people deported toPhilistia by the Assyrians near the end I
of the 8th century' B. C. E.39 If these materials 'are taken into account, in addition to human, features is attested for the early 3rd century B. C. E.,I that is,not long before thecomposition ofBG (first half ofthe 2nd cen-! then Milik's interpretation becomes less plausible; the likelihocid is gready
increased that names sufflXedwith -(I)! are not, in thefirst instance, to
be derived from a Hebrew term. Nevertheless, ifNa'aman and Zadok are
correct, the evidence points toward an eastern origin for the suffIX,and this
would at least be consistent with the notion ofinfiuence, whether direcdy
or indirecdy, from the east on BG. Moreover, the spellingofthe name
with final samek in 4Q530 2coL II renders a derivation from Hebrew W'N
unlikely. We now come to the name Cilgames(h). Like I;:Iobabis(It), the name bears
the same final consonants !inandsamek, in 4Q531 and4Q530 respec-
tively. However, as we havejustseen, notbing concerning thenature of
Gilgames(h) cari be inferr"ed from the SUffIX. Again, the dual suffix (4Q530 2
. co!. II, line 2 and 4Q531 22, line12) seems to rule out a Hebrewetymol-
ogy from W'N. Aside from our knowledge that Gilgames(ll) is considered an '
offspring of fallen angels and human wornen, do' the Qumran fragments
reveal anything that canbe known about the nature of Gilgames(h)?
36 Milik, BE, 313. . 37 It is impossible to know whether the inclusion ofHumbaba relates at all to the Epic's
description ofhim as having "wings" (see e. the standard version at IV 159 and V 267).
38 See the two ostraca and dedicatory inscription from the 7th cent. B. C. E. published,
, respectively, by Joseph Naveh, "Writing and Scripts in Seventh-Century B:C.E. Philistia:
The New Evidence from TellJemmeh," IE] 35 (1985): 8-21, esp. pp. 11-15 and 2G-:-21 and
Seymour Gitin, Trude Dothan, andJoseph Naveh, "A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from
Ekron," IE] 47 (1997): 1-16. I am gratefUl to Hanan Eshel for refeningme to this evidence.
39 See espedally Nadav Na'aman and Ran Zadok, "Sargon n's Deportations to Israel and
Philistia (716--708 B.C.),"]CS 40 (1988): 36-46, esp. pp. 40-42 and Nadav Na'aman; "Pop-
.1Ilation Changes in Palestine FollowingAssyrian Deportations," TA 20 (1993): 104-124, esp.
pp. 108-109.
tury B. C.E.):42 The sourcefor tbis is theBabylonian priest ofMarduk,
Berossus. Berossus, according to citations ofbis history ofBabylonpre-
served throughEusebius (Cllronikon), referred to a certain Oannes, cultilral
hero and ruler, w:ho instructed human beings in writing, architecture, and
agriculture. Ofnote is that tbis Oanneswas part fishand part.human;43
in addition his successors are also described as having been composed of
human and ichthyomorphic characteristics.44
Although the mixed nature ofGilgamesh in the Epic does not necessarily ,
lead tothe conclusion tllatBG has been influenced by dIe E pie in some way,
such a case may be strengthened when the possible functicin of Gilgames(h)
in the storyline is considered. My reconstruction ofdle narrative based on
40 C( the standard version saw the Deep," 148-50; IX 51; andc( X268 ("built) from gods' and human"); see Tigay. TIle EI/Ollltion iftfle GiIgamesh Epic, pp..142 and 264, respectively. . .. ." . ,
41 For the publication and translation of the Hittitefragments e:xcavated at Bogazky, '
see Johannes Friedrich, "Die hethitischen Bruchstcke des GilgameS-Epos," ZA 39 (1930):
, 1-82; pp. 3-4 for the text. with discussion on pp. 35--37.
42 On the question ofdate, see Stuckenbruck, 11le Book ifGiantsfrom Qlltllran, pp. 28-31
and "The Sequencing ofFragments." 21 n. 63.
43 The text describes hirn as follows: " ... his whole body was that ofa fish. And below
. tbe head of the fish, there was another head, and at the tail it had feet as those ofa human,
and his voice sounded like that ofa human." For the Greek. see Felix Felix, Gesdlichte l'On
Staedten. und 'Voelkem (vol. 3 ofDk Fragmente der griechischen Historiker; Leiden: Brill,1958),
no. 680 (UBeros(s)os von Babylon") F 1 (p. 369).
44 On the widespread presentauon ofantediluvian sages (the apkallll oradapu) as halfhuman:
andbringersof culture into the worM, see Milik, BE, 313 who;in turn, summarises and
refers to Rijkle Borger. "Die Beschwrungsserie bit /Iresen und die Himmelfahrt Henocbs,"
JNES 33 (1974): 183-196.
http:characteristics.44http:Pbilistia.38http:Halzyah.37http:human).36 -
330 Lorell T. Stuckenbntck
the two fragmentary passages in BG mentioning Gilgames(h) suggests that
the author(s) mayhave picked up on one aspect ofthe Epic's narrative.
The lastpartially legible lines of 4Q531 22 (lines 9-12) record 'O/,yah's
admission that he, has been troubled by"a dream:"vision that he has had;
so muchso that' he is unable to sieep (lines 9b-11). 45 The few words
onthesubsequent line 12 then maybe read either "GilJgamesh, tell your
dream[" or "GilJgatneslz said, 'Your dream[''' (so Puech).46 If the former
reading is correct, then the one who makesthis request of Gilgames(h)
is not given, though the foregoing context raises the possibility thilt'it is
'Ohyah. Moreover, such areading would mean that, alongside' 'Ohyah and .
Hahyah, Gilgames(h) is arecipient.ofdream visions inthe story. Thc:: content of Gilgames(h)'s dream would, iri that case, not have survived as far as we
. know. If the latter 'reading is torrect, then the giant is perhaps offering his
response to the content oE 'Ohyah' s dream vision. Significant here is, in
any case,'theassociationof Gilgames(h)with a dream, ifnothis own; then
certainly in respons.e to one ofa fellow giant:. .'
'. The involvement of'Gilgames(h) in the story as it relates to dream vi:"
sions brings us to considerthe second passage in which Gilgames(h) occurs,
4Q530 2 co!. II, lines 1-3, In this text;'Ohyah informs the othergiants
about "that whiCh Gilgames hadsaid to hirn" (Iines1b-2a).It is possible,
though not certain, that this alludes to what Gilgames(h) had communi:"
catedto 'Ghyah in 4Q531 22. Lines 2-3; then, seem cast doubt onthe
thoroughgoing litany ofdoom for the giants which recurs in' the work. In what is likely tobe an' earlier column of4Q530 (cf. fr: 1),the giants who
have become aware thattheyare culpable are made to anticipatetheir own
destruction (line 5; cf.also 4Q53i 22,lines 9-11). Here in 4Q530 2 coL H,
however,line 3'opens with the phrase "and the giants rejoiced concerning
it." What in the text has led to this emotion? The interpretation of the
foregoing line 2 is not straighiforward, lmt'may be reconstructed as fol-
lows: After 'Oltyalt has reported what Gilgames told him,l:Jobabis "howled;
and was spoken against his Thus, jfPuech's readings are .
correet, "the guilty one cursed the (line2b),47 it may well be;
4S' See the texumd translation in 7Jle Bookof GiantsJram QumTan, pp. 162-164,which Puech (DJD XXXI, 74-78) interpretsdifferently at Une 12. See be-
low. , . '.
46 The womsare ainbiguous: The verb could also be a pe'al perfect (Gillgamesll
s:lid,"Your dream[ ... "), aS' Puech has argued, in which case Gilgamesl1 is about to say sometiung about the dream of 'Ohya1i.. .
47 I acknowledge that, as the text is difficult to distinguish, I initially read tl7 N::l1 Nl7 ("foTus the Great One has cursed the princes") in which the first vertical stroke 1 as
. Giant Mythology und Demonology
then, that the giants' joy is expressed at thejudge!l1ent being pronounced
on I:Iobabis(h), that is, not on all of their number. Though it is precarious
to speculate too'much on dIe context, it seems possible to infer that what .
Gilgames(h) has reported through. 'Ohyah has left at least some ofthe giants
in astate ofhope that not all ofthem will be subjected to judgement. The
events narrated on'Iine2 are thus wdcomed With reliefthrough the giants'
response. 48
This positive reaction is much contrast with die worry and
. fear which the giants show in otherparts ofBG (6Q81,line 3; 4Q203 4,
line6; 4Q530 1?-7; 4Q53122, lines9-11): The readerwouldsoon (if
not already) have learned, however, that any optimism on the part ofgiants
wasillusoryand short-lived; there is littie doubt that the omi-
nous dream-visio'ns seen by Hahyah (lines 7-12) and 'Ohyah (Iines 16lr-20)
he raId the giants'and watchers' punishment by God. This, in turn, is con-
firmed in theinterpret'ationgiveri by Enoch through Mahaway (cf. coI.'m):
. A clue that' the 'Gilgamesh Epic lies somewhere in the background may
be infem!d from areading of both passages mentioning in
relation to one 'another. While Gilgames(h) is the apparent source of the
news which, followed bya limited pronouncement ofjudgement, results .
in rejoicing among the giants (4Q530 2 coI. 11), 4Q531 22 at line 't2 mentions Gilgames(h) ifi the context of either to the content
ofa dream of 'Ohyahor beginning.to recount his OWl1. "Ohyah
is troubled by his own vision, it may be that Gilgames(h) is associated with .
an interpretation thereof or avision that was being understood as leaving .
room for limited hope of escape which, in the course of the narrative, 'is '
shown tobe anillusion.49 As is knOWl1, One of the main seetions o{the
Epic is concerned 'with Gilgamesh's search for immortality. After thc:: death
of his friend, Erikidu, Gilgamesh sets off in search of'eternal life. In the
end,however, even after he has consultedwith Utnapishti (who had been
granted immortality after his survival ofthegreat deluge), Gilgamesh realises
supralinear from a lamed as.it seems to come up from .the bouom rather than belong to a
, sublinear extended fmal nun from the previous line (T7Ie Book ofGiallisfra;tl QllttlTall, p. 105).
In view ofthe resulring difficulty, namely, that there is insufficient space for the letters read
(including the small space between woms) and the remaining possibilitythat the vertical
stroke could indeed be from a 111m ofHne 1, Puech's rendering is to be prefered (DJD XXXI, . pp. 30 and 33): "Et le coupable maudit les princes." .'. . . .
48, The text that follows beyond -Nl::Jn1 (Hand he returned and") is unclear, and Puech's
restoration in the !:lcunae renlains speculative, though it is plausible that the action still refers to that of Ifobabis(h).
49 While, therefore, revising some ofmy views on readings in the text, I still maintain that this general framework is tenable. Concerning the placement of4Q530 2 co!. 11 later in the narrative than 4Q531 22, see Stuck:enbruck. "The Sequencing ofFragments." 17-,1 9.
http:anillusion.49http:beginning.tohttp:Iines1b-2a).Ithttp:Puech).46 -
Loren T. Stuckenbmck332
that his aspirations have been in vain. I suggest, therefore, that in addition
to the cultural hero's mixed nature, it is the motifofhis illusionary searchfor
immortality that has helped shape the storyline ofthe BG. Rather thanjust
being ci straightforward account which describes the oppressive and violent
ictivities of the giants and their subsequentpunishment, BG contains a
motifofillusory hope which propels the story forward;endowing it with a
measure ofsuspense. Recognising that this view de;pends on what remains
an uncertain reconstruction of the story in BG, we rnay speculate that, if
the reconstruction is correct, the author(s) ofBG not only borrowed the
name of Gilgamesh and identified him as a tulpable giant, but alsodrew
upon the broad storyline ofthe Epic with which this andent culttiral hero . was associated. ; .
Milik singled out the indusion of Gilgames(h) inBG as rernarkable in that
this is "the only mention ofGilgamesh outside the cuneiform
It is moreaccurate, however, to note that the occurrenceof Gilgames(h)
. (and lfobabis(b) , for that matter) presupposes that these figures in the Epic
.continued to be known during the Second Temple period. With respect
to Gilgamesh, Reeves has been able to Cite important evidence. Though
the name does not appear anywhere among other extant early Jewish corn- positions, it is known that the Gilgamesh Epic had continued to be copied
by scribes as late as the 2nd or 1st centuries B. C. E.51 Furthermore, the
Greek Aelian, in his work OnAnimals 12.21'(ca. 200 C. E.), teIls
the story of a baby named who escaped death and was raised
by a gardener, eventually becoming the king ofBabylon. Against Reeves,
however, it is not necessaryto assume that there must have been an Arama-
ie translation of the Gilgamesh Epic .known to theBG author(s), as there
is no evidence that such a translationever existed. All one can infel' isthe likelihood thatthe story was known at least in broad outline along with a
. few in written fonn, then at least through oral tradition. 52
50 Milik,BE, 313. 51 material adduced by Reeves, injewish Lore in Manichaean CosmogollY, pp. 120
and 158 (ci: n. 365). The tenor ofReeves' view is shared by an independent study publishc::d by Stephanie Dalley, "Gilgamesh in the Arabian Nights,"jRAS 1 (1991): 1-16, who argues
that BG (known at Qurnran) and 1 Eil. (esp.BW) conveyed knowledge of the Gilgamesh Epic to the Manichaeans through whom, in turn, the tradition was picked up in Arabiall Nights traditions; . ". ' . ," .
52Karel van der Toom, "Echoes of Gilgamesb in the Book of Qohelet?", in reetl/uf
Anllivet!al}' Volume: Stl/dies Prescllted to Klaas R. Veenluf (ed. W. H. van Soldt, et aL; Leiden: Netherlands Institute ofthe N ear Bast, 2001), 503-514, here p. 512, is conect to be cautious
about the degree to wruch the Epic of Gilgamesh in written fOrm could have been known I
i !.
, in Palestine by the last few centuries B. C',E. The discoveryof the fragment of the Epic
Ci.ml -'/rr/r l.:.:}, .,;d 1J.'w,m,.l'h'"
Excursus: Was Atambis ;1 Giant UG?
itccvcs has attcmpted CO argu 1.', reLcmly that thc namc .Illlmbi! in thc
Manichacan Gfurthcr rcl1cl.ts chl." inl1ucncl. oftll!.'Gilgamcjh Epic. 5 .. Thc
n:ul1C is not pn:serwd among thl." Dead tragments, bm. speilet!
in two Middk Persianlraglllcllts (trg. L ;lIld twiceill M 5':)()1)).:i4 is thollght
togo back co thc thc tigure Utll.lpishtilll in thc Epi( (standard
tablets 10-11). In thc Epic. it i, ot\:oursl." Utnapishtim who
imlllort:llity he sur\'lvcd theliood sem by the gods against \!arth.
R\!ews. thus sugg\!sts that .-1l,ll/I[,i! in tIlI." UG gO\!S baek co
a now-Iost P:lrt of tlw \'crsiLin of BG pr\!scrwd arQumran; in 13G this
characterwas:111 arni-Noahk, figur\:! who, Illuch in contrast to Noah (andin
contrast with Umapishtim ofthe Epic), is destioyed as OIlC ofthe giants.55
Thc great flood. frolll which Noah and his family escape, destroys the
mythologieal 1100d-h\!ro. Thlls the3llthor(s) ofG have integrated the
namesofStich "pagan' actors" trom the Epic in order tOLonununicate "a
bold polemical the rl:!\"ercd traditions ofa rival cllhure. "56
In an evaluation of RI:!C:ves, RonJ.ld Hllggins has agreed that Atambis in the ManichaeanBG corresponds to Utnapishrimin theGilgamesh
. , .
Epic. However, racher dun AftllllbiI as one of thegiants, he
has argued that IH::re WI!, have to do with a more posirl\"c Lomparison: '
// Utnapishtim is in the Manichaean BG che equi\"alemofEnoch.
. (ovcrlapping with rhc content ofTablct VII ofthc st;:mdard vcrsion) at Megiddo. whkh datcs
to the late ronze 'lIoes not provide .l 5uffident explanation. As pan: of his attempt ro
moditY the supposition dut Qoheleth has drawn direcrly on the Epic (e.g,. ar 9:7':'9 :md
.1-: 12), vandcr Toorri argues that rhe Megiddo ti-agment st!fwd training purpo,es only, that
iso it reflected the need for rulers inPalesrine to have "scribcs a trlining in cuneiform"
in oider to cope with the officiallanguage ot-diplomacy, Akkadian. In basic agn:ement with van Toorn, I would nevertheless argue that knowledge of Epic W;lS not resrricted to
the mere use of derived trom it but is in the broad narrJtive oiBG itself.'
. especially-;-if the ofthe $[Qry proposed here is correct-;-in irs relation to the
giant Gi/g
Gigamenbuch," in Orieut'llidj. Dudleme-Guillelllin emerito ob/tiM (Acta lranka23 and Series 9; leiden: Brill, 19B4); 491-505, ben: p. 497 ..
55 Reeves, "Utnapishtim." 115, in contrast to tbe identific:nion of AumbiS ,\vith one of the fallen angels proposed. by Sundermann, J,Iirrelpersisdle 11/11/' p,mlr,iIe koslIl,,!t>gis[he uml Ptllilbeltexte. p. 78 n. I, :lnd "Ein weiteres Fragment." p. 495 n. 19.
56 Reeves.jewislr Ure illAlalliclrae:atl C"sml>gollY. p. 126.
'-
http:giants.55