Gilgamesh the Giant the Qumran

8/14/2019 Gilgamesh the Giant the Qumran

1/33

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/156851709X395740

Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 www.brill.nl/dsd

Gilgamesh the Giant: Te Qumran Book of Giants Appropriation of Gilgamesh Motifs

Matthew Goff Dodd Hall M05, Department of Religion, Florida State University,

allahassee, FL 32306, [email protected]

AbstractTe Qumran Book of Giants shows familiarity with lore from the classic Meso-potamianEpic of Gilgamesh. It has been proposed that the author of the Book ofGiants drew from the epic in order to polemicize against it. Tere is much tocommend this view. Te name of the hero of the tale is given to one of the mur-derous, wicked giants of the primordial age. Examination of fragments of theBook of Giants, in particular 4Q530 2 ii and 4Q531 22, however, suggest thatkey aspects of its portrayal of Gilgamesh the giant cannot be explained as polemicagainst Mesopotamian literary traditions. Te Book of Giants creatively appro-priates motifs from the epic and makes Gilgamesh a character in his own right inways that often have little to do withGilgamesh.

KeywordsBook of Giants; Gilgamesh

1. Introduction 1

Many writings of the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism can be elucidatedthrough comparison with ancient Near Eastern texts, but few mentionspecic details from them. One exception is the fascinating but fragmen-tary Aramaic composition from Qumran known as theBook of Giants .2

1 I thank Eibert igchelaar for his assistance in helping me think through themainBook of Giantstexts discussed in this article and Clare Rothschild for hercomments on an earlier draft.

2 Te following manuscripts are generally considered to comprise theBook of

DSD 16 1_f4_21-53.indd 21DSD 16,1_f4_21-53.i ndd 21 12/15/2008 8:08:38 AM12/15/2008 8:08:38 AM


2/33

22 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153Tis work contains a narrative involving the ante-diluvian giant offspringof the angelic Watchers known from the EnochicBook of the Watchers .Te Book of Giantsrecounts the iniquitous exploits of the giants, likeWatchers , but also describes visions they receive and their reactions tothem. Te composition gives the names of several giants:Ohyah, Hahyah, Ah iram, Mahaway, Gilgamesh and H obabish. Te latter two resonatewith theGilgameshepic. Te name H obabish derives from Humbaba, thepowerful monster slain by Gilgamesh and Enkidu. J. . Milik, a scholar ofenormous importance for the study of theBook of Giants , was the rst tomake this identication.3

Tis article poses three research questions. What are the affinitiesbetween theBook of Giantsand the epic ofGilgamesh? On the basis ofthese similarities, how should the relationship between these two texts beunderstood? What do the only two fragments of theBook of Giantsthatmention Gilgamesh, 4Q530 2 ii 13 and 4Q531 22, contribute to thequestion of how the composition should be understood vis--vis the epic?Scholars who work on the scrolls are now in a good position to address

Giants : 1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q530, 4Q531, 4Q532, 4Q533, 4Q206a23 and 6Q8. Te Giants fragments are available in S.J. Pfann et al.,QumranCave 4.XXVI: Cryptic exts and Miscellanea, Part 1(DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon,2000), 894; . Puech,Qumrn Grotte 4.XXII: extes Aramens, Premire Partie(4Q529549)(DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 9115 (the relevant frag-ments in these volumes are edited, respectively, by Stuckenbruck and Puech).Core scholarship on theBook of Giantsincludes J. . Milik, urfan et Qumran:Livre des gants juif et manichen, inradition und Glaube: Das frhe Christen-tum in seiner Umwelt(ed. G. Jeremias et al.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupre-cht, 1971), 11727; idem, Problmes de la littrature hnochique la lumiredes fragments aramens de Qumrn,H R64 (1971): 33378 (esp. 36672);idem,Te Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrn Cave 4(Oxford: Claren-don, 1976), 298339; K. Beyer,Die aramischen exte vom oten Meer(Gttin-gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 25868 (= A M); idem, Diearamischen exte vom oten Meer. Ergnzungsband(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1994), 11924 (= A ME); F. Garca Martnez,Qumran and Apocalyp-tic(S DJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 97115; J.C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in ManichaeanCosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants raditions(Monographs of the HebrewUnion College 14; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992); L. . Stuck-enbruck,Te Book of Giants from Qumran: ext, ranslation, and Commentary( SAJ 63; bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).

3 Milik,Te Books of Enoch, 313.



3/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 23these issues because of the publication of A.R. Georges excellent compre-hensive edition ofGilgamesh.4

Reeves argues that theBook of Giantsattests the vitality of Mesopota-mian literary traditions among learned scribal circles in the nal centuriesbefore the Common Era.5 Te author of the Qumran text, he proposes,worked with an Aramaic copy ofGilgamesh, which he draws from polemi-cally. Te venerated hero of Mesopotamian culture is transformed into anevil giant. TeBook of Giantsis, in Reeves formulation, an anti-pagan,particularly an anti-Gilgamesh, text. Puech has put forward a compatiblebut different opinion.6 Te Book of Giantsis for him a negative responseto Hellenistic Upper Galilean cultic practices. In a similar vein, Jacksonimagines Gilgamesh was originally one of a larger sequence of Gentile g-ures who are parodied as demons in theBook of Giants .7

4 A.R. George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edi-tion and Cuneiform exts(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Unless other-wise noted, translations and citations ofGilgameshare from this edition ofthe Standard Babylonian Epic (SB). Scholarship on the epic includes: . Jacob-sen,Te reasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), 195219 (reprinted in Foster,Te Epic of Gil- gamesh, 183207); A. Shaffer, Gilgamesh, the Cedar Forest and MesopotamianHistory, JAOS103 (1983): 30713;W. Moran, Te Gilgamesh Epic: A Master-piece from Ancient Mesopotamia, inCivilizations of the Ancient Near East(ed. J.M. Sasson; 4 vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995),4.232736 (reprinted in Foster,Te Epic of Gilgamesh, 17183); B.G. Fosteret al., eds.,Te Epic of Gilgamesh(New York: W.W. Norton, 2001); . Abusch,Te Development and Meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh: An InterpretiveEssay, JAOS121 (2001): 61422; J.H. igay,Te Evolution of the GilgameshEpic(Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 2002); A.R. George, Te Epicof Gilgame: Toughts on Genre and Meaning, inGilgame and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference held at Mandelbaum House, Te University ofSydney, 2123 July 2004(ed. J. Azize and N. Weeks; ANES 21; Leuven: Peeters,2007), 3765.

5 Reeves, Jewish Lore , 126. See also Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 7274.6

DJD31:15.7 D.R. Jackson, Demonising Gilgame, in Azize and Weeks,Gilgame andthe World of Assyria , 10714 (esp. 113). Contrast the assessment of L. . Stucken-bruck, who has argued that the Qumran text borrows general motifs from thestory-line ofGilgameshwithout stressing any polemical engagement with thework. See his Giant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient Near Eastto the Dead Sea Scrolls, inDie Dmonen. Te Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and



4/33

24 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153Te rst section of this essay demonstrates that there are several paral-

lels between theBook of GiantsandGilgameshaside from having names incommon. Tese topics include archaic protagonists of divine-human par-entage, wicked spirits, dreams, warriors of giant stature and Mount Her-mon. From these affinities, it is reasonable to conclude with Reeves andother scholars that the author of this Qumran text was to some extentfamiliar with the epic. Te exact mode of transmission remains unclearand, I will argue, there does not appear to be enough engagement withthe epic to agree with Reeves opinion that the Qumran author used an Aramaic translation ofGilgamesh. Reeves reasonably concludes that theBook of Giantsadapts elements fromGilgameshfor polemical purposes,but the point is in genuine need of qualication. Te portrayal of Gil-gamesh in 4Q530 2 ii 13 and 4Q531 22 indicates that theBook ofGiantsborrows fromGilgameshbut makes its giants characters in theirown right in ways that often have little to do with the epic. Gilgamesh, Ishall argue, is a giant who is defeated and then cursed because of themachinations ofOhyah, who attempts to pin the impending punishmentof the giants on Gilgamesh alone. Tese events resonate less with the epicand more with core themes in theBook of Giantssuch as the inevitabilityof the giants judgment and punishment, and their reactions to this fate.Important aspects of the Qumran text are better viewed as an exercise in

creative adaptation ofGilgameshmotifs than polemical repudiation ofrevered Mesopotamian lore. Te Qumran texts use of the epic is similarto other instances of familiarity with Gilgamesh outside of cuneiform lit-erature, such as AeliansOn the Nature of Animalsand LuciansDe Dea Syria .8

Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment(ed. A. Lange et al.;bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 31338 (esp. 332).8 On the Nature of Animalsand possiblyDe Dea Syria(both 2d c. C.E.) recon-

gure elements from the epic in ways that have little to do with the Mesopota-mian poem itself. Milik,Te Books of Enoch, 313, incorrectly observes that theBook of Giantscontains the only mention of Gilgamesh outside the cuneiformliterature. InOn the Nature of Animals12.21 a child named Gilgamos is thrown

from a citadel and saved by an eagle. He is raised by a gardener and grows up tobecome a king of Babylon. Tis story is nowhere in the epic itself but Aelianattests a degree of legitimate tradition since he understands Gilgamos to be aking of Babylon. For other affinities between this text and the epic, see George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.61. LuciansDe Dea Syria1727 contains alengthy story of Combabos. Tis name may derive from Humbaba, although thisis a disputed point. Combabos is not a monster but a handsome man who is a



5/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 252. Tematic Similarities between the Qumran Book of Giants andthe Epic of Gilgamesh

2a. Ancient Protagonists of Divine-Human Parentage

Several core features ofGilgameshare broadly compatible with theBook ofGiants . Te epic is set in hoary antiquity. In ablet XI the hero speakswith Utnapishtim, who survives the ood. Te primordial time-frame ofGilgameshis consistent with the ante-diluvian setting of theBook of Giants .It is reasonable to speculate that the QumranBook of Giantsoriginallyincluded a giant whose name derives from Utnapishtim, as Reeves hasargued, although this gure does not appear in any of its extant texts.9

friend of King Seleucus. J.L. Lightfoot argues against a connection between thisgure and Humbaba. C. Grottanelli contends, by contrast, that there are severalthematic parallels betweenDe Dea SyriaandGilgameshand that Combabos hasmuch in common with several characters from the epic, including Enkidu.George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.6465, does not think thatDe DeaSyriadraws on any specic episode ofGilgameshbut rather that the text looselyincorporates elements from the cultural heritage of the ancient Near East andreformulates them in a new way. See J.L. Lightfoot,Lucian on the Syrian Goddess(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 393; C. Grottanelli, Te Story ofCombabos and the Gilgamesh radition, in Mythology and Mythologies . Method-ological approaches to intercultural inuences(ed. R.M. Whiting; MelammuSymposia 2; Helsinki: Te Neo-Assyrian ext Corpus Project, 2001), 1927(esp. 24); Lucian,De Dea Syria(Harmon, LCL) 4.366.

Tere also are references to Gilgamesh in later Christian and Islamic texts. Anexample of the former is the scholia to Genesis written by the 9th-centuryNestorian bishop Teodore bar Konai, which contains a list of ancient kings, oneof which is named Gilgamesh. Te tale of Buluqiya, which is in some versions ofthe Arabian Nights , contains numerous motifs that are similar to the epic ofGilgamesh. See S. Dalley, Te ale of Bulqiy and the Alexander Romancein Jewish and Su Mystical Circles, inracing the Treads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha(ed. J.C. Reeves; SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994),

23969. For criticism of her views, see George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic ,1.6568. Consult also Reeves, Jewish Lore , 12021; Stuckenbruck,Te Book ofGiants , 109; igay,Te Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic , 25253; M. Schwartz,Qumran, urfan, Arabic Magic, and Noahs Name, inCharmes et Sortilges. Magie et Magiciens(ed. R. Gyselen; Res Orientales 14; Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupepour ltude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 2002), 23138.

9 J.C. Reeves, Utnapishtim in theBook of Giants ? JBL112 (1993): 11015.



6/33

26 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153In the epic Gilgamesh, like the giants, is the product of divine-human

parentage. Tis lineage is not treated as an unnatural mixing of separaterealms, in marked contrast to the giants. Gilgamesh is two-thirds divineand one-third mortal (I.48). His mother Ninsun is a goddess whose name

See also idem, Jewish Lore , 126. He suggests that the giant Atambsh, a gureattested not in the QumranBook of Giantsbut in the later ManicheanBook ofGiants(Kawn), can be derived from Utnapishtim. Milik,Te Books of Enoch,298300, recognized that the QumranBook of Giantshas numerous points ofsimilarity with the former text, suggesting that the Early Jewish work atteststraditions that shape theKawn. See also his urfan et Qumran, 12425. Inone text of the ManicheanBook of Giants , named frg. L (for Leningrad, whereit is housed), Mahaway goes to Atambsh to relate everything to him. Inanother Middle Persian fragment, classied as M5900, Atambsh is associatedwith two hundred (Watchers presumably, but the text is broken off at thispoint). Tree giants associated with him are slain. For frg. L, see W. Sundermann,Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch, inHommages et opera minora9: Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata(Acta Iranica 23; Leiden: Brill,1984), 491505 (esp. 49798); for M5900, idem, Mittelpersische und parthischekosmogonische und Parabeltexte der Manicher(Schriften zur Geschichte und Kul-tur des Alten Orients 8, Berliner urfantexte 4; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973),7778.

R.V. Huggins argues that Atambsh in the Manichean material should beunderstood as a reference not to a giant but rather to Enoch. See his Noah andthe Giants: A Response to John C. Reeves, JBL114 (1995): 10310. He agrees,however, in the basic Atambsh = Utnapishtim identication proposed by Reeves,modifying it as Atambsh = Utnapishtim = Enoch. It is reasonable to posit, withReeves and Huggins, that the name Atambsh in the ManicheanBook of Giantscorresponds to a name in the QumranBook of Giantsthat is not attested in anysurviving fragment. But the lack of evidence regarding such a gure limits thecontribution of this possibility to the interpretation of the composition. See also W. Sundermann, Manis Book of the Giants and the Jewish Books of Enoch: ACase of erminological Differences and What It Implies, inIrano-Judaica III.Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture throughout the Ages(ed.

S. Shaked and A. Netzer; Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 1994), 4048; George,Te BabylonianGilgamesh Epic , 1.60, 155; L. . Stuckenbruck, Te Angels and Giants ofGenesis 6:14 in Second and Tird Century B.C.E. Jewish Interpretation:Reections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic raditions,DSD 7 (2000):35477 (esp. 360); W.B. Henning, TeBook of Giants ,BSOAS11 (194346):5274; J.C. Reeves, Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Manichean Literature: TeInuence of the Enochic Library, inracing the Treads , 173203.



7/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 27means Queen of the wild cows.10 His father Lugalbanda is a sly herowho is a leading character in Sumerian epics.11 Perhaps due to his divinelineage, Gilgamesh was over time deied, and by the Old Babylonianperiod his name appears in god lists.12

2b. Evil Spirits

In Mesopotamian lore, more than in the epic itself, Gilgamesh was hailedas a judge and ruler of the shades in the underworld.13 It was common toexorcise evil spirits by beseeching Gilgamesh to accept them under his jurisdiction in the netherworld. One prayer, classied as KAR 227, reads:O King Gilgamesh, superb judge of the Anunnaki, judicious prince . . .

10 . Jacobson, Lugalbanda and Ninsuna, JCS41 (1989): 6986 (esp. 74);S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989),4041.

11 Te two Sumerian epics in which he is prominent are Lugalbanda in Khur-rumkurra and Lugalbanda and Enmerkar. Tere are other Mesopotamian tra-ditions in which Lugalbanda is not simply a human being. He has been depictedas a wicked spirit known as alillu-demon. Tere is another tradition preserved inthe Sumerian King List in which Lugalbanda is a divine king of Uruk whoreigned 1,200 years. According to one motif in the epic, Lugalbanda is the per-sonal god (ilum) of Gilgamesh. See, for example, OB III.271 and SB VI.165.Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia , 129, suggests this refers to a statue of his fatherand reects a degree of ancestor worship. Consult further George,Te BabylonianGilgamesh Epic , 1.215, 244, 2.822; B. Alster, Epic ales from Ancient Sumer:Enmerkar, Lugalbanda, and Other Cunning Heroes, inCivilizations of the Ancient Near East , 4.231526 (esp. 231617); S.N. Kramer,Te Sumerians: TeirHistory, Culture and Character(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), 27374;P.P. Vrtesal-ji, La desse nue lamite und der Kreis der babylonischen Lil-Dmonen,Iranica Antiqua26 (1991): 10148 (esp. 136); W. Farber, Lil,Liltu, Ardat-lil. A. Philologisch,Reallexikon der Assyriologie(ed. E. Ebelinget al.; 10 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 19282005), 7.2324, and, in the same vol-ume, E. Porada, Lil, Liltu, Ardat-lil. B. Archologisch, 2425; K. van der

oorn, Te Teology of Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel. Popular Belief andScholarly Speculation, inDie Dmonen, 6183; Reeves, Jewish Lore , 158.12 George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.11935.13 Ibid., 1.12735. Tis tradition is associated with ablet XII of the epic,

which is generally regarded as a translation of the Sumerian myth Bilgames andthe Netherworld that was appended to the composition. See ibid., 1.4754;Foster,Te Epic of Gilgamesh, 12943.



8/33

28 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153overseer of the underworld, lord of the nether regions . . . Eradicate thesickness [of my] body, drive out the Evil Ting . . . [expel] the evil that[resides] in my body.14 In theBook of GiantsGilgamesh is not a ruler ofevil spirits but rather one of the giants who eventually become spirits.15 Afuller version of this tradition is in theBook of the Watchers , in which thegiants are forced after their physical destruction to roam the earth as evilspiritsthe sort that cause difficulties for ordinary people, much likethose over whom Gilgamesh rules in Mesopotamian tradition.16 Te Bookof Giants reliance on basic elements of the narrative inWatchersmakes ita valid possibility that the author of the former text was familiar with thefate of the giants presented inWatchers , and that in its fuller form theBook of Giantsattested this motif. In this case, the spirits of the giants inthe Book of Giantswould be functionally similar to the kind over whichGilgamesh has dominion in Mesopotamian tradition.

2c. Dreams

Gilgamesh has several dreams in the epic. In ablet I, for example, hedescribes his dreams to his mother Ninsun, who interprets them for him(ll. 24597). An important cluster of Gilgameshs dreams occurs beforethe battle with Humbaba. While the exact number and precise content of

the dreams is obscured by the fragmentary condition of ablet IV, in gen-eral the dreams terrify Gilgamesh and presage his ght with Humbaba.Tey take place when Gilgamesh and Enkidu journey to the Cedar Forestin Lebanon. Te dreams are a result of Gilgameshs attempts to receive anight-vision, suggesting that he is trying to learn from the gods what theoutcome of the battle will be. In them he confronts his fear of the mon-

14 George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.13235.15 4Q531 19 24 reads many [dee]ds of violence on the dry land . . . n[ot]

bones are we and not esh . . . and we shall be wiped out from our form. Cf.4Q511 35 7; 4Q511 48, 49 + 51 23. ConsultDJD31:7172; Stuckenbruck,

Te Book of Giants , 15960;DSSR , 3.493.16 But now the giants who were begotten by the spirits and eshthey willcall them evil spirits upon the earth, for their dwelling will be upon the earth . . . And the spirits of the giants , do violence, make desolate, and attackand wrestle and hurl upon the earth and (1 En.15:8, 11). SeeG.W.E. Nickelsburg,1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters136, 81108(Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 26775.



9/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 29ster, which he must overcome before he can defeat him (cf. IV.241242).Core elements of the dreams are interpreted as references to Humbaba.He is likened to a mountain in Enkidus interpretation of one of Gil-gameshs dreams (IV.3031).17 According to an Old Babylonian fragmentfrom Nippur, in one dream Humbaba is symbolized by an Anz-bird, afearsome griffin-like creature with wings and a lions head: I watched an Anz-bird in the sky . . . it rose like a cloud, soaring above us . . . its facewas very strange, its speech was re, its breath was death (ll. 1114).18 Ironically, given Gilgameshs intense response to Enkidus death, to defeatHumbaba he must transcend his fear of dying in battle.19

Dreams are a major theme in the QumranBook of Giants . Importantaspects of the extant narrative revolve around dreams and the giants reac-tion to them. Te core text for this topic is 4Q530 2 ii, which describestwo visions, one disclosed to the giant Hahyah and the other to hisbrotherOhyah.20 Hahyah has a dream of a large garden that is tended bygardeners (ll. 612). Fire and water destroy the grove, except for one treewith three branches.21 Ohyah has a dream in which he sees God descendand sit on a throne, with a heavenly host in attendance (ll. 1520). Inlanguage reminiscent of Dan 7, books are opened and judgment is uttered

17 Lines 1415 of an Old Babylonian fragment of the epic, now in theSchyen collection, read: Now, my friend, the one to whom we go, is he not themountain? He is something very strange! See George,Te Babylonian GilgameshEpic , 1.227, 235.

18 Te description of the birds speech and breath evokes a refrain used for thevoice of Humbaba (e.g., II.29192). See Alster, Epic ales from Ancient Sumer,4.231617; J. Goodnick Westenholz,Dragons, Monsters, and Fabulous Beasts(Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 2004), 3233; igay,Te Evolution of the Gil- gamesh Epic , 124; George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.24344.

19 IV.245 reads Forget death and [seek ] life!20 DJD31:2838. Several fragments of 4Q530 comprise this text: 2, 6, 7,

811, and possibly 12. For the sake of convenience I refer to this text as 4Q530

2 ii, which contains the rst large amount of text in the column.21 Reeves, Jewish Lore , 95102, argues that this tree becomes a ree of Lifein Central Asian Manichaeism. See also H.-J. Klimkeit, Der Buddha Henoch:Qumran und urfan, ZRG32 (1980) 36777; A.A. Orlov, Te Flooded Arbo-retums: Te Garden raditions in the Slavonic Version of 3 Baruchand theBookof Giants , inFrom Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism: Studies in the SlavonicPseudepigrapha(JSJSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 289309.



10/33

30 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153(ll. 1819).22 Tese dreams are recounted before the assembled giants(4Q530 2 ii 5; cf. l. 15). Tey become afraid (l. 20), and they want tolearn the interpretation of the visions. Tey commission the giant Maha-way to journey across the great wilderness ( ,to reach Enoch (who, the text assumes, can interpret the dreams (4Q530 7 ii 5; 4Q530 2ii 2124; cf. l. 14).23 Te dreams clearly refer to the giants destruction inthe ood.24 Te surviving evidence is sparse but suggests that they realize judgment is inevitable.25 Te dreams establish that the giants are given theopportunity to know their fate. Teir reaction of fear to the visions is the-matically similar to ablet IV of the epic when Gilgamesh journeys toght Humbaba. In both texts dreams are the medium through which theprotagonists confront the possibility that they will be destroyed.26 In thecase of the epic, Gilgameshs fears prove to be unfounded. Te giants ofthe Qumran text are not so lucky.27

22 R.E. Stokes, Te Trone Visions of Daniel 7,1 Enoch14, and the Qum-ran Book of Giants(4Q530): An Analysis of Teir Literary Relationship,DSD15 (2008): 34058; L. . Stuckenbruck, Te Trone-Teophany of theBook ofGiants : Some New Light on the Background of Daniel 7, inTe Scrolls and TeScriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After(ed. S.E. Porter and C. Evans; Sheffield: Shef-eld Academic Press, 1997), 21120; Milik,Te Books of Enoch, 305.

23 Tis is different from theBook of Watchers , in which Enoch is a recipient,rather than a source, of divine knowledge. Te portrait of Enoch in theBook ofGiantsis closer to that of the birth of Noah story in1 En.106107 and theGenesis Apocryphon (e.g., 2:1925), in which Methusaleh travels to Enoch foran explanation of the strange appearance of Noah when he is born. See Nickels-burg,1 Enoch 1, 541.

24 Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 65.25 4Q531 19 4, for example, reads we shall be wiped out from our form.

4Q530 1 i 5 states we will die together ( 4Q533 4 3 asserts that a .(ood is upon the earth ( and line 2 mentions crimes of deceit ( and bloodshed.

26 J.C. Reeves suggests that the prominence of dreams in theBook of Giantsisa conscious parody of theGilgameshepic. See his Review of L. Stuckenbruck,

Te Book of Giants , JQR90 (1999): 22326 (esp. 226). Reeves proposal meritsfurther consideration but is weakened by the likely interpretation that Gilgameshdoes not receive visions in theBook of Giants , a position I argue below.

27 No account of the giants destruction is extant in the text. Given their real-ization that they will die, it is reasonable to infer that originally the compositiondid assert that most or all of the giants perished in the ood. Stuckenbruck has



11/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 312d. Giant Warriors

In the Mesopotamian poem Gilgamesh is praised as a great warrior. Tisreputation is borne out in his defeat of Humbaba, a legend also found inSumerian myth.28 Tis is compatible with the giants of Jewish tradition,who are regarded as mighty warriors ( In the epic Gilgamesh is .( incredibly large. Tis is most explicit in a Hittite version ofGilgamesh,which opens with an account of his height: His body was eleven yards[in height]; his breast was nine [spans] in breadth (2).29 Tis wouldmake him almost twice as tall as Goliath, whose height is six cubits and aspan, according to 1 Sam 17:4. Te beginning of the Standard Babylo-nian version emphasizes the size of Gilgameshs stride: A triple cubit washis foot, half a rod his leg. Six cubits was [his] stride (I.5657). He isalso described as Gilgamesh so tall, perfect and terrible (I.37; cf. II.164).Te most striking account of Gilgameshs giant stature occurs during hisght with Humbaba. Te battle is an etiological legend that explains theformation of the Rift Valley of Lebanon: At the heels of their feet theearth was splitting apart, as they whirled around Sirara and Lebanon weresundered (V.133134).30 Te weaponry of Gilgamesh and Enkidu isincredibly heavy. Tey have swords and hatchets fashioned that each

made the observation that Gilgamesh in the epic tries and fails to attain eternallife and the giants in theBook of Giantstry and fail to avoid destruction in theood. He writes that the motif of Gilgameshs illusionary search for immortal-ity inuences the basic story-line of theBook of Giants . See his Giant Mythol-ogy and Demonology, inDie Dmonen, 31338 (esp. 332).

28 Te tales are Gilgamesh and H uwawa A and Gilgamesh and H uwawaB. ranslations are in Foster,Te Epic of Gilgamesh, 10420. Consult also Alster,Epic ales from Ancient Sumer, 4.2317; George,Te Babylonian GilgameshEpic , 1.911; D.O. Edzard,Gilgames und Huwawa: Zwei Versionen der sum-erischen Zedernwaldepisode nebst einer Edition von Version B(Mnchen: Verlagder bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1993).

29 Tis translation is from Foster,Te Epic of Gilgamesh, 158. See also George,

Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.447; igay,Te Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic ,11018; Reeves, Jewish Lore , 120.30 In an earlier version the mountains are split by the deafening yell of

Humbaba (H uwawa) (Old Babylonian Ischchali fragment, l. 31, rev.). SeeGeorge,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.263, 266. Te signicance of thisregion is examined below.



12/33

32 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153weigh seven talents. Tis is approximately two hundred kilograms, whichwould make each weapon much heavier than Goliaths spear.31

Te portrayal of Humbaba as a gigantic creature is also conveyed byassociating him with a massive cedar tree. When he is defeated they fell alofty cedar, whose top abutted the heavens (V.293294).32 From thetree they make a giant door. Enkidu says to Gilgamesh that he made (orwill make) a doorsix rods is its height, two rods its breadth, one cubitits thickness, its pole, its top pivot and its bottom pivot are all of a piece(ll. 295296).33

2e. Mount Hermon

Both the QumranBook of Giantsand the epic ofGilgamesh, at leastaccording to one Old Babylonian tablet, can be related to Mount Her-mon. Tere is no surviving connection between the giants and MountHermon in theBook of Giants , but it is reasonable to speculate that therewas such an association in the original text since theBook of the Watcherssituates the descent of the Watchers and their pact to sleep with women(the mothers of the giants) at this mountain (cf.1 En.6:6; 13:79; 4QEna 1 iii 45).34 An Old Babylonian fragment of theGilgameshepic (OB Ish-

31 I base this on Late Bronze Age Mesopotamian copper ingots that signifytalents which weigh 2830 kilograms. West of the Euphrates in this period thetalent was often reckoned as 3,000 shekels. Following this standard, each weaponof Gilgamesh (7 talents = 21,000 shekels) is roughly 35 times heavier than Goli-aths spear, which, according to 1 Sam 17:7, weighs 600 shekels. See further M.A.Powell, Weights and Measures, ABD , 6.897908 (esp. 905); Foster,Te Gil- gamesh Epic , 20.

32 As with Humbaba inGilgamesh, the stature of the giants of Enochic legendis compared to both mountains (cf. IV.3031) and cedar trees in Early Jewish lit-erature: And their [the Watchers] sons, whose height was like that of cedars andwhose bodies were like mountains, fell (CD 2:19; cf. Amos 2:9). Tese tropesare not present in theBook of Giants . Also note the later Hebrew term ,

which refers to a type of cedar tree (e.g.,b. Sanh.108b).33 George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.613, suggests that the preteriteconstruction of the verb is corrupt. He also argues (2.828) that the explanationthat the pivots and pole are of a single piece implies that the entire door and itsconstituent parts are from a single, very large tree.

34 Reeves, Jewish Lore , 124, 161. See also Stuckenbruck, Giant Mythology,



13/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 33chali) considers the location of the Cedar Forest guarded by H uwawa tobe Sirion and Lebanon (sa-ri-a la-ab-na-an), that is, Hermon andLebanon (l. 31, rev.; cf. SB V.134).35 While this fragment is too old tobe directly linked to theBook of Giants , it does establish an archaic con-nection between giant warriors and Mount Hermon.36

3. Possible Modes of ransmission

Te parallels reviewed above between theBook of Giantsand Gilgameshsuggest that the author of the Qumran text shows familiarity with theepic beyond the utilization of the names Gilgamesh and Humbaba.Regarding how its author was exposed to Gilgamesh traditions, severalpossibilities are available. Te Middle BabylonianGilgameshfragment

32627. G.W.E. Nickelsburg argues that1 En.1216 were produced in northernGalilee and that these chapters reect visionary activity in the area of Dan andHermon. See his Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in UpperGalilee, JBL100 (1981): 575600 (esp. 586); idem,1 Enoch 1, 23031. See alsoM.A. Knibb, Interpreting the Book of Enoch: Reections on a Recently Pub-lished Commentary, JSJ33 (2002): 43750 (esp. 44950).

35 George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.263; . Bauer, Ein viertes alt-babylonisches Fragment des Gilgame-Epos, JNES16 (1957): 25462 (esp. 256).Te name Hermon derives from a Hebrew root referring to a ban or taboo and isnot attested in other ancient Near Eastern literatures. Names such as Senir orSirion for the mountain are much more common (cf. Deut 3:9). It is not clearthat older versions of the epic situate the forest in Lebanon. See J. Hansman,Gilgamesh, Humbaba and the land of the ERIN-trees,Iraq38 (1976): 2335; J. Klein and K. Abraham, Problems of Geography in the Gilgame Epics: Te Journey to the Cedar Forest, inLandscapes: erritories, Frontiers and Horizons inthe Ancient Near East. Papers presented to the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique Inter-nationale, Venezia, 711 July 1997. Part III. Landscape in Ideology, Religion, Liter-ature and Art(ed. L. Milano et al.; Padova: Sargon, 2000), 6373; R. Arav,Hermon, Mount, ABD , 3.15860; E. Lipiski, Els Abode: Mythological ra-

ditions Related to Mount Hermon and to the Mountains of Armenia,OLP2(1971): 1369.36 Te Canaanite kings Og and Sihon, who are identied as giants in later

Judaism, are both associated with Mount Hermon in Joshua (12:45; 13:1011).In rabbinic tradition Og and Sihon are called the sons of Ahijah the son ofShemhazai, one of the leading Watchers (g. Ps-Jon.Deut 2:2; 3:11).



14/33

34 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153from Megiddo, written in the 14th c. B.C.E., if not earlier, establishesthat the text was in the region long before the composition of theBook ofGiants .37 One could conclude that knowledge of the epic entered Pales-tine in the Late Bronze Age. Although, if one adopts this position, it isdifficult to explain why there is such a large chronological gap, well over athousand years, between theBook of Giantsand the Megiddo fragment,during which Palestinian literature shows little if any direct knowledge ofGilgamesh.38 Aside from the possibility of older tradents, knowledge ofthe epic surely was brought to Palestine by Jews who returned from theeastern Diaspora. Daniel and several other Jews are taught the literatureand language of the Chaldeans (Dan 1:4). While a ctional tale, it sug-gests that its author considered it possible for at least some Jews in Baby-lon to receive such an education.Gilgameshwould have been an importanttext they would have learned.39 Even if one does not grant that the bookof Daniel implies that some Jews acquired a Babylonian education, theMurashu archive attests Jews in the fth c. B.C.E. who were immersed inthe local economy.40 Tey doubtlessly came into contact with people whohad an education in whichGilgameshwas part of the curriculum. In theexilic period, and well into the second c. B.C.E., copies of the epic were

37 George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.33947.38 L. . Stuckenbruck and K. van der oorn have expressed doubt that onecan conclude that knowledge of the epic was in Palestine in the last few centu-ries B.C.E. on the basis of the Megiddo fragment. See respectively, Giant Mythol-ogy, 33233, and Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Book of Qohelet? inVeenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of hisSixty-Fifth Birthday(ed. W.H. van Soldt et al.; Leiden: Netherlands Institute ofthe Near East, 2001), 50314 (esp. 512). R.C. van Leeuwen argues that Isa 14reects familiarity with the epic. He contends that this chapter constitutes aninversion of elements fromGilgamesh, a conscious effort to recast elementsfrom the epic in a way that unmistakably distinguishes the one group from theother. See his Isa 14:12,h lal gwymand Gilgamesh XI,6, JBL99 (1980):

17384.39 George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.3339; D.M. Carr,Writing onthe ablet of the Heart(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 1746 (esp. 41).

40 M.D. Coogan,West Semitic Personal Names in the Murash Documents(HSM 7; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976); M.W. Stolper,Entrepreneurs andEmpire: Te Murash Archive, the Murash Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia(Leiden: Brill, 1985).



15/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 35being produced.41 Knowledge ofGilgameshmay have also entered intoEarly Judaism in the Persian and/or Hellenistic periods.

Tere is not enough evidence to endorse Reeves suggestion that theauthor was working with an Aramaic copy ofGilgamesh, although thispossibility cannot be dismissed outright.42 More familiarity with the epic,in my judgment, would be required for this conclusion. TeBook ofGiantsdoes not demonstrate knowledge of core elements of the plot ofthe epic, Mesopotamian deities who are prominent inGilgamesh, such asIshtar, or other key characters such as Enkidu. A reasonable assessment isthat the author had indirect knowledge ofGilgamesh, perhaps because Jews returning from the Eastern Diaspora brought this knowledge to Pal-estine with them.43

4. Te Book of Giants an Anti-Pagan ext?

Having established that the author of theBook of Giantswas familiar withGilgameshtraditions, the question becomeswhyhe was drawing uponthem. Puech and Reeves have argued that the composition appropriatesGilgameshlore for polemic ends. mile Puech contends that theBook ofGiantswas written in response to mythological and cultic developments

in northern Syro-Palestine, especially in the region of Banias and Her-mon.44 Drawing on thePhoenician Historyby Philo of Byblos (preservedby Eusebius), Puech argues that by 200 B.C.E. cultic practices in Danand Banias promoted syncretism of Hellenistic and Phoenician myth.EusebiusPraeparatio Evangelica1.10.29 reads:

In the thirty-second year of his own assumption of royal authorityElos, i.e., Kronos, trapped his father Ouranos in a certain inland

41 Most of the available Babylonian copies of the epic are written after thedestruction of the Assyrian empire (612 B.C.E.) and attested up to the Arsacidperiod (2d1st c. B.C.E.). Te latestGilgameshtext has a colophon that dates it

to 130 B.C.E. See George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.381.42 Reeves, Jewish Lore , 120.43 Beyer, A M , 1.259, pointing to the names Gilgamesh and H obabish, sug-

gests that theBook of Giantshas a Babylonian provenance. Teir names do notcomprise sufficient evidence to support this conclusion (cf. 1Q23 13 2).

44 DJD31:1416. See also . Puech, Les songes des ls de emih azah danslelivre des Gants Qumrn,CRAIL(2000): 725.



16/33

36 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153place. He overpowered and castrated him near springs and rivers.Tere Ouranos was made an object of worship and breathed his lastand the blood from his genitals dropped into the springs and the riv-ers waters. Even now the place is shown.45

According to Puech, this text preserves knowledge of actual cultic prac-tices carried out in the vicinity of Hermon in the second c. B.C.E. TeBook of Giants , he argues, represents an effort to denounce this worship.Te Qumran text was, in his view, written by official leaders, prtres ousages de Jrusalem, who were critical of northern heterodox cults: en

situant dans cette rgion lorigine des pratiques dmoniaques, Gilgameshtant lui-mme un dieu chtonien, rgent des Enfers.46 Following this for-mulation, theBook of Giants portrayal of Gilgamesh is not polemicagainst Mesopotamian culture but rather against northern Syro-Palestin-ian traditions, one of which is Gilgamesh.47 In a similar vein, David Jack-son has suggested that theBook of Giantsis an anti-Gentile text.48 According to his reading the entire composition becomes a kind of in joke with which oppressed Jews make light of their foreign dominators.

It is not clear that Philo of Byblos preserves reliable knowledge ofUpper Galilee cults active in the second c. B.C.E.49 Even if one were to

45 Philo of Byblos account also associates mountains in this region with giants(1.10.9). In Greek tradition, as recounted by Hesiod, the giants are formed fromthe drops of blood that fell when Ouranos was castrated (Teog . 183187). SeeH.W. Attridge and R.A. Oden, Jr.,Philo of Byblos: Te Phoenician History(CBQMS 9; Washington, D.C.: Te Catholic Biblical Association of America,1981), 4143, 55.

46 DJD31:15.47 Important for this viewpoint is the Megiddo Gilgamesh fragment and the

epics placement of Humbaba in a grove in Lebanon.48 Jackson, Demonising Gilgame, 113. In particular, he stresses that the g-

ure of Gilgamesh is a veiled effort to demonize the Seleucid Empire.49 Te issue of Philo of Byblos aside, Hellenistic cultic practices were carried

out in Upper Galilee during the late Second emple period. Tis does not mean,

of course, that theBook of Giantswas written in response to them. A cult devotedto Pan at Banias near Mount Hermon was in operation in the second c. B.C.E. Writing in this century, Polybius mentions the Paneion, a cave devoted to Pan, inBanias when discussing Antiochus III, who defeated an Egyptian general in thisregion in 200 B.C.E. (16.18.2; cf. 28.1.3). Excavations conrm the sites antiq-uity. Z.U. Ma oz suggests that the worship of Pan at this site may have beenstarted by the Ptolemies in the third c. B.C.E., perhaps installed to compete with



17/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 37grant that point, to endorse Puechs argument one must take the ques-tionable position of viewing theBook of Giantsas a kind of orthodoxbook written against religious developments not in line with the views of Jerusalem officials. Te composition is normative in that it recounts theproclamation of judgment against creatures who are wicked. But onelooks in vain for other indicators that the text asserts the viewpoint of Jerusalem officials. Proper worship or ritual purity are never explicit issues.Te assertion of judgment against the giants never functions as an oppor-tunity to emphasize the sovereignity of God or that his temple is in Jeru-salem. Te text is not, it seems to me, designed to describe polemicallypolitical powers or syncretistic cults as, respectively, Jackson and Puechhave argued. Allusions to contemporary Hellenistic Phoenician worshipor foreign rulers are weak at best.50

Reeves understands theBook of Giantsto be a self-consciously anti-pagan text. He argues that the compositions appropriation of the namesGilgamesh and Humbaba represents a bold polemical thrust against therevered traditions of a rival culture, analogous to the denigration of pagandeities or idol-worship found in Jewish writings like the Book of Jubilees

and replace the worship site at Dan, which is only four kilometers away fromBanias and in use at least up to the third c. B.C.E. See his Banias, inTe NewEncyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land(ed. E. Stern; 4 vols.; Jerusalem; Te Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 1.13643 (esp. 137).

. Vassilias argues that it is an established historical fact that there was a sanc-tuary of Pan in operation at the site by the early 2d c. B.C.E. See his Te God Who Is in Dan and the Cult of Pan at Banias in the Hellenistic and Roman Peri-ods,ErIsr23 (1992): 12835 (esp. 133). Consult further S. Dar,Settlements andCult Sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean Culture in the Hellenistic and RomanPeriods(Oxford: Hadrian Books, 1993); Nickelsburg,1 Enoch 1, 23847.

Tough I do not advocate this possibility, one could speculate that the passageof Philo of Byblos cited above, which associates the castration of Ouranos witha Levantine river, can be connected to Banias with the help ofb. Sanh.98a.

Tis text states that the students of R. Jose b. Kisma ask him for a sign of theadvent of the messiah and, among other things, he responds by invoking thewaters of Banias (the headwaters of the Jordan) to turn to blood. See Ma oz,Banias, 138.

50 Additionally, the fact that the giants are not punished with banishment tothe netherworld argues against the view that theBook of Giantsportrays Gil-gamesh as, in the words of Puech, a rgent des Enfers.



18/33

38 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153or Bel and the Dragon.51 Te fact that Gilgamesh, a heroic warrior in theepic, is presented in the Qumran text as one of the wicked giants con-rms the basic contours of this thesis. An examination of the Gilgameshfragments of theBook of Giants , 4Q530 2 ii 13 and 4Q531 22, indi-cates, however, that important elements of the works portrayal of Gil-gamesh have little to do with the epic itself.

5. Gilgamesh and H obabish in the Book of Giants

5a. 4Q530 2 ii and 4Q531 22

Gilgamesh and H obabish are each attested in two passages of theBook ofGiants . Te name Gilgamesh is found in 4Q530 2 ii 2 ( and (4Q531 22 12 ( [ ) H obabish is in 4Q530 2 ii 2 ;( and ( [] 4Q203 3 3 ( 4Q530 2 ii 13, while poorly preserved, sets the .(stage for the two crucial visions of the garden and theophanic judgmentthat occur later in the column. Te pericope has not received much schol-arly attention.52 It is the only fragment of the work in which the namesGilgamesh and H obabish occur together.

4Q530 2 ii begins:

. . . concerns the death of our souls. [And] all his companions [ent]ered and [Ohy]ah told them that which Gilgamesh ( had said (to him. H [o]babish ( ) opened his mouth ( [] [and [judg (ment was pronounced against his soul. Te guilty one cursed theprinces ( and the giants rejoiced over it. He returned, he was (curs[ed and he brought a comp]laint against him. (4Q530 2 ii 13)53

51 Reeves, Jewish Lore , 126.52 Several commentators on 4Q530 2 ii, working before the critical edition of

its fragments were published, show no knowledge of the opening pericope of thereconstructed column. See, for example, Reeves, Jewish Lore , 58; Garca Mar-

tnez,Qumran and Apocalyptic , 104, Milik,Te Books of Enoch, 304; Beyer, A M , 1.264 (his G9). For the official transcription of 4Q530 2 ii, see Puech,DJD31:28. Note alsoDSSR , 3.48485.

53 Te ink on this fragment is faded in places and the leather surface is wrin-kled, making it difficult to read. Earlier transcriptions of this passage includeStuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 105; Beyer, A ME , 120. Several aspects ofthe transcription of this pericope require comment.



19/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 39Several details of this passage are obscure: (1) whatOhyah says to theother giants; (2) what H obabish does; (3) against whom judgment is pro-nounced; (4) the identity of the guilty one; (5) the identity of theprinces; (6) why the giants rejoice; (7) who returns in line 3, and if thisis the same gure who is then cursed or the one who brings a complaint.Underlying all of these questions is how the pericope functions as anoccasion for the disclosure of the visions of the garden and the theophany.

1. Te word ent]ered ([) has poor material support and is not transcribed inthe editions of Beyer and Stuckenbruck. Another word could be envisionedhere but it is a reasonable reconstruction since after this word the giants aretogether (cf. 4Q530 1 i 8, .(

2. Te word [Ohy]ah ([ [ -is not well preserved, even though all commen (tators accept this reconstruction. Another possible reconstruction is Hahyah[]) who is also prominent in 4Q530 2 ii. If one follows the placement ,(of fragments 6 and 7 in Puechs edition of this composite text, the lacuna isbetter lled with two letters than one. Tis supports the consensus view.4Q531 22, discussed below, also suggests that it isOhyah who reports to theother giants what Gilgamesh said.

3. Another important term, H obabish ( has very poor material support ,( [] (and depends on the placement of fragments 6 and 2 in relation to oneanother). Beyer and Stuckenbruck do not transcribe this name but only] .Te nal letter appears to be asamek , in support of Puechs transcription, butone must grant that this reading is obscured by a crack in the leather and inkerosion. No other name of a giant could end with these letters (in 4Q203 3 3the name of H obabish ends with ain), with Atambsh (see above) being apossible exception.

4. ranscribing the word [judg]ment([) relies on scant physical evidence.Te reading is in Puech and Stuckenbruck but not Beyer. Context supportsthis transcription. Tat someone is judged is implied by the term that follows, the guilty one. Te parallelism of , and ] [ suggests

that the giant opens his mouth to utter judgment against someone else, andthat both statements refer to the same act of uttering judgment.

5. Reading the guilty one) is complicated by ink erosion and a crack on)

the leather surface. Beyer reads and Stuckenbruck Te upperstroke of alamedthat Stuckenbruck discerns follows a crack in the leather that .travels up past line 1 and is better understood as a shadow rather than ink.

6. Regarding the phrase ] [ I tentatively follow Puech, but there is very little physical evidence upon which to base a reconstruction. Stucken-bruck does not attempt a reconstruction for these words and Beyer transcribes .]



20/33

40 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153Stuckenbruck entitles the opening section of 4Q530 Te Giants are

Reassured through Gilgamesh.54 He suggests that the giants rejoicebecause Gilgamesh has received a vision that leaves some room for hopewith regard to the fate of the giants.55 Te argument relies on an interpre-tation of 4Q531 22 12, which Stuckenbruck translates as Gi]lgamesh,tell your [d]ream ([ [] So understood, Gilgameshs 56.(vision offered a measure of hope to the giants when they were toldabout it in 4Q530 2 ii. Upon hearing of it, they celebrated. Te claimthat Gilgamesh is a visionary would provide a strong parallel to theGil- gameshepic.

I agree with Stuckenbruck that 4Q531 22 bears on the interpretationof 4Q530 2 ii, but not with his opinion that the former text depicts Gil-gamesh as a visionary.57 A key passage of 4Q531 22 reads:

[When I was mig]hty, with the powerful strength of my arm and mygreat strength, [I attacked a]ll esh and made war against them (cf.Dan 7:21). But [I was] not [strong (enough) and] I, with us, was[not] able to prevail because my accusers [are the angels who] reside[in] the [heavens] and in the holy places they encamp. [Tey were]not [wiped out because the]y are stronger than me.vacat[Behold, aroar]ing [voice] of the beasts of the eld has come and the men of theeld cry out (for) [their revenge]. (4Q531 22 39)58

54 Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 104.55 Ibid., 108.56 Ibid., 164. So also Beyer, A ME , 119. In the presentations of 4Q531 22

1112 in Reeves, Jewish Lore , 60, and Beyer, A M , 1.262, only the word Gil-gamesh is visible. See also Milik,Te Books of Enoch, 313; Garca Martnez,Qumran and Apocalyptic , 105. In Stuckenbrucks arrangement the fragment inquestion is 4Q531 17.

57 S. Dalley also understands Gilgamesh as a visionary in theBook of Giants .She briey asserts that the composition relates a dream of Gilgamesh about adivine court of judgment set in a heavenly garden with trees. See her Occasions

and Oppor-tunities. 2. Persian, Greek, and Parthian overlords, inTe Legacy of Mesopotamia(ed. S. Dalley et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 3555(esp. 43). George,Te Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic , 1.62, is justly critical of Dal-leys claim. Te vision of a garden in 4Q530 2 ii 612 is disclosed to Hahyah,not Gilgamesh.

58 For the official edition of this text, see Puech,DJD31:7478. Other tran-scriptions include Reeves, Jewish Lore , 60; Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 162;



21/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 41In response the giantOhyah claims that he has had a vision: And thenOhyah said to him my dream has oppressed [me] (l. 9).59 Consideringthis giant to be the visionary here makes sense given his prominent visionin 4Q530 2 ii.60 Ohyah replies to what the speaker of lines 37 has said.Ohyah asserts that he knowsthis knowledge pertains to his vision butwhat exactly he knows is not clear (l. 10). Puech reconstructs line 11 asthe giant saying that the judgment of the assembly will not hasten.Te Aramaic here, however, is very fragmentary and not enough evidencesurvives to endorse his reconstruction. But semantically it is a reasonablesuggestion, since the core visions of theBook of Giants , those of 4Q530 2ii, signify the judgment of the giants.61

Milik, without elaboration, asserted that the speaker in lines 37 wasthe Watcher emih azah.62 Reeves argues that the speaker is more likely a

Milik,Te Books of Enoch, 307, Beyer, A M , 1.262. With the exception ofline 8, there are no major differences in the transcriptions of this pericope inthese editions. In line 8 the important expression[ ([a roar]ing [voice) [has very little material support. A reconstruction of] is not attempted inStuckenbruck or Reeves. Beyer reads ] zur Bewachung). Milik, like) Puech, suggests] . Te transcripton of Puech makes sense on semanticgrounds. Te speaker of ll. 37 has fought against a]ll esh and he has beendefeated; it is reasonable to suppose that some sort of rebuke has been utteredagainst him (this also makes Puechs supplement at the beginning of line 9, theirrevenge, plausible). If one understands beasts of the eld and the men of theeld to be in parallelism, one would expect the subject of to be similar inmeaning to the participle modifying men, -cry out. See further Nickels ,burg,1 Enoch 1, 186.

59 Most commentators, despite avacatseparating the word Ohyah from theverb of the sentence, takeOhyah as the subject in line 9. See, for example, Stuck-enbruck,Te Book of Giants , 164; Reeves, Jewish Lore , 65; Puech,DJD31:75;Beyer, A M , 1.262. Te claim that the dream oppressed him (([ -probably means that it overwhelmed him, in the sense that at rst he did not under-stand the dream. In Dan 4:6 [v. 9 Eng] Daniels interpretative prowess is praised:No mystery overwhelms you ( .(cf. 1QapGen 2:13) (

60

Tis argues against takingOhyah as a vocative (which would make him thegiant who is told about the oppressive dream rather than the one who has it), apossibility that igchelaar has stressed (oral communication; see alsoDJD31:77).

61 He reconstructs the key phrase as[ -SeeDJD31:74. Stucken .] [bruck,Te Book of Giants , 162, offers no transcription for this part of 4Q531 22 11.

62 Milik,Te Books of Enoch, 307. So also Beyer, A M , 1.262, who calls thistext Das Gesprch des Semiasa mit seinem Sohn Uhja. Tis title is given in



22/33

42 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153giant, appealing to the tradition that the giants were arrogant (cf. 3Macc 2:4; Wis 14:6; Josephus, Ant . 1.73).63 Stuckenbruck agrees withReeves analysis but does not identify who is speaking.64 Aside fromOhyah, the only other giant named in 4Q531 22 is Gilgamesh. It is morereasonable to consider himOhyahs interlocutor, and thus the speaker oflines 37, than to insert another gure into the story. Te motif of war-fare is also compatible with the view that the speaker is a giant.

4Q531 22 as a whole should be understood as a conversation betweenGilgamesh andOhyah. For this interpretation one key issue is howline 12 should be understood. Puech reconstructs line 12 as stating TenG]ilgamesh said your [d]ream is com[plete (?). 65 So translated, Gil-gamesh is talking to someone else to whom the vision was disclosedpresumably toOhyah who speaks of a vision in lines 911. Stuckenbruck,by contrast, understands Gilgamesh as a vocative and the verb as animperative (Gi]lgamesh, tell your [d]ream). Puechs understanding ofthe line is to be preferred. 4Q530 2 ii establishes thatOhyah is a recipi-ent of visions in the composition, but there is no unambiguous evidenceelsewhere in the text that Gilgamesh receives a vision.66 Stuckenbrucks

idem, A ME , 119, as well. See also Garca Martnez,Qumran and Apocalyp-tic , 105.

63 Reeves, Jewish Lore , 118, 158. Arrogance is certainly a motif in 4Q531 2237 but this should be qualied with the observation that such condence is verymuch in the past; the speaker realizes that he was not strong enough against hisopponents. His condence has collapsed.

64 Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 16667.65 Unfortunately, it is not at all clear what Gilgamesh says aboutOhyahs

dream. Te word com[plete has extremely poor material support. Puech,DJD31:74, suggests transcribing] [. Below I argue that, while there is not enoughphysical evidence to endorse this reconstruction, semantically it is a reasonablesuggestion.

66 4Q531 46 may recount another vision ofOhyah, but the evidence is toomeager to state this conclusively. Tis suggestion is made by Puech,DJD31:93.

Portions of two lines of 4Q531 46 survive: And I,O[hyah . . .] I went up andentered he[aven. Puechs reconstruction is supported by the L fragment of theManicheanBook of Giants , which states that the giant Shm had a dream. Hecame up to heaven.Ohyah and Hahyah are at times referred to in theKawnas Shm and Narmn, respectively, who are gures from Iranian epic tradition.See further Henning, TeBook of Giants , 57; P.O. Skjrv, Iranian Epic andthe ManicheanBook of Giants . Irano-Manichaica III, ActaOrHung48 (1995):



23/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 43opinion that a vision was disclosed to Gilgamesh requires positing twovisionariesOhyah in lines 911 and Gilgamesh in line 12. Tis is pos-sible but it would be simpler to interpret line 12 not as introducing anew vision but referring to the one of lines 911. Gilgamesh statesthat he has been defeated (ll. 37), this remindsOhyah of a vision(ll. 911), and Gilgamesh then says something aboutOhyahs vision(l. 12).67 Tere is no explicit example of Gilgamesh having a dream orvision in theBook of Giants . Tis constitutes a signicant difference fromthe epic ofGilgamesh.

Te trope of 4Q531 22 that Gilgamesh despairs from his loss in com-bat has no strong parallel in theGilgameshepic. Tere the heros sorrow islegendary, but it is triggered by the death of Enkidu, not by a defeat inbattle. In the epic Gilgamesh never suffers a major loss when ghting. Hisdefeat in theBook of Giantscould be a conscious effort to reverse his vic-torious exploits in the epic. Tis possibility is weakened, however, by thefact that Gilgameshs defeat is only reported, not recounted. If it had beenimportant for the author of the Qumran text to reverse the heros statusas a victor, it is likely that more narratival focus would have been placedon his defeat.

In 4Q531 22 Gilgamesh, while his exploits probably involved othergiants, emphasizes his own defeat and an outcry against him rather than

the giants as a whole.68

Te fragment, unlike other rst person acknowl-edgments of imminent destruction in the composition, does not stressthat Gilgamesh and his plight are part of the judgment of a larger com-munity of giants or the Watchers.69 Tis realization can shed light on thestatement in 4Q530 2 ii 1 thatOhyah tells the assembled giants thatwhich Gilgamesh had said to him.Ohyah, I suggest, told the giants that

187223 (esp. 199); Sundermann, Ein weiteres Fragment, 497; Reeves, JewishLore , 121.

67 I address below the issue of identifying this vision.68

He says he was not be victorious with us (l. 5), presumably referring toother giants.69 4Q531 18 4 reads I am ruined ( and they de[stroy . . . Line 3 (

reads we, for [our] sins . . . 4Q531 23 3: I will be killed and I will die ( Te only legible expression of line 2 reads all the wicked, suggesting .( that the speaker realizes his own demise is part of a larger judgment against thewicked. In these instances the identity of the speaker can not be established.



24/33

44 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153Gilgameshalonehas been singled out for judgment.70 Gilgamesh states in4Q531 22 that he has been defeated, not that he will be judged by God.Positing thatOhyah twists what Gilgamesh told him would explain whythe giants rejoice in 4Q530 2 ii 3they (mistakenly) think that they asan entire group are not to be punished for their crimes.71 Drawing from4Q531 22 8,Ohyah may have said that Gilgamesh asserted that the ani-mals and men of the eld cried out against him.72 Te issue is not thatGilgamesh had a vision that offered hope to the giants, as Stuckenbrucksuggests. RatherOhyah attempts to turn Gilgamesh into a scape-giant.Tis in turn explains why the dreams of the garden and the theophanyfollow in 4Q530 2 ii. Tey establish that there are no grounds forthe giants to rejoice. Te visions affirm that a broader indictment hasbeen made against the giants. God sends them these visions becausetheir conduct in the beginning of 4Q530 2 ii indicates that they did not

70 Tis would mean that 4Q531 22 precedes 4Q530 2 ii in the narrativesequence of the composition, as Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 167, hassuggested. With regard to 4Q530 2 ii vis--vis 4Q531 22, the former is placedbefore the latter by Reeves, Jewish Lore , 58, 60, for whom they are QG4 andQG 9, respectively, in his arrangement of the fragments. 4Q531 22 comes before4Q530 2 ii in the sequence of Beyer, A M , 1.262, 264, for whom they are,respectively, G6 and G9. Consult also L. . Stuckenbruck, Te Sequencing ofFragments Belonging to the QumranBook of Giants : An Inquiry into the Struc-ture and Purpose of an Early Jewish Composition, JSP16 (1997): 324.

71 Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 107. 4Q530 1 i 4 asserts that those whohave been killed have made a complaint and cry out against their killers and thenline 5 states we will die together. If one takes this as chronologically prior to4Q530 2 ii, 4Q530 1 i portrays all of the giants as concerned that they will bekilled for their crimes. 4Q530 2 i + 3, if it were better preserved, could also shedlight on the mood of the giants. Line 4 mentions the counting of years (thegiants are counting the years until they are judged?). Line 6 is transcribed inDJD31:25, as Do [n]ot rejoice ( ] , Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants .( 1034, transcribes instead a]ll (?) will rejoice. Puechs reading is more ,]

likely but there is not sufficient evidence to interpret the phrase.72 In 1 En.7:6 the earth makes an accusation against the lawless ones, whoare presumably the Watchers and the giants. Cf. 8:4; 9:2; 4Q531 14 3; 4Q532 2 9;4Q533 4 1. Te themes of bloodshed on the earth and a cry for judgment reach-ing the angels are present in the recently published XQpapEnoch (1 En.8:49:3).See E. Eshel and H. Eshel, New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGenf , 4QIsa b,4Q226, 8QGen, and XQpapEnoch,DSD12 (2005): 13457 (esp. 15157).



25/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 45understand earlier visions. Major themes of this pericope, such as theactions ofOhyah against Gilgamesh, the fear ofOhyah and other giantsthat they will be destroyed, and the false hope that this fate has beenaverted, provided at Gilgameshs expense, do not have strong parallels intheGilgameshepic.

Understanding Gilgamesh as the speaker in 4Q531 22 can help explainthe obscure cursing language of 4Q530 2 ii 23. After the giants listen toOhyah, H obabish opens his mouth and judgment is pronounced againsthis soul (l. 2).73 A clear answer regarding the antecedent of his is notavailable. I propose that it is Gilgamesh who has been singled out byOhyah.74 Te phrase the death of our souls of line 1 suggests that thegiants assembled because of concerns about their fate. Anxious that theywill be punished for their crimes, they are relieved to hear that Gilgameshalone has been designated for punishment. Tey respond by cursing himand rejoicing. It is signicant that H obabish speaks out against Gil-gamesh, since this evokes the archaic trope of conict between Gilgameshand Humbaba.

In response, the guilty one cursed the princes ( .(l. 2) (If the interpretation Ive proposed is correct, the guilty one would beGilgamesh. Angered by being singled out for judgment, Gilgamesh cursesthe other giants. I agree with Stuckenbruck that the word refers to

the giants rather than human princes, although the term is admittedly notused elsewhere to denote giants.75 Human kings play no role whatsoeverin the text. In the Hebrew Bible and Ben Sira the term refers to Gentile

73 Puech,DJD31:30, proposes that H obabish roars, translating the Aphel as hurla. As he notes, this would portray him as similar to the monsterHumbaba, whose voice is the Deluge, his speech is re, his breath is death.DSSR , 3.485, translates shouted (?). See also George,Te Babylonian GilgameshEpic , 1.266.

74 Puech,DJD 31:32, tentatively suggests that the judged gure is Azazel.One could argue that another giant, perhapsOhyah, is cursed by H obabish, but

I see scant warrant for positing that he has any other giant in mind aside fromGilgamesh. One could also speculate that H obabish pronounces judgmentagainst himself, but there is no evidence in the text that would support this read-ing. Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 107, suggests that his may refer to oneof the Watchers, possibly Azazel.

75 Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 107. Te princes for him are a groupof giants that does not include Hahyah andOhyah.



26/33

46 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153kings, so the use of this word may reect the tradition that the old kingsof the land were giants.76

Tere is not enough evidence to interpret satisfactorily the statementfollowing the rejoicing of the giants which Puech reconstructs as Hereturned and he was curs[ed and he brought a comp]laint against him(4Q530 2 ii 3). With considerable hesitation, I suggest the following sce-nario. Gilgamesh is not at the assembly of giants but hears the powerfulvoice of H obabish utter judgment against him, not unlike the cry of thebeasts that has gone up against him. He then in line 2 curses the giantsand in line 3 returns to the assembly of giants, where he is cursed again,and, in response he lodges a complaint against H obabish.77 It is also pos-sible that he was present at the assembly of 4Q530 2 ii when judgmentwas spoken against him, then left (an action not mentioned in the text)and returned. Te giant bringing the complaint against Gilgamesh in line 3would likely be either H obabish orOhyah, but there is not enough evi-dence to decide which of these two.

5b. Deceit and Visions

Following the hypothesis that whatOhyah tells the giants in 4Q530 2 ii13 is based on his encounter with Gilgamesh in 4Q531 22, the vision of

Ohyah mentioned in lines 912 of this fragment cannot be the one hereceives in 4Q530 2 ii 1520. Mahaways journey to Enoch for an inter-pretation of the visions of 4Q530 2 ii isnotthe rst time the giant trav-eled to the scribe of righteousness. Te giants explain the selection ofMahaway for this task by stating because an earlier ti[me] you have heardhis voice (ll. 2223). When speaking to Enoch, Mahaway describeshis visit as his second ( request for an interpretation of a vision ((4Q530 7 ii 7; cf. 4Q203 8 3).78 Given the intent of the second visit, one

76 E.g., Deut 3:11; Num 13:33. For the word used for Gentile kings, see Ps 2:2; Isa 40:23; Prov 8:15; Sir 44:4 (cf. Prov 14:28; 31:4).

77

Following Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 105, and Puech,DJD31:30, Iregard can mean again but .as a nite verb phrase, And he returned since the word immediately precedes awawplus nite verb (( [ -I under , stand in a similar way. Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 106, understands the subject of to beOhyah. I see little justication for this view, although it isa possible option.

78 DJD31:38. Despite its fragmentary nature, 4Q530 7 ii appears to contain



27/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 47can reasonably assume that the purpose of the rst was to seek an inter-pretation of a vision.

Te vision mentioned in 4Q531 22 912 is probably recorded in2Q26, and this is likely the subject of Mahaways rst visit to Enoch.79 Tis poorly preserved fragment mentions a tablet which is submerged inwater so that it may be effaced ( [ l. 1).80 Te waters rise above it) ((l. 2) and it is then lifted from the waters (l. 3). No extant word in 2Q26describes it as a vision but it has been reasonably understood in this way.81 Later texts that contain traditions attested in theBook of Giantsdescribe avision of an erased tablet.82 In Te Midrash of emh azai and Aza el theangel emh azai has two sons, Heyya ( ) and Aheyya ( ) Tenames correspond, respectively, to the brothers Hahyah 83.( and (Ohyah ( of the QumranBook of Giants . Heyya and Aheyya each (have a vision. One is of a at stone like a table on the earth, the writingupon which is erased by angel (except for four words) and the other is ofa garden that is destroyed, except for a tree with three branches.84 A vari-ant of this pair of visions is attested in the Middle PersianKawn, frg. j.85

a request for interpretation of the dreams of 4Q530 2 ii. Tis is suggested by theadmittedly poorly preserved word ] gar]deners in line 11. Hahyahs dream ,in 4Q530 2 ii includes gardeners, who water the trees of the garden (ll. 78). SeeReeves, Jewish Lore , 9596.79 DJD36:7375. Tis text was originally published in M. Baillet et al.,DJD3:9091.

80 Te key word wash ( has been understood as a perfect (Milik,Te (Books of Enoch, 335) and as an imperative (Beyer, A M , 1.266; Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 64; idem,DJD36:74).

81 Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 66. Beyer, A M , 1.266, argues that thistext describes the destruction of the Watchers and the giants.

82 Te affinities of these later texts to 2Q26 indicate that the fragment isreasonably considered part of the QumranBook of Giants , contraReeves, JewishLore , 51, who does not include it in his analysis of the composition.

83 Tis is according to the Oxford Bodleian manuscript version of the text

(the B text). See further Milik,Te Books of Enoch, 32129; M. Gaster,TeChronicles of Jerahmeel Or, Te Hebrew Bible Historiale(Whitesh, Mont.: Kes-singer Publishing, 2007) 5254; Stuckenbruck,DJD36:7475; Garca Martnez,Qumran and Apocalyptic , 101.

84 Teir father emh azai interprets them to mean that God is about to bring aood. See Reeves, Jewish Lore , 8688.

85 Tis fragment states that atxtgthrew something (or was thrown) in the



28/33

48 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153Te second vision inTe Midrash of emh azai and Aza elcorresponds toHahyahs vision of a garden that is destroyed (except for a tree with threebranches) in 4Q530 2 ii. Te best analogue in theBook of Giantsfor theother vision in this midrashic text is the submerged tablet of 2Q26.Te Midrash of emh azai and Aza el does not say which brother has whichdream, but on the basis of 4Q530 2 ii one can posit that in the latermidrash Heyya has the vision of the garden. Tis would mean that Aheyya has the vision of the stone tablet. Tus one can infer that 2Q26contains remnants of a vision of a tablet disclosed toOhyah.

Milik interpreted 2Q26 as referring to two tablets, one representingthe sinking of the wicked generation in the ood, the second the boardof salvation, the ark of Noah and his three sons.86 Multiple tablets, how-ever, are not explicit in the text and there is no clear warrant in the text toassert that it mentioned more than one.87 But Milik was right to thinkthat there are positive and negative elements in the vision. In the vision ofthe at stone inTe Midrash of emh azai and Aza el , the tablet is erasedbut not entirely, since an angel scrapes away the writing except for oneline with four words. Tis is reasonably interpreted as signifying thedestruction caused by the ood, which will wipe out most but not all ofhumankind. Te tablet of 2Q26, which is submerged and then liftedfrom the waters, can be understood along similar lines.88 Tis interpreta-

tion is supported by the vision of the garden in 4Q530 2 ii, all the treesof which are obliterated except for one with three shoots, which is, asmentioned above, probably a reference to Noah and his three sons. 2Q26is plausibly interpreted as a vision that foretold the destruction of all or

water. Soon after this the giant Narmn (= Hahyah) sees a garden with rows oftrees. Henning, TeBook of Giants , 60, notes that the Persian wordtxtgmaymean board. Milik,Te Books of Enoch, 334, argues that this must be the caseon the basis of 2Q26. Miliks suggestion is endorsed by Sundermann, Ein weit-eres Fragment, 492. See also Henning, TeBook of Giants , 57, 60.

86 Milik,Te Books of Enoch, 335.87

.the tablet) occurs four times in four partially preserved lines, alwaysin the singular. Te term also occurs in 1Q23 31 2, again in the singular) 88 Tis is also suggested by 4Q203 8, in which a proclamation of judgment

written by Enoch is read out to the giants from a tablet (cf. 4Q203 7b). See A.A.Orlov, Overshadowed by Enochs Greatness: wo ablets raditions from theBook of Giantsto Palaea Historica , inFrom Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysti-cism, 10931.



29/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 49most of the giants in the ood.89 No other vision in theBook of Giantscanbe better understood as the topic of Mahaways rst trip to Enoch thanthat of 2Q26.

2Q26, so interpreted, provides a context forOhyahs actions in 4Q5302 ii and 4Q531 22. WhenOhyah learns about Gilgameshs defeat, heresponds by speaking of a vision that probably signies the destruction ofall or most of the giants in the ood.90 Tis would not be a cause for cele-bration among the giants. Identifying the vision ofOhyah in 4Q531 22912 explains why he stresses in 4Q530 2 ii 13what Gilgamesh saidwhile omitting a key part of the conversationthe vision he himselfmentioned to Gilgamesh.Ohyah does not tell an outright lie but isdeceitful regarding what he tells the other giants about his conversationwith Gilgamesh. He emphasizes what Gilgamesh said, construed to theeffect that he alone has been defeated. Te effect ofOhyahs spin is tomake it appear that only Gilgamesh is to be punished. Tere is no reasonto think that he was successful in his bid to plant blame on Gilgamesh.Tis scape-giant role of Gilgamesh and his interactions withOhyahhave no parallel in the epic ofGilgamesh.

wo items support the claim thatOhyah dishonestly attempts to place judgment on Gilgamesh alone. One is the theme of deceit in theBook ofGiantsand the second regards internecine strife betweenOhyah and

other giants. First, one of the stated crimes of the giants is deceit. 4Q5334, which refers to the ood in line 3 ( contains the following in ,( lines 12: to de]ceive ( ] [upon] the earth all which . . . [blood] (was poured and lies ( they were s[peaking (cf. 4Q530 20 1).91 Tis (preserves two charges raised against the giants that are associated with the

89 Line 4 of 2Q26 is very poorly preserved and may read for them all ( ;Tis reading is in Stuckenbruck,DJD36:74; idem,Te Book of Giants , 64 .(Beyer, A M , 1.266, but there is not enough material evidence to endorse thetranscription. If one grants this reading, it may refer to the destruction of allthe giants. A later Jewish tradition posits that at least some of the giants survivedthe ood. See further Stuckenbruck, Te Angels and Giants of Genesis 6:14,

358; idem,Te Book of Giants , 38.90 Tis supports the reconstruction of 4Q531 22 12 of Puech,DJD31:74:your [d]ream is com[plete (?).

91 DJD31:110. Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 189, gives essentially thesame transcription but classies the fragment in question as 4Q556 6. Milik,TeBooks of Enoch, 237, transcribes ] (to examine). See also Beyer, A M ,1.260.



30/33

50 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153oodmurder and deceit.92 Te era of the giants is characterized bydeceit in1 Enochand other Early Jewish texts.93

Te thesis thatOhyah engaged in deceit at the expense of Gilgamesh isalso supported by 6Q8 1 (cf. 1Q23 29).94 Tis fragment contains rem-nants of an altercation betweenOhyah and Mahaway.95 Line 2 establishesthat the former giant is speaking to the latter. Line 3 has the statementWho has shown you everything? Line 4 reads Baraqel my father was

92 Both of these topics may be in the text Milik identied as 4Q206 3, butthe transcription of the core passage is in dispute. According to Stuckenbruck,DJD36:46, 4Q206 3 i 6 mentions the shedding of blood ( ) andline 7 is too fragmentary to yield a transcription. See also idem,Te Book ofGiants , 195. Beyer and Puech, however, transcribe in line 7 the phrase[ [ they were deceitful (cf. 4Q533 4). See, respectively, A , M , 1.260, andDJD31:111. Puech calls the text in question 4Q206a 1 (Miliks 4Q206 3) todistinguish the fragment from Miliks reconstruction. Milik,Te Books of Enoch,237, as part of his thesis that theBook of Giantswas the second book of an Eno-chic Pentateuch, placed 4Q206 2 and 3 just after the end of theBook of theWatchers(or the Aramaic material that preserves the nal material available inWatchers , 4QEne 1 xxvii). Tus he understood these two fragments as comprisingthe beginning of theBook of Giants . See further E.J.C. igchelaar, Notes onFragments of 4Q206/206a, 4Q203204, and wo Unpublished Fragments(4Q59?), Meghillot56 (2007) (= Dimant volume): *187*199.

93 In the Apocalypse of Weeks , the second week is the era of the ood: therewill arise a second week, in which deceit and violence ( will spring (up, and in it will be the rst end, and in it a man will be saved (Noah) (1 En.93:4; 4QEng 1 iii 25). Te word is prominent in the biblical ood story (Gen 6:11, 13).Second Baruch56, while it does not mention the giants speci-cally, characterizes the time of the Watchers and giants as one of deceit (vv. 2,1113; cf.Sib. Or.1.177178). See Reeves, Jewish Lore , 7778; Nickelsburg,1 Enoch 1, 443; Milik,Te Books of Enoch, 264; K. Koch, History as a Battleeldof wo Antagonistic Powers in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in the Rule of theCommunity, inEnoch and Qumran Origins(ed. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2005), 18599 (esp. 192).94 DJD36:7880. Tis is a re-edition; the fragment was originally publishedin DJD3:11619. See also Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 196200; Beyer, A M , 1.262; . Puech, Les Fragments 1 3 duLivre des Gantsde la grotte 6( pap6Q8 ),RevQ19/74 (1999): 22738.

95 Commentators have observed that there is a conict between these twogiants. See Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 199; Reeves, Jewish Lore , 107.



31/33

M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153 51with me. Tis is a claim uttered by Mahaway in response toOhyah.96 Te statement seems to be uttered in light of line 3Who has shownyou everything?Ohyah is apparently questioning Mahaways account ofhis journey to Enoch. Either disputing that Mahaway went to Enoch orquestioning the value of what Mahaway learned from him,Ohyah inter-rupts him: Mahaway had not []nished [te]lling what [Enoch had shownhim . . . andOhyah answered and said to] him, I have heard of fou[r]wonders! If [a] barren [?] [woman] were to give birth . . . (ll. 56; cf. Jub.37:2023).97 Ohyahs statement is not fully preserved, but he seems toassert that he, not Mahaway, possesses access to divine knowledge.Ohyah

96 4Q530 7 ii, however, gives no indication that Mahaway journeyed to Enochaccompanied by his father. It is possible that Mahaway is lying in 6Q8 1 4 inresponse to the hostile questioning ofOhyah. Baraqel is the ninth Watcher men-tioned in1 En.6:7 (cf. 4QEna 1 iii 8). In a Uighr version of the ManicheanBookof Giants , the son of Virogdad is associated with making a great journey toEnoch, as Mahaway does in 4Q530 7 ii. In fragment c of theKawnMahawayappears to state that Virogdad is his father. Virogdad means from lightning [itis] given, and thus approximates the meaning of Baraqel (lightning of God).In the Midrash of emh azai and Aza el the father of Heyya and Aheyya isemh azai. While no surviving portion of the QumranBook of Giantsstates so, itis reasonable to assume that the father of the brothersOhyah and Hahyah isemih azah, not Baraqel. See further W.B. Henning, Neue Materialien zurGeschichte des Manichismus, ZDMG90 (1936): 118 (esp. 4); idem, TeBook of Giants , 60, 65; Stuckenbruck,Te Book of Giants , 198; Puech, Les Frag-ments 1 3, 231.

97 Te term barren (( [ is very difficult to decipher and cannot be taken as a conclusive reading. Te word four follows the transcription[ [ ofPuech, Les Fragments 1 3, 230. Most commentators follow Milik,Te Booksof Enoch, 300, who transcribes ,behold. See, for example, Stuckenbruck ,DJD36:78; Reeves, Jewish Lore , 59; Beyer, A M , 1.262. Baillet,DJD3:117,did not offer a transcription for the term in dispute. I follow Puech because onthe photograph there is a bottom hook on the nal visible letter of the disputedword that one would nd in abetnot awaw . Also the space between the word in

question and the next allows for an additional letter after the last visible traces. Ineither reading, there is not enough material to interpret sufficiently whatOhyahsays to Mahaway.

According to Stuckenbrucks reconstruction of 6Q8 1 5, Mahaway is inter-rupted when saying what Baraqel had shown him. But 4Q530 7 ii establishesthat Mahaway travels to get knowledge from Enoch, not Baraqel. See also idem,Te Book of Giants , 197.



32/33

52 M. Goff / Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009) 2153certainly does not want to hear about what Mahaway learned fromEnoch.98 Tis ts perfectly with the understanding ofOhyahs conductsketched above. He would not have been happy to learn from Mahawaythat Enoch has interpreted a vision to signify that most or all of the giantsare to perish in the ood.

6. Conclusion

Tere are thematic similarities between theGilgameshepic and theBookof Giants . Both are set in deep antiquity and contain a character namedGilgamesh who is a gigantic warrior. Dreams are a major theme in bothcompositions. Gilgamesh in theBook of Giantsis a wicked gure, like thegiants in general, whereas in the epic Gilgamesh is a hero and reveredking. Te Gilgamesh of the Qumran text loses his battle against humansand angels in 4Q531 22, and in the literary epic he is victorious in com-bat against Humbaba. Such contrasts suggest not only a degree of knowl-edge of the Mesopotamian epic on the part of the Qumran texts author,but also that there is a polemical edge in his adaptation of motifs fromthis epic, as Reeves has stressed. Te present article suggests this realiza-tion should be qualied by two points.

(1) Core elements of the epic have no analogue in theBook of Giants .In the Qumran text Gilgamesh is not a king and has no friend who couldbe compared to Enkidu. H obabish never guards a forest and there is nogrand battle between him and Gilgamesh. Other giants such asOhyahand Mahaway are more prominent in the composition than Gilgameshand H obabish. Te knowledge of the author of theBook of Giantsofthe Gilgamesh epic does not seem to be informed by an Aramaic text ofGilgameshwhich the author consults and polemically reworks, as Reevesproposes. Te authors familiarity with the epic is better attributed toindirect knowledge of Mesopotamian legends regarding the gure ofGilgamesh.

98 A Sogdian fragment of the ManicheanBook of Giants(Henning frg. C)attests an account of the giant Shm (=Ohyah) attempting to kill Mahaway.Strife among the giants is also attested in frg. j of theKawn: Tereupon thegiants began to kill each other and [to abduct their wives]. See Henning, TeBook of Giants , 60, 66. Also note 4Q530 5 1, which may refer toOhyah: hisbrother [will ru]le ov[er . . . ( [[ .(

DSD 16