The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions 0800699785, 9780800699789

Citation preview

The Watchers: whence and whither?­—

CONTENTS Introduction—The Editors

Mesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions—Ida Fröhlich The Watchers Traditions and Gen 6:1-4 (MT and LXX)—Christopher Seeman Symbolic Resistance in the Book of the Watchers­— Anathea Portier-Young

Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles— Eric F. Mason Because of the Angels: Paul and the Enochic Traditions—Scott M. Lewis, S.J. The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6-16: The Fall of the Angels and the Rise of Demons— Kevin Sullivan

The Watchers Traditions in Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse—Karina Martin Hogan The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Jubilees— John C. Endres, S.J. Watchers Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls— Samuel Thomas The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch’s Book of Parables—Leslie Baynes III. Reception in Early Christianity and Early Judaism The Descent of the Watchers and Its Aftermath According to Justin Martyr—Randall D. Chesnutt Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in The Life of Adam and Eve—Silviu Bunta The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash—Joshua Ezra Burns

Angela Kim Harkins is associate professor of religious studies at Fairfield University in Connecticut and in the Center for Judaic Studies. Kelley Coblentz Bautch is associate professor of religious studies, St. Edward’s University. John C. Endres, S.J. is professor of sacred scripture at the Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University.

RELIGION / EARLY JUDAISM

in Jewish and Christian Tradititions

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature—T. J. Jeremy Corley

II. Second Temple Developments

The Watchers

I. Origins and Biblical Discussions of the Fallen Angels

Harkins | Bautch | Endres

At the origin of the Watchers tradition is the single enigmatic reference in Genesis 6 to the “sons of God” who had intercourse with human women, producing a race of giants upon the earth. That verse sparked a wealth of cosmological and theological speculation in early Judaism. In The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions, leading scholars explore the contours of the Watchers traditions through history, tracing their development through the Enoch literature, Jubilees, and other early Jewish and Christian writings. This volume, edited by Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres, S.J., provides a lucid survey of current knowledge and interpretation of one of the most intriguing theological motifs of the Second Temple period.

The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres, S.J., Editors

THE WATCHERS IN JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS

THE WATCHERS IN JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS Y ANGELA KIM HARKINS, KELLEY COBLENTZ BAUTCH, AND JOHN C. ENDRES S.J., EDITORS

Fortress Press Minneapolis

THE WATCHERS IN JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS Copyright © 2014 Fortress Press. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Visit http://www.augsburgfortress.org/copyrights/ or write to Permissions, Augsburg Fortress, Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440. Chapter 3 is excerpted and adapted from Anathea Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 11-23, with the kind permission of the publisher. Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Cover image: Scala / Art Resource, NY Cover design: Tory Herman Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available Print ISBN: 978-0-8006-9978-9 eBook ISBN: 978-1-4514-6513-6 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z329.48-1984. Manufactured in the U.S.A. This book was produced using PressBooks.com, and PDF rendering was done by PrinceXML.

For those who participated in the Scripture in Early Judaism and Early Christianity Continuing Seminar and Task Force, which met from 2008-2012 at the annual meetings of the Catholic Biblical Association.

CONTENTS

Abbreviations Introduction

ix 1

Part I. Origins and Biblical Discussions of the Fallen Angels 1.

Mesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions Ida Fröhlich

11

2.

The Watchers Traditions and Gen 6:1-4 (MT and LXX) Chris Seeman

25

3.

Symbolic Resistance in the Book of the Watchers Anathea Portier-Young

39

4.

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature Jeremy Corley

51

5.

Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles Eric F. Mason

69

6.

‘Because of the Angels’: Paul and the Enochic Traditions Scott M. Lewis, S.J.

81

7.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6–16: The Fall of Angels and the Rise of Demons Kevin Sullivan

91

Part II. Second Temple Developments 8.

The Watchers Traditions in the Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse Karina Martin Hogan

107

9.

The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Jubilees John C. Endres, S.J.

121

vii

10. Watchers Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls Samuel Thomas

137

11. The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch’s Book of Parables Leslie Baynes

151

Part III. Reception in Early Christianity and Early Judaism 12. The Descent of the Watchers and its Aftermath According to Justin Martyr Randall D. Chesnutt

167

13. Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in the Life of Adam and Eve Silviu N. Bunta

181

14. The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash Joshua Ezra Burns

199

Index of Names Index of Biblical References and Ancient Literature

217 223

viii

Abbreviations Periodicals and Series AB Anchor Bible ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D.N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AnBib Analecta Biblica ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neuren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972. AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AAWG.PH Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Philologische-Historische Klasse ASNU Acta Seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis BDB Brown, F., S.R. Driver, and C.A Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907. BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BJS Brown Judaic Studies BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CBR Currents in Biblical Research CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Edited by I.B. Chabot et al. Paris, 1903– DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

ix

x | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

DCLY Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DRev Downside Review DSD Dead Sea Discoveries EJL Early Judaism and its Literature FO Folia Orientalia GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies HCS Hellenistic Culture and Society HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IOS Israel Oriental Studies JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JRH Journal of Religious History JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Supplement Series JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series JTS Journal of Theological Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library MHUC Monographs of the Hebrew Union College NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers NTS New Testament Studies NTT Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, 1983, 1985.

Abbreviations | xi

PG Patrologia graeca [= Patrologiae cursus completes: Series graeca]. Edited by J.P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. PL Patrologia latina [= Patrologiae cursus completes: Series latina]. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864. RB Revue biblique RevQ Revue de Qumran RSR Recherches de science religieuse SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism Literature SDSSRL Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature SJS Sanhedrin Jewish Studies SNTSM SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SSA SSAW W.PH Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig; PhilologischHistorische Klass ST Studia theologica STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica TANZ Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–1976. TJ Trinity Journal TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum TZ Theologische Zeitschrift VC Vigiliae christianae WBC Word Biblical Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Mongraphien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZA ZAW W Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Pseudepigrapha 1 En. 1 Enoch 2 En. 2 Enoch

(Ethiopic Book of Enoch) (Slavonic Book of Enoch)

xii | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

3 En. 3 Enoch (Hebrew Book of Enoch) Jub. Book of Jubilees LAE Life of Adam and Eve Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles T. Ab Testament of Abraham T. Job Testament of Job T. Levi Testament of Levi T. Moses Testament of Moses T. Reu Testament of Reuben

Mishnah, Talmud, and Related Literature b. Ab. Zar Avodah Zarah b. Ḥag Ḥagigah b. N Nid. id. Niddah b. Šabb Šabbat b. Soṭ Soṭah b. Yeb. Yebamot Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah Targ arg.. P Ps.-J. s.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

Early Jewish and Christian Writings Adv. haer. AdvMarc Ant.

Conf onf.. Cor orona ona Dial.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Tertullian, Against Marcion Josephus, Jewish Antiquities

Philo, De confusione linguarum Tertullian, De Corona Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho

Gig Gig.. Philo, De gigantibus Hist. Eccl. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastics Opif Opif..

Philo, De opificio mundi

Or Orat. at. Tertullian, De Oratione Ps.-Clem. H Hom. om. Pseudo-Clementines Homilies Q.G.

Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin

Tract. ep. Jo Augustine, Tractates on the First Epistle of John Tri. T Trrac. Tripartite Tractate

Abbreviations | xiii

War Josephus, Jewish War

Other Greek and Roman Literature Arg Argon on. Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica PV Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound

Introduction The proliferation of traditions associated with angels in Second Temple and late antique Judaism and Christianity is well known by the scholars and students of the texts associated with these periods. Especially striking are the numerous writings that take up various aspects of the myths about angels who descend from heaven to mate with women—an account only briefly mentioned in Gen. 6:1-4. In an enigmatic sequence of events, the “sons of God” leave heaven and sire the “warriors” (‫ )הגברים‬and “men of renown” (‫ )אנשי השם‬with earthly women (Gen 6:4). This succinct story in Genesis stands in contrast to the many traditions that circulated in the Second Temple period that elaborated upon the angels themselves, their deeds on earth, and their divine chastisement. These interpretive traditions make frequent reference to the angels who descend to earth as “Watchers” (in Aramaic, ‫ עירין‬or in Greek, ἐγρήγοροι), and their union with mortals has grave consequences. Well-known stories about fallen angels were engaged either directly or indirectly by much of the literature of this period. Diverse communities of Jews and Christians expanded upon, reacted against, and appropriated the varied traditions concerning the Watchers and their fall from heaven. Their wide reach is demonstrated by the currents that run through later Jewish mystical traditions, the Qur’an, medieval Christianity, and even seventeenth-century Western writers. While scholars have traditionally sought to study Judaism and Christianity in antiquity by separating and isolating aspects of each religion as distinct from one another and from various other cultural influences, it is clear that memorable stories like the ones associated with the Watchers moved easily among religious communities. These stories about the fallen angels, known especially from Second Temple Jewish traditions, contain many elements from even older myths of the Near East. Narrative traditions about angels circulated in ways that defy scholarly attempts to isolate and segregate them in an orderly manner. Indeed, stories about heavenly beings descending to earth and falling in love with humans, along with the theme of the origin of evil and cosmic battles between good and evil, continue to entertain popular audiences, both religious and secular, to this day.1 Interpretive traditions did not circulate in predictable and tidy ways in antiquity; nevertheless, the contributors 1. New York Times bestsellers by Anne Rice, Memnoch the Devil: The Vampire Chronicles (New York: Knopf, 1995), and Danielle Trussoni, Angelology (New York: Viking, 2010), along with the movie

1

2 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

in this volume take up the challenge of providing historical contexts for these texts, realizing that anchoring them in this way artificially freezes the dynamic movement of traditions. The present volume seeks to complement what is a rapidly growing body of studies on the fallen angels traditions.2 Building on the insights of recent scholarship on the Watchers, the fourteen essays in this collection examine a range of topics surrounding these traditions and sharpen scholarly understandings of their transmission and transformation in various literary contexts throughout history.

Legion (2010), are but a few recent examples of the lasting hold that these ancient myths have on the modern imagination. 2. Some of these works include the collection of essays edited by F. Reiterer, T. Nicklas, K. Schöpflin, The Concept of Celestial Beings: Origins, Development and Reception, DCLY (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007) and the stimulating monograph by Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). A significant volume that examines how otherworldly beings rebelled against the divine was edited by Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Fall of the Angels (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Two other resources associated with the Watchers traditions also merit mention. The first, Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan Literature by Rabbi Leo Jung, appeared initially as a Jewish Quarterly Review article that in its revised and expanded form was published by Ktav in 1926 (and reprinted in 1974). Jung approaches the topic of “fallen angels” more generally, and explores especially traditions that involve Satan (and to a lesser extent Samael, Asmedei and other accounts where a single malevolent otherworldy being predominates); the Watchers account is discussed in the final chapter of Jung’s book. James C. VanderKam’s seminal survey of the Watchers traditions in various early Christian writings, “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, CRINT 3.4, ed. James VanderKam and William Adler (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996) 33–101, esp. 60–88, like that of H.J. Lawlor, “Early Citations from the Book of Enoch,” The Journal of Philology 25 (1897): 164–225, helps scholars follow the trajectory, growth and development of watchers traditions among early Christians. Contemporary scholarship on the Watchers traditions in Enochic literature is benefited especially by the publication of the Hermeneia commentaries on 1 Enoch (George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001]) and Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012); Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). Other important studies that illumine especially Watchers traditions in early Enoch literature include D. Dimant, “The Fallen Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Books Related to Them,” PhD diss. (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1974) (Hebrew), Siam Bhayro, The Shemihazah and Asael Narrative of 1 Enoch 6–11: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary with Reference to Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Antecedents, AOAT 322 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005), Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature, WUNT 2.198 (Mohr Siebeck, 2005) and Claudia Losekam, Die Sünde der Engel: Die Engelfalltradition in frühjüdischen und gnostischen Texten, TANZ 41 (Tübingen: Francke, 2010).

Introduction | 3

While traditions about the fallen angels flourished in pre-modern times, few resources exist for students of the Bible and non-specialists in Second Temple Judaism to consult today. Thus the primary purpose of this collection is to provide convenient access to the myriad ways myths about the fallen angels left their mark in the literature and imagination of ancient Jewish and Christian communities. To this end, the collection serves to guide educated non-specialists in an exploration of many primary texts and also offers some discussion of the influence that each vantage had on later traditions as well. The topos of the fallen angels makes for an ideal study of interpretive traditions because these figures appear in a broad range of texts from various periods, providing a useful window into ancient practices of interpretation and transmission of traditions. Where should one begin a study of the fallen angels or the Watchers? Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible would think especially of Genesis 6, which describes the “sons of God” who descend to earth just prior to the account of the flood. Yet, given the opaque nature of this pericope, readers of Genesis rightly ask what the author and audience assumed or took for granted about this account. Further, scholars have also explored the biblical account in light of Near Eastern and Hellenistic parallels, with the aim of shedding light on this brief and provocative text.3 Extended traditions about angels who “fall,” not only in terms of a descent from heaven but also as a sort of moral failing, flourished in post-exilic Judaism. Writings associated with the patriarch Enoch (cf. Gen. 5:21-24) provide the fullest expression of the fallen angels tradition. The classical form of the account appears in the Book of the Watchers, chapters 1–36 of 1 Enoch (also known as Ethiopic Enoch because the entire anthology is extant only in Ge‛ez), where angels, both loyal and rebellious, are referred to by the designation “Watchers” (‫)עירין‬.4 The designation “Watchers” may derive from the notion that angels are vigilant (or “awake” per the root ‫ )עור‬and do not sleep (cf. 1 En. 71:7). Or, 3. See, for example, Ronald Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4,” JBL 106 (1987): 13–26 and “The Nephilim were on the Earth: Genesis 6:1-4 and its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” The Fall of the Angels, 11–34; Jan Bremmer, “Remember the Titans!” in The Fall of the Angels, 35–61 and Andreas Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar- und theologiegeschichtliche Diskurs der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11) (Zürich: Theologischer, 2006), 222–32 and “The Divine-Human Marriages (Genesis 6:1–4) and the Greek Framing of the Primeval History,” TZ 65 (2009): 116–28. 4. For examples of the designation in Aramaic (‫)עירין‬, see 4Q206 4, 19; 1 En. 22:6 and Dan. 4:10, 14, 20; the Greek expression, ἐγρήγοροι, which renders ‫עירין‬, may be observed in Gr. 1 En. 10:7 and the Ge‘ez teguhān occurs in 1 En. 1:5.

4 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

the title might indicate that these beings keep watch over humankind (see, for example, 1 En. 20:1).5 Whatever the origin of the term, the Watchers appear in early Jewish literature as a type of celestial being, likely a particular class of angels.6 The Book of the Watchers presents in dramatic fashion the descent of angels (designated also in the versions as “Watchers, sons of heaven”) to earth, how their descent negatively impacts humans and the earth, and their punishment by the Divine. The nucleus of the account (1 En. 6–11) offers in its final form the merging of two different stories that concern angelic leaders and their transgressions. In one stream, the leader of the angels, Shemihazah, instigates other angels to have sexual relations with human women. These unions lead to the birth of the Giants that subsequently cause much bloodshed and violence on earth. The other interwoven tradition features the angelic leader Asael, who reveals knowledge otherwise forbidden to human beings. This knowledge relates to sexuality, metalworking, makeup, weaponry, alchemy, magic, and astrology. Archangels play a role in calling God’s attention to the dire situation of the world and in asking for divine intervention. God’s response involves not only judgment against the Watchers, but also their imprisonment and punishment, which are recounted in detail. Enoch, here presented as a scribe, serves as an intercessor for these rebel angels. In that role, Enoch ascends to the Divine, to the heavenly throne room, where he receives God’s judgment against the angels. Thereafter, Enoch is granted visions of otherworldly sites, some of which relate to the angels’ incarceration and judgment. Scholars have long explored the relationship of the tradition described in 1 En. 6–11 to the tradition in Gen. 6:1-4, though there is no absolute consensus as to how that relationship might be named. In the last fifty years, scholars have tended to favor the idea that the Book of the Watchers depends on the account in Gen. 6:1-4; still, some prominent dissidents have argued that Genesis features an abbreviated account of the Enochic version. Recently a growing number of voices have suggested that both Genesis and the Book of the Watchers feature independent renderings of a common tradition; nevertheless, the Watchers traditions were hardly univocal. Many of the texts surveyed in the volume speak to the pluriform nature of the Watchers traditions. For example, references to 5. Helpful studies on the designation and this class of celestial beings include Robert Murray, “The Origin of Aramaic῾ir, Angel,” Or 53 (1984): 303–17, Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 140 and Maxwell J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran, JSPSup 11 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 38–39. 6. For further discussion of the Watchers as a class of angelic beings, see Kevin Sullivan, “The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6–16: The Fall of Angels and the Rise of Demons” in this volume.

Introduction | 5

the Watchers appear in Dan. 4, but these beings are not associated with rebel angels who sin with the daughters of men; rather, they are presented as “holy” celestial beings who serve as licit messengers. Similarly, accounts of angels who descend to teach and representations of biblical personae as Giants—the wicked offspring of the rebel angels in many Watchers traditions—suggest that there were multiple views of angelic descent and hybridity. At this juncture, we recognize that there is much yet that we do not know about Watchers myths and attempts to gain a clear account of origins are not always fruitful. Nevertheless, there is a value in beginning our discussion with the traditions that are known to be the most ancient. In light of the critical scholarship that has demonstrated connections and points of contact between many early Watchers and Near Eastern traditions, the volume opens with a discussion of the Watchers within a Near Eastern context. Ida Fröhlich establishes the broad currency of the antecedent Watchers traditions in the ancient lore of Mesopotamia and Persia. She proposes that these angelic myths were introduced into Jewish interpretive traditions in the sixth century bce, during the time of the Babylonian exile. Her essay provides an important study of the vitality of the long-lived traditions about angels and demons that circulated in the ancient Near East and contributed characteristic elements to the Watchers lore. While myths about the fallen angels (the angels who mate with women) held sway over the imagination of various Jewish and Christian communities for some time, elements of these traditions receive only fleeting mention in the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps the most striking reference to the Watchers appears in the apocalyptic Book of Daniel. In Dan. 4, the Watchers are the celestial beings who bear nighttime visions to King Nebuchadnezzar (NRSV Dan. 4:13, 23; MT Dan. 4:10, 20). They are also said to sentence decrees (NRSV Dan. 4:17; MT Dan. 4:14).7 Brief references to the “Nephilim,” familiar from Genesis 6 and the Enoch traditions about the Watchers, are also found in the Book of Numbers and the Book of Ezekiel. In Numbers, the mysterious Giants make 7. The relationship of Danielic and Enochic traditions has also been explored by scholars who have long noted similarities in the throne visions of Dan. 7 and 1 En. 14. See T. Francis Glasson, “The Son of Man Imagery: Enoch XIV and Daniel VII,” NTS 23 (1977): 82–91; Helge S. Kvanvig, “Henoch und der Menschensohn. Das Verhältnis von Hen 14 zu Dan 7,” ST 38 (1984): 101–33; Kvanvig, “Throne Visions and Monsters: The Encounter between Danielic and Enochic Traditions,” ZAW 117 (2005): 249–72; Loren Stuckenbruck, “Daniel and Early Enoch Traditions in the Scrolls,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, vol. 2, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 368–86; Ryan Stokes, “The Throne Visions of Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 14, and the Qumran Book of Giants (4Q530): An Analysis of Their Literary Relationship,” DSD 15 (2008): 340–58.

6 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

a fleeting appearance in the reconnaissance mission of the Israelites in the land under the leadership of Joshua the son of Nun (Num. 13:33). According to the Book of Ezekiel, the “Nephilim” are the fallen soldiers who go down to Sheol (Ezek. 32:27). There may be yet another brief biblical reference that can be associated with the Watchers traditions: Leviticus 16 refers to a wilderness spirit known as Azazel who receives the goat in the scapegoat ritual.8 The Dead Sea Scrolls also know of an Azazel (4Q180) who, along with the angels siring Giants, leads the world astray. One also recalls from the Book of the Watchers the principal Watcher by the name of “Asael” (Aramaic), whose name appears as “Azazel” in the Ethiopic version of the text. Given the long and sustained attention that the fallen angels and Watchers traditions receive in later Jewish and Christian interpretive traditions, it is surprising to see how rarely this myth of human and angelic encounter occurs in the Hebrew Bible. A discussion of the biblical passages, the relationship between the textual traditions, and the key terms in the narratives about the fallen angels is offered here by Chris Seeman. He discusses key lexemes that are attested in the versions of Gen. 6:1-4 that are found in the MT and LXX and explores the expressions used in the texts to describe various characters in the brief drama such as “sons of God,” “daughters of men,” and the “Nephilim,” the offspring of the angels’ union with women, who possess extraordinary powers and are called Giants. The discussion of the Watchers by Anathea Portier-Young sets the stage for the Hellenistic period and identifies significant parallels between the Jewish angel traditions and Greek mythology. Given the paucity of references to the Watchers traditions in the Hebrew Bible, it is perhaps not surprising to see that traces of them appear unevenly in the deuterocanonical/apocryphal texts. Jeremy Corley’s essay presents some evidence for the Watchers traditions in the deuterocanonical/apocryphal literature of Wisdom of Ben Sira, Baruch, 3 Maccabees, and the Wisdom of Solomon, but the data for some of these texts is not overwhelming. The biblical locus for the tale about the angels who mate with women, Gen. 6:1-4, is both brief and enigmatic and appears with some variation in the MT and LXX textual traditions. While stories about fallen angels are not well-attested in the Jewish Scriptures, traditions related to the judgment and imprisonment of the Watchers appear in select texts of the New Testament, with the so-called Catholic Epistles asserting them in a distinctive way. While the theme of judgment—so critical to the Watchers myths—is steadily 8. Paul D. Hanson, “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6-11,” JBL 96 (1977): 195–233, esp. 220–26.

Introduction | 7

represented throughout the New Testament literature (Matt. 25:31-46; Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 15:51–52; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; Rev. 20:11–15), the clearest reference to the judgment of the fallen angels appears in Jude 6. The passage in 2 Pet. 2:4 is thought to be dependent upon this reference in Jude. Eric Mason’s essay takes up the task of describing the Watchers traditions in these Catholic Epistles. So too, references to angelic beings play a role in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, as we see in Scott Lewis’s treatment of the topic. Kevin Sullivan’s essay on the fallen angels and the rise of demons establishes the distinctive traits and actions that characterize the Watchers and the theme of their downward movement from heaven to earth by these heavenly angels and the resulting moral decline of humanity. Sullivan proposes that these are two aspects of the “fallen” Watchers that eventually develop in characteristic ways in early Christian demonology. His essay proposes that references in the Gospel traditions presume fallen angel motifs. Watchers traditions are also known to have flourished in a number of texts designated in contemporary times as pseudepigrapha (so-called “false writings”). While a number of these writings were well known and influential in the Second Temple period, they ultimately did not achieve canonical status by the majority of communities that later became Judaism and Christianity. Many of the instances of the Watchers that appear in this body of literature belong to the corpora designated today as 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, and also the Book of Jubilees. Each section of 1 Enoch has its own history of composition and context. Authors in this section discuss how aspects from the specific Enochic booklet known as the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36) come to be transformed in new literary contexts. Karina Hogan’s essay focuses on the specific theme of angelic sexual transgression as it appears in the “Animal Apocalypse” (chapters 85–90 of the Book of Dreams from 1 En.). The Book of Jubilees, a pseudepigraphic retelling of traditions from Gen. 1 to Exod. 12, has its own distinctive history and rendering of the Watchers traditions, described by John Endres whose essay traces how the Watchers in Jubilees descended initially for good purposes. Their subsequent sin with women—a source of evil corresponding to the Eden story—occurred on earth, not in the heavens. Moreover, Jubilees suggests that the example of the Watchers should serve to encourage human responsibility. Watchers traditions are well represented among the Second Temple literature associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a notable concentration of texts found among the Cave 4 scrolls. Samuel Thomas discusses the distinctive traditions about the Watchers that appear in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) and other Aramaic Scrolls from Qumran. Leslie Baynes discusses the Enochic booklet known as the Book of Parables (1 En. 37–71), a text that scholars date to the first century bce or ce.

8 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

In the final section of the collection, themes associated with the fallen angels are explored in late antique Christian and Jewish literature. Randall Chesnutt’s essay details the significant influence of Watchers elements in the writings of Justin Martyr. Silviu Bunta’s essay on “Cain the Giant” describes how traces of the Watchers traditions appear in the later manuscript traditions of the Life of Adam and Eve (LAE). And Joshua Burns examines rabbinic references to and knowledge of these traditions in his essay. Authors of ancient and late antique interpretive traditions found the myths about the Watchers and their fall from heaven to be compelling. While the core of the traditions about these angels is likely rooted in ancient Mesopotamian lore, stories about the Watchers came to exert a lasting influence on the imaginations of Jewish and Christian interpreters. Like the Watchers themselves, the stories about these angelic beings passed with ease among the boundaries that modern scholarship has conceptualized as separating Judaism and Christianity. The vivid details and unusual aspects of these angelic traditions have left a lasting legacy on the Western imagination and is a testimony to the compelling power of these tales.9 Even in contemporary times, mythical traditions associated with the fallen angels continue to provide rich fodder for storytellers of popular audiences. The essays in this volume seek to present foundational information for particular texts and offer a look at the status quaestionis for each. Essays focused on a specific text follow a template that discusses the authorship, audience, and, at times, manuscript history of that writing. The introductory material is then followed by a synopsis of the Watchers traditions as they appear in the text under consideration, suggestions for further research, and a brief bibliography. Thus, this collection can easily serve as a resource for a classroom study of the reception history of the Watchers traditions that stretches from antiquity into the early medieval period of the rabbinic literature. At the same time, these studies provide a broader context for a discussion of these interpretive traditions and will be of use to specialists as well. This collection seeks to fill out and deepen general scholarly understanding of mythic elements that have especially captivated contemporary imaginations—heavenly beings, origins of evil, scenes of judgment—all of which can be considered stock elements of an apocalyptic worldview.

9. For example, modern readers are likely most familiar with Milton’s retelling of the fallen angels myth in his Paradise Regained, Book 2, lines 178–81.

PART I

Origins and Biblical Discussions of the Fallen Angels

1

Mesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions Ida Fröhlich

Introduction By the time of the exile, early Watchers traditions were written in Aramaic, the vernacular in Mesopotamia. Besides many writings associated with Enoch, several works composed in Aramaic came to light from the Qumran library. They manifest several specific common characteristics concerning their literary genres and content. These are worthy of further examination.1 Several Qumran Aramaic works are well acquainted with historical, literary, and other traditions of the Eastern diaspora, and they contain Mesopotamian and Persian elements.2 Early Enoch writings reflect a solid awareness of certain Mesopotamian traditions.3 Revelations on the secrets of the cosmos given to Enoch during his heavenly voyage reflect the influence of Mesopotamian 1. Characteristics of Aramean literary texts were examined by B.Z. Wacholder, “The Ancient JudeoAramaic Literature 500–164 bce: A Classification of Pre-Qumranic Texts,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls, JSOTSup8, ed. L.H. Schiffman (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 257–81. 2. The most outstanding example is 4Q242, the Prayer of Nabonidus that suggests knowledge of historical legends on the last Neo-Babylonian king Nabunaid (555–539 bce). On the historical background of the legend see R. Meyer, Das Gebet des Nabonid, SSAW.PH 107, no. 3 (Berlin: Akademie, 1962). 4Q550 uses Persian names and the story reflects the influence of the pattern of the Ahiqar novel; see I. Fröhlich, “Stories from the Persian King’s Court. 4Q550 (4QprESTHAR a-f),” Acta Ant. Hung. 38 (1998): 103–14. 3. H. L. Jansen, Die Henochgestalt: eine vergleichende religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Skrifter utgitt av det Norske videnskaps-akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-filos. klasse no. 1 (Oslo: I kommisjon hos J. Dybwad, 1939) examined the figure of Enoch in the light of the Mesopotamian tradition years before the finding of the Qumran manuscripts. On the figures of the Watchers in the background of Mesopotamian tradition, see Amar Annus, “On the Origin of Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions,” JSP 19 (2010): 277–320.

11

12 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

cosmological lore.4 The figure of Enoch and the elements of the revelation tradition associated with him originate in the figures of the Mesopotamian apkallū-s (wise ones), more exactly in the figure of the Mesopotamian divinerking Enmeduranki, and in the tradition about divine revelation given to him.5 Thus it can be assumed that the kernel of the Enochic tradition, the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36), was shaped either in a Babylonian Jewish diaspora community or perhaps in a community of returnees that maintained traditions from the Babylonian exile. This group of writings might have been expanded by later additions to the text.6 The narrative of the Watchers (1 En. 6–11) belongs to the earliest textual layer of 1 Enoch and represents one of the earliest traditions of the collection. In chapters 6–11 two distinct narratives exist: the narrative on Shemihazah and that on Asael.7 The bulk of this early tradition is contained in the Shemihazah story (1 En. 6:1–7:62). According to the Shemihazah story, a group of the sons of heaven (6:2), whom the text refers to as the Watchers (‘îrîn as in Dan. 4:10), glimpses the daughters of men, desires them, and decides to descend to them. Their leader Shemihazah (šmyḥzh) considers the plan to be sinful, and he does not want to bear the responsibility alone (6:3). Therefore, the Watchers, in order to fulfill their plan, swear to unite on Mount Hermon (1 En. 6:6). Then the Watchers “. . . began [to go in to them, and to defile themselves with them and (they began) to teach them] sorcery and spellbinding 4. P. Grelot, “La Géographie mythique d’Hénoch et ses sources,” RB 65 (1958): 33–69; Grelot, “La Légende d’Hénoch dans les Apocryphes et dans la Bible,” RSR 46 (1958): 5–26, 181–210; Grelot, “L’Eschatologie des Esséniens et le livre d’Hénoch,” RevQ 1 (1958–59): 113–31; Grelot, “Hénoch et ses écritures,” RB 82 (1975): 481–500, written before the publication of the Aramaic fragments. 5. James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQMS 16 (Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 116. On the Mesopotamian background of the Enoch figure and of the Son of Man figure, see H.S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man, WMANT 61 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988). See also S. Bhayro, “Noah’s Library: Sources for 1 Enoch 6–11,” JSP 15 (2006): 163–77. It is again the group of the Mesopotamian apkallu-s (sometimes viewed negatively and counted as demonic and evil beings in Mesopotamian tradition itself) that A. Annus understands to be the origins of the Watchers. See Annus, “On the Origins of Watchers,” 282. 6. A similar case is the Danielic collection, the earliest pieces of which demonstrate a good knowledge of Mesopotamian lore. 7. Early scholars dealing with this work have already noted this fact. R.H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1893), 13–14, differentiated between two narratives in the text of 1 En. 6–11. More recently Paul D. Hanson, “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6–11,” JBL 96 (1977): 197–233 and G.W.E. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11,” JBL 96 (1977): 383–405 have analysed the constituents of the text and they too differentiated between two sources.

Mesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions | 13

[and the cutting of roots; and to show them plants” (7:1). The women became pregnant from them and bore children, who became Giants. The Giants “were devouring [the labour of all the children of men and men were unable to supply] them.” (7:4). After this, the Giants begin to devour men, and then “. . . they began to sin against all birds and beasts of the earth] and reptiles . . . and the fish of the sea, and to devour the flesh of one another; and they were] drinking blood. [Then the earth made the accusation against the wicked concerning everything] which was done upon it” (7:5-6).8 These then are the transgressions, which finally bring about the punishment of the flood (1 En. 9:1ff). Thus the story serves as a justification for the catastrophic punishment wreaked upon humanity. The Asael story (1 En. 8:1-2) is not a retelling of the story of the Watchers; it is rather a commentary on certain elements of the narrative. It mentions Asael who taught metalworking, making weapons and jewels for men, and the knowledge of eyeshadows, of precious gems and dyes of mineral origins for women.9 The section on Asael’s teaching is followed by a report on the teachings of Shemihazah and his companions; they taught the interpretations of heavenly omina, each Watcher teaching the signs of the natural phenomenon that was included in his name (1 En. 8:3-4). The whole section ends with a report of the punishment of Asael and the Watchers. Asael was punished by the angel Raphael for the sin Asael perpetrated; he was bound and cast into darkness, where the Watchers will stay until “the great day of judgment” (1 En. 10:4-7). On the other hand, the punishment mentioned in the Shemihazah story is the binding of Shemihazah and his companions by Michael “for seventy generations” after they were forced to witness their children, the Giants, perish (1 En. 10:11-12). The devastation of the flood following these events signifies the purification of the earth (1 En. 10:1-3, 20-22).10 The narratives on Shemihazah, Asael, and the flood revolve around the problem of the origin of evil. The Shemihazah narrative is similar to Gen. 6:1-4, which is also connected with the flood. The relation of the two stories is complicated. The story of Shemihazah and his companions is a 8. Translated by J.T. Milik, based on the Aramaic text reconstructed by him; see Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (London: Clarendon, 1976), 166–67. 9. 1 En. 65:6 supplements the list of the teachings of Asael by adding that the Watchers also taught people to cast metal and to make cast metal statues. According to 1 En. 69, a Watcher named Penemue taught people writing and the use of ink and papyrus, practices that later could be the source of several misunderstandings. For further discussion of these traditions associated with the angel Penemue, see the essay by Leslie Baynes in this collection. 10. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth.”

14 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

logical and continuous narrative, whereas Gen. 6:1-4 seems to be a series of theological reflections on the story narrated in 1 Enoch.11 As to the background and meaning of the story of the Watchers, earlier theories saw historical and mythological motifs behind the narrative. The motif of the integration of heavenly and earthly beings would have referred to and negatively judged the mixed marriages of the priests in the postexilic era, objected to by Ezra. The motif of the bloodshed would have mirrored the wars of the Diadochi.12 Other theories look for mythological models, seeing the motif of the teachings of the Watchers as modeled after the myth of Prometheus, Asael being a protos heuretes. Of course, neither historical-sociological nor mythological models, including Greek images, can be ruled out. However, observation of only one or two motifs of the narrative does not illuminate the background and meaning of the whole story. Many elements of the story, such as cannibalism and consuming blood, the basically negative nature of the teachings of the Watchers, magic and interpretation of omina, are left unexplained. In order to ascertain the background and the exact meaning and message of the narrative, all major elements of the narrative must be considered. This can be followed by a discussion of the issue of foreign literary influences. The traditions associated with the Watchers were relevant themes in Qumran literature. They were often cited and referred to in other works, certainly because the meanings were considered relevant for the spiritual world of the community.13 The Watchers supposedly held significance for them, and motifs associated with them embodied basic ideas of the Essene tradition.14 Notions that are related to each of the motifs of the story are those of sin and impurity and magic and the demonic.

11. Scholars generally consider the Shemihazah story as an expansion and explication of Gen. 6:1-4. There is no room here to discuss the relation of the two texts; this will be the aim of a further study. 12. D. Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16,” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35; R. Rubinkiewicz, “The Book of Noah and Ezra’s Reform,” FO 25 (1988): 151–55; Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11,” 383–405. 13. The Nachleben and infuence of the Watchers’ story in the literature of Qumran requires a separate study. See the essay by Samuel Thomas in this collection. 14. According to P. Sacchi, the peculiar conception of evil based on 1 En. 6–11 was a distinct ideological tradition that was the catalyst of the schism between the group and Judaism in the fourth century bce. Michael Stone and David Suter date the schism to the third century. See G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 76–77.

Mesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions | 15

Sin, Impurity, and the Story of the Watchers The purity system of ancient Israel is acquainted not only with physical impurities, but also ethical ones.15 Ethical impurity grows out of situations that are controllable and are not natural or necessary, such as delaying purification from physical impurity, polluting specific sancta, sexual transgressions, idolatry, and murder. The locus of uncleanness may be the person, but proscriptions refer more to the pollution of the sanctuary or land.16 Punishments of these sins are more severe than the consequences of physical impurities. Punishment of the sinner is usually the banishing/driving away (kārēt) from the land or the extinguishing of one’s family.17 The main list of ethical impurities is in the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26). Sins are related to four categories: sexuality, violence, death, and magic. 1. Sins related to sexual relations are cases of the zenūt, usually translated as fornication, which includes all kinds of illicit sex: sex among blood relatives, with another’s wife, homosexual relations, sex with a menstruating woman, and prostitution (see Lev. 18:1-30; 19:29). A special case in the list is kilayim, the prohibition of mixing together different kinds of animals, plants and materials in human clothing (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 22:9-11). A special case of zenūt not listed in Lev. 17–26 is remarriage with one’s divorced wife with her, in the meantime, having been remarried and then divorced or widowed (Deut. 24:1-4; cf. Jer. 3:1). 2. Sins related to blood: bloodshed (Deut. 21:1-9; cf. Gen. 4:10; Ps. 106:38-39). 3. Sins related to the dead: a corpse left on the tree for the night (Deut. 21:22-23; cf. 11QT 64:11-12). 4. Sins related to magic: “Do not resort to ghosts and spirits or make yourselves unclean by seeking them out. I am the lord your God” (Lev. 19:31). Magical practice is sometimes conceived as zenūt (Lev. 20:6), and those who practice it are to be killed (Exod. 22:17). 15. On the distinction between types of purity based on nonbiblical anthropological evidence, see L.N. Rosen, “Contagion and Cataclysm: A Theoretical Approach to the Study of Ritual Pollution Beliefs,” African Studies 32 (1973): 229–46. 16. W.D. Davies, The Territorial Dimension of Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991); D.P. Wright, “Unclean and Clean, Old Testament,” ABD 6:729–41, esp. 738–39. 17. For example, the Assyrian exile of Israel is explained in 2 Kgs. 17:5–23 as a punishment resulting from “the sin of Jeroboam,” the improper cultic practice of the northern kingdom.

16 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Results of ethical impurities are summarized in Lev. 18:27-30: “The people who were there before you did those abominable things and the land became unclean. So do not let the land spew you out for making it unclean as it spewed them out. Observe my charge, therefore.”18 Qumran texts enrich the biblical theory of impurities.19 The sins of the Watchers are their transgression of the cosmic order and mixing with earthly women, and their teaching of magic. They became impure by this process (1 En. 7:1; cf. 4Q531 1, 1). The Book of Giants qualifies their relation as a case of zenūt (4Q203 8, 9), one of the main categories of ethical impurities. On an analogical basis the mixing of heavenly and earthly beings can also be a violation of the kilayim, prohibition of the mixing of categories. The practice of magic is again an ethical impurity according to the biblical system. The sins of the Giants, sons of the Watchers, are violence, bloodshed (cannibalism), sins against the animals, birds, and fishes, and drinking of blood (1 En. 7:4-5). Homicide is among the sins that make the land impure (Deut. 21:9). Cannibalism is not known from the biblical system. The meaning of the sins committed against the animals is not clear; it can be a violation of the prohibitions concerning food. This presupposition is confirmed by the report of the Giants’ consumption of blood, which is a violation of the biblical prohibition (Gen. 9:3-4). These are the sins of the Watchers and their offspring that made the earth impure. The resultant flood is not only a punishment of these sins but also, at the same time, a purification of the earth.

The Giants in the Enochic Tradition 1 En. 15:8 refers to the offspring of the Giants as demons (Ethiopic nafsat, Aramaic ‫)רוחא‬.20 These beings are spiritual in nature, following their fathers’ nature; they do not eat, they are not thirsty, and they know no obstacles. Their 18. The citation is a summary of the Holiness Code in Lev. 17–26. The land is the Land of Canaan into which the people were about to enter. 19. The Temple Scroll (11QT) considers as impure the non-observance of the dietary laws (11QT 48:6–7), the bodily signs of mourning (tattooing) (11QT 48:10), covenant and marriage with the “inhabitants of the land,” which constituted idolatry (11QT 2:1–15, cf. Exod. 34:10–16), burial grounds not separated from surroundings (11QT 48:11–17), the non-separation of sufferers from bodily impurities (flux, leprosy, plague, scab, menstruating women, women after childbirth), and idolatry repeatedly mentioned as zenūt defiling the land. 4QMMT (4Q394–399) adds to the list of impurities the offering taken from the pagan corn, and highlights cases of forbidden marriages (priests’ marriage with commoners’ daughters) as cases of kilayim.

Mesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions | 17

destructiveness first and foremost affects children and women, as they were born of women.21 The Giants are also the protagonists of the Book of Giants. The Aramaic fragments belonging to these manuscripts from Qumran are not contained in the Greek and Ethiopic translations. According to the narrative of a Qumran fragment, one of the Giants took to the air “as whirlwinds, and he flew with his hands/wings k’l as [an[ eag[le.”22 According to this, Giants were shaped like human figures that could fly like the wind. Although the story of the Watchers in the Book of the Giants does not mention any demons,23 the motifs of the story are related to the realm of the demonic. The characteristics of the Giants evoke the Mesopotamian tradition about the utukku-s, a term generally used for demonic beings. The Enochic Giants have the same characteristics as the Mesopotamian demons; they are tall and obtrusive beings, roaming in bands, attacking their victims indiscriminately. They ravage the work of humans,24 devour the flesh of animals and humans, and consume their blood. They are born from a sexual union of heavenly and earthly beings, considered in the Enochic story to be impure. The punishment for the sins of the Watchers is binding them and casting them into darkness. Asael is bound by the angel Raphael and Shemihazah is bound by Michael. Demonological texts regularly mention that the demon is binding his victim. The witch, a constant figure of the Mesopotamian incantation series, Maqlû, binds her victim by her practices. The binding effect of the witchcraft is mentioned in the title of a series of incantations entitled “The pregnant woman who was bound.”25 The bonds made by witches can be solved by another kind of magic—healing incantations. “Binding” is a constant motif in the Mesopotamian creation myth Enūma elīš, in which the triumph of the gods over their demonic enemies is marked by binding the enemies. Triumphant Ea binds Apsu, the primeval ocean, and 20. For a discussion of the Watchers traditions and later demonology, see the essays by Kevin Sullivan and Silviu Bunta in this collection. 21. This part of the tradition is known only from the Greek and the Ethiopic translations. 4Q204, the fragment that supposedly contains this part of the text, is not legible at this place. It is to be supposed that this part was also contained in the Aramaic text tradition of the Enochic collection. 22. 4Q530 2ii4 (= DJD 4Q530 7ii4), see L.T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Translation, and Commentary (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 128–34. 23. See, though, 1 En. 19:1, and the essay by Randall Chesnutt in this volume. 24. 4Q531 2+3, 1-10 speaks in more concrete terms than the Shemihazah story, and mentions that the Giants were devastating fruit, wheat, trees, sheep, and cattle. 25. V. Haas, Magie und Mythen in Babylonien: von Dämonen, Hexen und Beschwörungspriestern, Merlins Bibliothek der geheimen Wissenschaften und magische Künste 8 (Gifkendorf: Merlin, 1986), 170.

18 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

builds his house over his breast. He also binds Apsu’s helper, Mummu. Marduk binds Tiamat; after splitting Tiamat in two, he forms the netherworld from the monster’s inner parts.26

Magical Arts In the Shemihazah story, the Watchers teach humans magical practices: “sorcery (ḥršh) and spellbinding (ksph) [and the cutting of roots (Gr. ridzotomia); and to show them plants . . .]” (1 En. 7:1). The first two nouns are general terms for magical practices. The “cutting of roots” means, in all probability, the making of herbal ingredients for magic and making amulets containing herbs and roots. 27 Asael and his companions teach men metallurgy, the making of weapons and jewels. To the women they teach the art of makeup and cosmetics, the most precious and choice stones, and all kinds of coloured dyes (1 En. 8:1). Metallurgy and smithing are very closely related to the notion of magic. Ironsmiths were considered sorcerers in the belief system of the ancient and modern Near East.28 Weapons made by forgers were attributed to magical power. Jewels served originally as amulets with apotropaic function. 29 The ancient magical origin of makeup, especially the painting of eyes and lips, is well known, and similarly the magic of jewels.30 In Enūma elīš, the Mesopotamian creation myth, all the gods at war wear amulets, using their magic power against their enemies. According to the myth of Inanna’s (Ištar) Descent into the Netherworld, the fertility goddess going to the netherworld must 26. Ibid., 92. 27. The Talmud is acquainted with two sorts of kemi’ot (amulets): a written one (a parchment with quotations from various sources, including the Scriptures), and the kame’a šel iqrin, an amulet made from roots of a certain plant (Shab. 61b). 28. On the general idea see M. Eliade, Forgerons et alchimistes, Homo Sapiens (Paris: Flammarion, 1956). In Ethiopic, ironsmith and magician are denoted by the same word (duban-ansa); see W. Leslau, Concise Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1989), 181; similarly the descendants of Cain, who are ironsmiths in the Bible (Gen. 4:16-24), in the later tradition related to them are associated with magical motifs (Syriac “Cave of Treasures,” folia 12a, col. 2; for an edition, see C. Bezold, Die Schatzhöhle [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1883; reprint Amsterdam: APA-Philo Press, 1981]). In the Ethiopian tradition the belief that ironsmiths have magic capabilities and knowledge is alive to this day; they are considered sorcerers and therefore members of other groups do not marry their daughters to them. In an incantation of the series Maqlû (II.128) the witch (kaššaptu) is called “silversmith,” whose spells could be undone or removed by the incantation. See G. Meier, Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlû neu bearbeitet (Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967) 29. Haas, Magie, 197–98. 30. Ibid.

Mesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions | 19

part with one of her seven magical powers, represented by an item of her garments and jewels, at each gate of the netherworld. At the end of her journey she arrives naked and powerless before Ereškigal, the lady of the netherworld. In the Sumerian variant of the myth, two pieces of Ishtar’s cosmetics and jewels are specified as having the power of sexual attraction: her eye-mascara is called “Let a man come, let him come,” and her pectoral is called “come, man, come.” 31 The holistic worldview of the Mesopotamians considered everything an omen for future events, and the interpretation of omina was generally practiced. Such traditions were collected and systematized in a series of interpretations. A collection of interpretations on heavenly phenomena and meteorological omina can be found in the series Enūma Anu Enlil (When Anu and Enlil) from the Neo-Babylonian era.32 Its content is similar to the teachings of Shemiḥazah and his companions that are referred to in the Enochic story.

The Story of the Watchers as a Myth of the Origin of Evil The story of the Watchers is a myth that speaks to the origin of evil in the world.33 According to the narrative of the Enochic collection this is the first event following creation (the material of Gen. 2–5 [with the exception of the reference to the patriarch] is not included in the Enochic collection). The first stage of the birth of evil is dysfunction in the cosmic order, a result of the mixing of heavenly and earthly beings, a deed considered as a sin related to sexual relations (zenut), and a case of ethical impurity (sin resulting in the impurity of the sinner and the land). Sins of heavenly beings (bloodshed, consuming blood) are again considered sins that make impure the sinner and the land he or she lives in; therefore evil in the world originates from sins resulting in impurity (ethical impurities). Initiators of the sins are the heavenly beings who descend to the earthly women, driven by their desire. The Watchers are conscious of the nature of their deeds. They even agree together to commit the sin collectively. The narrative does not mention human responsibility. The authors and agents of the deeds are the Watchers. The Giants, the beings born from the cosmic dysfunction, initiate further anomalies 31. Innana’s descent to the nether world, lines 22-23. For the text and translation, see ETCSL (The Electronic Text Corpus of the Sumerian Literature [Oxford], http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.4.1#). 32. W.H. van Soldt, Solar omens of Enuma Anu Enlil: Tablets 23 (24)-29 (30), Uitgaven van het Nederlands historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 73 (Istanbul: Nederlands historischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1995). 33. On the problem, see G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis, 72–73.

20 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

in the world. These anomalies are ethical sins resulting in the defilement of the earth. Impurity of the earth results in the punishment of the flood. The story of the Watchers is an independent story that is parallel to the narrative of Gen. 6:1-4 about the angels and the daughters of men, and not an interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4.34 The story of the Watchers contains a message that cannot be found in Gen. 6:1-4. It is a determinist myth and an alternative tradition to the message of the primeval history of Genesis. In the Enochic tradition evil originates from the deeds of the Watchers, after creation. According to Genesis, the origin of evil is due to human disobedience (Gen. 2–3). The tradition of the Watchers is often referred to in Qumran texts, with the implication that this is the origin of evil. On the other hand, the biblical story of Gen. 2–3 is almost never mentioned at Qumran. The author(s) of the Enochic story in the Book of the Watchers consciously use Mesopotamian lore to theorize about the origins of evil. The bearers of evil and impurity are demonic beings, the offspring of the Watchers. For the author and audience, demons are working in world history. The story of the Watchers (1 En. 6–11) was written following the Babylonian exile. The terminus ad quem is the end of the third century bce. Its language is Aramean, the vernacular of Mesopotamia and the lingua franca of the exiled Judaeans from the sixth century bce. The attitude of the Enochic collection toward the Mesopotamian world and tradition is manifold. The figure of Enoch and the revelations given to him reflect a working knowledge of the Mesopotamian traditions about the apkallū, the antediluvian sages, a priestly tradition from the city of Eridu.35 In 34. There is no room here to go into the problems of the relation of the two texts. Although Wellhausenian text criticism assigned Gen. 6:1-4 to the Yahwistic source, there is no evidence for an early provenence of this short and disjointed text that may even be a series of reflections of a Priestly redactor (fourth century bce). The Enochic story of the Watchers is backgrounded by a tradition not dependent upon Gen. 6:1-4, which was formed prior to the end of the third century date of the manuscripts of the Book of the Watchers as they are known to us. The Enochic story is thought by some scholars to be an interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4. See D. Dimant, “1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work,” JJS (2002): 223–37. Similarly S. Bhayro, “Daniel’s ’Watchers’ in Enochic Exegesis of Genesis 6:1-4,” in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible, JSSSup 11, ed. G.J. Brooke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 58–66, and Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature WUNT 2.198 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). For a different view see Philip R. Davies, “And Enoch Was Not, For Genesis Took Him,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb, JSOTSup 111, ed. Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 97–107. See, too, the essay by Chris Seeman in this volume. 35. See James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man For All Generations, Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995).

Mesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions | 21

fact, several elements of the story of the Watchers are shaped by the effect of a gentile Mesopotamian background of the work. Genealogical impurity (the Giants born from the relations of the Watchers and the earthly women) is the first level of the systematic spread of the evil in the world. Elements related to impurity, sin, and intermarriage were those necessary for the self-determination of a group, the keeping of shabbat and special purity rules being the qualities that distinguished the exiles from their native gentile neighbours. The meaning of the Watchers’ story is that impurities and sins lead to the defilement of the earth and a catastrophic punishment. Traditions related to magic and connected with the origin of the evil in the story are a reaction against magic, which was widely practiced in Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian elements in the Watchers’ story are not simply borrowed; they are recontextualized and appropriated in many ways. Mesopotamian utukku-s, the evil spirits, may have served as models to the figures of the Giants. Mesopotamian lists of interpretations of omina were referred to in the names of the Watchers who were told to transmit forbidden knowledge.36 Elements related to magic in the Book of the Watchers may be backgrounded by Mesopotamian magical practices that were well known among people living in the Babylonian diaspora. The fragments of the Book of Giants found in Qumran represent a literary tradition related to the core of the Enochic collection, the account of the Watchers contained in 1 En. 6–11.37 Due to the fragmentary nature of the text, its plot cannot be reconstructed fully and only some details can be recognized. Events of the antediluvian period are referred to several times. Such are the deeds of the Watchers, their defilements, the begetting of “Giants and monsters,” as well as to the devastation and bloodshed of the Giants (4Q531 frag. 1,2 and lines 4-6, 8); and the “great corruption in the [earth]” that they caused (4Q532 frag. 2, 9). The Giants, sons of the heavenly Watchers, are victims of the devastation; they must perish in the Flood, together with humans.38 Their doom is presaged in several dream-visions related in the Book 36. On the scribal series and related literature, see Annus, “On the Origins of Watchers,” 287–292. 37. This tradition is not contained in the Greek or in the Ethiopic tradition of 1 Enoch. Among Qumran texts it is represented by 4Q203, 4Q530, 4Q531, 4Q532, 4Q533. The fragments were edited first by J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (London: Clarendon, 1976). A further publication of the text (adding to the list 1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, 4Q206 2-3, 4Q556, 6Q8, and not including 4Q533), with a commentary is Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran. The definitive publication, with further additions and joins is from É. Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4. XXII: Textes araméens. Première partie, 4Q529-549, DJD 31 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 17–116. 38. The Watchers do not perish in the Flood; their punishment is binding; cf. 1 En. 10:4-7, 11-12.

22 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

of Giants. The interpreter of their dreams is Gilgamesh who probably is an independent figure in the text, and not one of the Giants.39 His name appears in the company of Giants whose names (Ohyah, Hahyah, and Mahawai) are of unknown origin, and with Watchers, part of those names are unknown from other lists. The Book of Giants makes frequent references to dreams, and sections of dream-visions are found in it. The dreams are oracles on the future destruction of the Giants. Gilgamesh is mentioned twice in the fragments. The first mention is a message of Gilgamesh on the doom of the Giants, in Ohya’s words (4Q530 frag. 2ii+6+7i+8+9+10+11+12[?], 1-2). The second time Gilgamesh is the interpreter of a dream, the interpretation is being transmitted to the Giant, Ohya. It cannot be established from the fragments if Gilgamesh belongs to the Giants or not—only his function as a dream-interpreter is certain. It is to be noted that the same fragments mention also Enoch, “the noted scribe” as an interpreter of dreams who is told to be able to “interpret for us” (i.e. for the Giants) a dream (4Q530 frag. 2ii+6+7i+8+9+10+11+12[?], 14). Enoch is an authority in revelation: Mahawai is sent to him in order to learn their fate (4Q530 frag. 2ii+6+7i+8+9+10+11+12[?], 21). Previous research associated the figure of Gilgamesh in the Enochic collection with the epic hero.40 However, no episode known from the epic can be connected with the Gilgamesh of the Book of Giants. On the other hand, in Mesopotamian texts beyond the Gilgamesh epic, Gilgamesh is clearly pictured as a netherworld ruler.41 Described sometimes as “Nergal’s little brother” he was a figure with special relation to Nergal, ruler of the netherworld.42 He appears in the company of chtonic deities as one who sits in judgment in the netherworld.43 His name is very rarely found in Old Babylonian documents, 39. Gilgamesh is mentioned twice, in 4Q530 frag. 2ii+6+7i+8+9+10+11+12[?], 2) and 4Q531 frag. 22, 12; 4Q203 frag. 3, 3. 40. D.R. Jackson, “Demonizing Gilgames,” in Gilgames and the World of Assyria, ed. Joseph Azize (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 107–114; John C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Traditions, MHUC 14 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992); Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Giant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Die Dämonen—Demons: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt—The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment, ed. A. Lange and H. Lichtenberger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 318–38; Matthew Goff, “Gilgamesh the Giant: the Qumran Book of Giants’ appropriation of Gilgamesh motifs,” DSD 16 (2009): 221–53. 41. It is worth noting that Gilgamesh is never mentioned in the epic as one who becomes a netherworld god. 42. See A.R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 107.

Mesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions | 23

apart from the several copies of the epics.44 In turn, religious texts from the late libraries mention him frequently as the sovereign of the underworld who, after his life on earth, became king of the underworld—a Babylonian Osiris, identified with Nergal.45 Gilgamesh as judge and ruler of the shades in the netherworld had a specific role in ancestor cult and magical healing (incantations).46 Netherworld connections and mantic functions are regularly interrelated in religious beliefs. Gilgamesh as king of the netherworld interprets omina pertaining to kings. “The omen of Gilgameš the mighty king (amūt gilgameš šarru dannu), who had no rival” and variations are frequent in the omen tradition of the late period. Thus, Gilgamesh, as a ruler of the shades in the netherworld,, had three primary functions. As a judge, he judged the case of the sufferer (the prayers use legal terminology to speak of the sufferer). As an omen-interpreter he was able to foretell future events and to prognosticate the sufferer’s fortune if he dies or remains alive. Finally, as one who had authority over troublesome ghosts he was believed to be an effective healer. The three roles were interrelated, and each of them was related to the healing of a sickness (believed to be caused by harmful magic).47 The Gilgamesh motif in the Book of Giants reflects a good awareness of the Mesopotamian scholarly tradition of the interpretation of omina, taught in the higher-level schools (it is here to be noted that first-millennium scholarship focused more on magic and divination).48 Several Qumran Aramaic texts witness that Jewish authors were well acquainted not only with literary texts but also with astronomy, calendar, and the tradition of the interpretation of omina. The figure of Gilgamesh in the Book of Giants reflects knowledge where Mesopotamian elements are used and transmitted with the same meaning as they were applied in the Mesopotamian culture. This figure matched perfectly with the demonic images of the Watchers and the Giants, shaped with the help of characteristic elements from Mesopotamian culture. 43. Ibid., 127. 44. W.G. Lambert, “Gilgameš in Literature and Art: The Second and First Millennia,” in Monsters and Demons in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, ed. Ann E. Farkas (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern,1987), 37–52, esp. 46. 45. Ibid., 40. 46. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 127–35. 47. Lambert, Gilgameš, 45; see George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 113–14. 48. Petra D. Gesche, Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr. Alter Orient und Altes Testament (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001), 81–152; David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 25–27.

24 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Brief Bibliography Annus, Amar. “On the Origin of Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions.” JSP 19 (2010): 277–320. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Kvanvig, Helge S. Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic: an Intertextual Reading. JSJSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Sparks, Kenton L. “Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis. Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism.” JBL 126 (2007): 625–43. Stone, Michael E. Ancient Judaism. New Visions and Views. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and Third Century bce Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions.” DSD 7 (2000): 354–77.

2

The Watchers Traditions and Gen 6:1-4 (MT and LXX) Chris Seeman

In the book of Genesis, sweeping accusations are brought against the human race, justifying God’s decision to eradicate it by flood: “the wickedness of human beings was great in the earth . . . every day; every formation of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil” (6:5).1 Not even animals escape judgment: “all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth . . . the earth is filled with violence because of them” (6:12, 13). The global reach of this indictment, and the clear connection it establishes between crime and punishment, stand in tension with the verses that immediately precede it. The intrinsic fascination of this passage is rivaled only by its awkwardness as a prelude to the deluge. Whereas the flood narrative deals with terrestrial creatures, these verses introduce a hitherto unidentified category of ostensibly supra-mundane beings. The divine response to the interruption of normalcy is restrained and adaptive, not radically destructive as with the flood. The most striking feature of Gen. 6:1-4 is its closing verse, interpretable either as an identification of the offspring of the sons of God, or as a parenthetical remark dating the divine-human miscegenation to a time when a wholly unrelated group (the Nephilim) first appeared on the earth. Neither interpretation links this verse in any obvious way to the blanket condemnation of humanity that follows. It is precisely these enigmatic qualities that make this story central to discussion of the Watchers traditions.

1. All translations are my own.

25

26 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

MT Gen 6:1-4 1 And

when human beings began to multiply upon the face of the ground and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw the daughters of human beings, that they were beautiful. And they took for themselves wives from among all whom they chose. 3 And YHWH said: “My spirit will not […]* in human beings forever, because they are flesh, and their days will be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwards—when the sons of God went into the daughters of human beings and they bore children for them. Those were the warriors who were from of old, the men of name.

LXX Gen 6:1-4 1And

at the time when human beings began to become many upon the earth, daughters were born to them. 2 And the sons of God, having seen the daughters of human beings, that they were beautiful, took for themselves wives from all whom they chose. 3 And the Lord God said: “My spirit will not remain in these human beings forever, because they are flesh, and their days will be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 And the Giants were upon the earth in those days and thereafter, whenever the sons of God went into the daughters of human beings, and they bore children for them. Those were the Giants, the ones from of old, the renowned human beings.

*The meaning of Hebrew ‫ ידון‬is uncertain.

The task of the present essay is twofold: first, to consider Gen 6:1-4 as part of the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (MT); second, to explore how Watchers traditions may have affected ancient Greek translations of Genesis, especially the Septuagint (LXX). The relationship between MT and LXX in these verses is uncertain; with the exception of the Samaritan Pentateuch (which does not differ substantially from MT), no non-Masoretic witnesses to the Vorlage of Gen. 6:1-4 have been found. This allows more than one interpretation of the differences between the MT and LXX versions of this passage.

The Watchers Traditions and Gen 6:1-4 (MT and LXX) | 27

Author and Audience Although Gen. 6:1-4 functions as a meaningful unit within the larger narrative block of Genesis 1–11—and is therefore implicated in theories of Pentateuchal composition—its abrupt, fragmentary character, as well as its internal idiosyncrasies, indicate that the story (in some form) preexisted the Pentateuch and may also have been subject to secondary modification following its integration into the primeval history. Therefore, to ask who wrote Gen 6:1-4, and for whom, it is necessary to consider the passage from three distinct vantage points: 1. as a fragment of pre-Pentateuchal tradition 2. as a part of the primeval history 3. as a possible site of redaction Despite the frequent appearance in the Bible of filiation and marriage as metaphors for YHWH’s relationship to Israel (e.g., Exod. 4:22; Hos. 2:1-23), no biblical text apart from Gen. 6:1-4 depicts sexual union between mortals and divine beings. Conversely, such unions are a prominent fixture of both Mesopotamian and Greek mythologies. These observations favor the view that Gen. 6:1-4 contains or alludes to a myth either derived from non-Israelite tradition or cognate with it.2 It is impossible to reconstruct an original author and audience for this stage with any confidence. However, if the provenance of the myth is judged to be non-Israelite, then the earliest documentable Israelite exposure to that tradition becomes a terminus a quo for its absorption into the Pentateuchal narrative.3 Gen. 6:1-4 manifests features of the Yahwist (J) strand as defined by the classical Documentary Hypothesis; in addition to its use of the divine name, YHWH, the pericope displays lexical and thematic parallels with other Jpassages in the primeval history.4 Scholars agree that this material functions 2. See Ronald S. Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4,” JBL 106 (1987): 13–26; Anne Draffkorn Kilmer, “The Mesopotamian Counterparts of the Biblical Nĕpīlîm,” in Perspectives on Language and Text, ed. Edgar W. Conrad and Edward G. Newing (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 39–43. 3. This inference has been enlisted in support of pre-exilic (Robert B. Coote and David R. Ord, The Bible’s First History [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989]), exilic (John Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992]) and even post-exilic (Russell E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch [London: T&T Clark, 2006]) timeframes for the primeval history’s formation. 4. Although the nature and even existence of J is now widely contested, the literary and historical issues addressed by the documentary paradigm remain vital to Pentateuchal studies. For an orientation to the current debate, see Ernest W. Nicholson (The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius

28 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

to set the narrative of Israelite national identity within a universal context; they differ concerning the circumstances that precipitated this literary move. Nineteenth-century scholars generally located J in monarchic Judah (pre-722 bce).5 Gerhard von Rad atypically pushed its date back to the united monarchy under Solomon (ca. 950 bce), but his central thesis—that the primeval history creates a negative foil for the blessing of Abraham, a blessing realized in the achievements of David and his heirs—would presumably have been attractive to the Davidic dynasty at any stage of its career.6 The House of David’s loss of sovereignty to Babylon in 586 bce created a different context in which Judahites might reflect on their own identity within a larger world, particularly in relationship to the experience of geographical displacement (a recurrent motif in the primeval history).7 Two components of Gen. 6:1-4 are unlikely to have been integral to the original myth. Verse 3 has often been judged to be intrusive, either because it superimposes a “moralizing” perspective on an otherwise neutral etiology of quasi-divine heroes, or because it was the original conclusion of the myth and has been repositioned in order to generalize responsibility for the flood to all human beings. Alternatively, verse 3’s interest in longevity might link the pericope (and the deluge that follows it) to the genealogy in Gen. 5,8 or it might represent the introduction of a late Israelite “wisdom” theme.9 Similarly, the interjection “and also afterwards” (v. 4, discussed below) might be seen as a redactional attempt to relate the Nĕpīlîm of Gen. 6:4 to those of Num. 13:33. Whether these modifications were simultaneous with or posterior to the passage’s inclusion into the primeval history is difficult to decide; either way, they disclose an impulse to re-contextualize the myth and, conversely, to recontextualize other biblical passages and ideas in light of it.

Synopsis Three basic interpretive questions confront the reader of Gen. 6:1-4:

Wellhausen [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998]) and Jean-Louis Ska (Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006]). 5. Defended by Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: HarperCollins, 1987), 61–88. 6. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 29–31. 7. Van Seters, Prologue, 332. 8. Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 76. 9. Van Seters, Prologue, 153.

The Watchers Traditions and Gen 6:1-4 (MT and LXX) | 29

1. The identity of the miscegenators (Who are the “sons of God?”) 2. The logic of the divine response (Why target the whole of humanity?) 3. The relationship of the Nephilim to the offspring of the sons of God (Are they one and the same?) THE SONS OF GOD (V. 2) The Hebrew expression ‫ בני האלהים‬can mean either “the sons of God” or “the sons of the gods,” depending on how ‫ אלהים‬is construed. The latter (plural) sense is known from other West Semitic inscriptions, where it inclusively designates “the gods” (male and female alike).10 This cannot be its primary connotation in Genesis, since the sexual scenario requires the actors to be exclusively male. Also, the textual tradition of LXX unanimously supports the singular reading of ‫( אלהים‬τοῦ θεοῦ). Who, then, are the sons of God? The expression is not unique to Genesis. It appears also in the book of Job, where it designates a class of deities who attend God in his divine court (1:6; 2:1; cf. 38:7). The image of the divine council is well known from Ugaritic literature,11 and is dramatically evoked by Psalm 82, where God comprehensively acknowledges the other gods as “sons of Elyon” (v. 7). Identical in meaning is ‫בני אלים‬, attested in Pss. 29:1 and 89:6. The singular form in Aramaic (‫ )בר־אלהין‬is found in Dan. 3:25.12 Thus, MT attests a plurality of divine beings who relate to God as actuaries of his will or (in the case of Psalm 82) as conciliar associates.13 Neither of these connotations is hinted at, much less developed, by our passage. Rather, the author seems to be enlisting a conventional expression in order to foreground the theme of boundary transgression and category mixing. In this connection, one may note the symmetrical opposition highlighted by the construct chains, ‫“( בני האלהים‬the sons of God”) and ‫“( בנות האדם‬the daughters of Adam”). 10. Simon B. Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 794–800, 794–95. 11. E. Theodore Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, HSM 24 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980). 12. Another text that shares this idiom is Deut. 32:8, which, in LXX and 4QDeut j, speaks of Elyon as having apportioned the nations and their territories “according to the number of the sons of God.” MT, with the Samaritan Pentateuch, reads “sons of Israel” in place of this. 13. Their filial connection to God, though seemingly entailed by the moniker, is nowhere elaborated in the Hebrew Bible, but is present, again, in Ugaritic texts concerning El. On the complicated matter of YHWH’s equivalency (or not) with El/Elyon, see Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).

30 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

In some—but not all—MT passages where ‫ בני האלהים‬or its equivalents occur, LXX reads “angels” in place of “sons.”14 It is uncertain whether this substitution also took place with respect to our passage. Both major surviving manuscripts of the fourth century ce (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) lack Gen. 6:1-4 due to incomplete preservation. The third most important manuscript, Alexandrinus (fifth century ce), includes the pericope, but deviates from the majority of later witnesses by reading “angels” in v. 2.15 Even if this represents a later revision to LXX, it remains significant for the question of how Watchers traditions may have influenced reception of this text. But caution is needed here. By itself, a shift in terminology need not imply a different understanding of Gen. 6:2.16 YHWH’S REACTION (V. 3) Even without the benefit of LXX’s version of v. 3, which lacks the obscure wording of MT, the implication of the divine reply seems clear enough: cohabitation of mortals with immortals will not result in enhanced longevity for the former. This verdict sits uneasily with vv. 1-2. Unlike other divine reactions in Genesis 3–11, which target those who transgress the divine will, the present judgment neither affects ‫ בני האלהים‬nor is its impact restricted to their spouses or progeny. Another element conspicuously lacking here is displacement: unlike Adam and Eve, Cain, Noah and the tower-builders, none

14. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Dan. 3:25. The Psalms retain “sons.” 15. The fact that “angels” appears over an erasure in this codex may cast doubt on its value for determining the original LXX reading. On the other hand, Philo of Alexandria, our earliest surviving witness to this passage, cites Gen. 6:2 verbatim with “angels” (Gig. 6). But cf. Q.G. 1.92, where Philo refers to both ἄγγελοι and υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ in his discussion of the pericope. The commentary format of Philo’s writings makes it unlikely that he altered the version (or versions) of LXX at his disposal, though there is a possibility that a later tradent modified some of his citations in order to bring them into conformity with contemporary translations. On this complicated question, see David W. Gooding and Valentin Nikiprowetzky, “Philo’s Bible in the De Gigantibus and Quod Deus sit Immutabilis,” in Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus sit Immutabilis, BJS 25; ed. David Winston and John Dillon (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983), 89–125. For a comprehensive survey of scholarship on Philo’s biblical citations, see Anna Passoni Dell’Acqua, “Upon Philo’s Biblical Text and the Septuagint,” in Italian Studies on Philo of Alexandria, ed. Francesca Calabi (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 25–52. 16. As Annette Yoshiko Reed (Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005], 217) observes, prior to the third century ce, translation alone did not dictate whether the sons of God in Gen. 6:1-4 were interpreted as angelic beings. A parallel example of such fluidity may be seen in Gen. 5:22 and 5:24, which appear to allude to the tradition of Enoch’s interaction with angels by saying that he “walked with the gods” (‫)ויתהלך את־האלהים‬.

The Watchers Traditions and Gen 6:1-4 (MT and LXX) | 31

of the participants in Gen. 6:1-4 suffers forced dislocation from their “place” as a result of the ruptured order of things. As noted, the apparent disconnect between vv. 1-2 and v. 3, combined with the disjointed character of the whole pericope, has led scholars to posit an older mythological narrative whose original conclusion has been overwritten by the biblical author. Be that as it may, such a conjecture does not wholly mitigate the verse’s uneven quality. This unevenness is highlighted by comparison with LXX, which (unlike MT) specifies the object of God’s pronouncement: “these human beings” (ἀνθρώποις τούτοις). Although “these” could conceivably refer to humankind as a whole, it makes more sense to understand the pronoun as designating a specific group of people: the offspring of the sons of God, implied by the taking of wives in v. 2 and overtly discussed in v. 4. NEPHILIM AND OFFSPRING (V. 4) Genesis appears to be uninterested in the identity, nature or motives of the sons of God; their sole function in the narrative is to beget offspring. However, the syntax of v. 4 is ambiguous. Does the masculine plural demonstrative pronoun, “those” (‫ ;המה‬ἐκεῖνοι), refer back to the offspring (who appear at the conclusion of the preceding sentence) or to the Nephilim (who appear at its beginning)? If “those” refers to the Nephilim (who would consequently have to be identified with “the warriors who were from of old, the men of name”), then they would appear to be an entirely different group from the children whom the daughters of humankind bore. If, on the other hand, the antecedent of “those” is the children, then “Nephilim” is simply another designation for these hybrid offspring. On the first reading, the focus of v. 4 remains the act of miscegenation itself, which the Nephilim reference merely anchors chronologically in a legendary epoch. On the second reading, the focus shifts to the identity of the offspring: who they were and why they were remembered. Does v. 4 speak of three groups (sons of God, offspring, Nephilim) or just two (sons of God, offspring/Nephilim)? The question is complicated by the claim that the Nephilim also existed “afterwards.” This interjection is troublesome not just because it disrupts the flow of the sentence, but because it is proleptic, implying events that have not yet been narrated. The same is true—etymologically at least—of the term, “Nephilim,” itself, which probably means “fallen ones.”17 Whoever the Nephilim were, their chief claim to fame would appear to be the fact that at 17. Hendel, “Demigods,” 22.

32 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

some point (after the events of Gen. 6:1-4?) they fell—presumably in battle, if they were warriors. But the “afterwards” also implies that they are antecedents and archetypes for more contemporary “men of name.”18 The expression, “the men of name” (‫)אנשי השם‬, used appositively with “the warriors who were from of old,” appears to connote the fame attaching to deeds of martial prowess.19 However, the human proclivity to “make a name for oneself” can carry a negative valence in Genesis, especially when contrasted with YHWH’s proposal to make Abraham’s name great (compare Gen. 11:4 with 12:2). YHWH’s militant contest with Pharaoh—which climaxes in the killing of offspring—invokes the name motif (Exod. 9:16; cf. 15:1-18, esp. v. 3). Thus, despite the ostensibly “neutral” portrayal of the ‫ אנשי השם‬in Gen. 6:4, their description may actually signal the larger theme of hubris that plays itself out elsewhere in the primeval history. Nephilim resurface in the book of Numbers. As the Israelite war-host prepares to invade Canaan, its spies bring back unwelcome news that the land is filled with powerful, bellicose inhabitants. Among these are the sons of Anak, who are said to be “from the Nephilim” (13:33). The preposition ‫“( מן‬from”) must carry either an originary or partitive sense in this context. If the Anakites are descendants of the Nephilim, then the Nephilim constitute a genealogical grouping not to be conflated with their latter-day progeny. If, on the other hand, the Anakites are to be reckoned as a sub-group among the Nephilim, then the Nephilim become, in effect, a sociological category: an aristocratic warring class, not confined to any one era, place or lineage. As the next passage to be discussed suggests, these alternatives need not be mutually exclusive. Used attributively, the qal active form of ‫ נפלים‬figures prominently in Ezekiel’s dirge for the king of Egypt. Faced with the prospect of annihilation in battle, the doomed Pharaoh and his army are mockingly consoled by YHWH: when they descend into the netherworld, they will enjoy the company of warriors from every nation “fallen by the sword” (‫)הנפלים בחרב‬.20 But these war dead compare poorly with the fallen warriors (‫“ )גבורים נפלים‬who descended to Sheol with their battle-gear, and whose swords were given under 18. If the Nephilim and the offspring are one and the same, their repeated emergence raises the possibility that the sons of God impregnated the daughters of humankind on more than one occasion. LXX’s translation of ‫ אשר‬by the indefinite, “whenever” (ὡς ἂν), followed by the imperfect, seems to favor this possibility. 19. For parallel uses of this idiom, see Num. 16:2 and 1 Chr. 5:24. See also the description of Nimrod in Gen. 10:8-9. 20. Ezek. 32:22, 23, 24; cf. the coordinate expression, “slain by the sword” (‫)חללי־חרב‬, in vv. 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32.

The Watchers Traditions and Gen 6:1-4 (MT and LXX) | 33

their heads, and whose shields are upon their bones” (32:27).21 Whether or not this verse consciously alludes to the warriors of Gen. 6:4, the oracle illustrates how the “fallen ones” trope is capable of functioning within the same passage both genealogically (as a unique group) and typologically (as an antecedent for other groups). LXX reinforced affinities among Genesis, Numbers, and Ezekiel by rendering ‫ נפלים‬and ‫ גבורים‬by the same Greek word: γίγαντες (“Giants”).22 In LXX, γίγας regularly translates the Hebrew ‫גבור‬.23 It is also used to render Rephaim (‫)רפאים‬, a term for the shades of the dead.24 Rephaim are sometimes equated with the aboriginal inhabitants of Canaan, eradicated by Israelite martial valor,25 and thus mirror Ezekiel’s fallen warriors. The translators’ instinct to homogenize these groups—Nephilim, Gibborim, Rephaim—under a single, all-purpose label reveals their sensitivity to the thematic interconnectedness of these groups in the Bible. None of the foregoing can resolve the more basic question of the Nephilim’s identity or non-identity with the offspring of the sons of God. However, if the Nephilim are not the offspring, what is the point of mentioning them here? Given the tightly interwoven motifs of name, progeny, and hubris elsewhere in the Pentateuch,26 it seems unwarranted to minimize the Nephilim as “simply a phenomenon of prediluvian antiquity that is worthy of note” without connection to the miscegenation incident.27 In the final analysis, though, the plausibility of either option will hinge upon larger conclusions about how the Pentateuch was composed and what motivated its authors to include material like Gen. 6:1-4. 21. The MT reads ‫“( מערלים‬from among the uncircumcised”), while the LXX reads ἀπὸ αἰῶνος (“from of old”). 22. As early as the eighth century bce, γίγαντες appear in Greek mythology as the monstrous, belligerant progeny of Gaia (fertilized by the blood of Uranus’s castration) who strove to supplant the Olympian gods until the latter were aided by Heracles, who defeated and destroyed the upstarts (e.g., Hesiod, Theogony, 183–187, 954; cf. frag. 43a 65; Homer, Od. 7.59-61, 205). By classical times, γίγας had also acquired the neutral, adjectival meaning of “mighty” (e.g., Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 692), much as we today might speak of something as being “titanic” without intending any conscious comparison with the Titans of Greek mythology. This linguistic usage parallels the career of γίγας in LXX. 23. Gen. 10:8-9; Pss. 18:6; 32:16; Isa. 3:2; 49:24-25; 1 Macc. 3:3. 24. Job 26:5; Prov. 21:16; Isa. 14:9. 25. Josh. 12:4; 1 Chr. 11:15. 26. Coote and Ord, The Bible’s First History, 60–62, 85–86, 95–96. 27. John J. Collins, “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men,” in Sacred Marriages: The DivineHuman Sexual Metaphor From Sumer To Early Christianity, ed. Martti Nissinen and Risto Uro (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 259–74, 262.

34 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Influence The influence of Gen. 6:1-4 on the Watchers traditions is undeniable.28 Whatever historical process lay behind the production, promulgation and acceptance of the Pentateuch as an authoritative document, once this had happened, it was inevitable that our passage would serve as a lightning rod for the reception of Watchers traditions among Jews, Christians, and related groups. It is also possible in the case of LXX—and very likely in the case of its successors—that the translation history of Gen. 6:1-4 has itself been shaped by these traditions. In other words, influence may have gone both ways. While a few scholars have proposed that Gen. 6:1-4 is an abridgement of the Book of the Watchers,29 most would see the latter as an expansion of the former.30 On balance, it seems reasonable to expect derivative texts—even when abridging—to clarify rather than obfuscate their source material. Thus, if Gen. 6:1-4 were dependent on the Book of the Watchers rather than the other way around, we might expect the resulting adaptation to display less awkwardness and fewer lacunae than it does. Yet the very premise of direct textual dependency assumes either Genesis or the Book of the Watchers to be the sole bearer of a myth not available elsewhere. The major alternative to this model is to posit a common body of lore that predates both texts. In this view, Genesis and the Book of the Watchers may be seen as independent reflexes of a much more widespread tradition. Whichever scenario one opts for, it is clear that individual elements of Gen. 6:1-4 have stimulated the growth of Watchers lore. The characterization of the Watchers in some traditions as “fallen” angels obviously owes much to the probable etymology of ‫נפלים‬, even though Genesis does not apply this title 28. Note the differing views on the relationship between Gen. 6:1-4 and the Watchers traditions in this volume. 29. J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 30–31; Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch, or, I Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 124–25; Margaret Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1987), 18–19. 30. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 38–39; James C. VanderKam, “Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, JSPSup 14, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 103–7; George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 166–168; Siam Bhayro, The Shemihazah and Asael Narrative of 1 Enoch 6–11: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary with Reference to Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Antecedents (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005), 7–9.

The Watchers Traditions and Gen 6:1-4 (MT and LXX) | 35

to the miscegenators themselves. Equally influential has been the obscure “and also afterwards,” which contributed to a long-standing debate concerning the postdiluvian fate of the Giants.31 Even more basic to the development of the Watchers traditions is the identity of the sons of God, of whose nature and origin Genesis breathes not a word.32 Enigma invites elaboration. One peculiarity of LXX is that the minority reading of “angels” in place of “sons” in v. 2 is almost never replicated in v. 4 (where υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ is retained). This inconsistency may be a reflex of the angelic interpretation of ‫ בני האלהים‬in the Book of the Watchers, which parallels Gen. 6:2 but not 6:4.33 Another feature of LXX that might point to interaction with Watchers traditions is the specifying τούτοις of Gen. 6:3. Although the verse lacks any punitive implications, the probability that it intends to single out the offspring moves the narrative in the same direction as Watchers traditions that target the Giants for punishment. On the other hand, the harmonization of Nephilim and Gibborim as γίγαντες moves in a different direction from the Book of the Watchers, which not only distinguishes these groups, but has them begetting each other sequentially (1 En. 7:2). The second century ce saw a proliferation of alternative Greek translations of the Bible, the most famous of which—those of Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus—were preserved in Origen’s Hexapla. These translators share a tendency to “correct” LXX in accordance with the emerging standardized Hebrew text. In the case of our passage, however, only Theodotion stands in continuity with what would later become the MT reading. Aquila renders ‫בני‬ ‫ האלהים‬as “sons of the gods” (υἱοὶ τῶν θεῶν), probably meaning “worshippers of the gods, idolaters.”34 Symmachus departs even more radically from the Hebrew with “sons of the powerful ones” (υἱοὶ τῶν δυναστευόντων), a development with parallels in early rabbinic literature.35 These renderings open up the possibility of interpreting the miscegenators of Gen. 6:2 and 6:4 as human rather than superhuman beings, which may signal a conscious rejection of Watchers traditions.36 31. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and Third Century bce Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions,” DSD 7 (2000): 354–77. 32. Unless one finds oblique allusions to them in Gen. 1:26 and 2:1. 33. Reed, Fallen Angels, 118. 34. For analysis, see Philip S. Alexander, “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” JJS 23 (1972): 60–72, esp. 64–65. 35. Targums Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan provide an exact Aramaic equivalent to Symmachus’s reading, while Targum Neofiti has “sons of the judges.” See Alexander (“Targumim,” 64) for synopsis.

36 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Since we do not know what the Vorlage of LXX Gen. 6:1-4 looked like, we are not in a position to decide whether its translation is a literal rendering or an interpretive rewrite. If the translation faithfully reproduced its Hebrew source, this would mean that the story once existed in a form different from what we find in the stabilized MT—a form either influenced by Watchers traditions or participating in exegetical moves shared by those traditions. If, on the other hand, LXX’s Vorlage possessed the basic attributes of MT and the Samaritan versions, then the translation’s deviations from its source would likewise suggest influence. Either way, the case for interaction with Watchers traditions is strong.

Recommendations for Further Research The canonical status of the Bible tends to breed unidirectional models of tradition, whereby a “fixed” textual bedrock is thought to give rise to diverse reformulations as its tradents and translators collide with changing historical circumstances. The foregoing analysis of Gen. 6:1-4 points to a more dynamic situation. Whether one dates the primeval history to pre- or post-exilic times, the myth it encapsulates and transforms may already be implicated in a broader web of traditions that are genetically linked to Watchers lore. Even if the Book of the Watchers is thought to be literarily dependent on Gen. 6:1-4, it cannot be denied that the former has also independently (re?)absorbed mythological motifs that may have directly or indirectly contributed to the Genesis story as well.37 In other words, when viewed together, the compositional and translation histories of Gen. 6:1-4 point to multiple moments of two or even three-way interaction among the Bible, the Book of the Watchers, and the underlying traditions shared by both. Undoubtedly the twin advent of Macedonian rule and Hellenic cosmopolitanism supplied an important catalyst for such “feedback loops” within the Watchers traditions. Not only did the emergence of Greek as the new lingua franca necessitate the translation of Genesis, it also brought its translators and readers into renewed contact with both western and eastern mythological traditions. This should draw our attention to the intercultural dimensions of translation.38 36. Alexander, “Targumim;” Reed, Fallen Angels, 206–218; See as well, Franklin T. Harkins, “The Embodiment of Angels: A Debate in Mid-Thirteenth Century Theology,” Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 78 (2011): 25–58. 37. Consider Ida Frölich’s case for Mesopotamian influence on the Book of the Watchers (in this collection) in the light of Kilmer’s comments on Genesis (“Mesopotamian Counterparts”).

The Watchers Traditions and Gen 6:1-4 (MT and LXX) | 37

To take just one example, the identification of Nephilim and Gibborim as γίγαντες plays on objectively similar (perhaps even genetically related) mythological traditions shared by Israelite and Hellenic cultures.39 It must be remembered, however, that the Jewish readers of LXX were themselves immersed in the Greek cultural universe whose koine they spoke, and they often appropriated that universe in deliberate and creative ways.40 Intercultural analysis of γίγαντες must therefore move beyond questions of “functional” equivalency between words in the source and target languages in order to explore how the use of γίγαντες might go hand-in-hand with the absorption of distinctively Greek traditions about the Giants. It invites us to consider more closely how LXX may have mediated—or, retrospectively, how it provides evidence for—the colonization of the Watchers traditions by Hellenic notions.

Brief Bibliography Collins, John J. “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men.” Pages 259-74 in Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor From Sumer to Early Christianity. Edited by Martti Nissinen and Risto Uro. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Hendel, Ronald S. “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4.” JBL 106 (1987): 13-26. ———. “The Nephilim were on the Earth: Genesis 6: 1-4 and its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” Pages 11-34 in The Fall of the Angels. TBN 6. Edited by Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Vervenne, M. “All They Need is Love: Once More Genesis 6.1-4.” Pages 19–40 in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. A. Sawyer. Edited by Jon Davies, Wilfred G.E. Watson, and Graham Harvey. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. Atlanta: Scholars, 1993.

38. Most recently discussed by Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 39. As was observed already by Josephus, Ant. 1.73. 40. For examples of this phenomenon, see Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, HCS 30 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).

38 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Wright, Archie T. “Strategies of Interpreting Genesis 6:1-4.” Pages 51–95 in The Origin of Evil Spirits. WUNT 2.198; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

3

Symbolic Resistance in the Bo Book ok of the Watchers Anathea Portier-Young

The Book of the Watchers provides one of our most important starting points for tracking the growth and development of the Watchers traditions. As is well known, its writers crafted their portrait and myth of the Watchers by drawing on other earlier traditions. Much attention has been given to the connection between the Book of the Watchers and traditions preserved in Genesis 6–8. I focus on the use of non-native myths and motifs in the formation of the early Watchers traditions. The writers of the Book of the Watchers adapted key myths and motifs from Hellenic and Mesopotamian traditions to mount a pointed critique of their Hellenistic rulers and the local cultic leaders who collaborated with them. In so doing they countered imperial claims to power and the ordering of the world. They simultaneously assailed the practices and epistemological foundations of local religious leadership. Through critical inversion of non-native myths and motifs the writers of the Book of the Watchers engaged in symbolic resistance to imperial violence and hegemony and to perceived corruption of the cult, asserting an alternative cosmology and epistemology that sought to reclaim and reshape the political, religious, and moral imagination of its audience. Hellenistic kings ruled by force. Conquest was the engine of empire, and warfare was accordingly a constant throughout the Hellenistic kingdoms.1 But empire’s success also depended on nonviolent means of control. Commonly labeled “hegemony,” these means include “the whole range of dominant cultural institutions and social practices, from schooling, museums, and political 1. Michel M. Austin, “Hellenistic Kings, War, and the Economy,” Classical Quarterly 36 (1986): 450–66.

39

40 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

parties to religious practice, architectural forms, and the mass media.”2 These institutions and practices, including a culture’s arts, technologies, stories, and myths, convey a cosmology, a story and map of the world that establishes a framework for belief and action.3 Hegemony asserts as normative and universal what are in fact particular and contingent ways of perceiving the world, mapping the universe and humanity’s place in it, and defining poles of opposition. This cosmology demarcates inside from outside, center from periphery, normal from aberrant. Its logic legitimates claims about truth and morality. Some have emphasized the difficulty of thinking beyond hegemonic cosmologies.4 Its logic can become so invisible as to resist questioning.5 To the extent that this logic becomes internalized, the merely possible appears necessary, the contingent appears absolute, and ways of ordering human life that have taken shape through time appear to be part of “nature.”6 In this way, hegemonic cosmologies simultaneously constrain imagination and action. Yet periods of rapid change, including experiences of intensive cultural contact and crisis, open up possibilities for challenging this cosmology, for renaming, and answering hegemony with resistant counter-discourse.7 The Book of the Watchers presents this alternative cosmology in part through its narrated heavenly journey. It also answers myth with myth, inverting symbols to assert an alternative order and account of reality. The very binary nature of the hegemonic construction of reality (inside/outside, center/ periphery, good/bad, civilized/barbaric, normal/aberrant) creates the possibility for resistance to hegemony through critical inversion, wherein categories are retained but the hierarchy of values or assignment of value is turned upside

2. Timothy Mitchell, “Everyday Metaphors of Power,” Theory and Society 19 (1990): 545–77, 553. See further Joseph Femia, Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981). 3. Daniel Miller, “The Limits of Dominance,” in Domination and Resistance, ed. Daniel Miller, Michael Rowlands, and Christopher Tilley (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 63–79, 64. 4. Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 168. 5. Miller, “Limits of Dominance,” 66. 6. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, 78–79. 7. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, 166. Richard Terdiman, Discourse/Counter-Discourse: The Theory and Practice of Symbolic Resistance in Nineteenth-Century France (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 59.

Symbolic Resistance in the Book of the Watchers | 41

down.8 This inversion is most effectively achieved by recasting myths and revalorizing symbols. The Book of the Watchers asserts not only cosmology but also cosmic drama. In both, the Watchers play a crucial role. They represent, in part, the Hellenistic rulers. They represent, in part, priestly leaders in the Jerusalem cult. But they are more than ciphers. They are figures charged with maintaining and displaying the order of the cosmos, marking time and seasons, demarcating earth from heaven, human from divine, and human from angelic. Their transgressions destabilize order and corrupt knowledge. The writers of the Book of the Watchers created a new mythology by joining inverted structures and motifs from Greek and Babylonian mythology to native Israelite traditions. Here I focus on the Prometheus myth and Gigantomachy from Greek traditions, and the motif of astral mediation from Babylonian religious traditions.

Prometheus, the Fallen Watchers, and Enoch The Book of the Watchers adapts elements of the Greek Prometheus myth, assimilating the role of the titan and culture hero Prometheus to two of its characters, Asael (and the fallen Watchers more generally) and Enoch, both of whom cross the boundary between earth and heaven to transmit knowledge to humankind.9 Both Prometheus and the fallen Watchers, Asael among them, are condemned for excessive—indeed inappropriate—“love” of humankind.10 As in the Prometheus myth, so in the Book of the Watchers the high god punishes 8. David Sánchez traces the inversion of imperial myths in Rev 12 and in later appropriation of its imagery in the Americas. Referring to the “dragon slayer myth,” Sánchez writes, “Subjects of the empire were well aware of the power of this mythical motif and understood that effective diatribes against emperor and empire could begin only with a critique of this foundational myth.” From Patmos to the Barrio: Subverting Imperial Myths (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 13. 9. See George W.E. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11,” JBL 96 (1977): 383–405, esp. 399–404. 10. Prometheus’s chains will teach him “to stop his way of loving humankind” (φιλανθρώπου δὲ παύεσθαι τρόπου PV 11; line numbers correspond to Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, ed. and trans. Anthony J. Podlecki [Oxford: Aris & Phillips, 2005]); he names his crime as “loving mortals too much” (τὴν λίαν φιλότητα βροτῶν 123; cf. 30, 543–44). On the theme of “Prometheus philanthrôpos,” see Podlecki’s introduction to Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, 16–27. Yet in PV it is Zeus’s lust for Io that more closely parallels the fallen Watchers’ transgressive sexual desire for human women, prompting the chorus to reflect on the wisdom of marrying one’s “own kind” (καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν 890) and proclaiming “nor would I be the bride of any god come out of heaven” (μηδὲ πλαθείην γαμέτᾳ τινὶ τῶν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, 897). Translation is that of James Scully in Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, trans. James Scully (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975).

42 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

the one who transmits stolen knowledge to humans by having him bound in a deserted place and subjected to physical torment (1 En. 10:4-5). These structural parallels allow for a series of inversions. While Prometheus, “the patron of suffering [hu]mankind,”11 was portrayed by Aeschylus as a noble benefactor whose teachings bettered human existence and even saved humans from extinction (PV 231–36), Asael is portrayed in the Book of the Watchers as the one “who has taught all iniquity on the earth” (1 En. 9:6). The consequences of the Watchers’ transgressions threaten the earth and humankind. By contrast, in the Book of the Watchers, it is God who intervenes so that “all humankind may not perish” as well as for the healing of the earth (1 En. 10:7). The inversion delivers an epistemological and theological critique.12 The content of the Watchers’ stolen knowledge in the Book of the Watchers can be identified with various cultural legacies from Babylonian and Greek traditions, including military technologies, metallurgy, cosmetology, herbology, sorcery, and astronomy (1 En. 8:1-3), all valued in Greek and Babylonian traditions. In the Book of the Watchers these are degraded as the false teachings of fallen 11. C. John Herington, introduction to Prometheus Bound, by Aeschylus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975), 11. 12. Few scholars would dispute that the Book of the Watchers is sharp in its critique. Yet its complex composition history and the multiple traditions it engages make it impossible to pin down one target for all its layers, or even for its “final form.” Its rich symbolism speaks into many moments and settings and addresses multiple, shifting concerns. While Nickelsburg has called attention to a likely critique of the Diadochoi in chs. 6–11 (“Apocalyptic and Myth”), David Suter has argued that chs. 6–16 take aim at an internal threat, namely a corrupt priestly group that has violated purity laws concerning marriage. David Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch,” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35. Suter’s suggestion relies in part on the reconstructions of the growth of “apocalyptic” from within a movement that exhibited “growing dissatisfaction with the priestly establishment in Jerusalem” (134) as argued in the works of Otto Plöger (Theocracy and Eschatology, trans. S. Rudman [Oxford: Blackwell, 1968]; originally published as Theokratie und Eschatologie [Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1959]) and Paul D. Hanson (The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975]) (both are cited in Suter, “Fallen Angel,” 134, n. 52). Yet the sociological models used by Plöger and Hanson have rightly been challenged, most notably in the work of Stephen L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). This does not invalidate all of Suter’s arguments. The reference to the Watchers’ abandoning the heavenly sanctuary (1 En. 12:4) and violating ordained boundaries certainly suggests priestly concerns. See also David Suter, “Revisiting Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest,” Henoch 24 (2002): 137–42. William Loader suggests that the critique of “forbidden mixing” in 1 Enoch 12–16 may extend beyond inner-priestly critique to a critique of marriage with Gentile women more generally, with a special concern for the knowledge they bring from their native cultures. Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes Toward Sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 43, 46–49.

Symbolic Resistance in the Book of the Watchers | 43

Watchers (1 En. 9:6; 13:2; 16:3).13 At the same time, the role of transmitter of salvific knowledge is transferred to Enoch, a human being. The knowledge he carries across heaven’s threshold (i.e., the revealed wisdom transmitted through the Enochic literature) is preserved not among the Greeks but among the Jewish tradents of the Enoch traditions. Knowledge is power, and knowledge claims underwrite power. By condemning various forms of knowledge associated with Babylonian and Greek traditions as false and demonic—including the knowledge of warfare and methods of prognostication that played a crucial role in military campaigns and other affairs of state14—and by elevating Enochic revealed wisdom, the Book of the Watchers begins to deconstruct the very epistemological claims of the Hellenistic empires and assert in their place a knowledge that reveals the universal sovereignty of the one God.

Gigantomachy Prometheus played an important role in the Greek myth of titanomachy, or the war between the Olympian gods and the titans (a generation of gods older than the Olympians) that would give the Olympians rule in heaven and confine the titans to Tartaros.15 Closely related to the titanomachy was the myth of 13. As Nickelsburg points out (“Apocalyptic and Myth,” 400), several of these types of knowledge were associated with the teachings of Prometheus. See also Podlecki, introduction to Prometheus Bound, 25. Examples from PV include astronomy (454–58), mantic arts (484–99), metals (500–503), chariotry (465–66), and healing arts (478–83). At the same time, the treatment of these forms of knowledge in the Book of the Watchers is not dependent on or interacting with solely Greek traditions. The fact that multiple fallen angels, associated with the stars, are mediators of the knowledges in question suggests a strong connection to Babylonian learning as well. For the relation of the study of metals, herbs, and sorcery to astronomy in Babylonian thought and scholarship, see Erica Reiner, “Astral Magic in Babylonia,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 85 (1995): i–150. 14. Francesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 76–77, 221–26. Rochberg notes that in the classic compendium enuma anu enlil the apodoses were concerned with the “health and life of the body politic,” both agricultural and political, with political concerns including the “king’s military campaigns, diplomatic relations, [and the] downfall of kingdoms” (76–77). She notes that the scribal office of tupshar enuma anu enlil reemerged in Seleucid Babylonia (228). Though its social roles and location had changed considerably (most notably moving from palace to temple), traditional associations would have remained strong (Heavenly Writing, 233, 295). On Alexander’s regard for Babylonian prognostication, see Robartus van der Spek, “Darius III, Alexander the Great, and Babylonian Scholarship,” in A Persian Perspective: Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, ed. Wouder Henkelman and Amélie Kuhrt (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het nabije Oosten, 2003), 289–346. 15. On the influence of the titanomachy on Jewish traditions, including 1 Enoch, see Jan M. Bremmer, “Remember the Titans!” in The Fall of the Angels, ed. Christoph Auffarth and Loren Stuckenbruck

44 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

gigantomachy in which the earth (Gaia), angered by the imprisonment of the defeated titans, roused her children the Giants to challenge the rule established by the Olympians through their earlier victory. By the fifth century bce, the two myths were frequently merged, paving the way for creative adaptation of elements from both traditions in the Book of the Watchers.16 The gigantomachy served as political myth, allegorically portraying Greek victory over “barbarian” enemies.17 In the symbolism of the gigantomachy, Giants represent “uncivilized” peoples, distinguished above all by their violence.18 David Castriota argues that by the fifth century bce “the violence and disorder of the Giants and other monsters had already come to appear as the antithesis of the human values of moderation, virtue, and piety considered essential to civilized life.”19 The defeat of the Giants by the Olympian gods served as “the ultimate mythic paradigm for the defense of law and sophrosyne [moderation or self-control] and the punishment of hubris.”20 At the political level, the myth thus provided a paradigm for conceiving the victory of “Greeks,” symbolically identified with the Olympians they worshipped, against excessive, disorderly “barbarians.”21 In the Hellenistic period, the conquests of the Hellenistic kings and the spread of their culture, religion, and forms of (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 35–61. Prometheus himself was a titan, but in the great combat he allied himself with the Olympian gods. 16. On the merger or confusion of the two traditions, see Bremmer, “Remember the Titans!” 54. See also Eduard Fraenkel, “The Giants in the Poem of Naevius,” The Journal of Roman Studies 44 (1954): 14–17. In this fragmentary poem from the third century bce, the designations Titani and Gigantes are employed in synonymous parallelism. 17. For analysis of how this mythology functioned in monumental art, see David Castriota, Myth, Ethos, and Actuality: Official Art in Fifth Century Athens (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992); and Françoise-Hélène Massa-Pairault, La gigantomachie de Pergame ou l’image du monde (Athens: École française d’Athènes, 2007). While the altar at Pergamon postdates the Book of the Watchers, it testifies to the enduring legacy of the gigantomachy as political myth in the Hellenistic era. For a study of the classical gigantomachy tradition that gives special attention to its religious and cultic associations, see Francis Vian, La guerre des géants: le mythe avant l’époque hellénistique (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1952). 18. Cf. Richard T. Neer’s analysis of the North frieze of the Siphnian treasury at Delphi (dating to the sixth century bce): “Siphnian North expresses the difference between gods and giants—the difference between order and impiety—as a difference of fighting style.” Richard T. Neer, “Framing the Gift: The Siphnian Treasury at Delphi and the Politics of Public Art,” in The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaboration, ed. Carol Dougherty and Leslie Kurke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 129–52, 143. 19. Castriota, Myth, Ethos, and Actuality, 139. See also Ken Dowden, The Uses of Greek Mythology (London: Routledge, 2005), 58, 96, 112–14. 20. Castriota, Myth, Ethos, and Actuality, 139.

Symbolic Resistance in the Book of the Watchers | 45

“civilization” could be conceived as a reenactment of and participation in the gigantomachy myth and the political and cultural ideals it enshrined. 22 Drawing heavily on native Israelite traditions, especially those found in Gen. 6:1-4, 1 Enoch 6–11 reverses this allegory in its own elaborated mythology, suggesting an identification between the Giants and the Hellenistic rulers themselves.23 In a variation on the theme of gigantomachy, the Watchers that have abandoned their place in heaven to live among and have intercourse with human women beget monstrous children, Giants characterized above all by their brutality and voracious appetites. First they devour “the labor of all human beings” until humans no longer have food to feed them (1 En. 7:3). Then they devour people (7:4). Finally, they begin to devour one another (7:5).24 In a pointed inversion of Gaia’s outrage against the Olympians, in the 21. Susan A. Stephens, Seeing Double: Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 64. She notes that in classical Greek art the defeat of the Giants “signaled iconographically the civilizing influence of the Greek city-states and their individual or collective defeat of the irrational, uncivilized worlds that preceded them.” See also Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition Through Tragedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 53, 68, 102. 22. This development goes against the grain of one of the most famous renderings of the gigantomachy, namely the west metopes of Pheidias’s Parthenon frieze. Here, as Castriota has demonstrated, the aim was not to legitimate empire, which would violate Athenian democratic ideals, but rather to deny empire and lift up instead the ideal of symmachia (Myth, Ethos, and Actuality, 194–98). It is precisely in the transition from symmachia (the allied city-state model) to empire, and in efforts, like those of the Diadochoi Antigonus and Demetrius, to yoke symmachia to imperial ambitions, that the “Greeks” become susceptible to the critique through inversion that I describe here. 23. For the argument that the fallen Watchers and Giants in the Book of the Watchers symbolize, at one level, the Diadochoi and their successors, see Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth,” 383–405. Rainer Albertz also finds that in the battle of “mutual extermination” fought by the Giants “anyone could recognize the battles of the Diadochi and the never-ending chain of Syrian wars” (History of Israelite Religion [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994], 579). I treat the violent legacy of the Hellenistic kings in greater detail in Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 49–77. A later Jewish corpus uses the same myth to convey a polemic against Alexander and his successors: in the Sibylline oracles Alexander and his descendants are identified as “from the race of Cronos, the progeny of bastards and slaves” (Sib. Or. 3.383). Alexander is called “savage, stranger to justice” (3.390; cf. 11.216) and the “bastard of the son of Cronos” who “lay waste the cities of many articulate men” (11.198). The Diadochoi are “kings who are devourers of the people and overbearing and faithless.” Translations are those of John J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 317–472. The verses from book 3 date to the late first century bce, while the verses from book 11 date to the turn of the era (Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” 358, 432). 24. Cf. Greg Carey’s reading of Rev. 17:16: “We cannot readily account for how Revelation at once identifies Babylon with the Beast, then depicts the devastation of the one by the other. That the Empire devours its own self, however, seems evident.” “The Book of Revelation as Counter-Imperial Script,” in

46 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Book of the Watchers the ravaged earth accuses the Giants before the heavenly court (7:6). Inverting the ideals of moderation/self control (sophrosyne), law, and order, they are the portrait of excess, lawlessness, and disorder. Their appetites know no limits, exhausting food supplies, violating the sacred boundaries that mark life from death (their final crime: “they drank the blood,” 7:5), devastating humanity, and eventually consuming one another. Gabriel receives the commission to destroy them, yet in a radical twist on the traditional gigantomachy myth, their destruction will come about through their very lack of self-control: he will “send them against one another in a war of destruction” (10:9). This critical inversion retains the polarities and value structures of inside/ outside, civilized/uncivilized, ordered/violent, and moderate/excessive. But in refracting the myth through native Israelite traditions regarding Enoch, the “sons of God,” and the mighty warriors found in Genesis 5–6 and by symbolically recasting the role of the Giants in both myths, 1 Enoch 6–11 implicitly assigns the negative value of each pair to the “Greeks” or, more accurately, the warring rulers, generals, and armies of the Hellenistic empires.25 This critical inversion is closely linked with the inversion of the Prometheus myth, noted above. That is, the unceasing violence and devastating appetite of the Hellenistic rulers and their armies suggest that they, not the people they have conquered, are the mythic “Giants.” The corollary to this identification is that they are also uncivilized. The culture and knowledge they bear, as noted above, is not civilizing, as they and others imagine, but destructive and death dealing.

Astral Messengers A third example of inversion draws on Babylonian traditions. Babylonian astral magic identified the stars as heavenly mediators. A line from a cultic prayer to the Yoke star portrays this role by means of a tightly structured chiasm that foregrounds the messenger role while underscoring the reciprocity between human and divine made possible by the star’s mediation: išapparkunūši ilu ana amēli amēlu ana ili In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance, ed. Richard A. Horsley (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 157–82, 167. 25. Elsewhere in the Book of the Watchers the Giants provide an etiology for diseases and evil spirits (1 En. 15:6–16:1).

Symbolic Resistance in the Book of the Watchers | 47

The god sends you to a human, and human to the god.26 In this latter role, sent from human to god, stars could carry prayers from the human realm to the divine realm, conveying the extent of human suffering and presenting petitions to the gods.27 In this intercessory role, “stars are [hu]man’s medium of communication with the divine.”28 In the prayer quoted above, the verbal root šapāru, “to send a message” or “to write,” not only underscores the mediatorial function of the star as messenger but also evokes the correlation between stars and writing.29 Other prayers address the stars as divine judges (ilū dajānī). They rendered verdicts or decrees, sometimes in the form of dreams (cf. the decree of the heavenly Watchers delivered to Nebuchadnezzar in his dream in Dan. 4:17), at other times through omens.30 1 Enoch 12–16 inverts key features of this cosmic relationship between humanity, God, and divinely appointed heavenly mediators by means of a partial correlation between the Watchers and stars.31 Like the stars, the Watchers are to mediate between humans and God. Yet in abandoning their heavenly sanctuary (1 En. 12:4, 15:3) they have also forsaken their proper role 26. Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia, 15. 27. Ibid., 16. 28. Ibid., 15. 29. See Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 1–2 and passim. For a semiological account of the relation between writing and creation, destiny, and divination in Mesopotamia, see Zainab Bahrani, The Graven Image: Representation in Babylonia and Assyria (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 96–120, 202–10. 30. Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia, 68–73. 31. Their precise relationship is ambiguously constructed in the earliest Enochic booklets (see 1 En. 18:12-16; 21:1-5; 75:1, 80:1, 6-8; 82:4, 9-20). Nickelsburg notes that “when 18:15 speaks of ‘transgressing’ stars, it is alluding to a variation on the myth of the rebellion of the watchers.” 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 288. Stars symbolize the Watchers in the allegory of the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 86:1, 3). In Babylonian prayer, the stars are addressed as “You who see the entire world” (hā’iṭ kibrāti, CT 23 36; Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia, 17). The verb “to see,” barû, can also mean “watch over.” The Babylonian god Shamash was also identified as the “one who sees,” and the bārû priesthood who served him derived their name from this root (Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia, 65). For a suggested connection between the “Watchers” and the bārû priests, see Siam Bhayro, “Daniel’s ‘Watchers’ in Enochic Exegesis of Genesis 6:1-4,” in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible, ed. George Brooke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 58–66, esp. 63–64. In keeping with the inversion described here, the Book of the Watchers transfers many characteristics of Enmeduranki, the legendary founder of the bārû priesthood, to Enoch. See James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQMS 16 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 43–45, 56–70; and Andrei A. Orlov, The EnochMetatron Tradition (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 23–76.

48 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

as mediators. God now assigns this role to Enoch, “righteous scribe” (12:4), who will convey the verdict to the Watchers. They are condemned to “make perpetual petition” (12:6), with no hope of mercy (14:4), while Asael is denied even the possibility of petition (13:2). When Enoch conveys the message to the Watchers, they ask him to write and convey their petition for them, which he does (13:4-7). The rebuke he carries to them in response denies them any possibility of serving as intermediaries in the future, for they will never again ascend to heaven (14:5). Not only will their own petition be forever refused, but they cannot intercede for the children they love, the Giants (14:6-7). Enoch must proclaim to them the irony of the inversion: “You should petition in behalf of humans, and not humans in behalf of you” (15:2). The emphasis on the mediating function of the Watchers, linked with their heavenly temple service, appears at first glance to be only loosely connected with the critique, described above, of the Hellenistic rulers, their armies and ideology of conquest, and the culture they represent. The references to the heavenly sanctuary suggest instead an interest in those who have responsibility for the temple cult in Jerusalem.32 Yet these concerns are closely intertwined. Priests within the Jerusalem establishment worked closely with the imperial administration and derived at least a portion of their authority from this source.33 Recognizing this connection, Patrick Tiller suggests that the Book of the Watchers “reflects an anti-imperial stance that rejects not only the foreign rulers, but also their local, priestly representatives.”34 Local cultic leaders who have allied themselves closely with the imperial administration, whether through nontraditional marriages or other forms of alliance and patronage, have, according to the Book of the Watchers, abandoned their proper mediating role between God and God’s people. By combining inverted elements from Babylonian and Greek traditions with native traditions that highlight purity concerns and (abandoned) temple service, the book’s composers symbolically locate the practices of local religious authorities within the broader hegemonic

32. At the same time, other features suggest an identification of the Watchers (and not only the Giants, as posited above) with the Hellenistic rulers, including the forms of knowledge they bring, their superhuman stature and might (see Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 49–77), their outsider status, and their transgressive desire (here reading sexual desire as a symbol for the desire enacted through conquest and imperial exploitation). They are not simply stand-ins for Hellenistic rulers or for priests, but supple symbolic vehicles for critique of a complex and shifting target. 33. Ibid., 57–62, 70–73. 34. Patrick Tiller, “The Sociological Settings of the Components of 1 Enoch,” in The Early Enoch Literature, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 252.

Symbolic Resistance in the Book of the Watchers | 49

system and hold them accountable alongside the Hellenistic rulers with whom they now appear to be complicit.

Brief Bibliography Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Castriota, David. Myth, Ethos, and Actuality: Official Art in Fifth Century Athens. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. Femia, Joseph. Gramsci’s Political Thought; Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. Mitchell, Timothy. “Everyday Metaphors of Power.” Theory and Society 19 (1990): 545–77. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6—11.” JBL 96 (1977): 383–405.

4

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature Jeremy Corley

This chapter explores echoes of some Enochic Watchers traditions occurring in the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. While the closest connections are with the Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), there are passing mentions of the primeval Giants—offspring of the Watchers in some traditions— within three other Septuagintal books: Baruch, 3 Maccabees, and the Wisdom of Solomon. Later in this chapter, we shall see that these Septuagintal books all have reminiscences of some traditions found in the Book of the Watchers. But first of all, my quest to relate the Enochic Watchers texts with Ben Sira will present the argument that in some respects we are dealing here with two competing theologies.1 In general, Enochic groups and Ben Sira differ significantly over the importance of Moses, even if the non-Mosaic character of many Enochic traditions does not necessarily make them anti-Mosaic.2 While the Enoch circles claim to possess secret knowledge granted to the patriarch (1 En. 1:2-3; 1. In this chapter all quotations from 1 Enoch are taken from George W.E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), while the translations of other Qumran texts are from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997, 1998). All translations from biblical and deuterocanonical books are mine. My thanks are due to Bradley Gregory, Eric Mason, Patricia McDonald, and the editors of the volume for commenting on a draft of this article. 2. George W.E. Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom and Its Relationship to the Mosaic Torah,” in The Early Enoch Literature, JSJSup 121, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 81–94, esp. 93–94; Anathea Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 294–307, esp. 304. Although the Book of the Watchers briefly mentions Sinai as the place of God’s appearing (1 En. 1:4), the “marginalizing of the Mosaic Torah in 1

51

52 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

19:3; 82:1-2), Ben Sira focuses on what has been revealed in the Mosaic Torah (Sir. 3:21-24; cf. Deut. 29:28 [NRSV 29:29]).3 Indeed, Ben Sira acknowledges Moses as the revealer of the Law necessary for life (Sir. 24:23; 45:1-5), while mentioning Enoch only briefly in the Praise of the Ancestors (Sir. 44:16; 49:14).4 In addition, in contrast to the narrative emphasis on Enoch’s entry into the divine presence within the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 14:18-25), Ben Sira focuses attention on Moses’ encounter with God (Sir. 45:3). While the Book of the Watchers reports Enoch’s testimony to his meeting with God: “I heard his voice” (1 En. 15:1), Ben Sira celebrates Moses’ encounter with God: “He let him hear his voice” (Sir. 45:5). The fragmentary Hebrew manuscript B of Sir. 45:2 says of Moses (rather than Enoch) that the Lord “honored him like God,” an allusion to Exod. 4:16 and 7:1 (cf. 4Q374 2ii6).5

Author and Audience Whereas most of the traditions in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36) and the Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 72–82) were probably fairly well developed before the end of the third century bce, the date of Ben Sira’s Hebrew work can be fixed between 195–175 bce. The poem praising the high priest Simeon II (Sir. 50:1-24) employs such phrases as “in his days” (50:3), so it was probably composed after Simeon’s death around 196 bce. On the other hand, Ben Sira gives no direct hint of the religious upheaval (1 Macc. 1:10-64) that followed the accession of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 bce), and hence 175 bce is likely the latest possible date for the book.6 Thus, Ben Sira probably postdates most of the Book of the Watchers and the Astronomical Book. Enoch” is recognized by George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 61. 3. Benjamin G. Wright, “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research, ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes, BZAW 255 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 189–222, esp. 208–12. Cf. Jeremy Corley, “Wisdom Versus Apocalyptic and Science in Sirach 1:1-10,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Tradition, BETL 168, ed. Florentino García Martínez (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 269–85, esp. 275. 4. Though the Genizah Hebrew and Greek text of Ben Sira have both references to Enoch, Sir. 44:16 is absent from the Masada manuscript and may be a later addition; cf. Jeremy Corley, “A Numerical Structure in Sirach 44:1—50:24,” CBQ 69 (2007): 43–63, 47. 5. Text reconstruction here follows Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 509. However, the grandson’s Greek translation of Sir. 45:2 emphasizes the divine transcendence by limiting Moses’ resemblance to the angels (rather than to God): “He made him like the holy ones in honor.”

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature | 53

While much of the Book of the Watchers has a geographical focus in northern Galilee (1 En. 13:7-9) and around Mount Hermon (1 En. 6:6), the place of composition of Ben Sira’s book is Jerusalem—which may also be the “holy mountain” in 1 En. 26:2.7 Several indications exist that Ben Sira was close to the circles in control of the temple, perhaps working there. The praise of the high priest Simeon II mentions repairs to the temple and city walls (Sir. 50:1-4) and provides a detailed account of the temple service (50:5-21). Moreover, the wisdom celebrated in 24:1-29 comes to dwell in Jerusalem (24:10-11). In addition, the Greek text of 50:27 calls the original author “the Jerusalemite.” Both the Book of the Watchers and the Wisdom of Ben Sira reflect a scribal milieu. Enoch is called “scribe” (1 En. 12:4; 15:1; cf. 92:1), and his activity in the Astronomical Book includes writing down what is revealed (1 En. 74:2; 82:1; cf. Jub. 4:17-19).8 Ben Sira himself may have belonged to the “scribes of the temple” mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 12.3.3 §142), and we can view the description of the scribe in Sir. 39:1-11 as a self-portrait of the author. Ben Sira evidently ran an educational establishment (51:23), and his life’s work involved educating male students to become leaders of Israelite society (7:18-26), including civil servants and temple scribes (8:8; 38:34). He mentions having traveled widely (34:9-13)—an indication that he may sometimes have served as a diplomat (39:4). Several elements within the Book of the Watchers and the Astronomical Book suggest priestly interests, including the description of the heavenly sanctuary modeled on Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple (1 En. 14:8—16:4) and concern for the liturgical calendar (1 En. 75:2; 82:4-7).9 Similarly, Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors (Sir. 44:1-50:24) includes long passages on priestly figures (Aaron, Phinehas, Simeon II), although it is uncertain if Ben Sira himself was a priest. Nevertheless, whereas Ben Sira exhibits a close and supportive attitude 6. Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 8–10. Such a dating also fits the grandson’s assertion in the prologue to his Greek translation that he reached Egypt “in the thirty-eighth year of King Euergetes,” in other words, in 132 bce. 7. On geographical traditions and the Book of the Watchers, see David W. Suter, “Why Galilee? Galilean Regionalism in the Interpretation of 1 Enoch 6-16,” Henoch 25 (2003): 167–212, and Kelley Coblentz Bautch, A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen,” JSJSup 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), esp. 284–85. 8. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 219–20. 9. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 254; George W.E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 551–52. Whereas the Astronomical Book advocates a solar calendar (1 En. 75:2; 82:4-7), Ben Sira asserts the role of the moon in fixing the dates of feasts (Sir. 43:6-8).

54 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

toward the temple priesthood (Sir. 7:29-31), the Book of the Watchers and the Astronomical Book seem to offer a coded attack on the Jerusalem priesthood, perhaps by some of its disaffected members.10

Synopsis Here I will explore parallels between some Enochic Watchers traditions and specific Ben Sira texts. Two sections will deal (in turn) with the heavenly beings themselves, and then the sin and punishment of the Watchers. A third section will then compare Enochic references to the Giants—offspring of the Watchers in some Enochic traditions—with Baruch, 3 Maccabees, Greek Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon. We shall see that Ben Sira’s general lack of interest in angelic figures offers a significant contrast with the emphasis on the sinful Watchers found in the Enochic account of the origins of the world. Two major Ben Sira passages supply the majority of his brief references to angelic figures: Sir. 15:11-18:14 (esp. 16:26-28; 17:17, 32) and 42:15—43:33 (esp. 42:17; 43:8-10).11 The earlier passage offers a lengthy discussion of human responsibility for everyday sinful actions in light of divine mercy, in sharp contrast to the Enochic emphasis on the primeval sin by the Watchers. Without providing a sequential narrative, Sir. 15:11-18:14 includes passing references to punishment for sin directed at the rebellious angels (17:32) and the Giants (16:7 in the Greek), references that show some awareness of Enochic tradition. Sirach 42:15-43:33, a long poem in praise of God for the marvels of creation, affirms that these phenomena are beyond the power of angels to enumerate (42:17). Such an assertion may reflect a tension with the Enochic circles over the roles they ascribed to angelic figures. While the depiction of the divinely ordered creation in Sir. 42:15-43:33 has a function somewhat akin to the description of God’s created works in 1 En. 2:1-3:3, Ben Sira’s poem hardly refers to angelic agency behind meteorological phenomena except in 43:8-10. HEAVENLY BEINGS IN 1 ENOCH AND BEN SIRA Some Enochic texts employ a double phrase to denote the angels who bring revelation to Enoch: “the Watchers and holy ones” (1 En. 1:2; 93:2).12 A singular 10. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 67, 184; Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 22; cf. Benjamin G. Wright, “Ben Sira and the Book of the Watchers on the Legitimate Priesthood,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, CBQMS 38, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005), 241–54, esp. 241–42. 11. Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 267–86, 484–96; Gian Luigi Prato, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira, AB 65 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975), 116–299.

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature | 55

form of the phrase, used to describe Raphael in 1 En. 22:6, also denotes the angel bringing revelation to King Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 4:10, 20 (NRSV Dan. 4:13, 23, where LXX renders “angel”). Ben Sira avoids the word “Watchers” but employs the term “holy ones” (42:17) to refer to the angels. If we seek the Hebrew word ‫“( מלאך‬messenger” or “angel”) in Ben Sira, we find a single instance in the medieval Genizah manuscript B: “For his sake a messenger succeeds, and because of his words it performs his will” (43:26). Although here the Lucianic Greek text uses the word ἄγγελος (“messenger” or “angel”), the term “messenger” seems to refer either to the divine word (cf. Ps. 147:15) or to created things (cf. Ps. 104:4), and not specifically to one angel or a group of angels.13 Thus, it is likely that the Hebrew text of Ben Sira never uses the word ‫ מלאך‬in reference to angels.14 Various early Enochic traditions depict God surrounded by angelic figures, as in the theophany that opens the Book of the Watchers: “He will appear with his army; he will appear with his mighty host from the heaven of heavens” (1 En. 1:4). Similarly, the account of Enoch’s vision of God describes the heavenly court: “Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him” (1 En. 14:22; cf. Dan. 7:10). In a comparable fashion, the Masada text of Sir. 42:17cd affirms, “Adonai has strengthened his hosts to stand firm before his glory.”15 Yet despite this heavenly retinue, the Book of the Watchers asserts that God’s splendor cannot actually be seen by the myriads of angels in attendance before him: “No angel could enter into this house and look at his face because of the splendor and glory” (1 En. 14:21).

12. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 140–41. 13. Randal A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment, SBLEJL 8 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 151; Prato, Il problema, 197–98; Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 495. 14. The major Greek manuscripts of Sirach only once employ the term ἄγγελος, denoting the angel that destroyed King Sennacherib’s army (Sir. 48:21; cf. 2 Kgs. 19:35; Isa. 37:36), though the Hebrew says simply that God routed them with a plague. Elsewhere, the Greek text of Sir. 21:27 seems to say, “When someone impious curses (the) Satan, he really curses himself.” But as with the indeclinable Greek form in 1 Kgs. 11:14, Ben Sira’s original reference was probably to a human enemy (cf. 21:28): “When someone impious curses an enemy, he really curses himself”; cf. Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 311–12. 15. The declaration emphasizing God’s power at the end of 1 En. 14:22, “He needed no counselor; his every word was deed,” has a parallel in Sir. 42:21d (MS B): “He has no need of anyone to give understanding,” and in Sir. 42:15c (Masada MS): “By the utterance of the Lord came his works.” Cf. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 162.

56 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

The great sapiential poem in Sirach 24 (not preserved in Hebrew) also refers to the angelic court in personified Wisdom’s self-introduction (Sir. 24:1-2 Greek): Wisdom will praise herself, and in the midst of her people she will boast. In the assembly of the Most High she will open her mouth, and before his army she will boast. It is likely that verse 1 speaks of the Israelite community with the word “people,” whereas God’s “army” in the second verse refers to the angelic hosts (cf. Ps. 82:1; Isa. 34:4).16 If so, Ben Sira portrays personified Wisdom addressing both the earthly assembly of Israelites and the heavenly gathering of angels. A comparable pattern of divine revelation in heaven and on earth appears at the conclusion of the Book of the Watchers, where Enoch blesses “the Lord of glory, who has wrought great and glorious wonders, to show his great deeds to his angels and to the spirits of human beings” (1 En. 36:4). Like other texts from the late Second Temple period (e.g., Dan. 10:13-21; 1QM 13:10; 1QS 3:20; T. Levi 5:6), the Book of the Watchers refers to an angelic ruler or defender of Israel. Thus, 1 En. 20:5 includes among the archangels “Michael, one of the holy angels, who has been put in charge of the good ones of the people.”17 In contrast, the Greek text of Sir. 17:17 declares of God: “For each [Gentile] nation he established a ruler, but Israel is the Lord’s portion.” The allusion to the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:8 according to 4QDeutj and LXX) suggests that the reference is to angelic rather than human rulers, so that Ben Sira here asserts God’s direct rule over Israel without angelic intermediaries. A parallel occurs in the Book of Jubilees: “For there are many nations and many peoples and all belong to him. He made spirits rule over all in order to lead them astray from following him. But over Israel he made no angel or spirit rule because he alone is their ruler” (15:31-32).18 Just as 1 En. 18:14 connects stars and angels when it reports how the “end of heaven and earth” has become “a prison for the stars and the host of heaven,” so Sir. 16:26-28 likely refers to angels in connection with heavenly luminaries. The statement in 16:27 about God’s works neither hungering nor thirsting 16. Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 331. 17. From the confused textual witnesses of 1 En. 20:5, it is unclear whether Michael's task was to supervise all Israel or only the righteous within Israel; cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 294-96. 18. James C. VanderKam, trans., The Book of Jubilees, CSCO 511 (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 93.

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature | 57

(even with its echoes of Isa. 40:26 and 49:10) hardly applies to human beings or animals, but fits well with angels or stars. Indeed, despite Gen. 18:8 and 19:3, it is a widespread Second Temple period Jewish belief that angels do not eat (Judg. 13:16; Tob. 12:19; Philo, On Abraham 117-18; Josephus, Ant. 1.11.2 §197). In a comparable fashion, 1 En. 15:11 observes that “the spirits of the Giants . . . eat nothing.” Furthermore, the declaration that God’s works never cease from their labors (Sir. 16:27) is akin to the later assertion that the stars never relax in their watches (43:10).19 Thus, at least implicitly, Ben Sira may share the ancient belief—found in the Book of the Watchers—connecting heavenly luminaries, such as stars, with angels (cf. Rev. 9:1). Similarly, the sage’s long poem celebrating God’s wonders in creation (Sir. 42:15—43:33) seems to refer to angels in its depiction of the stars. The Masada text of Sir. 43:9-10 declares, The beauty of the heavens and the splendor of the starry array are a shining adornment in the heights of God. By the word of Adonai it [the starry array] stands as a statute, and it does not sink down in their [the heavens’] watches.

The idea in 43:10 of the heavenly luminaries keeping watch also occurs in Bar. 3:34-35: “The stars shone out in their guard duties and rejoiced. He called them and they said, ‘We are present.’ They shone out with rejoicing for the one who made them” (cf. Bar. 6:60; 1QS 10:1-4). In similar fashion, the Book of the Watchers uses the heavenly luminaries as examples of obedience to God’s commands: “Contemplate all [his] works, and observe the works of heaven, how they do not alter their paths; and the luminaries of heaven, that they all rise and set, each one ordered at its appointed time; and they appear on their feasts and do not transgress their own appointed order” (1 En. 2:1). Nevertheless, Ben Sira here ignores the sin of the rebel stars, as recounted later in the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 18:15; cf. 82:6).20 Elsewhere, the Book of the Watchers names twenty chiefs of the rebel angels, known collectively as the Watchers: Shemihazah, Arteqoph, Remashel, 19. Note that Sir. 16:29 continues with “after this” [“this” presumably being the creation of God’s heavenly works] and goes on to describe the creation of human beings, just as Jub. 2:2 speaks of the origin of the angels on the first day of creation, before human beings have been made. 20. Nuria Calduch-Benages, “The Hymn to the Creation (Sir. 42:15–43:33): A Polemic Text?” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, DCLS 1, ed. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 119–38, 127.

58 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Kokabel, Armumahel, Ramel, Daniel, Ziqel, Baraqel, Asael, Hermani, Matarel, Ananel, Setawel, Shamshiel,21 Sahriel, Tummiel, Turiel, Yamiel, and Yehadiel (1 En. 6:7).22 The role of several of them is explained soon afterward: “Baraqel taught the signs of the lightning flashes. Kokabel taught the signs of the stars. Ziqel taught the signs of the shooting stars. Arteqoph taught the signs of the earth. Shamshiel23 taught the signs of the sun. Sahriel taught the signs of the moon” (1 En. 8:3). In contrast, Ben Sira sees these celestial and meteorological phenomena as testifying to God’s unchallenged glory (Sir. 43:1-26). Among such phenomena he mentions “lightning” (‫ ברק‬in 43:13 MS B, though ‫ברד‬, “hail,” appears in the Masada text, MS M), “stars” (‫כוכב‬, collective, 43:9 MSS B and M), “flashes” or “shooting stars” ( ‫ זיקות‬in 43:13 MSS B and M), “sun” (‫ שמש‬in 43:2 MSS B and M), and “moon” (43:6 MSS B and M have Hebrew ‫ ירח‬rather than Aramaic ‫)סהרא‬. Other such phenomena also testify to the divine glory, including “thunder” (‫ רעם‬in 43:17 MSS B and M; contrast Ramel), “rain” or “precipitation” (‫ מטר‬in 43:18 MSS B and M, referring to snowfall; contrast Matarel), “cloud” (‫ ענן‬in 43:15 MS M; 43:22 MS B; contrast Ananel), and the sea (‫ ים‬in 43:24 MS B; contrast Yamiel).24 Whereas the Astronomical Book describes the archangel Uriel revealing to Enoch the heavenly meteorological phenomena, Ben Sira is more reticent about how angels influence these phenomena. Admittedly, the Genizah Hebrew text of Sir. 43:8cd concludes the portrait of the moon: “Instrument of the host of the water-skins on high, making the firmament shine with its splendor.” This passage may imply an angelic role in operating the heavenly waterskins from which rain descends to earth (1 En. 60:20-22; cf. Job 38:37; Sir. 43:14). The picture of celestial water-skins controlled by God also appears in the fragmentary Genizah Hebrew text of Sir. 39:17: “By his word he sets in order the skin bottle of waters, and the utterance of his mouth (sets in order) his storehouse.” Nevertheless, according to Ben Sira, the angels fail fully to 21. This rendering of the angel’s name follows Nickelsburg’s transcription of the Aramaic (1 Enoch 1, 181). Cf. 1 Enoch 1, 174, 188, where Nickelsburg provides alternate spellings of the name “Shamshiel.” 22. These names, which vary somewhat in the traditions, are given here according to the 2012 translation of Nickelsburg and VanderKam. For discussion of these names see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 179–81. In my interpretation, the name Shemihazah is Aramaic for “He has seen heaven” (cf. 1 En. 1:2), while Arteqoph is Aramaic for “He has overpowered the earth.” Note that 1 En. 8:3 repeats eight of these names, of which six are here listed in the next quotation. 23. See note 20 above. 24. Note that Sir. 39:22-31 sees meteorological phenomena as being directly in God’s hand to use for blessing or punishment; for instance, storm winds, fire, and hail can serve as God’s punishing instruments (39:28-29).

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature | 59

comprehend all such astronomical or meteorological phenomena, since 42:17ab (Masada MS) asserts, “God’s holy ones have not sufficed to recount all his wonders.”25 Just as Sir. 42:17 emphasizes the limitations of the angelic beings, the Greek text of 43:31 asks, “Who has seen him and can describe him?” This question may imply a critique of the Enochic descriptions of God’s dwelling (1 En. 14:8-23), though after reporting, “I was looking and I saw a lofty throne” (14:18), Enoch is also overwhelmed at the vision and says, “And I was unable to see” (14:19). Admittedly, while 1 Enoch 14–16 has several echoes of Ezekiel’s vision of God’s glory (Ezek.1–2), Ben Sira also recalls the same vision, since Sir. 49:8 (MS B) says, “Ezekiel saw a vision and recounted the types of chariot.”26 Nevertheless, despite this brief mention of Ezekiel’s chariot vision, Ben Sira shows no developed interest in the beginnings of Merkabah mysticism, unlike the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q405 21-22; cf. 1En. 75:3; 4Q385 4, 5-14). Moreover, whereas the Book of the Watchers emphasizes Enoch’s ascent into heaven (1 En. 14:8), Ben Sira is generally skeptical of such means of revelation (Sir. 34:1), claiming that “dreams set the senseless flying upward.” 27 THE SIN AND PUNISHMENT OF THE WATCHERS The Book of the Watchers interprets Gen. 6:2 and 4 as referring to the sin of the Watchers: “These [twenty named Watchers] and all the others with them took for themselves wives from among them such as they chose. And they began to go in to them, and to defile themselves through them. . . . And they [the wives] conceived from them and bore to them great giants” (1 En. 7:1-2). Although this Enochic tradition presents the Giants as the sons of the Watchers and human women, Ben Sira does not directly describe either the Watchers’ transgression or the origin of the Giants. In contrast to the naming of Tubal-cain as the first metalworker in Gen. 4:22, the Book of the Watchers narrates that “Asael taught men to make swords of iron and weapons and shields and breastplates and every instrument of war” (1 25. On Sir. 42:17, see Calduch-Benages, “The Hymn to the Creation,” 125–26. 26. For a table of parallels between 1 En. 14–16 and Ezek. 1–2, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 255–56. On Sir. 49:8, see Johannes Marböck, “Apokalyptische Traditionen im Sirachbuch?” in Weisheit und Frömmigkeit, ÖBS 29 (Frankfurt: Lang, 2006), 137–53, 149–50. 27. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 81; Wright, “‘Fear the Lord,’” 212–14. However, the Hebrew text of Sir. 49:14 notes that (like Elijah in Sir. 48:9) Enoch was taken by God into heaven: “Few have been created upon the earth like Enoch, and he also was taken up within (or: into the Presence).” The exact meaning of the noun ‫( פנים‬used adverbially) is either “within [the heavenly sanctuary]” (cf. Ezek. 41:3) or “[into the divine] Presence” (cf. Exod. 25:30; 2 En. 20:2-3 [J]).

60 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

En. 8:1). Whereas 1 Enoch attributes such military equipment to the invention of the Watchers, Sir. 46:2 favorably mentions Joshua’s use of a sword and Sir. 38:28 describes the blacksmith’s work. Asael’s activity is further reported: “He showed them metals of the earth and how they should work gold to fashion it suitably, and concerning silver, to fashion it for bracelets and ornaments for women” (1 En. 8:1). In contrast to 1 Enoch’s negative view of gold and silver used for female ornamentation, Ben Sira compares a woman’s fine appearance to these precious metals: “Like golden pillars on a silver base are beautiful legs upon steady heels” (Sir. 26:18 Sinaiticus; cf. 7:19). Asael’s activity had another aspect: “He showed them concerning antimony and eye paint and all manner of precious stones and dyes” (1 En. 8:1). Here the Book of the Watchers implicitly condemns the use of jewels and makeup for female beautification, though Ben Sira refers favorably to the use of precious stones and dyed cloth in Israel’s liturgy (e.g., Sir. 45:9-12; 50:9). The Book of the Watchers also mentions the activity of another Watcher: “Shemihazah taught [human beings] spells and the cutting of roots,” presumably for medicinal purposes (1 En. 8:3; cf. 7:1). This reference implies a negative view of the healing arts, as in 2 Chr. 16:12. By way of contrast, Ben Sira speaks of the medicinal use of plants as a divine gift given to the physician: “God from the earth brings forth medicines, and an understanding person will not despise them” (Sir. 38:4 MS B). Similarly, the Greek Wisdom of Solomon includes knowledge of the medicinal powers of plant roots among the gifts of wisdom granted by God (Wis. 7:20). After the account of the Watchers’ transgression, 1 En. 9:1-11 reports the intercession made on behalf of their human victims by the four good archangels: Michael, Sariel (Greek: Uriel), Raphael, and Gabriel (cf. 1QM 9:15-16).28 As a result, each of the four archangels receives a commission: Sariel is commissioned to instruct Noah, Raphael to imprison Asael, Gabriel to destroy the Giants, and Michael to bind Shemihazah and renew the earth (1 En. 10:1-11:2). Although Ben Sira does not mention any archangels, Gabriel and Michael are named in the Book of Daniel (Dan. 8:16; 10:13), while Raphael appears in the Book of Tobit (Tob. 3:17). In fact, there is a striking parallel in the description of Raphael’s activity in two Aramaic writings that were written around the third century BCE, the Book of the Watchers and Tobit. Just as God 28. See Christoph Berner, “The Four (or Seven) Archangels in the First Book of Enoch and Early Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings–Origins, Development and Reception, DCLY, ed. Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karin Schöpflin (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 395–411.

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature | 61

commands, “Go, Raphael, and bind Asael hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness” (1 En. 10:4), so Raphael goes to restrain the demon Asmodeus: “Raphael went and bound him there hand and foot and immediately fastened him” (Tob. 8:3 Sinaiticus).29 Whereas 1 En. 10:1—11:2 recounts God’s commissioning of the archangels to punish the Watchers, Ben Sira does not directly narrate the Watchers’ transgression. Nevertheless, there is a reference to their punishment in Sir. 17:32, a text that comes at the conclusion of the sage’s call to repentance (17:25-32). The Syriac version of 17:32 asserts, “God judges the hosts of heaven.” According to Randal Argall, the statement refers to the punishment of the angelic leaders of the stars, as in 1 En. 18:14-16 and 21:6.30 In particular, 1 En. 21:6 says, “These are the stars of heaven that transgressed the command of the Lord; they have been bound here until ten thousand years are fulfilled—the time of their sins.” Similarly, the Greek text of Sir. 17:32 says, “He himself punishes the power of the height of heaven.”31 Sirach 17:32 has echoes of passages in Isaiah and Job, referring to a rebellion by angels, such as Isa. 24:21: “On that day, YHWH will have a visitation upon the host of the height in the height, and upon the kings of the ground on the ground” (cf. Isa. 14:12-14; Job 4:18-19; 15:15-16; 25:5-6). THE PRIMEVAL GIANTS IN FOUR SEPTUAGINTAL BOOKS Although the apocryphal/deuterocanonical writings do not refer explicitly to the Watchers, the primeval Giants are mentioned in four Septuagintal books: Baruch, 3 Maccabees, Greek Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon.32 These works preserve echoes of some early Enochic traditions, in combination with some Hellenic notions about the titans (cf. Hesiod, Theogony, 185–87; 207–10). Just as the Book of the Watchers transforms Hebrew, Greek, and Babylonian traditions about the Giants, so Baruch and 3 Maccabees rework motifs concerning the Giants as a critique of Greco-Roman imperial power.33 The Book of Baruch, perhaps written in the first century bce, speaks of the Giants within its central sapiential poem (3:9—4:4). Here, as in the Book 29. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 221. 30. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 137 and 159; cf. Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 285. 31. In Sir. 17:32, the ambiguous verb ἐπισκέπτομαι (“review, inspect, visit, punish”) probably means “punish,” as in Sir. 35:21: “until the Most High punishes.” 32. On these books, see David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 198–213 (Bar.), 304–22 (3 Macc.), 153–97 (Sir.), and 127–52 (Wis.). 33. On the political symbolism of the Giants, see the chapter by Anathea Portier-Young in the present volume.

62 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

of the Watchers, the Giants may serve as ciphers for Greek or Roman kings.34 Overall, the sapiential poem may include a polemic against Greco-Roman rulers for amassing wealth (3:17) and claiming to have wisdom (3:23), as well as for developing military might (3:26). In particular, Bar. 3:26-29 refers to divine punishment of the Giants, despite the fact that they originally occupied God’s boundless dwelling: There were born the Giants, renowned from the beginning, having become very tall, understanding warfare. God did not choose these, nor did he give them the way to understanding. And they perished because of not having wisdom; they perished on account of their recklessness. Who has gone up into heaven, and taken it [wisdom], and brought it down from the clouds? The depiction of the Giants here as tall and militaristic (Bar. 3:26) agrees not only with the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 7:2-4; 8:1; 9:9; cf. CD 2:19) but also with Hesiod’s Theogony (186–87). The perishing of the Giants through their lack of wisdom (Bar. 3:28) echoes Enochic tradition (cf. 1 En. 16:3), while the implication of Bar. 3:29 is to deny that the Giants could ascend to heaven to receive wisdom there (cf. 1 En. 14:4-7). Akin to Bar. 3:26-28 is the description of the death of the Giants (sons of the Watchers) in the Damascus Document: “Having walked in the stubbornness of their hearts the Watchers of the heavens fell. . . . And their sons, whose height was like that of cedars and whose bodies were like mountains, fell. All flesh which there was on the dry earth expired and they became as if they had never been” (CD 2:17-20; cf. 4Q266 2ii17-20). 35 Originating in a Hellenistic context, 3 Maccabees (probably written in the first century bce or ce) recalls the Genesis tradition about the Giants within the prayer of the high priest Simon (3 Macc. 2:1-20). This prayer asks God to protect the Jerusalem temple from profanation by an invading Ptolemaic king. 34. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 63, 170; Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 19. For a dating of Baruch to the aftermath of Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem (63 bce), see Jeremy Corley, “Emotional Transformation in the Book of Baruch,” in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, DCLY, ed. Renate EggerWenzel and Jeremy Corley (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 225–51, esp. 228–32. On Bar. 3:26-29, see Gerald T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, BZAW 151 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980), 84–92. 35. The perishing of the Giants in the flood is also narrated symbolically in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:6), and more directly in the Qumran Admonition on the Flood: “And he destroyed them in the flood. . . . And the gi[ant]s did not escape” (4Q370 1i5-6). According to another interpretation, however, Bar. 3:27 may refer to the Israelite conquest of Canaan, a land previously dominated by Giants according to Pentateuchal tradition (Num. 13:28, 31; 14:12; Deut. 1:28); cf. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 86–87.

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature | 63

The catalog of God’s previous saving deeds in 3 Macc. 2:4-8 mentions divine destruction of three groups of rebels: the Giants, the people of Sodom, and Pharaoh’s army. Along with the mention of Pharaoh, the reference to the Giants here implies a parallel with the invading Ptolemaic king, just as the Giants in the Book of the Watchers suggest the symbolism of the cruel Hellenistic rulers.36 Referring to the flood, 3 Macc. 2:4 declares, “You yourself destroyed those earlier practicing iniquity—among whom there were even Giants trusting in presumptuous might—by bringing upon them immeasurable water.” This negative assessment of the Giants matches 1 En. 7:4: “And the giants began to kill men and to devour them,” and especially 1 En. 9:9: “The daughters of men have borne . . . Giants . . . And the whole earth is filled with iniquity.” Similarly, Josephus also speaks critically of the Giants as lacking virtue and having confidence in their own strength (Ant. 1.3.1 §73): “Many angels of God now consorted with women and begat sons who were overbearing and disdainful of every virtue, such confidence had they in their strength; in fact the deeds that tradition ascribes to them resemble the audacious exploits told by the Greeks of the Giants.”37 It is noteworthy that Josephus draws an explicit parallel between Jewish traditions about the build-up to Noah’s flood (based on Gen. 6:1-4) and Hellenic myths about the Giants. The Greek translation of Sir 16:7 (late second century bce) also interprets Gen. 6:1-4 in its declaration that God “was not propitiated over the ancient Giants who rebelled in their might.” Observing that the Hebrew Bible says nothing about pardon being sought for the rebellious angels or their giant offspring, Argall draws a specific connection between the Greek text of Sir. 16:7 and the Book of the Watchers: “The rebel Watchers ask Enoch to write a petition ‘that they might have forgiveness’ (1 En. 13:4). This petition, which was subsequently rejected by God, concerned the Watchers and their sons, the Giants (14:6-7; cf. 15:3).”38 Indeed, the Book of the Watchers narrates the commissioning of Enoch to announce to the Watchers that they would be bound for eternity, after their giant offspring had been destroyed by the sword (1 En. 14:4-7):

36. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 170; Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire, 19. 37. Henry St. J. Thackeray, trans., Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books I–IV, LCL (New York: Putnam, 1930), 35. On 3 Macc. 2:4 within its context, see Jeremy Corley, “Divine Sovereignty and Power in the High-Priestly Prayer of 3 Macc 2:1-20,” in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran, DCLY, ed. Renate EggerWenzel and Jeremy Corley (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 359–86, esp. 372–74. 38. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 230; cf. Marböck, “Apokalyptische Traditionen,” 149. A fragmentary parallel appears in the Book of Giants (4Q203 7i5-7).

64 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Judgment has been consummated in the decree against you, that from now on you will not ascend into heaven for all the ages; and it has been decreed to bind you in bonds in the earth for all the days of eternity. And that before these things, you will see the destruction of your sons, your beloved ones, and that you will have no pleasure in them, but they will fall before you by the sword. Accordingly, you will not obtain your petition concerning them, nor concerning yourselves. Despite variations in textual traditions and interpretations, many interpreters understand Sir. 16:7—at least in the Greek text—to refer to the punishment of the biblical Giants. For instance, Annette Yoshiko Reed observes Ben Sira’s selectivity here in drawing on Enochic traditions: “He omits any reference to the Watchers’ teachings and any hint of their culpability for the origins of evil. Instead, he focuses on their progeny, the Giants, and he cites them as examples of wicked and punished creatures.”39 Viewed in its context, Sir. 16:7 belongs within a passage (16:5-14) that warns sinners not to presume on God’s forgiveness, emphasizing the point through several examples of divine punishment (cf. 3 Macc. 2:4-8; 2 Pet. 2:4-6). In the Hebrew text, Sir. 16:7 (MS B) declares, “He did not forgive the ancient princes who revolted in their might.” According to Matthew Goff, however, in a primary sense the “ancient princes” are human rulers rather than Giants, even though Ben Sira employs giant-like language to describe them.40 Finally, in the Wisdom of Solomon (probably written in the first century bce or ce), Gen. 6:1-4 is interpreted under the influence of Greek as well as Enochic traditions about the Giants.41 The reference in Wis. 14:6 appears within an attack on wooden idols (Wis. 13:10—14:11). Here the author skilfully contrasts the idolaters (“miserable are those whose hopes are in dead things,” 13:10) with Noah, the “hope of the world” (14:6), who was providentially saved from the great flood by the wood of the ark. 39. Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 71. 40. Matthew J. Goff, “Ben Sira and the Giants of the Land: A Note on Ben Sira 16:7,” JBL 129 (2010): 645–55. Similarly, according to Prato, Il problema, 256, the “ancient princes” in the Hebrew of Sir. 16:7 (“ancient kings” in the Syriac) are human rulers. They are interpreted as the four kings who made war on Abraham (Gen. 14:1-16) by Maurice Gilbert, “Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis 1–11,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, 89–99, 92. Since Sir. 16:6 echoes Num. 11:1-3 and Sir. 16:10 echoes Num. 14:22-23, possibly the “ancient princes” refer to Sihon and Og (Num. 21:21-35; cf. Josh. 13:21), who were not forgiven for denying passage to the journeying Israelites (Deut. 2:26—3:7) 41. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 186.

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature | 65

The reference to Noah (who is unnamed) harks back to the time when the Giants were perishing: “Even at the beginning, when arrogant Giants were perishing, the hope of the world, taking refuge on a raft, left to the world the seed of offspring, having been steered by your hand” (Wis. 14:6). The description of Noah’s leaving for the world “the seed of offspring” could be interpreted in light of common botanical imagery, as in 1 En. 10:3: “From him [Lamech’s son Noah] a plant will be planted, and his seed will endure for all the generations of eternity” (cf. 1 En. 84:6).42 Interestingly, the portrayal here of the Giants as “arrogant” matches Hesiod’s Theogony (150), which uses the phrase “arrogant children” to describe three Giants, offspring of a union between Heaven and Earth.

Influence The understanding of the Watchers implied in Ben Sira, together with the view of the Giants within other apocryphal/deuterocanonical books, can now be situated within a larger interpretive tradition.43 As someone connected with the Jerusalem sanctuary (perhaps a temple scribe), Ben Sira adheres to the traditions of Genesis, though he uses them selectively for his own purposes. Wishing to place emphasis on human responsibility for good or evil (Sir. 15:15-17), he not only marginalizes some of the Enochic traditions that blamed the Watchers for the origin of evil in the world, but also makes no direct reference to the sin in the Garden of Eden. Instead, he passes over Adam’s transgression in Sir. 17:1 when mentioning the decree of death (Gen. 3:19; cf. Sir. 41:3-4)—though he perhaps alludes elsewhere to the sin of Eve (Sir. 25:24). Moreover, it is noteworthy that while the Book of the Watchers narrates both the sin and the punishment of the Watchers, Ben Sira mentions only the punishment of the Watchers (17:32)—and perhaps of the Giants (16:7 Greek). We may compare the catalogs of divine punishments found in Sir. 16:7-9 and 3 Macc. 2:4-8 with the listing in 2 Pet. 2:4-6, which adds a mention of the sinful angels. While they do not speak of the sin of Adam and Eve, a reference to the Giants’ primeval transgression is in each case followed by a sampling of 42. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 220, 445; Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire, 356. A closer parallel to Wis. 14:6 appears in the later Book of Similitudes (1 En. 67:2-3), which also adds a reference to God’s hand guiding a vessel of wood: “And now the angels are making a wooden (vessel), and when the angels have completed that task, I will put my hand upon it and protect it. And from it will come the seed of life. . . . And I will establish your seed in my presence forever and ever.” 43. For a helpful listing of Second Temple period Jewish texts on Enoch and the Watchers, see James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 173–212.

66 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

sins committed after Noah’s flood. In particular, all three listings speak of the inhabitants of Sodom immediately after the Giants.44 Recipients of divine punishments

Ben Sira 16:7-9

3 Maccabees 2:4-8

2 Peter 2:4-6

Sinful angels

–

–

2:4 (“angels that sinned”)

Giants

16:7 [Greek] (“giants”)

2:4 (“giants”)

2:5 (“the ancient world”)

Inhabitants of Sodom

16:8 (“neighbors of Lot”)

2:5 (“the people of Sodom”)

2:6 (“Sodom and Gomorrah”)

Pharaoh

–

2:6-8 (“Pharaoh”)

–

Canaanites

16:9 (“doomed nation”)

–

–

In each case, the primeval history has been linked to the Abraham story, and in two cases, it has been followed by later history, dealing with Moses (3 Macc 2:6-8) or Joshua (Sir 16:9). The early Enochic texts and Ben Sira’s book came to be rejected from the rabbinic Jewish canon, although the Qumran Scrolls attest five manuscripts of the Book of the Watchers, and four of the Astronomical Book, as well as two fragments of Ben Sira (plus one longer manuscript from Masada). Ben Sira’s general suspicion toward the Watchers traditions doubtless represented the view of Jerusalem’s priestly and educational aristocracy, a view that later tended to prevail within the orthodox branches of Judaism and Christianity. 45 Like the Enochic texts, Ben Sira’s book has a complex textual history. However, while 1 Enoch did not become canonical except in the Orthodox 44. Compare Jub. 20:5, which combines “the judgment of the Giants and the judgments of the Sodomites”; cf. Goff, “Ben Sira and the Giants of the Land,” 654, n. 37. 45. Cf. Gabriele Boccaccini, “Where Does Ben Sira Belong? The Canon, Literary Genre, Intellectual Movement, and Social Group of a Zadokite Document,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, JSJSup 127, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 21–41, esp. 34–37.

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature | 67

Ethiopian Church, Ben Sira’s book was preserved as scriptural in the Greek, Latin, and Syriac Churches, though not in rabbinic Judaism or in Protestant Christianity. Because Ben Sira’s work was not included in the rabbinic canon, Hebrew copies of it were generally lost, though quotations survived in the Talmud.46 Most early Greek, Latin, and Syriac Bibles included translations of the book, and many church fathers accepted it as canonical (e.g., Augustine) though others did not (e.g., Jerome). Since the Second World War, three ancient Hebrew manuscripts from the Dead Sea area have been discovered. 47

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research We have seen that the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books do not directly attest a developed Watchers tradition as elaborated in Enochic circles, though there are similarities in certain motifs. However, these books do attest to diverse traditions about angels and Giants, thereby situating the Enochic material within the wider cultural context of Second Temple Judaism. Various Enochic traditions develop the role of angelic figures, both positively as revealers of heavenly secrets and negatively as causes of evil in the world, whereas Ben Sira regards angels as playing a less significant role as obedient attendants on God (Sir. 16:28; 43:10). Obedience to God is an emphasis also found in 1 En. 2:1-3:3, though the Book of the Watchers goes on to describe the sinful activity of the fallen angels (1 En 6–8). Without including a narration of their sin, Ben Sira texts refer briefly to the punishment of the rebel angels (17:32) and of the Giants (16:7 Greek). Moreover, passing references to Giants occur in other apocryphal/ deuterocanonical books (Baruch, 3 Maccabees, and Wisdom). These writings emphasize the theme of divine judgment, whereby God overthrows the powerful Giants despite their strength (Bar. 3:26-28; 3 Macc. 2:4; Greek Sir. 16:7; Wis. 14:6), a motif that echoes the Book of the Watchers (e.g., 1 En. 14:4-6; cf. CD 2:17-19). While some previous scholars have drawn interesting contrasts between 1 Enoch and Ben Sira, there is scope for further studies to explore how far Ben Sira and other apocryphal/ deuterocanonical books are in tension (or in dialogue) with various Enochic traditions, as well as to situate such traditions more exactly within a wider eastern Mediterranean context. 46. Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 17–21, 51–62. From 1896 onward, six different medieval manuscripts were rediscovered in the Genizah (storeroom) of the Old Cairo synagogue, and nowadays about two-thirds of the Hebrew text has been recovered. 47. The Masada scroll (first century bce) contains parts of Sir. 39–44; 2Q18 (first century bce) has fragments from Sir. 6; 11Q5 (first century ce) includes verses from Sir. 51.

68 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Brief Bibliography Argall, Randal A. 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment. SBLEJL 8. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. Calduch-Benages, Nuria, “The Hymn to the Creation (Sir 42:15-43:33): A Polemic Text?” Pages 119-38 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. DCLS 1. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Marböck, Johannes. “Apokalyptische Traditionen im Sirachbuch?” Pages 137-53 in Weisheit und Frömmigkeit. ÖBS 29. Edited by Johannes Marböck. Frankfurt: Lang, 2006. Prato, Gian Luigi. Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. AnBib 65. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Reiterer, Friedrich V., Tobias Nicklas, and Karin Schöpflin, eds. Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings–Origins, Development and Reception. DCLY 2007. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Wright, Benjamin G. “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood.” Pages 189-222 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. BZAW 255. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Xeravits, Géza G. and József Zsengellér, eds. Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

5

Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles Eric F. Mason

Watchers traditions are present in three books among the Catholic Epistles: 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter. Most scholars agree that 2 Peter is dependent on Jude and that there is no direct authorial relationship between 1 and 2 Peter. Each of these texts exhibits some level of independent use of Watchers traditions, and this provides insight into the influence of these traditions on early Christian thought. The ways in which the letters make use of the Watchers traditions, especially allusions to the punishment of the Watchers, suggest that Christian audiences were well acquainted with the larger narrative frame associated with the angels.

Author and Audience Though some scholars defend the tradition of Petrine authorship of 1 Peter shortly before the apostle’s martyrdom in the mid-60s, the mainstream consensus is that the epistle is the product of a Petrine school or a pseudepigraphic author, writing from Rome to Christians in Asia Minor in the latter decades of the first century ce.1 Scholarly agreement that 2 Peter 1. Commentators defending Petrine authorship include Ernest Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd ed. (New York: St. Martin’s, 1947); Wayne A. Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); and Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). Those assuming pseudonymity include Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); Ralph P. Martin, in The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude, NTT, ed. Andrew Chester and Ralph P. Martin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Pheme Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1995); Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996); John H. Elliott, I Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday,

69

70 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

is pseudepigraphic—and by extension not directly related to 1 Peter—is even stronger. J.N.D. Kelly could write already in 1969 that “scarcely anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous,” and this view is finding increasing acceptance even in conservative circles.2 Though earlier generations of scholars debated how best to explain the literary relationship between 2 Peter and Jude (whether Jude was excerpted from 2 Peter, 2 Peter used Jude as a source, both relied on common traditions, or both had the same author), virtually all scholars today recognize the dependence of 2 Peter on Jude. Proposals for dating the book extend as late as 125 ce.3 In contrast, most recent commentators on Jude are inclined to consider its authenticity, and those who ultimately decide otherwise often do so cautiously. Richard Bauckham, who argued for pseudonymity for 2 Peter, defends the traditional view that Jude is the product of mid-first century ce Palestinian Jewish Christianity, even by the “brother” of Jesus himself, while others question whether Jude would have had the requisite rhetorical and linguistic skills to produce this epistle. Alternately, Udo Schnelle argues that the author’s concept of tradition, distinction between orthodoxy and heresy, and discussion of the rise of false teachers as a sign of the last days demand a date in the late first century ce; thus the letter, in his estimation, would be pseudonymous. 4 2000); and Reinhard Feldmeier, The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008). Both J.N.D. Kelly (The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, BNTC [London: A&C Black, 1969]), and J. Ramsey Michaels (1 Peter, WBC [Waco, TX: Word, 1988]) admit difficulties with the assumption of Petrine authorship but opt for theories that find strong Petrine influence on a letter written after the apostle’s death. Peter H. Davids (The First Epistle of Peter, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990]) opts for Silvanus as author, writing on behalf of Peter. 2. Kelly, Epistles, 235; see the similar comment of Jerome Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 128. Richard J. Bauckham’s rejection of Petrine authorship (Jude, 2 Peter, WBC [Waco, TX: Word, 1983]) has been influential among evangelical scholars; see also Scot McKnight, “2 Peter,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. J.D.G. Dunn and J.W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Others, though, defend Petrine authorship (Gene L. Green, Jude & 2 Peter, BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008]) or argue for a core of authentic Petrine tradition (Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008]). 3. See Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 120–22, for discussion of the four options. On dating, see John H. Elliott, “Peter, Second Epistle of,” ABD 5:282–87, esp. 287. Elliott (284) also notes the extent of use of Jude in 2 Peter—nineteen of Jude’s 25 verses have some sort of parallel in 2 Peter, and 111 words of the 460-word vocabulary of Jude appear in 2 Peter. 4. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 13–16, and “Jude, Epistle of,” ABD 3:1098–1103, esp. 1101–02; similarly Martin, Letters; Duane F. Watson, “Jude,” NIB vol. 12; and Green, Jude & 2 Peter, 9 (“albeit likely with some scribal assistance”). Compare also Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) 417–18; and the similar argument of Perkins, First

Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles | 71

Synopsis WATCHERS TRADITIONS IN JUDE This short letter includes one explicit quotation of 1 En. 1:9 (in Jude 14-15) along with several possible allusions to portions of the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36).5 Among the allusions, three are most significant. The statement in Jude 8 that the false teachers “defile the flesh” (σάρκα … μιαίνουσιν) likely alludes to the frequent comments in the Book of the Watchers that the fallen angels “defile themselves” (μιαίνεσθαι) with women.6 Also, the language of Jude 13 seems indebted to 1 En. 18:15-16; 21:5-6 as the author of the letter concludes a series of negative examples from nature with mention of “wandering stars”; Jude’s wandering stars are reminiscent of the stars that did not rise at the appointed time and were subsequently punished in the Enochic text.7 Most important for the present discussion, however, is Jude 6: “And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day.” Mention of these disobedient angels appears as the second of three examples of God’s judgment on unfaithfulness in Jude 5-7, between unbelievers in the Exodus period and Sodom and Gomorrah. In Jude 8, the author recalls elements of these three examples, but not in a way that one-to-one correlations may be discerned. Appeals to these particular stories—especially associating the chastisement of the Watchers with that of Sodom—are common in Second Temple period literature; here they function not as condemnation of personal conduct of the recipients, but as types for contemporary antitypes they encounter.8 The tie between the Watchers and Sodom examples is evident from Jude 7—in both, there is a desire for σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (“strange flesh”) that involves sexual transgression of the natural order dividing heavenly and and Second Peter, 142–43). Neyrey leans toward pseudonymity but concludes that “there is scant data for taking a firm position as to date, place, and author” (2 Peter, Jude, 31). 5. Some of the following discussion of Jude and 2 Peter also appears in my chapter titled “Biblical and Nonbiblical Traditions in Jude and 2 Peter: Sources, Usage, and the Question of Canon,” forthcoming in 2014, Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin, eds., Reading 1-2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students, Resources for Biblical Study (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature). 6. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 56, who cites 1 En. 7:1; 9:8; 10:11; 12:4; 15:3, 4. 7. Bauckham finds the most substantive ties between the broader context of Jude 13 and 1 En. 80 (Jude, 2 Peter, 89–91). 8. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 46–47, who notes that the examples are linked closely by ὡς . . . ὁμοιον in Jude 7.

72 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

earthly figures.9 Clearly the author of Jude has the Watchers in mind, with the (admittedly restrained) descriptions of their misdeeds and corresponding punishment in v. 6. That the author is appealing to the Enochic account of the Watchers (as opposed to versions of the story preserved in other texts), however, is very likely because Enochic traditions also appear elsewhere in Jude. The aforementioned quotation in Jude 14-15 concerns judgment of the ungodly. It is adapted from theophoric introductory comments in 1 Enoch that in turn draw heavily from Jer. 25:30-31; Isa. 66:15-16; and especially Deut. 33:1-3.10 While numerous correspondences between the wording of the quotation in Jude and the Greek of this Enochic passage preserved in Codex Panopolitanus confirm that this is a quotation, several divergences may also imply knowledge of the Enoch text both in Greek translation and in the original Aramaic.11 Two interrelated issues concerning use of this passage in Jude demand brief attention—the identity of the figure bringing judgment and the timing of this event. God is the active figure in 1 En. 1:9, “coming” (ἔρχεται) with “his myriads and his holy ones” (following Codex Panopolitanus) at some future time, whereas in Jude 14 “the Lord came” (ἦλθεν κύριος) to bring judgment. Most interpreters assert that the author of Jude has recast this quotation as a prophecy of Jesus’ parousia, so for example Bauckham understands κύριος in Jude 14 as Jesus and the aorist verb as a prophetic perfect.12 Likewise, George Nickelsburg notes that in 1 En. 52:5-9, the coming of the Anointed and Chosen One is described in light of the language of 1 En. 1:3-7.13 Despite the popularity of this approach, one should consider the possibility that Jude 14-15 denotes God’s judgment in the past. The language admittedly 9. Ibid., 54. 10. George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36, 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 143–44, 148–49. 11. See the chart of parallel texts and discussion of variants in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 94–96. Codex Panopolitanus, also called the Akhmim Manuscript, was discovered in a grave at a Coptic cemetery at Akhmim (Panopolis) and dates to the fifth or sixth century CE. Its contents include partial versions of the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the text of 1 En. 19:3—21:9, followed immediately by the complete text of 1 En. 1:1—32:6a. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 12. 12. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 93, 96–97; virtually the same position is defended in Kelly, Epistles, 276; Perkins, First and Second Peter, 153; and Watson, NIB 12:494. Both the NRSV and NIV render the passage as “the Lord is coming”; cf. NAB “the Lord has come.” Jesus is elsewhere called κύριος in Jude 4, 17, 21, 25; and the term is used for God in Jude 9. Jude 5 is plagued with textual variants, several involving κύριος; the context of judgment on the unfaithful of Israel’s wilderness generation would imply that God is the intended referent, though some scribes explicitly sought to evoke Jesus here. 13. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 149.

Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles | 73

may be read as that of final judgment (though the Deut. 33:1-3 language to which this passage is strongly indebted describes a theophany at Sinai, not an eschatological event), but the author next turns in Jude 17-23 to remind the audience that the apostles also foretold of events of the last days, both of the presence of the ungodly and the return of Jesus. The pattern has been to compare the wicked of the past with those of the recipients’ generation; since the biblical chronology in Genesis placed Enoch prior to any of the negative examples in Jude 5-7, Enoch’s prophecy of judgment by the κύριος God in Jude 14-16 might be read as the precedent guaranteeing the validity of the apostolic foresight in Jude 17-23, thus affirming that the κύριος Jesus Christ will also bring judgment on a later generation of scoffers. Ultimately, one’s decision hinges on the identity of “these” in v. 14, whether they are the contemporary opponents of the author (as most interpreters assume) or the ancient prototypes of evil. WATCHERS TRADITIONS IN 2 PETER Because the author of 2 Peter is dependent on Jude as a source for his epistle, two issues demand attention: how does the author of 2 Peter deal with Watchers materials present already in Jude, and does the author of 2 Peter independently value and utilize Watchers traditions? Regarding the first question, it was noted above that four passages in Jude have significant Enochic influence. Though most of the contents of Jude appear in some form in 2 Peter, the quotation of 1 En. 1:9 in Jude 14-15 was not retained, nor were the comments about “wandering stars” (Jude 13) and defilement of the flesh (Jude 8, assuming that 2 Pet. 2:13-14 instead reflects Jude 12). Whereas nothing stands in their place in 2 Peter, elsewhere materials from Jude are retained but “domesticated” in 2 Peter, as happens with Jude 9. This is not an Enochic passage and thus was not addressed above, yet it relies on pseudepigraphical traditions (likely the Assumption of Moses or Testament of Moses) about the death of Moses. Jude’s explicit discussion of the verbal restraint of the archangel Michael in his dispute with the devil for Moses’ body is replaced with considerably more vague language in 2 Pet. 2:11. Jude’s fourth major Enochic passage is the example of God’s judgment of the Watchers in v. 6. This material is retained in 2 Peter but is used differently. Now it heads a series of three examples of God’s actions in the past, but it is followed by accounts of the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (stressing God’s judgment of the wicked, but with no “strange flesh” mentioned for the latter). It is also paired with reminders of God’s mercy toward Moses and Lot (providing examples of God’s deliverance of the righteous). A few common

74 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

terms remain from Jude 6 (especially various forms of the verb τηρέω, here underlined), but 2 Peter seems paraphrastic: Jude 6—And the angels [ἀγγέλους] who did not keep [μὴ τηρήσαντας] their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept [τετήρηκεν] in eternal chains in deepest darkness [δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον] for the judgment [εἰς κρίσιν] of the great Day 2 Pet 2:4—For if God did not spare the angels [ἀγγέλων] when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest darkness [σειραῖς ζόφου] to be kept [τηρουμένους] until the judgment [εἰς κρίσιν]14

This comparison of language leads to the second question raised above, whether the author of 2 Peter independently utilized Watchers traditions. It should be noted that the blunting of Enochic traditions from Jude does not indicate that the author of 2 Peter considered such things vulgar. Rather, the author retains discussion of the imprisoned Watchers from Jude 6 and likely reflects other non-canonical traditions in 2 Pet. 3:4-13.15 One should also note that the author of 2 Peter changes the description of the imprisonment of the sinful angels, going beyond what he finds in Jude. Use of the term ταρταρόω (NRSV “cast into hell”) in 2 Pet. 2:4 is reminiscent of the story of the confinement of the Titans to Tartarus by Zeus, the Olympian gods, and the “Hundred-handers” in Hesiod’s Theogony (617-819).16 Though one might argue that the author of 2 Peter has connected the Watchers story with the Greek mythological 14. Some manuscripts read σειροῖς or σιροῖς (“pits” or “caves”) in 2 Pet. 2:4 rather than σειραῖς. Bauckham argues that if the former were original, it could imply independent knowledge of the description of the dungeon of the Watchers in 1 Enoch. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 249; and Green, Jude & 2 Peter, 268. 15. See the discussion of literary relationships between 2 Peter and texts of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 139–40. Bauckham’s explanation for 2 Peter’s omission of most of the noncanonical materials in Jude is that they (other than the ubiquitous story of the imprisoned Watchers) were unfamiliar to the author, who presumed the same would be true for his audience. Bauckham notes that 1 Enoch was very popular in Greek translation among Christian writers of the second century ce, but the author of 2 Peter presumably could not read these texts in Aramaic as did the author of Jude. Bauckham asserts, however, that both the authors of 2 Peter and 1 Clement utilized traditions from the Book of Eldad and Modad. Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 14) argues that at least the Book of the Watchers must have been in Greek translation by the late first century because of the quotation of 1 En. 1:9 in Jude 14-15 (but see comments above) and use of the book by the author of Revelation.

Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles | 75

tradition in the course of his paraphrase, Tartarus language appears elsewhere in the Greek translation of 1 Enoch and in other Second Temple period Jewish literature (including the Septuagint).17 WATCHERS TRADITIONS IN 1 PETER Most scholars agree that Watchers traditions are present in 1 Peter 3. Indeed, Nickelsburg finds 1 Peter steeped in this and other Enochic parallels: The author of 1 Peter works from an apocalyptic worldview similar to that of 1 Enoch . . . The eschaton and the final judgment are imminent, and the reader can take comfort in the knowledge that, in spite of present tribulation, heaven holds a reward, as yet unseen, for the righteous (1:3-12). In addition, the author, alluding to the tradition about the watchers, attributes to Jesus a journey to the underworld that parallels Enoch’s interaction with the rebel watchers (3:19-20), and compares baptism to the purifying effects of the flood (cf. 10:21). With its criticism of braiding hair, decoration of gold, and wearing fine clothing, 1 Pet 3:3 may also reflect the story of the watchers.18 Elliott is significantly more restrained—he observes that no quotations of books of the Pseudepigrapha appear in 1 Peter, and he limits possible links almost exclusively to 1 Pet. 3:19-20.19 This key passage appears in the context of the household code and its related exhortations, including calls to endure undeserved suffering. Christ earlier was presented as a model of such suffering in connection with the admonitions to slaves in the household code, and this topic is resumed in 3:18-22:

16. See especially Birger A. Pearson, “A Reminiscence of Classical Myth at 2 Peter 2:4,” GRBS 10 (1969): 71–80. Bauckham is sympathetic and notes precedents in Hellenistic Jewish texts (Jude, 2 Peter, 249). See also the survey of possible influences of the Titans story elsewhere in Second Temple Jewish literature in Brook W.R. Pearson, “Resurrection and the Judgment of the Titans: ἡ γῆ τῶν ἀσεβῶν in lxx Isaiah 26.19,” in Resurrection, JSNTSup 186, ed. S.E. Porter, M.A. Hayes, and D. Tombs (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 33–51, esp. 41–47. 17. See the list in Green, Jude & 2 Peter, 250–51. 18. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 86. See also his chart of relationships between 1 Peter and 1 Enoch 108 (560). 19. Elliott, I Peter, 18, though he briefly mentions 1 Pet. 1:12 as a second possible passage with Enochic influence. Neither Achtemeier nor Michaels devotes significant attention to possible ties.

76 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him. Much has been written about this passage, which has significant theological implications for understanding the approach to suffering encouraged by the author and his teachings on baptism; as such it poses numerous challenges to interpreters in terms of style, coherence, and context.20 Specific issues of debate include how to understand σάρχ (“flesh’”) and πνεύμα (“spirit”) in v. 18 (and, related to the latter, the interpretation of ἐν ᾧ [“in which”] in v. 19); the identity of the preacher (Jesus, Jesus through Noah or Enoch, or Enoch on the basis of textual emendation?) in v. 19; the purpose of the proclamation in v. 19; the identity of the “spirits” of v. 19; and the nature and location of the “prison” in v. 19. Also, the hymnic nature of vv. 18-19 is frequently discussed, as is the possible relationship of the “spirits” of 3:19 and the “dead” of 1 Pet. 4:6. These issues are covered extensively in the major commentaries and in important monographs, so the details and history of interpretation need not be addressed here.21 It will suffice to note the position that is now standard among most interpreters, especially since the original publication of William J. Dalton’s book Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits in 1965. Though earlier generations of scholars tended to be unaware of the Watchers traditions in 1 Enoch, few today deny their use by the author of 1 Peter.22 Watchers—not humans—are normally understood as the imprisoned spirits of 3:19 to whom Jesus makes proclamation, which accords with the 20. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 240. 21. Bo Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Pet. III. 19 and Its Context, ASNU 13 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1946); William Joseph Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18—4:6, 2nd ed., AnBib 23 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989); and more recently Chad T. Pierce, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18—22 in Light of Sin and Punishment Traditions in Early Jewish and Christian Literature, WUNT 2/305 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011).

Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles | 77

standard use of the plural term πνεύματα in the NT to refer to malevolent spiritual beings rather than humans.23 The content of the preaching typically is understood as confirmation of God’s victory over evil through the resurrection of Jesus, not an evangelistic appeal; the latter would make sense only if humans (rather than angels) were the imprisoned spirits.24 Dalton notes that unlike the modern practice of incarceration as punishment, in the ancient world imprisonment was a preliminary stage: “the period of detention, no matter how painful or miserable, was only an interval leading to judgment.”25 This too fits well the account of the binding of the Watchers in 1 Enoch in anticipation of their later judgment. The text in 1 Peter 3 is not explicit about the location of these spirits, but contemporary scholarship largely rejects earlier notions—in part influenced by creedal formulations—that Jesus went down to the abode of the dead to preach in the period between his crucifixion and resurrection. According to 1 Peter, Jesus “went” (πορευθεὶς) in v. 19 to make the proclamation and “went 22. The first scholar to appeal to the Watchers tradition was Friedrich Spitta, Christi Predigt an die Geister (1 Petr. 3, 19ff.): Ein Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1890). Modern dissenters include Wayne Grudem, “Christ Preaching Through Noah: 1 Peter 3:19-20 in the Light of Dominant Themes in Jewish Literature,” TJ 7 n.s. (1986): 3–31; Goppelt, Commentary, 255–60; and Feldmeier, First Letter, 202–06. Jobes (1 Peter, 24–47) assumes that Watchers traditions lie behind the passage yet still questions whether Gentile readers in the mid-first century ce (assuming authentic Petrine authorship) would know 1 Enoch. She nevertheless concludes that the Watchers traditions were so widespread as to make it likely that the recipients of the epistle would understand this passage, and she follows Paul Trebilco (Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, SNTSMS 69 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991]) in arguing that Noah and flood traditions were well known in Asia Minor among both Gentiles and Jews. Michaels agrees that the Watchers tradition from 1 Enoch is utilized by the author of 1 Peter, but he understands the “spirits” as the offspring of the fallen angels and human women (not the disobedient angels themselves), and they are understood to be “in security” or “in refuge” rather than imprisoned (1 Peter, 205–12, esp. 209). 23. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 255. See also his brief survey (254–56) of various proposals for understanding the imprisoned spirits as humans (whether all the dead, only those who died before the birth of Jesus, wicked contemporaries of Noah, only the righteous, etc.). Michaels (1 Peter, 207) identifies Heb. 12:23 as the only NT use of “spirits” for humans (“spirits of just people made perfect”). Goppelt (Commentary, 258) suggests also Luke 24:37, 39; he understands the spirits in 1 Pet. 3:19 as human, commenting that “I Peter, like Hebrews and Luke, tries always to present biblical concepts in Greek terms, and πνεῦμα is an ancient Greek synonym for ψυχή.” 24. Davids (First Epistle, 140) notes that in the NT, κηρύσσω “normally refers to the proclamation of the kingdom of God or the gospel . . . but it does on a few occasions retain its secular meaning of ‘proclaim’ or ‘announce.’” He also observes that the verb εὐαγγελίζω and noun εὐαγγέλιον otherwise are used in 1 Peter for proclamation of the gospel (1:12; 1:25; 4:6; 4:17). 25. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 159. See also Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 261.

78 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

to heaven” (πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν) in v. 22. This correlation is important for Achtemeier, who finds here graphic language implying Jesus’ ascent to the right hand of God after his resurrection.26 Dalton argues similarly, noting that πορεύομαι is never used in the NT to discuss a descent of Jesus to the abode of the dead, nor does any passage address activities of Jesus between his death and resurrection.27 Others note that καταβαίνω would be more appropriate language to describe a descent.28 One must consider, however, whether the author of 1 Peter intends to address the spatial location of the prison. Whereas the Watchers traditions in 1 Enoch locate the prison on, at the end of, or under the earth, Kelly notes that 2 Enoch locates the prison in the second heaven; this allows Kelly to reconcile the location of the prison with the ascension motif he discerns in use of πορεύομαι.29 Achtemeier, however, is more concerned to explain how Jesus preaches rather than where—Jesus does so “made alive by the Spirit” (v. 18, parallel to the statement that he had been “put to death by flesh”).30 As for the spatial location of the prison, there is no uniform tradition in Second Temple Jewish texts or the NT, thus “such ambiguity prevents us . . . from coming to any firm conclusion about the prison’s location.”31

Influence As discussed above, the authors of Jude and 1 Peter clearly know Watchers traditions consistent with those in 1 Enoch. Scholarly assessments vary concerning the overall nature of the influence of 1 Enoch on 1 Peter, though most agree that 1 Pet. 3:19 is best interpreted as reflecting the Watchers tradition. On the other hand, the text of Jude is thoroughly imbued with the Watchers tradition and numerous other elements paralleled in 1 Enoch. The author of 2 Peter inherits and adapts the Watchers tradition from Jude but may 26. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 260–61. 27. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 162. 28. Davids, First Epistle, 140n37, following Kelly, Epistles, 155–56. 29. Kelly, Epistles, 155–56. Elliott (I Peter, 654–55) also implies that the author of 1 Peter assumes the prison is located in a level of heaven. 30. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 248–53, 260; see also his translation of the passage on 239. Achtemeier argues here for a reference to the Holy Spirit, as does Michaels (1 Peter, 205). The thrust of Elliott’s interpretation is similar, but he finds an affirmation of God’s activity rather than explicit mention of the Holy Spirit (I Peter, 646). Davids is more cautious, preferring instead (following Selwyn and Kelly) to understand here only a reference to Jesus’ post-resurrection activity. See Davids, First Epistle, 138. 31. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 256.

Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles | 79

also demonstrate independent knowledge of the legend in a form influenced by Greek mythology. The nature of the use of the Watchers traditions in all three of these NT books is consistent in that an explanation of the Watchers is never the focus. Rather, the authors can mention the Watchers in passing without elaboration in order to illustrate more central themes in the respective passages. This pattern is significant, as it demonstrates indirectly that familiarity with Watchers traditions may be assumed among many early Christians, something also evidenced in other essays in this volume.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Research Major thrusts of New Testament scholarship in the twentieth century included an awareness of the impossibility of neatly distinguishing between Jewish and Hellenistic thought and influences, along with a renewed appreciation for the Jewish roots of early Christianity. As such, scholars increasingly recognized the importance of non-canonical texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls and those classified as Pseudepigrapha for understanding Second Temple Judaism and hence also early Christianity. The presence of the Watchers traditions in 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter illustrates very well the importance of these developments. Likewise, this use of the Watchers tradition in the NT also points to an issue already emerging as a key focus for twenty-first century scholarship—the question of how, when, and even whether one may speak of neatly-defined lines between “canonical” and “non-canonical” texts in Second Temple Judaism and earliest Christianity. Clearly any resolution to this issue which would seek (or that would attain) a scholarly consensus will have to pay significant attention to use of Enochic and other “non-canonical” texts in these three Catholic Epistles.

Brief Bibliography Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1983. Dalton, William Joseph. Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18—4:6. 2nd ed. AnBib 23. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. Elliott, John H. I Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Nickelsburg, George W.E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36, 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.

6

‘Because of the Angels’: Paul and the Enochic Traditions Scott M. Lewis, S.J.

Paul’s injunction in 1 Corinthians 11:10 that women should be veiled during worship “because of the angels” is one of the most puzzling and obscure passages in the New Testament. In what sense should “angels” be understood? Is the angelic presence a positive or negative phenomenon? Why should human dress and comportment be of any concern to angels? One possibility, noted even in antiquity, is that Paul’s warning resonates with elements of the Enochic traditions concerning the primeval angelic interference in human affairs. The themes from the Watchers traditions that would be most relevant to a study of the Pauline corpus are (1) the transgression of the cosmic boundaries by the Watchers in the form of intercourse with human women and the generation of hybrid offspring; and (2) the disclosure of heavenly and forbidden knowledge to humans (1 En. 7:1 and 12:4).1 The story of the “sons of God” and their misadventures with the “daughters of men” in Gen. 6:1-42 is paralleled by detailed accounts of the Watchers or fallen angels in 1 En. 6–19 as well as Jub. 4:21-22 and 7:21. The reference in Gen. 6 does not speak of any enticement on the part of the daughters of men, nor does it make an explicitly negative judgment of the progeny of the unions

1. George W.E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 24, 31. These themes are well articulated in 1 En. 7. In addition to the angelic-human miscegenation, the gigantic offspring sin against non-human creatures as well as engaging in cannibalism and the drinking of blood. The earth itself finally brings accusation against them. See also Karina Martin Hogan’s essay “The Watchers Traditions in the Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse” in this volume. 2. ‫ ;בני האלהים‬LXX οἱ υἱοι τοῦ θεοῦ.

81

82 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

or link them with the violence and wickedness that follows. It is not entirely clear that the Nephilim were totally destroyed.3 There are well-known echoes of the tradition of the Watchers found in Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2:4.4 The same tradition is recounted in Jubilees, especially in Jub. 4:22 and 7:21, but with a slight variation in that the emphasis is placed on the sexual transgression. The Watchers were authorized to impart some knowledge to humankind but far exceeded their mandate.5

Author and Audience Paul’s authorship of 1 Corinthians has never been seriously challenged and it stands among the seven undisputed letters. Most scholars place the composition of 1 Cor. to the mid-50s with some minor variation. The years 55–57 ce represent a modern consensus in terms of dating this letter.6 Paul addresses the Corinthian community directly—it is not a general theological treatise but a pastoral missive dealing with very distinct and concrete community issues. He seeks to call them to unity and concord (1:11) because of the fractiousness and competition that has seriously damaged the community. He will deal with issues of authority, sexual morality, marriage, sacrificial meat, eschatology, and, most importantly for us, worship and liturgy. Chapters 11 and 14 focus on the Lord’s Supper, prophecy, spiritual gifts, and prayer, especially the corrosive effects of competition, quarrelling, and moral laxity. In 1 Cor. 11:2-16, Paul engages in a long and rather obtuse discussion of head coverings and the necessity for women to be veiled during worship, and that is the focus of our discussion.

3. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and Third Century bce Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions” DSD 7 (2000): 354–377, esp. 363. 4. See Eric Mason’s essay “Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles” in this volume. 5. O.S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” OTP 2:35–142. Jub. 4:21-22 relates that the flood came upon the earth as punishment. The Watchers exceeded their authority and fornicated with women, resulting in the Giants. Eventually human minds became filled with vanity and evil, resulting in much injustice and bloodshed. The spilled blood is the final and principal reason for the blotting out of the earth. On the Watchers tradition in Jubilees, see the contribution by John Endres in this volume. 6. A date of late 56 to early 57 ce is given by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, AB (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008). Most would agree with this range, but other possibilities are suggested by Raymond F. Collins (First Corinthians [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999]) who proposes 53–54 and Hans Conzelmann (1 Corinthians [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975]) who posits a date of 55 ce.

‘Because of the Angels’: Paul and the Enochic Traditions | 83

Synopsis The situation Paul addresses is most likely the “over-realized” eschatology of the Corinthian community that led them to flout many of the norms of the old order including sexual mores and gender roles.7 We can prescind from the many lengthy discussions of hairstyles and social customs—only his justification for the warning concerns us. Paul’s exegesis of the Genesis creation account and his argumentation is rather convoluted and vague. In the context of an argument stressing correct order and unity during communal worship, Paul describes the creation of male (ἀνήρ) rather than human being (ἄνθρωπος) by conflating chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. Using κεφαλὴ (head, or source) three times, he establishes a hierarchical order of creation: God > Christ > man > woman. It is 1 Cor. 11:10 that is the focus of our interest, in which it is stated that the woman is obligated to have ἐξουσίαν on her head (διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς). This has best translated as “sign of authority,” but whose? It cannot mean “husband” for that would apply only to married women, and grammatically ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν must mean the ability or power to control someone or something. The sense of the phrase is that the woman should exercise control over her own head, that is, take care that her comportment is commensurate with her dignity and status before God and the angels.8 Additionally, D. Hall proposes that Paul’s insistence that a prophesying woman exercising authority over her head would have served to illustrate that one inspired by the spirit was still in control. Ecstatic prayer and prophecy were totally compatible with a climate of dignified and self-controlled behavior. 9 But Paul’s reason for their obligation to remain veiled is puzzling: διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. Why are “the angels” used as the trump card to secure his argument? Despite many attempts to classify this as an interpolation with little connection with the main argument, it has been shown to be relevant to the main point. 10 7. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” CBQ 42 (1980): 482–500, esp. 490. 8. Joël Delobel, “I Cor 11, 2-16: Towards a Coherent Interpretation” in L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, style et conception du ministère (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1986), 369–89. Joseph Fitzmyer (First Corinthians, 416) points out that a translation of “veil” as in the RSV is based on a variant reading that is not found in any Greek text. Modern translations (NRSV, NAB, ESV, NEB, REB) render ἐξουσίαν as a sign or symbol of authority. 9. David R. Hall, “A Problem of Authority,” Expository Times 102 (1990): 39–42, esp. 40. 10. Jason D. BeDuhn, “‘Because of the Angels’: Unveiling Paul's Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 11,” JBL 118 (1999): 295–320. Murphy-O’Connor refers to A. Padgett’s revival of an old hypothesis by J. Lightfoot that ἄγγελοι should be taken in the literal sense; that is, that the reference is to messengers or envoys from other church communities. The literal sense is used in Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:24; 9:52; and Jas. 2:25. This is possible but unlikely in the immediate context of Paul’s discussion of prophesying and

84 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

BeDuhn’s novel interpretation is one that takes into account what he calls Paul’s “heterodox anthropogony” that is linked with his soteriology. The creation of the separate genders was an act of angels rather than of God.11 Being in Christ is a new creation, and in this new creation there is no male or female (Gal. 3:28). The restoration of the divine image means that there is no longer any division or separation since the primordial unity has been restored. But the Corinthians were premature in their transcendence of genders, for the eschatological process is not complete; this would be a classic case of already, not yet. The symbols of the present order, including gender distinctions, must be preserved along with the created order. Full unity will be achieved only at the eschaton.12 But it is strange that Paul is so cryptic and offhanded about so important a matter and he does not develop it elsewhere in his letters. It also ignores his insistence that “man” is the εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ. There is nothing explanatory in the passage, so before analyzing this passage through the lenses of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Enochic literature, it should be compared with a general sketch of angels as portrayed in the New Testament. The angelology in the New Testament is not necessarily fully developed or coherent. Angels make an entrance at critical points in the gospels: the Annunciation and birth (Luke 1:11-38; 2:9-21); the temptations (Mark 1:13; Matt. 4:11; Luke 4:10); possibly in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:43); and at the empty tomb (Luke 24:23; Matt. 28:25; John 20:12, 18). They play an eschatological role as reapers, punishers, or part of Jesus’ retinue at his return (Matt. 13:39-49; 16:27; 24:31; 25:31; 26:53; Mark 8:38; 13:27). They are in the divine presence (Luke 12:8-9; 15:10; 16:21). They play a major role in the Book of Acts: revealers (8:26; 10:3, 22; 11:13); rescuers (5:19; 12:7-15); and executors of divine judgment (7:53). The role is positive: they are messengers, guardians, and they minister to Jesus in his need. The only negative reference to angels is in Matt. 25:41 and that is to the fiery punishment awaiting the devil and his angels. Their representation in the undisputed Pauline corpus and the deuteroand non-Pauline epistles is somewhat ambiguous, and it is these passages that resonate more closely with the Enochic literature in question. In general, the epistolary references to angels in the New Testament stress their temporary prayer. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Once Again,” CBQ 50 (1988): 265–274. The reference is to A. Padgett, “Paul on Women in the Church: The Contradictions of Coiffure in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” JSNT 20 (1984): 71–72. 11. BeDuhn, “Because of the Angels,” 295–320. 12. Ibid., 316–319. He cites a number of references for angels present at creation: Justin Martyr Dial. 7; Tri. Trac. 1, 5; 112.35-113.1; Philo, Opif. 72-75; Conf. 178-79; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 2:16-22.

‘Because of the Angels’: Paul and the Enochic Traditions | 85

and mediating nature and their complete subordination to Christ. Both Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2:4 allude to the judgment and punishment of the angelic Watchers described in 1 En. 6–19. Jude 6 describes the failure of the angels to remain in their own domain and their subsequent imprisonment in chains until the final judgment for their transgression.13 Drawing on Jude, 2 Peter echoes the condemnation of the angels in efforts to battle “false teachers.”14 Both letters display an acquaintance not only with the Enochic tradition but with other pseudepigraphal works. The author of Hebrews repeatedly hammers home the subordinate status of the angels with regard to Christ (1:4, 5, 7, and 13). The angels were intermediaries for God’s communications, and their messages were valid (2:2), but the world to come was not subjected to them (2:5). Human beings were temporarily lower than the angels (2:7), but Christ, who came to help the descendants of Abraham rather than angels (2:16), was for a short time also lower than the angels. All of this was to defeat death and receive the crown of glory and honor, which he shares with believers. The status of angels, then, is temporary and transcended by Christ and his followers. Angelic status does not imply omniscience, for the angels longed to see the salvation brought by Christ (1 Pet. 1:12), and again it is made clear that the angels have been made subject to Christ (3:22). There is a certain ambiguity about their nature that has been noted. Credulity and subservience before angelic mediators can result in confusion and error, as noted forcefully in Col. 2:18 (μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων; “Do not let anyone disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels” NRSV). Their word need not be and should not be accepted if it deviates from the gospel that Paul has received and preached (Gal. 1:8). In fact, that angel should even be ἀνάθεμα (cursed). No one inspired by the Spirit of God can say ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς (Let 13. Richard Bauckham, “Jude, Epistle of,” ABD 3:1098–1103. Jude 6 reflects 1 En. 10:4-6, 12; 12:4; 15:3, 7; Jude 14–16 quotes 1 En. 1:9; and Jude 16 refers to T. Moses 7:7, 9; 5:5. Jude 6 states, ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν. [And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great Day.] 14. 2 Peter 2:4 says, “For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment.” In 1 Pet. 3:19 there is reference to “the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey.” Although it does not call them angels explicitly, these are the spirits destroyed in the flood, which is the context for the passage. The spirits are understood stemming from the offspring of the Watchers and human women. For a discussion of the Watcher traditions in the Catholic Epistles, see Eric Mason’s essay in this volume.

86 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Jesus be cursed), implying that it may have occurred, and the Spirit of God distinguishes itself by enabling the believer to say κύριος Ἰησοῦς (“Jesus is Lord”; 1 Cor. 12:3). Moreover, Satan can even disguise himself as an angel of light (ἄγγελον φωτός, 2 Cor. 11:14). Although angels are not mentioned in connection with Paul’s mystical ascent in 2 Cor. 12:1-12, he heard things in the third heaven that are not for human ears and not to be repeated, echoing the tradition of the firm boundary between above and below, divine and human. As an antidote for pride resulting from the experience, Paul receives a “thorn in the flesh,” which is referred to as an angel in the literal sense of messenger (ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ, 2 Cor. 12:7). The Law itself, added because of transgressions, was ordained through angels by a mediator (δι’ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου, Gal. 3:19). A voice spoken in an angelic tongue is useless if lacking love (1 Cor. 13:1). Angels are seen as fallible entities, for they will be judged by the faithful at the parousia (οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν, 1 Cor. 6:3). After the flood the spirits of the dead, Giants become the evil spirits and demons that afflict humankind (1 En. 15:8—16:1). Stuckenbruck draws attention to the references to “bastard spirits” 4Q520 1, 5 and 4Q511 35, 7), presumably of the gigantic progeny of the fallen angels. They are spoken of as if they still represent a threat. Testament of Solomon 5:3 and 17:1 makes a firm connection between demons and the offspring of the angels, and unless humans know the names of the angels who rule over these demons, they will be worshiped as gods. Stuckenbruck makes an interesting connection with Mark 5:1-20 and the many demons that long to inhabit human or even animal bodies.15 The possibility of divine judgment against some of the angels is expressed in 1QH 18:36-38. Even though the demons and evil spirits were not in themselves angels, it appears that there is still a threat posed malign forces that are at times referred to in angelic terms. LITURGICAL LIFE OF THE DEAD SEA COMMUNITY The Dead Sea community at Qumran can also shed some light on the passage in question. Fitzmyer draws a parallel between liturgical life in the Corinthian community and that of the Dead Sea sect at Qumran. The admonition to the women to veil their heads, he suggests, is not to ward off the advances of malign angels. At Qumran, rather, there was a hyper-reverence and concern for purity in connection with the worship of the community for it was believed that angels were actually present during the worship (1QSa 2:3-11; 1QM 7:4-6). 16

15. Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4,” 376.

‘Because of the Angels’: Paul and the Enochic Traditions | 87

There are numerous references in the Dead Sea Scrolls that suggest a communion or intermingling between humans and angels/holy ones during the liturgy. The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400-407 Maskil) contain numerous allusions to ascent and intermingling during the celestial worship. The purified can share the lot of the holy ones in 1QH 19:6-17. The War Scroll describes the holy ones, the angels, and the community of the elect as being mustered together for the final eschatological battle (1QM 12:1-7), a battle that will include angels both on the side of light and on the side of Belial (1QM 1:10-15). The community has seen the angels of holiness and has heard profound things (1QM 1:16). Aharon Shemesh has analyzed texts in the Hebrew Bible, rabbinical halakhah, and Qumran literature that pertain to exclusion from the temple, sanctuary, and sacred assemblies due to deformities, uncleanness, and lack of mental faculties. At Qumran, the explanation for exclusion was that the “holy angels are in their council” (‫ )מלאכי הקודש בעצתם‬the language of pilgrimage is important in that it spoke of “appearing before the Lord your God”—in other words, to be seen by God. 17 Physical deformities, even aesthetic “deficiencies” were seen as an affront to God and even an act of defiance.18 Lists of those disqualified for appearance before the Lord included “a deaf man, an imbecile 16. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11:10,” NTS 4 (1957): 48–58. “No man who suffers from a single type of the uncleanness that affects humanity shall enter their assembly; neither is any man so afflicted to receive an assignment from the congregation. No man with a physical handicap—crippled in both legs or hands, lame, blind, deaf, dumb, or possessed of a visible blemish in his flesh—or a doddering old man unable to do his share in the congregation—may en[ter] to take a place in the congregation of the men of reputation. For the holy angels are [a part of] their congregation. If [one] of these people has some[thing] to say to the holy congregation, let an oral [de]position be taken, but the man must n[ot] enter [the congregation,] for he has been smitten” (1QSa 2:3-11). The War Scroll contains a similar prohibition: “No one crippled, blind, or lame, nor a man who has a permanent blemish on his sin, or a man affected with ritual uncleanness of his flesh; none of these shall go with them to battle. All of them shall be volunteers for battle, pure of spirit and flesh, and prepared for the Day of Vengeance. Any man who is not ritually clean in respect to his genitals on the day of battle shall not go down with them into battle, for holy angels are present with their army. There shall be a space between all their camps and the latrine of about two thousand cubits, and no shameful nakedness shall be seen in the environs of all their camps” (1QM 7:4-6). The translations are taken from Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 138 and 154 respectively. See also Samuel Thomas, “Watchers Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in this volume; and Angela Kim Harkins, Reading with an “I” to the Heavens: Looking at the Qumran Hodayot through the Lens of Visionary Traditions, Ekstasis 3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012). 17. A. Shemesh, “‘The Holy Angels are in Their Council’: The Exclusion of Deformed Persons From Holy Places in Qumranic and Rabbinic Literature,” DSD 4 (1997): 179–202.

88 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

and a minor, a person of unknown sex, a hermaphrodite, women, unfreed slaves, the lame, the blind, the sick, the aged and one who is unable to go up on foot” (Ḥag. 1.1).19 Of interest for our discussion is the exclusion of those of ambiguous gender, for women prophesying unveiled would be considered an impious and unseemly blurring of gender distinctions and offensive to the angelic presence. Paul’s temple imagery for the community (1 Cor. 3:16-17 and 6:19) would be consistent with that interpretation. The first passage insists that “God’s temple is holy; and you are that temple.” This implies that the reverence that L. Peerbolte sees in Paul’s cautious attitude regarding prophesying and praying may reflect attitudes and ideas found both in contemporary Jewish literature and in the literature of Qumran. Angels continually worship around God’s throne in a sort of celestial liturgy, and they act as couriers, bearing human prayers to God and divine instruction to humans. Great care was taken to ban all those crippled, deformed, or deficient in parentage from the communal worship, since angels were present in the congregation. The time of prophesying, then, would be a liminal experience, one particularly vulnerable to boundary transgression especially between women and angels. The possibility of inciting the sexual interest of angels remains a possibility, even though the Watchers have been imprisoned and the spirits of their offspring are thought of in demonic rather than angelic terms. Because of the ending of one aeon and the beginning of another, primal events are in danger of being replicated. 20

Influence The Testament of Reuben provides a spin on the tradition that might shed light on 1 Cor. 11. This misogynist rant lays the blame for the sin of the Watchers on women who enticed the angels in the same manner in which they attract men by adorning their heads and appearances.21 If this passage is similar to the 18. Ibid., 189. The ordinance requiring the appearance before the Lord is based on Deut. 16:16; Exod. 23:17 and 34:23. The notion of being seen by God is mentioned in Sifre Deut. 143. 19. Ibid., 181. 20. L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, “Man, Woman, and the Angels in 1 Cor 11:2-16” in The Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 90–91. This is found in 4Q405, frags. 19 and 23i. 21. H.C. Kee, trans., “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,” OTP 1:775–828. T. Reu. 5:1-7: “For women are evil, my children, and by reason of their lacking authority or power over man, they scheme treacherously how they might entice him to themselves by their looks. And whomever they cannot enchant by their appearance they conquer by a stratagem. Indeed, the angel of the Lord told me and instructed me that women are more easily overcome by the spirit of promiscuity than are men. They contrive in their hearts against men, then by decking themselves out they lead men’s minds astray, by a

‘Because of the Angels’: Paul and the Enochic Traditions | 89

reasoning behind 1 Cor. 11, then the warning for women to cover their heads might be intended as protection for both the men in the congregation and the angels. The Latin church father Tertullian associates 1 Cor. 11:10 with the tradition of the fall of the Watchers from Gen. 6.22 The veil was to designate them as married women and therefore unavailable, for the unveiled heads of virgins he considered particularly enticing to the angels.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research What sort of angelic consequences result from women praying and prophesying while uncovered? The two possibilities, either sexual advances from wayward angels or grave offense against the divine presence, need not be mutually exclusive. It is clear that the presence of the spirit signaled the divine presence (1 Cor. 14:25). There was a tradition at Qumran of intermingling between angels and members of the community during worship and the need for hyperpurity. There were also competitors within the community in the form of demonic presences (1 Cor. 10:14-22), and any form of idolatry is a communion with these demons (1 Cor. 10:20-22). Paul’s main concern was proper order, for “God is a God not of disorder but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33). This would include keeping the proper social roles and boundaries, and failure to do so would bring to mind the chaos and transgression of boundaries that look they implant their poison, and finally in the act itself they take them captive. For a woman is not able to coerce a man overtly, but by a harlot’s manner she accomplishes her villainy. Accordingly, my children, flee from sexual promiscuity, and order your wives and your daughters not to adorn their heads and their appearances so as to deceive men’s sound minds. For every woman who schemes in these ways is destined for eternal punishment. For it was thus that they charmed the Watchers, who were before the Flood. As they continued looking at the women, they were filled with desire for them and perpetrated the act in their minds. Then they were transformed into human males, and while the women were cohabiting with their husbands they appeared to them. Since the women’s minds were filled with lust for these apparitions, they gave birth to giants. For the Watchers were disclosed to them as being as high as the heavens.” 22. Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and A.C. Coxe (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 7. “For if (it is) on account of the angels—those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of concupiscence after females—who can presume that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins, whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise? [5] For thus does Scripture withal suggest: ‘And it came to pass,’ it says, ‘when men had begun to grow more numerous upon the earth, there were withal daughters born them; but the sons of God, having descried the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they elected.’” There are similar references in Corona 14:2; AdvMarc 5.8.2; and Orat 22:5-6.

90 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

had been so much a part of the catastrophe in the tradition of the Watchers. To pray and prophesy in the presence of angelic powers would require no less than this. But failure to do so would not only be irreverent of the holy presence, it could also invite the same sort of boundary transgression that occurred in the beginning. The warning “because of the angels” might evoke a range of reasons from within the entire tradition and the necessity of absolute rectitude in the context of worship. Further research in the angelology of Second Temple Judaism and the Dead Sea community, especially in the context of worship, will be useful for illuminating this enigmatic passage.

Brief Bibliography BeDuhn, Jason D. “‘Because of the Angels’: Unveiling Paul’s Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 11.” JBL 118 (1999): 295–320. Delobel, Joël. “I Cor 11, 2-16: Towards a Coherent Interpretation.” Pages 369-89 in L’apôtre Paul: Personnalité, style et conception du ministère. Edited by A. Vanhoye. Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1986. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11:10.” NTS 4 (1957): 48–58. Hall, David R. “A Problem of Authority.” Expository Times 102 (1990): 39–42. Kee, H.C. “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 775-828 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Lietaert Peerbolte, L.J. “Man, Woman, and the Angels in 1 Cor 11:2-16.” Pages 76-92 in The Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.” CBQ 42 (1980): 482–500. ———. “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Once Again.” CBQ 50 (1988): 265–274. Shemesh, Aharon. “‘The Holy Angels Are in Their Council’: The Exclusion of Deformed Persons From Holy Places in Qumranic and Rabbinic Literature.” DSD 4 (1997): 179–202. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and Third Century bce Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions.” DSD 7 (2000): 354–77.

7

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6–16: The Fall of Angels and the Rise of Demons Kevin Sullivan

Introduction The Watchers are a type of intermediary being, apparently a distinctive class.1 There may well be Near Eastern precedents for this type of being that were adopted by Second Temple Jews. While the Watchers may have been associated with a type of angelic being at some point, they come to be associated with demons in later Jewish and Christian traditions. In this essay, we explore how the changing status of the Watchers mirrors the emergence in Second Temple Judaism of supernatural or otherworldly beings associated with evil; such beings stand in opposition to God and become especially prevalent in New Testament demonology. It is clear from texts like 1 Enoch 6–16 that the Watchers are not considered equivalent with God, and yet it is also clear that they are much more than human—they initially reside in heaven and are privy to knowledge that humans do not have. The Watchers are in a liminal space between the divine and the 1. For overviews of the Watchers, see John J. Collins, “Watchers,” in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1681–85; Michael Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 34; R. Murray, “The Origin of Aramaic ‘ir, Angel,” Or 53 (1984): 303–17; and R.M. Tuschling, Angels and Orthodoxy: A Study in their Development in Syria and Palestine from the Qumran Texts to Ephrem the Syrian (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 89–91; see also, Siam Bhayro, The Shemihazah and Asael Narrative of 1 Enoch 6–11: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary with Reference to Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Antecedents (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005).

91

92 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

human where angels and other intermediary beings often reside. The Book of Watchers indicates that the Watchers are angels, who, because of their conduct, become a separate class of angels (i.e., “fallen” angels). The idea of the “fall of the angels” appears to be part of a significant shift in the conceptualization of the spiritual world in the late Second Temple period. It seems that the fall of the Watchers from heaven corresponded chronologically with (and is directly related to) the development of the idea that a single, evil entity (e.g., Satan) stood in opposition to God on earth. The spirits of the offspring of the fallen angels who remained on earth (even after the Flood) helped give rise to the New Testament concept of the demons as Satan’s minions, so the very concept of the “fall of the angels” gave rise to the idea of demons as they are envisioned in some late Second Temple writings and especially in the New Testament. The meaning of the term “Watcher” (‫ )עיר‬is not entirely clear.2 It likely relates to its Hebrew root, which means “to rouse oneself / be awake.”3 The term is used in the Book of the Watchers to refer not only to angels who ultimately fell, but also to angels who remain in heaven (e.g., 1 En. 12:3). The first biblical reference to the “Watchers” that appears to refer to them as heavenly beings is found in Daniel 4 (vv. 13, 17, and 23). In Daniel, the Watchers are also referred to as “holy ones.” As John Collins says of the Watchers, “Their function overlaps with that of the mal’ak in so far as they can convey a divine message to earth, but they were apparently conceived as a distinct class of angelic beings.”4 Beyond these references, the Watchers appear more commonly in the non-canonical literature: Jub. 4:15, 7:21f, 10:4, T. Reu. 5:6-7, T. Naph. 3:5, CD 2:18, the Genesis Apocryphon, and importantly in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 1–36).5 So, 1 Enoch 6–16 fits into a broader Second Temple Jewish context concerning the fall of the angels.

Author and Audience Given the composite nature of this booklet within 1 Enoch, it is difficult to be certain about the author and audience of the Book of the Watchers. Presumably 2. For a discussion of its origins, see Amar Annus, “On the Origin of Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions,” JSP 19 (2010): 277–320, esp. 294 and 314. 3. The root for “Watchers” is a hollow one (‫ ;)עור‬see BDB, 734–35. 4. Collins, “Watchers,” 1684. 5. For a useful summary of the Watchers in Jewish Literature, see Rick Strelan, “The Fallen Watchers and the Disciples in Mark,” JSP 20 (1999): 75–79.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6–16 | 93

both the author of the text and its intended audience were Jews of the mid-tolate Second Temple period. George W.E. Nickelsburg suggests a date in the third century bce for this section of 1 Enoch.6 This period corresponds with the rise of apocalyptic literature in Jewish writings, and so, not surprisingly, we see discussion of angels and the heavenly realm in other early booklets of 1 Enoch, the Book of Daniel, and the writings from Qumran. Due to the status of Enoch and his role as a scribe, it has been suggested that the Book of Watchers (1 En. 1–36) was written by scribes.7 This is certainly possible, and if it is correct, then it gives us an insight into the social setting of the author and possibly the audience. While consensus is unlikely, a plausible suggestion for the location of the writing of the text is in or around Judea with some scholars suggesting Galilee specifically.8 The audience for the Book of the Watchers would likely have been familiar with the tradition seen in Gen. 6:1-4.9 The primary concern of 1 En. 6–16 appears to be explaining the origins of evil in the world. The transgression of heavenly beings, the Watchers, was ultimately the cause of evil. The Watchers crossed boundaries that were set by God between heaven and earth, and their lust for human women led to hybrid beings, the Nephilim or Giants, who were not part of the divine order. It is implied in Genesis and clearer in 1 Enoch that the Giants were a primary reason for the flood. What purpose do the Watchers serve in the narrative for the author and audience? The Watchers appear to offer a further explanation and also a way to explain the origins of evil in the world that removes responsibility directly from God, moving it to a set of created beings—the Watchers. Interestingly, without a reference to the Adam and Eve story (though there is an allusion to them and the garden in 1 En. 32:3-6), this account in some ways exonerates humans and God and places blame for the fallen nature of the world upon the intermediary class; the struggle for the world is placed into this sphere and its inhabitants.

6. George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 170, 230. 7. John J. Collins, “The Sage in the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literature,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Gammie and L. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 344–47; D. Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16,” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–135; see also C. Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 92–94. 8. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 119. 9. See the article, “The Watchers Traditions and Gen 6:1-4 (MT and LXX)” by Chris Seeman in this volume.

94 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

While the archangels quickly move to eradicate the Giants and subdue the fallen Watchers, the damage to the world is done.

Synopsis In 1 Enoch 6:2, the Watchers are referred to as “sons of heaven.” This designation appears to juxtapose them with the “sons of men” (6:1) who had “comely daughters.” The distinction is quite important. It seems to establish the fact that each group, the Watchers and human beings, have clearly delineated habitats: humans are on earth, while the Watchers are in heaven. Immediately after this general description, a particular celestial being, Shemihazah, is named (6:3). Nineteen others are then named in 6:7 and along with their “leader” Shemihazah, each was the chief of ten others for a total of 200 who would descend to earth. Once they are on earth, they immediately transgress the established boundary between heavenly and earthly beings, taking wives to themselves and going into them and in so doing, defile themselves (7:1).10 The outcome of this transgression is the production of the Nephilim, the “great Giants” (7:2). After outlining the secrets that the Watchers revealed to humanity (ch. 8), Michael, Sariel, Raphael, and Gabriel are brought into the story. These names are elsewhere used for archangels (e.g., 1QM 9:15). In this text they refer to themselves as “the holy ones of heaven” (9:3). It seems logical to assume that these four are understood as (arch)angels. These four seem to understand the Watchers as peers and are appalled by their actions. The four appeal to God, outlining the wrongs of the Asael and Shemihazah and ask what they should do (9:4-11). They are then sent to earth with tasks in response to the actions of the Watchers: Sariel is sent to Noah to prepare him for the Flood (10:1-3), Raphael is sent to imprison Asael (10:4-8), Gabriel is sent to destroy the Giants (10:9-10), and Michael is to imprison Shemihazah, destroy the Giants, and restore the earth (10:11-22). After all of this work is outlined, the narrative shifts to a discussion of Enoch, his being taken up to heaven, and his residence with the Watchers (12:1-2). Enoch is sent to speak to Asael and the fallen Watchers (13:1-3). The Watchers, hearing the words of woe that Enoch brings, commission Enoch to speak to God on their behalf (13:4-7). Chapter 14 recaps much of the preceding discussion, and in chapter 15 more is revealed to Enoch.

10. On the idea of defilement, see Karina Martin Hogan’s essay in this volume and also William Loader, Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 6–52.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6–16 | 95

1 Enoch 15:6 clearly differentiates heavenly and earthly boundaries when it says the following about the fallen Watchers: “you originally existed as spirits, living forever, and not dying . . . therefore I did not make women among you.” The hybrid offspring, the Giants, constitute an abomination of which God says, “Evil spirits they will be on the earth, and evil spirits they will be called. The spirits of heaven, in heaven is their dwelling; but the spirits begotten on earth, on the earth is their dwelling” (1 En. 15:9). Enoch returns to the Watchers a second time and is told to say to them, “You were in heaven, and no mystery was revealed to you; but a stolen mystery you learned; and this you made known to the women in your hardness of heart; and through this mystery the women and men are multiplying evils on the earth.’ Say to them, ‘You will have no peace’” (16:3-4). Reed sums up the situation in 1 Enoch 6–16 succinctly: [T]he birth of the Giants is explored in terms of the mingling of “spirits and flesh” (15:8). Angels properly dwell in heaven, and humans properly dwell on earth (15:10), but the nature of the Giants is mixed. This transgression of categories brings terrible results: after their physical death, the Giants’ demonic spirits “come forth from their bodies” to plague humankind (15:9, 11-12; 16:1). According to 1 En. 16, the angelic transmission of heavenly knowledge to earthly humans can also be understood as a contamination of distinct categories within God’s orderly Creation. As inhabitants of heaven, the Watchers were privy to all the secrets of heaven; their revelation of this knowledge to the inhabitants of the earth was categorically improper as well as morally destructive.11 Because the hybrid offspring were conceived on earth, their spirits are doomed to remain there, and while Shemihazah and Asael are imprisoned, they are not gone completely. This tale sets the stage for a different understanding of the spiritual realm that is seen in other late Second Temple writings. The early Enochic writings seem to be looking for ways to explain the existence of evil in the world, as are some texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. In these texts an individual—whether it is Belial (1QH, 2 Cor. 6:14-15), Melchiresa (11QMelch), Mastema (Jub. 10:7-9), or Satan (Job 1-2, Zech. 3, Matt. 4:1-11)—stands in opposition to God’s plan, and his chosen people or agents. While the Watchers seem to begin as angels, they seem also 11. Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 46.

96 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

to have given birth (literally and figuratively) to the demons of later Christian literature. To understand this shift, we need to examine some other texts and scholarly nomenclature in more detail.

The Watchers, Angels, and Demons Elsewhere, I have laid out some of the key criteria for defining an “angel” in ancient Jewish and early Christian literature.12 Some of the primary attributes of angels are that they reside in heaven (although they can and do travel to earth), are immortal13—needing no sustenance and also having no need for procreation (thus they appear to be asexual by nature)—and, when they appear to humans, angels are often luminous and cause fear and falling to the ground in their seers. We see these same characteristics noted for the Watchers (residing in heaven, no need for female counterparts, etc.). In 1 Enoch, the Watchers seem to enjoy a special status in heaven, very close to God, but the Watchers who choose to go down to earth become distinct for very different reasons: their transgression of having intercourse with human females, which brings about the Giants, and also their role as bringers of secret knowledge into the world. It appears that the conduct of these Watchers was significantly evil as to cause them and their hybrid offspring to be barred from heaven. This means that while their original abode was with God, they would no longer be able to return there. Beings who were originally created for heaven are evicted, and the beings to whom they give birth, the Giants, are doomed to remain on earth. Thus, two sets of beings with evil actions or evil origins in their past are now roaming outside of heaven, providing two opportunities to explain the reason for evil in the world. The fact that the Watchers begin as a distinct class of angels, and more importantly, the fact that some of them function in the Book of the Watchers as transgressors of divine boundaries and as transmitters of hidden knowledge suggests that they would be better classified not as angels but as demons. However, we need to consider carefully the word “demon” and, more importantly, if that term had a particular meaning for the authors of the Book of the Watchers. The word and in some sense the concept of “demon” is not common in the Book of the Watchers (though, it appears once in 1 En. 19:1), 12. Kevin Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship Between Humans and Angels in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 27–35. 13. Enoch, interestingly enough, is a human who does not die, but is taken up into heaven (Gen. 5:24) and seems to share the same abode and possibly the same status as the Watchers and holy ones (1 En.12:1-2).

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6–16 | 97

such that to speak of the fallen Watchers as demons is to import a culturally loaded term. A modern definition of “demon,” is “an evil spirit or devil, esp. one thought to possess a person.”14 This definition is quite close to what we see in late Second Temple Jewish texts and the New Testament. While this is a modern definition, it generally reflects the context of ancient literature from the late Second Temple period; it is still important to examine the background of “demons” in the ancient world. The concept of “demon” is not common in the Hebrew Bible; nevertheless, there are a few references worth considering. One reference occurs in Deut. 32:17: “They sacrificed to demons [‫ ;שַּׁד‬LXX: δαιμονίοις] which were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come in of late, whom your ancestors had never dreaded,” and in an apparent reference to Deut. 32, Ps. 106:37 reads, “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons [‫ ;שַּׁד‬LXX: δαιμονίοις].”15 These two texts are suggestive of an idea being present in ancient Judaism of evil spirits, and this is not surprising, but the idea seems to be limited in scope in that the demons/evil spirits are conceived of as being the object of false or misdirected worship. Plato’s description of the daimones in The Symposium (202e-203a) is a good starting point for thinking about the demons in the Greco-Roman context. 16 “He’s a great spirit, Socrates. Everything spiritual, you see, is in between god and mortal.” “What is their function?” I asked. “They [daimones] are messengers who shuttle back and forth between the two, conveying prayer and sacrifice from men to gods, while to men they bring commands from the gods and gifts in return for sacrifices. Being in the middle of the two, they round out the whole and bind fast the all to all. Through them all divination passes, through them the art of priests in sacrifice and ritual, in enchantment, prophecy, and sorcery. Gods do not mix with men; they mingle and converse with us through spirits instead, whether we are awake or asleep.” 17 As is clear from the passage above, conceptually, demons start out somewhat similar to what we have come to understand as the role of angels—moving back 14. Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th ed., s.v. “demon.” 15. For other references to demons in the LXX, see Isa. 13:21; 34:14; 65:3. 16. On the Greco-Roman traditions relating to the Watchers, see the contribution in this volume by Anathea Portier-Young, as well as Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 49–77. 17. John Cooper and D. Hutchinson, Plato: Complete Works (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997), 485–86.

98 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

and forth between heaven and earth and communicating between heaven and earth. As H.S. Vernel notes, “Plato’s concept of daimones as beings intermediate between god and men” is “completely new,” but “this notion was adopted by all subsequent demonologies.”18 Clearly, though, there is a dramatic shift in the conception of demons from the time of Plato to the writings of the New Testament, and much of that shift may have to do with the interplay with Jewish beliefs. Demons are also seen in some contemporaneous Jewish texts. Baruch 4:7 states, “For you provoked him who made you, by sacrificing to demons [δαιμονίοις] and not to God,” and in 4:35, “For fire will come upon her [Jerusalem] from the Everlasting for many days, and for a long time she will be inhabited by demons [δαιμονίων].” Interestingly, similar to the naming of archangels in the Book of Daniel,19 and the leaders of the fallen Watchers in the Book of the Watchers, a demon is named in Tobit 3:7-8, “On the same day, at Ecbatana in Media, it also happened that Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, was reproached by her father’s maids, because she had been given to seven husbands, and the evil demon Asmodeus [Ασμοδαυς τὸ πονηρὸν δαιμόνιον] had slain each of them before he had been with her as his wife.”20 This text is quite similar to the Book of the Watchers in its conception of a specific malevolent individual being.21 Lastly, demons appear in the writings from Qumran.22 One example will suffice to demonstrate the range with which malevolent spirits were being conceived in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 4Q510 fragment 1, 4-6 says, “And I, the Sage, declare the grandeur of his radiance in order to frighten and terrify all the spirits of the ravaging angels, and the bastard spirits, demons, Liliths, owls and [jackals…] and those who strike unexpectedly to lead astray the spirit of

18. H. S. Vernel, “Daimones,” in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 426. 19. On the naming of angels, see also 1 En. 20:1-8 and cf. Josephus, War 2.142, “and in like manner carefully to preserve the books of the sect and the names of the angels.” 20. Cf. Tob. 6:7, 14-17, and 8:3. 21. On the naming of demons in rituals, see Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Sitting by the Waters of Dan, or The ‘Tricky Business’ of Tracing the Social Profile of the Communities that Produced the Earliest Enochic Texts,” in The Early Enoch Tradition, ed. G. Boccaccini and J.J. Collins (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 257–81. 22. See Samuel Thomas’s essay in this volume; see also Philip Alexander, “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After 50 Years, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2:331–53; the response to Alexander by Andy Reimer, “Rescuing the Fallen Angels: The Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran,” DSD 7 (2000): 334–353, and James Davila, “The Hodayot Hymnist and the Four Who Entered Paradise,” RevQ 17 (1996): 457–78.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6–16 | 99

knowledge.”23 This list appears to be meant to cover the significant range of evil beings that were present in late Second Temple Jewish literature. When we examine the writings of the early Christians, we see that daimon takes on a decidedly negative connotation (cf. 1 En. 7:1-6, 15:11). Gone is the neutrality found in Plato’s description. Angels take on the role of intermediary between God and humans. Demons and all its cognate words are seen as malevolent powers in early Christian writings.24 Demons in the New Testament gospels take on a more specific role.25 They are malevolent beings who can invade and inhabit human beings causing mental and physical illness (e.g., Mark 1:34). They can be exorcised (e.g., Mark 1:34), especially by Jesus,26 but not exclusively (Mark 3:14-15). One scholar has even made a direct connection between the fallen Watchers and the disciples in the Gospel of Mark.27 The demons’ invasion of the human being, causing mental or physical illness seems to be a key difference between them and angels.28 As otherworldly beings, angels and demons have some similarities. Their common traits are mentioned in many ancient texts: immortality, special knowledge, and so on, but the distinguishing characteristic of demons from the New Testament period onward seems to be their ability to possess human beings. Angels are not said to possess humans, so the better parallel for demons is spirits, while angels may be something of a class unto themselves. The Watchers, then, do not fit one of the key criteria for being considered demons as they came to be known in New Testament and later writings, that is, they do not possess human beings. In this respect, their role in the Book of the Watchers is closer to Prometheus in the Greek myths than to Satan in the New Testament. Nevertheless, their actions, I think, ultimately lead to the demons of the New Testament, because the spirits of the Giants—the hybrid offspring of the fallen Watchers—remain on earth and cause evil in the world. 23. Translation from F. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 371. 24. April DeConick, The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says (London: Continuum, 2007), 50. 25. On the use of daimon in the NT, see TDNT 2:16–19. For detailed discussion of the meaning of daimon in various contexts, see TDNT 2:1–20, and DDD, 445–55. 26. On Jesus as exorcist, see H. Kee, “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories,” NTS 14 (1967): 232–46. For a much fuller exploration of the idea of Jesus as an exorcist, see the study by G. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993). 27. Strelan, “The Fallen Watchers,” 73–92. 28. See Kevin Sullivan, “Spiritual Inhabitation in the Gospel of Mark: A Reconsideration of Mark 8:33,” Henoch 32 (2010): 401–19.

100 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Influence It seems that 1 Enoch 6–16 draws upon Gen. 6:1-4.29 It is not clear, however, where the enigmatic tale in Genesis originates.30 Whatever the origin of the tale, it is clear that speculation about the Watchers, their fall, and the origin of the Giants, was significantly widespread in the literature of the late Second Temple period. This corresponds closely with an observable increase in speculation about angels and the heavenly realm in the literature of the same period (and beyond). The Watchers also appear in one text from the Hebrew Bible, which is roughly contemporaneous to the Book of the Watchers. The Watchers are referred to as “holy ones” in Daniel, and this seems to fit with their (pre-fall) situation in the Book of the Watchers. Daniel 4:17 states, “The sentence is by the decree of the watchers [‫]עירין‬, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of mortals, and gives it to whom he will, and sets over it the lowliest of human beings.” Here the Watchers appear in apposition to the “holy ones,” and thus seem to be denizens of the heavens who are close to God and even render judgments (cf. Dan. 4:13, 23).31 It is not clear, however, which way the influence flows regarding Daniel and 1 Enoch 6–16. Their conceptions of the Watchers are quite similar, so it is best to consider them as closely linked, but it is not necessary here to choose which preceded the other.32 It is also clear that the Book of Watchers influenced the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Texts from Qumran such as 4Q511 and 1QM also demonstrate similar conceptions of the spiritual realm and may give a clue as to why many booklets from the contemporary collection of 1 Enoch were found among the Scrolls.33 The Watchers traditions also clearly had significant influence upon the 29. Barker and Milik suggest instead that the short narrative in Genesis is dependent upon 1 Enoch. Jozef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 30–32, and Margaret Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1987), 18–19. Also, in this volume, see Ida Frölich, “Mesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions.” 30. Ronald S. Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4,” JBL 106 (1987): 13–26. 31. On the Watchers, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 140–141, and John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 224–26. 32. For studies on Divine Courtroom scenes in Dan. and 1 Enoch, see Ryan Stokes, “The Throne Visions of Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 14, and the Qumran Book of Giants (4Q530): An Analysis of Their Literary Relationship,” DSD 15 (2008): 340–58; and Scott D. Mackie, “Ancient Jewish Mystical Motifs in Hebrews’ Theology of Access and Entry Exhortations,” NTS 58 (2011): 88–104.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6–16 | 101

Book of Giants found at Qumran.34 It is difficult to assess the impact that the Watchers traditions had on later literature; beyond influencing other portions of 1 Enoch,35 2 Enoch,36 and other Second Temple period texts,37 there seems little doubt that speculation on the Watchers traditions was far-reaching and lasting. There are also many references in the New Testament (e.g., Jude),38 and later Christian writers, such as Justin Martyr, made the link between the fallen watchers and demons explicit.39 For example, we read in Justin’s 2 Apology 5 that “the angels transgressing this order, yielded to women in lust, and begat children, who are called demons” (cf. 1 En. 15:8—16:1).40 This influence continued for many centuries in both Jewish and Christian circles. 41

Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research It seems that according to 1 Enoch 6–16 the Watchers were heavenly beings similar to and probably understood by ancient authors to be angels. Nevertheless, after the “fall” (by this I mean their physical movement down to the earth and then below it; as well as the metaphorical “fall” of humans by giving them knowledge that causes evil in the world) of the Watchers, they can appropriately be called “fallen angels.” Further, their actions both in defiling human women and in bringing secret knowledge to humanity make them outliers from heaven, yet they are clearly not human. We should note, 33. For more on the relationship between the Book of Watchers and the Dead Sea Scrolls, see the contributions in this volume by Samuel Thomas (previously noted). 34. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Text, Translation, and Notes (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). 35. In this volume see Karina Martin Hogan (previously noted) and Leslie Baynes, “The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Parables.” 36. See Andrei Orlov’s, “The Watchers of Satanail: The Fallen Angels Traditions in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch,” in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch, SJS 4, ed. A. Orlov, G. Boccaccini, Jason Zurawski (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 37. See John Endres, “The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Jubilees”; Jeremy Corley, “The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature,” and Silviu Bunta, “Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in the Life of Adam and Eve,” all in this volume. 38. For detailed studies relating to the NT, see the contributions in this volume by Scott Lewis and Eric Mason. 39. On this see Randall Chesnutt, “The Descent of the Watchers and its Aftermath According to Justin Martyr,” in this volume. 40. For a much fuller discussion, see Reed, Fallen Angels, 160–89. 41. See Joshua Ezra Burns’s essay in this volume, “The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash,” and also Franklin T. Harkins, “The Embodiment of Angels: A Debate in Mid-Thirteenth-Century Theology,” Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 78 (2011): 25–58.

102 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

however, that in most instances of the name “Watchers” the title “fallen angels” can be applied. Interestingly, even in Daniel some distinction seems to be made between the Watchers and named archangels.42 The Watchers as fallen angels themselves do come to be associated with demons in later literature, but it is not appropriate to refer to the Watchers (in the Book of the Watchers and I think elsewhere) as demons per se. They are best conceived of as a unique subset of angels who, by their transgression of God’s boundaries, made themselves something unique, and also brought about the origins of unique hybrids (the Giants). Many Enochic writings come from a cultural milieu in which speculation about the heavenly realm (as a subset of apocalyptic fervor) was rampant. It seems that in this text, what we are observing is the beginning of a significant change in the cultural understanding of evil. In the wake of the exile and the spread of Hellenism, the reason that Jews suffered needed to be explained, and it needed to be explained through the Scriptures. It also needed to be explained in a way that removed any taint from YHWH. Genesis 6:1-4 provided fertile ground for further development that would explain not just the abstract or philosophical arguments why evil existed, but more importantly, the concrete reason that evil was in the world and people suffered. A subset of angels fell from heaven and by that choice separated themselves from heaven and YHWH. While the Giants were wiped out by the flood, the angels themselves were immortal, and so they remained on earth and became the “demons” of later Jewish and Christian speculation. In this way, evil was physically in the world. While it is by no means certain that there is a literary link between the Enochic literature and the writings of the New Testament (esp. Jude and the Gospels), I suggest that potential points of contact merit further research; whatever the relationship, it appears that at least conceptually, the fall of the angels in the Book of the Watchers was a precursor to the rise of the demons in the Gospels.

Brief Bibliography Alexander, Philip S. “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 331–53 in Volume 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after 50 Years. 2 vols. Edited by P.W. Flint and J.C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1999. 42. There is the tradition in Gen. Rab. (on Gen. 18:1) that the names of the angels were brought back from the Babylonian Exile, which might suggest different provenances for the Watchers and the named angels within Daniel. On this see J.J. Collins, Daniel, 337.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6–16 | 103

Auffarth, Christoph and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (ed.). The Fall of the Angels. Themes in Biblical Narrative 6. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Davidson, Maxwell J. Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and the Sectarian Writings from Qumran. JSPSup 11. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Hanson, Paul D. “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6–11.” JBL 96 (1977): 195–233. Hendel, Ronald S. “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4.” JBL 106 (1987): 13–26. Orlov, Andrei. Dark Mirrors: Azazel and Satanael in Early Jewish Demonology (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2011). Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Reimer, Andy M. “Rescuing the Fallen Angels: The Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran.” DSD 7 (2000): 334–353. Strelan, Rick. “The Fallen Watchers and the Disciples in Mark.” JSP 20 (1999): 73–92. Sullivan, Kevin P. Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship Between Humans and Angels in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Suter, David. “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16.” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35.

PART II

Second Temple Developments

8

The Watchers Traditions in the Bo Book ok of the W Watchers atchers and the Animal A Apocal pocalypse ypse Karina Martin Hogan

The most striking and influential traditions in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36) are the myths about the rebellion of the Watchers. The term “Watchers,” meaning “wakeful ones” (Aramaic ‫)עירין‬, glossed as “sons of Heaven” in 1 En. 6:2, refers to a class of angels, mentioned in the Bible only in Dan. 4:10, 14, 20.1 Even within the Book of the Watchers it is sometimes used of the holy angels in heaven (e.g., 12:2-3, 20:1). Nevertheless, in the phrase “the Watchers traditions,” the Watchers are understood to be those angels who violated the boundary between heaven and earth, both by procreating with human women and by revealing heavenly secrets to human beings. Traditions about the rebellion of the Watchers are concentrated in chapters 6–16 of the Book of the Watchers. Two basic myths of angelic rebellion are intertwined in chapters 6–11, while chapters 12–16 connect the combined myths with the figure of Enoch and offer abstract reflections on the implications of the Watchers’ transgressions.2 The remainder of the Book of the Watchers is only tangentially related to the Watchers myths. Chapters 1–5, consisting mainly of a theophany and a 1. See John J. Collins, “Watchers,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P.W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 893–95. Early extra-biblical uses of the term “Watcher(s)” include Jub. 4:15; CD 2:18; 1QapGen 2:1,16; 4Q534 1ii+2, 15; T. Reu. 5:6-7; T. Naph. 3:5. For a discussion of the Watchers traditions in the Qumran texts, please see Samuel Thomas’s essay in this volume. 2. John J. Collins, “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men,” in Sacred Marriages: The DivineHuman Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, ed. Martti Nissinen and Risto Uro (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 259–74, esp. 268–69 on the “metaphysical implications” of the myth.

107

108 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

judgment speech, serve as an introduction to the Book of the Watchers but focus mainly on the judgment of humankind (the Watchers are mentioned only in 1 Enoch 1:5). The introductory chapters present sin as a violation of the order of creation and provide an eschatological context within which to interpret the Watchers myths as a warning to humankind. Chapters 17–19, which relate the first of Enoch’s journeys, are more closely connected to the Watchers traditions, in that Enoch’s destination is the abyss where the rebellious Watchers are being held until the final judgment. Enoch also visits the place where the fallen Watchers are imprisoned as the first stop on his second journey (in 21:7-10), but the myths of the Watchers are not a primary focus of chapters 20–36.

Author and Audience of the BOOK OF THE WATCHERS The Book of the Watchers is a composite text that was completed by the late third century bce, while the earliest traditions in the book are possibly as early as the late fourth century.3 The identity of the authors of the Book of the Watchers is unknown, but it has been proposed that they were part of a priestly movement that emerged in the fourth century bce in opposition to the Zadokite priesthood that controlled the Second Temple in Jerusalem.4 Although this hypothesis has not been universally accepted, a number of scholars have nevertheless seen a critique of the Jerusalem priesthood in parts of the Book of the Watchers, especially chapters 12–16.5 While it seems likely that 3. George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 7. 4. Gabriele Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). See the critiques of this hypothesis by James C. VanderKam, “Mapping Second Temple Judaism,” in The Early Enoch Literature, JSJSup 121, ed. G. Boccaccini and John J. Collins (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1–20, esp. 15–20; and John J. Collins, “‘Enochic Judaism’ and the Sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Early Enoch Literature, 283–99. 5. David W. Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch,” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35; Suter, “Revisiting ‘Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest,’” in The Origins of Enochic Judaism: Proceedings of the First Enoch Seminar, University of Michigan, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy, June 19–23, 2001, ed. G. Boccaccini (Turin: Zamorani, 2002 = Henoch 14 [2002]), 137–42; George W.E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” JBL 100 (1981): 575–600; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 230–32, 269–72; Benjamin G. Wright III, “Ben Sira and the Book of the Watchers on the Legitimate Priesthood,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, CBQMS 38, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005), 241–53; Martha Himmelfarb, “Levi, Phinehas, and the Problem of Intermarriage at the Time of the Maccabean Revolt,” JSQ 6 (1999): 1–24; Himmelfarb, “The Book of the Watchers and the Priests of Jerusalem,” in Origins of Enochic Judaism, 131–35; Himmelfarb, “Temple and Priests in the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Weeks,” in The Early Enoch Literature, 219–35.

The Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse | 109

the authors of the Book of the Watchers were either priests or closely associated with priests, it can be said with more certainty that they were scribe-sages, since Enoch is introduced as a scribe in 12:3-4 (cf. 15:1).6 It has also been suggested that the earliest myth of the Watchers reflects the wars among the Diadochi (the successors of Alexander the Great) in the late fourth century. The Watchers traditions would hence have originated as a parody of the claims by some of the Diadochi to divine parentage, and as a commentary on the violence their rivalry engendered.7 On the other hand, John Collins has pointed to the “apocalyptic polyvalence” of the Watchers traditions: their meaning is not exhausted by connecting them to one particular historical situation.8

Synopsis: The Watchers Traditions in the BOOK OF THE WATCHERS The Watchers traditions developed over time, and at least three stages of that development can be seen in the Book of the Watchers, in 1 Enoch 6–11 and 12–16. The earliest stage, the Shemihazah myth, is itself an interpretation of Genesis 6–9, and especially of Gen. 6:1-4.9 In 1 Enoch 6–11, Shemihazah is the leader of a conspiracy of Watchers to commit a “great sin” (6:3) by taking human wives and begetting children. This sin is presented as “defiling” the Watchers (7:1) because it is a forbidden union: it violates the boundaries between spirit and flesh, heaven and earth.10 The resulting offspring are called “Giants” (7:2) and later “bastards” or “half-breeds” (9:9). In contrast to the positive or neutral description of the Nephilim in Gen. 6:4 (rendered as “Giants” in the Septuagint), the Giants in the myths of the Watchers are man-eating destroyers; the forbidden unions between Watchers and human women also 6. Benjamin G. Wright III, “1 Enoch and Ben Sira: Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Relationship,” in The Early Enoch Literature, 159–76. 7. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 170. 8. John J. Collins, “The Apocalyptic Technique: Setting and Function in the Book of the Watchers,” CBQ 44 (1982): 91–111, 97–99; Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 51–52. 9. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 166–68. On the relationship of the Book of the Watchers to the Flood myth, see further Helge S. Kvanvig, “The Watchers Story, Genesis and Atra-Hasis: A Triangular Reading,” in The Origins of Enochic Judaism, 17–21. On the Book of the Watchers as an interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4, see Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1-4 in Early Jewish Literature, WUNT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), chs. 4 and 5. 10. William Loader, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document and the Book of Jubilees (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 15.

110 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

lead to the defilement of the earth, through bloodshed (7:3-6, 9:1). The human victims of the Giants cry out to heaven for help (8:4), and four archangels (Michael, Sariel, Raphael, and Gabriel) intercede with the Most High (ch. 9), who responds by sending the flood to “cleanse the earth” (10:20), after first commissioning the angel Sariel to instruct Noah on how to save a remnant of humankind (10:1-3). In the Shemihazah myth, the sexual transgressions of the Watchers are the direct cause of the flood, and human beings are essentially helpless victims. The material in 1 Enoch 6–11 that has to do with the Watchers revealing illicit knowledge to humankind is generally thought to represent a second stage in the development of the Watchers traditions. According to George W.E. Nickelsburg, the Shemihazah myth was first expanded to include the revelation of heavenly mysteries and magical secrets to the women with whom the Watchers mated (1 Enoch 7:1de, 8:3 and 9:8c). Some time later, an independent myth about a single Watcher, Asael, descending to earth to teach human beings forbidden knowledge about metallurgy, mining, and personal adornment, was incorporated into chapters 6–11.11 Nickelsburg has argued that the interpolations concerning Asael (8:1-2, 9:6 and 10:4-8) were placed so as to imply that Asael’s descent preceded the rebellion led by Shemihazah and that Asael bears ultimate responsibility for the proliferation of sin leading to the flood.12 For example, Raphael is commissioned to bind Asael and throw him into an abyss (10:4-8) before Gabriel is told to incite the Giants to destroy one another (10:9-10) and Michael is commanded to imprison Shemihazah and the rest of the fallen Watchers in a fiery abyss and also to destroy the spirits of the Giants (10:11-15). At the same time, the interpolation of the Asael tradition allows the blame for the sexual misconduct of the Watchers to be shifted to the human women: by means of their newly acquired knowledge of cosmetics and ornamentation, they “led the holy ones astray” (8:1c).13 Although the distinction 11. Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 191–93) argues that the Asael myth is modeled after the Prometheus myth as it appears in Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound. It is possible, however, that the author of the Book of the Watchers knew an Israelite myth about the origins of metallurgy and related arts, alluded to in connection with Tubal-cain in Gen. 4:22. See Wright, Origin of Evil Spirits, 115–17. 12. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 171–72. 13. Loader, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality, 18. The longer version of 8:1 that includes the notion that the angels were seduced by the women is preserved in only one late Greek manuscript (Syncellus), but Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 195–96) believes it reflects an early version of the myth. For a full discussion of the arguments for and against the antiquity of Syncellus version of 8:1, and its implications, see Kelley Coblentz Bautch, “Decoration, Destruction and Debauchery: Reflections on 1 Enoch 8 in Light of 4QEnb,” DSD 15 (2008): 79–95.

The Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse | 111

between the Shemihazah and Asael myths explains some of the inconsistencies within 1 Enoch 6–11, it is important to bear in mind that in the received form of the Book of the Watchers, the two traditions are allowed to stand in tension with one another.14 Chapters 12–16 represent a third stage in the development of the Watchers traditions, reflecting on and reinterpreting the combined Watchers myths, with more space devoted to the illicit sexual unions than to the revelation of heavenly secrets.15 “Enoch the scribe” is introduced somewhat awkwardly into the story of the Watchers at the beginning of chapter 12; he functions in these chapters both as a mouthpiece for God and an intercessor for the fallen Watchers, a combination of roles that makes him analogous to a prophet.16 Enoch is first sent to condemn the rebellious Watchers for forsaking heaven to “defile themselves with women . . . as the sons of earth do” (12:4-6) and then to pronounce judgment upon Asael for revealing “unrighteous deeds” to humankind (13:1-2). Enoch carries out his commission to speak to all of the fallen Watchers (13:3) but also agrees to their request to write a “memorandum of petition” asking forgiveness from the Lord of heaven, “for they were no longer able to speak or to lift their eyes to heaven out of shame for the deeds through which they had sinned and for which they had been condemned” (13:4-5). Like a prophet, Enoch seems torn between his commission to deliver the divine sentence against the Watchers and his human sympathy with their predicament, which includes being barred from heaven, bound in bonds in the earth, and forced to witness the destruction of their beloved sons (14:2-7). The emphasis in 14:2-3 on Enoch’s “human tongue” (lit., tongue of flesh) and human ability to “understand with the heart” underscores the ironic inversion that pervades these chapters.17 In the heavenly ascent that follows, Enoch crosses in reverse (albeit in a vision) the very boundary that he is commissioned to 14. Collins, “The Apocalyptic Technique,” 97. 15. Carol A. Newsom has argued that chs. 12–16 were composed before the Asael traditions were added to chs. 6–11; she regards the mentions of Asael (13:1-3) and the revelation of mysteries (16:2-3) as redactional insertions. See her article “The Development of 1 Enoch 6–19: Cosmology and Judgment,” CBQ 42 (1980): 310–29, esp. 319. Annette Yoshiko Reed makes a convincing counterargument that the motif of illicit angelic teaching is integral to chs. 12–16 in her essay “Heavenly Ascent, Angelic Descent, and the Transmission of Knowledge in 1 Enoch 6–16,” in Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions, ed. R.S. Boustan and A.Y. Reed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 47–66. 16. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 229. 17. On the elevation of Enoch as an inversion of the descent of the Watchers, see Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 44–49.

112 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

rebuke the Watchers for transgressing. The description of what Enoch saw in his heavenly ascent (14:8-23) emphasizes the transcendence of God and the “otherness” of the heavenly realm. Yet Enoch, a human being, is twice summoned into the divine presence (14:24, 15:1), where even the angels are forbidden to approach (14:21-22). The oracle (divine speech) in 15:1—16:4 is the actual indictment that Enoch is to deliver to the rebellious Watchers. It also functions as a reinterpretation of the myths of the Watchers in 1 Enoch 6–11 and as a reflection on the implications of transgressing the boundaries between heaven and earth and between spirit and flesh.18 Addressing Enoch, the Lord acknowledges the ironic inversion that Enoch’s ascent to heaven entails: “Go and say to the watchers of heaven, who sent you to petition in their behalf, ‘You should petition in behalf of humans, and not humans in behalf of you’” (15:2). Enoch is addressed only once more in the oracle (in 16:2), but the human messenger lingers in the background, creating an ironic tension with the message of the indictment, which denigrates “flesh and blood,” the “sons of earth,” and (especially) the “daughters of men.” The remainder of the oracle falls into three parts. The first, 15:3-7a, makes explicit the boundaries that the Watchers have transgressed. They have “forsaken the high heaven, the eternal sanctuary,” their proper sphere, and have “defiled [themselves] with the daughters of men,” doing as “the sons of earth” do, by begetting offspring (15:3). The next verse reiterates the charges in a more poetic form: “You were holy ones and spirits, living forever. With the blood of women you have defiled yourselves, and with the blood of flesh you have begotten; and with the blood of men [i.e., of human beings] you have lusted, and you have done as they do—flesh and blood, who die and perish” (15:4). Since heaven is described as a sanctuary and the sin of the Watchers is expressed in terms of defilement by blood, some scholars have read these verses as a critique of the priests of the Second Temple for violating restrictions on whom they may marry, or the laws of menstrual purity.19 As frequently in the Bible (e.g., Gen. 9:4-5, Lev. 17:14, Deut. 12:23), however, blood functions in 15:4 as a symbol of mortal life. The Watchers are not being condemned for 18. Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 269) calls it “the heart of this author’s reinterpretation of chapters 6–11,” while Collins (“Sons of God,” 268) sees it as “the most explicit formulation in 1 Enoch of the metaphysical implications of the descent of the Watchers.” 19. See note 5 above. In her most recent treatment of this passage, however, Himmelfarb (“Temple and Priests,” 223) acknowledges the “lack of fit between the myth and the criticism implicit in it.” Loader (Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality, 28–30) cautions against a too narrow understanding of defilement by blood, interpreting it as “the result of illicit mixing in intercourse with human flesh and blood.”

The Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse | 113

their particular choice of wives or for violations of family purity, but more fundamentally, for choosing marriage and procreation and a mortal life on earth over immortality in heaven, as 15:5-7 make clear. Women are thoroughly objectified in 15:5, as vessels created for the sole purpose of procreation, but the absence of women among the Watchers (15:7) points to the only possible motivation for forsaking heaven. Although in 10:15 Michael was ordered to “destroy all the spirits of the half-breeds and the sons of the Watchers,” in the next section of the oracle, 15:7b–16:1, the spirits of the Giants are called “evil spirits on the earth” (15:8) and are blamed for causing various kinds of trouble on earth “until the day of the consummation of the great judgment” (16:1).20 This is the most significant “reinterpretation” of the Watchers myth in chapters 12–16, since it implies that Gabriel and Michael were only partially successful in eliminating the Giants. As hybrids of Watchers and human beings, the Giants’ flesh is mortal but their spirits are immortal; the proper abode of immortal spirits is heaven, but since they were “begotten on the earth, on the earth is their dwelling” (15:10; cf. 15:7b-8). Apparently out of pure spite (since they no longer need to eat, according to 15:11), the spirits of the Giants continue to attack human beings and “make desolate” the earth (15:11–16:1). The case of the Giants undercuts the neat dichotomies of heaven and earth, spirit and flesh, immortal and mortal laid out in 15:3-7a. The final section of the oracle, 16:2-4, condemns the Watchers for revealing a heavenly mystery to the women. Although Asael is the only Watcher named in chapters 12–16, the revelation associated with him in 8:1-2, 9:6 and 10:7-8 is here subsumed under the illicit knowledge transmitted by Shemihazah and his associates to their wives (16:3; cf. 8:3).21 Coming at the very end of chapters 12–16, the shift in focus from sexual transgression to forbidden revelation is significant for two reasons. First, it counters the impression created by the previous section of the oracle that the spirits of the Giants are the cause of most evils on the earth, since 16:3 clearly states that “through this mystery the women and men are multiplying evils on the earth.” Second, these verses serve as a transition to Enoch’s otherworldly journeys (chapters 17–19 and 20–36), setting up a contrast between improper and proper revelation of heavenly secrets.22 20. As Nickelsburg points out (1 Enoch 1, 273), these verses are the point of departure for the more developed demonology of Jubilees. 21. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 274. He points out that the parallel structure of 15:2-3 and 16:2-3 suggests that the same group of Watchers is being indicted for both transgressions, the sexual and the revelatory. 22. Reed, Fallen Angels, 48–49.

114 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Enoch visits the abyss where the fallen Watchers are imprisoned on both of his journeys, in 1 Enoch 18:10-11; 19:1-2; and in 21:7-10. Of these verses, only 19:1-2 offer a novel interpretation of the Watchers myth. This interpretation is distinct from that of chapters 12–16, in that it is the spirits of the Watchers (who are here called “the angels who mingled with the women”), and not of their offspring, that “bring destruction on men and lead them astray to sacrifice to demons as to gods until the day of the great judgment” (19:1).23 The generally accepted reading of 9:2 adds a surprising twist: “the wives of the transgressing angels will become sirens.” In Greek mythology, the Sirens were seductive bird-women who lured sailors to destruction (see especially Homer Od. 12.39-54, 153-200; Apollonius Rhodius Argon. 4.891-919); in later sources they came to be associated with mourning and the underworld.24 Associating the wives of the Watchers with the Sirens may be meant to reinforce the idea that they seduced the Watchers, after being instructed in personal adornment by Asael (cf. 8:1c).25 The focus of 19:1-2 is less on explaining the sin of the Watchers, however, than on describing its ongoing ill effects on the world. Given that the ongoing influence of the wives of the Watchers is not elaborated either here or in any of the later developments of the Watchers traditions, it may be that the reading “they will become sirens” represents a double corruption of an original Aramaic text meaning “they will be brought to an utter end.” 26

Influence: The Watchers Traditions in the ANIMAL APOCALYPSE The Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90), an allegorical retelling of biblical history in which people are symbolized by animals, is the second of the two dream visions in the fourth major section of 1 Enoch. It contains the most extensive interpretation of the Watchers myth in 1 Enoch outside of the Book of the Watchers; in fact, 1 Enoch 6–11 is the main source for the Animal Apocalypse apart from the Bible.27 The Animal Apocalypse was probably written late in the third century and redacted during the Maccabean revolt (between 165 and 23. Reed, Fallen Angels, 50. Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 287) interprets “their spirits” in 19:1 as “functionally equivalent if not identical with ‘the evil spirits’ that went forth from the bodies of the dead Giants, according to 15:8-12.” This seems unlikely, both because chs. 15–16 distinguish clearly between the Watchers and the Giants, and because the charge of inciting human beings to idolatry is absent from chs. 6–16, as Reed observes (ibid.); see also Loader, Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on Sexuality, 53–54. 24. Kelley Coblentz Bautch, “What Becomes of the Angels’ ‘Wives’? A Text-Critical Study of 1 Enoch 19:2,” JBL 125 (2006): 766–80, esp. 770–71. 25. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 288; Loader, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality, 54. See note 13 above on 8:1c. 26. Coblentz Bautch, “What Becomes of the Angels’ ‘Wives’?” 778–80.

The Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse | 115

160 bce), almost certainly by scribal sages who were part of the same Enochic intellectual tradition as the authors of the Book of the Watchers.28 Hence it sheds light on the ongoing process of reinterpretation of the Watchers myths within Enochic circles. The Animal Apocalypse seeks to resolve the ambiguity in chapters 6–11 about which happened first: the descent of Asael to reveal forbidden knowledge or the conspiracy of Shemihazah and his associates. Watchers are represented by stars in the symbolism of this allegory; a single star falls from heaven first, in 86:1, and causes social disruption and grief among the descendents of Cain, represented by black cattle (86:2). Patrick Tiller suggests that the author associates the descent of Asael with the theme of cultural innovation in the genealogy of Cain in Gen. 4:17-24, which ends with another murder, by Lamech, following immediately upon the invention of bronze and iron implements by Tubal-cain.29 A large group of stars (Shemihazah and company) follows the first star to earth, and after transforming themselves into bulls and “let[ting] out their organs like horses,” they begin “to mount the cows of the bulls” (86:3-4), apparently the white cows (Sethites) as well as the black (Cainites).30 The offspring of these unions are elephants, camels, and asses, perhaps alluding to the three categories of Giants (Giants, Nephilim, and Elioud) mentioned in the long form of 1 Enoch 7:2 and in Jub. 7:22.31 Even before the elephants, camels, and asses begin to devour the bulls (86:6), the bulls themselves begin “to bite with their teeth and devour and gore with their horns” (86:5), suggesting that the immediate result of the descent of Shemihazah and his company is an increase of violence by human beings (though possibly in self-defense against the Giants). The description of the activities of the Watchers in the Animal Apocalypse seeks to clarify several other points left ambiguous by the Book of the Watchers. For instance, the Book of the Watchers never explains how the Watchers, being spirits, were able to impregnate the human women. Here, their transformation from stars to bulls suggests that they took on human flesh, or at least human 27. Patrick Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, SBLEJL 4 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1993), 83. 28. Ibid., 78–79, 116–26; cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 360–62. 29. Tiller, Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse, 237–39. He understands “those large and black cattle” in 86:2 to refer to the black cattle only (i.e., the descendants of Cain). 30. Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 373), in disagreement with Tiller, thinks that 86:2 refers to intermarriage between Sethites and Cainites, so that Asael is responsible for the corruption of both groups. 31. Tiller, Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse, 240–43. As with 8:1, it is the Syncellus Greek text that preserves the longer reading of 7:2 (see n. 13 above).

116 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

form, as soon as they came to earth; the animal imagery obscures the exact nature of the transformation. The comparison of their genitals to those of horses may be meant to suggest that they were still distinguishable from ordinary men (also represented by bulls at this stage).32 On the other hand, the proverbial association of stallions with lust (cf. Jer. 5:8, Ezek. 23:20) may be sufficient to explain that detail.33 In any case, despite the prior descent of Asael, there is no indication in the Animal Apocalypse that the women actively seduced the Watchers. Finally, whereas the Book of the Watchers is inconsistent about Asael’s involvement in the sexual transgression of the Watchers (he is listed among the company of Shemihazah in 6:7 but is rebuked only for revealing forbidden knowledge in 8:1, 9:6 and 10:4-8), the Animal Apocalypse makes clear that he was not part of Shemihazah’s conspiracy. He is not said to transform into a bull when he descends to earth in 86:1, and in both the pre-flood punishment and the final judgment of the Watchers, he is judged separately from (and prior to) the “stars whose organs were like the organs of horses” (88:1, 3; 90:21). In narrating the punishment of the Watchers prior to the flood, the Animal Apocalypse follows the Book of the Watchers fairly closely. Chapter 87 of the Animal Apocalypse introduces seven heavenly beings “with the appearance of white men,” three of whom immediately escort Enoch (in his vision) to “a high place,” from which he is to watch the events of human history unfold (87:3-4) until the eschaton, when the three “men” return him to the New Jerusalem (90:31). The remaining four “men,” in 88:1—89:1, fulfill exactly the tasks assigned to Sariel, Raphael, Gabriel, and Michael in 10:1-15, with the exception that Sariel’s warning of Noah is moved to the last place, so that it leads smoothly into the narrative of the flood.34 Asael and the other group of Watchers seem to be bound in separate abysses in the Animal Apocalypse, just as in chapter 10 of the Book of the Watchers (88:1 //10:4-5, 88:3 // 10:12), but in contrast to the single abyss that Enoch sees on both of his journeys (18:10-11 and 21:7-10).35 32. Reed (Fallen Angels, 75, n. 69) points out that this question is also addressed by later interpretations, such as the T. Reu. 5:5-7 and Ps.-Clem. Hom. 8.12-13. While the T. Reu. is vague on whether the Watchers became flesh-and-blood men or mere apparitions evoking lust and perhaps awe in the women, Ps.-Clem. Hom. 8.12-13 records a two-step process: first the Watchers took on human forms with the honorable intention of showing humankind the possibility of living holy lives. Having become human, however, they experienced lust and cohabited with women; as a result, their fiery substance changed irrevocably into flesh, so that they were unable to return to heaven. 33. Tiller, Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse, 240. 34. Ibid., 83–88. 35. Ibid., 252–53.

The Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse | 117

In fact, there is no clear evidence that the author of the Animal Apocalypse knew the final form of the Book of the Watchers, since the only close parallels are with chapters 6–11. Although the seven archangels in 87:2 could be an allusion to chapter 20, all seven angels apparently accompany Enoch on his second journey (chs. 21–33), not just three of them—and in any case the number seven for the archangels could easily be an independent tradition. There is no hint in the Animal Apocalypse of Enoch’s intercession for the Watchers; although his ascent to “a high place” in 87:3 might be seen as parallel to his ascent to heaven in chapters 14–16, Tiller has shown that it must refer to his transition to paradise, where he is to remain until the final judgment.36 Thus, while the Animal Apocalypse represents another stage in the development of the Watchers myth, it may in fact be independent of and parallel to the second stage (the interpolation of the Asael traditions into chapters 6–11) and the third (the incorporation of Enoch as an intermediary for the Watchers in chapters 12–16).37

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research The process of reworking of the Watchers traditions that begins in the Book of the Watchers and continues in the Animal Apocalypse is only the beginning of the long history of interpretation that is the subject of this volume. Why did the myths of the Watchers have such lasting resonance in Judaism and Christianity? One reason may be that they both intersect with and challenge the worldview, or rather the competing worldviews, expressed in the myths in Genesis 1–11. For example, the central concerns of the Watchers myths—the boundary between the divine and the human; the meaning of mortality and sexuality; the ambivalence of knowledge; the origins of sin and evil—overlap considerably with those of the Garden of Eden myth.38 The final redactor of the Book of the Watchers was certainly aware of the story of Adam and Eve (see 1 En. 32:6), but evidently did not feel that it addressed those concerns adequately.39 36. Ibid., 246–50. For Enoch’s dwelling in paradise / the Garden of Eden, understood to be on a mountain (cf. 1 Enoch 28–32), until the final judgment, cf. 1 En. 106:8, 70:3-4; Jub. 4:23-24; 2 Enoch [A] 36:3; T. Ab. 11; see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 74–75. 37. Tiller, Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse, 93–94. He notes that even the order of the second and third stages is not certain; see note 15 above. 38. Carol A. Newsom, “Genesis 2–3 and 1 Enoch 6–16: Two Myths of Origins and their Ethical Implications,” in Shaking Heaven and Earth: Essays in Honor of Walter Brueggemann and Charles B. Cousar, ed. Christine Roy Yoder et al. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 7–22. 39. John J. Collins, “Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, JSJSup 83, ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H.

118 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

More directly, the Watchers myths challenge the explanations in Genesis 1–11 for the flood and for the drive toward cultural and technical advancement that culminates in the Tower of Babel story, by suggesting that human beings are not completely responsible for cultural innovation, nor for the proliferation of evil on the earth. The theological anthropology of the Book of the Watchers, especially in conversation with the competing anthropologies in Genesis 1–11, is a possible topic for future research. There is a particular need for further study of the anthropology (and angelology) of the Book of the Watchers from the point of view of gender, given the objectification of women in 15:5-7a and the attempt to blame them for the fall of the Watchers in 8:1c. 40 Another avenue for exploring the theological anthropology of the Book of the Watchers might be a literary treatment focusing on irony. This essay has noted a few examples of irony, especially in 1 Enoch 15–16, but there is an irony inherent in the Watchers mythology, in that it calls into question the very boundaries that it insists on: namely, between heaven and earth, spirit and flesh, immortal and mortal. The Giants, and especially their immortal, earth-bound spirits (15:7b–16:1), are just the most striking example of the permeability of those boundaries. If immortal spirits can “give up heaven for sex,” so can righteous human beings like Enoch ascend to heaven and become immortal.41 Through irony, the Book of the Watchers grapples with the same paradox of human nature expressed so poignantly by the poet of Psalm 8.

Newman (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 293–308, esp. 301–8 on Enochic interpretation of the Garden of Eden myth. 40. Kevin P. Sullivan (Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament, AGJU 55 [Leiden: Brill, 2004], 130) has noted the need for more research on angel beliefs in relation to gender, since angels always appear on earth as “men,” and with one exception (the daughters of Job in the T. Job), it is always men who are described as becoming (or becoming like) angels. 41. Collins, “Sons of God,” 269. He believes that Enoch is “paradigmatic for righteous human beings” and that the Book of the Watchers reflects a belief that “human destiny finds its fulfillment in an angelic life in heaven.” It is true that both 10:16-22 and ch. 25 of the Book of the Watchers speak of the reward of the righteous as an extraordinarily long and blessed life on earth, but it is missing the irony of chs. 15–16 to insist that they preclude the possibility of a heavenly afterlife for human beings as Bernhard Lang argues in “No Sex in Heaven: The Logic of Procreation, Death and Eternal Life in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, ed. A. Caquot, S. Légasse, and M. Tardieu (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 237–53, 238–39.

The Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse | 119

Brief Bibliography Bhayro, Siam. The Shemihazah and Asael Narrative of 1 Enoch 6–11: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary with Reference to Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Antecedents. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005. Boccaccini, Gabriele and John J. Collins, ed. The Early Enoch Literature. JSJSup 121. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Collins, John J. “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men.” Pages 259–74 in Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity. Edited by Martti Nissinen and Risto Uro. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Himmelfarb, Martha. “Temple and Priests in the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Weeks.” Pages 219–35 in The Early Enoch Literature. JSJSup 121. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Loader, William. Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, The Aramaic Levi Document and the Book of Jubilees. Part One, chapters 1 and 2 on Book of the Watchers and Animal Apocalypse. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Newsom, Carol A. “Genesis 2–3 and 1 Enoch 6–16: Two Myths of Origins and Their Ethical Implications.” Pages 7–22 in Shaking Heaven and Earth: Essays in Honor of Walter Brueggemann and Charles B. Cousar. Edited by Christine Roy Yoder, Kathleen M. O’Connor, E. Elizabeth Johnson, and Stanley P. Saunders. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Nickelsburg, George W.E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity. Chapters 1 and 2 on Book of the Watchers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ———. “Heavenly Ascent, Angelic Descent, and the Transmission of Knowledge in 1 Enoch 6–16.” Pages 47–66 in Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions. Edited by R.S. Boustan and A.Y. Reed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Tiller, Patrick A. A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch. SBLEJL 4. Atlanta: Scholars, 1993. Wright, Archie T. The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1-4 in Early Jewish Literature. Chapters 4 and 5 on Book of the Watchers. WUNT 2/ 198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

9

The Watchers Traditions in the Bo Book ok of Jubilees John C. Endres, S.J.

The Book of Jubilees provides its audience with a reworked narrative and halakhic account of events from the creation of the world to the meeting of Moses with God at Mount Sinai; thus, in many sections it parallels the Books of Genesis and Exodus 1-24. Close reading of this text reveals a number of details and emphases that would not be known even to students of the Torah (Masoretic tradition). Women who are anonymous in Genesis receive names as the wives of patriarchs in Jubilees; laws that appeared first in texts deriving from revelation to Moses at Sinai are known by patriarchs and matriarchs in Jubilees; and the entire story and its interpretation has been revealed through angelic mediation to Moses. Moreover, its reflection on sin and evil in the world seems to depend on an interpretation of Genesis 3 and 6, as well as on the Watchers traditions. Considering Jubilees as a prime example of Second Temple “rewritten Scripture,” we can learn much about it when reading it in tandem with Genesis, beginning with Genesis 1–11.1 But the “rewriting” of Genesis texts in Jubilees 5–7, concerning human sin from different perspectives, demonstrates a complex relationship with the Scriptural version in Genesis 3 and 6, and especially with the account of the fallen angels in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36, especially in 1 Enoch 6–16). Unlike 1 Enoch, where the Watchers story seems to provide explanation for the origin or existence of sin and evil in the world, Jubilees presents the various facets of Genesis and the Watchers tradition as its 1. Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1–11 in the Book of Jubilees, JSJSup 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2000).

121

122 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

own paradigmatic approach to sin, violence, and evil in the world. The author of Jubilees deploys these traditions to warn humans against particular behaviors that were highlighted in the story of the Watchers.

Author and Audience We consider the Book of Jubilees as a product of the Second Temple Palestinian Jewish community. The question of provenance links closely with that of the original language of the book. Since this book became known anew in the West in 18442, following its discovery in Ethiopia, many scholars opined that it had been written in Hebrew, but there was no sound basis for that judgment on the issue until the discovery of fourteen copies (manuscripts) of Jubilees among the scrolls found at Qumran. Study of these manuscripts confirmed the conclusion that the book was written in Hebrew, then later translated into other languages: Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Ge‘ez (Ethiopic). Textual fragments in Greek, Latin, and Syriac have long been known, and many complete Ethiopic copies are now known to exist.3 Comparison of the Qumran Hebrew fragments with the Ge‘ez text establishes that the Ethiopic version represents a reliable translation of the Hebrew text.4 In addition, the large number of manuscripts found at Qumran witnesses to its popularity and significance for that Jewish community, which so carefully preserved it. Discovery of Jubilees manuscripts at Qumran also helps to establish the dating of this text, to a time before the destruction of the community in 66 ce. Paleographic studies of the earliest exemplars of Jubilees (4Q216, the oldest manuscript, dated around 125 bce) indicates that the text was probably copied ca. 125–100 bce; this dating suggests that it would have been composed earlier, perhaps in the mid-second century bce.5 Discussion continues about the precise dating within that era, with debate about whether Jubilees was written before, during or after the time of the persecutions under Antiochus Epiphanes IV. This text never explicitly indicates its target audience, but several issues and emphases in it seem to point to particular interest groups. Judging from a 2. James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees Translated, CSCO 511 (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), xviii. 3. VanderKam, Jubilees Translated, xviii–xxxi; James C. VanderKam, “The Manuscript Tradition of Jubilees,” Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 3–21, esp. 18–21. 4. James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees, HSM 14 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977). He speaks of the Ethiopic version as “an extraordinarily precise reflection” (287). 5. James C. VanderKam, Qumrân Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part I, DJD 13, ed. Harold W. Attridge et al. in consultation with James C. VanderKam (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 1–4.

The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Jubilees | 123

number of references to matters normally connected with priestly and Levitical groups—matters of worship, purity, calendar, interpretation of Torah, particularly in cases involving sexuality, intermarriage, and genealogy—Jubilees seemingly addressed Jews from priestly and Levitical families.6 This opinion gains strength from the opening scene of the book, where Moses stands as authorizing mediator of God’s message to Israel in this book. The issue of authorship remains a matter of debate. Many scholars argue that Jubilees reflects the viewpoint of a single author, whose rewriting of Scriptural narratives and legal halakhic matters constitute a single, credible viewpoint.7 Others have seriously challenged this view.8 The most recent and sustained challenges come from Michael Segal (who has proposed a schema of rewritten narratives, not written by the redactor/author, joined together with legal and chronological materials)9 and James Kugel (who discerns the presence of multiple interpolations into a basic text).10 Their works also incorporate and build on important earlier studies by Liora Ravid.11 At present this author prefers the position of VanderKam and Hanneken12 and others that the literary inconsistencies identified in the text do not seem serious enough to demonstrate multiple authorship.

Synopsis The Watchers’ traditions emerge in five passages, all early in the book: Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1-10; 7:20-25; 8:1-4; 10:1-11. This next section will describe their contents, approaches to their study (where available), and comment on unique aspects of the tradition found here. 6. John C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees, CBQMS 18 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987), 226–50, esp. 233–34, 236–48. 7. James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, ed. Michael A. Knibb (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 17–22. 8. Cf. Gene L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 1971). 9. Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology, JSJSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 10. James Kugel, “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees,” RevQ 24 (2009): 215–72. 11. Liora Ravid, “The Special Terminology of the Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees,” [Hebrew] Tarbiz 68 (1999): 463–71; Liora Ravid, “The Book of Jubilees and its Calendar: A Reexamination,” DSD 10 (2003): 371–94. 12. James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees; “Recent Scholarship on the Book of Jubilees,” CBR 6 (2008): 405–31, esp. 410–16. Todd Hanneken, The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees, EJL 34 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012) discusses the issue and various claims on pp. 10–11 (especially nos. 20, 21, and 22; he makes clear his position, “a single composition by one author” [273)]).

124 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

The traditions include the following: (1) In the Sethite genealogy (4:11-28) the Watchers are introduced and later critiqued by Enoch, because of their sinful mixing with “the daughters of men.” (2) When the Jubilees’ author rewrites the mythic tradition in Gen. 6:1-4, he provides a more detailed account, focusing on the actions of the Watchers and their sin (5:1-11). Certainly the author of Jubilees has distilled that tradition as he found it in the Book of the Watchers, 1 Enoch 6–16, especially 10–11. As in Genesis, this event provides an entry point to the Flood story (5:19-32). (3) Jubilees reproduces stories of Noah after the Flood, but then adds a section in which he teaches his grandsons about the reasons for the Flood, due to the sins of the Watchers (7:20-25). (4) In the genealogy of Shem there occurs a further reference to the Watchers (8:1-4). (5) Jubilees conclude Noah’s life with his prayer to God to eradicate the influence of the evil spirits and demons, the descendants of the Watchers (10:1-11). JUB. 4:15, 22—THE WATCHERS CAME DOWN TO TEACH The first appearance of the Watchers in Jubilees comes in the genealogy of Seth, as explanation of the name Jared, son of Malalael and Dinah: “during his lifetime the angels of the Lord who were called Watchers descended to earth to teach mankind and to do what is just and upright upon the earth” (4:15).13 The writer cleverly connects the action of these angels who “descended to earth” (Hebr. ‫ )ירד‬with the name of the patriarch, Jared (‫)ירד‬. According to this author he received this name because he lived during the time of those angels who descended, that is, the Watchers. The writer then narrates the birth of Enoch to Jared and Barakah and appends a description of Enoch that lauds and glorifies him as the first on earth to do many things: writing (including signs of the sky), the pattern of months (4:17), a testimony, details of a calendar (4:18), and a vision of events of the past and future (4:19). He then married Edni who bore him their son Methuselah (4:20). Later, we hear that Enoch was “with God’s angels for six jubilees of years” and they “showed him everything . . . and he wrote down everything” (4:21); seemingly he observed matters of astral activity and history in the heavens.14 Then Enoch “testified to the Watchers who had sinned with 13. All translations are from VanderKam, Jubilees Translated. 14. van Ruiten (Primaeval History, 164) describes this verse of Jubilees as an interpretation of Gen. 5:24, “as the sojourn of Enoch with the angels.” See also James C. VanderKam, “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Jubilees | 125

the daughters of men because these had begun to mix with earthly women so that they became defiled. Enoch testified against all of them” (4:22). What strikes a modern reader as odd about this judgment is that Jubilees has not yet narrated the sinful sexual mixing of the Watchers with women; so the notion of evil Watchers must already been known to readers of Jubilees before they read the rewritten account.15 Readers must wait until 5:1-2 for details of this event. The most unique aspect of Jubilees’ characterization of the Watchers appears in the initial mention of them, that they “descended to earth to teach mankind and to do what is just and upright upon the earth” (4:15). Although the impact of their actions quickly turns to evil, their mission began with a positive goal. The Book of the Watchers (1 En. 6–11) offers no such positive interpretation of the Watchers, although two texts could be construed as positive: 1 En. 8:1 and 86:1.16 Still, the initial goal of the Watchers’ journey to the earth, to teach the inhabitants of the earth to do “what is just and upright,” runs against the current view of the Watchers tradition known in 1 Enoch 1–36. JUB. 5:1-11—THE WATCHERS COHABITED WITH WOMEN The main Watchers tradition appears in Jub. 5, where the author interacts with Gen. 6:1-4 and 1 Enoch 6–11. Jub. 5:1-5 seems to “rewrite” Gen. 6:1-12, while Jub. 5:6-19, lacking a clear parallel in Genesis, “seems not [to] have been caused by exegetical problems. The text of Genesis is altered and rewritten as the story of the imprisonment of the Watchers and the destruction of their children.”17 Jub. 5:1-12 notes the great increase in the human population, then narrates the ancient story of heavenly beings who saw human daughters who were attractive to look at; then the angels of the Lord “married of them whomever they chose,” and the women gave birth “for them” and “they were giants” (5:1). Evil began then to arise on the earth, all flesh corrupted their way, and injustice flourished (vv. 1-2). In Jubilees, wickedness has infected all animate beings—people, cattle, animals, birds, creeping things (Jub. 5:2ab). The author comments, as in Genesis, “Every thought of all mankind’s knowledge was evil and Associated Literature, 12–14 January 1997, STDJ 31, ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 151–70, esp. 156. 15. No commentaries that I have consulted mention this oddity. 16. GeorgeW.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch: Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 72. The first text, 8:1, is discussed by Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 195, with explicit reference to Jub. 4:15; the second text, 86:1, is discussed by him on p. 373. 17. van Ruiten, Primaeval History, 212.

126 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

like this all the time” (Jub. 5:2c). God observes all of this evil and determines to bring punishment on all the angels (5:6) and their offspring (5:7-9). The Giants engaged in internecine fighting, killing each other until all were dead. Subsequently, their spirits were bound in the depths of the earth, awaiting judgment (Jub. 5:3-11). The Book of Jubilees thus explores wickedness on a number of levels: Watchers, angels, and the Giants whom they engendered (5:1); all the earth, all animate beings, including humans (5:2). When the Lord saw this corruption he decreed that he would obliterate “all animate beings” except for Noah alone (5:4). The wickedness of angels and humans seem intertwined in 5:6-19, especially because the offspring took up swords and began to kill each other (5:7). Here emerges a divine judgment already known from Gen. 6:3: “My spirit will not remain on people forever, for they are flesh. Their lifespan is to be 120 years” (Jub. 5:8). In Genesis the judgment is directed at humans, while here it seems directed at the offspring of the Watchers and human women, that is, the Giants (Jub. 5:6-9). Divine judgment is clear: God “sent his sword among them so that they would kill one another. They began to kill each other until all of them fell by the sword and were obliterated from the earth” (5:9). Jubilees recognized a divine judgment in the internecine violence perpetrated by the offspring of the Watchers and the women. But a note of hope emerges: God “made a new and righteous nature for all his creatures so that they would not sin with their whole nature until eternity. Everyone will be righteous—each according to his kind—for all time” (Jub. 5:12). Jubilees’ author knew well the traditions of Genesis and the Book of the Watchers. James VanderKam provides overviews of the relationship between the Watchers traditions and Jubilees, especially the parallels with 1 Enoch.18 First, while 1 Enoch 6–16 “locates the initial sin of lust in heaven,” Jub. 4:15 and 5:6 differ: since the Watchers were sent to earth by God for positive reasons, their sin must have occurred on earth.19 Second, in 1 Enoch 6–16 the sin of the angels with the women is followed by “motifs of violence and illicit teachings.” In Jubilees, however, “violence and sexual immorality are the consequences 18. A very helpful overview of the way that Jubilees drew on Enochic traditions is found in James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for all Generations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), 110–21, esp. 119–20. 19. Was their sin spurred on or caused by the attractive women whom they viewed? William Loader does not think there exists enough evidence for this claim (Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 143).

The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Jubilees | 127

of the marriages.”20 While the author of Jubilees seems to know many earlier Watcher traditions, he presents them selectively and “nuances their themes to a certain extent so that they conform more nearly the concerns expressed in his book.”21 Van Ruiten argues that Jubilees frequently follows the ‘biblical’ tradition so closely that divergences clearly stand out. He emphasizes the negative view of the Watchers in Jub. 5:1-19 and its elaboration of Gen. 6:1-4; in particular, Jub. 5:4 omitted the notion that the lord “regretted” that he had made humans on earth (Gen. 6:6) and all creatures (Gen. 6:7b). Van Ruiten thus concludes that Jubilees bypassed the notion of God’s repentance, commenting: “Any imperfection of God in his work is unacceptable for the author of Jubilees. . . for his foreknowledge would preclude actions he would later regret.”22It seems that God’s character cannot be questioned or qualified in Jubilees, a move that could detract from God’s dignity. William Loader examines this narrative in his book’s section on the motif of sexual wrongdoing.23 Regarding the statement that “the angels of the Lord . . . married of them whomever they chose,” he claims that the verb “married” correctly interprets the reading “they took women/wives for themselves.” It does not suggest a wedding ceremony of any kind, but rather “an act of sexual intercourse is assumed,”24 considered tantamount to marriage. What constituted the offence, according to Loader, was the mixing of angels and humans, “of two different kinds,” which had already been mentioned as an offence in Jub. 4:22: “these had begun to mix with earthly women so that they became defiled.”25 Concerning the “two different kinds,” Loader acknowledges a question whether they might refer to acts of homosexuality or bestiality; however, he downplays this possibility since neither practice emerges elsewhere in Jubilees as a major concern.26 Rather, the “mixing” in Jub. 4:22 serves as “a paradigm for any who transgress their nature without discrimination (5:13-16).”27 The defilement introduced here likely refers to mixing of kinds; 20. VanderKam, Enoch, 120. 21. Ibid. 22. van Ruiten, Primaeval History, 191. 23. Loader, Sexuality in Jubilees, 113–285, esp. 126–46 (on the Watchers in Jubilees). 24. Ibid., 129, n. 353. 25. According to Loader (Sexuality in Jubilees, 130), the Watchers “corrupted their ways (fenot)” (twice in Jub. 5:2; 5:3; 5:10; also in 5:13 and 17). They transgressed the order of things, the separate realms of angels and humans, by their sexual intercourse. As he notes, “the element which makes this, their sin, so distinctive is the mixing of kinds” (131). Perhaps Jubilees makes a case against intermarriage with Gentiles. 26. Loader, Sexuality in Jubilees, 132.

128 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

for this audience it could most plausibly refer to intermarriage with Gentiles, “by taking wives from beyond your kind, namely from beyond the holy people Israel.”28 Jubilees’ exploration of the sins of the Watchers may inform the later warning against exogamy (Jub. 30) for his Jewish hearers. Michael Segal attends carefully to the Watchers story in Jubilees,29 arguing that its author based Jub. 5 both on Gen. 6 and 1 En. 10–11, with the Watchers story in 1 Enoch providing the most significant source.30 A careful survey of literary development of 1 En. 6–11 (including its incorporation of at least two source traditions) leads to his procedure of identifying similar doublets and difficulties in Jub. 5 as evidence that the author: (1) incorporated some literary difficulties/ contradictions from 1 En. 10–11, and (2) also engaged in careful rewriting of that tradition for his own purposes. Segal identifies and examines four exegetical issues in Jub. 5:1-12 (cannibalism, 5:2; repeating the imprisonment of the angels, 5:6, 10; interpreting Gen. 6:3 as referring to Giants in light of Jubilean chronology; the new creation, 5:11), which demonstrate the author’s care in rewriting traditions. Segal analyzes this positive view of the descent of the angels (Jub. 4:15), finding not a theological position but an exegetical judgment connected to his study of chronology: there is a gap of more than 700 years between the birth of Jared and the descent and sin of the Watchers so “their descent to the earth cannot be construed as a rebellion, but must have been the result of other objectives.”31 Finally, Segal examines 5:13-18, on God as a righteous judge. This text does not rewrite earlier passages but introduces new content that depends heavily on Deuteronomy and special terminology found elsewhere in Jubilees. He sees the Watchers story “transformed into a paradigm of reward and punishment” which “calls on all people to behave according to ‘their way in which it was ordained for them to go.’”32 Identifying the rewriting of “sources” in the Watchers story strengthens Segal’s claim about the literary development of Jubilees, that it combines rewritten narratives (from earlier traditions, not written by Jubilees) with legal passages (connected with the Heavenly Tablets) written by a redactor.33 This thesis of a legal redactor and a chronological 27. Ibid., 140. 28. Ibid., 141. 29. Segal, Jubilees, 103–43. 30. Segal, Jubilees, 116. The similarities between the two texts “can lead to only one conclusion: Jub. 5 used 1 En. 10–11 (or another composition which used 1 En. 10–11) as a source when it rewrote the Watchers story.” 31. Ibid., 132. 32. Ibid., 140.

The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Jubilees | 129

redactor leads to the notion that the author (redactor) of Jubilees strove to motivate humans to observe divine commands; conversely an explanation of the existence of evil in the world pertains more to traditions distilled from 1 Enoch.34 JUB. 7:20-25—NOAH REFERS TO THE SINS OF THE WATCHERS References to the Watchers traditions also appear in Jub. 7:20-25, Noah’s instruction to his grandsons about “ordinances and commandments” that they should follow (Jub. 7:20-39). After the general command to do “what is right” there follow four positive commands (“cover the shame of their bodies, bless the one who had created them, honor father and mother, love one another”), and Noah’s testimony that they should “keep themselves from fornication, uncleanness, and from all injustice” (Jub. 7:20b). The warning against these three sins derives from their connection with the flood, “due to fornication that the Watchers had illicit intercourse—apart from the mandate of their authority—with women. When they married of them whomever they chose they committed the first [acts] of uncleanness” (Jub. 7:21).35 Moreover, he describes the cannibalism, violence, and bloodshed committed by the descendants of the angels, concluding that thus “the earth was filled with injustice” (Jub. 7:23).36 Noah reminds his descendants about the story in Gen. 6:1-4 and 1 Enoch 10–11, where the angels go down to earth and cohabit with women, which occasions the flood (Jub. 7:21). When those angels cohabited with the women they chose “they committed the first (acts) of uncleanness” (Jub. 7:21). Jacques van Ruiten finds close parallels between Jub. 7:21d-25 and Jub. 5:1-4, noting one new element in this list of sins: the shedding of blood (Jub. 7:23, 24, 25).37 As Loader notes, in this schema it appears that “uncleanness” results from the angels’ act of sexual intercourse with women, considered as fornication, and this sequence (uncleanness) reflects Jub. 4:22.38He also observes how differently Jubilees describes the murderous violence in Jub. 5:7-9 and 7:22: the former passage seems not to concern the violence of the Giants 33. Ibid., 142. 34. Loader (Sexuality in Jubilees, 140) has a similar explanation of the way Jubilees integrates the Watchers’ traditions, though he follows a less complicated theory of literary development than Segal. 35. Segal, Jubilees, 147, identifies “sources” (from Genesis) for these commandments: only two commands lack a source in Genesis: “bless the one who created them” and “love one another.” 36. Bloodshed is mentioned also in vv. 24 and 25. 37. van Ruiten, Primaeval History, 298. 38. Loader, Sexuality in Jubilees, 134.

130 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

against humans or animals, but the second says that “Elyo [killed] mankind; and people their fellows”39 (Jub. 7:22). This passage opens with a claim that the flood signals a divine judgment on the sons of God, that is, the Watchers,40 but it also clearly implies that such evil was spread by human violence, as in Gen. 6:1-4. Loren Stuckenbruck interprets this point in Jub. 5:3-5 and 7:20-25 as the deeds of sinful humanity: “Whatever the role of the fallen angels and giants in the narrative,” humans provide the reason for the flood, serving as a warning to Jews that in the future they should avoid “fornication, uncleanness, and injustice.”41 Again Jubilees interprets the tradition more for paradigmatic exhortation than for an explanation of the source of evil. JUB. 8:1-4—THE WATCHERS AND ASTRAL TEACHINGS The genealogy of Shem (Jub. 7:18, 8:1-8) mentions the Watchers in the next reference, which comes embedded within information about the birth of Kainan, who was taught the art of writing when he grew up (Jub. 8:1-2). The name Kainan does not occur in the comparable Hebrew text of Genesis, but it is known from the Greek translation (LXX), where its insertion makes the full complement of the 22 patriarchs in Jubilees.42 When Kainan searched for a location to establish a city, he discovered . . . an inscription which the ancients had incised in a rock. He read what was in it, copied it, and sinned on the basis of what was in it, since in it was the Watchers’ teaching by which they used to observe the omens of the sun, moon, and stars and every heavenly sign.43(Jub. 8:2-3) This notice about the Watchers paints a unique portrait, where they possess knowledge of astrological teachings. Van Ruiten suggests that in Jubilees it may be due to the fact that the Watchers first appear just before the birth of Enoch, who was the first to learn writing, and who wrote about calendar 39. Ibid., 140. 40. van Ruiten, Primaeval History, 299. 41. Loren Stuckenbruck, “The Book of Jubilees and the Origin of Evil,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 294–308, esp. 300 and 303. 42. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 41. 43. According to R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices (London: Black, 1902), 66f. The knowledge and wisdom here attributed to the Watchers parallels a description in Josephus, Ant. 1.2.3.

The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Jubilees | 131

matters.44 Since this portrait does not highlight the sexual impropriety of the Watchers, one might wonder whether these “omens of the sun, moon, and stars and heavenly sign” constituted part of the knowledge and lore that the Watchers were sent to teach human beings (Jub. 4:15). JUB. 10:1-11—NOAH PRAYS FOR PROTECTION FROM THE WATCHERS’ DESCENDANTS The final passage about the Watchers occurs shortly before Noah’s death (Jub. 10:1-14). The situation of his grandchildren greatly vexed him, since they were being misled and destroyed by impure demons, and then his sons came to tell him what their children were doing and how “demons . . . were misleading, blinding, and killing his grandchildren” (Jub. 10:2). In his prayer, Noah petitioned God to void the power of the wicked spirits who attempt to rule him and his children (Jub. 10:3-6). Reminding God “of the pattern of divine mercy already shown to the patriarch’s offspring,” he prays that God now repeat the pattern by neutralizing the power of the evil spirits, by imprisoning them and holding them captive.45 Noah reminds God how he had shown them mercy and kindness by saving him and his sons from the flood and then complains about the demons/ spirits: they are agents of Mastema, the ruler of the realm of evil, often called the Prince of Mastema, the leader of the evil spirits or demons. The Hebrew term signifies “animosity, hostility” but Jub. 10:11 mentions “the Satan”; here he seems to function as a counterpart to the angel of the presence.46 Noah addresses God: You know how your Watchers, the fathers of these spirits, have acted during my lifetime. As for these spirits who have remained alive, imprison them and hold them captive in the place of judgment. May they not cause destruction among your servant’s sons, my God, for they are savage and were created for the purpose of destroying. (10:5) Noah asks a blessing in Jub. 10:4, probably referring to the blessing of Noah in Gen 9:1, 7, but here it seems more poignant: “bless me and my children so that we may increase, become numerous, and fill the earth.” He begs God to

44. van Ruiten, Primaeval History, 318, n. 21. In Jub. 4:15, the Watchers appear, followed by the birth and activities of Enoch in 4:16-18. 45. See John C. Endres, “The Prayer of Noah: Jubilees 10:3-6,” in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology, ed. Mark Kiley (London: Routledge, 1997), 53–58. 46. For more information, see VanderKam, Jubilees, 128 and 141.

132 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

reverse the destructive impact of the Watchers on humans, who are his (Noah’s) descendants. God responds, telling the angels of presence to tie up each of the demons (Jub. 10:7), but Mastema complains that without any demons left unbound he could not exercise the authority of his will, since the demons are meant for “destroying and misleading” (Jub. 10:8). God thus decides that one tenth of them should be left free, but the other “nine parts descend to the place of judgment” (Jub.10:9). This text contributes three points significant for the overall schema of the Watchers’ tradition in Jubilees. First, the sons of the Watchers are defined as evil spirits, demons (cf. 1 En. 15-16 and 1 En. 19:1-2). Second, their leader Mastema guides them to acts of savagery and hostility, and operates in some way as a counterpart to Satan.47 Third, all but ten percent of the demons are bound by the angels at God’s command, thus implying that the forces of evil and enmity shall not hold sway in this post-deluvian world. Noah’s prayer offers a slightly different view on the source and persistence of evil. The Watchers, source of evil in the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36), were there held bound by the good angels, so they are “no longer active in human affairs.”48 In Jubilees, the tenth part of evil spirits should warn humans about their conduct, and it also avers that some other source of evil was present. Finally the angel of the presence mentions that the remaining tenth of the demons would wreak havoc on Noah’s family, bringing diseases and deceptions to hurt them (Jub. 10:10, 12). Something needs to be done to protect humans, so God tells one angel to teach Noah medicines, useful antidotes to “the demoniacally-induced afflictions” (cf. Jub. 10:12-14).49 This incident in Jubilees recasts the fate of the Watchers in 1 Enoch: there they were bound by the good angels, but in Jubilees some of those demons remain active.

Influence: Judging from the number of manuscripts found there (at least fourteen), Jews at Qumran held Jubilees in high esteem. In one collection, described as PseudoJubileesa-c (4Q225-227), one text (4Q227 frag. 2) seems to present some of the Enoch material as it had appeared in Jub. 4:15-26.50 The Damascus Document 47. Philip Alexander (“Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 341f) shows how Mastema resembles Belial, Satan, Melchiresha, and that his origins are to be found not in the Watchers tradition but in the figure of Satan in the Bible. See Philip Alexander, “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 341f. 48. Ibid., 341. 49. Ibid., 347.

The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Jubilees | 133

apparently mentions Jubilees (CD 16:2-4) and “the next sentence mentions . . . the angel of Mastema,” perhaps picking up on the Noah prayer in Jub.10.51 The Pseudo-Clementine literature (third to fourth century CE) might echo Jubilees 4 with its notion of a positive “mission” of the angels to the earth (cf. Homily 8:10-20), descending to convince humans to abandon their ingratitude to God.52 Another reference to Jubilees 10 emerges in Hom. 8:18-20 where “an angel sent by God both allowed the demons to subject humans to their power and placed limits on their power.”53 VanderKam urges that Jubilees does not seem to have much of an interpretive “afterlife” in Judaism, though he mentions two possible instances: first, “the Book of Asaph (tenth or eleventh century?) cites from a Book of Noah for material that parallels parts of Jub. 10:1-14”; second, a benign purpose for the descent of the angels in the time of Jared is found in Midrash Aggadah’s commentary on Gen. 5:18.54 In medieval Hebrew works, Martha Himmelfarb notes some important connections with Jubilees, commenting on Jared and the Watchers, Enoch’s astronomical knowledge, and the (previously mentioned) Book of Asaph and Jub. 10:1-14.55 She claims that Jubilees was not used very long by Christians in Europe, based on the existence of only one Latin version, and no Greek manuscripts but some citations, mostly in Greek chronographers. But medieval Hebrew literature shows some influence of Jubilees, especially Midrash Aggadah and Midrash Tadsche. The greatest area of reception is Ethiopia, where the book was generally included with other texts in the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. So many Ethiopic manuscripts have been discovered that its influence is considered to be very significant in this church.

50. VanderKam, Jubilees, 144. 51. Ibid. 52. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 97. 53. Ibid., 98. James VanderKam offers a similar analysis with extensive citation of the Homily in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, CRINT 4, ed. James C. VanderKam and William Adler (Van Gorcum: Assen; Fortress: Minneapolis, 1996), 76–80. 54. VanderKam, Jubilees, 147f. 55. Martha Himmelfarb, “Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew Literature,” in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, SBLEJL 6, ed. John C. Reeves (Atlanta: Scholars, 2004), 115–41, 118f, 124f.

134 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research Two important “tendencies” emerge in Jubilees’ use of Watchers traditions. First, Jubilees emphasizes that the Watchers were sent to the earth for positive reasons like teaching and judging (clearly differing from the “source” in the Book of the Watchers). Second, the goal of Watchers traditions in Jubilees focused more on ways that human beings might imitate or avoid the behavior of the Watchers rather than to explain the “origins of evil.” Loren Stuckenbruck considers these stories as exhortational, since the writer reshaped the Enoch traditions(s) “to reinforce the responsibility humans ultimately have before God . . . human beings are accountable to God on the same terms as the disobedient angels and giants.”56 Thus Jubilees allows for more variety in the description of sin and evil in the world; since Jubilees also retells the Eden story (Adam and Eve), it appears that humans bear some responsibility for the sin in the world (rather than pointing at Watchers for it all). Questions for ongoing research abound. First and foremost, the proposals regarding literary development of Jubilees, especially as raised recently by Michael Segal and James Kugel, should be pursued, with particular attention to the varied roles and understandings of the Watchers in these proposals. Second, the notion that the Watchers originally descended to earth with a constructive task requires further reflection, both with regard to its source-traditions and also its influence on the later Jewish and Christian theological reflection on evil and sin. Third, it could prove beneficial to research the Ethiopian interpretive tradition; in what ways could the particular Watchers traditions in Jubilees impact the theology and religious practice of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church?

Brief Bibliography Alexander, Philip. “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 331–53 in Volume 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. 2 vols. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Hanneken, Todd. The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees. SBLEJL 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Kugel, James, “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees.” RevQ 24(2009): 215–72. 56. Loren Stuckenbruck, “The Book of Jubilees and the Origin of Evil,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah, 307. The studies of William Loader and Michael Segal also reach similar conclusions.

The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Jubilees | 135

Loader, William, Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Ruiten, Jacques T.A.G.M. van. Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1–11 in the Book of Jubilees. JSJSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. JSJSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Stuckenbruck, Loren. “The Book of Jubilees and the Origin of Evil.” Pages 294–308 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. VanderKam, James C. “The Angel Story of the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 151–70 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January 1997. STDJ 31. Edited by Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

———. The Book of Jubilees. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

10

Watchers Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls Samuel Thomas

It is well known to scholars of Second Temple Jewish literature that “Watchers” (‫ )עירין‬and “Giants” (‫ גברין‬or ‫)נפילין‬1 were important features of early Jewish apocalyptic thought. The Book of the Watchers of 1 Enoch (1 En. 1–36) is just one example of the many creative elaborations of Gen. 6:1-4 to be produced during the mid-late Second Temple period. Indeed, the Book of the Watchers doubtless gave rise to its own interpretive traditions that were cultivated among the circles in which it was read and passed along. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) include both Hebrew and Aramaic texts that exhibit familiarity with Watchers and Giants traditions. In addition to the fragments of 1 Enoch (4Q201-202; 4Q204-2122) and the Book of Giants3 (1Q23-24; 2Q26; 4Q203; 4Q206; 1. Early Greek translations render the ‫ נפילים‬of Gen. 6:4 and Num. 13:33 as οἱ γίγαντες, thereby conflating the references to ‫ נפילים‬and ‫“ הגברים‬mighty men” in Gen. 6:4. This conflation can also be seen in the Aramaic Book of the Watchers and in the Book of Giants (‫)נפילין‬. 2. Beyond those listed here, several other fragments of 1 Enoch have come to light in recent years. The fragments are unprovenanced (they have surfaced on the antiquities market), but Esther Eshel presumes they are from Qumran, assigning one of them to 4Q204 (= 1 En. 7:1-5) and recognizing 1 En. 106:19—107:1 on a papyrus fragment (Esther Eshel, “Two New Fragments of 1 Enoch from Qumran,” paper presented at the Fifth Enoch Seminar, Naples, Italy, June 14, 2009). See also Esther Eshel and Hanan Eshel, “New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGenf, 4QIsab, 4Q226, 8QGen, and XQpapEnoch,” DSD 12 (2005): 134–57, for discussion of XQpapEnoch. There are also several Greek fragments from Cave 7 that are probably related to 1 Enoch (7Q4, 8, 11-14). 3. The Book of Giants relates the story of the Watchers’ hybrid, malevolent offspring, expanding on the tradition found in Gen. 6:1-4 and dovetailing it with the Enochic myths of the Watchers to form a narrative later incorporated into Manichean tradition. See Jozef T. Milik with the collaboration of Matthew Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976); Black, “Turfan et Qumran: Livre des géants juif et manichéen,” in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe

137

138 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

4Q530-32; 4Q556; 6Q8), there are several other Aramaic compositions from Qumran in which Watchers are mentioned or alluded to: the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20); the so-called “Elect of God” text (4Q534-36); and the Visions of Amram (4Q543-49). Many of these Aramaic works were evidently influential among the group(s) responsible for the collecting, copying, composition, and preservation of the Qumran manuscripts, and some of their themes were incorporated—or translated—into sectarian texts written in Hebrew.4 While John Collins is correct to note the discrepancy that “in view of the strong manuscript evidence for interest in the books of Enoch at Qumran, there is remarkably little appeal to the Enoch tradition in the major sectarian documents of Qumran,”5 the motifs of Watchers and Giants are perhaps important exceptions to this rule.6 This Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Gert Jeremias, HeinzWolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 117–27; Florentino García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran, STDJ 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1992); Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran, TSAJ 63 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001); John C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions, MHUC 14 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992). Not all traditions about the Giants regarded them as evil beings: for discussion about the Greek Pseudo-Eupolemus fragments in which at least some Giants are given elevated status see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and Third Century bce Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions,” DSD 7 (2000): 354–77. Milik and other scholars have suggested the possibility that the Book of Giants was part of an Enochic “Pentateuch” that did not include the later Book of Parables (1 En. 37–71). 4. Enochic material regarding Watchers and Giants has been incorporated also into the Book of Jubilees, which is well attested among the Qumran manuscripts. For a discussion of the Watchers traditions in Jubilees, see the essay by John Endres in this volume. 5. John J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997), 35–36. Other scholars have attempted to demonstrate that there is a more direct line between “Enochism” and the sectarian group(s) related to Qumran; see especially Gabriele Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); and the many contributions to Gabriele Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). 6. Of course, it would be a mistake to assume that ideas about Watchers and Giants originated with the Enochic literature and were then simply appropriated by the Yahad. Both textual communities may have drawn on these traditions from elsewhere (e.g., Greek traditions about οἱ γίγαντες) and incorporated them into their own syntheses (even if Enochic lore is the primary channel of transmission to Qumran). In general, interest in “angels and demons” was apparently strong among the Yahad. For a good general discussion, see Philip A. Alexander, “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After 50 Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, 2 vols., ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2:331–53; John J. Collins, “Powers in Heaven: God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea

Watchers Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls | 139

essay discusses the appearances of the Watchers and their offspring in Qumran Aramaic texts (not including 1 Enoch and the Book of Giants7), and in Hebrew sectarian texts. While the precise relationship between the Aramaic corpus and the sectarian compositions cannot always be definitively ascertained, there are several important continuities among them.8 There is in general considerable difficulty in determining the precise authorship, date, and sectarian status of compositions from Qumran.9 While there is some scholarly agreement that the Aramaic compositions do not derive originally from the sectarian milieu associated with the site of Qumran (even if some of them may have been transmitted and appropriated into a sectarian context), they prove elusive with regard to dating and authorship.10 Determining the sectarian status of texts written in Hebrew is also difficult, though some progress has been made in recent years toward clarifying the criteria by which scholars might make such assessments.11 In any case, it is clear Scrolls,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, SDSSRL, ed. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 9–28. If we may assume some kind of connection between the Yahad and the Essenes, the comment by Josephus that the latter cultivated a careful practice of preserving the “names of the angels” (War. 2. 142) should also be taken into account. In any case, the general topic of angelology and demonology in the DSS goes well beyond the focus of the present essay, which is limited to discussing explicit references and allusions to the Watchers traditions tied to 1 Enoch. 7. See Milik, Books of Enoch; Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants from Qumran. See also Michaël Langlois, Le premier manuscrit du Livre d’Hénoch: Étude épigraphique et philologique des fragments araméens de 4Q201 à Qumrân (Paris: CERF, 2008); this is apparently the first among a series of works providing a full treatment of the Qumran manuscripts of 1 Enoch. While the thrust of the work is a full paleographic study, Langlois also offers many interpretive insights into 1 Enoch. 8. See the essays in Aramaica Qumranica: The Aix-en-Provence Colloquium on the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 94, ed. Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stökl ben Ezra (Leiden: Brill, 2010); Joseph Fitzmyer, “Aramaic,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 vols., ed. Lawrence Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1:48–51; William Schniedewind, “Qumran Hebrew As an Antilanguage,” JBL 118 (1999): 235–52; Schniedewind, “Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, STDJ 36, ed. T. Muraoka and John F. Elwolde (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 245–55; Steven Weitzman, “Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?” JAOS 119 (1999): 35–45. 9. For general discussion of these issues, consult James C. VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), 20–33, 239–92. 10. Holger Gzella, “Dating the Aramaic Texts from Qumran: Possibilities and Limits,” RevQ 24 (2009): 61–78. 11. Devorah Dimant, “Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts from Qumran: The Pertinence and Usage of a Taxonomy,” RevQ 24 (2009): 7–18; Francesco Zanella, “‘Sectarian’ and ‘Non-Sectarian’ Texts: A Possible Semantic Approach,” RevQ 24 (2009): 19–34; Florentino García Martínez, “¿Sectario, no

140 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

that all of the texts in question were composed either in Aramaic or Hebrew by Jewish scribes who were steeped in Israel’s biblical-interpretive traditions and probably were (or had been) associated in some way with the priestly circles of the Jerusalem Temple. Of course, each individual composition from Qumran has its own authorial or editorial history, provenience, and audience(s), and these will be addressed wherever possible or relevant in this essay.

Aramaic Texts It goes without saying that Watchers and Giants are intimately associated in early Jewish Aramaic literature with the story of Noah and the Flood, which in turn is complexly related to older Mesopotamian lore about Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim.12 The author(s) of the Book of Giants, for instance, likely understood Gilgamesh and Hobabish (Humbaba) (and perhaps Atambish = Utnapishtim) to be figures who were in fact Giants themselves—which might help to explain the point made rather defiantly in the Qumran “birth of Noah” materials (1QapGen ar 2-5; 1 En. 106–107; 1Q19 3; cf. 4Q534-3613) that despite any recognizable affinities with hoary Mesopotamian heroes, Noah was not the sectario, o qué? Problemas de una taxonomía correcta de los textos qumránicos,” RevQ 23 (2008): 384–94; Charlotte Hempel, “Kriterien zur Bestimmung ‘essenischer Verfasserschaft’ von Qumrantexten,” in Qumran kontrovers: Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer, ed. Jörg Frey et al. (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), 71–85; refer also to the discussion in Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yahad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule, STDJ 77 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 21–67. 12. See the discussion in Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ ”; Stuckenbruck, “Giant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment, ed. Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K.F. Diethard Römheld (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 318–38; John Reeves, “Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants?” JBL 112 (1993): 110–15; R.V. Huggins, “Noah and the Giants: A Response to John C. Reeves,” JBL 114 (1995): 103–10. 13. There has been some debate about whether the composition underlying 4Q534-36 relates to the figure of Noah, or whether the protagonist in that text is another righteous figure such as Enoch or Melchizedek. See Émile Puech, “534-536. 4QNaissance de Noéa-car: Introduction,” Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529-549, DJD 31 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 117–27; Daniel Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17, STDJ 79 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 17–18; Dorothy M. Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversation and Controversies of Antiquity, SBLEJL 26 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 101–27. There is also the question whether all of these Noah texts together point to the existence of a “Book of Noah” in antiquity; for discussion of this problem see Michael E. Stone, “The Book(s) Attributed to Noah,” DSD 13 (2006): 4–23; Peters, Noah Traditions, 121–24. Also consider the excellent studies in Michael Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel, eds., Noah and His Book(s), SBLEJL 28 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010).

Watchers Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls | 141

offspring of the Watchers even in light of the aberrant circumstances of his birth. The Book of the Watchers and the Book of Giants aside, the Genesis Apocryphon—a “rewriting” of the Genesis stories involving primarily Noah and Abra(ha)m—witnesses to the most extensive and perhaps the earliest rendition of the Watchers story among the Qumran Aramaic scrolls.14 In the extant portions of this text, the Watchers are mentioned explicitly several times (e.g. 2:1, 16; 6:13; 7:2) in passages relating to Noah’s birth and his subsequent experiences of revelation. In addition, it is quite clear that columns 0–1 contain material—previously unknown to modern scholarship—about the Watchers as a kind of prelude to the Noah cycle of the composition. These two columns appear to preserve an “address” from the Watchers to the Lord (or from Enoch speaking on behalf of the Watchers; cf. 1 Enoch 13–14), in which the Watchers describe their transgression and lament the ensuing punishment of their imprisonment and the destruction of their offspring (the Giants) in warfare.15 As Daniel Machiela notes, this petition itself is unique in Second Temple Jewish literature, though the occasion for the address is probably tied to 1 En. 13:4-7, in which the Watchers entreat Enoch to appeal to the Lord on their behalf. The words of the address itself are not provided in 1 Enoch, and it is possible that “it is this omitted portion that is recorded by the Apocryphon, either preserving a part of the Enochic tradition that has not survived in 1 Enoch, or filling in what was perceived as a gap in the story by the scroll’s author.”16 14. For a presentation of the various theories of the dating of this text, see Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, 17, 142. Machiela concludes that relative dating—compared to Jubilees, 1 Enoch 106–107, and other texts—and other factors suggest a range in the early-mid second century bce (before the composition of Jubilees and perhaps 1 Enoch 106–107). For another view, and much helpful commentary on the Noah material in the Genesis Apocryphon, see Daniel K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls, LSST 63 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 26–106, esp. 42–53. 15. As both Moshe Bernstein (“From the Watchers to the Flood: Story and Exegesis in the Early Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran, ed. Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements, STDJ 58 [Leiden: Brill, 2005], 44–45) and Daniel Machiela (“Genesis Revealed: The Apocalyptic Apocryphon from Qumran Cave 1,” in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana, STDJ 91, ed. Daniel K. Falk et al., [Leiden: Brill, 2010], 207–8) have pointed out, the speaking subjects of this section are in the first-person plural: “We have undertaken this adulterous act” (0:2); “And now we are prisoners” (0:8); “our imprisonment” (0:13). Machiela concludes that “it is clear that the narrators are the fallen Watchers—an antagonistic group from which we hear so little in the first person in Enochic literature” (208). Cf. 1 En. 6:1-4. I am grateful to Dan Machiela for providing a copy of his essay while it was still in the proof stage.

142 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

The second and highly fragmentary column of the scroll (col. 1) appears to preserve YHWH’s response to the Watchers’ petition (or Enoch’s relating of this response to the imprisoned Watchers), and here the Apocryphon picks up on several signature themes from the Book of the Watchers, especially 1 Enoch 6–11. The column mentions the descent of the Watchers and some activity with women, a mystery of wickedness (‫)רז רשעא‬, and medicines, sorcery, and divination. It appears that at some point in this highly degraded column, Lamech, the father of Noah, begins speaking in the first-person, thus beginning his discourse about the strange circumstances of his son’s birth (cf. 1 Enoch 106–107; 1Q19 3, 4). Columns 2–5 open with Lamech’s utterance that “suddenly it occurred to me that the conception [of Noah] was from the Watchers, and the seed from the Holy Ones, and to Nephil[in –]” (2:1), a statement that is followed by a slight marital dispute between Lamech and his wife Batenosh regarding the paternity of Noah. Batenosh recalls her pleasure and panting breath “in the heat of the moment” and swears that Lamech is the father (2:9-16), and yet perhaps still with some suspicion Lamech enlists Methuselah to inquire to Enoch about the truth of the matter. Enoch—who now dwells at “the end of the earth” among the Holy Ones—confirms that Lamech is the father and the child “is a light” (5:13) whose righteousness will counteract the impurity and violence of the Watchers and their offspring. After a reference to “a [c]o[p]y of the book of the words of Noah” at the end of column 5 (5:29), Noah begins speaking in the first person about his righteous destiny, his family, and, most important for the author of the Genesis Apocryphon, the eschatological revelations given to him regarding the “mystery” of the conduct of the “sons of Heaven” (6:11-22). In summary, the Watchers material of columns 0–1 serves as a prelude to the Noah material, but unlike in Genesis—where the flood and its aftermath is the main event of the Noah cycle—the Genesis Apocryphon plays up the righteousness of Noah, the revelations given to him, and his subsequent activity with the Watchers. The flow of the narrative of the Genesis Apocryphon places a relatively short (and fragmentary) section about the flood between the embellished story of Noah’s birth and a lengthy exposition on the geography of Noah’s dream visions.17 Throughout this narrative, the Watchers continue to serve as a foil to the righteousness and ultimate vindication of Noah, and

16. Machiela, “Genesis Revealed,” 208. 17. See Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, 85–130, for a fascinating discussion of the geography of the Genesis Apocryphon.

Watchers Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls | 143

their knowledge offers a contrast to the “mysteries” known by Noah and his ancestors. A text variously named 4QElect of God, 4QMess ar, and 4QNaissance de Noé18 presents the characteristics of an especially righteous—though anonymous—figure in language reminiscent of the Genesis Apocryphon’s descriptions of Noah. Additionally, 4Q534-36 portrays this figure in physiognomic terms, thereby exhibiting an awareness of ancient Babylonian and Hellenistic (Greco-Egyptian) practices and connecting also with other texts from Qumran.19 While Watchers are not directly mentioned in this text, the large number of parallels with the Genesis Apocryphon and 1 Enoch 106–107 suggest that those nefarious beings lurk in the “background” or in unpreserved portions of the composition. The protagonist of 4Q534-36 (‫“ )בחיר אלהא‬is the ‘chosen one of God’ (4Q534 1i10; cf. 1Q19 15, 2) who experiences opposition and lives in ‘days of wickedness’ (‫ )רשעא‬in which the works [of evil] are compared to those of the ‘Watchers’ (4Q536 2 ii+3, 11-13; 4Q534 1i9; 4Q534 1ii+2, 15-17).”20 One more Aramaic text deserves brief attention in the present survey. Since its initial publication, the Visions of Amram (4Q543-49) has been a text of considerable interest.21 The oldest manuscript can be dated on paleographical grounds to the second half of the second century bce, though the date of its composition is usually taken to be as early as the late third century bce. While the term “Watcher” is only a possible reconstruction in this composition,22 the evil figure Melchiresha‘—who elsewhere is opposed to the righteous Melchizedek (e.g. 11QMelch) in a fashion that was common at the time23—appears in a way that may be suggestive of the Watcher tradition. In 4Q544, the official editor has reconstructed two lines to refer to the Watchers. The first is the statement by Amram, [‫עירין‬/‫ומשתכל הוית במלאכין‬ ‫[“ ]די חזית‬and I thought about the angels/Watchers that I had seen]” (4Q544 1, 9). This reconstruction appears to be made to provide a transition 18. For discussion and bibliography see Peters, Noah Traditions, 101–106; Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII, 117–21. Puech has assigned a date for 4Q534-36 in the middle part of the second century bce (127). 19. Mladen Popović, Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism, STDJ 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 20. Peters, Noah Traditions, 106. 21. One of the few close treatments of the Visions of Amram is Paul Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša‘, CBQMS 10 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981). 22. Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII, 322–25. 23. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša‘, 49–98.

144 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

between a statement about Amram’s wife in line 9 and a new topic in line 10, which begins “in my vision, the vision of the dream, vacat and there were two figures arguing over me” (4Q544 1, 10). The text describes these two opposing figures as contending for the possession of Amram—or perhaps, given several cultic references in other parts of the work—for the posterity of Amram, namely the Aaronid priesthood. According to Émile Puech’s reconstruction, Amram inquires after the name of the evil contender, saying, “Who is this [Watcher?] He said to me, ‘This one is n[amed] [ and] Melchiresha‘’,” (4Q544 2, 12-13; cf. 4Q546 22, 1?). It is possible that these lines attest to a tradition that identified Melchiresha‘ with Belial and the Prince of Darkness (4Q544 1, 13; 2, 14-16), and opposed these epithets with the monikers of the angelic protagonist, respectively Melchizedek, Michael, and the Prince of Light.24 In any case, this composition likely serves as an important ideological bridge between earlier, pre-sectarian Aramaic works and the Hebrew sectarian texts, especially in its presentation of heavenly antagonists who rival one another for the possession of human beings and in its opposition of darkness and light.25

Sectarian Texts Scholars have often noted several places in which Watchers and Giants appear to be referenced in Hebrew sectarian texts: the Damascus Document (CD 2:18); the Pesher on the Periods (4Q180 1 7-8)26; an Exhortation Based on the Flood (4Q370 1i6); an Incantation (4Q444 1-4i+5, 8); and the Songs of the Sage (4Q510 1 5).27 While several of these are explicit references, others must be inferred by deduction, and still others may hint at a traditional reflex no longer tied directly to the Watchers motif. The remainder of this essay will present a brief review

24. Ibid., 75–83. 25. See Jean Duhaime, “Light and Darkness,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:495–96. 26. In the editio princeps of this work, John Allegro published 4Q180-81 (which he called 4QAges of Creation a-b) as two manuscripts of the same work (Qumran Cave 4.I: 4Q158-4Q186, DJD 5 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968], 77–80). Subsequently, Devorah Dimant published a detailed transcription and reconstruction, concluding that the two manuscripts were related but not of the same work (“‘The Pesher on the Periods’ [4Q180] and 4Q181,” IOS 9 [1979]: 77–102); the title Pesher on the Periods is Dimant’s. 27. In Jub. 10:1-13 and elsewhere the offspring of the Watchers are called “bastards” (‫)ממזרים‬, which has led many scholars to identify the ‫ ממזרים‬of 4Q444 and 4Q510-11 with Giants. See for example Armin Lange, “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2,” in Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment, esp. 255–59. See below for further discussion.

Watchers Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls | 145

of the texts and suggest several new directions for research on the appropriation of Watchers and Giants in Qumran sectarian texts.28 Many scholars agree that there is a reference to Watchers and their offspring in the Damascus Document, though there has been some disagreement over the proper way to interpret the passage. The reference occurs in the context of the historical prologue in which the speaker recounts the long story of sin and impurity caused by “the sinful disposition and eyes of fornication” (CD 2:16)29 and against which the in-group of the text constructs its selfidentity. The “mighty men of strength (‫ )גבורי חיל‬stumbled by their thoughts, and still do” (2:17), and the Watchers (‫ )עירים‬fell because they did not observe the commandments of God. (If we may take a cue from the Book of the Watchers, presumably this transgression was understood to be a violation of proper boundaries between heaven and earth occasioned by lust.) The offspring of the Watchers—as tall as cedars and as large as mountains (i.e., they were Giants)30—also succumbed and relinquished their bodily existence (cf. 1 En. 10:9; 4Q370 1i6).31 It is interesting here that the Giants are not explicitly named as ‫ גבורים‬but instead are called the “sons” of the Watchers, and that the reference to ‫ גבורים‬in CD 2:17 appears to relate to a category of people who continue to sin. While it would not be surprising that this word could refer to human beings, its proximity here to “the Watchers of heaven” (‫)עירי השמים‬ suggests that a wordplay is employed in order to link those who continue to sin (viz. opponents of the sect) with the demonic forces “of old.” 32 Of course, there is nothing inherently sectarian about a reference to Watchers or Giants (cf. Sir. 16:7), but in the broader context of the Damascus Document the motif is put to a sectarian use. For the author(s) of the Damascus Document, the history of sin had reached a point of culmination, so that those 28. For a discussion of Enochic traditions and the Qumran Hodayot see Angela Kim Harkins, “Reading the Qumran Hodayot in Light of the Traditions Associated with Enoch,” Henoch 32 (2010): 359–400; and Harkins, Reading with an “I” to the Heavens: Looking at the Qumran Hodayot through the Lens of Visionary Traditions, Ekstasis 3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012). 29. “Fornication” is identified as one of the “three nets of Belial” in CD 4:12. 30. Cf. Humbaba (or Hobabish) in the Epic of Gilgamesh, who is the guardian of the Cedar Forest, which in one ancient version (Babylonian Ishchali Tablet, 18th c.bce) is located between Lebanon and Senir, perhaps corresponding to the location of the Watchers in 1 En. 13:9. For discussion, see Stuckenbruck, “Giant Mythology and Demonology,” 326–27; cf. Reeves, Jewish Lore and Manichaean Cosmogony, 124. 31. The spirits of the Giants, however, were apparently thought to have endured; see below for discussion. 32. In Gen. 6:4, the hybrid offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” are called ‫גבורי אשר מעולם‬, which is usually rendered “heroes that were of old” (NRSV).

146 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

who were “diggers of the well” (CD 3:16)—those who were the exclusive recipients of things hidden to Israel at large—would be redeemed by God’s mysterious, atoning power (CD 3:13-19). Thus, the Watchers and Giants motif has been appropriated and updated in the Damascus Document, to the effect that it continues to provide a foil against which the self-understanding of the community of the Damascus Covenant can be elaborated. Though it may constitute a leap from one specific sectarian context to another, we might read this passage alongside another important text from Qumran, the Songs of the Sage (4Q510-11), a text that apparently records magical, apotropaic incantations used by the Maskil(s).33 Assuming that this text was “in use” (i.e., that it reflects an actual practice of ritual adjuration for the purpose of exorcism), it suggests—even seems to presume—the idea that the spirits of the Giants continued to plague humanity even after the flood (cf. 1 En. 15:8-12, 16:1; Jub. 10:1-13). The text offers an antidote to this situation, as it endows the Maskil with the ability to “terrify” the different categories of pernicious spirits. In particular, the “spirits of the bastards” (‫)רוחות ממזרים‬, which Philip Alexander suggests are perhaps synonymous with the “spirits of the angels (or agents) of destruction” (‫)רוחי מלאכי חבל‬,34 are clearly meant to represent the Giants when compared with other references to ‫ ממזרים‬in early Jewish literature.35 Thus the etiology of Giants as demons in the Enochic literature takes its place in the history of salvation described in the Damascus Document and finds its practical counterpart in the Songs of the Sage. In a related sectarian, exorcistic text, 4Q444, ‫ ממזרים‬are mentioned in juxtaposition (or apposition?) to a “spirit of impurity” (‫)רוח הטמאה‬, which may help to clarify the sense of “bastards” in 4Q510-511.36 In 4Q444, the speaker declares that “with knowledge of His truth I open my mouth” in order to perform the efficacious ritual incantation, thereby cursing (or banishing) the 33. See Philip S. Alexander, “‘Wrestling against Wickedness in High Places’: Magic in the Worldview of the Qumran Community,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After, JSPSup 26, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 329–30; Esther Eshel, “Genres of Magical Texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature, 395–415. A closely related Aramaic text is 4Q560; see D.L. Penney and Michael O. Wise, “By the Power of Beelzebub: An Aramaic Incantation Formula from Qumran (4Q560),” JBL 113 (1994): 627–50. 34. Alexander, “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 2.333. 35. For example, 1 En. 10:9 implies that the Giants are “bastards” (see Milik, Books of Enoch, 175, where Milik reconstructs the Hebrew/Aramaic ‫ ממזרים‬from τοὺς μαζηρέους); cf. Jub. 10:1-13. For discussion see Lange, “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity,’” 256–59. 36. Lange, “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity,’” 256–57.

Watchers Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls | 147

various objects of denunciation. In 4Q511, the speaker makes a similar claim: “His knowledge he placed [in my] hear[t … ] / the praises of His righteousness, and [ … ] and by my mouth he frightens [all the spirits] / of the bastards to decrease the [sin]ners37 of impurity” (4Q511 48, 49+51, 2-3). Thus the demonic “bastards” are connected with the notion of ritual impurity, which likely reflects a specific association with human, cultic sin.38 Because of his superior, divinely given knowledge, the speaker in each of these texts is able to subdue the “bastards,” which may also imply that he is able to ensure the ritual purity of the community’s sacred space.39 All this, according to the Pesher on the Periods (4Q180), was predetermined by God who created and established the world and all its ages. In this text, two “councils” are juxtaposed: that of the “sons of h[eaven] and earth” and that of the “angels” among whom some of the “sons of the world” (‫ )בני תבל‬are able to draw near. Perhaps we might understand these “sons of heaven and earth” to pertain to the nefarious progeny of heavenly Watchers and earthly daughters, especially since the text goes on to provide an “interpretation” (‫)פשר‬ concerning Azazel and the “angels (‫[ )מלאכים‬who went into the daughters of 37. This is Lange’s reconstruction (ibid., 257); the text is fragmentary, but ‫ חוטי טמאה‬seems to fit with the context (assuming the possibility that the aleph has elided). 38. Compare 4QMMT, in which the following injunction is addressed: “[And concerning the Ammonite] and the Moabite and the bastard (‫[ )ממזר‬and him whose testicles] have been crushed [and him] whose male member [has been cut off], who (nevertheless) enter / the congregation (‫[ )בקהל‬and … and] take [wives? to be]come one bone / [and enter the (‫ ])מקדש‬sanctuary] (4Q396 1-2i39-41+par.). Cf. 4Q174 1-2i4, which decrees that the eschatological temple will be a place of perfect purity in which no defective humans will enter—including Ammonites, Moabites, bastards, foreigners, aliens, and so on. These injunctions are probably derived from Deut. 23:2-4, which does not include any reference to “bastards.” See Aharon Shemesh, “‘The Holy Angels Are in Their Council’: The Exclusion of Deformed Persons from Holy Places in Qumranic and Rabbinic Literature,” DSD 4 (1997): 198–201. 39. Esther Eshel has argued that the Songs of the Sage may be connected thematically to the so-called Self-Glorification Hymn (4Q491c 11i8-24 / 4Q471b 1a-d, 1-10 / 4Q427 7i6-17/ 1QH 25:35-26:16) insofar as both compositions present a first-person speaker who claims to dwell with God “in the shelter of the Most High” (4Q511 8, 6-9) (Eshel, “The Identification of the ‘Speaker’ of the Self-Glorification Hymn,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich, STDJ 30 [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 619–35). The identity of this speaker was likely understood to be the Eschatological Priest who “will teach righteousness at the end of days” (CD 6:11; cf. 4Q174 1-2i12, 4Q541 9i1-7; 1QSb 4:22-28) and thereby represent the final victory over the forces of both cosmic and earthly wickedness. This figure, in turn, was possibly modeled on the communal recollection of the Teacher of Righteousness, about whom similar claims were made regarding his teaching, status, and purpose (CD 1:11; 1QpHab 7; 4Q83 3:15-16; etc.). Cf. John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 125.

148 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

mankind,] so that they gave birth to (‫ )גבורים‬Giants” (4Q180 1 7-9). The text possibly suggests that the iniquity initiated by these figures was passed along through the ages as an inheritance of guilt that would be dispelled in the final age, though the full interpretation of the Azazel portion is unfortunately not preserved in the manuscripts. In any case, we have here a presentation of the Watchers and Giants motif that is similar to the other passages we have adduced from among the Qumran sectarian texts.40 All the above leads to the following provisional conclusions: (1) There was considerable interest in Watchers and Giants among the Yahad, an interest that was expressed in exegetical treatments of both Genesis and the earliest Enochic literature, as well as in the preservation of other (especially Aramaic) literature dealing with primordial and patriarchal matters. (2) The sectarian elaboration of ideas about wickedness was tied to these traditions, but the catalog of the demonic realm was translated into the context of the Yahad and considerably expanded to include other figures such as Belial, Mastemah, Lilith, Melchiresha‘, Satan, Beelzebub, and Abaddon—in a continuation of the “rationalization of the demonic world” found already in the Book of the Watchers.41 (3) Certain ritual (magical?) practices were exercised for the purpose of temporarily warding off the demons who continued to afflict members of the Yahad. This praxis had as its ideological counterpart the idea that only those who were privy to the “council of God” could hope to avoid iniquity and impurity. (4) There was possibly an expectation that a final solution to the legacy of the Watchers would be realized in the coming of the Eschatological Priest in the final days (see note 39). Such a figure would embody the perfect teaching (in part because of his status vis-à-vis God), ensure absolute cultic purity, and vanquish both earthly and cosmic foes.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research The present essay provides an introductory survey of Watchers traditions in the DSS, but there is more work to be done on this complicated issue. Now that all the Cave 4 material has been published, it may be possible, for example, to inquire anew into the transmission history of the Enochic traditions. As Michaël Langlois has recently demonstrated with his rigorous paleographical and textcritical analysis of 4Q201, the Qumran manuscripts can yet reveal new insights 40. One possible avenue of research would be to inquire whether the Qumran sectarian manuscripts provide any evidence for the transmission of the Shemihazah and Asael strands of the Watchers tradition—an inquiry I have not made in this study. 41. Alexander, “Demonology,” 339.

Watchers Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls | 149

into the development of Watchers lore in early Judaism.42 It is also the case that new editions of old texts continually bring forth fresh readings that can throw light on these traditions. Machiela’s edition of the Genesis Apocryphon, for example, provides an excellent starting point for a more detailed and nuanced understanding of the Watchers tradition presented in the initial columns of that text.43 Finally, while this essay has discussed the relevant passages in their literary contexts and has suggested some links among texts from different genres, for the Yahad, the Watchers and Giants were not mere “traditions” to be treated with “exegesis” but were a living part of reality that needed to be resisted using prayer, exorcism, and other forms of esoteric praxis—or what in some discourses might be known as “magic.” One intriguing aspect of the Qumran remains is the presence of a number of magical, medical, physiognomical, astrological, and astronomical works that would appear, on the face of it, to fall into the category of things proscribed by Deuteronomy, Daniel, 1 Enoch, and other authoritative texts. Though scholars are still trying to learn more about the actual practices reflected in these texts, it appears that many of them were likely updated and translated into the context of the Yahad, revealing something of a double standard by which forms of knowledge and practice were legitimated or anathematized.44 While there have already been promising scholarly gains in this area, there is more work to be done to understand these phenomena and to relate them to the Yahad’s views about the demonic world. Watchers traditions apparently played an important role in worldview of the group that occupied the site of Qumran. These traditions were part of the Yahad’s textual inheritance—inscribed and elaborated especially in the Aramaic compositions preserved in the Qumran caves and elsewhere—and yet they were adapted and modified to suit the particular contexts of a continuously evolving sectarian ideology. While it would be unwise to posit a straightforward Qumran etiology of sin that was derived from the Enochic legend of the Watchers (the evidence is too complex and varied for such an easy formulation), it is at least clear enough that the Watchers traditions provided the Yahad

42. Langlois, Le premier manuscript. Langlois’s use of infrared photography and other technologies and his careful methodology for reconstructing text have afforded new readings of difficult portions of 4Q201; for salient examples, see his conclusion, 487–89. 43. Machiela, Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon. Machiela’s edition of the Genesis Apocryphon contains several new readings, especially in cols. 0–2 44. See especially Jonathan Ben-Dov, “Scientific Writings in Aramaic and Hebrew at Qumran: Translation and Concealment,” in Aramaica Qumranica, 379–98.

150 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

with one important resource as its members attempted to articulate their understanding of the nature and functions of evil.

Brief Bibliography Alexander, Philip A. “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 331–53 in Volume 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After 50 Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, 2 Vols. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Bernstein, Moshe. “From the Watchers to the Flood: Story and Exegesis in the Early Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon.” Pages 39–64 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. STDJ 58. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements. Leiden: Brill, 2005. García Martínez, Florentino. Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Milik, Jozef T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and Third Century bce Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions.” Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000): 354–77. ———. The Book of Giants from Qumran. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. ———. “Giant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 318–38 in Demons: The Demonology of IsraeliteJewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment. Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K.F. Diethard Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

11

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch’s Bo Book ok of Par Parables ables Leslie Baynes

The Book of Parables comprises chapters 37–71 of 1 Enoch, the latest section of that work and the only major part of it not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is extant today only in Ge‘ez, the ancient liturgical language of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The most notable development of the Watchers traditions in the Parables is that it consistently links the fallen angels with the kings and mighty on the earth, who are the adversaries of the congregation of the righteous, the Lord of Spirits, and the Chosen One/Son of Man. While the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36) condemns all human sinners without significant differentiation among them,1 the Book of Parables singles out the powerful and conjoins their punishment with that of Watchers, and particularly with Azazel.2 This juxtaposition is unique in the Enochic corpus and leads to considerations of the Parables’ date and the identity of its targets.

Author As do the other sections of 1 Enoch, the Book of Parables claims that Enoch wrote it, but it is in fact pseudonymous. Its real author is unknown; we can 1. See 1 En. 1:9; 5:4; 10:16; 22:10-14. 2. Asael and Azazel are the same character. The Ge‘ez of the Parables consistently calls that character Azazel throughout 1 Enoch, but other versions use different spellings. I have followed George Nickelsburg and James VanderKam’s translation in using “Asael” for the demon in the Book of the Watchers, following the spelling in the Aramaic fragments, and “Azazel” for the same being in the Book of the Parables, following the Ethiopic tradition. See Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 201–2. I regret that the commentary was not available in time to use more extensively in this essay.

151

152 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

only speculate about his identity from the content of his work. For the sake of simplicity, I refer to an “author” of the Parables in the masculine singular. Undoubtedly several hands contributed to the book. The Parables seems to have incorporated sources (for instance, a Book of Noah), and chapters 70–71 are most likely an appendix added after the bulk of the book came together at the beginning of the first century of the Common Era.

Synopsis The author of the Parables uses the Book of the Watchers but creates his own new work.3 Pierluigi Piovanelli calls the Parables “a sort of midrashic rewriting of the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36) with the addition of many new motifs.”4 The first reference to the Watchers occurs in the first of the three parables that form the macrostructure of the book.5 “In those days” the “sons of the chosen and holy were descending from the highest heaven, and their seed was becoming one with the sons of men” (39:1). In which days? The days when “the mighty and exalted ” (38:4) ruled the earth. Piovanelli counts fifteen citations of “kings,” thirteen citations of “the mighty,” six citations of “the exalted,” and six citations of “those who possess the earth” in the book. It seems clear from the context of the Parables that these epithets designate a single group in terms of the book’s rhetorical target. See, for instance, the conglutination of the terms in 55:4: “Mighty kings who dwell on the earth.”6 The first parable opens with a verbal volley against them, contrasting their fate with that of the righteous when the Righteous One appears to judge sinners and reveal his hidden things (38:1-6). The first parable predicts the ultimate destruction of the mighty, but they emerge in full force in the second and third parables, which enumerate their sinful activities.7 The incipit of the second parable addresses itself specifically 3. George W.E. Nickelsburg, “Discerning the Structure(s) of the Enochic Book of Parables” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (hereafter EMSM), ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 25. Unless otherwise noted, quotations from 1 Enoch are from Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). 4. Pierluigi Piovanelli, “‘A Testimony for the Kings and the Mighty Who Possess the Earth’: The Thirst for Justice and Peace in the Parables of Enoch,” EMSM, 363. 5. In terms of its structure, ch. 37 is an introduction to the booklet. The first parable comprises chs. 38–44, the second parable chs. 45–57, and the third parable chs. 58–69. Chapters 70–71 are an appendix to the work. 6. Piovanelli, “‘A Testimony for the Kings and the Mighty,’” 372. 7. David Winston Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch, SBLDS 47 (Missoula: Scholars, 1979), 107.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch’s Book of Parables | 153

to them, the ones who “deny the name of the dwelling of the holy ones and of the Lord of Spirits” (1 En. 45:1). This group is guilty of many other sins as well. They do not praise the Lord or acknowledge him as the source of their kingdom; they judge the stars, manifest their unrighteousness in their deeds, depend on their wealth for their power, put their faith in idols and, perhaps most significantly, persecute those who “depend on the name of the Lord of Spirits” (46:5-8). For their sins, the Chosen One/Son of Man will destroy them (46:4-6)8 through the agency of the righteous (48:9) and the angels of punishment (53:3-5) in concert with Azazel and his hosts: Turning and looking at another part of the earth, I saw there a deep valley burning with fire. And they brought the kings and the mighty, and they threw them into this deep valley. I saw there with my own eyes how their shackles were being forged—iron chains of incalculable weight. So I asked the Angel of Peace who went with me: “These shackling chains—for whom are they being prepared?” He said to me: these are being prepared for the legions of Azazel, so that they may seize them and throw them into the lowest hell …” (1 En. 54:1-5).9 Later within this same judgment narrative (interrupted by a digression concerning the flood), the Lord of Spirits commands the “mighty kings who dwell on the earth” to witness the Chosen One on his throne judge Azazel and his hosts (55:4). Just as the Watchers in the Book of the Watchers were forced to view the destruction of their offspring (10:12), so the kings and mighty must observe the judgment of their associates, the host of Azazel. Daniel Olson writes, “Noticing that the one story [Book of the Watchers] features angels as its main characters (the Watchers) … the author [of the Parables] furnishes earthly counterparts to the spiritual beings of the first legend … Thus the ‘kings and

8. This figure, on whom a vast amount of literature and controversy focuses, appears only in the Parables in the Enochic corpus. 9. Regarding the placement of 54:2, I differ from the editorial judgment of Nickelsburg and VanderKam, who put 54:2 between 53:7 and 54:1. They write, “The line has been displaced. The kings and mighty belong in this valley (53:5), not in the next, which is designated for the fallen angels (54:5),” 1 Enoch: A Hermeneia Translation, 68. I adhere instead to the traditional reading as exhibited by, for example, R.H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), M.A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), and Daniel Olson, Enoch: A New Translation (North Richland: Bibal, 2004), from which the above quotation comes. To the best of my knowledge no Ethiopic manuscript supports Nickelsburg and VanderKam on this point.

154 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

mighty’ who oppress the righteous and oppose themselves to the true God are in some sense the Watchers reincarnated.”10 Another theory illustrative of the Watchers/mighty in the Book of Parables as a whole comes from David Suter, who argues convincingly that the juxtaposition of the fate of the angels with that of the kings of the earth is a midrash on Isa. 24:17-23:11

Terror, and the pit, and the snare are upon you, O inhabitant of the earth! Whoever flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and whoever climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble. The earth is utterly broken, the earth is torn asunder, the earth is violently shaken. The earth staggers like a drunkard, it sways like a hut; its transgression lies heavy upon it, and it falls, and will not rise again. On that day the lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven, and on earth the kings of the earth. They will be gathered together like prisoners in a pit; they will be shut up in a prison, and after many days they will be punished. Then the moon will be abashed, and the sun ashamed; for the lord of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before his elders he will manifest his glory.

The apocalyptic scenario at the beginning of this passage includes the flood (“the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble”), an important element in the Parables (1 En. 54:7—55:2; 66:1—67:3) that its author also inherited from the earlier Watchers tradition (cf. 1 En. 1:5-7, 10:2). In both Isaiah 24 and the Parables, but not in Book of the Watchers, the Lord acts against both the host of heaven and the kings of earth, who will be gathered together in a pit and then punished. Adding to these ideas cosmic imagery (“the moon will be abashed, and the sun ashamed,” cf. Parables at 1 En. 41:3-8; 63:6, 11) and the Lord’s ultimate public triumph, it becomes abundantly clear how 10. Olson, Enoch, 11–12. 11. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch’s Book of Parables | 155

the author of the Book of Parables found inspiration for his own work in Isaiah 24. The Watchers and the kings and the mighty share more than a common eschatological fate. The Parables alternate scenarios of their mutual end with vignettes of their career together. Two of these joint ventures give readers their main clues for dating the book.12 In the first, “the angels (Ge‘ez malā’ekt) . . . assemble themselves and hurl themselves toward the East against the Parthians and Medes. They will stir up the kings, and a spirit of agitation will come upon them, and they will shake them off their thrones” (1 En. 56:5). Terminology used for the Watchers is fluid throughout the Enochic corpus. In the Parables, the wicked angels are called “the sons of the chosen and holy” (39:1), the “host of Azazel” (54:5, cf. 55:4), and “angels” (64:2; 65:6; 67:4, 6-7, 11-12; 69:2), with angels thus appearing as the most common designation. The angels in 56:5, therefore, are quite plausibly the Watchers, as it seems unlikely from the perspective of the Parables’ author that beneficent angels would instigate a process that tramples the holy land (56:6) and results in a deadly civil war (56:7).13 It is the Watchers, after all, who introduce humanity to metallurgy and thus weapons of war (1 En. 65:6-8; 69:6). Most scholars have understood this passage as a reflection of a historical event, but they differ as to exactly which event it is.14 Gillian Bampfylde and Daniel Olson, for example, argue for the first Parthian incursion into Roman territory (Syria) in 51–50 bce.15 Many others, however, including Paolo Sacchi, Gabriele Boccaccini, Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, Adela Yarbro Collins, John Collins, and Pierluigi Piovanelli, believe that the passage more likely reflects the Parthian invasion of Judea in 40 bce, which was an integral part of the civil war between the two Hasmoneans Antigonus and Hyrcanus 12. Determining the date of the Book of Parables is difficult for a number of reasons. At present it is extant only in late Ethiopic manuscripts (fifteenth century and later). Patristic authors do not directly quote it, but they may allude to it; see below, “Influence.” The attempt to argue a date from the fact that it does not appear among the discoveries at Qumran holds no water (see James H. Charlesworth, “Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?” EMSM, 450–68). For these reasons, internal clues are particularly important for dating the book. 13. That Josephus portrays the Parthian invasion positively in some ways does not mean that everyone shared his views. On this topic see Luca Arcari, “A Symbolic Transfiguration of a Historical Event: The Parthian Invasion in Josephus and the Parables of Enoch,” EMSM, 478–86. 14. David Suter, on the contrary, sees it more or less as an “apocalyptic myth” with some basis in history. See Suter, “Enoch in Sheol: Updating the Dating of the Book of Parables,” EMSM, 422; Suter, Tradition and Composition, 176–77. 15. Gillian Bampfylde, “The Similitudes of Enoch: Historical Allusions,” JSJ 15 (1984): 9–31; Olson, Enoch, 138.

156 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

(cf. 56:7, “They will begin [to make] war among themselves . . . a man will not acknowledge his brother, nor a son his father or his mother”).16 This conflict led directly to the enthronement of Herod the Great, which leads us in turn to the second conjunction of the angels with the adventures of the kings and mighty: namely, their propensity to land in hot water: And he will confine those angels who showed iniquity in that burning valley . . . by the mountains of gold and silver and iron and soft metal and tin. And I saw that valley in which there was a great disturbance and troubling of waters. And when all this happened, from that fiery molten metal and the troubling (of the waters) in that place, the smell of sulfur was generated, and it mixed with those waters; and the valley of those angels who had led (humans) astray burned beneath that ground. And through the valleys of that (area) rivers of fire issue, where those angels will be judged who led astray those who dwell on the earth. And in those days those waters (will serve) the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who dwell on the earth, for the healing of (their) flesh and the judgment of their spirits. Their spirits are full of pleasure, so that their flesh will be judged, because they denied the Lord of Spirits . . . And the more their flesh is burnt, the more a change takes place in their spirits, forever and ever . . . And I heard Michael answer and say, “This judgment with which the angels are judged is a testimony for the kings and the mighty who possess the earth.” (1 En. 67:4-9, 12) In the geography of the Parables, mountains of metal border the valley that imprisons the angels (cf. 52:1-2). When Enoch in his visionary journeys initially sees those mountains, his angelus interpres, the angel of peace, tells him that they will soon melt like wax before the Chosen One, so that “none will save himself either by gold or silver,” and neither will there be any iron or other metals left for war (1 En. 52:1-9). According to the Parables, pursuit of wealth and war are two notable activities of the kings and the mighty, who are condemned for their reliance on their wealth (46:7, 63:10) and for their violence, both against the congregation of the righteous (46:8-47:1) and against one another (56:7-8). The heat produced by molten metal mountains and flaming tortured angels creates hot springs that serve as spas for “the kings and the mighty and 16. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 178. Piovanelli, “‘A Testimony for the Kings and the Mighty Who Possess the Earth,’” EMSM, 375–76. For the others, see Suter, “Enoch in Sheol,” EMSM, 420–22.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch’s Book of Parables | 157

exalted and those who dwell on the earth.” The kings believe that the waters heal them, when in fact they judge them for their lust. Lust is a new complaint against the kings and mighty. It does not appear before this point in the Parables (67:8) even as an accusation against the angels, surprisingly enough, considering its importance in the Book of the Watchers (cf. 6:1-2). The idea of lust does serve to link the kings and the mighty more closely to the Watchers as they appear in the Book of the Watchers, and in addition it foreshadows some elements of the dual angel lists in chapter 69 (see below). In terms of dating the Parables, both the sojourn in the hot springs and the lust attributed to the kings and the mighty in chapter 67 can be associated with the life and death of Herod the Great. According to Josephus Ant. 17.168-72 (cf. War 1.656-58), at the end of his life Herod, suffering from great physical affliction, repaired to the hot springs of Callirrhoe to attempt a healing. No healing ensued, and he died shortly thereafter (4 bce). Darrell Hannah remarks that “scholars are usually cautious about concluding that we have here an actual allusion to Herod and his unsuccessful treatment at Callirrhoe,” but he overcomes that caution with the strength of his argument in favor of just that.17 Hannah observes that “the one sin of ‘the kings and the mighty ones’ singled out in the text of 1 En. 67:8-13 is that of lust. This distinguishes it from all the others concerning the kings and mighty ones in the Parables.” Herod and his family, moreover, “were infamous for their uncontrolled passions,”18 and David J. Ladouceur has argued that Josephus’s description of Herod’s final illness implies that the author considers it commensurate divine punishment for his licentiousness.19 Indeed, some of Herod’s afflictions do not make for good family reading. In light of the growing scholarly consensus identifying the Parthian conflict in 1 En. 56 and the watering hole incident in chapter 67 with the beginning and the end of Herod’s career, respectively, Paolo Sacchi in his summation of the 2005 meeting of the Enoch Seminar devoted to the Parables proclaimed that the “burden of proof has shifted to those who disagree with the Herodian date” of the Parables of Enoch.20 Herod the Great and his retainers, 17. Darrell D. Hannah, “The Book of Noah, the Death of Herod the Great, and the Date of the Parables of Enoch,” EMSM, 474. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid., 475. D.J. Ladouceur, “The Death of Herod the Great,” CP 76 (1981): 25–34. 20. Paolo Sacchi, “The 2005 Camaldoli Seminar on the Parables of Enoch: Summary and Prospects for Future Research,” EMSM, 511. For an alternative view, see Ted Erho, “The Ahistorical Nature of 1 Enoch 56: 5-8 and Its Ramifications upon the Opinio Communis on the Dating of the Similitudes of Enoch,” JSJ 40 (2009): 23-54.

158 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

therefore, emerge as strong candidates for “the kings and the mighty of the earth” who persecute the righteous in the book.21 And from whom do they receive their power? From the wicked angels. The kings and the mighty play and pay in league with the angels, while the angels for their part are servants of Satan/the satans.22 This linkage of the Watchers with Satan is another one of the new motifs about them in the Book of the Parables.23 In 54:6, Azazel and his hosts are thrown into the deep valley burning with fire “for their unrighteousness in becoming servants of Satan, and leading astray those who dwell on the earth.” In 1 En. 65:6-7, the Lord informs “the inhabitants of the earth” that their end is accomplished, for they have learned all the secrets of the angels, and all the violence of the satans, and all their powers, the hidden secrets and all the powers of those who practice sorcery, and the powers of (brightly) color(ed garments), and the powers of those who cast molten (images) for all the earth. And how silver is produced from the dust of the earth and how soft metal [is poured out] on the earth. Earlier in the Parables, the kings and mighty have been condemned for their violence (46:8, 56:5-8), their idolatry (46:7), and their wealth (46:7, 52:7). The diabolical truth of the matter, according to the author of the Parables, is that all these things come from the “secrets of the angels,” who are associates of the satans. Considering the attitude of the Parables’ author toward the kings and the mighty, it is not surprising that he would put them in league with Satan/ satans, but something else is happening here, too. The question of theodicy haunts every apocalypse, and no Jewish or Christian apocalypse (or any other work) will be able to solve it satisfactorily as long as those two religions remain monotheistic. The faithful never allow that to prevent them from trying, however. In the Book of the Watchers, the Watchers come from heaven, where God lives, and no explanation is forthcoming as to why Asael and his hosts would wish to share the secrets of heaven with humanity (cf. 16:3). In the Parables, the angels still come from heaven, but the author deflects the 21. 1 En. 46:5-8 may support this contention as well. The accusation that the kings do not “humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was given to them” may reflect Herod’s unconventional rise to power, and the accusation of idolatry his construction of the temple of Roma and Augustus. Thanks go to Harold Attridge for these observations. 22. In Ge‘ez as in Hebrew, there is no capital letter to distinguish “Satan” from “satan.” 23. I do not count Mastema’s dominion over the children of the Watchers (= demons) in Jub. 10:7-9.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch’s Book of Parables | 159

possibility of faulting God by placing blame directly upon the angels through their decision to become servants of Satan. They in turn teach the crafts of metallurgy that lead to wealth (coinage), idolatry (in making figures of the gods), and violence against the righteous (through weaponry). Both the Book of the Watchers and the Parables contain two lists of angels and their sins. In the Book of the Watchers, the first is led by Shemihazah, when a group descends to earth to breed with human women (6:7), and the second led by Asael, when a group descends to earth to teach people metallurgy, which they use to form weapons of war and jewelry for ornamentation, as well as cosmetics, spells, herbology, and the interpretation of astronomical phenomena (8:1-3). This knowledge causes people to perish (8:4). Chapter 69 of the Parables, like Book of the Watchers, contains two lists of angels. The first list, in 69:2-3, corresponds quite closely to 6:7,24 the group led by Shemihazah, the only time his name is mentioned in the Parables (without, however, mentioning what he did).25 With the exceptions of 39:1 and 69:4-6, the Parables appear unconcerned with the intermixing of the sons of God with the daughters of men. The angels are condemned in the Parables because they revealed their secrets. The Parables refers neither to the lust of the angels, nor to any lust of the women (cf. T. Reu. 5:5-6), but only to the lust of the kings (1 En. 67:8-12). The second list in the Parables, 69:4-12, is in some respects similar to and in others different from the list in 8:1-3 headed by Asael. While both of these lists first name the angels and then the teachings that they promoted, there is no overlap among the names and little overlap among the teachings.26 Here the Parables mentions angelic intercourse with women (69:4-6). Most interestingly, the Parables dates the instigation of this angel/human interaction not to the period right before the flood, as does the Book of the Watchers, but rather much earlier, to Eden, where Gadre’el not only shows people how to kill each other “with all the implements of death,” but also “[leads] Eve astray” (69:6). Perhaps the author of the Parables perceived the problem that ensued when fallen angels 24. For a comparison/contrast see Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation, 88. 25. George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 172, writes, “The identification of Asael as the archdemon marks the beginning of a tendency in most of the strata of 1 Enoch and in other Jewish literature: a) to continue to mention the descent of the watchers and the procreation of giants; b) to expunge the name of Shemihazah; c) and to emphasize the name of Asael/Azazel, though not necessarily the sin of angelic instruction.” 26. For more details on these lists, see Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 113–16.

160 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

ostensibly introduced violence to the earth just prior to the flood in the Book of the Watchers, but Cain killed Abel well before that time in the biblical narrative. The end of the third and final parable predicts that “those who led the world astray will be bound in chains, and in the assembly place of their destruction they will be shut up; and all their works will vanish from the face of the earth” (69:28). Who led the world astray? Who will be bound in chains, and whose works expunged? The angels or the kings and the mighty? At this point, does it really matter? By pairing the careers and the ultimate ends of the Watchers with those of the kings and the mighty, the author of the Book of Parables mythologizes and apocalyptizes his conflict with the latter, just as his predecessors did with their foes: the author of the Book of the Watchers with the Jews’ Hellenistic overlords,27 the author of Daniel with Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Dan. 7–12), and the author of 1 Enoch’s Animal Apocalypse with the “shepherds” of Israel (1 En. 85–90). In the making of apocalypses is fear and hope: fear in the mundane struggle on the earthly front, and hope against hope for help from heaven. Despite its unique foci among the books in the Enochic corpus (the juxtaposition of the Watchers with the kings and mighty, the presence of the Chosen One/Son of Man, the influence of Satan/satans on the Watchers), the Parables shares with other sections of 1 Enoch its longing to make meaning and ultimately find vindication in the divine scheme of things.

Influence No manuscript, fragment, or direct quotation of the Book of Parables predating late Ge‘ez works (fifteenth century and following) is currently extant. Furthermore, when it appears that certain texts may allude to the Parables, it can be difficult to discern whether the allusion actually stems from the Parables itself as opposed to the Watchers tradition in Book of the Watchers. Nonetheless, there are several early texts that may indeed allude to or echo material about the Watchers that is apparently unique to the Parables. The New Testament Book of Revelation overlaps in some interesting ways with the Parables (for instance, compare 1 En. 47:1-4 with Rev. 6:9-11). The most important of these concerning the Watchers is the Apocalypse’s demonization of its own kings and mighty ones. As in the Parables, Revelation argues that Satan is the fundamental power behind the elites who oppress the righteous. The great red dragon, who is Satan (Rev. 12:9), gives its power and 27. George W.E. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11,” JBL 96 (1977): 383–405.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch’s Book of Parables | 161

authority to the beast with ten horns and seven heads (Rev. 13:2), and that beast is the Roman empire, with whose rider (who also represents Rome) “the kings of the earth have committed fornication” (Rev. 17:2,18). The seer John, like “Enoch,” looks forward to the destruction of the mighty and wealthy oppressors of his people (Rev. 18–19). Revelation never quotes the Hebrew Scriptures directly, and neither does it quote from the Parables. Nonetheless, Revelation and the Parables do share a very similar emphasis on the demonization of the rich and powerful over against the author’s own community of righteous ones. In his Second Apology 5, Justin Martyr writes that the Watchers “subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings.”28 While this may be a reference to 1 En. 7-9, it may also reflect knowledge of the Parables’ fallen angel Penemue, who revealed to humanity the secret of “writing with ink and papyrus,” on account of which “many went astray from of old and forever and until this day,” even to the point of death (1 En. 69:8-11). While 1 En. 7-9 certainly includes spells and sorcery among the secrets the Watchers divulge, it does not mention writing, much less emphasize it as a technology that imperils humanity as the Parables does. Much later traditions from the Ethiopian Orthodox church also refer to the connection between the Watcher Penemue and writing. Maṣḥafa Mestir, an esoteric work of the fifteenth century, includes a list of fallen angels and the forbidden knowledge they taught humanity. The only angel in the list whose name bears any resemblance to the angels in 1 Enoch is Ṗēnēmus (cf. 1 En. 69:8, Ṗēnēmu’ə), who taught architecture and writing.29 Magic scrolls are an important part of Ethiopian religious practice, and some Ethiopian thought attributes them not to Penemue, but to Azaziel (cf. the Parables’ Azazel), who gave them to humanity before the flood. Jacques Mercier writes that Adam’s son Seth and his descendents prayed in company with the angels, but “two hundred of Seth’s descendants, tempted by the devil Azaziel, went down from the Holy Mountain to intermarry with the daughters of Cain. These sons of Seth taught men secrets which until then were known only to celestial beings: among these mysteries were writing with red and black ink, the protective talismans associated with rituals for calling up devils, the secret Names of God, and the talismans for exorcising devils from those possessed.”30 28. ANF, vol. 1. 29. J. Perruchon, ed., Le Livre des mystères du ciel et de la terre, PO 1.1 (Paris: Brepols, 1903), 22. English translation E.A. Wallis Budge, ed., The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935; repr., Berwick, ME: Ibis, 2004), 28. 30. Jacques Mercier, Ethiopian Magic Scrolls (New York: Braziller, 1979), 7–8.

162 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Here Azaziel takes on the role of Penemue, the one who introduces humanity to writing with ink in the Parables. Another reference to Azazel that has sometimes been understood as deriving from Book of the Watchers (1 En. 7–9) may stem instead from the Parables. Daniel Olson argues that Irenaeus’s Adv. haer. 1.15.6 alludes to 1 En. 54:4-6. Irenaeus quotes a poem written against a certain Marcus: “Marcus, maker of idols, observer of portents, Skilled in astrology and in all arts of magic, Whereby you confirm your erroneous doctrines. Showing wonders to whomever you lead into error; showing the works of the apostate Power, Marvels which Satan, your father, teaches you always to perform through the power angelic of Azazel, Using you as the precursor of godless evil.” Olson comments, “In both passages Azazel acts as an instrument of Satan for the express purpose of leading humanity astray (Ethiopian ’asḥata = Greek planaō). This is a coherent and distinctive concept, and it is unique to these two documents, as far as I know. The figure of Satan (singular) appears only here in 1 Enoch, and so it is not surprising to find Christian interest in this passage.”31 As with the allusion to writing in Justin’s Second Apology, I believe that Irenaeus’s text bears more resemblance to the Parables than to Book of the Watchers. The best known of the possible patristic allusions to the Parables appears in Origen’s Contra Celsum 5.52, 54-55. Origen quotes his opponent Celsus, who apparently garbles some form of 1 En. 67:4-11, the passage about imprisoned angels making hot springs. Celsus writes that 60–70 angels “became wicked, and were cast under the earth and punished with chains, and that from this source originate the warm springs, which are their tears” (5.52).32 Origen ridicules Celsus’s rendition of the story, noting that “he quotes as from the book of Enoch, but without naming it” (5.55) and that he does not seem actually to have read Enoch, since such a thing was “neither mentioned nor heard of in the Churches of God” (5.54). Origen is in fact correct; neither 1 En. 67:4-11 nor 1 Enoch as a whole mentions such angels’ tears, which, Origen adds sardonically, would be somewhat salty, whereas most springs are composed of fresh water. At the same time, the similarities between Celsus and the Parables are obvious. The dearth of references to the Book of Parables relative to the number of allusions to the Book of the Watchers in antiquity is a puzzle if the Parables were written around the turn of the Common Era, and that phenomenon has been used to argue for a late date for its composition.33 Nevertheless, arguments for 31. Daniel C. Olson, “An Overlooked Patristic Allusion in the Parables of Enoch?” EMSM, 494–95, emphasis in original. 32. ANF, 4.

The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch’s Book of Parables | 163

the earlier dating based on internal evidence in the book seem more convincing than arguments from relative silence in patristic works.

Recommendations for Further Research Barring the discovery of early manuscripts of the Book of Parables, disputes about the book will continue to rage. One area of Parables studies that offers a huge cache of documents awaiting analysis, however, is the Ethiopian tradition. The Ethiopian Orthodox church has an especially high regard for angels, and it considers 1 Enoch canonical scripture.34 As Ethiopian manuscripts become increasingly accessible, scholars may well discover in them further appropriations of the Watchers tradition as refracted through the Book of Parables.35

Brief Bibliography Boccaccini, Gabriele, ed. Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Suter, David Winston. Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch. SBLDS 47. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979.

33. J. T. Milik, ed., The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 91–92. 34. Leslie Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, JSJSup 153/2, ed. Eric F. Mason et al (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 799–818. 35. The Ethiopian Manuscript Imaging Project (EMIP) based at the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, St. John’s University (MN), has placed many manuscripts online.

PART III

Reception in Early Christianity and Early Judaism

12

The Descent of the Watchers and its Aftermath According to Justin Martyr Randall D. Chesnutt

In the second and third centuries ce, as rabbinic Judaism attempted a suppression of Enochic traditions that was somewhat successful until those traditions reemerged with a vengeance in medieval Jewish mysticism,1 a lively and diverse use of Enochic texts and ideas continued unabated among many Christian writers. Foremost among these writers in the mid-second century was Justin Martyr, the Christian apologist and philosopher who made much of the descent of the Watchers or deviant angels known to us from the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36). What follows is an analysis of Justin’s interpretation and appropriation of this Enochic myth. Three aspects of his usage, anchored in turn in the Second Apology, First Apology, and Dialogue with Trypho, provide a framework for the discussion.2

1. See the excellent reception history of the Book of the Watchers in Annette Y. Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 2. This arrangement does not reflect the order of Justin’s writings but serves only to lead with his most extensive treatment of the myth, which appears in the Second Apology. It is clear from Justin’s own crossreferences that the Second Apology follows the First Apology and that the Dialogue with Trypho comes last. Of the many other works attributed to him, only fragments of dubious authenticity survive. The present study is restricted to the three undisputed works, which date from the 150s to the mid-160s ce. Whether the two Apologies are discrete works is debated; see the survey of views and a new proposal in Paul Parvis, “Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: The Posthumous Creation of the Second Apology,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, ed. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 22–37. Here we follow the generally accepted view that the Second Apology is a sort of appendix to the First Apology, perhaps prompted by the persecution under Urbicus rehearsed at the beginning of the Second Apology.

167

168 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Primordial Watchers and Present Woes Justin’s most developed appeal to the Watchers tradition appears in his Second Apology, written in Rome on behalf of Christians being condemned to death by state officials. Such injustices happen, Justin explains, because of “the wicked demons who hate us, and who keep such people as these in subjection to themselves, and serve them as judges, incite them, as rulers moved by evil spirits, to put us to death” (2 Apol. 1).3 To account for how the demons came to have such leverage in the first place, Justin invokes the myth of the rebellious angels: God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected earthly things to men and women, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and change of the seasons, and ordered the divine law for them—these things also He made for people to see—and entrusted the care of men and women and of things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this order, and were captivated by love of women, and produced children who are called demons. And besides later they enslaved the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments which they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices and incense and libations, which they needed after they were enslaved with lustful passions; and among people they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and every evil. (2 Apol. 5) This brief account of the primordial angelic incursion into the world and its tragic consequences preserves in nuce the fuller version in the Book of the Watchers. As in the Book of the Watchers, the story of the angels’ transgression is prefaced by a celebration of the orderly cosmos created by God. The evidences of this order are the same as in the Book of the Watchers: the methodical movements of the heavenly bodies, the predictable rotation of the seasons, and the perennial cycle of vegetation (1 En. 2–5). As in the Book of the Watchers, this cosmic harmony is shattered not by human failing but by angelic misdeeds. In 3. This and subsequent quotations of Justin’s Apologies follow the translation by Leslie W. Barnard, St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies, Ancient Christian Fathers: Works of the Fathers in Translation 56 (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1997). Translations of the Dialogue with Trypho are from Thomas B. Falls, trans., and Michael Slusser, ed., St. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003). The Greek text employed is from Iustini Martyris. Apologiae pro Christianis; Dialogus cum Tryphone, Patristische Texte und Studien 38, 47, ed. Miroslav Marcovich (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005).

The Descent of the Watchers and its Aftermath According to Justin Martyr | 169

both texts the essence of the angels’ sin is the breach of the distinct domains ordained by God for angels and human beings (1 En. 15). As in the Book of the Watchers, the fallen angels promulgate wickedness both by their production of anomalous offspring, whose evil spirits continue to plague the earth, and through their teachings (1 En. 15–16; 19:1). Justin’s reference to the enslavement of humankind by magical writings recalls the Book of the Watchers’ description of illicit angelic instruction of humankind in sorcery, magical arts, and divination (1 En. 7–9). His claim that the fallen angels and their demonic progeny teach mankind to offer pagan sacrifices echoes Uriel’s warnings in the Book of the Watchersthat the spirits of the angels who impregnated human women would lead humankind astray to sacrifice to demons (1 En. 19:1). Just as the Book of the Watchers blames Asael and other Watchers for causing all manner of violence and promiscuity by introducing weapons, jewelry, and cosmetics to humankind (1 En. 8:1-2; 9:6-9; 10:8; 13:2), 2 Apol.5 accuses the angels and their offspring of sowing “murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and every evil.” Justin’s understanding of the demons as offspring from the primordial angelic transgression fixes his demonology solidly within the orbit of the Watchers tradition. He was no doubt influenced by the Greco-Roman tendency to attribute bad things to demons, but classical sources do not account for the essence of his thought. Although Socrates suggests that demons may be the offspring of union between gods and nymphs (Plato Apology 15 [27 BE]), and Hesiod says that demons are the disembodied spirits of men who died in the Golden Age (Works and Days 110-27), nowhere in Greek literature are these separate ideas brought together into the kind of worldview that we find in Enochic tradition and works dependent on it. Demons tend to be neutral rather than categorically negative in classical sources;4 nowhere are they construed as a “horde of evil spirits responsible for evil in the world.”5 The determinative matrix of Justin’s demonology is Enochic rather than classical, as is evident slightly later in the case of Tertullian, who expressly attributes his beliefs about the fallen angels and their demonic brood to Enoch and Enochic writings (Apology 22; On Idolatry 4; On the Apparel of Women 2-3). 4. On demons in the Greek world, see Walter Burkert, Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, trans. John Raffan (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1985) 179–81; Everett Ferguson, Demonology of the Early Christian World, Symposium Series 12 (New York: Mellen, 1984), 33–67; and Frederick E. Brenk, “In the Light of the Moon: Demonology in the Early Imperial Period,” ANRW 2.16.3 (1986): 2068–2145. 5. George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch. Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 273.

170 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Thus far, Justin’s understanding of the Watchers’ disastrous descent closely parallels that in the Book of the Watchers and does not vary from it in the well-known ways that other early tradents in Enochic traditions do. In both Apologies Justin embraces without qualification the Book of the Watchers’ appeal to the primordial angels to show the supernatural origins of evil; he shows no tendency—as do the authors of the Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 91–105), Enoch’s Dream Visions (1 En. 83–90), Jubilees, and 2 Baruch—to mitigate this emphasis by appealing to Adam and Eve or otherwise shifting the blame for sin and suffering to human beings.6 Unlike purveyors of the Watchers traditions who stress the angels’ sexual transgression and the violence of their hybrid progeny to the exclusion or diminishing of their role as corrupting teachers of humankind (e.g., the Epistle of Enoch, the Animal Apocalypse in the Book of Dreams, and Jubilees),7 or, conversely, who emphasize the Watchers’ revelation of forbidden secrets to the point of disregarding the sexual sin and resulting hybrid offspring (e.g., the Book of Parables [1 En. 37–71]), Justin maintains both traditions intact, just as the compiler of the Book of the Watchers conflates the Shemihazah and the Asael strands of tradition.8 Neither does Justin go beyond the Book of the Watchers by having the Giants eradicated in the flood, thereby eliminating any postdiluvian role for them, as the Animal Apocalypse does (1 En. 89:6).9 Neither 6. See James C. VanderKam, “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 31, ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael E. Stone (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 151–70. As will be noted below, in the Dialogue with Trypho Justin does appeal to the story of Adam and Eve. The Animal Apocalypse in the Enochic Book of Dreams accentuates human responsibility not by appealing to the story of Adam and Eve—which it ignores—but to Cain’s murder of Abel as the paradigmatic sin that begins the path of decline along which the angels’ transgression continues (1 En. 85:4). 7. Reed, Fallen Angels, 75–76, 80–81, 92–93. 8. There is consensus among Enoch specialists that 1 Enoch 6–11 conflates these two cycles of traditions related, respectively, to the angels’ sexual transgression and their revelation of illicit knowledge, but little agreement on the stages by which these strands were incorporated into the Book of the Watchers as we know it. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 190–93, for one learned attempt to sort out the literary evolution of these materials. 9. Again it is necessary to distinguish between the redacted form of the Book of the Watchers and the diverse literary strata embedded within it. According to 1 En. 10:9-10, 12, the Giants are to slaughter each other and therefore be annihilated, unlike their fathers and Asael, who are to be bound in the underworld to await final judgment (10:4b-6, 11, 12b-13). In the redactional compilation, the spirits of the Giants survive the death of their human side and carry on the wicked activities of their fathers until the final judgment (15:8-12; 16:1; 19:1; see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 269–70). Cf. Jub. 10–12, where most of the demons are bound in Noah’s time, but at the request of Mastemah, prince of the spirits, one tenth are allowed to survive and continue the violent and corrupting activities of the pre-diluvian Giants. See

The Descent of the Watchers and its Aftermath According to Justin Martyr | 171

does he adopt any of the euhemeristic alternatives to identifying the “sons of God” (‫ )בני האלהים‬in Gen. 6:1-4 as angels, as do Jewish writers ranging from Pseudo-Eupolemus to rabbinic authorities, and early Christian authors including Julius Africanus and Origen.10 Annette Reed’s suggestion that Justin’s Apologies adhere more closely than any earlier Jewish or Christian source does to the form and function of the Book of the Watchers is well justified.11 Whether Justin drew directly from the Book of the Watchers is impossible to say with certainty, but it seems most likely that he was dependent upon something closely akin to the work we know by that name. The book’s early composition and widespread circulation from the second century bce on (as documented in Qumran manuscripts), its early translation into Greek, its use as an authoritative source in some of the earliest Christian writings (Jude, 1 Peter, 2 Peter), and Tertullian’s express dependence on “the Scripture of Enoch” for the same traditions (On the Apparel of Women 2-3; see also Apology 22; On Idolatry 4) make it the most likely conduit of the Watchers myth to Justin. Dependence on oral transmission and written materials now lost except as embedded in the extant Enochic works cannot be excluded, but neither should it be privileged over a well-documented literary channel, especially in view of the detail and specificity with which Justin’s presentation of the myth parallels that in the Book of the Watchers. Erwin R. Goodenough’s suggestion that some Christian source had already appropriated the Jewish Enochic traditions into Christianity and mediated them to Justin12 is possible but speculative. As closely as Justin follows the Book of the Watchers’ distinct version of the Watchers myth, he also adds a quite innovative dimension. The passage from 2 Apol. 5 quoted above continues: Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things to men and women and cities and nations, which they related, ascribed them to God Himself, and to those who were His offspring, and to the offspring of those who were called His brothers.

Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and Third Century bce Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions,” DSD 7 (2000): 354–77. 10. See Stuckenbruck, “‘Angels’ and ‘Giants,’” 358–62; Philip S. Alexander, “Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” JJS 23 (1972): 60–71; and Reed, Fallen Angels, 218–26. 11. Fallen Angels, 164, 166. 12. Erwin R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr (Jena, Germany: Frommann, 1923), 200.

172 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

For whatever name each of the angels had given to himself and his children, by that name they called them. Here Justin takes the bold step of identifying the Greco-Roman pantheon with the fallen angels and their demonic progeny. He is the first known writer to make this equation, although some Greek writers associate the worst of the ancient gods with evil demons,13 and the Septuagint of Deut. 32:17 and Ps. 106:37 equates idolatrous sacrifice with the worship of δαίμονες (demons). The Book of the Watchers further associates the spirits of the primordial Giants with present-day demon worship: There stand the angels who mingled with the women. And their spirits—having assumed many forms—bring destruction on men and lead them astray to sacrifice to demons as to gods until the day of the great judgment, in which they will be judged with finality. (1 En. 19:1)14 In the Septuagintal rendering of Ps. 95:5 (MT 96:5), “All the gods of the nations are demons,”15 Justin found the additional link he needed to claim that the gods celebrated in Greek myths and worshiped by pagan persecutors of Christians are none other than the demons descended from the fallen angels.16 The very names of the gods, he asserts, were given them by the fallen angels (2 Apol. 5; 1 Apol. 5, 9). The Watchers traditions thus afforded Justin both a general etiology of the world’s ills and an explanation for the immediate crisis for Christians that occasioned the writing of his Apologies. Because the fallen angels are responsible not only for the initial corruption of humankind but also for generating offspring who will roam the earth until the final judgment, the contemporary persecution of Christians can be blamed on the evil angels and their demonic 13. F.C. Conybeare, “Christian Demonology II,” JQR 9 (1896): 113; Goodenough, Theology of Justin Martyr, 109; and Arthur J. Droge, Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture (Tübingen: Mohr, 1989), 54–55. 14. The Epistle of Enoch likewise associates idolatry with demon worship (1 En. 99:7, the only other reference to demons in the extant Greek text of 1 Enoch). This and other quotations from 1 Enoch follow the translation of the Ethiopic by George W.E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). 15. Here the Septuagint uses δαίμονες for the Hebr. ‫אלילים‬, “idols,” lit. “worthless ones, nonentities.” 16. In Dial. 55, 73, 79, 83; and 1 Apol. 41, Justin cites Ps. 95:5 explicitly to support this identification. See also Dial. 19, 27, 119, 133; and 1 Apol. 5, 9. Jub. 1:11; 22:17; Bar. 4:7; 1 Cor. 10:20; and Rev. 9:20 also draw a connection between idolatry and demon worship.

The Descent of the Watchers and its Aftermath According to Justin Martyr | 173

brood no less than humanity’s first introduction to wickedness was occasioned by the angels’ transgression. The demons descended from those rebellious angels masquerade as deities, enslave people through magic and visions, draw people into every form of vice, mimic Christian doctrines in pagan myth and ritual, trick people into worshiping idols, deceive pagans into persecuting Christians, and inspire false teachers (1 Apol. 5, 9, 10, 14, 26, 44, 54, 56, 58, 62, 66). Justin’s use of the Watchers myth to critique pagan culture—indeed, literally to demonize pagan culture—had profound influence on subsequent Christian usage. Following Justin, numerous apologists and heresiologists—including some who apparently did not know the Book of the Watchers or depend directly on Gen. 6:1-4—deployed the myth to contend against a range of ills, from heretical doctrines to abusive imperial powers, from Greek philosophy to feminine vanity and the use of cosmetics.17 Peter Brown aptly comments: To Christians of the second and third centuries . . . this story of the mating of the angels with the daughters of men and of its dire consequences for the peace of society, was not a distant myth: it was a map on which they plotted the disruptions and tensions around them.18

The Watchers and the Word Although 2 Apol. 5 is Justin’s only narrative recounting of the Watchers myth, he refers often to the demonic source of the world’s ills and occasionally to the angels’ dalliance that accounts, in turn, for the origin of the demons. Even his well-known doctrine of the Logos is informed by this complex of ideas. In answering anti-Christian slanders in 1 Apol. 5, Justin accuses Christianity’s detractors of not using reason (Logos) but being swayed by demons disguised as gods: 17. See James C. VanderKam, “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, CRINT 3.4, ed. James C. VanderKam and William Adler (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1996), 33–101; Walter H. Wagner, “Interpretations of Genesis 6.1-4 in Second Century Christianity,” JRH 20 (1996): 137–55; Richard Bauckham, “The Fall of the Angels as the Source of Philosophy in Hermias and Clement of Alexandria,” VC 39 (1985): 313–30; and Elaine Pagels, “Christian Apologists and ‘the Fall of the Angels’: An Attack on Roman Imperial Power,” HTR 3–4 (1985): 301–25. 18. Peter Brown, The Making of Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), 75.

174 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

. . . you do not investigate the charges made against us; but, giving in to unreasoning passion, and the instigation of evil demons, you punish us without trial or consideration. For the truth shall be told; since of old these evil demons manifested themselves, both defiled women and corrupted boys, and showed terrifying sights to people, that those who did not use their reason in judging the acts that were done, were filled with terror; and being taken captive by fear, and not knowing that these were demons, they called them gods, and gave to each the name which each of the demons had chosen for himself. And when Socrates tried, by true reasoning and definite evidence, to bring these things to light, and deliver people from the demons, then the demons themselves, by means of people who rejoiced in wickedness, compassed his death, as an atheist and impious person, on the charge of introducing new divinities; and in our case they show a similar activity. For not only among the Greeks through Socrates were these things revealed by reason [logos], but also among the Barbarians were they revealed by logos personally, when He had taken shape, and become man, and was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but state that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of people who long after virtue. (1 Apol. 5) The juxtaposition of Justin’s Logos doctrine and his insistence on the demonic inspiration of pagan religion is ironic in that the one builds positively on an aspect of the very Greco-Roman culture that the other radically indicts. Justin is well known for his effort to render Christian beliefs and practices plausible by exploiting their resemblances with traditions familiar from philosophers and poets (e.g., 1 Apol. 20-24). He argues that “whatever either lawgivers or philosophers uttered well, they elaborated according to their share of logos” (2 Apol. 10; see also1 Apol. 44), and therefore that “whatever things were rightly said among all people, are the property of us Christians” (2 Apol. 13). Eusebius’s characterization of Justin is apt: “in the garb of a philosopher he served as ambassador of the word of God” (Hist. Eccl. 4.11). Even as Justin’s Logos doctrine draws positively on diverse philosophical currents,19 his concept of the demons who oppose the Logos builds on the 19. See the dated but still useful discussion in Goodenough, Theology of Justin Martyr, 139–75, 250–61. See also Carl Andresen, “Justin und die mittlere Platonismus,” ZNW 44 (1952–53): 157–95; Ragnar Holte, “Logos Spermatikos: Christianity and Ancient Philosophy according to S. Justin’s Apologies,” ST

The Descent of the Watchers and its Aftermath According to Justin Martyr | 175

Enochic story of the primordial Watchers who generated them. According to the excerpt just quoted from 1 Apol. 5, the demons have defiled women, caused great terror, and influenced people toward false worship and shameful behavior—precisely what their deviant angelic progenitors are said to have done in the Book of the Watchers. In depicting the Logos and the demons as opposing forces competing for human souls and minds, Justin follows the pattern in the Book of the Watchers wherein the fallen angels’ transmission of illicit knowledge is the exact inversion of divine revelation. He broadens the Book of the Watchers’ contrast between Enoch’s revelations about the heavens and the Watchers’ cosmological speculation (1 En. 12–16) to cover the whole of pagan culture.20 Justin contrasts the promotion of true piety by the Logos with the evil demons’ promotion of false divinities to whom esteemed pagan writers attribute the most shameful pleasures and unmentionable sexual conduct (1 Apol. 21; 25; 2 Apol. 12; 14). Through “the seed of logos (σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου) implanted in every race of men and women,” he writes, “people everywhere . . . have made laws and conducted philosophy according to right reason (κατὰ λόγον τὸν ὀρθόν); 2 Apol. 7-8; see also Dial. 141), whereas “the wicked angels appointed laws conformable to their own wickedness” (2 Apol. 9). In this last quotation, Justin blames the wicked angels for the opposition to “right reason” (or Logos) that he elsewhere blames on demons, showing the close continuity in his mind between the demons who plagued his world and the primordial angels who generated them. Because he considers the Logos always to have been present in some measure, both through rational thought and through the inspired writings of Moses, Justin can posit the existence of “pre-Christian Christians” such as Socrates. Through Christ, who “was and is the logos who is in every person,” Socrates acted rationally, unmasked the pagan gods as demons, rejected idolatry, and willingly suffered martyrdom (2 Apol. 10; 1 Apol. 46; 1 Apol. 5, 46). Justin therefore does not hesitate to say that “Christ . . . was partially known even by Socrates” (2 Apol. 10), and even that Socrates and others who lived before Christ but according to reason (μετὰ λόγου) were “Christians” (1 Apol. 46). On the 12 (1958): 109–68; Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966): 1–30; Leslie W. Barnard, “The Logos Theology of St. Justin Martyr,” DRev 89 (1971): 132–41; R.M. Price, “‘Hellenization’ and Logos Doctrine in Justin Martyr,” VC 42 (1988): 18–23; M.J. Edwards, “On the Platonic Schooling of Justin Martyr,” JTS n.s. 42 (1991): 17–34; and Charles Nahm, “The Debate on the ‘Platonism’ of Justin Martyr,” Second Century 9 (1992): 129–51. 20. Reed, Fallen Angels, 172.

176 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

other hand, those before Christ who “lived without logos” (ἄνευ λόγου), were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived with the logos” (1 Apol. 46), as the antagonists continue to do in Justin’s own time. These antagonists were and are “impelled to these things by evil spirits” and act “according to the working of wicked demons” (2 Apol. 7). With the Incarnation, Justin considers the tide of the perennial battle with demonic forces to have turned. Christ “was made man . . . for the destruction of the demons” (2 Apol. 6; see also Dial. 45; 100). Before the Incarnation, the demons had the upper hand against those with only a diffused portion of the seed of logos (σπερματικὸς λόγος μέρος) and prevailed in all but a few individuals; but by the concentration of “the whole logos” into a single invincible force in the Incarnate Christ, the power of the demons has been broken and people freed from demonic enslavement (2 Apol. 8; 10; 13).21 Nevertheless, the victory is not complete; just as the Book of the Watchers distinguishes between a preliminary subduing and a final eschatological punishment of the Watchers and their sons (1 En. 10:9-16; 12:4-6; 15:8-12), Justin situates current affairs in the interim between Christ’s two advents: demons have suffered a preliminary overthrow in Christ’s coming and in ongoing exorcisms in his name, but these are only “an intimation of the punishment in eternal fire” that awaits “the wicked angels and demons” at the final conflagration (2 Apol. 7-8; 1 Apol. 45; 52).22 From the foregoing it is evident that Justin views the whole of history, including the activity of the Logos, in light of the Watchers tradition. The traditions that feed into his Logos doctrine are many and complex, but the myth of the Watchers deserves more attention than it has received as an important one of them.23 Whether contemplating Socrates’ martyrdom for using reason to 21. See Goodenough, Theology of Justin Martyr, 252–59; Holte, “Logos Spermatikos,” 109–68; J. H. Waszink, “Bemerkungen zu Justins Lehre vom Logos Spermatikos,” in Mullus: Festschrift Theodor Klauser, JAC supplements 1, ed. Alfred Stuiber and Alfred Hermann (Münster: Aschendorff, 1964), 380–90; Leslie W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 122–23; and M.J. Edwards, “Justin’s Logos and the Word of God,” JECS 3 (1995): 261–80. 22. The same pattern appears in the New Testament passages that cite Enochic traditions: Jude 6; 1 Pet. 3:18-22; 2 Pet. 2:4-11; see too Eric Mason’s essay in this volume. 23. The gross understatement in the recent commentary by Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 69, illustrates this neglect. Minns and Parvis dismiss the ideology behind Justin’s allusion to the descent of the angels and its terrible aftermath in one brief sentence (“The origin of this seems to be Jewish speculation based on Gen 6:1-4”) with a footnote that refers to but does not discuss one verse from 1 Enoch (19:1).

The Descent of the Watchers and its Aftermath According to Justin Martyr | 177

discern the truth, or the contemporary Roman persecution of Christians, Justin discerns a common pattern: the demonic offspring of the fallen angels represent the opposition to the Logos and its rational adherents (1 Apol. 44; 2 Apol. 8). The story of the Watchers is the theological backdrop for the ongoing struggle between the Logos and the inimical demonic forces in the world.

Who is To Blame? Conflicting Etiologies of Evil Conspicuously absent from the writings of Justin considered thus far is any reference to Adam and Eve. The summary of primeval history in 2 Apol. 5 moves directly from creation to the descent of the angelic Watchers to account for the origins of evil, skipping over the story of Adam and Eve and effectively omitting any concern for human culpability. Indeed, there is no mention of the first couple in either of the Apologies,24 even as references to the fallen angels and demons abound. In the Dialogue with Trypho, on the other hand, Justin appeals regularly to Gen. 2–3 to account for human wickedness. Here he insists to his Jewish interlocutor that Christ redeems humankind from the sins of Adam and Eve, whose acts in the garden not only brought about death but also remain paradigmatic of all human disobedience (Dial. 88, 94, 98, 124, 141).25 Reed is no doubt correct that this difference reflects the respective polemical agendas of the Apologies and the Dialogue.26 In the former—whether the address to imperial authorities indicates the actual target audience or is only a literary fiction27—Christian identity is defined vis-à-vis pagan culture. Justin promotes Christianity as the true philosophy, exploiting the similarities 24. Here Justin goes even further than the Book of the Watchers, which does allude in passing to the first couple (1 En. 32:6) but does not use the story as an etiology of evil; indeed, the rather dismissive allusion to the first parents omits the very features that others would exploit for this purpose—the serpent, the forbidden fruit, and the disobedience of Adam and Eve. The tree of knowledge is even relocated so that it is but one of many stops on Enoch’s cosmic tour. See Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 74. 25. Justin is careful to present Adam’s transgression as marking the origin of human sin but not the cause of its continuation. Even as he acknowledges that the transgression of Adam was influenced by the Serpent, whom he identifies with Satan, Justin emphasizes the free will of the first couple and their descendants. To explain why the vast majority of people choose the wrong even though they are free to choose, he appeals again to the influence of the demons. See Barnard, Justin Martyr, 115; and Goodenough, Theology of Justin Martyr, 227–31. 26. Annette Reed, “The Trickery of the Fallen Angels and the Demonic Mimesis of the Divine: Aetiology, Demonology, and Polemics in the Writings of Justin Martyr,” JECS 12 (2004): 153–59; and Fallen Angels, 162, 166–70. 27. For a summary of this issue, see Sebastian Moll, “Justin and the Pontic Wolf,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, 146–47, and the references cited there.

178 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

between Christianity and Greco-Roman culture but also asserting the demonic element in definitive aspects of that culture. In the Dialogue—again whether or not the ostensible effort to attract Jews to Christianity indicates the actual target audience28—the dialogue partner is Jewish, and Christian identity is defined visà-vis Judaism; Christians are the true people of God, the spiritual Israel (Dial. 11, 25, 123). Here Justin regularly emphasizes the Jews’ hardhearted propensity to disobey God; God gave them laws and rituals not because of their chosen status but as punishment for their sins and as a means of curtailing their further slippage into pagan practice (Dial. 18-22, 46, 92).29 Nevertheless, the Jews have been willfully and chronically disobedient, acting like the nations, worshiping demons, and even sacrificing their own children to demons (Dial. 19, 27, 46, 73, 131-135). While pagans are unwitting victims of the demons, Jews knowingly stray from the God of their scriptures and have only themselves to blame for their adversity; it is retributive justice. Pagan persecutors of Christianity are puppets of the demons, but Jewish opposition to “the godless heresy” is calculated and purposeful (Dial. 17; see also 96, 108).30 It is not surprising, therefore, that the Apologies and the Dialogue point to different moments in primordial history to offer an etiology of evil. Vulnerability to demons born of the primordial transgression of supernatural beings serves well to account for the prevalent pagan evils decried in the Apologies, but the sin of Adam and Eve serves better to address the human propensity to willful disobedience ascribed to Jews in the Dialogue. Although the Dialogue diagnoses Jewish obstinacy by appealing to the original human sin rather than to the actions of the otherworldly Watchers, key elements of the Watchers myth underlie the Dialogue as well. In Dial. 79, Trypho correctly accuses Justin of believing that “the angels have sinned and have apostatized from God.” As in the Apologies, Justin assumes throughout the Dialogue that pagan religion is demonically inspired (30, 83, 91). He regularly cites Ps. 95:5 (LXX: “All the gods of the nations are demons”) to justify 28. See, among others, Tessa Rajak, “Talking at Trypho: Christian Apologetics as Anti-Judaism in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,” in Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, ed. Mark Edwards et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 59–80; Frances Young, “Greek Apologists of the Second Century,” in Apologetics in the Roman Empire, 82–85; Judith Lieu, Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of Christians in the Second Century (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 103–09; Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 70–170 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 261–65; and Oskar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text Type, Provenance, Theological Profile, NovTSup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 258–59, 433. 29. See Ben Zion Bokser, “Justin Martyr and the Jews,” JQR 64 (1973): 120–22. 30. Reed, Fallen Angels, 168–69; and “Trickery,” 158.

The Descent of the Watchers and its Aftermath According to Justin Martyr | 179

identifying the gods of the nations with the demons begotten by the angelic Watchers (Dial. 55, 73, 79, 83). As in the Apologies, demonic activity is evidenced in the world by the demons’ deception of unwary pagans by such means as parodying ideas found in the Scriptures (Dial. 69-70). Jews, by their chronic penchant for disobedience and idolatry, have knowingly aligned themselves with the same demonic forces that draw pagans unknowingly into worshiping false gods (Dial. 19, 22, 27, 73, 92, 133). Exactly where the initiative lies is never fully resolved: whereas 1 Apol. 63 says that it was the demons who caused Christ to suffer at the hands of the Jews, the Dialogue points directly to Jewish initiative rather than demonic influence; in Dial. 17 Justin even suggests that it is the Jews rather than the demons who influence others to persecute Christians. Notwithstanding some ambivalence as to cause and effect, it is clear that Justin considers Jewish persecutors of Christians to be in league with the demons descended from the rebellious angels (Dial. 131).

Conclusion The story of the angelic Watchers, in a form closely akin to if not the same as that in the Book of the Watchers, informs a broad interpretive scheme whereby Justin Martyr both addresses his immediate crisis and understands the human condition and the whole of salvation history. For him evil and injustices on earth, including pagan religion itself, derive from the fallen angels and the demons begotten by them; the very gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon are none other than disguised demons generated from the original breach in the divinely ordained cosmic order. As in the Book of the Watchers, these demons continue to roam the earth and promulgate all kinds of evil with their deceitful actions and corrupting teachings. By the implanted Logos people can and should recognize the demons for what they are and resist idolatry and the associated evils. However, unwary pagans continue to be manipulated and controlled by these demons, as they have been throughout history; and Jews, with their chronic penchant to repeat the disobedience of Adam and Eve, align themselves with the same demonic forces. The persecution of Christians that plagued Justin’s contemporaries—and that would soon earn Justin himself the cognomen Martyr—is but one deadly manifestation of a perennial struggle between those empowered by the Logos and those swayed by the fallen angels and their demonic progeny.

180 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Brief Bibliography Barnard, Leslie W. St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies. Ancient Christian Fathers: Works of the Fathers in Translation 56. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1997. Falls, Thomas B., trans., and Michael Slusser, ed. St. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Goodenough, Erwin R. The Theology of Justin Martyr. Jena, Germany: Frommann, 1923. Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Iustini Martyris. Apologiae pro Christianis; Dialogus cum Tryphone. Patristische Texte und Studien 38, 47. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Minns, Denis, and Paul Parvis. Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Parvis, Sara, and Paul Foster, ed. Justin Martyr and His Worlds. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Reed, Annette Y. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ———. “The Trickery of the Fallen Angels and the Demonic Mimesis of the Divine: Aetiology, Demonology, and Polemics in the Writings of Justin Martyr.” JECS 12 (2004): 141–71. VanderKam, James C. “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature.” Pages 33–101 in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity. CRINT 3.4. Edited by James C. VanderKam and William Adler. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1996.

13

Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in the Lif Lifee of Adam and Eve Silviu N. Bunta

The title “Life of Adam and Eve” (henceforth LAE) is commonly used in reference to an entire corpus of literature1 that contains the Greek Apocalypse of Moses known widely today as the Greek Life of Adam and Eve (GLAE),2 the Latin Vita Adae et Evae (LLAE),3 the Armenian Penitence of Adam (ALAE),4 the Slavonic Book of Adam and Eve,5 the Georgian Book of Adam (GeLAE),6 and the 1. For succinct introductions to this corpus, see particularly Michael E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, SBLEJL 3 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), and Marinus de Jonge and Johannes Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). 2. This title is a misnomer, based on an introduction prefaced to the text at a later time and uncritically appropriated by the earlier editions of the book (cf. Marinus de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature [Leiden: Brill, 2003], 201, n. 2). A synoptic presentation of the major text forms is available in John R. Levison, Texts in Transition: The Greek Life of Adam and Eve, SBLEJL 16 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000). Critical editions of the Greek text exist in Albert-Marie Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament (Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, 1987); Johannes Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical Edition (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 3. W. Meyer, “Vita Adae et Evae,” Abhandlungen der königlichen Bayerischen Akademie des Wissenschaften, Philosoph.-philologische Klasse 14 (1878): 185–250. 4. Michael E. Stone, The Penitence of Adam, CSCSO 429–30 (Louvain: Peeters, 1981); Stone, Texts and Concordances of the Armenian Adam Literature, SBLEJL 12 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1996), 70–81. 5. Only the longer recension has received a critical edition to date: Vatroslav Jagić, “Slavische Beiträge zu den biblischen Apocryphen, I: Die altkirchenslavischen Texte des Adambuches,” in Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften philosophisch-historiche Klasse 42 (1893): 1–104. In 1925, Iordan Ivanov published another manuscript of the longer recension, MS 433 of the National Library in Sofia, which was apparently unknown to Jagič: Iordan Ivanov, Bogomilski knigi i legendi (Sofia, Bulgaria 1925). I consulted this work in its French translation, Jordan Ivanov, Livres et légendes bogomiles: Aux sources du catharisme, trans. M. Ribeyrol (Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 1976).

181

182 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Romanian Story of Adam and Eve.7 The Latin writing is the only one of these texts to actually carry the title used loosely in reference to the entire corpus. All text forms follow generally a similar story line: the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise; Abel’s death at the hands of his brother Cain; a fatal illness of Adam; Adam’s account of the fall; Eve’s and Seth’s quest for healing oil; Eve’s account of the fall; Adam’s death and assumption to paradise; Adam’s burial; Abel’s burial; and Eve’s death and burial.8 Scholars have previously noted several points of convergence between this Adamic corpus and early Enochic literature, that is, 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch. Thus, almost thirty years ago George Nickelsburg argued that LLAE 25-29 shows parallels with 1 Enoch 14 and 83–90 and that LLAE 49–50 comes from a tradition influenced by 1 Enoch 91 and 93.9 Even more points of convergence have been assumed between the LAE corpus and 2 Enoch. Michael Stone notes that 2 Enoch 31:5-6 (recension J) and 22:7 reflect a tradition of the fall of Satan similar to the one extant in LLAE, ALAE, and GeLAE 11:2—17:3, according to which Satan and other angels refused to venerate the first human.10 Moreover, he argues that there is a clear parallelism between the storyline in 2 Enoch 21–22 and the narrative of the fall of Satan in LAE. Andrei Orlov remarks that some features of 2 Enoch reflect Adam traditions, particularly the designation of Enoch as the king of creation and as “youth,” the hunger theme, and the motif of the oil from the tree of life.11 He further notes that 2 Enoch 7, which depicts 6. French translation in J.P. Mahé, “Le Livre d'Adam géorgienne de la Vita Adae,” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, ed. R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 227–60, 234–35. 7. The only manuscript of the Romanian version published to date is MS 469: Moses Gaster “Texte române inedite din sec. XVII,” Revista pentru istorie, archeologie şi filologie 1 (1883): 78–80. Gaster reprinted the same text in his Chrestomathie roumaine, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Brockhaus-Socecu, 1891), 1:63–65. Gaster also introduced the text in Literatura populară română (Bucureşti: Ig. Haimann, 1883), 271–274. However, even this publication is incomplete. It only covers the final seven folios (400r-407r) of the text in its original Cyrillic characters. My forthcoming article, “The Shorter Recension of the Life of Adam and Eve: The Oldest Manuscript of the Romanian Version,” (forthcoming in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha) is meant to fill in this gap. It provides the entire text of MS 469, with an English translation. 8. All translations from LAE are from Gary A. Anderson and Michael E. Stone, A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), unless noted otherwise. 9. George W.E. Nickelsburg, “Some Related Traditions in the Apocalypse of Adam, the Books of Adam and Eve, and 1 Enoch,” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, 2 vols., ed. B. Layton et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1980–1981), 2:515–39, esp. 526. 10. Michael Stone, “The Fall of Satan and Adam’s Penitence: Three Notes on The Books of Adam and Eve,” in Literature on Adam and Eve, ed. Gary Anderson et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 43–56, 46–47.

Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in the Life of Adam and Eve

| 183

the fallen angels as bowing down to Enoch and asking for his intercession, could also echo the motif of angelic veneration found in the primary Adam books.12 According to him, “this act of angelic bowing before Enoch . . . might anticipate later angelic obeisance the patriarch received in chapter 22 of the Slavonic apocalypse.”13 This paper explores a further possible parallelism between the LAE corpus and the early Enochic literature. A close analysis of the former reveals intriguing correspondences with expressions of the myths of the Watchers as found in 1 Enoch and, to a more limited extent, in 2 Enoch.

Cain the Giant Late antique Jewish literature contains a tradition according to which Eve had an illegitimate union with Satan. According to b. Šabb 196a and b. Soṭah 9b., the serpent approached Eve and not Adam because the serpent desired the first woman. Other texts, such as b. Yeb. 103b and b. Ab. Zar. 22b (and possibly b. Šabb. 146a), go further and suggest that Satan had sexual relations with Eve. The tradition that Cain is the product of a sexual relation between Satan and Eve may be a development of this lore. According to Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, Eve conceived Cain with Sammael, who came to her riding on the serpent (Pirqe R. El. 21).14 The tradition seems to be exegetically grounded in Gen. 4:1 (‫קניתי איש את יהוה‬/ ἐκτησάμην ἄνθρωπον διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ; “I have produced a man with the help of the Lord”), in which ‫ את‬is taken to mean literally (sexually) “with”: “And Adam knew Eve his wife” (Gen. iv. 1). What is the meaning of “knew”? (He knew) that she had conceived. And she saw his likeness that it was not of the earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: “I have gotten a man with the Lord.” (Pirqe R. El. 21)15 The reading is further supported with Gen. 5:3: 11. Andrei Orlov, “On the Polemical Nature of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reply to C. Böttrich,” JSJ 34 (2003): 274–303. 12. Ibid., 287–288. 13. Ibid., 288. 14. M. Friedlander, Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer (Skokie, IL: Varda Books, 2004), 173. 15. Ibid., 174.

184 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

“And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and he begat in his own likeness after his image” (Gen. v. 3). Hence thou mayest learn that Cain was not of Adam’s seed, nor after his likeness, nor after his image. (Adam did not beget in his own image) until Seth was born, who was after his father Adam’s likeness and image, as it is said, “And he begat in his own likeness, after his image.” (Pirqe R. El. 22)16 The ensuing speculations propose that Seth is the ancestor of all the righteous and Cain of all the wicked. While Cain is clearly omitted from the image of Adam because he is not Adam’s son, Abel is not even brought into the discussion. A similar reading of Gen. 5:3 explains the apparent omission of Abel from the lineage of Adam with the fact that Abel was already dead: When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years he begot Seth, who resembled his image and likeness. For before that, Eve had borne Cain, who was not from him [that is, Adam] and who did not resemble him. Abel was killed by Cain, and Cain was banished, and his descendants are not recorded in the book of the genealogy of Adam. But afterwards he [Adam] begot one son who resembled him and he called his name Seth. (Targ. Ps.-J. at Gen. 5:3) The reading of ‫ את‬in Gen. 4:1 as the marker of the direct object does not lead to a significantly different interpretation in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. According to its translation/interpretation of Gen. 4:1, “Adam knew about Eve his wife that she conceived from Sammael, the angel of the Lord, and bore Cain; and he was like the upper ones, and not like the lower beings; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord.”17 The same reading of ‫ את‬as a marker of the direct object appears among Gnostic texts. The Apocryphon of John 24:16-25 mentions Eloim/Cain and Yave/ Abel as the sons of Eve and of her seducer, the chief archon Yaldabaoth.18 The 16. Ibid., 182. 17. The only surviving manuscript of the passage (the British Library’s Additional Aramaic MS 27031), which is the one translated in Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), has a shorter form of the passage that lacks Eve’s exclamation (see Maher, Targum PseudoJonathan: Genesis, 31). However, Florentino García Martínez notes that the editio princeps of 1591 was based on another manuscript and he convincingly argues that this lost manuscript preserves the oldest form of the text. The abbreviated form of MS 27031 seems indeed to be due to a homoioteleuton (“Eve’s Children in the Targumim,” in Eve’s Children, ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen [Leiden: Brill, 2003], 27–46, 30–31).

Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in the Life of Adam and Eve

| 185

text speaks to a lore that excluded both Cain and Abel from Adam’s lineage based on Gen. 5:3 and read references to both Cain and Abel in Gen. 4:1. The same exegesis seems to have been professed in the sect of Archontics, according to Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 1.40). Moreover, the Archontics also shared the tradition that Cain is the ancestor of all the wicked people: People of their sort tell yet another myth, that the devil came to Eve, lay with her as a man with a woman, and sired Cain and Abel by her. . . . This allows them to say, if you please, that Cain was the Son of the devil, because the Saviour said that the devil was a murderer from the beginning, and that the devil was a liar because his father was, to show that Cain’s father was the devil, and the devil’s was the lying archon. In blasphemy against their own head, the fools say that this is Sabaoth himself, since they hold that Sabaoth is a name for some god.19 Augustine’s statement in Tract. ep. Jo. 5.8 that it only “appeared that he [Cain] was a child of the devil” (apparuit quia filius erat diaboli), which understands 1 John 3:12 as a metaphor, may also indicate his disapproval of the tradition about the mixed human-angelic origin of Cain.20 The tradition seems to be known to Tertullian (On Patience 5.15). This tradition about the mixed angelic-human conception and nature of Cain is, I would propose, a development of the more ancient myths of the Watchers. According to these myths, the origin of evil on earth lies in the illegitimate marriages between fallen angels, or Watchers, and human women. The earliest expression of this myth may be Gen. 6:1-4: Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.

18. J.M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 112. 19. Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 1:265–268. 20. English translation from NPNF 7:491; Latin from PL 35:2017.

186 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (Gen. 6:1-4) The myth receives its fullest articulations in the Book of the Watchers and in Jubilees. Several parallels between this myth and the Cain tradition suggest that the latter, which developed at a later time, is a growth of the Watchers story: 1. Both traditions envision the illegitimate union between the angelic world and the human world; 2. In both traditions the female side of the union is human and the male side is angelic; 3. In both cases the illegitimate union produces offspring; 4. In both myths the offspring is male; 5. In both the Cain lore and the Watchers traditions not only are the offspring of the angel-woman unions of a mixed origin, but this origin translates further into a mixed nature. Loren Stuckenbruck has shown recently that early Jewish sources of the Watchers traditions do not offer an exclusively negative picture of the antediluvian Giants, the products of the illegitimate union between Watchers and women.21 The earliest text to incriminate the Giants in unambiguous terms is the Book of the Watchers, in which the Giants violate both in their origin and in their mixed nature the borders between spiritual and earthly beings: The Giants, who are the progeny of such an illegitimate union and neither fully angelic nor fully human, are called “bastards” (10:9— τοὺς μαζηρέους in Codex Panopolitanus, likely transliterated from the Heb./Aram. ‫)ממזרים‬.22 A very similar portrait of Cain emerges from Targ. Ps.-J. on Gen. 4:1. As Florentino García Martínez has pointed out, Cain “is not only of mixed origin but of mixed nature, human and heavenly . . . Eve’s son is ‘a man,’ but he is also ‘an angel of the Lord’ . . . Not completely angel, but certainly not human, a real ‘bastard’ in all senses of the word.”23 21. L. T. Stuckenbruck, “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 in the Second and Third Centuries bce,” in The Fall of the Angels, ed. C. Auffarth and L. Stuckenbruck (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 87–118; Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Angels’ and the ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and Third Century bce Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions,” DSD 7 (2000): 354–77 [a first, shorter version of the previous article]. 22. See Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Angels’ and the ‘Giants’,” 364. 23. García Martínez, “Eve’s Children in the Targumim,” 33, 35.

Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in the Life of Adam and Eve

| 187

6. In several of the depictions of Cain mentioned above (Pirqe R. El. 21, 22, and Targ. Ps.-J. on Gen. 4:1), Cain’s angelic origin is discovered at birth based on the unnatural appearance of the newborn. Thus, Pirqe R. El. 21 mentions that Eve “saw his [Cain’s] likeness that it was not of the earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings.” Similar moments of discovery of angelic paternity occur in the accounts of the birth of Noah in 1 Enoch 106–107 and of Melchizedek in 2 Enoch 71. 1 Enoch 106 pictures the newborn Noah in extraordinary terms, as being luminous and able to stand up (1 En. 106:2-3, 5, 10-11).24 Based on the fact that Noah “is not like human beings” but rather looks “(like) the sons of the angels of heaven” (1 En. 106:5),25 his father Lamech suspects that Noah was conceived through an illegitimate union with an angel. Although Lamech’s suspicion is disproved by his grandfather, Enoch, Noah’s heavenly character remains evident. Intriguingly, in the parallel story of Melchizedek’s birth in 2 Enoch 71,26 the patriarch’s heavenly origin is not denied. It is not attributed to the angels, but directly to the Lord (2 En. 71:11 [both recensions] and 19 [shorter recension]), attribution that could be an early expression of the exegesis of Gen. 4:1 as witnessed in Pirqe R. El. 21. Beside these obvious parallels between the myths of the Watchers and the Cain tradition, Pirqe R. El. 22 links the Cain tradition directly with the myth of the Watchers. According to a rabbinic interpretation preserved in this eighth or ninth century text, the women whom the Watchers lusted for and later

24. George W.E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 163–64. 25. Ibid., 164. 26. For the parallelism between Noah’s birth in 1 Enoch 106–107 (also in the 1QapGen 2-5) and Melchizedek’s birth in 2 En. 71, see Andrei Orlov, “‘Noah’s Younger Brother’: The Anti-Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch,” Henoch 22 (2000): 207–221; Orlov, “Melchizedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch,” JSJ 31 (2000): 23–38; M. Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JSJ 2 (1971): 129; Delcor, “La naissance merveilleuse de Melchisédeq d’après l’Hénoch slave,” in Kecharitomene: mélanges René Laurentin, ed. C. Augrain et al. (Paris: Desclée, 1990), 217–29; George W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 185; A. de Santos Otero, “Libro de los secretos de Henoc (Henoc eslavo),” in Apocrifos del Antiguo Testamento, ed. A. Dies Macho (Madrid: Ediciones Christiandad, 1984), 4:199; R. Stichel, Die Namen Noes, seines Bruders und seiner Frau: Ein Beitrag zum Nachleben jüdischer Überlieferungen in der außerkanonischen und gnostischen Literatur und in Denkmälern der Kunst, AAWG.PH Klasse 112 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 42–54.

188 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

married were daughters of Cain, because only the sinful descendants of Cain went around naked and tempted the Watchers with their nakedness. Two much earlier sources, Josephus and Irenaeus, depict Cain in terms that recall prior speculations about the fallen angels. Thus, in Josephus’s portrayal of Cain certain features allude to the Watchers and the Giants. Cain’s selfcentered and destructive behavior shows a complete disregard for creation: “he only aimed to procure every thing that was for his own bodily pleasure, though it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbors (κἂν μεθʼ ὕβρεως τῶν συνόντων δέῃ ταύτην ἔχειν)” (Josephus, Ant. 1.60).27 Moreover, Cain is said to have become “a great leader of men into wicked courses (πονηρῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων) . . . Whereas they lived innocently and generously while they knew nothing of such arts, he changed the world into cunning craftiness” (Josephus, Ant. 1.61).28 This description recalls both the portraits of the Watchers and of their bastard progenies, the Giants, in the Book of the Watchers. Just like Cain, the Watchers, assuming a position of leadership, teach people crafts that corrupt them (1 En. 7:1; 8:1-4; 9:8). Also like Cain, the Giants, who are ontologically flawed and innately evil (cf. 1 En. 15:3-10), show a similar behavior: self-centered, insatiable, destructive, and injurious to humans. They “devour the labor of all the sons of men” (1 En. 7:3).29 In Irenaeus’ description, the Sethian speculation according to which the six powers of Sophia, admiring the beauty (formositas) of Eve and “falling in love with her (concupiscentes hanc), begat sons (filios) by her, whom they [Sethians] also declare to be the angels (angelos)” (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.30.7),30 is an early attestation of the inclusion of the Watchers myth into the story of Adam and Eve. Three elements of the Sethian doctrine recall Gen. 6:1-4. Like the biblical text, the Sethian story envisions a sexual union between a supra-human power and a human woman, describes the woman as beautiful and desired for her beauty, and mentions that this union leads to the procreation of sons (and not daughters). The account of Cain’s birth extant in LLAE, ALAE, and GeLAE 21:3, recalls the tradition about the angelic origins of Cain:

27. Greek from B. Niese, trans., Flavii Iosephi opera, by Flavius Josephus (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892). English translation from W. Whiston, trans., The Works of Flavius Josephus, by Flavius Josephus (Auburn, NY: Beardsley, 1895). 28. Greek from Niese, Flavius Josephus. English translation from Whiston, Flavius Josephus. 29. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 25. 30. English translation from ANF 1:356; Latin from PG 7a:698.

Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in the Life of Adam and Eve

| 189

She brought forth a son who shone brilliantly (erat lucidus). At once the infant stood up and ran out and brought some grass with his own hands and gave it to his mother. His name was called Cain. (LLAE 21:3) Then, when she bore the child, the colour of his body was like the colour of stars. At the hour when the child fell into the hands of the mid-wife, he leaped up and, with his hands plucked up the grass of the earth near his mother’s hut; and infertilities became numerous in that place. (ALAE 21:3) Eve arose as the angel had instructed her: she gave birth to an infant and his color was like that of the stars. He fell into the hands of the midwife and (at once) he began to pluck up the grass, for in his mother’s hut grass was planted. (GeLAE 21:3) All three versions agree in describing the newborn as being extraordinarily able to stand up immediately. Only the Latin version mentions explicitly that Cain was luminous (erat lucidus), but the Armenian and Georgian versions certainly imply luminosity when they compare the color of Cain’s body to the stars. The star-like appearance of the newborn Cain suggests that he is of angelic nature, at least in part. The fact that the newborn is developed enough to stand up and pluck up grass may be an exegetical development of ‫ איש‬in Gen. 4:1,31 but it also further suggests that Cain is angelic. More specifically, several elements of the story recall the depiction of the birth of Noah in 1 En. 106–107 and the parallel story of Melchizedek’s birth in 2 En. 71: 1. Cain’s luminosity resembles the luminosity of the newborn Noah, who has eyes that shine “like the rays of the sun” and make “the whole house bright” (1 En. 106:2-3, 5, 10-11).32 For this extraordinary quality, Noah is suspected to have an angelic father. 2. Cain’s ability to stand up also recalls Noah “standing up from the hands of the midwife” (1 En. 106:3, 11).33 Moreover, 2 Enoch 71 mentions that Melchizedek “was fully developed physically” at his

31. Lieve M. Teugels, “The Twin Sisters of Cain and Abel: A Survey of the Rabbinic Sources,” in Eve’s Children, 47–57, 47; García Martínez, “Eve’s Children in the Targumim,” 28–29. 32. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 163–64. 33. Ibid.

190 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

birth (71:18) and it implies that he stood up in order to sit on the bed at his mother’s side (71:17).34 3. Both the Armenian and Georgian versions of LAE 21:3, on the one hand, and 1 En. 106:3, 11, on the other, describe the newborns as standing up from “the hands of the midwife.” 4. Both the Armenian and Georgian versions of LAE 21:3, on the one hand, and 1 En. 106:2, 10, on the other, refer to the color of the body of the newborn. In one other instance in LAE does the angelic nature of Cain come through clearly, namely in the story of the killing of Abel. All versions, with the exception of the Slavonic and Romanian, depict a vision of Eve in which the first woman sees her son Cain drink the blood of his brother. While the Latin version is less graphic, the Greek, Armenian, and Georgian texts are quite descriptive: My lord, Adam, behold, I have seen in a dream this night the blood of my son Amilabes who is styled Abel being poured into the mouth of Cain his brother and he went on drinking it without mercy. But he begged him to leave a little of it. Yet he hearkened not to him, but gulped it down completely; nor did it stay in his stomach, but came out of his mouth. (GLAE 2:2-3) While Cain’s ghastly behavior, given its oneiric garb, should undoubtedly be taken as a metaphor for the killing of his brother, the imagery recalls the equally gruesome behavior of the antediluvian Giants mentioned in 1 En. 7:5-6: “And they began to sin against the birds and beasts and creeping things and the fish, and to devour one another’s flesh. And they drank the blood.”35 There is another possible allusion to the myths of the Watchers in GLAE 1:3. The textual tradition of this passage is far from uniform.36 The manuscripts differ primarily on the epithet of Cain: “Eve conceived and bore two sons; Adiaphotos/Diaphotos (Ἀδιάφωτος / Διάφωτος), who is called Cain, and Amilabes (Ἀμιλαβές), who is called Abel.” Samuel T. Lachs makes a convincing argument that Abel’s name, Ἀμιλαβές, is a corrupted transliteration of ‫מעיל‬ ‫לבש‬, “he who dons the garment.”37 The name that the same verse attributes to 34. F.I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP 1:91–222, 206. 35. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 25. 36. See a thorough presentation of the variants in Johannes Tromp, “Cain and Abel in the Greek and Armenian/Georgian Recensions of the Life of Adam and Eve,” in Literature on Adam and Eve, ed. G. Anderson et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 277–96.

Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in the Life of Adam and Eve

| 191

Cain is Ἀδιάφωτος / Διάφωτος. The form Ἀδιάφωτος (one devoid of light), which is attested in most manuscripts, is most probably primary.38 Johannes Tromp, O. Merk, and M. Meiser suggest that Ἀδιάφωτος should be associated with διαφωτίζω (to enlighten) and it denotes therefore a loss of light.39 However, even the secondary variant Διάφωτος may suggest a loss of light; διά expresses not only transparency (cf. διά as opposed to παρα; e.g., διαφωτίζω–παραφωτισμός [luminate–false light]), but also separation (cf. common Indo-European root with δύο); hence its use to convey dissolution in composite words (cf. διά as opposed to σύν; e.g., διάκρισις–σύγκρισις [separation–combination], διαφωνέω–συμφωνέω [disagree–agree]). Διάφωτος could therefore mean both “one that has light shining through” and “one that has lost the light.” The second connotation, the closest in meaning to Ἀδιάφωτος and the most likely to be associated with Cain, constitutes a better candidate for the meaning of Διάφωτος. Therefore, the name of Cain, in both variants, most probably refers to a loss of luminosity. Cain’s loss of light creates a sharp opposition to Abel, who, as Ἀμιλαβές suggests, retains his garments, presumably luminous.40 Cain’s name suggests the Greek author’s awareness of the tradition about the luminescence of the newborn Cain that is no longer extant in the Greek text. The apparent contradiction between Cain’s name, which suggests a loss of light, and his luminosity is best explained within the context of Watchers traditions, in which the Giants retain their partly angelic nature—and Cain’s physical luminosity should be taken for the angelic side of his mixed nature, as I argued above—while being inherently corrupted and evil. Cain’s loss of light should be taken as a similar expression of corruption. That Cain’s corruption lies within his nature, as does the corruption of the Giants, becomes evident in two aspects of the LAE text: first, Cain’s loss of light is inscribed in his very name, from birth; second, in the Georgian and Armenian versions the epithet consistently ascribed to Cain is “the lawless one.” He is

37. Samuel T. Lachs, “Some Textual Observations on the Apocalypsis of Moses and the Vita Adae et Evae,” JSJ 13 (1982): 172–176. Ginzberg has made the less probable proposal that the name originates in ‫המחבל‬, “the destroyed one” (Legends, 5:135). M.D. Johnson has adopted the proposal (“Life of Adam and Eve,” OTP 2:249–295, 267 n.c). 38. Johannes Tromp argues convincingly that Ἀδιάφωτος is the original reading of the Greek text (“Cain and Abel,” 279). 39. Ibid. O. Merk and M. Meiser, Das Leben Adams und Evas, ed. H. Lichtenberger, Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 2/5 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998), 801. 40. The obvious contrast between the two sons of Adam associates the garments of Abel with luminosity. Crispin Fletcher-Louis suggests a connection between these names and the tradition about Adam wearing not garments of skin, but of light (All the Glory of Adam [Leiden: Brill, 2002], 18).

192 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

called “the lawless one” even before he is born, immediately after the moment of his conception (cf. ALAE 18:3).

The Fall of Adam and Eve in LAE and the Fall of the Watchers in 1 and 2 ENOCH If Cain seems to be portrayed in LAE in terms reminiscent of the Giants, we might expect to find parallels between the LAE corpus and the Watchers myth in regard to the falls that lead to the procreations of Cain and of the antediluvian creatures. And there are several parallels. To begin by pointing out more detailed parallels, Eve is being led into her sin (cf. GLAE 19:1a; ALAE 44.19:3), as are the Watchers. In both cases, the sin entails desire, and the object of desire is pleasing to look at (cf. GLAE 18:5; 1 En. 6:1-2). In both cases, there is hesitation and fear of consequences (GLAE 18:6; ALAE and GeLAE 44.18:6; 1 En. 6:3-5) and eventual repentance. Also, both falls result in loss of status. Furthermore, in the LAE corpus, the fall of Adam and Eve leads to a council of the angels (cf. GLAE 22:1-2; GeLAE and ALAE 44.21:1-2), as does the fall of the Watchers in 1 En. 9:1-2. Finally, both falls generate children of mixed angelic-human character. In the broader narrative, there is a subtle parallelism between the desire of Adam and Eve to become gods or god-like (cf. ALAE and GeLAE 44.19:1c) and the Watchers’ desire to become human or act humanly/perform human actions (cf. the emphasis in 1 En. 15:3-4: “you have taken for yourselves wives and done as the sons of earth” and “you have done as they do”). This parallelism may be already hidden in the biblical texts (contrast Gen. 3:5 and Gen. 6:1-4). In this sense, in the Adamic lore the story of the fall of the angels due to a human temptation is reversed into the fall of humans due to a heavenly temptation. Furthermore, both the Adamic and the Watchers traditions construct a subtle imagery of role reversal between angels and humans. James VanderKam notes that the Book of the Watchers depicts a reversal of roles between Enoch and the Watchers.41 This reversal develops into ironic undertones: as VanderKam perceptively remarks, “the angels request that Enoch serve as an emissary between them and the Lord—another task that angels should do for people.” 42 41. James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), 45–46. See also David Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 85: Enoch’s “ascent is a movement parallel and opposite to the angels’ descent. The exaltation of the human being corresponds to the degradation of the heavenly beings.” 42. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man, 46.

Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in the Life of Adam and Eve

| 193

And they asked that I write a memorandum of petition for them, that they might have forgiveness, and that I recite the memorandum of petition for them in the presence of the Lord of heavens. (1 En. 13:4)43 Moreover, Enoch’s countenance becomes terrifying for the angelic eyes in an evident reversal of natural behavior: “Then I went and spoke to all of them together. And they were all afraid, and trembling and fear seized them” (13:3).44 Shortly after Enoch announces to the angels that they “will not ascend into heaven for all the ages” (1 En. 14:5), he describes his own ascent to heaven (14:8-9). The irony is fully evident in 1 En. 15:2 when God rebukes the angels in words that emphasize the exchange of roles between them and Enoch: “You should petition in behalf of humans, and not humans in behalf of you.”45 A similar reversal of roles is expressed in 2 En. 7:4-5 (recension J): And I felt very sorry for them; and those angels bowed down to me and said to me, “Man of God, pray for us to the lord!” And I answered them and said, “Who am I, a mortal man, that I should pray for angels? Who knows where I am going and what will confront me? Or who indeed will pray for me?” (2 En. 7:4-5 [J])46 The LAE corpus constructs similarly an elaborate reversal of roles and statuses between Adam and Satan. First, Adam is to receive the glory that Satan lost (cf. LLAE 17:1). Specifically, the protoplast “will sit on the throne of him who supplanted him” (LLAE 47:3; also GLAE 39:2-3, ALAE 47.39:2-3, and GeLAE 47.39:2-3). Second, the argument that Satan makes in the Latin and Georgian versions that Adam should have rather bowed down to him and the intricate consonances of GeLAE 13:247 also suggest a competition and such a reversal 43. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 32. 44. Ibid. 45. Ibid., 36. 46. Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 114. 47. “The very day when you were created, on that day I fell from before the face of God, because when God breathed a spirit onto your face, you had the image and likeness of divinity. And then Michael came; he presented you and made you bend down before God. And God told Michael, ‘I have created Adam according to (my) image and my divinity.’ Then Michael came; he summoned all the troops of angels and told them, ‘Bow down before the likeness and the image of the divinity’.” There is a subtle parallelism in this text between God’s face and Adam’s, suggested by the repetition of two words, “face” and “bow down,” which are both used first in relation to God and second in reference to Adam. Thus, as Satan falls from before God’s face, God breathes a spirit onto Adam’s face. Moreover, Adam “bows

194 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

of roles between Satan and Adam. Third, in both stories the sin is a discovery of sexuality. Fourth, both the Adamic traditions of LAE and the Watcher traditions of 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch conceive the world as ordered within a set of boundaries that are not to be crossed. In both traditions, the fall (of Adam and, respectively, of the Watchers) is a violation of this structure. In 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch God sets certain boundaries for the world in its very creation and keeps those boundaries in place through commandments. In 1 Enoch, the fall of the Watchers is the foremost illegitimate crossing of these boundaries (see particularly 1 En. 2–5).48 2 Enoch shows a similar concern with the order of creation. This concern transpires primarily in the depiction of Adam as the governor of creation (cf. 2 En. 58:3) and the portrayal of Enoch as the measurer and scribe of the arrangements of the world (cf. 2 En. 39–40 and 43). Orlov, who explores these motifs at length,49 notes that “the functions of Enoch in his role as the king/manager of the earth include, just as in the role of Adam, the duty registering the created order.”50 That the proper order of the world is one of the major foci of LAE becomes particularly clear in GLAE 37:5. In this passage God commands Michael to take Adam into the third heaven to rest until “that great day of the oikonomia that I will establish in the world” (τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης τῆς μεγάλης τῆς οἰκονομίας ἧς ποιήσω εἰς τὸν κόσμον). Most Latin manuscripts of this passage suggest that the proper order mentioned here is the exaltation of Adam to the place that Satan lost: “he [that is, Adam] will sit on the throne of him who supplanted him” (sedebit in throno eius qui eum supplantavit: LLAE 47:3).51 It is significant that supplanto does not simply convey treachery, but it also implies a disturbance in the right functioning of things, an uprooting of the proper order.52

down” before God’s face as all the angels “bow down” (or rather worship: before Adam. There is also an evident contrast between Adam and Satan. First, Adam is brought before God as Satan loses his position before the divine face. Second, the text presents a subtle contrast of movement between the fall of Satan “from before” the face of God and God’s breathing of the spirit “onto” Adam’s face. 48. See, for example, the insightful discussion of this aspect of early Enochic literature in Stuckenbruck, “The Origins of Evil,” 87–118. 49. Orlov, “On the Polemical Nature,” 280–285. 50. Ibid., 284. 51. The Latin section has parallels in GLAE 39:2-3, ALAE 47.39:2-3, and GeLAE 47.39:2-3. 52. A recently published manuscript contains a text closer to the Greek: Pone eum in paradiso in tertio caelo usque in diem dispensationis qui dicitur economia quando faciam omnibus misericordiam per dilectissimum filium meum (J. Pettorelli, “Vie latine d’Adam et d’Ève. La recension de Paris, BNF, lat. 3832,” Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 57 [1999], 5–52).

Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in the Life of Adam and Eve

| 195

The falls of the characters in LAE are blatant violations of the stability and boundaries that God set in the world. Several scenes in the LAE corpus serve more or less subtly as illustrations of this proper order of the world and/ or its post-lapsarian disarray. The story of the encounter with the beast is an evident example. It is extant in all text-forms. That the story is primarily about the godlike or iconic status of humanity is established in its first lines. In all versions, Eve expresses her indignation at the beast’s desire to devour Seth with a reference to humanity’s status as the image of God: • You wicked beast, do you not fear to fight with the image (εἰκών) of God? (GLAE 10:3) • cursed beast, why are you not afraid to cast yourself at the image (imago) of God, but dare to fight against it? (LLAE 37:3) • wild beast, how do you not fear the image of God, that you dared to fight with the image of God? (ALAE 37.10:3) • evil beast, have you no fear? Did you dare to fight the image of God? (GeLAE 37.10:3) • beast, aren’t you afraid before the image of the divine countenance? (SLAE 14) The Greek, Armenian, and Georgian text-forms associate the concept of image specifically with the issue of subjection or proper hierarchy: • How did you not call to mind your subjection? For long ago you were made subject to the image of God. (GLAE 10:3) • Or how have you not recalled the first order of God and have opened your mouth against the image of God? (GeLAE 37.10:3) • How did you not remember the obedience which you formerly displayed, that your mouth was opened against the image of God? (ALAE 37.10:3). In the Greek version the answer to Eve’s question lies in the dislocation of the world order. Specifically, Eve subjected herself to beasts in accepting the leadership of the serpent: Then the beast cried out and said: It is not our concern, Eve, your greed and your wailing, but your own; for (it is) from you that the rule of the beasts has arisen. How was your mouth opened to eat of the tree concerning which God commanded you not to eat of it? On this account, our nature (φύσις) also has been transformed. (GLAE 11:1-2)

196 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

The vulnerability of humanity in front of animals seems to be a consequence of the fall. Another passage in the Greek text, GLAE 24:4, records the tradition succinctly: “The beasts, over whom you [Adam] ruled, shall rise up in rebellion against you, for you have not kept my commandment.” This new situation contrasts sharply with the fact that in the beginning all animals obeyed Adam and Eve, tradition that the text also presents repeatedly (see particularly SLAE 1:1). As becomes clear from the previous point, in both traditions the fall threatens the proper order of the entire world. As in the case of the Watchers, who are summoned by their leader, Shemihazah, to take an oath that they will not hesitate to carry out their plan (cf. 1 En. 6:3-6), Eve also is asked by Satan to take a similar oath to follow through on her intention (cf. GLAE 19:1-3; ALAE and GeLAE 44.19:1-3).

Conclusion Admittedly, there is nothing in the evidence presented above to coerce us to read the LAE corpus from the perspective of a direct literary dependence on Enochic literature. However, the evidence presented above does indicate that, over the course of its transmission and redaction, the primary Adam literature knew a story of the Watchers that strongly resembles the one attested in the early Enochic texts (1 and 2 Enoch) and that the LAE corpus alludes to it and appropriates several elements of this story into its narrative. Since it is quite unlikely—if not impossible—that the proximity to the Watchers myth was constantly and uniformly noted, maintained, and developed in LAE’s different milieus of transmission throughout the corpus’ long textual history, it is logical to assume that most Watchers imageries and traditions permeated the Adamic literature in its earliest stages, before the bifurcation of the text into its extant forms. After all, these Watchers traditions do surface in most, if not all text forms of LAE and they do seem to be an essential component of the very thematic hinges of the overall LAE narrative.

Brief Bibliography Aptowitzer, Victor. Kain und Abel in der Aggada der Apokryphen, der hellenistischen, christlichen und muhammedanischen Literatur. Wien, Leipzig: R. Verlag Löewitt, 1922. Bunta, Silviu N. “Cain and Abel, Story of. In Rabbinic Judaism.” Pages 750–52 in Volume 4 of the Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. 30 volumes.

Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in the Life of Adam and Eve

| 197

Edited by H. Spieckermann et al. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2008–2018. ———. “Cain (Person). In Judaism.” Pages 735–38 in Volume 4 of the Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P., ed. Eve’s Children: The Biblical Stories Retold and Interpreted in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 in the Second and Third Centuries B.C.E.” Pages 87–118 in The Fall of the Angels. Edited by C. Auffarth and L. Stuckenbruck. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tromp, Johannes. “Cain and Abel in the Greek and Armenian/Georgian Recensions of the Life of Adam and Eve.” Pages 277–96 in Literature on Adam and Eve. Edited by Gary Anderson et al. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

14

The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash Joshua Ezra Burns

Evidence for the Jewish reception of the Watchers traditions between the Second Temple period and late antiquity is fairly limited. A number of narrative and exegetical motifs relating to the legend of the fallen angels appear as glosses on the text of Genesis in the targumim (singular targum), the ancient Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Aramaic language.1 Traces of the legend also appear sporadically in the classical Midrash and the Babylonian Talmud, works normally ascribed to the rabbinic sages of late ancient Palestine and Babylonia. The appearance in these treatises of themes drawn from the Book of the Watchers or related traditions naturally suggests that their authors knew of those materials, if not necessarily in the forms preserved in 1 Enoch. Yet the impression of their cultural currency in Jewish circles is offset by the fact that the very sources attesting to their reception speak to controversy over their transmission. In what follows, I will present the relevant textual witnesses while attempting to plot their respective positions amid a tableau of evolving Jewish sensibilities regarding the authenticity of the Enochic pseudepigrapha.

1. All targumic readings employed in this study are based on the texts compiled by the contributors to The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, ed. Stephen A. Kaufman (database online at http://cal1.cn.huc.edu). For complete bibliography, see http://cal.huc.edu/searching/targum_info.html. Corresponding English translations and comments on the relevant passages appear in Bernard Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos to Genesis, Aramaic Bible 6 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988), 51–53; Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Aramaic Bible 1a (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 70–72; and Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, Aramaic Bible 1b (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 36–38. For the Peshitta, see The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version, vol. I.1: Preface, Genesis-Exodus, ed. T. Jansma and M.D. Koster et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 9–10.

199

200 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Authors and Audiences Before delving into the texts under consideration, it will be instructive to discuss the relationship between the literary genres of targum and midrash. Until recently, scholars generally assumed that the targumim derived from the same sources as the great works of rabbinic scriptural exegesis, that is, the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the classical Midrash. The literature of the early rabbinic sages abounds in testimony to their use of Aramaic scriptural translations in a variety of pedagogical and ritual contexts as early as the first century ce.2 That the actual examples of such literature traditionally ascribed to those sages were products of their own textual practices was, to many, a foregone conclusion. Recent studies, however, have led to comprehensive shift in critical opinion about the varied origins of the surviving targumim and their places in the history of Jewish biblical interpretation.3 Consequently, the apparent affinities between targumic exegesis and rabbinic exegesis are no longer considered proof of their common provenance. The targumic treatises commonly associated with the rabbis are today widely acknowledged to have been written long after they introduced the practice of targum to their discipline. These texts, moreover, have been shown to incorporate diverse assumptions, techniques, and literary motifs locating their respective origins alternatively within and without the cultural compass of the rabbinic movement.4 Whatever remains, therefore, of the translations produced and/or utilized by the early rabbinic sages is difficult to discern beneath the innumerable layers of exegetical accumulation beneath the surfaces of the targumim.5

2. On the rabbinic witnesses to the practice of targum, see Steven D. Fraade, “Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third–Sixth Centuries,” in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 253–86; Willem F. Smelik, “The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible Translations as Holy Writings and Oral Torah,” Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999): 249–72. 3. For the following, see Philip S. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, CRINT 2.1, ed. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 217–53. 4. See Avigdor Shinan, “Sermons, Targums, and the Reading from Scriptures in the Ancient Synagogue,” in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine (Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987), 97–110; Shinan, “The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry,” in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, 241–51; Shinan, “The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, ed. Steven T. Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 678–98, esp. 691–95; Steven D. Fraade, “Locating Targum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy,” BIOSCS 39 (2006): 29–91.

The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash | 201

In contrast to targum, the genre of midrash appears to have taken shape squarely within the rabbinic study halls of Roman Palestine. As early as the first century, the forerunners of the rabbinic movement began to assimilate the interpretive traditions and techniques cultivated by their people during the Second Temple period. The application of those traditions to the unique rhetorical purposes of the rabbinic movement is what defines the practice of midrash against the older modes of Jewish exegesis on which it relies.6 Yet the midrashic texts traditionally ascribed to the ancient rabbis are not quite so antiquated. Most of the treatises typically categorized as examples of classical midrash are actually compilations recorded and reworked by anonymous rabbinic scribes active in Palestine, Babylonia, and Europe through the late ancient and early medieval periods.7 Ongoing critical inquiries into the origins of these documents have served to diminish the credibility of their ancient ascriptions. Rather than confide in the ancient provenance of a given example of midrashic exegesis, contemporary scholars usually will draw the lemma under consideration out of its redacted context in order to determine its literary allusions and textual dependencies in view of corresponding evidences culled from elsewhere in the rabbinic library.8 This approach makes it difficult to correlate any given example of midrashic exegesis with a matching example of targumic exegesis simply on the basis of their superficial similarities. In sum, advances in scholarship on targum and midrash have helped reshape the critical conversation on the relationship between their respective modes of exegesis. To acknowledge, therefore, the unique character of each of the works of targum and midrash attesting to the Jewish reception of the Watchers traditions will be crucial to the present study. Since the Watchers themes are attested primarily in targumic versions of Genesis, our focus here will be on the targumim to the Pentateuch. The 5. See Steven A. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and Their Use in the Study of First Century ce Texts,” in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, JSOTSup 166, ed. D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 118–41, esp. 116–30. 6. On the origins of the genre of midrash, see Paul Mandel, “The Origins of Midrash in the Second Temple Period,” in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, JSJSup 106, ed. Carol Bakhos (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 9–34; Steven D. Fraade, “Rabbinic Midrash and Ancient Jewish Biblical Interpretation,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 99–120. 7. For the following, see H.L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 233–46; Shinan, “The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature,” 681–91. 8. For a recent study exemplifying this method, see Richard Kalmin, “Midrash and Social History,” in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, 133–59.

202 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

earliest of the three major extant targumim to the Pentateuch is Targum Onqelos.9 Though traditionally attributed to the second-century proselyte Aquila of Sinope, the reputed author of the Greek translation bearing his name, the Aramaic text is now generally acknowledged to have originated in Babylonia during the third or fourth century. Onqelos is widely regarded as the most sympathetic of the extant targumim to the exegetical sensibilities of the early rabbinic sages. Its author frequently emends ambiguous or theologically challenging aspects of the biblical text in tune with the conventions of classical rabbinic thought. Yet Onqelos is also the most conservative of the targumim in respect to its translation technique. Despite its frequent emendations of the Hebrew text, Onqelos seldom uses the occasion of its translation to expand its original content. For this reason, it is often regarded as a prototype for later additions to the targumic literary corpus. A less constrained translation is that of Targum Neofiti.10 Prior to the twentieth century, this Byzantine-era Palestinian treatise was known to modern readers primarily on the basis of the doctored excerpts of its text transmitted alongside Onqelos under the title Targum Yerušalmi. When a nearly complete edition of the original treatise was discovered in a Vatican manuscript in 1949, its restoration to the field of targumic scholarship revealed its textual affinities not only with the Yerušalmi fragments, but also with a range of previously undocumented targumic materials recovered from the Cairo Genizah. The correlation of these geographically and temporally diverse documents has served to establish the independence of Neofiti from Onqelos as well as its own position of influence on the subsequent targumic tradition. Unlike Onqelos, Neofiti and its related fragments frequently embellish the biblical text with interpretive glosses reflecting the idiosyncratic theological proclivities of their author. As in the case of Onqelos, these glosses often appear to reflect the exegetical impulses of rabbinic midrash, particularly in the realm of halakhah or applied legal interpretation. Yet they also encompass a range of narrative traditions and interpretive tropes contrary to the sensibilities of the rabbis. Notable for our purpose is Neofiti’s recurring interest in cosmology and angelology, topics rooted not in the early rabbinic intellectual context but in the more adventurous Jewish discourses of the Watchers traditions. 9. On Onqelos, see Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos to Genesis, 1–40, and cf. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 217–18; Shinan, “The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature,” 692–93. 10. On Neofiti and its related textual traditions, see McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, 1–46, and cf. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 218–19, 220–21; Shinan, “The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature,” 693.

The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash | 203

The most expansive of the targumim on the Pentateuch is Targum PseudoJonathan.11 Traditionally linked to the first-century rabbinic disciple Jonathan ben Uzziel, the reputed author of the Targum of the Prophets, Pseudo-Jonathan is actually an early medieval Palestinian treatise exhibiting many of the same exegetical traits exemplified in Targum Neofiti. Pseudo-Jonathan, however, tends to embellish the Hebrew text more frequently than Neofiti and, moreover, with enough literary ingenuity to qualify as a thorough reworking of the Pentateuch rather than a mere translation thereof. Like Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan frequently incorporates exegetical themes and assumptions attested in classical rabbinic works such as the Talmud and the classical Midrash. But it also exhibits influences of ancient Jewish books of non-rabbinic provenance such as those conventionally known as the pseudepigrapha. Although nominally a Christian translation, the Syriac Peshitta is likely an artifact of the same Jewish exegetical enterprise attested in the targumic tradition. Typically dated to the second century ce, the Peshitta to the Pentateuch regularly exhibits affinities with Onqelos, the earliest surviving targum. This suggests that the two Aramaic translations, despite their divergent histories of reception, incorporate elements of a common prototype perhaps of the same variety known to the early rabbinic sages.12 Distinguishing between the Jewish and the Christian contributions to the Peshitta’s interpretive program to any degree of certainty is admittedly difficult. Simply to acknowledge, however, the operation of both interpretive miens within its text makes the Peshitta a potentially valuable witness to the Jewish reception of the Watchers traditions and, consequently, germane to our investigation. Let us now proceed to the classical Midrash. The two major sources of midrashic testimony to the Watchers traditions are Genesis Rabbah and the Babylonian Talmud. Typically dated to the mid-fifth century, Genesis Rabbah is a compilation of Palestinian provenance assembling earlier Jewish exegetical traditions pertaining to the biblical book of Genesis.13 Although these traditions are cited in the names of rabbinic sages of the first through fourth centuries, the editorial contributions of unknown generations of scribal tradents makes it difficult to assess their the accuracy of its individual ascriptions. Except where 11. On Pseudo-Jonathan, see Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 1–14, and cf. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 219–20; Shinan, “The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature,” 693. 12. See Michael P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), esp. 206–62. 13. On the composition and organization of Genesis Rabbah, see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 276–80; Shinan, “The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature,” 687–88.

204 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

verified by earlier rabbinic documents, the ancient exegetical traditions attested in Genesis Rabbah cannot be said with certainty to originate earlier than the fairly late timeframe of the book’s composition. The Babylonian Talmud presents similar challenges of interpretation.14 The composition of this voluminous treatise involved the collection of innumerable traditions of legal and narrative exegesis spanning the first through fifth centuries and variously originating in the rabbinic academies of Palestine and Babylonia. These materials were subsequently edited by anonymous Babylonian scribes over the course of the sixth and seventh centuries and assembled into the massive textual corpus that would become the primary vehicle for the popular diffusion of rabbinic culture after the classical age. Like Genesis Rabbah, the Babylonian Talmud presents a labyrinthine collection of untraceable rabbinic texts and traditions resistant to the nuanced historical criticism required of our investigation. Nevertheless, critical analyses of the modes of composition reflected in the Talmud’s text have shed light onto its unique qualities as a product of the heterogeneous cultural environs of late ancient Mesopotamia.15 The temporal and cultural gaps separating the respective compositions of Genesis Rabbah and the Babylonian Talmud might well account for the divergent attitudes toward the Watchers traditions exhibited in their pages.

Synopsis BACKGROUND In view of the commonplace association of the legend of the fallen angels with the figure of Enoch, some comments on the characterization of Enoch in targum and midrash will be instructive. The biblical text in Gen. 5:21-24 casts Enoch as a righteous individual who “walked with God” and, at the end of his journey, simply “was no more, because God took him.” These terms evoke images of other pious men such as Noah (cf. Gen. 6:9) and Elijah (2 Kgs. 2:11-12), presaging the portrait of Enoch as the heavenly visionary featured in the Book of Watchers and subsequent Enochic texts. The targumim agree that Enoch “walked with God” in the proverbial sense of revering him (Onqelos, Peshitta)16 or serving him (Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan). Yet their authors differ as 14. On the origins of the Babylonian Talmud, see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 190–207; Richard Kalmin, “The Formation and Character of the Babylonian Talmud,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, 840–76, esp. 840–47. 15. See, in general, Kalmin, “The Formation and Character of the Babylonian Talmud,” 847–60.

The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash | 205

to the circumstances of Enoch’s demise.17 Onqelos plainly states in his rendering of Gen. 5:24 that Enoch “was no more, for God had caused him to die.”18 Neofiti, however, prevaricates, asserting, “It is not known where he is, for he was withdrawn by a command from before God.”19 Finally, Pseudo-Jonathan states that Enoch “was not with the inhabitants of the earth because he was taken away and he ascended to the firmament at the command of God.”20 Once in heaven, the targum continues, “He was called Metatron, the Great Scribe.” This characterization clearly echoes the so-called Hebrew Apocalypse of Enoch or 3 Enoch, a late ancient mystical text in which the eponymous hero likewise is said to have undergone a celestial transformation into the angel Metatron. 21 The evident disagreement among the authors of the targumim as to the fate of Enoch appears to reflect a related controversy attested in Genesis Rabbah.22 Commenting on Gen. 5:24, several Palestinian sages of the second through fourth centuries are said to said to have read against plain sense of the biblical 16. Compare the corresponding glosses of Onqelos and the Peshitta on Gen. 6:9, 17:1, 24:20, and 48:15. For a complementary rabbinic assessment, see b. Sot. 14a. 17. For the following, see James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), 165–68. 18. Some texts of Onqelos appear to reverse this reading on the basis of a late midrashic tradition asserting that Enoch did not, in fact, die (cf. Der. Er. Zuta 1, end). For discussion, see Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos, 51n3. 19. Fragmentary Targum P (MS Paris Hebr. 110) here reads, “We do know what happened to him in the end because he was drawn away from before God.” Fragmentary Targum V (MS Vatican Ebr. 440) reads simply, “He is not for he was withdrawn by a command from before God.” For discussion, see McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1, 70, n.11. The possibility of Enoch’s divine ascent is expressly denied by the author of a marginal gloss in the Neofiti manuscript on Gen. 5:23, which states that Enoch “died and was gathered from the midst of the world” following his 360 years on earth. For details, see the textual apparatus in McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1, 70. 20. The implication that Enoch did not actually die prior to his heavenly translation is presaged by Pseudo-Jonathan’s stipulated reading of Gen. 5:23: “And all the days of Enoch with the inhabitants of the earth were three hundred and sixty five years.” By comparison, his days with the inhabitants of heaven are implied to be considerably more numerous. 21. See Andrei A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, TSAJ 107 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 97–101; Philip S. Alexander, “From Son of Adam to Second God: Transformations of the Biblical Enoch,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible, ed. Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998), 87–122, esp. 104–07. Further discussion of the evolution of Enoch’s legend in the Jewish mystical tradition will follow below. 22. For the Hebrew text, see Julius Theodor and Chanoch Albeck, eds., Midrash Bereshit Rabbah: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1965), 1:238–39, with corresponding English translation in H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, (ed.), Midrash Rabbah, 10 vols. (London: Soncino, 1939), 1:205.

206 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

text, characterizing Enoch not as a man of virtue but, rather, as an unrepentant sinner. This argument appears directed toward the exegetical motif at issue between the targumim and alleged by the sages to be supported by certain unnamed Jewish “heretics” (minim)23 and gentiles literate in the Hebrew Scriptures.24 In fact, the midrash reserves its strongest condemnation for these individuals.25 The rabbinic polemic against Enoch therefore represents a proxy polemic against heresy, or at least what the sages perceived as heretical in view of their own preferred standards of belief.26 Precisely what made the Enochic literature so abhorrent to the rabbis is not said. One is tempted, however, to read their hostility toward Enoch as a reflection of the brand of apocalyptic speculation characteristic of the Enochic pseudepigrapha.27 This attitude naturally would have impacted the attitudes of the rabbinic collective toward the Watchers traditions, as likely reflected in the reading of Onqelos on Gen. 5:24. The retreat of the subsequent targumim to the position of the Book of the Watchers would appear to reflect a corresponding confluence of rabbinic and popular Jewish attitudes toward apocalyptic thought and expression during the late ancient period.28 This development in Jewish cultural sensibilities provides a likely context for the evidence of the reception of the legend of the fallen angels in the textual traditions presently under consideration. 23. Although the rabbinic denominative minim is often taken to refer exclusively to Christians, contemporary scholars tend to recognize its original subjects of reference as alleged Jewish sectarians or heretics of all persuasions. For comments to this effect, see Richard Kalmin, “Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity,” HTR 87 (1994): 155–169; Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 54–58. 24. As typified in the Midrash by a Roman lady or matrona. For “lady” (Hebr. ‫ ;מטרונא‬cf. Latin matron), Oxford MS 147 reads “one,” presumably in reference to one of the unnamed heretics of the previous lemma. 25. See, for example, VanderKam, Enoch, 161–64; Alexander, “From Son of Adam to Second God,” 108–10; Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 138–39. 26. For the following interpretation, cf. Martha Himmelfarb, “A Report on Enoch in Rabbinic Literature,” SBLSP 13 (1978): 259–69, esp. 260; Reed, Fallen Angels, 139–40. 27. On the tendency of the early rabbinic sages to avoid apocalyptic speculation, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Messianism and Apocalypticism in Rabbinic Texts,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, 1053–72, esp. 1061–65; Philip S. Alexander, “The Rabbis and Messianism,” in Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton Paget (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 227–44, esp. 234–37. 28. See Alexander, “The Rabbis and Messianism,” 229–31, for a complementary assessment of the evolution of apocalyptic influence on the targumim.

The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash | 207

GENESIS 6:1-4 The most substantive targumic and midrashic witnesses to the reception of the Watchers traditions occur in reference to Gen. 6:1-4.29 Around Enoch’s time, the verse relates, certain unnamed “sons of God” chose to cohabit with human beings, taking wives from the earth’s female populace (6:1-2). This reportedly prompted God to declare the offspring of these divine unions as mortals, limiting their lifespans and those of their human descendants to one hundred and twenty years (Gen. 6:3; cf. Gen. 5). The actual progeny, however, of these “sons of God” are cited as exceptions to the new order. These semidivine individuals, dubbed Nephilim, literally “the fallen ones,” are hailed in an apparent editorial aside as “mighty ones of old” and “men of renown” (Gen. 6:4). The Book of the Watchers identifies the “sons of God” as the company of errant angels or “Watchers” who accompany Enoch on his heavenly journey (see, e.g., 1 Enoch 12). Their anomalous celestial station is explained in an expansion of the biblical narrative. Surveying the earth from on high, the angels were enticed by the beauty of human women. Despite knowing the potentially perilous consequences of their actions, they resolved to descend from heaven to pursue their reckless lustfulness. Led by the assertive Shemihazah and Asael, the angels spawned a race of Giants of superior intellect who, in turn, begat the fearsome Nephilim (1 En. 6). Unmatched in their strength, the Nephilim set about terrorizing humanity (1 En. 7–8). This prompted God to dispatch a team of virtuous archangels to imprison the fallen angels, to destroy the crazed Giants, and to secure the survival of humanity in advance of the coming deluge (1 En. 9–11). Echoes of this version of the legend of the fallen angels appear in each of the targumim. The following synopsis will facilitate our discussion of their variant readings.

29. The following synopsis is meant to emphasize the exegetical cruxes most pivotal to the present inquiry. See Chris Seeman’s contribution to this volume for a more detailed discussion of the biblical passage at issue.

208 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Verse

Masoretic Text

Onqelos

Neofiti and derivatives

PseudoJonathan

Peshitta

Gen. 6:2

sons of God

sons of the great ones

sons of judges

sons of the great ones

sons of God / sons of judges

Gen. 6:4

Nephilim

mighty ones

mighty ones

Shamhazai and Azahel

mighty ones

sons of God

sons of the great ones

sons of judges

sons of the great ones

sons of God / sons of judges

mighty ones

mighty ones

mighty ones

mighty ones

mighty ones

men

men

mighty ones

men

mighty ones

Onqelos renders both instances of the enigmatic Hebrew denominative “sons of God” as “sons of the great ones.” Neofiti, followed by a minority Peshitta tradition, renders the term in both instances as “sons of judges.”30 PseudoJonathan renders the term with Onqelos as the indeterminate “sons of the great ones.” The author of Pseudo-Jonathan goes on to clarify his position on the identity of these individuals in Gen. 6:4 by identifying them implicitly as the Nephilim and explicitly as “Shamhazai and Azahel,” who reportedly “fell from heaven.” Onqelos, Neofiti, and the Peshitta likewise correlate the “sons of god” with the Nephilim by rendering the latter term as “the mighty ones,” echoing the characterization of the former with the Hebrew denominative ‫( גברים‬gbrym) in Gen. 6:4. The reliance of the targumim upon the Book of the Watchers must not be assumed in all cases of their agreement.31 For instance, the recurring targumic 30. For the Peshitta variants, see the apparatus in The Old Testament in Syriac, 10, with comments on the relevant manuscript (ca. fifth century), ibid., vi–viii. Marginal notes in the Neofiti manuscript provide the alternate readings “sons of the kings” in Gen. 6:2 and “sons of the angels” in Gen. 6:4; see apparatus in McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1, 71–72. 31. For the following, cf. Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature, WUNT 2.198 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 79–89.

The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash | 209

designation of the Nephilim as “mighty ones” clearly evokes the depiction of these individuals as Giants, or at least the offspring of Giants, as reported in 1 Enoch. This characterization, however, also evokes the Pentateuch’s portrait of the Nephilim in Num. 13:31-33, along with the Septuagint’s rendering of the term as “Giants” (γιγαντες; LXX Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33) and an independent rabbinic gloss on Gen. 6:4 (Gen. Rab. 26.7). Yet other targumic variants seem to presuppose more elaborate versions of the legend of the fallen angels specific to the Watchers traditions. The decision of nearly all the Aramaic translators to emend the denominative “sons of God” suggests a common motivation to relieve the Hebrew text from its potentially divisive theological implications. The alternate term favored by Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan achieves this effect without imposing any specific exegetical valence upon the biblical text, as the identities of neither the “great ones” nor their sons are actually revealed. But the corresponding emendation to “sons of judges” in Neofiti, the fragment targumim, and the minority Peshitta tradition is more telling. This reading seems to relate to a common targumic gloss on Gen. 6:3. There, in view of their corruption, God is said to declare, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever.” Neofiti, the fragment targumim, and Pseudo-Jonathan exposit this phrase as follows (Onqelos features a corresponding gloss, albeit without the explicit judicial terminology): Having spent one hundred and twenty years observing His human subjects, God was displeased with their predominant tendency toward wickedness (cf. Gen. 6:1-2). Resolving, therefore, to destroy humanity, God declared that neither the present generation nor their future successors would be afforded their due judgment before him. Thus, these targumim imply, humanity relinquished the reward of great longevity enjoyed by their primordial forebears. Although the features of this story do not correspond precisely with the literary traditions preserved in 1 Enoch, the parallels are suggestive. As usual, the immediate basis of the targumic gloss seems to be the ambiguous language of the biblical verse. The Hebrew term ‫לא ידון‬, translated in the NRSV as “shall not abide,” is a negative imperfect form of the common verb ‫דין‬, which typically indicates the act of judging. The appearance of this lexeme in the present context is certainly unusual. The targumic authors were therefore not unjustified to have read the Hebrew text to indicate that God chose to deny judgment to the as yet unidentified subjects of Gen. 6:1-2.32 This reading, however, necessitated indication that those so-called “sons of God” were liable to be judged from the outset of their misadventure. This, in turn, explains their

210 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

retroactive identification as “sons of judges” in Neofiti, the fragment targumim, and the minority Peshitta tradition. Yet it would be a mistake to assume that this exegetical gloss arose solely from the ambiguity of the Hebrew text. In fact, the theme of divine surveillance assumed in the targumim seems to evoke the Watchers traditions.33 Although the evidence is too sparse to allow firm identification of the unnamed judges or their sons, the intimation of a failed delegation of divine mediators clearly presupposes some version of the fallen angels narrative. In fact, the targumic “sons of the great ones” and “sons of judges” seem to play roles directly analogous to those ascribed to the degenerate angels whose intermingling with humans are said in the Book of the Watchers to have caused the great deluge. The ensuing judgment articulated in the targumim likewise evokes the decision of God to send the upstanding archangels to punish the degenerate angels and their offspring. Just as in the Book of the Watchers, therefore, the targumic tradition on Gen. 6:3 unambiguously cites the moral failure of the subjects of Gen. 6:1-2 as the direct cause of humanity’s corruption. More subtle reactions to the legend of the fallen angels are evident at each point in the targumic tradition. To the author of Onqelos, the interpretation of the “sons of God” as fallen angels hardly would have been an improvement over the literal sense of the Hebrew text. He therefore chose to call these individuals “sons of great ones,” that is, prominent human beings. To the author of Neofiti, the legend seemed sufficiently reliable to have conditioned his understanding of the term “sons of God,” albeit not to the extent of convincing him that these individuals were actually divine beings. To his mind, therefore, they were merely judges, mediators commissioned by God to monitor humanity from within its ranks. Finally, to the author of Pseudo-Jonathan, the connection between the legend of the fallen angels and the existing targumic tradition was obvious. Hence his impetus to describe the offending “sons of God” as divine beings, none other, in fact, than the infamous Shemihazah and Asael. 34 A corresponding evolution of thought regarding the identities of the “sons of God” is echoed in the rabbinic tradition. A sequence in Genesis Rabbah 32. The intimation that God chose to deny judgment to the subjects of Gen. 6:1-2 might relate to the tradition attested in Jub. 4:22-24 in which Enoch is said to have judged the Watchers prior to their fall. For further discussion, see the contribution of John Endres to this volume. 33. For the following, see, in general, Philip S. Alexander, “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” JJS 23 (1972): 60–71; Reed, Fallen Angels, 213–16. 34. Although this appears to be the result of an intentional conflation of the sons of God and the Nephilim, it is also possible that the author of Pseudo-Jonathan was aware of an otherwise unknown version of the Watchers tradition likewise identifying the two parties with one another.

The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash | 211

(Gen. Rab. 26.4-7) demonstrates the efforts of certain early rabbis to explain the obscure allusions of Gen. 6:1-4 in reference to the corruption of humanity during the age before the flood. Yet while this interpretive impulse obviously recalls the legend of the fallen angels, none of the midrashic readings actually endorses that legend.35 One reading, however, seems to respond to the legend. Commenting on the term “sons of God,” the Midrash preserves the following statement in the name of the Palestinian sage Simeon bar Yohai, who was active during the late first and early second centuries:36 Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai called them “sons of judges.” Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai also would curse anyone who called them “sons of God.” Said Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, “Any breach that is not from great men is no breach at all.” Although the ascription is impossible to verify, the Midrash seems to suggest that Rabbi Simeon offered his reading of the biblical text as a rejoinder to the legend of the fallen angels. Although the rabbi seems most disturbed by the scriptural verse itself, his repeated insistence that its “sons of God” were actually human beings counteracts the unspoken supposition that they were angels. This position recalls with the aforementioned rabbinic polemic against Enoch and his literature.37 This observation is reinforced by the correspondence of Simeon’s words with the variant readings of the targumim. The rabbi’s interpretation of “sons of God” as “sons of judges” precisely matches the readings of Neofiti and the minority Peshitta tradition. It is therefore possible that Simeon assumed the same apologetic interpretive stance on Gen. 6:3 as that of the authors of those Aramaic texts. His subsequent comparison of the “sons of judges” with “great men” might have informed the humanizing appellation “sons of great ones” cited in Onqelos and curiously repeated in Pseudo-Jonathan. While the rabbinic stand against the Watchers traditions evidently lasted long enough to influence the authors of Onqelos and Neofiti, it seems to have faded by the time of the Babylonian Talmud’s composition. Included in that compendious rabbinic treatise are two brief but noteworthy allusions to the 35. Cf. VanderKam, Enoch, 164–65. 36. Gen. Rab. 26.5 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1.247). For the following, cf. Alexander, “The Targumim,” 61–62; Reed, Fallen Angels, 136–37. 37. Rabbi Simeon’s protest is echoed by the second century church father Justin Martyr, who depicts his Jewish interlocutor Trypho as protesting the Christian endorsement of the legend of the fallen angels (Justin, Dial. 79; cf. 1 Apol. 5.2). For comments, see Alexander, “The Targumim,” 62; Reed, Fallen Angels, 137.

212 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

legend of the fallen angels. The first appears in tractate Niddah, where an anonymous rabbinic master questions why God had to advise Moses not to fear the Amorite king Og in advance of their initial meeting (Num. 21:34). Moses, the rabbi explains, had good reason to tremble before Og and his fellow Amorite king Sihon, as these men were grandsons of “Shamhazai,” that is, the fallen angel Shemihazah.38 They were, in other words, Nephilim, descendants of the mighty Giants thought to have populated the land of Canaan since the days of the flood. Efforts to trace this legend to the Book of Giants recovered at Qumran and attested in early Manichaean sources have proven inconclusive.39 But its reference to the legend of the fallen angels is unmistakable. An unrelated passage in tractate Yoma likewise invokes the legend as an exegetical aid. The citation appears amid a series of efforts to explain the etymology of the Hebrew word Azazel, the term denoting the scapegoat to be utilized in the Day of Atonement liturgy (Lev 16:8-10). An anonymous teaching credited to the school of Rabbi Ishmael associates the obscure title with “the affair of Uza and Azael,” an incident here accounted as the matrix of human sinfulness and, by extension, of the very concept of atonement.40 This seems to be another allusion to a Watchers tradition. The Talmud’s “Azael” refers to the fallen angel Asael, while its “Uza” appears to be a corrupted or shortened form of Shemihazah. Although these passing references to the story of the fallen angels do not allow much insight into the attitudes of the Babylonian sages toward the Watchers traditions, they do suggest a departure from the earlier rabbinic position on the Enochic literature cited in Genesis Rabbah. It seems significant, moreover, that the narrative elements attested in the Babylonian Talmud directly parallel the cursory allusions to the legend of the fallen angels in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. 6:4. Like their targumic counterparts, the midrashic sources speak to a certain degree of controversy among ancient Jewish readers over the legitimacy of the Watchers traditions. But they also indicate a gradual movement toward the accommodation of those traditions among the rabbinic collective.

38. The passage appears in b. Nid. 61a. For comments, see Reed, Fallen Angels, 234–35. 39. On the improbability of correlation between the Talmudic legend and this lost (possibly) Enochic treatise, see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Translations, and Commentary, TSAJ 63 (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 38, n. 143, and cf. John C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992), 21–22, with reference to the present Talmudic passage, ibid., 42, n. 85. 40. The passage appears in b. Yoma 67ba. For comments, see Reed, Fallen Angels, 235.

The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash | 213

Influence Given its relative paucity, it is difficult to say whether the targumic and midrashic evidence for the reception of the Watchers traditions significantly impacted its revival as an authoritative source of Jewish scriptural knowledge during the late ancient period. Nevertheless, the reconciliation of the divergent attitudes toward the literature attested in these sources likely contributed to that cultural development. The rabbinic compromise with the popular Jewish stance on the Enochic literature is perhaps best exemplified in the late midrashic compilation Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer. Typically dated no earlier than the eighth century, this exegetical companion to the Pentateuch draws upon a range of ancient Jewish legends attested in texts of the Second Temple period but theretofore lost to the rabbinic literary tradition.41 The story of the fallen angels is discussed at length in a series of expositions on Gen. 5–6 pseudonymously ascribed to various rabbinic sages of the first and second centuries.42 Although the Midrash seems to rely on numerous apocryphal Jewish texts, its debt to the Watchers traditions is patent throughout. The terms, moreover, of its engagement of those traditions recall the prior their exegetical applications as exemplified in the targum and midrash. The rabbinic rehabilitation of Enoch himself is more notably attested in the hekhalot literature, the corpus of late ancient texts associated with the medieval Jewish cultural phenomenon known as Merkabah mysticism. The hekhalot texts preserve a number of obscure narrative traditions construed by contemporary scholars as elements of a lost text known as the Hebrew Apocalypse of Enoch or 3 Enoch.43 Like many constituent elements of the hekhalot literature, the Enochic fragments are notoriously difficult to date. The literary forms preserved in the Merkabah tradition appear to have originated no earlier than the eighth century, although external evidence suggests that the Enochic narrative thread is rooted in rabbinic narrative traditions roughly contemporaneous with the 41. On the composition and character of this text, see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 328–30. 42. Pirqe R. El. 22. For discussion of this passage and its relationship to the Enochic literature, see Rachel Adelman, The Return of the Repressed: Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer and the Pseudepigrapha, JSJSup 140 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 109–37. See also David L. Everson, “A Brief Comparison of Targumic and Midrashic Angelological Traditions,” Aramaic Studies 5 (2007): 75–91, who argues for reciprocal influence between the Midrash and the late targumic tradition, with comments specific to the legend of the fallen angels, ibid., 76–78. 43. On the date and provenance of 3 Enoch, see Philip S. Alexander, “The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch,” JJS 28 (1977): 156–80; Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 315–16.

214 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

composition of the Babylonian Talmud, that is, as early as the fifth or sixth century.44 The reconstructed text of 3 Enoch describes a heavenly ascent of the second-century Palestinian sage Rabbi Ishmael and his encounter with the angel Metatron, the captain of God’s celestial sanctuary. Upon meeting the rabbi, Metatron discloses his identity as the divine manifestation of Enoch before leading his guest on a tour of heaven. Ishmael’s tour includes a visit with the Watchers (3 Enoch 28–29). Whether this fantastic tale should be assigned to a rabbinic author is unclear. Its rabbinic outlook is abundantly evident in its classical Hebrew idiom, its dramatis personae, and its eschatological assumptions.45 But the text also imbues its account of Ishmael’s mystical journey with imagery characteristic of the decidedly non-rabbinic Watchers traditions attested in the earliest surviving examples of the Enochic pseudepigrapha.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research Although the evidence for the reception of the Watchers traditions in targum and midrash is sparse, it is no less provocative. Illuminating a centuries-long controversy among Jewish readers over the authority of the Enochic literature, these witnesses also herald the resolution of that debate among the heirs of the early rabbinic movement. Precisely what precipitated this resolution remains a matter of debate. Some scholars have argued for continuous Jewish cultivation of the Watchers traditions throughout the ancient period. 46 According to this argument, the extended lull in mainstream Jewish interest in these traditions prior to late antiquity was due to the efforts of the rabbinic sages to suppress that heterodoxic literature. Accordingly, the Jewish transmitters of the Watchers traditions would have stood at odds with the rabbinic sages during the early

44. See, for example, the narrative account of Metatron’s heavenly station in b. Ḥag. 15a (cf. 3 Enoch 16), with comments in Alexander, “The Historical Setting,” 177–78; Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism, 233–36. 45. The concomitant turn toward apocalyptic expression is manifest in late rabbinic texts such as the Babylonian Talmud and the Byzantine-era midrashim; see Schiffman, “Messianism and Apocalypticism,” 1065–70; Alexander, “The Rabbis and Messianism, 237–40. 46. For the following, see especially Gabriele Boccaccini’s theory of the emergence of a distinct ‘Enochic Judaism,’ as articulated in Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), esp. 165–96; Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), esp. 89–103, 163–69. See also Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, 295–99; Michael E. Stone, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 31–58, esp. 51–52.

The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash | 215

centuries of their operation, only reconciling with their latter-day disciples apt to accept modes of Jewish literary expression shunned by their predecessors. Others have argued that the rabbinic rehabilitation of Enoch was the result not of the populist overtures of the sages but of their efforts to combat Christian influence.47 According to this argument, the adoption of Enoch as an icon of the early Church posed a serious dilemma to the rabbis as the cultural forces of Christianization began to make inroads among their fellow Jews. Increasing exposure to Christian literature would have confronted Jewish readers with a portrait of Enoch native to their religious tradition yet reinforcing the credibility of the proto-orthodox Christological narrative. The threat of popular dissonance thus provoked the rabbinic sages of late antiquity to relent from the position of their forebears and reclaim Enoch as one of their own, recasting the one-time villain of rabbinic orthodoxy as the great Metatron, second only to God and the primordial champion of the Jewish people. The results of the foregoing survey seem to support the former line of interpretation, albeit not to the exception of the latter. As I hope to have shown, the diversity of reactions to the Watchers traditions in the classical targumic and midrashic traditions reflect an equally diverse climate of Jewish reception resistant to simple categorization. Continuing efforts, however, to examine these witnesses in light of other Jewish and Christian texts of their respective eras should help clarify their places within the multiple evolutionary trajectories of the Watchers traditions in late ancient and early medieval Jewish culture.

Brief Bibliography Alexander, Philip S. “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6.” JJS 23 (1972): 60–71. Boccaccini, Gabriele. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Himmelfarb, Martha. “A Report on Enoch in Rabbinic Literature.” SBLSP 13 (1978): 259–69.

47. This following argument has been put forth by Reed, Fallen Angels, esp. 233–72, and followed closely by Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism, 318–27, 343–45. See also Marcel Poorthius, “Enoch and Melchizedek in Judaism and Christianity: A Study in Intermediaries,” in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, Jewish and Christian Perspectives 7, ed. Marcel Poorthius and Joshua Schwartz (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 97–120, esp. 99–110.

216 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Kaufman, Stephen A., ed. The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. Hebrew Union College and Jewish Institute of Religion. http://cal1.cn.huc.edu. Orlov, Andrei A. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. TSAJ 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Schäfer, Peter. The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Strack, H.L., and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated and edited by Markus Bockmuehl. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Index of Names Abegg, Martin G., 87 Achtemeier, Paul J., 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 Adelman, Rachel, 213 Adler, William, 2, 133, 173, 180 Albeck, Chanoch, 205, 211 Albertz, Rainer, 45 Alexander, Philip S., 35, 36, 98, 103, 132, 134, 138, 146, 148, 150, 171, 200, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215 Allegro, John, 144 Amihay, Aryeh, 140 Andersen, F. I., 190, 193 Anderson, Gary A., 182, 190, 197 Andresen, Carl, 174 Annus, Amar, 11, 12, 21, 24, 92 Aptowitzer, Victor, 196 Arcari, Luca, 155 Argall, Randal A., 55, 59, 61, 63 Attridge, Harold W., 122, 158 Auffarth, Christoph, 2, 37, 43 Austin, M. M., 39 Azize, Joseph, 22

Ben-Dov, Jonathan, 149 Bergren, Theodore A., 205 Berner, Christopher, 60 Bernstein, Moshe, 141, 150 Berthelot, Katell, 139 Bezold, C., 18 Bhayro, Siam, 2, 34, 47, 90 Black, Matthew, 34, 137 Blenkinsopp, Joseph, 28 Boccaccini, G., 14, 19, 48, 51, 66, 98, 101, 108, 119, 122, 130, 135, 138, 152, 155, 163, 214, 215 Bockmuehl, Markus, 201, 206, 216 Bokser, Ben Zion, 178 Böttrich, C., 183 Bourdieu, Pierre, 40, 49 Boyarin, Daniel, 206 Bremmer, Jan, 3, 43, 44 Brenk, Frederick E., 169 Brooke, G., 20, 47 Brown, Peter, 173 Boustan, R. S., 111, 119 Budge, E. A. Wallis, 161 Bunta, Silviu, xii, 8, 17, 101, 181, 196 Burkert, Walter, 169 Burns, Joshua, xii, 8, 101, 199

Bahrani, Zainab, 47 Bampfylde, Gillian, 155 Barker, Margaret, 34, 100 Barnard, Leslie W., 168, 175, 176, 177, 180 Bauckham, Richard J., 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 79, 85, 173 Baynes, Leslie, 7, 13, 101, 151, 163 Beattie, D. R. G., 201 Becking, Bob, 29, 107 BeDuhn, Jason, 83, 84, 90 Beentjes, Pancratius C., 52, 58 Bellia, Giuseppe, 57, 58

Calabi, Francesca, 30 Calduch-Benages, Nuria, 57, 59, 68 Caquot, A., 118 Carey, Greg, 45 Carr, David M., 23 Castriota, David, 44, 45, 49 Chadwick, Henry, 175 Charles, R. H., 12, 130, 153 Charlesworth, James H., 34, 45, 90, 155 Chazon, Esther, 125, 135, 141, 150, 170 Chesnutt, Randall, 8, 17, 101, 167

217

218 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Chester, Andrew, 69 Clements, Ruth, 141, 150 Coblentz Bautch, Kelley, 53, 110, 114 Collins, John J., 5, 33, 34, 37, 45, 48, 51, 90, 92, 93, 98, 100, 102, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 117, 118, 119, 138, 147, 155, 156 Collins, Raymond F., 82 Conrad, Edgar W., 27, 33 Conybeare, F. C., 172 Conzelmann, Hans, 82 Cook, Edward M., 87 Cook, Stephen L., 42, 87 Cooper, John, 97 Coote, Robert B., 27, 28 Corley, Jeremy, 6, 51, 52, 54, 62, 63, 101, 102, 108 Coxe, A. C., 89 Dalton, William J., 76, 77, 78, 79 Davenport, Gene L., 123 Davids, Peter H., 70, 77, 78 Davidson, Maxwell, 4, 103 Davies, John, 37 Davies, P. R., 20 Davies, W. D., 15 DeConick, April, 99 Delcor, Mathias, 118, 187 Dell’Acqua, Anna Passoni, 30 Denis, Albert-Marie, 176, 180, 181 de Jonge, Marinus, 181 Delobel, Joël, 83, 90 deSilva, David A., 61 Di Lella, Alexander A., 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 61, 67 Dillon, John, 30 Dimant, Devorah, 2, 20, 139, 141, 144, 150 Dougherty, Carol, 44 Dowden, Ken, 44 Droge, Arthur J., 172 Duhaime, Jean, 144 Edwards, M. J., 175, 176

Egger-Wenzel, Renate, 62, 63 Eliade, M., 18 Elliot, John H., 69, 70, 75, 78, 79 Elwolde, John F., 139 Endres, John, 7, 82, 101, 121, 123, 131, 138, 210 Eshel, Esther, 137, 146, 147 Eshel, Hanan, 137 Evans, Craig A., 34, 146 Everson, David L., 213 Falk, Daniel K., 141 Falls, Thomas B., 168, 180 Farkas, Ann E., 23 Feldmeier, Reinhard, 69, 77 Femia, Joseph, 40, 49 Ferguson, Everett, 169 Fitzmyer, Joseph A., 82, 83, 86, 87, 90, 139 Fletcher-Louis, Crispin, 191 Flint, Peter W., 5, 98, 103, 132, 134, 138, 139, 150 Fonrobert, Charlotte Elisheva, 201 Foster, Paul, 167, 180 Fraade, Steven D., 200, 201 Fraenkel, Eduard, 44 Freedman, H., 205 Frey, Jörg, 140 Friedlander, M., 183 Fröhlich, Ida, xii, 5, 11 Gammie, J., 93 García Martinez, Florentino, 51, 52, 99, 138, 139, 150, 184, 185, 186, 189 Gaster, Moses, 182 George, A. R., 22, 23 Gesche, Petra D., 23 Gilbert, Maurice, 64 Ginzberg, Louis, 191 Glasson, T. Francis, 5 Gmirkin, Russell E., 27 Goff, Matthew, 22, 64, 66 Goodenough, Erwin R., 171, 172, 174, 175, 177, 180

Index of Names | 219

Gooding, David W., 30 Goppelt, Leonhard, 69, 77 Green, Gene L., 70, 75 Gregory, Bradley, 51 Grelot, P., 12 Grossfeld, Bernard, 199, 202, 205 Gruden, Wayne A., 69, 77, 80 Gruen, Erich S., 37 Gzella, Holger, 139 Haas, V., 17, 18 Hall, Edith, 45 Hall, David R., 83, 90 Halperin, David, 192 Hannah, Darrell D., 157 Hanneken, Todd, 123, 134 Hanson, Paul, 6, 12, 42, 103 Harkins, Angela Kim, 87, 145 Harkins, Franklin T., 36, 101 Harvey, Graham, 37 Hayes, M. A., 75 Hempel, Charlotte, 20, 140 Hendel, Ronald, 3, 27, 31, 37, 100, 103 Henkelman, Wouder, 43 Herington, C. John, 42 Hermann, Alfred, 176 Hillel, Vered, 140 Himmelfarb, Martha, 108, 112, 119, 133, 177, 206, 215 Hogan, Karina, 7, 81, 94, 101, 107 Holte, Ragnar, 174, 175, 176 Horsley, Richard A., 45 Huggins, R. V., 140 Hutchinson, D., 97 Ibba, Giovanni, 122, 130, 135 Jackson, D. L., 22 Jaffee, S., 201 Jagić, Vatroslav, 181 Jansen, H. L., 11 Jansma, T., 199 Jeremias, Gert, 137 Jobes, Karen H., 69, 77

Johnson, M. D., 191 Jung, Leo, 2 Kalmin, Richard, 201, 204, 206 Katz, Steven T., 200 Kaufman, Stephen A., 199, 201, 216 Kee, H. C., 88, 90, 99 Kelly, J. N. D., 70, 72, 78 Kiley, Mark, 131 Kilmer, Ann Draffkorn, 27, 36 Klawans, Jonathan, 24 Knibb, Michael A., 20, 123, 153 Kobelski, Paul, 143 Koster, M. D., 199 Kugel, James, 65, 117, 123, 134 Kugler, Robert A., 138 Kuhn, Karl Georg, 137 Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang, 138 Kuhrt, Amélie, 43 Kurke, Leslie, 44 Kvanvig, Helge, 5, 12, 24, 109 Lachs, Samuel T., 190, 191 Ladouceur, D. J., 157 Lambert, W. G., 23 Lang, Bernhard, 118 Lange, A., 22, 140, 144, 146, 147, 150 Langlois, Michaël, 138, 148, 149 Lawlor, H. J., 2 Layton, B., 182 Légasse, S., 118 Leslau, W., 18 Levine, Lee, 200 Levison, John R., 181 Lewis, Scott, xii, 7, 81, 101 Lichtenberger, H., 22, 140, 140, 191 Lieu, Judith, 20, 178 Lightfoot, J., 83 Losekam, Claudia, 2 Luttikhuizen, Gerard P., 88, 89, 184, 197 Machiela, Daniel, 140, 141, 142, 149 Mackie, Scott D., 100

220 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Mahé, J. P., 182 Maher, Michael, 184, 199, 203 Mandel, Paul, 201 Marböck, Johannes, 59, 63, 68 Marcovich, Miroslav, 168, 180 Martin, Ralph, 69, 70 Martin, Troy W., 71 Mason, Eric, 7, 51, 69, 71, 82, 85, 101, 163, 176 McKnight, Scott, 70 McNamara, Martin, 199, 201, 202, 205, 208 Meier, G., 18 Meiser, M., 191 Mercier, Jacques, 161 Merk, O., 191 Meyer, R., 11 Meyer, W., 181 Michaels, J. Ramsey, 70, 75, 77, 78 Milik, J. T., 13, 21, 34, 100, 137, 138, 139, 146, 150, 163 Miller, Daniel, 40 Minns, Denis, 176, 180 Mitchell, Timothy, 40, 49 Moll, Sebastian, 177 Mulder, Martin Jan, 200 Mullen, E. Theodore, 29 Muraoka, T., 139 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome, 83, 84 Murray, R., 4, 90 Nahm, Charles, 175 Najman, Hindy, 117 Neer, Richard T., 44 Newing, Edward G., 27 Newman, Judith H., 118 Newsom, Carol A., 111, 117, 119 Neyrey, Jerome, 70, 71 Nicholson, E. W., 27 Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 34, 41, 42, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 72, 74, 75, 80, 81, 93, 100, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 125, 133,

138, 151, 152, 153, 159, 160, 163, 169, 170, 172, 182, 187, 188, 189, 190, 193 Nicklas, Tobias, 2, 60, 68 Niese, B., 188 Nissinen, Martti, 33, 37, 107, 119 Olson, Daniel, 153, 154, 155, 162 Ord, David R., 27, 33 Orlov, Andrei A., 47, 101, 103, 182, 183, 187, 194, 205, 214, 216 Padgett, A., 83, 84 Paget, James Carleton, 206 Parker, Simon B., 29 Parry, Donald W., 147 Parvis, Paul, 167, 176, 180 Parvis, Sara, 167, 180 Passaro, Angelo, 57, 68 Pearson, Birger, 74 Pearson, Brook W. R., 75 Peerbolte, L. J. Lietaert, 88, 90 Penney, D. L., 146 Perdue, Leo, 93 Peters, Dorothy M., 140, 143 Perkins, Pheme, 69, 70, 72 Perruchon, J., 161 Pettorelli, J., 194 Pierce, Chad T., 76 Piovanelli, Pierluigi, 98, 152, 155, 156 Podlecki, A. J., 41, 42 Poorthius, Marcel, 215 Popovic, Mladen, 143 Porter, S. E., 75, 146 Portier-Young, Anathea, 6, 39, 48, 51, 54, 61, 62, 63, 65, 97 Prato, Gian Luigi, 54, 55, 64, 68 Puech, E., 21, 140, 143, 144 Raffan, John, 169 Rajak, Tessa, 178 Ravid, Liora, 123 Reed, Annette Yoshiko, 2, 35, 36, 37, 64, 68, 95, 101, 103, 111, 113, 114,

Index of Names | 221

116, 119, 159, 166, 170, 171, 175, 177, 178, 180, 206, 210, 211, 212, 215, 216 Reeves, John C., 22, 133, 138, 140, 145, 212 Reicke, Bo, 76 Reimer, Andy, 98, 103 Reiner, Erica, 43, 46, 47 Reiterer, F., 2, 60, 68 Ribeyrol, M., 181 Rice, Anne, 1 Roberts, Alexander, 89 Robinson, J. M., 185 Rochberg, Francesca, 43, 47 Rogerson, J. W., 70 Römheld, Diethard, 140, 150 Rosen, L. N., 15 Rowlands, Michael, 40 Rubinkiewicz, R., 14 Sacchi, P., 14, 155, 157 Sánchez, David, 40 Santos Otero, A. de, 187 Schäfer, Peter, 213, 214, 215, 216 Schams, C., 93 Schiffman, Lawrence, 11, 139, 206, 214 Schnelle, Udo, 70 Schniedewind, William, 139 Schöpflin, Karin, 2, 60, 68 Schüle, Andreas, 3 Schwartz, Joshua, 215 Scully, James, 41 Seeman, Chris, 6, 20, 25, 93, 207 Segal, Michael, 123, 128, 129, 134, 135 Selwyn, Ernest Gordon, 69, 78 Shemesh, A., 87, 90, 147 Sheppard, Gerald T., 62 Shinan, Avigdor, 200, 201, 202, 203 Simon, Maurice, 205 Skarsaune, Oskar, 178 Skehan, Patrick W., 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 61, 67 Skemp, Vincent, 54, 108 Slusser, Michael, 168

Smelik, Willem F., 200 Smith, Mark S., 29 Sparks, Kenton L., 24 Spitta, Friedrich, 77 Stegemann, Hartmut, 138 Stemberger, Günter, 201, 203, 204, 213, 216 Stephens, Susan A., 44 Stichel, R., 187 Stokes, Ryan, 5, 100 Stökl ben Ezra, Daniel, 139 Stone, Michael, 14, 18, 24, 125, 135, 140, 155, 170, 181, 182, 205, 214 Strack, H. L., 201, 203, 204, 213, 216 Strelan, Rick, 92, 99, 103 Stuckenbruck, Loren, 2, 5, 17, 21, 23, 24, 35, 37, 43, 53, 82, 86, 90, 101, 103, 130, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 145, 150, 170, 171, 186, 194, 197 Stuiber, Alfred, 176 Sullivan, Kevin, 4, 7, 17, 91, 96, 100, 103, 118 Suter, David, 14, 42, 53, 93, 103, 108, 152, 154, 155, 156, 163 Sysling, Harry, 200 Tardieu, M., 118 Teugels, M., 189 Thackeray, Henry St. J., 63 Theodor, Julius, 205, 211 Thomas, Samuel, 7, 14, 87, 99, 101, 107, 137 Tigchelaar, Eibert J., 51 Tiller, Patrick, 48, 115, 116, 117, 119 Tilley, Christopher, 40, 49 Tombs, D., 75 Trebilco, Paul, 77 Tromp, Johannes, 181, 190, 191, 192 Trussoni, Danielle, 1 Twelftree, G., 99 Ulrich, Eugene, 147 Uro, Risto, 33, 37, 107, 119

222 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

van den Broek, R., 182 VanderKam, James, 2, 12, 20, 34, 47, 51, 53, 56, 58, 81, 98, 103, 109, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 150, 152, 153, 159, 163, 170, 172, 173, 180, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 205, 206, 211 Van der Horst, 29, 107 van der Spek, Robartus, 43 Van der Toorn, 29, 107 van Ruiten, Jacques T. A. G. M., 121, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130, 131, 135 Van Seters, John, 27, 28 van Soldt, W. H., 19 Vermaseren, M. J., 182 Vernel, H. S., 98 Vervenne, M., 37 Vian, Francis, 44 von Rad, Gerhard, 28 Wacholder, B. Z., 11 Waszink, J. H., 176 Watson, Duane F., 70, 72 Watson, Wilfred G. E., 37, 99

Weitzman, Michael P., 203 Weitzman, Steven, 139 Wellhausen, J., 20, 28 Wevers, John William, 38 Whiston, W., 188 Williams, Frank, 185 Wilson, Stephen G., 178 Winston, David, 30 Wintermute, O. S., 82 Wise, Michael O., 87, 146 Witherington, Ben, 70 Wright, Archie T., 2, 20, 38, 109, 110, 120, 208 Wright, Benjamin G., 52, 54, 59, 68, 108, 109 Wright, D. P., 15 Xeravits, Géza, 66, 68 Yoder, Christine Roy, 117, 119 Young, Frances, 178 Zsengellér, József, 66, 68 Zurawski, Jason, 101

Index of Biblical References and Ancient Literature Genesis 1–11……27 1–2……83 1……7 1:26……35 2–5……19 2–3……20, 177 2:1……35 3–11……30 3:5……192 3:19……65 4:1……183, 184, 185, 187, 189 4:10……15 4:16-24……18 4:22……59 5–6……46, 213 5……28, 207 5:3……183, 184, 185 5:21-24……3, 204 5:22……30 5:24……30, 96, 205 6–11……46 6–8……39 6……3, 5, 81, 89 6:1-4……1, 4, 6, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 45, 63, 64, 81, 93, 102, 127, 129, 130, 137, 171, 173, 176, 185, 186, 187, 192, 207, 211 6:1-2……30, 31, 207, 209, 210 6:1……1 6:2……29, 30, 31, 35, 59, 208 6:3……28, 30, 31, 35, 126, 128, 207, 209, 210 6:4……28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 59, 137, 145, 207, 208, 209

6:5……25 6:6……127 6:7……127 6:9……204 6:12……25 6:13……25 7:1-2……59 9:1……131 9:3-4……16 9:7……131 10:8-9……32, 33 11:4……32 12:2……32 14:1-16……64 18:8……56 19:3……56 Exodus 4:16……52 4:22……27 7:1……52 9:16……32 12……7 15:1-18……32 15:3……32 22:17……15 23:17……88 25:30……59 34:10-16……16 34:23……88 Leviticus 16……6 16:8-10……212 17–26……15, 16 18:1-30……15

223

224 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

18:27-30……15 19:19……15 19:29……15 19:31……15 20:6……15 Numbers……5, 32, 33 11:1-3……64 13:28……62 13:31-33……209 13:31……62 13:33……6, 28, 32, 137, 209 14:12……62 14:22-23……64 16:2……32 21:21-35……64 21:34……212 Deuteronomy……149 1:28……62 2:26—3:7……64 16:16……88 21:1-9……15 21:9……16 21:22-23……15 22:9-11……15 23:2-4……147 24:1-4……15 29:28 [NRSV 29:29]……52 32……97 32:8……29, 56 32:17……97, 172 33:1-3……72, 73 Joshua 12:4……33 13:21……64 Judges 13:16……57 1 Kings 11:14……55

2 Kings 2:11-12……204 17:5-23……15 19:35……55 Isaiah 3:2……33 13:21……97 14:9……33 14:12-14……61 24……154, 155 24:17-23……154 24:21……61 26:19……75 34:4……56 34:14……97 37:36……55 40:26……56 49:10……56 49:24-25……33 65:3……97 66:15-16……72 Jeremiah 3:1……15 25:30-31……72 Ezekiel……5, 32, 33 1–2……59 32:20……32 32:21……32 32:22……32 32:23……32 32:24……32 32:25……32 32:26……32 32:27……6, 33 32:28……32 32:29……32 32:30……32 32:31……32 32:32……32 41:3……59

Index of Biblical References and Ancient Literature | 225

Hosea 2:1-23……27 Zechariah 3……95 Psalms 18:6……33 29:1……29 32:16……33 82……29 82:1……56 82:7……29 89:6……29 95:5 (MT 96:5)……172, 179 104:4……55 106:37……97, 172 106:38-39……15 147:15……55 Proverbs 21:16……33 Job 1–2……95 1:6……29, 30 2:1……29, 30 4:18-19……61 15:15-16……61 25:5-6……61 26:5……33 38:7……29, 30 38:37……58 Daniel……149 3:25……29, 30 4……5 4:10……3, 12, 55 4:13 (NRSV)……5, 55, 92, 99 4:14……3 4:17……5, 47, 92, 100 4:20……3, 55 4:23 (NRSV)……5, 55, 92, 99 7……5

7–12……160 7:10……55 8:16……60 10:13……60 10:13-21……56 1 Chronicles 5:24……32 11:15……33 2 Chronicles 16:12……60 Tobit 3:7-8……98 3:17……60 6:7……98 6:14-17……98 8:3……61, 98 12:19……57 Wisdom of Solomon……6, 51, 54, 61, 67 7:20……60 13:10……64 13:10—14:11……64 14:6……64, 65, 67 Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus)……6, 51, 52, 54, 61 3:21-24……52 6……67 7:18-26……53 7:19……60 7:29-31……54 8:8……53 15:11—18:14……54 15:15-17……65 16:5-14……64 16:6……64 16:7-9……65, 66 16:7 (Greek)……54, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 145 16:8……66

226 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

16:9……66 16:10……64 16:26-28……54, 56 16:27……56, 57 16:28……67 16:29……57 17:1……65 17:17……54, 56 17:25-32……61 17:32……54, 61, 67 17:34……65 21:27……55 21:28……55 24……56 24:1-29……53 24:1-2……56 24:10-11……53 24:23……52 25:24……65 26:18……60 34:1……59 34:9-13……53 35:21……61 38:4……60 38:28……59 38:34……53 39–44……67 39:1-11……53 39:4……53 39:17……58 39:22-31……58 39:28-29……58 41:3-4……65 42:15……55 42:15—43:33……54, 57 42:17……54, 55, 58, 59 42:21……55 43:1-26……58 43:2……58 43:6-8……53 43:6……58 43:8-10……54 43:8……58

43:9-10……57 43:9……58 43:10……57, 67 43:13……58 43:14……58 43:15……58 43:17……58 43:18……58 43:22……58 43:24……58 43:26……55 43:31……59 44:1—50:24……53 44:16……52 45:1-5……52 45:2……52 45:3……52 45:5……52 45:9-12……60 46:2……59 48:21……55 49:8……59 49:14……52, 59 50:1-24……52 50:1-4……53 50:3……52 50:5-21……53 50:9……60 50:27……53 51……67 51:23……53 Baruch……6, 51, 54, 61, 67 3:9—4:4……61 3:17……62 3:23……62 3:26-29……62 3:26-28……62, 67 3:26……62 3:27……62 3:28……62 3:29……62 3:34-35……57 4:7……98, 172

Index of Biblical References and Ancient Literature | 227

4:35……98 6:60……57 1 Maccabees 1:10-64……52 3:3……33 3 Maccabees……6, 51, 54, 61, 62, 67 2:1-20……62 2:4-8……62, 64, 65, 66 2:4……63, 66, 67 2:5……66 2:6-8……66 Matthew 4:1-11……95 4:11……84 11:10……83 13:39-49……84 16:27……84 24:31……84 25:31-46……7 25:31……84 25:41……84 26:53……84 28:25……84 Mark 1:13……84 1:34……99 3:14-15……99 5:1-20……86 8:38……84 13:27……84 Luke 1:11-38……84 2:9-21……84 4:10……84 7:24……83 9:52……83 12:8-9……84 15:10……84 16:21……84

22:43……84 24:23……84 24:37……77 24:39……77 John 20:12……84 20:18……84 Acts of the Apostles 5:19……84 7:53……84 8:26……84 10:3……84 10:22……84 11:13……84 12:7-15……84 Romans 14:10……7 1 Corinthians 1:11……82 3:16-17……88 6:3……86 6:19……88 10:14-22……89 10:20-22……89 10:20……172 11……82, 88, 89 11:2-16……82 11:10……81, 83, 89 12:3……86 13:1……86 14……82 14:25……89 14:33……89 15:51-52……7 2 Corinthians 5:10……7 6:14-15……95 11:14……86 12:1-12……86

228 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

12:7……86 Galatians 1:8……85 3:19……86 3:28……84 Colossians 2:18……85 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10……7 Epistle to the Hebrews 1:4……85 1:5……85 1:7……85 1:13……85 2:2……85 2:5……85 2:7……85 2:16……85 4:10……5 4:14……5 4:20……5 12:23……77 James 2:25……83 1 Peter……69, 70, 79, 171 1:12……75, 77, 85 1:25……77 3……75, 77 3:3……75 3:18……76, 78 3:18-22……75, 176 3:18-19……76 3:19-20……75 3:19……76, 77, 78, 85 3:22……78, 85 4:6……76, 77 4:17……77

2 Peter……69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 79, 171 2:4-11……176 2:4-6……64, 65, 66 2:4……7, 66, 74, 82, 85 2:5……66 2:6……66 2:11……73 2:13-14……73 1 John 3:12……185 Jude……69, 70, 72, 78, 79, 101, 102, 171 4……72 5–7……71, 73 5……72 6……7, 71, 72, 73, 74, 82, 85, 176 7……71 8……71, 73 9……72, 73 12……73 13……71, 73 14–16……73, 85 14–15……71, 72, 73, 74 14……72, 73 16……85 17–23……73 Revelation……74 6:9-11……160 9:1……57 9:20……172 12……40 12:9……160 13:2……161 17:2……161 17:16……45 17:18……161 18-19……161 20:11-15……7 PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Book of Eldad and Modad……74

Index of Biblical References and Ancient Literature | 229

Book of Noah……133, 152 1 Enoch 1 Enoch 1-36 (Book of the Watchers) 1-36……3, 7, 12, 52, 71, 92, 93, 132, 137, 151, 152, 167 1:1-32:6a……72 1:2……54, 58 1:2-3……52 1:3-7……72 1:3-12……75 1:4……51, 55 1:5……3 1:9……71, 72, 73, 74, 85, 151 2-5……168, 194 2:1……57 2:1-3:3……54, 67 3:19-20……75 5:4……151 6……207 6-8……67 6-11……4, 12, 14, 20, 21, 42, 45, 128, 142, 170 6-16……42, 91, 92, 93, 95, 100, 101, 126 6-19……81, 85 6:1……94 6:1-2……157, 192 6:1-4……141 6:1-7:62……12 6:2……12, 94 6:3……12, 94 6:3-5……192 6:3-6……196 6:6……12, 53 6:7……57, 94, 159 7……81 7-8……207 7-9……161, 162, 169 7:1……12, 16, 18, 60, 71, 81, 94, 188 7:1-5……137 7:1-6……99

7:2……35, 94 7:2-4……62 7:3……45, 188 7:4……13, 45, 63 7:4-5……16 7:5……45, 46 7:5-6……13, 190 7:6……46 8……94 8:1……18, 59, 60, 62 8:1-2……13, 169 8:1-3……42, 159 8:1-4……188 8:3……58, 60 8:3-4……13 8:4……159 9-11……207 9:1……13 9:1-11……60 9:3……94 9:4-11……94 9:6……42, 42 9:6-9……169 9:8……71, 188 9:9……62, 63 10:1-3……13, 94 10:1-11:2……60, 61 10:3……65 10:4……60 10:4-5……41 10:4-6……85, 170 10:4-7……13, 21 10:4-8……94 10:7……3, 42 10:8……169 10:9……46, 145, 146, 186 10:9-10……94, 170 10:9-16……176 10:11……71, 170 10:11-12……13, 21 10:11-22……94 10:12……85, 153 10:12-13……170

230 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

10:16……151 10:20-22……13 10:21……75 10-11……128, 129 12……207 12-16……42, 47, 175 12:1-2……94, 96 12:3……92 12:4……42, 47, 53, 71, 81, 85 12:4-6……176 12:6……47 13-14……141 13:1-3……94 13:2……42, 48, 169 13:3……193 13:4……63, 193 13:4-7……48, 94, 141 13:7-9……53 13:9……145 14……5, 94, 182 14-16……59 14:4……47 14:4-6……67 14:4-7……62, 63 14:5……48, 193 14:6-7……48, 63 14:8……59 14:8-9……193 14:8-23……59 14:8-16:4……53 14:18……59 14:19……59 14:18-25……52 14:21……55 14:22……55 15……94, 169 15-16……132, 169 15:1……52, 53 15:2……48, 193 15:3……47, 63, 71, 85 15:3-4……192 15:3-10……188 15:4……71

15:6-16:1……46 15:6……95 15:7……85 15:8……16, 95 15:8-12……146, 170, 176 15:8-16:1……86, 101 15:9……95 15:10……95 15:11……57, 99 15:11-12……95 16……95 16:1……95, 146, 170 16:3……42, 62, 158 16:3-4……95 18:12-16……47 18:14……56 18:14-16……61 18:15……47, 57 18:15-16……71 19:1……17, 96, 169, 170, 172, 176 19:1-2……132 19:3……52 19:3-21:9……72 20:1……4 20:1-8……98 20:5……56 21:1-5……47 21:5-6……71 21:6……61 22:6……3, 55 22:10-14……151 26:2……53 32:3-6……93 32:6……177 36:4……56 1 Enoch 37-71 (The Book of Parables) 37……152 37-71……7, 151, 170 38-44……152 38:1-6……152 38:4……152 39:1……152, 155, 159 41:3-8……154

Index of Biblical References and Ancient Literature | 231

45-57……152 45:1……153 46:4-6……153 46:5-8……153, 158 46:7……156, 158 46:8……158 46:8-47:1……156 47:1-4……160 48:9……153 52:1-2……156 52:1-9……156 52:5-9……72 52:7……158 53:3-5……153 53:5……153 53:7……153 54:1……153 54:1-5……153 54:2……153 54:4-6……162 54:5……153, 155 54:6……158 54:7-55:2……154 55:4……152, 153, 155 56……157 56:5……155 56:5-8……158 56:6……155 56:7……155 56:7-8……156 58-69……152 60:20-22……58 63:6……154 63:10……156 63:11……154 64:2……155 65:6……13, 155 65:6-7……158 65:6-8……155 66:1-67:3……154 67……157 67:2-3……65 67:4……155

67:4-9……156 67:4-11……162 67:6-7……155 67:8-12……159 67:8-13……157 67:11-12……155 67:12……156 69……13, 157, 159 69:2……155 69:2-3……159 69:4-6……159 69:4-12……159 69:6……155, 159 69:8……161 69:8-11……161 69:28……160 70-71……152 71:7……3 1 Enoch 72-82 (Astronomical Book/Book of the Luminaries)……52, 54 74:2……53 75:1……47 75:2……53 75:3……59 80……71 80:1……47 80:6-8……47 82:1……53 82:1-2……52 82:4……47 82:4-7……53 82:6……57 82:9-20……47 1 Enoch 83-90 (Enoch’s Dream Visions)……7, 170 83-90……170, 182 84:6……65 1 Enoch 85-90 (Animal Apocalypse)……170 85-90……7, 160

232 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

86:1……47 86:3……47 89:6……62, 170 1 Enoch 91-105 (The Epistle of Enoch)……170 91……182 91-105……170 92:1……53 93……182 93:2……54 99:7……172 1 Enoch 106-107 (The Birth of Noah)

106…… 187 106-107……140, 141, 142, 143, 187, 189 106:2……190 106:2-3……187, 189 106:3……189, 190 106:5……187, 189 106:10……190 106:10-11……187, 189 106:11……189, 190 106:19-107:1……137 1 Enoch 108 (Another Enochic Book). . . 75 2 Enoch……78, 101, 183, 192, 194 7……182 7:4-5……193 20:2-3……59 21-22……182 22……183 22:7……182 31:5-6……182 39-40……194 43……194 58:3……194 71……187, 189 71:11……187 71:17……190

71:18……190 71:19……187 3 Enoch……205, 213, 214 16……214 28-29……214 Book of Giants……16, 17, 22, 23, 101, 141, 212 Book of Jubilees……7, 170, 186 1:11……172 2:2……57 4……133 4:15……92, 126, 128, 131 4:15-26……132 4:16-18……131 4:17-19……53 4:21-22……81, 82 4:22……82, 127, 129 4:22-24……210 5……128 5:1……126 5:1-4……129 5:1-12……128 5:1-19……127 5:2……126, 127, 128 5:3……127 5:3-5……130 5:3-11……126 5:4……126, 127 5:6……126, 128 5:6-9……126 5:6-19……126 5:7……126 5:7-9……126, 129 5:8……126 5:9……126 5:10……127, 128 5:11……128 5:12……126 5:13……127 5:13-16……127 5:13-18……128

Index of Biblical References and Ancient Literature | 233

5:17……127 7:18……130 7:20……129 7:20-25……129, 130 7:20-39……129 7:21……81, 82, 92, 129 7:21-25……129 7:22……129, 130 7:23……129 7:24……129 7:25……129 8:1-2……130 8:1-4……130 8:1-8……130 8:2-3……130 10……133 10-12……170 10:1-11……131 10:1-13……144, 146, 146 10:1-14……131, 133 10:2……131 10:3-6……131 10:4……92, 131 10:5……131 10:7……132 10:7-9……95, 158 10:8……132 10:9……132 10:10……132 10:11……131 10:12……132 10:12-14……132 15:31-32……56 20:5……66 22:17……172 30……128 2 Baruch……170

QUMRAN TEXTS1

CD 1:11……147 2:16……145 2:17……145 2:17-19……67 2:17-20……62 2:18……92, 144 2:19……62 3:13-19……146 3:16……145 4:12……145 6:11……147 16:2-4……133 1QpHab (1QPesher Habakkuk) 7……147 1Q19 (1QBook of Noah) 3……140 3, 4……142 15, 2……143 1Q20 (1QapGen ar / Genesis Apocryphon) ……7, 92, 138, 141, 149 0-1……141, 142 0-2……149 0:2……141 0:8……141 0:13……141 1……142 2-5……140, 142, 187 2:1……141, 142 2:9-16……142 2:16……141 5:13……142

1. For the notation of the highly fragmentary Cave 4 manuscripts, the order is as follows without any commas: first the fragment number; the column within that fragment in lower-case roman numerals (when relevant); the line numbers within that fragment. Commas are used only for large fragments (where the fragment number is followed by a comma and then the line number[s]). For large scrolls from Cave 1, colons are used to distinguish the column numbers from the lines.

234 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

5:29……142 6:11-22……142 6:13……141 7:2……141 1Q23 (1QEnoch Giantsa ar)……21, 137 1Q24 (1QEnoch Giantsb ar)……21, 137 1QS 3:20……56 10:1-4……57 1Q28a (1QSa) 2:3-11……86, 87 1QSb (1QSb) 4:22-28……147 1QM……100 1:10-15……87 1:16……87 7:4-6……86, 87 9:15……94 9:15-16……60 12:1-7……87 13:10……56 1QHodayot (1QH / 1QThanksgiving Hymns)……95 18:36-38……86 19:6-17……87 25:35-26:16……147 2Q18……67 2Q26 (2QBook of Giants ar)……21, 137 4Q6 (4QGenesisf)……137 4Q37 (4QDeuteronomyj)……29, 56

4Q56 (4QIsaiahb)……137 4Q83 (4QPsalmsa) 3:15-16……147 4Q174 1-2i4……147 1-2i12……147 4Q180……6, 144, 147 1 7-8……144 1 7-9……147 4Q181……144 4Q201 (4QEnocha ar) ……137, 148 4Q202 (4QEnochb ar)……137 4Q203 (4QEnGiantsa)……21, 137 3, 3……22 7i5-7……63 8, 9……16 4Q204 (4QEnochc ar)……17, 137 4Q205……137 4Q206 (4QEnoche ar)……137 4, 19……3 2-3……21 4Q207 (4QEnochf ar) ……137 4Q208 (4QAstronomical Enocha ar)……137 4Q209 (4QAstronomical Enochb ar)……137 4Q210 (4QAstronomical Enochc ar)……137

Index of Biblical References and Ancient Literature | 235

4Q211 (4QAstronomical Enochd ar)……137

4Q471b 1a-d, 1-10……147

4Q212 (4Q Enochg ar)……137

4Q491c 11i8-24……147

4Q225 (4QPseudo-Jubileesa)……132 4Q226 (4QPseudo-Jubileesb)……132, 137 4Q227 (4QPseudo-Jubileesc)……132 2……132 4Q266 2ii17-20……62 4Q370 1i5-6……62 1i6……144, 145 4Q374 2ii6……52 4Q385 4, 5-14……59 4Q394-399 (4QMMT)……16, 147 4Q400-407……87 4Q405 19……88 21-22……59 23i……88

4Q510 (4QSongs of the Sagea)……144, 146 1, 4-6……98 1, 5……144 4Q511 (4QSongs of the Sageb)……100, 144, 146 35, 7……86 48, 49+51, 2-3……146 4Q520 1, 5……86 4Q530 (4QEnGiantsb ar)……21, 138 2ii+6+7i+8+9+10+11+12(?), 1-2……22 2ii+6+7i+8+9+10+11+12(?), 2……22 2ii+6+7i+8+9+10+11+12(?), 14……22 2ii+6+7i+8+9+10+11+12(?), 21……22 7ii4……17 4Q531 (4QEnGiantsc ar)2……21, 138 1, 1……16 1, 2……21 1, 4-6……21 1, 8……21 2+3, 1-10……17 22, 12……22

4Q427 7i6-17……147

4Q532 (4QBook of Giantsd ar)……21, 138 2, 9……21

4Q444……146 1-4i + 5, 8……144

4Q533 (4QEnGiantse)……21

2. The fragment numbers for 4Q531 here correspond to the edition published by Émile Puech, DJD 31.50-94, which numbering differs from that published in Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 141–77.

236 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

7Q4, 8, 11-14 (7QpapEn gr)……137 4Q534 (4QNoah ar / the so-called ‘Elect of God’ / 4QMess ar / 4QNaissance de Noé)……138, 140, 143 1i9……143 1i10……143 1ii-2, 15-17……143 4Q535 (4QAramaic N / the so-called ‘Elect of God’ / 4QMess ar / 4QNaissance de Noé)……138, 140, 143 4Q536 (4QAramaic C / the so-called ‘Elect of God’ / 4QMess ar / 4QNaissance de Noé)……138, 140, 143, 2ii+3,11-13……143 4Q541 9i1-7……147 4Q543-48 (4QVisions of Amramaf)……7

4Q544……143 1, 9……143 1, 10……144 1, 13……144 2, 12-13……144 2, 14-16……144 4Q546 22, 1?……144 4Q549 (4QWork Mentioning Hur and Miriam ar)……7 4Q556……21, 138 4Q560……146 6Q8……21, 138

8Q1 (8QGenesis)……137 11QMelch……95, 143 11Q5 (11QPsalmsa)……67 11QTemple (11QT) 2:1-15……16 48:6-7……16 48:10……16 48:11-17……16 64:11-12……15 XQpapEnoch……137 EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN WRITINGS (ALPHABETIZED) The Apocryphon of John 24:16-25……184 AUGUSTINE Tract. ep. Jo. 5.8……185 Cave of Treasures (Syriac)……18 1 Clement……74 EPIPHANIUS Adv. Haer. 1.40……185 EUSEBIUS Ecclesiastical History (Hist. Eccl.) 4.11……174 IRENAEUS Adversus haereses (Adv. haer.) 1.15.6……162 1.30.7……188

Index of Biblical References and Ancient Literature | 237

JOSEPHUS Antiquities of the Jews (Ant.) 1.2.3……130 1.3.1 §73……63 1.11.2 §197……57 1.60……188 1.61……188 1.73……37 12.3.3 §142……53 17.168-72……157 The Jewish War (War) 1.656-58……157 2.142……98, 139 JUSTIN MARTYR 1 Apology (1 Apol.)……167, 170 5……172, 173, 174, 175 5.2……211 9……172, 173 10……173, 175 14……173 20……174 21……174, 175 22……174 23……174 24……174 25……175 26……173 41……172 44……173, 174, 177 45……176 46……175, 176 52……176 54……173 56……173 58……173 62……173 63……179 66……173

2 Apology (2 Apol.)……162, 167, 168, 170 1……168 5……101, 161, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 177 6……176 7……175, 176 8……175, 176, 177 9……175 10……174, 175, 176 12……175 13……174, 176 14……175 Dialogue with Trypho (Dial.)……167, 177, 178 7……84 11……178 18-22……178 17……178, 179 19……172, 178, 179 22……179 25……178 27……172, 178, 179 30……178 45……176 46……178 55……172, 179 69-70……179 73……172, 178, 179 79……172, 178, 179, 211 83……172, 178, 179 88……177 91……178 92……178, 179 94……177 96……178 98……177 100……176 108……178 119……172 123……178 124……177

238 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

131……179 131-135……178 133……172, 179 141……175, 177 LIFE OF ADAM AND EVE Life of Adam and Eve (LAE)……8, 181, 182, 183, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 21:3……190 Greek Life of Adam and Eve (GLAE)……181 1:3……190 2:2-3……190 10:3……195 11:1-2……195 18:5……192 18:6……192 19:1……192 19:1-3……196 22:1-2……192 24:4……196 37:5……194 39:2-3……193, 194 Latin Vita Adae et Evae (LLAE)……181, 182, 188 17:1……193 21:3……188, 189 25-29……182 37:3……195 47:3……193, 194 49-50……182 Armenian Penitence of Adam (ALAE)……181, 182, 188, 190, 191 18:3……192 21:3……188, 189 37.10:3……195 44.18:6……192 44.19:3……192 44.21:1-2……192 44.19:1……192

44.19:1-3……196 47.39:2-3……193, 194 Slavonic Book of Adam and Eve (SLAE)……181 1:1……196 14……195 Georgian Book of Adam (GeLAE)……181, 188, 190, 191 11:2-17:3……182 13:2……193 21:3……188, 189 37.10:3……195 44.18:6……192 44.19:1-3……196 44.21:1-2……192 44.19:1……192 47.39:2-3……193, 194 Romanian Story of Adam and Eve……181

Tripartite Tractate (Tri. Trac.) 1, 5……84 112.35-113.1……84 ORIGEN Contra Celsum 5.52……162 5.54-55……162 PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA De Abrahamo (On Abraham) 117-18……57 De confusione linguarum (Conf.) 178-179……84 De gigantibus (Gig.) 6……30 De opificio mundi (Opif.)

Index of Biblical References and Ancient Literature | 239

72-75……84

5.15……185

Quaestiones et solutions in Genesin (Q.G.) 1.92……30

On the Apparel of Women 2-3……169, 171

Pseudo-Clementines (Ps.-Clem.) Homily 8:10-20……133 Homily 8:18-20……133

On the Veiling of Virgins……89

Sibylline Oracles (Sib. Or.) 3……45 3.383……45 3.390……45 11.198……45 11.216……45 Testament of Levi (T. Levi) 5:6……56 Testament of Moses (T. Moses) 5:5……85 7:7……85 7:9……85 Testament of Naphtali (T. Naph.) 3:5……92 Testament of Reuben (T. Reu.) 5:1-7……88 5:5-6……159 5:6-7……92 Testament of Solomon 5:3……86 17:1……86 TERTULLIAN Apology 22……169, 171 On Idolatry 4……169, 171 On Patience

De Corona (Corona) 14:2……89 Against Marcion (AdvMarc) 5.8.2……89 De Oratione (Orat) 22:5-6……89 OTHER GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE (ALPHABETIZED BY AUTHOR) AESCHYLUS Prometheus Bound (PV)……41, 46, 99 30……41 123……41 231-36……42 454-58……43 465-66……43 478-83……43 484-99……43 500-503……43 543-44……41 890…… 41 897……41 Gigantomachy……41, 43, 44, 45 Agamemnon 692……33 HESIOD The Odyssey 7.59-61……33 205…… 33

240 | The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions

Theogony frag. 43a 65……33 150……65 183-187……33 185-87……61 186-187……62 207-10……61 617-819……74 954……33 Works and Days 110-27……169 PLATO The Symposium 202e-203a……97 Apology 15 [27 B-E]……169 MISHNAH, TALMUD, AND RELATED LITERATURE Book of Asaph……133 MIDRASH……200, 201, 206, 214 Genesis Rabbah (Gen. Rab)……203, 204, 212 Gen 5:24……205 Gen 6:1-4……211 Gen 6:4……209 Gen 18:1……102 Midrash Aggadah Gen 5:18……133

TALMUD……200, 201 Babylonian Talmud……203, 204, 212, 214 b. Avodah Zarah (b. Ab. Zar.) 22b……183 b. Ḥagigah (b. Ḥag.) 1.1……88 15a……214 b. Niddah……212 61a……212 b. Šabbat (b. Šabb.) 146a……183 196a……183 b. Soṭah (b. Soṭ) 9b……183 14a……205 b. Yebamot (b. Yeb.) 103b……183 b. Yoma……212 67ba……212 TARGUM/TARGUMIM……201, 206, 207, 211, 213, 214 Fragment Targumim Gen 6:3……209 Fragmentary Targum P……205

Midrash Tadsche……133 Fragmentary Targum V……205 Sifre Deuteronomy 143…… 88 MISHNAH……200

Syriac Peshitta……203, 204, 209, 211 Gen 6:2……208 Gen 6:4……208

Index of Biblical References and Ancient Literature | 241

Targum Neofiti……202, 205, 209, 210, 211 Gen 5:23……205 Gen 6:2……208 Gen 6:3……208 Gen 6:8……208 Targum Onqelos……202, 203, 204, 209, 210, 211 Gen 5:24……205, 206 Gen 6:1-2……209 Gen 6:2……208 Gen 6:3……209, 211 Gen 6:4……208 Gen 6:9……205 Gen 17:1……205 Gen 24:20……205 Gen 48:15……205 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Tg. Ps.J.)……203, 204, 209, 210, 211 Gen. 2:16-22……84

Gen. 4:1……184, 186, 187 Gen. 5:3……184 Gen 5:23……205 Gen 5:24……205 Gen 6:2……208 Gen 6:3……209, 211 Gen 6:4……208, 212 Targum Yerušalmi…… 202 Targum of the Prophets……203 Derekh Eretz Zuta (Der. Er. Zuta) 1……205 Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer (Pirqe R. El.)……213 21……183, 187 22……184, 187, 213 OTHER WRITINGS The Epic of Gilgamesh……22, 145

The Watchers: whence and whither?­—

CONTENTS Introduction—The Editors

Mesopotamian Elements and the Watchers Traditions—Ida Fröhlich The Watchers Traditions and Gen 6:1-4 (MT and LXX)—Christopher Seeman Symbolic Resistance in the Book of the Watchers­— Anathea Portier-Young

Watchers Traditions in the Catholic Epistles— Eric F. Mason Because of the Angels: Paul and the Enochic Traditions—Scott M. Lewis, S.J. The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6-16: The Fall of the Angels and the Rise of Demons— Kevin Sullivan

The Watchers Traditions in Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse—Karina Martin Hogan The Watchers Traditions in the Book of Jubilees— John C. Endres, S.J. Watchers Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls— Samuel Thomas The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch’s Book of Parables—Leslie Baynes III. Reception in Early Christianity and Early Judaism The Descent of the Watchers and Its Aftermath According to Justin Martyr—Randall D. Chesnutt Cain the Giant: Watchers Traditions in The Life of Adam and Eve—Silviu Bunta The Watchers Traditions in Targum and Midrash—Joshua Ezra Burns

Angela Kim Harkins is associate professor of religious studies at Fairfield University in Connecticut and in the Center for Judaic Studies. Kelley Coblentz Bautch is associate professor of religious studies, St. Edward’s University. John C. Endres, S.J. is professor of sacred scripture at the Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University.

RELIGION / EARLY JUDAISM

in Jewish and Christian Tradititions

The Enochic Watchers Traditions and Deuterocanonical Literature—T. J. Jeremy Corley

II. Second Temple Developments

The Watchers

I. Origins and Biblical Discussions of the Fallen Angels

Harkins | Bautch | Endres

At the origin of the Watchers tradition is the single enigmatic reference in Genesis 6 to the “sons of God” who had intercourse with human women, producing a race of giants upon the earth. That verse sparked a wealth of cosmological and theological speculation in early Judaism. In The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions, leading scholars explore the contours of the Watchers traditions through history, tracing their development through the Enoch literature, Jubilees, and other early Jewish and Christian writings. This volume, edited by Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres, S.J., provides a lucid survey of current knowledge and interpretation of one of the most intriguing theological motifs of the Second Temple period.

The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres, S.J., Editors