DeadSea

fjfa'l
H
'

Discoveries

/
'*

BRILL

Dead Sea Discoveries

16 (2009) 221-253

brill.nl/dsd

GilgameshtheGiant:TheQumranBookofGiunti
of Gilgamesh
Motifs
Appropriation
MatthewGoff

DoddHallM05,Department
ofReligion,
Florida
StateUniversity,
FL 32306,U.SA.
Tallahassee,
mgofF@fsu.edu

Abstract

TheQumranBookofGiantsshowsfamiliarity
withlorefromtheclassicMesohas
It
been
potamian
EpicofGilgamesh.
proposedthattheauthoroftheBookof
Giantsdrewfromtheepic in orderto polemicize
againstit. Thereis muchto
commend
thisview.Thenameoftheheroofthetaleis givento oneofthemurof fragments
of the
derous,wickedgiantsof theprimordial
age. Examination
BookofGiants,in particular
2
ii
that
and
4Q530
4Q531 22, however,
suggests
of
its
of
as
the
cannot
be
keyaspects
portrayal Gilgamesh giant
explained polemic
traditions.
The Bookof Giantscreatively
againstMesopotamian
literary
appromotifs
in
fromtheepicandmakesGilgamesh
in hisownright
a character
priates
that
often
have
little
to
with
do
ways
Gilgamesh.
Keywords
BookofGiants;Gilgamesh
1. Introduction1
Many writingsof the Hebrew Bible and EarlyJudaismcan be elucidated
throughcomparisonwith ancientNear Easterntexts,but few mention
but fragmenspecificdetailsfromthem.One exceptionis the fascinating
Aramaic
from
known
as
the
Book
Qumran
tary
composition
of Giants}
1 I thankEibert
in helpingmethinkthrough
the
forhisassistance
Tigchelaar
mainBookofGiantstextsdiscussedin thisarticleand ClareRothschild
forher
comments
on an earlier
draft.
2 The
aregenerally
to comprise
theBookof
considered
manuscripts
following
Koninklijke
BriUNV,Leiden,2009

DOI: 10.1163/156851709X395740

222

M. Goffi
Dead Sea Discoveries
16 (2009) 221-253

Thisworkcontainsa narrative
involvingtheante-diluvian
giantoffspring
of the angelicWatchersknown fromthe Enochic Book of theWatchers.
The Book of Giantsrecountsthe iniquitousexploitsof the giants,like
but also describesvisions theyreceiveand theirreactionsto
Watchers,
them.The compositiongivesthenamesofseveralgiants:'Ohyah,Hahyah,
Ahiram,Mahaway,Gilgameshand Hobabish. The lattertwo resonate
withthe Gilgamesh
epic. The name Hobabish derivesfromHumbaba, the
powerfulmonsterslainbyGilgameshand Enkidu.J.T. Milik,a scholarof
enormousimportanceforthestudyof theBookofGiants,was thefirstto
makethisidentification.3
This articleposes three researchquestions. What are the affinities
On the basis of
betweenthe Book of Giantsand the epic of Gilgamesh7.
betweenthesetwo textsbe
how shouldthe relationship
thesesimilarities,
of the Book of Giantsthat
understood?What do the onlytwo fragments
mentionGilgamesh,4Q530 2 ii 1-3 and 4Q531 22, contributeto the
Giants:1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q530, 4Q531, 4Q532, 4Q533, 4Q206a
areavailablein S. J.Pfannet al., Qumran
2-3 and 6Q8. The Giantsfragments
Part1 (DJD 36; Oxford:Clarendon,
Texts
andMiscelknea,
Cave4.XXVI:Cryptic
Panie
Premire
4.XXII: Textes
Aramens,
2000), 8-94; . Puech,QumrnGrotte
relevant
2001), 9-115 (the
frag(4Q529-549) (DJD 31; Oxford:Clarendon,
and Puech).
mentsin thesevolumesare edited,respectively,
by Stuckenbruck
et Qumran:
on theBookofGiantsincludes
Corescholarship
J.T. Milik,"Turfan
undGlaube:DasfrheChristenin Tradition
Livredesgantsjuifetmanichen,"
& RupVandenhoeck
et al.; Gttingen:
tumin seinerUmwelt
(ed. G. Jeremias
la lumire
de la littrature
recht,1971),117-27; idem,"Problmes
hnochique
de Qumrn,"HTR 64 (1971): 333-78 (esp.366-72);
aramens
des fragments
idem,TheBooksofEnoch:Aramaic
ofQumrnCave4 (Oxford:ClarenFragments
Meer(Gttingen:
vomToten
Texte
Die aramischen
don,1976),298-339;. Beyer,
& Ruprecht,
Vandenhoeck
1984), 258-68 (= ATTM); idem,Die aramischen
& Ruprecht,
Vandenhoeck
TextevomTotenMeer.Ergnzungsband
(Gttingen:
andApocalyptic
(STDJ
Qumran
1994),119-24 (= ATTME); F. GarcaMartnez,
LoreinManichaean
Jewish
9; Leiden:Brill,1992),97-115;J.C. Reeves,
CosmogoftheHebrewUnion
in theBookofGiantsTraditions
(Monographs
ony:Studies
L. T. Stuckenbruck,
Union
Hebrew
Cincinnati:
Press,
1992);
14;
College
College
and Commentary
TheBookofGiants
(TSAJ63;
fromQumran:Text,Translation,
RevoluThe
W.
See
also
Mohr
Burkert,
Siebeck,
1997).
Orientalizing
Tbingen:
in theEarlyArchaic
Culture
onGreek
tion:NearEastern
Age(Cambridge:
Influence
HarvardUniversity
Press,1992),32-33.
3 Milik,TheBooks Enoch,'.
of

M. Goff/
Dead SeaDiscoveries
16(2009) 221-253

223

questionof how thecompositionshouldbe understoodvis--vistheepic?

Scholarswho workon the scrollsare now in a good positionto address
theseissuesbecauseof thepublicationofA. R. GeorgesexcellentcompreA
hensiveeditionof Gilgamesh.
ReevesarguesthattheBookofGiants"atteststhevitalityof Mesopotamianliterary
traditionsamonglearnedscribalcirclesin thefinalcenturies
beforethe Common Era."5The authorof the Qumran text,he proposes,
whichhe drawsfrompolemiworkedwithan Aramaiccopyof Gilgamesh,
is transformed
The
venerated
hero
of
culture
intoan
cally.
Mesopotamian
an antipagan,
evil giant.The Book of Giantsis, in Reevess formulation,
text.Puech has put forwarda compatible
an znn-Gilgamesh,
particularly
but different
opinion.6The Book of Giantsis forhim a negativeresponse
to HellenisticUpper Galilean culticpractices.In a similarvein,Jackson
one of a largersequenceof GentilefigimaginesGilgameshwas originally
ureswho areparodiedas demonsin theBookofGiants.7
4 A. R.
CriticalEdiGeorge, The Babyhnian GilgameshEpic: Introduction,
Texts(Oxford:OxfordUniversity
tionand Cuneiform
Press,2003). Unlessotherwise noted, translationsand citationsof Gilgameshare from this edition of
theStandardBabylonianEpic (SB). Scholarshipon theepic includes:T. Jacobsen,
TheTreasures
ofDarkness:A HistoryofMesopotamianReligion(New Haven: Yale
UniversityPress, 1976), 195-219 (reprintedin Foster,TheEpic of Gilgamesh,
183-207); J.H. Tigay,TheEvolutionoftheGilgamesh
Epic (Philadelphia:Univer"Gilgamesh,the Cedar Forestand
sityof PennsylvaniaPress,1982) A. Shaffer,
4OS 103 (1983): 307-13; W. Moran, "The Gilgamesh
MesopotamianHistory,"
Epic: A MasterpiecefromAncientMesopotamia,"in CivilizationsoftheAncient
Near East (ed. J. M. Sasson; 4 vols.; New York:Simon & SchusterMacmillan,
in Foster,TheEpicofGilgamesh,
171-83); B. G. Foster
1995), 4.2327-36 (reprinted
et al., eds., TheEpic of Gilgamesh(New York:Norton,2001); T. Abusch, "The
Essay,"
Developmentand Meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh:An Interpretive
JAOS 121 (2001): 614-22; A. R. George,"The Epic of Gilgames:Thoughtson
Genreand Meaning,"in Gilgamesand theWorldofAssyria:Proceedings
oftheCon21- 23 July2004 (ed.
ofSydney,
ferenceheldat MandelbaumHouse, TheUniversity
J.Azize and N. Weeks;ANES 21; Leuven:Peeters,2007), 37-65.
5 Reeves,
JewishLore,126. See also Stuckenbruck,TheBookofGiants,72-7 A.

DJD3l:15.

7 D. R.
Jackson,"DemonisingGilgames,"in Azize and Weeks, Gilgamesand
theWorldofAssyria,107-14 (esp. 113). Contrasttheassessmentof L. T. Stuckenbruck,who has arguedthatthe Qumran textborrowsgeneralmotifsfromthe
story-lineof Gilgameshwithoutstressingany polemical engagementwith the
work.See his "Giant Mythologyand Demonology:FromtheAncientNear East

224

Dead Sea Discoveries

16 (2009) 221-253
M. Goffi

thatthereare severalparalThe firstsectionof thisessaydemonstrates

lelsbetweentheBookofGiantsand Gilgamesh
aside fromhavingnamesin
common.Thesetopicsincludearchaicprotagonists
of divine-human
parentage,wickedspirits,dreams,warriorsof giantstatureand Mount Hermon. Fromtheseaffinities,
it is reasonableto concludewithReevesand
otherscholarsthatthe authorof this Qumran textwas to some extent
remainsunclear
familiarwith the epic. The exact mode of transmission
and, I will argue,theredoes not appear to be enough engagementwith
the epic to agreewithReevess opinion thatthe Qumran authorused an
Reeves reasonablyconcludesthatthe
Aramaictranslationof Gilgamesh,
Book of Giantsadapts elementsfromGilgameshforpolemicalpurposes,
but the point is in genuineneed of qualification.The portrayalof Gilgamesh in 4Q530 2 ii 1-3 and 4Q531 22 indicatesthat the Book of
GiantsborrowsfromGilgameshbut makes its giantscharactersin their
own rightin waysthatoftenhave littleto do withtheepic. Gilgamesh,I
shallargue,is a giantwho is defeatedand thencursedbecauseofthemachinationsof 'Ohyah,who attemptsto pin the impendingpunishmentof
thegiantson Gilgameshalone.Theseeventsresonatelesswiththeepic and
ofthe
morewithcorethemesin theBookofGiantssuchas theinevitability
and theirreactionsto thisfate.Imporgiants'judgmentand punishment,
tantaspectsoftheQumrantextarebetterviewedas an exercisein creative
adaptationof Gilgameshmotifsthan polemical repudiationof revered
Mesopotamianlore.The Qumran text'suse of the epic is similarto other
instancesof familiarity
with Gilgameshoutside of cuneiformliterature,
and LuciansDe Dea Syria?
suchas AeliansOn theNatureofAnimak
and
to the Dead Sea Scrolls,"in Die Dmonen. TheDemonology
ofIsraelite-Jewish
A.
et
their
Environment
Christian
Literature
in
Context
(ed.
Lange al.;
of
Early
Tbingen:Mohr Siebeck,2003), 313-38 (esp. 332).
8 On theNature
ofAnimahand possiblyDe Dea Syria(both2d c. C.E.) reconelements
from
the epic in ways thathave littleto do withthe Mesopotafigure
observesthatthe
mian poem itself.Milik, TheBooksofEnochs313, incorrectly
Book of Giantscontains"theonly mentionof Gilgameshoutsidethe cuneiform
In On theNatureofAnimah12.21 a childnamed Gilgamosis thrown
literature."
froma citadeland saved by an eagle. He is raisedby a gardenerand growsup to
become a king of Babylon. This storyis nowherein the epic itselfbut Aelian
attestsa degreeof legitimatetraditionsince he understandsGilgamos to be a
betweenthistextand the epic, see George,
kingof Babylon.For otheraffinities
TheBabylonianGilgameshEpic, 1.61. Lucians De Dea Syria 17-27 containsa
lengthystoryof Combabos. This name mayderivefromHumbaba, althoughthis
is a disputedpoint. Combabos is not a monsterbut a handsomeman who is a

M. Goffi
Dead SeaDiscoveres
16 (2009) 221-253

225

2. ThematicSimilaritiesbetweenthe Qumran Book of Giants and

the Epic of Gilgamesh
2. 1. AncientProtagonists
ofDivine-HumanParentage
of Gilgamesh
arebroadlycompatiblewiththeBookof
Severalcorefeatures
Giants.The epic is set in hoaryantiquity.In Tablet XI the hero speaks
who survivesthe flood.The primordialtime-frame
of
withUtnapishtim,
with
of
the
Book
is
consistent
the
ante-diluvian
Giants.
setting
of
Gilgamesh
It is reasonableto speculatethat the Qumran Book of Giantsoriginally
includeda giantwhose name derivesfromUtnapishtim,as Reeves has
argued,althoughthisfiguredoes not appearin anyof itsextanttexts.9
friendof King Seleucus.J. L. Lightfootarguesagainsta connectionbetweenthis
figureand Humbaba. C. Grottanellicontends,by contrast,thatthereare several
thematicparallelsbetweenDe Dea Syriaand Gilgameshand thatCombabos has
much in common with severalcharactersfrom the epic, including Enkidu.
George, TheBabylonianGilgameshEpic, 1.64-65, does not thinkthatDe Dea
Syriadrawson any specificepisode of Gilgameshbut ratherthatthe textloosely
incorporateselementsfromthe culturalheritageof the ancientNear East and
Lucan on theSyrianGoddess
themin a newway.See J.L. Lightfoot,
reformulates
(Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress,2003), 393; C. Grottanelli,"The Storyof
Methodand Mythologies.
Combabos and the GilgameshTradition,"in Mythology
influences(ed. R. M. Whiting; Melammu
ologicalapproachesto intercultural
Symposia 2; Helsinki: The Neo-AssyrianText Corpus Project,2001), 19-27
(esp. 24); Lucian,De Dea Syria(Harmon,LCL), 4.366.
to Gilgameshin laterChristianand Islamictexts.An
Therealso are references
example of the formeris the scholia to Genesis writtenby the 9th-century
NestorianbishopTheodorebar Konai, whichcontainsa listof ancientkings,one
ofwhichis named Gilgamesh.The tale of Buluqiya,whichis in some versionsof
the Arabian Nights,contains numerousmotifsthat are similarto the epic of
Gilgamesh.See S. Dalley, "The Tale of Buluqiya and the AlexanderRomancein
of
Jewishand SufiMysticalCircles,"in TracingtheThreads:Studiesin theVitality
(ed. J.C. Reeves;SBLEJL 6; Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1994),
JewishPseudepigrapha
239-69. For criticismof her views,see George, TheBabybnian GilgameshEpic,
1.65-68. Consult also Reeves,JewishLore, 120-21; Stuckenbruck,TheBook of
Giants,109; Tigay, TheEvolutionof the GilgameshEpic, 252-53; M. Schwartz,
"Qumran, Turfan,Arabic Magic, and Noahs Name," in Charmeset Sortilges.
Groupe
Magie etMagiciens(ed. R. Gyselen;Res Orientales14; Bures-sur-Yvette:
Civilisation
du
de
la
231-38.
l'tude
2002),
Moyen-Orient,
pour
9 C. Reeves,
J.
"Utnapishtimin theBookofGiantsnJBL112 (1993): 110-15.
See also idem,JewishLore, 126. He suggeststhat the giantAtambsh,a

226

M. Goff/
Dead Sea Discoveries
16(2009) 221-253

In theepicGilgamesh,
likethegiants,
is theproductofdivine-human
This
is
not
as
an
unnatural
treated
parentage. lineage
mixingofseparate
in
marked
contrast
to
the
is
divine
realms,
giants.Gilgamesh two-thirds
andone-third
mortal(1.48).His mother
Ninsunis a goddesswhosename
attestednot in the Qumran Book of Giantsbut in the laterManichean Book of
Giants(Kawn), can be derivedfromUtnapishtim.Milik, TheBooksofEnoch,
298-300, recognizedthat the Qumran Book of Giantshas numerouspoints of
similaritywith the formertext,suggestingthat the EarlyJewishwork attests
traditionsthatshape the Kawn. See also his "Turfanet Qumran," 124-25. In
one textof the Manichean Book of Giants,named frg.L (forLeningrad,where
it is housed), Mahaway goes to Atambshto relate "everything"
to him. In
anotherMiddle Persianfragment,
classifiedas M5900, Atambshis associated
with "two hundred"(Watcherspresumably,but the text is brokenoffat this
point).Threegiantsassociatedwithhim areslain.For frg.L, see W. Sundermann,
"Ein weiteresFragmentaus Manis Gigantenbuch,"in Hommageset operaminora
emeritooblata(Acta Iranica23; Leiden: Brill,
9: OrientaliaJ.Duchesne-Guillemin
undparthische
for
M59OO, idem,Mittelpersische
1984), 491-505 (esp. 497-98);
und
Parabeltexte
der
Manicher
zur
Geschichte
und Kul(Schriften
kosmogonische
turdes AltenOrients8, BerlinerTurfantexte
Berlin:
Akademie4;
Verlag,1973),
77-78.
R. V. Huggins argues that Atambshin the Manichean materialshould be
understoodas a reference
not to a giantbut ratherto Enoch. See his "Noah and
theGiants:A Responseto JohnC. Reeves,"JBL 114 (1995): 103-10. He agrees,
however,with the basic Atambsh = Utnapishtimidentificationproposed by
Reeves,modifyingit as Atambsh= Utnapishtim= Enoch. It is reasonableto
posit,withReevesand Huggins,thatthenameAtambshin theManicheanBook
ofGiantscorrespondsto a name in theQumran BookofGiantsthatis not attested
in anysurvivingfragment.
such a figurelimits
But thelack of evidenceregarding
of the composition.See
the contributionof thispossibilityto the interpretation
also W. Sundermann,"Manis 'Book of the Giants' and the JewishBooks of
Enoch: A Case of TerminologicalDifferencesand What It Implies,"in IranoJudaica III. StudiesReUtingtoJewishContactswithPersianCulturethroughout
Ben Zvi, 1994), 40-48; George,
theAges(d. S. Shakedand A. Netzer;Jerusalem:
The BabylonianGilgameshEpic, 1.60, 155; L. T. Stuckenbruck,"The Angels'
and 'Giants' of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and Third Century B.C.E. Jewish
Interpretation:Reflectionson the Posture of Early ApocalypticTraditions,"
DSD 7 (2000): 354-77 (esp. 360); W. B. Henning,"The BookofGiants?BSOAS
11 (1943-46): 52-74; J. C. Reeves, "JewishPseudepigraphain Manichean
in Reeves,TracingtheThreads,
Literature:The Influenceof the Enochic Library,"

M. Goffi
DeadSeaDiscoveries
16(2009)221-253

227

means "Queen of the wild cows."10His fatherLugalbandais a sly hero

who is a leadingcharacterin Sumerianepics.11Perhapsdue to his divine
lineage,Gilgameshwas over time deified,and by the Old Babylonian
periodhis name appearsin god lists.12
2.2. Evil Spirits
In Mesopotamianlore,morethanin theepic itself,Gilgameshwas hailed
It was commonto
as a judge and rulerof theshadesin theunderworld.13
exorciseevil spiritsby beseechingGilgameshto accept them under his
One prayer,
classifiedas KAR 227, reads:
jurisdictionin thenetherworld.
King Gilgamesh,superbjudge of the Anunnaki,judicious prince...
10T.
and Ninsuna/'/CS41 (1989): 69-86 (esp.74);
Jacobson,
"Lugalbanda
S. Dalley,Myths
Press,1989),
(Oxford:OxfordUniversity
fromMesopotamia
40-41.
11ThetwoSumerian inwhichheis
in Khurare"Lugalbanda
prominent
epics
traThereareotherMesopotamian
andEnmerkar."
and "Lugalbanda
rumkurra"
is notsimply
a humanbeing.He hasbeendepicted
ditionsinwhichLugalbanda
in
tradition
Thereis another
knownas a ////-demon.
as a wickedspirit
preserved
the SumerianKing List in whichLugalbandais a divinekingof Urukwho
is theperto one motifin theepic,Lugalbanda
reigned1,200years.According
sonalgod (ilum)of Gilgamesh.
See, forexample,OB III.271 and SB VI.165.
to a statueofhisfather
thisrefers
129,suggests
Dalley,Myths
fromMesopotamia,
Consultfurther
a degreeofancestor
andreflects
George,TheBabylonian
worship.
"EpicTalesfromAncientSumer:
Epic,1.215,244, 2.822; B. Alster,
Gilgamesh
in Civilizations
andOtherCunningHeroes,"
Enmerkar,
oftheAncient
Lugalbanda,
Their
HisTheSumerians:
NearEast,4.2315-26 (esp.2316-17); S. N. Kramer,
of Chicago,1963), 273-74;
and Character
Culture
(Chicago:University
tory,
'Lilu"'La dessenuelamite'undderKreisderbabylonischen
P. P.Vertesal-ji,
Dmonen,"IronicaAntiqua26 (1991): 101-48 (esp. 136); W. Farber,"Lil,
derAssyriologie
Reallexikon
A. Philologisch,"
Ardat-lil.
(ed.E. Ebelingetal.;
Liltu,
10 vols.;Berlin:de Gruyter,
1928-2005),7.23-24, and,in thesamevolume,
B. Archologisch,"
E. Porada,"Lil,Liltu,Ardat-lil.
24-25; . vanderToorn,
andScholarly
Belief
andIsrael.Popular
ofDemonsin Mesopotamia
"TheTheology
in Langeetal.,Die Dmonen,
Lore,158.
61-83; Reeves,
Speculation,"
Jewish
12
Gilgamesh
Epic,1.119-35.
George,TheBabyhnian
13Ibid., 1.127-35.Thistradition
withTabletXII of theepic,
is associated
and
oftheSumerian
as a translation
whichis generally
myth"Bilgames
regarded
See ibid.,1.47-54;
thatwas appendedto thecomposition.
theNetherworld"
TheEpicofGilgamesh,
129-43.
Foster,

228

M. Goffi
DeadSeaDiscoveries
16 (2009)221-253

overseerof the underworld,lord of the netherregions. . . Eradicatethe

sickness[of my] body,driveout the Evil Thing. . . [expel]the evil that
In theBookof GiantsGilgameshis not a rulerof
[resides]in mybody."14
evilspiritsbut ratherone of thegiantswho eventually
A
becomespirits.15
fullerversionof thistraditionis in theBookoftheWatchers,
in whichthe
giantsare forcedaftertheirphysicaldestructionto roamthe earthas evil
- the sort that cause difficulties
for ordinarypeople, much like
spirits
thoseoverwhom Gilgameshrulesin Mesopotamiantradition.16
The Book
Giants
on
in
makesit
reliance
basic
elements
of
the
narrative
Watchers
of
a valid possibilitythatthe authorof theformertextwas familiarwiththe
fateof the giantspresentedin Watchers,
and that in its fullerformthe
BookofGiantsattestedthismotif.In thiscase, thespiritsof thegiantsin
the Book of Giantswould be functionally
similarto the kind overwhich
in
has
dominion
Mesopotamiantradition.
Gilgamesh
2.3. Dreams
Gilgameshhas severaldreamsin the epic. In Tablet I, forexample,he
describeshis dreamsto his motherNinsun,who interprets
themforhim
(11.245-97). An importantclusterof Gilgameshs dreamsoccursbefore
thebattlewithHumbaba. While theexactnumberand precisecontentof
thedreamsis obscuredbythefragmentary
conditionofTabletIV, in general the dreamsterrify
Gilgameshand presagehis fightwith Humbaba.
Theytakeplace when Gilgameshand Enkidujourneyto theCedar Forest
in Lebanon. The dreamsare a resultof Gilgameshsattemptsto receivea
thathe is tryingto learnfromthe gods whatthe
night-vision,
suggesting
his fearof the monoutcomeof the battlewill be. In themhe confronts
14
George,TheBabylonian
Epic,1.132-35.
Gilgamesh
15
4Q531 19 2-4 reads"many[dee]dsofviolenceon thedryland... n[ot]
Cf.
bonesarewe and notflesh
. . . and we shallbe wipedout fromour form/'
+
Consult
DJD 31:71-72; Stuckenbruck,
4Q511 35 7; 4Q511 48, 49 51 2-3.
TheBookofGiants,
159-60;DSSR 3.493.
16"Butnowthe
- theywill
and flesh
bythespirits
giantswhowerebegotten
the
for
will
be
callthemevilspirits
the
their
upon earth. . .
dwelling
upon earth,
andattack
makedesolate,
ofthegiants<leadastray>,
do violence,
Andthespirits
En.
andwrestle
andhurlupontheearthand <causeillnesses>"
15:8, 11). See
(7
ontheBookofl Enoch,Chapters
1 Enoch1:A Commentary
G. W. E. Nickelsburg,
Fortress
Press,2001),267-75.
1-36, 81-108 (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis:

M. Goffi
Dead SeaDiscoveries
16 (2009) 221-253

229

before
he candefeathim(cf.IV.241-242).
ster,whichhe mustovercome
as references
of thedreamsareinterpreted
to Humbaba.
Core elements
in
of one of GilHe is likenedto a mountain Enkidu'sinterpretation
to
an
Old
dreams
(IV.30-31).17
Babylonian
According
fragment
gameshs
an
a
fromNippur,in one dreamHumbabais symbolized
Anz-bird,
by
"I
with
a
lion's
head:
an
creature
and
watched
fearsome
griffin-like
wings
in thesky... it roselikea cloud,soaringaboveus... itsface
Anzu-bird
itsspeechwas fire,itsbreathwas death"(11.11-14).18
wasverystrange,
intense
to Enkidusdeath,to defeat
response
Ironically,
givenGilgamesh's
hisfearofdyinginbattle.19
Humbabahe musttranscend
Dreamsarea majorthemein theQumranBookofGiants.Important
revolve
narrative
arounddreamsandthegiants'reacaspectsoftheextant
tionto them.Thecoretextforthistopicis 4Q530 2 ii,whichdescribes
two visions,one disclosedto the giantHahyahand the otherto his
brother
Ohyah.20
Hahyahhasa dreamofa largegardenthatis tendedby
thegrove,
Fireandwaterdestroy
6-12).
(11.
exceptforone tree
gardeners
in
seesGod descend
a
which
he
has
dream
withthreebranches.21
Ohyah
witha heavenly
hostin attendance
and siton a throne,
(11.15-20). In
is uttered
ofDan 7, booksareopenedandjudgment
reminiscent
language
17Lines 14-15 of an Old
of the epic, now in the
Babylonianfragment
theonetowhomwego,is henotthe
read:"Now,myfriend,
collection,
Schoyen
See George,TheBabyhnian
He is something
mountain?
verystrange!"
Gilgamesh
Epic,1.227,235.
18The
evokesa refrain
usedforthe
ofthebirdsspeechandbreath
description
Ancient
voiceofHumbaba(e.g.,11.291-92).SeeAlster,
Sumer,"
"EpicTalesfrom
and FabulousBeasts
4.2316-17; J. GoodnickWestenholz,
Dragons,Monsters,
BibleLandsMuseum,2004), 32-33; Tigay,TheEvolution
(Jerusalem:
oftheGilgamesh
Epic', 124;George,TheBabylonian
Gilgamesh
Epic-,1.243-44.
19IV.245reads
life!"
deathand [seek]
"Forget
20
of 4Q530 comprisethistext:2, 6, 7,
DJD 31:28-38. Severalfragments
I refer
to thistextas 4Q530
8-11, andpossibly12. Forthesakeofconvenience
thefirst
2 ii,whichcontains
largeamountoftextin thecolumn.
21Reeves,
Lore,95-102,arguesthatthistreebecomesa "TreeofLife
Jewish
"Der BuddhaHenoch:
See also H.-J.Klimkeit,
in CentralAsianManichaeism.
ZRG 32 (1980) 367-77;A. A. Orlov,"TheFloodedArboQumranundTurfan,"
of3 BaruchandtheBook
in theSlavonicVersion
TheGardenTraditions
retums:
Studies
in theSlavonic
toMerkabah
Mysticism:
ofGiants?in FromApocalypticism
QSJSup114;Leiden:Brill,2007),289-309.
Pseudepigrapha

230

M. GoffiDead Sea Discoveries

16(2009) 221-253

(11. 18-19).22 These dreamsare recountedbeforethe assembledgiants

(4Q530 2 ii 5; cf. 1. 15). They become afraid(1. 20), and theywant to
learnthe interpretation
of thevisions.Theycommissionthe giantMahawayto journeyacross"thegreatwilderness"(3 )to reachEnoch,
thedreams(4Q530 7 ii 5; 4Q530 2
who, the textassumes,can interpret
ii 21-24; cf.1. 14).23The dreamsclearlyreferto thegiants'destruction
in
the flood.24
The survivingevidenceis sparsebut suggeststhattheyrealize
The dreamsestablishthatthegiantsaregiventhe
judgmentis inevitable.25
to
know
their
fate.Theirreactionof fearto thevisionsis theopportunity
similar
to
Tablet
IV of the epic when Gilgameshjourneysto
matically
In
texts
Humbaba.
both
dreamsare themediumthroughwhichthe
fight
In the
confrontthe possibilitythattheywill be destroyed.26
protagonists
case of the epic, Gilgamesh'sfearsproveto be unfounded.The giantsof
theQumran textare not so lucky.27
22R. E. Stokes,
"TheThrone
VisionsofDaniel7, 1 Enoch14,andtheQumran
BookofGiants(4Q530): An Analysis
of TheirLiterary
DSD 15
Relationship,"
L.
T.
of
the
"The
Stuckenbruck, Throne-Theophany Bookof
(2008): 340-58;
and The
Giants:SomeNewLighton theBackground
ofDaniel7,"in TheScrotts
E.
ShefYears
S.
Porter
and
C.
Sheffield:
Evans;
(d.
Qumran
Scriptures:
Fifty After
fieldAcademicPress,1997),211-20; Milik,TheBooksofEnoch,305.
23Thisis different
in whichEnochis a recipient,
fromtheBookofWatchers,
rather
ofEnochin theBookof
thana source,ofdivineknowledge.
The portrait
Giantsis closerto thatof the"birthofNoah"storyin 1 En. 106-107 and the
to Enochfor
travels
GenesisApocryphon
(e.g.,2:19-25), in whichMethusaleh
is
born.
See Nickelsan explanation
ofthestrange
of
Noah
when
he
appearance
1
Enoch
541.
1,
burg,
24Stuckenbruck,
TheBookofGiants,
65.
25
for
"we
shallbe wipedout fromourform."
reads
19
4,
4Q531
example,
1
that"a
i
states
"we
will
die
5
(*'').4Q533 4 3 asserts
4Q530
together"
crimesof deceit
floodis upontheearth(ApK by Vo)" and line2 mentions
andbloodshed.
26 C. Reeves
ofdreamsin theBookofGiantsis
thattheprominence
J.
suggests
The
his
ofL. Stuckenbruck,
a conscious
of
the
See
review
parody
epic.
Gilgamesh
merits
furReevess
BookofGiants,
90
223-26
fQR (1999):
(esp.226).
proposal
thatGilgamesh
therconsideration
butis weakenedbythelikelyinterpretation
I arguebelow.
a position
doesnotreceive
visionsin theBookofGiants,
27No accountofthe
is extantin thetext.Giventheirrealgiants'destruction
thecomposition
izationthattheywilldie,itis reasonable
to inferthatoriginally
has
in theflood.Stuckenbruck
did assertthatmostor all ofthegiantsperished

M. Goffi
16 (2009) 221-253
Dead SeaDiscoveres

23 1

2.4. GiantWarriors
In theMesopotamian
is praisedas a greatwarrior.
This
poemGilgamesh
is borneoutin hisdefeatofHumbaba,a legendalsofoundin
reputation
Thisis compatible
withthegiantsofJewish
Sumerian
tradition,
myth.28
In
as mighty
warriors
the
who areregarded
is
(DHllJt).
epic Gilgamesh
in
incredibly
large.Thisis mostexplicit a Hittiteversionof Gilgamesh,
whichopenswithan accountofhisheight:"His bodywas elevenyards
(2).29Thiswould
[in height];his breastwas nine [spans]in breadth"
makehimalmosttwiceas tallas Goliath,whoseheightis sixcubitsanda
of theStandardBabyloto 1 Sam 17:4. The beginning
span,according
of
s
"Atriplecubitwas
the
size
stride:
nianversion
emphasizes
Gilgamesh
hisfoot,halfa rodhisleg.Six cubitswas [his]stride"(1.56-57).He is
so tall,perfect
andterrible"
as "Gilgamesh
alsodescribed
(1.37;cf.II.164).
occursduringhis
accountofGilgameshs
Themoststriking
giantstature
is
The
battle
an
with
Humbaba.
etiological
legendthatexplains
fight
of theRiftValleyof Lebanon:"Attheheelsof theirfeet
theformation
aroundSiraraand Lebanon
theearthwassplitting
apart,as theywhirled
ofGilgamesh
and Enkidu
Theweaponry
weresundered"
(V.133-134).30
thateach
hatchets
fashioned
have
swords
and
is incredibly
heavy.They
made the observationthatGilgameshin the epic triesand failsto attaineternal
lifeand the giantsin the Book of Giantstryand failto avoid destructionin the
flood.He writesthatthe motifof Gilgameshs"illusionarysearchforimmortaloftheBookofGiants.See his "GiantMythology
thebasicstory-line
ity"influences
and Demonology,"in Lange et al., Die Dmonen,313-38 (esp. 332).
28 The tales are
"Gilgameshand Huwawa A" and "Gilgameshand Huwawa
104-20. Consult also Alster,
B." Translationsare in Foster,TheEpic ofGilgamesh,
"Epic Tales fromAncient Sumer,"4.2317; George, The Babyhnian Gilgamesh
dersumEpic, 1.9-11; D. O. Edzard, "Gilgamesund Huwawa": Zwei Versionen
nebsteinerEditionvon Version"B" (Mnchen: Verlag
erischen
Zedernwaldepisode
AkademiederWissenschaften,
derbayerischen
1993).
29 This translation
is fromFoster,TheEpic ofGilgamesh,
158. See also George,
TheBabylonianGilgamesh
Epic,
Epic, 1.447; Tigay,TheEvolutionoftheGilgamesh
110-18; Reeves,JewishLore,120.
30 In an earlierversion the mountains are
split by the deafeningyell of
Humbaba (Huwawa) (Old Babylonian Ischchali fragment,1. 3, rev.). See
George, The Babybnian GilgameshEpic, 1.263, 266. The significanceof this
regionis examinedbelow.

232

M. GoffiDead SeaDiscoveries
16 (2009)221-253

which
two hundredkilograms,
weighseventalents.This is approximately
would makeeach weapon muchheavierthanGoliathsspear.31
The portrayalof Humbaba as a giganticcreatureis also conveyedby
associatinghim witha massivecedartree.When he is defeatedtheyfella
"loftycedar,whose top abuttedthe heavens"(V.293-294).32 From the
treetheymake a giantdoor. Enkidu saysto Gilgameshthathe made (or
will make) "a door- six rodsis itsheight,two rodsitsbreadth,one cubit
itsthickness,
itspole, itstop pivotand itsbottompivotare all of a piece"
(11.295-29).33
2.5. MountHermon
Both the Qumran Book of Giantsand the epic of Gilgamesh,at least
accordingto one Old Babyloniantablet,can be relatedto Mount Hermon. There is no survivingconnectionbetweenthe giantsand Mount
Hermonin theBookofGiants,but it is reasonableto speculatethatthere
was such an associationin the originaltextsincetheBookoftheWatchers
situatesthe descentof theWatchersand theirpact to sleep withwomen
(themothersofthegiants)at thismountain(cf.1 En. 6:6; 13:7-9; 4QEna
1 iii 4-5) .34An Old Babylonianfragment
of the Gilgamesh
epic (OB Ish31I base thison Late Bronze
copperingotsthatsignify
Age Mesopotamian
in thisperiodthe
talents
whichweigh28-30 kilograms.
WestoftheEuphrates
eachweapon
thisstandard,
talentwasoftenreckoned
as 3,000shekels.
Following
= 21,000shekels)is roughly
thanGoliofGilgamesh
35 timesheavier
(7 talents
M. A.
Seefurther
ath'sspear,
to 1 Sam 17:7,weighs600 shekels.
which,according
ABD 6.897-908 (esp. 905); Foster,TheGiland Measures,"
Powell,"Weights

gameshEpic,20.

32As withHumbabain
ofthegiantsofEnochiclegend
thestature
Gilgamesh,
litis compared
to bothmountains
(cf.IV.30-31)andcedartreesin EarlyJewish
and
waslikethatofcedars
erature:
"Andtheir[theWatchers']
sons,whoseheight
fell"(CD 2:19; cf.Amos2:9). Thesetropes
whosebodieswerelikemountains,
arenotpresent
in theBookofGiants.AlsonotethelaterHebrewtermUPlAlJl,
whichrefers
to a typeofcedartree(e.g.,b.Sank.108b).
33
thatthepreterite
George,TheBabylonian
Gilgamesh
Epic,1.613,suggests
He alsoargues(2.828) thattheexplanation
construction
oftheverbis corrupt.
doorandits
thatthepivotsandpoleareofa "single
piece"impliesthattheentire
constituent
verylargetree.
partsarefroma single,
34Reeves,
"GiantMythology,"
Lore,124, 161. See also Stuckenbruck,
Jewish

16 (2009)221-253
M. GoffiDead SeaDiscoveries

233

chali) considersthe locationof the Cedar Forestguardedby Huwawa to

be "Sirion and Lebanon" (sa-ri-a U-ab-na-ar),that is, "Hermon and
is too old to
Lebanon' (1. 31', rev.;cf. SB V.134).35While thisfragment
be directlylinkedto the Book of Giants,it does establishan archaicconnectionbetweengiantwarriorsand Mount Hermon.36
3. Possible Modes ofTransmission
The parallelsreviewedabove betweenthe Book of Giantsand Gilgamesh
with the
suggestthat the authorof the Qumran textshows familiarity
of
names
Humbaba.
utilization
the
and
the
Gilgamesh
epic beyond
Regardinghow its authorwas exposed to Gilgameshtraditions,several
possibilitiesare available. The Middle Babylonian Gilgameshfragment
innorthern
326-27.G. W.E. Nickelsburg
arguesthat1 En. 12-16wereproduced
in theareaofDan and
"reflect
Galileeand thatthesechapters
visionary
activity
in Upper
of Revelation
Hermon/'See his "Enoch,Levi,and Peter:Recipients
Galilee,"/^ 100 (1981): 575-600 (esp.586); idem,1 Enoch1, 230-31. Seealso
on a Recently
PubtheBookofEnoch:Reflections
M. A. Knibb,"Interpreting
lishedCommentary,"
/S/33 (2002): 437-50 (esp.449-50).
35
altGilgamesh
Epic,1.263;T. Bauer, Ein viertes
George,TheBabylonian
desGilgames-Epos,"
fNES 16 (1957):254-62 (esp.256).
babylonisches
Fragment
to a banortabooandis
froma Hebrewrootreferring
ThenameHermonderives
Namessuchas "Senir"or
in otherancientNearEasternliteratures.
notattested
'
aremuchmorecommon(cf.Deut 3:9). It is notclear
"Sirionforthemountain
in Lebanon.See J. Hansman,
of theepic situatetheforest
thatolderversions
of
the
land
the
and
Humbaba
ERIN-trees,"
Iraq38 (1976): 23-35;
"Gilgamesh,
in theGilgamesEpics:The
of Geography
"Problems
J.Kleinand K. Abraham,
Frontiers
and Horizonsin
to the'Cedar Forest/"in Landscapes:Territories,
Journey
Interto theXLTVRencontre
theAncientNear East. Paperspresented
Assyriologique
nationale,Venezia,7-11 July1997. Partili. Landscapein Ideology,
Religion,Liter-

atureand Art(ed. L. Milanoet al.; Padova:Sargon,2000), 63-73; R. Arav,

"ElsAbode:Mythological
TradiABD 3.158-60;E. Lipinski,
"Hermon,
Mount,"
OLP 2
tionsRelatedto MountHermonand to theMountainsof Armenia,"
(1971): 13-69.
36The Canaanite
as giantsin later
kingsOg and Sihon,who areidentified
withMountHermoninJoshua(12:4-5; 13:10-11).
arebothassociated
Judaism,
In rabbinictradition
Og and Sihonare called"thesonsof Ahijahtheson of
Deut2:2;
oneoftheleadingWatchers
Shemhazai,"
(Tg.Ps-fon.

234

M. GoffiDead Sea Discoveries

16 (2009) 221-253

fromMegiddo,written
in the 14the. B.C.E., if notearlier,
establishes
oftheBookof
thatthetextwasin theregionlongbefore
thecomposition
Giants.07
One couldconcludethatknowledge
oftheepicentered
Palestinein theLateBronzeAge.Although,
it is
ifone adoptsthisposition,
difficult
to explainwhythereis sucha largechronological
well
over
a
gap,
thousandyears,betweentheBookofGiantsand theMegiddofragment,
whichPalestinian
of
literature
showslittleifanydirectknowledge
during
of
of oldertradents,
Asidefromthepossibility
Gilgamesh.0*
knowledge
theepicsurely
the
was brought
to Palestine
who
returned
from
Jews
by
EasternDiaspora.Danielandseveral
otherJewsaretaught"theliterature
and languageoftheChaldeans"(Dan 1:4). Whilea fictional
tale,it sugitpossibleforat leastsomeJewsin Babygeststhatitsauthorconsidered
lontoreceive
suchan education.
wouldhavebeenan important
Gilgamesh
texttheywouldhavelearned.39
Evenifone doesnotgrantthatthebook
of Daniel impliesthatsomeJewsacquireda Babylonian
the
education,
in
Murashuarchive
attests
c. B.C.E. whowereimmersed
Jewsin thefifth
thelocaleconomy.40
who
came
into
contact
with
Theydoubtlessly
people
In the
had an educationin whichGilgamesh
waspartofthecurriculum.
exilicperiod,andwellintothesecondc. B.C.E., copiesoftheepicwere
37
George,TheBabylonianGilgamesh
Epic, 1.339-47.
38 L. T. Stuckenbruckand K. van der Toorn have
expresseddoubt thatone
can conclude thatknowledgeof the epic was in Palestinein the last fewcenturiesB.C.E. on thebasisof theMegiddofragment.
"GiantMytholSee respectively,
in
"Echoes
of
the
Book
of
Qohelet?" in Veenhof
ogy,"332-33, and
Gilgamesh
Presented
to
Klaas
R.
on
Volume:Studies
Veenhof the Occasionof his
Anniversary
NetherlandsInstituteof
et
Leiden:
Sixty-Fifth
Birthday(ed. W. H. van Soldt al.;
the Near East, 2001), 503-14 (esp. 512). R. C. van Leeuwen arguesthatIsa 14
reflectsfamiliarity
with the epic. He contendsthat this chapterconstitutesan
"inversion'of elementsfrom Gilgamesh,a conscious effortto recastelements
the one groupfromthe
fromthe epic "in a way thatunmistakably
distinguishes
other."See his "Isa 14:12, holes'al gwymand GilgameshXI,6,"JBL 99 (1980):
173-84.
39
on the
Epic, 1.33-39; D. M. Carr,Writing
George,TheBabylonianGilgamesh
TabletoftheHeart (Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press,2003), 17-46 (esp. 41).
40 M. D.
Coogan, WestSemiticPersonalNames in theMurashDocuments
and
(HSM 7; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976); M. W. Stolper,Entrepreneurs
Rule
in
and
Persian
Babylonia
Empire:TheMurashArchive,theMurashFirm,
(Leiden: Brill,1985).

16 (2009) 221-253
M. GoffiDead Sea Discoveries

235

being produced.41Knowledgeof Gilgameshmay have also enteredinto

EarlyJudaismin thePersianand/orHellenisticperiods.
Thereis not enough evidenceto endorseReevess suggestionthatthe
authorwas workingwith an Aramaiccopy of Gilgamesh,
althoughthis
be
More
cannot
dismissed
with
familiarity theepic,
outright.42
possibility
in my judgment,would be requiredfor this conclusion.The Book of
Giantsdoes not demonstrateknowledgeof core elementsof the plot of
the epic, Mesopotamiandeitieswho are prominentin Gilgamesh
such as
such as Enkidu.A reasonableassessmentis
Ishtar,or otherkeycharacters
that the authorhad indirectknowledgeof Gilgamesh,
perhapsbecause
fromtheEasternDiaspora broughtthisknowledgeto PalJewsreturning
estinewiththem.43
4. The Book of Giants- an AntipaganText?
Havingestablishedthattheauthorof theBookofGiantswas familiarwith
Gilgameshtraditions,the question becomes whyhe was drawingupon
them.Puech and Reeveshave arguedthatthe compositionappropriates
lore forpolemicends. Emile Puech contendsthatthe Book of
Gilgamesh
and culticdevelopments
Giantswas writtenin responseto mythological
in
the
in northernSyro-Palestine,
especially
regionof Banias and Hermon.44Drawingon thePhoenicianHistoryby Philo of Byblos(preserved
by Eusebius), Puech arguesthat by 200 B.C.E. culticpracticesin Dan
of Hellenisticand Phoenician myth.
and Banias promotedsyncretism
Eusebius'Praeparatio
Evangelica1.10.29 reads:
In the thirty-second
yearof his own assumptionof royalauthority
Elos, i.e., Kronos, trappedhis fatherOuranos in a certaininland
41Mostof theavailable
afterthe
copiesof theepic arewritten
Babylonian
oftheAssyrian
destruction
up to theArsacid
empire(612 B.C.E.) and attested
texthasa colophonthatdatesit
period(2d-lst e. B.C.E.). ThelatestGilgamesh
to 130 B.C.E. See George,TheBabylonian
Gilgamesh
Epic,1.381.
42 Reeves,
JewishLore,120.

43

and Hobabish,sugto thenamesGilgamesh

, 259, pointing
Beyer,
Their
namesdo not
has
a
Book
Giants
the
that
Babylonian
provenance.
of
gests
thisconclusion
tosupport
evidence
sufficient
(cf.1Q23 13 2).
comprise
44
dansle
DJD 31:14-16.See alsoE. Puech,"Lessongesdesfilsde Semihazah
Qumrn,"CRAIL(2000): 7-25.
livredesGants

236

M. Goff/
Dead SeaDiscoveries
16 (2009) 221-253

place. He overpoweredand castratedhim near springsand rivers.

ThereOuranos was made an object of worshipand breathedhis last
and theblood fromhis genitalsdroppedinto thespringsand therivers'waters.Even now theplace is shown.45
Accordingto Puech, thistextpreservesknowledgeof actual culticpracticescarriedout in the vicinityof Hermon in the second c. B.C.E. The
Book of Giants,he argues,represents
an effort
to denouncethisworship.
The Qumran textwas, in his view,writtenby officialleaders,"prtres
ou
who were criticalof northernheterodoxcults: "en
sages de Jrusalem,"
situantdans cettergionl'originedes pratiquesdmoniaques,Gilgamesh
tantlui-mmeun dieu chtonien,rgentdes Enfers."46
Followingthisforthe
Giants
Book
of
mulation,
portrayal Gilgameshis not polemic
of
againstMesopotamianculturebut ratheragainstnorthernSyro-Palestinian traditions,
one ofwhichis Gilgamesh.47
In a similarvein,David Jackson has suggestedthat the Book of Giants is an anti-Gentiletext.48
Accordingto his readingthe entirecompositionbecomes a kind of "in
joke" withwhichoppressedJewsmakelightof theirforeigndominators.
It is not clear that Philo of Byblos preservesreliableknowledgeof
Upper Galilee cultsactivein the second c. B.C.E.49 Even if one wereto
45Philoof
inthisregion
withgiants
mountains
Byblos'accountalsoassociates
In
from
as
the
are
formed
Greek
recounted
tradition,
(1.10.9).
byHesiod, giants
thedropsofbloodthatfellwhenOuranoswascastrated
{Theog.183-187). See
H. W. Attridge
and R. A. Oden, Jr.,PhiloofByblos:ThePhoenician
History
ofAmerica,
D.C.: The CatholicBiblicalAssociation
(CBQMS 9; Washington,
1981),41-43, 55.
46
DJD 31:15.
47
and the
is theMegiddoGilgamesh
forthisviewpoint
Important
fragment
in
in
of
a
Lebanon.
Humbaba
epicsplacement
grove
48
113. In particular,
hestresses
thatthefigJackson,
"Demonising
Gilgames,"
to demonize
theSeleucidEmpire.
ureofGilgamesh
is a veiledeffort
49Theissueof Philoof
werecarried
culticpractices
Byblosaside,Hellenistic
outin UpperGalileeduringthelateSecondTempleperiod.Thisdoesnotmean,
in response
tothem.A cultdevoted
ofcourse,thattheBookofGiants
waswritten
in thesecondc. B.C.E.
to Panat BaniasnearMountHermonwasin operation
in thiscentury,
mentions
thePaneion,a cavedevotedto Pan,in
Polybius
Writing
in this
an Egyptian
Baniaswhendiscussing
Antiochus
who
defeated
III,
general
sites
confirm
the
in
200
cf.
Excavations
B.C.E.
(16.18.2; 28.1.3).
antiqregion
thattheworshipof Pan at thissitemayhavebeen
uity.Z. U. Ma'oz suggests
with
to compete
in thethirdc. B.C.E.,perhaps
installed
started
bythePtolemies

16 (2009) 221-253
M Goffi
Dead SeaDiscoveries

237

grantthatpoint,to endorsePuech'sargumentone must take the questionablepositionof viewingthe Book of Giantsas a kind of "orthodox"
book writtenagainstreligiousdevelopmentsnot in line withtheviewsof
The compositionis normativein thatit recountsthe
Jerusalemofficials.
of
proclamation judgmentagainstcreatureswho are wicked. But one
looks in vain forotherindicatorsthat the textassertsthe viewpointof
officials.
Jerusalem
Properworshipor ritualpurityareneverexplicitissues.
The assertionofjudgmentagainstthegiantsneverfunctionsas an opporof God or thathis templeis in Jerutunityto emphasizethesovereignity
salem. The textis not, it seems to me, designedto describepolemically
cults as, respectively,
Jacksonand Puech
politicalpowersor syncretistic
HellenisticPhoenicianworship
have argued.Allusionsto contemporary
or foreignrulersareweakat best.50
antiReeves understandsthe Book of Giantsto be a self-consciously
pagan text.He arguesthatthe compositionsappropriationof the names
a bold polemicalthrustagainstthe
Gilgameshand Humbaba "represents
of pagan
of a rivalculture,analogousto thedenigration
reveredtraditions
deitiesor idol worshipfoundin Jewishwritingslike the Book ofJubilees

and replacetheworshipsiteat Dan, whichis onlyfourkilometers

awayfrom
Baniasandin useat leastup to thethirdc. B.C.E. See his"Banias,"in TheNew

Excavationsin theHolyLand (ed. E. Stern;4 vols.;

ofArchaeological
Encyclopedia

TheIsraelExploration
Jerusalem;
Society& Carta,1993), 1.136-43 (esp.137).
fact"thattherewasa sanchistorical
T. Vassilias
arguesthat"itis an established
at thesitebytheearly2d c. B.C.E. See his"The'God
tuaryofPanin operation
andRomanPeriWho Is in Dan andtheCultofPanatBaniasin theHellenistic
and
S. Dar,Settlements
ods,"Erlsrl (1992): 128-35 (esp.133). Consultfurther
and Roman
Israel:IturaeanCulturein theHellenistic
CultSiteson MountHermony

1 Enoch1, 238-47.
Periods
(Oxford:HadrianBooks,1993);Nickelsburg,
thatthepassage
onecouldspeculate
ThoughI do notadvocatethispossibility,
ofOuranoswith
thecastration
ofPhiloofBybloscitedabove,whichassociates
can be connectedto Baniaswiththehelpof b. Sank.98a.
a Levantine
river,
of R. Joseb. Kismaaskhimfora signof the
Thistextstatesthatthestudents
the
he respondsby invoking
adventof themessiahand,amongotherthings,
of theJordan)to turnto blood. See Maoz,
watersof Banias(theheadwaters
"Banias,"138.
50
withbanishment
to
thefactthatthegiantsarenotpunished
Additionally,
Gilthenetherworld
arguesagainsttheviewthattheBookof Giantsportrays
desEnfers."
gameshas,in thewordsofPuech,a "rgent

238

M Goff/
Dead Sea Discoveries
16 (2009)221-253

inthe
ThefactthatGilgamesh,
a heroicwarrior
orBelandtheDragon."51
in
is
text
as
one
of
the
wicked
the
Qumran
epic, presented
giantsconfirms
oftheGilgamesh
thebasiccontours
ofthisthesis.An examination
2
ii
of
the
Book
and
1-3
Giants,
4Q530
4Q531 22, indiof
fragments
of Gilthatimportant
elements
of theworksportrayal
cates,however,
have
little
to
with
the
itself.
do
epic
gamesh
5. Gilgameshand Hobabishin theBookofGiants
5.1. 4Q530 2 Hand4Q531 22
in twopassagesoftheBookof
and Hobabishareeachattested
Gilgamesh
Giants.The name"Gilgamesh"
is foundin 4Q530 2 ii 2 () and
4Q531 22 12 (wmb[); "Hobabish"is in 4Q530 2 ii 2 (Oli[i]n) and
setsthe
4Q203 3 3 (WMin).4Q530 2 ii 1-3, whilepoorlypreserved,
for
the
two
visions
of
the
and
crucial
judgment
stage
garden theophanic
hasnotreceived
muchscholthatoccurlaterinthecolumn.Thepericope
It is theonlyfragment
oftheworkin whichthenames
arlyattention.52
and
Hobabish
occur
together.
Gilgamesh
4Q530 2 ii begins:
concernsthe deathof our souls. [And]all his companions[ent-]
hadsaid
eredand [Ohy]ahtoldthemthatwhichGilgamesh
(tPOJJt)
his
and
to him.H[o]babish(02l[l]n) opened mouth(3) [judg-]
mentwas pronounced
againsthis soul. The guiltyone cursedthe
he was
the
and
(1)
princes
giantsrejoicedoverit. He returned,
2
ii
he
a
him.
and
1-3)53
curs[ed
(4Q530
broughtcomp]laint
against
51 Reeves,
JewishLore,126.

52Severalcommentators
editionof
before
thecritical
on 4Q530 2 ii,working
ofthe
oftheopeningpericope
itsfragments
werepublished,
showno knowledge
column.See, forexample,Reeves,Jewish
reconstructed
Lore,58; GarcaMarandApocalyptic,
ATTM,
304; Beyer,
tnez,Qumran
104,Milik,TheBooksofEnoch,
of4Q530 2 ii,seePuech,DJD31:28.
264 (his"G9").Fortheofficial
transcription
NotealsoDSSR 3.484-85.
53Theinkon this
is wrinsurface
is fadedin placesand theleather
fragment
this
of
to read.Earliertranscriptions
kled,makingit difficult
passageinclude
120.
Several
TheBookofGiants,105; Beyer,
ATTME,
Stuckenbruck,
aspectsof
comment.
thetranscription
ofthispericoperequire

M. Goffi
Dead SeaDiscoveries
16(2009) 221-253

239

Severaldetailsof thispassageareobscure:(1) whatOhyah saysto the

whomjudgment
is proothergiants;(2) whatHobabishdoes;(3) against
of the "guiltyone"; (5) the identity
of the
nounced;(4) the identity
in
ifthis
the
who
returns
line
and
3,
(7)
(6)
why
"princes";
giantsrejoice;
whois thencursedor theonewhobrings
a complaint.
is thesamefigure
as an
all of thesequestionsis how thepericopefunctions
Underlying
ofthegarden
andthetheophany.
ofthevisions
occasionforthedisclosure
in
1. The word"ent]ered"(fi'y) has poor materialsupportand is not transcribed
Another
word
be
could
envisioned
the editionsof Beyerand Stuckenbruck.
since afterthisword the giantsare
herebut it is a reasonablereconstruction
together(cf.4Q530 1 i 8, WT21XWXhty).
even thoughall commen2. The word [Ohy]ah ([])is not well preserved,
is Hahyah
Anotherpossiblereconstruction
tatorsaccept thisreconstruction.
(![]), who is also prominentin 4Q530 2 ii. If one followsthe placement
6 and 7 in Puech'seditionof thiscompositetext,the lacuna is
of fragments
betterfilledwith two lettersthan one. This supportsthe consensusview.
4Q531 22, discussedbelow,also suggeststhatit is Ohyah who reportsto the
othergiantswhatGilgameshsaid.
3. Anotherimportantterm,Hobabish (01l[l]n), has verypoor materialsupport
(and depends on the placementof fragments6 and 2 in relationto one
thisname but only [.
another).Beyerand Stuckenbruckdo not transcribe
but
The finalletterappearsto be a samek,in supportof Puechs transcription,
one mustgrantthatthisreadingis obscuredby a crackin the leatherand ink
erosion.No othername of a giantcould end withtheseletters(in 4Q203 3 3
the name of Hobabish ends with a sin), withAtambish(see above) being a
possibleexception.
the word "[judg]ment () relieson scant physicalevidence.
4. Transcribing
The readingis in Puech and Stuckenbruckbut not Beyer.Contextsupports
That someoneis judged is impliedby thetermthatfollows,
thistranscription.
14,"the guiltyone." The parallelismof *)and f[l ] suggests
thatthe giantopens his mouth to utterjudgmentagainstsomeone else, and
referto thesame act of uttering
thatbothstatements
judgment.
5. Reading2*("theguiltyone") is complicatedby ink erosionand a crackon
the leathersurface.Beyerreads *1 and Stuckenbruck tttb.The upper
discernsfollowsa crackin theleatherthat
strokeof a lamedxhztStuckenbruck
travelsup pastline 1 and is betterunderstoodas a shadowratherthanink.
followPuech, but thereis
6. Regardingthe phrase7[lpl pnKl I tentatively
Stuckenverylittlephysicalevidenceupon which to base a reconstruction.
forthesewordsand Beyertranscribes
bruckdoes not attempta reconstruction

240

M GoffiDead Sea Discoveries

16 (2009) 221-253

Stuckenbruck
entitlesthe openingsectionof 4Q530 "The Giants are
Reassured throughGilgamesh."54He suggeststhat the giants rejoice
becauseGilgameshhas receiveda visionthatleaves"someroomforhope"
withregardto thefateof thegiants.35
The argumentrelieson an interpretationof 4Q531 22 12, which Stuckenbruck
translatesas "Gi]lgamesh,
tellyour [d]ream"([] r>QJ[jt).56
So understood,Gilgameshs
vision offereda measureof hope to the giantswhen theywere told
about it in 4Q530 2 ii. Upon hearingof it, theycelebrated.The claim
that Gilgameshis a visionarywould providea strongparallelto the Gilgameshepic.

I agreewithStuckenbruck
that4Q531 22 bearson the interpretation
of 4Q530 2 ii, but not withhis opinionthattheformertextdepictsGilA keypassageof4Q531 22 reads:
gameshas a visionary.57
withthepowerfulstrength
of myarmand my
[When I was mig]hty,
11
attacked
flesh
war
and
made
[I
a]
greatstrength,
againstthem (cf.
Dan 7:21). But [I was] not [strong(enough) and] I, with us, was
[not] able to prevailbecause my accusers[arethe angelswho] reside
[in] the [heavens]and in the holy places theyencamp. [Theywere]
not [wipedout because the]y are strongerthan me. vacat [Behold,a
roar]ing [voice]of thebeastsof thefieldhas come and themen of the
fieldcryout (for)[theirrevenge].(4Q531 22 3-9)58

54 Stuckenbruck,
TheBookofGiants,104.
55 Ibid., 108.
56 Ibid., 164. So also
of 4Q531 22
Beyer,ATTME, 119. In the presentations
11-12 in Reeves,JewishLore,60, and Beyer,ATTM, 262, only the word "Gilgamesh"is visible. See also Milik, TheBooks of Enoch,313; Garca Martnez,
the fragmentin
s arrangement
105. In Stuckenbruck
Qumranand Apocalyptic,
is
question 4Q5 31 17.
57 S.
Dalley also understandsGilgameshas a visionaryin the Book of Giants.
She brieflyassertsthatthe composition"relatesa dream of Gilgameshabout a
divinecourtofjudgmentsetin a heavenlygardenwithtrees."See her"Occasions
and Opportunities.2. Persian,Greek,and Parthianoverlords,"in TheLegacyof
Press,1998), 35-55
Mesopotamia(d. S. Dalley et al.; Oxford:OxfordUniversity
(esp. 43). George, TheBabylonianGilgamesh
Epic, 1.62, is justlycriticalof Dalley'sclaim. The vision of a gardenin 4Q530 2 ii 6-12 is disclosedto Hahyah,
not Gilgamesh.
58 For the officialeditionof thistext,see Puech,
DJD 31:74-78. Other traninclude
TheBookofGiants,162;
Reeves,JewishLore,60; Stuckenbruck,
scriptions

16 (2009)221-253
M. Goffi
DeadSeaDiscoveries

241

In responsethe giantOhyah claimsthathe has had a vision:"And then

Ohyah said to him 'mydreamhas oppressed[me]'" (1. 9).59Considering
thisgiantto be thevisionaryheremakessensegivenhis prominentvision
in 4Q530 2 ii.60'Ohyah repliesto whatthespeakerof lines3-7 has said.
- thisknowledgepertainsto hisvisionbut
'Ohyahassertsthathe "knows"
line 11 as
what exactlyhe knowsis not clear (1. 10). Puech reconstructs
the giantsayingthat "thejudgmentof the assembly""will not hasten."
and not enoughevidence
The Aramaichere,however,is veryfragmentary
it is a reasonable
But semantically
survivesto endorsehis reconstruction.
of
the
Book
those
of 4Q530 2
the
core
visions
since
ofGiants,
suggestion,
thejudgmentof thegiants.61
ii, signify
Milik,withoutelaboration,assertedthatthe speakerin lines 3-7 was
Reevesarguesthatthe speakeris morelikelya
theWatcherSemihazah.62
Milik, TheBooksofEnoch,307, Beyer,ATTM, 262. With the exceptionof
of thispericopein
in thetranscriptions
line8, thereareno majordifferences
In line8 theimportant
theseeditions.
[voice]")
rn[pjtbp] ("a roar]ing
expression
in
of [ is not attempted
has verylittlematerialsupport.A reconstruction
or Reeves.Beyerreadsm[O20b("zurBewachung").
Stuckenbruck
Milik,like
of Puechmakessenseon semantic
Puech,suggestsrn[jtt.The transcripton
The speakerof 11.3-7 has fought
against"a]11flesh"and he has been
grounds.
to supposethatsomesortof rebukehas beenuttered
it is reasonable
defeated;
ofline9, "their
at thebeginning
him(thisalsomakesPuechs supplement
against
"beastsofthefield"and"themenofthe
plausible).Ifone understands
revenge,"
in
onewouldexpectthesubjectofto be similar
field"to be in parallelism,
Nickelsto theparticiple
"men,"fnp,"cryout."See further
modifying
meaning
burg,1 Enoch1, 186.
59Mostcommentators,
theword"Ohyah"fromthe
despitea vacatseparating
Stucktake'Ohyahas thesubjectinline9. See,forexample,
verbofthesentence,
TheBookofGiants,164; Reeves,
Lore,65; Puech,DJD 31:75;
enbruck,
Jewish
him(*]
JWN)probaATTM, 1.262. Theclaimthatthedream"oppressed"
Beyer,
he did notunderhim,in thesensethatat first
blymeansthatit overwhelmed
is praised:
standthedream.In Dan 4:6 [v.9 Eng.]Danielsinterpretative
prowess
overwhelms
"No mystery
you"(Y? OW D'b^) (cf.lQapGen 2:13).
60This
(whichwouldmakehimthe
'Ohyahas a vocative
arguesagainsttaking
thantheone whohasit),a
dreamrather
giantwhois toldabouttheoppressive
seealsoDJD 31:77).
hasstressed
thatTigchelaar
(oralcommunication;
possibility
61He reconstructs
thekeyphraseas ]Nn[^D pi]. See DJD 31:74. Stuckennotranscription
forthispartof4Q531 22 11.
TheBookofGiants,
162,offers
bruck,
62Milik,TheBooks Enoch,307. So also
ATTM, 262, whocallsthis
Beyer,
of
text"Das Gesprchdes SemiasamitseinemSohnUhja."Thistitleis givenin

242

M. GoffiDead SeaDiscoveries
16 (2009) 221-253

thatthe giantswerearrogant
(cf. 3
giant,appealingto the tradition
Mace 2:4; Wis 14:6; Josephus,
Ant.1.73).63Stuckenbruck
agreeswith
Reevessanalysisbut does not identify
who is speaking.64
Asidefrom
It is more
Ohyah,theonlyothergiantnamedin4Q531 22 is Gilgamesh.
of
reasonable
to consider
himOhyahsinterlocutor,
andthusthespeaker
lines3-7, thanto insertanother
the
The
motif
of
warinto
story.
figure
fareis alsocompatible
withtheviewthatthespeaker
is a giant.
as a conversation
between
4Q531 22 as a wholeshouldbe understood
this
one
issue
is how
and
For
Gilgamesh Ohyah.
interpretation key
"Then
line12 shouldbe understood.
Puechreconstructs
line12 as stating
is
So
Gilsaid
your[d]ream com[plete(?).'"65 translated,
G]ilgamesh
gameshis talkingto someoneelseto whomthevisionwas disclosed
toOhyahwhospeaksofa visioninlines9-11. Stuckenbruck,
presumably
understands
contrast,
by
Gilgameshas a vocativeand the verbas an
of
tell
imperative
("Gi]lgamesh, your[d]ream").Puechs understanding
thelineis to be preferred.
thatOhyahis a recipi4Q530 2 ii establishes
entofvisionsin thecomposition,
evidence
butthereis no unambiguous
in thetextthatGilgamesh
Stuckenbrucks
elsewhere
receives
a vision.66
idem,ATTMEy119, as well.See also GarcaMartnez,QumranandApocalyptic,105.
63Reeves,
is certainly
a motifin 4Q531 22
Lore,118, 158.Arrogance
Jewish
isvery
that
confidence
but
this
be
with
the
observation
such
should
3-7
qualified
muchin thepast;thespeaker
realizesthathe wasnotstrong
enoughagainsthis
His
has
confidence
collapsed.
opponents.
64Stuckenbruck,
TheBookofGiants,
166-67.
65
it is not at all clearwhatGilgamesh
saysaboutOhyahs
Unfortunately,
material
hasextremely
dream.Theword"com[plete"
Puech,DJD
support.
poor
31:74,suggests
]170[.BelowI arguethat,whilethereis notenough
transcribing
it is a reasonable
evidenceto endorsethisreconstruction,
semantically
physical
suggestion.
66
visionof'Ohyah,buttheevidenceis too
4Q531 46 mayrecountanother
is madebyPuech,DJD 31:93.
to
state
This
this
conclusively. suggestion
meager
oftwolinesof4Q531 46 survive:
"AndI, O[hyah...] I wentup and
Portions
of the
is supported
entered
he[aven."Puechs reconstruction
bytheL fragment
ManicheanBookofGiants,
whichstatesthatthegiantShm"hada dream.He
to in theKawn
cameup to heaven."Ohyahand Hahyahareat timesreferred
from
Iranian
who
are
as Shmand Narimn,
epictradition.
respectively,
figures
"Iranian
P.
O.
"The
See further
Book
Epicand
Skjaervo,
Henning,
ofGiants?57;
48
theManicheanBookofGiants.Irano-Manichaica
III," ActaOrHung

DeadSeaDiscoveries
16 (2009)221-253
M Goffi

243

opinion that a visionwas disclosedto Gilgameshrequirespositingtwo

- Ohyah in lines9-11 and Gilgameshin line 12. This is posvisionaries
line 12 not as introducinga
sible but it would be simplerto interpret
to the one of lines 9-11. Gilgamesh states
new vision but referring
that he has been defeated(11.3-7), this remindsOhyah of a vision
(11.9-11), and Gilgameshthen says somethingabout Ohyah's vision
(1. 12).67There is no explicitexampleof Gilgameshhavinga dream or
from
a significant
difference
visionin the Book of Giants.This constitutes
theepic of Gilgamesh.
The tropeof 4Q531 22 thatGilgameshdespairsfromhis loss in combat has no strongparallelin the Gilgamesh
epic. Theretheheros sorrowis
the
death
of Enkidu,not by a defeatin
it
is
but
by
triggered
legendary,
a majorlosswhenfighting.
His
battle.In theepic Gilgameshneversuffers
to reversehis vicdefeatin theBookofGiantscould be a consciouseffort
toriousexploitsin the epic. This possibilityis weakened,however,by the
factthatGilgameshs defeatis onlyreported,not recounted.If it had been
importantforthe authorof the Qumran textto reversethe heros status
focuswould have been placed
as a victor,it is likelythatmorenarratival
on his defeat.
In 4Q531 22 Gilgamesh,while his exploitsprobablyinvolvedother
giants,emphasizeshis own defeatand an outcryagainsthim ratherthan
unlikeotherfirstpersonacknowlthe giantsas a whole.68The fragment,
edgmentsof imminentdestructionin the composition,does not stress
thatGilgameshand his plightare partof thejudgmentof a largercomThis realizationcan shed lighton the
munityof giantsor theWatchers.69
2
ii
1
that
in
statement 4Q530
Ohyah tellsthe assembledgiants"that
whichGilgameshhad said to him."Ohyah, I suggest,told thegiantsthat

"Einweiteres
497; Reeves,
187-223 (esp.199); Sundermann,
Jewish
Fragment,"

Lore,121.
67 I addressbelow theissueof
thisvision.
identifying
68 He
to
sayshe was not be victorious"withus" (1. 5), presumablyreferring
othergiants.
69
4Q531 18 4 reads "I am ruined(*?10ni&) and theydefstroy..."Line 3
reads"we,for[our] sins. . ." 4Q531 23 3: "I will be killedand I will die (VopriK
)."The only legibleexpressionof line 2 reads "all the wicked,"suggesting
thatthe speakerrealizeshis own demiseis partof a largerjudgmentagainstthe
wicked.In theseinstancestheidentityof thespeakercan not be established.

244

M. GoffiDead Sea Discoveries

16 (2009) 221-253

alonehasbeensingledoutforjudgment.70
statesin
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
22
that
he
has
been
not
he
will
be
that
defeated,
4Q531
judgedbyGod.
that
twists
him
what
told
would
Positing Ohyah
explainwhy
Gilgamesh
thegiantsrejoicein 4Q530 2 ii 3- they(mistakenly)
thinkthattheyas
an entiregrouparenotto be punishedfortheircrimes.71
Drawingfrom
22
have
that
thattheanisaid
asserted
8,
4Q531
Ohyahmay
Gilgamesh
malsand menof thefieldcriedout againsthim.72
The issueis notthat
had a visionthatoffered
Gilgamesh
hopeto thegiants,as Stuckenbruck
Rather
to
turn
intoa "scape-giant."
Ohyahattempts
suggests.
Gilgamesh
Thisin turnexplainswhythedreamsof thegardenand thetheophany
followin 4Q530 2 ii. Theyestablishthatthereare no groundsfor
thegiantsto rejoice.The visionsaffirm
has
thata broaderindictment
been made againstthe giants.God sendsthemthesevisionsbecause
theirconductin thebeginning
of4Q530 2 ii indicates
thattheydidnot
70Thiswouldmeanthat
4Q531 22 precedes4Q530 2 ii in thenarrative
of
the
as Stuckenbruck,
TheBookof Giants,167yhas
sequence
composition,
With
ii
to
2
is placed
vis--vis
4Q531 22, theformer
suggested.
regard 4Q530
beforethelatterby Reeves,
Lore,58, 60, forwhomtheyare QG4 and
Jewish
in hisarrangement
ofthefragments.
QG9, respectively,
4Q531 22 comesbefore
ATTM,262,264,forwhomtheyare,respec4Q530 2 ii inthesequenceofBeyer,
G6 and G9. Consultalso L. T. Stuckenbruck,
"TheSequencing
ofFragtively,
mentsBelonging
to theQumranBookofGiants:An InquiryintotheStructure
andPurposeofan EarlyTewish
JSP16 (1997): 3-24.
Composition,"
71Stuckenbruck,
TheBookofGiants,107.4Q530 1 i 4 asserts
thatthosewho
havebeenkilledhavemadea complaint
andcryoutagainst
theirkillers
andthen
line5 states"wewilldie together."
If one takesthisas chronologically
priorto
2
1
i
all
of
thattheywillbe
4Q530 ii, 4Q530
portrays thegiantsas concerned
killedfortheircrimes.
i
+
2
if
it
werebetter
couldalsoshed
3,
4Q530
preserved,
thecountingof years(the
lighton themood of thegiants.Line 4 mentions
theyearsuntiltheyarejudged?).Line6 is transcribed
inDJD
giantsarecounting
as
"Do
TheBookof Giants,
31:25,
[n]otrejoice"(jnnn $[). Stuckenbruck,
insteadJVTIT
Puechsreading
is more
103-4,transcribes
^[D, "a]U(?) willrejoice."
evidence
to interpret
thephrase.
likelybutthereis notsufficient
72In 1 En. 7:6 theearthmakesan accusation
ones,"who
againstthe"lawless
arepresumably
theWatchers
andthegiants.
Cf.8:4; 9:2; 4Q531 14 3; 4Q532 2 9;
ofbloodshed
on theearthanda cryforjudgment
reach4Q533 4 1. Thethemes
the
are
in
the
ing angels present
recently
published
XQpapEnoch(1 En. 8:4-9:3).
See E. Esheland H. Eshel,"New Fragments
fromQumran:4QGenf,4QIsab,
and
12
DSD
(2005): 134-57 (esp.
4Q226, 8QGen,
XQpapEnoch,"

M. Goff/
DeadSeaDiscoveries
16 (2009)221-253

245

understandearliervisions. Major themesof this pericope,such as the

actionsof 'Ohyah againstGilgamesh,thefearof Ohyah and othergiants
that theywill be destroyed,and the falsehope that this fatehas been
averted,providedat Gilgameshsexpense,do not have strongparallelsin
the Gilgamesh
epic.
Understanding
Gilgameshas thespeakerin 4Q531 22 can help explain
theobscurecursinglanguageof 4Q530 2 ii 2-3. Afterthegiantslistento
Ohyah, Hobabish opens his mouthand judgmentis pronouncedagainst
the antecedentof "his"is not
"his soul" (1. 2).73A clearanswerregarding
available.I propose that it is Gilgameshwho has been singledout by
Ohyah.74The phrase"thedeath of our souls" of line 1 suggeststhatthe
giantsassembledbecause of concernsabout theirfate.Anxiousthatthey
willbe punishedfortheircrimes,theyare relievedto hearthatGilgamesh
alone has been designatedforpunishment.Theyrespondby cursinghim
and rejoicing.It is significantthat Hobabish speaks out against Gilgamesh,sincethisevokesthearchaictropeof conflictbetweenGilgamesh
and Humbaba.
In response,"theguiltyone cursedtheprinces"(0*72*)(1.2).
I've proposedis correct,"the guiltyone" would be
If the interpretation
Gilgamesh.Angeredbybeingsingledout forjudgment,Gilgameshcurses
refersto
thattheword 1
the othergiants.I agreewithStuckenbruck
not
thegiantsratherthanhumanprinces,althoughthetermis admittedly
Human kingsplay no rolewhatsoever
used elsewhereto denotegiants.75
in the text.In the Hebrew Bible and Ben Sira the termrefersto Gentile
73Puech,DJD 31:30,
theaphel3
thatHobabishroars,
translating
proposes
him as similarto the monster
as "hurla."As he notes,thiswould portray
Humbaba,whose"voiceis theDeluge,his speechis fire,his breathis death."
"shouted
DSSR 3.485,translates
(?)."See alsoGeorge,TheBabylonian
Gilgamesh
Epic,1.266.
74Puech,DJD 31:32,
is Azazel.
thatthejudgedfigure
tentatively
suggests
One couldarguethatanother
Ohyah,is cursedbyHobabish,but
giant,perhaps
thathe has anyothergiantin mindasidefrom
I see scantwarrant
forpositing
Gilgamesh.One could also speculatethat Hobabishpronouncesjudgment
in thetextthatwouldsupport
thisreadbutthereis no evidence
himself,
against
that"his"mayrefer
to one
TheBookofGiants,107,suggests
ing.Stuckenbruck,
'Azazel.
oftheWatchers,
possibly
75Stuckenbruck,
forhimarea group
TheBookofGiants,107. The "princes"
ofgiantsthatdoesnotincludeHahyahandOhyah.

246

M. GoffiDead SeaDiscoveries
16 (2009)221-253

thetradition
thattheold kings
kings,so theuseofthiswordmayreflect
ofthelandweregiants.76
lhereis notenoughevidenceto interpret
thestatement
satisfactorily
of thegiantswhichPuechreconstructs
the rejoicing
as "He
following
returned
and he was curs[ed and he brought
a comp]laint
againsthim"
2
ii
With
I
considerable
the
scehesitation,
3).
(4Q530
suggest following
nario.Gilgamesh
is notat theassembly
ofgiantsbuthearsthepowerful
voiceofHobabishutterjudgment
againsthim,notunlikethecryofthe
beaststhathas goneup againsthim.He thenin line2 cursesthegiants
and in line3 returns
to theassembly
ofgiants,
wherehe is cursedagain,
in
he
a
It is alsoposHobabish.77
and, response lodges complaint
against
siblethathe waspresent
at theassembly
of4Q530 2 ii whenjudgment
was spokenagainsthim,thenleft(an actionnotmentioned
in thetext)
andreturned.
Thegiantbringing
inline3
thecomplaint
against
Gilgamesh
wouldlikelybe eitherHobabishor Ohyah,butthereis notenoughevidenceto decidewhichofthesetwo.
5.2. Deceitand Visions
Followingthehypothesisthatwhat'Ohyah tellsthegiantsin 4Q530 2 ii
1-3 is based on his encounterwithGilgameshin 4Q531 22, thevisionof
cannot be the one he
Ohyah mentionedin lines 9-12 of thisfragment
in
receives 4Q530 2 ii 15-20. Mahaway'sjourneyto Enoch foran interpretationof thevisionsof 4Q530 2 ii is notthe firsttimethe gianttraveled to the "scribeof righteousness."
The giantsexplainthe selectionof
for
this
task
"because
an earlierti[me]you haveheard
Mahaway
bystating
his voice" (11.22-23). When speakingto Enoch, Mahaway describes
of a vision
his visitas his "second" (3)requestforan interpretation
ii
cf.
8
the
intent
of
the
second
Given
7
visit,one
7;
3).78
(4Q530
4Q203
76
E.g.,Deut 3:11; Num 13:33.ForthewordJHIusedforGentilekings,see
Ps 2:2; Isa 40:23; Prov8:15; Sir44:4 (cf.Prov14:28;31:4).
77
TheBookofGiants,
105,andPuech,DJD 31:30,1
Stuckenbruck,
Following
11
as
a
finite
verb
"And
he
1 can mean"again"but
returned."
regard
phrase,
I undersincethewordimmediately
finite
a
waw
verb(]*?),
precedes
plus
Book
understands
stand11in a similar
The
way.Stuckenbruck,
ofGiants,106,
itis
thesubjectof1 tobe Ohyah.I seelittlejustification
forthisview,although
a possibleoption.
78
nature,
DJD 31:38. Despiteitsfragmentary
4Q530 7 ii appearsto contain

M. Goffi
DeadSeaDiscoveries
16 (2009)221-253

247

can reasonablyassumethatthe purposeof the firstwas to seek an interpretationof a vision.

The vision mentionedin 4Q531 22 9-12 is probablyrecordedin
2Q26, and thisis likelythe subjectof Mahaways firstvisitto Enoch.79
mentionsa tabletwhichis submergedin
This poorlypreservedfragment
waterso thatit maybe effaced(pn]D7)(1. I).80 The watersriseabove it
(1.2) and it is thenliftedfromthewaters(1. 3). No extantwordin 2Q26
describesit as a visionbut it has been reasonablyunderstoodin thisway.81
Latertextsthatcontaintraditionsattestedin theBookofGiantsdescribea
vision of an erasedtablet.82In TheMidrashof Semhazaiand 'Aza el the
angel Semhazai has two sons, Heyya (") and 'Aheyya(^).83The
to the brothersHahyah () and
names correspond,respectively,
the
Book
of
Qumran
Ohyah ()
of Giants,Heyyaand 'Aheyyaeach
havea vision.One is of a flatstone"likea table"on theearth,thewriting
upon whichis erasedby angel (exceptforfourwords)and theotheris of
A varia gardenthatis destroyed,
exceptfora treewiththreebranches.84
ant of thispairofvisionsis attestedin theMiddle PersianKawn, frg.j.85
ofthedreamsof4Q530 2 ii. Thisis suggested
forinterpretation
a request
bythe
in line11. Hahyahs dream
wordpi[JA,
"gar]deners"
admittedly
poorlypreserved
whowaterthetreesofthegarden(11.7-8). See
in 4Q530 2 ii includes
gardeners,

Reeves,JewishLore,95-96.
79
DJD 36:73-75. This text was originallypublished by M. Baillet, DJD
3:90-91.
80 The
keyword "wash"() has been understoodas a perfect(Milik, The
The
BooksofEnoch,335) and as an imperative(Beyer,ATTM, 266; Stuckenbruck,
BookofGiants,64; idem,DJD 36:74).
81 Stuckenbruck,TheBook Giants,66.
Beyer,ATTM, 266, arguesthatthis
of
of theWatchersand thegiants.
textdescribesthedestruction
82 The affinities
of these later textsto 2Q26 indicate that the fragmentis
reasonablyconsideredpartof the Qumran Book of Giants,contraReeves,Jewish
Lore,5 1, who does not includeit in his analysisof thecomposition.
83 This is
accordingto the Oxford Bodleian manuscriptversionof the text
(the "B" text).See furtherMilik, TheBooksofEnoch,321-29; M. Gaster,The
Chronicles
Or, TheHebrewBible Historiale(London: Royal Asiatic
ofJerahmeel
DJD 36:74-75; Garca Martnez,Qumran
Society,1899) 52-54; Stuckenbruck,
101.
and Apocalyptic,
84 TheirfatherSemhazai
themto mean thatGod is about to bringa
interprets
flood.See Reeves,JewishLore,86-88.
85 This
fragmentstatesthat a txtgthrewsomething(or was thrown)in the

248

M. Goffi
Dead Sea Discoveries
16 (2009)221-253

The secondvisionin TheMidrashofSemhazaiand 'Aza el correspondsto

Hahyah'svisionof a gardenthatis destroyed(exceptfora treewiththree
branches)in 4Q530 2 ii. The bestanaloguein the BookofGiantsforthe
othervisionin thismidrashictextis the submergedtabletof 2Q26. The
l
MidrashofSemhazai and Aza el does not say which brotherhas which
dream,but on the basis of 4Q530 2 ii one can posit that in the later
midrashHeyya has the vision of the garden. This would mean that
Aheyyahas thevisionof the stonetablet.Thus one can inferthat2Q26
containsremnantsof a visionof a tabletdisclosedto Ohyah.
Milik interpreted
to two tablets,one representing
2Q26 as referring
thesinkingof thewickedgenerationin theflood,thesecond"the'board'
of salvation,thearkof Noah and his threesons."86Multipletablets,however,arenot explicitin thetextand thereis no clearwarrantin thetextto
assertthatit mentionedmore than one.87But Milik was rightto think
thattherearepositiveand negativeelementsin thevision.In thevisionof
c
the flatstonein TheMidrashofSemhazaiand Aza el, the tabletis erased
but not entirely,
since an angel scrapesaway the writingexceptforone
line with four words. This is reasonablyinterpretedas signifying
the
destructioncaused by the flood,whichwill wipe out mostbut not all of
humankind.The tabletof 2Q26, which is submergedand then lifted
fromthewaters,can be understoodalong similarlines.88This interpretation is supportedby thevisionof the gardenin 4Q530 2 ii, all the trees
ofwhichare obliteratedexceptforone withthreeshoots,whichis probato Noah and his threesons.892Q26 is plausiblyinterpreted
blya reference
as a visionthatforetoldthedestruction
of all or mostof thegiantsin the
water.Soon afterthisthegiantNarmn(= Hahyah)secsa gardenwithrowsof
trees.Henning,"TheBookofGiants?60, notesthatthePersianwordtxtgmay
mean"board."Milik,TheBooksofEnoch,334, arguesthatthismustbe thecase
"Einweion thebasisof2Q26. Milik'ssuggestion
is endorsed
bySundermann,
60.
teresFragment,"
See
also
"The
Book
492.
Henning,
ofGiants?57,

86 Milik, TheBooks Enoch,335.

of
87
("thetablet")occursfourtimesin fourpartiallypreservedlines,always
in thesingular.The termalso occursin 1Q23 312, again in thesingular.
88 This is also
suggestedby 4Q203 8, in which a proclamationof judgment
writtenby Enoch is readout to thegiantsfroma tablet(cf.4Q203 7b). See A. A.
Orlov,"Overshadowedby Enochs Greatness:'Two Tablets'Traditionsfromthe
to MerkabahMystiBook of Giantsto Palaea Histrica?in FromApocalypticism
cism,109-31.
89 Stuckenbruck,TheBook Giants,
of

16 (2009)221-253
M. Goffi
DeadSeaDiscoveries

249

flood.90
No othervisionin theBookofGiantscan be betterunderstoodas
thetopicof Mahawaysfirsttripto Enoch thanthatof 2Q26.
2Q26, so interpreted,
providesa contextforOhyahs actionsin 4Q530
2 ii and 4Q531 22. When Ohyah learnsabout Gilgameshs defeat,he
thedestruction
of
respondsby speakingof a visionthatprobablysignifies
Thiswould not be a cause forceleall or mostof thegiantsin theflood.91
thevisionof Ohyah in 4Q531 22
brationamong the giants.Identifying
9-12 explainswhy he stressesin 4Q530 2 ii 1-3 what Gilgameshsaid
- the vision he himself
while omittinga key part of the conversation
mentionedto Gilgamesh.Ohyah does not tell an outrightlie but is
what he tellsthe othergiantsabout his conversation
deceitfulregarding
with Gilgamesh.He emphasizeswhat Gilgameshsaid, construedto the
effectthathe alone has been defeated.The effectof Ohyahs spin is to
makeit appearthatonlyGilgameshis to be punished.Thereis no reason
to thinkthathe was successfulin his bid to plant blame on Gilgamesh.
with Ohyah
This "scape-giant"role of Gilgameshand his interactions
haveno parallelin theepic of Gilgamesh.
Two itemssupporttheclaimthatOhyah dishonestly
attemptsto place
judgmenton Gilgameshalone. One is the themeof deceitin theBookof
Giantsand the second regardsinternecinestrifebetweenOhyah and
othergiants.First,one of thestatedcrimesof thegiantsis deceit.4Q533
4, which refersto the flood in line 3 (Vq), containsthe followingin
lines 1-2: "to de]ceive (7T'p[vh) [upon] the earthall which... [blood]
was pouredand lies (faTO) theyweres[peaking"(cf.4Q530 20 I).92This
two chargesraisedagainstthegiantsthatare associatedwiththe
preserves
90Line4 of2Q26 is
and mayread"forthemall" ('f'b
verypoorlypreserved
is in Stuckenbruck,
64;
DJD 36:74; idem,TheBookofGiants,
bi). Thisreading
tranthe
to
endorse
material
evidence
is
not
but
there
266,
ATTM,
enough
Beyer,
of "all"the
to thedestruction
it mayrefer
If one grantsthisreading,
scription.
the
the
survived
some
of
at
least
that
tradition
A
later
Jewish
giants
posits
giants.
"The'Angels'and 'Giants'of Genesis6:1-4,"
flood.See further
Stuckenbruck,

358; idem, TheBookofGiants,38.

91 This
of 4Q531 22 12 of Puech, DJD 31:74:
supportsthe reconstruction
is
(?)."
[d]ream
com[plete
"your
92
DJD 31:110. Stuckenbruck,The Book of Giants, 189, gives essentially
in questionas 4Q556 6. Milik,
but classifiesthe fragment
thesame transcription
The Books of Enoch, 237, transcribesmpfl*? ("to examine"). See also Beyer,

ATTM,260.

250

M. GoffiDead SeaDiscoveries
16 (2009)221-253

- murderand deceit.93
The era of the giantsis characterized
flood
by
deceitin 1 EnochandotherEarlyJewish
texts.94
ThethesisthatOhyahengagedindeceitattheexpense
is
ofGilgamesh
95
also supported
containsremby6Q8 1 (cf.1Q23 29). Thisfragment
nantsofan altercation
Line
between
and
Ohyah
Mahaway.96 2 establishes
thattheformer
is
to
the
latter.
Line3 has thestatement
giant speaking
"Whohasshownyoueverything?"
was
Line4 reads"Baraq'elmyfather
93 Both of these
topics may be in the textMilik identifiedas 4Q206 3, but
the transcription
of the core passage is in dispute.Accordingto Stuckenbruck,
Wn ) and
DJD 36:46, 4Q206 3 i 6 mentionsthesheddingof blood (TJW
line 7 is too fragmentary
to yield a transcription.
See also idem, TheBook of
in line7 thephrasefnp[U?]Q,
transcribe
Giants,195. Beyerand Puech,however,
were
deceitful"
ATTM, 260, and DJD
(cf. 4Q533 4). See, respectively,
"they
Puech
calls
the
in
1
text
31:111.
(Miliks 4Q206 3) to distinquestion4Q206a
the
from
Milik's
reconstruction.
Milik, TheBooksofEnoch,237,
guish
fragment
as partof his thesisthatthe Book of Giantswas the second book of an "Enochic
Pentateuch,"placed 4Q206 2 and 3 just aftertheend of theBookoftheWatchers
(or the Aramaic text that preservesthe final materialavailable in Watchers,
4QEne 1 xxvii). Thus he understoodthese two fragmentsas comprisingthe
E. J. C. Tigchelaar,"Notes on Fragbeginningof theBookofGiants.See further
mentsof4Q206/206a, 4Q203-204, and Two UnpublishedFragments(4Q59?),"
Mevhillot5-6 (2007) (= Devoran Dimant FS): *187-*199.
94 In the
Apocalypse
of Weeks,the second week is the era of the flood: "there
will arisea secondweek,in whichdeceitand violence(NOQTI*TlpU>)will spring
up, and in it will be the firstend, and in it a man will be saved (Noah)" (7 En.
93:4; 4QEn8 1 iii 25). The word is prominentin the biblical flood story
(Gen 6:11, 13). SecondBaruch56, while it does not mentionthe giantsspecifithe time of the Watchersand giantsas one of deceit (w. 2,
cally,characterizes
Sib.
cf.
Or.
11-13;
1.177-178). See Reeves,JewishLore, 77-78; Nickelsburg,
/ Enoch1, 443; Milik, TheBooksofEnoch,264; K. Koch, "Historyas a Battlefield
of Two AntagonisticPowersin theApocalypseof Weeks and in the Rule of the
Community,"in Enochand QumranOrigins(d. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans,2005), 185-99 (esp. 192).
95
was originallypublished
DJD 36:78-80. This is a re-edition;the fragment
in DJD 3:116-19. See also Stuckenbruck,TheBook of Giants,196-200; Beyer,
ATTM, 262; . Puech, "Les Fragments1 3 du Livredes Gantsde la grotte6
(pap6Q8)," RevQ 19/74 (1999): 227-38.
96 Commentatorshave observedthat thereis a conflictbetweenthese two
TheBookofGiants,199; Reeves,JewishLore,
giants.See Stuckenbruck,

M. Goff/
Dead SeaDiscoveries
16 (2009)221-253

25 1

withme."Thisis a claimuttered
to Ohyah.97
byMahawayin response
in lightofline3- "Whohas shown
The statement
seemsto be uttered
s accountof
Ohyahis apparently
youeverything?"
Mahaway
questioning
hisjourneyto Enoch.Eitherdisputing
thatMahawaywentto Enochor
thevalueofwhatMahawaylearnedfromhim,Ohyahinterquestioning
him:
hadnot[finished[te]Hingwhat[Enochhadshown
"Mahaway
rupts
and said to] him, haveheardof fou[r]
him... and Ohyah answered
If [a] barren[?] [woman]wereto givebirth
. . ." (11.5-6; cf.Jub.
wonders!
98
s
statement
is
not
buthe seemsto
37:20-23). Ohyah
fullypreserved,
to
thathe,notMahaway,
access
divine
assert
Ohyah
possesses
knowledge.
97

thatMahaway
toEnoch
4Q530 7 ii,however,
givesno indication
journeyed
It is possiblethatMahawayis lyingin 6Q8 1 4 in
byhis father.
accompanied
ofOhyah.Baraq'elistheninthWatcher
mentothehostilequestioning
response
tionedin 1 En. 6:7 (cf.4QEna 1 iii 8). In a Uighurversionof theManichean
withmaking
a greatjourney
is associated
to
BookofGiants
ythe"sonofVirogdad"
c oftheKawnMahaway
Enoch,as Mahawaydoesin 4Q530 7 ii. In fragment
means"from
[it
"Virogdad"
lightning
appearsto statethatVirogdadis hisfather.
ofGod").
themeaning
of"Baraq'el"("lightning
andthusapproximates
is]given,"
In theMidrashof Semhazaiand 'Aza'el the fatherof Heyyaand 'Aheyyais
Whileno surviving
Semhazai.
portionoftheQumranBookofGiantsstatesso,it
of thebrothers
to assumethatthefather
is reasonable
'Ohyahand Hahyahis
W. B. Henning,"Neue Materialien
zur
not Baraq'el.See further
Semihazah,
ZDMG 90 (1936): 1-18 (esp.4); idem,"The
des Manichismus,"
Geschichte
TheBookofGiants,
BookofGiants?60, 65; Stuckenbruck,
198;Puech,"LesFragments1 3,"231.
98Theterm"barren"
todecipher
andcannotbe taken
(np]HD)isverydifficult
thetranscription
Theword"four"
follows
as a conclusive
P]T1NofPuech,
reading.
1 3," 230. Most commentators
followMilik,TheBooksof
"Les Fragments
,"behold."See, forexample,Stuckenbruck,
Enochs300, who transcribes
Lore,59; Beyer,
ATTM,262. Baillet,DJD 3:117,did
Jewish
DJD 36:78; Reeves,
forthetermin dispute.I followPuechbecauseon the
a transcription
notoffer
ofthedisputed
word
thereis a bottomhookon thefinalvisibleletter
photograph
thewordinquesthatonewouldfindin a betnota waw.Alsothespacebetween
letterafterthelastvisibletraces.In
tionand thenextallowsforan additional
to interpret
what'Ohyah
thereis notenoughmaterial
either
sufficiently
reading,
saystoMahaway.
of 6Q8 1 5, Mahawayis inters reconstruction
to Stuckenbruck
According
ruptedwhensayingwhatBaraq'elhad shownhim.But4Q530 7 ii establishes
fromEnoch,notBaraq'el.See alsoidem,
to getknowledge
thatMahawaytravels
TheBookofGiants,

252

M. GoffiDead SeaDiscoveries
16 (2009) 221-253

does not want to hear about whatMahawaylearnedfrom

certainly
Enoch." Thisfitsperfectly
withtheunderstanding
of Ohyahsconduct
sketched
above.He wouldnothavebeenhappyto learnfromMahaway
thatEnochhasinterpreted
a visiontosignify
thatmostorallofthegiants
aretoperishin theflood.
6. Conclusion
Therearethematic
similarities
betweentheGilgamesh
epicand theBook
Giants.
Both
are
in
set
a
and contain character
named
of
deepantiquity
whois a gigantic
warrior.
Dreamsarea majorthemein both
Gilgamesh
in theBookofGiantsis a wickedfigure,
likethe
compositions.
Gilgamesh
in
in
whereas
the
is
a
hero
and
revered
giants general,
epic Gilgamesh
The
of
the
text
loses
hisbattleagainsthumans
Qumran
king. Gilgamesh
andangelsin 4Q531 22, andin theliterary
in comepiche is victorious
batagainstHumbaba.Suchcontrasts
not
a
of
suggest only degree knowlof
the
on
the
edge
Mesopotamian
epic
partoftheQumrantexts author,
butalso thatthereis a polemicaledgein hisadaptation
ofmotifs
from
thisepic,as Reeveshas stressed.
The present
articlesuggests
thisrealizationshouldbe qualified
bytwopoints.
Core
elements
of
theepichaveno analoguein theBookofGiants.
(1)
In theQumrantextGilgamesh
is nota kingandhasno friend
whocould
be compared
to Enkidu.Hobabishneverguardsa forest
and thereis no
Othergiantssuchas Ohyah
grandbattlebetweenhimand Gilgamesh.
and Mahawayaremoreprominent
in thecomposition
thanGilgamesh
and Hobabish.The knowledge
of theauthorof theBookof Giantsof
theGilgamesh
epicdoesnotseemto be informed
byan Aramaictextof
which
the
author
consults
and
as Reeves
reworks,
Gilgamesh
polemically
The
authors
with
the
is
better
to
attributed
proposes.
familiarity
epic
indirectknowledgeof Mesopotamian
the figureof
legendsregarding
Gilgamesh.
99A
of theManicheanBookof Giants(Henningfrg.C)
Sogdianfragment
attestsan accountof thegiantShm(= Ohyah) attempting
to killMahaway.
Strife
in frg.j of theKawn:"Thereupon
the
amongthegiantsis also attested
giantsbeganto killeachotherand [toabducttheirwives]."See Henning,"The
BookofGiants?60, 66. Alsonote4Q530 5 1,whichmayrefer
to Ohyah:"his
brother
[willru]leov[er. . ." (b]$ ^

M. Goff/
DeadSeaDiscoveries
16(2009)221-253

253

(2) Major aspectsof the portrayalof Gilgameshin the Book of Giants

are shaped by largerthemesin the compositionratherthan a hostile
In 4Q531 22 the giantGilgamesh
stancetowardsthe epic of Gilgamesh.
tells Ohyah about his defeat,and Ohyah repliesby mentioninga vision
previouslydisclosedto him, the contentof which is probablyin 2Q26.
Motivatedby the fearthathe and the giantsin generalwill be destroyed
in theflood,'Ohyah attemptsto planttheblame fortheircrimeson Gilgameshalone. The futileattemptto singleout Gilgameshforjudgmentis
the occasion forthe two visionsof 4Q530 2 ii, which emphasizethat
in theflood.Knowlmostor all ofthegiantswillbe judgedand destroyed
of
offers
littleassistancein theinterpretation
edgeoftheepic of Gilgamesh
thesekeyeventsof theBookofGiants.The coregoal of thecompositionis
to portraythe ante-diluviangiantsas evil and recounttheirexploitsand
punishment,not to polemicizeagainstthe Gilgameshepic, or, as Puech
argues,againstHellenisticpagan worshipin the Upper Galilee.100The
textcreatively
appropriatesmotifsfromthe epic and makesGilgamesha
characterin his own right.The compositionconstitutesan important
of ancientNear Easterntraditionin Early
exampleof the recrudescence
Jewishliterature.101

100Thisassessment
withtheviewsof George,TheBabybnian
is consistent
textreveals"certain
thatno postcuneiform
He
1.69-70.
argues
Epic,
Gilgamesh
of Gilgamesh
Aramaic
that
He
of
the
papyri
grants
Babylonian
epic."
knowledge
themesand
is
that
individual
"all
one
can
concludes
but
existed
have
say
may
in
later
of
are
where
literatures,
of
surviving
they
suspected
episodes Gilgames,
can know
which
we
about
of
intermediate
a
weretransformed
stages,
variety
by
worlds."
talesofverydifferent
intotheverydifferent
almostnothing,
101 . Cross,Canaanite
HarvardUniEpic(Cambridge:
MythandHebrew
The
Collins,
(2d ed.;
343-46;
Press,
1973),
J.
J.
Imagination
Apocalyptic
versity
GrandRapids:Eerdmans,
1998),