This article offers some new suggestions regarding the background and purpose of theBook of Giants in the light of recent scholarship emphasizing (1) the shared features andinterrelatedness of the Aramaic works discovered at Qumran and (2) the need to groundour understanding of early Jewish apocalyptic literature within the socio-political contextof Hellenistic imperial domination. While this intriguing composition has beenlocated correctly within the orbit of early Enochic tradition, the present study broadensthe lens in order to consider the significance of its striking parallels with Danielic tradition,beyond the well-known shared tradition of the throne theophany (4Q530 2 ii 16–20and Dan 7:9–10). Due attention is given both to the Danielic parallels and the transformationsin Giants vis-à-vis the Enochic tradition upon which it depends (the Book ofWatchers), which are interpreted in relation to recent research emphasizing that theearly Enochic and Danielic writings constituted expressions of resistance to imperialrule. In line with this literary and historical contextualization, the study argues for aparadigmatic interpretation of Giants, according to which the monstrous sons of thewatchers symbolize the violent, arrogant Hellenistic rulers of the author’s day.
See e.g. E. J. C. Tigchelaar“Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scriptures: Preliminary Observations,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. M. Popović; jsjSup 141; Leiden: Brill2010) 155–71esp. 160.
See e.g. R. A. HorsleyRevolt of the Scribes: Resistance and Apocalyptic Origins(Minneapolis: Fortress2010); A. Portier-Young Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2011).
D. Jackson“Demonising Gilgameš,”Gilgameš and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference held at Mandelbaum House The University of Sydney 21–23 July 2004(ed. J. Azize and N. Weeks; anes 21; Leuven: Peeters 2007) 107–14. In contrast with the opinions of Jackson Puech and Reeves Goff argues that the author did not appropriate Mesopotamian motifs in the service of some programmatic polemic. Rather “the core goal of the composition is to portray the ante-diluvian giants as evil and recount their exploits and punishment” (“Gilgamesh the Giant” 253). While he is certainly correct about the core goal of the composition within its narrative setting the Sitz im Leben and motivating factors underlying this goal remain to be explained. For the possibility that Giants drew elements from the Epic of Gilgamesh without polemical intent cf. L. T. Stuckenbruck “Giant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls” in Die Dämonen: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment (ed. A. Lange et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2003) 313–38 (esp. 332). Note however his conclusion that through Giants “a demonizing polemic was waged against non-Jewish traditions which were circulating in antiquity” (337).
See e.g. M. HimmelfarbAscent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press1993) 20–23; R. Albertz History of Israelite Religion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox 1994) 579; E. J. C. Tigchelaar Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (Oudtestamentische Studiën 35; Leiden: Brill 1996) 195–203; W. 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) 39–49; P. Tiller “The Sociological Settings of the Components of 1 Enoch” in The Early Enoch Literature (ed. G. Boccaccini and J. J. Collins; jsjSup 121; Leiden/Boston: Brill 2007) 237–55.
J. J. CollinsThe Apocalyptic Imagination (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans1998) 50–51. Cf. the fuller discussion of these methodological issues in idem “The Apocalyptic Technique: Setting and Function in the Book of Watchers” cbq 44 (1982): 91–111.
See S. A. StephensSeeing Double: Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press2003) 63–64; E. Hall Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition Through Tragedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1991) 53 68 102. Cf. D. Castriota Myth Ethos and Actuality: Official Art in Fifth Century Athens (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press 1992) 138–43 who argues that the gigantomachy depicted on the east metopes of the Parthenon would have been conceived by Greeks of the fifth century as a paradigm for the defeat of the hubristic “gigantic ambitions” of the Persian Empire: “The gigantomachy more than any other theme could bring home the message that the Olympians had always supported and inspired the Athenians in their righteous struggles against arrogant lawlessness and disorder” (142).
See ReevesJewish Lore95. This reading is according to Milik’s “M” manuscript (Midrash Bereshit Rabbati ex libro R. Mosis Haddarshan collectus e codice Pragensi by Ch. Albek Jerusalem 1940 pp. 29 14–31 8 [fol. 10–11]). In the Oxford Bodleian manuscript version (Milik’s “B” manuscript) the trees are destroyed by a single angel. For the texts see Milik The Books of Enoch 325.
Goff“Gilgamesh the Giant”245–46. Cf. H. S. Kvanvig Primeval History: Babylonian Biblical and Enochic An Intertextual Reading (jsjSup 149; Leiden: Brill 2011) 413–26. He argues that the giants of Enochic mythology correspond to the antediluvian warrior-kings mentioned in Akkadian sources.
C. A. Newsom“Why Nabonidus? Excavating Traditions from Qumran, the Hebrew Bible, and Neo-Babylonian Sources,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts(ed. S. Metso H. Najman and E. Schuller; stdj 92; Leiden: Brill 2010) 57–80. Cf. Henze The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar 204 who observes that the differing versions of this story in the mt and the Old Greek display “signs of deliberate reworkings and willful alterations. The tale of the raving Babylonian monarch has been subjected to a continuous process of rewriting and reediting.”
N. W. PorteousDaniel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: Westminster Press1976) 71. See also H. H. Rowley “The Unity of the Book of Daniel” in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1965) 249–80 at 277. Cf. the comment of D. Dimant on 4Q388a 7 ii 3 in djd 30:210–11.