Forma de citar este artículo en APA:

Hernández Valencia, J. S. (2024). Influence of the Enochic tradition on Qumran: reception and adaptation of the Watchers and Giants as a case study. Perseitas, 12, 34-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21501/23461780.4671

 

Influence of the Enochic tradition on Qumran: reception and adaptation of the Watchers and Giants as a case studya

La influencia de la tradición henóquica en Qumrán:

recepción y adaptación de los Vigilantes y los Gigantes como caso de estudio

Research-Derived Reflection Article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21501/23461780.4671

Received: February 27, 2023. Accepted: July 7, 2023. Published: January 29th, 2024

Juan Sebastián Hernández Valencia

Abstract

The confluence of different Jewish traditions in the Qumran library is evident. The Enochic traditions are not only counted as the oldest influences in Qumran, they also give it a certain theological unity. This is even more true in the case of demonology. Belial’s figure brings together a rich lexicographic heritage in which different traditions are integrated under the characteristics of the Watchers and Giants of the Enochic tradition (1 En 6—8). This study analyzes the theological characterization of the demonological figures found in Qumran to specify the Enochic influence on it.

Keywords

1 Enoch; Belial; Demonology of Second Temple Judaism; Apocalyptic Literature; Magic and Exorcism at Qumran; Qumran Theology; Watchers and Giants.

Resumen

Es evidente la confluencia de diferentes tradiciones judías en la biblioteca de Qumrán. Las tradiciones henóquicas no solo se cuentan como las influencias más antiguas en Qumrán, también le dan cierta unidad teológica. Esto es aún más cierto en el caso de la demonología. En la figura de Belial se reúne una rica tradición lexicográfica en la cual se integran diferentes tradiciones bajo las características de los vigilantes y gigantes de la tradición henóquica (1Hen 6—8). El presente estudio analiza la caracterización teológica de las figuras demonológicas presentes en Qumrán con el fin de precisar la influencia henóquica en dicha caracterización.

Palabras clave

1 Henoc; Belial; Demonología del judaísmo del Segundo Templo; Literatura apocalíptica; Magia y exorcismo en Qumrán; Teología de Qumrán; Vigilantes; Gigantes.

 

Introduction

From the first scholarly publications of the manuscripts, from the 1950s to the 1980s, two aspects led research: first, discovering the identity of the Jewish community that collected and hid the manuscript library; second, its relationship to the origins of Christianity.1 Only from the 1990s, when free and universal access was granted to the ca. 900 mss.2 from the eleven caves3, new lines and interests were opened for research into Qumran,4 including the study of demonology in the Second Temple Judaism.

The history of demonology research in Qumran has two characteristics:

(1) it has had a slow emergence and evolution.

(2) it has always been associated to several related topics, such as the study of dualism (cosmological and theological), predestination, and theodicy (Sacchi, 2004, pp. 327-525), the reception and development of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature, and the development of magic, apotropaic techniques, and mystical and esoteric worldviews in Second Temple Judaism (Alexander, 2000, pp. 502-504; 1999a, pp. 318-337; 1999b, pp. 331-353; 1986, pp. 342-379). It is not surprising that a researcher like Alexander (1999b, pp. 331-353) highlights the lack of attention paid to demonology in Qumran studies.

This deficiency in research has been accentuated by the assimilation of demonology into magic research in Qumran. The position of Weitzman is symptomatic of such a deficiency (1996, pp. 21-54); this author directly relates the development of magic and exorcisms in Qumran to the myth of the fall of the Watchers (1 En 6—11).5

Likewise, studies such as that of Swartz (2001, pp. 182-193) link magic in Qumran directly with Jewish mystical and esoteric traditions of the rabbinic period, bypassing the study of Enochic demonology to the point of arguing that magic and mysticism are important parts of the worldview in Qumran. This assimilation phenomenon must be understood and differentiated.

Considering the theological characterization of the Watchers and the Giants in Qumran, its presentation and development in this corpus, 1QM XIII, 11-12 will be analyzed as representative texts of the presence and function of Belial in eschatological books. Likewise, 4QShira 1,4-9 will be studied as an example of its presence and function in magical texts. However, footnotes will show, where relevant, the testimonies in other mss. from Qumran. Before moving on to the study of these texts, it is important to present a synthesis of the problem of the conception of magic in Qumran, its relationship with the Enochic tradition, and the issues of the classification method employed for this material, as well as a proposal to solve it.

Some considerations on how to approach the problem of magic and classification of material in Qumran

The problem of the concept of magic in Qumran

It is understandable that the concept of magic in Qumran,6 as well as apotropaic techniques, are grouped together with demonology because they share the same dualistic worldview (Penney and Wise, 1994, pp. 627-650). However, the phenomenon of magic does not share the same central position in Qumran theology nor the extent of its presence in the texts as demonology. To understand the evolution and influence of Enochic demonology on Qumran, it is necessary to clarify its relationship with magic.

If the concept of magic is defined as a series of exorcism techniques and protection against demons, as several critics do —Lyons and Reimer (1998, pp. 16-32), and Penney and Wise (1994, p. 627)— it would be related and included in demonology, and not the other way around. Thus, understanding the relationships between magic and demonology, we start from the hypothesis that the demonological worldview supports the magical techniques documented in Qumran.

Alexander's synthesis is helpful as a start point (2000, pp. 502-504; 1999a, pp. 318-337; 1999b, pp. 337-341). According to this author, Qumran demonology arises from Enochic demonology. Even before Alexander, Grelot (1958, pp. 113-131) had asserted that the Qumran worldview is founded on the Enochic demonology, soteriology, and eschatology of the biblical flood. The Qumran community perceives itself as a flood generation, and the texts 4Q510 and 4Q511 allow the community instructor (משכיל) to be seen as a new Enoch or a new Noah (Alexander, 1999a, pp. 318-324). Likewise, the struggle with the devil is assumed to have a psychological nature, in which משכיל reminds the devil of God's power and asks angels for help.7 In fact, in Qumran, the Enochic etiology that explains the origin of demons and the hierarchical structures of evil based on the spirits of Giants was studied with great interest (1 En 7; 10; 15). Even the liturgy is conceived as a spiritual struggle against demons (Alexander, 1999a, p. 325). Altogether, Enochic demonology configures and unifies Qumran demonology and allows it to hold a dualistic view of the world as well as a classical monotheism.

Alexander's (1999a) fundamental thesis has been accepted, albeit critiqued on several points.8 Three of them stand out:

1. The Enochic Giants are identified as the demons that attack and torment men.
2. The "bastard spirits" (רוחות ממזרים) of 4Q510 are the Giants of the Enochic tradition.
3. This position surpasses the opinion of previous research, in which all demons were recognized as Watchers or fallen angels.9

These points are of great importance because they lead research towards a more specific and coherent theological characterization of demons in relation to the complexity offered by the texts and the different demonological traditions presented therein.

These ideas should be nuanced with the criticisms made by Reimer (2000, pp. 334-353). This article will propose a classification of the demonological material from Qumran to identify the adaptation patterns of the Enochic Watchers’ theological characterization as accurately as possible (the biggest weakness of Alexander's work).

The Problem of Manuscript Classification

The richness and diversity of materials, genres, and traditions collected in the Qumran library alone pose a classification and grouping problem that affects the way in which texts are understood and read. This problem also affects the understanding of the different demonological traditions, as well as their theological development.

Currently, there are two classifications and groupings of the Qumran mss.: (1) a classification that differentiates between sectarian texts (or originally composed by the community) and non-sectarian texts (i.e., texts and traditions received and adapted by the community); (2) a classification that differentiates and groups mss. according to their literary genres or the topics they elaborate on (poetic, halachic, para-biblical, apocalyptic, etc.).

The first classification was used at the beginning of Qumran research; it is diachronic and useful for perceiving and understanding the reception of texts and theological matters belonging to other movements and tendencies of Second Temple Judaism, but it does not allow us to understand or construct an overall theological vision.

The second classification began to be used from the 90s of the twentieth century, when it was possible to have an overview of the Qumran library. It highlights the literary genres used in the mss. It is a synchronous type of classification that enables a panoptic understanding of the interrelationship among the mss. However, paying so much attention to the literary and thematic unity of mss. does not allow us to notice the particular theological development of each text.

Two observations emerge from the status of the classification study:

1. The problem of classifying mss. goes beyond a simple exercise in taxonomy: it presupposes a series of hermeneutical decisions that affect the theological understanding of texts’ content. By taking this path, one enters into a series of circular hermeneutical reflections that always reach the presupposed theological conclusions.
2. Although it would be ideal to create a hermeneutical system that brings together the perspectives of both classification systems (diachronic and synchronic), it is impossible to classify the same mss. at the same time using both taxonomies criteria; these cannot be used simultaneously and on the same texts without creating ambiguities and contradictions.11

However, the appropriateness of both classification methods should be considered. First, a diachronic taxonomy that allows us to observe the evolution of theological stages and literary sources, while estimating the relevance of a synchronic taxonomy that records literary relations, influences, and theological links between the mss. It is best to use a hierarchization method in which, at methodological moments, a synchronic classification will first be applied to build groups of texts according to their literary, thematic, and theological relationships; then, apply a diachronic classification that allows analyzing the theological development and source(s) of each group of texts.

Following this hierarchy, the textual material will be divided into two groups:

1. "Enochic" texts12
2. Texts that deal with magic and apotropaic techniques.

Both groups will then be classified according to sectarian and non-sectarian taxonomic criteria.

Classification of the material

When searching for demonological material among the ca. 900 mss. from Qumran,13 we found texts that reproduce, partially or totally, the myth of the fall of the Watchers (1 En 6-11), as well as the Enochic story of the punishment of the Watchers and the Giants (1 En 14:1-7; 15—16). Likewise, mss. that show the influence, in different degrees of intertextuality, of literary and theological themes and motifs were identified, as well as characters from the Enochic tradition on the Watchers and the Giants.

Following the described synchronous criterion, the Enochic material (30 mss.) is classified into the following four groups: (1) copies of 1 En and the Book of Giants; (2) reworking and expansion of literary and theological texts and motifs; (3) mss. with direct influence from the Enochic tradition; and (4) mss. whose influence and dubious identification of traditions, motifs, and Enochic characters is uncertain.

Table 1. Synchronous Classification of Enochic Material in Qumran

(1) Copy	4Q201 III; IV;14 4Q202 II—IV; VI;15 4Q204 II; V;16 4Q204 5 II;17 and XQpapEnoch.18
(2) Rework	1Q20 II,1-26; 4Q180 1,7-9; 4Q213 8,6;19 4Q396 IV,8-11;20 4Q510 1,4-6; 4Q530 II;21 and 11Q13 II,11-13.
(3) Direct influence	CD-A II,18-21;22 4Q181 2,1-4; 4Q531 4-5; 4Q532 1;23 and 11Q12 5.24
(4) Uncertain influence	1QHa XXV,6;25 1Q20 1 I,1-3;26 1Q27 1 I,5;27 4Q227 2;28 4Q370 I,2-3.6;29 4Q511 2 II,3;30 4Q531 17.31

 

From these four groups, and following the diachronic criterion, 6 mss. are obtained and divided into two categories:

Table 2. Diachronic classification of Enochic material in Qumran

(1) Mss. reworked by the community	11Q13 II,11-13; 1Q20 II,1-26; and 4Q510 1,4-6.
(2) "non-sectarian" mss.	4Q180 1,7-10; 11Q12 5; and 4Q201 III-IV.

 

The study of the rest of the article will be based on these 6 mss. Before starting their analysis, it is necessary to add the classification of the texts that deal with magic and apotropaic techniques.

Following the synchronous criterion, the material related to magic and exorcisms (fourteen mss.) is classified into the following four groups: (1) divination and omens; (2) exorcisms; (3) diseases treated with exorcist techniques; and (4) texts describing the teachings of the Watchers on magic and divination.

Table 3. Groups of texts related to magic and apotropaic techniques

(1) Divination and omens	4Q186; 4Q561; 4Q318.32
(2) Exorcisms	4Q286 7 II,1-13;33 4Q510 1,4-6;34 4Q511 8,4; 10; 35,6-7; 48-59 II,2-3; 4Q560 II,5-6;35 11Q5 XVII 9-10;36 11Q11 II,4-6; III-IV.37
(3) Illness/exorcisms	1Q20 XX,16.26;38 4Q242 1-3;39 4Q560 I,3-6; 11Q5 XIX,15-16.40
(4) Teachings of the Watchers	4Q201 III,15; IV,1-4;41 4Q202 II,19; III,1-5.42

 

Of these four groups, and following the diachronic criterion, the fourteen mss. (eleven mss. on magic, two Enochic mss., and one apocryphal mss. related to the Jubilees)43 are reorganized and divided into two categories:

Table 4. Group of Texts according the diachronic criterion

(1) Community owned mss.	4Q242 1-3; 4Q286 7 II,1-13; 4Q186; 4Q318; 4Q510 1,4-6; 4Q511 8,4; 10; 35,6-7; 48-59 II,2-3; 4Q560 I,3-6; II,5-6; 4Q561; 11Q5 XVII 9-10; XIX,15-16 ; 11Q11 II,4-6; III-IV.
(2) "non-sectarian" mss.	1Q20 XX,16.26;44 4Q201 III,15; IV,1-4; 4Q202 II,19; III,1-5.

 

Out of these fourteen mss., seven are especially significant, community owned, and on magic: 4Q186, 4Q318, 4Q510, 4Q511, 4Q560, 4Q561, and 11Q11. The rest of the article will be based on the analysis of these mss., plus the six mss. of the Enochic tradition selected above, namely: 1Q20, 4Q180, 4Q201, 4Q510, 11Q12, and 11Q13. In total, there are 13 different mss. that will be studied.

When considering the number of mss. reworked by the community and those in which the influence of the Enochic tradition is observed, a fundamental fact stands out: the great importance of Enochic etiology in the literature of Qumran. The diversity in the developed demonological lexicon speaks of it.

Influence of Enochic Demonology on Qumran Texts

The Enochic influence on Qumran is most notorious in the study of the demonological lexicon. In this field, it is common to notice the union of different traditions of the literature of Second Temple Judaism, as well as the mixture between words that are used interchangeably to personify specific demons and to represent generic characterizations (Stuckenbruck, 2014, pp. 78-102).

One of these terms is מלאך, a generic word that, accompanied by certain qualifiers, serves to represent one or more evil figures.45 The proper names from the Enochic tradition are very frequent, for instance: Watchers (עירים),46 Giants (גבורים), ʿAsa’el (עסאל; 4QEnc II,26),47 and Šemiḥazah (שמיחזה; 4QEna III,6; 4QEnb III,1; IV,1.9; 4QEnc II,24). Even the proper names of some Giants only known before the findings of Manichaean sources have been found in Qumran.48

Undoubtedly, the most interesting elements to study the influence of Enochic traditions on Qumran are the words spirits (רוחות),49 Belial (בליעל),50 Satan (שטן; 11 QPsb frags. 4-5,15; 11Q11 IV,12), and Mastema (משטמה).51 The latter are a mixture of biblical and other particular traditions (Jubilee), it seems that both names are even used to refer to the same evil agent (cfr. Jub 1:20; 15:33; 1QM XIII,11). Michalak (2012, p. 173), Wright (2005, p. 160, note 85), and Jenks (1991, p. 132) also suggest that. This reception and adaptation of Enochic traditions can be more accurately noted if we look in detail at the cited texts, starting with 1QM XIII, 11-12. There, we will observe how the figure of Belial was developed under and received Enochic demonology.

The figure of Belial in eschatological texts

To analyze the figure of Belial, we chose 1QM XIII, 11-12. There is a copy of this text in 4QMe 1. It presents the creation of Belial and offers a summary of its most significant theological characteristics.

1QM is one of the most representative community compositions of the Qumran apocalypse.52 Its demonological lexicon is very rich and collects figures that are present in the OT.53 The text structure can be divided into two main parts: (1) an introduction with general indications, addressed to the instructor, on the preparation for the final war (column I); (2) detailed instructions for war against human and demonic powers (columns II-XIX).54 At the end of this second part, there is a subdivision that presents the battle praises (columns X-XV).

In the middle of the praises section, there is a description of the origin and basic function of Belial (XIII, 11-12):

(García Martínez and Tigchelaar, 1999, p. 134).

11 You created Belial for the pit, angel of enmity; his [dom]ain is darkness, his counsel is for evil and wickedness. 12 All the spirits of his lot angels of destruction walk in the laws of darkness; towards them goes his only desire. (García Martínez, 1994, p. 108)55

These two lines are delimited, at the beginning, by line 10, which speaks of the prince of light, who is antithetically opposed to Belial (line 11).56 At the end, it is delimited with the last part of line 12, where a series of blessings corresponding to the tone of column XIII begin.57 At the beginning of line 11, there are aspects that can be called ontological, since they specify the origin and nature of Belial.

In the sentence עשיתה בליעל לשחת ואתה (and you created Belial for the pit), the root עשה (make, manufacture, use), enunciates the theological motif of Yahweh's creative force.58 In Qumran, the presence of this theological motif related to the origin of Belial is developed through modified (or dualistic) monotheism, which is characteristic of the community (Duhaime, 2000, pp. 215-220).59 There, space is opened for cosmological and ontological dualism, which allows us to speak of the creation of Belial and its predestination: to be made "for the pit" (לשחת).

In the phrase מלאך משפטה (angel of hostility) the fundamental activity of Belial is preached through the objective genitive of the phrase in its constructed state: to be hostile, to oppose.60 The rest of the content in the line describes Belial's actions. Line 12 describes Belial's lot in some order parallel to Belial's description and his actions on line 11. This parallel is evidenced by the presence of the phrase מלאך משפטה in line 11b, and its corresponding מלאכי חבל in line 12b, as well as the inclusion of the figure of Belial in line 12a using the pronominal suffix in oblique case גורלו (of its lot).

In this text, Belial is presented with four basic characteristics that determine his nature: being hostile, being the ruler of darkness, ruling according to the laws of darkness, and being predestined to the pit. Likewise, in this text, the figure of Belial shows a mixture of the characteristics of the Giants and the Watchers, which are separated in the Enochic tradition. While the Watchers are seductive and rebellious, the Giants are hostile and destroy men.

In the first feature of Belial analyzed from the text, the influence of the Enochic tradition on the Giants is noted (cfr. 1 En 6:4; 15:11-12). Characteristics 3 and 4 show the influence of the Enochic tradition on the Watchers.

1 En 6:3-8 tells the covenant made by the Watchers to go down to Mount Hermon and take the daughters of men. That covenant is led by Šemiḥazah and can be seen as a law that opposes the law of God. Perhaps this motif influences the figure of the “laws of darkness”, with which Belial leads the angels of destruction.

Finally, it should be noted that 1 En 21:7 describes the place intended for these Watchers: the pit. This motif may influence the destine of Belial and their own (cfr. line 11a).

In two other passages, the figure of Belial is represented as the head of the rebellious spirits: 11QMelch II, 11b-13 and 4QFlor 1-2 I, 7-9.61 Likewise, in two other passages there are dubious and arguable references on the influence of characters and Enochic figures on Qumran: 4QMMTc IV,8-11 and 11QTemplea XXVI 3-4.10-13.

The figure of Belial in magic texts

In the magic texts of Qumran there are, in addition to divination and omens, texts that seem to refer to exorcist practices.62 Among them, 4QShira 1,4-9 stands out. Two aspects of the passage are noticeable: first, the diversity of its demonological lexicon; second, the appearance of the figure of the community instructor and his apparent exorcist function.

(García Martínez y Tigchelaar, 1999, p. 1028).

4b Blank. And I, the Sage, declare the grandeur of his radiance in order to frighten and terrf[ify] 5 all the spirits of the ravaging angels and the bastard spirits, demons, Liliths, owls and [jackals...] 6 and those who strike unexpectedly to lead astray the spirit of knowledge, to make their hearts forlorn and . . . in the era of the rule of wickedness 7 and in the periods of humiliation of the sons of light, in the guilty periods of those defiled by sins not for an everlasting destruction 8 but rather for the era of the humiliation of sin [. . .] Rejoice, righteous ones, in the God of wonders. 9 My psalms are for the upright. Blank. May all those of perfect path praise you. (García Martínez, 1994, pp. 371) 63

This passage is preceded by a section of praise (lines 1-4b), where a blessing and a doxology to ’ĕlōhîm are sung. Then, there are lines 4b-6, where the theme is the object of the instructor's proclamation: “to frighten and terrify” (line 4b). The subjects on whom these actions fall are the demons, named with a rich lexicon (line 5). The actions of these demons are specified in line 6, and the time of their action is described in lines 7-8a. The praise ends by resuming the tone of alliance and exultation to a ’ĕlōhîm which it began with (line 9).64

The rich demonological lexicon of line 5 comes from different sources. The spirits of the destroying angels (רוחי מלאכי חבל) are characters typical of the demonology of the community (cfr. 1QM XIII, 12); bastard spirits (ממזרים ורוחות) come from the Enochic tradition (cfr. 1 En 10:9; 4QShirb 2 II,3); while the demons(שדאים), Liliths (לילית), owls(אחים), and jackals (ציים) come from different traditions of the Hebrew Bible (cfr. Lev 16:9-10; Isa 13:21; 34:14) and have been received in other Qumran collections (cfr. 11Flor XXVI 3-4.10-13; and 11QApPsa 1 II,4-5).65

The appearance of the instructor and his central role in the passage are evident in line 4b. He speaks of himself in the first person: (…) ואני משכיל (and I, the instructor...). Its function is to direct praise to ’ĕlōhîm.

The express object of this praise is explicit in the same line: לפחד ולבהל (to frighten and terrify). In this light it is possible to ask: in the context of the passage, are the verb פחד (to frighten) and the root בהל (to terrorize) referring to apotropaic practices? Was exorcising a function of the instructor?66 A positive answer to these questions seems to exceed the interpretive possibilities of the passage, since it can be understood that, from a theological point of view, the mere presence of God is sufficient to frighten and expel the presence of evil agents and figures (cfr. Exod 15:16; Deut 2:25; Jer 48:43).

From an exegetical point of view, in this passage, there is only one praise structured with the typical biblical scheme of curse/blessing (Nitzan, 2000, pp. 95-100). However, in the light of other Qumran texts, these questions may be more precise.

Other texts describing the fight against Belial or other agents of evil are 4QBerakota 7 II ;67 4QʿAmramb 1,10-15; and 1QS III,17-24. Although the lexicon is not constant and the figures also vary, the theological basis (i.e., dualism) and the liturgical function of 4QShira 1,4-9 are sufficient to observe the apotropaic function played by the instructor in the community, thus allowing to respond positively to the questions asked, while being cautious about the lexicon. But before drawing general conclusions about the passage, it is worth mentioning certain details of 4QʿAmramb 1,10-15.

It is the only text in Qumran that offers a physical description of an evil being. The other two physiognomic texts (4Q186, 4Q561) do not present a similar description. Although the text does not specify the identity or nature of the two beings who dispute the dominion over the children of Adam (בני אדם; line 12), due to their physical description (lines 13-14) and their dualistic tone (lines 1-2 cfr.; also, 4Q545 and 4Q548), they could be Melchi-reshaʿ (cfr. 4Q544 2,2-3) or Belial (cfr. 11Q13 II-III) and Melchisedek.68

This text does not present the destruction of human beings caused by spiritual beings, and the subsequent judgment and vindication of angels, as in the Enochic tradition (cfr. 1 En 9), but the struggle between an angelic leader and a demonic leader to influence and dominate men.

Returning to 4QShira 1,4-9, the theological characterization of Qumran's texts can be summarized, in a general way, in three aspects:

1. The reception of the Enochic demonological traditions is evident. These have been adapted and developed according to the genres, uses, and theologies of each Qumran collection. In this process of reception, adaptation, and development, certain characteristics of Enochic demonology have been lost, such as the difference between Watchers and Giants: the first, seducers; the last, voracious and violent. However, others endure: rebellion, opposition to men, and their incorporeal nature (Stuckenbruck, 2014, pp. 55–56).
2. Belial and its lot unite the demonological features of various figures and biblical and apocryphal currents.
3. It highlights the central role of the Enochic traditions in the formation of the theological characterization of Belial. He is the leader of the lot of impure spirits, fornicators, and bastards (4QMMTc IV,8-11; 4Q513 10), rebel, opponent and apart from the laws of God (11QMelch II ,11-13), who makes the children of light fall (4QFlor 1-2 I,7-9).

Also, in Qumran, Enochic traditions have been transmitted through copies. These will be analyzed below seeking to perceive whether the characterization of the Watchers and the Giants coincides with the adaptation patterns and theological development that have already been perceived in the mss. corpus of the community.

The Enochic tradition in the fragments from the fourth cave

Out of the more than five hundred and fifty mss. found in this cave,69 eleven mss. partially reproduce sections of the Ethiopic Enoch. The best represented collection is the Book of Watchers (1 En 6—36), as well as the Introduction (1 En 1—5); while very little is found of the Book of Dreams (1 En 83—90) and the Epistle of Enoch (1 En 91—105). No mss. reproduces the Book of Parables (1 En 37—71), and the four mss. of the astronomical Enoch are so different from the Astronomical Book (1 En 72—82) that some authors define it as a new work.70

Likewise, the great novelty that cave 4 offers to Enochic studies is the finding of three of the five mss. of the Book of Giants,71 which are not part of the Ethiopic Enoch collection, and were only known from Manichaean sources (Milik, 1971, pp. 117-127; Henning, 1943, pp. 52-74).

After the entire story of the fall of the Watchers was found in Qumran (1 En 6—8), it was possible to note that the theological characterization of the Watchers and the Giants in the mss. of cave 4 coincides with that of the Ethiopian Enoch. Due to text length, it is not possible to present the results of the corresponding analysis of those texts in extenso. However, the main results of the study on the Enochic material can be presented in the following summary.

Summary on Watchers

In the Ethiopic Enoch, the traditional figure of the Watchers is represented as celestial beings who accepted seduction, contracted sexual impurity, and rebelled against YHWH. However, an important feature of the Watchers in Qumran is the description of their teachings on magic. In this regard, there is a certain continuity with the Enochic tradition.72

In 1 En 8:1, ʿAsa’el (ʿAśa’el in 4QEnb II,26)73 is presented as the master of metallurgy for the manufacture of weapons, female adornments and makeup, that is, the master of war and the art of seduction. This same tradition that points to ʿAsa'el as the only master of magic is presented in 1 En 9:6. This data is absent from the Aramaic copies in Qumran.

In 4QEna IV, 4QEnb III and 1 En 8:3, a tradition diverges from the previous one. It contains the names of eight Watchers responsible for teaching secrets related to brontology (Baraq’el and Zeq’el), astrology and prognosis (Kokab’el, Šamsi’el, Śahari’el and ’Arʿteqof), and magic (Šemiḥazah and Ḥermoni). In 4QEna IV,1-4 and 4QEnb III,1-5 the etymology of the names of these Watchers coincides with the purpose of their teachings.

The etymologies of Baraq'el (God's lightning) and Zeq'el (God's meteorite [or storm])74 are related to brontology.75 Likewise, the names Kokab 'el (star of God), Šamsi'el (sun of God), Śahari'el (moon of God), and ’Arʿteqof (land of the almighty) are related to astrology and prognosis. The etymologies of Šemiḥazah (the name has been seen) and Ḥermoni (Hermon's) are not directly related to magic, but their function is directly related to these practices in the text.76

This precision and detail in the list of Watchers and their correspondence with their teachings would imply a greater influence of this motif on the texts on magic. However, neither the lexical richness nor the presence of its tradition is developed in Qumran demonology.

Enochic demonology contributes to Qumran by offering the basis of its theological characterization, presenting them as beings of a different nature from the human, rebels and seducers,77 whose leader is Šemiḥazah, the one destined for the pit.

In Qumran's own texts, there is no consistent and clear difference between Watchers and Giants, as is the case in Ethiopian Enoch. However, of all the literature of Second Temple Judaism, only Qumran's texts directly referring to the Giants have been preserved. For this reason, it is surprising that the theological figure of these characters is not further developed and expanded.

The work of Philo of Alexandria could be an exceptional case. But it is debatable and worth noting a few brief comments on this that serve as an introduction to the next section, where the Enochic Giants in Qumran will be discussed.

Despite what its name suggests, Philo's treatise De gigantibus is more a Platonizing dissertation on Gen 6: 1-4 than a reflection on the Giants. Stroumsa (1984, pp. 27-28) argues that this Philo’s treatise demythologizes the exegesis of Gen 6:1-4, while 1 En 6—12 actually remythologizes it. Wright (2005, pp. 205-219) states that Philo knows the Enochic tradition and polemicizes against its theodicy. These positions are debatable since no Philo’s work references or shows a direct and clear contact between Philo and the Enochic traditions.

Nevertheless, Philo is not interested in creating a giantology. In fact, the central theme of this treatise is developed by commenting on Gen 6:3 (Gig. 19-57), where he discusses the nature of God's spirit.

Regarding the Watchers and the Giants, only two aspects of his treatise stand out. First, in Gig. 16, he disaggregates about the angels (ἄγγελοι), the demons (δαίμονια) and the spirits (ψυχαί), which he considers as three different names that Moses uses to speak of the same thing: the angels of God (ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ). Second, in Gig. 58-59, he raises a protest regarding the mythical treatment of Gen 6:1-4.78

Book of Giants

Prior to Milik's publication on the Book of Giants (1971, pp. 117-127), it was only known as a Manichaean text with possible Jewish sources. In his study of the material, Stuckenbruck (1997) definitively ruled out the possibility of finding parts of this work or influence of its traditions on seven Qumran mss.79 This selection leaves five fragmentary mss. in which the work is found.

In a continuous reading of the Book of Giants (BG) through these fragments, it is possible to find the story of the crime of the Giants and their punishment, as well as the intercession of Enoch in their favor.80

In general, the BG develops and expands the myth of the fall of the Watchers narrated in 1 En 6—8 (Milik 1971, p. 117). The theological characterization of the Giants offered in these fragments is no different from that of the Ethiopic Enoch. Only one detail catches the eye: 4QGiantsc 17 reads on lines 5-7:

(Stuckenbruck, 1997, p. 162).

5 And ]I [am not] able to prevail together with ourselves because my adversaries 6 and in t]he[ heavens] are seated, and among the holy places they dwell. And not 7 the]y are more powerful than I.” vacat. (Stuckenbruck, 1997, p. 164).

Who is speaking in these lines? Milik (1976, p. 307), Stuckenbruck (1997, pp. 166-167) and Reeves (1992, p. 118) assume that it is a Giant. If read from line 3, the narrative logic of the text seems to favor this hypothesis.81

If this reading is accepted, it could be said that the BG from Qumran supports the location that 1 En 15:8-10 gives of the Giants: a place substantially different from the divine sphere, precisely, on the plane of the human sphere. Only in this way is it understood that a Giant indicates heaven (בקדשיא; i.e., on holy heights) as the place of residence of their accusers.

In these fragments, in addition to the characterization of the Giants as voracious and destructive beings, condemned to punitive judgment,82 they are also represented as penitents, concerned with crying out for the forgiveness of their faults. This aspect contrasts with its characterization in the Ethiopian Enoch; there, the Watchers look for Enoch to ask him to intercede for them.

Conclusions

The influence of Enochic literature on Qumran demonology is evident, but not only its influence is observed, also the development, mixing and adaptation of its figures (Watchers and Giants), its theological characterization, and its subjects. Belial and his lot merge not only traditions, but also diverse theological characterizations.

Belial and his lot are presented as rebels (11QMelch II, 11-13), hostile (4QFlor 1-2 I, 7-9), seducers, impure spirits, bastards, beings who seek to dominate men (1QS III, 17-24; 4QʿAmramb 1,10-15). In 1QM, Belial and its lot encompass theological characterizations of the Giants and the Watchers presented in 1 Enoch: hostile, rebellious beings destined for punishment. These characteristics are brought to an ontological plane that does not exist in 1 Enoch. This is a remarkable development with respect to the Enochic tradition.

Likewise, the type of dominance that Belial and his lot claim over men represents a considerable development with respect to the Enochic tradition. In 1 Enoch, the Giants seek to subdue man sociologically: to subjugate him, dominate him, and destroy him. In Qumran, the domain is inner (psychological and spiritual).

Taking the fight against Belial to the psychological and liturgical dimensions, there is a great development with respect to Enochic demonology, which presents this fight in a mythical dimension. In 1 Enoch, the struggle takes place in a past chronology and a mythical plane, while in Qumran the struggle is current, it occurs in the historical time of the devoted community, and its effects are current in their psychological experiences taken to the liturgical plane.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest with an institution or association of any kind. Likewise, the Luis Amigó Catholic University is not responsible for the handling of the copyright that the authors make in their articles; therefore, the veracity and completeness of the citations and references are responsibility of the authors.

References

Alexander, P. S. (2000). Magic and Magical Texts. In L. H. Schiffman, & J. C. VanderKam (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Dead Sea Scrolls (Vol. I, pp. 502–504). Oxford University Press.

Alexander, P. S. (1986). Incantations and Books of Magic. In E. Schürer, G. Vermes, F. Millar, & M. Goodman (Eds.), A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (Vol. III/1, pp. 342–379). Hendrickson Academic.

Alexander, P. S. (1999a). Wrestling against Wickedness in High Places. In S. E. Porter, & C. A. Evans (Eds.), The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (pp. 318–337). Roehampton Institute London Papers.

Alexander, P. S. (1999b). The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In P. W. Flint, & J. C. Vanderkam (Eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years (Vol. II, pp. 331–353). Brill.

Allegro, J. M. (1958). Fragments of A Qumran Scroll of Eschatological Midrāšîm. Journal of Biblical Literature, 77(4), 350–354. https://doi.org/10.2307/3264674

Baumgarten, J. M. (1986). The Qumran Songs against Demons. Tarbiẓ. A Quarterly for Jewish Studies, (55), 442-445.

Beyer, K. (1984). Die aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer (Vol. I) [The Aramaic Texts from the Dead Sea]. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Brooke, G. J. (1985). Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context. Society of Biblical Literature.

Brooke, G. J. (2005). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Fortress Press.

Carbullanca Núñez, C. (2016). Demonología en la Apocalíptica y Qumrán [Demonology in the Apocalypticism and Qumran]. Teología y Vida, 57(2), 211–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0049-34492016000200003

Carbullanca Núñez, C. (2021). Teodiceas apocalípticas. Aportes para una sociodicea [Apocalyptic Theodicies. Contributions for a sociodicea]. Veritas, (48), 195–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-92732021000100195

Carr, W. (1981). Angels and Principalities. The Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554896

Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.). (2011). שטן. En: The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Tomo 8, pp. 122-123) Sheffield.

Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.). (2011) רוח. En: The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Tomo 7, pp. 427-440) Sheffield.

Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.). (2011). פחד. En: The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Tomo 6, pp. 674-675) Sheffield.

Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.). (2011). עשה. En: The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Tomo 6, pp. 569-602) Sheffield.

Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.). (2011). מלאך. En: The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Tomo 5, pp. 284-288) Sheffield.

Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.). (1996). זעם. En: The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Tomo 3, pp. 125-126) Sheffield.

Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.). (1995). בהל. En: The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Tomo 2, pp. 97-98) Sheffield.

Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.). (1993). ארר. En: The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Tomo 1, pp. 397-398) Sheffield.

Colson, F. H., & Whitaker, G. H. (1992). Philo Judaeus (Vol. II). Cambridge.

Cook, E. M. (2015). Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic. Winona Lake.

Davidson, M. J. (1992). Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran. Sheffield. https://doi.org/10.1177/095182079700001608

Díez Merino, L. (2009). Apócrifos Arameos entre los manuscritos del Mar Muerto [Aramaic Apocrypha among Dead Sea Scrolls]. En J. M. Díaz Rodelas, M. Pérez Fernández y F. Ramón Casas (Eds.), Aún me quedas tú. Homenaje a Vicente Collado Bertomeu [I Still Have You. Festschrift to Vicente Collado Bertomeu]. (pp. 419–451). Editorial Verbo Divino.

Dimant, D. (1996). Signification et importance des manuscrits de la mer Morte: L’état actuel des études qoumrâniennes [Meaning and Importance of Dead Sea Scrolls. Current State of the qumramic studies]. Annales, Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 51(5), 975–1003.

Dimant, D. (1994). Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran. Dead Sea Discoveries, 1(2), 151–159. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4201469

Dimant, D. (2009). Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts from Qumran: the pertinence and usage of a taxonomy. Revue de Qumrân, 24(1), 7–18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24663083

Dimant, D. (Ed.). (2012). The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective. A History of Research. Brill.

Duhaime, J. (2000). Dualism. In L. H. Schiffman, & J. C. VanderKam (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Dead Sea Scrolls (Vol. I, pp. 215–220). Oxford University Press.

Duhaime, J. (2004). The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts. T&T Clark.

Dupont-Sommer, A. (1959). Le Écrits esséniens découverts près de la mer Morte. Payot.

Eshel, E. & Eshel, H. (2004). A New Fragment of the Book of Watchers from Qumran (XQpap). Tarbiẓ. A Quarterly for Jewish Studies, 73, 171–179.

Eshel, E. & Eshel, H. (2005). New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGENF, 4QISAB, 4Q226, 8QGEN, and XQPAPENOCH. Dead Sea Discoveries, 12(2), 134–157. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4193355

Frazer, J. G. (1962). La rama dorada. Magia y religión. Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Fitzmyer, J. A. (2000). Genesis Apocryphon. In L. H. Schiffman, & J. C. VanderKam (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Dead Sea Scrolls (Vol. II, pp. 302–304). Oxford University Press.

Fitzmyer, J. A. (2008). A Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids.

Frey, J. (2006). The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on New Testament Interpretation: proposals, problems, and further perspectives. In J. H. Charlesworth (Ed.), The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Vol. III, pp. 407–461). Baylor University Press.

Fröhlich, I. (2010). Theology and Demonology in Qumran Texts. Henoch, (32), 101–129.

García Martínez, F. (1989). Lista de MSS. procedentes de Qumrán [List of manuscripts from Qumran]. Henoch (11), 149–232.

García Martínez, F. (1992). Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. Brill.

García Martínez, F. (1994). The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English. Brill.

García Martínez, F. (1996). Regla de la Guerra [War Rule]. En G. Aranda Pérez, F. García Martínez, y M. Pérez Fernández (Eds.), Literatura judía intertestamentaria [Intertestamental Jew Literature]. (pp. 66–78). Verbo Divino.

García Martínez, F. (1999). Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In J. J. Collins, B. McGinn, & S. Stein (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, Vol. 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity (pp. 162–192). Continuum.

García Martínez, F. (2006). Qumrán en el Siglo XXI. Cambios y perspectivas después de 50 años de estudios [Qumran in the 21st Century. Changes and Perspectives after Fifty years of Studies]. Miscelánea de Estudios Árabes y Hebraicos, sección Hebreo (55), 309–334.

García Martínez, F. (2008). ¿Sectario, No-Sectario, o Qué? Problemas de una Taxonomía Correcta de los Textos Qumránicos [Sectarian, non-sectarian or What? Problems of a correct Taxonomy of Qumranic Texts]. Revue de Qumrân, 23(3), 383–394. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24663034

García Martínez, F. (2015). Los Manuscritos de Qumrán: Problemas de Taxonomía [Qumran Manuscripts: Problems of Taxonomy]. Atualidade Teológica, (18), 455–481. https://doi.org/10.17771/PUCRio.ATeo.25860

García Martínez, F. (1994). The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English. The Authoritative New Translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls Complete in One Volume (W.G.E. Watson translator). Brill.García Martínez, F., & Parry, D. W. (1996). A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah, 1970–1995. Brill.

García Martínez, F., & Tigchelaar, E. J. C. (2007). Fifty Years of Research on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Its Impact on Jewish Studies. In F. García Martínez, & E. J. C. Tigchelaar (Eds.), Qumranica Minora. Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (Vol. I, pp. 243–266). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004155695.i-326.60

García Martínez, F., & Tigchelaar, E. J. C. (Eds.). (1999). The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition. Brill.

Greenfield, J. C., & Sokoloff, M. (1995). An Astrological Text from Qumran (4Q318) and Reflections on Some Zodiacal Names. Revue de Qumrân, (16), 507–525.

Grelot, P. (1958). L’eschatologie des Esséniens et le livre d’Hénoch [The Eschatology of the Essenes and the Book of Enoch]. Revue de Qumrân, 1(1), 113–131.

Gmirkin, R. (1996). The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered. Dead Sea Discoveries, 3(2), 89–129. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4201555

Hamilton, V. P. (1992). Satan. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. V, pp. 985–989). Yale University Press

Hempel, C. (Ed.). (2010). The Dead Sea Scrolls. Texts and Context. Brill.

Henning, W. B. (1943). The Book of the Giants. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 11(1), 52–74.

Jacobus, H. R. (2010). 4Q318: A Jewish Zodiac Calendar at Qumran? In C. Hempel (Ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (pp. 365–395). Brill.

Jenks, G. C. (1991). The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth. Walter de Gruyter.

Joüon, P. (1991). A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (T. Muraoka, Trans.). (Vols. I-II). Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.

Joüon, P. (1924). בליעל Bélial. Biblica, (5), 178–183.

Knibb, M. A. (1978). The Ethiopic Book of Enoch. A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (Vols. I-II). Oxford University Press.

Kobelski, P. J. (1981). Mechizedek and Melchirela’. Washington.

Kuhn, K. G. (Ed.). (1960). Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten [Concordance to the Qumran Texts]. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Lyons, W. J., & Reimer, A. M. (1998). The Demonic Virus and Qumran Studies: Some Preventative Measures. Dead Sea Discoveries, 5(1), 16–32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4193077

Machiela, D. A. (2009). Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon. A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17. Brill.

Malinowski, B. (1994). Magia, ciencia y religión [Magic, science and religión]. Editorial Ariel.

Machiela, D. A. (2022). A Handbook of the Aramaic Scrolls from the Qumran Caves. Manuscripts, Language, and Scribal Practices. Brill.

Michalak, A. R. (2012). Angels as Warriors in Late Second Temple Jewish Literature. Mohr Siebeck.

Milik, J. T. (1971). Turfan et Qumran: Livre des Géants juif et manichéen [Turpan and Qumran: The Jewish and Manichean Book of the Giants]. In G. Jeremias, H. W. Kuhn, & H. Stegemann (Eds.), Tradition und Glaube. Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt [Tradition and Belief. The Early Christianity in Its Enviroment] (pp. 117–127). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Milik, J.T. (1972). 4Q Visions de 'Amram et une citation d'Origène. Revue Biblique, (79), 77-97.

Milik, J. T. (1976). The Books of Enoch. Aramaic fragments of Qumrân Cave 4, with the collaboration of Matthew Black. Clarendon Press.

Nitzan, B. (1985). Hymns from Qumran 'לפחד ולבהל' Evil Ghosts / שירי שבח מקומראן 'לפחד ולבהל' רוחות רשע 510 4Q ו-511 4Q [Hymns from Qumran “to Fear and Panic” Evil Ghosts]. Tarbiẓ. A Quarterly for Jewish Studies, (55), 19–46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23597299

Nitzan, B. (2000). Blessings and Curses. In L. H. Schiffman, & J. C. VanderKam (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Dead Sea Scrolls (Vol. I, pp. 95–100). Oxford University Press.

Nitzan, B. (2004). Evil and Its Symbols in the Qumran Scrolls. In H. G. Reventlow, & Y. Hoffman (Eds.), The Problem of Evil and Its Symbols in Jewish and Christian Tradition (pp. 83–96). Continuum.

Parry, D. W., & Tov, E. (2004). The Dead Sea Scroll Reader, Vols. VI. Brill.

Patrich, J. (2000). Archaeology. In L. H. Schiffman, & J. C. VanderKam (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Dead Sea Scrolls (Vol. I, pp. 57–63). Oxford University Press.

Penney, D. L., & Wise, M. O. (1994). By the Power of Beelzebub: An Aramaic Incantation Formula from (4Q560). Journal of Biblical Literature, 113(4), 627–650. https://doi.org/10.2307/3266711

Pingree, D. (1995). Appendix I: Astronomical Considerations [appendix to Jonas C. Greenfield and Michael Sokoloff, 'An Astrological Text from Qumran']. Revue de Qumrân, (16), 517–519.

Popović, M. (2007). Reading the Human Body. Brill.

Reed, A. Y. (2005). Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity. The Reception of Enochic Literature. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499104

Reeves, J. C. (1992). Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony. Studies in the book of giants traditions. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College.

Reimer, A. M. (2000). Rescuing the Fallen Angels: The Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran. Dead Sea Discoveries, 7(3), 334–353. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4193169

Ringgren, H. (2001). עשה; מעשה; Make, Do, Act. In G. J. Botterweck, H. -J. Fabry, & H. Ringgren (Eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Vol. XI, pp. 387–403). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Roitman, A. D., Schiffman, L. H., & Tzoref, S. (Eds.). (2011). The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6-8, 2008). Brill.

Sacchi, P. (2004). Historia del judaísmo en la época del Segundo Templo [The History of the Second Temple Period]. Editorial Trotta.

Sanders, J. A. (1965). The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa). Clarendon Press.

Sekki, A. E. (1989). The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran. Scholars Press.

Stone, M. E. (2018). Secret Groups in Ancient Judaism. Oxford University Press.

Stroumsa, G. A. G. (1984). Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythologies. Nag Hammadi Studies. Brill.

Stuckenbruck, L. T. (1997). The Book of Giants from Qumran. Mohr Siebeck.

Stuckenbruck, L. T. (2003). Giant Mythology and Demonology. In A. Lange, & H. Lichtenberger (Eds.), Die Dämonen/The Demons (318–338). Mohr Siebeck.

Stuckenbruck, L. T. (2014). The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Swartz, M. D. (2001). The Dead Sea Scrolls and Later Jewish Magic and Mysticism. Dead Sea Discoveries, 8(2), 182–193. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4193189

Ta-Shema, I. (1985). Notes to ‘Hymns from Qumran’. Tarbiẓ. A Quarterly for Jewish Studies, (55), 440–442.

Tengström, S., & Fabry, H.–J. (2003). רוח. In G.J. Botterweck, H.-J. Fabry, & H. Ringgren (Eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Vol. XIII, pp. 365–402). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Tov, E. (2010). Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert. Brill.

Van der Ploeg, J. P. (1971). Un petit rouleau de psaulmes apocryphes (11PsApa) [A Small Scroll of Apocryphal Psalms]. In G. Jeremias, H.–W. Kuhn, & H. Stegemann (Eds.), Tradition und Glaube. Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt [Tradition and Belief. The Early Christianity in Its Enviroment] (pp. 128–139). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Vásquez Allegue, J. (2001). Qumrán en España (1947-2002): 55 Años de Investigación [Qumran in Spain (1947-2002): Fifty-Five Years of Research]. Miscelánea de Estudios Árabes y Hebraicos, (50), 59–92.

Vaux, R., de (1967). Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. Revue Biblique, (74), 101.

Weitzman, S. (1996). Re-visiting Myth and Ritual in Early Judaism. Dead Sea Discoveries, 4(1), 21–54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4193044

Wilson, G. H. (1997). The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of editorial shaping. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 59(3), 448–464.

Wright, A. T. (2005). Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature. Fortress Press.

Yardeni, A. (1995). Appendix II: Paleographic Analysis [appendix to Jonas C. Greenfield and Michael Sokoloff, 'An Astrological Text from Qumran']. Revue de Qumrân, (16), 520–525.

Zanella, F. (2009). ‘Sectarian’ and ‘Non-Sectarian Texts’: A Possible Semantic Approach. Revue de Qumrân, (24), 19–34.

 

Notas de autor

Juan Sebastián Hernández Valencia

PhD in Theology from the Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana and professor at the Faculty of Education and Humanities in the Luis Amigó Catholic University, Medellín, Colombia. Member of the Philosophy and Critical Theology Research Group. ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9567-4205. Email: juan.hernandezva@amigo.edu.co

---