Rescuing the Fallen Angels The Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran.pdf

7/25/2019 Rescuing the Fallen Angels The Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran.pdf

1/20

RESCUING

THE FALLEN

ANGELS:

THE CASE

OF

THE DISAPPEARING

ANGELS

AT QUMRAN*

ANDY

M. REIMER

Canadian

Bible

College

I.

Introduction

The Dead Sea

Scrolls

after

Fifty

Years,

a two-volume

ollectionof es-

says

to celebrate

the

jubilee

of the discovery

of the

Dead

Sea

Scrolls,

promises

the

readera combination

of comprehensive

urveys

of

where

the

last

fifty years

of

scholarship

on the Scrolls

of Qumran

have

brought

us

and

cutting

edge

articles

that indicate

directions

for

future study. '

Within that

context,

P. Alexander's

contribution

n

the

demonology

of the

Dead Sea Scrolls

clearly

fits

the latter

category.2

One will search in vain to find any sort of summaryof the present

state of

affairs

in

scholarship

on

Qumran

demonology.

Perhaps

his is

just

a byproduct

of his

opening

statementon how

little attentionhas

been

paid

specifically

to

their

demonology. 3

At

any rate,

what

is

offered

in

place

of

a

summary

or extensive interaction

with

predeces-

sors is rather

a

straightforward

ew vision for the

demonology

and

implicitly

the

angelology

of the Dead Sea Scrolls.4

t is a vision

fully

deserving

of both

careful consideration nd

preliminary

ritique.

*

I would like to

thankW. John Lyons

for

gettingme

started n Qumran

tudies

n

the

first place

and for extensive

discussion

and

critique

on the

content

of thisarticle-

any flaws,

however, remain

in my possession

alone.

I also need

to thank

Philip

Alexander

or his willingness

to assist

two

graduate

tudents

rom

Sheffield

University

to get started

n the whole

area of exorcism,demonology,

and

the DSS.

I

TheDead

SeaScrolls

afterFifty

Years:

A

Comprehensive

ssessment

eds

P. Flint

and

J.C. VanderKam;

eiden/Boston/Ko6n:

rill, 1998-99).

Direct

quotationsare

taken

rom

the dustjacket,but

the

expectation

s

also

raised by the introductions

f both volumes.

2

P.S.

Alexander,

The

Demonology

of the Dead Sea Scrolls,

The Dead Sea Scrolls

after Fifty

Years,

2.331-53. Some

of the content

in

this articlealso

appears

n

more

abbreviated

orm in P.S.

Alexander,

'WrestlingAgainst

Wickedness

n High

Places':

Magic in the Worldviewof the QumranCommunity,

he Scrolls

and

the

Scriptures:

Qumran

Fifty

YearsAfter (eds

S.E.

Porter and C.A.

Evans;

JSPSup 26;

Sheffield:

Sheffield

Academic

Press, 1997)

319-30.

Alexander,

Demonology, 31.

The most

comprehensive

iscussion f

angelology

includingn

that erm

demonology)

?

Koninklijke

Brill

NV,

Leiden,

2000

Dead

Sea Discoveries 7,

3


2/20

RESCUING

THE FALLEN ANGELS

335

Alexanderopens by statingthat theScrolls presenta coherentand

sophisticateddemonology

which should

be taken with the utmostseri-

ousness

in

understanding

he

outlook

of the

Qumran

sect. 5

There

can

be

no doubt

that

Alexander's

reconstruction

f

Qumnran

emonology

portrays

not

just

a coherent and sophisticated(at

least theologically

speaking)

demonology,

but a wholly consistent

one as well. At the

core

of this

consistency

s a

thoroughgoing

istinction

between

demons

and angels. Alexander

claims that while

according

o some

authorities emonsare to be identifiedwith

fallen

angels[,J

..

the demonology of the Scrolls seems to envisage a clear distinction drawn

between demons

and

angels,

whetherfallen or otherwise. In

Qumran hought

a

demon

is

a

non-corporeal eing

which is neitherhuman

nor

angelic,

but which

causes harm and mischief to humans n a

variety

of

ways.6

Stated simply,

there

are no evil

or fallen

angels

in the Scrolls. In

Alexander's

reconstruction

hey

have

strangelydisappeared,

r

should

we say,

almost disappeared?

II. An Enochic

Demonology

To makesense

of this

disappearance,

t is

necessary o see themethod-

ological path

that takes one to this

intriguingconclusion. Alexander

begins

with what he

defines

as

a

standard,ormulaic nventory

of the

at Qumranremains M.J.

Davidson's

Angels

at

Qumran:

A

ComparativeStudy of

1

Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and the Sectarian

Writings rom Qumran JSPSup 11;

Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).

Another

significant monograph-lengthreatmentof

at least some aspects of Qumran angelology and demonology is P.J. Kobelski,

Mechizedek

and Melchirela'

(CBQMS 10; Washington,

DC: Catholic

Biblical Asso-

ciation of

America, 1981).

Other articles

that tackle the

matterof

demonology

either

directly

r

indirectly

ncludeAlexander's wn

Wrestling ;

.

Lange,

The

EssenePosition

on Magic and Divination,

Legal

Texts and

Legal

Issues:

Proceedings of

the

Second

Meeting of

the International

Organizationor QumranStudies, Cambridge,1995 (eds

M. Bernstein,

F.

Garcia

Martinezand J.

Kampen;

STDJ

23;

Leiden

and New York:

Brill, 1997) 377-435;

B.

Nitzan, Hymns

from

Qumran-4Q5104Q51 1,

The Dead

Sea Scrolls:

Forty

Years

of

Research

(eds

D. Dimant and

U.

Rappaport;

TDJ

10;

Leiden: Brill, 1992)

53-63;

and D.L.

Penney

and

M.O.

Wise, By

the Power

of

Beelzebub:An AramaicIncantation

ormula

rom

Qumran 4Q560], JBL 113 (1994)

627-50.

Frequently angelology

and

demonology

are treated in

passing by

scholars

interested

n the

largerapocalyptic

or

eschatological

rameworkof the

DSS (e.g., F.

Garcia

Martinez, Apocalypticism

n theDeadSea

Scrolls,

The

Encyclopedia f Apocalyp-

ticism,vol. 1, The Origins

of Apocalypticism

n Judaism nd

Christianityed.

J.J.

Collins;

New York:

Continuum,

1999]

166-72).

Alexander,

Demonology,

31.

6

Alexander, Demonology,

31-32.


3/20

336

ANDY M. REIMER

demonic world, namely 4Q510 1 5. In this exorcistichymn, the Sage

declares the grandeur

of God

to

frighten a host of beings, including

[...

C -3J

C'MR

k

-lo

-1

nrrDr:mnnnl ,n Denl

'Mri

( all the

spirits

of the

angels

of destruction and the

spirits

of the bastards,

demons

[or

'fearsome

demon'], Lilith, howlers,

and [yelpers..

J ).1

The expression

bastard

pirits -nton mm)

here and elsewhere in

the Scrolls suggests

to Alexanderan Enochic

aetiology

of

demons.9

n

both

1

Enoch 1-36

and

Jubilees,

the

demons that still

haunt the earth

are

the

ghosts

of the

gigantic offspring

of

heavenly Watchers

who

have intercourse

with

human

women.'

n

the

case

of

the

latter,

tech-

nically only

a tenth of

these

remainas

demons

(Jub. 10:7-14).

In both

texts the fallenangels are

the

Watchers

and in

both they

are

safely

imprisoned

in

a

subterraneanprison awaiting

final

judgment.

Of

course,

the

discovery

of

numerous

copies

of both

1

Enoch (or

at least

the

critical

portionsthereof)

and

Jubilees

in

several different

caves is

taken by Alexander

as

evidence

of

the

sect's familiarity

with Enochic

demonology.'2

To

this

base of

evidence

one

could

legitimately

add the

I

As transcribedby M. Baillet, QumrdnGrotte 4.111 DJD 7; Oxford:Clarendon

Press, 1982)

216.

*

Baillet suggests

readingthe

two

words DI

n7

as

one

word-namely the plural

formof iS

( demon )

s

found in Deut.32:17 and

Ps. 145:11

(Baillet,

DJD

7.216-17).

In a footnote, Alexander

rightly draws attention to

the

possibility put forward

by

Baillet

of reading his as 0itt

IT or

fearsomedemon

Baillet,

DJD

7.217; Alexander,

Demonology,

333

n.

7). Alexander ( Demonology,

333-35)

follows B. Nitzan's

translation

of 0' Y

DTtrk

as howlersand yelpers

(QumranPrayer and Religious

Poetry [STDJ 12; Leiden:

Brill, 1994] 240).

F.

Garcfa

Martinez

opts for translating

these as animalterms (as per typical English

translations f Isa. 13:21) choosing

the

terms owls

and jackals (The Dead

Sea Scrolls

Translated:

The

QumranTexts

in

English [trans.

W.G.E. Watson;

Leiden: Brill, 19962] 371). Even

if the

terms

are

applicable o these creatures, urely Nitzan's termscapture he sense in whichtheyare

being

used here for demoniccreatures f some

sort.

Baillet's statement

on

O^9

applies

equally

to

both- le

sens est

impr6cis 217).

9

4Q511 35 7, 4Q511

48

2-3, 4Q511

182 i

I and 4Q444

2

4

where F.

Garcia

Martinez

and E.J.C.

Tigchelaar

reconstruct he

text

as i-rniM

rm-

int-[a

nnn1 1:z

(The Dead Sea Scrolls Study

Edition

[Leiden:

Brill, 1998] 2.924).

The

term

DnrrYDlso

can

be

found

in

IQH'

24:12

(frag. 9)

and also col.

24

frag.

6

line

3

where

it

may

well

be modifying

inri. And in a linked notion, 4Q51

1 2 ii

3 speaks

of the congregation

of

bastards

(0flt1n mlhi).

Alexander

( Demonology )

offers his reading

of

the Eno-

chic

aetiology

of

demons

on

pp. 337-41.

Nitzanalso suggests

this expression s an ex-

plicit

link

to

the

aetiology

of demons

in I Enoch

and Jubilees(QumranPrayer,

237).

1

I Enoch 6-16, esp. 15:8-16:1;

Jubilees5:1-11;

7:21-27; 10:1-14.

I Enoch 10:12, Jub.5:6-7. On this two stage judgmentsee also J.1. Collins,

Methodological ssues

in

the

Study

of I

Enoch: Reflections

on the

Articles

of

P.D.

Hanson and G.W. Nickelsburg,

SBLSP

1978

(ed. P.J.

Achtemeier;Missoula,

MT:

ScholarsPress, 1978)

317-19.

12

Alexander. Demonology,

37. Among the fragmentsof

an Aramaicversion of


4/20

RESCUING

THE

FALLEN

ANGELS

337

fragmentsof an Aramaicversion of The Book of Giants,references o

the angelsproducing

igantic

children

nd

especially

he

Watcher Azaz'el

in 4Q180

1

7-10,

a tale

of

a

suspectpregnancy

n

lQapGen

2, and a

passing

reference

to the

story

of the fall of the

Watchers and their

giant offspring

n CD-A 2:17-19.'3

The

notion

that

the

demonology

of the Scrolls

as

a

corpus is

founded

exclusively

on this Enochic

story

is what

gives

Alexander's

demonological

reconstruction

ts

unique

flavor.'4

One need

only

look

at M.J. Davidson's Angels

at

Qumran:

A

Comparative

Study of

I

Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and the Sectarian Writingswhere the apparent

differences

between

the

angelology

and

demonology

of the

Enoch lit-

erature

and

the sectarianscrolls

are

emphasized

to realize

how much

rests

on this startingpoint.

It

ought

to be

stressed urther

hat it is not

just a

case of

Alexander

using

1

Enoch

as the

key

to

Qumrandemon-

ological aetiology,

but

a

particular

eading

of 1

Enoch

and Jubilees.

Alexander

has

effectively

banishedthe fallen

angels

of I

Enoch

into

subterranean

rrelevance

in terms

of direct

ongoing oppression

of

humanity.

The sect's

members

according

o

Alexander

would

have no

reason to fear these fallen angels.This supposition s reasonable,but

other opinions

on

the

matter

exist.

M.

Black

in his translation

nd

commentary

n 1

Enoch

follows

the

Greek

of

the Gizeh

text

for

19:1

and

translatesUriel's

statement

o

Enoch

on

the

judgment

of

the Watchersas

follows:

the Books

of

Enoch

are

4Q201-2,

4Q204-12. lQ17-18, 2Q19-20,

3Q5, 4Q176

frags

19-21, 4Q216, 4Q219-24,

and

1lQ12

have

all

been identifiedas

containingbits and

pieces

of the Book of

Jubilees.

1

IQ23-24, 4Q203, 4Q206 frags 2-3, 4Q530-533and 6Q8 have all been identified

as belonging

to

a

Book of Giants. On

the

Book

of

Giants and

4Q180

and

its

rela-

tionship to

the Enoch corpus see J.T.

Milik, The Books of Enoch:

AramaicFragments

of Qumran

Cave

4

(Oxford:Clarendon

Press, 1976) 249-56,

298-317. A

convenient

summary

of

both

4Q180

and the Book of Giantsand theirconnection

o the

Enoch

lit-

erature

can

also be

found in J.C. VanderKam'sEnoch:

A

Man for All Generations

(Columbia,

SC:

University

of South

Carolina

Press, 1995)

123-28.On the

correlation

of 'Asa'el/'Azaz'el,

see

M. Black

(ed.),

in

consultationwith

J.C. VanderKam,

ppen-

dix by

0. Neugebauer,

The

Book of

Enoch

or

I Enoch:

A New English Translation

with Commentary

and Textual Notes.

With an

Appendix

on

the

Astronomical

Chapters

(72-82) (SVTP7;

Leiden:

Brill, 1985)

121. On

lQapGen

2

and its

relation-

ship

to

the

Enochic

literature

ee J.A.

Fitzmyer,

The

Genesis Apocryphon f Qumran

Cave 1: A CommentaryRome:Biblical InstitutePress,

19712)

16-17, 78-80.

14

The

contentionthat

the

writers

of

the Scrolls

were

familiar with and used

the

Book

of

Watchers

s

in itself

not

a

particularly

ontroversial

point

and

one

generally

conceded

by

writers

describing

the

apocalypticism

f the

Scrolls, e.g.

F. Garcia

Martinez Apocalypticism,

67-68)

and

J.J.

Collins

(Apocalypticismn

the Dead

Sea

Scrolls

[London:

Routledge,

1997]

18-26).


5/20

338 ANDY M.

REIMER

Here the

angels

who had

intercoursewith women will

abide,

and

their

spirits,

taking on many forms, will harm men and lead them astray, to sacrifice to

demons as to

gods,

until the

great

judgement,

in

which they will be

finally

judged. And the

wives of the

angels

who

transgressed hall become

sirens.

Black then claims that

the

spirits of the

watchers are

evidently to

roam the

earth

as

the

tormentors

and

corrupters

f

[hulmankind

ill

the

judgement, he r6le at 15.8-16 of the evil

spirits of the

giants,

the bastard

offspring

of the

watchers.

Presumably

heir

bodies abide n the

great

abyss, while their

spiritsare free to haunt

[hu]man-

kind,just as it is

the spirits f the

giants which

corrupt

hu]mankind

ftertheir

bodies have been slain

(cf. 10.

12,

15.8f).'5

Black's reading

of

1

Enoch and the

present status of

the

fallen

Watchers

stands

in rather

sharpcontrast o that offered

by

Alexander.

However, it

is

the

very

ambiguity

of

the text and

the

uncertainty f

the

referent

mpliedby their

spirits which

allows for

such

divergent

interpretations.

urthermore,

f

one

were

to follow

the Ethiopic ren-

dering

of

19:1,

with

its

simplified The

spiritsof the

angelswho were

promiscuous

with the

women will

stand

here;

and

they,

assuming

many

forms,

made men

unclean . , ''

the

ambiguity

only grows.

Both the Gizeh and especially the Ethiopicreadingallow for Alex-

ander's

supposition

hat it

is

only

the

ghosts of the

Giants,here

spo-

ken of

as the spiritsof the

angels, who

oppress

humanity.'7

But

given

these

multiple

possibilities,

uncertainty

will

persist

in how

1

Enoch

understands the

present role of the

Watchers,

quite

apart from its

appropriation

y

the

Qumran ectarians.

And the difficultiesof

Enochic

demonology

are further

ompounded

by

the

reference

to

the

wives of the

Watchers n the next

sentence as

sirens. What

makes

this

even more

significant

s

the fact that the LXX

Black,

TheBook

of

Enoch, 161.

Black is clearly

following

R.H.

Charles n this

interpretation

f

chap. 19. Charles

claims

that

this

chapter

disagrees

with

xv.l2-xvi,

as here the

spirits

of

the fallen

angels

are

free to seduce

men to

sacrifice to

demons.

In fact the fallen

angels

here have

the function

of

tempting

men which is

elsewhere

assigned

to the

demons

APOT

2.200).

16

Translation

rom

Black,

The

Book

of

Enoch, 161. This is the text of

choice for

E. Isaac

as

well

who

translated19:1 as

And Uriel said to

me,

'Here shall stand in

many

different

appearanceshe

spiritsof

the angels

which

have united

hemselveswith

women.They

have

defiled the

people and will

lead them

into

errorso that

they will

offer

sacrifices

to

the demons as unto

gods, until the

great

day

of

judgment n which

they

shall

be

judged till

they

are

finished '

(OTP 1.23).

Charlessuggests thatgiven the apparent iscrepancybetweenchap. 19 andchaps

10-16 on

the identityof the

demons, the

translation f

chap. 19 is

possibly defective.

In this case 'Their

spirits'

should be

followed

by

'of the

giants,'

which

would be an

Aramaic idiom

likely to be

misunderstood

by

a

Greek

translator

APOT

2.200).

Unfortunately,

Enoch 19:1 has

not turned

up

in

the extant Aramaic

ragments

rom

Qumran.


6/20

RESCUING

THE

FALLEN ANGELS

339

offers us

a

a&tpiv

in Isa. 13:21 for rnw

nin.18

This verse is also

the

likely sourceof v'nm nd

he

reconstructed

n;

of

4Q510

1 5.

Alexander's

observation

hat it is

puzzling

the

Qumran

ist borrows

only

these two

from the list

of

possible

terms for demonic

beings

in

13:21 becomes

even more pointed.9

Is

1

Enoch

presenting

another class of demons

here, and

if

so,

are these or are these

not

picked

up by

the

Qumran

sectarians?

Here too one encounters

he vexation of textual

variants

that threaten

any attempt

to make concrete statements on Enochic

demonology.20

Alexander's

reading

of 1 Enoch is

possible, perhaps

even plausible,but may

in the end

prove

to be less than

assured.

If one grantsAlexander'sreading

of the

Enochic iterature, he most

obvious obstacle to Alexander's particularreading of the Scrolls

demonology is the ongoing

references

to

angels as evil beings

within the sectarian Scrolls. One

need

only look

at the demon list

of

4Q510

1

5,

which

provided

he reference o

the bastard pirits o

find a reference to

evil

angels: tzn

Dxrn 'm

iv.

Alexander

argues

that

the

most

likely

sense

of %:n

:&tn mm

is

to take Dri :)tW as

standing

n

apposition

o

nim-

and takes the whole

as the

spirits

who

are the angels of destruction. ' his is a particularlynterestingmove

18 Both Charles

(APOT2.201)

and Black

(The

Book

of Enoch)

adopt

a

reading

of

19:2 that has the wives of the

transgressing

ngels

becoming

sirens. Black

suggests

that the LXX

oetpiv typically

is used to translate he Hebrew

12.7

( desert-owl ;Mic.

1:8,

Jer. 27:39

[50:39

MT],

and

Isa.

13:21).

This deserves urther

nvestigation.

n

par-

ticular the

expression

in the Hebrew Bible is

always

some

form of rur nz

(Lev.

11:16;

Deut.

14:15;

Isa.

13:21; 34:13; 43:20;

Jer.

50:39;

Mic.

1:8;

Job

30:29).

In list-

ings

of uncleanbirds the LXX uses the term

copaE

raven ;

ev.

11:16)

and

atpov00o;

( ostrich ?;Deut.

14:15, copaE,

as

already

been utilized n 14:14

to translate

Zw).

In

Isa. 34:13

and

43:20

it

appears

t

is

O'371

jackal )

hat

is

being

translated

y

the term

actpIive;while 7l11V't:b and nmr

nmi2:

are being translatedby atpozBGvand cdl

9tryacrnpeq

rpouOCdv

espectively.

Job

30:29

follows

the

Isa.

34:13

pattern.

Jer. 27:29

(MT 50:29)

and Mic. 1:8 translate

using

the

expression

Ouya-rpov a?tp'vWv.

No doubt

the connectionbetweenthese

daughters

nd the

daughters f

humans of

Gen. 6:2

ought

to be further

explored.

Clearly

the

presence

of

afetpivE

in

Isa.

13:21 and other

desolation

passages

like Isa.

34:13;

43:20;

Jer

50:39,

and

Mic. 1:8 where

other desert

creatures/demons

re listed

suggests

the

possibility

hat

I

Enoch

19:2

views the wives

of the Watchers

among

the

demonic

beings

listed in

passages

like Isa. 13:21. The use

of Isa. 13:21 then in

4Q510

1 5 becomes even more

fascinating

and

perhaps

prob-

lematic

given

that a 7i1 i: is not to be found

among

the

fragments

of

4Q510

or

4Q511.

As Charles

suggests

if the women too

become female

demons here, this

stands

in contrast to

15:12-16

where

demons

are

the

ghosts

of the

giants

(APOT

2.200).

19

Alexander,

Demonology,

34

n.

10.

20

Isaac in

translating

19:2

opts

for theirwomen...

will be

peaceful

ones, again

following

the

Ethiopic

ratherthan the

Greek

text

(OTP

1.23;

see

especially the ex-

planatory

ootnote;

see

also

Charles,

APOT

2.201).

21


33-34.


7/20

340 ANDY M.

REIMER

because reading it in

a

strictly genitival sense, that is, as the spirits

of the angels of destruction,

would allow him to rule out this inclu-

sion of angels in a demon list

immediately.The angels would simply

be

a reference

to

the long imprisonedWatchersof

1

Enoch and the

spirits heir bastard

offspring till runningabout the earth.22 his

could be matched

to a

reading of

1

Enoch 19:1 in which the spirits

of

the angels

there

are

simply the ghosts of

the

giganticoffspringand

the

argument

would

be

rather

tidy.

But

as Alexander rightly notes,

there

are

other

Qumran

texts in which

apparently

demonic

figures

have

the

labelb-l

n

attached

o them

(IQM 13:10-12; IQS 4:12).

Hence,

when the

Qumran

exts

refer

to

demons using the

term

jxzn,

Alexander suggests reverting

to

the basic lexical sense of 'messen-

ger' or 'agent'. 23

ow

one

might

well

quibble

over

the

potential

con-

fusion

that could

occur

with

Alexander's

choice

of

terms.

After

all,

if

the

Qumran

ectariansused both

the

term

spirit

nd

angel

n

inter-

changeable sorts of ways

for both

good

and evil

supernatural eings,

creatinga dichotomy using the

terms

angel

and

demon

s

prob-

lematic. However,

Alexanderdoes

carefully qualify

his

terms,

and the

argumentproceeds

without this

becoming any

obstacle to

clarity.24

III. A Coherent

Demonology

Alexander's

reconstruction

f

the

demonology

of

the

Qumran

exts

does

underscore

his

contention

hat the

Scrolls

present

a

coherent

and

sophisticateddemonology. 25

he

explanatorypower

of

his model

is

apparent

on several fronts.

Fundamentally

t

answers

the

question

of

22

Alexander, Demonology, 33.

23 Alexander, Demonology, 34,

so

also 344.

The use

of

&yyeXo;

n Acts

12:15

where it may well be referring o Peter's ghost

might also open

the

possibility

hat

a

spiritof

the dead

may

be

referred o

as

an

angel, although

most commentators

ug-

gest thatthis ought

to

be read

as a

guardian

ngel

which bears

uncanny

resemblance

to

its earthlycounterparte.g.,

C.K.

Barrett.The

Acts

of

the

Apostles ICC;Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark, 1994] 1.585; F.F. Bruce,

The

Acts of

the

Apostles:

Greek

Text with

IntroductionndCommentaryGrandRapids,

MI:

Eerdmans,

99Q1]

86;

and

E.

Haenchen,

The

Acts

of

the

Apostles [trans.

B.

Noble and G.

Shinn;

rev.

trans. R.McL.

Wilson;

Oxford:Blackwell, 1971] 385).

24

See for

example Alexander,

Demonology, 31-32,

334. Alexander's

distinction

is actually one broadly n line with post-BiblicalHebrew

usage generally.

S.A.

Meier

claims that in Semitictexts, the wordmal'dk... tends to becomethe word of choice

to

designate

all

supernatural eings

who

do God's

work ..

[and]

f it

applies

to

super-

natural reatures pposed

to

God,

it

usually

is

qualifiedby

an

adjective

such

as 'evil '

( Angel II,

DDD

89).

25


31.


8/20

RESCUING THE

FALLEN

ANGELS

341

how Qumrandemonologyfindsitself situatedsomewherebetweenthe

apparently muted

interest in

matters

demonological

in the

Hebrew

Scriptures

and

the more elaborateand extensive

demonologies

of

later

Jewish and Christian

writings.26

ndeed,

the

fixation

with

discovering

the

names and

natures of various

angels

and

demons that

one

finds

in

texts such as

Sepher

ha-Razim

or the

Testament of

Solomon

is

certainly

not evident in extant

Qumran

texts.27

On

the

other

hand,

Qumran

sectarian

heology,

with its deterministic

bent,

is well

served

by

the carefully

constructed

implicity

of the

demonology

offered

by

the Enoch literature.

Alexander

suggests

that books

such as

1

Enoch

actually

served

to

limit

demonological

speculation

and

development.

Faced

almost

certainly

with a

multiplicity

nd

diversity

of evil

spirits

n the

reli-

gion

of the

day,

the authoror authors

of this

[Enochic

Watcher's]myth

triedto

bring

order nto the anarchicand chaoticdemonic

realm,

and

to

integratedemons

into their

theological

worldview. The

first

thing they

did

was to assert

that all

demons

belong

to

only

one

species

of

being:

all

are the

spirits of the

Nephilim.

In other

words,

the

different

pithets

and nomenclature

sed

for demons

indicates

not differentorders

of

being,

but

rather he

different

activities or

behaviourof

beings which belong to the same species. This already involves a significant

rationalization

f

the demonic world.28

It is

a rationalization

that

sees

the demonic

hybrid as

originating

from

a

perversion

of

the natural

order. 29

s

such, they

represent

he

eruption

nto this

world

of the

forces

of

chaos

which

God

subduedby

his

creative

fiat;

their ultimate

punishment

will

involve being

cast

back into the

abyss

and sealed

there forever. 30

his

Enochic myth

lends

sensibility

to

the exorcistic

hymns

found

in

4Q510-11 and

26

Alexander, Demonology, 36. The demonologyof the HebrewBible remainsa

vexing problem n

that,

on the basis of

contemporary

eligious

practiceselsewhere in

the

ANE,

one would

expect

popular

belief

in demonic

forces

and

means of

protecting

or

ridding

oneself

of

this

threat,

but the

surviving

Hebrew

texts shed

very

little

light

on

the

subject.

For a

survey

of the Hebrew

Bible terrain

on

the

subject

of demons

see

C.

Fontinoy,

Les

anges

et les

demons

de

l'ancien

testament,

nges

et demons:

Actes

du

Colloque

de

Liege

et de

Louvain-la-neuve,

5-26

novembre

987

(eds

H. Limet

and

1.

Ries;

Louvain-la-neuve:Centred'histoire

des

religions,

1989)

117-34.

27

On

these texts

see

particularly

P.S.

Alexander,

Incantations and

Books of

Magic, in E.

Schurer,

The

History

of

the

Jewish

People

in

the

Age

of

Jesus

Christ

(175 B.C.-A.D.

135) (rev.

ed.;

eds G.

Vermes,

F.

Millarand

M.

Goodman;

Edinburgh:

T. &

T.

Clark,

1973)

3.347-49,

372-75. See

also D.C.

Duling's

translation

nd

intro-

duction to Testamentof Solomon (OTP 1.935-87) and M.A. Morgan'sSepherHa-

Razim:

The

Book

of Mysteries

SBLIT

25;

Chico,

CA:

Scholars

Press,

1983).

28


39.

29

Alexander,

Demonology,

40.

30

Alexander,

Demonology,

41. It is

worth

noting

that

IQM

17:4,

in

describing

the enemies

of the

sons

of

light,

says

of

this collection of a

chief evil

supernatural


9/20

342 ANDY M. REIMER

1

1Q1

1. Here one finds

both

declarations

of God's

creative

power

and

final

judgment

as threatsagainst

demonic

forces.3'

Indeed,

B.

Nitzan

notes

this

as

a unique

feature

of

4Q510-11

and suggests

this points

to

an

Enochic

demonology

in particular.32

he

claims

thatthe

apocalyp-

tic

tradition

as found

in I Enoch

16:1 and Jub.

10:1-11 in which

the

activity

of evil

spirits

is

permitted

and

legitimate

till the 'Day

of

Judgment '

its well

with

the

eschatological

ramework

f

the

Qumran

sectarians generally.33

More specifically,

this notion

of demonic

activ-

ity

as

legitimate

until

the

final

judgment

clarifies

why

the

exorcistic

Sage

banished

the

demonic beings

not

for

an

everlasting

destruction

[but

ra]ther

for the

era

of

the humiliation

of sin

(4Q510

1

7-8).34

Other

sectarian

texts

such

as 1QM 13:1-16,

1QH

11:18

and IIQ-

Melch

2:12-13

also appear

to share a theology

of

demonic

activity

until

the

final

judgment

n which

thesebeings

are

forever

entrapped

r

destroyed.

The

judgment

of the

Watchers

and the

partial

destruction

of

the

Giants

(their

bodies even

if not their

ghosts

destroyed)

unction

as a symbol

of

future and final judgment

on the forces

of

evil

that

remain.35

The

notion of

present

demonic

activity

and future udgment

s

not

the

only

bit

of

Enochic demonology

that is

picked

up

by the

sectarian

Scrolls.

Alexander

also explores

the

Belial/Satan/Mastema

haracter

and

the relationship

this individual

has to the hoard

of

demonic

hybrids.

Here too

Jubilees

in

particular

ppears

o provide

the

neces-

saryclues

for

integrating

his

characternto

a

largerQumran

emonology.

According

o

Jubilees

10,

after

God orders

heround-up

f the

demons

in

response

to

Noah's

prayer,

Mastemarequests

hat a

tenth

of

these

be

left to him

as

assistants

n his task

of

corrupting

ndleading

astray

humanity esp.

10:8).

Mastema/Belial

s neither allen

Watcher,

or

Giant

ghost,

but

another

entity

entirely,

one

with a

divinely appointed

ask.36

Alexander

claims that

texts such as IQS

3:15-26,

1QM

13:10-12,

and

being,

his

demonic

cohorts,

and

evil humans

hat

theirdesire

goes

towards

chaos

and

emptiness

1lZm1

171Wt

lrr)--a

clearallusion

to

the

7:1 i*nn

of Gen.

1:2.

31

4Q510

1 3-4;

2 4;

4Q511

2 ii 3; 10

12; 28/29;

30; 35

1-2;

IIQlI

2:9-12;

3:1-

12;

4:3-12. Alexander,

Demonology,

41.

32

Nitzan,

Hymns,

3-63.

Nitzan,

Hymns,

56, 58,

60.

PO

fn

nnIsn

rpb

O[h

ID] OtIP

nt%5

I1?

(Baillet,

DJD

7.216).

See also

4Q51

1

8 5; 10 5; 35 7-9. Translationrom GarciaMartinezand Tigchelaar,The Dead Sea

Scrolls

StudyEdition,

2.1031.

3

CD 2:17-19,

for

example,

uses the

story

of the fall

of the

Watchers

and

the

destruction

f the

Giants

as an object

lesson

in the necessity

for

obedience.

.36Alexander,

Demonology,

42-43.


10/20

RESCUING THE FALLEN

ANGELS

343

one may add lQHS 9:7-9, suggest that this adversarialfigure ulti-

matelyoperates

underdivine

authority

and the demons

are subservient

to

him.

This allows

the

Qumran community

a dualistic

angelology/

demonology

while remaining

within the

bounds of

theism,

and...

avoid[s]

falling

into an absolute dualism. 3

The

demons,

while

a

chaoticdisruption

within

the created

order,

are

placed

undera

divinely

ordained

figure

who ultimately serves

God's purposes even

as

an

opponent.

In the end, both chief adversary

and his

minionsmeet

with

divinely appointed

udgment

and

destruction.

Alexanderstates rather

succinctly that the author of the myth of the Watchers with his

Genesis

6 aetiology

of

demons

founda

place

for them in the

narra-

tive

of

sacred history,

and...

related

them

to his

theology

of cre-

ation...

[and]

these

ideas

were

taken

up by

the

Qumran

sect and

totally integrated

nto their dualistic

view of the

world. 38Alexander

has certainlyput

forward

a

strong

case

in favor

of

a

coherentdemo-

nology

in the

Scrolls.

IV. Outstanding

Questions

The

relative

ease with which Alexander

uses the

Enochicliterature

to

create

a seamless

demonology

for

the

DSS

does

make for

a con-

vincing

case.

This

same

ease,

however,

masks

several issues,

and

certainoutstandingquestions

must

be

raised

before

Alexander's

recon-

struction

stands

as the new orthodoxy

or

Qumran

demonology.

What

counts

as

a

demonologyof

the

Dead

Sea

Scrolls?

First,

what counts as

a

demonology

of

the

Dead

Sea

Scrolls ?

Alexander

offers

us

a

largelysynchronic

eading

with

primary mpha-

sis falling

on

the

Enochic literature.Davidson's

methodology,

which

we

mentionedabove,

offers

a

somewhat

divided synchronic

reading

with the

Enochic

corpus

offering

one

sort

of

angelology

and dem-

onology,

the sectarian

exts another.P.R.

Davies,

long

a

champion

of

redaction

criticism as

a

means

of

stratifying

exts

and creating

a more

nuanceddevelopmental

history

of the

Qumran ectarians,

would have

us follow

a

much

more

diachronic

approach.

Using a quite restricted

definition

of

dualism Davies

claims that

3'

Alexander,

Demonology,

343.

38

Alexander,

Demonology,

351.


11/20

344

ANDY M.

REIMER

the theology of the liturgy

in

4QMa is not dualistic;the notion of a period of

Belial's dominantactivityis perfectlyconsistentwith a nondualisticunderstand-

ing of

humanity

and

history,

as

exemplified n CD 4:12b-13 or Jubilees, whose

mgtmh

s not to be equatedwith the dualistic angel of darkness, lthoughthe

noun mgtmh

s

his attribute

n

IQM 13:4, 11-a fully dualisticpassage.The mere

mention

of the

name

of a

satanic figure is not by itself indicative

of

a dualistic

theology.

If

his activity is not opposed to an equally powerfulangelic counter-

part in

a

divinely orderedstruggle,

the

essential componentof dualism is lack-

ing.39

Clearly

what

Davies

would

envision

as

a

properScrolls demonology

would be one in which various developmental ayers would be peeled

apart and not confused. This may well be an admirable ask, and no

doubt

a

useful one,

but

if

the last

hundred

ears

of

biblical

studies

has

taught us anything,

t

is that there is a value both

in

diachronicand

synchronic readings

of a

supposedly fragmented

text

or

group

of

texts.40

In many ways, Alexander's choice

of

approach

s what

makes

it

such

a

useful exercise.

It

is surely the

case

that

whenever

a

commu-

nity gathers

a

set

of

religious

texts

that

come

to define

them in some

way, these

are

read

with a

heavy dose of uncritical

ntertextuality.4'

That is to say, technically later exts are read in light of assump-

tions createdby

earlier

exts.

Likewise, earlier

exts are

read

with

the

spectacles

of later

texts

and

concepts

from

those

later

texts

transported

back

into

the

earlier

ones.

It

seems

highly likely,

for

instance,

that

the

Qumran

ectarianswould

read

the

HebrewBible ex-

pression

1Yfl

:

not

as

contemporary

translators

and historical

critics

do,

but

as a reference to

human forces

aligned

with

an

evil

19P.R. Davies, Eschatology t Qumran, BL 104 (1985) 50-51.

I

Collins' plea

for a holistic

reading

of

1

Enoch 1-39 alongsidesource-criticalnes

is an

excellent

and

relevant

case

in

point

in

terms

of our

argument Methodological

Issues, 315-16).

41 Davies claims that

[tJo

nterpret he scrollsas if they

offereda

synchronic

ross-

section of an isolated community

is to imply an

entity slumberingin a historical

cocoon... nor

can

the

literarycorpus

be treatedas if it were a Qumran

canon, the

definitive statement of what the

community 'always

and everywhere believed '

( Eschatology,

1).

Thatstatement s no doubttrue.However,given any

reading trat-

egy applied

to the DSS is ultimatelypremisedon

some hypothesisof

text

production

and

preservation,

urely

there

s room

for a sort of canonical ritical

approachwhich

asks the question

of how

they

might be read as a definingcorpus

of

religious

texts

without mplyingnecessarily hatthis is a definitivestatement f what the community

always and everywhere

believed. Rather t is a speculative

tatementof what the final

communitypreserving

hese Scrollsmight have believed

at the time of storage.And

it

must

be stated

given

our

present

nterest

hat

in this readingstrategy

I

Enochpoten-

tially

has

as much

of a voice

as

any so-called sectarian ocument.


12/20

RESCUING

THE

FALLEN

ANGELS

345

angelic figure.42f one assumesthat the religioustexts of the Qumran

caves were all somehow owned

or at the

very

least

respectfully

read

by the sectarians,

t is strained

o

suggest

that

an Enochic

aetiology of

demonsis not implied

when the

Qumran

ectarians

peak

of evil

spir-

itS.43

Even conceding

Davidson's

argument

hat

there are

not

a lot

of

direct

references

to

the Watchers

myth,

this

is still the

case.44

Space

must be created for the sort

of integrated synthetic reading

of the

finalcorpus suggested by

Alexander

as a

critical element in

describ-

ing

the

demonology

of

the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Whyallow only

one

fallen angel?

Above

all

else, however,

standsone

troubling

eature-a

loose end as

it

were that threatens

his

finely

knit

fabric

of

coherentdemonology.

Mastema, Belial, Satan,

Melchiresha,

or whatever

name

one

chooses

for

this figure

is

by

Alexander's admission

an

angel and, furthermore,

an evil

angel.45

It would

be

advantageous

to

his

argument

for

a

strict

distinction

between

angels

and demons

f

one

could reclassify this

entity.

Again,

the

issue

of

how

one

is

to

read 1

Enoch

and

Jubilees

comes

to the fore. Thereis no

explicit requirement

o

read

Mastema/

Satan

n Jub. 10:7-12

as

an

angel.

He is

simply described

as

the

chief

of the

spirits (10:8).

G.L.

Davenport,

or

example,

appearsto

42

Deut.

13:14; Judg.

19:22; 20:13;

1

Sam.

1:16

Y

n

l);

2:12; 10:27; 25:17;

1

Kgs 21:10, 13;

2 Chron.

13:7; 4QBera

7 ii 6. One

may

observethe

same

phenomenon

when

Christian

readers

read

Job,

for

instance,

and

have a

great

deal

of difficultynot

importing

a

NT

construct

of Satan nto

1=71

in

Job.

Likewise,

I have

observed

Christianreaders attemptto

bring

the role and

description

of

lpi-n

in Job back

into

play in their interpretationf the NT. The LXX translators f Sir. 21:27 have also

appeared

o have altered he

original

sense of the verse in

choosing

to

transliterate

he

original

adversary

as

IOv OaTavav.

43

Davidson certainlyappears

o

ignore

intentionally

r

otherwise

he possibility of

an Enochic

aetiology

for

the

origins

of evil

supernatural eings

(see

for

example,

Angels

at Qumran,156 esp.

n.

2, 157-58,

178, 219-20).

44

Angels

at

Qumran,

179-80. Davidson will

concede

only

CD

2:17-21

and

4Q180

I

1-10

as

the

only

two certainreferences

o the

fallen

angels

in the

sectarian

writing

found

at Qumran 179). Surely

Alexander

s

correct

n

reading

he

reference o

bas-

tard

spirits

as

a

reference

back

to the

gigantic offspring

of

the

Watchers

and

these

mayrightfully

e added

o

the

certain eference o the

Enoch

myth

of

the fallenWatchers.

4S

Alexander,

Demonology,

41.

Alexander

s

somewhat

more

hesitant

n assign-

ing this figureto the class of angels in Wrestling, uteventuallydoes so by default

since

Belial

does

not fit his definitionof a demon

327-28).

46 It

appears,

or

instance,

hat Collins

(Apocalypticism,5)

is

readingMastema im-

ply

as the leader of the unclean

spirits

of the

giants.

So too Nitzan

(QumranPrayer,

232

n.

20) although

ater she

speaks

of

the

demons as

messengers

f

Mastemah,

he

angel of

the

spirits

251).

Garcia

Martinez

on

the

other hand

seems

to

be

suggesting


13/20

346

ANDY

M.

REIMER

read Mastemaas chief among the spirits.However,this is done at the

expense of distinguishingbetween Mastemaand Satan and so does lit-

tle to solve our problem

of

eliminatingall angelic

beings.4'

Given an

equation between the two figures, surely the more naturalreading of

the passage, perhaps

one

couldargue Mastema/Satans presentedhere

simply as the leading demonic figure. It is not beyond the bounds of

reason that

references

to

this

creatureas

a

ljrn

as we

find in

CD-A

16:5

(iintr3i-

jm5n),

lQS

3:20-21

(vic

jmbn),

and IQM 13:11

(jmtn

nvon) could

be

read

as messengers' r agent as Alexander pro-

poses for

the

plural form

when

applied

to

demons.

When

all the

evidence

is

considered,however, Alexander'sadmis-

sion

of at least this one evil

angel

does

the most

justice

to the

texts

underconsideration.

n the texts with a

thoroughgoing

ewish mono-

theistic

dualism

(as

defined

by Davies),48 here

is

a certain

ration-

ality

in

viewing

the

leading heavenly figures

of

good

and evil

as

ontologically

balanced.

In

other

words,

this is

a

battle

between

two

angelic figures

under

the

auspices

of

the

one

God until

the final

judgment.

In the

case

of

IQS

3:20 and

CD-A

5:17-19

this

takes

on

the

language

of a

Prince

of

Light

versus

an

Angel

of

Darkness

or

Belial. 49

One could

further

uggest

that the

Qumran

habit of

speak-

ing of a leading

evil

supernaturaligure

and his

underlingsmight be

that

Jubilees presents

Mastema as the

leader

of an army

of fallen

angels

who

obtains rom

God that

a tenth

of the

fallen

spirits

will

not

be

directly destroyed

but

will be left under his command

in order

to

harass,

mislead, and destroy humanity

( Apocalypticism,

67). It is not entirely clear

whetherGarcia Martinez s implying

two groups (i.e.,

armyof fallen angels and fallen

spirits ) r whether

he is employ-

ing

two terms

for

stylistic

reasons.

Later he

uses

the

language

of

angelic

forces as

organized

armies underan

angelic

leader

o describe

Jubilees,

suggesting

the former

is the case (168).

47 Davenport

does

not

elaborate

but

simply

states, Satan

s the overseer

of

the evil

spirits-the

spirits of

the children

of the

Watchers-who remain on

earth. A distinc-

tion

is

implied

between

Satan

and

Mastema,

he

chief of the

evil

spirits (x, 7-8) (The

Eschatology f

the Book

of

Jubilees

[SPB 20;

Leiden:

Brill, 1971]

39

n.

1).

J.C.

Vander-

Kam

offers a more

interesting

and nuanced reading

of mastema

suggesting

the

dis-

tinct possibilitythat

Jubilees used

the term

as a descriptiveabstract

noun rather

han

a proper

name

(Textual

and

Historical

Studies

in

the Book

of

Jubilees

[HSM

14;

Missoula, MT:

Scholars

Press, 1977] 257-58).

4

Davies

defines

dualistic

s two

equal

and

opposing nfluences,

conceived

cos-

mologically

and/orethically, and,

in a

Jewish

context, subordinated

o the sovereignty

of

one

God ( Eschatology,

0). Collins takes exception

to

the

restrictive

nature

of

this definition,but it does have a heuristicvalue for our present argument Apoc-

alypticism,44).

49

Davidson

commenting

on

the CD

5:18-19 passagesuggests

that

herethe

Prince

of

Lights corresponds

o Belial

and it is

logical

to

regardboth

as

angels (Angels

at

Qumran,164).


14/20

RESCUING

THE FALLEN ANGELS

347

a productof a demonologyconstruedas Alexandersuggests-that is,

a divinely appointed

but

evil

angel

with

the

ghosts

of

the Giants

as

his assistants.

In

the

sectarian texts

some

form

of the

expression

Belial

and

the spirits

of his

lot

is found

in

1QM

13:2,

4, 11-12,

as

well as llQMelch

2:13 and 4QBera

7 ii

1-3, while IQS 3:21-24

effects a similar

dichotomy

with

its

Angel

of

Darkness. . .

and

all the

spirits

of his

lot. 50

o

too

the

psalmist'srequest

n

1

IQPsa

19:15

that

neitherSatan

nor an evil spirit

be allowed to

rule

over them (m'=n

LR

iin

r7rin ':) certainly

would

lend

some

credenceto Alexander's

ontologicaldistinction etween hisevil leaderand hesupernaturalorces

underhis

direction.5'

t does

certainly

seem to be the

case

that the

roots

of

this

character re in the Satan

figure

of

the

Hebrew

Bible and

certainly

there it

is

an

angelic heavenly

court

figure

even if a

good

deal of transformation

as

taken

place by

the

writing

of

the

Scrolls.52

It

seems

that

there

s

little

room to maneuver

Belial

by

whatevername

out of

the

class of

angel.

But

this

raises

a

very

serious

question

about

the

inconsistencyof

Alexander's

construct

n which demons cannot

be

angels

but

the

chief

of the demons is. Given that Alexanderhas put togethera solid case

for

understanding

he

bastard

pirits -iron

nrnmr)

f

4Q510

1

5

as

the ghosts

of

the

Giants,

does it

necessarily

follow

that

the

spirits

who arethe angelsof destruction

annot efer o another lass of demonic

opponents?

f there

is one fallen

angel,

is

it

not

possible

there are

oth-

ers

in

this

category

as well? This is

not

to

suggest

that we

must

return

to a state

of affairs

n

which

the

spirits

n

subjection

o

Belial

are rou-

tinely

and uncritically

read

as fallen

angels. 53

Rather,

one

must

con-

sider

the

possibility

that

several

aetiologies

co-exist

simultaneously

without all the potentiallyconflictingtensions between them worked

50 Translationdrawn

from

Garcia

Martinezand

Tigchelaar,The Dead Sea Scrolls

StudyEdition, 133, 135, 1207, 1209, 75, 77, respectively.

s'

One

of the distinctions

hat Alexander

uggests

is more

dubious-specifically

his

insistence that angels cannot possess

a human

being

while a

demon

or evil

spirit can

(Alexander, Wrestling, 27-28; Demonology, 39).

This

assumptionplays

into

a

numberof questions

and assertionshe makes in both articles.It

is, however,

an

argu-

ment rom ilence,

and

urthermore

n

argument

hat ails to

take

account f

laterdemonolo-

gies

in

which

demons

are

fallen

angels

and as such

do

possess

human

beings.

So

too

arguments

on the

non-reproductive

atureof

angels

and demons fail to do

justice

to

the ease withwhichthisapparent rule s regularlybreachedn demonologicalmyths,

not least

the fall of the Watchers

story

in

1

Enoch

(Alexander, Demonology, 36).

52

See C. Breytenbach, Satan,

DDD

1369-78.

S3 This

habit of

assuming

rather

han

arguing

or an

aetiology

of

demon as fallen

angels occurs in otherwiseresponsible scholarlyworks (e.g., Davidson,Angels at

Qumran;Kobelski,Melchizedek,17-18;

Garcia

Martinez, Apocalypticism,

67-68).


15/20

348 ANDY M. REIMER

out. This

paper began

with an

observation

I

made while

teaching

a

New Testament

religious

backgrounds ourse to

undergraduate

ible

and

Theology

students.After

having these studentsread

and

discuss

the fall

of the Watchersstory from 1

Enoch and

Jubilees, I asked

if

any

recognized

a tension

between

this accountof the fall

of the

angels

and the

story

of

the

fall

of the

angels they

were familiarwith, which

I

knew to be some

hazy

Miltonianaccount

of

a heavenly

rebellionby

Satan and his

angels.

In

fact, they failed to see

any tension

until

I

sketched out both accounts on

one

timeline drawn from

the narra-

tive of Genesis 1-6. Only once it was visualized in this mannerdid

the

discrepancies

become

apparent

o them. If

the

sociology

of knowl-

edge

has

taught

us

anything

it

is

to

be

aware of these

unrecognized

gaps

and unresolved

tensions

in

the constructionof

worldviews.54

The very

fact that

so

many scholarscan speakto the issue of

demons

and final

judgment

on Belial and his minions

without

ever

addressing

the issue of

aetiology

is

perhaps

indicative of how the

sectarians

themselves functioned.

As we noted

above,

Alexander

makes

the

plausiblesuggestion

that

theEnoch iteratures asignificant ationalizationf the demonicworld-

bringing

an ordered

simplicity

to the

otherwise

anarchicand chaotic

demonic realm. 55Other scholars

too

have

noted the various streams

that are forced

together

within the

telling

of the

myth

of the Watchers

in

1

Enoch 1-36 and Jubilees.56

However,

this

implies

a ratherbroad

stream of

existing

ideas about the

origins

of

supernatural

vil

beings.

This is reallyone of

the

most

significant

advancesof the

sociology

of

knowledge,

and

one not

taken

up nearly often

enough. M. Douglas, summarizing he effect

E.E.

Evans-Pritchard's

Witchcraft, Oracles, and

Magic among the Azande has had on schol-

arship regardingwitchcraftsince its originalpublicationn 1937, states that Evans-

Pritchard'swork as first and foremost... a

book about

the sociology of knowl-

edge... [showing]

how the

Azande,

clever and

sceptical

as

they were,

could

tolerate

discrepancies

n their beliefs and could

limit the kinds of questions

they

asked

about

the universe

( Introduction:Thirty

Years after

Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Witch-

craft Confessions

and Accusations

[ed.

M.

Douglas;

London: Tavistock

Publications,

1970] xiv).

This is echoed

by

E. Gillies' introduction

to an

abridged

version of

Witchcraft, Oracles

and

Magic among

the Azande (E.E. Evans-Pritchard,

Witch-

craft,

Oracles and

Magic

among

the Azande

[abridged and intro.

by

E.

Gillies;

Oxford:

Clarendon

Press, 1976]

xxvii-xxviii).

In a

delightfulbit of

irony, Douglas

laments he

fact that subsequent

anthropologists

who

actuallyuse Evans-Pritchard's ork have

ex-

hibited a similar social restraint

upon perception

nd

natural

uriosity(xiv).

Demonology, 39.

S6 See

particularly

the

following

oft-cited works: P.D. Hanson, Rebellion

in

Heaven, Azazel,

and Euhemeristic

Heroes

in I Enoch 6-1 1 JBL 96 (1977)

195-233;

G.W.E.

Nickelsburg,

Apocalyptic

nd

Myth

in

I

Enoch 6-1

1, JBL 96

(1977)

383-405

and Collins's response

( Methodological

Issues );

D.

Dimant,

I

Enoch 6-11: A


16/20

RESCUING THE FALLEN ANGELS 349

While 1 Enoch may have synthesizeda new simplicity,it may well

be that this new constructsimply rejoined the existing

broad

stream

of

ideas rather than

authoritatively redefining

demonic

aetiology.

Certainly, ater Christian

writers such as Lactantiusdemonstrate

hat

one can hold an Enochic aetiology for demons alongside

a

myth of

angels

who

fell

from

heavenly glory

and

who also

enter

the

class of

demonic beings.57

The difficulty s finding

a clear

fallen angels myth that is quite

separate rom the Enochic interpretation

f Genesis 6.

A

story of the

fall of Satan and the angels prior to humanity's fall, the account

largely embraced

as orthodox

after the

fourth

century

in

Christian

circles,58

s not

clearly

attestedbeforethe first

centuryCE.59Wis. 2:23-

24,

with its statement hat it is

through

he devil's

envy

death entered

the

world

(NRSV),

hints at

the sort

of

story

one

finds

in

The Life of

Adam

and

Eve,

but

in itself is a

vague

reference

and the

book at any

rate

is likely

a

first

century

CE

document.'

The

Life

of Adam and

Eve

offers

an

account

of the

fall of Satan and a

host of

angels under

his command

on

the

basis of

his failure

to

worshiphumanity but here

only in the Latin, Armenian and Georgian, not in the Greek and

Slavonic

versions).61

2

Enoch

29:4-5

offers

a

more

complete descrip-

MethodologicalPerspective,

BLSP

1978, 323-39; and C.A. Newsom, TheDevelop-

ment

of

I

Enoch 6-19:

Cosmology

and

Judgment, CBQ

42

(1980)

310-29.

57 E.g.,

Lactantius,

The

Divine

Institutes

2.15. It

was

Alexander's

article

that first

suggested the Lactantiusparallel

( Demonology,

339 n.

24).

An excellent

summary

of Lactantius'

demonology

can be found in E.

Schneweis, Angels

and

Demons

According to

Lactantius

(CUASCA

3;

Washington,

DC: Catholic

University

of

America

Press, 1944)

92-109.

For a

thoroughsurvey

of

early Christian

appropriation

of the Enoch literaturencludinga descriptionof the shift from an Enochic demon-

ology basedon Genesis

6 to a

demonology

of

angels

involved

in

a

heavenly

rebellion

and

a rejection

of the Enochic

interpretation

f

Genesis

6, see J.C. VanderKam,

1

Enoch,

Enochic

Motifs,

and Enoch

in

Early

Christian

Literature,

The

Jewish

Apocalyptic

Heritage

n

Early Christianity eds

J.C. VanderKam nd

W.

Adler;

CRINT

3.4; Minneapolis:

Fortress

Press, 1996)

62-88.

S8

See VanderKam,

1

Enoch, 84-87.

59

Alexandermentions

1 Enoch

54:6 in

passing

as

an

example

of

Satan

leading a

group

of

fallen

Watchers

and

roaming

the

world.

As he

rightly

notes,

this

passage

comes

from

the Similitudes

and

is

notoriously

difficult o

date

with

any

definiteness.

Its

absence

from

Qumran

s

particularly elling

in

terms of its

later

status.

I

J.

Geyer

suggests

this

s

the earliest

known

reference o

the devil

as the

tempter

(The Wisdomof Solomon [TBC; London: SCM Press, 1963] 67). On the date see

D.

Winston, Solomon,

Wisdom

of,

ABD

6.122-23,

and E.G.

Clarke,The

Wisdomof

Solomon(Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress,

1973)

1-3.

61

See

M.D. Johnson's ntroduction

nd

translation

n

OTP

2.249-95

esp. 262. See

also

G.A.

Anderson

and

M.E.

Stone's,

A

Synopsis of

the

Books

of Adam

and Eve

(SBLEJL5;

Atlanta:

Scholars

Press, 1994)

10-13.


17/20

350

ANDY M.

REIMER

tion of a creation

week

fall by

Satanailand

his angelic

underlings,

but

this is only

in

the

longer

recensionand is

perhapsa

Christian

nter-

polation.62

Later Jewish

possibilities

are

also brought

forward by

Nitzan in her

investigationsof

4Q510-1

.63 These

include

stories of

demons

originatingwith a

primaeval

connectionbetween

Adam

and

Lillith or demons as restrained

ince the

days of

Moses but break-

ing out of their subterranean

iding place

duringtimes of

supernatural

tension. Nitzan herself

appears

to remain

convinced of an

Enochic

demonology

based on

Genesis 6 for the

Scrolls.' Gen. Rab.

24:6

which

Nitzan cites as an

early

form of the

Lilith legend

actuallyhas

both Adam and Eve

producingdemonic childrenwhile

this same text

offers the

possibility

that

demons are

spirits

who had the

misfortune

of not

having

a

body

made

before the arrival

of the creation week

Sabbath

(7:5).65

Also

problematic

because

of its later date is a

Mishnaic account of evil

spirits

as entities

creatednear

the

end of the

sixth

day (m.

Avot

5:6).'1

Given

the

first

century

CE

or later

date for

all of this evidence

obviously

one

must tread

ightly

in

suggesting

any

of these accounts were in

circulationat the time of

the

writing

of the

Scrolls.

However,

the

very

fact of later

variety

along

with the refer-

ences

to

demonic creaturesas

angels

on a

numberof occasions in

the

sectarian

texts of

Qumran

ought

to

keep alive the

possibility

of

another demonic

aetiology existing

alongside of the

ghosts

of the

Giants version

given by

I

Enoch.

62

See F.I.

Anderson's

ranslation nd footnoteson the

matter n OTP 1.148.

63

A convenient

summary

of Jewish

demonology

and

especially aetiology can be

found in E.

Ferguson,

Demonology of the Early

ChristianWorld

(Lewiston, NY:

EdwinMellen Press, 1984)69-104.

i Qumran

Prayer, 231-32;

Hymns, 56. A

possible

early account of Adam

and

Lilith can be found in Gen. Rab.

24:6.

The

latteraccountcan be found in

Num. Rab.

12:3.

65

In

commenting

on the

descendantsof Adam the

following

is

stated: Another

interpretation:

hese

are

descendants,but

earlierones were

not

[human]descendants.

What then

were they? Demons. For

R. Simon said:

Throughout he

entire one

hundred

and

thirtyyears

duringwhich Adam held

aloof

from Eve the male demons

weremade

ardent

by

her and she

bore,

while

the female demons

were inflamedby Adam and

they

bore.. .

(Gen.

Rab.

24:6 as translated in

Midrash

Rabbah [trans. H.

Freedman;

London and

New York:

Soncino

Press,

1983] 1.203). See also Gen. Rab. 20:11. It is

noteworthy

hat the sons

of God of Genesis 6 are

not read as angels

Gen.

Rab.

26:5). Given the reference to Lilith in 4Q510 1 5 and possibly male and female

demons in texts such as

4Q510 and 4Q560 (see

below), perhaps hese do

deservefur-

ther

investigation

as to the

possibility

of these

being

aroundat the time of

the

writing

of these

Qumran

exts.

I

So also b. Pes. 54a.


18/20

RESCUING THE

FALLEN ANGELS

351

Mustconsistencylie in aetiology?

It might

also be the case

that the

Qumran

ectarians

ad

little

interest

in

a

clearly

articulated

aetiology

of demons-that

quite frankly

they

were

fuzzy on the

issue

because pragmatically

the

origins

of the

demon,

and indeed

the

type

of

demon,

were relatively

unimportant

n

their

coping strategies.

Contemporary arallels

to a phenomenon

uch

as this

can certainly

be

found.67 Q510

and 511 deal with

the

varieties

of demonic creatures

hey list in

an identical

fashion-all are

terrified

in the apotropaichymn throughthe declarationof the grandeurand

power

of

God.68 ndeed,

declaring

the creative

power

of YHWH as a

means

of exorcising

demons is

the

pattemof 1IQl1

as well.69Here

too

one finds

a

variety

of

terms

used

to

describe

demonic

opponents

but

one basic formula

which is effective

for

all,

a

pattem

one finds

especially in

Psalm 91

which

is

included n

this

collection

of exorcis-

tic

psalms.70

4Q560

likewise

gives

a

series

of

evil

supematural

crea-

tures listed on

the basis of their activity

and genderand

appears

to

67

L.G. McClung Jr, describing

Pentecostal

and

Charismatic

Christian

exorcistic

practices, states

that no clarified doctrinal

statementon

demonology and

exorcism

exists among

the

major

Pentecostal bodies....

Like

many

themes in

Pentecostal/

charismaticbelief

and

practice,

exorcism

has

been

practiced

but

not

formally

theolo-

gized ( Exorcism,

Dictionaryof Pentecostal and CharismaticMovements

eds

S.M.

Burgess

and

G.B. McGee;

GrandRapids,

MI:

Zondervan,

1988]

290-91).

68

4Q510 1 4-5. The

term

apotropaic

o

describe

these

hymns

was suggested by

Alexander, Wrestling,

20. For an excellent

analysis

of the meansby which

the

Sage

banished

demonic

beings,

see

Nitzan, Hymns.

69

Lange, The Essene Position, 379-82.

The

specific importance

f retainingthe

name

YHWH in

this

text is

taken

up by

t.

Puech

( Les

deux

derniers

Psaumes

davidiquesdu ritueld'exorcisme,IIQPs' IV 4 - V 14, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty

Yearsof Research,82-89).

While Puech believes the

use of the

divine

name excludes

this from being

a

sectarian

ocument

proper,

Nitzan

remains

open to other

alterna-

tives (QumranPrayer, 235-36)

while Alexander

argues

it

is indeed

a

sectariandocu-

ment ( Wrestling, 28).

70

Though fragmentary, IQ11

2:3-4

(11Q11 1:4-5

in

Puech's numbering cheme)

offers

the

following:

Garcla

Martinez and

Tigchelaar

offer

[...

the

spirlits

and

the

demons,

[...]/[...1

These

are

[the delmons,

and the

Pri[nce

of

Animosi]ty

as

a reconstruction nd trans-

lation (The

Dead

Sea Scrolls

StudyEdition, 2.1200-1). t. Puechspeculates athermore

boldlyandoffers pourqu'ildelivrede tout ldaudesesp]rits tdesdemons, lesliliths,]/[les

hiboux

et les

chats

sauvages (?)],

ceux-ci

[sont

les

demons,

et

le

pr[ince d'hostili]t6

( I QPsApa: Un

rituel d'exorcismes. Essai

de

reconstruction, evQ

14 [1990] 386-

88).

Psalm

91 within the context

of

these

other

exorcistic

psalms offers

a

classic ex-

ample

of

a

list of

various demonic

oppressors

all

dealt

with simultaneouslywith a

blanket

protection

rom YHWH.


19/20

352

ANDY

M.

REIMER

offer a blanket olution to all of these.7'4Q444 is somewhatmore

fragmentarybut

appears

to list

demons

without

being

clear on

what

exactly

each

might

specifically

be, and

thiswould

fit the

patternof an

all-encompassing

ure

as well.72

Perhaps

he

key to

this

lack

of

inter-

est in

fleshing out

specific

demonological

aetiologies is

linked

to M.

Kister's

hypothesisthat

entry into the

community

mplied

a

degree of

freedom from

demonic control.73

he exorcistic

hymnodythen

serves

to

reinforce

his blanket

protection-a

mode of

operation hat

does not

require

extensive

investigationof

varioustypes of

demons and

cures

applicable o each in particular.The consistencyof the demonologyof

the DSS is

perhaps

better

found in their

communitypractices

ounded

on a

particular

heology

of their

community

and a

specific

belief about

the

ultimate

end

of the

demons

plaguingpresentexistence.

Asking

the

sectarians also to have a

carefully

fleshed out

aetiology

of demons

may be

asking

too much.

V.

Conclusion

It remainsto be seen whetherAlexander'sbanishment f the fallen

angels from the DSS will

be an eternal

imprisonment

n

terms of

'M

he list here is rather

dramatic

4Q560

I

i

2-5):

[-j

r1

n

9

pD

li;'

ni-i-n

mnn-*n

[

...]

kkmpz

n, Mnl

mD-wnn~ s tnt-i

1m@:

V

X [..j

1-b

roRl rr-wl rtum MUVD

n

jmw

1q

n Mro

ttnrp) r

l

-7-

I-D

^

-i[...]

] the

midwife,

the

chastisement f

girls.

Evil

visitor,de[mon...

.... .1

entersthe

flesh,

the male

penetrator

nd the female

penetrator/[...]...

iniquity and

guilt; fever and

chills, and heat of

the heart

J...

1

in

sleep, he

who crushes the

male

and she who

passes

through

he

female,

those who

dig

(transcription nd

translation

drawn from

Garcia

Martfnezand

Tigchelaar,The

Dead Sea

Scrolls Study

Edition,

2.1116-17,

with

the

exception

of the final

dalet on line 2 which

is

suggestedby

Penney and

Wise, By

the Powersof

Beelzebub, 631, 637.

Penneyand

Wise take the

beginningof line 4 as

the

completionof

a

quotation rom Exod.

34:7

or Num. 14:18 and

carry on translat-

ing 4-5

as, O Fever and Chills and

Chest

Pain... [and

forbidden

Rescuing the Fallen Angels The Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Rescuing the Fallen Angels The Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran.pdf