Mana Lore

The Nephilim in the Book of Giants

Within to book of Genesis, Enoch, Ezekiel and Giants, exists a word with a meaning that is currently hotly debated. The word Nephilim נפילים, essentially can mean two things, “giants” or “fallen ones”. Because of the variation in meaning, interpretation of certain passages, and a full understanding of the context of entire paragraphs, comprehension becomes very difficult and frustrating. When studying the Dead Sea Scrolls, I have encountered hurdles, if not walls of frustration when examining more than one translation. The Book of Giants, specifically, has proved to be almost directionless in some translations, while others allude heavily and directly to a Babylonian influence on biblical mythos. Because of this, I intend to elucidate the situation in regards to the etymology and concepts behind the word Nephilim, with a main focus being its use in the Book of Giants.  I will also point out the troubles and needless complexities encountered when reading Dead Sea Scroll fragments, as well as describing some of the major allusions and possible connections between the Book of Giants and its neighboring Babylonian mythology and culture.

The Book of Giants originally was known only through vague allusions from a Central Asian Manichean manuscript written in the third and fourth centuries CE. The discovery of the Qumran scrolls showed that it was around five hundred years older than its Manichean counterpart.[1] Essentially, the Book of Giants retells the story described by Enoch, and alluded to in Genesis (6:1-4). It elaborates on the acts of the giants with a focus on the dreams of Ohya and Hahya, the children of Shemihaza (An angel according to the “Midrash of Shemihazah”[2]). The discovery of the Qumran Book of Giants by Milik, confirmed the suspicions of another scholar, W.B. Henning that Mani had used an Aramaic source for his own work.[3] This finally gave scholars a clue as to where the Manichean version of the Book of Giants could have come from.

Although there are two versions of the Book of Giants, we are concerned only with the Aramaic version which came from the caves at Qumran. Reading the translations is where I stumbled upon my first point of controversy for the term for “giants”: Nephilim. The following is an excerpt of 4QBook of Giants (4Q531 [4QEnGiants]) Frag. 1, from two separate scholarly and reputable sources:

 

“1 […] they defiled […] 2 […they begot] giants and monsters […] 3 […] they begot and, behold, a[ll the earth was corrupted…] 4 […] with its blood and by the hand of […] 5 [giants] which did not suffice for them and […] 6 […] and they were seeking to devour many […] 7 […] 8 […] the monsters [destro]yed it.”

According to Wise, Abegg Jr., and Cook[4]

 

“1 […]they were defiled[…] 2 […]the Giants and the Nephilim and […] 3 they shall sire […]. And if all […] 4 […] in his blood. And according to the power […] 5 […the Giants] which was not enough for them and for [their sons…] 6 […] and they demanded much to eat […] 7 […] Blank […] 8 […] the Giants destroyed it […]”

According to Martinez[5]

 

I have emboldened the questionable terms. When reading Wise, Abegg Jr., and Cook’s translation they specifically mention giants and monsters, without using the Hebrew word for giant, which accordingly and logically should be Nephilim. They delineate between “giants” and “monsters” by repeating the word “monsters” as the translation for the word at the end of the fragment. The word “giants” is also repeated throughout the translation of the full book, further affirming the word “monsters” as having a unique origin apart from Nephilim. However, in Martinez translation he writes both giants and Nephilim on the same line! This was quite confusing, because how could there be both giants and Nephilim, if the Nephilim are the giants? Monsters would be more appropriate if there were more than one class or type of being in this scene; however, one cannot be sure.

What confounds the matter further is Martinez’s use of the word “giants” at the end of the fragment! If Wise, Abegg Jr., and Cook used the word “monsters” in the first line, as well as at the end, then we can assume that the translated word was the same because the word “giant” would be reserved for the term “Nephilim”, making “monsters” a separate word.[6] However, when Martinez translates the fragment, he uses the word “giants”, of which could only unmistakably be considered the word which was not the Nephilim, since he specifically reserves Nephilim in lieu of the term “monsters” as used by Wise, Abegg Jr., and Cook! So what is really going on here?

Both authors know that Nephilim means “giants” because of its common use throughout the rest of the text. It is not even an issue of plurality because all the words remain plural throughout each translation in this specific passage. So what are the Nephilim? Giants, monsters, or just Nephilim? Either something is amiss in the translation or the translators were careless and shoddy with their work. Was the word Nephilim repeated three times and monsters used to give some sort of variance or flavor to the text? Why then is there confusion about the term used at the end of the fragment? If both giants and monsters can be used interchangeably then why is Nephilim reserved as the only non-name Hebrew term in the translation according to Martinez?

            In order to unravel this mess, we may turn to the etymological explanation of the word Nephilim. Unfortunately, this is also a debated subject, with a modern interpretation of the word as “Fallen Ones” being a popular concept found in scholarly articles as well as the internet and other less-than-reputable sources. In an article found in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Ronald Hendel writes:

 “Nephilim literally means “the fallen ones,” indicating apparently the ones fallen in death.”[7]

I would argue that this is not entirely accurate, as will be described further in our discussion. However, Hendel points out an inconsistency in which Genesis describes the Nephilim as existing before the flood, and thereafter destroyed, while also describing them as residing in the land of Canaan by the early Israelites and destroyed under the command of a great hero of Israel. This hero could have been either Moses, Joshua, Caleb or David.[8] From this one scholar we now have a suspicious etymological meaning for Nephilim, as well as a clue toward a mythical hero that we have yet to come across. What does all this mean?

            A critical piece of the puzzle resides in Gen. 6:1-4 which describes the Nephilim in simple but concise terms:

 

“1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.” (Gen. 6:1-4 New International Version)

 

The Book of Giants is linked to this passage in many ways, effectively becoming an extrapolation of the passages. Although this excerpt is not new discovery as is the Book of Giants, it happens to become the glue used for piecing together this collage. This passage will guide us through both etymological and mythological problems; bringing greater understanding of what the Ancients said when they wrote the quizzical word Nephilim.

            In an article written by Michael S. Heiser, a PhD in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semetic Languages at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, he argues that the word Nephilim is indeed “Giants” because it was not originally written in Hebrew but in Aramaic. The word “fallen ones”, according to Heiser, implies a passive idea in the words meaning than the fall was caused by an outside force. Yet, in Genesis 6, or Numbers 13, there is no evidence that the Nephilim were sinners or spiritually fallen. The only place that carries this idea is Enoch and the Book of Giants, which were preserved in Aramaic, not the Hebrew of the Torah. Heiser claims that the sons of God and the Nephilim are two different beings, the Nephilim being the offspring of the Sons of God. The transgressions described before the flood were caused by mankind and the sons of God, but not the Nephilim. The sons of God aren’t even described as causing the flood, so why would their offspring be in inherently evil, or fallen? After much elaboration, Heiser proposes that the Nephilim comes from the Aramaic noun naphil which means giant, as opposed to the Hebrew word naphal. [9]

 

“Nephilim comes from the Aramaic noun naphil (note the “I” in that noun between the “ph” and the ‘l” as required in the long form of Nephilim). The plural would be nephilin as with the other Aramaic option (and would read Nephilim after being brought into the Hebrew Bible and “normalized” to Hebrew spelling)”[10]

 

He alludes that any other translation as “fallen ones” would be because of an interpreter’s agenda.[11]

            Now that we have firmly examined the etymology and conditions of which the word Nephilim is written, we can further examine what they actually are and what influenced the writing of the Book of Giants. They are, essentially, a cross breed between angels and humans. Hendel concluded in his article “Of Demigods and the Deluge” that:

 

“…that the Nephilim, the warriors of old in Gen. 6:1-4, are intended to be destroyed by the flood and that the destruction of these demigods was an authentic motive for the flood in early Israelite oral tradition.”[12]

 

            His conclusion is convincing and will guide us toward a more in depth discussion of Babylonian influences; however his proof that the Nephilim are the fallen warriors of old is etymologically incorrect because of its root in nephal instead of the Aramaic naphil. Linguistically, this is one of the greatest problems I see for those studying the Dead Sea Scrolls in general, without a firm grounding in Aramaic and Hebrew. There are so many different references and possibilities as to what a passage could say, it is hard to say what is authentic. It is dangerous to establish conclusions based on fallacious or uncertain ideas. Hendel based nearly half of his article on the concept of “Fallen Ones” whereas he could have easily focused on more important and pertinent concepts to support his argument. Hendel’s conclusion about the Nephilim leads us to a new argument, what do demigods and oral traditions have to do with the Nephilim? Where did these concepts come from? Again, we are about to run into a translation issue between Martinez and Wise, Abegg Jr., and Cook. Doing research on the Book of Giants, I found a lecture by a reputable professor, James R. Davila concerning two characters within the Book of Giants:

 

“Two of the evil giants in the Aramaic version are named Gilgamesh and Hobabis. Gilgamesh is an epic figure in Sumerian and Akkadian Literature…He meets Utnapishtim, the Babylonian version of Noah…the giants Gilgamesh and Hobabis are reflexes of the Gilgamesh and Humbaba/Huwawa of the Gilgamesh Epic.”[13]

 

I was taken aback when I saw mention of the name Gilgamesh. I did not see this name anywhere in my translation of the Book of Giants by Martinez. However, picking up Wise, Abegg Jr., and Cook’s The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, I was able to find the name mentioned two or three times, and described as coming from the actual fragment (not an word based on assumption or researched reference). [14]  The name Gilgamesh was both in the text and in the commentary on the text (a commentary Martinez was lacking). This occurred in 4Q531 Frag 2 and 4Q530 Frag. 2 Col 2. Gilgamesh is described as if he was one of the giants. It is also mentioned that Gilgamesh may actually be Hobabish speaking instead.[15] What can this mean? Babylonian mythos and heroes found in the Book of Giants? This does seem to resonate with the description in Genesis 6 which states that the Nephilim were the “heroes of renown”. Could this possibly be an allusion to the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, which describes the adventures of  the great hero? Is this the remnant of an oral tradition becoming a written tradition? Certainly Davila thinks so, as well as Hendel:

           

“I submit that the story of the mingling of gods and mortals and the procreation of the demigods was originally connected to the flood narrative and functioned as its motivation. The yahwist detached the story of the demigods from the myth of the deluge in order to preface the flood with a more purely ethical motive: Yahwehs anger at the evil behavior of humanity.”[16]

 

Remember we discussed earlier that Hendel also described a great hero of Israel as destroying the Giants. This great hero could have been Gilgamesh in an original Babylonian form, or possibly Noah in the form of Utnapishtim. Davila and Wise, Abegg Jr., and Cook both describe Hobabish as being mentioned in the Book of Giants as well, in place of, or near Gilgamesh’s mention. It would seem that the epic hero and monster has been adopted into Biblical literature with a twist. Perhaps the “monsters” or nephal mentioned in the Book of Giants are monsters such as Hobabish! Hobabish is “described as a giant protected by seven layers of terrifying radiance…In art, Humbaba is typically portrayed as a human-bodied figure with a lions claws for hands, a monstrous face, long hair and whiskers.”[17] Another major figure within the text is Atambish, a peculiarly named giant which Reeves claims is a reflex of the name Utnapishtim, the flood hero of Babylonian mythos.  He goes on to day that the Book of Giants identifies Utnapishtim, the Babylonian Noah as one of the bastard Giants. Unfortunately, the name of Noah has yet to be identified; it is only through allusion, such as interpreting the meaning of the dreams brought to Enoch, that we come to believe that Noah and his sons are mentioned.[18]

Although this is purely my own assumption, but what is not to say that the Sons of God were not the Babylonian Gods, who mated with human women and created the Nephilim, epic giant warriors of renown, 450 foot tall[19] able to perform the mightiest of feats through their semi-divine strength?  It makes me wonder if Martinez had a reason to withhold the name Gilgamesh from his translation, or if he simply did not have access to the proper fragments. Perhaps the controversy and possible origins are not worth the debate.

John C. Reeves, proposes that there is a controversy as to whether or not Noah, the flood-hero himself was a giant. The story around the birth of Noah is suspect because he does not look like a normal child. His father Lamech, at one point, goes to the Prophet Enoch, to ask whether or not the child is his, or the product of an Angel visiting his wife. This is startling because in the Book of Giants, the giants approach Enoch for a dream interpretation. However in this case, Noah’s his Father is questioning his wife’s fidelity.[20] The parallel is quite obvious.

 The picture begins to become clearer. The Book of Giants seems to contain remnants of a more ancient and most likely Babylonian flood myth. The Babylonian flood myth parallels the Biblical one on various points. One of the key differences is that the Gods bless the Babylonian hero, known as Utnapishtim with immortality, not to mention different methods of receiving the apocalyptic message.  So we are left with questions: Why is the Book of Giants present at all within biblical literature, especially the literature at Qumran? Who originally wrote it? What are its true roots? Davila concludes in his lecture:

 

“The dates of the Aramaic manuscripts rule out the possibility of it being a Christian composition, and it clearly does contain Jewish traditions. Nevertheless, it contains Babylonian mythic material as well, which opens up the possibility that it is an indigenous polytheistic (i.e., “pagan”) work which borrowed Jewish traditions and in turn was borrowed by Jews.”[21]

 

Another scholar, Martin Hengel supports the foreignness of the concept of the Nephilim in Jewish literature:

 

”The derivation of the demons from the marriage of the fallen angels with human women is also un-Jewish.”[22]

 

I believe Davila’s conclusion is strong and well founded. Reeves work backs up the conclusion with interesting connections and parallels.  More than likely the Book of Giants is an example of cultural and religious spillover. It represents the preservation of Ancient Traditions and stories within a dynamic and changing environment. It is not Jewish at heart, but has become Jewish. Religious syncretism has happened throughout human history, it would not be a far fetched idea to posit that this story was adopted by the Jews, especially with their relationship and exile to Babylon by mandate of Nebuchadnezzar.

It is difficult to establish where exactly the influences on the text came from, especially if they were from an oral tradition, of which it most likely was. I doubt Babylonian scholars sat with Jewish scribes and write the Book of Giants together, but that’s not to say that a scribe hadn’t heard of the Story of Gilgamesh and decided to make his own Jewish version of the story. When people hear stories that parallel or imitate that of their own, they tend to pay attention and make something of those stories. It is wonderful to be able to find value in something foreign and then incorporate it so that the entire community can benefit from it for years to come. Babylonian mythos may not have agreed with Jewish theology, but the concept conveyed by the story itself may have.

What is interesting is that the Book of Giants never made it into mainstream practice. It seems subjects that hint of religious syncretism continue to be preserved but not accepted wholly by major religious traditions. It is a shame we do not have a complete manuscript, our lack of data leaves us flailing in the dark for answers. All we have is our own logic and traditions of knowledge and study of previous sacred texts to guide us. Sometimes it is enough, but when dealing with a syncretic text such as the Book of Giants, it takes a broader sense of the world from a place and time period where much history has been lost or at least still remains undiscovered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Black,Jeremy. Green, Anthony. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia.

Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992.

Cruden,Alexander. Cruden's Complete Concordance to the Old and New testaments.

A.D. Adams. M.A., C.H. Irwin. MA., D.D., S.A. Waters. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House.

Davila, James R.. "THE BOOK OF GIANTS." 3 1, 2002.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/bgiants.html (accessed 4 1, 2007).

Heiser, Michael S.. "The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy."

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Nephilim.pdf (accessed 4 1, 2007).

Hendel, Ronald S.. "Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis

6:1-4." SBL: Journal of Biblical Literature 106, no. 1 (March 1987): 13-26.

Hengel,Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during

the Early Hellenistic Period. 1, Text. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 219-247.

Kramer,Samuel, N.. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. Chicago ;

London: The University of Chicago Press, 1963.

Martinez,Florentino, G.. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English.

2nd ed. Leiden ; New York; Koln: Brill, 1996.

Reeves, John C.. "Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants?." Journal of Biblical Literature

112, no. 1 (Spring, 1993): 110-115.

Wise,Michael. Abegg, Martin Jr.. Cook, Edward. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New

Translation. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005.