The Books of Enoch, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4

EnGiants* i, 2, 3 FIRST COPY
311
4QEnGiants^ 1, 2, 3 (PI. XXX)
]n[.. 0
vacat
''Ima h[3S7i] 3
margin
]Dxp nix 4
Fr. I. I When I shall ri[se(?)...] ^Baraq'el [...] 3my face still [.. .]4 I am
rising [. . .]
Fr. 2. ^on them [. . .] ^[and] Mahaw[ai repUed( ?)...]
Fr. 3. ^[. . .] %is fellows [. . .] ^Hobabes and Adk.[. . .] ^and what will you
give me in order to k[ill( ?)...]
These three fragments perhaps belong to the same column; fr. 3 very probably joins fr. 2,
the linking being effected in the letter He of 2 3 and 3 i.
Fr. I, 1. I. The last letter, of which only the lower part remains, may be read Waw, Yod,
Daleth, Resh.
L. 2. Baraq^ely 'Lightning of God', the name of the ninth fallen Watcher; in the Manichaean
Book of Giants he bears the name Virdgdid, 'Gift of the lightning'. His son was called
Mahawai, See above, p. 300.
Fr. 2,1. 3. [^ina, the name of the son of *?Xp13.
Fr. 3, 1. 2. 'His fellows', sc. of Semihazah, chief of the two hundred Watchers; see below,
fr. 8, line 5.
L. 3. The last letter, damaged at the top, is a Waw rather than a Daleth or a Resh.
The names of two giants which can be read in line 3 of fr. 3 are found on p. i of fragment 7
which forms part of the Middle Persian Book of Giants (Kawdn),
BSOAS
published by Henning in
xi, pp. 57 and 60. Here mention is also made of Baraq'el, or rather his son Mahawai,
and also of the two sons of Semihazah, 'Ohya and his brother ['Ahya], whom we shall see
cited by the fragments of 4QEnGiants*. Text of fr. j, p. i:
'. . . Virogdad (read: Baraq'el). . . HobabiS (hwFby^) robbed 'hr,[, .] of [,]nxtg, his wife.
Thereupon the giants began to kill each other and [to abduct their wives]. The creatures, too,
began to kill each other. Sim (read: 'Ohya)... before the sun, one hand in the air, the other ...
whatever he obtained, to his brother [Nariman (read: 'Ahyi)] . . . imprisoned. . . .'
Henning (loc. cit., p. 57 note 24) enumerates possible readings of the name of the second
giant: '/rrm[, *hrq[y 'hrb[y *hrn[. If one recalls that in Manichaean writing, just as in the majority
of Aramaic alphabets of the Graeco-Roman period, Resh and Daleth can have almost identical
forms, one will have no hesitation in choosing his second reading, correcting it to ^hdq[, .],
which is thus equivalent to [ . . ] ^
of our Aramaic fragment.