Rescuing the Fallen Angels the Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran

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 collection of es- says to celebrate the jubilee of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, promises the reader a combination of comprehensive surveys 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 on the demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls clearly fits the latter category.2 One will search in vain to find any sort of summary of the present state of affairs in scholarship on Qumran demonology. Perhaps this is just a byproduct of his opening statement on how "little attention has 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 new vision for the demonology and implicitly the angelology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.4 It is a vision fully deserving of both careful consideration and preliminary critique.

* I would like to thank W. John Lyons for getting me started in Qumran studies in the first place and for extensive discussion and critique on the content of this article- any flaws, however, remain in my possession alone. I also need to thank Philip Alexander for his willingness to assist two graduate students from Sheffield University to get started in the whole area of exorcism, demonology, and the DSS.

I The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (eds P. Flint and J.C. VanderKam; Leiden/Boston/Ko6n: Brill, 1998-99). Direct quotations are taken from the dust jacket, but the expectation is also raised by the introductions of 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 article also appears in more abbreviated form in P.S. Alexander, "'Wrestling Against Wickedness in High Places': Magic in the Worldview of the Qumran Community," The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (eds S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 319-30.

Alexander, "Demonology," 331. The most comprehensive discussion of angelology (including in that term demonology)

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2000 Dead Sea Discoveries 7, 3

RESCUING THE FALLEN ANGELS 335

Alexander opens by stating that "the Scrolls present a coherent and sophisticated demonology which should be taken with the utmost seri- ousness in understanding the outlook of the Qumran sect."5 There can be no doubt that Alexander's reconstruction of Qumnran demonology 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 is a thoroughgoing distinction between demons and angels. Alexander claims that while

according to some authorities demons are to be identified with fallen angels[,J ... the demonology of the Scrolls seems to envisage a clear distinction drawn between demons and angels, whether fallen or otherwise. In Qumran thought a demon is a non-corporeal being which is neither human nor angelic, but which causes harm and mischief to humans in a variety of ways.6

Stated simply, there are no evil or fallen angels in the Scrolls. In Alexander's reconstruction they have strangely disappeared, or should we say, almost disappeared?

II. An Enochic Demonology

To make sense of this disappearance, it is necessary to see the methodological path that takes one to this intriguing conclusion. Alexander begins with what he defines as a "standard, formulaic inventory of the

at Qumran remains M.J. Davidson's Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and the Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSPSup 11; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Another significant monograph-length treatment of 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 matter of demonology either directly or indirectly include Alexander's own "Wrestling"; A. Lange, "The Essene Position on Magic and Divination," Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (eds M. Bernstein, F. Garcia Martinez and 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; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 53-63; and D.L. Penney and M.O. Wise, "By the Power of Beelzebub: An Aramaic Incantation Formula from Qumran [4Q560]," JBL 113 (1994) 627-50. Frequently angelology and demonology are treated in passing by scholars interested in the larger apocalyptic or eschatological framework of the DSS (e.g., F. Garcia Martinez, "Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls," The Encyclopedia of Apocalyp- ticism, vol. 1, The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity [ed. J.J. Collins; New York: Continuum, 1999] 166-72).

Alexander, "Demonology," 331. 6 Alexander, "Demonology," 331-32.

336 ANDY M. REIMER

demonic world," namely 4Q510 1 5. In this exorcistic hymn, the Sage declares the grandeur of God to frighten a host of beings, including [... C"-3J C'MR n k -lo -1 onrrDr: mnnnl t,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 spirits" (-nton mm) here and elsewhere in the Scrolls suggests to Alexander an Enochic aetiology of demons.9 In 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.'" In the case of the latter, technically only a tenth of these remain as demons (Jub. 10:7-14). In both texts the "fallen angels" are the Watchers and in both they are safely imprisoned in a subterranean prison awaiting final judgment." Of course, the discovery of numerous copies of both 1 Enoch (or at least the critical portions thereof) 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 transcribed by M. Baillet, Qumrdn Grotte 4.111 (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982) 216.

* Baillet suggests reading the two words DI n7 as one word-namely the plural form of iS ("demon") as 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 this as 0itt IT or "fearsome demon" (Baillet, DJD 7.217; Alexander, "Demonology," 333 n. 7). Alexander ("Demonology," 333-35) follows B. Nitzan's translation of 0'"Y DTtrk as "howlers and yelpers" (Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry [STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994] 240). F. Garcfa Martinez opts for "translating these as animal terms (as per typical English translations of Isa. 13:21) choosing the terms "owls and jackals" (The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English [trans. W.G.E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 19962] 371). Even if the terms are applicable to these creatures, surely Nitzan's terms capture the sense in which they are being used here for demonic creatures of 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 the text as i-rniM rm- int-[a nnn1 1:z (The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition [Leiden: Brill, 1998] 2.924). The term DnrrYD also 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. Nitzan also suggests this expression is an explicit link to the aetiology of demons in I Enoch and Jubilees (Qumran Prayer, 237).

1 I Enoch 6-16, esp. 15:8-16:1; Jubilees 5:1-11; 7:21-27; 10:1-14. I Enoch 10:12, Jub. 5:6-7. On this "two stage" judgment see also J.1. Collins,

"Methodological Issues 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: Scholars Press, 1978) 317-19.

12 Alexander. "Demonology," 337. Among the fragments of an Aramaic version of


fragments of an Aramaic version of The Book of Giants, references to the angels producing gigantic children and especially the Watcher 'Azaz'el in 4Q180 1 7-10, a tale of a suspect pregnancy in lQapGen 2, and a passing reference to the story of the fall of the Watchers and their giant offspring in 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 its 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 Writings where the apparent differences between the angelology and demonology of the Enoch literature and the sectarian scrolls are emphasized to realize how much rests on this starting point. It ought to be stressed further that it is not just a case of Alexander using 1 Enoch as the key to Qumran demonological aetiology, but a particular reading of 1 Enoch and Jubilees. Alexander has effectively banished the fallen angels of I Enoch into subterranean irrelevance in terms of direct ongoing oppression of humanity. The sect's members according to Alexander would have no reason to fear these fallen angels. This supposition is reasonable, but other opinions on the matter exist.

M. Black in his translation and commentary on 1 Enoch follows the Greek of the Gizeh text for 19:1 and translates Uriel's statement to Enoch on the judgment of the Watchers as 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 identified as containing bits and pieces of the Book of Jubilees.

1 IQ23-24, 4Q203, 4Q206 frags 2-3, 4Q530-533 and 6Q8 have all been identified as belonging to a Book of Giants. On the Book of Giants and 4Q180 and its relationship to the Enoch corpus see J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) 249-56, 298-317. A convenient summary of both 4Q180 and the Book of Giants and their connection to the Enoch literature can also be found in J.C. VanderKam's Enoch: 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 consultation with J.C. VanderKam, appendix 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) (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 121. On lQapGen 2 and its relationship to the Enochic literature see J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 19712) 16-17, 78-80.

14 The contention that the writers of the Scrolls were familiar with and used the Book of Watchers is in itself not a particularly controversial point and one generally conceded by writers describing the "apocalypticism" of the Scrolls, e.g. F. Garcia Martinez ("Apocalypticism," 167-68) and J.J. Collins (Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls [London: Routledge, 1997] 18-26).

338 ANDY M. REIMER

"Here the angels who had intercourse with 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 shall become sirens."

Black then claims that

the "spirits" of the watchers are evidently to roam the earth as the tormentors and corrupters of [hulmankind till the judgement, the r6le at 15.8-16 of the "evil spirits" of the giants, the bastard offspring of the watchers. Presumably their bodies "abide" in the "great abyss," while their spirits are free to haunt [hu]mankind, just as it is the "spirits" of the giants which corrupt [hu]mankind after their 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 sharp contrast to that offered by Alexander. However, it is the very ambiguity of the text and the uncertainty of the referent implied by "their spirits" which allows for such divergent interpretations. Furthermore, if one were to follow the Ethiopic ren- dering of 19:1, with its simplified "The spirits of the angels who 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 Ethiopic reading allow for Alex- ander's supposition that it is only the ghosts of the Giants, here spo- ken of as the "spirits of 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 by the Qumran sectarians.

And the difficulties of Enochic demonology are further compounded by the reference to the wives of the Watchers in the next sentence as sirens. What makes this even more significant is the fact that the LXX

" Black, The Book of Enoch, 161. Black is clearly following R.H. Charles in this interpretation of 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 from Black, The Book of Enoch, 161. This is the text of choice for E. Isaac as well who translated 19:1 as "And Uriel said to me, 'Here shall stand in many different appearances the spirits of the angels which have united themselves with women. They have defiled the people and will lead them into error so that they will offer sacrifices to the demons as unto gods, until the great day of judgment in which they shall be judged till they are finished"' (OTP 1.23).

" Charles suggests that given the apparent discrepancy between chap. 19 and chaps 10-16 on the identity of the demons, the translation of 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, 1 Enoch 19:1 has not turned up in the extant Aramaic fragments from Qumran.


offers us a a&tpiv in Isa. 13:21 for rnw nin.18 This verse is also the likely source of v'nm and the reconstructed on; of 4Q510 1 5. Alexander's observation that it is puzzling the Qumran list 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 the 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 grants Alexander's reading of the Enochic literature, the most obvious obstacle to Alexander's particular reading 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 the reference to the "bastard spirits" to 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 in apposition to nim- and takes the whole as "the spirits who are the angels of destruction."'" This is a particularly interesting move

18 Both Charles (APOT 2.201) and Black (The Book of Enoch) adopt a reading of 19:2 that has the wives of the transgressing angels becoming sirens. Black suggests that the LXX oetpiv typically is used to translate the Hebrew f12.7 ("desert-owl"; Mic. 1:8, Jer. 27:39 [50:39 MT], and Isa. 13:21). This deserves further investigation. In particular 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 unclean birds the LXX uses the term icopaE ("raven"; Lev. 11:16) and atpov00o; ("ostrich"?; Deut. 14:15, copaE, has already been utilized in 14:14 to translate Zw). In Isa. 34:13 and 43:20 it appears it is O'371 ("jackal") that is being translated by the term actpIive; while 7l11V' nt:b and nmr nmi2: are being translated by atpozBGv and cdl 9tryacrnpeq arpouOCdv respectively. 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 connection between these "daughters" and the "daughters of 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 are listed suggests the possibility that 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 problematic 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," 334 n. 10. 20 Isaac in translating 19:2 opts for "their women... will be peaceful ones," again

following the Ethiopic rather than the Greek text (OTP 1.23; see especially the explanatory footnote; see also Charles, APOT 2.201).

21 Alexander, "Demonology," 333-34.

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 imprisoned Watchers of 1 Enoch and the "spirits" their "bastard offspring" still running about the earth.22 This 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 gigantic offspring and the argument would be rather tidy. But as Alexander rightly notes, there are other Qumran texts in which apparently demonic figures have the label b-l n attached to them (IQM 13:10-12; IQS 4:12). Hence, when the Qumran texts refer to demons using the term jxzn, Alexander suggests reverting to "the basic lexical sense of 'messen- ger' or 'agent'."23 Now one might well quibble over the potential con- fusion that could occur with Alexander's choice of terms. After all, if the Qumran sectarians used both the term "spirit" and "angel" in inter- changeable sorts of ways for both good and evil supernatural beings, creating a dichotomy using the terms "angel" and "demon" is problematic. However, Alexander does carefully qualify his terms, and the argument proceeds without this becoming any obstacle to clarity.24

III. A Coherent Demonology

Alexander's reconstruction of the demonology of the Qumran texts does underscore his contention that "the Scrolls present a coherent and sophisticated demonology."25 The explanatory power of his model is apparent on several fronts. Fundamentally it answers the question of

22 Alexander, "Demonology," 333. 23 Alexander, "Demonology," 334, so also 344. The use of &yyeXo; in Acts 12:15

where it may well be referring to Peter's "ghost" might also open the possibility that a spirit of the dead may be referred to as an "angel," although most commentators suggest that this ought to be read as a "guardian angel" which bears uncanny resemblance to its earthly counterpart (e.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 Introduction and Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 199Q1] 286; 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," 331-32, 334. Alexander's distinction is actually one broadly in line with post-Biblical Hebrew usage generally. S.A. Meier claims that "in Semitic texts, the word mal'dk... tends to become the word of choice to designate all supernatural beings who do God's work ... [and] if it applies to supernatural creatures opposed to God, it usually is qualified by an adjective such as 'evil"' ("Angel II," DDD 89).

25 Alexander, "Demonology," 331.


how Qumran demonology finds itself situated somewhere between the apparently muted interest in matters demonological in the Hebrew Scriptures and the more elaborate and extensive demonologies of later Jewish and Christian writings.26 Indeed, 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 theology, with its deterministic bent, is well served by the carefully constructed simplicity 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 and diversity of evil spirits in the reli- gion of the day, the author or authors of this [Enochic Watcher's] myth tried to bring order into the anarchic and chaotic demonic realm, and to integrate demons 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 epithets and nomenclature used for demons indicates not different orders of being, but rather the different activities or behaviour of beings which belong to the same species. This already involves a significant rationalization of the demonic world.28

It is a rationalization that sees the demonic hybrid "as originating from a perversion of the natural order."29 As such, "they represent the eruption into this world of the forces of chaos which God subdued by his creative fiat; their ultimate punishment will involve being cast back into the abyss and sealed there forever."30 This Enochic myth lends sensibility to the exorcistic hymns found in 4Q510-11 and

26 Alexander, "Demonology," 336. The demonology of the Hebrew Bible remains a vexing problem in that, on the basis of contemporary religious practices elsewhere 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," Anges et demons: Actes du Colloque de Liege et de Louvain-la-neuve, 25-26 novembre 1987 (eds H. Limet and 1. Ries; Louvain-la-neuve: Centre d'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. Millar and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973) 3.347-49, 372-75. See also D.C. Duling's translation and introduction to Testament of Solomon (OTP 1.935-87) and M.A. Morgan's Sepher Ha- Razim: The Book of Mysteries (SBLIT 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983).

28 Alexander, "Demonology," 339. 29 Alexander, "Demonology," 340. 30 Alexander, "Demonology," 341. 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

342 ANDY M. REIMER

1 1Q1 1. Here one finds both declarations of God's creative power and final judgment as threats against 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 She claims that the apocalyptic 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"' fits well with the eschatological framework of the Qumran sectarians generally.33 More specifically, this notion of demonic activity 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 in which these beings are forever entrapped or destroyed. The judgment of the Watchers and the partial destruction of the Giants (their bodies even if not their ghosts destroyed) function as a symbol of future and final judgment on the forces of evil that remain.35

The notion of present demonic activity and future judgment is not the only bit of Enochic demonology that is picked up by the sectarian Scrolls. Alexander also explores the Belial/Satan/Mastema character and the relationship this individual has to the hoard of demonic hybrids. Here too Jubilees in particular appears to provide the necessary clues for integrating this character into a larger Qumran demonology. According to Jubilees 10, after God orders the round-up of the demons in response to Noah's prayer, Mastema requests that a tenth of these be left to him as assistants in his task of corrupting and leading astray humanity (esp. 10:8). Mastema/Belial is neither fallen Watcher, nor Giant ghost, but another entity entirely, one with a divinely appointed task.36 Alexander claims that texts such as IQS 3:15-26, 1QM 13:10-12, and

being, his demonic cohorts, and evil humans that "their desire goes towards chaos and emptiness" (1lZm1 171Wt flrr)--a clear allusion 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," 341.

32 Nitzan, "Hymns," 53-63. " 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. Translation from Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2.1031.

3" CD 2:17-19, for example, uses the story of the fall of the Watchers and the destruction of the Giants as an object lesson in the necessity for obedience.

.36 Alexander, "Demonology," 342-43.


one may add lQHS 9:7-9, suggest that this adversarial figure ultimately operates under divine 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 chaotic disruption within the created order, are placed under a divinely ordained figure who ultimately serves God's purposes even as an opponent. In the end, both chief adversary and his minions meet with divinely appointed judgment and destruction. Alexander states rather succinctly that the author of the myth of the Watchers with his Genesis 6 aetiology of demons "found a place for them in the narra- tive of sacred history, and... related them to his theology of creation... [and] these ideas were taken up by the Qumran sect and totally integrated into their dualistic view of the world."38 Alexander has certainly put forward a strong case in favor of a coherent demonology in the Scrolls.

IV. Outstanding Questions

The relative ease with which Alexander uses the Enochic literature to create a seamless demonology for the DSS does make for a con- vincing case. This same ease, however, masks several issues, and certain outstanding questions must be raised before Alexander's reconstruction stands as the new "orthodoxy" for Qumran demonology.

What counts as a demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

First, what counts as a demonology "of the Dead Sea Scrolls"? Alexander offers us a largely synchronic reading with primary empha- sis falling on the Enochic literature. Davidson's methodology, which we mentioned above, offers a somewhat divided synchronic reading with the Enochic corpus offering one sort of angelology and demonology, the sectarian texts another. P.R. Davies, long a champion of redaction criticism as a means of stratifying texts and creating a more nuanced developmental history of the Qumran sectarians, 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.

344 ANDY M. REIMER

the theology of the liturgy in 4QMa is not dualistic; the notion of a period of Belial's dominant activity is perfectly consistent with a nondualistic understanding of humanity and history, as exemplified in CD 4:12b-13 or Jubilees, whose mgtmh is not to be equated with the dualistic "angel of darkness," although the noun mgtmh is his attribute in IQM 13:4, 11-a fully dualistic passage. 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 powerful angelic counterpart in a divinely ordered struggle, the essential component of dualism is lack- ing.39

Clearly what Davies would envision as a proper Scrolls demonology would be one in which various developmental layers would be peeled apart and not confused. This may well be an admirable task, and no doubt a useful one, but if the last hundred years of biblical studies has taught us anything, it is that there is a value both in diachronic and synchronic readings of a supposedly fragmented text or group of texts.40

In many ways, Alexander's choice of approach is what makes it such a useful exercise. It is surely the case that whenever a community gathers a set of religious texts that come to define them in some way, these are read with a heavy dose of uncritical intertextuality.4' That is to say, technically "later" texts are read in light of assump- tions created by "earlier" texts. Likewise, "earlier" texts 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 sectarians would read the Hebrew Bible expression 1Yfl ": not as contemporary translators and historical critics do, but as a reference to human forces aligned with an evil

19 P.R. Davies, "Eschatology at Qumran," JBL 104 (1985) 50-51. I Collins' plea for a holistic reading of 1 Enoch 1-39 alongside source-critical ones

is an excellent and relevant case in point in terms of our argument ("Methodological Issues," 315-16).

41 Davies claims that "[tJo interpret the scrolls as if they offered a synchronic cross- section of an isolated community is to imply an entity slumbering in a historical cocoon... nor can the literary corpus be treated as if it were a Qumran canon, the definitive statement of what the community 'always and everywhere believed"' ("Eschatology," 41). That statement is no doubt true. However, given any reading strategy applied to the DSS is ultimately premised on some hypothesis of text production and preservation, surely there is room for a sort of "canonical critical" approach which asks the question of how they might be read as a defining corpus of religious texts without implying necessarily that this is a definitive statement of what the community always and everywhere believed. Rather it is a speculative statement of what the final community preserving these Scrolls might have believed at the time of storage. And it must be stated given our present interest that in this reading strategy I Enoch potentially has as much of a voice as any so-called "sectarian" document.


angelic figure.42 If one assumes that the religious texts of the Qumran caves were all somehow "owned" or at the very least respectfully read by the sectarians, it is strained to suggest that an Enochic aetiology of demons is not implied when the Qumran sectarians speak of evil spir- itS.43 Even conceding Davidson's argument that 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 "final corpus" suggested by Alexander as a critical element in describing the "demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls."

Why allow only one fallen angel?

Above all else, however, stands one troubling feature-a loose end as it were that threatens this finely knit fabric of coherent demonology. 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" if one could reclassify this entity. Again, the issue of how one is to read 1 Enoch and Jubilees comes to the fore. There is no explicit requirement to read "Mastema/ Satan" in Jub. 10:7-12 as an "angel."" He is simply described as the "chief of the spirits" (10:8). G.L. Davenport, for example, appears to

42 Deut. 13:14; Judg. 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sam. 1:16 Y n nl); 2:12; 10:27; 25:17; 1 Kgs 21:10, 13; 2 Chron. 13:7; 4QBera 7 ii 6. One may observe the same phenomenon when Christian readers read Job, for instance, and have a great deal of difficulty not importing a NT construct of "Satan" into 1=71 in Job. Likewise, I have observed Christian readers attempt to bring the role and description of lpi-n in Job back into play in their interpretation of the NT. The LXX translators of Sir. 21:27 have also appeared to have altered the original sense of the verse in choosing to transliterate the original "adversary" as IOv OaTavav.

43 Davidson certainly appears to ignore intentionally or otherwise the possibility of an Enochic aetiology for the origins of evil supernatural beings (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 certain references to the fallen angels in the sectarian writing found at Qumran" (179). Surely Alexander is correct in reading the reference to "bastard spirits" as a reference back to the gigantic offspring of the Watchers and these may rightfully be added to the "certain reference" to the Enoch myth of the fallen Watchers.

4S Alexander, "Demonology," 341. Alexander is somewhat more hesitant in assign- ing this figure to the class of angels in "Wrestling," but eventually does so by default since Belial does not fit his definition of a "demon" (327-28).

46 It appears, for instance, that Collins (Apocalypticism, 25) is reading Mastema simply as the leader of the unclean spirits of the giants. So too Nitzan (Qumran Prayer, 232 n. 20) although later she speaks of the demons as "messengers of Mastemah, the angel of the spirits" (251). Garcia Martinez on the other hand seems to be suggesting

346 ANDY M. REIMER

read Mastema as chief among the spirits. However, this is done at the expense of distinguishing between Mastema and Satan and so does little to solve our problem of eliminating all angelic beings.4' Given an equation between the two figures, surely the more natural reading of the passage, perhaps one could argue Mastema/Satan is presented here simply as the leading demonic figure. It is not beyond the bounds of reason that references to this creature as 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' or "agent" as Alexander pro- poses for the plural form when applied to demons.

When all the evidence is considered, however, Alexander's admission of at least this one evil "angel" does the most justice to the texts under consideration. In the texts with a thoroughgoing Jewish mono- theistic dualism (as defined by Davies),48 there 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 suggest that the Qumran habit of speaking of a leading evil supernatural figure and his underlings might be

that Jubilees presents Mastema as the leader of an army of "fallen angels" who "obtains from 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," 167). It is not entirely clear whether Garcia Martinez is implying two groups (i.e., "army of fallen angels" and "fallen spirits") or whether he is employ- ing two terms for stylistic reasons. Later he uses the language of "angelic forces as organized armies under an angelic leader" to describe Jubilees, suggesting the former is the case (168).

47 Davenport does not elaborate but simply states, "Satan is the overseer of the evil spirits-the spirits of the children of the Watchers-who remain on earth. A distinction is implied between Satan and Mastema, the chief of the evil spirits (x, 7-8)" (The Eschatology of 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 possibility that Jubilees used the term as a descriptive abstract noun rather than 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" as "two equal and opposing influences, conceived cos- mologically and/or ethically, and, in a Jewish context, subordinated to the sovereignty of one God" ("Eschatology," 50). Collins takes exception to the restrictive nature of this definition, but it does have a heuristic value for our present argument (Apoc- alypticism, 44).

49 Davidson commenting on the CD 5:18-19 passage suggests that "here the Prince of Lights corresponds to Belial and it is logical to regard both as angels" (Angels at Qumran, 164).


a product of a demonology construed as Alexander suggests-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 So too the psalmist's request in 1 IQPsa 19:15 that neither Satan nor an evil spirit be allowed to rule over them (m'=n LR

iin r7r min ':) certainly would lend some credence to Alexander's ontological distinction between this evil leader and the supernatural forces under his direction.5' It does certainly seem to be the case that the roots of this character are 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 has taken place by the writing of the Scrolls.52 It seems that there is little room to maneuver Belial by whatever name out of the class of "angel."

But this raises a very serious question about the inconsistency of Alexander's construct in which demons cannot be angels but the chief of the demons is. Given that Alexander has put together a solid case for understanding the "bastard spirits" (-iron nrnmr) of 4Q510 1 5 as the ghosts of the Giants, does it necessarily follow that the "spirits who are the angels of destruction" cannot refer to another class of demonic opponents? If 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 in which the spirits in subjection to 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 potentially conflicting tensions between them worked

50 Translation drawn from Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 133, 135, 1207, 1209, 75, 77, respectively.

s' One of the distinctions that Alexander suggests is more dubious-specifically his insistence that angels cannot possess a human being while a demon or evil spirit can (Alexander, "Wrestling," 327-28; "Demonology," 339). This assumption plays into a number of questions and assertions he makes in both articles. It is, however, an argument from silence, and furthermore an argument that fails to take account of later demonologies in which demons are fallen angels and as such do possess human beings. So too arguments on the non-reproductive nature of angels and demons fail to do justice to the ease with which this apparent "rule" is regularly breached in demonological myths, not least the fall of the Watchers story in 1 Enoch (Alexander, "Demonology," 336).

52 See C. Breytenbach, "Satan," DDD 1369-78. S3 This habit of assuming rather than arguing for an aetiology of demon as "fallen

angels" occurs in otherwise responsible scholarly works (e.g., Davidson, Angels at Qumran; Kobelski, Melchizedek, 17-18; Garcia Martinez, "Apocalypticism," 167-68).

348 ANDY M. REIMER

out. This paper began with an observation I made while teaching a New Testament religious "backgrounds" course to undergraduate Bible and Theology students. After having these students read and discuss the fall of the Watchers story from 1 Enoch and Jubilees, I asked if any recognized a tension between this account of the fall of the angels and the story of the fall of the angels they were familiar with, which I knew to be some hazy Miltonian account of a heavenly rebellion by 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 manner did the discrepancies become apparent to them. If the sociology of knowledge has taught us anything it is to be aware of these unrecognized "gaps" and unresolved tensions in the construction of worldviews.54 The very fact that so many scholars can speak to 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 plausible suggestion that the Enoch literature is a significant rationalization of the demonic world- bringing an ordered simplicity to the otherwise "anarchic and chaotic demonic realm."55 Other 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 rather broad stream of existing ideas about the origins of supernatural evil beings.

This is really one of the most significant advances of the sociology of knowledge, and one not taken up nearly often enough. M. Douglas, summarizing the effect E.E. Evans-Pritchard's Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande has had on scholarship regarding witchcraft since its original publication in 1937, states that Evans- Pritchard's work as "first and foremost... a book about the sociology of knowledge... [showing] how the Azande, clever and sceptical as they were, could tolerate discrepancies in 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 delightful bit of irony, Douglas laments the fact that subsequent anthropologists who actually use Evans-Pritchard's work have ex- hibited a similar social restraint upon perception and natural curiosity (xiv).

" "Demonology," 339. 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 and 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


While 1 Enoch may have synthesized a new simplicity, it may well be that this new construct simply rejoined the existing broad stream of ideas rather than authoritatively redefining demonic aetiology. Certainly, later Christian writers such as Lactantius demonstrate that 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 is finding a clear "fallen angels" myth that is quite separate from the Enochic interpretation of 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 is not clearly attested before the first century CE.59 Wis. 2:23- 24, with its statement that it is "through the 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 worship humanity (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-

Methodological Perspective," SBLSP 1978, 323-39; and C.A. Newsom, "The Develop- 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 Lactantius parallel ("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 thorough survey of early Christian appropriation of the Enoch literature including a description of the shift from an Enochic demonology based on Genesis 6 to a demonology of angels involved in a heavenly rebellion and a rejection of the Enochic interpretation of Genesis 6, see J.C. VanderKam, "1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature," The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (eds J.C. VanderKam and W. Adler; CRINT 3.4; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996) 62-88.

S8 See VanderKam, "1 Enoch," 84-87. 59 Alexander mentions 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 to date with any definiteness. Its absence from Qumran is particularly telling in terms of its later status.

I J. Geyer suggests "this is the earliest known reference to the devil as the tempter" (The Wisdom of 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 Wisdom of Solomon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 1-3.

61 See M.D. Johnson's introduction and translation in 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 (SBLEJL 5; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 10-13.

350 ANDY M. REIMER

tion of a creation week fall by Satanail and his angelic underlings, but this is only in the longer recension and is perhaps a Christian inter- polation.62 Later Jewish possibilities are also brought forward by Nitzan in her investigations of 4Q510-1 1.63 These include stories of demons originating with "a primaeval connection between Adam and Lillith" or demons as restrained since the days of Moses but break- ing out of their subterranean hiding place during times 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 actually has both Adam and Eve producing demonic children while 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 created near 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 lightly in suggesting any of these accounts were in circulation at the time of the writing of the Scrolls. However, the very fact of later variety along with the references to demonic creatures as "angels" on a number of 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 translation and footnotes on the matter in OTP 1.148. 63 A convenient summary of Jewish demonology and especially aetiology can be

found in E. Ferguson, Demonology of the Early Christian World (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen 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 latter account can be found in Num. Rab. 12:3.

65 In commenting on the descendants of Adam the following is stated: "Another interpretation: These are descendants, but earlier ones were not [human] descendants. What then were they? Demons. For R. Simon said: Throughout the entire one hundred and thirty years during which Adam held aloof from Eve the male demons were made ardent by her and she bore, while the female demons were inflamed by 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 that 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 these do deserve further investigation as to the possibility of these being around at the time of the writing of these Qumran texts.

I So also b. Pes. 54a.


Must consistency lie in aetiology?

It might also be the case that the Qumran sectarians had 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 in their coping strategies. Contemporary parallels to a phenomenon such as this can certainly be found.67 4Q510 and 511 deal with the varieties of demonic creatures they list in an identical fashion-all are terrified in the apotropaic hymn through the declaration of the grandeur and power of God.68 Indeed, declaring the creative power of YHWH as a means of exorcising demons is the pattem of 1IQl1 as well.69 Here 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 in this collection of exorcistic psalms.70 4Q560 likewise gives a series of evil supematural creatures listed on the basis of their activity and gender and appears to

67 L.G. McClung Jr, describing Pentecostal and Charismatic Christian exorcistic practices, states that "no clarified doctrinal statement on demonology and exorcism exists among the major Pentecostal bodies.... Like many themes in Pentecostal/ charismatic belief and practice, exorcism has been practiced but not formally theolo- gized" ("Exorcism," Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements [eds S.M. Burgess and G.B. McGee; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988] 290-91).

68 4Q510 1 4-5. The term "apotropaic" to describe these hymns was suggested by Alexander, "Wrestling," 320. For an excellent analysis of the means by which the Sage banished demonic beings, see Nitzan, "Hymns."

69 Lange, "The Essene Position," 379-82. The specific importance of retaining the name YHWH in this text is taken up by t. Puech ("Les deux derniers Psaumes davidiques du rituel d'exorcisme, II QPs' IV 4 - V 14," The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, 82-89). While Puech believes the use of the divine name excludes this from being a "sectarian" document proper, Nitzan remains open to other alterna- tives (Qumran Prayer, 235-36) while Alexander argues it is indeed a sectarian document ("Wrestling," 328).

70 Though fragmentary, 1IQ11 2:3-4 (11Q11 1:4-5 in Puech's numbering scheme) 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 and translation (The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2.1200-1). t. Puech speculates rather more boldly and offers "pour qu'il delivre de tout fldau des esp]rits et des demons, [les liliths,]/[les hiboux et les chats sauvages (?)], ceux-ci [sont les demons, et le pr[ince d'hostili]t6" ("I I QPsApa: Un rituel d'exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction," RevQ 14 [1990] 386- 88). Psalm 91 within the context of these other exorcistic psalms offers a classic example of a list of various demonic oppressors all dealt with simultaneously with a blanket protection from YHWH.

352 ANDY M. REIMER

offer a "blanket" solution to all of these.7' 4Q444 is somewhat more fragmentary but appears to list demons without being clear on what exactly each might specifically be, and this would fit the pattern of an all-encompassing cure as well.72 Perhaps the key to this lack of interest in fleshing out specific demonological aetiologies is linked to M. Kister's hypothesis that entry into the community implied a degree of freedom from demonic control.73 The exorcistic hymnody then serves to reinforce this blanket protection-a mode of operation that does not require extensive investigation of various types of demons and cures applicable to each in particular. The consistency of the demonology of the DSS is perhaps better found in their community practices founded on a particular theology of their community and a specific belief about the ultimate end of the demons plaguing present existence. Asking the sectarians also to have a carefully fleshed out aetiology of demons may be asking too much.

V. Conclusion

It remains to be seen whether Alexander's banishment of the fallen angels from the DSS will be an eternal imprisonment in terms of

'M The list here is rather dramatic (4Q560 I i 2-5): [-j r1 n @9 pD li;' ni-i-n mnn-*n [ ...]

kkmpz n,"Mnl tmD- wnn~ ss tnt-i 1m@: V fX [..j 1-b roRl rr-wl rtum MUVD In jmw 1q

n"Mro ttnrp) r l -7- I-D ^ -i[...] "] the midwife, the chastisement of girls. Evil visitor, de[mon... .... .1 enters the flesh, the male penetrator and 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 the female, those who dig" (transcription and translation drawn from Garcia Martfnez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2.1116-17, with the exception of the final dalet on line 2 which is suggested by Penney and Wise, "By the Powers of Beelzebub," 631, 637. Penney and Wise take the beginning of line 4 as the completion of a quotation from Exod. 34:7 or Num. 14:18 and carry on translating 4-5 as, "O Fever and Chills and Chest Pain... [and forbidden to disturb by night in dreams or by daly in sleep, the male Shrine-spirit and the female Shrine-spirit, breacher demons (?) of." However it is to be finally understood, that one has a list of demonic figures and maladies is clearly evident.

72 4Q444 2 4 is reconstructed by Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar as bn wro ...1 -iM-o nni O'ntn[m rnnmr . ("[... those who inspire him [sic] fear, all the spirits of the b3astards and the spirit of uncleanness") at least partially on the basis of a perceived link with 4Q51 1 (The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2.924-25).

73 M. Kister, "Demons, Theology, and Abraham's Covenant (CD 16:4-6 and Related Texts)," The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings (eds R.A. Kugler and E.M. Schuller; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 167-81.


scholarly reconstructions of Qumran demonology. Those who would seek to rescue these fallen angels must contend with the consistent and coherent case Alexander has made for reading the Scrolls' demonology and angelology against a purely Enochic background. We certainly cannot return to an uncritical equation of Qumran demons with "fallen angels." That stated, if we are going to use 1 Enoch and Jubilees to reconstruct the demonology of the Scrolls (either in a synchronic or diachronic fashion), there is clearly a need for further work to generate a consensus or at least several well argued positions on the demonology of the Enochic literature itself. And in this task of reconstructing demonologies, one must seek to hold a tension between an integrated and consistent reading of a text or body of texts and an awareness of the sociology of knowledge "gaps" in any religious sect's worldview. The history of demonology has certainly shown that attempts by texts such as 1 Enoch to rationalize entities that are by definition chaotic, irrational and typically open to all-out speculation are bound to fail. Scholarly attempts to reconstruct any sort of ancient demonology will always have to work in the midst of this chaos.

Documents

Rescuing the Fallen Angels the Case of the Disappearing Angels at Qumran