spin

I won't let you get away with this. What makes you think that Enoch's Watchers is an interpretation of Gen 6?? Why isn't Gen 6 an obfuscation of the Enoch story??

And why do you translate BNY 'LHYM as "sons of gods"? Enoch 6:2 reads: "And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them..."

The angels are normally taken as representing priests in scholarly circles. You know, priests serve God on earth as angels serve him in heaven. There are lots of parallels between angels and priests in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Some priests have been naughty and fallen from their rightful state of grace, so are no longer fit to serve in the temple. If you read the text from Qumran known as MMT, you'll find references to priests, the sons of Aaron, having done naughty things.


spin

Amaleq13

The author of Isaiah makes it clear from the beginning that what is written is about the king of Babylon:

“that you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon” (Is 14:4)

Even the passage you quoted clearly indicates this is not about any supernatural creature:

“'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms” (Is 14:16, emphasis added)

The reference to "lucifer" is a reference to the planet Venus that the ancients took to be a star (i.e. morning star). The reference in Isaiah appears to be a sarcastic use of a title applied to royalty. The same title is used, non-sarcastically, in reference to Jesus in Revelation.

Amos

That would be those who are saved but are not able to work out their own salvation such as the children of Isreal who were led into the promised land where they died nonetheless. Jesus uses this in John 6 when he claims that manna may have come from heaven it sure was not the bread of life.

Amlodhi

Hello spin,

I don't know spin, it seems to me that there is more support for Doctor X's view of Gen. 6 than there is for the angels as mortal priests theory.

The MMT does say, "And he shall not sow his field and vine[yard] with two kinds. For they are holy and the sons of Aaron are most h[oly]. And you know that some of the priests and [the people mingle.] [And they] unite and defile the [holy] seed and also their [seed] with whores . . ." (The Complete DSS in English, Geza Vermes)

There are also many general separation doctrines in the DSS:

(4Q181) ". . . He caused some of the sons of the world to draw near (Him) . . . to be counted with Him in the com[munity of the 'g]od's as a congregation of holiness in service for eternal life and (sharing) the lot of His holy ones . . . each man according to his lot which He has cast for . . . for eternal life. . ." (ibid)

The first instance above is certainly talking about not defiling the purity of the Aaronic priestly line. The second instance is talking about separation from what was considered to be the wickedness of the religious leadership of Jerusalem.

And, as you say, nowhere in these passages does it speak of any of these priests or separated people being anything beyond mortal human beings.

The beings spoken of in Enoch, in contrast, are depicted in a much different light.

In I Enoch 15:2 for instance, God tells Enoch to say to the Watchers of heaven: "It is meet for you that you should intercede on behalf of man, and not man on your behalf."

IOW, God is saying (through Enoch) that these (former) angels should properly have been interceding for mankind, instead of the sorry state of affairs which now exists resulting in man (Enoch) having to intercede for them. This passage alone makes the clear distinction between the fallen angels and mankind.

I Enoch 15:3 "For what reason have you (the fallen angels) abandoned the high, holy, and eternal heaven . . .?"

I Enoch 15:6 "Indeed, formerly you were spiritual, having eternal life, and immortal in all the generations of the world."

I Enoch 15:8 "But now the giants who are born from the (union of) the spirits and the flesh . . ."

So these verses indicate that these beings abandoned heaven, were immortal, were spirits that cojoined with flesh and, for some reason, the resultant offspring were anything but normal human beings.

And if this isn't enough, I Enoch 69 even names the angels and describes their misdeeds. For instance, I Enoch 69:6 reads:

"The third was named Gader'el; this one is he. . . who misled Eve."

I don't think it was a mortal Aaronic priest that misled Eve in Eden.

Then I Enoch 69:13 names Taba'ta, the son of the serpent.

And 14-15, Kasb'el who induced the Archangel Michael to reveal to him his secret name so that he could reveal it in an oath of power to the children of the people.

We're clearly not talking mortal priests here.

The DSS speak of maintaining the purity of the Aaronic priestly lineage and general separation.

The beginning verses of Gen. 6 could conceivably be an interpolation post-dating Enoch, but I, personally have seen no serious scholarly suggestion that this is so.

And it seems more than clear that, in the book of the watchers, Enoch is describing angelic beings, rather than simply recounting the naughty shenanigans of some mortal members of the Aaronic priesthood.

Thus, unless further and contrary information is presented, I have to stand with Doctor X on this point.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

spin

They are condemned for their sexual lusts, as the watchers were.

Yes, one is talking literally, the other metaphorically.

Priests intercede on behalf of man in the temple.

The comparison is between fallen priest and fallen angel.

Priests involved in illicit activities have abandoned their rightful position within the temple.

I think you are leaning far too hard on a literary work which has to criticise part of the priesthood, yet maintain its "cover" of talking about fallen angels. It is the angels who minister to God in heaven, just as the priests minister to God on earth. When ostensibly talking of angels, you give them angelic trappings.

However, Kazabel's revealing information to ordinary people can be seen as a metaphor for the breaking down of the wall in the temple under Alcimus, the wall which separated priests from ordinary people. There is a lot that we don't know about the period, which could elucidate some of the more obscure parts of the narrative.

Perhaps you don't consider the table of nations reflective of Greek thought, nor the tale of Joseph being a Greek style novella, but I consider the Melkizedek story a Hasmonaean inclusion. I think there is some scholarly consideration of Greek and Hasmonaean involvement in the formation of the HB.

Not just "naughty shenanigans". Literature in the field can be quite vociferous. Ezra against marriages with "foreign women" is a good example. The Psalms of Solomon are very anti the priesthood in Jerusalem for their dirty deeds, which incur God's wrath through Pompey.

I think the notion of "mixing" in MMT is quite important, for one should not mix blood, ie priestly blood with non-priestly. Those priest who did are condemned squarely for doing so, just as the angels are condemned for mixing with ordinary mortals.


spin

Doctor X

I would just add that the Enoch story is later than the Genesis story.

The Genesis story is akin to other introductions to Flood Myths where the people on the earth start to piss off "the Powers that Be." There is no contemporary textual excuse to consider the bene elohim anything but "sons of the gods." If one wishes to argue for "sons of God"--fine--but I think wherever the original story came from, "gods" is more original.

--J.D.