Boccaccini, on page 142 of BEYOND THE ESSENE HYPOTHESIS 
mentions a text that I had not encountered before:

Pages 141-142:
"In the Testaments the emphasis on human responsibility
reaches a degree of intensity that was unknown in the previous
Enochic tradition.  The document signals an epochal change in the
interpretation of the sin of the Watchers.  Human beings are not
mere victims of the angelic sin but jointly responsible.  The 
blame shifts from angels to women.  "They [women] charmed the
Watchers, who were before the flood.  As they continued looking
at the women, they were filled with desire ... for them.  They
they were transformed into human males... Since the women's
minds were filled with desire for these apparitions, they
gave birth to giants" (Testament of Reuben 5:6-7)."

"The psychologization of the myth of the fallen angels denies
the equation of impurity and evil that Jubiliees had established
and the Qumran sectarians turned into one of the foundations
of the doctrine of evil."


So here we have the chain of events.  The fallen angels
become human males.  They have giants as children.  The
giants are killed, but the evil spirits of the fallen
angels live on as immortal souls.

In these discussion of the Watchers, I cannot help but 
wonder how any ancient student of these ancient texts could
have avoided linking the "wicked" Watchers with the
"wickedness" of the Samaritans/Keepers/Watchers.  The
New Testament appears to be a snapshot of Jewish bias against
"sinners".... people who are not gentile, but live north
of Judah.  Couldn't this be a part of Jewish bias against
Samaritans?  Centurions don't seem to excite nearly the
same level of wrath that these "sinners" appear to.

Boccaccini, at the front of the book, depicts a flow chart
of the evolution of Jewish sectarianism on "FIGURE 2. A MAP OF
MIDDLE JUDAISMS".  On this chart, he shows Samaritanism as a
4th century offshoot of Zadokite Judaism, while Enochic 
Judaism is depicted emerging PARALLEL to Zadokite thought,
and leading directly into Essene thought.

In the book it is sometimes suggested that Enochian thought 
had its source the obscure period in Persia, prior to the return.
And yet, the only reference in the Old Testament that connects
to a dissident form of priesthood opposed to the Zadokite views
AND yet is still a part of the Jersusalem cultus is the reference
by Ezekiel to the priestly faction that prays to the sun with
its back to the Temple.

This description precedes the deportation to Babylon, for the
temple is still standing.  Who could this priestly faction
have been?  I have suggested the Rechabites, since they were
in Jerusalem before its destruction.  Suda ALSO suggests the
Rechabites, for reasons unknown.  And in a completely independent
thread, we see congruence between the Syrian cult of Shai al' Qaum
and the Nabataean practices of avoiding wine, living in houses,
and avoiding agriculture.

In the Books of the Maccabees we find a close affinity between
the Maccabean forces and the Nabateans.  In Josephus we find Banus
who still avoids agriculture.  And in Deuteronomy we find an unsually
kind view of Edomites, with other Old Testament references to the
Edomites also having their promised covenants with Yahweh.

While I can't pretend to have all the answers proved, I think
there is more than enough here to suggest further investigation.

George Brooks
Tampa, FL

For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web

Reply via email to