moer likely the myth's explanation has to do with the term "nefilim" and 
their description in Genesis. more exegesis than history. where do you 
find history coded in myth in these literatures?

Herb Basser

> 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 Herbert Basser <[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