Understanding Sin and Evil #7: The Watchers in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Later Jewish Tradition

Learn how the Watchers are portrayed in the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they are “used” to explain sin. And where are the Watchers in the Talmud? Discover the echoes of the Watchers story in later Jewish tradition.

In this episode, we explore:

Where the Watchers appear in the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Where we see hints of the Watchers in later Jewish tradition

In case you want to read along, I am including the English translation of the relevant passages of the Dead Sea Scrolls below. Note how the Damascus Document uses the Watchers as simply an example of the first creatures to sin through their own evil inclination, while the Songs of the Sage use the Watchers’ descendants in the description of the speaker’s own struggle with the desire to sin. Finally, in the incantation that we find in 11Q Apocryphal Psalms, the descendant of the Watchers is an external (though deceptive) threat to the speaker, who is attempting to protect himself by expressing this creature’s false nature.

Damascus Document (CD) II.14-III

vacat And now, O sons, hearken to me and I will uncover your eyes so you may see and understand the works of God and choose that which he wants and despise that which he hates: to walk perfectly in all his ways and not to go about in the thoughts of an inclination of guilt and lecherous eyes. For many have strayed due to them; mighty men of valor have stumbled due to them, from their earliest times and until today. Walking after the stubbornness of their heart(s), the Watchers of heaven fell. They were held by it, for they did not keep God’s commandments; and (so too) their sons, who were as high as lofty cedars and whose bodies were like mountains. For all flesh which was on dry land fell, for they died and were as if they had not been, for they had done their (own) will and had not kept the commandments of their maker, until his wrath was kindled against them. vacat Through it strayed the sons of Noah and their families; through it they were cut off. Abraham did not walk in it and he was accepted as a lover, for he kept God’s commandments and did not choose to follow the will of his (own) spirit. And he transmitted (his way) to Isaac and Jacob; and they observed (them) and were recorded as lovers of God and parties to (his) covenant forever. … The first ones who entered the covenant became guilty through it; and they were given up to the sword, having abandoned God’s covenant, and they chose their (own) will, and strayed after the stubbornness of their heart, for each one to do his (own) will. vacat…

“Songs of the Sage” 4Q510-511

… His knowledge he put [in my] hear[t…] the praises of His righteousness, and […]‘h and by His mouth he frightens [all the spirits] of the bastards to subdue […]ṭ y impurity. For in the innards of my flesh is the foundation of d[…and in] my body are battles. The statutes of God are in my heart, and I prof[it] for all the wonders of man. (4Q511 48–49 +51 )

… vacat And I, the Maskil, proclaim His glorious splendor so as to frighten and to te[rrify] all the spirits of the destructive angels, bastard spirits, demons, Lilith, howlers and […] and those who strike suddenly to lead a spirit of understanding astray and to make their heart and their […] desolate during the present dominion of wickedness and predetermined time of afflictions for the children of lig[ht], by the guilt of the ages of [those] smitten by iniquity—not for eternal destruction, […]m for an era of affliction of transgression.…(4Q510 1 4b–8a)

(6) And I practice the fear of God through the periods of my generations, to exalt the name dbr[…] (7) by his strength al[l] the spirits of the bastards, to subdue them by [His] fear […] (8) [fe]stivals […]period of their rule […] (4Q511 35 6–8)

11Q Apocryphal Psalms

…[When ]he comes to you in the nig[ht,] you will [s]ay to him: ‘Who are you, [oh offspring of] man and of the seed of the ho[ly one]s? Your face is a face of [delu]sion and your horns/rays are horns/rays of ill[us]ion, you are darkness and not light, [injust]ice and not justice…(11Q11 V.5b–8a)

19 Responses to "Understanding Sin and Evil #7: The Watchers in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Later Jewish Tradition"

Rocky Jackson says:

February 21, 2016 at 9:13 pm

Well sorry for the issues but it was worth the wait, Fascinating as expected!

I guess a quick generic question would be seemly how much of a freehand do you think men took in creating some of these works in order to either promote ” stories” or create a deeper fiction and what purpose would cause one to do so?

Could it be an attempt to find an scapegoat so to speak and not simply look in the mirror yes it’s me I am to blame for my sins …..per say and not the women you gave me?
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  February 22, 2016 at 12:12 am
  
  Thanks – I’m glad you enjoyed it! I will address your question in the next episode at more length, but it is true that many of these texts (particularly the texts that I’ve studied, because of my research interests) do in fact have an agenda of sorts which often includes trying to find a “reason” for sin. And yes, sometimes the reason that is presented sounds like an excuse. 😉
  1. Rocky Jackson says:
    
    February 22, 2016 at 1:20 am
    
    Sure thing, waiting patiently!
Jeff McCormack says:

February 22, 2016 at 5:34 pm

Just discovered you last week, and I have not listened to all of your podcasts yet, but about halfway thru (so maybe you cover my question in one I haven’t gotten to yet) – but was wondering – you keep referring to it as the Watcher “Myth” – do you feel there is no spiritual truth behind the story at all? Just curious to your standing on the issue itself. Thanks, and keep up the good work – been enjoying things so far.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  February 22, 2016 at 10:03 pm
  
  Welcome to the podcast! I’m glad you’re enjoying it.
  
  When I refer to the Watchers “myth,” I am referring specifically to the Second Temple era interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, in which the “sons of God” have become the “Watchers”: angels who caused the Flood and possibly continuing evil and sin through their actions.
  
  In the most popular version of this story, the spirits of the Watchers’ giant children continue to roam the earth as damage- and sin-causing demons. However, these sin-causing demons are nowhere in the biblical account. In fact, the story of the Watchers as a whole, which is actually found in several different versions in Second Temple literature, is not the plain meaning of the Biblical account, although it is understandable that an ancient audience would naturally connect the story in Genesis 6:1-4 with the Flood that follows.
  
  If you were to argue that there is a connection in the plain meaning of the Biblical account between the boundary that the “sons of God” cross by mating with human women and the evil that must be wiped out by the Flood because of the juxtaposition of Gen. 6:1-4 with the statement of human evil in 6:5, I would be hard-pressed to disagree. But this connection is very far from what becomes the full-fledged Watchers story in later interpretation.
  
  I recommend listening to Episode 4: Who Watches the Watchers for an overview of the Biblical account. Then when you have time, you can tune in to Episode 5 on the different versions of this story in the Book of Enoch and to Episode 6 on how the Book of Jubilees takes this one step further.
  Thanks for listening, and please keep posting your questions!
  1. Jeff McCormack says:
    
    February 23, 2016 at 11:55 pm
    
    Actually, I have finished listening to all of your podcasts as of today – yay me. Good stuff.
    
    I guess for me, I kind of relate (in my own mind) that the second temple literature was being kind of like a commentary of sorts with what the ancients actually thought but didn’t actually write. Kind of like they were filling in between the lines of what might have been missing from the canonized Scripture.
    
    I know that some in the early church sects held that Enoch was indeed history dating back to around his time, and either previous copies destroyed (leaving us with only copies from second temple period), or that they were never written down until later (since I understand from others that Hebrew history teaches they were more orally based and less of an emphasis on writing things down).
    
    I guess I am one that had previously made the connection between the Wacther’s sin and the flood – so it all kind of falls into place for me with that understanding. One thing I did pick up from you that I had not considered before, was the different approaches each of those writings took on explaining things. I guess I just thought they were all basically describing the same thing from different perspectives. But I am not into it near as deep as you are.
    
    Just curious – are you familiar with Michael Heiser’s work – and what are your thoughts on his approach if so?
    1. Miryam Brand says:
      
      February 25, 2016 at 11:27 pm
      
      Your understanding is spot-on. Second Temple literature is frequently a commentary on or interpretation of the Bible, filling in the blanks and sometimes reinterpreting Bible to address the issues that concerned the author of that particular work. I imagine that, for early Christian sects that had Enoch as part of their canon, it held actual historical significance, but I read it on the one hand as commentary on and elaboration of the Hebrew Bible and on the other as a window into what interested and troubled Jews of the period.
      
      I am not particularly familiar with Michael Heiser’s work, but if the Wikipedia summary he “has criticized ancient alien astronaut theorists” is true, that is certainly a sentiment I can get behind. 🙂
      1. Frank M says:
        
        May 9, 2017 at 3:44 am
        
        Just found your podcast and am really enjoying it. It’s a new favorite. Thank you!
        
        A previous note mentioned Michael Heiser. His website and podcast can be found at drmhs.com
      2. Miryam Brand says:
        
        May 9, 2017 at 10:26 am
        
        I’m glad you’re enjoying it!
Matthew says:

February 24, 2016 at 4:09 pm

Thank you again for your time in putting these podcasts together. I almost gush with joy when listening to them…it is not likely that I will ever study these things professionally, and you are giving me the opportunity to gain more insight.

Can you recommend a scholarly source for learning more about Lilith in the context of the “Alphabet of Sirach?”

Also, it may be worth you pointing out how you are using the word “myth” in general – even if it is just reminding us of something you have already said. I think it is safe to say that it is not obvious to some of us in the American audience. The popular usage meaning something that is false.

The wikipedia definition isn’t bad:

“A myth is a traditional or legendary story, collection, or study. It is derived from the Greek word mythos (μῦθος), which simply means “story”. Mythology can refer either to the study of myths, or to a body or collection of myths. A myth also can be a made up story to explain why something exists.” –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth
1. Jeff McCormack says:
  
  February 25, 2016 at 3:33 am
  
  That is how my americanized brain was thinking of it being used. It makes more sense as just another type of word for “story” – but I was thinking she (and others) were automatically saying it was just an untrue fable.
  1. Miryam Brand says:
    
    February 25, 2016 at 11:33 pm
    
    Hi Jeff. Yes, please see my reply to Matthew on this. It’s good to know that I need to be more careful in explaining this term before I use it! Thanks for your careful listening.
2. Miryam Brand says:
  
  February 25, 2016 at 11:30 pm
  
  Hi Matthew,
  
  Thanks so much! And thank you also for pointing out the way I have been using myth. In fact, the meaning for me matches the Wikipedia definition pretty closely, since I have been using myth to mean “a story that was meant to explain why something exists” — in this case, sin or evil. I will be sure to clarify this for my listeners in my next episode.
Chris says:

February 27, 2016 at 8:32 am

Very interesting to see our old friend Shemichaza pop up again in the Talmud. This of course begs the question, “Did they get it from the Dead Sea scrolls, or did they both get it from an earlier source?”

Yet another variation on the persistent, “Does this information/idea come from more or less this source, or is it a relay of earlier sources whose records have been lost?”

I suppose the question may be more important than the answer, as continually asking it seems to help me keep all the tidbits placed and weighted properly. Then again, maybe I’m just saying that because I know I’m not going to get that elusive answer!
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  February 27, 2016 at 11:17 pm
  
  Hi Chris,
  
  Thanks for your question! You can be pretty sure that the Talmud didn’t get it from the Dead Sea Scrolls (since there was pretty much no line of transmission between them). However, just as the Dead Sea Scrolls reflected earlier traditions, so does the Talmud. Actually, I’ll go one step further. The Dead Sea Scrolls reflects some unique beliefs of the sect but also common beliefs of the period. Similarly, the Talmud reflects certain narratives and beliefs that were commonly known, even if the speakers in the Talmud and the Talmud’s editors were not particularly interested in emphasizing these narratives.
  1. Chris says:
    
    February 28, 2016 at 8:40 am
    
    Thanks for that clarification; that’s about what I suspected to be the case. It certainly would be very nice to have some of those earlier sources.
    1. Miryam Brand says:
      
      February 29, 2016 at 2:23 pm
      
      No kidding.
Joshua says:

April 29, 2016 at 4:19 am

I love listening to you! I was sent home sick and listened to ALL of your discourses back to back in one setting. Keep the amazingness coming.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  April 30, 2016 at 9:58 pm
  
  Wow! Thank you!

Comments are closed.

Share this:

Related