The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

112 FORMATION AND RE-FORMATION OF DANIEL
not have wished to attribute visionary speculations about God’s appearance
to a culpable giant, it seems more likely that Daniel 7 has added
such traditional material than that the Book of Giants has deleted it.
Furthermore, Daniel 7, in contrast to its counterpart in the Book of Giants,
introduces a figure designated “(one) like a son of man.” In terms of tradition-history,
this aspect of Daniel represents a development subsequent
to the form as preserved in the giant’s dream. 25
Third, at one point where the respective texts overlap, the difference
yields a clue about the direction in which the throne-theophany developed.
In the Book of Giants text (lines 17c–18a) the worshippers are
described in terms of “hundreds” and “thousands,” while according to
Daniel (7:10c–d) they are numbered in the “thousands” and “myriads.”
If we may regard a tendency toward inflating such numbers as a viable
criterion, then it is more likely that the “hundreds” and “thousands” preserved
in the Book of Giants have been transformed into the “thousands”
and “myriads” of Daniel than the other way around. On the other hand,
if a similar criterion of inflation is used, the three verbs in the Book of
Giants would seem to be an expansion of the two that occur in Daniel.
It is important to stress that these comparisons do not lead to a conclusion
that either the Book of Giants or Daniel has taken the vision
directly from the other. They do suggest, however, that the throne-theophany
of the giant’s dream vision preserves an earlier form of the tradition.
And so, Milik’s view that here we have to do with a dependence on
the biblical text of Daniel now seems untenable. It is not necessary to
infer from this that the Book of Giants must be older than the composition
of Daniel. Rather, it seems best to conclude that Daniel has taken up a
tradition that, at least in some details, has been more faithfully preserved
in the Book of Giants. 26
Book of Watchers on Daniel 7 and the Book of Giants, I am indebted to a suggestion made
to me by Devorah Dimant.
25. The appearance of this figure in Daniel 7 is paralleled by the introduction in the
Animal Apocalypse (in the Book of Dreams, 1 En. 90:14, 20) of a humanlike angel-scribe
who assists “the Lord of the sheep” within the context of the eschatological judgment.
Significantly, similar to the Book of Giants, the judgment in the Animal Apocalypse is carried
out inter alia against the fallen Watchers (= “stars” in 90:24). In this respect, the
throne-theophanies of Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch 90 represent a parallel development of tradition.
The latter text suggests, however the “son of man” in Dan 7:13–14 is interpreted,
that at its core the tradition envisioned an angelic humanlike figure.
26. On the implications of this analysis for the question of the religious and historical
background of Daniel 7, see Stuckenbruck, “The Throne-Theophany of the Book
of Giants,” 220n24.