the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

LOREN T. STUCKENBRUCK 111
depicts the theophany as an advent in which the divine throne descends
to earth. (d) The vision in the Book of Giants draws on three verbs in
describing the activity of worship before the throne; (i.e., “serving,” “worshipping”
[restored], and “standing”); Daniel, on the other hand, uses
only two (“serving,” “standing”). (e) While the giant’s vision restricts the
sitting to “the Great and Holy One,” Daniel ascribes it to both the
“Ancient of Days” (v. 9c) and the heavenly court (v. 10e). (f) The number
of worshippers indicated by the respective passages is different. The Book
of Giants mentions only “hundreds” and “thousands” (lines 17c–d), while
Daniel speaks more grandly of “thousands” and “myriads” (v. 10c–d). (g)
Finally and obviously, unlike Daniel, the Book of Giants has nothing to say
about a “son of man” or humanlike figure within the theophany.
What do these observations suggest about the position of Daniel in
relation to 4Q530 2.16–20? It is possible to highlight at least three points.
First, if we isolate the comparison to 4Q530 2.18c–19 par. Dan 7:10e–f,
the Book of Giants contains a longer description of the proceedings at the
divine court. This does not mean, however, that )Ohyah’s dream must be
an expansion of Dan 7:10, since it could be argued that Daniel’s description
of judgment focuses on the punishment of the beast (7:11–12). 22
Nevertheless, the longer description of the scenario of divine judgment in
the Book of Giants is consistent with the author’s emphasis on the irreversibility
of God’s decree against the giants. 23 This particular difference,
then, may reflect the way the writer adapted the theophany tradition in
the Book of Giants, which in its extant form would therefore not furnish us
with the tradition as originally generated.
Second and more significant for the present purposes, the giant’s
vision is not as complicated in terms of structure and theology as the
more-well-developed one in Daniel 7. For one thing, it may well be that
the author of Daniel 7 has added speculative details concerning the
appearance of both the seated figure (7:9d–e) and the divine throne (vv.
9f–10b). 24 Though it is possible that the author of the Book of Giants may
22. This does not mean that the Book of Giants is not interested in the punishment
of characters described as ferocious animals; on such a connection with the giants
themselves, see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Giant Mythology and Demonology: From
the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Die Dämonen: die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen
und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and
Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment (ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and K. F.
Diethard Römheld; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 318–38.
23. On the significance of this emphasis within the context of the early-mid second
century B.C.E., see Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 31–40.
24. On this see 1 En. 14:19–20, 22. No doubt the details also reflect the importance
of the vision in Ezekiel 1 for the Book of Giants author. Concerning the influence of the