Dark Mirrors: Azazel and Satanael in Early Jewish Demonology

The Watchers of Satanael: The Fallen Angels Traditions in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch

The Watchers of Satanael The Fallen Angels Traditions in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch [T]hey became servants of Satan and led astray those who dwell upon the dry ground. —1 En. 54:6 These are the Watchers (Grigori), who turned aside from the Lord, 200 myriads, together with their prince Satanail. —2 En. 18:3 Introduction The first part of 2 Enoch, a Jewish pseudepigraphon written in the first century CE, deals with the heavenly ascent of the seventh antediluvian hero carried by his angelic psychopomps to the abode of the deity. Slowly progressing through the heavens while receiving detailed explanations of their content from his angelic interpreters, in one of them, the patriarch encounters the group of the fallen angels whom the authors of the apocalypse designate as the Grigori (Watchers).1 The detailed report of the group’s transgression given in chapter 18 of the text, which mentions the angelic descent on Mount Hermon, leading to subsequent corruption of humanity and procreation of the race of the Giants, invokes the memory of the peculiar features well known from the classic descriptions of the fall of the infamous celestial rebels given in the Book of the Watchers. This early Enochic booklet unveils the misdeeds of the two hundred Watchers led by their leaders Shemihazah and Asael. What is striking, however, in the description given in the Slavonic apocalypse is that in contrast to the classic Enochic account, the leadership over the fallen Watchers is ascribed not to Shemihazah or Asael, but instead to Satanael.2 85 86 Dark Mirrors This reference to the figure of the negative protagonist of the Adamic story appears to be not coincidental. The careful examination of other details of the fallen angels traditions found in the Slavonic apocalypse unveils that the transference of the leadership over the Watchers from Shemihazah and Asael to Satanael,3 represents not a coincidental slip of pen, or a sign of a lack of knowledge of the authentic tradition, but an intentional attempt of introducing the Adamic development into the framework of the Enochic story, a move executed by the authors of the Slavonic apocalypse with a certain theological purpose. I previously explored the influence of the Adamic story on the Enochic account of the Slavonic apocalypse, especially in the materials of the longer recension, noticing an unusual readiness of its authors for the adoption of traditions and motifs from the Adamic trend, a tendency that appears to be quite surprising for a Second Temple Enochic text.4 Indeed, Adam’s story occupies a strikingly prominent place in 2 Enoch. The traditions pertaining to the first human can be found in all the sections of the book.5 In these materials Adam is depicted as a glorious angelic being, predestined by God to be the ruler of the earth, but falling short of God’s expectations. Although the bulk of Adamic materials belongs to the longer recension, which includes, for example, the lengthy Adamic narrative in chapters 30–32, the Adamic tradition is not confined solely to this recension. A number of important Adamic passages are also attested in the shorter recension. The extensive presence of Adamic materials in both recensions and their significance for the theology of the Slavonic apocalypse indicates that they are not later interpolations but are part of the original layer of the text. It should be noted that such an extensive presence of Adamic materials in the intertestamental Enochic text is quite unusual. In the early Enochic circle reflected in 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch, Adam does not figure prominently. His presence in these materials is marginal and limited to a few insignificant remarks. Moreover, when the authors of the early Enochic booklets invoke the memory of Adam and Eve, they try either to ignore or to “soften” the story of their transgression and fall in the Garden. Scholars previously noticed this remarkable leniency of the Enochic writers toward the mishap of the protological couple in the texts “concerned with judgment and accountability.”6 This either modest or unusually positive profile that the protoplasts enjoy in the early Enochic circle can be explained by several factors. Scholars previously observed that early Enochic and Adamic traditions appear to be operating with different mythologies of evil.7 The early Enochic tradition bases its understanding of the origin of evil on the Watchers’ story in which the fallen angels corrupt human beings by passing on to them various...