Sustained Biblical Commentaries: Retellings and Pesharim<\/p>\n
Commentary on Genesis A<\/p>\n
George J. Brooke<\/p>\n
Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252) is the best preserved of a small group of commentaries on the scriptural book of Genesis found in the Qumran caves. It was written on a single piece of leather in six columns of 22 lines each; it is mostly the top part of the scroll that survives. Commentary on Genesis A contains interpretations of selected passages from Gen. 6 to Gen. 49. It is put together from the commentator\u2019s own work and extracts from other writings, some of which were sectarian; that is, they were themselves composed by members of the sect who collected the Qumran scrolls together. The manuscript was penned in the second half of the 1st century BCE, but it might be a copy of an earlier compilation. In its present form it reflects the widespread interest in Genesis among the Qumran sectarians and the wider movement of which they were a part. Intriguingly some issues in Genesis seem to have been of greater concern than others: there is nothing here on creation or on the figure of Joseph, but much attention to the Flood, Abraham, and the blessings of Jacob.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Scholars debate whether the commentary is concerned principally with problems in the plain meaning of the text of Genesis, each addressed in turn, or whether an overarching theme runs through the selected items, such as unfulfilled blessings and curses or the possession and purity of the land. The label \u201ccommentary\u201d is sufficiently flexible to cover the wide variety of types of interpretation contained in 4Q252. These range from what looks like rewritten Bible (i.e., a rephrasing of a scriptural passage where there is no distinction between the authoritative text and the author\u2019s explanations) to pesher (a form of commentary that first quotes a scriptural text and then introduces a separate interpretation, using a set literary formula; see commentary on col. 4). Commentary on Genesis A is important because it comes from the end of the Second Temple period at a key moment in the development of Jewish biblical interpretation, as that moved from mostly implicit paraphrastic forms to predominantly explicit forms as in the later Rabbinic midrashim.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Bernstein, Moshe. \u201c4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary.\u201d Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994): 1\u201327.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201c4Q252: Method and Context, Genre and Sources.\u201d Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1994): 61\u201379.
\nBrooke, George J. \u201cThe Genre of 4Q252.\u201d Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 160\u201379.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Thematic Content of 4Q252.\u201d Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1994): 33\u201359.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201c252. 4QCommentary on Genesis A.\u201d In Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, edited by G. Brooke et al., 185\u2013207. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.
\nFr\u00f6hlich, Ida. \u201cBiblical Narratives in Qumran Exegetical Works (4Q252; 4Q180; the Damascus Document).\u201d In Qumranstudien, edited by H.-J. Fabry, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger, 111\u201324. G\u00f6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.
\nSaukkonen, Juhana. \u201cThe Story behind the Text: Scriptural Interpretation in 4Q252.\u201d PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2005.
\nTrafton, Joseph L. \u201cCommentary on Genesis A (4Q252 = 4QCommGen A = 4QPBless).\u201d In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, edited by J. H. Charlesworth, 203\u201319. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1:1\u20133 The commentator determines that Noah was given the insight that the 120 years of Gen. 6:3 refers to the maximum amount of time people had to live before the Flood came, rather than to time allotted for repentance or to the human life span itself. This commentator notes that Noah was 480 when God made his declaration; his purpose was to show the span of 120 years (Gen. 6:3), rather than to restate the information on Noah\u2019s age in Gen. 5:32.
\n1:3\u20132:5 The Genesis Flood story is abbreviated and rewritten with an emphasis on dates. Two systems are used: the scriptural day of the month is combined distinctively with the day of the week. This is the earliest known Jewish text to use days of the week for dating. The dating system shows that the Flood lasted 364 days (as in Hebrew Scripture), which the commentator asserts is a complete year, and so for him although the Flood begins on the same date as in Hebrew Scripture, it ends on the same date in the following year (not 10 days later as in the LXX\u2019s lunar-based calculations). This schematic solar year is known in 1 Enoch, the book of Jubilees, and some strictly sectarian compositions (4Q394 frags. 3\u20137 1:2\u20133; 11QPs 27:6\u20137). The emphasis on the days of the week highlights to the reader that during the Flood nothing ever happened on a Sabbath.
\n2:5\u20138 The compiler makes brief mention of the curse of Canaan and provides an explanation for Noah\u2019s curse of his grandson rather than his son; the explanation, that God\u2019s blessing of Ham could not be overruled by Noah, acts as a transition to the comments on Abram. In the transition it is notable that the text of Gen. 9:27 is understood to imply that God himself, rather than Japheth, \u201cwill dwell in the land of Shem.\u201d The exclusion of Japheth might indicate a 2nd- or 1st-century BCE political concern with ridding the land of Greeks. The assertion that God gave the land to Abraham his friend is based on the language of 2 Chr. 20:7.
\n2:8\u201310 The commentary is a rewritten version of Gen. 11:26\u201312:4 that puts the information in those verses in the right chronological order, noting that Abram lived in Haran for five years and then in Canaan for 60 years before Terah died.
\n2:11\u201313 There is a very fragmentary representation of the covenant of the pieces (Gen. 15:9, 17).
\n3:1\u20132 The 12 men may be an allusion to the 12 princes of Gen. 17:20 (but cf. also Deut. 1:22\u201323 and Josh. 4:2).
\n3:2\u20136 These lines rehearse the Sodom and Gomorrah story with phraseology from Deuteronomy interwoven into the retelling. In this way the laws of war in Deut. 13 and Deut. 20 are applied to the situation in Gen. 18, and since those laws apply only to cities within the land, the claim is made implicitly that the boundary of the land was beyond Sodom and Gomorrah (as in Ezek. 47:15\u201320).
\n3:6\u201310 The Akedah (Gen. 22) is included briefly from the moment at which Abraham\u2019s raised hand is prevented from delivering the fatal blow to Isaac (4 Macc. 13:12 and 16:20 focus on the same dramatic moment). It is difficult to discern what motivated the commentator to present the passage in this truncated way.
\n3:12\u201314 A small fragment with part of the Isaac\u2019s blessing of Jacob (Gen. 28:3\u20134) probably belongs in this column; its scriptural text partially reflects the LXX.
\n4:1\u20133 What may be the end of a section mentions the birth (Gen. 36:12) and eventual annihilation of Amalek. It seems that the commentator was aware that Saul did not carry out God\u2019s command to wipe out the Amalekites completely and so, with an adjusted use of Deut. 25:19, projected the fulfillment of the order into the end of days.
\n4:4\u20137 These lines contain the beginning of the quotation and interpretation of the blessings of Jacob (Gen. 49). The blessings are understood as containing promises that are to be fulfilled in the end times. The interpretation is introduced by a technical sectarian formula (Hebrew pishro) known in particular from the so-called pesharim, running commentaries on Isaiah, the Twelve Prophets, and Psalms, the most well known of which is the Commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab). The blessing of Reuben is the first to be discussed: Reuben is rebuked because of his sexual misconduct with Bilhah (Gen. 35:22).
\n5:1\u20137 The extant text provides a concluding citation of Gen. 49:10 and an interpretation of the blessing of Judah. This is eschatological and messianic, Judah being associated with the promise of an end-time king (as in T. Jud. 24). The \u201cshoot of David\u201d is a designation borrowed from Jer. 23:5 and 33:15; it is used of the Davidic messiah in the Qumran sectarian texts 4Q161 (Commentary on Isaiaha), 4Q174 (Eschatological Commentary A), and 4Q285 (Sefer ha-Milhamah). The interpretation also refers to the sectarians responsible for this commentary, \u201cthe men of the community\u201d (a sectarian self-designation that was used widely; e.g., 1Q31 1:1; 1QS 6:21; 7:20; 8:11; 9:7, 10; 4Q165 9:3); the end times described in the interpretation have already begun in the historical circumstances of the sect.
\n6:1\u20133 This column contains the remains of the citation and comment on the blessings of Asher and Naphtali.<\/p>\n
Ages of Creation<\/p>\n
Andrew D. Gross<\/p>\n
Ages of Creation, preserved only in small fragments, recasts biblical history as the unfolding of a predetermined divine plan. Discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, the preserved portions of this text deal with the time period from Noah and the Great Flood up through the life of the patriarch Abraham (Gen. 6\u201322). There appear to be two extant versions of this composition\u2014fragments of two scrolls from Qumran Cave 4 known as 4Q180 and 4Q181, both of which date to the 1st century CE. The relationship between these two versions has been a matter of some dispute, as they do not appear to be copies of the same text. While some scholars regard the two as separate compositions, the present treatment adopts a middle ground, treating these texts as separate but related.
\nThe authors believed not only that the entire course of history had already been predestined by God at Creation, but that it will proceed according to a well-structured scheme. In this text, they attempt to discern the structure of this scheme by identifying the periods into which God subdivided history. These ideas about history have close parallels in contemporary Jewish apocalyptic literature such as Daniel, Jubilees and 1 Enoch. Ages of Creation also has close links both in its content and in its vocabulary to other literature from Qumran, making it likely to have been composed by the sect to whom the Dead Sea Scrolls belonged.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Allegro, John. Qumr\u00e2n Cave 4.I (4Q158\u20134Q186), 77\u201380. DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.
\nCampbell, Jonathan G. The Exegetical Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 4. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Dimant, Devorah. \u201c \u2018The Pesher on the Periods\u2019 (4Q180) and 4Q181.\u201d Israel Oriental Studies 9 (1979): 77\u2013102.
\nDimant, Devorah. \u201cAges of Creation.\u201d Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11\u201313. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
\nMilik, J\u00f3sef T. \u201cMilk\u00ee-\u1e63edeq et Milk\u00ee-re\u0161a\u2018 dans les anciens \u00e9crits juifs et chr\u00e9tiens.\u201d JJS 23 (1972): 109\u201324.
\nMilik, J\u00f3sef T., with Matthew Black. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumr\u00e2n Cave 4, 248\u201352. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.
\nRoberts, J. J. M. \u201cWicked and Holy (4Q180\u2013181).\u201d In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, 204\u201313. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. T\u00fcbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck); Louisville KY: Westminster\/John Knox, 1995.
\nStrugnell, John. \u201cNotes en marge du volume V des \u2018Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan.\u2019 \u201d RevQ 7 (1970): 252\u201355.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
4Q180 Fragment 1<\/p>\n
1. Interpretation The Hebrew used here, pesher, links this text to a genre of biblical interpretation known exclusively from the Dead Sea Scrolls. In pesher texts, God reveals to a select group his plan for the end-time through interpretations of biblical prophecies.
\nAges In the author\u2019s view, when God created the universe, he predetermined the course of events according to a well-structured timetable. This timetable was divided up into specific periods or ages (Hebrew qeitz). Other texts from Qumran use similar language to refer to this timetable (e.g., Rule of the Community 3:15; 4:13, 16; Pesher Habakkuk 7:12\u201314; and Thanksgiving Hymnsa 1:24).
\n3. [heavenly] tablets God established his divine plan by writing it on tablets that could not be altered. Other Second Temple era Jewish texts such as 1 Enoch (81:1\u20132; 93:2; 103:2; 106:19) and Jubilees (16:3; 19:9; 30:19\u201320; 31:32; 32:21\u201322) mention these tablets and even claim that their authors have read the tablets.
\n4. their dominion According to God\u2019s preordained timetable, different groups would successively hold dominion over the world. Daniel 2, 7, and 8 express this idea as a succession of empires such as Persia and Greece, while other texts from Qumran express it as a back-and-forth struggle between the forces of good and evil (e.g., Rule of the Community 3:15\u201319; Damascus Document 2:7\u201310).
\n5. ten [generations \u2026] As noted in M. Avot 5:2, there are 10 generations from Adam to Noah and 10 more from Noah\u2019s son Shem to Abraham. A scheme of 10 generations can also be found in Sib. Or. 1, 2, and 4. Instead of the word \u201cgenerations,\u201d some editors restore \u201cweeks\u201d here because of its use in 4Q181 2:3. This terminology is familiar from other Jewish apocalyptic works such as 1 Enoch (93; 91:11\u201319), which divides human history into a 10-week timetable, and Dan. 9, which also speaks of a divine timetable divided into units called \u201cweeks.\u201d
\n6 This blank line separates the introductory section from what follows.
\n7. Azazel and the angels In the Bible, the figure Azazel is mentioned only in connection with the Yom Kippur \u201cscapegoat\u201d ritual (Lev. 16). In postbiblical Jewish literature such as 1 Enoch, however, Azazel is one of the fallen angels who descends to earth and corrupt mankind, leading to the Great Flood (Cf. B. Yoma 67b).<\/p>\n
Fragments 2\u20134 Column 2<\/p>\n
2:5\u201310 In Gen. 18, God declares to Abraham his intention to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sinful ways. According to Gen. 18:20\u201321, which is quoted here in lines 5\u20137, God will investigate whether these cities are as sinful as he has heard, indicating that God has not yet sealed their fate. The authors of 4Q180 took particular interest in this passage as they believed in total predestination, and thus assumed that the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah had been sealed since the time of Creation.<\/p>\n
Fragments 5\u20136<\/p>\n
4. Mount Zion, Jerusale[m] A late tradition recorded in 2 Chron. 3:1 associates the site of Solomon\u2019s temple with Mount Moriah, the site of the so-called Binding of Isaac described in Gen. 22 (cf. Gen. Rab. 55:2; J. Ber. 4:5 8c). Combined with the fact that Abraham and Isaac\u2019s journey to Mount Moriah lasted at least two days (see 4Q180 5\u20136 3), the Binding of Isaac could perhaps be the topic of this section.
\n5. Pharaoh It is quite likely that this refers to Abram and Sarai\u2019s encounter with Pharaoh during their sojourn in Egypt described in Gen. 12. If so, and one assumes that the text followed the biblical sequence of events, then 4Q180 fragments 5\u20136, lines 3\u20134 (the reference to Mount Zion) could not be related to the Binding of Isaac and fragments 5\u20136 would have to be placed between fragment 1 and fragments 2\u20134.<\/p>\n
4Q181 Fragment 1 Column 2<\/p>\n
2:2. God \u2026 delivered the sons of the he[avens] and the earth to a wicked community According to the authors, evil had had dominion over the world, but all in accordance with God\u2019s divine plan. For similar expressions of this idea elsewhere in Qumran literature, see Rule of the Community 3:21\u201323 and Damascus Document 2:7\u201310.
\n{the foundation of their impurity} This phrase had been erased and written over by the scribe.
\nthe sons of the he[avens] and the earth The cosmic battles between good and evil envisioned by the authors were played out in both the heavenly and earthly realms. That is to say, the forces of good and evil were represented among both angels and humans.
\n3. its end The Heb. term here, keitz, which occurs so frequently in 4Q180, indicates that the dominion of evil had a predetermined end point.
\n3\u20135. God \u2026 approaches some from among the sons of the world According to these lines, a select community\u2014to which the authors of this text presumably believed they belonged\u2014has been set aside by God to hold dominion when evil\u2019s reign finally ends.
\n5. [wonder]ful mysteries Because other texts composed by the Qumran sect use this combination of terms (Rule of the Community 11:19; Thanksgiving Hymnsa 15:27; 19:10), the phrase has been reconstructed here accordingly. These mysteries refer to the divine secrets about God\u2019s plan for history to which only the select community was privy.
\nhis lot Predestination means that every person\u2019s fate has been sealed since Creation, including whether they will side with evil or good. Here, line 4 refers generally to those whose \u201clot\u201d was to be part of God\u2019s select. Line 5, however, reflects a more nuanced version of this \u201clot\u201d beyond the binary dualism of good and evil. Other Qumran sectarian texts (e.g., Rule of the Community 2:23 and 4QHoroscope) acknowledge that alignment with good and evil varies by degree from person to person.<\/p>\n
Fragment 2<\/p>\n
1\u20132. For those who argue that 4Q180 and 4Q181 are copies of the same composition (Milik 1972, 110; Roberts 1995, 204), these lines provide the strongest evidence. On the one hand, certain key phrases (e.g., \u201cto Abraham until he sired Isaac\u201d and \u201cthe daughters of man and sired giants for themselves\u201d) occur both here and in 4Q180 1 4\u20138\u2014albeit reconstructed to some degree. On the other hand, these phrases are spaced out quite differently in their respective manuscripts\u20144Q180 clearly includes more text between these phrases\u2014indicating that the manuscripts are not identical copies. Some scholars (Strugnell 1970, 252; Dimant 1979, 89\u201391; 2000, 12) suggest that one text is quoting the other (or perhaps both were using a third, common source).
\n3. seventieth week Jewish apocalyptic literature commonly includes timeframes divided into 70 units such as years or generations. These time frames encompass great tribulations but eventually result in redemption or judgment (e.g., 1 En. 10:11\u201312; 89:59; Dan. 9:2; and T. Levi 16:1; 17:1). The term \u201cweek\u201d can refer simply to a unit of seven, whether it be seven days, seven years, or seven generations (see 1 En. 93; 91:11\u201319; Dan. 9:24, 25; and Pesher on the Apocalypse of Weeks (4Q247).
\n4. those who love injustice and inherit evil Some scholars see an overlap here with 4Q180 1 9, which contains the phrase \u201c[to love] injustice, and to let him inherit evil.\u201d Despite the similarity, however, the two phrases are not identical, which again gives the impression that 4Q180 and 4Q181 are merely related compositions.<\/p>\n
The Book of Giants<\/p>\n
Loren Theo Stuckenbruck<\/p>\n
The Book of Giants elaborates on events that took place before the Great Flood according to Gen. 6:1\u20134. The biblical tradition tells about angelic \u201csons of God\u201d (NJPS \u201cdivine beings\u201d) siring \u201cthe heroes of old, men of renown\u201d during a time when a race of \u201cNephilim\u201d were found to be on earth. In Giants, similarly these heroes are identified with the Nephilim who, in turn, are identified as those to whom the \u201cdaughters of men\u201d (Gen. 6:4) gave birth. Whereas in Genesis there is no obvious connection between this event and the evils that led to the Great Flood, Giants (which picks up on early Enochic traditions, e.g. 1 En. 6\u201311) narrates the violence committed by the Nephilim against humanity and the created order and tells how they learn that they will be punished by God.<\/p>\n
History<\/p>\n
Giants is preserved only in fragmentary form. Until the middle of the 20th century, fragments of it were accessible only through Manichaean sources, that is, works that were written or preserved by a widespread sect founded by Mani during the 3rd century CE. The Manichaean fragments survive in several languages (Middle Persian, Uygur, Sogdian, Parthian, Coptic, and Latin), but it was the discovery of Aramaic fragments in 10 manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls (as below) that made the book readable for the first time in its original language of composition. Links between Giants, Daniel 7, and the Enochic Book of the Watchers suggest a date of composition during the first third of the 2nd century BCE, though a date during the latter part of the 3rd century BCE is also possible.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Unlike much of 1 Enoch, Giants is not a pseudepigraphon told in the name of antediluvian patriarch Enoch. Instead, it is a formally anonymous work that narrates the events leading up to the Flood, with the giants functioning as the main characters, along with the fallen angels and Enoch. Together with the angelic beings who sired them they are blamed for deteriorating conditions on earth. The crisis becomes so extreme that the human souls\u2019 cries for justice are heard (cf. 1 En. 9:10), resulting in divine judgment through intramural violence among the giants and through the Flood. The storyline emphasizes how it happens\u2014primarily through dreams and their interpretations by Enoch\u2014that the giants learn that they will be held to account for their oppression of humanity.
\nFrom the Second Temple period, Giants is the only document that mentions a number of the giants by name. These include, for example:<\/p>\n
Ohyah (1Q23 29+6Q8 1:4\u20135; 4Q203 4:3, frag. 7a.5; 4Q530 2 ii 1, 15; 4Q531 22:9; cf. 4Q531 46:1)
\nHahyah (4Q203 4:3; cf. 4Q530 2 ii+6+7 i+8\u201311+12:6\u201315)
\nGilgamesh (4Q530 2 ii 1; 4Q531 22:12)
\nHobabish (4Q203 3:3; 4Q530 2 ii 2)
\nMahaway (1Q23 27:2; 4Q203 2:4; 4Q530 2 ii+6+7 i+8\u201311+12:1\u20133, 7 ii 6)<\/p>\n
Unlike Pseudo-Eupolemus, who linked the biblical Noah or Nimrod (Gen. 10:8; in Ps.-Eup. he is called Belos) and Abraham genetically to the giants, Giants joins the early Enochic tradition in insisting that the giants did not physically survive the Flood. In addition, the book mentions by name several of the rebellious angels known through the Book of the Watchers (so Baraqel, Shemihazah, Azazel\/Asael, Anael) as well as one of the angels who functions as an agent of divine judgment (Raphael).<\/p>\n
GUIDE TO READING<\/p>\n
A translation of the fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls is arranged below by manuscript. However, because each of the manuscripts contains different parts of the book and ultimately has content that precedes or follows that of other manuscripts, it is appropriate here to offer a reconstruction of the storyline of the book. A sequence of its contents may have looked something like the following (with square brackets around those parts for which there is no direct manuscript evidence):<\/p>\n
a) an account about the angels\u2019 fall and siring of giants through human women (4Q531 1)
\nb) the giants\u2019 violent activities on earth against nature and humans (1Q23 9+14+15; 4Q206a i + 4Q533 4; 4Q531 2\u20133; 4Q532 2)
\nc) a report about these events is brought to Enoch\u2019s attention (4Q206 2)
\nd) Enoch petitions God about the situation (4Q203 9\u201310; 4Q531 4; 4Q531 17);
\ne) conversations among the giants about their deeds (4Q203 1);
\nf) a first pair of dreams given to the giants (2Q26; 6Q8 2);
\ng) [a first journey to Enoch by the giant Mahaway, with the reading of the first tablet;]
\nh) disagreement between the giants Ohyah and Hahyah about the meaning of the dreams (6Q8 1);
\ni) admission of the fallen angels\u2019 powerlessness (4Q531 22);
\nj) Ohyah and the giant Gilgamesh(?) interpret their dreams pessimistically and optimistically (4Q531 22)
\nk) [initial punishment of the angel Azazel (cf. 4Q203 7a);]
\nl) the giants anticipate their judgment (4Q203 13);
\nm) an initial punishment of the giants (4Q203 7b i) and intramural fighting among the giants (cf. 4Q531 7)
\nn) reading of the second tablet which pronounces divine punishment of the fallen angels and the giants (4Q203 8; 4Q530 1; cf. 4Q203 7b ii);
\no) Gilgamesh and some giants remain hopeful (4Q530 2 ii+6+7 i+8\u201311+12:1\u20133);
\np) second pair of dreams given to Ohyah and Hahyah (4Q530 2 ii+6+7 i+8\u201311+12:4\u201320);
\nq) Mahaway\u2019s second journey to Enoch (4Q530 2 ii+6+7 i+8\u201311+12:20\u201324 and 4Q530 7 ii 3\u201310);
\nr) Enoch\u2019s interpretation of the second pair of dreams (4Q530 7 ii 10\u201311);
\ns) Mahaway returns to report Enoch\u2019s interpretation to the giants (4Q531 14); and
\nt) prophecy (Enoch\u2019s?) of final bliss (1Q23 1+6+22).<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Henning, W. B. \u201cThe Book of Giants.\u201d bsoas 11 (1943\u20131946): 52\u201374.
\nMilik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumr\u00e2n Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.
\nNickelsburg, G. W. E. 1 Enoch 1. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
\nPuech, \u00c9. \u201cLes fragments 1 & 3 du Livre de G\u00e9ants de la Grotte 6 (6Q8 1\u20133).\u201d RevQ 74 (1999): 227\u201338.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201c4Q530; 4Q531; 4Q532; 4Q533 [and 4Q206a 1\u20132].\u201d In Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes aram\u00e9ens, premi\u00e8re partie: 4Q529\u2013549, edited by \u00c9. Puech, 1\u2013115. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.
\nReeves, J. C. \u201cUtnapishtim in the Book of Giants?\u201d JBQ 112 (1993): 110\u201315.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmology: Studies in the \u201cBook of Giants\u201d Traditions. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992.
\nStuckenbruck, L. T. \u201c4Q203, 1Q23\u201324; 2Q26; 6Q8.\u201d In Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1: Qumran Cave 4.XXVI, edited by S. J. Pfann et al., 8\u201394. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe \u2018Angels\u2019 and \u2018Giants\u2019 of Genesis 6:1\u20134 in Second and Third Century BCE Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions.\u201d DSD 7 (2000): 354\u201377.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cGiant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls.\u201d In Die D\u00e4monen. Demons, edited by A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and K. F. D. R\u00f6mheld, 318\u201338. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1Q23<\/p>\n
FRAGMENTS 1 + 6 + 22<\/p>\n
2\u20134. two hundred donkeys The text refers to eschatological fertility and may be influenced by 1 En. 10:17\u201319; for similar motifs, see 2 Bar. 29:5\u20137; Sifre Deut. 315, 317; B. Ket. 111b, 112b.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENTS 9 + 14 + 15<\/p>\n
2\u20135. they killed The destructive activities described here probably relate to the acts of the giants before the Flood. See 1 En. 7:3\u20135.<\/p>\n
1Q24<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 5<\/p>\n
4. the rain and [the] dew For this phrase, see also 4Q203 11 ii 2.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 7<\/p>\n
1. day of the end This may refer either to the destruction to come from the Flood or, more likely, to the final annihilation of evil at the end-time.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 8<\/p>\n
2. there is] not peace for you This is a formula that pronounces doom and functions as a curse; in Giants see 4Q403 13:3.<\/p>\n
2Q26<\/p>\n
1\u20133. Wash the tablet \u2026 to ef[face The effacing (or erasure) of writing on a tablet by water may signify the destruction of the evil generation in the waters of the Flood (1\u20132), while the tablet being lifted above the waters may refer to the protection of Noah\u2019s ark (3). For the destruction of a tablet within the context of the Flood, see the medieval Midrash of Shemhazai and Azael 9. The removal of writing means that this tablet is to be distinguished from the other tablets mentioned in 4Q203 7 and 8.<\/p>\n
4Q203<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 3<\/p>\n
3. Hobabish The giant\u2019s name may allude to the Humbaba (or in Old Babylonian, Huwawa), a monster who guarded the Cedar Mountain in the Gilgamesh Epic and loses a fierce battle against Gilgamesh and his companion Enkidu. In the ancient Epic, the origins of which go back at least to the late 3rd millennium BCE, Gilgamesh is a heroic character who, after Enkidu\u2019s death, embarks on a failed quest for immortality. The mention of Gilgamesh as a giant in 4Q530 2 ii 1 and as one of the giants in 4Q531 12 may be an echo of the Epic since the giants, who hope to survive any cataclysm to come, find themselves unable to obtain divine mercy or reprieve.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 7A<\/p>\n
7. W[atchers] A frequent designation for angelic beings, whether they are good (see 1 En. 1:2; 12:1; 33:3; Dan. 4:13, 23) or disobedient (though the text of 1 Enoch doesn\u2019t relate the term \u201cwatchers\u201d to their disobedience, it references their disobedience in 1 En.).<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 8<\/p>\n
4. Enoch, the scribe of interpretation Described as the writer of this \u201csecond tablet,\u201d Enoch is also designated \u201cthe noted scribe\u201d elsewhere in Giants.
\n9\u201312. your fornication \u2026 activity of your sons \u2026 corruption Concerning the misdeeds of the giants, see 1 En. 8:4\u20139:3; 9:10.
\n12. Raphael In the Enochic Book of the Watchers, Raphael functions as one of a quartet of angels who listens to the cries of victims of violence (1 En. 9:1), as intercessor (9:4\u201311), and as one who enforces divine punishment against Azazel, one of the fallen angels (13:4\u20136). A further fragmentary document that features Azazel and links him to other \u201cangels\u201d is 4QAges of Creation (4Q180\u2013181), which in part presents itself as \u201ca pesher concerning Azazel\u201d (4Q180 1.8; cf. 1.9). In 1 En. 22:3\u201313, Raphael interprets Enoch\u2019s vision of the \u201cspirits of the dead\u201d raising their complaints toward heaven.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENTS 9\u201310<\/p>\n
The \u201cyou\u201d in these two fragments is best understood as a reference to God, to whom the words, which form part of a petitionary prayer, are addressed. It is possible that the text in 4Q531 Fragments 13 and 7 belong to the prayer as well. Similarities between 4Q203 Fragments 9\u201310 and 1 En. 84:3\u20136 suggest that the prayer is here being spoken by Enoch.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 13<\/p>\n
3. there is [not] p[eace] for you As in 1Q24 8 2, this is a curse formula, possibly directed against the fallen angels or the giants; see, for example, 1 En. 12:5; 16:4.<\/p>\n
4Q206<\/p>\n
FRAGMENTS 2\u20133<\/p>\n
Since on paleographic grounds it is not clear that these fragments belonged to the 1 Enoch manuscript, 4Q206 1\u20132 (4QEnoche), Puech has redesignated them as 4Q206a. The text of 4Q206 3 i overlaps with that of 4Q533 4, with some variants.<\/p>\n
4Q530<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 1<\/p>\n
1:3. the whole group of the castaways For the same text, see 1 En. 9:10.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENTS 2 ii+6+7 i+8\u201311+12<\/p>\n
1\u20132. Gilgamesh \u2026 H[o]babish The mention of Gilgamesh and Hobabish demonstrates the lingering influence of the Epic of Gilgamesh (see the comment on 4Q203 3:3).
\n3\u201320. Thereupon two of them had dreams \u2026 all the giants [and monsters] grew afraid Two dreams, given to the sibling giants Hahyah and Ohyah respectively (6\u201312, 16\u201320), are visions of irreversible divine judgment against the fallen angels and the giants. The setting of the first dream envisions destruction in a garden; if 6Q8 Fragments 3 and 2 can be assigned to some of the missing text in lines 8 and 9\u201311, then the dream also envisions the survival of a tree with three shoots (i.e., Noah and his sons), so that it refers in effect to the Flood event in Gen. 6\u20138. The text of the second dream shares a significant number of details with the judgment scene in Dan. 7:9\u201314, suggesting that both share a tradition preserved in different forms. It is possible that the reference to \u201chundreds\u201d and \u201cthousands\u201d (line 17 of this fragment) in comparison to the \u201cthousands\u201d and \u201cmyriads\u201d in Dan. 7:10 reflects a more conservative form of the tradition that, at this point, lies behind Dan. 7. It is possible that, while the first dream is more immediately concerned with the punishment of the rebellious angels and their progeny through the Flood, the focus of the second is eschatological. In this case, the function of the Flood as a type for eschatological events would compare with this motif in Enochic tradition (1 En. 10:1\u201311:2; 67:1\u201369:298; 91:5\u20139; 93:4; 106:19\u2013107:1) and is picked up in the New Testament (Matt. 24:36\u201344; Mark 5:1\u201320; Luke 17:26\u201327; 1 Pet. 3:18\u201322).
\n21. Mahaway This giant is sent by the other giants to learn the interpretations of the two dreams from Enoch. See the comment on 4Q530 7 ii.<\/p>\n
4Q531<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 1<\/p>\n
1\u20138. the Watch]ers are defiled \u2026 they begot] giants \u2026 seeking to devour Together with fragment 2, this text elaborates on the rebellion of the angels and violence committed by the giants before the Flood; cf. 1 En. 7:3\u20135; Jub. 5:2 and 7:24.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 7<\/p>\n
1. Ahiram Possibly the name of a giant.
\n2. Anael \u2026 Barake[l Fallen angels; see 1 En. 6:7.
\n3. Naamel \u2026 Ra[ziel] \u2026 Ammiel The name Naamel, which means \u201cGod is friendly\u201d and probably refers to a fallen angel, has no parallel elsewhere. The names Raziel (if correctly restored) and Ammiel are attested in later sources.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 13<\/p>\n
The text belongs to a prayer, perhaps uttered by Enoch; see also 4Q203 Fragments 9\u201310; the comment on 4Q203 Fragment 9; and 4Q531 Fragment 17 below.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 14<\/p>\n
1. a thousand thousands [were serving] him An allusion to Ohyah\u2019s dream in 4Q530 2 ii 16\u201320.
\n3. great fear] seized me \u2026 I hea[rd] his voice The speaker may be Mahaway, who is recounting his journey to Enoch for interpretations of the giants\u2019 dreams.
\n4. he dwelt [not] among human beings This is probably a description of Enoch.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 19<\/p>\n
3\u20134. n[ot] bones are we and not flesh \u2026 we shall be wiped out from our form With these words, the giants acknowledge that they will survive a destruction, although not in their original form (of flesh). Together with 1 En. 15:3\u201316:1, this text makes it possible to reconstruct the origin of demonic beings from the giants, who are half-angel and half-human. When punished for their deeds, the flesh of the giants is destroyed while they survive in a disembodied form. Given their former existence, the giant spirits\u2019 inclination is to recover their once embodied state, with humans\u2014who survived the Flood with their bodies intact\u2014being the prime target. This explanation may lie behind some exorcism narratives of the Jesus tradition in the New Testament (see, e.g., Mark 5:1\u201320 and Luke 11:24\u201326).<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 22<\/p>\n
3\u20136. [I am] mighty \u2026 but I did not [prevail \u2026 for my opponents [are angels A fallen angel describes his lack of power against God\u2019s angels.
\n9\u201311. Ohyah said \u2026 I have been forced to have a dream Ohyah tells of a dream vision, probably one that is different from that which he recounts in 4Q530 2 ii 16\u201320.<\/p>\n
6Q8<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 1<\/p>\n
3\u20134 In the story, Baraqel is the father of Mahaway. According to the Middle Persian version of the story (Kaw\u00e2n Frag. c 6 [this numbering is taken from W. B. Henning (see under Suggested Readings above)]) and the later Midrash of Shemhazai and Azael, Shemihazah is the father of the giant siblings Ohyah and Hahyah.<\/p>\n
FRAGMENT 26<\/p>\n
1. Lubar Giants perhaps assumes that Lubar is the mountain where the ark of Noah came to rest after the Flood; see Jub. 5:28; 7:1; Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 12:13); and Pseudo-Daniel 4Q244 8:3.<\/p>\n
The Genesis Apocryphon<\/p>\n
Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal<\/p>\n
The Genesis Apocryphon is a fragmentary work from the Second Temple period, discovered at Qumran, that retells stories from the early sections of the biblical book of Genesis. The existing portions of the work focus on the story of Noah and the early episodes in the life of Abraham.
\nGenesis Apocryphon is the name given by modern scholars to this previously unknown work preserved in a single, damaged manuscript among the original lot of seven scrolls uncovered in Qumran Cave 1. Most of the scroll, comprising 22 columns, was purchased for the Hebrew University in 1955, though some small fragments had previously been separated from the main part of the scroll and survive in other hands. The scroll was brought to Jerusalem where the difficult process of unrolling it began. Even at the time of its discovery, the manuscript was poorly preserved, and large sections of the text, in particular the lower parts of many columns, were unreadable. Infrared photographs taken in the 1950s provide the best visual record of the scroll as it was preserved at the time of its discovery.
\nOwing to the tremendous difficulties in reading the text, the original editors, Yigael Yadin and Nahman Avigad, chose to publish a near-complete transcription of only five of its columns (2, 19\u201322), and partial transcriptions of a few others. This volume provided the base text for all subsequent scholarship, the most notable of which has been Joseph Fitzmyer\u2019s editions and commentaries. Not until 1992 was another column published, while a preliminary edition of the remaining unpublished materials, based on new digital images of the scroll, was published in 1996. A complete new edition was published by Daniel Machiela in 2009.
\nAs it now survives, the manuscript contains only part of the original work. The scroll was rolled with the last-written sections at the center; consequently the earlier parts of the scroll, which were more toward the outside, have been lost. As a result, it is not possible to ascertain with any certainty how much of the manuscript may have been lost, though the existence of consecutive page numbers on three of the strips of parchment may imply that a considerable amount of text preceded the extant columns. Already at the time of rolling, the text ended abruptly, for reasons that are not known. Perhaps the manuscript represented a work in progress, or perhaps the continuation of the lengthy work was once preserved in another scroll.<\/p>\n
Authorship and History<\/p>\n
Although the manuscript itself may be dated on paleographic grounds to the 1st century BCE, the work itself (or parts of it) may be much older. Attempts to date the text have primarily focused on two criteria: the literary relationship with other, similar texts and the profile of the language in which it is composed. Both criteria point to a general dating of somewhere between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE, but a more precise dating has not been achieved.
\nWhile some parts of the work parallel the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1\u201336), which is generally accepted as being a work from the 3rd century, the literary evidence centers mainly on the relationship with the book of Jubilees. Both the Apocryphon and Jubilees contain extensive retellings of the patriarchal narratives, with many similarities in their details. In particular, we may point to the great correspondence between the descriptions of Noah\u2019s division of the earth among his sons found in both works, and the chronology surrounding Abram and Sarai\u2019s sojourn in Egypt. Three possible explanations exist for this similarity, and all three have found support among certain scholars: (1) the account in the Apocryphon draws on Jubilees; (2) the account in Jubilees draws on the Apocryphon; (3) both works draw on a third, lost source. If our text draws on Jubilees, it would point to a date sometime after the final composition of that work, which, on the basis of its historical allusions, scholars have set in the 2nd century BCE. However, if Jubilees is dependent on the Apocryphon, it would indicate that the Apocryphon predates the final composition of Jubilees.
\nThe linguistic evidence is similarly problematic. Scholars are in agreement that following the breakup of the Achaemenid Empire the literary Aramaic used across the Middle East became less standardized and increasingly showed the influence of local spoken dialects. Accordingly, later texts are generally linguistically closer to the local vernaculars than are earlier texts, which remain more faithful to the literary norms of the Persian period. However, in practice, the degree of conservatism and innovation employed by different writers working in different places seems to have varied. Furthermore, linguistic innovations are notoriously difficult to pinpoint chronologically, and this is especially the case when no dated literary texts from the period survive. Moreover, it is possible that copyists introduced later grammatical forms into an earlier work, especially since we are dealing with a language that was still widely spoken at the time. By comparing the language of the Apocryphon to contemporary inscriptions, in particular to the dated inscriptions of the Nabataeans, Kutscher proposed that the Apocryphon was written around the 1st century BCE or perhaps slightly later.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Outside of the Bible, the Apocryphon remains the lengthiest Jewish Aramaic literary composition to have survived from the Second Temple period. Apart from its linguistic and stylistic worth, it provides a unique glimpse into the development of biblical interpretation and rewriting as well as valuable evidence for the literary world from which Rabbinic Midrash emerged.<\/p>\n
GUIDE TO READING<\/p>\n
Although the scroll is severely damaged in places, enough of it survives to allow a fairly secure reconstruction of its contents in most cases. The text is far from uniform in both its content and its style. Several parts are narrated in the first person by biblical figures (Lamech, Noah, and Abram), while others are told in the third person. Furthermore, while some parts of the work follow the biblical narrative closely, and almost represent word-for-word translations of the Hebrew original into Aramaic, others have only a weak connection with the biblical source. The phrase \u201cthe book of the words of Noah\u201d appears prior to the Noachite material, which may imply that this section was drawn from a pre-existing work. Although other works from the Second Temple period similarly show shifts in the narrator\u2019s voice (e.g., Tobit) or contain biblical and nonbiblical materials (e.g., Jubilees), they tend to show a greater degree of authorial unity. As it stands, the Apocryphon has the distinct appearance of being an eclectic composition that has drawn on a variety of sources to produce an expansion on the biblical narrative.
\nNonetheless, some clear exegetical tendencies can be identified in the Apocryphon, which may be the work of its compiler or of his literary sources. In particular, Bernstein has identified three literary devices employed in the Apocryphon to embellish the biblical narrative: rearrangement, anticipation, and harmonization. The Apocryphon sometimes alters the order of events to make the biblical narrative flow more smoothly, for example, moving up the statement of Lot\u2019s wealth (Gen. 13:5) and juxtaposing it to that of Abram\u2019s wealth (Gen. 13:2) so as not to break the narrative of their conflict. The author occasionally adds information that anticipates details assumed by the biblical narrative. For example, the Apocryphon explicitly states that the three brothers Mamre, Arnem (sic), and Eshkol set off with Abram to the battle with the five kings and to save Lot (paralleling Gen. 14:14), while the biblical narrative mentions that they participated in the war only when it comes to dividing up the spoils (Gen. 14:24). A clear example of harmonization is found in the ascribing of events related in the story of Sarah and Abimelech (Gen. 20) to the similar story of Sarah and Pharaoh (Gen. 12).
\nThe diverse character of the Apocryphon\u2019s contents and the apparent lack of a unifying framework provide a challenge to those seeking to characterize the genre of the work. Based on the more complete columns that were published in the 1950s, many scholars recognized the work as containing \u201cmidrashic\u201d embellishments of the biblical narrative, and some regarded it as being similar to the later Palestinian Targumim. However, further research has highlighted the distinctions between these genres. The Apocryphon does not employ the structure of statements and prooftexts employed in Rabbinic midrashim, nor does it share the structure of the classic Targumim. Accordingly, most scholars today share the view that the Apocryphon should be ascribed to the genre of \u201crewritten Bible,\u201d a genre that retells the biblical stories in a free and expansive manner, often incorporating new elements designed to explain perceived contradictions, omissions, and other problems in the biblical text.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Philip S. Alexander. \u201cNotes on the \u2018Imago Mundi\u2019 of the Book of Jubilees.\u201dJJS 33 (1982): 197\u2013213.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cRetelling the Old Testament.\u201d In It Is Written\u2014Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, 99\u2013121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
\nMoshe J. Bernstein. \u201cDivine Titles and Epithets and the Sources of the Genesis Apocryphon.\u201d JBL 128 (2009): 291\u2013310.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cRe-arrangement, Anticipation, and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon.\u201d DSD 3 (1996): 37\u201357.
\nJoseph A. Fitzmyer. Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary. Rev. 3rd ed. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2004.
\nDaniel A. Machiela. The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon. Leiden: Brill, 2009.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Column 0<\/p>\n
The context of this column is unclear.
\n0:8. we are bound\/prisoners Recalls the description of the fallen angels in 1 En. 10:4, 12; 14:5; 88:1, 4; Jub. 5:10; 10:11. The fallen angels appear in a brief, enigmatic story in Gen. 6:1\u20134 in which they reproduce with human women, begetting giants. This story was perceived in antiquity as the source of sin and demonic forces in the world. If the sinning angels are the subject of this passage, then they are apparently referring to God\u2019s wrath.<\/p>\n
Column 1<\/p>\n
1:1. with the women This expression also appears to refer to the same episode described in Gen. 6:1\u20134.
\n1:2, 9. Mystery of evil \u2026 medicines, magic practices and sorc[eries] These elements could also refer to the same story; cf. 1 En. 8.
\n1:24, 28. all flesh The phrase \u201call flesh\u201d is found throughout Gen. 6 in the context of the sins of mankind and their impending destruction in the Flood. This column follows the general order of Gen. 6, in which the story of the bene elohim and the women is immediately followed by a description of humanity\u2019s sinful behavior and their epic punishment.<\/p>\n
Column 2<\/p>\n
This column, which centers on the birth of Lamech\u2019s son Noah, is relatively well preserved, but still not complete. A parallel version of the story is found in 1 En. 106\u20137. In this first-person account, Lamech is apprehensive of Noah\u2019s origins, suspecting that he is the offspring of the \u201cSons of Hea[ven]\u201d (or \u201cWatchers\u201d) and women, as described in Gen. 6:1\u20134. While the specific circumstances for his suspicions are not preserved from the preceding column, in the parallel version in 1 Enoch it is Noah\u2019s supernatural appearance and behavior at his birth (including the ability to speak!) that has led to Lamech\u2019s doubts. In the version found in 1 Enoch, Lamech immediately approaches his father Methusaleh to ask Enoch (Methusaleh\u2019s father) whether his fears are well founded. In the Apocryphon version, Lemech first approaches his wife Batenosh, who demonstrates to him that he is the father by recounting details from their sexual encounter. The name Batenosh (the same name is attributed to her in Jub. 4:28) appears to be a rendering of the \u201cdaughters of men\u201d in Gen. 6:2. Lamech\u2019s concern was that she was among those women who participated in this activity. The interaction between Methusaleh and Enoch continues through col. 5.
\n2:20. since he is beloved and de[sired] This refers to Enoch, who is one of the heroes of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. Gen. 5:22, 24 describe how Enoch \u201cwalked with God,\u201d and \u201cGod took him\u201d, instead of the expected mention of his death. The motif of Enoch\u2019s eternal life is greatly expanded in these later compositions.
\n2:23. the land of Parvaim Cf. 2 Chron. 3:6\u2014\u201cgold of Parvaim,\u201d perhaps reflecting a faraway land. If this is the meaning here, then perhaps it refers to a distant location, where Enoch resided.<\/p>\n
Column 3<\/p>\n
3:3. for in the days of Jared my father The speaker here is Enoch, son of Jared. This probably refers to the time when the sons of God descended to the earth in order to cohabit with the women. It is based on a play on the Heb. root y-r-d, which means \u201cdescend.\u201d The same etymology is found in 1 En. 6:6; 106:13; and in Jub. 4:15.
\n3:17. will divide all the earth The division of the earth is mentioned in Gen. 10:25, during the generation of Peleg. An extensive account of the division of the earth in the time of Noah is described in Jub. 8\u20139.<\/p>\n
Column 5<\/p>\n
This column continues the story of Lamech\u2019s suspicions regarding the circumstances of Noah\u2019s birth, which end after Enoch reassures Methusaleh that Noah is not the offspring of the Sons of Heaven.
\n5:12. his face, it lifted up to me and his eyes shone like the s[un] This describes Noah\u2019s special appearance. A similar portrayal appears in the parallel story in 1 En. 106:5, 10 and in 1Q19.
\n5:18\u201319. They shall do great acts of lawlessness until \u2026 all the paths of lawlessness Referring either to the behavior of the Watchers themselves, their gigantic offspring, or humanity, which eventually began to sin as a result of their oppression by these superhuman figures.
\n5:26\u201327. Now when I, Lemech, \u2026 rejoiced that (he) brought forth from me Lamech is relieved to learn that he indeed has fathered the child. This note concludes this section of the Apocryphon.
\n5:29. the book of the words of Noah These words follow a blank line and probably represent the beginning of a new section, which relates to the life of Noah. The text in the columns that follow switches to the first person. A similar expression is found in col. 19 (\u201cbook of the words of Enoch\u201d), and scholars have speculated as to whether this refers to an extant \u201cBook of Noah\u201d from which this section is quoted. While the evidence does not allow for a definite conclusion in this regard, there is extensive evidence of written (and probably oral) traditions surrounding the character of Noah in antiquity.<\/p>\n
Column 6<\/p>\n
6:1. \u2026 and in my mother\u2019s womb I sprouted for righteousness Lines 1\u20135 describe Noah in his youth, in contrast to line 6 which refers to his becoming a man. This expanded description of Noah\u2019s righteousness stems from Gen. 6:9, according to which \u201cNoah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age.\u201d
\nplanted for righteousness The same metaphor is attributed to Noah in his testament to his sons in Jub. 7:34: \u201cNow listen, my children. Do what is just and right so that you may be rightly planted on the surface of the entire earth.\u201d
\n6:3. and to warn me of the path of falsehood that leads to eternal darkness It is not specified who has warned Noah against the path of falsehood, whether it be God, a divine intermediary, or his father.
\n6:7. Emzara An identical name for Noah\u2019s wife is found in Jub. 4:33; it means that she is \u201cthe mother of offspring.\u201d This name acquires special meaning subsequent to the Flood, when, as the mother of Noah\u2019s three sons, she is the mother of all subsequent generations.
\n6:8\u20139. and I gave my daughters to my brother\u2019s sons according to custom of the eternal law [which] the Most High [commanded] to mankind The Torah does not mention the birth of any daughters to Noah. According to the Apocryphon, Noah and his brother exchanged their sons and daughters in marriage, with Noah serving as the earliest model of endogamous marriage (cf. Tob. 4:12).
\n6:9\u201310. And in my days, when had been completed for me \u2026 ten Jubilees, then the taking of wives for my sons was complete The text here presents a chronological difficulty. According to Gen. 5:32, Noah was 500 years old when his sons were born. If one assumes that a jubilee equals 50 years (it is either 49 or 50 according to Lev. 25), then according to the current text of the Apocryphon, when ten jubilees were completed for Noah, when he was 500 years old, all of his sons were already married! Perhaps therefore, in the lacuna before the period of ten jubilees, one should reconstruct a period of week-years (1 week = 7 years), up to six, allowing for additional time between the births of Noah\u2019s children and their subsequent marriages. Alternatively, the number refers to a period of time other than age.
\n6:11\u201312. of the heavens in a vision \u2026 Then I hid this mystery in my heart, and did not make it known to anyone Noah\u2019s vision here refers to the (mis)behavior of the Watchers, already mentioned above. While the specific content of the vision is not preserved, it is referred to as raza, which indicates that it is part of heavenly, mysterious knowledge. In light of the context here, referring explicitly to the Watchers\u2019 behavior, it is possible that the divinely revealed mystery also reveals their impending punishment. According to 1 En. 10:1\u201314, four angels were dispatched: the first to warn Noah of the coming of the Flood, and the next three to announce the punishments for the Watchers and their gigantic offspring. The current column preserves another reference to a vision, possibly a continuation of the first, but the remains are too fragmentary to establish this with certainty. There too are allusions to the misdeeds and violence (including bloodshed) perpetrated by the Watchers and their offspring.
\n6:23. Then I, Noah, found grace, greatness and righteousness In contrast with the Watchers, Noah is found to be righteous. This perhaps reflects a slight expansion of Gen. 6:8: \u201cBut Noah found favor with the LORD.\u201d<\/p>\n
Column 7<\/p>\n
7:1\u20135 These sentences perhaps reflect the rewards and blessing that Noah will receive after the Flood (cf. Gen. 9:1\u201317), although the cosmic nature of this description would make it unique.
\n7:19. and to build The command to Noah to build probably refers to the ark and hence the antediluvian period. The blessings found above would therefore have been transferred from their location in the biblical story, where they follow the Flood.<\/p>\n
Column 10<\/p>\n
10:12. the ark landed, one of the mountains of Ararat Cf. Gen. 8:4. In col. 12, the name of the mountain is specified as Lubar. An identical tradition is found in Jub. 5:28. From the order of events preserved in this fragmentary text, it seems that Noah offered the sacrifices while still on the ark.
\nand the eternal fire Apparently Noah used a pre-existing fire when he built an altar and offered sacrifices after the Flood (Gen. 8:20\u201322).
\n10:13. And I atoned for the whole earth A similar ritual is found in Jub. 6:2\u20134, reflecting a specific view of the nature of the offering in Gen. 8. The earth was filled with the lawlessness of mankind according to Gen. 6:11\u201313, and needed to be ritually expiated when it began anew. Some of the details of this offering can be traced to the sacrificial regulations found in Leviticus, such as the sprinkling of salt on sacrifices in Lev. 2:13. While Gen. 8:20 specifies whole burnt offerings, the treatment of the blood in the Apocryphon and Jubilees follows more closely the rituals associated with the sin offering (Lev. 4). It is unclear whether this assimilation was intentional. Noah purified the land before disembarking from the ark.
\n10:18. Then the Most High As in Gen. 8:21, the scent of the offering caused God to react.<\/p>\n
Column 11<\/p>\n
11:1. I, Noah, was in the doorway of the ark Noah\u2019s location at this point in the narrative bolsters the assertion made above that the expiation of the land took place while he was still on the ark.
\n11:11. [Then] I, Noah, went out and walked through the land to its length and breadth Noah is described here in terms used regarding Abram in Gen. 13:17.
\n11:12. there was luxuriance in their leaves and in their fruit. All the land was filled with grass, herbage and grain The description of the earth after the Flood harks back to the Garden of Eden and alludes to the motif of the postdiluvian period as a new creation. Note, however, the tension with col. 12, which describes the desolation after the Flood.
\n11:15. \u201cFear not, O Noah, I am with you and with your sons who will be like you\u201d Perhaps this formulation also creates a parallel between Abram and Noah (cf. Gen. 15:1; Gen. Ap. 22:30).<\/p>\n
Column 12<\/p>\n
12:9. And [sons] and [daugh]ters were bo[rn to my sons] after the flood Gen. 10 details the genealogy of Noah\u2019s offspring, but mentions only males in this lineage. Throughout this column in the Apocryphon, the text adds female offspring (\u201cdaughters\u201d)\u2014five daughters for Shem, seven for Ham, and four for Japheth\u2014a total of 16 granddaughters for Noah. This matches the number of grandsons, both in the parallel lists of the Apocryphon and in Genesis 10\u2014Shem (5), Ham (4), Japheth (7). The addition of the girls was intended to explain the origins of their wives.
\n12:13. Then I and all my sons started to work the land, and I planted a large vineyard Gen. 9:20 records Noah planting the vineyard, but does not mention his sons working the land.
\nMount Lubar The name of the mountain, not mentioned in Genesis, is also found in Jub. 5:28; 7:1, 17; 10:15.
\n12:14\u201316 The narrative expansion here is based on the law of the status of fruits during the first five years of a tree\u2019s life, found in Lev. 19:23\u201325. A similar account is found in Jub. 7:1\u20136. According to the Apocryphon, Noah did not drink from the wine during the fourth year, but rather put it aside until the beginning of the fifth year. This interpretation of the enigmatic kodesh hillulim la-YHWH in Lev. 19:24 is not consonant with either the sectarian position that the fourth-year fruits belong to the priests, nor with the Rabbinic position that they are to be consumed by their owner in Jerusalem like the second tithe.<\/p>\n
Columns 13\u201315<\/p>\n
These columns present an extended dream vision revealed to Noah. This large addition is prompted by a tendentious interpretation of the biblical story of Noah\u2019s nakedness in Gen. 9:21. This story, which reflects poorly on Noah\u2019s character, has been reinterpreted so that the key verb vayitgal (Gen. 9:21), \u201cand he uncovered himself,\u201d now refers to the divine revelation of a dream. Much of the imagery in this vision is difficult to understand, due to the fragmentary nature of the text, although it can be ascertained that col. 13 describes the felling of many trees by various natural powers, followed by col. 14, which describes Noah as a cedar, and his sons as offshoots of that cedar. The text refers to his oldest son, presumably Shem, who will not depart from his father. The entrance of some of the boughs into the first one can reasonably be understood as a reference to the unauthorized settlement of one of Noah\u2019s other sons (or their offspring) in the territory of Shem: Jub. 10:28\u201334 describes how Canaan, the son of Ham, settled in an area not assigned to him according to the divinely sanctioned division of the earth (Jub. 8\u20139), thereby resulting in his being cursed (and also justifying the later conquest of the Promised Land by the Israelites). Noah\u2019s vision shares some motifs with other roughly contemporary revelations. Thus, for example, Daniel 4 relates to the chopping down of a high, proud tree as representing the disgrace of the proud king (Nebuchadnezzar or Nabonidus). While the precise meaning of all the elements in the vision is very difficult to ascertain, it is possible that the felling of the many trees refers to the Flood, which entailed the annihilation of the entire human race, except for Noah and his family. Following that destruction, the survivors, with Noah represented by a cedar and his offspring as boughs of the tree, are the \u201cfamily tree\u201d from which the peoples of the world emerged (cf. Gen. 10). The dream concludes with the representation of God as a divine warrior, emerging from the south in order to confound the enemies of his people. This imagery is adopted from biblical theophany scenes (cf., e.g., Deut. 33:2; Hab. 3:3).<\/p>\n
Columns 16\u201317<\/p>\n
These columns describe the division of the world among Noah\u2019s sons, and are parallel to the description in Jub. 8:11\u20139:15. Both of these geographical descriptions reflect expansions of the Table of Nations found in Gen. 10, which offers a genealogy of the nations of the world as the descendants of Noah following the Flood. For an extensive discussion of the geopolitical background of this world map and its possible connection to contemporary geographical descriptions, see Machiela.<\/p>\n
Columns 19\u201322<\/p>\n
These columns, which include all of the Abram material found in the Apocryphon, are in a far better state of preservation than the rest of the scroll. These columns were therefore among the columns published by Yadin and Avigad, and were and will continue to be among the passages most ripe for discussion by scholars. This high level of preservation, coupled with their relative similarity to the narrative in Gen. 12\u201315, allows for a close comparison with the biblical text as well as an exploration of the exegetical motivations underlying many of the changes from the biblical text. Most of these columns present an account of what happened to Abram and Sarai in Gen. 12\u201315. The retelling of Gen. 12\u201313 is somewhat expansive and exhibits numerous differences from the biblical narratives, while that of Gen. 14 and the preserved portions of Gen. 15 are relatively close to the source text. The difference between these two sections also expresses itself in the perspective from which each is written: first-person narration until col. 21, 22 (parallel to Gen. 12\u201313), and third person from 21, 23 until the end of col. 22.
\n19:7\u20138. There I invoked the [name of] G[od] and I said, \u201cYou are \u2026 eternal Parallel to Gen. 12:8. As is common in exegetical texts from this period, the content of the prayer to God, which is not explicit in the biblical text, has been added by a later author (the text of the prayer here is fragmentary).
\n19:8. Holy Mountain Refers to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. While it is possible that in this context it might refer to the mountain of Bethel, its purpose here would then be unclear. A comparison of the commandments to Abraham in Gen. 12 and 22 (the Akedah) may suggest a possible explanation. In each of these instances and employing identical language, Abraham is commanded by God to go to a location not yet specified. In Gen. 12:1, it is to an unnamed land, while in 22:2, it is to the land of Moriah on a mountain to be specified by God. According to the tradition found in 2 Chron. 3:1 (perhaps already present in Gen. 22:14), the mountain on which it took place was the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Ancient interpreters noted the linguistic similarity between the commandments in Gen. 12 and 22, and it is suggestive that the Apocryphon connects the two as well. Perhaps this author viewed the commandment in Gen. 22 as the continuation of that in Gen. 12\u2014while the first was fulfilled by Abram\u2019s migration to Canaan with his family, it was only completed when he arrived at the Holy Mountain ready to sacrifice his son Isaac.
\n19:9\u201310. went until I reached Hebron, and [at that time] Hebron was built. And I lived [th]ere [two yea]rs The biblical text (Gen. 12:9) notes that Abram journeyed southward but does not indicate a specific locale. While the two-year period has been reconstructed here, it has been preserved explicitly in 22:28. A similar two-year sojourn in Hebron is mentioned in Jub. 13:10. This additional information is perhaps patterned along the national story of Israel\u2019s enslavement and Exodus from Egypt (cf. the comparison of the two narratives by R. Phineas in Gen. Rab. 40). Jacob and his clan lived in Hebron before descending to Egypt in the second of seven years of famine. For a continuation of this motif, see below for the period of five years prior to Sarai\u2019s abduction by the Pharaoh. The building of Hebron at this time is based on Num. 13:22, which dates this as seven years prior to the establishment of the Egyptian city of Zoan, mentioned in the commentary to l. 22 below. Sarai\u2019s abduction would thus have occurred at the time of the founding of Zoan.
\n19:10. Now there was a famine in all of this land, and I heard that there was g[rai]n in Egypt Genesis 12 does not explain why Abram and Sarai chose to go specifically to Egypt during the famine. The reason given here reflects a direct borrowing of Gen. 42:2, which explains why Jacob sent his sons to Egypt.
\n19:11. the Carmon River The precise identity of this body of water, which demarcates the boundary between Canaan and Egypt, is unclear. Avigad and Yadin suggest that it is the same as Qeramyon mentioned in M. Parah 8:10 and B. BB 74b, the latter of which specifically describes it as one of the rivers surrounding the Land of Israel.
\n19:12. the seven heads of this river Greek writers roughly contemporaneous to the Apocryphon similarly describe seven \u201cmouths\u201d of the Nile River.
\n19:14. And I, Abram, dreamt a dream on the night that I entered the land of Egypt The addition of a dream, perceived in antiquity as a form of divine communication, offers a justification for Abram\u2019s seemingly selfish behavior in the biblical story. Instead of presenting him as an opportunist who is willing to endanger his wife to save his own skin, this interpreter has now transformed Abram into a prophet who received a divine warning about this impending danger. Furthermore, according to the content of the dream, Sarai, represented by the palm tree, is the one who raises her concerns over possible harm to Abram, represented by the cedar tree, and not Abram himself.
\n19:14\u201315. cedar tree and a palm tree \u2026 together from [one] roo[t] The combination of a cedar and a palm is based on Ps. 92:13, in which they are used as metaphors for the righteous. An identical intertextual connection between the Abram\/Sarai story and Ps. 92:13 is later found in Rabbinic literature (Gen. Rab. 40).
\n19:20. that I may live for your sake and my life will be spared on your account In contrast to Gen. 12:13, \u201cthat things may go well for me on your behalf,\u201d which suggests that Abram would acquire wealth from Pharaoh due to his supposed relationship with Sarai (a proposition confirmed in v. 16), here Abram\u2019s request is limited to the domain of her helping to save his life.
\n19:22. Pharaoh Zo[an] Zoan is a city in Egypt mentioned seven times in the Bible, although never juxtaposed with the name Pharaoh. Its introduction here is most probably related to the mention of Hebron, which according to Num. 13:22 was built seven years prior to Zoan (cf. also Jub. 13:12).
\n19:23. that no [man] should see her [for five year]s, and at the end of those five years An identical five-year period is found in Jub. 13:11. This five-year period possibly reflects a midrashic tendency to paint the story of Abram and Sarai\u2019s descent to Egypt with the colors of the national descent and subjugation prior to the Exodus (see comment on 19.9\u201310 above). According to Gen. 45:6, Joseph invited Jacob and his family to come to Egypt after two years of famine, with five more years left to go. The Torah thus describes a two-year period during which Jacob\u2019s family was still in Canaan (Hebron), followed by five-year period in which they were in Egypt before their eventual subjugation at the hands of Pharaoh, while the Apocryphon added a two-year sojourn in Canaan, followed by five years in Egypt, after which Sarai was abducted by the Egyptian monarch.
\n19:24. three men from the nobles of Egypt Isaiah refers to the foolishness of \u201cthe nobles of Tanis\/Zoan, the sagest of Pharaoh\u2019s advisors\u201d (19:11, 13), who are sure of their own wisdom but will eventually be disgraced (30:4).
\nmy words and my wisdom, and they gave [me] Although the text is missing the object specifying what they gave him, it is logical to assume that they rewarded him for his pedagogical services. These payments were made prior to Sarai\u2019s abduction, leaving no room for concern that Abram became rich as the result of Pharaoh paying him for his wife\/sister.
\n19:25. so I read before them the book of the words of Enoch Enoch was considered one of the great figures of Judaism in antiquity, with a broad and extensive body of literature surrounding this enigmatic character (see esp. 1 Enoch). References to a \u201cbook of Enoch\u201d are found elsewhere in Jewish literature from this period, although here the Apocryphon is referring more to Enochic traditions in general and not to a specific composition.
\n20:1\u20138 This head-to-toe description of Sarai\u2019s extraordinary beauty by Pharaoh\u2019s advisors serves as a poetic expansion of Gen. 12:14\u201315.
\n20:9. and was about to kill me This outcome is the fulfilment of Abram\u2019s dream from col. 19, according to which the sole purpose of Abram\u2019s claiming that Sarai was his sister was to save his life. This stands in contrast to Gen. 12:16, where Abram is rewarded financially because of his relationship with Sarai.
\n20:11. with Lot, my brother\u2019s son Lot does not play any role in the biblical story of the descent to Egypt, and is in fact not mentioned anywhere in the short story in the Masoretic Text of Gen. 12:10\u201320 (although he did accompany Abram and Sarai to Canaan in Gen. 12:5 and out of Egypt in 13:1 [and 12:20 according to the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint]).
\n20:12\u201316. That night I prayed, entreated and asked for mercy The biblical story does not include any reference to a prayer in this context. The placement of prayers in the mouths of biblical characters is common in Jewish literature in antiquity.
\n20:16. That night God Most High sent a spirit of affliction God\u2019s response to the situation is seemingly the result of Abram\u2019s prayer.
\n20:17. so that he was unable to touch her, nor did he have intercourse with her This addition in the retold version of this story has been influenced by the similar detail in the narrative in Gen. 20:4 (regarding Sarah and Abimelech).
\n20:17\u201318. though she was with him for two years In this version of events, Pharaoh\u2019s afflictions continued for an extended period of two years until they intensified and became unbearable, similar to the plagues in the time of the Exodus. The chronological framework of Jub. 13:11\u201316 also assumes that two years passed from the time Sarai was taken until she and Abram departed Egypt (they arrived in Egypt in the third year of the seventh week of the 40th jubilee\u20141956 from the Creation; Sarai was taken by Pharaoh after five years, i.e., in the first year of the first week of the 41st jubilee\u20141961; Abram and Sarai departed from Egypt and returned to Canaan in the third year of that same week\u20141963).
\n20:18\u201321 The motif of the successful Israelite\/Jewish courtier in competition with Gentile wise men is also found in the Hebrew Bible. The formulation in the Apocryphon combines elements from the Daniel narratives, particularly the inclusion of magicians among the wise men. However, the strongest basis for influence appears once again to be the influence of the Exodus story on the \u201cmini\u201d-Exodus in the time of Abram (cf. esp. Exod. 9:11 in which the hartummim, \u201csorcerers,\u201d were unable to withstand the effects of the plague of boils).
\n20:21\u201322 The motif of Abram praying for the welfare of the afflicted king is borrowed from the similar story in Gen. 20:6\u20137, 17. While God also appeared in a dream there in order to suggest that Abraham pray on the king\u2019s behalf, in that story He also revealed to Abimelech that Sarah was Abraham\u2019s wife.
\n20:22\u201323. Now Lot said to him, \u201cMy uncle Abram cannot pray for the king while Sarai his wife is with him\u201d The biblical story does not explain how Pharaoh became aware that Sarai was Abram\u2019s wife. To fill this interpretive vacuum, the Apocryphon took advantage of Lot\u2019s implied presence in Egypt with Abram and Sarai (see comment to 19. 11 above). The prerequisite that Sarai needed to leave Pharaoh before Abram could pray on the king\u2019s behalf is implied in the order of clauses in Gen. 20:7.
\n20:29\u201330. Then the king arose and gave me \u2026 many gift[s] Gen. 20:17 also records that Abraham received gifts after the king discovered that Sarai was his wife. This offers an alternative legitimate explanation of Abram\u2019s amassing of wealth before departing Egypt\u2014not due to his having taken advantage of his relationship with Sarai.
\n20:30\u201331. Then he re[turned] Sarai to me and the king gave her [mu]ch [silver and g]old, and much raiment of fine linen and purple Gen. 12 mentions the bestowal of gifts only on Abram but not Sarai. The origins of this addition may lie in the interpretation of a difficult verse in Gen. 20 that immediately follows Sarah\u2019s return to Abraham and his receiving of gifts from Abimelech: \u201cAnd to Sarah he said, \u2018I herewith give your brother a thousand pieces of silver; and it will be for you a kesut enayim [and] for all who are with you\u2019 \u201d (v. 16). While this phrase is probably meant to be interpreted metaphorically as a \u201cdeclaration of virtue,\u201d the more common meaning of the term kesut in Biblical Hebrew is in reference to clothing. Thus the medieval exegete Radak interprets this verse as referring to garments that Abraham was to purchase for Sarah and her maidservants. Following the tendency throughout this section in the Apocryphon to harmonize the accounts in Gen. 12 and 20, perhaps a tradition that was created in the reading of the latter then influenced the former.
\n20:32. and even to Hagar Alternatively, \u201cand even Hagar.\u201d Hagar is first mentioned in Gen. 16:1 as Sarai\u2019s Egyptian maidservant. She is included here as foreshadowing in anticipation of that refer-ence. Furthermore, maidservants are mentioned among the list of riches that Abram amassed while in Egypt (Gen. 12:16).
\n21:1. everywhere that I (had) encamped until I reached Beth El The formulation of Gen. 13:3\u20134 mirrors 12:8\u20139 as Abram and his family return to Beth El. The rewritten version expands this parallel to include all the encampments along the way (cf. also Gen. Rab. 41:3).
\nand I built it for a second time Gen. 13:4 notes that Abram returned to where he had built the altar \u201cat first\u201d (parallel to \u201cformerly\u201d in v. 3), but does not mention that the altar underwent any change. The Apocryphon, however, views this reference to a \u201cfirst\u201d time as a contrast to a rebuilding of the altar.
\n21:2. and I offered upon it burnt offerings and a meal offering to God Most High If Abram built an altar, then it is only logical that he offered sacrifices on it; cf. similarly l. 20 below and Jub. 13:16.
\n21:5\u20137. After that day, Lot parted from me on account of our shepherds \u2026 I was unhappy that Lot, my brother\u2019s son, had left me In the biblical account, Abram suggests that he and Lot split up due to the friction between their shepherds (Gen. 13:8\u20139). The Apocryphon version places all the blame for their separation on Lot\u2019s shoulders. Cf. Jub. 13:17\u201318, which explains Abram\u2019s grief as due to the lack of children of his own.
\n21:6. I added a great deal to what he already had This general statement about Abram\u2019s generosity to Lot allows for the additional detail in 22:1\u20132 that the person who reported Lot\u2019s capture to Abram was a shepherd Abram had given to him.
\nthere he bought a house for himself Lot\u2019s purchase of a home in Sodom foreshadows the story of the destruction of the city in Gen. 19. At the same time, the rewritten story here makes no mention of the problematic and sinful nature of the residents of Sodom (as in Gen. 13:13).
\n21:8. God appeared to me in a night vision and said to me, \u201cGo up to Ramat Hazor\u201d God\u2019s promise to Abram in Gen. 13:14\u201317 is presented as a night vision. Abram is commanded to ascend a mountain and view the Promised Land in the same way that Moses was to do so some generations later (Deut. 3:27). Ramat Hazor near Bethel is probably the same Hazor as in Neh. 11:33.
\n21:11\u201312. from the River of Egypt to Lebanon and Senir \u2026 to the east of Hauran and Senir up to the Euphrates The borders of the Promised Land here do not correspond to the details found in any single biblical description, but rather are a composite of various biblical sources. The list is bounded by the river of Egypt and the Euphrates, which match the covenantal promise to Abram in Gen. 15:18. The desert and Lebanon (along with the Euphrates) were promised to Israel as part of the description of the land in Moses\u2019s farewell address (Deut. 11:24; see also Josh. 1:4). Senir was an alternate name for Hermon (Deut. 3:9). The Hermon and Lebanon together form the Land\u2019s northern boundary. The Great Sea is the biblical term for the Mediterranean Sea, which bounds the land. Hauran is mentioned in the list of borders in Ezekiel\u2019s vision of the ideal land (Ezek. 47:16, 18) and refers to an area east of the Jordan River and south of the Hermon. Gebal could theoretically reflect one of two different locations\u2014either in the south in the land of Edom (see below l. 29) or in the north in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon (Ezek 27:9). However, the use of Gebal within the Apocryphon, and the conjunction here with Kadesh, to be identified with Kadesh-Barnea (see, e.g., Num. 34:4; Josh. 15:3), make the former more plausible.
\n21:15\u201319 The rewritten version adds Abram\u2019s fulfilment of the command in Gen. 13:17. The locations to which he travels do not match those in the promise word for word, but use contemporary (often nonbiblical) geographical references to describe the contours of the land.
\n21:21\u201322. and I sent to call Mamre and Ernam and Eshkol \u2026 and they ate together with me and drank with me The addition of these three characters at this point in the narrative serves to anticipate their explicit mention in Gen. 14:13 as allies of Abram, and in 14:24 as being among those who went out to battle with Abram. The Apocryphon describes them as friends of Abram even prior to the battle of Gen. 14. Cf. below, col. 22, ll.6\u20137, and ll.23\u201324 for the continuation of this motif.
\n21:23. Before those days The story parallels the war of the kings in Gen. 14. The chronological connection at the beginning of the chapter indicates that the story of Gen. 14 began prior to the conclusion of the story told in Gen. 13.
\nChedarlaomer, the king of Elam is placed at the head of the list here since he is presented as the leader of the other kings in Gen. 14:4\u20135. The rewriter has updated the biblical place names to \u201cBabylon \u2026 Cappadocia\u201d to reflect current usage. \u201cTiral\u201d is attested here in the LXX (Targal), Peshitta, and Jubilees, against the masoretic Tidal.
\n21:25. Shemiabad The name of the king according to the Samaritan Pentateuch of Gen. 14:2.
\n21:26\u201327. they imposed a tribute upon them \u2026 paid their tribute This offers an interpretation of Gen. 14:4, according to which \u201cthey served\u201d Chedarlaomer for 12 years.
\n21:29. Zumzummim, who were in Ammon The description of the Zuzim of Gen. 14:5 has been supplemented by Deut. 2:20: \u201cRephaim, whom the Ammonites call Zammzumim.\u201d
\nthe mountains of Gebal Seir of Gen. 14:6 is identified with Gebal. The same identification is found in Targum Neofiti, Fragment Targum (ms V), and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Cf. also Ps. 83:7\u20138, and the discussion in 21, 11 above.
\n21:32\u201333. The king of Sodom was defeated and fled and the king of Gomorrah fell According to Gen 14:10, the kings of Sodom and Gemorrah fell into the bitumen pits, which were numerous in the area, while the other kings succeeded in escaping. Subsequently in the chapter, however, the king of Sodom appears to Abraham unharmed (Gen. 14:17, 21\u201324). In order to solve this tension, the rewritten story here distinguishes between the king of Gemorrah who fell, and the king of Sodom who was defeated but was able to flee. The identical distinction is found in Jub. 13:22; for additional attempts to solve this exegetical problem, see Gen. Rab. 41; and Rashi, Radak, Ramban to this verse.
\n22:1\u20132. one of the shepherds whom Abram had given to Lot and had escaped from the captivity The identity of the anonymous \u201cfugitive,\u201d marked by a definite article in Gen 14:13, has intrigued interpreters; cf. the comment above to 21:6. Rabbinic interpretation has identified him with the giant Og based upon Deut. 3:11, where he is only one of the Rephaim to remain.
\n22:3. his brother\u2019s son Gen. 14:14, 16 both refer to Lot as \u201chis brother\u201d with the broader meaning of \u201chis kinsman.\u201d The relationship here (and in line 5) is clarified to refer to Lot as his nephew; cf. 21, l. 34 above (parallel to Gen. 14:12). For the same clarification, see Targum Neofiti and some manuscripts of Targum Onkelos to Gen. 14:14, 16.
\n22:5. Abram cried out over Lot, his brother\u2019s son, but regained his strength This expansion to the biblical text is intended to heighten Abraham\u2019s emotional concern for his nephew, and his courage in rescuing him.
\n22:6\u20137. Arnem, Eshkol and Mamre also set out with him See the comment on col. 21, lines 21\u201322.
\n22:8\u20139. from all four sides The purpose of dividing the troops in Gen. 14:15 was to attack the opposition from all directions.
\n22:10. Helbon, which is situated to the north of Damascus All versions of Gen. 14:15 read Hobah as the place until which they were pursued. The toponym Helbon appears once in the Bible, in Ezek. 27:18, which notes that its wine was traded by Damascus.
\n22:10\u201311. everyone that they had captured and everything that they had plundered, and all their valuables This list of items that Abram succeeded in rescuing is expanded vis-\u00e0-vis Gen. 14:16. It now opens with the people that had been captured, shifting the focus from the possessions found at the head of the biblical list.
\n22:13. He came to Salem\u2014that is Jerusalem Commentators have noted the abrupt shifts in Abraham\u2019s interactions in Gen. 14, starting with the king of Sodom in the Valley of Shaveh (v. 17), then moving to Melchizedek king of Salem (18\u201320), and then back to the king of Sodom (21\u201324). The addition of the king of Sodom\u2019s arrival in Salem\/Jerusalem is intended to mitigate this tension. A similar tradition is perhaps reflected in the Aramaic Targumim to Gen. 14:17. The identification of Salem with Jerusalem is already present in Ps. 76:3, the only other instance in the Bible where this toponym appears. All of the Aramaic Targumim to Gen. 14:18 replace Salem with Jerusalem.
\n22:15. food and drink for Abram, and all of the people with him According to Gen. 14:18, the priest Melchizedek brought out \u201cbread and wine\u201d followed by a blessing, without specifying a human recipient for the food, perhaps indicating a ritual context; cf. also Gen. Rab. 43; Rashi (midrasho). The Apocryphon interprets these food items to be nourishment for the famished warriors returning from battle; cf. similarly Ant. I.10.2; Rashi (peshuto). The extensive traditions surrounding the priestly Melchizedek in Ps. 110:4 and in early Jewish and Christian sources are not reflected in the Apocryphon.
\n22:17. Then he gave him a tenth of all of the property of the king of Elam and his companions The biblical text of Gen. 14:20 itself is ambiguous about who gave the tithe to whom (cf. e.g. the discussion of Radak). Here it is Abraham who, returning with the war spoils, offers the tithe to Melchizedek. Jub. 13:25\u201327, although fragmentary, appears to also view Abram as the one who offers the tithe, but from his firstborns and not from the booty.
\n22:21. God Most High In Abraham\u2019s response to king of Sodom in the Masoretic text of Gen 14:22 (similarly the Vulgate and the Targumim), he swears in the name of \u201cYHWH, God Most High.\u201d This contrasts with Melchizedek\u2019s use of \u201cGod Most High\u201d (Gen. 14:19). However, the LXX, Peshitta, and the Apocryphon all lack the Tetragrammaton. It was most probably added as a gloss in the version preserved in the Masoretic text by a scribe who wished to emphasize the difference between Abraham and the non-Israelite priest.
\n22:24. They have the right to give you their portion This is a reformulation of Gen 14:24\u2014the portion belongs to them and they can do with it as they see fit.
\n22:24\u201326. So Abram returned all the goods \u2026 from that land and sent them all off The rewritten version adds Abraham\u2019s fulfilment of his vow to the king of Sodom; see above the comment on 21:15\u201319.
\n22:27\u201329. Behold, ten years have now elapsed \u2026 one since you returned from Egypt The period of ten years has been adopted from Gen. 16:3 and transferred to the opening of the \u201cCovenant between the Pieces\u201d (parallel to Gen. 15). The latter has no date in the biblical text, and perhaps the scribe responsible for introducing it here wished to anchor the promise of salvation after 400 years to a specific starting point. The chronological summary here refers back to and expands the data discussed previously; see the comments above on col. 19, lines 9\u201310 and 23\u201324. The patriarchs did not depart from Egypt immediately after the five-year period during which Sarai was with Pharaoh, but remained there for another two years. For an identical ten-year period, see Jub. 13:8\u201316; 14:1.
\n22:29\u201330. Now, inspect and count everything that you have and see how many times they have multiplied over all that left with you on the day you left Haran God\u2019s beneficence to Abraham since his departure from Haran, the fulfilment of His blessings and promises (Gen 12:1\u20133; 13:16), reassures Abraham that this covenant will also come to fruition.<\/p>\n
Admonition Based on the Flood<\/p>\n
Alex P. Jassen<\/p>\n
The Admonition Based on the Flood (scroll 4Q370) consists of two fragmentary columns. Column 1 is a prose narrative recounting the Flood and the events leading up to it. It begins by describing the agricultural abundance in which God created the world. In return, he demanded that humans properly acknowledge this bounty by blessing God (and presumably remaining obedient). The text reports that humans instead did evil and rebelled against God, and then God punished them by bringing the Flood. What follows is a reformulation of portions of the Flood story of Gen. 6\u20139. Column 2 of 4Q370 is extremely fragmentary and therefore difficult to decipher with certainty. It contains several statements regarding human sin and redemption as well as the transient nature of human life. It concludes with an exhortation not to rebel against God\u2019s words.
\nThe two columns are very different in their content and literary style. We cannot know for certain what preceded or followed the fragmentary remains of each column or if the content of these two columns is related. Several factors suggest that they are intended to be read together. The story of the Flood in column 1 is employed as a historical example of the disastrous results of human sin and disobedience to God. This example is reinforced in column 2 by references to the ephemeral character of human life. The author then draws upon the historical example to exhort the reader to remain faithful to God. The specific language of the admonition in column 2 (line 9, \u201cDo not rebel\u201d) brings the reader back to the very first act of collective human insolence in column 1 (line 2, \u201cand they rebelled against God\u201d). The use of historical examples for exhortation and admonition is a technique well known in biblical and Jewish literature. See, for example, Deut. 1\u20133; Ps. 78; 105; 106; Neh. 9; 3 Macc. 2:1\u201320; 6:1\u201315; and the Damascus Document 1\u20138, 19\u201320 (the Flood example, however, is not found in any of these sources).<\/p>\n
Authorship and History<\/p>\n
The text of 4Q370 was most likely not composed by the Qumran community. It lacks any explicit sectarian language and freely employs the Tetragrammaton (the four-letter name of God, which was generally avoided in sectarian writings). In addition to literary correspondence with other Second Temple texts, it contains many themes and ideas prevalent in Judaism at the time. In particular, 4Q370 contains many points of contact with Second Temple Wisdom traditions, and two of the textual overlaps are with Wisdom texts (Hymn to the Creator and 4Q185, Sapiential Work). Based on this evidence, 4Q370 was probably composed sometime in the late Second Temple period, perhaps within Wisdom circles.
\nWhat remains of the Admonition is one Hebrew fragment (10 \u00d7 19 cm) containing two columns, found in Qumran Cave 4. Its date of composition is unknown. The manuscript is written in a late Hasmonean-era semiformal script, which suggests that the manuscript was copied around the second half of the 1st century BCE. It is not clear, however, how much earlier the text was composed. Several portions contain literary parallels with other Second Temple writings (see below). The direction of influence, however, is not always certain. Moreover, many of the parallel texts are themselves difficult to date.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Several textual parallels with biblical and Second Temple literature appear within 4Q370. In the case of the biblical literature, the author has clearly reformulated this material. In the case of similarities between 4Q370 and certain works from Second Temple literature, it is not always clear which text came first.
\nThe text\u2019s opening reference to the Earth\u2019s agricultural abundance is an expansion of a passage from the Hymn to the Creator, a hymn praising God as creator that is found in the Cave 11 Psalms Scroll (11QPs 26:9\u201315). This hymn contains several Wisdom elements. That 4Q370 expands the Hymn suggests that the former is a reformulation of the latter.
\nCarol Newsom has highlighted several textual parallels between 4Q370 and Ezek. 36:19\u201320, 30\u201331, 36. Ezekiel 36 describes divine punishment for human misdeeds and the restoration of Israel to its land and its renewed enjoyment of the land\u2019s abundant bounty. Both themes figure prominently in 4Q370\u2019s rewriting of the Flood narrative.
\nThe majority of column 1 is a retelling of the Flood story in poetic parallelism. The basic structuring elements and many of the details follow the text of the Flood account in Gen. 6\u20139. Additional details not found in Genesis are drawn from inner biblical references to the Flood, related biblical imagery, and Second Temple traditions. Slight variations from the book of Genesis are likely the result of the author quoting the text from memory or using a textual tradition different from the Masoretic Text, although several exegetical modifications can be found. The Flood story is not merely summarized; rather, the author emphasizes the particular aspects of the story that are useful for the text\u2019s larger didactic purposes. For example, Noah is completely ignored throughout the text. The reformulation of the story focuses on the nature of human apostasy and the disastrous results of this disobedience. Including details about Noah would reorient the story to one of human righteousness and salvation.
\nThe second half of column 2 (4Q370 2:5\u20139) contains significant textual overlaps with 4Q185 1\u20132 i\u2013ii (Sapiential Work). 4Q185 exhorts its audience to faithful obedience by appealing to the example of God\u2019s mighty deeds during the Exodus. Although only the first few overlapping words are preserved in 4Q370, it seems likely that the remainder of the lines contained further material from 4Q185. The admonition in column 2 of 4Q370 therefore contains its own historical example (the Exodus) while simultaneously referring back to the example of the Flood in column 1, to instill a sense of obedience in the audience. The few textual differences indicate that these manuscripts are not multiple copies of the same text. Rather, one text has slightly adapted the other, though it is not clear which text came first.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, Ariel. \u201cThe Reworking of the Biblical Flood Story in 4Q370.\u201d Hen 29:1 (2007): 31\u201349.
\nGarc\u00eda Mart\u00ednez, Florentino, and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. Interpretations of the Flood. Themes in Biblical Narrative 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
\nJassen, Alex P. \u201cA New Suggestion for the Reconstruction of 4Q370 1 i 2 and the Blessing of the Most High (Elyon) in Second Temple Judaism.\u201d DSD 17:1 (2010): 88\u2013113.
\nLewis, Jack P. A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
\nNewsom, Carol A. \u201c370. 4QAdmonition Based on the Flood.\u201d In Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, edited by M. Broshi et al., in consultation with J. C. VanderKam, 85\u201397. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201c4Q370: An Admonition Based on the Flood.\u201d RevQ 13 (1988): 23\u201343.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1:1 This line is not the beginning of the composition, but what preceded it is not certain on account of the fragmentary nature of the manuscript.
\nupon them That is, upon the mountains.
\nHe crowned \u2026 good fruit Describes the state of agricultural abundance in which God created the world and in which it continued to exist until the Flood. No such notice is found in the Creation account in Genesis. This entire clause adapts a passage from the Hymn to the Creator:<\/p>\n
Hymn 1. Crowning the mountains with produce,
\n4Q370 1:1. He crowned the mountains with produce<\/p>\n
Hymn 2. Good food [\u2019okhel tov] for all living beings
\n4Q370 1:2a. He poured out food [\u2019okhel] upon them,
\n1:2b. And with good fruit [ufri tov] He satisfied all.<\/p>\n
The most notable element is the reformulation of the phrase \u201cgood food\u201d in the Hymn to the Creator, such that in 4Q370 each of these words appears in a separate clause with its own verb of divine action.
\nAll who shall do my will This clause may also be understood as modifying the preceding clause. Namely, the \u201call\u201d (kol) who are satisfied are only \u201call\u201d (kol) who do God\u2019s will.
\nlet them eat and be satisfied This clause seems initially to have been omitted by the scribe and thus was added above the line on the manuscript.
\nL[o]rd Second Temple texts generally avoid the use of the Tetragrammaton. 4Q370 freely employs it.
\n1:2. and they shall bless The theme of blessing God as creator of earthly bounty is common in biblical and Jewish tradition. The language of 4Q370 draws upon Deut. 8:10: \u201cWhen you have eaten your fill, give thanks to (lit. bless) the LORD your God for the good land which He has given you.\u201d By drawing upon Deuteronomy, 4Q370 creates an equivalency between the Land of Israel and the Earth at the time of Creation. Both are imbued by God with overwhelming agricultural abundance for humans to enjoy. Proper acknowledgment of God\u2019s favor is the requirement for enjoying this bounty.
\nBless the name of [the Most Hig]h Deut. 8:10 serves as the scriptural source in Rabbinic tradition for the requirement to recite the Grace after Meals (Birkat ha-Mazon). The practice of reciting a thanksgiving prayer after meals was already known in the Second Temple period, and several sources contain close parallels to the later formalized text of the Rabbinic Grace after Meals. The divine name \u201cMost High\u201d (Elyon) often appears as the object of praise and blessing in the Second Temple period. In this capacity, the exhortation to bless \u201cthe LORD your God\u201d in Deut. 8:10 is reoriented in Second Temple thanksgiving prayers after meals to indicate the blessing of the \u201cMost High\u201d God (Elyon). This formulation reflects the growing disuse of the Tetragrammaton in liturgical practice (in contrast to the free use of the Tetragrammaton in 4Q370).
\nand behold, they then Newsom notes that the extreme awkwardness of the syntax here may be a deliberate attempt to shock the reader and place more emphasis on the human sin.
\nevil Presumably, they failed to follow the divine directions provided in the previous line and therefore did not properly acknowledge God for the bounty He provided. The idea of preventing the Flood by blessing God is not found in other Second Temple or Rabbinic literature. In 1 Enoch, however, at the behest of his father, Enoch blesses God in an attempt to preserve a small remnant of survivors after the Flood (1 En. 83\u201384).
\nthey rebelled against God with their a[cti]ons Human insolence extends beyond merely failing to bless God. Deut. 8:10 mandates blessing as acknowledgment for the divine bounty, not for its own sake. Failure to do so will inevitably result in the gradual disregard of God and the covenant (vv. 11\u201318), followed by the embracing of other gods (v. 19). These actions, stresses Deuteronomy\u2019s author, will result in the eventual exile of the people from the land (v. 20) and the loss of all its abundant resources, a scenario that plays itself out in Neh. 9:25\u201327 with identical language. The text of 4Q370 indicates that the early generations of humanity followed this same pattern. Their failure to acknowledge God for the agricultural bounty they enjoyed eventually led to their complete abandonment of God, precipitating the divine response of the Flood. The explanation provided by 4Q370 for the Flood (abundance \u2192 forgetting God \u2192 sin \u2192 Flood) is likewise found in Rabbinic literature as one of the primary explanations for the Flood.
\n1:3. the LORD judged Genesis never employs such formal language of divine judgment. The combination of divine judgment in response to sinful human \u201caction\u201d (\u2018alila) and \u201cways\u201d (derakhim) is common in the prophetic censure of Israel. The specific language employed here seems to draw upon Ezek. 36:19: \u201cI scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries: I punished them in accordance with their ways and their deeds.\u201d Moreover, Ezek 36:20 asserts that Israel \u201ccaused My holy name to be profaned\u201d while in exile, the exact opposite of the blessing of the divine name required in the previous line of 4Q370. The larger section of Ezekiel prophesies that the exiled Israel will be restored to its land, where it will once again enjoy abundant bounty (vv. 29\u201330). This corresponds to the earlier theme in 4Q370 of a twofold equivalency between the Land of Israel and Earth at creation, and between exile from the land and the Flood.
\naccording to \u2026 according to The divine response is not capricious, but commensurate with the wrongdoing of humanity (see also Jub. 5:11).
\naccording to the thoughts of the [evil] inclination of their heart Follows Gen. 6:5. Genesis, however, never explicitly states that humans\u2019 evil inclination developed into actual evil activity. The reformulation of Gen. 6:5 together with the previous clause at 4Q370 1:3 (\u201caccording to a[l]l their ways\u201d) makes this point explicit and therefore fully justifies the divine response (cf. L.A.B. 3:3).
\nthundered The imagery of divine thunder (r-\u2018-m) is not employed in the account of the Flood in Genesis 7. This imagery is found in biblical poetic descriptions of God vanquishing Israel\u2019s enemies and in more general descriptions of God\u2019s awesome might. The application of this divine imagery to the Flood may be influenced by Ps. 29:3: \u201cthe God of glory thunders [hir\u2018im], the LORD, over the mighty waters.\u201d Ps. 18:14\u201316 (with its parallel 2 Sam. 22:14\u201316) also describes how \u201cThen the LORD thundered [vayar\u2018em] from heaven \u2026 \/ The ocean bed was exposed; the foundations of the world were laid bare by Your mighty roaring [miga\u2018aratekha], O LORD.\u201d
\nstrength In the Bible, divine thunder is more commonly described as occurring with God\u2019s voice.
\n1:3\u20134. All the foundations of the ea[rth] shook This imagery is not found in the account of the Flood in Genesis 7. The allusion to the Flood in Isa. 24:18 describes how the \u201csluices are opened on high, \/ And earth\u2019s foundations tremble.\u201d See also Prov. 8:29: \u201cWhen He assigned the sea its limits, \/ So that its waters never transgress His command; \/ When He fixed the foundations of the earth.\u201d In this verse, \u201cassigned the sea its limits\u201d is parallel to \u201cfixed the foundations of the earth.\u201d Thus, the removal of the sea\u2019s limits through a Flood simultaneously eliminates the Earth\u2019s foundations.
\n[Wa]ters broke from the depths Minimal reformulation of Gen. 7:11a.
\nAll the windows of the sky opened This language parallels the end of Gen. 7:11 (see also Isa. 24:18; cf. Deut. 28:12).
\n1:4\u20135. All the de[pths] overflowed [with] mighty waters. The windows of the sky p[our]ed out rain A reformulation of Gen. 7:11 and an exegetical expansion of 7:12. Gen. 7:11 (and its reproduction here in 4Q370) describes the opening of two sources of rain\u2014the great \u201cdepth\u201d (tehom) and heavenly \u201cwindows\u201d (\u2018arubbot). Gen. 7:12 reports that the rain (geshem) fell for 40 days and 40 nights. Following its own parallel structure, 4Q370 produces a twofold account of the floodwaters that describes how the same two sources (tehomot; \u2018arubbot) poured forth with rain (mayim; matar).
\n1:5. all of them Likely preceded by some additional verb of death or destruction. Genesis continues by describing Noah and his family entering the ark and therefore surviving the Flood (7:13\u201316). But in the extant text of 4Q370, Noah is completely ignored.
\nfor it crossed over This entire line is fragmentary and difficult to reconstruct. The subject could be God (i.e., \u201cHe passed over\u201d). There may be an allusion to Isa. 28:14\u201315, where \u201cmen of mockery\u201d maintain a false hope that their pact with Death\/Sheol will save them \u201cWhen the sweeping Flood passes through (ki \u2018avar).\u201d This would reinforce the claim that everyone died in the Flood (cf. Gen. Rab. 38:6).
\n1:6. Therefore The narrative resumes following Gen. 7:21\u201323.
\nall everything wh[ich was on] dry land Echoes Gen. 7:22b.
\nHumankind and [beast, and all] birds, every winged thing Paraphrases Gen. 7:23. See also Gen. 7:14: \u201cevery bird, every winged thing\u201d (wekhol tzippor kol kenaf) (cf. Gen. 6:20 LXX).
\n[wiped out] \u2026 d[ie]d Following Gen. 7:22\u201323, we would expect the first clause to have the verbal root m-w-t (\u201cto die\u201d) and the second clause, m-w-h (\u201cto be wiped out\u201d). The first lacuna is too long for this reconstruction (and an initial nun is extant on the manuscript). Newsom therefore suggests that the two biblical verbs of death are inverted in 4Q370.
\nGi[an]ts The offspring of the sons of angels and the human women in Gen. 6:1\u20134. Also identified (v. 4) as Nephilim. (See LXX, Tg. Onk., Tg. Neof. at Gen 6:4; 1QapGen 2:1; Gen. Rab. 26:7; cf. Num. 33:11.)
\ndid not escape Addresses the exegetical problem presented by the report in Gen. 7:21\u201323 that all humans and earthly creatures perished in the Flood. What of the half-human, half-angelic Giants? Like several other Second Temple traditions, 4Q370 emphasizes that they too died in the Flood. In Rabbinic literature only Og (and Sihon according to some traditions) survived from among the Giants.
\n1:7 The beginning of line 7 is too fragmentary for any reconstruction. It may contain some reference to the cessation of the floodwaters. The central role of Noah (see Gen. 8) is omitted from the story.
\n[a sign of the covenant] Reconstructed based on Gen. 9:13 (see also Gen 9:12 for the same term). His bow He set [in the cloud Echoes Gen. 9:13, although Genesis has God speaking in the first person while 4Q370 preserves a third-person narrative.
\nso] that He would remember the covenant Echoes Gen. 9:16. In 4Q370, the paraphrase of the rainbow covenant selects the universalistic passages in Genesis while excluding those referring to Noah and his family.
\n1:8 The beginning of line 8 is too fragmentary for reconstruction. There may be some mention of the participants in the covenant as in Gen. 9:17.
\nfloodwaters This expression (me mabul) appears only in Gen. 9:11. The entire phrase, however, draws on the similar expression mayim lemabul in Gen. 9:15: \u201cso that the waters shall never again become a flood.\u201d
\nThe rumbling of waters [shall not be lo]osed Following its pattern of poetic parallelism, 4Q370 introduces this clause that is not found in Genesis. The phrase \u201crumbling of water\u201d is found in Jer. 10:13 and the Hymn to the Creator (11QPs 26:10; see also 1QHa 10:16, 27; 11:14 [parallel to 4Q432 5 1], 16).
\n1:9\u201310 Line 9 is too fragmentary to provide any reconstruction. \u201cThey made\u201d is written above the line (see note on line 1: \u201clet them eat and be satisfied\u201d). The term for \u201cclouds\u201d (shekhakim) used here does not appear in Genesis. Minimal ink traces of the tops of a few letters appear on line 10, though not enough to determine the exact letters.
\n2:1. from iniquity, they will seek The verb for \u201cto seek\u201d here (d-r-sh) sometimes means \u201cto make supplication\u201d before God. Perhaps the text describes an attempt to seek redress from sin.
\n2:2. the LORD will declare innocent This text may report a positive divine response to the human actions in the previous line.
\n2:3. and He will purify them from their iniquity For this expression\u2014which refers to the divine purging of sin from humans\u2014see Jer. 33:8; Ezek. 36:33 (cf. the use of Ezek. 36 in column 1); Ps. 51:4; 1QS 3:7\u20138; 1QHa 1:32.
\n2:4. their evil, in their knowing (how to distinguish) betwee[n good and evil Newsom suggests this reconstruction based on similar language in Gen. 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22; 1 Kings 3:9. The line seems to begin in the middle of a sentence. It may describe some of the conditions necessary for the divine purification\u2014that is, recognition of one\u2019s sinfulness and the ability to distinguish between good and evil.
\n2:5\u20139 Lines 5\u20139 are parallel with 4Q185 1\u20132 i\u2013ii.
\n2:5. they spring forth \u201cThey\u201d refers to humanity. While the verb \u201cspring\u201d (s-m-h) generally refers to plant life, it is sometimes used to describe the ephemeral character of human life (Job 8:19; Sir. 14:18). The section immediately preceding the overlapping content in 4Q185 (1\u20132 i 10) employs it as part of a larger botanical metaphor illustrating human transience on earth.
\nbut like a shadow are their days o[n the earth The metaphor of a shadow to describe the fleeting nature of human life is widely employed. Parallel text in 4Q185 1\u20132 i 13: \u201cLike a shadow are his days upon the land.\u201d In 4Q185, this clause precedes an exhortation to listen to the words that follow.
\n2:6. and forevermore, He will have compassion Not in parallel text in 4Q185. See, however, Ps. 103:17: \u201cBut the LORD\u2019s steadfast love is for all eternity.\u201d The remainder of 4Q370 2:6 may therefore contain some additional elements from Ps. 103:17, which would agree with the general themes of the fragment.
\n2:7. the mighty acts of the LORD, remember the won[ders See 4Q185 1\u20132 i 13\u201314: \u201cDraw wisdom from the [m]ight of God. Remember the wonders he did in Egypt and the portents [in the land of Ham].\u201d The author of 4Q185 appeals to the historical example of the Exodus to compel the audience to follow God\u2019s will. This passage in 4Q185 reinforces the similar, more-developed appeal to the Flood example in column 1 of 4Q370.
\n2:8. on account of the dread of Him; and [your] sou[l] will rejoice See 4Q185 1\u20132 i 15\u20131\u20132 ii 1: \u201cLet your heart tremble on account of the dread of Him, and do [His will], your [so]ul [will rejoice] according to His good mercies.\u201d Recalling God\u2019s mighty actions during the Exodus (and also during the Flood) will elicit fear and therefore the desired fidelity to God.
\n2:9. those who follow you Could be understood in terms of time (i.e., those who succeed you) or in the abstract (i.e., your followers); another possible meaning is \u201cfrom the two of you.\u201d This phrase is not represented in 4Q185; cf. 4Q185 1\u20132 ii 3: \u201cfor your children after you.\u201d
\nrebel See 4Q185 1\u20132 ii 3: \u201cDo not rebel against the words of the LORD.\u201d This seems to be the climax of the preserved portion of 4Q370. The example of the Flood in column 1 and the evaluation of the passing nature of human life in column 2 are all intended to emphasize this point\u2014human fate is ultimately in the hands of God; one must therefore not transgress against the divine command. \u201cRebellion\u201d (m-r-h) is the very word employed to describe the first act of human sedition in 4Q370 1:2.<\/p>\n
Jubilees<\/p>\n
James L. Kugel<\/p>\n
The book of Jubilees is arguably the most important and influential of all the books written by Jews in the closing centures BCE. It is a treasure-house of ancient biblical interpretation, composed by an unknown author who thought deeply about the Torah and Judaism. Jubilees was prized by the Dead Sea Scrolls community; parts of no fewer than 15 manuscripts of this book were found in the caves at Qumran. But its influence certainly went beyond this group. Although Rabbinic Judaism rejected Jubilees, in part because of some of its doctrines, many of its interpretive traditions are paralleled in the Talmuds and various midrashic collections, as well as in the early poetry of the synagogue, suggesting possible influence. It also played an important role in early Christian communities, and it is thanks to them that the book has been preserved in its entirety to this day.
\nJubilees is a retelling of much of the book of Genesis and the first part of the book of Exodus. It claims to have been communicated to Moses on Mount Sinai by God\u2019s chief angel, the \u201cangel of the Presence.\u201d Moses had gone up the mountain to receive the Torah; before he could go down again, Jubilees relates, God ordered His angel to dictate another book to Moses, a dated history of events \u201caccording to the Torah and the Testimony\u201d (see below). That other book was the book of Jubilees itself. Although it retells much of the material in Genesis and Exodus, its retelling is accompanied by all sorts of new information designed to answer questions about the biblical narrative: How did humanity continue to develop if Adam and Eve had only sons? When did God decide that Israel was to be His special people? Where was Abraham when God first spoke to him? When and why was the tribe of Levi chosen for the priesthood in Israel? In addition to answering such questions, Jubilees\u2019 author sought to communicate an overall message of hope and encouragement to the Jews of his day and to urge them to follow stricter standards of morality and religious observance.<\/p>\n
Authorship and History<\/p>\n
The date of Jubilees\u2019 composition is still the subject of some debate. Most scholars believe that it was written sometime early in the 2nd century BCE, although a still earlier date is not to be ruled out. It was composed in Hebrew by a learned Jew who probably lived in or near Jerusalem. Among the Hebrew fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest has been dated (on the basis of its paleography and carbon-14 dating) to the last quarter of the 2nd century BCE.
\nDespite its early popularity, Jubilees would probably have been lost forever because of its disapproval by Rabbinic authorities, who exercised extensive control over Judaism within of the Land of Israel after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The Rabbinic prohibition on studying the \u201coutside [or \u201cheretical\u201d] books\u201d (M. Sanh. 10:1) doubtless included Jubilees on various counts. The Hebrew text of Jubilees apparently ceased to be copied and preserved by Rabbinic Jews at this time. Early Christians, however, included it within the collection of books they considered sacred, and it was soon translated into Greek and (apparently) Syriac, then the principal languages of much of the Christian world. From Greek it was translated into Latin and Ge\u2019ez (an ancient language of Ethiopia).
\nThe book was thus known in the Christian world and alluded to here and there in the writings of the church fathers. It was cited at length by three Christian writers in particular: Epiphanius of Salamis and the Byzantine chroniclers Georgius Syncellus and Georgius Cedrenus. As time went on, however, its influence waned, and the Greek and Latin translations disappeared from sight. It was only in the mid-19th century that a Christian missionary in Ethiopia, J. L. Krapff, \u201crediscovered\u201d the work in the biblical manuscripts of the Abyssinian Church and brought a copy of it to Europe, where the Semitist August Dillmann prepared a German translation (1850\u201351). Ten years later, M. Ceriani found and published a Latin manuscript containing about a third of the book. In 1989, J. C. VanderKam published a scholarly edition and translation of the Ethiopic text, noting all the important textual variants of the extant Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac fragments. His edition remains the most reliable basis for the text of Jubilees.<\/p>\n
Title of the Book<\/p>\n
\u201cJubilees\u201d was apparently not the original title of this book. The earliest reference to its title is found in the Damascus Document (col. 16:3\u20134) of the Dead Sea Scrolls community, where it appears as \u201cThe Book of the Divisions of Times according to Their Jubilees and in Their \u2018Weeks.\u2019 \u201d This title well reflects one of the book\u2019s outstanding features: its frequent assigning of a date to the events of Genesis by referring to the jubilee and year in which they took place. Thus, Cain was born \u201cin the third week of the second jubilee.\u201d The length of a jubilee is somewhat ambiguous in the Bible: according to Lev. 25:8, it is a period of 49 years, while according to Lev. 25:11, 50 years. The author of Jubilees held by the former interpretation. As a result, each jubilee divides easily into seven subgroups of seven years apiece; these subgroups are conventionally called \u201cweeks,\u201d although \u201cgroups of seven\u201d would be a more accurate translation. In asserting that Cain was born \u201cin the third week of the second jubilee,\u201d therefore, Jubilees\u2019 author means that Cain was born sometime after the world\u2019s first jubilee (years 1\u201349) plus two more \u201cweeks\u201d (years 50\u201363), but before the start of the fourth week in the year 71. In other words, Cain was born sometime between the years 64 and 70 after the Creation.
\nThe title given in the Damascus Document is not, however, the same as the title that appears in the various Ethiopic manuscripts of the book. There the title is longer and probably better reflects how the full Hebrew title read: \u201cThis is the account of the divisions of times\u2014according to the Torah and to the Testimony\u2014of the events of the years, of the weeks of their jubilees throughout all the days of yore as was related to Moses on Mount Sinai.\u201d
\nThe expression \u201caccording to the Torah and to the Testimony\u201d\u2014which also appears in Jub. 1:4\u20135, 26, 29, and later verses\u2014was an important one for the overall stance of the book. It derives from a somewhat mysterious verse in the book of Isaiah, where God says: \u201cBind up the testimony [te\u2018udah], seal up the instruction [torah] with My disciples\u201d (Isa. 8:16). Even today it is not clear what Isaiah was referring to, nor\u2014more to the point\u2014is anyone sure what the author of Jubilees meant by quoting this phrase. The word Torah certainly seemed, in Second Temple times, to refer to the Pentateuch; but what was the te\u2018udah? The author of Jubilees may have understood it to be the name of an otherwise unknown book, or he may have decided to see in the word te\u2018udah a reference to part of the book known today as 1 Enoch, which he does indeed call a te\u2018udah later on in Jubilees (see below on 4:18\u201319). Whichever the case, the author of Jubilees is asserting that his own history of patriarchal times is based on these two authoritative works, books that were mentioned in tandem by God in the time of Isaiah. By mentioning these two works, the author is, in effect, stating Jubilees\u2019 credentials: \u201cThis chronological account is based on those two sacred books mentioned by Isaiah, the Torah and the [book of] the Te\u2018udah.\u201d
\nAs for the actual word te\u2018udah, since it seemed to come from the common Hebrew root for \u201ctestify,\u201d the Greek (and consequently the Ethiopic) translators rendered it as \u201ctestimony.\u201d But the author of Jubilees probably did not wish it to be understood in that sense, nor more broadly as \u201cmessage,\u201d but rather as warning, since his own work\u2014based, as he says, on the book of the Te\u2018udah\u2014warns of the fell consequences of Israel\u2019s disobedience. For that reason, it is best to translate the te\u2018udah referred to in the title as \u201cthe [book of the] Warning.\u201d
\nOne matter deserves further clarification. Our book of Jubilees is not itself the te\u2018udah, \u201cthe [book of the] Warning.\u201d Rather, the author states clearly what Jubilees is: \u201cthe book of the divisions of times.\u201d This crucial phrase ought best to be understood as meaning a chronological history. That is to say, Jubilees is not merely a list of dates and in that sense the \u201cdivisions of the times.\u201d Rather, it is a presentation of the early history of Israel and its ancestors\u2014based, the author claims, on the historical data found in those two books, the Torah and the Te\u2018udah\u2014with dates provided for all the important events. In fact, at one point the author seems to say that Jubilees presents only a part of the great chronology that God has worked out for Israel\u2019s history; according to Jub. 1:29, the divinely arranged series of jubilees runs all the way to the eschaton, the end-time when all life will be renewed. That is why God sets out for His angel the specific limits of the history to be given to Moses: it is to run from the creation of the world until the building of the desert Tabernacle (1:27). The rest is to remain hidden.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Apart from answering specific questions about the stories of Genesis and Exodus, the author of Jubilees had a definite ideological message he wished to communicate through his book. He lived in a time when, no doubt, many of his countrymen were despairing of Israel\u2019s future. It may well be, they reasoned, that at one point God adopted Israel as His own people, just as ancient Scripture related (Exod. 19:5\u20136). But that day was long gone. In the meantime, He had allowed the Northern Kingdom of Israel to fall to the Assyrians, never to rise again; the Southern Kingdom, Judah, had similarly fallen to the Babylonians, and much of its citizenry had been exiled to Babylon. Unlike the Northerners, the Judean exiles had subsequently been allowed to return to their homeland, but they were nonetheless a subject people, ruled over first by Persia, then Ptolemaic Egypt, then Seleucid Syria. Was this a fitting arrangement for a people allegedly chosen by the LORD of heaven and earth? Instead, it seemed a clear indication that God\u2019s adoption of Israel as his own people, an act inaugurated with the great covenant at Mount Sinai, must no longer be in force. Israel had violated that covenant\u2014first the Northerners, then the Southerners\u2014and had therefore been rejected; the apparently unending years of foreign domination were a clear indication that Israel had fallen into God\u2019s disfavor.
\nIt was principally to combat such a negative reading of history that the original author of Jubilees wrote his book. He began by having Moses hear the \u201cprediction\u201d of all the evils that would lead to up to the Babylonian exile (Jub. 1:9\u201314). This was to be a terrible catastrophe, but it would ultimately be followed by Israel\u2019s repentance and restoration (Jub. 1:15) as well as the explicit reversal of the Pentateuch\u2019s own curses that were said to be Israel\u2019s lot if it violated the Sinai covenant (Jub. 1:16). In other words, Jubilees\u2019 author readily accepted that Israel had sinned and been punished\u2014but this hardly spelled the end of its historic bond with its God. Israel was and always had been God\u2019s own people.
\nIsrael\u2019s continuing connection with God was, for Jubilees\u2019 original author, the great message carried by the book of Genesis\u2014and the reason why he chose a retelling of its stories as the ideal instrument for communicating his theme. Genesis is, after all, full of accounts of God\u2019s dealings with Israel\u2019s remote ancestors, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and his wives and children. These stories all give evidence of the close connection between God and Israel\u2019s forebears; they not only interact directly with God, but God rewards them\u2014most tangibly in the grant of the land of Canaan to them and their descendants. For the author of Jubilees this was proof positive that God\u2019s adoption of Israel did not begin at Mount Sinai, as one might assume from a straightforward reading of Exod. 19:5\u20136, but that it had begun long before\u2014going back, his book asserted, to the very first Sabbath in history (the one that immediately followed the six days of the Creation), when God decided to create Israel as His people (Jub. 2:19\u201320). The covenants concluded with Abraham in Gen. 15 and 17, along with the promises made to Jacob in Gen. 28:13\u201314, were thus not, as it might seem, merely intended as a grant of the land of Canaan, nor yet a vague pledge of numerous descendants, but an eternal alliance. They, no less than the Sinai covenant, bound Israel to its God forever.
\nTo say this likewise implied a certain diminution of the importance of the Sinai covenant itself. It was not the first and sole basis of the alliance between God and Israel, but only one covenant among several; its violation, therefore, could hardly have occasioned a definitive rupture between the two parties. So yes, Israel had failed to keep the conditions of the Sinai covenant, a sin for which it had been duly punished through the Babylonian conquest and exile. But once punished, the child is forgiven. Whatever the political ups and downs that had subsequently characterized Israel\u2019s history, there could be no doubt that God\u2019s alliance with Israel was still in effect and would continue eternally.
\nThis was the basic message of comfort that the author of Jubilees wished to communicate, and in retelling Genesis he sought to give it concrete expression. Thus, as mentioned, God\u2019s choice of Israel as His people was moved back from Exod. 19 to the seventh day of the Creation (based in part on the divine assertion in Exod. 4:22 that Israel was God\u2019s \u201cfirstborn son\u201d). The author also went to the trouble of having Israel\u2019s remote ancestors worship God in much the same way as they were to worship Him after Sinai. True, there was no temple or tabernacle in pre-Sinai times, indeed, no established priesthood. But Genesis did mention that various patriarchs had built altars and offered sacrifices to God. With this slim bit of evidence to support him, the author of Jubilees asserted that a chain of priests had in fact existed from earliest times\u2014one priest at a time\u2014and that these priests were in every sense continuous with the later levitical priesthood. Thus, Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Levi are represented in Jubilees as forming a continuous chain of priests, with each new priest being instructed by his predecessor in proper priestly procedure.
\nTo further illustrate the continuity between these pre-Sinai priests and their post-Sinai successors, the author of Jubilees detailed the form and content of the sacrifices that they offered, having these conform to prescriptions for sacrifices found later in the Pentateuch, principally in Leviticus. For the same reason, the author depicted these pre-Sinai priests as celebrating (and properly observing the sacrificial laws of) various holy days\u2014the Festival of Booths, the Feast of Weeks, the Day of Atonement\u2014even though these holy days were first mentioned only later in the Torah, as part of or following the Sinai covenant.
\nIndeed, the author was so bold as to assert that the very reason for the existence of these holy days was to be found not in the divinely given prescriptions of the Sinai covenant, but in the events of the patriarchs\u2019 own lives. That is to say, God did not command Abraham to celebrate the Festival of Booths (Sukkot); on the contrary, such-and-such a thing happened in Abraham\u2019s life, and as a result he inaugurated the celebration of this festival on his own initiative (Jub. 16:5\u201327). Only later did God tell Moses to promulgate a law in the Torah (Lev. 23:33\u201335) commanding Israelites to celebrate the festival and to celebrate it on the precise date that Abraham had chosen for it. Similarly, Noah planted a vine and picked its fruit in the fourth year, which he guarded until the fifth year (Jub. 7:1\u20133); it was only much later, and in apparent imitation of Noah\u2019s act, that the Torah ordained similar treatment for the fruit of all trees (see Lev. 19:23\u201325). The Day of Atonement, Jubilees relates, came about because of the false report that Jacob\u2019s sons gave him, to the effect that Joseph had been killed by a wild beast. Jacob \u201clamented all night \u2026 and all the next day,\u201d and as a result, it was decreed in the Torah \u201cfor the children of Israel that they mourn [for their sins] on the tenth (day) of the seventh month.\u201d Once again, here was a practice inaugurated by a patriarch on his own initiative (and based on what turned out to be a lie!) that later came to be a divinely commanded holy day. The author\u2019s purpose in saying these things is clear. They were another way of undercutting the importance of the Sinai revelation. Things really didn\u2019t begin at Sinai, but with Israel\u2019s ancestors\u2014especially Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God had established his earliest covenants with them\u2014with them and their descendants, that is, with us, the Jews of Jubilees\u2019 own day. We were God\u2019s people long before the Sinai covenant, we worshiped Him back then in the same way that we worship Him now, and we will remain His people forever.
\nNot all, of course, was sweetness and light in the view of Jubilees\u2019 author. In particular, he believed that Judah in his own day was plunged in fornication and impurity, the latter term referring not to the ritual impurity imparted by contact with dead bodies and the like, but impurity arising largely from sexual immorality and contact with \u201cforeigners,\u201d that is, non-Jews. In addition, he felt that Israel in his day was lax about a number of other commandments: he repeatedly stresses Israel\u2019s failure to observe properly the Sabbath and various holy days. It was for such reasons, he claimed, that Israel still lived under foreign domination and had not yet been restored to its former glory and power. But if it now could abandon its waywardness in these matters, God would surely return His people to their proper place of honor and their lives would be blessed beyond measure (Jub. 23).
\nThe author had another argument to use against those who despaired of Israel ever rising to its former glory. It was not an argument that he himself invented. Even before he wrote, others had suggested that any despair about Israel\u2019s future was the result of people\u2019s failure to see the \u201cbig picture.\u201d If only one could step back and view history not in terms of tens or even hundreds of years but still larger units, one would recognize the hand of God behind all the apparently chaotic ups and downs that had characterized the Judeans\u2019 history since the Babylonian conquest and subsequent exile.
\nOne such \u201cbig picture\u201d approach was to see in the very successsion of foreign powers who ruled Judea-Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks\u2014an expression of a divine plan, since each oppressor had ruled for a time, only to be cast off later on. A somewhat different and potentially more sophisticated approach adopted by other writers during Second Temple times was to fix on the larger unit of time called the jubilee. After all, the jubilee was mentioned as a significant measure of time within the Torah itself\u2014so it must be important! This 49-year unit was not only composed of seven subunits of seven years apiece (\u201cweeks of years\u201d\u2014see above under \u201cTitle of the Book\u201d), but the jubilee itself could be thought of as a subunit of still larger blocks of time. So it was that some writers of this period liked to think of history as moving forward in units of 10 jubilees apiece\u2014490 years. But even that might be on the small side; perhaps the main events in Israel\u2019s history were demarcated by even larger units. The point was that, if one considered these larger numerical patterns, the idea of divine control of Israel\u2019s history could be upheld despite the little surface disturbances that might spring up for a century or two and then disappear.
\nIn his recounting of patriarchal history, the author of Jubilees was careful to divide his chronological history into jubilees as a way of invoking this idea. History, he seemed to be asserting with each new date, marches forward in multiples of these 49-year units. Indeed, he explicitly endorsed this notion at the end of the book, pointing out that precisely 50 jubilees (2,450 years) separate the \u201ctime of Adam\u201d (i.e., the time of the creation of the world in six days) from the time of Israel\u2019s crossing the Jordan and entering the land of Canaan (Jub. 50:4\u20135). Surely that round number\u201450 jubilees exactly!\u2014could not be an accident, and it indicated that similarly large patterns were to be found in Israel\u2019s later history as well. So do not despair, the author was saying to his countrymen, the apparent disorder of a few hundred years disappears when you consider these larger patterns.
\nWith regard to his own post-exilic period, the author of Jubilees never gets around to having the angel of the Presence say what those larger patterns might be. They were apparently written in the \u201cbook of the Te\u2018udah,\u201d where they are said to go on \u201cuntil eternity.\u201d But these things were not revealed to Moses, to whom the angel transmitted only that part of the chronological history that dealt with the past and immediate future, from the Creation to Israel\u2019s entry into Canaan. The author was thus content to suggest that God\u2019s master plan for history worked in extremely large units without going into the details. Keep this in mind, he seemed to say, and the apparent chaos of recent times could be made to disappear.<\/p>\n
The Interpolator<\/p>\n
As sometimes happened with books in ancient times, the original text of Jubilees underwent modification during the course of its transmission. An anonymous writer, known here as the Interpolator, inserted 29 passages of his own into the book\u2014a little more than one passage in every two chapters. Most of his interpolations are brief, some consisting of only a single sentence or two; others, however, go on for as long as 15 verses. They are easily identified by their distinct terminology. Thus, the Interpolator frequently refers to laws that are \u201cordained and written in the heavenly tablets.\u201d (The \u201cheavenly tablets\u201d seem to be just that, writing tablets that had been inscribed and kept in heaven since the beginning of time, and on which were recorded not only the laws to be given to Moses on Mount Sinai, but also halakhic rulings on various matters and a record of future events and divine rulings about individual people.) Sometimes the Interpolator omits mention of the tablets but simply refers to things that have been \u201cwritten and ordained\u201d or \u201cwritten and inscribed\u201d for the Israelites to do; with such phrases, it seems to be understood that it is on the heavenly tablets that these things are written. The Interpolator also likes to have the angel of the Presence turn to Moses and say, \u201cAnd you, Moses, command the Israelites to do such-and-such.\u201d Finally, he is fond of asserting that the law or practice that he has just described \u201chas no temporal limits\u201d but is to be kept by the Israelites \u201cfor eternal generations.\u201d All these phrases constitute the \u201csignature\u201d of the Interpolator. The fact that his legal rulings sometimes conflict with the original author\u2019s words, and that he sometimes even seems to have misunderstood what the original author meant, make it clear that these \u201cheavenly tablets\u201d passages are all later insertions and not the work of the original author.
\nAlthough we do not have a great deal of his writing, the Interpolator\u2019s ideology emerges fairly clearly from his various insertions in the book (see below). He obviously shared many of the original author\u2019s beliefs, including a horror of foreigners and their \u201cimpurity.\u201d Like the original author, he also utterly rejected the lunisolar calendar endorsed by other Jews, espousing instead a calendar based on the sun alone. Indeed, it seems possible that the Interpolator belonged to a larger group that lived in accord with these principles and claimed the book of Jubilees as their authoritative source. Yet, there were aspects of the book that he (and, quite possibly, his group) found profoundly troubling. Primary among these was the original author\u2019s implication here and there that the laws promulgated at Sinai had originated in the spontaneous actions of the patriarchs\u2014that, in the example given above, the laws of the Festival of Booths later promulgated by Moses in the Torah were essentially based on what Abraham had spontaneously done. But for the Interpolator, all the Torah\u2019s laws must have originated with God. That is why he insisted in his interpolations that, despite what the text of Jubilees might seem to be saying, the rules governing festivals and other practices had actually been written in the heavenly tablets long before Abraham or Israel\u2019s other ancestors had seemingly observed them for the first time.
\nThe Interpolator did not invent the idea of the heavenly tablets. The idea of such heavenly writings, and even the phrase \u201cheavenly tablets,\u201d is found in texts going back to ancient Mesopotamia, and the tablets are mentioned frequently in 1 En. 81:1\u20132, 93:2, 103:2, 106:19, 107:1, and elsewhere in the biblical Pseudepigrapha. But in these other texts, what is recorded on high are future events, or the good and bad deeds of human beings. The Interpolator adopted the idea of these heavenly writing tablets but turned it to a new purpose; they would be the place in heaven where God had also inscribed the Torah\u2019s laws from the beginning of time. Therefore, no matter what the original author had implied about Noah or Abraham or Jacob having initiated this or that practice, the Interpolator was usually quick to add: \u201cAnd thus it is ordained in the heavenly tablets,\u201d or \u201cThat is why it is written in the heavenly tablets to do exactly this,\u201d and so forth. Through some unmentioned act of divine manipulation, God had arranged for the patriarchs to unwittingly inaugurate a practice that had already been prescribed in laws written on high long before.
\nThe Interpolator\u2019s insertions definitely changed the overall thrust of the original Jubilees. Now the book seemed to be saying that the deeds of Israel\u2019s ancestors did indeed match some of the laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai, but not because God had decided to institutionalize in the Torah certain practices that those ancestors had created on their own initiative. Rather, now it seemed that those ancestors had simply been manipulated into obeying laws that were written long before in the heavenly tablets. Moreover, in order to drive this point home, the Interpolator sought to expand on the original author\u2019s list of precedents for the laws of festivals and other matters so as to include all sorts of other laws from the Pentateuch\u2014Cain\u2019s punishment after the murder of Abel reflected a divine statute that was also written down in the law of Deut. 27:24; God\u2019s covenant with Noah was consonant with the law of the tamid sacrifices (Exod. 29:38\u201342 and Num. 28:3\u20138), and so forth. In these cases as well, the Interpolator asserted, the actions of these ancient figures from Genesis merely reflected things established in God\u2019s eternal laws, which He Himself had inscribed on the heavenly tablets from the beginning of time.
\nThe Interpolator\u2019s insistence that human actions had had no role whatsoever in the creation of the Torah\u2019s laws is of a piece with what he writes about the calendar. One calendrical system in use in Second Temple times was similar to the one used later in Rabbinic times: months were determined by the phases of the moon, with each month starting after two reliable witnesses had attested to having seen the new moon (see M. RH 1\u20132). Such a system was a horror to the Interpolator, precisely because it depended on human intervention for the fixing of dates\u2014not only the start of each month, but, as a consequence, also the occurrence of all God\u2019s sacred festivals and other holy days within each month. Were not such things fixed in advance by God? He therefore has the angel of the Presence warn Moses against \u201cthose who will examine the moon diligently\u201d and use it to determine the beginnings of months (Jub. 6:36).
\nAs mentioned above, both the original author (see Jub. 2:9) and the Interpolator (6:34\u201337) espoused a calendar in which the moon plays no part. Months are (as in today\u2019s civil calendar) arbitrary units of days with no connection to the moon; every month must consist of exactly 30 days, so that 12 months equal 360 days. The Interpolator further specified that the official year is to consist of 364 days; that is, to the 360 days of the 12 months were added four apparently extramensual days (i.e., free-floating days outside the regular sequence of months) at equal intervals, one apiece after the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th months (see 6:23\u201331). The official year thus had exactly 364 days or\u2014more to the point\u2014exactly 52 Sabbaths.
\nIn the same spirit, the Interpolator could not accept the biblical stipulation that the date of the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) was to be determined by people counting seven weeks from the time of Passover. In one of his longest interpolations, he set out to claim that the name of this festival did not refer to \u201cweeks\u201d (shavuot) counted by people each year, but to \u201coaths\u201d (shevuot), specifically, the oaths sworn by Noah and his sons after the great Flood. Thus, the \u201cFestival of Oaths\u201d had nothing to do with humans counting\u2014in fact, the Interpolator asserts, this festival had been celebrated in heaven long before human beings began celebrating it. All this bespeaks his own particular mentality.
\nSuch positions put him at odds with the school of ancient Judaism known variously as that of the Pharisees, the \u201csages,\u201d the \u201celders,\u201d and so forth\u2014a close spiritual ancestor of Rabbinic Judaism. In the Interpolator\u2019s comments there is a clear anti-Pharisaic note. He disagrees with them not only on the issue of the calendar, but also about the laws of the Sabbath and various festivals, the second tithe, fruit trees, and so forth. Perhaps most significantly, he apparently rejected their whole reliance on orally transmitted traditions of halakhah and interpretation. That may indeed be why he became an interpolator into, rather than just an interpreter of, the book of Jubilees itself: it was crucial to him that all his ideas appear to be part of some reputedly ancient written source, since only written words, and not oral traditions, had validity in his eyes.
\nDespite the rather different outlooks of Jubilees\u2019 original author and the Interpolator, and despite the strikingly unique terminology used by the Interpolator to introduce his legal insertions, the final document incorporating the Interpolator\u2019s remarks into the original book of Jubilees reads quite smoothly. Indeed, it is only recently that scholars have come to consider the possibility that Jubilees is not a unitary work. In part this is because the two authors did agree on a number of basic issues (which is probably one reason why the Interpolator spent the effort he did on \u201ccorrecting\u201d parts of Jubilees rather than writing an entirely new book). But one must also credit the Interpolator with having gone about his work with some care and even artistry. Moreover, although the number of insertions by the Interpolator is rather large, they still constitute only a small percentage of the overall book; Jubilees remains overwhelmingly the work of its original author. For all these reasons, the composite nature of Jubilees is not immediately apparent. In any event, in its final form Jubilees went on to have a distinguished career; it won a faithful following among members of the Dead Sea Scrolls community and doubtless other Jewish groups in Second Temple times; it also attracted numerous readers among early Christians. Still later, it went on to influence (sometimes unwitting) commentators and homilists on the book of Genesis in later centuries of the Common Era; indeed, its message of renewed hope and a return to God continued to speak to generations of readers.<\/p>\n
Passages Attributed to the Interpolator<\/p>\n
2:24\u201333, The Laws of the Sabbath.
\n3:9\u201314, Impurity after Childbirth.
\n3:29\u201331, Nudity Forbidden.
\n4:5\u20136, Cain\u2019s Curse Anticipates Deut. 27:24.
\n4:31\u201332, Death of Cain and Lev. 24:19\u201320.
\n5:13\u201319, Strict Justice after the Flood and the Day of Atonement.
\n6:10\u201314, Blood Not to Be Eaten, But instead Used for Tamid Sacrifices (connection to Exod. 29:38\u201342 and Num. 28:3\u20138).
\n6:17\u201322, The Festival of Shavuot.
\n6:23\u201338, The 364-Day Calendar.
\n13:25\u201327, Law of the Tithe.
\n14:20b, Abraham Kept Shevuot (connected to \u201cThe Festival of Shavuot\u201d above).
\n15:25\u201334, Addition to the Laws of Circumcision.
\n16:3\u20134, Isaac\u2019s Name Was Already Written in Heavenly Tablets.
\n16:9, Lot Condemned.
\n16:28\u201331, Supplement to Festival of Booths Laws.
\n18:18\u201319, The Binding of Isaac took Place on Passover.
\n19:8\u20139, Abraham\u2019s Tenth Trial.
\n23:32, Moses\u2019s Predictions Recapitulate the Heavenly Tablets.
\n24:33, Isaac\u2019s Curse of Philistines Recapitulates the Heavenly Tablets.
\n28:6b\u20137, Wrong to Marry the Younger Daughter First.
\n30:8\u201317, Prohibition of Intermarriage Operates in Both Directions.
\n30:18\u201323, God\u2019s Friends and Enemies.
\n31:31\u201332, Isaac\u2019s Blessing Written on the Heavenly Tablets.
\n32:9c\u201315, Law of the Second Tithe.
\n32:27b\u201329, The Eighth Day of Assembly.
\n33:10\u201320, Why Reuben and Bilhah Were Not Killed.
\n41:23\u201326, Why Judah and Tamar Were Not Killed.
\n49:2\u201317, Laws of Passover Sacrifice.
\n49:22\u201323, Laws of Unleavened Bread.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Doran, R. \u201cThe Non-Dating of Jubilees: Jub. 34\u201338; 23:14\u201332 in Narrative Context.\u201d JSJ 20 (1989): 1\u201311.
\nKister, M. \u201cObservations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha, and Other Jewish Writings.\u201d In Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, edited by J. C. Reeves, 1\u201334. SBL EJL 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994,.
\nKugel, J. Traditions of the Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. A Walk through Jubilees. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
\nNajman, H. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. SJSOT 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
\nSegal, M. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
\nVanderKam, J. C. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. HSM 14. Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1977.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. CSCO 510; Scriptores Aethiopici 87. Louvain: E. Peeters, 1989.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Book of Jubilees (Translation). CSCO 511; Scriptores Aethiopici 88. Louvain: E. Peeters, 1989.
\nWerman, C. \u201cThe Rules of Consuming and Covering the Blood in Priestly and Rabbinic Law,\u201d RevQ 16 (1995): 621\u201336.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Sustained Biblical Commentaries: Retellings and Pesharim Commentary on Genesis A George J. Brooke Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252) is the best preserved of a small group of commentaries on the scriptural book of Genesis found in the Qumran caves. It was written on a single piece of leather in six columns of 22 lines each; … <\/p>\n