Noah and His Book(s) - PDF Free Download (2024)

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

Early Judaism and Its Literature

Judith H. Newman, General Editor Editorial Board Mark J. Boda George J. Brooke Esther Glickler Chazon Steven D. Fraade Martha Himmelfarb James S. McLaren Jacques van Ruiten

Number 28 NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

Edited by Michael E. Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel

Society of Biblical Literature Atlanta

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Noah and his book(s) / edited by Michael E. Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel. p. cm. — (Early Judaism and Its literature ; no. 28) “This book is a joint enterprise emerging from Michael Stone’s senior seminar during the years 2003–2005. The seminar was devoted during those two years to a study of the traditions about a book or books of Noah and about Noah himself. The subject is enormous, as will be seen from the chronological and geographical range of the material assembled here. Two questions were defined that focused the discussion and, consequently, the material presented in this book. The first was to assess references to a Noah writing in the Second Temple period, including segments of existing works that scholars had in the past attributed to a Noah writing. As a corollary of this, the traditions of Noah in other Second Temple period works were studied, first, to gain insight into their character and, second, to see whether distinct enough traditions survived in those, often incidental, references to witness to the existence of a Noachic writing or writings”—Data View. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-58983-488-0 (paper binding : alk. paper) 1. Noah (Biblical figure)—Legends—History and criticism. 2. Noah (Biblical figure)—In rabbinical literature. 3. Bible. O.T. Genesis V–IX—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Christian literature, Early—Syriac authors—History and criticism. 5. Dead Sea scrolls. I. Stone, Michael E., 1938–. II. Amihay, Aryeh. III. Hillel, Vered. BS580.N6N6125 2010 222'.11092—dc22 2010013972

18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free, recycled paper conforming to ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) and ISO 9706:1994 standards for paper permanence.

Dedicated to All the Members of the Seminar 1967–2005

Contents

Abbreviations

Introduction

Part 1: Fragments and Documents Associated with a “Book of Noah” The Book(s) Attributed to Noah Michael E. Stone

A Reconsideration of Charles’s Designated “Noah Interpolations” in 1 Enoch: 54:1–55:1; 60; 65:1–69:25 Vered Hillel

Is 1 Enoch 6–11 a “Noachic” Fragment? A Scholarly Discussion Michael Tuval

Traditions of the Birth of Noah Aryeh Amihay and Daniel A. Machiela

A Note on 1Q19: The “Book of Noah” Claire Pfann

The Noah Cycle in the Genesis Apocryphon Esther Eshel

Is 4Q534–536 Really about Noah? Jeremy Penner

The Rebirth of a Book: Noachic Writing in Medieval and Renaissance Europe Rebecca Scharbach

113

viii

CONTENTS

Part 2: Noah Traditions Noah and the Flood in the Septuagint Benjamin G. Wright III

137

Distinctive Traditions about Noah and the Flood in Second Temple Jewish Literature Nadav Sharon and Moshe Tishel

143

The Role of Noah and the Flood in Judean Antiquities and Against Apion by Flavius Josephus Michael Tuval

167

Philo’s Interpretation of Noah Albert C. Geljon

183

Noah in Rabbinic Literature Aryeh Amihay

193

Noah and the Flood in Gnosticism Sergey Minov

215

Some Jewish Noah Traditions in Syriac Christian Sources Daniel A. Machiela

237

The Literary Presentation of Noah in the Qur’ān Erica Martin

253

A Shelter amid the Flood: Noah’s Ark in Early Jewish and Christian Art Ruth Clements

277

Part 3: Miscellaneous Noah Texts and Traditions Noah in Onomastic Traditions Vered Hillel and Michael E. Stone

303

Mount Ararat and the Ark Michael E. Stone

307

Bibliography Contributors Index of Ancient Sources Index of Authors

317 351 355 375

Abbreviations

Primary Sources

1 Clem. 4 Bar. ‘Abod. Zar. ’Abot R. Nat. Abraham Ag. Ap. Agriculture ALD Alleg. Interp. Ant. apGen Apoc. Ab. Apoc. Paul b. B. Meṣi‘a Ber. Cherubim Confusion Creation Did. Drunkenness Eccl. Rab. ‘Erub. Ep. Faust. Flight Gen. Rab. Giants Giṭ.

1 Clement 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) ‘Abodah Zarah ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan Philo, On the Life of Abraham Josephus, Against Apion Philo, On Agriculture Aramaic Levi Document Philo, Allegorical Interpretation Josephus, Jewish/Judean Antiquities Genesis Apocryphon Apocalypse of Abraham Apocalypse of Paul Babylonian Talmud Baba Meṣi ‘a Berakot Philo, On the Cherubim Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues Philo, On the Creation of the World Didache Philo, On Drunkenness Ecclesiastes Rabbah ‘Erubin Epistle Augustine, Contra Faustum Manichaeum Philo of Alexandria, On Flight and Finding Genesis Rabbah Philo of Alexandria, On Giants Giṭtị n

-ix-

x Haer. Heir Hom. Gen. Ketub. L.A.E. m. Moses Migration Moses Ned. Noe Pan. Parad. Pesaḥ . Pirqe R. El. Planting Posterity Prelim. Studies Q.G. Rewards Roš Haš. Sacrifices Sanh. Sib. Or. Sobriety t. T. Levi T. Naph. T. Reu. Ta‘an. Tanḥ . Ter. Tg. Ps.-J. Tim. Unchangeable Virtues Worse

ABBREVIATIONS

Irenaeus, Adversus haereses; Hippolytus, Refutatio onmium haeresium Philo, Who Is the Heir? Origen, Homilae in Genesim Ketubbot Life of Adam and Eve Mishnah Philo of Alexandria, On the Life of Moses Philo, On the Migration of Abraham Philo, On the Life of Moses Nedarim Ambrose, De Noe et arca Epiphanius, Panarion Ambrose, De paradiso Pesaḥ im Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Philo of Alexandria, On Planting Philo of Alexandria, On the Posterity of Cain Philo of Alexandria, On the Preliminary Studies Philo of Alexandria, Questions and Answers on Genesis Philo of Alexandria, On Rewards and Punishments Roš Haššanah Philo of Alexandria, On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel Sanhedrin Sibylline Oracles Philo of Alexandria, On Sobriety Tosefta Testament of Levi Testament of Naphtali Testament of Reuben Ta‘anit Tanḥ uma Terumot Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Plato, Timaeus Philo of Alexandria, That God Is Unchangeable Philo of Alexandria, On the Virtues Philo of Alexandria, That the Worse Attacks the Better

ABBREVIATIONS

Secondary Sources

AB ABD AbrN AbrNSup AJSR AJSL ALGHJ ANF

ANRW

AOAT AJJS BAR BIOSCS BJS BKAT BKP CBQ ConBOT CP CRINT CSCO DJD DSD EDSS

EEBS FC FRLANT

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Abr-Nahrain Abr-Nahrain: Supplement Series Association for Jewish Studies Review American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. 1885–87. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–. Alter Orient und Altes Testament Australian Journal of Jewish Studies Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie Catholic Biblical Quarterly Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series Classical Philology Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by LawrenceH. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ἐπετηρίς ἑταιρείας βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν Fathers of the Church Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments -xi-

xii GCS HSM HTR HUCA ICC IDB JAAR JANESCU JAOS JBL JE JJS JNES JQR JRH JSJ JSJSup JSNT JSOR JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSPSup JSQ JSS JTS LCL LSJ

LSTS NHMS NHS NovT

ABBREVIATIONS

Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George E. Butterick et al. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature The Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by Isidore Singer. 12 vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1906. Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religious History Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal of the Society of Oriental Research Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Jewish Studies Quarterly Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with rev. supp. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Library of Second Temple Studies Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies Nag Hammadi Studies Novum Testamentum

ABBREVIATIONS

NPNF NTS NovTSup Numen OTL OTP PAAJR PO PS PTS PVTG RB RevQ RHPR SBLDS SBLEJL SBLSCS SBLTT SJLA SNTSMS STDJ StPB SVF SVTP TSAJ VC VT VCSup VTSup WBC WMANT ZAW ZDMG ZNW

xiii

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers New Testament Studies Supplements to Novum Testamentum Numen: International Review for the History of Religions Old Testament Library The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983. Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Patrologia orientalis Pseudepigrapha Series Patristische Texte und Studien Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia post-biblica Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. Edited by Hans Friedrich August von Arnim. 4 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903–24. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Vigilae Christianae Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Introduction

This book is a joint enterprise emerging from Michael Stone’s senior seminar during the years 2003–2005.1 The seminar was devoted during those two years to a study of the traditions about a book or books of Noah and about Noah himself. The subject is enormous, as will be seen from the chronological and geographical range of the material assembled here. Two questions were defined that focused the discussion and, consequently, the material presented in this book. The first was to assess references to a Noah writing in the Second Temple period, including segments of existing works that scholars had in the past attributed to a Noah writing. As a corollary of this, the traditions of Noah in other Second Temple period works were studied, first, to gain insight into their character and, second, to see whether distinct enough traditions survived in those, often incidental, references to witness to the existence of a Noachic writing or writings. The second main purpose of the papers presented was to examine Noah traditions and documents after the destruction of the temple. On the one hand, once again the purpose was to get a picture (this time, in view of the enormous amount of material surviving, a less exhaustive one) of how Noah and Noah writings were portrayed in a series of Jewish, Christian, gnostic, Samaritan, qur’anic and other sources. The role of the Noah traditions in early modern discussions of geological strata and the seemingly eternal search for Mount Ararat and Noah’s ark have not been documented here, nor were rabbinic and medieval Jewish sources squeezed until the last drop of juice was extracted. The Muslim tradition is represented basically only by the material in the Qur’an proper. The medieval Christian sources, too, are rather sampled than exhausted. Doubtless, the learned reader will find other, glaring omissions.2 In addition, comparative material from the ancient Near East and the

1. A previous publication of the seminar is Stone, Wright, and Satran 2000. 2. The work by Dorothy M. Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antiquity (SBLEJL 26; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), appeared too late to be taken into account.

-1-

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

classical tradition has been introduced by the various authors but has not been the object of an independent study. The reason for this is the nature of the volume. It was written and edited by members of the senior seminar, but no compromises were made on this account with scholarly standards. However, the human resources required to study the complete range of everything ever said about Noah were not available, nor could they, in all likelihood, have been assembled at any other university. We aspired to be as exhaustive as feasible as far at the predestruction sources go, but only to provide a responsible representation of the later sources. Even then, some essays by former members or nonmembers of the seminar were included. A former member, Erica Martin, contributed the chapter on the qur’anic materials. Albert Geljon of Leiden kindly answered our invitation to write on Philo’s Noah, and Benjamin G. Wright III, another former seminar member, contributed the study of Noah in the Septuagint. All other essays were written by members of the seminar. The three editors shared the work, and they share the responsibility for the imperfections, such as there are. Aryeh Amihay served as secretary both of the seminar and of the editorial board and kept us all in control of the very complex material and coordination. Vered Hillel worked on bibliography and knocked a very diverse series of essays into a standard format and shape. Michael Stone did the first scientific editing of the manuscripts, guiding their transformation from seminar presentations to scholarly chapters. Amihay, Hillel, and Stone read and edited all the manuscripts. Thanks are expressed to Ruth Clements, who assisted in many ways, particularly in questions of format and bibliography. Lauren Stevens was responsible for the final updating and polishing of the manuscript and pounced on many inconsistencies that slipped by the editors. Thanks are duly expressed to them. The copyright holders kindly granted permission to quote the following material: from Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus, Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2000), the translation of Ant. 1.105–108 on pages 37–38, Ant. 1.92–95 on pages 33–35, Ant. 1.72–74 on pages 26–28, Ant. 1.110–112 on pages 39–40; from John M. G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus, Against Apion: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2006), the translation of Ag. Ap. 1.128–131 on pages 70–81; Harm W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Leiden: Brill; 1985), page 101 verse 6 “For thus they” until page 102 verse 7 “unto heaven,” page 301 verse 4 “so that you” until verse 5 “and fruits” (line 5 from the bottom), page 431 verse 3 “Therefore was also” until verse 4 “righteous brother” (by permission of the authors); Michael E. Stone and Gary A. Anderson, A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve: New and Revised Edition

INTRODUCTION

(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) page 91E, from verse 49:2 “Michael the archangel” until verse 50:2 “will be fired.” Jerusalem, Tevet 5796 January 2009

Part 1: Fragments and Documents Associated with a “Book of Noah”

The Book(s) Attributed to Noah* Michael E. Stone

There has been considerable scholarly debate in recent years over whether or not a book of Noah existed. This question is of interest not least because if such a book of Noah did exist, it would be one of the most ancient Jewish works outside the Bible. A book of Noah is cited by Aramaic Levi Document (ALD) 10:10, and, since ALD is dated to the third century or early second century b.c.e., a source document of ALD must have been even older.1 Pieces of the puzzle of the “dark age” of the history of Judaism in the fourth and third centuries b.c.e. are gradually being found and fitted together, and if the book(s) of Noah turns out to have existed, it will fill in a significant part of this puzzle. Moreover, the relationship between Enoch and Noah, and between the documents bearing their names, demands our attention, though it is beyond our scope in this essay. The disappearance of the book(s) of Noah is a further part of this enigma. If such a work existed and if it was so ancient, then why did it disappear? Is this historical happenstance, or does it reflect changes in the streams of Judaism in the fourth and third centuries, changes that are still beyond recovery? Such issues sharpen the question: Did a book of Noah exist? The present writer, indeed, expressed a guardedly positive response to this question in a study published in 1999 in which he addressed both explicit references to the book of Noah in ancient pseudepigrapha and also textual

* This paper is presented in honor of John Strugnell, whose contribution in learning and teaching the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Period Jewish literature is non pareil. The article originally appeared in DSD 13:4–23. It is republished here with errata and additional notes. 1. The early date (early second century b.c.e. at the latest) of ALD has recently been challenged by Kugel 2007. The crux of his argument rests on the relationship between ALD and Jubilees, on the one hand, arguing that ALD is dependent on Jubilees, and on the supposedly Hasmonean date of ALD implied by the application of royal, i.e., Judahite language to Levi, on the other. These issues are complex, and I intend to broach them in a future publication. Suffice it to say here that I remain unconvinced by Kugel’s demurrers on my dating. On one aspect of the issue, see n. 22 below.

-7-

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

fragments, not explicitly attributed to a book of Noah, but that many scholars consider “Noachic.”2 In the present essay, I do not seek definitively to resolve issues of the composition, indeed of the very existence of a book(s) of Noah, but to contribute to the solution of this contentious issue. To do this, it seems to me most reasonable to take as the point of departure those places in ancient literature where the title “Book of Noah” or a book associated with Noah is mentioned explicitly. A close examination of those texts should provide an initial insight into the question implied by the title of the present essay. The study here, then, is directed solely toward instances in which the title or the book is actually mentioned. This seems to me to be methodologically justified: it is necessary in my view to distinguish between two categories of texts relating to the book(s) of Noah: (1) those in which the title or a book of Noah is clearly mentioned in an ancient source; (2) those in which scholars, in the course of their study of ancient sources, have come to regard passages of certain works as coming from a Noachic source, even though such an attribution is not explicit in the original. In the search for clarity, it may eventually become necessary to divide the second category itself into two subcategories: texts in which Noah is the central actor or speaks in the first person; other texts that for one or another reason have been regarded as belonging to Noachic literature. In the present study, however, I will consider only the unambiguous cases in group 1, that is, those instances in which the title “Book of Noah” or a book transmitted by Noah is actually mentioned.3 Genesis Apocryphon The only surviving copy of the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen or 1Q20) is a first-century manuscript from Qumran Cave 1. The work is older than that, but more cannot be said securely about its date (see n. 15 below). In the fifth column of the Genesis Apocryphon, line 29, the reading has been found ‫[“ [פרשגן כתב מלי ]נוח‬copy of] the Book of the Words of Noah,” of which the first word is a restoration. Richard Steiner wrote a detailed discussion of this title, the only book of Noah title surviving in Hebrew or Aramaic from antiquity.4 Steiner points out that it occurs following a blank line and so seems 2. Stone 1999, 136–41; 2000, 613–14. In 1996b, I already assembled much material relating to the book of Noah (283–88). See earlier Stone 1971. 3. Hindy Najman (1999, 382 and n. 6) suggests that Noah writings are mentioned in Jub. 8:11 and other places because of the special role of writing: “It is central to Jubilees’ notion of divine speech that it be accomplished in writing—indeed, Noah received, recorded and then transmitted the already revealed heavenly tradition.” Such an attitude, of course, bears neither positively or negatively on the question we are seeking to answer here. 4. Steiner 1995.

STONE: THE BOOK(S) ATTRIBUTED TO NOAH

to be the beginning of a new section that continues, as far as we can tell, until column 17. This material, though fragmentary, is first-person narrative, and it differs from the Noah narrative occurring in columns 2–5 of the same scroll. The subject there is the wondrous birth of Noah, but the narrative is set in his father Lamech’s mouth, so the material about Noah is predominantly in the third person.5 Chapters 106–107 of the book of Enoch also contain material dealing with Noah’s birth. Intriguingly, that narrative, too, is in the third person,6 set in the mouth of Enoch, Noah’s great-grandfather. The material in 1QapGen columns 2–5 is, therefore, most probably not drawn from the same source as that which starts with the title “[copy of] the Book of the Words of Noah” at the bottom of column 5 of that scroll. The change of framework and speaker, the blank line, and the beginning of a new section seem to indicate this more than does the variation of grammatical person, and they mark the beginning of a different literary source. Before the identification of the phrase “Book of the Words of Noah” in column 5 line 29 in the Genesis Apocryphon, García Martínez opined that 1QapGen columns 1–17 “contains a summary of the lost Book of Noah which is independent of Jubilees.”7 He argued that the Genesis Apocryphon is independent of Jubilees, so the Noah material in it is not drawn from Jubilees but from a source it shared with Jubilees.8 That source, he maintains, was the book of Noah.9 Steiner and others have elucidated the implications of the 5. The relationship between Enoch and Noah is discussed in Nadav Sharon and Moshe Tishel’s “Distinctive Traditions about Noah and the Flood in Second Temple Jewish Literature” in the present volume. 6. Scholars have attributed other material in the book of Enoch to a book of Noah, and this material will be dealt with in a separate study (see also Vered Hillel’s “A Reconsideration of Charles’s Designated ‘Noah Interpolations’ in 1 Enoch: 54:1–55:1; 60; 65:1–69:25” in the present volume). It has, of course, been the object of considerable attention in the past, starting notably with the observations of Charles 1906, subsequently modified in Charles 1912, xlvi–xlvii. See also James 1920, 11–12. 7. García Martínez 1992, 40. On doubts raised about one specific point of García Martínez’s reconstruction, see Scott 1997b, 372. 8. This is surmised on the basis of halakic argument by Werman 1999, 173–76. She argues that material shared by Jubilees, ALD, and 1QapGen was drawn with adaptations by Jubilees from the other two works. She concludes: “Jubilees knows of a Book of Noah only by hearsay, from these secondary sources that contradict one another as to the nature of this putative work” (181). This conclusion goes beyond the outcome of her convoluted argument there. 9. García Martínez 1992, 40. He supports his contention by a comparative analysis, 40–43. See further Stone 1996b, 286–88. No stand is taken on the existence of a book of Noah by Morgenstern, Qimron, and Sivan in their edition of the material (1995, 32).

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

new reading; García Martínez’s position should consequently be modified, and, if a book of Noah is cited by 1QapGen, the phrase “Book of the Words of Noah” in column 5.29 was most likely its title or, less probably, an introductory lemma. Dimant singled out the story of Noah’s birth as a likely candidate for inclusion in the “Hebrew narrative midrash,” the existence of which she postulates, but she denies that this story comes from a book of Noah.10 I prefer for the moment to leave the determination of this aside but note that it seems to be significant that the narrative of Noah’s birth is usually presented in the third person. This may have been the case in 1Q19 frg. 3, the so-called “Book of Noah” from Qumran Cave 1, though the literary framework is lacking that would enable us to transform this tentative assertion into a definite one.11 In 1 En. 106–107 the incident is related by Enoch, and within that first-person literary framework, it is third person narrative.12 The same is true of 1QapGen column 2, except that there the narrative is set in Lamech’s mouth. In 2 En. 71, which is the comparable story of the birth of Melchizedek, the narrative is in the third person and is included within a discourse.13 This consideration, it seems to me, effectively diminishes the argument based on first- or third-person style as determining whether the birth story was part of a book of Noah.14 It is still possible to maintain that the story of Noah’s birth was not necessarily part of a book of Noah. After all, the story is either anonymous, as in 1Q19 (but that is probably due to the fragmentary state of 1Q19), or set in the mouth of Noah’s father or grandfather. Later it even circulated separately, in Latin at least.15 In 1QapGen it is not included in the material following the 10. Dimant 1998 is extremely skeptical of the existence of a book of Noah, while gladly admitting the possible existence of “a more comprehensive Hebrew narrative midrash, written perhaps in a style similar to the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon, which would have included at least some of the materials dealing with Noah, such as his miraculous birth” (146). Her difficulties lie in the specificity and singular nature of the document she posits to be implied by the title “Book of Noah.” Hers is an overly rigid understanding of the latter term. A slightly later article making the same points in more detail is Werman 1999. 11. See Barthélemy and Milik 1955, 84–86 and 152. 12. For similar reasons, the fragmentary “third person” narrative of 1Q19 should not be taken too seriously. 13. Here I will not discuss Orlov’s (2000b) proposal that the displacement of the birth story from Noah to Noah’s nephew Melchizedek resulted from contention about the role of Noah. That view is worthy of detailed discussion elsewhere. 14. See Dimant 1998, 164; in 1QapGen 10:2 ,Noah is spoken of in the third person. It is interesting to compare the first-person Noah material in columns 5–6 with the firstperson Enoch material in the preceding columns 2–3. 15. James 1893. He regards it as a fragment of a Latin version of the book of Enoch (146), while Milik doubts whether such an integral translation ever existed (1976, 80–81).

STONE: THE BOOK(S) ATTRIBUTED TO NOAH

title “Book of the Words of Noah” but occurs in the Lamech material, three columns earlier. What that title in column 5 of the Genesis Apocryphon does is strengthen the probability of the existence of an ancient book of Noah, parts of which may occur in or have served as a source of the succeeding columns of 1QapGen. It does not make the inclusion of the birth story in such a book of Noah more likely.16 The usual response of those who would deny the significance of the title’s occurrence in ancient sources is to remark that some of the Enoch quotations in Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are not drawn from any Enoch work we know and so are fabrications. Consequently, they infer, the mention of the title book of Noah in 1QapGen and Jubilees is equally likely to be the invention of the authors of these works. This argument is, of course, illogical. It is quite possible that the Enoch quotations in Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs were drawn from an Enoch work that has not survived.17 Moreover, and even more tellingly, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is a later Christian document, probably from the second century c.e.18 Its practice in citation cannot be used either to discredit or to verify citations made in 1QapGen, which was written at least three centuries earlier and in very different circles.19 Instead, seeking comparable instances of citation in ancient sources, we should perhaps consider the quotations of Aramaic Levi Document itself and of Jubilees by the Damascus Document, which are genuine, though sometimes periphrastic.20 This bears upon all the ancient references to a book of Noah that we will discuss later. Milik does adduce quite a lot of evidence for knowledge of Enoch material in Latin. Lawlor 1897 argues that the Latin version is not a translation from 1 Enoch, but from a book of Noah (see 174–75, 224–25). I have not reached a definite conclusion on this point. 16. The birth of Noah, and in particular the later forms of the story, is discussed in the present volume by Aryeh Amihay, “Noah in Rabbinic Literature,” and Jeremy Penner, “Is 4Q534–536 Really about Noah?” Most recently, see also the discussion of later developments of this material by Orlov 2007, 371–75, 382. 17. See Lawlor 1897. 18. I accept M. de Jonge’s views on the date and origins of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. These are set forth very lucidly and documented by Kugler 2001, 35–39. A full list of de Jonge’s numerous writings on the topic may be found in DiTommaso 2001, 919– 75. 19. Fitzmyer would date the work most probably to the first century b.c.e., but, in fact, there is no evidence except that it is older than its manuscript, 1Q20. That manuscript is dated by paleography to the Herodian period. See Fitzmyer 2000. 20. See Greenfield 1988. In addition, the Damascus Document clearly refers to Jubilees (CD 16:3). Other Qumran texts also apparently refer to Jubilees or another work of the same title, with varying degrees of certainty: see 4Q228 f1i:4; 4Q270 f6ii:17; 4Q271 f4ii:5; and 4Q384 f9:2. On the question of “fake” citations, see also Kaufman 1932.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

Aramaic Levi Document In ALD 10:10 we read that the series of ritual commandments given by Isaac to Levi were taken from τῆς βιβλιοῦ τοῦ Νῶε περὶ τοῦ αἴματος, “Of the Book of Noah concerning the Blood.” Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel remarked on the ambiguity of this phrase, which might be read either as a title, “Of ‘The Book of Noah concerning the Blood,’ ” or as “of ‘The Book of Noah’ concerning the blood,’ ” where the last words designate the subject of the book of Noah.21 Whichever interpretation is correct, this is the oldest explicit reference to the book of Noah, for ALD is to be dated to the third or very early second century b.c.e. at the latest.22 Although the phrase we have cited did not survive among the Qumran fragments of ALD, nor in the Genizah Aramaic folios, but only in an excerpt from a Greek translation, there is no reason to doubt its originality.23 The Aramaic might have been ‫( כתב נוח‬cf. 1QapGen

21. Greenfield, Stone and Eshel 2004, 180. 22. Ibid., 19–20. 23. It does not seem that the ideas proposed by Kugler 2008 make any difference to this conclusion. His conclusions seem to go beyond the evidence he adduces, and a “Qumran” reading or recension of ALD cannot be taken as demonstrated, though of course it is possible. Indeed, in principle, each copyist of a work in fact produces an interpretation, and no text-form is identical to any other. An example of a systematic attempt to clarify such differences for one work is the research of Levison, 2000. Greenfield and I showed the existence of at least two recensions of ALD at Qumran on literary grounds in 1996, 43–45, 54–60. So it has a complex literary history, not more than some other works at Qumran, such as S (The Community Rule) and D (The Damascus Document). Kugler’s claim of a Qumran recension to serve sectarian purposes is unproven. The lack of a fragment from some anyway fragmentary witnesses does not show its deliberate composition and insertion in another witness as part of a sectarian recension. This is otherwise demonstrated only by a single variant between a first-person singular and a first-person plural. Kugler is correct that there were different text-forms, though strangely he does not relate his “Qumran” text-form to the different Qumran Aramaic recensions discerned on literary grounds. Instead, he argues on narrow grounds for a theory of Qumran retelling of ALD that is not implausible but that remains unproven. Even if he is right and such a retelling existed, we can, and should, still talk of ALD as a single work. The long and short recensions of Hebrew Jeremiah are just that. The work remains one work, and there is good reason to try to place its parts in some sort of order and not just to deconstruct them into discrete manuscripts. There are sixty-four manuscripts of the Armenian version of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. They differ from one another, sometimes by the dynamic of copying and sometimes by deliberate recensional activity, with literary and ideological purposes. Are we then to say the work cannot be edited but must be published as sixty-four different compositions? Surely there are other ways of presenting the evidence. So Kugler’s article must be appreciated for raising our consciousness about recensional and tendentious readings of ancient documents, but regarding what happened at Qumran as different

STONE: THE BOOK(S) ATTRIBUTED TO NOAH

5:29). It seems from ALD that this book of Noah contained all the teaching that ALD attributed to Isaac (i.e., 6:1–10:10) and that Isaac had received from Abraham. Abraham, in turn, so the story goes, drew it from the book of Noah. In 10:3 we read, “[f]or my father Abraham commanded me to do thus and to command my sons,” while in 10:10 we find: “[f]or thus my father Abraham commanded me, for thus he found in the writing of the [B]ook of Noah concerning the blood.”24 The conclusion of Isaac’s teaching is found in 10:10. Next comes the blessing he pronounced in 10:11–14, which has its own beginning, “And now, beloved child.…” The detail, length, and tight structure of this passage of priestly teaching make it probable, in my view, that it comes from a source document, and the title of that source document is explicitly said to be “Book of Noah.” This teaching was also cited by Jubilees, as we shall see in the next paragraph. Jubilees 21:1–10 records part of the priestly instruction given by Abraham to Isaac. This is another form of the priestly teaching given by Isaac to Levi, according to ALD.25 In Jubilees, Abraham concludes the first part of this instruction with the words: “for so I have found written in the books of my forefathers (in the words of Enoch and the words of Noah).”26 R. H. Charles remarks, “There was probably no ground for the statement made by our author.”27 Yet, one wonders. It seems very likely that, since this chapter of Jubilees is dependent on ALD, the reference to “words of Noah” has been taken from there (ALD 10:10). The additional mention of Enoch is either an expansion of the information in ALD or else Jubilees knew a tradition that the words of Enoch were transmitted through Noah.28

from what happened in other contexts of transmission seems to be unwarranted. At the very most, non liquet. 24. All citations from Aramaic Levi Document are drawn from the edition mentioned in note 21, above. 25. The relationship between these two passages will be explored in a subsequent study. Observe, however, that in TLevi 9:3, which is radically abridged in comparison with ALD, Isaac attributes part of the teaching to Abraham, without any reference to Noah. However, as has been noted above, TLevi is secondary to ALD. V. Hillel in the following chapter of the present volume discusses the Noachic fragments in 1 Enoch, and in her paper “Demonstrable Instances of the Use of Sources in the Pseudepigrapha” in Hempel (forthcoming), she addresses most recently the issue of the interrelations between ALD, Jubilees, and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 26. Sparks, 1984, 68. 27. Charles 1902, 134. 28. On this line of transmission of antediluvian knowledge through Noah to Abraham and Levi, see Stone 1999. See also Jub. 7:38–39, but no book is transmitted there. On transmission of Enochic material through Noah, see Orlov 2007, 119–31.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

The Book of Jubilees The book of Jubilees was composed sometime in the first third of the second century b.c.e. We have a complete text of it in Ethiopic, fragments in Latin, and a substantial number of fragmentary copies from Qumran.29 Jubilees 10:1–14 is a passage dealing with the demons that afflicted Noah’s children after the flood. Noah prayed to God for help (10:13), and God commanded an angel to teach Noah all the remedies against them (10:10). 10:12 And we explained to Noah all the remedies against their diseases, together with their seductions, and how to heal them with herbs. 10:13 And Noah wrote down everything in a book, as we instructed him about every kind of remedy; thus were the evil spirits kept from doing harm to Noah’s sons. 10:14 And he gave everything he had written to Shem, his eldest son; for he loved him most of all his sons.30

This passage then relates that Noah wrote a book of remedies and transmitted it to his son Shem. A very similar passage was included in the medieval Jewish medical work Sefer Asaf Harofe,31 and it was translated into English

29. See introductory remarks in VanderKam 2000b. 30. Translation by Charles, revised by Rabin in Sparks 1984, 42. For 10:4, VanderKam, in his translation, reads, “He gave all the books that he had written to his older son Shem for he loved him much more than all his sons” (1989, 59). Betsy Halpern-Amaru observes in a personal communication that the Ethiopic in 10:13 has the singular “book,” while in 10:14 it has the plural. “It seems that there are multiple books and that in an ‘orderly’ way he kept different ‘books’ for the various traditions he would pass on” (letter of 7 April 2005). Yet, as she observed in a later communication, the textual basis for “books” is ambiguous, and VanderKam accepts Charles’s reading and does not read “books.” As for the plural, Halpern-Amaru points to the use of the plural in Jub. 45:16, where Jacob transmits “books” to Levi (letter of 11 April 2005). This latter reading does not seem to me to bear on the issue of the book(s) of Noah. 31. It was introduced into the scholarly discussion by Jellinek 1938, 3:xxx–xxxiii and text on 155. See general discussion in Lewis 1968, 12–14. Werman (1999) regards this as a separate source from Jub. 10:1–14, asserting that “the author of Jubilees used material from … the Introduction of the Book of Asaph, but with changes” (172). Of course, since Jubilees antedates Sefer Asaf Harofe by more than a millennium, she must mean that the source used by Sefer Asaf Harofe was that used by Jubilees. In fact, Werman was far from the first to put forth this proposal; Charles had already done so in 1902, xliv; see also Himmelfarb 1994, 127. She points out that the story (without any mention of a book) was known to George Synkellos (128; Adler and Tuffin 2002, 36). This assertion demands that the issue of the transmission of the material found in Sefer Asaf Harofe be addressed energetically. A beginning of this labor has been made by Himmelfarb 1994.

STONE: THE BOOK(S) ATTRIBUTED TO NOAH

by Martha Himmelfarb.32 The parallel to Jubilees in Sefer Asaf Harofe concludes: ‫ויכתב נח את הדברים האלה על ספר ויתנהו לשם בנו הגדול‬ And Noah wrote these things in a book and gave it to Shem, his oldest son. (cf. Jub. 10:14)

Intriguingly, Sefer Asaf Harofe adds two further book of Noah references of its own in this passage. At the opening it reads: “This is the book of remedies that the ancient sages copied from the book of Shem son of Noah. It was transmitted to Noah on Mount Lubar of the mountains of Ararat after the flood.”33 The mention of Mount Lubar is a distinctive tradition, and this name of “one of the mountains of Ararat” only occurs elsewhere in ancient Jewish literature in Jubilees and 4QpseudoDanielb. It is mentioned in the Byzantine Chronography of George Synkellos as the place of Noah’s burial (cf. Jub. 10:15).34 It is not mentioned in Jub. 10:1–14, which is the pericope to which Sefer Asaf Harofe is parallel. However, it does occur in the next pericope in Jubilees, where it is the site not of revelation of the book of Noah but of some other incidents. This leads us toward the conclusion that Sefer Asaf Harofe was familiar with more of Jubilees-allied traditions than the “medical” passage it is quoting.35 The second reference to a book of Noah in Sefer Asaf Harofe is found in the continuation of the passage quoted above, where the transmis-

32. Himmelfarb 1994, 129–30 published the first English translation of this passage. On pages 130–31 she clearly assumes that the material in Sefer Asaf Harofe draws on a Hebrew source of Jubilees that has been tailored to fit the interests of the author of Sefer Asaf Harofe. 33. ‫זה ספר הרפואות אשר העתיקו חכמים הראשונים מספר שם בן נוח אשר נמסר‬ ‫( לנח בלובר ההר מהררי אררט אחרי המבול‬Jellinek 1938, 3:155). Here I have departed from Himmelfarb’s translation. It is to be noted that Mount Lubar is mentioned in the verse following this passage in Jub. 10:15, in connection with Noah’s burial. It is also mentioned in Jub. 5:28, 7:1, and 7:15 and further in 1QapGen 12:13 and 4Q244 f8:3 (4Qpseudo-Danielb), also apparently in connection with Noah. On Mount Lubar, with a possible etymology, see Steiner 1991. 34. On which, apparently, Synkellos draws; see Adler and Tuffin 2002, 63. 35. See above. As already noted, it is conceivable that both Jubilees and Sefer Asaf Harofe are dependent on a third document. Himmelfarb (1994, 127–36) argues vigorously in support of this view. Another interesting analysis of this passage in the context of hekhalot and magical texts may be found in Swartz 1994, 225–26. The question of the origin and date of Sefer Asaf Harofe is debated, but apparently it comes from soon after the middle of the first millennium c.e. See Muntner 2007. A detailed study is Aviv Melzer’s doctoral thesis of 1972. On the date, see 34–57.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

sion of the book is traced down to Galenus.36 The reference to a Noachic book in Jub. 10:14, therefore, is accompanied by a medical/demonic explanation of the human state, which also occurs either in a derived form or drawn from a similar source, in the much later Sefer Asaf Harofe. The Similitudes of Enoch Similitudes (Parables) of Enoch is the least readily dated and located of the parts of 1 Enoch.37 However, it seems to have been written about the turn of the era or a little later. Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch) 68:1 sets the following words in Noah’s mouth: “And after this my great-grandfather Enoch gave me the explanation of all the secrets in a book and the parables that had been given to him, and he put them together for me in the words of the book of the Parables (Similitudes).” This statement, coming toward the end of the Similitudes of Enoch, is apparently intended to give it authority. It is intriguing that it occurs in this particular position. The surrounding text has been characterized as Noachic, a claim that will be discussed elsewhere.38 I find myself uncertain about the relationship between this Noachic text and the Enochic context. Whether the surrounding text is Noachic or not, indubitably this particular claim was set in Noah’s mouth, who alone could have said “my great-grandfather Enoch.” Noah claims that Enoch gave him explanation of all the secrets in a book.39 Thus the expression in Jub. 21:10 is not unparalleled, and the idea was current that Enoch and Noah both had and transmitted books that were connected with one another.40 Tabula Gentium In recent years James M. Scott has drawn attention to the tabula gentium, the division of the earth among Noah’s three sons in Gen 10.41 This passage

36. Some further references to the book of Noah in medieval literature will be discussed in the appendix below. 37. On the date of Similitudes, see most recently Boccaccini 2007. 38. See Hillel in this volume, 27–45. 39. This line of transmission is mentioned in Jub. 7:38. 1 En. 108:1 speaks of a book Enoch wrote for Methuselah and all who would come after him. 40. These issues were dealt with in a broader context in Stone 1999, especially 138–40. That paper was concerned primarily with the role of Noah as transmitter of antediluvian knowledge. On similar transmission in later sources, see the discussion of Jub. 21:10 above. An early, perceptive, and learned discussion of the Noachic material in 1 Enoch is Schmidt 1926. He discusses 1 En. 68:1 on pp. 122–23. 41. Scott 1997b.

STONE: THE BOOK(S) ATTRIBUTED TO NOAH

was extensively developed in Jub. 8:10–9:15, apparently in the fragmentary column 12 of 1QapGen, and further elaborated in later sources.42 Scott correctly points out that, according to Jubilees, this division was inscribed in a book, as Jub. 8:11 says, “When he summoned his children, they came to him—they and their children. He divided the earth into the lots that his three sons would occupy. They reached out their hands and took the book from the bosom of their father Noah.”43 Scott makes the following points concerning this passage. First, the explicit mention of a book in Jub. 8:11 (and, I venture to add, 8:12) means that the division of the earth was included in a “book of Noah.”44 Second, such a book of Noah is distinct from books of Noah on other topics.45 He also observes that the division of the earth was the subject of the fragmentary 1QapGen columns 16–17, which confirms the antiquity of this material. Moreover, Gen 10 is already found to have influenced 1QapGen 12:10–12, although it is in tension with it at a number of points.46 The above are all the uses of the title “Book of Noah” or explicit references to such a book in Jewish literature from the Second Temple period.47 The question remains to be discussed whether these references are fabricated in order to add a patina of authority to the works citing them or whether they indeed refer to an ancient document(s) that actually existed. As I have said, I prefer to assess the use of the titles separately rather than to deal with the titles together with various unattributed literary pieces that scholars have assigned to Noah. From the analysis above, it emerges that there are four substantial pieces of unique text that ancient documents attribute explicitly to a book of Noah. These are: (1) the extensive material in 1QapGen 5:29–17;48 (2) the cultic material attributed to the book of Noah in ALD 6:1–10:10 and the text that is

42. E.g., Stone 1981, 271–77; and works cited by Scott 1997b, 370 n. 8; Charles 1902, 68. See also Eshel 2007. 43. Jub. 8:12 continues, “In the book there emerged as Shem’s lot…” (VanderKam 1989, 52). 44. Scott thus advances García Martínez’s argument considerably; see Scott 1997b, 269–70. 45. Ibid., 370. 46. Ibid., 371–72. The tabula gentium material entered Midrash Aggadah associated with R. Moses the Preacher and is discussed by Himmelfarb 1994, 121–23. It was also used in the Ethiopic tradition; see Cowley 1988, 31–33. 47. I have also included a discussion of Jub. 8:11–12, in which an untitled book by Noah is mentioned. 48. The material in cols. 2–5 of 1QapGen is not presented there as part of a book of Noah.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

most probably derived from it in Jub. 21;49 (3) the magico-medical material that Noah wrote in a book, according to Jub. 10:1–14, which material and attribution are also found in Sefer Asaf Harofe; and (4) the tabula gentium that Noah is said to have written in a book (Jub. 10:11–12). First Enoch 68:1, which seems to be part of a subscription to the Similitudes of Enoch, raises issues about the relationship between Enoch and Noah and is problematic and thus best left out of the present discussion. One of the most vigorous opponents of the existence of a book of Noah has been Devorah Dimant.50 I shall discuss her arguments in detail, not because they are better or worse than those of others, but because they are typical. Dimant surveys the references to Noachic books in Jub. 10:21 (surely an error for 10:13), 21:10 and T. Levi 2:3 (Greek). (I assume that by this last reference she intends ALD 10:10; old section 57.)51 She asserts that “fictional postulation of such works in pseudepigraphic and legendary writings cannot be taken as historical evidence, unless there exists reliable, independent confirmation.”52 I find this assertion to be bizarre. Why should citations that are explicitly said to be drawn from a Noachic document, and each of which is associated with a very distinct body of material, be regarded ab initio as “fictional postulations”? Dimant offers no reason except that the references are made in “pseudepigraphic and legendary writings.” Indeed, she does not adduce the strongest argument of which I know, namely, the existence of unidentifiable Enoch citations in Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. This has been taken (albeit unjustifiably, in my view) to throw doubt on all quotations in ancient sources. As I have shown above, this argument itself is not

49. Above I have dealt with the additional attribution to Enoch found in Jub. 10:21. See also the paper by C. Werman referred to in n. 8 above. 50. See above, n. 10. 51. Testament of Levi refers to a “book of Enoch” twice, in 10:5 and 16:1, but nowhere to a book of Noah. Following T. Levi 2:3 in one manuscript is a Greek expansion that is actually part of ALD, but it does not contain the reference to a book of Noah either. That occurs in the long passage following T. Levi 18:2 in the same Greek manuscript of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. So, I am forced to assume that Dimant is confused here. In addition, on pages 144–45, Dimant enumerates passages that have commonly been assumed to derive from a book of Enoch. I forbear to treat this part of her argument. 52. Dimant 1998, 145. I suspect that L. Schiffman would hold a similar view. Compare his article on pseudpigrapha (2004), where his “book” in ALD 13:4 is the result of a misunderstanding: see Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel 2004, 206. In general, the instances I am discussing in this article are more complex than his categories would suggest. The mysterious “writing” mentioned (if the editors are correct) in 4Q243 is unclear. See the discussion in DiTommaso 2005, 128–29. His connection of this writing with Adam’s testament is speculative, but it does not seem to have been Noachic either.

STONE: THE BOOK(S) ATTRIBUTED TO NOAH

convincing.53 Indeed, I maintain that a citation formula, title, or subscription that is associated with a substantial and distinct block of text has a good claim to be considered genuine, unless the work in which it occurs is rife with obviously forged citations. This is not the case in Jubilees, which mentions only books of Enoch and Noah, except for Jubilees itself in the superscription and books of Jacob in the subscription. 1QapGen mentions the book of Enoch twice on column 20, and these two mentions, in addition to the reference to the book of Noah, are its only surviving references to books. Thus the burden of proof falls on scholars who would deny the authenticity of the book of Noah titles and sections a priori, not on those who would assert it.54 The second argument adduced by Dimant is that the fragments of the book of Noah “diverge in form and detail” and are “of diverse character.” This case is made not just on the basis of the titled passages but also on the basis of other unascribed passages that scholars have attributed to a book of Noah.55 Yet, it seems to me that, even should we group the titled and untitled passages together, this consideration is not convincing. On the one hand, there is no need for there to have been only one Noachic book (or “booklet”). Second, and more telling, we have not a few works from antiquity that contain material of very diverse character. Suffice it, perhaps, to mention the Book of the Watchers in 1 Enoch. If, for example, we had only fragments of chapters 1, 3, 7, 22, and so on of the Book of the Watchers, would we not be able to make Dimant’s argument about their divergence in form and detail and their diversity of character and infer that they do not derive from the same document? It is my conclusion, therefore, that unless contrary evidence emerges, the titles discussed above do designate an ancient literary work (or works) that has not survived in full but that is being cited. This being the case, in a future study I hope to discuss the relationship of fragments attributed by scholars to a Noachic work to these assured Noachic fragments. A final remark should be made on the Noachic document(s). It was a very old work, of the third century b.c.e. at least, and perhaps older. It fell out of use early, it seems,56 and for 53. The title “Book of the Words of Noah” in 1QapGen was unknown to Dimant, for it was deciphered after she wrote her article, but the instance in 1QapGen is no different from those she rejects. 54. The case might be different were these merely passing references. However, in these major, ancient instances, a block of textual material, distinct from its context, follows the reference to the book of Noah. 55. See the similar remarks in Fletcher-Louis 2002, 36. 56. 1Q19, which is preserved in a first-century manuscript, is a Noah birth story, with much in common with 1QapGen 2–3 and 1 En. 106–07, as I have observed. The title “Livre de Noé” was given by the first editors. I shall discuss this story in a future study, but it is not, in my view, necessarily or even particularly probably drawn from a book of Noah.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

that reason survives only in these citations. It also seems to have fallen more or less completely out of the memory of the fathers of the church, though a couple of possible references to it survive.57 In later Jewish traditions, a book of Noah is mentioned in a number of sources, as well as in medieval and subsequent Christian traditions. Of these mentions, many are later inventions.58 If the argument proposed here is accepted as a point of departure, further study is required in order to clarify the contents and character of the book of Noah, as far as is possible. As indicated above, the literary fragments that scholars have attributed to a Noachic source must be investigated anew, and the corpus of texts relating to the birth of Noah should be considered once more. Issues of considerable importance cannot yet be determined. These include the relationship between both the figures and the writings of Enoch and Noah. This is still unclear and will remain so until the literary issues surrounding the book of Noah have been resolved. It is possible that different traditions of learning are here involved, and it is possible that the Noah material was taken over by the Enochic material. If that is the case, and if such a development has a sociological correlative, the question of why remains to be addressed. It may never be answered fully, but even to pose the question is significant for understanding the early development of postexilic Judaism. Some similar problems with the figure of Noah occur in later sources, particularly in 2 Enoch, and the replacement of Noah in the birth story by Melchizedek is most striking59—and it is not the only case. Therefore, it will be necessary also to examine traditions about Noah and later Jewish and Christian retellings of the Noah story, which may preserve elements of old Noah traditions. For the moment, the modest aim of this paper has, I believe, been achieved. It seems to me more than likely that a book or books of Noah existed in the third century b.c.e. or earlier. Some material drawn from this document is preserved in ALD, Jubilees, and the Genesis Apocryphon.

57. However, see below, in the last section. 58. Fabricius 1713, 240–77; Migne 1856, cols. 640–49. See Schmidt 1926, 113, who discusses many of the references. Compare Stone 1982a, 88–103. 59. See Orlov, cited in n. 13 above. He tends, however, to see polemic and confrontation between traditions in very many instances. This often involves thinking of a single paradigm against which various groups react, while the actual socioreligious reality might have been more complex. His work, however, is very perceptive and stimulates innovative ways of thinking about tradition development.

STONE: THE BOOK(S) ATTRIBUTED TO NOAH

Appendix: Some Later Instances of “Book of Noah” In this appendix I give some preliminary information on certain significant medieval sources relating the existence of a book of Noah. These sources do not have any weight in answering the question whether a book of Noah existed in the early postexilic period. They can only illustrate how the medieval Noah traditions developed. The idea of a book of Noah was not foreign to medieval Jews, Samaritans, and Christians. I do not intend the appendix to be exhaustive but to indicate the riches that may be drawn from later traditions. Sefer Harazim and Sefer Raziel Sefer Harazim is a work of magical character dated to the first millennium c.e., probably toward the middle of that millennium. It has survived in fragments from the Genizah and was published with many variants by Mordechai Margaliot in 1966. An English translation was prepared by Michael Morgan and published in 1983. At the start of this work we read: ‫זה ספר מספרי הרזים שנתן לנוח בן למך בן מתושלח בן חנוך בן ירד בן‬ ‫ מפי רזיאל המלאך בשנת ביאתו‬,‫מהללאל בן קינן בן אנוש בן שת בן אדם‬ ‫ ויכתבהו באבן ספיר באר היטב וממנו למד מעשה פלאים‬.‫לתיבה לפני כניסתו‬ ‫ורזי דעת‬ This is a book of the books of mysteries that was given to Noah, son of Lemech, son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mehalalel, son of Kenan, son of Enosh, son of Seth, son of Adam, from the mouth of the angel Raziel in the year in which he came to the ark, before entering (it). And he wrote it on sapphire stone very clearly, and from it he learned wonderous acts and secrets of knowledge [etc].

Noah’s role as transmitter of a book of primordial knowledge is clear here,60 and he is the one who records the secret knowledge, dictated by the angel Raziel, whose name means “secret of God.”61 This is the most prominent chain 60. In Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer ch. 8 (Jerusalem: Eshkol, [n.d.]), [24]–[26], which is translated in Friedlander 1981, 52–54), a similar genealogy is given for the transmission of “the principle of intercalation” (called in Hebrew ‫“ סוד העבור‬the secret of intercalation”). 61. There are many variants to the text of Sefer Harazim. The chief one, noted by Margaliot on p. 113, reads: “This is a book of secrets of knowledge that was revealed to Adam from the mouth of the Angel Raziel in the three hundredth year of the life of Jared, son of Mahalalel, son of Kenan, son of Enosh, son of Seth, son of Adam.” Intriguingly, this genealogy stops in the generation before Enoch. Margaliot, however, considers this variant to be secondary; see his note on p. 65. The text was published earlier by Jellinek 1938, 3:159, drawn from Sefer Raziel; see ibid., 3:xxxii.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

of tradition to be found in Jewish magical literature.62 Michael Swartz has contrasted it with the chain of tradition of the hekhalot books, which starts with Moses.63 Intriguingly, he points out that the Moses tradition is also connected with healing, and he has also explored its relationship with Sefer Harazim (pp. 28–29). Of course, all this is not evidence for the existence of an ancient book of Noah. I adduce it to illustrate how the Noah traditions developed. The role played by the material from Jubilees or allied with Jubilees in the crystallization of this specific Noachic material in Sefer Harazim and Sefer Raziel is most significant. The same angelic name, Raziel, is set on a book that Jellinek cited in his presentation of the book of Noah.64 This is a later work, published in Amsterdam in 1701. Margaliot verified the Amsterdam edition against the manuscript and confirmed Jellinek’s reading in Beth Hamidrasch.65 The passage cited by Jellinek is quite long and contains much interesting material. The book was revealed by the angel Raziel to Adam, following his prayer of repentance upon his expulsion from Eden.66 The book contained secrets of the future and nature and the course of history. The text continues: And the angel Raziel opened the book and read it to Adam. And it came to pass when he heard the words of this holy book from the mouth of the angel Raziel, he fell upon his face trembling. And he said, “Adam, rise and be strong. Do not fear and be not in awe! Take this book from my hands, and be preserved through it, from it you shall have knowledge and understanding. And make it known to everyone who is worthy of it and it will be his portion.” [21] At the time when Adam took this book, fire burned on the bank of the river, and the angel ascended to heaven in a fiery flame. Then Adam realised and knew that he was an angel of God and that this book was sent from the presence the Holy King. And he kept it in pure sanctity. And after four generations Enoch, son of Jared, arose and had understanding in the awe of God and conducted himself in purity. He used to wash and sanctify himself in living water (fresh water) and beseech the Creator of all. And in a dream, the place where the book was hidden was revealed, how it was to be handled67 and what its function was and its pure sanctity. And he arose early and went to a cave and delayed until midday and through 62. Swartz 1994, 212–17. 63. Ibid, section 2. 64. In fact, in an early printing, Sefer Harazim is called “Book of Noah”; see Margaliot 1966, 59–60. See further Blau 1906. 65. See Margaliot 1966, 65 n. 1. 66. Jellinek 1938, 156–67. 67. Ibid., 158.

STONE: THE BOOK(S) ATTRIBUTED TO NOAH

the sun’s power his soul came there, so that the local people should not perceive [‫ ]יבינו‬him. He besought God Blessed be He and ascended (to heaven) in purity and held to the pure Name. And when he understood it, his eyes enlightened all his ways, and he conducted himself through it and continued until he became like the holy ones on high and he was separated from the inhabitants of the earth and was not, for God took him. For through this book he instructed and gave knowledge of the orbits and the constellations and all the luminaries that serve for each month, and the names by which each orbit is called, and the angels that serve in the four seasons of the year, and he learned the names of the earth and the names of the heaven and also the names of sun and moon. And he continued to honour it with all his might and he learned all wisdom, more than Adam the first man, and he learned that all the generations that came after him did not have strength to withstand it, for it is mighty and glorious. And he hid it until Noah, son of Lamech, arose, a completely righteous man [‫ ]צדיק תמים‬in his generations. And in the 500th year of his life the earth was corrupted by the violent action of the generations and all flesh corrupted their way upon the earth and the cry of the earth rose up to heaven before the throne of glory of the Holy One Blessed be He, and Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. And then Raphael, the holy archangel [‫ ]שר‬was sent to him and he said to him, “I was sent through/by the word of God to you to heal the earth and to make known what will be and what (a man) should do and escape.” Then he gave him this holy book and taught him how to handle it and what its function was, and what was the sanctity of its purity. And he said to him, “Hear the word of the Lord. Since you were found to be a perfectly righteous man in your generations, behold, I have given you this holy book and I have made known to you all its secrets and mysteries, to do it in sanctity and purity and modesty and humility, and from it you shall learn to make (an ark) of gopher wood. And you shall enter, you and your sons and your wife and the wives of your sons, to hide for a short time, until the wrath shall pass.” And Noah took the book from the hand of Raphael the holy archangel [‫]שר‬, and when he learned in it the letters that were engraved, the spirit of the Lord rested upon him and he made the ark by length and width with the knowledge that he learned through this holy Name […]. Then Noah, son of Lamech, hid it before he came into the ark […]. Then he opened his mouth with the spirit of wisdom and understanding and he blessed the Lord God, the great, mighty and awesome king.68

The text continues to relate the transmission of the book to Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, and all the generations. So here we have a legend of a book of Noah, revealed to Adam and transmitted 68. Ibid., 156–58.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

to Enoch, to Noah, and then to Levi and through him to the priestly line. It contains many points of interest for the student of Second Temple period texts, and its full exegesis must await a future study. The sources used by Sefer Raziel, however, are much more extensive than those preserved in Sefer Harazim. Particularly striking is the section on Enoch as well as the transmission from Noah through Abraham to Levi and his sons. The text gives no extracts from the Noachic book but indicates that it is a repository of secret knowledge, including the divine Name by which Noah built the ark. Because of the etymology of Raphael, the connection of Raphael with the revelation of the book to Noah evokes the section from Jub. 10 and its parallel in Sefer Asaf Harofe, even though this angel is not mentioned in the latter work. The Book of AsaṬir In the medieval Samaritan history entitled The Book of Asaṭir, we read in chapter 3: And Noah sat in Adam’s place after Adam’s death. In the seventh year (of his life or after Adam’s death?) he learned three books of the covenant: the Book of the Signs, the Book of the Constellations and the Book of the Wars, this is the Book of the Generations of Adam.69

The work is discussed by J. T, Milik, who sees in the reference to the Book of the Signs (‫ )ספר האותות‬a possible hint that Adam created the true calendar.70 He would interpret the three Noachic books to be related to Enochic writings: “we can recognize in these without much difficulty the earliest compositions attributed to Enoch: the sacred calendars … the astronomical treatise (1 En. 72–82) and the Vision of Enoch (1 En. 6–19).”71 I do not find Milik’s identifications convincing, the less so since Asaṭir relates the three works to Noah and not to Enoch. It is intriguing, however, that here once more we have books associated with Noah in a medieval tradition.72

69. The Aramaic text with a Hebrew translation is given by Ben-Ḥ ayyim 1943; 1944. 70. Milik 1976, 64–65. 71. Ibid, 67–68. 72. Moreover, Milik is surely correct in finding the association of the Book of Signs with Enoch to be significant. I take exception only to his specific identification of the three books that Noah learned with specific parts of 1 Enoch.

STONE: THE BOOK(S) ATTRIBUTED TO NOAH

Other References Hugh J. Lawlor points out that Tertullian, in De cultu feminarum 3, apparently knew of no work he regarded as Noachic.73 On the other hand, “Augustine, speaking of Enoch and Noah in City of God 18.38,” says that the only reason their writings are not canonical is their excessive antiquity. The Zohar, Berešit, 1.37b and 55b refers to a book of secrets revealed by the angel Raziel to Adam, who transmitted it, via Seth, to Enoch. Noah does not figure in this transmission.

73. Lawlor 1897, 179–80.

A Reconsideration of Charles’s Designated “Noah Interpolations” In 1 Enoch: 54:1–55:1; 60; 65:1–69:25 Vered Hillel

The book of Noah and Noah traditions have long intrigued scholars and have recently led to considerable scholarly debate and a growing number of publications.1 The book of Jubilees (10:3; 21:10), Genesis Apocryphon (col. 5, line 29), and Aramaic Levi Document (10:10) mention a book(s) of Noah,2 while Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and various Qumran fragments preserve Noah traditions.3 As early as 1893, R. H. Charles distinguished certain passages in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 En. 37–71) as Noachic fragments belonging to the book of Noah or the apocalypse of Noah mentioned in Jubilees. Using a specific set of criteria, he determined that 1 En. 54:7–55:2; 60; and 65:1–69:25 are such interpolations. Characteristically, Charles liberally proposed interpolations and emendations together with his criteria to help him arrive at his conclusions. Charles has been criticized for this type of “cut-and-paste” treatment of texts4 and for paying too much attention to historical allusions and theological doctrines and too little attention to literary structure and symbolism.5 He has even been accused of “hindering the study of Second Temple Judaism.”6 While many of these comments may be true, we need to remember that Charles wrote in a time when the source-critical principles of Wellhausen dominated

1. For a bibliography of publications until 1999 devoted to Noachic traditions, see DiTommaso 2001, 427–30; see also Orlov 2000b, 207 n. 1. 2. See Stone 2006a. 3. Jub. 7:20–39; 10:1–15; 1 En. 6–11; 54:7–55:2; 60; 65:1–69:25; and 106–107; 1Q19; 4Q534–536; 4Q252–254. 4. Black 1985, 238; de Jonge 1953, 31–36. 5. Collins 1986, 348. 6. Charlesworth 2002, 227.

-27-

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

the German and the British scholarly traditions7 and when Christian scholars, who were in the majority, approached texts with their own bias and presuppositions searching for the background of Christianity and/or the historical Jesus.8 These ideas created an anti-Jewish portrayal of Second Temple Judaism characterized by stereotypes gleaned from the New Testament and tendentious polemics that did not begin to change until after the Second World War. In essence, Charles, like all scholars, was a product of his time. Since Charles, new “criticisms” (form, text, literary, structural, etc.) and methods drawn from the social sciences, as well as archaeological discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Cairo Genizah, have modified the methodology by which texts are studied and the point of view from which they are approached. Despite these advances, Charles’s work on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha remains seminal and is consulted by students and scholars alike. A case in point is his 1912 translation of and commentary on the Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch. This work remained the standard edition of 1 Enoch until 1978, when Michael Knibb published a new edition based on Rylands Ethiopic ms 23. Subsequently in 1985, Matthew Black, building on Charles’s 1912 edition, published a revised translation and commentary; in 2001, George W. E. Nickelsburg published part 1 of the Hermeneia commentary on 1 Enoch, which unfortunately does not include the Similitudes, and in 2005 Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam published a new translation of the whole book. Also seminal are Charles’s designated “Noah interpolations”: scholars either adopt them without question or reject them without demonstrating why the designation is invalid. This article investigates Charles’s designated Noah interpolations in the Similitudes in light of his own criteria and methodology to see if his arguments hold. In his 1912 edition, Charles listed seven criteria (emended from his 1893 edition) used to determine three Noah interpolations in the Similitudes.9 Charles’s Criteria 1. 2.

The interpolations always disturb the context in which they occur. They profess to be a revelation to Noah.

7. Already in the eighteenth century the British and German schools were collaborating. Ideas worked out in Britain were quickly translated into German and disseminated among the Protestant faculties of theology. For more information, see O’Neil 1992, 726. 8. For bibliography on the details of the anti-Jewish interpretation of Judaism, see Nickelsburg and Kraft 1986, 10. See also the discussion in Sanders 1977, 1–19 esp. 1–12. 9. Charles 1912, 106–7; 1893, 146–47.

HILLEL: CHARLES’S “NOAH INTERPOLATIONS” IN 1 ENOCH

4. 5.

6. 7.

There are definite dates in the additions; as in 60:1: “In the year 500, in the seventh month on the fourteenth of the month in the life of Enoch.” The demonology is different. The interpolator seeks to adapt his additions to their new contexts and accordingly incorporates in them many terms and phrases from the Similitudes but misuses technical terms and phrases, either through ignorance or set purpose. The interpolator misunderstands the Similitudes and combines absolutely alien elements. The Similitudes follow the lxx chronology; the interpolations follow the Samaritan chronology.

This essay first evaluates the integrity of Charles’s criteria, then examines his three designated Noah interpolations (54:7–55:2; 60; 65:1–69:25) in light of these criteria. Two points to bear in mind before beginning our investigation are that: (1) the extant Ethiopic text is a third-generation translation; it is a translation of a Greek translation of a Semitic original; and (2) the surviving manuscripts are often confused and corrupted. Section 1: Integrity of the Criteria Criteria 2 and 3: Attribution and Definite Dates According to Charles’s criteria, the interpolated passages profess to be a revelation to Noah; as a result, he also attributes to Noah any passage related to the flood or the first judgment. This is true of 54:7–55:2, which does not mention Noah by name but focuses on the flood and thereby is linked to Noah and satisfies Charles’s second criterion as an interpolation. It is clear from 60:1 and 60:8 that chapter 60 is erroneously attributed to Enoch instead of Noah.10 The mention in verse 8 of the visionary’s greatgrandfather, the seventh from Adam, and the dating “in the year 500,” which is drawn from Gen 5:32,11 could apply only to Noah, as according to both the lxx and mt, Enoch was 365 years old when he walked with God (Gen 5:22–23). Noachic and Enochic traditions often occur together, and in some

10. The erroneous attribution to Enoch instead of Noah has been argued since Dillmann 1853. Suter (1979b, 32, 154) does not accept this as a wrong attribution; cf. Dimant 1998, 144–46. 11. Noah was 500 years old when his sons were born.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

texts the “words of Noah” follow closely on the “words of Enoch.”12 There is interdependence between Noachic and Enochic material; some type of affinity lies behind the “Enoch-Noah axis.” Even the texts that seem to show a theological polemic against Noah (e.g., 2 Enoch) are based on some type of “original” Noachic material.13 Although the “original” Noah motifs and themes are substantially rewritten in it, they nevertheless exhibit parallels to the Noah material.14 The same is true in 1 En. 60, where the Noah material has been reworked to read as an Enochic vision. Interestingly, definite dates like those given in 60:1 and 60:8 are only found in Charles’s designated “Noah fragments.” Elsewhere in the Similitudes, only general phrases such as “in those days” or “all the years of the world” are used. Of the passage 65:1–69:25, only 65:1–68:1 is attributed to Noah. While Noachic attribution could possibly apply to the discourse between Michael and Raphael in 68:2–69:25, it seems unlikely, as both Noah and the flood suddenly vanish when the discourse begins, leaving no indication that the passage is connected to Noah. The introductory phrase to the discourse, “And on that day,” also signals a break in the section, as it points to the last judgment instead of the first. While no definite dates are used in either section, two distinct time-related phrases are mentioned: “in those days,” which appears only in 65:1–68:1; and “on/from that/this day,” which is relegated to 68:2–69:25. This corresponds to the attribution division just mentioned. Thus only the first section (65:1–68:1) can be attributed to Noah. Criterion 4: Different Demonology Charles contends that the demonology in the additions is different from that of the Similitudes proper. It is difficult to assess this criterion, as Charles’s arguments are as bewildering as the demonology in the text. His line of reasoning must be teased from his commentary just as the demonology from the text; nothing is stated explicitly. The demonology in the Similitudes includes the fallen angels and their leader Azazel, satans, Satan, and the angels of punishment. Satan and satans only appear four times in 1 Enoch and then only in the Similitudes: Satan appears as the leader of the angels of punishment (53:3) and as the ruler who subjugates the hosts of Azazel (54:6); the satans are the accusers of (40:7) and teachers of violence (65:6) to those who dwell on the earth. The angels of punishment are instruments of retribution for the condemned who oppressed humankind and led them astray (53:3; 56:1; 62:11; 12. Kvanvig 1988, 71–86; Stone 1999; Jub. 21:10. 13. Orlov 2000a; 2000b. For a slightly modified position, see Orlov 2005. 14. Orlov 2000b.

HILLEL: CHARLES’S “NOAH INTERPOLATIONS” IN 1 ENOCH

63:1). However, in 66:1 they have power over the waters that are released to punish those who dwell on the earth. Charles classifies these references into two groups of evil agencies: the satans, comprised of the satans and the angels of punishment, led by Satan;15 and the fallen angels, led by Azazel. This classification allows Charles to propose three roles for the satans: (1) accusers who have access to heaven (40:7); (2) punishers of the condemned (53:3; 56:1; 62:11; 63:1); and (3) those who lead people astray (69:4, 6).16 The first two functions, accusers and punishers of the condemned, appear only in the Similitudes proper and stand in opposition to their function in the interpolation as those who lead astray (69:4, 6). Thus the term is used differently in the interpolation. The reference to the angels of punishment in 66:1, which was omitted from Charles’s argument summarized above, also supports his criterion. In the Similitudes, the satans interact with those who dwell upon the earth (40:7; 65:6) and the angels of punishment with the condemned, the hosts of Azazel, and the kings and the mighty. However, in 66:1, a designated Noah interpolation, the two terms have been confused. Here the angels of punishment, instead of the satans, are paired with those who dwell on the earth: the angels of punishment have control over the waters that will bring judgment and destruction on those who dwell on the earth. The two groups, satans and angels of punishment, have been fused. While the Similitudes allude to their amalgamation, the interpolation executes it. Consequently, the demonology in 66:1 is different from the Similitudes and thus qualifies the verse as an interpretation. The two lists of fallen angels in 1 En. 69 also exhibit differences in demonology that indicate that they are interpolations. The first list in 69:2–3, which lists the angels who were placed over the elements of the cosmos, is the same, with some variations, as that in 6:7 and is generally considered to be a secondary insertion.17 According to Suter, this list probably did not originally refer to fallen angels. Although this would indicate redactional activity, it does not provide information on the use of the list in the Similitudes. Charles contends that this list refers to the angels who fell in the time of Jared, but it is not clear how he reached this conclusion. Regardless of its status or to whom it refers, the list contains no information pertinent to our evaluation of criterion 4. The second list (69:4–15) parallels one in 8:1–3. Both lists give the names of the angels along with their function in leading humankind astray. In the Book of the Watchers (8:2), men are led astray into godlessness and

15. See Charles 1912, 78 (40:7); cf. Black 1985, 200 and references there. 16. Charles 1912, 78. 17. For example, see Charles 1912, 136; Knibb 1978, 136. Knibb thinks the variations are due to inner-Ethiopic variants of the names in 6:7 (1978, 76,159).

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

fornication, while in 69:4–6 Jeqon and Asbeel lead the sons of god to defile themselves with the daughters of men and Gadreel leads Eve astray. Accordingly, both Jeqon and Asbeel existed before the sins of the Watchers and Eve. Consequently, either the list does not refer to the fallen angels as stated in 69:2 (Jeqon and Asbebel are the cause of the Watchers going astray) or the demonology in the list is different from that of the Similitudes. Several other incongruities exist between the two lists of names; for example, Gadreel has assumed the role of Azazel (or Asael) as the angel in charge of making weapons of war (8:1; 69:6) and Kasdeja the role of Samjaza as the angel in charge of enchantments and root-cuttings (8:3; 69:13). But the most significant for our investigation is the leader of the fallen angels. In the Book of the Watchers, Semjaza is the leader of the fallen angels (6:3; 8:3; 9:7) and Azazel is responsible for all unrighteousness and corruption on earth (9:6; 10:4–9; 13:1–2), while in the Similitudes Azazel is the leader of the fallen angels (54:5; 55:4). To the contrary, 69:4 designates Jaqon as the leader, indicating that the demonology in the list in chapter 69 is different from the rest of the Similitudes. While the incongruities uphold Charles’s criterion that the demonology is different in the interpolations, it not clear that they can be attributed to a book of Noah or a Noah tradition. However, Suter’s assertion that 69:4–12 represents “the original form of the tradition” and the names in 8:1–3 are the “result of redactional assimilation”18 lends credence to this theory. Criterion 5: Technical Terms Charles claims that the interpolator adapts many technical terms and phrases from the Similitudes but misuses them. Bear in mind that the terminology “misuse of technical terms” is a quote from Charles and not a value judgment on our part. Term 1: “Those Who Dwell on the Earth” This phrase is used most prominently in the Similitudes to indicate the elect, the righteous, those who have eternal life, whereas in the three passages that Charles attributes to Noah, the phrase designates the unrighteous, the wicked, those being judged, or merely their geographical location as inhabitants of the physical world. In 54:7–55:2, “those who dwell on the earth” refers to the wicked inhabitants on earth who are judged in the flood; in chapter 60, the phrase designates their geographical location; and in 65–69 it indicates both 18. Suter 1979b, 73.

HILLEL: CHARLES’S “NOAH INTERPOLATIONS” IN 1 ENOCH

the unrighteous, wicked people (65:6, 12; 66:1; 67:8) and their geographical location (67:7; 69:1). Term 2: “Angels of Punishment” The role of the “angels of punishment” only occurs in one interpolated passage, 66:1, where it also deviates slightly from its regular usage in the Similitudes. All four times that the “angels of punishment” appear in the Similitudes, they punish the condemned (53:3; 56:1; 63:1; 66:1). Three times (53:3; 56:1; 63:1) they deal with the eschatological, second judgment, and once (66:1) with the first judgment. In 66:1 (a Noah fragment), they have control over the waters. Hence, the angels of punishment are related to the flood, the first judgment by water, and consequently to Noah and ultimately to Noachic traditions. Term 3: “Lord of Spirits” The “Lord of spirits” is a unique term found only in the Similitudes. Although the term probably stems from Num 16:22, its closest parallel in Jewish literature appears in 2 Macc 3:24. “Lord of spirits” occurs 104 times in the Similitudes, 28 of which appear in Charles’s interpolated sections. In most instances, “Lord of spirits” refers to the all-knowing, wise God who interacts with the figure(s) who appear(s) with him. He is not an austere deity who acts alone to judge and condemn. On the contrary, he gives wisdom, knowledge, mercy, and revelation to the Righteous One, the Elect One, elect ones, and so on, who, in turn, depend on him. The angels surround him, and the righteous dwell with him. He is extolled, praised, and blessed. Some believe in his name, while others deny it. Punishment proceeds from him, but he is not said to perform the action. In the second, less frequent use, the Lord of spirits is impersonal and independent. He himself judges and punishes; there is no interaction between him and the figures who appear with him. This second, less frequent use appears only in the sections designated by Charles as Noah fragments. So in 54:7–55:2 the Lord of spirits is an impersonal figure connected with the judgment of the temporal world. He executes the punishment of those “who dwell on the earth” and “under the ends of the heaven” by opening the chambers and the foundations of water. Even though the Head of Days is mentioned in this section, there is no interaction between him and the Lord of spirits. The title “Lord of spirits” also appears three times in chapter 60 (once in v. 6, twice in v. 25). Here he acts independently to judge and to punish those who dwell upon the earth. Although his mercy and longsuffering are mentioned, his patience has run out. It is time for judgment! There is no hint of praise or

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

adoration of the Lord of spirits or of the righteous or elect accompanying him. Instead, he acts alone to judge and to punish those who deny his name. As in 54:7–55:2, the characteristics of the Lord of spirits in chapter 60 fall within the secondary usage, which only appears in Charles’s Noah passages. Significantly, in 65:1–69:25, the third Noah passage in question, both understandings of the title have been very cleverly woven together. The Lord of spirits is presented as the all-knowing God and judge (65:9–11), as the plumb line of judgment for those who deny his name (67:8), as the angry judge (68: 4–5), and as one who is thanked and praised (69:24). In all five references, the Lord of Spirits is an impersonal deity who is talked about but with whom there is no interaction. Even his role as the all-knowing God, extolled and praised, is passive. Although clearly adapted to its context, the use of the “Lord of spirits” as impersonal and independent in 65:1–69:25 is consistent with the less frequent use of the title and is distinctive of Charles’s designated Noah interpolations. Term 4: “Head of Days” The title “Head of Days” appears less frequently than “Lord of spirits” and then only in the second part of the Similitudes, in visions inspired by Dan 7.19 Of its eight occurrences, five times the “Head of Days” is connected with the “son of man,”20 and three times he acts alone.21 Primarily, the Head of Days is described as “ancient, primordial, from the beginning of all time and eternal” (46:1; 48:2; 71:10, 12, 13), as in Dan 7:9.22 In contrast, Charles’s designated Noachic interpolations (47:3; 55:1; 60:2) emphasize the literal interpretation of the figure’s role as the majestic Chief or Head. The first-person narrative in 54:7–55:2, in which the Head of Days speaks and acts alone, reflects none of the characteristics derived from Dan 7. Instead, it emphasizes his omnipotence. Consequently, the passage echoes the second usage and the so-called interpolations. Contrary to the other occurrences where the “Head of Days” and the “son of man” appear together (46:1; 48:2; 71:10, 12), in chapter 60 there is no relationship between the two; they are totally independent figures. Here the Head of Days is seated on the throne with the angels and the righteous surrounding him (v. 2), while the son of man figure does not appear until later, after the throne-room vision and the introduction of Leviathan and Behemoth (v. 10).

19. Dillmann 1853, 156. 20. 1 En. 46:1; 48:2; 71:10, 11, 12. For the relationship of the two phrases, see Charles 1893, 127 n. 1; 1912, 85. 21. 1 En. 47:3; 55:1; 60:2. 22. Black 1985, 193; cf. Charles 1893, 127.

HILLEL: CHARLES’S “NOAH INTERPOLATIONS” IN 1 ENOCH

This differs from the most common usage in the Similitudes, where the two figures are associated and work in tandem. Another deviation in chapter 60 that points to a Noah interpolation is the way in which the Head of Days is depicted as a majestic chief accompanied by angels and by the righteous and not as the eternal, primordial being. Term 5: “Son of Man” The “son of man” figure, the last term we will address, is the most intricate. The significant corpus of scholarly writing on the “son of man figure” extends well beyond the scope of this paper. Even a limited study of the figure within the Similitudes elicits divergent scholarly opinions.23 Because of these complexities, we will limit our comments to a general description of the term’s use in the Similitudes and its comparative use in 60:10, the only time it appears in Charles’s interpolations. Most often in the Similitudes, the “son of man” is more than simply a “human figure”;24 he is a redeming, eschatological figure whose defining characteristics are righteousness and election.25 He is the judge of the world whose appearance will expose every hidden thing and will signal the revelation of good and the unmasking of evil. These characteristics are derived from Dan 7. However, in 60:10 the “son of man” does not reflect the eschatological figure of Dan 7 but resembles a form of address peculiar to the book of Ezekiel, where the human prophet is called “son of man.” Like Ezekiel, Enoch himself is called “son of man.” In 60:10, Enoch plays no eschatological role and exhibits none of the characteristics usually ascribed to the son of man in the Similitudes. Above all, he is not a revealer of all things, but quite the reverse. He is a human seeking to know and understand hidden things. This usage of the term “son of man” has no parallels in the Similitudes, not even in other designated “Noah passages.”26 Clearly the technical terminology is used differently in the designated interpolations than in the body of the Similitudes. Thus, according to the single criterion of the “misuse of terminology,” it seems that Charles was justi-

23. On the term “son of man” in the Similitudes, see Nickelsburg 1992b, 138–40; VanderKam 1992b, 174–85; Collins 1980; and Casey 1976. See also Boccaccini 2007. 24. See note 23. 25. 1 En. 46:2–7; 48:2–10; 62:5–14; 63:11–12; 69:26–29. 26. A possible exception is 71:14. However, most scholars consider chapters 70 and 71 a double epilogue and not part of the original Similitudes. VanderKam (1992a, 177–79), on the other hand, finds these two chapters integral to the text and crucial to one’s understanding of the phrase “son of man.” See, for example, Boccaccini 2007.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

fied in drawing a distinction between the interpolations and the body of the Similitudes. Criterion 6: Combination of Alien Elements Charles correctly observes that the “interpolator misunderstands the parables and combines absolutely alien elements.” For example, 67:4–5 locates the “burning valley” in the west among the mountains of metal. This combination of elements is found in chapters 52–54: Enoch is swept away toward the west, where he sees mountains of metal (52:1–2). Next to these mountains is a deep valley in which the angels of punishment are making Satan’s instruments (53:1–3). Enoch then turns to “another part of the earth,” where he sees a burning valley into which the kings and mighty were being cast (54:1–2). To the contrary, in chapter 67 the fallen angels are cast into the burning valley that lies in the west among the mountains of metal. Also note that in 54:1 the burning valley lies in a different, unknown direction from the mountains. The writer not only combines details of the valleys and mountains of metal but also incorporates flood traditions (54:7–55:2) to create an entirely new scenario in which all the elements from chapters 52–54 coalesce: the burning valley, the great convulsion of waters, and the punishment of the kings and the mighty. Section 2: Interpolated Sections We shall now proceed to apply all of Charles’s criteria to his interpolated “Noah” passages: 1 En. 54:7–55:2; 60; and 65:1–69:25. We will examine the context of each “interpolation” (criterion 1), then see how all the criteria, including those discussed above, come to bear on a single passage. It is important to remember that, although a significant part of the Similitudes is a reworking of earlier Enochic traditions drawn from the Book of the Luminaries27 and the Book of the Watchers,28 the Similitudes is distinct from the rest of 1 Enoch, among other things, in its origin, in its use of the names of God, and its view of eschatology.29 The Similitudes is the second of 1 Enoch’s

27. Chapters 1–16 and 17–36 in the Book of Luminaries closely parallel the first parable in the Similitudes, chapters 38–44. 28. The Similitudes 41:3–8; 43–44; 60:11–24; and 69:22–24 parallel the Book of the Watchers. Similarly, the “Noachic” narratives in 65–67 are related to stories in 83–84 and 106–107. 29. For an explanation of the chief characteristics that differentiate the Similitudes from the rest of 1 Enoch, see Charles 1893, 106–7. See also Boccaccini 2007.

HILLEL: CHARLES’S “NOAH INTERPOLATIONS” IN 1 ENOCH

five major divisions and is usually itself divided into three major blocks (first parable, 38–44; second parable, 45–57; and third parable, 58–69), plus a brief introduction (37:1–4), an epilogue (70), and an appendix (70–71).30 1 Enoch 54:7–55:2 Criterion 1: Disturbs the Context According to Charles’s criteria, the interpolated passages profess to be a revelation to Noah (criterion 2), so any passage related to the flood or the first judgment is also attributed to Noah. This is true of 54:7–55:2. The verses do not mention Noah by name, but they do focus on the flood. As a result, the passage is linked to Noah and satisfies Charles’s second criterion as an interpolation. He also states that this section disturbs the context of the second parable (45–57; criterion 1). The preceding verses, 53:1–54:6, address the final judgment: the condemnation of the watchers; the resurrection of the dead; and a deep, burning valley prepared for Azazel and his armies. Suddenly, 54:7–55:2 begins discussing the first judgment, the punishment of the flood. Then in 55:3 the text returns to the final judgment, that is, to the angels on the day of tribulation and pain, to the judgment of Azazel and his hosts, and to the deep valley, thereby connecting 55:3 back to 54:6. The change from the second judgment to the first in this passage definitely disturbs the context, and when the section is removed, the remaining material flows well together. However, the first judgment material has been cleverly worked into the context. This passage imitates 1 En. 8–10 in the Book of the Watchers; in both instances, the flood material is introduced after the account of the condemnation and temporary incarceration of the Watchers.31 So, although the material may be out of context, it is not out of place. The first-person utterance by the Lord of spirits in 55:3 concerning the judgment of Azazel and his armies is problematic. While the declaration smoothly follows the first-person narrative in 55:2, it connects clumsily with 54:6, where the angel of peace is speaking about the Lord of spirits. Four or five words of this text are confused and corrupt, with some parts of the text missing.32 Charles translates the corrupt text “this is in accordance with my commandment” and attaches it to the end of 55:2, as he understands the phrase to refer to the “pledge of faithfulness.”

30. That 71:1–17 is generally considered an appendix, see Stone 1984a, 401 n. 97, 403 n. 106. Milik 1976, 90, proposes different divisions. 31. Black 1985, 184. 32. Charles 1906, 99.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S) And He sware by His great name: “Henceforth I will not do so to all who dwell on the earth, and I will set a sign in the heaven: and this shall be a pledge of good faith between Me and them for ever, so long as heaven is above the earth. And this is in accordance with My command. 3 When I have desired to take hold of them by the hand of the angels on the day of tribulation and pain because of this, I will cause My chastisem*nt and My wrath to abide upon them, saith God, … the Lord of Spirits.…” (emphasis added)

On the other hand, Black, like other translators, follows the traditional verse division and places the phrase at the beginning of 54:3.33 He assumes that a reference to Azazel and his host is missing. Thus he emends Charles’s reading to: “And this is my command [with regard to the host of Azazel] when I am pleased to seize them by the hand of the angels.” Black’s emendation smoothes the transition between 54:6 and 55:3, showing that the text flows as a whole without the Noah passage in 54:7–55:2. However, there is no need to try to smooth or justify all the inconsistencies in an ancient text, so Charles’s suggestion is tenable. Summary Only three of Charles’s criteria apply to 1 En. 54:7–55:2: context; attribution; and the “misuse of technical terms.” The section, based on its subject of the flood, the first judgment, interrupts the flow of the context and indirectly professes to be a revelation to Noah. Its distinctive use of these technical terms “Lord of Spirits,” “Head of Days,” and those “who dwell on the earth” reflects a secondary usage found only in the so-called interpolations. These findings uphold Charles’s designation of this section as an interpolation. The fact, noted above, that the text flows more or less smoothly after the interpolation is removed, corroborates this conclusion. 1 Enoch 60 Criterion 1: Disturbs the Context The textual complexities34 and lack of distinct unity35 make it difficult to determine the overall position of chapter 60 within the third parable and thus whether or not it disturbs the context. The chapter begins with Enoch’s 33. Black 1985, 220. 34. Charles 1906, 108; Martin 1906, 124; Knibb 1978,148; Black 1985, 230–31. Charles actually places v. 25 between vv. 6 and 7 in the translation (1912, 114–15). 35. Knibb 1978, 143; cf. Black 1985, 225.

HILLEL: CHARLES’S “NOAH INTERPOLATIONS” IN 1 ENOCH

(Noah’s) vision of the heavens that quake so violently that all the heavenly hosts are disquieted and he is prostrate with fear. Subsequently, Michael sends an angel36 to raise Enoch up and to warn him of the impending judgment and punishment, during which two monsters, Leviathan and Behemoth, will either be food for or devour the victims. A short excursus on the mysteries of nature (thunder, lightning, snow, hail; 60:11–23) interrupts the description of Leviathan and Behemoth material, which concludes in the first part of verse 24. The subject then returns to the eschatological judgment and punishment, and in chapter 61 suddenly introduces two angels who measure paradise and the righteous. These opening verses of the third parable consist of several units of traditional material. K. William Whitney Jr. demonstrates this in the following chart:37 58:1–3 59:1–3 60:1–6 60:7–10 60:11–23 60:24ab 60:24c-25 61:1–5 61:1–3

Eschatology Cosmology Eschatology Eschatology Cosmology Eschatology Eschatology Eschatology Eschatology

Introduction Lightning and thunder Heavenly throne room and judgment Behemoth and Leviathan Heavenly secrets Behemoth and Leviathan The judgment Measuring of the righteous The elevation of the Chosen One

The rapid shifts between eschatological and cosmological concerns may indicate the displacement of original material.38 Nickelsburg proposes regrouping the material thematically by relocating 60:11–13 to follow 59:1–3 immediately, thus reuniting the two cosmological units as well as that of Leviathan and Behemoth.39 Although the textual integrity of an apocalyptic work should not usually be judged by thematic consistency, Whitney states that at the very least the two references to Behemoth and Leviathan should be treated as an original unity.40 Even if we accept Nickelsburg’s emendations, they do not solve the textual difficulties. Several questions still remain: (1) How should 60:24–25 be handled? Should the corrupt text be emended by repositioning the verses to follow the Noah material in verses 1–6, or should they remain in place? (2) 36. Probably the angel of peace named in 60:24. 37. Whitney 2006, 46–47. 38. See Whitney 2006, 47 esp. n. 58 for bibliographic references. 39. Nickelsburg 1981, 219. 40. Cf. Knibb 1978, 143 n. 60.6.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

How should the Leviathan/Behemoth material be interpreted: does it apply to the flood or the eschaton? Knibb explains that verses 24c and 25 are out of place in most manuscripts, probably due to missing words that were reinserted in verse 25.41 He joins 24ab to verses 7–10 because they answer the question about the two beasts posed in verse 9, and he connects verses 24c–25 to the Noachic material that broke off in verse 6.42 In 1893, Charles recognized the textual problem and inserted verse 25 after verse 6, thereby connecting the verse with the Noah material. Although Charles mentioned the displacement of verse 24, he did not emend the text. In contrast, Black, following Dillmann, sees no need to emend the text because they interpret the Leviathan/Behemoth material as pertaining to the first judgment, to the flood. He interprets the passive verb “to feast” (yessesayu) in 60:24 to mean “to be supplied with food,” not to provide food for the righteous, as other commentators maintain.43 Accordingly, the role of the two monsters was to devour the victims of the flood. This interpretation describes the first judgment and removes the need to emend the text: the cosmological material in verses 11–23 becomes less intrusive because the flood deals with the cataclysm of nature.44 Thus, according to Black and Dillmann, all of chapter 60 refers to the flood and as such can be attributed to Noah and Noachic traditions. Conversely, Whitney and Knibb understand the Leviathan/Behemoth material to refer to the eschaton. Whitney, based on verbal tenses, terminology, and parallels found in 4 Ezra 6:49–52 and 2 Bar. 29:4, has convincingly demonstrated this position.45 According to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, Leviathan and Behemoth are huge monsters created on the fifth day as food for the righteous during messianic times.46 Whitney concludes that these texts all stem from a common tradition that was set in primordial times.47 This interpretation accounts for the tension in 1 En. 60:7–10, 24ab but is suspect because it derives from the author’s attempt to impose an eschatological context on the originally primordial material. Besides the false attribution, the verse describes the abode of Behemoth as being in Dendayn. Many attempts have been made to clarify the location 41. Knibb 1978, 148 n. 60.24. 42. Knibb 1978, 143 n. 60.6, 148 n. 60.24. 43. Black 1985, 225, 230–31; Dillmann 1853, 183–84, 190–91. For dissenting opinions, see, e.g., Whitney 2006, 56. 44. Black 1985, 230–31. 45. Whitney 2006, 50–51. 46. This tradition seems to be a reworking of Ps 74:14. See Bousset and Gressmann 1966, 285. The Bablylonian Talmud (B. Batra 74a) also understands the two monsters to be food for the righteous in messianic times. 47. Whitney 2006, 57.

HILLEL: CHARLES’S “NOAH INTERPOLATIONS” IN 1 ENOCH

and name of this desert.48 Whitney shows how Dendayn is of “considerable antiquity” and a much earlier form of the similar tradition found in 4 Ezra 6:51.49 Furthermore the association with Enoch (v. 8) indicates that the work arose from the community of “ancestral heroes.” If we accept this assessment along with the correct attribution of Noah, we can deduce that some type of Noah tradition lies behind this chapter and possibly even a “book of Noah.” No matter how one interprets or emends chapter 60, the opening verses of chapter 61 are problematic: the identity of the two angels50 is not immediately obvious. It is clear that they do not refer back to the hosts of angels in 60:1, because their characteristics are different. Scholars resolve this uneven seam in various ways: Dillmann simply links these angels to the angels that appeared previously in the Similitudes; Charles characteristically explains their sudden appearance by “some preceding part now lost.”51 Black proposes that they are a “midrashic treatment” of Zech 2:1–3, and Knibb is silent. If, on the other hand, Nickelsburg’s proposed relocation is accepted, then the passage in 61:1–5 dealing with the angels’ measuring of paradise and the righteous would directly follow the Leviathan/Behemoth unit. This order is similar to the eschatological blessings that follow the Leviathan/Behemoth material in 2 Baruch. Though such an emendation smoothes the uneven seam, it does not explain the sudden appearance of the two angels. Even with the restoration of “Noah” for “Enoch,” it is not clear that the entire chapter or even parts ever belonged to an original book of Noah. Summary of Chapter 60 The textual complexities of this chapter complicate the assessment of Charles’s criteria more than any other section. How one resolves important issues concerning the Similitudes and its language influences the decision as to whether the passage is interpolated Noah material or not. Based on the definitive dates given (criterion 3), the material clearly should be ascribed to Noah (criterion 2). However, the author has thoroughly reworked the material and applied it to Enoch. Thus it is difficult to discern precisely what is Noachic tradition. Whether or not the passage is out of context depends on one’s interpretation of the Leviathan/Behom*oth material. If the passage refers to the final, eschatological judgment, it does not interrupt the flow of the text, seeing that it

48. For example, Dillmann 1853, 30, 184; Charles 1913, 115–16; Milik 1971, 348; Black 1978, 231–32; 1985, 227. 49. Whitney 2006, 53–55, 57. 50. Some manuscripts read “those angels.” 51. Dillmann 1853; Charles 1912, 119.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

relates thematically to chapters 59 and 61 and therefore cannot be classified as an interpretation. However, if one accepts Whitney’s assessment of the Leviathan/Behemoth material, as I do, the passage refers to the first judgment. This assessment, coupled with his contention that the legend contains primordial material of “considerable age,” verifies the criterion and makes this passage an interpolation related to ancient Noah traditions. The technical terms in chapter 60 reflect the secondary usage, which equates them with the “interpolated” passages. Consequently, I conclude that chapter 60 relies on some type of Noah tradition that has been thoroughly reworked by the author. Although the chapter may reflect a book of Noah, it cannot be tied to a specific writing. 1 Enoch 65:1–69:25 Criterion 1: Disturbs the Context This section deals mainly with three subjects: the impending flood and the deliverance of Noah (65:1–67:3); the punishment of the fallen angels (67:4– 68:1); and the judgment of the fallen angels and the secrets they disclosed (68:2–69:25). The narrative shifts between first person and third person: 64:1–2 is a first-person narrative by Enoch; 65:1–2a briefly shifts to a thirdperson narrative about Noah; and 65:2b-68:1 is a first-person narrative by Noah.52 The material then turns to a discussion between Michael and Raphael about the judgment and the aftermath thereof (68:2–69:25). Enoch and Noah appear together in 65:1–68:2: Noah cries out to Enoch, his grandfather—actually, his great-grandfather—who is located at the ends of the earth, in order to find the reason for the impending destruction of the earth.53 Enoch explains to Noah that the destruction is coming because the earth has been corrupted by the teaching of the angels and the satans, then gives him (Noah) a promise of redemption (65:6–12). As a sign of confirmation, Enoch shows Noah that the angels of punishment who hold the power over the waters prepared to bring judgment and destruction are restrained by the Lord of spirits (66:1–2). Noah temporarily leaves Enoch’s presence (66:3). The two appear together again in 68:1, where Noah receives the book of secrets and parables from Enoch. In the intervening chapter (67), Noah expounds Enoch’s revelation and reiterates God’s promise to him. This time

52. Black (1985, 239) regards vv. 1–3 as a first-person narrative based on the reading of Etht, which he regards as the correct reading. Dimant classifies this section as a discourse and not a narrative (1998, 145). 53. In 1 En. 83–84, Enoch relates to Methuselah a dream vision he had concerning the flood.

HILLEL: CHARLES’S “NOAH INTERPOLATIONS” IN 1 ENOCH

Noah receives the revelation directly from God; Enoch is not the intermediary. In 68:2–5, Michael and Raphael discuss the severity of the judgment of the secrets and of the fallen angels, while chapter 69 lists the names and functions of the fallen angels and satans. It is clear that 65:1–69:25 deals with two separate traditions (65–67 and 68–69). Chapter 64 shifts from the preceding description of the eschatological judgment of the kings and the mighty (chs. 62–63) to the following Noah material (chs. 65–67). Another transition is found in 68:1, in which Enoch entrusts Noah with a book of parables. This verse is an apparent interpolation, as it assumes that the Similitudes already exists, that it tries to smooth the seam between the following Michael-Raphael discourse and the preceding Noah material, perhaps to lend authority to the Michael-Raphael tradition. Chapters 65–67 clearly deal with the first judgment, and chapter 68 is assigned to the time of the flood because it discusses the judgment of the angels who are identified as the Watchers. Chapter 69 is assigned to the first judgment because it names the fallen angels and satans and because it reworks 1 En. 6:6–8, which definitely refers to the flood. These separate traditions have been adapted into a coherent literary unit that can stand as a whole, independent of its context. When removed from their context, the text flows smoothly from chapter 63 to chapter 70. Although out of context, these verses are not out of order. They have been carefully worked into the Similitudes. The judgment of the angels is described in 55:3–4 as a warning to the mighty kings, whose own judgment appears in chapter 62. Somewhere between chapter 55 and chapter 62 the mighty kings became two entities, the mighty and the kings. The kings and the mighty resurface again in the middle of the judgment of the fallen angels in 67:8, tying them together by Stichworte.54 Nevertheless, their association with the first judgment disturbs the context of the Similitudes and satisfies Charles’s first criterion as a Noah interpolation. Summary of 65:1–69:25 Our examination of this passage in light of Charles’s criteria shows that it consists of two separate traditions—chapters 65–67 and 68–69—that have been intricately woven together to create one literary unit that refers to the time of the flood. Section one reflects Noah traditions that probably came from a book of Noah. The second section, however, represents an independent tradition that cannot be traced to a book of Noah or even to a Noah tradition. 54. Black (1985, 238–39) points out that “connection of pericopae by Stichworte is a familiar literary device in the growth of traditions.” Charles (1912, 135) thinks that this may be a play on words between angels (‫ )מלאכים‬and kings (‫)מלכים‬.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

Although the two sections deal with different subjects, together they interrupt the flow of the context, thereby fulfilling Charles’s first criterion. Both sections use specific time-related phrases but do not give explicit dates, so the relevance of criterion 3 is questionable. Chapters 65–69 satisfy Charles’s second criterion as an interpolation, in that they deal with the flood and specifically with Noah in 65–67. The technical terminology is misunderstood in this passage (criterion 5); nonetheless, the terms have been cleverly adapted into the context and into the Similitudes as a whole. Unique to this section are the demonology and the manner in which the author combined elements (i.e., the metal mountains and the burning valley): both reflect a secondary usage and therefore an interpolation. Conclusion Devorah Dimant denounces Charles’s recognition of 54:1–55:1; 60; 65:1–69:25 as traces of the lost book of Noah without examining his criteria for such designations.55 The above examination reveals that her assessment is faulty. Conversely, our examination of the criteria that Charles proposes upholds their integrity and shows that : (1) 54:7–55:2 is an interpolated Noah passage that probably can be traced to a book of Noah; (2) chapter 60 relies on some type of Noah tradition, but the material, which has been attributed to Enoch, has been so thoroughly adapted that it is an integral part of the Similitudes; and (3) 65:1–69:25 consists of two sections (65–67 and 68–69:25) carefully woven together to form a literary unit. Chapters 65–67 are Noah traditions that probably reflect a book of Noah, and chapters 68–69 are an independent Michael-Raphael tradition that is made to look like a Noah tradition. Dimant partially basis her denunciation of the designated Noah fragments on David W. Suter, who does not think that 54:7–55:2 and 64:1–69:12 belong to a book of Noah but are a midrash of Isa 24:17–23.56 Although Suter does not agree that this material belonged to a book of Noah, his exegesis of the passage confirms Charles’s designation of these two sections as interpolations and relates them to the flood, which makes them Noah traditions. He correctly points out the literary and structural reasons to view chapter 60 as an integral part of the third parable.57 Thus, we concur with Charles that 1 Enoch contains Noah interpolations. One further observation is in order. Charles erroneously concludes that the Noah material has no right to form a part of

55. Dimant 1998, 144. 56. Suter 1979b. 57. Ibid., 133–35; cf. Dimant 1998, 146.

HILLEL: CHARLES’S “NOAH INTERPOLATIONS” IN 1 ENOCH

the text of Enoch.58 This conclusion is unnecessarily extreme. While the Noah interpolations may be out of context, they have been so thoroughly adapted that they are not out of place.

58. Charles 1912, 129; cf. 106–7.

Is 1 Enoch 6–11 a “Noachic” Fragment? A Scholarly Discussion Michael Tuval

Most scholars working on 1 Enoch agree that the chapters called the Book of Watchers (chs. 1–36) belong to one of the earliest strata of the Enochic corpus, possibly being predated only by the Book of the Luminaries (chs. 72–82).1 Most of these scholars also adhere to the view that chapters 6–11 comprise the earliest stratum of the Book of Watchers. The aim of this essay is to reevaluate the hypothesis first formulated by R. H. Charles concerning the possible Noachic provenance of these chapters in the light of some recent studies. As is well known, in his 1912 commentary on 1 Enoch, Charles speculated on the possible existence of a book of Noah, to which the various fragments, identified by him as “Noachic” and now embedded in the book of Enoch, belonged.2 In distinction from his many other suggestions concerning the structure of 1 Enoch and the history of its traditions, Charles’s identification of various Noachic fragments in 1 Enoch has not met with a scholarly consensus. This is especially true in the case of 1 En. 6–11, for reasons that will be mentioned in due course.3 It would certainly be unfair to say that Charles’s hypothesis in relation to 1 En. 6–11 was promptly consigned to total oblivion. Indeed, it has been reevaluated a number of times by various scholars, whose work will be discussed below. At the same time, it should be said that no definitive statement has been made and no scholarly consensus reached. The indeterminate status of the question has led to the situation where some scholars preferred to ignore the issue completely. Thus, to mention only the most conspicuous cases, the Noachic hypothesis was not even mentioned in relation to chapters 6–11 in such major treatments of 1 Enoch as J. T. Milik’s The Books of Enoch (1976) 1. See Milik 1976, 4–41; Nickelsburg 1992a; 2001, 7–8, 165–72; Collins 1998, 47–62. 2. Charles 1912, xlvi–xlvii, 13–14. See also Charles 1913, 168–70. 3. See also the paper of Vered Hillel in this volume on Charles’ procedures and on “Noachic” passages elsewhere in 1 Enoch.

-47-

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

and George W. E. Nickelsburg’s recent 1 Enoch 1 (2001). It seems that these important scholars thought that the question neither had much relevance to their research on these chapters, nor did it have anything to contribute to the tradition-historical criticism of the Book of Watchers.4 It should be emphasized that, in contradistinction to their treatment of chapters 6–11, neither Milik nor Nickelsburg ignores the question of the provenance of the Noachic traditions in other parts of the book of Enoch.5 This makes the reexamination of the evidence for 6–11 all the more compelling. Since much form-critical work has already been done on these chapters, I will not try to trace the history of their development but rather deal with them as a single unit.6 Thus, I am not particularly interested here in the Sitz im Leben of the various traditions embedded in the narrative, such as the historical background of the myth of the Watchers, nor in the relationship between its different strata.7 The unity of 6–11 has been recently emphasized and discussed at length by Devorah Dimant, and it will shortly become clear that the following discussion is much indebted to her analysis.8 At the beginning, I would like to reiterate the main points that led Charles and some other scholars to think that these chapters (whether in their entirety or in part) came from a distinct source that predated the book of Watchers and that they were incorporated into it at a later stage. It should be emphasized, however, that not all of these scholars believed that these chapters originated from a lost book of Noah. Actually, most of them do not think that a book of Noah ever existed. The main reasons for their skepticism will be considered later. First, from the compositional point of view, it is quite obvious that 6:1 introduces totally new material and that what follows differs stylistically from chapters 1–5 and belongs to a different genre. It has also been recognized by most scholars that 12:1–2 is a seam and serves to bring Enoch into the story of the Watchers, in which until this point he has not been mentioned at all. In addition, the narrative of 6–11 is a self-contained unit, making perfect sense 4. In another major commentary, Uhlig (1984, 506, 516) just states that chapters 6–11 stem from an earlier book of Noah but does not discuss the matter at length. 5. Thus, Milik deals with the question of the book of Noah in 1976, 55–60; Nickelsburg discusses the matter in 2001, 539–50. Both discuss the issue mainly in relation to 1 En. 106–107. 6. In addition to the studies by Charles, Collins, and Nickelsburg listed above, see Collins 1982; Dimant 1974; 1998; 2002; 2006; Molenberg 1984; Newsom 1980; Nickelsburg 1977; Suter 1979a. For a more comprehensive bibliography, see DiTommaso 2001, 394–401. 7. See Nickelsburg, 2001, 165–72; Dimant 1974; 2002. 8. Dimant 2002.

TUVAL: IS 1 ENOCH 6–11 A “NOACHIC” FRAGMENT?

on its own, without any inherent need for what precedes it in chapters 1–5 or for what follows in chapter 12.9 Second, as has already been mentioned above, in distinction from all the rest of the Book of Watchers, in chapters 6–11 the figure of Enoch is not mentioned even once, and the only named human character who plays any role in the narrative is Noah.10 Third, these chapters are an elaboration of the “sons of God” myth from Gen 6:1–4, where it precedes the description of the earth’s corruption and the subsequent flood. In 1 En. 6–11, the fall of the Watchers is actually used to explain the earth’s corruption. The flood, then, is a punishment for the sins of the Watchers. These chapters follow the biblical text much more closely than do any other parts of 1 Enoch. Fourth, it seems that other Noachic narratives in latter chapters of 1 Enoch are dependent on 6–11, and it is also likely that the author of the book of Jubilees uses this material in 7:21–25.11 In light of these points, I beg to disagree with the view of Florentino García Martínez, who, while accepting that the author of 1 En. 6–11 drew on a lost book of Noah, seeks further to identify smaller Noachic fragments that in his view came from that book.12 In my opinion, Dimant sufficiently demonstrated the unity of 6–11 in her above-mentioned article, and if the book of Noah ever existed, no reason why all of the material in these chapters could not have originated in it is evident. Lest any confusion result, I must emphasize that Dimant herself does not adhere to the view that chapters 6–11 come from a book of Noah, and she is extremely skeptical concerning whether it really existed at all.13 On the other hand, she is certain that chapters 6–11 come from an independent “parabiblical work” that was used by the author/compiler of the Book of Watchers.14 At this point, then, the discussion is over the name of that parabiblical work. It seems that one of the main reasons that Dimant and other scholars are hesitant to postulate the existence of a book of Noah in antiquity is the lack of agreement of different sources mentioning it concerning the kind(s) of material it contained.15 In the opinion of these scholars, the divergence between the sources as to the contents of the book of Noah compromises the

9. All these peculiarities are discussed at length by Dimant 2002. 10. As already noticed by Charles 1912, 14. 11. Ibid, xivii, 14. 12. García Martínez 1992, 26–36. 13. See also Dimant 1974, 122–40; 1998, esp. 144–46, and most recently, 2006. 14. See Dimant 2002. 15. The most detailed defense of this view is Werman 1999.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

very probability that a book of Noah ever existed outside the imagination of the authors of these sources or of modern scholars. Therefore, the skeptics suggest that the authors of Aramaic Levi Document, Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon did not use a real “book of Noah” but invented it in order to gain more credence for their statements. In response to the first point, I would like to say that, in light of the recent discussion by Michael E. Stone,16 I do not see any reason why the same composition could not have contained different types of traditions or even different genres. Indeed, if a book of Noah existed, it could have easily been of a composite nature. As has been pointed out by Stone, there are plenty of examples of this phenomenon in biblical and postbiblical literature, such as, among others, the book of Deuteronomy, the book of Jeremiah, and 1 Enoch itself. As far as the invention of never-existing sources is concerned, although I do understand and appreciate the caution of the scholars who think that it is quite possible that the authors of ALD, Jubilees, and Genesis Apocryphon invented the book of Noah to add verisimilitude to their statements, I do not see any reason to postulate axiomatically the nonexistence of sources in every case. It is well-known that pseudepigraphy was a widespread phenomenon in the period under discussion.17 Indeed, it is possible that nonexistent sources were composed and then “quoted,”18 but at the same time it is also known that not all sources quoted in the Second Temple documents are fictional. Thus, for example, it is widely accepted that the author(s) of the Damascus Document quoted Jubilees and ALD.19 Objections of a different kind from those of Dimant and Werman have been raised by Moshe Bernstein in his article “Noah and the Flood at Qumran” (1999). After a detailed discussion of the different materials dealing with Noah and the flood in the Qumran corpus, Bernstein asks his concluding question—Was there a “book of Noah” at Qumran?—and answers no. In his view, “[a] reasonable alternative hypothesis to the predication of the existence of a large-scale ‘Book of Noah’ from which these other works made selections is the possibility that different events or aspects or themes of the Noah story

16. Stone 2006a, reprinted as pages 7–25 in this volume. See also Stone 1999. 17. See Speyer 1970; 1971; Stone 1984a, 427–33; 2006b. 18. For an example of one such “source,” see D. R. Schwartz 1990, 200–207. “The chronicle of the high priesthood of John Hyrcanus” in 1 Macc 16:24 might well be another example. 19. CD 16:3, 4:15–19. However, as in the case with the quotations from a “book of Noah,” Dimant also thinks that CD does not quote Jubilees; see Dimant 2006, 242–48.

TUVAL: IS 1 ENOCH 6–11 A “NOACHIC” FRAGMENT?

were expanded beyond their pentateuchal scope at some early date and then circulated in a variety of forms either orally or in writing.”20 While there is nothing inherently impossible in this alternative hypothesis, several points should be emphasized. First, this explanation makes more sense if one presupposes that a “book of Noah” never existed. If its existence could be proved, this hypothesis would be less convincing. Second, even if a book of Noah existed, it did not necessarily have to include all the various traditions mentioning Noah and the flood—either at Qumran or anywhere else. Moreover, if such a book did in fact exist, nothing would prima facie exclude the possibility that such material as 1 En. 6–11 originated from it.21 In the context of this discussion, I would also like to raise a terminological issue. As has been mentioned, Dimant has made a good case for chapters 6–11 being a part of a “parabiblical work,” although she does not believe this parabiblical work to be the book of Noah. She agrees that it blames the Watchers for the corruption of the earth, mentions Noah, and interprets the flood as the punishment for the Watchers’ sins. However, if such a parabiblical work had ever existed (and in light of Dimant’s treatment of these chapters, its existence is more likely now than ever before), how can we be sure it was not called “Book of Noah”—whether by its author(s), its redactors, or its ancient readers? In many cases we simply do not know what the ancients called their compositions. Can we even be sure that 1 Enoch was called the “Book of Enoch” by its authors and redactors? In light of the recent discussion of the book(s) of Noah by Stone,22 it seems that most objections to its/their existence have been overcome. However, although this makes the identification of 1 En. 6–11 with a portion of the book of Noah more likely, it must be admitted, that a clear-cut decision one way or another is hardly possible at this stage. The purpose of this essay is to emphasize the likelihood that 1 En. 6–11 may point us toward the more ancient book.

20. Bernstein 1999, 229. 21. The comparison with the various Enochic materials might be useful here: not all Enoch traditions occur in the book(s) of Enoch. Some are attested in Ben Sira, Jubilees, Pseudo-Eupolemus, etc. Moreover, not every passage in 1 Enoch discusses Enoch, and large portions do not mention him at all. So, if we only had fragments or quotations in an ancient source, the arguments of Dimant, Werman, and Bernstein could be marshaled to prove that a “book of Enoch” did not exist, when, of course, several “books of Enoch” did in fact exist. 22. Stone 2006a.

Traditions of the Birth of Noah* Aryeh Amihay and Daniel A. Machiela

The birth of Noah is recounted in a brief and straightforward manner in Gen 5:28–29, as part of his antediluvian genealogy and providing an explanation for his name (i.e., as a midrash shem).1 The story of Noah’s birth was expanded, however, into a much more extensive narrative in ancient times, as is evident from the similar accounts found in 1 En. 106:1–107:32 and the Genesis Apocryphon (also known as 1QapGen and 1Q20) 2–5,3 in addition to several other early Jewish texts.4 In this narrative, Noah is born with a striking appearance and praises God upon his birth. This leads his father, Lamech, to fear that the child is of angelic descent, and Methuselah, Lamech’s father, journeys to Enoch, his own father (and Noah’s great-grandfather) to receive an answer on this matter. Enoch assures him that Lamech is the father and provides a

* The following is the fruit of our work in the Thursday Night Seminar of Prof. Michael E. Stone, 2004–2005, which dealt with Noah traditions. We gained invaluable insights, references, and methodological tools from Prof. Stone’s guidance while working on this paper. Its flaws are solely our own. 1. There are, however, idiosyncrasies in comparison with the other names listed in the genealogy. See Skinner 1910, 124–34; Sarna 1989, 44; and Cassuto 1961, 287–90. 2. Quotations from 1 Enoch, are taken from Nickelsburg and VanderKam 2004. For other translations, see Black 1985; Charles 1913; Isaac 1983; Knibb 1978; Nickelsburg 2001. A synoptic translation to English of all versions can be found in Stuckenbruck 2007. 3. The scroll was first published, although only in part, by Avigad and Yadin 1956. Later publications of the same or other parts of the scroll include Jongeling et al. 1976, 75–119; Beyer 1984, 165–86 (1994, 68–70; 2004, 89–101); Greenfield and Qimron 1992, 70–77; Morgenstern, Qimron, and Sivan 1995, 30–54; and Fitzmyer 2004. New editions are currently under preparation by Daniel A. Machiela and Esther Eshel. The English translation provided here is that of Fitzmyer. 4. E.g., 1Q19, and perhaps 4Q534–535 (see below). For more on the comparative material, see Machiela 2007, 43–50. This dissertation has been published as Machiela 2009 but may be accessed in pdf format at: http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd07022007-205251/.

-53-

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

prophecy alluding to the deluge and to Noah’s role as the survivor of it.5 It is noteworthy that this narrative was not developed or even preserved in later Jewish traditions. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the various components making up the expanded birth story of Noah in early Judaism, taking special note of any features found in later literature or that might be traced back to the biblical account. In conclusion, we will address the relation between the account given in 1 En. 106–107 and other accounts of Noah’s birth and its possible implications for the question of a discrete book of Noah, with which these texts are often associated. 1. Noah’s Mother Noah’s mother is not mentioned by name in 1 Enoch, but the mere notification of her presence in 106:1 is significant. The explicit element of a wife is an expansion vis-à-vis the biblical narrative, since in Genesis Noah’s birth is mentioned in the framework of a genealogical list in which fathers beget sons and the role of the mother is disregarded. In 1 En. 106–107, however, it is precisely Lamech’s fatherhood of Noah that is in doubt, making his wife’s role crucial for the dramatic unfolding of the story. The role of Noah’s mother is expanded much further in the Genesis Apocryphon, where she is named Batenosh. Although the text is badly damaged, enough is preserved in the Apocryphon to see a clear connection with the version in 1 Enoch, at the same time allowing us to discern some important differences, such as Batenosh’s heightened function in the story. Although Lamech’s suspicion of Batenosh is not taken directly from the brief report of Noah’s birth in Genesis, it does take up the tradition preserved in the biblical story of the sons of God taking wives for themselves from the daughters of men (Gen 6:1–4). This story, or the tradition it reflects, together with the extraordinary appearance of the child to be discussed below, provide the basis for Lamech’s suspicion. In the Genesis Apocryphon, Batenosh confronts Lamech’s suspicion and rebukes him for it, reminding him of her sexual pleasure as a proof of her fidelity. Her monologue is extensive, and despite her vehement, emotional assertion she stresses her respect for and submissiveness to Lamech, whom she addresses twice as “my brother and my lord,” (1QapGen 2:9, 13).6 This is

5. For interpretations of the birth story, see VanderKam 1992a, reprinted in 2000a, 396–412; Nickelsburg 2001, 536–50; Stuckenbruck 2007, 606–89. 6. Avigad and Yadin (1956) do not include the full address in the second instance, but it may now be read with some hesitation on more recent, narrowband infrared photo-

AMIHAY AND MACHIELA: TRADITIONS OF THE BIRTH OF NOAH

probably intended to evoke in Lamech feelings of both love and responsibility, at the same time imploring that he will acknowledge her own affection (exhibited in her sexual pleasure) and deference to his role as “lord.” The name of Batenosh appears once more, with slight variation, in Jub. 4:28, where she is called Betenosh.7 The Jubilees account is much shorter than either 1 Enoch or the Genesis Apocryphon, remaining much closer to Gen 5:28–29, although the additional detail that Betenosh is the daughter of Barakel is introduced. 2. Conception by Angels Noah’s remarkable physical appearance at birth, coupled with his ability to speak, leads Lamech to suspect that he is not the father of the child. The connection between the child’s appearance and his conception is clearly stated in 1 En. 106:5. There Lamech observes that the child resembles “the sons of the angels of heaven” and continues in verse 6, “I think that he is not from me, but from the angels.” This connection is also explicit in the extant passage of the Genesis Apocryphon, where Lamech reports in the first person, “it occurred to me that the conception was from the Watchers, and the seed from Holy Ones, and to Nephil[in…]” (1QapGen 2:1). In line 2 he adds, “and my mind wavered concerning this infant.”8 It is clear that the speaker here is Lamech, because 2:3 continues with the resumptive “Then I, Lamech.” In 1 Enoch Lamech’s concern is assuaged quickly by his grandfather Enoch (106:18). This feature also has a parallel in the Genesis Apocryphon. Although not as well preserved as the confrontation between Lamech and his wife in column 2, 1QapGen 5:3–4 contains the words, “]n[ot] from the sons of Heaven, but from Lamech your son.” The Apocryphon repeatedly stresses the veracity of this fact by invoking the word “truly” (‫ )קשוט‬at a number of points throughout Enoch’s testimony.9 The word “truth” appears twice in 1 Enoch as well (106:18; 107:3), in order to convince Lamech that Noah was not begotten by angels. This particular aspect of the story figures much more prominently in the Genesis Apocryphon than in 1 Enoch. graphs. See Machiela 2007, 80. See also Fitzmyer 2004, 69, 130; Nickelsburg 1998, 144. Note that Methuselah uses a similar address to his father as a precaution, in case Enoch is cross at his disturbance (col. 2, lines 24–25). 7. On the different vocalizations of the name, see Fitzmyer 2004, 127 (who prefers Bitenosh). For further discussion of the name, see Stuckenbruck 2007, 621. 8. Literally, “My heart within me was changed” (Fitzmyer 2004, 126). 9. Note the use of this word to emphasize Noah’s righteousness as well. See Bernstein 2005, 52.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

Despite the fact that Noah’s conception turns out to be entirely human in these works, the doubt imputed to Lamech makes it worth mentioning several accounts of angelic or divine conception in ancient times. One thinks immediately of Jesus of Nazareth, who was not only said to be the son of God but also plays a dual role as both human and deity akin to Noah’s (and Enoch’s) exaltation elsewhere in the Enoch traditions.10 We are also told that Jesus was conceived miraculously.11 Of course, this analogy should not be unduly exaggerated. For instance, the point of the story about Noah’s conception is ultimately his humanity, while it is precisely the opposite with Jesus. Moreover, divine conception carries negative connotations in the Noah story, an element not present in the story of Jesus’ nativity.12 There are other examples of joint human-angelic conception in ancient Jewish traditions as well. Of course, the possibility of such union is first suggested by Gen 6:2–4. Although Noah was not born from the sons of God, the fact that women could, and indeed did, beget children from angels appears to be one of the oldest traditions in the Bible.13 Another account of divine conception is of the birth of Cain. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan rephrases Gen 4:1 as follows: “And Adam knew his wife Eve, that she had conceived by Samael, the angel of the Lord.”14 There are multiple exegetical techniques employed here. One is taking the verb “to know” (‫)ידע‬, which is used regularly as a euphemism for sexual intercourse in the Bible, back to its original sense. Adam did not “know” Eve (i.e., have intercourse with her), but rather he knew that Eve had intercourse with Samael. In addition, the Targum seems to be playing on the biblical explanation of Cain’s name, relating it to divine origin: Eve proclaims that she produced a man with the Lord. This could be understood as a poetic expression of the awe in front

10. Enoch’s exalted status is conveyed most clearly in 1 En. 70–71. Noah’s exaltation may be seen in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:1). 11. Matt 1:18—2:12; Luke 2:5–20; see also the account of John the Baptist’s birth in Luke 1:5–78. See Nickelsburg 2001, 540. For further bibliography on these passages, see the following commentaries on these passages: Davies and Allison 1988; Fitzmyer 1981, 303–448. Note also Fitzmyer’s comment on the significance of this narrative for the study of Qumran as background of Christianity (Fitzmyer 2004, 123). See also nn. 39, 52. 12. This notion is probably due to the disruption of cosmic order, implied already in the narrative of the Nephilim in Gen 6:1–4. Cf. Eshel 2003, 78; Davidson 1992, 316–22; Stuckenbruck 2004; 2007, 666. For the sociological background of this theology, see Suter 1979. 13. See Gunkel 1997, 56–59; Westermann 1984, 363–83. 14. For the text, see Clarke 1984. Further comments on this Targum and its variations are to be found in Shinan 1992b, 130–31.

AMIHAY AND MACHIELA: TRADITIONS OF THE BIRTH OF NOAH

of the miracle of birth, but the Targum prefers to understand it literally in this case.15 By adding this information about Cain’s conception, the Targum is providing an explanation for the source of evil, utilizing an idea already present in Gen 6:2–4 and developed more fully in 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and elsewhere. The Targum’s explanation of Cain’s origin is mentioned in several later sources.16 The relation between angelic conception and the origin of evil in these sources helps illuminate the desire to prove that Noah had a purely human conception, despite his miraculous appearance at birth. One last relevant example of divine conception is the story of the birth of Melchizedek, Noah’s nephew, in 2 En. 23.17 In this account, Noah’s brother Nir rebukes his wife Zophanima for infidelity upon learning that she is pregnant. She denies any infidelity and further rejects having any knowledge of how the pregnancy came about. Consequently, the mistrusted Zophanima dies of sorrow, and the child emerges of its own accord, sitting beside his dead mother and praising the Lord. Like the story of Noah’s birth in 1 Enoch and the Apocryphon, the mother is unjustly blamed of infidelity; however, very much unlike these accounts, we are explicitly told that Nir did not have intercourse with his wife from the day he assumed the mantle of the priesthood. It is evident that the reader is expected to believe that Zophanima did not know how she was impregnated and therefore assume that the child was, in fact, of supernatural origin. Thus, in contrast to the presumed negative connotations attending supernatural conception in the stories of Cain and Noah, the divine conception of Melchizedek (like Jesus of Nazareth) was understood positively, perhaps being another Christian trait of 2 Enoch. 3. Description of the Baby Several features of Noah’s miraculous birth are shared by other traditions. We shall discuss each of the following separately, although at points they are interconnected: (1) the child’s physical traits; (2) the light accompanying his birth; and (3) his immediate ability to speak, stand, and utter praise to the Lord.

15. See García Martínez 2003; 2004. 16. E.g., Pirqe R. El. 21, perhaps implied in the Life of Adam and Eve. See García Martínez 2003, 29. 17. On the comparison between 2 Enoch and earlier Noah traditions more generally, see Orlov 2000b (repr. Orlov 2007, 361–78); Dimant 1998, 131; Himmelfarb 1993, 41. Orlov contends that shifting the features of a miraculous birth from Noah to Melchizedek is part of an anti-Noachic polemic. See Orlov 2007, 371–75.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

3.1. Physical Traits Almost nothing remains of the description of Noah’s physical attributes at birth in the extant passages of the Genesis Apocryphon, but Lamech’s response to his son’s alarming appearance at the beginning of column 2 implies that they were once described at the end of column 1.18 This coheres with what we find in 1 En. 106–107. First, Enoch lists several remarkable physical features. Early in the narrative we read, “And when the child was born, his body was whiter than snow and redder than a rose, his hair was all white and like white wool and curly” (106:2). Later on (106:5), Lamech tells his father that the child resembles the sons of God: “his form is strange, not like us.” Similar assertions are implied by the Genesis Apocryphon.19 Lamech’s statement is significant not only for Noah’s description in 1 En. 106:2 but also for Second Temple period angelology. By providing such a description, and then a few verses later stating that the child looks like an angel, we are offered a glimpse of how the narrator envisaged an angel at the time this story was written.20 It may also be possible to garner insights into Noah’s description from other biblical sources. For example, the contrast of the white and red of the child’s flesh brings to mind the description of the lover in Song 5:10, “My beloved is brilliant and red; he stands out among the multitudes.”21 Many commentators have understood the adjective ‫ צח‬to be a designator of quality (i.e., “radiant”), such as Brenner’s opinion that both terms are a depiction not of contrasting colors but rather of different, complementary personal traits.22 While this may be the original intent, Song of Songs has a very ancient tradition of allegorical interpretation dating back to at least the first century c.e.,23

18. Contra Fitzmyer, who interprets Lamech’s suspicion as deriving from “such remarkable beauty” (Fitzmyer 2004, 123). What we have here is Lamech’s fear and confusion (explicitly stated in col. 2, lines 1–3; col. 5, line 16), not admiration. Cf. Fitzmyer’s quote of Rosenthal on 126. 19. See 1Q20 col. 2; 5:5, 7, 10. 20. See Stuckenbruck 2007, 607–10, 626. However, Stuckenbruck does qualify this by stressing that Lamech thinks that Noah is of the angels but not an angel himself (636–38). This is also apparent in the emphasis that Noah is not of the Nephilim, reflecting that this was Lamech’s true fear (633, 654). On this matter, see also Fletcher-Louis 2002, 37–49. 21. The translation is our own. 22. Brenner 1982b. For an English version, see Brenner 1982a, esp. 73–75. For the previous view, see Murphy 1990, 164–65; Pope 1977, 531–34. 23. Alexander 1996b, 15. This point has been more recently and elaborately discussed by Stone 2007b.

AMIHAY AND MACHIELA: TRADITIONS OF THE BIRTH OF NOAH

according to which the lover is identified as God. If a similar tradition underlies the colors used to describe Noah in our texts—which seems a distinct possibility—the belief that this verse describes divine attributes may have been held as early as the time these chapters of Enoch were composed.24 The fact that the next verses in Song of Songs (5:11–12) describe the lover’s hair and eyes—the same features employed to describe Noah—reinforces the possibility that the writer has this passage in his purview. We might also note the metaphorical meaning of these specific colors in Isa 1:18: “Come now, let us argue it out, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be made white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.” Here we see that, while a modern view of the archetypal contrast of colors may be black and white, for biblical and parabiblical authors it was red and white.25 Consequently, the description of Noah’s flesh may not only suggest his similarity to an angel but also carry theological importance, the contrast in his flesh reflecting the notion of good and evil residing together.26 This would coincide with other contrasts woven into this narrative, such as the idea that the origin of evil stems from the intermixture of angels and humans. It may also portend the cleansing of present evil by the flood. Of course, the features of Noah’s hair are reminiscent of the Ancient of Days (‫ )עתיק יומין‬in Dan 7:9.27 Here the Ancient of Days’ garment is as white as snow—a specification echoed in 1 En. 106 (though in reference to Noah’s flesh)—and his hair compared to lamb’s wool, like the description of Noah’s

24. For the dating of the 1 Enoch chapters, see Nickelsburg 2001, 118–19 (our chapters discussed on 542); Alexander 2002, 69. 25. See also Lam 4:7. 26. See Nickelsburg 2001, 543. Stuckenbruck (2007, 627) cautions here against assigning specific attributes or symbolisms to each color but does agree that the impression as a whole bears significance. 27. This is not to say that 1 Enoch is drawing from Daniel, nor the opposite. Whether 1 Enoch is earlier than Dan 7:9 or thirty years later, it is unlikely that the book of Daniel would have reached an authoritative stance to justify its usage by the author of 1 Enoch (as the book of Genesis did, for example). The resemblance between these metaphors reflects a shared literary background and interest, not a literary dependence. See Stuckenbruck 2007, 628. For discussions of the relation between the visions in Enoch and Daniel, see Collins 1992; Grelot 1978; Henze 2005; Reid 2004; Koch 2007; Stuckenbruck 1997; 2001; VanderKam 2006, 291–307. Note also the similarity of the divine epithet “Most High” in 1Q20, col. 2, line 4 and Daniel (Fitzmyer 2004, 127). As for the question of usage of scripture in the book of Enoch, see Alexander 2002, 57–68; VanderKam 1993 (repr. in VanderKam 2000a, 276–304).

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

hair upon birth.28 There is, however, an interesting point of divergence here. One could say that, since the Ancient of Days has hair like wool, Noah’s hair is a sign of his heavenly or angelic appearance. Yet while the white hair of the Ancient of Days befits his age (or, perhaps, agelessness), Noah, as a newborn, would not be expected to have white hair. This may perhaps be explained by the passage in Jubilees where “the heads of the children shall be white with grey hair, and a child of three weeks shall appear old like a man of one hundred years” (Jub. 23:25). Noah’s white hair could thus be a contrast of youth and old age somewhat similar to the contrast of red and white (signifying good and evil) evoked in the description of Noah’s flesh. It may also be significant that this chapter of Jubilees speaks of the effects of sin at the end of days—an age with which Noah’s generation is identified repeatedly in Second Temple literature.29 The continuation of events in Jubilees reinforces this connection: “In those days the children will begin … to return to the right way. The days will begin to become numerous.… There will be no old man … because all of them will be infants and children” (Jub. 23:26–28).30 Although Jubilees is not referring to Noah in this passage, the vision echoes suitably Noah’s birth and its context,31 illuminating the depiction of his birth in 1 Enoch: he is born in a time of sin and fornication and returns, as it were, to the path of righteousness, thereby heralding a new era.32 Another special appearance of a newborn that has been identified intermittently with Noah is found in 4Q534–536 and is dealt with in detail

28. Following Sokoloff ’s (1976) argument that ‫ נקא‬should be understood as a word for sheep and not as “pure.” See also Collins 1993, 301. 29. That is, the generation of the flood is equated with the sinners of the end of time, as the flood itself is a prototype for the Day of the Lord. See, e.g., 1 En. 83–90; 4 Ezra 4:1–28, 9:4–22; Sib. Or. 3:93–161. See Collins 1997, 30–51; Nikiprowetzky 1987; Stone 1990, 63–67, 292–301. 30. Translation from VanderKam 1989, 2:148–49. 31. For the function of Noah’s birth narrative in the eschatological views of 1 Enoch, see Nickelsburg 2001, 539–40, 543; Stuckenbruck 2007, 620. Stuckenbruck also stresses that Enoch begins his prophecy by describing past events, providing the background for the significance of Noah’s birth (662–63). On the birth narrative in the Genesis Apocryphon, cf. Falk 2007, 49. This fits well with the vision in Jub. 23 and with the tension of past and future in general in apocalyptic literature. For relations between Jubilees and 1 Enoch, see Nickelsburg 2001, 72–73; van Ruiten 1999, 79–82. 32. Note also the wish to gain a life-span that existed in antediluvian times (VanderKam 2001, 58–59). For the context of this vision in the theology of the book of Jubilees, see Segal 2007, 292–99. Cf. Frey 1997.

AMIHAY AND MACHIELA: TRADITIONS OF THE BIRTH OF NOAH

elsewhere in this volume.33 It is worthwhile noting for our purposes that the extant text begins with a physical description including the color red and the mention of hair (4Q534 col. 1, lines 1–2). While these features are also found in 1 En. 106, they are not presented in the same way, and not enough has been preserved to say just how this description progressed and thus would have looked as a whole. 4. Light Appears with Birth Noah’s birth is accompanied by a profusion of light in our texts. The source of the radiance is described twice in 1 Enoch: “When he opened his eyes, the house shone like the sun” (106:2), and “[h]is eyes are like rays of the sun, and glorious is his face” (106:5). Enoch speaks of the same features in 1QapGen 5:12: “he lifted his face to me, and his eyes shone like [the] su[n…].” The parallelism employed in 1 En. 106:5 (and perhaps at one time in the Genesis Apocryphon as well) heralds and significantly heightens the exalted role that Noah is ascribed in these works, seeming to imply some sort of quasi-divine status. In the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, shining eyes are characteristic of angelic beings (Dan 10:5; Rev 1:12–16). The use of this trait of the angel in Daniel is significant, since both 1 Enoch and the Genesis Apocryphon share much in common with that book. Another interesting parallel is that of Moses’ shining face in Exod 34:29–35. In some respects, this passage reflects even more closely the attitude of our works, since Moses is a human being infused only for a time with the heavenly attribute of facial radiance. Furthermore, it is a direct sign of his status as chosen by God. Light at Noah’s birth is also found in 1Q19. Despite the fragmentary nature of the preserved text, we are fortunate enough to have Lamech specified by name on the same fragment as the phrase “the rooms of the house like shafts of sunlight” (frag. 3, line 5).34 Light shining at the birth of an infant is a feature attributed to several other figures. We might first mention Cain, whose angelic conception has been discussed above. The Life of Adam and Eve recounts that Eve “brought forth a son who shone brilliantly” (21:3),35 and his special appearance is noted

33. Jeremy Penner, “Is 4Q534–536 Really about Noah?” in this volume. See further bibliography on this text there. 34. See Barthélemy and Milik 1955, 84–86; Stuckenbruck 2007, 629. 35. This is the translation of the Latin text, provided in Anderson and Stone 1999, 24E. The Armenian version reads: “Then, when she bore the child, the color of his body was like the color of the stars.” A similar version is found in the Georgian text: “Eve arose as the angel had instructed her: she gave birth to an infant, and his color was like that of the stars.”

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

in Pirqe R. El. 21. In explaining how Adam knew that Eve had been impregnated by an angel, we are told that Adam looked at the child’s face and saw that he resembled the upper ones and not the lower ones. Here we are not only reminded of Lamech’s suspicion, but the text also seems to imply that the child was radiant, as in the Noah texts.36 We also possess a tradition of Abraham shining at birth, but the existing record of this tradition is not as ancient. It is found in Jellinek’s Bet Ha-Midrasch, where he writes that the manuscript on which he drew was first printed in Constantinople in 1519.37 This is likely a much later tradition than the other stories dealt with above, and it contains an abundance of motifs from variant traditions, such as the persecution of male newborns by Nimrod, hiding in a cave, and a miraculous birth. What we seem to have here is a cluster of traditions, Christian and Jewish, gathered together in order to be reworked and redeployed in reference to Abraham.38 Moses is yet another hero who is said to radiate light at his birth.39 The most ancient evidence of this tradition is found in the Talmud (b. Sotah 12a– 13a), but apparently derived from tannaitic sources, and is later repeated in Exodus Rabbah. The starting point for this midrash is a juxtaposition of the statement that Moses’ mother “saw that he was good” (Exod 2:2) with the statement that “God saw that the light was good” (Gen 1:4).40 According to another version of this story, Moses’ father recognized that the newborn was a savior due to the light that filled the house upon his birth. Although in the midrash this tradition relates most directly to the statement that Moses was good, it is clear that in a narrative sense it foreshadows the brilliance of Moses’ face following his encounter with the Lord at Sinai, noted above.

36. Although it is possible that this tradition implies that Adam saw a strange figure, as Lamech saw Noah in 1 Enoch, there are no references to angels having strange appearances in this composition. The only reference to their physical appearance describes them as burning fire (Pirqe R. El. 4). 37. Jellinek 1938, 1:25–34. 38. For discussions of Noah traditions in Jewish medieval literature, see Rebecca Scharbach, “The Rebirth of a Book: Noachic Writing in Medieval and Renaissance Europe,” in this volume. 39. Cf. Shinan 1997. For the relation between this tradition and the Jesus birth stories, see Hughes 1997; Kensky 1993. 40. On this expression, see Feldman 2002, 278–80. The other explanations provided for the statement that he was good are that his mother saw that he was prepared for prophecy or that he was born circumcised. The tradition of Moses being born circumcised is interesting, as it is said of Noah in ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan and perhaps in 4Q535 as well. For ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan, see Aryeh Amihay, “Noah in Rabbinic Literature,” in this volume; for 4Q535, see Penner in this volume.

AMIHAY AND MACHIELA: TRADITIONS OF THE BIRTH OF NOAH

None of these natal traditions—Cain, Abraham, or Moses—include the element of eyes emanating rays of light, but they do provide a general description of luminescence strikingly similar to Lamech’s statement in 1 En. 106:5. Cain should again be distinguished from the others in this group, since his shining marks his ignoble, although supernatural, origin, while the others are both of human origin and are righteous characters who play a significant role in establishment of the true worship of God. Despite the rather late source of Abraham’s birth story, it seems appropriate to note that the three heroes who shine at birth share other characteristics as well. This alignment of any one patriarch with others by means of parallelism (thus constructing a broad template of patriarchal righteousness) is characteristic of Second Temple literature. That Noah’s role as transmitter of knowledge is intensified and stressed far more here than in the Bible is part of this trend.41 5. The Baby Stands and Speaks Immediately Another remarkable trait of Noah is his youthful manifestation of adult faculties. Unlike other animals, which learn to stand just hours after their birth, the human newborn takes years to master the human traits of standing upright, walking, and speaking. In our texts, however, Noah is an astounding exception. His instantaneous speech marks him as outstanding, and the fact that his first words are addressed to the Lord of righteousness marks him as a wise and prophetic individual.42 We find similar traits in some of the other figures mentioned above: Cain stands up and walks immediately, going to gather flowers for his mother (L.A.E. 21:3). Abraham learns to walk when he is ten days old, somewhat of a late bloomer in comparison to Noah and Cain, but he also recognizes God on his own, according to several traditions.43 In addition, Melchizedek, Noah’s nephew in 2 Enoch, has the appearance of a three-year-old child upon his birth, and he also praises the Lord as his first utterance (2 En. 23:22). Here, too, it is clear that Cain should be singled out. He (apparently) does not have the faculty of speech, and we would not expect him to praise

41. Stone 1999. For the relation between Abraham, Noah, and Moses, see Rendtorff 1999. Dimant (1998, 123–24) is correct in pointing to Noah’s parallelism with Adam, too, but it is not surprising that this is not expressed in the birth narrative, as Adam was never born, thus making this point irrelevant for our discussion. 42. Nickelsburg 2001, 543; Stuckenbruck 2007, 653–54. 43. This is told in the Testament of Abraham, several times in Genesis Rabbah, and also in the tale brought in Jellinek’s Bet Ha-Midrasch mentioned above (n. 37).

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

the Lord, since he will eventually be identified as evil. Thus exempting Cain, we have traditions of Abraham, Noah, and Melchizedek sharing the trait of prophecy in connection with their miraculous birth. 6. Noah’s Name Midrash Genesis 5:29 provides the first name midrash (etymological explanation of his name) for Noah. Here Lamech declares that his name shall be Noah (‫;נ ַֹח‬ √‫)נוח‬, since “this one will bring us comfort [‫ ]נחם ;יְ נַ ֲח ֵמנוּ‬from our labors, and from the toilsome struggle of our hands against the soil, which the Lord has cursed.” This formulation is quoted in Jub. 4:28 and reworked in 1 En. 106:18 and 107:3.44 As noted already by Rabbi Yohanan “The midrash is not a name, and the name is not a midrash” (Gen. Rab. 28.2). He refers here to the discrepancy between the root ‫נחם‬, which is part of the explanation of Noah’s name, and the root ‫נוח‬, which is the root underlying the name. VanderKam has discussed this problem extensively in his study of the birth of Noah.45 It is interesting to observe how the explanation of the name is reworked in 1 Enoch. In Genesis, Lamech employs the imperfect tense to designate his hope that the newborn will provide some relief from the hardships and toils of life. However, in 1 Enoch it is not Lamech alone who names his son, but Noah’s great-grandfather Enoch as well, thus giving the name a doubled explanation. Enoch first explains the name by citing the fact that Noah will survive the flood and “be your remnant, from whom you will find rest” (106:18). This is closer to the meaning of the root ‫ נוח‬than the explanation provided in Gen 5:29. At the end of the story, however, Lamech names his son (107:3) in a way that echoes the explanation provided in Genesis. This shows that the author was aware of the etymological problem in Gen 5:29 and tackled it by providing a twofold explanation. 7. Noah—Survivor Who Is a Savior Having discussed the various components of Noah’s miraculous birth in 1 Enoch, we turn to two features of Noah that are not related solely to his birth but that have to do with his exalted status and are also evident in this narrative.

44. See further discussion on the onomastic tradition by Michael E Stone and Vered Hillel, “Noah in Onomastic Traditions,” in this volume. 45. VanderKam 1992a, repr. in 2000a, 396–412. See also Black 1985, 322–23; Fitzmyer 2004, 143; Nickelsburg, 2001, 546–48; Stuckenbruck 2007, 674–76.

AMIHAY AND MACHIELA: TRADITIONS OF THE BIRTH OF NOAH

The first may seem a self-evident feature of Noah’s character, namely, that he is simultaneously a savior and a survivor, or remnant.46 There are several texts that isolate this trait as Noah’s most prominent characteristic, such as Ezek 14:12–20. Together with Job and Daniel, he is mentioned as someone who would be saved from any plague or calamity that God would bring on the earth. Although modern scholars have pointed out that the choice of these three specific men is due to the fact that they were considered three universal (i.e., non-Israelite) righteous figures,47 it is noteworthy that traditional Jewish commentators considered their common denominator to be a connection with some significant destructive event and their ultimate salvation from it. Rashi says: “For these three saw three worlds. Noah saw the world built, ruined, and (re)built. Daniel saw the temple, or [a different explanation for Daniel] himself, originally prince of princes, led to the lions’ den and returned to his original prominence, and so Job who saw himself settled, ruined, and settled (again).”48 We have here evidence of later Jewish exegetes who considered the fact that Noah was chosen to survive the flood as a special trait of his character, undoubtedly tied to his blamelessness. Similarly, Sirach says of Noah that “in the time of wrath he was taken in exchange [for the world]; therefore was he left as a remnant upon the earth” (44:20). This text, along with Ezek 14, clearly recognizes that Noah’s survival is at the same time the redemption of all humanity. Due to his righteousness, he survived the flood, thus enabling the continuity of the human race.49 Noah as a survivor is mentioned twice more in 1 Enoch. His survival of the flood is alluded to in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:1–9) and also in the Book of 46. On Noah as a remnant, see Nickelsburg 2001, 546–47; Stuckenbruck 2007, 609, 669–70. 47. Cf. Noth 1951; Spiegel 1945; and, more recently, Wahl 1992. This has also been accepted by the major commentators on Ezekiel such as Zimmerli 1969, 320–21 (for English translation, see Zimmerli 1979, 314–15); Brownlee 1986, 206–7; Eichrodt 1970, 188– 89; Greenberg, while recognizing the non-Israelite nature of the three, also criticizes his predecessors (1983, 257–58). 48. Radak follows Rashi on this point, while other commentators such as Yossef Kara and Eliezer of Beaugency stress their righteousness. Noah’s righteousness as his major trait was stressed by various commentators. Philo says his name means righteous (Worse 121; cf. Nickelsburg 2001, 548); Ephrem the Syrian says that Noah was an example to his sons by his virtue, keeping his virginity for five hundred years (Commentary on Genesis, section 6). Several rabbinic Midrashim state that Noah’s birth marked the beginning of a fruitful agricultural period (Gen. Rab. 25; Tanhuma Beresh*t). See also b. Sanh. 113b; t. Sotah 10:2. 49. VanderKam 1980; 2000a, 411; Nickelsburg 2000, 251. This is once again tied in early Christian traditions to the parallels between Noah and Jesus. See Origen, who says: “our Lord, the true Noah, Christ Jesus” (Genesis homily 2 in Heine 1982, 76). Cf. Lewis 1968, 101–20; Moberly 2000, 345–56.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

Parables, where the notion of his election on the basis of his righteousness is specifically stated (1 En. 67:1). Since this motif is also mentioned in the prophecy given by Enoch to Methuselah (1 En. 106:15–18), it seems linked to Noah’s astounding birth. The quotation “and he shall not die in the day of evil” (‫ולא‬ ‫)ימות ביום רשעא‬, which appears in 4Q536 (frag. 2, col. II, line 11), is reminiscent of this prophecy given by Enoch. It also bears the notion of singling someone out, bringing to mind the words concerning Noah in Ezek 14:14. 8. The Knowledge of Noah In discussing the light accompanying Noah’s birth, we noted that Noah’s affiliation with Abraham and Moses also evokes his role as transmitter of knowledge to humanity. This trait seems to play an important role in Second Temple literature and is probably intended to solve a historical problem that arises from the accounts given in Genesis. Genesis 4:20–22 recounts the development of human knowledge, assigning different crafts to descendants of Cain. After the flood, all these craftsmen should have perished, and the Bible does not provide an explanation as to how these skills were acquired once more. This seems to be the reason that Noah’s role as a transmitter of knowledge becomes important in later traditions. The main stories of Noah’s birth—1 Enoch and the Genesis Apocryphon— do not elaborate the motif of Noah’s knowledge and wisdom, although the fact that he is able to talk and praise the Lord upon birth might be considered indicative of it. Furthermore, the emphasis on the fact that he and his family will be the sole survivors of humanity anticipates the significance of his knowledge. Upon Noah’s birth, Enoch issues a prophecy that distinguishes Noah from the rest of humanity. If Enoch is the archetype of the righteous man who was translated to higher spheres due to his unique traits, Noah is to be his successor and messenger on earth. If Enoch gained knowledge from this translation, as is specified in the birth narrative (1 En. 106:19; 107:3) we might also deduce that Noah should also gain some of this knowledge as part of his role. The relation between Noah as a transmitter of knowledge and narratives concerning his birth may be drawn together in 4Q534–536 (if, indeed, they refer to Noah). These fragments, directly following the description of his remarkable appearance (4Q534, frag. 1, col. I, lines 4–8), provide an extensive description of the main character’s knowledge. It is also of interest that this text attributes the knowledge of “three books” to the individual in question.50 Noah’s relation to a book(s) is mentioned in Jub. 10:14 and the Genesis Apocryphon (see below). Finally, it should be men50. García Martínez 1992, 8–9, 19–20.

AMIHAY AND MACHIELA: TRADITIONS OF THE BIRTH OF NOAH

tioned that 4Q534–536 also mentions the knowledge of secrets (4Q534, 1, I, 8; 4Q536, frags. 2+3, lines 8–9), a motif also employed in 1 Enoch’s account of the birth of Noah (106:19; 107:3). 9. The Role of Enoch in Noah’s Birth Enoch’s role in Noah’s birth story was stressed in the preceding two sections. His role is instrumental in Noah’s distinction as the survivor-savior, and he is even more prominently placed in the descriptions of Noah’s knowledge. Not only is he the one who utters the prophecy regarding Noah’s future role, thereby assigning him the task of transmitting human knowledge to future generations, but he is apparently also the source of much of that knowledge. That this is the case is merely implied in 1 Enoch, but it is stated more explicitly in some later traditions. The question of Noah’s knowledge is not addressed directly in 1 En. 106–107, but Enoch’s knowledge is dealt with extensively in the book as a whole. Indeed, this is the reason Methuselah seeks his advice regarding the newborn Noah. Directly following the birth narrative, we encounter a new account in which Enoch writes a book for Methuselah “and for those who would come after him” (1 En. 108:1). We are also told of Enoch providing a book to Noah in 1 En. 68:1. Whoever incorporated Noah’s birth narrative into the book of Enoch was probably aware of this connection and of Noah’s role as a messenger situated between Enoch and humanity. Enoch provides Noah with knowledge more explicitly in Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, where he is said to have given him the secret of the Ibbur, the intercalation of the lunar calendar. This late text probably draws upon or reworks an ancient tradition, possibly one of those contained in 1 Enoch or Jubilees. Conclusions The special connection between Enoch and his great-grandson Noah is significant for the question of the relation between 1 En. 106–107 and the rest of the book of Enoch, as well as the relation between 1 En. 106–107 and the Genesis Apocryphon. From the beginning of the study of 1 Enoch, it has been noted that the book is made up of a number of distinct components, not all of which relate seamlessly to each other. In this case, 1 En. 106–107 is a new, separate unit—a non sequitur of sorts—not closely related to what precedes and follows it.51 This serves as an indicator that these chapters are an insertion, and we can now say so with more assurance due to the Genesis Apocryphon. The fact that we have two parallel texts, one of the major points of diver51. Milik 1976, 55; Nickelsburg 2001, 3–8, 539.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

gence between which is the main speaker, supports the conclusion that in 1 En. 106–107 we find the reworking of an earlier narrative for the purpose of incorporation into the broader composition of 1 Enoch.52 In any case, we have here multiple attestations of Noah’s birth story and yet another sign of Noah’s significance during the Second Temple era. The accumulation of shared components in these sources with 4Q534–536 leads us to conclude that it is quite likely that 4Q534–536 is yet another narrative relating to the birth of Noah, reworking and expanding existing traditions such as those found in the Genesis Apocryphon and 1 Enoch.53 If we add 1Q19 to these, we have no less than three, and most likely four, distinct but related accounts of the birth of Noah in Hebrew and Aramaic from the Second Temple period. The remarkable number of Noachic birth stories (given our general paucity of ancient written sources), especially when compared with the brief account given in Genesis, begs once more the question of a hypothetical book of Noah that may have served as their shared source. Whether such a book ever existed has been the cause of ongoing debate.54 The main arguments against the existence of such a book have been the diversity of materials attributed to the book of Noah, the fact that such a book has not been found, and problems of dating the various sources that allegedly drew from the book of Noah. This study has attended to a marked preoccupation with Noah’s birth, which plays only a part in the broader interest in the figure of Noah during this period. All texts know something of Noah’s spectacular natal appearance, implying the possibility of celestial origins. However, all texts expand on this differently, focusing on traits and persons according to their taste. It is highly probable that these texts drew from a common well of traditions. Assigning this source to a book of Noah has been made especially complicated for the birth narrative by the discovery of the words ‫כתב מלי נוח‬

52. On the relation of the Genesis Apocryphon to Enoch, see Machiela 2007, 43–50. Cf. Bernstein 2005; Nickelsburg 2001, 541–42; Stuckenbruck 2007, 607. See also, on the style of the Genesis Apocryphon and its adaptation of various traditions, Bernstein 1996; Falk 2007, 26–106; Fröhlich 1998, 88–96; Lehmann 1958; Miller 1991; VanderKam 1978. 53. See García Martínez 1999, 94–95. 54. Barthélemy and Milik 1955, 84; Baxter 2006; Bernstein 1999, 226–31; 2005, 53; Bhayro 2006; Charles 1913, 163; Davidson 1992, 118; Dimant 1998, 144–46; 2006, 231–42; Fitzmyer 2004, 122; Fletcher-Louis 2002, 53; García Martínez 1992, 24–44; 1999, 88–89; Lewis 1968, 10–15; Milik 1976, 56; Nickelsburg 1998, 156–58; Puech 2001, 117–27; Schmidt 1926; Scott 1997b, 368–81; Segal 2007, 152; Steiner 1995, 66–71; Stone 2000; 2006a (see reprint in this volume); Stuckenbruck 2007, 610–14; Werman 1999.

AMIHAY AND MACHIELA: TRADITIONS OF THE BIRTH OF NOAH

preserved in the Genesis Apocryphon.55 What would seem to be the title of a book is found only after the birth account, thus excluding the birth narrative from the “book.” On the one hand, this seems logical, since we might expect that “The Book of the Words of Noah” would include only things that were written after his birth (even if only shortly after it, considering he knew how to speak immediately). On the other hand, there is the issue of what we might call the lost source that recounted the birth of Noah and that was known to numerous authors. Jubilees 10:14 implies the existence of several books of Noah, and this suggests one possible solution to the problem: assigning the birth narrative to another book, distinct from that to which the Apocryphon refers. We are unable, in fact, to say whether the fount of these many tellings of Noah’s birth was in a book of Noah, a work associated with Enoch, or even some other composition. Moreover, the title of the work is of no real importance. It is important, however, that we have considerable grounds for believing that the birth of Noah, as reflected in 1 En. 106–107 and the Genesis Apocryphon, was part of a broader antecedent and reflects the tendency to intensify Noah’s role and significance in Second Temple Judaism.

55.1 QapGen 5:29. Cf. Steiner 1995; Stuckenbruck 2007, 610–14.

A Note On 1Q19: The “Book Of Noah” Claire Pfann

1Q19, a collection of twenty-one Hebrew fragments, was first published in 1955 by J. T. Milik in DJD 1.1 The manuscript as published comprised five somewhat substantial fragments containing three or more lines of text and sixteen smaller fragments. Milik arranged the fragments into two groups, apparently based on content and paleographic features. Although the name Noah is not preserved on any of the fragments, Milik entitled the manuscript “Le Livre de Noë,” based upon the explicit mention in fragment 3 of Lamech and Methuselah, the father and grandfather of Noah, the implicit description in fragment 1 of conditions on the earth prior to the flood, and the apparent list of angels in fragment 2. Milik further noted the affinities of this text to the accounts of the birth of Noah in 1 En. 106–107 and in the Genesis Apocryphon.2 1Q19 is the only text from late antiquity dealing with the birth of Noah to have been preserved in Hebrew. The composition of this text in Hebrew and its potential relationship to its Aramaic sister-texts as source, derivative, or companion remains undefined. Michael Stone notes, “1Q19 does combine a number of the elements from part 1 of 1 Enoch that scholars believe are ultimately derived from a Noachic work. However, 1 Enoch was composed in Aramaic, as the Qumran fragments of it attest, while 1Q19 was written in Hebrew. We cannot determine whether 1Q19 was a ‘Book of Noah’ or another work embodying Noachic material.”3 Furthermore, what has puzzled scholars since the editio princeps of this collection of fragments is the apparent change in content and character in

1. In Barthélemy and Milik 1955, 84–86. Fragment 2, known as 1Q19 bis, was early separated from the main manuscript. Its photo was published by John Trever 1965, pl. VII, and its transcription by Milik in Barthélemy and Milik 1955, 152. 2. See Aryeh Amihay and Daniel Machiela’s “Traditions of the Birth of Noah” in this volume. 3. Stone 2000, 613–15.

-71-

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

fragments 13–21, which lack any distinctively Noachic character. Fragments 1–3 deal with themes and individuals familiar from biblical and extrabiblical accounts of Noah. The wickedness of humankind and impending judgment (frag. 1), the intercession of the archangels (frag. 2), and the birth of a miraculous child (frag. 3) are well-known motifs associated with Noah and the flood. With fragment 13, a shift from narrative to hymnic material takes place as language, including ‫כבוד‬, ‫הדר‬, ‫תפארת‬, and ‫בחיר‬, is introduced. Any explicit connection with Noah traditions disappears, as such hymnic or poetic material is lacking in the known Noah passages in the Bible, 1 En. 106–107, and 1QapGen ar, for example. As Stone notes, “The combination of Flood motifs with the story of Noah’s birth is highly suggestive. The remaining fragments of 1Q19, however, do not seem to have any recognizable relationship to material connected to Noah and Enoch.”4 The language of fragments 13–21 is reminiscent, rather, of Berakhot, Mysteries, Shirot Olat Hashabbat, and other poetic compositions. Indeed, Crispin Fletcher-Louis (2002) has recently pointed out the presence of such “angelomorphic” language as reflective of a theme occurring, in his opinion, across a wide range of Second Temple Literature, including 1 Enoch, Jubilees, Ben Sira, 4QInstruction, and other texts. In these texts, the heavenly or divine aspect of a human figure is stressed. Furthermore, in 1Q19, the use of the niph‘al of √‫ כבד‬and √‫ נשׂא‬with passive meaning evokes a sense of the future glorification or exaltation of an individual by divine agency.5 Due to the fragmentary nature of the text, this individual cannot be identified with certainty. Within Second Temple literature, only a few individuals were expected to have an “exaltation experience,” in particular, the Messiah (cf. Dan 7 and 4Q246 Aramaic Apocalypse, the “Son of God” text, both in Aramaic and in both of which the niph‘al with passive meaning is used to indicate divine agency). Milik tentatively suggested that these fragments contained a song of Methuselah and referred to the miraculous child who had just been born. However, no other text preserves an enthronement or exaltation theme connected with Noah. This paper suggests that 1Q19 as published by Milik is, in fact, at least two separate manuscripts. A close examination of the photographs of the fragments reveals several distinctive features that indicate the presence of at least two scribal hands. These features include line height, letter height, and letter shape. The line spacing in fragments 1–12 is 10 mm on average, where measurable, while that in fragments 13–21 is 11 mm on average. More important

4. Stone 2000, 613. 5. I am indebted to my husband Stephen J. Pfann for elucidating the character of these fragments and their implications and for compiling the alphabet chart that follows.

PFANN: A NOTE ON 1Q19

is the fact that the average letter height in fragments 1–12 is 4 mm, while that of fragments 13–21 is 3 mm. When we set out exemplars from the main fragments side-by-side, the distinctiveness of each scribal hand is clearly visible. In the figure on the following page, the larger letters on the right are taken from fragments 1 and 3, dealing with the birth of Noah, while the smaller letters on the left are from fragments 13 and 15, the hymnic section. After even a cursory examination, the dramatic difference in letter height is seen, as well as the fact that the scribal hand of fragments 1 and 3 is characterized by slanting or curved descenders, while that of fragments 13 and 15 features vertical or straight descenders, particularly in ‫ד‬, ‫ו‬, and ‫י‬. Other letters, in particular ‫א‬, ‫ב‬, and ‫כ‬, also help to support the distinction between the scribal hands. The ‫ א‬in fragments 13 and 15 contains a highly stylized, inverted v serif on the upper right arm, while the same arm in the ‫ א‬of fragments 1 and 3 exhibits merely a thickening or triangulation. The ‫ ב‬in fragments 1 and 3 contains a pronounced curved upper stroke, and the lower cross stroke extends well to the right of the vertical stroke. In the ‫ ב‬of fragments 13 and 15, these features are less pronounced. The ‫ כ‬of fragments 1 and 3 contains a short upper cross stroke and a long base stroke, while the ‫ כ‬of fragments 13 and 15 is quite squared, with the upper and the lower strokes almost equal in length. Milik did not date the scribal hand(s) of 1Q19, but Stephen Pfann has suggested that the hand of fragments 1–11 is a semiformal Herodian hand dating to the end of the first century b.c.e. or beginning of the first century c.e., with some features typical of the rounded or rustic scribal hands of that period. Fragments 13–21 likely date to the second quarter or mid-first century c.e., based particularly on the squared or even slightly squat, rectangular form of many of the letters (e.g., ‫ב‬, ‫כ‬, ‫ר‬, ‫)שׁ‬.6 Milik himself seems to have been cognizant of some distinction in paleographic features within the manuscript, for his grouping of the smaller fragments within the two groups (frgs. 1–12 dealing with the birth of Noah, frgs. 13–21 containing hymnic material) shows that he recognized the compatibility of each subgroup. Given his tremendous expertise, the question remains why he did not identify the fragments as two separate manuscripts from the start. How does this analysis of 1Q19 bear on the study of Noah traditions in Second Temple period literature? First of all, it is clear that, on the basis of line height, letter size, and palaeographic features, 1Q19 comprises two dis6. Personal communication with the author. He feels that frg. 12 may not belong to either manuscript.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

The Scribal Hands of 1Q19 Fragments 13, 15 Fragments 1, 3

PFANN: A NOTE ON 1Q19

tinct manuscripts that I demarcate as 1Q19a and 1Q19b. Furthermore, the palaeographic division among the fragments is supported by a division in subject matter, vocabulary, and style. While these observations cannot move us forward in determining the origin or relationship of the Noah traditions present in 1Q19a, 1 En. 106–107, 1QapGena, or 4Q534–536, they do liberate us from having to devise a hypothesis by which we can incorporate hymnic material (1Q19b) within the Noah traditions, for which no parallels exist.7 Furthermore, they yield a new, tantalizing, though decidedly meager, manuscript describing, in a manner perhaps similar to that of 4Q246, the future exaltation or enthronement of an individual, perhaps the Messiah. As a result, we might dub this newly discovered composition “1Q19b Exaltation [or, Glorification] Hymn.” Table 1: Palaeographic Assessment of 1Q19 Fragment Line Height

Letter Height

Descenders

Triangulated ‫א‬

10–11 mm

4 mm

curved/hooked

lacking

9 mm

4–5 mm

curved

lacking

10–11 mm

4 mm

curved

lacking

———

4–5mm

curved

———

9–10 mm (only one example)

4 mm

curved

———

10 mm

4 mm

curved

———

4 mm

curved

damaged

10 mm

4 mm

curved

———

4 mm

curved

———

4 mm

———

10 mm

4 mm

straight

———

7. It may be worth noting that 2 En. 71:18–19 relates the miraculous birth of another child, the priest Melchizedek. In this account, the child is born as a fully developed threeyear-old, wearing the “badge” of the priesthood (ephod? breastplate?) and already capable of speech. The text mentions that he “blesses God,” reminiscent of Noah’s blessing of God upon birth in 1 En. 106, although no poem or hymn of praise is recorded.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S) 12

———

4 mm

straight?

———

11–12 mm

3 mm

straight

present

10 mm

3–4 mm

straight

———

10–11 mm

3 mm

straight

present

———

3 mm

———

3 mm

———

3 mm

straight/NA

damaged

———

3 mm?

———

3 mm

straight

———

The Noah Cycle in the Genesis Apocryphon* Esther Eshel

Introduction The Genesis Apocryphon—an Aramaic parabiblical text—recounts, with additions, omissions, and expansions, some of the stories from Gen 5–15.1 The scroll, opened in 1956, contains the remains of twenty-two columns, but it was originally longer; the sheet to the right of column 22 was clearly cut away in antiquity, and the text of column 22 breaks off in the middle of a sentence. It is now generally accepted that text survives from at least one additional column that preceded column 1. This earlier column has been labeled 0. The work is generally attributed to the second or first century b.c.e., but based on my study of this composition, an earlier date in the third century should not be ruled out.2 Like the other Aramaic texts found at Qumran, the Genesis Apocryphon is not considered sectarian.3 1. The Context of the Genesis Apocryphon The surviving text of the Genesis Apocryphon retells the narratives of the

* This paper was written while I was a Kennedy-Leight Fellow at Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Oxford University. 1. See Bernstein 2005. 2. For the latest edition of the Genesis Apocryphon, see Fitzmyer 2004. The readings and translation of the Genesis Apocryphon are based on this edition. However, certain readings were arrived at by the author in conjunction with Moshe Bernstein; others were formulated in the course of working on this essay, together with the readings and translations made in the Ph.D. dissertation of Machiela 2007; see now Machiela 2009. 3. Note that Noah waited until the fifth year to drink the fourth-year wine (1QapGen 12:13–15; see also Jub. 7:1–2), as required in sectarian law, rather than in the fourth year, as in rabbinic law. See Kister 1992. On the other hand, a reference to Noah’s endogamy in choosing his children’s spouses (col. 6) may point to general, nonsectarian, Second Temple practice.

-77-

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

patriarchs corresponding to Gen 5:18–15:5, that is, from Enoch to Abram’s vision of the stars. It does so mainly through first-person narration by Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Noah, and Abram. Recently, Daniel Falk suggested that the preserved text could be divided into three stories—a story of Lamech, a story of Noah, and a story of Abraham—but finally concluded: “It is preferable to view the Genesis Apocryphon—at least as preserved for us—as structured around two stories: a Noah cycle and an Abram cycle.” Thus, according to his understanding, “[t]he Lamech section is best seen as part of the Noah cycle, and its purpose is to more fully place the story of Noah in the context of the sons of God myth from Gen 6.1–5.”4 As for the text’s style, he notes: “it is part of the narrative’s style to allow characters to speak in their own words.” Nevertheless, since he traces a change in the middle of Abram’s narrative, from column 21:23 until the end of the existing text, to an impersonal narration, he concludes that “the narrative voice does not seems to be an entirely reliable guide to the intended structure.”5 My reading of the first two columns shows that the picture is more complicated. Columns 0–1 include parts that do not seem to belong to Lamech’s speech, such as a speech in first-person plural, which seems to best fit the Watchers’ appeal, for example, [‫ונקבל אסר ]ושבועת[א די אסרנא ]על נפשנא‬, “we took an oath [and a vow] that we bind [ourselves (?)]” (0:2–3), and ‫וכען הא‬ ‫אנחנא אסירין‬, “And now we are prisoners” (line 8). Furthermore, the first-person appeal to God, referring to his anger or his decision to destroy the world, seems to fit Enoch’s appeal to God rather than that of Lamech, to be compared with 1 En. 12–16. The Enoch cycle includes apocalyptic visions referring to God’s deeds that will take place at ‫ביום דינא רבא וקץ‬, “[…] at the Day of the Great Judgment and End” (4:12), to be compared with 4QEnGiantsf (4Q206 2–3) frag. 1 xxii:2–3 ‫ועד זמן יום קצא ד]י[ דינא רבא די מנהון יתעבד‬, “and until the time of the Day of the End o[f] the Great Judgment which will be exacted of them” (1 En. 22:4);6 as well as with 4QEnc (4Q212) frag. 1 iv:22–23: ‫ומן‬ […‫]בתרה שבוע עשרי דבשבי[עה דין עלמא וקץ דינא רבא] יתנקם‬, “And af[ter it, the tenth week, in the se]venth [part of which] an eternal Judgment and the (fixed) time of the Great Judgment [shall be executed in vengeance…]” (1 En. 91:15).7 It also includes various visions regarding Noah’s future and the misdeeds of humanity (5:16–19) The Enoch cycle features some elegant interweaving of first-person narration: Lamech’s first-person reaction to Noah’s exceptional appearance (he

4. Falk 2007, 30. 5. Ibid, See earlier Bernstein 1998, 145. 6. Milik 1976, 229–30. 7. Ibid., 266, 269.

ESHEL: THE NOAH CYCLE IN THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON

feared he was the son of an angel) followed by his confrontation with his wife Bitenosh (col. 2); Enoch’s assurance to Lamech through Methuselah that Noah is indeed his son (5:2–23); and Lamech’s final reaction to Enoch’s assurance (5:26–27). Therefore I suggest assigning the first six columns to Enoch rather than to Lamech, thus dividing this composition into three cycles, which seems to me more suitable in terms of both structure and content: The Enoch cycle (cols. 0–5:27) The Noah cycle (cols. 5:29–18:22) The Abraham cycle (cols. 18:24–22:?) This division is further supported by the physical marker of blank lines left between the cycles, that is, in column 5 line 28, at the end of the Enoch cycle, and in column 18 line 23, at the end of the Noah cycle.8 Of these three, although poorly preserved, no less than thirteen columns of the Noah cycle survived, while only four to five columns of each of the other two cycles have survived. There is, however, no reason to doubt that both of the other cycles were originally much longer. As for the proposed Enoch cycle, one might suspect that column 0 was preceded by additional passages devoted to the story of the Fallen Angels, which together with the surviving reference to this myth, might be added to other such compositions that are so dominant in the Qumran library.9 It is worth noting in this context that references to the Watchers are found on numerous occasions in the surviving parts of this composition, especially in columns 0–1, and are not confined to the Enoch cycle. This is also the case with the words of Lamech (2:1, 16) and probably in the words of Enoch referring to ‫ביומי ירד אבי‬, “for in the days of Jared my father” (3:3),10 as in his answer to Methuselah (5:3–4). The Watchers also appear in Noah’s vision (6:19–20). The remains of the Genesis Apocryphon, of which the beginning and end have not been preserved, thus comprise three cycles: the Enoch cycle; the Noah cycle; and the Abram cycle. Therefore, it might originally have included additional cycles that are now lost. From the extant text, we can see a wellwritten story, with smoothly connected individual components that share both themes and terminology. Thus, the Noah cycle seems to be an integral part of the composition, not an independent work taken from a written source

8. Armin Lange has suggested that in col. 18:23–24 there was a vacat of 1.5 line, which probably marked the beginning of the Abraham story at line 25; see Lange 1996, 192 n. 10. 9. See Stone 1999, 133–49. 10. Compare with 4QEna 1 iii:4–5 (1 En. 6:6): [‫ ;ביומי ירד ]והוו כלהן מאתין די נחתו‬see 4QEnc 5 ii:17–18 (1 En. 106:13)

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

and introduced as a whole into the Genesis Apocryphon. This, in turn, does not exclude the possibility that the Genesis Apocryphon used earlier sources, which is probably the case in the Enoch cycle, where clear connections with 1 Enoch are found. Being one of the earliest and most detailed sources dedicated to the figure of Noah, one might assume that the Genesis Apocryphon was used by later compositions, such as Jubilees. The Genesis Apocryphon draws significant parallels between the main characters, and I suggest that this literary technique be termed a “chain of traditions.” The way the story is told, Enoch, like Noah, struggles with a sinful generation, that of the Fallen Angels and their sinful offspring. He also seems to be singled out as the only righteous person, as Abram will later be singled out with respect to Sodom, serving as the mediator between the sinners and God and bringing their appeal to heaven. Like Abram, he also has immediate communication with God, being vouchsafed various visions regarding the future of humanity that can be compared with Gen 15. By the same token, Noah is described in terms close to those applied to Abram, being the ultimate righteous individual who has a vision regarding the future of humanity. With regard to shared terminology, the following main locutions stand out. 1.1. Enoch and Noah (1) The root ‫אסר‬, meaning both “to swear” and “to bind,” is found in the Enoch cycle used for both sin and punishment of the Watchers (col. 0:2, 8, 12). Yet a third meaning of this root, “to gird,” is used in Noah’s biography ‫וחצי‬ ‫אסרת בחזון קושטא‬, “I girded my loins with a vision of righteousness” (6:4). (2) In connection with Enoch’s visit to heaven, it says that ‫עדבה פליג‬, “he shares his lot (with the angels)” (2:21). This terminology derives from Josh 15 and is used later to describe Noah’s division of the world among his sons, as in ‫לשם נפק עדבא תניאנא‬, “For Shem emerged the second lot” (1QapGen 16:14), as well as ‫]ו[יפת פלג בין בנוהי‬, “[And] Japhet divided between his sons” (1QapGen 17:16).11 (3) The reference to ‫“ רז‬mystery” is found in both stories: ‫ רז‬is first mentioned in the Enoch cycle in the Watchers’ appeal in column 1, ‫רז רשעא‬, “the mystery of wickedness” (1:2; and just ‫ רזא‬in lines 3, 7). Later, when Enoch speaks to his son Methuselah, he says ‫]…[ברך אחוי ברזא דנא‬, “[…] your son make known by this mystery” (5:21). Methuselah then tells it to his son 11. ‫ עדב‬is used by Targum Jonathan to Joshua to translate Hebrew ‫( גורל‬Josh 15:1; 16:1), as well as ‫“ תחום‬portion,” found numerous times as the translation of Hebrew ‫גבול‬ in Targum Jonathan; see VanderKam 2000a, 488.

ESHEL: THE NOAH CYCLE IN THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON

Lamech: ‫ועם למך ברה ברז מלל‬, “and he spoke with Lamech his son about a mystery” (5:25). When we move to the Noah cycle we hear again: ‫וטמרת רזא‬ ‫דן בלבבי‬, “I hid this mystery within my heart” (6: 12); see ALD 4:13 ‫וטמרת אף‬ ‫דן בלבי וכל אינש לא גליתה‬, “And I hid this, too, in my heart, and I revealed it to nobody.” ‫ רז‬probably has a neutral meaning, and it gets its value weighting from its context. Thus, while in the Watchers’ context the mystery has a negative sense, to be compared with the Watchers’ story according to the book of Watchers, 4Q201 iv: 4–5: ‫וכלהן שריו לגלי[ה רזין לנשיהן‬, “[And they all began to reveal] secrets to their wives” (1 En. 1:4/8?),12 in our context of both Enoch and Noah it is given a positive sense. 1.2. Noah and Abram (1) When Noah exits the ark, after the flood, he says, ‫]אדין[ אנא נוח נפקת‬ ‫והלכת בארעא לאורכהא ולפותיהא‬, “[Then] I Noah went out and walked on the land by its length and by its width…” (11:11), which is clearly taken from God’s command to Abraham ‫( קום והתהלך בארץ לאורכה ולרחבה‬Gen 13:17), described in the Genesis Apocryphon as ‫קום הלך ואזל וחזי כמן ארכהא וכמן‬ ‫פתיהא‬, “Rise, walk about, go and see how great is its length and how great its width” (21:13–14). Abram obeys this command: ‫ואזלת אנא אברם למסחר‬ ‫ולמחזה ארעא … ואזלת ליד טור תורא למדנחא לפותי ארעא‬, “So I, Abram, went to go around and look at the land … and moved along Mount Taurus toward the east through the breath of the land” (21:15–16). (2) God’s promises to Noah are clearly taken from those to Abraham in the Bible; thus, God says to Noah: (11:15) ‫אל תדחל יא נוח עמך אנא ועם בניך‬ ‫די להון כואתך לעלמים‬, “Do not fear, O Noah, I am with you and with those of your sons who will be like you forever,” which is based on Gen 26:24: ‫אל‬ ‫תירא כי אתך אנכי וברכתיך והרביתי את זרעך בעבור אברהם עבדי‬, “do not fear, for I am with you and will bless you and make your offspring numerous for my servant Abram’s sake,” as well as on Gen 15:1a: ‫אל תירא אברם אנכי מגן‬ ‫לך‬, “Do not fear, Abram, I am your shield.”13 Furthermore, the second part of this verse, ‫שכרך הרבה מאוד‬, “your reward shall be very great” (15:1b), can be found earlier in the Genesis Apocryphon, when God promises Noah ‫יקר‬ ‫ואגרו אנה משלם לך‬, “honor and reward I am paying to you” (7:5). (3) In one of his dream visions (14:9–19), Noah sees a large cedar tree with three branches. The interpretation of the dream identifies the different 12. Cf. ‫ רזי פשע‬in 1QHa 13:38; 24:9; 1Q27 1 i:2; See Bernstein 2005, 45 n. 15, which also refers to 2 Thess 2:7. 13. See also ‫“ ולבניך מן בתרך … אל תדחל‬to your sons after you for all … do not fear” (8:33–34).

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

parts of the tree. Thus Noah is the cedar, and the three shoots are Noah’s three sons. Shem can be identified as the first scion, described as coming forth from the cedar and growing to a height (14:10). A cedar also plays a role in Abram’s dream vision (19:14–21) when, just before he and Sarai descend to Egypt due to the famine in the land of Canaan, Abraham has a dream. In his dream Abraham sees a cedar, which people are trying to cut down, and a palm tree, which is left alone. This dream reflects Abraham’s awareness that his life is in danger. His response is to ask Sarai to protect him by claiming that they are brother and sister. (4) When Noah divides the world among his sons, Arpachshad’s allotment (17:11–15) is the same as that in Abraham’s tour of the Promised Land as described in the Genesis Apocryphon (21:16–19). Furthermore, not only does the author use parallels between the main three characters, but I would like to suggest that within these cycles one also finds secondary characters that serve transitional functions. Each of these is used as a “link” connecting the earlier and later main figures, thus creating an even closer connection between the cycles. Thus one might characterize Lamech as a “secondary figure” who serves as the connection between Enoch and Noah, by appealing to Enoch in regard to Noah’s miraculous birth. The end of the Noah cycle and the beginning of the Abraham cycle have not survived, but I would like to suggest, based on the Noah story, that we might tentatively expect parts of columns 17–18 to be devoted to the figure of Shem as the “secondary character.” Shem’s special role is first found when he is identified with the first scion, on which Noah’s name will be called (14:12). Thus, as in the case of Noah, Shem and his descendants are also called “a plant of truth” (14:13). Later, when Noah wakes from his dreams, he goes and tells them to him: ‫ואתעירת‬ ‫ ואז[לית אנה לשם ברי וכולא אחו]ת [ל]ה‬... ‫א[נא נוח מן שנתי‬, “Then I], Noah, [awoke] from my sleep.… ]I went to Shem, my son, and relat[ed] everything to [him]” (15:21–22). God’s promise earlier to be with Shem and his descendants is being referred to, when God promises Noah, “I am with you and with those of your sons who will be like you forever” (11:15). Shem’s special role seems to be further developed by the author of Jubilees, particularly in the detailed description of Shem’s portion found in Jub. 8:12–21. This includes Noah’s happy reaction, especially when he makes his portion the best, including the three main mountains, and being in the center of the world (see below). 2. Noah Cycle After the title ‫]פר[ש]ג[ן כתב מלי נח‬, “A [co]p[y] of the words of Noah” (5:29),

ESHEL: THE NOAH CYCLE IN THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON

which probably marked the beginning of the Noah cycle,14 there remain very few decipherable letters, providing no indication of the content of the last six and a half lines of that column (5:29a-36). When the text is readable again, at the beginning of column 6 line 1, we are already in Noah’s biography: “And in the furnace of my gestation I flourish to truth, and when I left my mother’s womb I was rooted in truth” (6:1). Thus one might infer that the previous lines dealt with Noah’s birth, to be compared with its earlier description of that event by his father Lamech (col. 2), as well as in 1 En. 106–107. As a whole, the story of Noah covers almost thirteen columns of thirty-six lines each column: a total of more than 260 lines. The following table summarizes the above-mentioned subjects with their parallels.15 Subject

1QapGen

Genesis

Jubilees

Noah’s righteousness from early life

6:1–5

(6:9)––

(10:17)––

Noah’s marriage

6:6–7

––

4:33a

Noah’s children

6:7–8

5:32; 6:10

[4:33b]

Marriage of Noah’s children

6:8–9

––

Noah’s first set of visions

6:9–22

––

Noah find favor

6:23

6:8

God’s planned destruction

6:24ff.

6:6–7, 11–17

God blesses Noah

6:?-7:6

(9:1–2): after the flood!

––

Noah rejoices (?)

7:7–9

––

God responds (?)

7:10–15

––

[5:5, 19]

14. Some argue that this part of the Genesis Apocryphon originated as an independent composition, probably from the book of Noah. See Steiner 1995, 66–71. For a discussion of the possible existence of a lost book (or books) of Noah, see Stone’s comments on pages 8–11 of this volume (= 2006a, 5–9), where he also relates to earlier studies. 15. See Falk 2007, 31–32.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

Noah’s second set of visions

7:16ff.– 9:?

––

Noah and the flood

9:[?]–10:1

7:11–12

Noah and his family praise God

10:1–10

––

The ark rest on Hurarat

10:11–12

8:4

5:28

Noah offers sacrifice

10:12–13

8:20

6:1b-2

Details of sacrifice

10:13–17

––

6:2–3

God accepts sacrifice (?)

10:18–?

8:21–22

[6:4]

Noah watches at the ark’s door

11:1–10 (?)

––

Noah’s survey of the land

11:11–12

––

Noah blesses God

11:12–14

––

God blesses Noah

11:15ff

9:1–7

6:5–9

God’s covenant with Noah

11:?–12:6

9:8–17

[6:15–16]

Noah descends the mountains (?)

11:7–9

(9:18)

Noah’s second generation

12:9–12

10:1–11:11

Noah plants a vineyard

12:13

9:20

The fourth year’s wine

12:13–14

Fifth-year wine celebration and prayer

12:14–19

Noah’s second set of visions

12:19– 15:21

Noah wakes from his dreams, blesses God, tells to Shem

15:21ff

Division of the land

end of col. 15–17:24?

––

[5:24–27]

7:1–2

ESHEL: THE NOAH CYCLE IN THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON

This table shows quite clearly that, while some detailed descriptions expand upon a very small biblical base, such as Noah’s righteousness mentioned in Gen 6:9, ‫נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדרתיו‬, other elements have no parallel at all, not only in Genesis, but also in other parallel accounts, such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees. Another significant difference is that Noah is described only in a positive way, being in close contact with God. Thus, the biblical description of Noah being drunk and shamed, starting with ‫וישת מן היין וישתכר ויתגל בתוך אהלה‬, “He drank the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within the tent” (Gen 9:21), and ending with ‫וייקץ נח מיינו‬, “When Noah woke up from his wine” (9:24), is reinterpreted in the Genesis Apocryphon columns 12–15, in an opposite manner, where ‫ ויתגל‬is interpreted in the sense of having a vision (from ‫גלי‬/‫“ גלה‬to reveal”),16 and Noah is described as having a set of symbolic dream visions, starting with his statement “and I was lying on my […]” (12:19), perhaps his side or his bed. This formula can be compared to God’s command to Ezekiel, “Lie on your left side” (4:4), as well as to Dan 7:1, which states, “Daniel saw a dream and a vision of his mind in bed.” Even more closely related is Levi’s statement in the Aramaic Levi Document: “Then […] I lay down, and I remained o[n…]” (4:3), which is immediately followed by a vision (4:4ff.).17 This set of dream visions ends by saying: ‫ואתעירת א[נא‬ ‫ וא[זלית אנה‬...] ‫[ למברך אל עלמא‬... ‫נוח מן שנתי ושמשא רמה ואנה ]נוח‬ […‫לשם ברי וכולא אחו]ת [ל]ה‬, “[Then I,] Noah, [awoke] from my sleep, and the sun […]” ( col. 15:21).18 Thus, after waking up, not only does Noah not curse Canaan, but he blesses God and goes to tell his dreams to Shem.19 In the following very fragmentary text (15:23ff.), Noah apparently speaks to Shem, mentioning the righteous one and God. Here I would assume that a major part of the bottom line of column 15 (lines 23–36) and maybe even parts of the beginning of column 16 were devoted to our “secondary figure,” who is Shem. Nevertheless, one cannot rule out the possibility that Noah’s curse of Canaan was included in the nonpreserved lines at the end of column 15. If so, one might speculate that it was based on Noah’s set of dream visions in which he was informed of Canaan’s future violent deeds; thus Noah might have cursed him for that rather than for his father’s deeds.

16. To be compared with 4Q201 iv: 4–5: ‫וכלהן שריו לגלי[ה רזין לנשיהן‬, “[And they all began to reveal] secrets to their wives”; for a detailed discussion of this interpretation, suggested by Machiela, see Machiela 2007, 211–18. 17. Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel 2004, 66–67. 18. See Fitzmyer 2004, 92–93. 19. Contra Bernstein (1996, 43), who hypothesizes that Noah’s drunkenness and its ensuing embarrassment is to be reconstructed in the missing parts of 1QapGen.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

In the Noah cycle, three unique phenomena occur that merit our attention. These are the “two-ways” terminology, Noah’s dream visions, and the division of the world. 2.1. The Two-Ways Terminology The beginning of the Noah story is lost, and its first surviving text starts with his biography: […] And in the furnace of my gestation I flourished to truth; and when I left my mother’s womb, I was rooted in truth and I conducted myself in truth all my days, and I walked in the paths of eternal truth. For I was instructed (?) by the Holy [One(s)], to w[alk] on the path of the way of truth, and to warn me away from the path of falsehood which leads to everlasting darkness. […] I girded my loins in a vision of truth and wisdom […] all the paths of violence. (6:1–5)

This description is unique in many ways: a poetic structure, similar to biblical stichoi, with parallels and contradictions, to be compared with the wisdom poem of ALD 13, using paired words and parallel phrases, which is already known from earlier Aramaic poetry.20 Within these lines we find the following “ways” terminology: ‫נתיב‬, ‫אורח‬, ‫שביל‬, ‫מסלה‬.21 We also find adjectives describing the right way, using ‫“ קושט‬truth” or ‫“ אמת‬truth.”22 This, in turn, is contrasted with the adjectives describing the wrong way as ‫“ שקר‬falsehood,” ‫“ חשוך‬darkness,” or ‫“ חמס‬violence.”23 The concept of walking in “the path of truth” has its roots in the biblical ‫דרך אמת‬, “way of truth,” mentioned in Gen 24:48. The metaphor of the two ways, of the paths of good and of evil, first appears in Deut 30:15–30, where the 20. See Greenfield 1979, 49–51; Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel 2004, 102–9, 201–6. 21. Two of these—‫ מסלה‬and ‫—נתיב‬are Hebrew words found in this Aramaic composition. The inclusion of both Hebrew and Aramaic terms brings to mind the namemidrashim of Levi’s sons in ALD (ch. 11) and his grandson Amram (12:4), which include both Hebrew and Aramaic etymologies. Thus Merari, who has triple onomastic midrash, the first of which is ‫ארי מר לי עלוהי לחדה‬, “for I was bitter on his account particularly,” where ‫מר לי‬, “I was bitter” (11:8) is a Hebraism, probably based on Ruth; as well as that of Jochebed, on whom it says ‫לכבוד לישראל‬, “for glory for Israel” (11:10), which is a midrash based on the Hebrew word ‫כבוד‬. In those cases we suggested either a usage of earlier Hebrew source or a name-midrash made by “a literate Jew of the third century BCE”; see Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel 2004, 184–193. 22. Again, a Hebrew term. 23. This rich imagery of the two ways includes both Hebrew and Aramaic terms; see above, n. 21.

ESHEL: THE NOAH CYCLE IN THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON

ways of life and death are related to obedience or disobedience of divine commandments. This metaphor also “runs like a thread through Prov 1–8.”24 These ancient texts (as well as Jer 21:8, which interprets Deut 30:15 in an ironic exegesis25) “appear to employ the two ways as a construct for envisioning alternative behaviors rather than to constitute a fixed two-ways literary form.”26 Noah’s testimony as walking in the path of truth in the Genesis Apocryphon is to be compared with ALD 3, where Levi says in his prayer: 3:4 And now my children are with me, And grant me all the paths of truth. 3:5 Make far from me, my Lord, the unrighteous spirit, and evil thought and fornication.… 3:6 Let there shown to me, O Lord, the holy spirit, and grant me counsel, and wisdom and knowledge and strength, 3:7–8 in order to do that which is pleasing before you.… 3:9 And let not any satan have power over me, to make me stray from your path.

As we argue in our edition of ALD, “It is related to the idea of the two ways, one good and one bad … but is distinct from it in its use of the idea of the two spirits.”27 Another early source in which this motif occurs is Tobit. As part of his programmatic statement, Tobit states, “I, Tobit, walked the paths of fidelity and righteousness all the days of my life” (1:3).28 The same motif appears later in Tobit’s testamentary instruction to his son Tobias:29 Be mindful of (God) the Lord, my boy, every day of your life Do not seek to sin or transgress His commandments. Practice righteousness all the days of your life, and tread not the paths of wickedness. For those who act with fidelity will prosper in all they (you) do. To all those who practice righteousness. (4:5–6)30

24. Nickelsburg 2001, 455. 25. See Holladay 1986, 573–74. 26. Nickelsburg 1999, 98. For a detailed discussion of the Jewish sources of the “two ways” in Did. 1–6, see van de Sandt and Flusser 2002, 140–90. 27. Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel 2004, 34. 28. Where GII = GI; the translation is based on Fitzmyer 2004, 98. 29. According to GII, which unless noted, is usually identical with GI. 30. Fitzmyer 2004, 163, according to GII, where GI reads, “For if you act in fidelity, success will attend all you do. To all those who practice righteousness.”

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S) For almsgiving preserves one from death and keeps one from going off into darkness. (4:10) 31

A third reference is found in Tobit’s instructions to Tobias: “On every occasion praise God and beg him that your ways may be made straight and all your paths [GI + and plans] may lead to prosperity” (4:19). Unlike Tobit, which, as mentioned, relates the path of righteousness to Torah, in the Genesis Apocryphon, as in ALD, no reference to the divine commandments is found. But not only is Genesis Apocryphon’s description of the two ways more detailed; it also introduces a significant new element, the eternal nature of both good and evil: “I walked in the paths of eternal truth,” which is contrasted with the “path of everlasting darkness.” Accordingly, the Genesis Apocryphon represents the bestowing of an eschatological dimension on the two-ways motif, to be compared with Levi’s prayer in ALD 3:17, asking God ‫…למעבד[ דין קשט לכ]ל עלם‬, “… And make (me) participant in your words, to do true judgment for all times.” Next, I would like to adduce another parallel to the two-ways imagery, which is found in Jubilees, and to argue for its possible reference to the far more detailed description in the Genesis Apocryphon. As we saw above, in its early biography of Noah, the Genesis Apocryphon documents how he walked in the path of truth. Jubilees’ initial recounting of the story of Noah’s ark relies on 1 Enoch (6–16; 86–88) but also quotes Gen 6:8 (Jub. 5:5: “He was pleased with Noah alone”). Jubilees returns to the Noah story in 5:19, which reads: To all who corrupted their ways and their plan(s) before the flood, no favor was shown, except to Noah alone, because favor was shown to him for the sake of his children whom he saved from the flood waters for his sake because his mind was righteous in all his ways, as it has been commanded concerning him. He did not transgress from anything that had been ordained for him.

I suggest that the two-ways terminology underlies this description, in which Noah’s righteous way (“his mind was righteous in all his ways”) is contrasted to that of others who chose the wrong way (“To all who corrupted their ways and their plan[s]”).32 Furthermore, the addition of nonbiblical elements using the two-ways terminology to explicate Noah’s righteousness echoes the Gen-

31. Ibid, 164. 32. The addition of “and plans” seems to have originated in Tob 4:19, where GII reads: “On every occasion praise God and beg him that your ways may be made straight and all your paths may lead to prosperity”; GI reads: “your paths and plans.”

ESHEL: THE NOAH CYCLE IN THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON

esis Apocryphon: “and I walked in the paths of eternal truth” (6:2), as opposed to “the path of falsehood that leads to everlasting darkness […]” (6:3).33 I would like to suggest that the author of Jubilees might have used and adapted the Genesis Apocryphon in his portrayal of Noah. Thus, both texts describe Noah as walking in the righteous path, but Jubilees shifts the emphasis to what is significant in his worldview, namely, that Noah follows God’s commands: “as it has been commanded concerning him. He did not transgress from anything that had been ordained for him.” As we have seen, this element is also found in Tobit’s biography. Another element shared with Tobit is the existence of a reward for following the right way: Jubilees, “because favor was shown to him,” and Tobit, “For those who act with fidelity will prosper in all they do. To all those who practice righteousness” (4:6). But, as opposed to the Genesis Apocryphon, this context contains no eschatological theology. 2.2. Noah’s Dream Visions In contrast to its biblical source, one outstanding feature of Noah’s biography in the Genesis Apocryphon is the large number of divine communications to Noah, including dreams. Thus, according to the Genesis Apocryphon, Noah had two sets of dream visions. The first antediluvian vision (6:11–12) is concerned with “the conduct of the sons of heaven” (6:11), and since it is a

33. Further, VanderKam discusses the difficult phrase “favor was shown to him” (Jub 5:19; 1989, 2:34) having the “Hebrew ‫ נשא פנים‬underlie the Ethiopic words,” explaining it in “a positive sense, ‘to be gracious to’ (Gen 32:21).” I would like to argue that Jubilees here is probably corrupt. The biblical phrase is '‫( ונח מצא חן בעיני ה‬Gen 6:8), translated by Jubilees as “he was pleased with Noah alone,” to be translated literally: “Noah alone found favor before his eyes” (5:5; VanderKam 1996, 33). This verse is referred to in the Genesis Apocryphon 6:23: ] ‫ואש[כחת אנה נוח חן רבו וקושטה‬, “And I Noah found favor, greatness, and truth.” We might trace Jubilees’ version’s development as follows: ‫ מצא חן‬was understood as parallel with ‫נשא חן‬, the latter also found in the phrase ‫מצא חן לפני‬, e.g., Esth 2:17. Being paralleled with ‫נשא חן לפני‬, where ‫פנים = לפני‬, thus creating the wrong phrase ‫ נשא‬+ ‫פנים‬. It is interesting to note that the verb ‫ התהלך‬in the phrase ‫את האלהים התהלך‬ ‫( נח‬Gen 6:9) is translated in lxx as ευηρέστησεν, from εὐαρεστέω, meaning “to please.” The same verb is used earlier in the same phrase regarding Enoch ‫ויתהלך חנוך את האלהים‬ (Gen 5:22, 24), as well as later, with regard to Abram: ‫( התהלך לפני והיה תמים‬Gen 17:1; see 24:40), as well as in Joseph’s reference to his ancestors: ‫האלהים אשר התהלכו אבתי‬ ‫( לפניו אברהם ויצחק‬Gen 48:15), and in Sir 44:16: ‫( חנוך נמצא תמים והתהלך עם ייי‬ms B), translated to Greek as Ενωχ εὐηρέστησεν κυρίῳ. Thus it seems that all share the same exegesis, which might be as old as or even older than Jubilees. One might wonder whether this shared title of Enoch, Noah, and Abram was behind our author’s parallel descriptions of these characters.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

mystery, he then hides it and does not tell anyone.34 Next, Noah is visited by “[an em]issary of the Great Holy One” (6:15) who seems to explain to him the behavior of the sons of God and its result in the bloodshed of the Nephilim (‫ ;דמא די אשדו נפיליא‬6:19). This vision and Noah’s subsequent communication with God seem to explain to him why God decided to destroy the world as a result of the fallen angels’ misdeeds. The surviving portion of this vision is nonsymbolic in nature.35 The second set of visions includes symbolic dream visions. Although poorly preserved, Noah’s dream visions in the Genesis Apocryphon columns 12–14 include at least three separate dreams. In composing this dream sequence, the author of Genesis Apocryphon did not follow one specific biblical source; rather, he drew the various images found in these visions from different biblical visions belonging to this genre. The first dream refers both to an object made of gold, silver, stone, and pottery as well as iron, from which everyone is breaking off pieces, and “chopping every tree and taking it for themselves.” It reads as follows: 8[…]

the wild beasts […] and the creeping creatures of the dry land were passing […] [9gold and silver,] stone and pottery were chopping and taking of it for themselves. I watched those of gold and silver [10…] iron, and were chopping every tree and taking it for themselves. I watched the sun and the moon, 11and the stars, chopping and taking of it for themselves. I watched until the earth and the water habitant 12terminated it.” (13:8–12)36

This dream bears striking parallels to Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams of the statue made of iron and clay in Dan 2 and of the great tree in Dan 4, a study that is beyond the scope of this article. The second dream vision reads as follows: 13I turned to observe the olive tree; and behold the olive tree grew in height

and for many hours […] great foliage14[…] appeared among them. I contemplated the olive tree, and behold the abundance of its leaves[…] 15[…] they tied on it. And I wondered tremendously at this olive tree and its leaves. I wondered […] 16[the four] winds of the heaven blowing strongly, and they mutilated this olive tree, removing its branches, then breaking it. First [came] 17western [wind], and struck it and cast off its leaves and fruit, and scattered it in (all) directions. After it (came) […]. (13:13–17)

34. The same terminology is used in ALD 4:13b: “And I hid this, too, in my heart, and I revealed it to no one,” which concludes Levi’s vision(s). 35. It might have been followed by another heavenly communication, which might have included building instructions (see ‫ למבנה‬in 7:19). 36. Fitzmyer 2004, 88–89.

ESHEL: THE NOAH CYCLE IN THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON

This dream concerns a large olive tree that is being destroyed by the “[four] winds of heaven” (13:16). This reference to the “[four] winds of heaven” is related to Balshazzar’s dream of the four beasts in Dan 7. The large gap in the Genesis Apocryphon (13:18–14:8) probably contained the interpretation of the olive-tree dream and perhaps some additional dreams. Again, although the dream of the olive tree clearly relies on various biblical prophecies, including the image of the olive tree used to represent Israel in Jer 11:16, without its interpretation I can provide no further detail as to its meaning. The third, and most significant, dream for this discussion, that of the cedar tree in column 14, combines both the elements of symbolic use of the cedar for persons and the prediction of future events. The details of the dream itself have not been preserved; it can, however, be reconstructed from its partially preserved interpretation. That reads as follows: […] 9[and now] pay atten[tion] and listen! You are the gre[at] cedar, [and] the [cedar] standing before you in a dream on the top of mountains 10[…] truth. A branch which sprouted from it and grew to a height. Three s[on]s […] 11[… And as for the fact that] you saw the first scion reaching to the stump of the cedar […] and the tree from it […] 12[…] all his days he will not part from you, and your n[am]e will be called in his seed […] 13[…] will grow into a plant of truth for all [times (?)…] 14[…] standing forever. And as you, seeing the scion reaching the st[um]p […] 15[…] and that which you saw […] the last scion […]16 vacat […] from the edge of their foliage it enters the foliage of the first. Two sons […] 17[…]from the [ea]rth […] on the north […] And what you saw part of their foliage entering into the foliage of the first […] 18[…] they were placing in his land […] and not […] 19and I told the secret until […] (14:9–19).

In this dream Noah sees a large cedar tree with three branches. The interpretation of the dream identifies the different parts of the tree. Thus Noah is the cedar, and the three shoots are Noah’s three sons. Shem can be identified as the first scion, described as coming forth from the cedar and growing to a height (14:10). The further characterization of Shem as “the first scion reaching to the stump of the cedar” (14:11), which is interpreted in this son’s namemidrash, introduces the metaphor of an upright planting. Regarding Shem, the Genesis Apocryphon states: “(he will not part from you), and your n[am]e will be called in his seed […]” (‫( )ובזרעה יתקרה ש]מ[ך‬14:12). The following line denotes Shem, and his descendants, “a plant of truth” (14:13).37 The cedar-tree vision of the Genesis Apocryphon also contains predictive ele37. On the use of tree imagery in the Noah cycle in Genesis Apocryphon, and its parallels, see Eshel 2009.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

ments. It foretells the future of Ham and Japheth, according to which they will depart from their father, moving “left,” that is north, and “right,” to the south. This probably refers to Japheth going to Europe and Ham to Africa, as implemented in the division of the world described in columns 16–17 (see below). After a blank space in the text, we find yet another development involving prediction in the cedar image. Using the image of “some of their boughs entering into the midst of the first one” (14:17), the Genesis Apocryphon foretells acts of aggression to be conducted by the descendants of Ham and Japheth against Shem. This part of the vision probably refers to the period when Canaan inhabited the southern part of Syria. Jub. 10:28–34 describes how Canaan violently seized “the land of Lebanon as far as the river of Egypt.” This land was originally assigned to Shem, and because Ham took it, he was cursed by his father and brothers. One might assume that the same explanation for Noah’s curse of Canaan is to be found in the Genesis Apocryphon, namely, due to his violent capture of the land not assigned to him (not the shameful act of his father Ham). Unfortunately, due to the fragmentary condition of the scroll, such a reference did not survive. Furthermore, according to Jubilees, Madai, one of Japheth’s sons, negotiated with Shem’s sons Elam, Asshur, and Arpachshad to be allowed to settle within the patrimony of Shem (10:35). No reference to the conflict or negotiations between the brothers has been preserved in the columns of the Genesis Apocryphon treating the division of the world among Noah’s descendants. 2.3. The Division of the World The last part of Noah’s story is the division of the earth. At least two columns—16 and 17 as well as perhaps some of the almost lost 18—are devoted to the division of the earth among Noah’s sons. Accordingly, the author of the Noah story endows this topic with considerable weight. The section following Noah’s awakening from his dream visions (15:21) is illegible, and the next decipherable part is the conclusion of Japheth’s portion. Elsewhere I have discussed the mapa mundi in detail, mainly comparing the descriptions found in the Genesis Apocryphon (cols. 16–17), Jubilees (8–9), and Josephus (Ant. 1.122–147).38 In short, those sources reflect both reliance on Gen 10 and a shared cartographical basis for their construction of the world,39 namely,

38. Eshel 2007. 39. Such constructs also appear in Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B. 4:1–10, Sib. Or. l 3: 110–14; Acts 2:9–11, and later, in Gen. Rab. 37:1–8. The War Scroll (1QM 2:10–14) also contains a Gen 10–based list of nations to be fought in the third phase of the thirty-three-year war. See Y. Yadin 1962, 26–33. 1QM 10:14–15 also alludes to the division of the world.

ESHEL: THE NOAH CYCLE IN THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON

an updated version of the ancient, sixth-century b.c.e. Ionian world map, based on Dicaearchus’s (ca. 326–296 b.c.e.) division of the world by a median running through the Pillars of Hercules, the Taurus Mountains, and the Himalayas.40 Of these texts, the Genesis Apocryphon is, in my opinion, the oldest surviving Second Temple period text mapping the inhabited world.41 Both Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon provide detailed descriptions of each son’s allotment, with many parallels, including shared terminology, mainly land-related terms taken from Josh 15. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees, some of which enable us to draw conclusions with regard to the interrelationship of these texts. The most crucial difference lies in the actual lots given to each son and in the prominence Jubilees ascribes to Jerusalem. According to Jubilees, Shem received all of Asia Minor, together with Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, whereas according the Genesis Apocryphon, the region of Asia Minor belonged to Japheth. In that respect, Genesis Apocryphon accords with the map of Shem’s lot according to Josephus (Ant. 143). Moreover, the surviving text of the Genesis Apocryphon documents no concept of Jerusalem’s superiority. In Lud’s allotment, the Genesis Apocryphon mentions “the Sea of the East” (‫ ;ים מדנחא‬17:10). The “Sea of the East” can be identified as Jubilees’ Mauq Sea, the present-day Sea of Azov. This reference to the Sea of the East reflects the orientation from Greece, namely, with Delphi at the center. Thus, as opposed to Jubilees, which converts the Ionian map to a Jewish perspective, placing Jerusalem at the center of the world, the Genesis Apocryphon retains the focus of the original Ionian map. Only someone using Greece as a reference point could refer to the Sea of Azov as “the Sea of the East.” Some scholars suggest that the author of Jubilees utilized and adapted the Genesis Apocryphon for his needs or that both authors used a common source.42 I argue that the distinct development of the world division in each of these texts emerges more strongly from examining the differences between them rather than from the similarities. The Genesis Apocryphon is the older source, and the original Ionian map can still be traced in it. This text was later used by the author of Jubilees, and he converted it to fit his Jewish perspective, awarding Shem the major portion and function—as he received all of Asia Minor, together with Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine—and placing Jeru-

40. Alexander 1982, 204; Feldman 2000, 43. 41. See Fitzmyer 2000, 1:302. Fitzmyer argues for its literary dependence on Jubilees, therefore suggesting a possible first century b.c.e. dating. See, however, Stone 2006a, 9 (page 11 in the current volume). 42. See van Ruiten 2000.

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

salem at the center of the world. Thus, both the identification of mistakes and a conceptual shift in the nature of the mapa mundi indicate that the Genesis Apocryphon served as a source for Jubilees. Conclusion As we have seen, the Noah cycle covers the major portion of the surviving columns of the Genesis Apocryphon, that is, no less then twelve columns. Not only is the presentation of the Noah material very different from its biblical parallel, but it is unique in comparison with other known Jewish traditions about Noah. The portrait of Noah according to the Genesis Apocryphon is that of a patriarch, structured in parallel with both Enoch and Abram. Noah, according to Genesis Apocryphon, was a righteous patriarch, communicating with heavenly beings, who had various dream visions in which he was informed about both past events, such as the sin of the Watchers, as well as future events, such as the division of the world among his sons. Apparently, some of his visions also referred to eschatological events, among them the final judgment. This positive description of Noah seems to lead the author to change the biblical story from the shameful result of his drunkenness to a glorious set of visions. Furthermore, Noah’s story is interwoven into the Genesis Apocryphon as an integral part, with both thematic and linguistic interconnections with the other cycles of Enoch and Abram. As I have argued, between these three main characters there were probably two “secondary characters,” that of Lamech and probably Shem, who served as “links” that connected these cycles. Finally, a comparison of the major parallels between the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees shows some possible contacts between the two compositions, and a close study of its parallels leads to the tentative conclusion that, in most cases of shared traditions, the most reasonable explanation is the use of the earlier traditions found in Genesis Apocryphon by the later author of Jubilees. Appendix: The Original Length of the Genesis Apocryphon Matthew Morgenstern has argued for a calculation of the original length of the Genesis Apocryphon based on the letter qoph found on the upper side of column 17, which is a first column of a sheet on which six columns were written (cols. 17–22), and the letter tsade written on the sheet on which seven columns were copied (cols. 10–16). Since these two letters are in sequence, he assumes that it numbered the sheets sewn together. On this basis, he made the calculation that the original text was very long and that we are lacking

ESHEL: THE NOAH CYCLE IN THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON

between 70 to 105 columns, that is, between fourteen to fifteen sheets, which according to his calculation is about 9 meters.43 To that one should add, according to Morgenstern’s assumption, three more sheets at the end (marked as resh-shin-taw), with eighteen to twenty-one additional columns. Thus, this scroll will have had no less than 115 columns, which would measure no less then 25 meters all together!44 This reconstruction for one scroll seems to be impossible. Based on Morgenstern’s calculation, Fitzmyer commented, “one wonders whether it contained other texts along with the Genesis Apocryphon.”45 However, it is preferable not to accept Morgenstern’s claim regarding the extreme length of the scroll. The longest surviving scroll, 11QT, is reconstructed as 8.75 meters long,46 while 1QIsaa is 7.34 meters. Thus, although the Genesis Apocryphon has relatively wide columns, including up to seven columns per sheet and each column has between thirty-four and thirty-six lines, it is still hard to believe that the scroll was as long as suggested by Morgenstern. I therefore suggest that these letters found at the top of the sheets were in use only by the one who prepared the parchment for writing, as his own practical signs. Even if we assume that he started his marks with aleph (even that assumption is not necessarily the case), he was probably marking the sheets he was making at a certain period, to fill a specific order or the like, and not necessarily marking them for one scroll alone.

43. Morgenstern 1996, 345–47. 44. Based on Morgenstern’s calculation of the second and third sheet measuring 63–64 cm, together with the preserved twenty-three sheets, there will be an additional ca. 14.5 m, and presumably three more sheets are missing at the end (of resh-shin-taw) which are ca. 2 m. Going with the minimal calculation of an average of six columns per sheet, probably one column is missing before the surviving col. 0, thus having six columns in the first sheet before col. 5, and probably at least one more sheet after col. 22, with about six more columns. This yields a scroll of no less than thirty-five columns of 2.5 m, which is the average size of a scroll. 45. Fitzmyer 2004, 38. 46. Another proposed reconstruction of an extremely long scroll was put forth by Tov; see Tov 2004, 76, with regard to 4QRPa–e. Tov posits that this scroll originally contained all of the Pentateuch and reconstructs an original length between 22.5 and 27.5 m. This reconstruction might not be correct, since we have no indication that the whole Pentateuch was included in RP.

Is 4Q534–536 Really about Noah? Jeremy Penner

1. Introduction

That the Second Temple period is marked by an active interest in the patriarchs is evident from the proliferation of biblical retellings and legends found in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The same abundance is true of Noah.1 Since their discovery, the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly the Genesis Apocryphon, have added significant new material to the corpus of Noachic traditions found in Second Temple period. Another text, 4Q534–536, might also be included in this growing collection of material, but the identity of the central figure within this text remains elusive and under considerable discussion.2 The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) it will attempt to bring some clarity to the identity of the figure in 4Q534–536; evidence given to support the claim that the text is about Noah will be weighed as well as alternative theories; (2) if a conclusion favoring Noah is reached, this paper will then seek to determine what, if anything, 4Q534–536 contributes to our understanding of Noachic traditions in the Second Temple period.

1. Noah is often referred to as a patriarch of Israel during this period. See, for example, Jub. 19:24; Josephus, Ant. 1.106; Tob 4:12. Ben Sira also includes Noah in his praise of Israel’s ancestors (Sir 44:17). 2. Starcky 1964, 51–66; Carmignac 1965, 199–217; Fitzmyer 1965, 348–72; Greenfield 1973, xx–xxi; Grelot 1975, 481–500; Milik 1978, 91–106; García Martínez 1992, 1–44; Wise, Abegg, and Cook 1996, 428; Caquot 1991, 145–55; Davila 1998, 367–81; Zimmermann 1998, 170–204; Abegg and Evans 1998, 191–203; Puech 2001, 117–70; Dimant 2006, 239–41.

-97-

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

2. Text and Context 2.1. 4Q534–4Q536: A Short History of Interpretation 4Q534 was first published by Jean Starcky in 1964, who assigned this manuscript the siglum 4QMess ar.3 He published only the first two columns of the text (frags. 1–2), which include a physiognomic description of an unknown figure’s miraculous birth and some events that take place during his adult life. After reading a certain “three books,” he will gain wisdom “that will go to all the peoples, and he shall know the mysteries of all the living” (4Q535 1 i 8). Now endowed with sage-like wisdom, he will also face much opposition but will remain unharmed because of his acquired wisdom and because he is the “elect of God” (‫)בחיר אלהא‬. Starcky’s initial impulse was to identify the figure as messianic, as he saw strong parallels between the motifs and events of his life and the life of Jesus, in particular the use of the title ‫בחיר אלהא‬.4 In the following year (1965), however, Joseph A. Fitzmyer challenged Starcky’s reading of “elect of God” (‫)בחיר אלהא‬, concluding that “it is not per se evident that the title ‘Elect of God’ was Messianic in Qumran circles.”5 He further observed that many of the literary motifs in 4Q534, such as the miraculous birth, a long life, books, destruction, an emphasis on wisdom, and the presence of Watchers, are very similar to the motifs found in Noachic literature of the same period, and therefore concluded that the figure is in fact Noah (see, e.g., 1 En. 6–11; 54; 65–69; 106–108; Jub. 7:20–39; 10:1–15; 21:10).6 This proposal gained some support, and shortly thereafter J. T. Milik took Fitzmyer’s proposal a step further, arguing that 4Q534 belonged to a lost book of Noah.7 In addition, he also identified four other manuscripts belonging to the book of Noah: two more copies of 4QMess ar (4Q535–4Q536), 4Q561, and 4Q186.8 Thus, according to Milik, “These four Aramaic manuscripts (and

3. Starcky 1964, 51–66. 4. For example, both figures are miraculously born, they both grow in wisdom, and both are proclaimed as the “elect of God” (cf. John 1:34; Luke 23:35). Starcky also thought that 4Q534 was relying on the themes present in Isa 42:1 and 61:1, texts that were also interpreted in the New Testament to refer to Jesus, thus adding further evidence of the messianic identity of the figure in 4Q534 (Starcky 1964, 59). 5. Fitzmyer 1965, 354. 6. Ibid., 371. 7. Grelot also agreed with Fitzmyer in 1975, 498. 8. Cf. Milik 1978. García Martínez reached a similar conclusion to Milik’s in 1992, 1–44 (a translation of García Martínez 1981, 195–232) but did not include 4Q561 and 4Q186 as texts belonging to a book of Noah.

PENNER: IS 4Q534–536 REALLY ABOUT NOAH?

the Hebrew version of 4Q186) belong to a ‘Book of Noah’ in which the birth of the Patriarch (with an astrological section giving a series of horoscopes), and probably his whole life, was narrated in great detail.”9 Since then Puech has verified that 4Q534, 4Q535, and 4Q536 are copies of the same document, but not 4Q186.10 He also kept Fitzmyer’s proposal of the identity of the figure as Noah11 and emended the title of the text from 4QMess ar to 4QNaissance de Noé (following Milik; see note 9). 2.2. Is 4Q534–536 Really about Noah? Some scholars still prefer to identify the figure in 4Q534–536 as someone other than Noah, primarily because of his title as ‫בחיר אלהא‬. In his book Messianische Texte aus Qumran (1998), Johannes Zimmermann, following Starcky’s initial suggestion, argued in favor of a messianic figure in 4Q534– 536.12 Wise, Abegg, and Cook have also concurred, positing that the “ ‘chosen one’ is a messiah, if not the messiah.”13 Other possible identities of the unknown figure have also been claimed. Jonas Greenfield, for example, briefly speculated that the figure could be Melchizedek, as his miraculous birth story in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch is somewhat similar to the birth story of the figure in 4Q534–536 (2 En. 69–73, esp. 71). Greenfield also points out that the traditions found in 2 Enoch and later Jewish texts firmly place Melchizedek within the Enochic genealogy by conflating the priest-king of Salem with either Shem, the son of Noah (in rabbinic literature), or with Nir’s son (in 2 Enoch).14 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen 14:18, for example, states that “Shem, the son of Noah, is the righteous king [or Melchizedek: ‫ ]מלכי צדק‬of Salem” (see also Targum Neofiti on Gen 14:18;

9. Milik 1976, 56. Later Milik (1992, 357) renamed the text “Naissance de Noé.” 10. Puech 2001, 120–21. Puech, however, while acknowledging some similarities between 4Q534 and 4Q561, argues that they are not copies of the same manuscript and that their relationship at this point is uncertain. See also the similar arguments of Zimmermann 1998, 190. 11. Puech, 121. 12. Zimmermann 1998, 170–204. 13. Wise, Abegg, and Cook 1996, 428. 14. The child in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch is supposedly already three years old when delivered. He is named Melchizedek by Noah and his brother Nir. In a night vision, Nir is told of the impending flood and that an angel will bring Melchizedek into Paradise to escape the flood. 2 (Slavonic) Enoch also makes clear that Melchizedek will eventually return through Noah’s genealogical line as a postdiluvian priest (ch. 71), and in the end-time he will return a third time as a messianic priest. Cf. 2 En. 69–73.

100

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

b. Ned. 32b).15 Thus the equation Shem = Melchizedek would implicitly place Melchizedek within a diluvian context, which also seems to be the context of 4Q534–536, especially in light of the motifs “devastating waters” (4Q534 1 ii 14) and “Watchers” (4Q534 1 ii 16, 18). Finally, Greenfield saw the title “elect of God” and phrases such as “his wisdom will be known to all the nations and he knows the secrets of all the living” to further evince his claim, as they could have easily been used to describe Melchizedek.16 But upon further consideration, Greenfield’s proposal seems unlikely. It is true, as Greenfield remarks, that we see an increased interest in Melchizedek at Qumran, especially in such texts as 11Q13. But a connection between Shem and Melchizedek is unattested in any sources contemporary with 4Q534–536. Moreover, one can observe that the two names are never conflated in historical narrative dealing specifically with the flood. In rabbinic literature, the conflation occurs only in narratives that originally refer to Melchizedek (i.e., Gen 14:18), and in 2 Enoch, Melchizedek ascends to paradise before the flood comes. Again, because of the fragmentary state of the text of 4Q534–536, it is difficult to determine the historical period that it describes. In light of what appear to be diluvian references as well as a testamentary-type scene (in 4Q536), in which the figure implores his audience to write down his words, it seems unlikely, though not impossible, that the text is about Melchizedek. In an article in 1991, André Caquot speculated that the unknown figure is none other than Enoch and that the text is announcing his return (as “Henoch redivivus”).17 He observed that the figure in 4Q534–536 is described in terms similar to Enoch in the Parables of Enoch, again referring to the title “chosen one” (1 En. 46:2). He also points out that both figures reveal divine knowledge (see 46:3; 51:3), an important function of Enoch.18 As part of his argument, Caquot also prefers a difficult reading of the phrase ‫( וכול חשבוניהון עלוהי יסופו ומסרת כול חייא שגיא‬4Q534 1 i 9), translating it as “et tous les calculs les concernant s’accompliront d’après lui et si grand que soit le numbre de tous les vivants il sera…[selon?] ses calculs.”19 Thus, by 15. See Orlov’s helpful article written on the matter (2000a, 23–38). He writes, “As shown, 2 Enoch presents Melchizedek as a continuation of the priestly line from Methuselah, son of Enoch, directly to the second son of Lamech, Nir (brother of Noah), and on to Melchizedek. 2 Enoch therefore considers Melchizedek as the grandson of Lamech” (28). 16. See Greenfield 1973, xxi. 17. Caquot, 1991, 145–55. 18. Others have also noted similarities between 4Q534–536 and the Parables of Enoch. See, e.g., Zimmermann, 1998, 196–97, who suggested that 4Q534 might provide a link to Parables at Qumran. 19. Caquot 1991, 148. His reading of 4Q534 1 i 9 depends on the particular meaning he gives to the word ‫מסרת‬, which is based on the supposed existence of a second root

PENNER: IS 4Q534–536 REALLY ABOUT NOAH?

101

reading the phrase ‫ וכול חשבוניהון עלוהי‬as referring to the total number of humans that must come into existence before the destruction of the world, Caquot is able to speculate that the figure in 4Q534–536 is privileged with the same information as given to Enoch (according to 2 En. 23:5).20 But the meaning of ‫ מסרת‬as “le nombre,” on which he depends for his interpretation, is unattested except in Samaritan Aramaic, and in the end Caquot’s linguistic arguments are not convincing (see n. 19). Another attempt to discern the identity of the figure in question was undertaken by James Davila, who compared 4Q534–536 to later Hebrew physiognomic tractates from the late antique and medieval period.21 Instead of the Messiah, Melchizedek, or Enoch redivius, Davila found the figure to be more comparable with anonymous merkabah mystics attested to in later Hebrew physiognomic literature. His argument is based, again, on a comparative analysis: both Hebrew physiognomic literature and 4Q534–536 describe certain physical features such as moles and hair, to predicate their future. Other motifs, such as celestial ascent,22 divine revelation, wisdom, and chosenness, are also comparable to merkabah mystics. He further notes examples in Hebrew physiognomic literature of mystics who enter into the study of the Bible (i.e, Torah, Prophets, Writings) later in life, which he suggests is also comparable to the figure in 4Q534 (1 i 4–5), as he also gains esoteric wisdom from studying a certain three books later in his career.23 Thus, Davila reads the “three books” in 4Q534 1 i 5 as “Torah, Prophets, and Writings,” as in T.-S ‫ מסר‬that is equivalent to the Hebrew root ‫( פקד‬150). I have not been able to follow his argument here. 20. Caquot 1991, 155. 2 En. 23:5 states, “Sit and write all the souls of mankind, however many of them are born, and the places prepared for them for eternity, for all souls are prepared for eternity before the formation of the world.… And I wrote all these things exactly, and I wrote 366 books.” 21. Davila 1998, 367–81. He compared 4Q534–536 to the following documents: “The Physiognomy of R. Ishmael,” published by Scholem 1953, 459–95; Oxford 240 165b–166b, published by Scholem 1953 and Gruenwald 1970, 301–19; T.-S. K 21, published also by Gruenwald 1970, 306–17; and T.-S. K 21.95.L ,published by Schäfer 1984, 135–39; 1988, 84–95. 22. Davila (and also García Martínez) suggests that the figure described in 4Q534–536 experiences an actual ascent into heaven for the purpose of revelation. This argument is based on the difficult reading of [‫ ארכובת]א‬as “upper sphere” in 4Q534 1 i 6, but this reading is not at all clear, and there are other possibilities. Puech and Fitzmyer prefer to read [‫]א‬ ‫( ארכובת‬knees), which is perhaps a sign of veneration (i.e., one has approached the hero on his or her knees). For the discussion of this word, see Davila 1998, 373, 375–76; García Martínez 1992, 9–10; Puech 2001, 138; and Fitzmyer 1965, 357. 23. See T.-S K 21 A1. 6–10, published by Gruenwald in 1970, 307. In this text, the figure falls from a rooftop, breaks his head, but miraculously does not die, after which he

102

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

K 21 A.16–10. He cites 4QMMT C 9–10 as evidence for such a division, arguing that “If ‘Moses’ (the Pentateuch) was considered a single book [‫ ]ספר‬and ‘David’ (the Hagiographa) a single unit, then the collection of the ‘Prophets’ could easily have been thought of as a unit as well.”24 Eugene Ulrich, however, has convincingly argued that seeing such a tripartite division of scripture in 4QMMT is difficult. Moreover, even if 4QMMT refers to such a threefold division of scripture, it seems unlikely that each set of writings would have been considered a single “book.”25 Davila’s article is important, as it attests to the growing awareness of the existence of physiognomic, astrological, and mystical traditions within Judaism before the rabbinic period.26 The question remains, however, if the parallels that Davila draws to our attention actually change our understanding of both the character of the unknown figure and the surrounding narrative to such an extent that a Noachic identification is no longer tenable. To state the question differently, is it implausible that Noah’s birth could also be described in physiognomic terms? There is still much to learn through comparative study of physiognomic texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls and later Judaism, including an analysis of the role that this type of literature fulfills in both contexts.27 But, given the fact that 4Q534–536 was composed in a milieu fascinated with retelling the legends of the biblical patriarchs, it seems better to ascribe the description in the text to Noah or some other biblical figure rather than to a mystic.28 It remains to be seen why these retellings could not include a physiognomic treatise of a patriarch such as Noah, especially since we see a similar (but not identical) interest in physical characteristics in the Noachic

begins study of the Torah, Prophets, and the Writings (‫יכנס לבית רבו וילמד תורה ונביאים‬

‫)וכתובים‬. 24. See Davila 1998, 375. 25. See Ulrich 2003, 202–14. There are two other references to a tripartite division of scripture in the second century b.c.e.: the prologue to Ben Sira and 2 Macc 2:13–14. Although the issue is complex, it seems that in both cases it is untenable to read each division of scripture as a “book.” See also Berthelot 2006, 1–15, who argues that 4QMMT C 10–11 is a reference to authors, not divisions of scripture. 26. See Alexander 2006. 27. For an examination of the physiognomic material from Qumran with GrecoRoman and Babylonian traditions, see Popović 2006; 2007. 28. One could argue, however, that the existence of anonymous figures in 4Q186 and 4Q561 demonstrates the opposite. But some scholars have speculated that these texts are physiognomic treatises (see Holst and Høgenhaven 2006, 39–42), in which case we would expect the anonymity of the individuals described. The extended description of the individual in 4Q534–536, and his rather specific identifying characteristics, however, suggest someone of great importance, or at least not anonymous.

PENNER: IS 4Q534–536 REALLY ABOUT NOAH?

103

birth material in 1 Enoch and Genesis Apocryphon, and also because we see a growing interest in physiognomic sciences at Qumran in general. There is much to commend in the hypotheses mentioned above, but in each hypothesis problems remain that are difficult to explain. In the absence of a more appropriate alternative, and given the fact that 4Q534–536 seems to be referring to a diluvian context in which cities are destroyed, it is likely that the figure in 4Q534–536 is indeed Noah. While a single clinching argument demonstrating the figure to be Noah does not exist, when the evidence is viewed in a sum total, the argument is more convincing. The following is a list of arguments why the figure in 4Q534–536 is Noah. 2.2.1. The Miraculous Birth Using the miraculous birth and the physiognomic descriptions of the infant in 4Q534–536 (see 4Q534 1 i 1–3, 1 ii 1–5; 4Q535 3 1–6; 4Q536 1 1–2) to identify the figure as Noah is both helpful and difficult at the same time. On the one hand, miraculous Noachic birth stories are attested in other Second Temple literature, such as Genesis Apocryphon, 1 En. 106, and 1Q19, and can therefore be used to set a precedent for the presentation of a Noachic figure in 4Q534–536. On the other hand, the details of the birth narrative in 4Q534–536 do not match other stories of Noah’s birth. In 4Q534–4Q536, for example, the infant is described as having red hair, a lentil (i.e., mole?) on his face, and small birthmarks on his thigh. He is born in “the fifth hour” of the night, comes out “whole”29 at a weight of “350 shekels,” and “sleeps until half his days are done.” In contrast, 1 En. 106:2–3 states: When the child was born, his body was whiter than snow and redder than a rose, his hair was all white and like white wool and curly. Glorious was his face. When he opened his eyes, the house shone like the sun. And he stood up from the hands of the midwife, and he opened his mouth and praised the Lord of eternity.30

One might be able to reconcile the differences between 4Q534–536 and the other Noachic birth stories by reading these texts through the compositional 29. 4Q535 3 2 mentions that the infant is born “whole/perfect” (…‫)של]ם‬. Is it possible that this description is similar to the description of infant Noah in 1 En. 106:3? That is, could the word ‫ שלם‬refer to his ability to stand and give praise to God already at birth or to his being born circumcised? 30. All translations of 1 Enoch are from Nickelsburg 2001. See also 1Q19 3, where the child illuminates the room with his glory, and in Genesis Apocryphon where the child is described as having eyes like the sun (v 12).

104

NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)

interests of the authors. In 1 Enoch, Noah is described as angelic because the author is attempting to contrast Noah with the Watchers, and also to foreshadow the salvific mission that Noah has been chosen to undertake.31 Lamech unsurprisingly suspects Noah of being the offspring of a Watcher because of his angelic appearance. He goes to Methuselah, who in turn travels to the “ends of the earth” to ask Enoch about the truth of Lamech’s son Noah (106:8– 18).32 Enoch, however, explains to Methuselah that Noah is in fact Lamech’s child, and he will “be righteous and blameless. And call his name Noah for he will be your remnant from whom you will find rest” (1 En. 106:18). Thus, in its present context, the imagery used to describe Noah’s birth signifies his righteous perfection as well as his salvific mission to be carried out six hundred years later. It was on account of the Fallen Angels that the world will be destroyed, but it will also be saved on account of an angel-like man, Noah.33 The physiognomic context surrounding the birth story in 4Q534–536 may dictate other features of the infant that are common to this particular genre, which may also help explain the differences from other birth stories. Moreover, unlike 1 Enoch, the description in 4Q534 also eliminates narrative suspense: through physiognomy one can recognize immediately the chosenness of the child. In the end, however, both birth stories have the same aim; that is, both texts use physical descriptions of the child to predict/foreshadow his salvific role in God’s plan to wipe clean the sins brought by the Watchers.34 2.2.2. “Elect of God” The title “The elect of God” is ascribed to our figure in 4Q534 1 i 10. Fitzmyer has correctly noted the term “elect of God” should not be read as an equivalent

31. “His body was whiter than snow and redder than a rose, his hair was all white and like white wool and curly. Glorious was his face. When he opened his eyes, the house shone like the sun. And he stood up from the hands of the midwife, and he opened his mouth and praised the Lord of eternity (1 En. 106:2–4, translation from Nickelsburg 2001, 536). 32. These events also seem to parallel those in 1Q19, which discuss the corrupted state of humanity before the flood, and Noah’s birth, in which the child caused the “rooms of the house to shine like rays of the sun,” also a possible hint at his angelic-like appearance. Lamech’s suspicions regarding Noah’s origins are also recorded in the Genesis Apocryphon (ii). 33. See Fletcher-Louis 2002, 35–37; Nickelsburg 2001, 539–50. 34. García Martínez also suggests that the differences in the Noachic birth stories are due to differing compositional interests. He suggests that Noah’s hair was changed to white because of the “influence of the Book of Dreams of 1 Enoch, in which white is constantly used in the zoomorphic stories to designate the just, and is particularly applied to Noah” (García Martínez 1992, 23).

PENNER: IS 4Q534–536 REALLY ABOUT NOAH?

105

to the title “Messiah.”35 While it is true that we find this title applied to Jesus in Luke 23:35 and in some manuscripts at John 1:34,36 we should not assume the title to be messianic. Its use in both the Hebrew Bible and in Second Temple literature suggest instead that the term is broader in meaning, indicating the divine calling of an individual for some significant purpose.37 The title occurs once in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where it refers to the community.38 There is one other attested usage in the Parables of Enoch (46:3–4), but since the text is usually dated to the end of the first century b.c.e., it is probably too late for our purposes.39 The title is certainly suitable for Noah, who is called both “righteous” and “just,” and he alone is credited with preserving the human race. Jubilees describes Noah as the only person “whom God saved from the waters of the flood on his account; for his heart was righteous in all his ways, according as it was commanded regarding him, and he had not departed from aught that was ordained for him” (Jub. 5:19). A description of Noah in 1 En. 106:17–18 is similar: And he will cleanse the earth from the corruption that is on it. And now tell Lamech, “He is your child in truth, and this child will be righteous and blameless; And “Noah” call his name, for he will be your remnant, from whom you will find rest. He and his sons will be saved from the corruption of the earth and from all sins and from all iniquities that are summated upon the earth in his days.…40

In 1QapGen vi 1 Noah states that “in the womb of her who bore me I came out for uprightness; and when I came forth from my mother’s womb, I 35. Fitzmyer 1965, 354. 36. This title appears in such manuscripts as Codex Sinaiticus, OL, OS, and some church fathers, while the majority of Greek witnesses read “Son of God.” See Brown 1966– 70, 1:57, who argues that the change in title demonstrates a christological development. 37. The title is applied to Moses (Ps 106:23); David (Ps 89:4); the servant of the Lord (Isa 42:1); Israel (Isa 45:4); pious ones (Isa 65:9, 15, 22); Joshua saves God’s chosen (Sir 46:1). 38. “And those who derided and insulted the ‘Elect of God’ (or God’s Chosen), will go the punishment of fire” (1QpHab x 13). 39. See a recent discussion on dating the Parables in Suter 2007, 415–443, and Stone 2007a, 444–49. The motif of “chosen” frequently occurs in Parables, but the motif also occurs numerous times in 1 Enoch outside Parables. See, eg. 1 En. 1:1, 8–9; 25:5; 93:3; 94:4. 40. See also P

Noah and His Book(s) - PDF Free Download (2024)

FAQs

Why was the Book of Enoch removed from the Bible PDF? ›

Apart from this community, the Book of Enoch was excluded from both the formal canon of the Tanakh and the Septuagint and therefore, also from the writings known today as the Deuterocanon. The main reason for Jewish rejection of the book is that it is inconsistent with the teachings of the Torah.

Show Me More ›

What is the lesson of the life of Noah? ›

Noah's life can be seen as a model of patience, persistence, and unwavering faithfulness to God in the face of a faithless society. Surely it wasn't easy for Noah, but he found favor in God's eyes because of his remarkable obedience.

Show Me More ›

Is Noah mentioned in the Book of Enoch? ›

The birth of Noah occupies an important place in the Noachic traditions. In 1 Enoch 106-107 and in the Genesis Apocryphon 2-5, Noah is portrayed as a wonder-child. 1 Enoch pictures him with a glorious face and eyes like the rays of the sun.

Get More Info Here ›

Who wrote the book of Noah? ›

The Book of Noah is thought to be a non-extant Old Testament pseudepigraphal work, attributed to Noah. It is quoted in several places in another pseudepigraphal work, 1 Enoch, and is mentioned in another, the Book of Jubilees.

Get More Info ›

What are the 14 books removed from the Bible? ›

Books of the Apocrypha. 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras (150-100 BC) Tobit (200 BC) Judith (150 BC) Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 – 16:24) (140-130 BC) Wisdom of Solomon (30 BC) ...
Books of the Pseudepigrapha. Epistle of Barnabas. 3 Maccabees. 4 Maccabees. Assumption of Moses (Testament of Moses) Book of Enoch.

Show Me More ›

What does the Book of Enoch say about Jesus? ›

It says he will be a light to the nations (1 Enoch 48:3-4). He will be worshipped by all who dwell on the earth (1 Enoch 48:5). In his name, the righteous will have salvation (1 Enoch 48:7). Finally, this Messianic figure will usher in an era of peace (1 Enoch 69:26-29).

Who is Noah's wife? ›

The Genesis Rabba midrash lists Naamah, the daughter of Lamech and sister of Tubal-Cain, as the wife of Noah, as does the 11th-century Jewish commentator Rashi in his commentary on Genesis 4:22. In the medieval midrash Book of Jasher, the name of Noah's wife is said to be Naamah, daughter of Enoch.

Tell Me More ›

What is the main point of the story of Noah? ›

The story of Noah and the Flood is one of judgement and salvation; of obedience and disobedience. In an era of overwhelming wickedness, Noah set himself apart by living righteously.

Explore More ›

What was the most important thing Noah did in the sight of God? ›

Noah was instructed to build an ark, and in accordance with God's instructions he took into the ark male and female specimens of all the world's species of animals, from which the stocks might be replenished. Consequently, according to this narrative, the entire surviving human race descended from Noah's three sons.

Discover More Details ›

What was the skin color of Adam? ›

Body. Louis Ginzberg retells a midrash that God himself took dust from all four corners of the earth, and with each color (red for the blood, black for the bowels, white for the bones and veins, and green for the pale skin), created Adam.

Learn More Now ›

Has Noah's ark been found? ›

Their findings include materials dating back to 5500-3000 BC. While the site holds potential, conclusive evidence of the ark's existence is yet to be established, aligning with the legendary narrative found in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Read The Full Story ›

How many years did Noah live? ›

At the age of 950 years, Noah, who shepherded God's creatures through the Flood, died. He left behind three sons, from whom the human race descended, according to the Bible.

Learn More ›

Are there fallen angels in the Bible? ›

2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 refer paraenetically to angels who have sinned against God and await punishment on Judgement Day. The Book of Revelation, chapter 12, speaks of Satan as a great red dragon whose "tail swept a third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth".

Read The Full Story ›

Did the watchers help Noah? ›

In 'Noah,' the Watchers help Noah build the ark, which is also in 1 Enoch."

Learn More ›

Why was Enoch taken away? ›

According to Rashi [from Genesis Rabbah], "Enoch was a righteous man, but he could easily be swayed to return to do evil. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, hastened and took him away and caused him to die before his time.

Can Christians read the Book of Enoch? ›

The Church does not consider the Book of Enoch a part of canonical scripture. It contains doctrines that are contrary to biblical truths. Christians are free to read it but should do so with discernment. Theological implications of the Book of Enoch are debated amongst traditional Christians.