FROM THE WATCHERS TO THE FLOOD: STORY AND EXEGESIS IN THE EARLY COLUMNS OF THE 1

Moshe J. Bernstein Yeshiva University Institute for Advanced Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

The Genesis Apocryphon, or tyçarbl tynwxyj hlygm, or, more formally, 1QapGen ar, was for many years one of the most frustrating texts from . The last of the original seven scrolls to be unrolled, and the only one of them not to have been composed in the , it was published incompletely by Nahman Avigad and in 1956.2 They presented the Aramaic text of only five

1 The initial research on which this paper is based was carried out during my tenure as a Fellow of the group studying “Qumran and Related Second Temple Literature,” at the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University during the Fall 2001 semester. I take this opportunity to thank the Institute for affording me the hospitality and collegiality that enabled me to advance my research in sev- eral areas of Qumran studies at that time. The final writing took place while I was Lady Davis Visiting Professor in the Department of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the Spring 2004 semester. A significant portion of my research on the Apocryphon at the Institute and at the University was carried out in weekly study sessions with Dr. Esther Eshel, now of Bar-Ilan University, with whom I continue to collaborate toward the writing of a full commentary on this work, and many of the observations in this paper are based on ideas developed during our joint efforts. I should also like to express our joint appreciation here to two other scholars who have made working on this document much easier for Dr. Eshel and myself. Professor Elisha Qimron has earned the thanks of all of us in the field of Qumran studies for his work on the language of Qumran and his uncovering of improved and cor- rected readings in so many Qumran texts. As an editor of the “new” material from the Apocryphon (see n. 8 below), he encouraged our work on the Apocryphon, allowed us to use the photographs which were the basis of the editions of the “new” columns, and was always more than ready to answer queries regarding other possible read- ings in the manuscript, as well as about the Aramaic language in which it is writ- ten. Dr. Matthew Morgenstern also co-edited some of the “new” Apocryphon material (n. 8 below), and produced a master’s thesis on the language of this text (“twdwm[h tyçarbl tynwxyjh hlygmh ˆm wmsrptn μrfç,” [M.A. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997], hereafter Morgenstern, “MA”). He, too, was most helpful to us in our early work on the Apocryphon, sharing his thoughts in discussions of both language and content. 2 A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press and The , Museum, 1956). 40 moshe j. bernstein columns (2 and 19–22) with translations into Hebrew and English, while the other columns were summarized minimally.3 Joseph A. Fitzmyer produced two successive editions of the scroll, in 1967 and 1971, with an important and valuable, primarily philological, com- mentary, which has become the standard reference text for the scroll.4 Virtually from its initial date of publication the genre of the Apocryphon was the subject of discussion, framed by the almost universal agreement that the Apocryphon belongs to, and is indeed one of the paradigmatic examples of, what has become in recent decades the ever-expanding genre, which is termed “rewritten Bible.”5 The initially published material, column 2 covering the actions of Lamech, father of Noah, after the birth of an apparently wondrous child, and columns 19–22 encompassing the story of Abram’s adventures, which run parallel to the narratives from Genesis 12 through the beginning of Genesis 15, differ in their relationship to the Bible. The Lamech material is virtually freestanding and unconnected to the biblical text, while the Abram story adheres to the biblical story line, and, at times, even to the language of the text itself. Because of these varying ways in which the Apocryphon retold the portions of the biblical narrative cov- ered in the published columns, a debate ensued as to whether to refer to it as midrash, targum, or something else completely.6

3 The “minimal summary” to which I refer includes some brief verbal citations from the texts of the other columns, as well as some pertinent observations on the nature of the story line. 4 The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1967; 2d ed.: BibOr 18.a; 1971). During the final revisions of this article Fitzmyer’s third edition (BibOr 18.b; 2004) appeared, unfortunately too late to be taken into consideration systematically in my discussion. Note that a definite arti- cle was added to the title of the work between Avigad/Yadin and Fitzmyer. 5 The term was introduced by G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 95. See further, P. S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 99–121; and C. A. Evans, “1QapGen and the Rewritten Bible,” RevQ 13 ([Memorial Jean Carmignac] 1988): 153–65. Regarding the prob- lems involved in employing “rewritten Bible” too loosely, see my article, “ ‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96, based on remarks delivered at the Thirteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem 2001. 6 Evans, “1QapGen and the Rewritten Bible,” 153, collects a range of scholarly opinions on the genre of the Apocryphon: “apocryphal version of stories from Genesis,” “targum,” “a kind of midrash on Genesis,” “un midrash haggadique d’un genre special,” “précieux spécimen de midrash essénien,” and “the most ancient midrash of all.” Others have referred to it as “haggada,” “parabiblical” and “paraphrase of