THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON (1Q20):

A REEVALUATION OF ITS TEXT, INTERPRETIVE CHARACTER, AND

RELATIONSHIP TO THE BOOK OF JUBILEES

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate School
of the University of Notre Dame
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
of the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

by

Daniel A. Machiela, B.A., M.A.


_________________________________
James C. VanderKam, Director

Graduate Program in Theology
Notre Dame, Indiana
July 2007
THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON (1Q20):
A REEVALUATION OF ITS TEXT, INTERPRETIVE CHARACTER, AND
RELATIONSHIP TO THE BOOK OF JUBILEES

Abstract
by
Daniel A. Machiela

The dissertation is designed to address two basic areas: 1.) the text of the Genesis
Apocryphon; and 2.) the scrolls relationship to Jubilees in their analogous accounts of the
division of the earth among Noahs progeny (GenAp 16-17//Jub 8:11-9:15).
The introductory chapter surveys a number of issues dealt with in studies of the
Genesis Apocryphon since its discovery. The designation of the scroll as rewritten Bible
is kept, but qualified. The relationship to Genesis is explored, as well as previous claims of
authorship by the Qumran sect of Essenes. The latter is most unlikely. The relationships to
1 Enoch, Jubilees, and other works from Qumran are evident, but prior evidence does not
allow a more refined knowledge of their connections.
A new transcription, translation, and textual notes (with an apparatus of previous
readings) are provided. These incorporate a number of corrections of earlier editions, and
many new readings.
Daniel A. Machiela
The background of the division of the earth includes the Table of Nations from
Genesis 10 (and other biblical passages), the Ionian world map, the broader geographic
setting of the Genesis Apocryphon, and Noahs arboreal dream-vision (GenAp 13-15). An
authorial interest in heightening Noahs righteousness, stressing his role as divider of the
habitable earth, and legitimizing the right of Arpachshads descendents (Abram, and later the
Israelites) to inhabit the Levant, or biblical Land of Canaan, is revealed.
A comparison of the earths division in Jubilees and the Apocryphon shows that the
latter is shorter, simpler, and employs a different ordering scheme. While Jubilees follows
the biblical arrangement of Noahs progeny, the Apocryphon lists them directionally. This
may suggest that the Apocryphon preserves an earlier account than Jubilees, but the passages
are best seen as dependent on a common cartographic source. Several new toponyms are
proposed for both texts.
Based on a reappraisal of its language and comparison to Jubilees, the Apocryphon is
dated to the early-mid second century B.C.E. It is an apocalyptic work concerned with the
heavenly mysteries and interested in dream interpretation. It was apparently intended to
be read alongside and interpret Genesis, attesting to the distinctive format of scriptural
interpretation during this period.







ii











To Jody Louise Machiela









iii
CONTENTS

SECTION I: THE BACKGROUND AND TEXT OF THE GENESIS
APOCRYPHON

MAPS .................................................................................................................................................. vi
TABLES.............................................................................................................................................. vii

CHAPTER 1: THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON: OBJECTIVES AND ISSUES.................. 1
1.1. Objectives................................................................................................................................ 3
1.2. Current Issues in Study of the Genesis Apocryphon........................................................ 4
1.2.1. Literary Genre .................................................................................................................. 5
1.2.2. Relationship to Genesis ................................................................................................ 12
1.2.2.1. Theological Tendenz ............................................................................................. 13
1.2.2.2. Variation in Exegetical Expansion.................................................................... 16
1.2.2.3. GenAp 21.23........................................................................................................ 17
1.2.3. Qumran Origins? ........................................................................................................... 18
1.2.4. Relationship to Other Ancient Jewish Texts............................................................. 19
1.2.4.1. Enoch and Jubilees.............................................................................................. 20
1.2.4.1.1. 1 Enoch ...................................................................................................... 20
1.2.4.1.2. Jubilees........................................................................................................ 32
1.2.4.2. Other Dead Sea Scrolls....................................................................................... 42
1.2.4.2.1. 1Q19 (1Q Livre de No).......................................................................... 42
1.2.4.2.2. 4Q534 (4Q Mess ar; 4Q Naissance de No
a
ar) ................................... 43
1.2.4.2.3. 4Q535-536 (4Q Naissance de No
b-c
ar) ............................................... 45
1.2.4.2.4. 6Q8.............................................................................................................. 46
1.2.4.3. Additional Texts .................................................................................................. 47
1.2.4.3.1. Other Rewritten Bible Works.................................................................. 47
1.2.4.3.2. Rabbinic Midrashim and Targums ......................................................... 48

CHAPTER 2: TEXT, TRANSLATION, AND NOTES........................................................... 50
2.1. Introduction to the Present Edition................................................................................. 50
2.1.1. History and Previous Editions..................................................................................... 50
2.1.1.1. Pre-publication History ...................................................................................... 50
2.1.1.2. Milik....................................................................................................................... 53
2.1.1.3. Avigad and Yadin................................................................................................ 54
2.1.1.4. Fitzmyer (1966).................................................................................................... 55
2.1.1.5. Fitzmyer (1971).................................................................................................... 56
2.1.1.6. Jongeling, Labuschagne, and van der Woude ................................................. 56
2.1.1.7. Beyer (1984/1994)............................................................................................... 57
2.1.1.8. Wise and Zuckerman.......................................................................................... 58
2.1.1.9. Qimron.................................................................................................................. 58
2.1.1.10. Greenfield and Qimron...................................................................................... 59
2.1.1.11. Morgenstern, Qimron, and Sivan...................................................................... 59
2.1.1.12. Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar ........................................................................ 60
2.1.1.13. Fitzmyer (2004).................................................................................................... 61
iv
2.1.1.14. Beyer (2004) ......................................................................................................... 62
2.1.1.15. Abegg and Wise................................................................................................... 62
2.1.1.16. Other Commentators.......................................................................................... 63
2.1.2. The Present Edition ...................................................................................................... 63
2.1.2.1. The Need for a New Edition............................................................................. 63
2.1.2.2. Spacing.................................................................................................................. 65
2.1.2.3. Diacritical Marks.................................................................................................. 65
2.1.2.4. Reconstruction and Tenuous Readings............................................................ 65
2.1.2.5. Translation............................................................................................................ 67
2.1.3. Textual Notes................................................................................................................. 67
2.1.3.1. Photographs ......................................................................................................... 68
2.1.3.2. List of Abbreviations for Sources Consulted in the Textual Notes............. 70
2.1.4. The Manuscript .............................................................................................................. 73
2.1.4.1. Description, Length, and Dimensions ............................................................. 73
2.1.4.2. Present Condition................................................................................................ 74
2.2. Aramaic Transcription......................................................................................................... 76
2.3. English Translation ............................................................................................................ 100
2.4. Textual Notes...................................................................................................................... 135

SECTION II: THE DIVISION OF THE EARTH IN GENESIS APOCRYPHON
16-17: A CASE STUDY ON ITS RELATIONSHOP TO THE BOOK OF JUBILEES

CHAPTER 3: THE BACKGROUND OF GENESIS APOCRYPHON 16-17 ................. 168
3.1 External Background I: Genesis 10 and Other Biblical Texts..................................... 169
3.2 External Background II: The Ionian Map of the Inhabited Earth (oikoumene) ......... 174
3.3 Internal Background I: The Geographic Substructure of the Genesis Apocryphon182
3.3.1 Getting to Know Noah .............................................................................................. 182
3.3.1.1 Genesis Apocryphon 3.17................................................................................ 183
3.3.1.2 Genesis Apocryphon 7.1-2 ..............................................................................184
3.3.1.3 Genesis Apocryphon 11.9-12 .......................................................................... 185
3.3.1.4 Genesis Apocryphon 11.16-17........................................................................ 185
3.3.1.5 Genesis Apocryphon 16-17 ............................................................................. 186
3.3.2 Abram, Heir of Arpachshads Share......................................................................... 187
3.3.2.1 Genesis Apocryphon 19.12-13........................................................................ 187
3.3.2.2 Genesis Apocryphon 21.8-22 .......................................................................... 188
3.3.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 189
3.4 Internal Background II: Noahs Arboreal Dream in Genesis Apocryphon 13-15... 190
3.4.1 What can we say about Columns 13-15?..................................................................191
3.4.2 Some Associated Traditions....................................................................................... 197
3.4.2.1 The Dream of the Garden ........................................................................... 197
3.4.2.2 Cursed be Canaan.......................................................................................... 203
3.4.3 The Setting and Import of the Dream in the Genesis Apocryphon.................... 205
3.4.3.1 : And it was revealed ............................................................................ 210
3.4.4 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 217
v
CHAPTER 4: A COMPARATIVE COMMENTARY ON THE EARTHS DIVISION IN
JUBILEES 8:11-9:15 AND GENESIS APOCRYPHON 16-17............................................. 219
4.1 Jubilees 8:11-9:15................................................................................................................ 223
4.1.1 Noahs Division among his Sons: Jubilees 8:10-30 ................................................ 224
4.1.1.1 Shems Portion: 8:12-21 ................................................................................... 225
4.1.1.2 Hams Portion: 8:22-24..................................................................................... 238
4.1.1.3 Japheths Portion: 8:25-30................................................................................ 241
4.1.2 The Subdivision among Noahs Grandsons: Jub 9:1-15........................................ 244
4.1.2.1 Hams Sons: 9:1 ................................................................................................. 245
4.1.2.2 Shems Sons: 9:2-6............................................................................................. 245
4.1.2.3 Japheths Sons: 9:7-13....................................................................................... 252
4.1.3 Summary: Jubilees Division of the Earth................................................................ 256
4.2 Genesis Apocryphon 16-17 .............................................................................................. 258
4.2.1 Noahs Division among his Sons: Genesis Apocryphon 16 ................................. 258
4.2.1.1 Japheths Portion: 16.8-12................................................................................ 258
4.2.1.2 Shems Portion: 16.14-25 ................................................................................. 261
4.2.1.3 Hams Portion: 16.16ff. .................................................................................... 263
4.2.2 The Subdivision among Noahs Grandsons: Genesis Apocryphon 17............... 264
4.2.2.1 Hams Sons? ....................................................................................................... 264
4.2.2.2 Shems Sons: 17.7-15 ........................................................................................ 265
4.2.2.3 Japheths Sons: 17.16-19................................................................................... 269
4.2.3 Summary: The Genesis Apocryphons Division of the Earth and Its Relationship
to Jubilees...................................................................................................................... 271

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 285
5.1. The Exegetical Nature of the Genesis Apocryphon..................................................... 285
5.1.1. Relationship to Genesis .............................................................................................. 285
5.1.2. Exegetical Unevenness: Noah and Abram.............................................................. 286
5.1.3. The Exalted Status of Noah (and Abram) ............................................................... 287
5.1.4. Apocalypticism and Heavenly Wisdom....................................................................288
5.1.5. Dreams .......................................................................................................................... 289
5.1.6. Rights to the Land of Israel ....................................................................................... 290
5.1.7. Hellenistic Influence.................................................................................................... 290
5.1.8. Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 291
5.2. Provenance and Date......................................................................................................... 293
5.2.1. The Judean Sitz im Leben............................................................................................. 293
5.2.2. A non-Qumran (but Qumran-friendly) Work......................................................... 295
5.2.3. Is 1Q20 the Autograph of the Genesis Apocryphon? ........................................... 297
5.2.4. Date of the Present Manuscript (1Q20)................................................................... 298
5.2.5. Language ....................................................................................................................... 301
5.2.6. Relationship to Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and Other Works ............................................ 310
5.2.7. Summary: A Second Century B.C.E. Companion to Genesis .............................. 313

BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................... 315




vi
MAPS

Map 1: A Reconstruction of Hecataeus World Map ................................................................. 176
Map 2: A Reconstruction of Dionysius Periegetes World Map............................................... 179
Map 3: Reconstruction of Jubilees World Map according to Gustav Hlscher .................... 220
Map 4: Reconstruction of Jubilees World Map according to Michel Testuz......................... 221
Map 5: One Reconstruction of Jubilees World Map according to Philip Alexander............ 221
Map 6: Another Reconstruction of Jubilees World Map according to Philip Alexander..... 222
Map 7: Reconstruction of Jubilees World Map according to Francis Schmidt ..................... 222






























vii
TABLES

Table 1: Genealogical Information................................................................................................ 170
Table 2: Additional (non-genealogical) Information .................................................................. 171
Table 3: The Order of the Earths Division in the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees......... 273




1







SECTION I
THE BACKGROUND AND TEXT OF THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON











2



CHAPTER 1
THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON: OBJECTIVES AND GOALS

In 1947 a tattered, brittle, parchment scroll was found in a well-hidden cave near the
Dead Sea. At first, it was unassumingly called the Fourth Scroll, since it was the last of
four manuscripts purchased by Athanasius Yeshue Samuel, the Syrian Metropolitan of
Jerusalem, to be unrolled.
1
As the contents of the scroll slowly unfolded, however, it came
to be known as the Book (or Apocalypse) of Lamech, and later still A Genesis
Apocryphon (abbreviated as 1QapGen, 1QapGen
ar
, or 1Q20).
2
While this title has some
shortcomings, it has become sufficiently entrenched to deter further change.
3

In its present state, the Aramaic scroll tells the stories of the biblical patriarchs
Enoch, Lamech, Noah, and Abram, mostly from a first person perspective.
4
While the

1
It was originally found along with six others, but three of the scrolls were eventually purchased by
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, through the arrangement of Eliezer Lipa Sukenik.
2
A more extensive history of the discovery and publication of the scroll is recounted in Chapter 2.
Also see J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary (3d rev. ed.; Biblica et
Orientalia 18/B; Roma: Editrice Pontifico Instituto Biblico [Pontifical Biblical Institute Press], 2004), 13-25.
(Subsequent reference to Fitzmyers commentary will be to the 3
rd
edition, unless otherwise indicated). From
this point forward I will use a definite article when referring to the scroll, a practice adopted by Y. Kutscher
shortly after its initial publication. See Y. Kutscher, The Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon, Aspects of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolimitana IV; ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958) 1-35.
3
See the opinions of D. Flusser, Kirjath Sepher ( ) 32:4 (1956-57) 379 n. 3 [Hebrew]; J. T.
Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea (Studies in Biblical Theology 26; trans. J. Strugnell; London:
SCM Press, 1959) 14 n. 1; and J. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 16. They (and I) prefer the suggestion of B.
Mazar, (Book of the Patriarchs).
4
Hence, the Apocryphon is frequently part of discussions on ancient pseudepigraphic works. First
person narration occurs in most, but not all, of the scroll. A brief but penetrating discussion of its mix between
pseudepigraphic and third-person narrative is found in the early review of David Flusser, Kirjath Sepher (
) 32:4 (1956-57) 379-83 [Hebrew]. Also see M. J. Bernstein, Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls:
3
narrative is clearly related to Gen 6-15, the two texts are not synonymous (as the scrolls
latest name suggests). For example, Moshe Bernstein has detailed a number of instances
where the author of the scroll has rearranged, anticipated, and harmonized aspects of the
biblical account.
5
To this we might also append a number of additions and subtractions.

1.1. Objectives
This dissertation is composed of three parts: 1.) an introduction to previous research
on the Genesis Apocryphon; 2.) a new, annotated transcription and translation of the scroll;
and 3.) a case study of one area in which recently or newly published portions of text
improve our understanding of the scroll namely, geography.
The introduction to prior research in the present chapter synthesizes a number of
issues and proposals surrounding the Apocryphon raised since its initial publication in 1956.
My aim here is to contextualize ensuing parts of the dissertation within the current stream of
research, and to provide a backdrop against which final conclusions may be proffered. In
order to prevent clutter and repetition, this section is designed to be representative of
previous scholarship, rather than exhaustive. However, an effort has been made to provide
adequate bibliography for further research on each topic presented.
The text, translation, and notes are preceded by their own introduction, in which I
explain the need for a new edition. My goal in the second chapter is to provide those

Categories and Functions, in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea
Scrolls (STDJ 31; ed. E. G. Chazon and M. E. Stone; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 1-26 [esp. 15-17].
5
M. J. Bernstein, Re-arrangment, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the
Genesis Apocryphon, DSD 3:1 (1996), 37-57. This trait has often been compared to the autobiographical
perspectives of the first portion of the Book of Tobit and the various patriarchal Testaments (e.g. the Aramaic
Levi Document, the Testament of Qahat, or the Jewish portions of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs)
composed during the Second Temple period.
4
interested in the Apocryphon with a more comprehensive, accurate, and serviceable edition
than those currently available.
The third chapter focuses on only one of many areas in which new or recently
published material from the Apocryphon impacts not only our knowledge of this scroll, but
also of other early Jewish texts, and Second-Temple Judaism in general. The subject of this
chapter is the geography of the Genesis Apocryphon, particularly as it relates to geographic
usage in the Book of Jubilees. While both of these texts appear to employ geography to
similar ends, it will be seen that use of geography is more comprehensive in the
Apocryphon, and that the two texts may not be as similar many have previously assumed.
The goals of that chapter are to highlight a major exegetical and theological motif in the
Apocryphon, and to enhance our understanding of its oft noted relationship with Jubilees.
A brief, concluding chapter is dedicated to offering some thoughts on the scrolls
composition, date, and provenance, especially in light of newly published or emended
portions of text.

1.2. Current Issues in Study of the Genesis Apocryphon
As the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls were revealed a process that has taken
over five decades questions dear to modern text-critical scholars began to be asked of each
work. What is this scroll about? How old is it? From which Jewish community did it
initially emerge? Is it a product of the alleged Essene community at Qumran? How should
it be classified? How does it fit into the history and literature of the period? How does it
relate to the Bible? Ever since the initial publication of five of the Genesis Apocryphons
columns by Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin in 1956, efforts to answer such questions vis-
-vis the Genesis Apocryphon have centered around three main issues: 1.) literary genre; 2.)
5
relationship to Genesis; and 3.) relationship to other ancient Jewish works.
6
In an effort to
lay the proper groundwork for the following chapters these topics will be briefly surveyed
below.

1.2.1. Literary Genre
Even before the first parts of the Genesis Apocryphon were published there was
keen interest in what kind of text the it is. It was immediately clear that the Aramaic scroll
was tied to stories known from Genesis, but how? Avigad and Yadin first described it as a
sort of apocryphal version of stories from Genesis, faithful, for the most part, to the order
of the chapters in Scripture.
7
Despite their use of the words Apocryphon and
apocryphal to characterize the scroll, Matthew Black, Paul Kahle, and Otto Eissfeldt
preferred to label it a targum (i.e. translation).
8
Black and Kahle, however, later changed
their minds and began referring to the work as a midrash, perhaps following the lead of S.
Zeitlin.
9
M. Lehmann, arguing that the Genesis Apocryphon proves the early existence of
targums, maintained that the Apocryphon fits squarely into the main stream of Targumim

6
I am certainly not suggesting that these are the only issues that have been, or deserve to be,
discussed regarding the Apocryphon. However, these three topics do represent (or at least relate to) the brunt
of scholarship on the scroll up to the present, and thus provide a good starting point for this study.
7
Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem: Magnes and
Heikhal Ha-Sefer), 38.
8
M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London: Nelson, 1961), 193. Also see his The Recovery
of the Language of Jesus, NTS 3 (1956-57) 305-13. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York:
Harper & Row, 1965) 697.
9
S. Zeitlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls: 1. The Lamech Scroll: A Medieval Midrash: 2. The Copper Scrolls:
3. Was Kando the Owner of the Scrolls? JQR [New Ser.] 47:3 (January, 1957) 247.

6
and Midrashim, and probably represents the oldest prototype of both available to us.
10
The
classification midrash was eventually adopted by a bevy of scholars.
11

While some small, isolated sections of the scroll could be considered an Aramaic
targum of Genesis, Fitzmyer correctly stated that it is not really possible to label the whole
composition a targum, since most of its text is much freer and more expansionistic than
any known targum, including the so-called Pseudo-Jonathan and Fragment Targums.
12
In
the Noah section, for example, one can read for several columns (at least what is left of
them) without meeting a strict translation of any known biblical version.
Although the term midrash may serve as a helpful description of the interpretive
process used in the Genesis Apocryphon, it too has weaknesses. On the one hand, midrash
can constitute a broad category roughly synonymous with Jewish biblical interpretation,
13

while on the other it is frequently used to refer to a specific, rabbinic method of biblical
interpretation which cites a lemma and then seeks to explain it in a discrete segment of
commentary.
14
Although the broad definition would certainly include the Genesis

10
M. R. Lehmann, 1Q Genesis Apocryphon in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim, RevQ 1
(1958-59) 251.
11
These included A. Dupont-Sommer, M. Goshen-Gottstein, J. van der Ploeg, G. Lambert, R. Meyer,
R. de Vaux, E. Vogt, G. Vermes, A. Wright, S. Segert, and H. Kee. For references see Fitzmyer, The Genesis
Apocryphon, 19 n. 28.
12
Ibid, 18. This is also the opinion of R. Le Daut, Biblica 48 (1967) 142.
13
It is regularly employed in this broad sense by G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Studia
Post-Biblica 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961 [2
nd
ed. 1973]). Also see A. G. Wright, The Literary Genre Midrash (Part
Two), CBQ 28 (1966), 456. The term is set in an even broader context by R. Bloch, Midrash, in Supplment
au Dictionnaire de la Bible (Vol. 5; ed. L. Pirot, A. Robert, and H. Cazelles; Paris: Librairie Letouzey et An, 1957)
1263-81. He traces the practice of Midrash from its ancient Near Eastern origins, through Jewish
Intertestamental works such as Jubilees, and to its culmination in the rabbinic method. This important article
has been translated into English by M. Howard Callaway in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice (Vol.
1; Brown Judaic Studies 1; ed. W. S. Green; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978) 29-50.
14
In other words, the biblical passage and its interpretation are formally distinguished from each
other. See, e.g., the definition in H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans.
and ed. M. Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992 [repr. 1996]) 235. Cf. G. J. Brooke, Rewritten Bible, in
7
Apocryphon, it risks anachronistic confusion with the more narrow rabbinic method of
interpretation.
Attempts to avoid such confusion are reflected by various commentators on the
Apocryphon. H. Ligne correctly specified that cest un midrash haggadique dun genre
spcial, qui nest pas absolument semblable au midrash rabbinique
15
A. Dupont-
Sommer further posited that the scroll is un prcieux specimen de midrash essnien,
although one might expect this distinction to belong rather to the sectarian pesharim.
16
C.
Evans aptly summarizes the situation: [t]he Genesis Apocryphon is certainly not a targum, nor
is it midrash in the sense of text and commentary.
17

In 1961, Geza Vermes introduced the term rewritten Bible into his discussion of
Jewish midrashic texts.
18
By rewritten Bible, he clearly meant a subcategory within the
broader spectrum of midrash. He wrote that, [i]n order to anticipate questions, and to
solve problems in advance, the midrashist inserts haggadic development into the biblical
narrative an exegetical process which is probably as ancient as scriptural interpretation
itself.
19
Included by Vermes under rewritten Bible were Sepher ha-Yashar, the Palestinian

the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; New York: Oxford University
Press, 2000) 2:777-80; and M. J. Bernstein, Rewritten Bible: A Generic Category which has Outlived its
Usefulness? Textus 22 (2005) 186. Also see the important distinction of C. Perrot, Pseudo-Philon: Les Aniquits
Bibliques. Tome II (SC 230; Paris: Cerf, 1976) 22-28. Perrot partially captured these two ways of understanding
midrash by delineating two exegetical techniques: texte expliqu (i.e. lemmatized midrash) and texte continu. The
latter term is equivalent to Vermes rewritten Bible (see below).
15
H. Ligne, L Apocryphe de la Gense, in Les texts de Qumran: Traduits et annots (Vol. 2; ed. J.
Carmignac, . Cothenet, and H. Ligne; Paris: ditions Letouzey et An, 1963) 215.
16
A. Dupont-Sommer, Le crits essniens dcouverts prs de la mer Morte (Paris: Payot, 1980) 293.
17
C. A. Evans, The Genesis Apocryphon and the Rewritten Bible, RevQ 13 (1988) 154. For a
similar appraisal see D. J. Harrington, The Bible Rewritten (Narrative), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters
(ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 239-47 [especially 242].
18
G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Studia Post-Biblica 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961 [2
nd
ed. 1973]).
19
Ibid, 95.
8
Targum, Josephus Jewish Antiquities, Pseudo-Philos Biblical Antiquities, the Book of Jubilees,
and the Genesis Apocryphon. As later noted by M. Bernstein, a defining characteristic of
Vermes description was a recapitulation of the narrative of the whole or a large part of
the biblical story,
20
as opposed to lemmatized commentary. Hence, in the works deemed
rewritten Bible by Vermes, haggadic accretions are not formally distinguished from the
biblical narrative.
Rewritten Bible has subsequently become a popular term to describe and
categorize various ancient Jewish exegetical works, especially the Genesis Apocryphon.
21

Unfortunately, it has not always been applied in a consistent manner, causing the genre to
lose some of its usefulness.
22
Especially confusing is the interchangeable and conflicting use
of adjectives like rewritten, parabiblical, midrashic, apocryphal, retold, and
reworked to describe ancient Jewish texts that interpret Scripture. For instance, the term
parabiblical was coined in 1967 by H. L. Ginsberg:
23


I approve of [Fitzmyers] rejection of such labels as targum and midrash
To the question of literary genre, I should like to contribute a proposal for a term to
cover works, like GA [i.e. Genesis Apocryphon], Pseudo-Philo, and the Book of Jubilees,
which paraphrase and/or supplement the canonical Scriptures: parabiblical literature.
The motivation of such literature like that of midrash may be more doctrinal, as
in the case of the Book of Jubilees, or more artistic, as in at least the preserved parts of

20
Bernstein, Rewritten Bible, 174.
21
J. Kugel prefers the term Retold Bible, and provides a helpful description of the exegetical
process involved in these types of texts. J. L. Kugel, In Potiphars House (New York: Harper Collins, 1990) 264-
68.
22
Bernsteins Rewritten Bible is a welcome corrective to this trend. He also provides a survey of
how the term has been used.
23
H. L. Ginsberg, Review of Joseph A. Fitzmyers The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A
Commentary, Theological Studies 28 (1967) 574. Fitzmyer (The Genesis Apocryphon, 20) prefers this term to rewritten
Bible, although he calls the Genesis Apocryphon a good example of the latter.
9
GA, but it differs from midrashic literature by not directly quoting and (with more or
less arbitrariness) interpreting canonical Scripture.

Ginsbergs use of parabiblical literature seems to be nearly synonymous with
Vermes employment of rewritten Bible. However, when we turn to the more well-known
use of parabiblical in Oxfords Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series, we find the two terms
juxtaposed in a different way:
24


Within these volumes the parabiblical texts hold a special place since some of the
literary genres represented by Qumran are becoming known only now, with the
publication of the volumes. The volumes of the parabiblical texts contain various
compositions which have in common that they are closely related to texts or themes
of the Hebrew Bible. Some of these compositions present a reworking, rewriting, or
paraphrase of biblical books.

Here parabiblical is used by E. Tov as an umbrella term, under which rewritten Bible
would apparently be placed (i.e. more akin to Vermes use of midrashic). Evans makes a
similar swap, this time between midrash and rewritten Bible: Therefore, the Genesis
Apocryphon is part of what is sometimes called the rewritten Bible, a broad category that
includes targum, midrash, and rewritten biblical narratives.
25
In contrast, Vermes and
Bernstein would place the more narrowly defined rewritten Bible under the broader heading

24
H. W. Attridge et al., in consultation with J. C. VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts,
Part 1 (DJD XIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) ix. Cf. M. Broshi et al., in consultation with J. C.
VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4, XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD XIX; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995); G.
Brooke et al., in consultation with J. C. VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4 XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD XII;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996); D. Dimant, Qumran Cave 4, XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts
(DJD XXX; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001).
25
C. A. Evans, The Genesis Apocryphon and the Rewritten Bible, RevQ 13 (1988) 154. An equally
broad view is expressed by G. J. Brooke, Rewritten Bible, in the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols.; ed.
L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) 2:780b.
10
of midrash, or biblical interpretation. The landscape of terms has obviously become
cluttered and confusing.
To add to this dilemma, some have begun to question the validity of even using
expressions like rewritten Bible or parabiblical literature at all. Such terms, they allege, imply
a canonical situation that is anachronistic for many of the works typically gathered under
them. John Reeves stated the argument forcefully:
26


The conceptual problem for modern researchers is further aggravated by a largely
unreflective use of popular classificatory terminology like that of rewritten Bible for
works like Jubilees or 1 Enoch. One must first have Bible before one can rewrite
it: the category presupposes and subtly endorses both a chronological sequence and
an intertextual relationship.
I would suggest that the notion of Bible as a privileged category functioning
as the fixed point of reference and discussion for the labeling, analysis, and
evaluation of non-canonical i.e., non-biblical works, requires a radical revision and
reformulation. Our descriptive language should be altered in order to express this
revisioning; instead of biblical expansions or rewritings, we should perhaps speak
of biblically allied, biblically affiliated, or biblically related literatures. Moreover,
our accustomed way of perceiving and categorizing how Bible interacted with
parallel literary corpora will require a serious overhaul. Instead of measuring all
biblically allied or affiliated literatures against the Bible and then assigning labels like
expanded Bible, rewritten Bible, paraphrased Bible, distorted Bible, and the like
to those exemplars which depart textually and/or thematically from the Bible of the
Masoretes, we should rather consider the bulk of this material, both biblical and non-
biblical, as one culturally variegated literary continuum which juxtaposes a number of
alternative or parallel ways of recounting a particular story or tradition.

Reeves advice serves as a healthy reminder of the fluidity of these traditions during
the Second Temple period, yet few would argue that authors of works typically considered
rewritten Bible did not base their accounts on a relatively fixed, received scriptural tradition

26
J. C. Reeves, The Flowing Stream: Quranic Interpretations and the Bible, Religious Studies News:
SBL Edition 2.9 (Dec 2001). Similar opinions have been expressed by Bruno Chiesa, Biblical and Parabiblical
Texts from Qumran, Henoch 20 (1998) 131-33; and John P. Meier, The Historical Jesus and the Historical
Law: Some Problems within the Problem, CBQ 65 (2003) 57, n.10.
11
roughly analogous to one of the known variant literary editions.
27
If this is granted, then
rewritten Bible remains a practical and helpful (albeit anachronistic) designation, so long as it
is clear where it stands in the taxonomy of classificatory terms.
In this study I employ rewritten Bible as a subcategory of either biblical
interpretation, midrash (in the broad sense of Vermes), or parabiblical literature (in the broad
sense of Tov in DJD) these three categories being roughly equivalent in my opinion.
Under rewritten Bible I include the Genesis Apocryphon and any other ancient text seeking
to interpret sacred Scripture by combining the biblical narrative and significant interpretive
elements (haggadic or halakhic) without formally distinguishing between the two.
This definition leaves open two difficult questions, which I simply acknowledge here.
First, how significant must the interpretive element be for a work not to be considered
Scripture? Here a text such as 4QReworked Pentateuch (4Q 364-367) is particularly thorny,
since exegetical intrusions into the scriptural text are relatively minimal.
28
Second, and on
the other end of the spectrum, how much biblical narrative must be present? 1 Enoch, Life of
Adam and Eve, Ascension of Isaiah, 4 Baruch, Aramaic Levi, and similar texts give pause in
this regard, since their explicit scriptural grounding is very thin indeed.
29
Both questions

27
This is, perhaps, more true for the Pentateuch than some other scriptural books. For a definition
and defense of the term variant literary edition see E. C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leiden: Brill, 1999) 99-120 [especially 106-109].
28
Studies aimed at what we might call the more biblical end of the rewritten Bible spectrum are
those of E. Tov, Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special attention to 4QRP
and 4QparaGen-Exod, in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls
(ed. E. Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994) 111-134; S. White
Crawford, The Rewritten Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts, Eretz-Israel 26 (1999) [F. M. Cross
Festschrift] 1-8; and M. Segal, Between Bible and Rewritten Bible, in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. M.
Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 10-28. Also see Bernstein Rewritten Bible.
29
Such texts are included in the discussions of G. W. E. Nickelsburg, The Bible Rewritten and
Expanded, in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M. E. Stone; Assen/Philadelphia: Van
Gorcum/Fortress, 1984) 89-156 [especially 89-90]; and D. J. Harrington, The Bible Rewritten (Narratives), in
Early Judaism and Its Interpreters (ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 239-47.
12
ultimately pertain to the degree of closeness of the exegetical composition to the biblical
text,
30
and call for boundaries to be set at either end of the rewritten Scripture continuum.
Wherever these outer limits may fall (and it is not my intention to set them here),
31
we may
confidently place the Genesis Apocryphon within their range, since it is one of a handful
texts to be included in every published list of rewritten Bible thus far.
Of course, it is worth reminding ourselves that the Genesis Apocryphons status as
rewritten Bible is valid only when viewing the scroll in its entirety. Were we to possess only
the first few columns, we would probably not consider this text rewritten Bible, but an
Enochic writing. If, on the other hand, we had only column 22 it could legitimately be
considered a targum.

1.2.2. Relationship to Genesis
Closely bound to the question of literary genre is the way in which the Genesis
Apocryphon rewrites, or retells, parts of Genesis. A host of scholars have summarized
the general character of the scroll in relation to the ancient versions, noting, for example,
that it expansively paraphrases, reproduces and supplements, or freely reworks and
rearranges the biblical narrative.
32
Recently M. Bernstein has begun to supplement these

The case of 1 Enoch deserves special attention. While the composition as a whole may be excluded as
rewritten Bible by most accounts, certain of its components in particular the Animal Apocalypse could fit
into most definitions of the genre. Perhaps this distinction should be borne in mind as discussion regarding
rewritten Bible continues.
30
Tov, Biblical Texts as Reworked, 113.
31
I find the summary of Alexander a helpful move in this direction, and the best definition of the
genre to date. P. S. Alexander, Retelling the Old Testament, It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in
Honor of Barnabas Lindars (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988) 99-121 [especially 116-18].
32
Some representative examples are Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 17; Nickelsburg, Jewish
Literature 173; and VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies, 277.
13
broad statements with careful, detailed studies of the specific exegetical techniques employed
by the scroll, thereby filling a desideratum.
33
His studies affirm earlier generalizations: the
author of the scroll rearranged, anticipated, harmonized, added, and subtracted varied
information from the scriptural narrative in order to provide a fuller, smoother, more
coherent story. With this basic description of the scrolls modus operandi in mind, there are
four issues worthy of brief treatment before proceeding: 1.) the question of theological
Tendenz; 2.) variation in exegetical expansion; 3.) the narratological break at 1QapGen 21.23;
and 4.) the community of origin.

1.2.2.1. Theological Tendenz
Vermes, Fitzmyer, and others have understood the Apocryphon to be largely devoid
of theological Tendenz, or interpretative bias. Vermes characterization of the scroll vibrantly
reflects this viewpoint:

it will be seen that Genesis Apocryphon occupies a privileged position in the
midrashic literature in that it is the most ancient midrash of all. With its discovery
the lost link between the biblical and the Rabbinic midrash has been found. Its
freshness, its popular character, and its contribution to the understanding of the
midrashic literary genre in its purest form, are unique. The pseudepigrapha related to
it, or eventually dependent upon it (Jub., Enoch), as also most of the later
midrashim, are too much concerned to graft upon the biblical story doctrines
sometimes foreign to them. Beside Genesis Apocryphon they appear artificial and
laboured, even though the relative weakness of their literary quality is often
compensated by a greater theological richness

33
M. J. Bernstein, Re-arrangement, Anticipation, and Harmonization, 37-57; and idem, From the
Watchers to the Flood: Story and Exegesis in the Early Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon, Reworking the Bible:
Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran . Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15
17 January, 2002 (ed. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant & R. A. Clements; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 39-64. Others
who have dealt in some depth with the exegetical techniques of the scroll are Vermes, Scripture and
Tradition, 96-126; Alexander, Retelling the OT, 104-107; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature 172-77; and
idem, Patriarchs who Worry.
14
The haggadic developments of Genesis Apocryphon are therefore organically
bound to their biblical text. The author never attempts to introduce unrelated or
extraneous matter. His technique is simple and he exercises no scholarly learning, no
exegetical virtuosity, no play on words. His intention is to explain the biblical text,
and this he does either by bringing together various passages of Genesis, or by
illustrating a verse with the help of an appropriate story. The resulting work is
certainly one of the jewels of midrashic exegesis, and the best illustration yet available
of the primitive haggadah and of the unbiased rewriting of the Bible.
34


In like manner, F. Rosenthal wrote that for the time being, we can be pretty certain
that the text contains little of an ideological nature, although he qualified this statement by
noting that the material preserved is limited.
35
He does, nonetheless, find a concern over
the purity of the priestly line in the insistence of Sarais chastity while in Pharaohs house,
and further proffered that, [a]fter publication of the entire scroll, similar ideological
attitudes, I am sure, will be discovered in the work upon closer scrutiny. Fitzmyer agreed
that it is difficult to see what exegetical or doctrinal meditations were at work in the
composition of this text.
36

Other commentators have shown less reservation in assigning various theological
tendencies to our author. We may cite as examples the contentions of P. Winter and R.
Meyer that the scroll contains an anti-Samaritan prejudice.
37
While this suggestion is difficult
to rule out completely, it lacks the evidence and argumentation to instill confidence. More

34
Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 124-26.
35
F. Rosenthal, review of N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, JNES 18 (1959) 82-84.
36
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 23.
37
P. Winter, Note on Salem Jerusalem, NovT 2 (1957) 151-52. R. Meyer, Deutsche Literaturzeitung
80 (1959) 586-87.
15
convincing is Lignes perception of a tendance sacerdotale and a tendance
apocalyptique, which he attributes to the works Qumranic milieu.
38

An exception to these tenuous suggestions is the fine study of G. Nickelsburg, who
has outlined a number of techniques and tendencies employed in the Apocryphons retelling
of events in Genesis.
39
First, he refers to several places where an Enochic perspective is
clearly discernible not only in the scrolls early columns, but also in the Abram story, where
Abram instructs Pharaohs underlings by reading from the book of the words of Enoch.
40

Second, he draws attention to a possible eschatological Tendenz based on an Urzeit/Endzeit
typology also found in 1 Enoch, whereby the author associates the wicked generation of
Noah and its impending punishment with his own age.
41
Third, the author of the
Apocryphon exploits channels of divine revelation not found in Genesis, such as the figure
of Enoch and symbolic dream-visions.
42
Fourth, there is a clear psychologizing interest in
describing the interaction between characters in the narrative, especially patriarchs and their
wives (e.g. Lamech/Batenosh; Abram/Sarai).
43
Other tendencies are noted as well, such as
an interest in eroticism, demons and apotropaicism, and the portrayal of patriarchs through
the lens of other Israelite figures, such as Joseph and Daniel. According to Nickelsburg,
several of these factors indicate significant concern over the sexual purity of Israelite women,
which may give us some hint of the social setting behind the scroll.

38
H. Ligne, LApocryphe de la Gense, Les texts de Qumran traduits et annots (2 vols.; ed. J.
Carmignac et al.; Paris: Letouzey et An, 1963) 2. 211-12.
39
Nickelsburg, Patriarchs
40
Ibid, 181-82, 190-91 (see 1QapGen 19.25).
41
Ibid, 182.
42
Ibid, 183, 188-89.
43
Ibid, 183-84, 188.
16
Nickelsburg has successfully shown that the author of the Genesis Apocryphon
utilized certain literary techniques and theological perspectives in his rewriting of Genesis.
However, he did not extensively incorporate the more recently published parts of the scroll
into his analysis, instead focusing on those parts first published by Avigad and Yadin in
1956. An investigation of the techniques and concerns reflected in these parts of the
Apocryphon has yet to be undertaken. Such a study may help clarify Nickelsburgs list, and
perhaps add to it.

1.2.2.2. Variation in Exegetical Expansion
In passing, Nickelsburg mentioned a practice of the Genesis Apocryphon worth
drawing further attention to here. While almost every commentator notes the expansive
nature of the Apocryphon, he observed that there are at least two sections of the scroll
which compress stories from Genesis: the story of Abram and Lot (Gen 13:1-13; 1QapGen
20.33-21.7) and the war of the eastern and Canaanite kings (Gen 14; 1QapGen 21.23-
22.26).
44
While not altogether surprising, this may suggest that the author of the
Apocryphon was more interested in some parts of Genesis than in others, that there was
simply more haggadic material available to draw on for certain portions of the book, or that
he was using sources which varied in their exegetical approach. Analysis of individual facets
of the narrative, such as the mixed employment of divine names or the noticeable shifts in
Aramaic syntax, suggests that the latter is the more probable.
45



44
G. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature 177.
45
Get a reference from Moshe to his unpublished article on use of divine names.
17
1.2.2.3. GenAp 21.23
The autobiographical narration of the Genesis Apocryphon is one of its unique and
most frequently cited attributes. Many scholars, however, have been careful to stress that
this trait does not carry throughout the entire scroll, since at 21.23 there is a shift from the
first to third person.
46
This shift is concurrent with the beginning of the story about the war
of the four eastern kings against the five Canaanite kings (cf. Gen 14).
Fitzmyer, Vermes, and Alexander observed that this narrative break is accompanied
by a more profound shift in the scrolls style of biblical exegesis.
47
In contrast to the part of
the scroll preceding 21.23, Fitzmyer observes that the portion following it is marked by far
less rewriting or embellishments than what is found in the preceding chapters of Genesis.
Indeed, at times it is nothing more than a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text into
Aramaic; yet even this sort of translation does not last long. It is rather a paraphrase, which
stays close to the biblical text.
48
Although this later segment of the Apocryphon still
contains a large number of novel interpretive elements, Fitzmyers distinction remains
essentially correct. This change in style is, no doubt, partly responsible for early
disagreement over whether the scroll should be labeled targum or midrash.




46
Most introductions to the text mention this fact. For a summary see Fitzmyer, The Genesis
Apocryphon, 229-30.
47
See Vermes treatment 2. The Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, in E. Schrer, The History of the
Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (3 vols.; trans., rev., and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986) 3.1:318-25 [321]; also Alexander, Retelling the Old Testament, 104.
48
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 230. Cf. Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 33.
18
1.2.3. Qumran Origins?
The most recent edition of the Encyclopdia Britannica inconspicuously states that the
Genesis Apocryphon is a good example of Essene biblical exegesis.
49
Yet, opinions over
whether the Genesis Apocryphon was the product of the Essenes at Qumran have been
mixed. Some, such as Michaud, Meyer, Ligne, de Vaux, and Dupont-Sommer perceived
elements in the scroll suggesting a direct connection to the Qumran community, whose
theology is reflected in sectarian writings such as the Community Rule, the War Scroll, and
the Pesharim.
50
J. C. Reeves has suggested that part of Noahs sacrifice in 1QapGen 10.14
may also indicate that the Apocryphon was a sectarian or proto-sectarian product.
51
His
proposed reconstruction of Noah burning fat upon the altar has since been confirmed, and
may display a ritual affinity with Jubilees and the Temple Scroll.
52

Fitzmyer is among those who have questioned this stance, asserting that [t]here is
nothing in this text that clearly links it with any of the known beliefs or customs of the
Qumran sect. There is practically no Essene theology in this work
53
This appears to be
correct, and is now the position held by a large majority of scholars who have studied the

49
The New Encyclopdia Britannica (15
th
edition; Chicago/London: Encyclopdia Britannica, 2005)
5:177.
50
Michaud, Une livre apocryphe, 101-2; R. Meyer, review of N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis
Apocryphon, DLZ 80 (1959) 587; H. Ligne, LApocryphe de la Gense, 211-12; R. de Vaux, review of J. A.
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1966), RB 74 (1967) 101; A. Dupont-Sommer, Le crits
essniens dcouverts prs de la mer Morte (Bibliothque historique; Paris: Payot, 1959) 293.
51
J. C. Reeves, What Does Noah Offer in 1QapGen X, 15? RevQ 12.3 (1986) 415-19.
52
This fact that fat is burned is hardly determinative, since this practice is also common in the
Hebrew Bible. Reeves observation that the Apocryphon employs a sectarian order for the sacrifices may be
more meaningful, but its connection to the Temple Scroll does not seem particularly close. The sectarian status
of the Temple Scroll has been a matter of some debate.
53
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 23. Cf. H. Bardtke, Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer: Die Sekte
von Qumran (Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1958) 150.
19
scroll, including P. Winter, F. Rosenthal, G. Vermes, D. Harrington, and G. Nickelsburg.
54

This conclusion may be confirmed by the fact that the Apocryphon was written in Aramaic,
since all Qumran writings of certain Essene origin are written in Hebrew.
55
Although the
Genesis Apocryphon was probably not written by the Qumranites, there has been
unanimous agreement that it was written in the land of Israel. This is most clearly evidenced
by the authors impressive knowledge of regional geography.
56


1.2.4. Relationship to Other Ancient Jewish Texts
Sustained efforts have been made to compare and relate the Genesis Apocryphon to
other literary works of the Second Temple and Rabbinic periods. Oftentimes these are
aimed at settling questions regarding the compositions date and provenance. A firm relative
date, for instance, could help determine whether the Apocryphon was composed before or
during the period when Qumran was settled, or with which Jewish group(s) it may have been
associated. In addition, comparison with contemporaneous literature may help conjecture
what some of the gaps in the fragmentary scroll once contained. Below I will outline some
of the most pertinent connections scholars have drawn between the Apocryphon and other
ancient Jewish texts.



54
Winter, NovT 2, 83; Rosenthal, JNES 18, 151-52; Vermes, 2. The Genesis Apocryphon from
Qumran, 323; Harrington, The Bible Rewritten (Narratives), 244-45; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 177.
55
See S. Segert, Die Sprachenfragen in der Qumrngemeinschaft, Qumrn-Probleme (Deutsche
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 42; ed. H. Bardtke; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963) 315-39 [322-23];
idem, JSS 13, 282; and A. Lamadrid, Estudios Bblicos 28, 169.
56
See, e.g., Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 124.
20
1.2.4.1. 1 Enoch and Jubilees
The Genesis Apocryphons close relationship to Enochic literature on one hand, and
the Book of Jubilees on the other, has been noted since its initial publication by Avigad and
Yadin.
57
Unfortunately, 1 Enoch and Jubilees have often been uncritically grouped together,
as if they were a single work, especially by earlier commentators. This seems to rest on the
unverified conclusion that the Genesis Apocryphon must either be a source for, or
dependent upon, both 1 Enoch and Jubilees i.e. the relationship must be the same for both
works. The early statement of Avigad and Yadin is typical: we may confidently emphasize
the close connection between the scroll and many parts of the Book of Enoch and the Book
of Jubilees, leading at times to the conclusion that the scroll may have served as a source for a
number of the stories told more concisely in those two books.
58

The frequent conflation of these texts renders any attempt to treat either one in
terms of its own relationship to the Apocryphon difficult. In an effort to avoid repetition, I
will present the opinions of those who treat 1 Enoch and Jubilees together under my section
on 1 Enoch, referring back to them only as needed in the subsequent Jubilees section.

1.2.4.1.1. 1 Enoch
A vague connection between 1 Enoch and the Genesis Apocryphon was first posited
by J. C. Trever in 1949.
59
Commenting on the first legible piece of the scroll, he wrote that
Dr. W. F. Albright suggested from key words appearing on it that it came from Enoch,

57
Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 38.
58
Ibid [emphasis theirs]. The widely acknowledged composite nature of 1 Enoch has also not always
been adequately taken into consideration.
59
J. C. Trever, Identification of the Aramaic Fourth Scroll from Ain Feshka, BASOR 115, 8-10.
21
though he found no exact parallels.
60
With this general connection suggested, a number of
scholars have attempted further to clarify their relationship.

Genesis Apocryphon a Source for 1 Enoch
From Trevers early report on the emerging contents of the Fourth Scroll it is clear
that both Albright and C. C. Torrey considered this Book of Lamech to be a source for
the Book of Enoch. Torrey argued that:

The consistent use of the first person in the Fragment shows that it was truly a
Lamech apocalypse, quite distinct from the book of Enoch. In my judgment, this
framework was given up when this portion of the work was made a part of Enoch
and adapted to it; for there, as you see, Lamech is spoken of only in the third person,
while the only one who speaks in the first person is Enoch! My guess, then, would
be that your Fragment represents the original form of the apocalypse.
61


Albright added that [a] strong case can be brought for considering the so-called
Book of Noah which is imbedded in Enoch (Chapters 6-11; 54-55:2; 60; 65-69:25; 106-107,
according to Charles, The Book of Enoch, 1912, p. xlvii) as properly derived from the Book of
Lamech.
62
Unfortunately, he did little to clarify this strong case beyond pointing to some
well-documented difficulties in the Noachic sections of 1 Enoch.
Avigad and Yadin were the first to analyze the most complete, persuasive parallel
between the Apocryphon and 1 Enoch in detail:


60
Ibid, 8.
61
Ibid, 9.
62
Ibid, 9, n. 4
22
the first five columns of the scroll as we now have it, deal with the birth of Noah in a
manner that has no relationship at all to the brief Biblical account in Genesis v, 28-29.
On the other hand, the narrative in the scroll resembles chapter cvi of the Book of
Enoch in most essential points, though there are some significant additions in the
scroll, such as the dialogue between Lamech and Bat-Enosh and Enochs long reply
to Methuselah some five times as long as the version in the Book of Enoch.
63


This fascinating story tells of Noahs spectacular birth, Lamechs suspicion that the
childs conception may be illegitimate, and his eventual assurance by Enoch (1QapGen 2-
5.27; 1 En 106-7).
64
The fact that the story is significantly longer in the Apocryphon than in
1 Enoch led the editors to conclude that the former was probably contemporary with or
previous to the composition of the latter i.e. 1 Enoch is a later, condensed version of the
story of Noahs birth, perhaps based on the Apocryphon.
Vermes was the only scholar to offer explicit support for the proposal of Avigad and
Yadin regarding 1 Enoch.
65
He went further than they did, however, in explaining his reason
for this stance. For Vermes, the primacy of the Genesis Apocryphon is obvious based on
[i]ts freshness, its popular character, and its contribution to the understanding of the
midrashic genre in its purest form. It is the most ancient midrash of all, beside which
other midrashic works like 1 Enoch and Jubilees appear artificial and laboured, even though
the relative weakness of their literary quality is often compensated by a greater theological
richness. Hence, it is the Apocryphons unbiased rewriting of the Bible that sets it apart,
and proves its greater antiquity in relation to other similar works. It is surprising that
Vermes cited Enoch as an example in this description, since he evidently based his

63
Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 19
64
The story derives from an interpretation of Gen 5:29. See Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon,
16-19; and G. Sarfatti, Notes on the Genesis Apocryphon, Tarbiz 28 (1958-59) 254-55 [Hebrew].
65
Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 124-26.
23
estimation of the Apocryphon solely on passages paralleled in Jubilees and dealing with
Abram. In fact, the more expansive passage of 1QapGen 2-5.27 would seem to contradict
his blanket judgments.
More compelling is Vermes later defense of the Apocryphons priority, in which he
noted a tendency in Intertestamental literature towards abbreviation.
66
His examples of this
phenomenon are Psalm 151, the Astronomical Book of 1 Enoch, and the Aramaic
Testament of Levi.
67
Echoing earlier sentiments, he further observed that it is easier to
account for Jubilees insertion of doctrinal tendencies (e.g. calendrical matters) into an
unbiased work such as the Genesis Apocryphon than the other way round. He was also the
only commentator to question the traditional dating of the scrolls language to the first
century B.C.E., arguing that the only thing E. Y. Kutscher had shown in his renowned
linguistic analysis was that the Aramaic of the Apocryphon postdates that of Daniel.
68

Hence, he slightly preferred a date of composition in the early second century B.C.E.
Despite these views, Vermes admitted that the opinion of others, who believed Jubilees to
be the earlier text (see below), is also tenable.

Indeterminate Relationship between the Genesis Apocryphon and 1 Enoch
A bevy of scholars reviewed the 1956 edition of the scroll by Avigad and Yadin,
many expressing skepticism over the possibility of pinpointing the direction of literary

66
Vermes, 2. The Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, 318-25.
67
Ibid, 321.
68
For a significantly more skeptical assessment of the possibility of dating the Aramaic of the
Apocryphon and other Aramaic manuscripts from Qumran see M. O. Wise, Thunder in Gemini (JSPSup 15;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994) 103-51.
24
dependence between the Apocryphon and 1 Enoch. David Flusser was among the first to
express doubt:

The entire scroll bears a resemblance in its overall plot and in many details to parts
of the Book of Jubilees and parts of the Book of Enoch, although not all of the
compositions features are found in those two works. The question pertains whether
the composition before us was used as a source for the works mentioned above.
The editors of the scroll are inclined to answer this question in the affirmative. Yet I
do not know if the small amount of material from the scroll published thus far
makes it at all possible to answer this important question It is difficult today to
assess the ways in which the authors manipulated their sources in order to create this
literature; it appears that the authors put the words of their compatriots to use in a
way similar to scribes of the Middle Ages, i.e. they relied on the texts at their
disposal, intermingled them, arranged them according to their fancy, and added or
subtracted to the extent that it is sometimes difficult for us to determine whether
what lies before us is a new version or a new composition.
69


Similar, albeit less developed, opinions were expressed by H. Bardtke, J. Hempel, and R.
Meyer, the latter adding that Avigad and Yadins hypothesis seemed to him fraglich.
70

There was a general consensus among these scholars that publication of other parts of the
Genesis Apocryphon may shed light on the issue of literary dependence. Although
significantly more of the text is now available, few efforts have been made to explore what
they may add to our knowledge on this topic.
Most recently, and since the publication of all available columns, Moshe Bernstein
has noted an ongoing scholarly inability to accurately determine the relationships between
the Apocryphon and other Jewish works.
71
Having pointed out a number of connections

69
D. Flusser, Kirjath Sepher ( ) 32:4, 382-83 [Hebrew; translation mine].
70
Bardtke, TLZ 83, 346; Hempel, ZAW 69, 234; and Meyer, DLZ 80, 587.
71
M. J. Bernstein, From the Watchers to the Flood: Story and Exegesis in the Early Columns of the
Genesis Apocryphon, Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the
Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced
25
with Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and the Book of Giants, and without giving up hope of future
advances, he concludes that we cannot yet determine any genetic relationship among
them.
72


1 Enoch a Source for the Genesis Apocryphon
H. E. Del Medico was the first to disagree overtly with Avigad and Yadins relative
chronology, and his judgment has since emerged as the communis opinio:

At the moment, it is impossible to give a definite date for this manuscript, but there
is a clearly marked tendency in all writings of this kind which should not be
overlooked: whilst an author leaves out a story he does not know, the general rule
stands that no author abbreviates; all amplify Moreover, it hardly seems
probable that our roll could have been earlier to, or contemporary with, the Book of
Jubilees, Enoch, etc., which are given dates from the fourth to second centuries
B.C.
73


While Del Medicos proposal to invert the direction of literary dependence suggested
by Avigad and Yadin has been accepted by others, his dating of the scroll has been widely
dismissed. He assigned the scroll a second century C.E. date at the earliest based on its
employment of the name Hyrcanus, which he understands to be a reference to a member of
the Tobiad dynasty.
74


Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15-17 January, 2002 (ed. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. A. Clements; STDJ
58; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 39-64.
72
Ibid, 64.
73
H. E. Del Medico, The Riddle of the Scrolls (trans. H. Garner; London: Burke, 1958) 177. Originally
published as Lnigme des manuscripts de la Mer Morte (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1957) 239-40.
74
Del Medico, The Riddle of the Scrolls, 174-78. This Hyrcanus (son of Joseph and grandson of Tobias)
was active during the late 3
rd
to early 2
nd
cents. B.C.E. Del Medico claims that the legend of Hyrcanus and the
literary environment must have had at least three centuries (!) to develop before reaching the stage found in the
Apocryphon. Sheer conjecture would be a benevolent characterization of Del Medicos theory. It is also
worth noting his obvious disdain for this text, passages of which he dubbed highly improper.
26
G. Lambert joined Del Medico in his rejection of Avigad and Yadins proposed
relationship, if not his controversial dating, Personellement nous avons plutt limpression
que cest notre auteur qui amplifie, partir du Livre des Jubils et dautres sources, mais non
linverse.
75
Like most commentators, Lambert discusses the Genesis Apocryphons
relationship with Jubilees almost exclusively, although he would presumably include 1 Enoch
among the autres sources mentioned.
Fitzmyer took the same stance in his 1966 commentary on the Apocryphon. Having
explained Avigad and Yadins position, he observed that the editors have given no reasons
for their assumption, leading him to assert that:

just the opposite seems to be more likely, i.e., that the work in this scroll depends on
Enoch and Jubilees. Such a view is more in accord with the general tendency of the
scroll to fill out and embellish the Genesis narrative. One gets the impression that
the scanty details in Genesis, Enoch, or Jubilees are here utilized in an independent
way and filled out with imaginative additions.
76


Although Fitzmyer cited no specific examples, he would undoubtedly consider the
longer version of Noahs birth in the Genesis Apocryphon a filling out and embellishing
of 1 Enoch 106-7.
77
In 1984 K. Beyer followed suit, claiming that Enoch and Jubilees were
used directly by the Apocryphon to fill out its retelling of Genesis.
78

G. W. E. Nickelsburg has offered the most comprehensive and well-reasoned
argument for the priority of 1 Enoch 106-7 to date. Based on earlier suggestions by J. T.

75
Lambert, Une Gense apocryphe, 106.
76
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon (1966), 14. He had earlier expressed the same view, but with less
developed reasoning, in Some Observations on the Genesis Apocryphon, CBQ 22 (1960) 277-91 [277].
77
Cf. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 122.
78
K. Beyer, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer, 165.
27
Milik and F. Garca Martnez that both sources depend on an earlier Book of Noah (see
below), Nickelsburg suggested that:

[A] Noah book may have provided source material for 1 Enoch 106-107, whose
author enhanced the figure of Enoch and added some eschatological material drawn
from other parts of the Enochic corpus. The Apocryphons author further
elaborated the Enochic story with the haggadic motifs that were of interest to him
and with the Enochic material, which has also influenced other parts of the
Apocryphon.
79


Four reasons were proposed in defense of this claim: 1.) The heated exchange
between Lamech and his wife Batenosh (1QapGen 2) is paralleled by similar additions to the
Abram story later in the scroll, indicating an authorial tendency rather than a remnant from
an earlier tradition. 2.) Lamechs first person narration fits the general technique of the
scroll, and need not derive from a source. 3.) The Apocryphon devotes more space to
Enochs discourse than 1 Enoch 106-107, suggesting an Enochic rather than Noachic source
for the Lamech version of the story. 4.) The superscription The Book of the Words of
Noah in 1QapGen 5.29 (i.e., directly following the birth of Noah story) seems to preclude
the earlier columns of the Apocryphon belonging to a Book of Noah. Moreover, the stories
of Noahs life (col. 6) and Abram and Sarai in Egypt (cols. 19-20) incorporate Enochic
motifs and language.
80

While point four does not directly apply to the present question, the first three claim
that much of the material present in the Apocryphon, but not 1 Enoch 106-107, may be
attributed to broader authorial mannerisms in the Apocryphon. Nickelsburg proposes that

79
Nickelsburg, Patriarchs Who Worry, 199.
80
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 76.
28
when these editorial tendencies are removed the remaining account more closely resembles
that of 1 Enoch, suggesting the latter as a probable source for the former.
Nickelsburg has also argued that the Genesis Apocryphon relies on other parts of
the Enochic corpus, such as the Book of Watchers (1 En 6-11), the Epistle of Enoch (1 En
92-105), and various other passages.
81
He clearly understands these Enochic passages to be
earlier, influencing the Apocryphons retelling. Except for perhaps the Book of Watchers
(cf. 1QapGen 0-1), Nickelsburgs examples speak more to a shared ideological background
than direct borrowing or quotation from 1 Enoch.

Genesis Apocryphon and 1 Enoch Dependent on a Common Source
J. T. Milik espoused a view unlike those presented above, arguing instead that the
stories of Noahs birth in the Genesis Apocryphon and 1 Enoch are independently derived
from a common source, which he called the Book of Noah.
82
Milik remarked that:

[I]n 106:7-8 Methuselah betakes himself, for a consultation on the miraculous birth
of Noah, to the limits of the earth where Enoch dwells with the angels. This so-
called Noachic fragment is nothing but a summary which serves as a reference (a sort
of catchword) to a work in which the birth and the life of the Hebrew hero of the
Flood were recounted in greater detail.
This Book of Noah was summarized in Aramaic, undoubtedly in its original
language, by the compiler of 1QGenesis Apocryphon A Hebrew version of such
a summary may be preserved in fragments of 1Q19. In En. 106-7, and the
corresponding fragments of 4QEn
c
, we have a third, and the most reduced, rsum
of the Book of Noah.
83


81
Such as 1 Enoch 72-82, 83-84, and 85-90, where Methuselah is the mediator of Enochic revelation.
Cf. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 172-77.
82
Milik, Books of Enoch, 55. The Book of Noah is an ancillary topic of significant interest to those
interested in the Genesis Apocryphon, but for reasons of economy it will not be explored further here. For a
recent and judicious review of the scholarship and issues see M. E. Stone, The Book(s) Attributed to Noah,
DSD 13:1 (2006), 4-23.
83
Milik, Books of Enoch, 55.
29

This statement posits no direct relationship between 1 Enoch and the Apocryphon,
although one gains the impression that Milik considers the account in GenAp 2-5.27 to be
older than that of 1 En 106-107, or at least closer to its original Noachic source.
84


Excursus: The Date of 1 Enoch 106-107
Any attempt to date the Genesis Apocryphon relative to 1 Enoch 106-107 depends
on a fixed date for the latter account. R. H. Charles isolated these chapters of Enoch as a
fragment of a Noah Apocalypse, noting that they did not cohere with their surrounding
context.
85
He therefore attributed them to a late stage of the books editing.
Milik agreed with Charles judgment, reporting further that the story was partially
preserved in one of the copies of Enoch from Cave 4 of Qumran (4QEn
c
5 i 24-25).
86

Dated paleographically to the last third of the first century B.C.E., this discovery provides a
terminus ante quem for the storys composition. Following Charles and Milik, Garca Martnez
wrote that these chapters are clearly an insertion and obviously represent a later
addition.
87
Both Milik and Garca Martnez considered this interpolation an abridged form
of an earlier Book of Noah.
Nickelsburg substantially agreed with his predecessors, but modified their position
slightly by suggesting that 1 En 106-107 did not rely on an earlier Noachic source alone, but

84
See Milik (Books of Enoch, 56-57, 183-84), who considered chapters 106-107 to be an appendix to the
Enochic corpus. Cf. F. Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 27-28; and Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 539.
85
R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch, 25, 32-33, 301. This is also the opinion of Milik (Books of Enoch,
55-57) and Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 542), although the reasons for separating these chapters from the Epistle of
Enoch and assigning them a later date have never been fully articulated.
86
Milik, Books of Enoch, 55-57, 178-217.
87
Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 27-28.
30
on a number of older traditions.
88
One of these sources, he argued, was the Epistle of
Enoch, which he dates to the mid to early second century B.C.E.
89
Hence, the version of
the story as it stands in 1 Enoch 106-107 may be dated to sometime between the first third
of the second century B.C.E. and the last third of the first century B.C.E. If Nickelsburgs
assessment is correct, a date between the mid second century and early first century B.C.E. is
plausible.
Although this does not tell us with any assurance when the Genesis Apocryphons
version of the story was composed, it does provide a plausible point for comparison. If
Torrey, Albright, Avigad and Yadin, and Vermes are followed, we might expect the
Apocryphon to be dated to the mid second century B.C.E. or earlier. However, if Del
Medico, Lambert, Fitzmyer, and Nickelsburg are correct, a date around the mid first century
B.C.E. may be reasonably argued.

Summary: The Relationship between the Genesis Apocryphon and 1 Enoch
Thus far Nickelsburg has provided the most impressive case for a specific, genetic
relationship between the Genesis Apocryphon and 1 Enoch, arguing that most non-
Enochic elements in the former may be attributed to the literary techniques of its author.
Yet, the brief remarks of Torrey and Albright leave one somewhat ill at ease in accepting this
proposal. Indeed, an extension of Torreys reasoning turns one of Nickelsburgs strongest
points on its head by suggesting that there is ample motivation for the redactor of 1 Enoch
to change the main character of the story from Lamech to Enoch (i.e. subsume it under an
Enochic perspective) in order to integrate it into the Enochic corpus. This argument gains

88
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 26, 542.
89
Ibid, 427-28. Cf. Charles (The Book of Enoch, 264), who assumes a later date.
31
support from other passages in 1 Enoch (e.g. chapters 60 and 65) where the figure of Enoch
either displaces Noah or narrates Noachic events, even though Noah was clearly the original
speaker.
90

To counter another of Nickelsburgs points, it would not be surprising if the
Enochic redactor quietly left aside the somewhat risqu exchange between Lamech and
Batenosh, in which she details her sexual arousal during intercourse. The question thus
becomes where the story seems most at home in its literary surrounding, to which we must
answer: the Genesis Apocryphon. In sum, one could plausibly argue (with earlier scholars)
that the redactor of 1 Enoch altered and abbreviated the Apocryphon, which would suggest
a late 2
nd
cent. B.C.E. date for the Apocryphon at the latest.
Arguments based primarily on the relative length of these two related accounts are
also troubling. To state simply that the longer text should be considered the younger (e.g.
Del Medico and Fitzmyer) is extremely suspect, since this rule if indeed it is a rule at all is
prone to have exceptions. As noted above, Vermes (no amateur to the field) believed just
the opposite to be true: abbreviation, not expansion, is the rule. A good example of such
abbreviation is found in Jubilees rewriting of portions of 1 Enoch.
91

Judging by the preceding insights, the best we can muster at present is to say that the
relationship between these texts remains highly debatable. While a clear connection between
them exists, its specific nature is frustratingly elusive. Perhaps the most important point to
take away from their relationship is a shared ideological and theological milieu, in which a

90
See R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1893) 152-53, 169-70.
91
E.g. Jub 5:1-13//1 En 6-11. See Miliks (Books of Enoch, 183) assertion that the Epistle of Enoch
was longer in the original than in the later versions. Also J. C. VanderKam, Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and
other Second-Century Sources, SBLSP (1978) 233-35.
32
common apocalyptic worldview is embraced and Enoch is seen as a major conduit of divine
revelation. Some further thoughts on this relationship will be offered in the final chapter.

1.2.4.1.2. Jubilees
Based on a large fragment of the Fourth Scroll, removed during its stay in the United
States in 1949 (now column 2), Trever observed that [t]he combination of letters, btnw,
became the clue to the text, when I found that according to the Ethiopic Jubilees 4:28 the
wife of Lamech was Btns.
92
Indeed, this was the first clue of many that the Genesis
Apocryphon and Book of Jubilees share a special relationship. Some of the most significant
parallels suggested to date are:
i. The name of Noahs wife, Batenosh (1QapGen 5.3, 8; Jub 4:28)
ii. Noahs expiatory sacrifice following the Flood (1QapGen 10.13-17; Jub 6:1-3)
iii. The location (Mt. Lubar) and five-year chronology of Noah planting a vineyard
and celebrating its produce (1QapGen 12.13-15; Jub 7:1-2)
iv. The division of the earth between Noahs sons and grandsons (1QapGen 16-17;
Jub 8:10-9:15)
v. The construction of Hebron (1QapGen 19.9; Jub 13:12)
vi. The seven-year chronology of Abram and Sarai during their sojourn in Egypt
(1QapGen 22.27-29; Jub 13:10-12)
93

As with 1 Enoch, scholars have explained these parallels in at least four different
ways.

92
Trever, Identification of the Aramaic Fourth Scroll, 9.
93
See B. Z. Wacholder, How Long did Abram Stay in Egypt? HUCA 35 (1964) 43-56.
33
Genesis Apocryphon a Source for Jubilees
The assumption of Avigad and Yadin and Vermes that the lengthier Genesis
Apocryphon served as a source for 1 Enoch applied to Jubilees as well. While Avigad and
Yadin partially relied on parallels with 1 Enoch to reach this conclusion, Vermes appears to
have based himself almost exclusively on comparisons with Jubilees. Vermes admits that
[t]he relationship between Genesis Apocryphon and the Book of Jubilees presents a
particular problem which cannot be solved satisfactorily until all the fragments of GA have
been published, but goes on to claim that from the material already accessible it would
appear as the editors themselves believe (p. 38) that the corresponding portions of the
Book of Jubilees may be no more than an abridgement of Genesis Apocryphon.
94
In his
opinion, Jubilees should, perhaps, be regarded as a shortened, though doctrinally enriched,
Essene recension of the original work.
Prior to Vermes, P. Kahle had sided with Avigad and Yadin on the priority of the
Genesis Apocryphon. Commenting on the manuscripts proposed first century B.C.E. date
he remarked, I am convinced that it was composed earlier, as it seems to have been
presupposed by the Book of Jubilees: the text actually found in the first cave may have been
a copy of an older original.
95
He did nothing, however, to defend this view.
In 1964 B. Z. Wacholder proposed an additional reason for considering the Genesis
Apocryphon earlier than Jubilees.
96
After studying the comparative chronologies of Abram
and Sarais tumultuous sojourn in Egypt in both the Apocryphon and Jubilees, Wacholder
found reason to believe that the former preserves the more primitive scheme. Moreover, he

94
Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 124.
95
P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959) 199.
96
Wacholder, How Long did Abram Stay in Egypt? 43-56.
34
understood a chronological recounting of Abrams journeys by the Lord in 1QapGen 22.27-
29 to signify a period when this school of pentateuchal chronology was struggling for
acceptance. He concluded that:

Genesis Apocryphon uses a relative system of dating; Jubilees an absolute one. Less
obvious, but nevertheless real, differences are that in the former the dating is an
integral part of the narrative; in the latter it is superimposed. The author of Genesis
Apocryphon still feels the need to defend his chronology by invoking the Lord
himself; the author of Jubilees takes the chronology for granted.
97


Although he believed the Genesis Apocryphon to be older than Jubilees, Wacholder
withheld judgment concerning the precise nature of their relationship: [o]n the basis of the
available works, the chronology of Genesis Apocryphon is directly or indirectly the source of
Jubilees.
98

P. Grelot made a very similar case in his 1967 review of Fitzmyers commentary on
the Apocryphon. Compared to the fully integrated calendrical system employed by Jubilees,
Grelot considered the less developed scheme in the parallel portions of the Genesis
Apocryphon to be une chronologie plus archaque.
99
Based on this observation he
supposed that the Genesis Apocryphon does not depend on Jubilees at this point, proving
that the latter must depend on the former, or both on a common source.
The most recent defense of the Genesis Apocryphons priority was undertaken in a
pair of articles by Cana Werman.
100
In an essay dealing with the Book of Noah at Qumran

97
Ibid, 52.
98
Ibid, 53 [italics mine].
99
P. Grelot, RevB 74 (1967) 103.
100
Werman is, to my knowledge, the only author to date to discuss the issue of literary dependence in
light of the more recently published parts of the Apocryphon, made available in the 1990s.
35
she wrote that the author of Jubilees was acquainted with the Genesis Apocryphon and
even made use of it.
101
She supported her claim by citing two incidents found in both texts:
the planting of the vineyard and (i.e. fourth years fruits of a young tree in 1QapGen
12.14-19; Jub 7:1-4, 34-37), and the sacrifices offered by Noah after disembarking from the
ark (1QapGen 10; Jub 6). Not only are both of these passages longer in Jubilees, but,
Werman claims, both passages in Jubilees can be shown to alter the Genesis Apocryphon in
accordance with a priestly agenda.
In a subsequent article Werman drew attention to the portions of land allotted by
Noah to his sons Shem and Japheth (cf. 1QapGen 16-17; Jub 8:10-9:15) during his division
of the earth. Jubilees description, she argued, is longer, more detailed, and includes a greater
admixture of Hellenistic scientific knowledge, thus revealing its dependence on the shorter
and less scientifically informed Apocryphon.
102

A notable aspect of the above survey is the contrasting assumptions of Avigad and
Yadin and Werman. While the former claim priority for the Genesis Apocryphon based on
its greater length, Werman (and perhaps Wacholder) does so based on its shorter, simpler
character. If nothing else, this serves as a warning that general statements about one work
being longer or shorter than another may not accurately reflect the situation.

Indeterminate Relationship between the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees
A number of scholars who believed a verdict about the relationship between the
Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees to be premature have been listed above, in the section

101
C. Werman, Qumran and the Book of Noah, Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 172.
102
Werman, Sefer Yovlim, 280-282.
36
dealing with 1 Enoch (e.g. Flusser, Bardtke, Hempel, Meyer, Bernstein). The 1957
assessment of R. de Vaux, dealing specifically with Jubilees, mirrors their sentiment:

les rapports entre cet apocryphe et Jubils ne sont pas entirement clairs. Ce sont
peut-tre de oeuvres parallles et le dveloppement donn certains passages ne
prouve pas ncessairement que lapocryphe soit antrieur aux Jubils. Les texts de
Qumrn nous apprennent de plus en plus que literature tait riche et que son histoire
est complexe.
103


It bears repeating that most of these scholars expressed hope that the relationship
would gain more clarity with the publication of the remaining parts of the Apocryphon a
task now essentially complete.

Jubilees a Source for the Genesis Apocryphon
As seen above, many scholars reacted with skepticism to Avigad and Yadins claim
that the Genesis Apocryphon served as a source for 1 Enoch and Jubilees, finding just the
opposite arrangement to be more plausible (e.g. Del Medico, Lambert, Fitzmyer, Beyer).
Most of these cited the first century B.C.E. to C.E. date of the manuscript and E. Y.
Kutschers comparable date for the scrolls language
104
in support of their claim.
105
That this
view has gained preferred status is evidenced through its presumption by scholars such as C.
A. Evans and G. W. E. Nickelsburg.
106


103
R. de Vaux, RevQ 64 (1957) 624.
104
Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon.
105
E.g. Fitzmyer, Some Observations on the Genesis Apocryphon, 277.
106
Evans, Rewritten Bible, 162; Nickelsburg, Patriarchs Who Worry, 199 n. 45.
37
Another scholar to argue for the priority of Jubilees was L. F. Hartman.
107
Like
Wacholder and Grelot, Hartman drew on the comparative Abramic chronologies of the
Apocryphon and Jubilees to help discern their relationship. His observations, however,
brought him to the opposite conclusion. Since Jubilees incorporates the ten years of
Abrams journey from Haran to Canaan into its broader chronological system of weeks
and jubilees, Hartman understood it to be the earlier, more authentic account. The Genesis
Apocryphon, in contrast, offers no special reason for its chronology, indicating that it must
depend on a work containing such a motive i.e. Jubilees.

Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees Dependent on a Common Source
In their chronological assessments, both Wacholder and Grelot left open the
possibility that the Apocryphon and Jubilees might rely on a common source rather than
directly upon one another. F. Garca Martnez further posited that this is the only viable
option, proposing that both writings depend on a common source, which is more reliably
reproduced in 1QapGen than in Jub.
108
To prove his point, he provided two examples one
textual and one literary. First, he considers the toponym Mountains of Asshur in Jub 8:21
and 9:25 to be a scribal error for Mount Taurus a mistake that occurred when translating
this passage from Aramaic to Hebrew. Although he does not elaborate, presumably Garca
Martnez believes that the author of Jubilees read the Aramaic (Taurus, or Ox) as
(Asshur) instead, thereby causing the mistaken identity.
109
Secondly, he points to the term

107
L. F. Hartman, CBQ 28 (1966) 495-98.
108
Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 1-44 [esp. 40-41].
109
Garca Martnez does little to defend his claim that the name Mountains of Asshur is a mistake,
although his argument would benefit from such an effort. Although he asserts that the mistake would be
38
(Lord of Heaven; GenAp 7.7), which is found in 1 En 106:11 but nowhere in
Jubilees. In the opinion of Garca Martnez these examples rule out a direct relationship
between Jubilees and the Apocryphon. Like Miliks suggestion for 1 Enoch, he believes the
common source behind these two works to be the lost Book of Noah.

Excursus: The Date of Jubilees
As with 1 Enoch, any dating of the Genesis Apocryphon relative to Jubilees
depends on a reliable date for the latter. Here I do not intend to give an exhaustive defense
or rebuttal of any one stance, but rather to present briefly the opinions of others who have
more fully articulated the relevant issues. In my opinion the most convincing date is that
proposed by J. C. VanderKam, who has argued for a date between 161 and 140 B.C.E., and
more probably between 161 and 152 B.C.E.
110
VanderKams proposed date rests largely on
Jubilees incorporation of certain battles of Judas Maccabeus (active 167-160 B.C.E.), along
with other anti-Antiochian motifs, into parts of its narrative. He also takes into account
which parts of 1 Enoch the author of Jubilees appears to know.
111
Following his initial
publication on the subject, part of a copy of Jubilees from the Qumran corpus (4Q216, or
4QJub
a
) was paleographically dated to the mid to late second century B.C.E.
112

Of course, this is not the only proposed date for Jubilees composition. Nickelsburg
leans toward an earlier date, circa 168 B.C.E., following the lead of L. Finkelstein and

difficult to understand when taking the Hebrew as a point of departure, one could argue that scribal
confusion of (Ox, or Taurus) with (Asshur) makes better sense.
110
For a defense of this date see J. C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees
(Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 207-85 [especially 283-85].
111
VanderKam, Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and other Second-Century Sources.
112
J. C. VanderKam and J. T. Milik, The First Jubilees Manuscript from Qumran Cave 4: A
Preliminary Publication, JBL 110/2 (1991) 243-70. One sheet of this manuscript is written in a late (c. mid-1
st

cent. B.C.E.) Hasmonean hand, and the other in an earlier, semi-cursive script.
39
others.
113
Those who espouse an early date do not find the references to Maccabean wars
convincing and date Jubilees in relation to slightly earlier times, just preceding the
Maccabean Revolt. Taking into account these objections, VanderKam concluded that it
now seems safe to claim that the Book of Jubilees was written between the years 170 and
150 B.C.E.
114

A minority of scholars, such as Wacholder, D. Mendels, and Werman, follow
Charles and Dillmann in assigning the book a later date typically in the last third of the
second century B.C.E.
115
However, the reasons offered for a later date vary considerably,
some (e.g. Werman) proposing a connection with the Essenes at Qumran.
A related topic, appropriate to the present discussion, is the relationship between 1
Enoch 106-107 and the Book of Jubilees. VanderKam has suggested that Jub 4:23 may draw
some of its inspiration from the Enochic story of Noahs birth, since it records that Enoch
was taken from human society by angels and placed in the Garden of Eden to write down a
testimony against humanity.
116
This observation is based on Enochs statement in 1 Enoch
106:8 that his son Methuselah came to him at the ends of the earth, where he dwelled with
the angels.
117
If Jubilees could be shown to use this portion of 1 Enoch it would have
significant implications for the date of the latter, pushing it back into the early second
century B.C.E. Unfortunately, the reference in Jub 4:23 is vague enough to leave
considerable doubt, and the matter must remain undecided. Nevertheless, any serious

113
Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 77-79. Cf. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies, 212-13.
114
VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, vi.
115
See B. Z. Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness
(Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983) 41-62; D. Mendels, The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in
Hasmonean Literature (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987) 57-88; C. Werman, The Book of Jubilees and the Qumran
Community, Meghillot 2 (2004) 37-55 [Hebrew]; and idem, Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on
Intermarriage, HTR 90:1 (Jan. 1997) 1-22.
116
VanderKam, Enoch Traditions in Jubilees, 229-51.
117
A similar statement is made in GenAp 2.23.
40
attempt to delineate the relationships between the Genesis Apocryphon, 1 Enoch 106-107,
and Jubilees should keep the statement of Jub 4:23 in mind.

Summary: The Relationship between the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees
Although a majority of scholars accept the priority of Jubilees over the Genesis
Apocryphon, there has been little serious argumentation in defense of this view. The
difficulties inherent in judging such a relationship based primarily on the relative length of
parallel accounts have been broached above. Perhaps the most convincing argument for
Jubilees priority is the dating of the Apocryphons language and manuscript, but this too
leaves ample room for doubt. In sum, the argument for Jubilees priority requires
considerable bolstering in order to be persuasive. Rather than being founded on
demonstration from actual parallels, it has survived largely on vague intuition.
It may not be coincidental that some who have argued for the opposite relationship
i.e. that Jubilees depends on the Apocryphon believe Jubilees to be a product of the
Qumran sect, and therefore significantly later than the early to mid second century B.C.E.
date espoused by most scholars. This assumption clears the way for assigning the
Apocryphon priority, and such priority, in turn, affirms a later date for Jubilees. Despite this
questionable congruence of interests, scholars from this camp hold the advantage of having
argued seriously for their position, and their opinions should be granted due consideration.
It indeed appears that 1QapGen 12 and 17 contain more compressed forms of their
respective stories than Jub 6-7 and 9, turning the already questionable argument of Del
Medico and Fitzmyer on its head. Werman, however, does not take full account of the
impressive differences that obtain for each of these parallels. Such differences might be
better used to support the common source theory of Garca Martnez and others. The
41
matter of comparative chronologies in the Abram account is intriguing, but here too a final
judgment seems premature in the absence of corroborating evidence.
While the current evidence appears to point toward the priority of the Apocryphon
or to the common source theory, it seems best to keep an open mind in studying the existing
parallels and newly published material from the Apocryphon. As with 1 Enoch, the matter
remains unsettled.

Review: Dating the Genesis Apocryphon
Based on the above survey it is evident that the date a particular scholar assigns to
the Apocryphon is closely bound up with her/his opinion of its relationship to 1 Enoch
and/or Jubilees. Those who believe the scroll to be later than these two works tend to
embrace Kutschers and Fitzmyers dating of its language to the first century B.C.E ( first
century C.E.).
118
In their estimation, this is the period of the scrolls composition.
119

Those who ascribe priority to the Genesis Apocryphon have either ignored the issue
of language, assumed that the scrolls language evolved with copying, or disputed the first
century B.C.E. dating of Kutscher and Fitzmyer. While an estimated date of composition is
not always given by these scholars, the late third to early second century B.C.E. might be
expected, unless a later date of Jubilees is espoused, in which case the date of the
Apocryphon may also shift accordingly. Although not extensively dealt with in this study, it

118
Avigad and Yadin dated our copy of the scroll between the late first century B.C. and middle first
century A.D. on paleographic grounds. This was based primarily on comparisons with 1QM (the War Scroll).
Fitzmyer (2004, 25-6) observed that their opinion was confirmed by J. T. Milik, F. M. Cross, and S. A.
Birnbaum. This range subsequently gained affirmation from radiocarbon dating. See G. Bonnai et al.,
Radiocarbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Atiqot 20 (July 1991) 27-32. The data are also published in G.
Bonnai et al., Radiocarbon dating of Fourteen Dead Sea Scrolls, Radiocarbon 34/3 (1992) 843-49.
119
Exceptions are Zeitlin and Del Medico, who believe the scroll to be significantly later than all other
commentators do (Medieval and second century C.E. respectively).
42
is evident that the language of the scroll is an important component of this debate, and an
area ripe for reassessment.
Those who have understood the Apocryphon to be independent of 1 Enoch and/or
Jubilees i.e. based on a common Book of Noah have not commented on the scrolls
date. One gains the impression, however, that they hold the Apocryphon to be the earlier
(or at least more accurate) representative of the Noah book, in which case an early second
century B.C.E. date might be expected. At present, it is difficult to say with confidence
which of the above views is correct, although a very broad period between the late third
century and early first century B.C.E. is relatively certain.

1.2.4.2. Other Dead Sea Scrolls
Scholars have linked several other manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls to the
Genesis Apocryphon, particularly in connection with the story of Noahs spectacular birth in
GenAp 2. While not containing exact literary parallels, these texts have often been discussed
as derivations from a source or tradition also underlying the Apocryphon.
120


1.2.4.2.1. 1Q19 (1Q Livre de No)
121

Fragment 3 of this Hebrew text recounts an astounding birth, witnessed by Noahs
father Lamech. Avigad and Yadin were the first to suggest a mutual relationship between
this fragment, 1QapGen 1-5, and 1 En 106-107. J. T. Milik went on to specify that
fragments of 1Q19 may be a Hebrew parallel to the Aramaic account in 1QapGen. In his

120
A summary of these sources is provided by F. Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 1-44.
121
Published by J. T. Milik in DJD I (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955) 84-85.
43
opinion, both are summaries of the lost Book of Noah, which is further abridged in 1 En 106-
107.
122
This theory has been accepted by F. Garca Martnez and J. Fitzmyer. While the
remaining text of 1Q19 3 is scanty enough to leave questions regarding its literary proximity
to the Genesis Apocryphon, it is probable that it recounts the same general story.
123

1.2.4.2.2. 4Q534 (4Q Mess ar; 4Q Naissance de No

a
ar)
124

This incomplete Aramaic text recounts the birth, childhood, and physical
characteristics of an astounding youth, hailed as the Elect of God ( ). Among
other things, this individual is said to study the three books (1 i 5), possess counsel and
prudence (1 i 7), come to know the mysteries of humanity and all living things (1 i 8), and
have plans that will last forever (1 i 9). He is clearly an important figure for the texts
authorizing community. In the following column, significant events are mentioned,
including objects being destroyed (1 ii 13), waters ceasing (1 ii 14), and a subsequent building
project (1 ii 15). The subjects activity is even compared with that of the Watchers (1 ii 15),
which could be taken either positively or negatively.
125
Presumably, the fantastic child and
these events are linked to one another.

122
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 55.
123
F. Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 42; Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 258.
124
The most recent and thorough publication is that of E. Puech, 534. 4QNaissance de No
a
ar,
DJD 31 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001) 129-52. Some earlier publications providing text and translation are J.
Starcky, Un texte messianique aramen de la grotte 4 de Qumrn, Ecole des langues orientales anciennes de lInstitut
Catholique de Paris: Mmorial du cinquantienaire 1914-1964 (Travaux de lInstitut Catholique de Paris 10; Paris:
Bloud et Gay, 1964) 51-66; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Elect of God Text from Qumran Cave IV, CBQ 27
(1965) 348-72; and Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 1-44.
125
E.g., in Jub 4:15 they are presented positively, but in Jub 5 (cf. 1 En 6-11) negatively.
44
J. Starcky first took the child of 4Q534 to be the future, Davidic messiah,
126
with
similar views intermittently espoused by A. Dupont-Sommer, J. Carmignac, I. D. Amusin,
M. Delcor, and J. Zimmermann.
127
However, it did not take long for others to contest that
the youth was, in fact, Noah. Fitzmyer first noted that [i]n the Intertestamental Literature
there is a certain fascination with the birth of Noah, leading him to wonder whether we
are not really dealing with another text belonging to the Noah literature of late Judaism.
128

Fitzmyers speculative identification was subsequently adopted by A. Caquot, P. Grelot, J. T.
Milik, F. Garca Martnez, E. Puech, and even a repentant Starcky.
129
Alternative suggestions
for the child included Enoch (A. Caquot), and Melchizedek (J. C. Greenfield).
130
J. Davila
has preferred to leave the central character anonymous, stressing instead the texts
prototypical relationship with Merkavah mysticism.
131

Those believing the Elect of God in 4Q534 to be Noah have generally drawn a
connection with the beginning columns of the Genesis Apocryphon, supposing that the two
reflect a common tradition venerating Noahs spectacular birth. Puechs statement is typical:
Linsistance sur les circonstances de la naissance dans cet ouvrage semble correspondre
son aspect quasi-miraculeux dans dautres texts (1 Hnoch 106, 1QApGn I-V et 1Q19 3).
132

Despite this and like statements, however, it remains very uncertain whether the child of

126
Starcky, Un texte messianique, 59, 66.
127
See E. Puech, 534-536. 4QNaissance de No
a-c
ar: Introduction, DJD 31 (Oxford: Clarendon,
2001) 117-27 [esp. 117].
128
Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Elect of God Text, 371.
129
See E. Puech, 534-536. 4QNaissance de No
a-c
ar: Introduction, 118-20.
130
Ibid.
131
J. R. Davila, 4QMess ar (4Q534) and Merkavah Mysticism, DSD 5 (1998) 367-81.
132
534-536. 4QNaissance de No
a-c
ar: Introduction, 124. Also see Fitzmyer (The Genesis
Apocryphon, 260), who includes it in his latest appendix of texts related to the Genesis Apocryphon.
45
4Q534 actually refers to Noah. The gist of the text does compare favorably with 1QapGen
2-5.27, where Enoch lectures at surprising length (nearly three columns) about young Noah.
Although this speech is mostly lost, in 5.10-13 we find mention of Noahs remarkable
physical traits. The explicit connection of Noah to three books in the Samaritan Asatir,
which appears to contain some early Jewish interpretive traditions, is another interesting
coincidence.
133
Still, the very best we can say presently is that 4Q534 might be speaking about
Noah. Even if so, there is no proof of any direct link between 4Q534 and the Apocryphon.
At times two other texts 4Q186 and 4Q561 have been considered different copies of the
same work, but there is very little evidence to support this claim.
134


1.2.4.2.3. 4Q535-536 (4Q Naissance de No
b-c
ar)
In 1978, J. T. Milik listed two other fragmentary texts from Qumran 4Q535 and
536 alongside 4Q534.
135
In 1992, he included all three works under the rubric Naissance
de No.
136
The links between these three manuscripts has been confirmed by E. Puech,
who lists two places where word for word correspondence occurs.
137
While 4Q536 2 ii 11
contains the words and he will not die in the days of evil, which could be said of Noah,
there is very little in these manuscripts to certify that Noah is the subject. Again, it is

133
In the Asatir, Noah studies the three Books of Creation for seven years: the Book of Signs, the
Book of Astrology, and the Book of Wars (3:9). See M. Gaster, The Asatir: The Samaritan Book of the Secrets of
Moses, (Oriental Translation Fund New Series, Vol. 26; London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1927) 214 [11 () of
Hebrew text].
134
See Puech 534-536. 4QNaissance de No
a-c
ar: Introduction, 121.
135
J. T. Milik, crits pressniens de Qumrn: dHnoch Amram, Qumrn. Sa pit, sa thologie et son
milieu, etudes prsentes par M. Delcor (BETL 46; Paris et Gembloux, 1978) 94.
136
J. T. Milik, Le modles aramens du Livre dEsther en la grotte 4 de Qumrn, Mmorial Jean
Starcky, vol. 2 (RevQ 15; 1992) 357, 363-64. Cf. Puech 534-536. 4QNaissance de No
a-c
ar: Introduction,
121-22, for more information.
137
For Puechs text and commentary see DJD XXXI (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001) 153-170.
46
uncertain whether there is a direct connection between these compositions and the
Apocryphon.

1.2.4.2.4. 6Q8
M. Baillet and F. Garca Martnez argued that this fragmentary Aramaic papyrus
contains references to an extraordinary birth, Noahs father-in-law Barakiel, and Mount
Lubar all of which are present in various Noachic sections of 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and/or
the Genesis Apocryphon.
138
In the second edition of his commentary, J. Fitzmyer echoed
the possibility that this apocryphe de la Gense was related to the birth of Noah in the
Genesis Apocryphon. However, he apparently retracts this opinion in his recent, third
edition.
139
L. Stuckenbruck, arguing in defense of Miliks hypothesis that 6Q8 belongs
instead to the Enochic Book of Giants, asserts that any reference to a miraculous birth is
unlikely, and that the Baraqel of 6Q8 1:5 is probably not the father-in-law of Noah
mentioned in Jub 4:28.
140
Garca Martnez eventually sided with Miliks identification as
well.
141
Presently, the scholarly tide has turned toward identifying this scroll as a part of the
Book of Giants, and a link to Noahs birth appears very unlikely.




138
Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 43; DJD III (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962) 117.
139
He includes the fragments in his Appendix 1: Related Literature in the second edition (1971;
187-92), but not the third (2004; 258-60).
140
L. T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran (TSAJ 63; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 196-
213. Cf. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 300-301.
141
F. Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 101-102.
47
1.2.4.3. Additional Texts
Connections between the Genesis Apocryphon and other ancient Jewish exegetical
texts have occasionally been suggested, although these are generally weaker than the parallels
listed above. It is not my intention to give a detailed analysis of proposed connections with
these texts, but simply to raise awareness of the broader spectrum of Jewish literature in
which the Apocryphon has been discussed.

1.2.4.3.1. Other Rewritten Biblical Works
Other examples of rewritten biblical texts, such as Josephus Jewish Antiquities,
Pseudo-Philos Biblical Antiquities, the Samaritan Asatir, and Sepher ha-Yashar provide logical
points of comparison for the Genesis Apocryphon. The most in-depth comparison of these
texts to date is Vermes study of Abrahams life according to a number of the above works
(what he termed a retrogressive historical study), and then according to the Apocryphon (a
progressive historical study).
142
Throughout his analysis Vermes also made copious
reference to rabbinic literature, the targums, and various other works of the period. In
conclusion, he offered four areas through which to evaluate the relationships between the
Genesis Apocryphon and other Jewish works: 1) interpretations proper to Genesis
Apocryphon; 2) disagreement in exegesis; 3) partial agreement in exegesis; and 4) identical
exegesis. While he states that the last category is frequent and characteristic, and is
represented on all levels, most of his examples pertain to individual details rather than large
blocks of narrative.
143
These parallels attest to a common Jewish exegetical milieu, in which

142
Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 67-126.
143
Ibid, 123. Some of his examples are that Sarah was wise (Philo), Abraham wept and prayed after
Sarahs abduction (Tanhuma, Sefer ha-Yashar), royal presents were given to Abraham after the return of Sarah,
48
biblical issues and inconsistencies are handled in similar ways across a spectrum of texts.
Yet, never do these details suggest a close connection or dependent relationship with the
Apocryphon in the way that 1 Enoch and Jubilees do. One comes away from this group of
texts with a sense that their similarities with the Apocryphon stem from a common genre
and exegetical approach to the Bible rather than a genetic kinship. Fitzmyer has also
provided many pertinent references to the above works, among others, in his commentary.

1.2.4.3.2. Rabbinic Midrashim and the Targumim
Rabbinic midrashic works, such as Genesis Rabbah, Tanhumah, Yalkut Shimoni, or the
Tannaitic Midrashim, have also been sporadically mentioned alongside the Apocryphon.
These are typically placed alongside the various Aramaic Targumim, especially Pseudo-
Jonathan and Targum Yerushalmi. The studies of G. Sarfatti and M. R. Lehmann remain the
most comprehensive comparisons available.
144
Although these texts and the Apocryphon
often express a shared interest in specific exegetical issues, rarely do they provide the same
solutions to these questions. Even the closest connections between the Apocryphon and
these texts are distant compared to the parallels with 1 Enoch and Jubilees.
145

A tenuous relationship between the rabbinic and targumic works and the so-called
outside books ( ; somewhat analogous to our concept of Pseudepigrapha

Hagar was a gift of Pharaoh (Genesis Rabbah, Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, Sefer ha-Yashar), and Salem is Jerusalem
(targums, etc.).
144
See G. Sarfatti, Notes on the Genesis Apocryphon, Tarbiz 28 (1958-59) 258 [Hebrew]; idem,
An addition to Notes on the Genesis Apocryphon, Tarbiz 29 (1959-60) 192 [Hebrew]; and M. R. Lehmann,
1Q Genesis Apocryphon in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim, RevQ 1 (1958-59) 251.
145
Sarfatti (following Theodor) has observed that the rabbis tend to distance themselves from
exaltation of Enoch and Noah, who are considered of mixed character. G. Sarfatti, Notes on the Genesis
Apocryphon, Tarbiz 28 (1958-59) 258 [Hebrew].
49
and Apocrypha), to which Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and perhaps the Genesis Apocryphon,
belonged should come as no surprise. The rabbis often distanced themselves from the these
writings and shied away from drawing on them in standard rabbinic biblical interpretation.
146

As with the texts mentioned in the preceding section, the relationships here belong primarily
on the level of general exegetical phenomena, and not direct literary parallels. Many of the
parallels suggested in this category could be arrived at independently by different exegetes.
147







146
Ibid. Sarfatti writes, The question and was he [i.e. Lamech] a prophet? was a rhetorical question,
whose answer was, No. Neither Lamech, nor his ancestor Enoch, were prophets, so argues the midrash, and
this argument fits with the opinion of all the ancient midrashim, which did not want to accord Lamech the
highly privileged status in keeping with that tradition which was gathered in the apocryphal books and later
legends (see, for example, Genesis Rabbah 25:1 and the comments there of Theodor). [translation mine]
147
An example, cited by Lehmann (1958, 257), is Abrams similar statements in GenAp 19.10 and
Tanhuma that Egypt is well-stocked with food. This can be derived by a simple syllogism: 1.) there is a famine
in Canaan; 2.) Abram and Sarai make for Egypt; 3.) there must be food in Egypt. While it is plain that both
texts reacted to the same exegetical issue, there is no reason to suppose that the two interpretations are related
in a linear way. This particular example may also be influenced by the Joseph story (Gen 41:55-42:1), which
recounts a similar situation.
50



CHAPTER 2
TEXT, TRANSLATION, AND NOTES

2.1. Introduction to The Present Edition

2.1.1. History and Previous Editions
Of the cache of scrolls discovered in Cave One the Genesis Apocryphon was the
most badly damaged.
148
Because of this, the publication history of the scroll is lengthy and
interesting, and deserves brief summary here. The following survey covers only major
developments in publication of the Aramaic text (i.e. transcription), and does not deal with
the numerous translations available. Minor contributions, such as new readings suggested in
book reviews or articles, will be mentioned only where appropriate.
149


2.1.1.1. Pre-publication History
The Genesis Apocryphon was among the initial cache of seven scrolls found by a
member of the Taamireh Bedouin tribe near the Dead Sea. It was one of the four

148
For an early description see J. C. Trever, Preliminary Observations on the Jerusalem Scrolls,
BASOR 111, 14-15.
149
Many such contributions, however, are referenced in the notes accompanying the text.
51
manuscripts purchased from the Bedouin by Mar Athanasius Yeshue Samuel, the Syrian
Metropolitan of Jerusalem, for approximately two hundred and fifty U. S. dollars.
150

In late February, 1948, the Metropolitans scrolls were wrapped in an Arabic
newspaper, placed in a leather briefcase, and brought by a Syrian Orthodox monk and his
brother from St. Marks Monastery, in the Armenian Quarter of the Old City, to the
American School of Oriental Research, outside Herods Gate.
151
Here, they were inspected
and photographed by John Trever and William Brownlee, who first recognized the
significance of the find. Around this time a small leather fragment with disintegrated
script, later called the Trever fragment, separated from the Fourth Scroll and was
photographed by Trever. This fragment provided the first hints that the scroll was written
in Aramaic, rather than Hebrew.
152
Another small piece of the scrolls outer layer was soon
after removed by Trever, but no positive identification of its contents could be made.
153
The
three Hebrew scrolls were identified over the following weeks, but the leather of the Fourth
Scroll was so brittle and bonded together that a decision was made to suspend further study
until it could be unrolled by experts under the proper conditions.
Due to the tension in war-ravaged Jerusalem, the scrolls were temporarily moved by
Mar Samuel to a bank vault in Beirut, and, in early 1949, arrived in New Jersey in Samuels

150
A lively autobiographical account of the purchase and resale of the four scrolls to the State of
Israel may be found in A. Y. Samuel, Treasure of Qumran: My Story of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1968) 141-201. The other three scrolls were sold to E. L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
151
The school is still under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), but is
now named the Albright Institute of Archeological Research. The Albright Institute is, appropriately, where
the present text was prepared.
152
For information on the fragment see J. C. Trever, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Personal Account (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977 [2
nd
ed.]) 26, 43, 52, 57, 65.
153
Trever, Preliminary Observations, 14-16.
52
own possession. In April of that year, a much larger leaf from the outside of the scroll was
removed by Trever, revealing enough text (26 partial lines) for him to conclude that it
contained the previously lost Book of Lamech, a title adopted in most early publications
dealing with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
154
This leaf (later designated col. 2) and its transcription
were supposed to be published in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, but
never were.
In the January 30, 1950 issue of Time Magazine it was announced that the Fourth
Scroll, whose cracked leather surface looks like a dried cigar, would travel to the Fogg
Museum of Art at Harvard University in order to be opened and read. The magazine
quipped that the scroll would be on the operating table for six months, but these plans
also never materialized. Due to ongoing intrigue over the provenance and ownership of the
scrolls, the Fogg Museum made financial demands deemed unacceptable by Mar Samuel.
On June 1, 1954, frustrated by the growing controversy surrounding the scrolls and
the dire plight of his parishioners in Jerusalem, Mar Samuel finally placed an advertisement
in the Wall Street Journal.
155
The now famous first lines read: Miscellaneous For Sale: THE
FOUR DEAD SEA SCROLLS. All four scrolls were soon purchased by the State of Israel
and brought to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem through the arrangement of Yigael
Yadin and under the guise of a Chemical Bank and Trust Company official. The cost was

154
Trever, Identification of the Aramaic Fourth Scroll, 8-10. Trever notes, however, that Noah is
the real hero of the story.
155
This is according to Mar Samuel (Treaure of Qumran, 173-201). A less flattering account is given in
Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 7.
53
$250,000.
156
Thus, the Genesis Apocryphon, yet unrolled, had traveled twice across the
Atlantic Ocean only to finally rest approximately 14 miles from the site of its discovery.
157


2.1.1.2. Milik (Mil) 1955
In time more fragments were excavated from the cave that produced the first seven
scrolls.
158
These were published by Oxford University as the first volume in a series
dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other finds from the Judean Desert.
159
Included in
this volume were eight small fragments, belonging to the fourth scroll, which were bought
from a Bethlehem antiquities dealer nicknamed Kando and edited by J. T. Milik.
160
Milik
named the work represented by these fragments Apocalypse de Lamech, based upon Trevers
identification, and gave it the publication number 20, which eventuated in the entire Genesis
Apocryphon being designated 1Q20 by Joseph Fitzmyer.
Milik was only moderately successful in reading these badly deteriorated fragments,
but his effort did add some information to the content of the scroll.




156
Ironically, $150,000 of this amount was donated by the Jewish philanthropist D. Samuel
Gottesman, who held family connections to the ASOR, Jerusalem, where the scrolls were first inspected by
Trever and Burrows (personal communication with Dr. S. Gitin).
157
The scroll is currently stored in the vault at the Shrine of the Book (at the Israel Museum) in
Jerusalem.
158
See O. R. Sellers, Excavation of the Manuscript Cave at Ain Fashkha, BASOR 114, 5-8.
159
DJD I: Qumran Cave I (eds D. Barthlemy and J.T. Milik; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955).
160
Ibid, 4. It is unclear whether the Bedouin returned to the cave and excavated the fragments, or
whether they had simply fallen off the scroll while in Kandos possession (Kando was one of Mar Samuels
parishioners, and had initially served as mediator between the Metropolitan and the Bedouin).
54
2.1.1.3. Avigad and Yadin (AY) 1956
Once at the Hebrew University, the task of unrolling the fourth scroll was entrusted
to J. Biberkraut, whose wife also took the earliest photographs of the text as it was being
opened. Biberkraut did a masterful job, facilitating an initial publication by Nahman Avigad
and Yigael Yadin in 1956. In their preface, the authors specified that this was a preliminary
survey, dealing mainly with the last three columns which are very well preserved.
161

Elsewhere, they mentioned an upcoming final publication,
162
which never came to fruition.
Avigad and Yadins edition includes plates, transcription, and translation (Hebrew
and English) of cols. 2 and 19-22. Diacritical marks of either a single or double dash over
the letter indicate uncertainty in readings. Their transcription was meticulously executed,
and has stood up surprisingly well against subsequent re-readings and advances in
photographic technology. The major limitation of this edition, of course, was that it
presented only 5 of the known 22 columns.
163
Brief descriptions of the unpublished
columns were, nonetheless, provided, and at times these included excerpts of easily readable
text. A major contribution of Avigad and Yadin was their observation that the material
concerning Lamech constitutes but a small part of the narrative, and that the scroll included
stories about a number of the patriarchs of Genesis, stretching from Enoch to Abram. In
addition, several intriguing parallels with the books of 1 Enoch and Jubilees were identified.
All of this, along with its obvious dependence on the biblical book of Genesis, led Avigad
and Yadin to rename the text A Genesis Apocryphon ( in Modern Hebrew).

161
Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 8.
162
Ibid, 13.
163
There are now thought to be 23. Cf. below.
55
Several valuable corrections or alternate readings were provided by E. Kutscher (Kut)
164
and
H. Ginsberg (Gin)
165
in response to this edition, and it was at this time that a definite article
was added to the scrolls title.
In 1984, Yadin unexpectedly died of a heart attack, leaving the work of final
publication to Avigad alone. Shortly thereafter (1988), Avigad handed over the
responsibility for publication of the unpublished columns to the Israeli scholars Jonas
Greenfield and Elisha Qimron.

2.1.1.4. Fitzmyer 1966
In 1966, Joseph Fitzmyer published a commentary on the Genesis Apocryphon,
focusing largely on the language and exegetical traditions of the available text.
166
It included
a transcription and English translation based primarily on the editio princeps, although the
excerpts from the unpublished columns, mentioned by Avigad and Yadin only in their
commentary section, were incorporated by Fitzmyer into the body of his text (i.e. small
portions of cols. 1, 3, 5-7, 10-12 and 16-17). In addition, he included a number of
emendations that had been suggested by subsequent reviewers, and offered fuller
restorations in some places. The fragments published by Milik as 1Q20 were placed prior to
col. 1, since they clearly came from the outside layer of the scroll, but Fitzmyer was not able
to place them in any more specific context than this. Unfortunately, no diacritical marks
were used to indicate the certainty of readings. It is clear that Fitzmyers primary purpose

164
E. Y. Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study, Aspects of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierolosymitana 4; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1958) 1-35.
165
H. L. Ginsberg, Notes on Some Old Aramaic Texts, JNES 18 (1959) 143-49 [esp. 145-48].
166
J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary (Biblica et Orientalia 18;
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966).
56
was not to produce a new edition of the text, but simply to re-present and analyze what was
already at his disposal.

2.1.1.5. Fitzmyer 1971
Fitzmyer produced a second, revised edition of his commentary in 1971.
167
The
revisions pertained almost solely to the introduction and commentary, although a few
changes were also made in the transcription, translation, and reconstruction based upon
reviews such as that of Ginsberg (Gin
2
).
168
Muraoka (Mu
1
) followed this edition with a
significant discussion of the scrolls syntax and morphology, but few new readings were
offered.
169
Again, no diacritical marks were used.

2.1.1.6. Jongeling, Labuschagne, and van der Woude (J) 1976
The transcription and English translation of Bastiaan Jongeling, Casper Labuschagne
and Adam van der Woude produced in Groningen, the Netherlands covers the columns first
published by Avigad and Yadin (i.e. 2 and 19-22; without the other excerpts or 1Q20).
170

While agreeing largely with the editions of Avigad-Yadin and Fitzmyer, the editors must be
commended for offering fresh readings at certain points, based on the photographic plates
available in Avigad and Yadins edition. Less commendable is the lack of diacritical marks,

167
J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary (Biblica et Orientalia 18A;
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971).
168
Ginsberg, Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon (1966), Theological Studies 28 (1967) 574-
77.
169
Muraoka, Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon, RevQ 8 (1972-75) 7-51.
170
Aramaic Texts from Qumran (ed. B. Jongeling, C. J. Labuschange, and A. S. van der Woude; Semitic
Study Series 4; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 77-119.
57
although the authors indicate that this is meant only as a study edition. An important review
is that of Puech (Pu), who offered several new readings.
171


2.1.1.7. Beyer (B
1/2
) 1984/1994
In 1984, Klaus Beyer produced a transcription and German translation of the
Genesis Apocryphon as part of his large collection of Aramaic texts from the Dead Sea.
172

His edition differs in several respects from its predecessors. First, Beyer uses a single,
diacritical sign (a circlet) for uncertain letters. This is a welcome addition and noteworthy
improvement over Fitzmyer and Jongeling-Labuschagne-van der Woude. Second, based on
his many deviations from earlier editions, it is clear that Beyer undertook an entirely fresh
reading of the available photographs. A number of his new proposals are incorrect, but this
is partially offset by those instances where a correct reading is offered, or attention is called
to a previously unnoticed textual issue. Like Fitzmyer, Beyer incorporated the additional
excerpts from Avigad and Yadins commentary and Miliks 1Q20 fragments into his text,
although this was done in an extremely confusing manner.
173
In a 1994 Ergnzungsband,
Beyer updated a few readings in the texts early columns and incorporated col. 12, which had
by then been published by Greenfield and Qimron (see below). He also took into account
Muraokas second study on the scroll (Mu
2
).
174



171
RevQ 9 (1977-78) 589-91.
172
K. Beyer, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palstina, dem Testament Levis aus
der Kairo Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 165-
86 [Ergnzungsband (1994) 68-70].
173
Particularly in his cols. 0-1. Cf. the textual notes to these columns.
174
Muraoka, Further Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon,RevQ 16 (1993) 39-48.
58
2.1.1.8. Wise and Zuckerman - 1991
In the early 1990s Michael Wise and Bruce Zuckerman endeavored to arrange the
eight fragments of 1Q20 and the Trever Fragment into a more coherent order.
175
The result
was a new reconstruction that has gained general acceptance by subsequent scholars working
on the scroll, and will be followed in this edition. In their reconstruction, a good deal more
of what are now called cols. 0 and 1 may be read, with Miliks 1Q20 mainly comprising parts
of col. 0, and the Trever Fragment being placed in the lower portion of col. 1.

2.1.1.9. Qimron (Qim
1/2
) 1992/1999
In 1992, Elisha Qimron published an article outlining a plan to complete the
protracted publication of the remaining columns of the Genesis Apocryphon, which he and
Greenfield had inherited from Avigad.
176
After a brief survey of previous editions, he offers
eighteen useful textual notes, including some new readings, in cols. 2 and 19-22. These are
presented as a sample of what the new edition will contain. In a 1999 article, following the
untimely death of Professor Greenfield, Qimron reiterated these plans. The work was now
to be completed with the help of a newly organized team of experts, including Matthew
Morgenstern, Daniel Sivan, Gregory Bearman and Sheila Spiro.
177
This later article also
includes a few new textual suggestions.

175
Unfortunately, their work has been published only in newsletters that are rather difficult to obtain
(they are not, so far as I can tell, available on the internet). See M. Lundberg and B. Zuckerman, New
Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave One, CAL-News 12 (1996) 1-5. A photograph of the new
arrangement may be found in B. Zuckerman and M. Lundberg, Ancient Texts and Modern Technology: The
West Semitic Research Project of the University of Southern California, AJS Perspectives (Fall/Winter 2002) 14.
A drawing of col. 0 (1Q20) by Zuckerman is included in Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 115.
176
E. Qimron, Towards a New Edition of the Genesis Apocryphon, JSP 10 (1992) 11-18.
177
E. Qimron, Toward a New Edition of 1QGenesis Apocryphon, The Provo International Conference on the
Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (eds D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich; STDJ
59

2.1.1.10. Greenfield and Qimron (GQ) 1992
The first major advance since Avigad and Yadin came in 1992, with the publication
of col. 12 by Jonas Greenfield and Qimron.
178
Trailing the editio princeps by over 35 years, the
authors provided a transcription with diacritical dots and circlets to indicate the certainty of
readings, as well as an English translation. Textual notes, focused mainly on grammatical
and lexical issues, accompanied the text. This article was intended as the first in a series
dedicated to presenting the scrolls unpublished columns. Pending the publication of this
new material, a comprehensive, revised, and annotated edition of the text was to be issued.
Unfortunately, the untimely death of Greenfield in the spring of 1995 slowed this process,
and a new team including M. Morgenstern and D. Sivan was formed by Qimron to complete
the task.

2.1.1.11. Morgenstern, Qimron, and Sivan (MQS) 1995
The remainder of the unpublished columns appeared in 1995, although only in
preliminary form.
179
Following a brief discussion of content, grammar and vocabulary, a
transcription and partial English translation were provided for the readable portions of cols.
1, 3, 4-8, 10-11 and 13-17. In general, the readings presented are reliable, although there are
places where improvements should be made and mistakes emended. Modeled on the

30; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 107-109. The paper, although published in 1999, was given shortly before the
publication of the outstanding columns in 1995.
178
J. C. Greenfield and E. Qimron, The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII, Studies in Qumran Aramaic
(Abr-NahrainSup 3, 1992) 70-77.
179
M. Morgenstern, E. Qimron, and D. Sivan, The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of the Genesis
Apocryphon, Abr-Nahrain 33 (1995) 30-54 [with an appendix by G. Bearman and S. Spiro].
60
publication of Greenfield and Qimron, diacritical dots and circlets were employed, as well as
a supralinear dash to indicate ambiguity between the similar letters yod and vav. In contrast to
the publication of col. 12, however, the authors did not include textual notes. Presumably,
this was due to their admirable desire to publish the text as quickly as possible, since it was
originally intended that a more complete edition would follow. It now appears that these
plans have been abandoned.
180


2.1.1.12. Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar (GMT) 1997
The most widely available compilation of texts from Qumran is undoubtedly
Florentino Garca Martnez and Eibert Tigchelaars 1996 Study Edition, which provides
transcriptions and English translations of the non-biblical scrolls and fragments.
181
The
project was to include a complete reevaluation of the available photographs for each text.
For most of the Genesis Apocryphon, however, it appears that this was not done, probably
due to difficulties obtaining photos for much of the text. Rather, the authors appear to have
drawn heavily upon their academic forebears in Groningen (Jongeling, Labuschagne and van
der Woude) for the initially published columns, and Greenfield, Qimron, Morgenstern, and
Sivan for the more recently published material. Miliks 1Q20 was presented apart from the
text of the Genesis Apocryphon, although the Trever Fragment was incorporated into col.

180
In 1996, M. Morgenstern completed his (unpublished) M.A. thesis at the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem. The thesis is published in Hebrew, but bears the same name as the 1995 article published along
with Qimron and Sivan ( ). In it, a text nearly identical to
that of the article is presented (although the copy at the National and University Library at the Givat Ram
campus of the university contains multiple hand-written corrections by Morgenstern), along with much helpful
material regarding the grammar and vocabulary of these new columns. Included is a concordance.
181
F. Garca Martnez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill,
1997-98) 1:28-49.
61
1.
182
Garca Martnez and Tigchelaars text contributes little in the way of novel readings and
omits freely where there are not extended sections of coherent text. As such, this is not the
best edition for those wishing seriously to investigate the Genesis Apocryphon (as the
editors themselves admit).
183
Still, it is apparent that they have weighed the various textual
options while compiling their transcription, and for this reason they are included in my
textual notes. Unfortunately, they do not employ diacritical marks.

2.1.1.13. Fitzmyer (F) 2004
A third edition of Fitzmyers now standard commentary was issued in 2004.
184
Its
main contribution, of course, was the inclusion of the newly available columns published by
Greenfield, Qimron, Morgenstern, and Sivan. It also incorporated cols. 0-1 as reconstructed
by Wise and Zuckerman. The new portions of text were reproduced without significant
revision, to the point of perpetuating a number of mistakes from previous editions. Again,
this may be partially attributed to the fact that there was no easily accessible set of
photographs for the more recently published columns. The revised edition also contains
commentary on the new material, although it is generally of a less thorough nature than the
comments brought over from previous editions. One step forward is the employment of a
single, diacritical dot to mark uncertain letters, although these are simply imported from the
editions on which this text relies. Fitzmyer appears to have done little fresh paleographic
work, especially on the newer material, but has attended mainly to the presentation of a

182
See ibid, 26-7, for 1Q20.
183
Ibid, ix.
184
J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary (Biblica et Orientalia
18/B; Roma: Editrice Pontifico Instituto Biblico [Pontifical Biblical Institute Press], 2004).
62
continuous text and comprehensive commentary. This is no slight contribution, and to date
his text remains the best available. In the following textual notes I incorporate only the text
from the third edition, since it seems best to use his most recent judgments on the matter.
This has also kept the notes from becoming unwieldy.

2.1.1.14. Beyer (B
3
) 2004
Recently, Beyer has added a Band 2 to his Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer.
185
In it,
he re-presents and updates some of his text of the Genesis Apocryphon in light of the
publications of Greenfield, Qimron, Morgenstern, Sivan, and others. Included are parts of
cols. 1, 3-8, 10-17 and 19, again with a single, diacritical circlet for uncertain characters. The
nature of Beyers transcription and German translation are similar to that of his earlier
volumes creative, but erratic. Due to the uneven, and sometimes contradictory, character
of the portions of text included in each of Beyers volumes (in contrast to Fitzmyer), all three
are included in the textual notes.

2.1.1.15. Abegg and Wise (AW) 2005
Martin Abegg and Michael Wises transcription and English translation of the
Genesis Apocryphon is the most recent complete edition of the text.
186
Wise was
responsible for transcribing cols. 0-1, and Abegg for the remainder of the scroll. Happily,
they have employed diacritical dots and circlets throughout. Abegg notes that for cols. 2, 12

185
K. Beyer, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palstina, dem Testament Levis aus
der Kairo Genisa, der Fastenrolle un den alten talmudischen Zitanen: Band 2 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2004) 89-101.
186
M. Abegg and M. Wise, 1Q20 (1QapGen ar), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Part 3. Parabiblical Texts
(ed. D. W. Parry and E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 2-35.
63
and 19-22 he relied mainly on Garcia-Martinez and Tigchelaar, while cols. 3-8, 10-11 and 13-
17 are based on Morgenstern, Qimron, and Sivan. The entire translation is that of Wise.
This is perhaps the least reliable edition of the scroll, especially in the early portions of the
text and its translation. One is frequently impressed that originality is being sought over
correctness, while previous mistakes are frequently followed and added to. In addition, the
spacing of the transcription is often misleading.

2.1.1.16. Other Commentators
Occasionally, I have drawn upon the textual suggestions of various scholars who
have dealt in some way with the Genesis Apocryphon, but were unmentioned in the
preceding survey. These are incorporated into my textual notes and catalogued below in the
list of abbreviations.

2.1.2. The Present Edition

2.1.2.1.The Need for a New Edition
With so many editions available, why is there need for a new one? From the above
survey it is clear that the preliminary editions of Avigad and Yadin, Greenfield and
Qimron, and Morgenstern, Qimron, and Sivan have served as the basis for nearly every
subsequent edition of the Genesis Apocryphon, typically with little revision. This extensive
dependence on each other, rather than a close reading of the manuscript, is the main reason
for my reexamination of the evidence. An exception to such recycling is Beyer, who
frequently suggests original readings. Unfortunately, many of these do not inspire
64
confidence in his text as a whole, leaving one skeptical whether it is an improvement over
the preliminary publications.
For those columns first published by Avigad and Yadin, the far better condition of
the text, numerous reviews, and successive editions have produced what may satisfactorily be
called a final form of the text (keeping in mind, of course, that details can be quibbled
over endlessly). The same is not true, however, for the columns published in the 1990s.
These have been largely overlooked, textually and paleographically speaking, by subsequent
scholarship, and it was only through my perusal of some photographs of these columns (on
the advice of Professor VanderKam) that I realized the need to undertake a comprehensive
rereading of the entire manuscript. This need may be illustrated by one of my first
examinations of a photograph of the Genesis Apocryphon, when I realized that the
beginning of 14.17 could be filled in significantly in relation to the text presented by
Morgenstern, Qimron, and Sivan. Hence, where they read ] [ I see
. Other such improvements are presented in the following text.
There are other, more minor reasons to produce a new transcription of the scroll.
For instance, there is no current edition which lays out, in an easily accessible format, the
various and sundry transcriptional disagreements between all editions now available. It is for
this reason that I include extensive textual notes. In addition, the spacing and relative line
length of the manuscript are not adequately reflected in any of the previous publications,
save that of Avigad and Yadin. I hope to have filled some of these voids in the present
edition.
For the above reasons it seemed unwise to proceed to a study of the scrolls contents
without gaining more confidence about what is written in it. Of course, the badly damaged
nature of the scroll regularly mitigates against this, and I must stress that throughout my
65
work I have been deeply indebted to the scholars listed in the survey above. Any
contributions that my edition may make are merely adornments on the edifice they have
constructed.

2.1.2.2. Spacing
As mentioned above, previous editions have regularly ignored the factors of proper
spacing and line length in relation to the manuscript.
187
Because of this, I have tried to be as
precise as possible regarding the spacing of words and lacunae, as well as the length of lines,
in my transcription. Of course, absolute precision is impossible using a standardized font, so
that at times line length has been slightly adjusted to accommodate the proper spacing of
words or lacunae, and vice versa.

2.1.2.3. Diacritical Marks
I have chosen to use the same diacritical marks employed by the DJD series. This
includes a dot ( ) to indicate that a letter is relatively sure, but partially missing or obscured,
and a circlet ( ), specifying that the letter is significantly missing or obscured, and that the
reading is tentative. Readings of letters with supralinear circlets should, in fact, be viewed as
no more than educated guesses.

2.1.2.4. Reconstruction and Tenuous Readings
My approach to the reconstruction of missing text is conservative, limited mainly to
the completion of phrases and expressions common elsewhere within the scroll. Use of

187
This is less of a problem in Avigad and Yadin, since they include plates alongside their
transcription.
66
brackets indicates both where the leather is completely eaten away and where leather remains
but there is no legible text. This is somewhat unfortunate, but was done to avoid confusion
between parts of the manuscript that were effaced by time and those that were originally left
blank by the scribe. The latter are indicated by the Latin word vacat.
When one stares at a manuscript as long as an edition such as this requires, especially
one as fragmentary and damaged as the Genesis Apocryphon, it becomes easy to imagine
readings based on very little physical evidence. This makes it most difficult to decide when
to include a less than certain reading. I have endeavored to tread the fine line between
speculation and what I consider a valid suggestion to the best of my ability. Still, I must
stress that letters with diacritical circlets are merely suggestive, and not authoritative,
readings. It is my great hope that these readings will be tested by other scholars who take
recourse to the photographs and manuscript. Eric Turner, speaking about the practice of
paleography and its classification into styles, has put his finger on one of the realities of
reading ancient manuscripts:

paleography is neither a science nor an art, but works through a continual
interaction of the methods appropriate to both approaches. And in the last resort a
judgment has to be made and judgment is fallible.
188


Such last resorts have been reached at a number of junctures during my work on
the Apocryphon.




188
Eric Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 24.
67
2.1.2.5. Translation
In translating the Aramaic of the scroll I have aimed for correctness rather than
originality, and have derived much from my predecessors. Fitzmyer deserves special
mention in this regard, providing an exemplary translation that is often best left untouched.
I am also heavily indebted to my mentor, James VanderKam, who made numerous
translation suggestions and revisions. His expertise in such matters is indisputable, and has
been happily received. Unlike the transcription, I have not attempted to reflect accurately
the spacing and line length of the manuscript in the translation, since this seemed redundant
and would take up much extra space. Translating is effectually an act of interpretation, since
any word especially a Semitic word may bear several or more meanings. This is
compounded in the Genesis Apocryphon, where the words are commonly partial or
tenuous. In a certain sense, therefore, my own translation may be viewed as a commentary
of sorts on the language and content of the scroll.

2.1.3. Textual Notes
Due to the poor condition of a large portion of the manuscript, there have often
been disagreements among previous editions over the reading of words and letters. This has
necessitated a textual apparatus in which various readings are displayed and my own readings
defended. The notes are not exhaustive. Rather, I have sought to include only those
differences which impact our understanding of the text. For instance, I have typically not
included disagreements over letters in a context whose meaning would be unclear, whatever
the reading. The notes are intended as primarily textual, and deal with exegetical aspects
of the text only where it proves useful for the establishment of a reading.

68
2.1.3.1. Photographs
I have availed myself of all obtainable photographs in order to produce the most
reliable text possible. The ensuing list roughly follows the order of the scrolls columns:

DJD 1, Plate XVII.
The black and white photographic plate presented in DJD 1 is not exceedingly
helpful, sine the script is somewhat blurred. Later, infrared photographs are far more useful.

Inscriptifact Photographic Plates
Among the photographs currently available to scholars on the Inscriptifact website
(www.inscriptifact.com)
189
are a number of plates containing 1Q20 (cols. 0-1). These
photographs are superb, and represent the gamut of photographic technology available,
from black and white to color, natural light to narrowband infrared. They are significantly
more useful than the plate in DJD 1 and are denoted by the prefix ISF_DO_.

Avigad and Yadin Photographic Plates
The black and white plates in the editio princeps are still among the most useful for the
columns represented (2 and 19-22). They are taken in wideband infrared light, and present
the parchment at the earliest recorded stage relative to the scrolls modern discovery, before
its subsequent decomposition.



189
As of summer 2006. The site is being added to continually and will hopefully contain all of the
Genesis Apocryphon photographs in due time.
69
Israel Museum Negatives
The Israel Museum in Jerusalem retains a number of negatives of the Genesis
Apocryphon at the Shrine of the Book. Included in these are the original photographs for
all of the columns, contemporary with those used by Avigad and Yadin. There are also more
recent photos. A number of photographic technologies are represented. Among the most
important of these photos for this project is the fine photograph of the Trever Fragment
(IMneg. 6x6), while the many pictures of the scroll before and during its opening by
Biberkraut are both charming and noteworthy. Photographs from this eclectic collection
will be prefixed with IMneg. or IMneg. x in the textual notes. The numbers are those
assigned by the museum.

Bearman and Zuckerman Photographs
In 1994 Gregory Bearman, from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at NASA and the
Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California together with Bruce and Ken
Zuckerman, from the West Semitic Research Project at the University of Southern
California, produced a useful set of narrowband infrared photos of the Genesis
Apocryphon. The photographs cover the standard columns of scroll (1-22), but do not
include Miliks 1Q20 or the Trever Fragment. These photos are especially helpful for the
columns published in the 1990s (i.e. not included in Avigad and Yadin). Photographs from
this collection will be prefixed with BZ in the textual notes.




70
Bearman Photographs
Gregory Bearman also took a different set of narrowband infrared photographs in
1997. These have been utilized in the few places where the BZ set was not available (i.e.
cols. 7-8).

Note on Digital Enhancement
All photographs, except the plates in DJD 1 and Avigad and Yadin, have been used
in a digital format. Due to this, I have frequently enhanced portions of the manuscript in
order to read its contents more easily. This entails manipulation of the size, contrast and
brightness of a letter or word. Unfortunately, it has been impractical to recreate such
enhancements for the reader, but I have tried to use these tools equitably, and have often
called attention to their use in the textual notes.

2.1.3.2. List of Abbreviations for Sources Consulted in the Textual Notes

AW M. Abegg and M. Wise in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Parabiblical Texts (ed. Parry and
Tov), 2-35.
AY N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon.
190

B
1
K. Beyer, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Band 1 (1984), 165-86.
B
2
K. Beyer, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Ergnzungsband (1994), 68-70.
B
3
K. Beyer, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Band 2 (2004), 89-101.

190
Citations of readings offered in the introduction, rather than the main text, will be indicated by
page numbers (for both the English and Hebrew introductions) in parentheses.
71
Bern M. J. Bernstein, Re-arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical
Features in the Genesis Apocryphon, DSD 3, no. 1 (1996), 37-57.
C A. Caquot, Supplments Qoumrniens la Gense, RHPR 80 (2000), 339-58.
Ck E. M. Cook, The Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty,
359-78.
dMed H. E. del Medico, LEnigme des manuscrits de la Mer Morte, 515.
Du-So A. Dupont-Sommer, Les crits essniens dcouverts prs de la Mer Morte, 298.
Esh E. Eshel, Isaiah 11:15: A New Interpretation Based on the Genesis Apocryphon, DSD
13, no. 1 (2006), 38-45.
F J. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20) [3
rd
ed.].
Gin H. L. Ginsberg, Notes on Some Old Aramaic Texts, JNES 18 (1959), 146.
GMT F. Garcia-Martinez and E. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, vol. 1, 26-7
[1Q20] and 28-49 [1QapGen ar].
GQ J. C. Greenfield and E. Qimron, The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII, Abr-Nahrain
Supplement 3 (1992), 70-77.
Gre P. Grelot, Parwam des Chroniques lApocryphe de la Gense, VT 11 (1961), 30-
38.
J B. Jongeling, C. J. Labuschagne and A. S. van der Woude, Aramaic Texts from Qumran,
77-119.
Kis M. Kister, Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakha, The Madrid Qumran Congress (1992),
583-86.
Kut E. Y. Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study,
Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana 4), 1-35.
72
M M. Morgenstern, The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon [Hebrew],
13-26.
191

MBE J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch.
Mil J. T. Milik, 20. Apocalypse de Lamech, DJD 1, 86-7.
Mi-To F. Michelini Tocci, I manoscritti del Mar Morto, 294.
MQS M. Morgenstern, E. Qimron and D. Sivan, The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of
the Genesis Apocryphon, Abr-Nahrain 33 (1996), 30-54.
Mu
1
T. Muraoka, Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon, RevQ 8 (1972-75),
7-51.
Mu
2
T. Muraoka, Further Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon, RevQ 16
(1993-95), 39-48.
Pu E. Puech, Review of B. Jongeling et al., Aramaic Texts from Qumran, RevQ 9 (1977-
78) 589-91.
Qim
1
E. Qimron, Towards a New Edition of the Genesis Apocryphon, JSP 10 (1992)
11-18.
Qim
2
E. Qimron, Toward a New Edition of 1Q Genesis Apocryphon, in The Provo
International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 107-9.
Ros F. Rosenthal, Review of N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, JNES 18
(1959) 84.
Ste R. C. Steiner, The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah on a Fragment of
the Genesis Apocryphon: New Light on a Lost Work, DSD 2 (1995), 66-71.

191
This is Morgensterns unpublished M.A. Thesis completed at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
1996. The copy consulted was that available at the University and National Library at the Hebrew University
of Jerusalems Givat Ram campus. Most of the contributions from this work come from the marginal notes,
added in handwriting later either by Morgenstern or Esther Eshel. Such marginalia will be indicated by
(margin) following the citation.
73
vdW A. S. van der Woude, Bijbelcommentaren en bijbelse verhalen, 96.
VK J. C. VanderKam, The Textual Affinities of the Biblical Citations in the Genesis
Apocryphon, JBL 97/1 (1978), 45-55.

2.1.4. The Manuscript

2.1.4.1. Description, Length, and Dimensions
When discovered, the Genesis Apocryphon was somewhat flattened. It had a softer,
more pliable side, and a brittle, more disintegrated side. Both ends were brittle and
crumbling.
192
This unevenness in the scrolls preservation is likely due to its lying exposed
(i.e. not inside a jar like some other scrolls) during its long tenure in Cave One, during which
one side was more susceptible to the environment. For this reason the unrolled scroll
alternates between better and worse states of preservation. As expected, the manuscript
condition improves near the center of the scroll (i.e. the higher numbered columns).
An extensive physical description of the parchment and script is provided by Avigad
and Yadin, including a report of the strange, whitish material found covering the lower part
of columns 10-15.
193
Much of this material has now been removed by experts at the Israel
Museum, facilitating the commendable work of Greenfield, Qimron, Morgenstern, and Sivan
in publishing these columns in preliminary form.
The scroll currently contains four sheets of parchment, which are very finely
executed. The tanning, ruling, joint stitching, and script are among the finest found in the

192
See the report of Trever, Preliminary Observations, 15. Also Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis
Apocryphon, 12-13.
193
Ibid.
74
eleven caves at Qumran. The final sheet of leather is worthy of note, since it is clear that
another sheet was originally sewn to it, but that it was cut off with a sharp instrument in
antiquity (it was at the center of the rolled scroll). The motive for this is unclear, and has
been the cause of some speculation.
194
Whatever the reason, it is obvious that the scroll
originally included at least one more parchment sheet of five or more columns. Logic would
suggest that the scroll continued at least through the Abram and Sarai cycle.
In 1996 M. Morgenstern suggested that the beginning of the scroll would have
included another 14 to 15 sheets (70-105 columns!) based on the letters , , and
discovered at the top right corner of the last three sheets.
195
This proposal has not been
widely accepted, and the letters might be better explained as part of the leather preparation
process.

2.1.4.2. Present Condition
On May 25, 2006, I had the opportunity to examine the manuscript in detail at the
Shrine of the Book, the Israel Museum of Jerusalem.
196
To the naked eye, the manuscript is
now almost completely unreadable, rendering my attempts to clarify tenuous or problematic
readings unsuccessful. In fact, the script has continued to deteriorate while in storage, even

194
The most widely proposed explanation seems to be manuscript repairs, although this is merely
speculative. For a summary of the current views see E. Schuller, Response to Patriarchs Who Worry about
their Wives: A Haggadic Tendency in the Genesis Apocryphon, in George W. E. Nicklesburg in Perspective: An
Ongoing Dialogue of Learning (2 vols.; JSJSup. 80; ed. J Neusner and A. J. Avery-Peck; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 1:209-
11.
195
M. Morgenstern, A New Clue to the Original Length of the Genesis Apocryphon, JJS 47 (1996)
345-47.
196
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Adolfo Roitman, current curator of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, who allowed me access to the manuscript, and especially to Irne Lewitt, who provided gracious
assistance (not to mention coffee) throughout my visits to the Shrine.
75
in comparison with the narrowband infrared photographs taken by B. Zuckerman and G.
Bearman in the mid 1990s.
The ongoing deterioration of the script only (while much of the surrounding leather
remains in-tact) may be linked to scribal use of a bronze inkwell instead of the more well-
known ceramic models.
197
Other such inkwells are known from this period.
198

The final and best preserved columns, published by Avigad and Yadin in 1956, are
now in far worse shape than when the photographic plates for their editio princeps were taken.
Portions of the scroll (most notably the left side of col. 17 and central parts of col. 13) have
chemically broken down, turning into a reddish-black pitch type of material. The most well
preserved areas of leather retain a medium chestnut color. Unfortunately, the continued
corrosion of the scroll especially its script makes it unlikely that future technological
advances in photography will help salvage more of the Genesis Apocryphons text. Hence,
we must rely primarily on the sets of photographs that have already been taken.




197
This idea was first suggested to me in personal communication with Dr. Hanan Eshel, of Bar-Ilan
University. High levels of copper (Cu) and lead (Pb) were found in inks from some of the scrolls at Qumran,
as Y. Nir-El and M. Broshi have shown. They linked this phenomenon to the storage of ink in bronze, rather
than ceramic, inkwells. See Y. Nir-El and M. Broshi, The Black Ink of the Qumran Scrolls, DSD 3:2 (1996)
157-67 [esp. 161-62]. DeVaux found one such inkwell in situ in locus 30 at Qumran, while a second (now part
of the Schyen collection), more elaborate example, is purported to have come from the site. See T. Elgvin in
collaboration with S. J. Pfann, An Incense Altar from Qumran? DSD 9:1 (2002) 20-33. Ceramic inkwells
from the Hellenistic and Roman periods have been found in Jerusalem, Meiron, Qumran, and elsewhere. See
S. Goranson, 68. Inkwell, in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture (ed. R. Martin Nagy et al.; Raleigh:
North Carolina Museum of Art, 1996) 202.
198
N. I. Khairy, Ink-wells of the Roman Period from Jordan, Levant 12 (1980)155-62. S. Goranson,
Qumran a Hub of Scribal Activity, BAR 20/5 (Sept./Oct. 1994) 36-39. T. Elgvin in collaboration with S.
J. Pfann, An Incense Altar from Qumran? DSD 9:1 (2002) 21.
76
2.2. Aramaic Transcription

Column 0

8 . ] [ ] [
9 . ] [
10 . ] [ vacat
11 . ] [
12 . ] [
13 . ] [ vacat
14 . ] [
15 . ] [
16 . ] [
17 . ] [ ] [ ] [ vacat
18 . ] [ ] [
19 . ] [ ] [
20 . ] [ ] [ ] [
21 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
22 . ] [ ] [
23 . ] [ vacat
24 . ] [
25 . ] [ vacat
26 . ] [ ] [ [] ] [ ] [
? 36 - 20 .

77
Column 1

1 . ] [ ] [
2 . ] [
3 . ] [
4 . ] [ ] [ ] [
5 . ] [
6 . ] [
7 . ] [
8 . ] [
9 . ] [ ] [
10 . ] [
11 . ] [
12 . ] [
13 . ] [
14 . ] [
17 - 15 .
18 . ] [
19 . ] [ ] [
20 . ] [ vacat
21 . ] [
22 . ] [ ] [
23 . ] [
24 . ] [
25 . ] [
78
26 . ] [
27 . ] [
28 . ] [
29 . ] [ ] [
? 36 - 30 .

Column 2

1 . ] [
2 . vacat ] [
3 . ] [
4 . ] [
5 . ] [ ] [
6 . ] [ ] [
7 . ] [
8 . ] [
9 . ] [
10 . ] [ ] [
11 . ] [ vacat ] [
12 . ] [
13 . ] [
14 . ] [
15 . ] [
16 . ] [
17 . ] [
79
18 . vacat ] [

19 . ] [ ] [
20 . ] [
21 . ] [
22 . ] [
23 . ] [
24 . ] [ ] [
25 . ] [ ] [ ] [
26 . ] [
27 . ] [
? 36 - 28 .

Column 3

1 . ] [
2 . ] [
3 . ] [
4 . ] [ ] [
5 . ] [ vacat
6 . ] [
7 . ] [
8 . ] [ ] [ ] [
9 . ] [
10 . ] [
11 . ] [
80
12 . ] [
13 . ] [
14 . ] [ ] [ ] [
15 . ] [
16 . ] [
17 . ] [
18 . ] [ vacat
23 - 19 .
24 . ] [
25 . ] [
26 . ] [ ] [
27 . ] [ ] [ ] [
28 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
29 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
30 . ] [ ] [
31 . ] [ ] [ ] [
32 . ] [ ] [ ] [
36 - 33 .

Column 4

1 . ] [
2 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
3 . ] [ ] [
10 - 4 .
81
11 . ] [ ] [
12 . ] [ ] [
13 . ] [
14 . ] [
36 - 15 .

Column 5

1 . ] [
2 . vacat ] [
3 . ] [ ] [
4 . ] [
5 . ] [
6 . ] [
7 . ] [ ] [
8 . vacat ] [

9 . } { ] [ ] [
10 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
11 . ] [
12 . ] [
13 . ] [
14 . ] [
15 . ] [
16 . ] [
17 . ] [
82
18 . ] [
19 . ] [
20 . ] [
21 . ] [
22 . ] [
23 . ] [
24 . ] [
25 . ] [
26 . ] [
27 . ] [
28 . vacat ] [
29 . ] [ ] [ ] [
30 . ] [ ] [
36 - 31 .

Column 6

1 .
2 . ] [ ] [

3 . ] [
4 . ] [
5 . ] [ ] [ vacat
6 . ] [ ] [ ] [
7 . ] [
8 . ] [
83
9 . ] [ vacat
10 . ] [

11 . ] [
12 . ] [ vacat

13 . ] [
14 . ] [ ] [ ] [
15 . ] [
16 . ] [ ] [
17 . ] [ ] [
18 . ] [ ] [
] [
19 . ] [
20 . ] [ ] [
21 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
22 . ] [ ] [
23 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
24 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
25 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
26 . ] [ ] [
27 . ] [ ] [ ] [
36 - 28 .

Column 7

1 . ] [ ] [ ] [
2 . ] [
84
3 . ] [ ] [
4 . ] [
5 . ] [
6 . ] [ vacat
7 . ] [
8 . ] [
9 . ] [ vacat
10 . ] [
11 . ] [
12 . ] [
13 . ] [
14 . ] [
15 . ] [ vacat
16 . ] [ ] [
17 . ] [ ] [
18 . ] [ ] [
19 . ] [ ] [
20 . ] [ ] [
21 . ] [
22 . ] [ ] [
23 . ] [
36 - 24 .


85
Column 8

1 . ] [ ] [
2 . ] [
3 . ] [ ] [
4 . ] [
5 . ] [
8 - 6 .
9 . ] [
10 . ] [
11 . ] [
12 . ] [
13 . ] [
14 . ] [
15 . ] [
16 . ] [ ] [
17 . ] [
18 . ] [
19 . ] [
-28 20 .
29 . ] [ ] [
30 . ] [ ] [
31 . ] [
32 . ] [
33 . ] [
86
34 . ] [
35 . ] [
36 . ] [

Column 9

1 . vacat ] [
2 . ] [
3 . ] [ ] [ ] [
37 - 4 .

Column 10

1 . vacat ] [ ] [
2 . ] [ ] [ vacat
3 . ] [ ] [
6 - 4 .
7 . ] [
8 . ] [
9 . ] [ ] [
10 . ] [ vacat
11 . ] [
12 . ] [ ] [
13 . ] [ ] [
14 . ] [ ] [ ] [

15 . ] [ ] [
87
16 . ] [ ] [
17 . ] [ vacat
18 . ] [ ] [
35 - 19 .

Column 11


1 . ] [ ] [ ] [
4 - 2 .
5 . ] [ ] [
7 - 6 .
8 . ] [ ] [ ] [
9 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
10 . ] [ vacat
11 . ] [ ] [
12 . ] [
13 . ] [
14 . vacat
15 . ] [
16 . ] [
17 . ] [
18 . ] [ ] [ ] [
19 . ] [ ] [
35 - 20 .

88
Column 12

1 . ] [ ] [
2 . ] [
3 . ] [
4 . ] [ ] [ ] [
5 . ] [
6 . ] [ vacat
7 . ] [ ] [
8 . ] [
9 . ] [ ] [ ] [
10 . ] [ ] [
11 . ] [ ] [
12 .
13 . ] [
14 . vacat

15 . ] [
16 . ] [
17 . ] [
18 . ] [ ] [ ] [
19 . ] [ ] [
20 . ] [ ] [
21 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
22 . ] [ ] [
23 . ] [ ] [ ] [
89
24 . ] [
25 . ] [ vacat
26 . ] [
27 . ] [
35 - 28 .

Column 13

3 . ] [ ] [ ] [
.4-6
7 . ] [ ] [ ] [
8 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
9 . ] [ ] [
10 .
11 .
12 . vacat
13 . ] [

14 . ] [ ] [
15 . ] [ ] [
16 . ] [ ] [
17 . ] [
18 . ] [ ] [
19 . ] [ ] [
20 . ] [ ] [
21 . ] [ ] [
90
22 . ] [
23 . ] [
24 . ] [ ] [
.25-35

Column 14

4 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
5 . ] [
6 . ] [ ] [ ] [
7 . ] [ ] [ ] [
8 . ] [ ] [ vacat
9 . ] [
10 . ] [
11 . ] [
12 . ] [ ] [
13 . ] [ ] [
14 . ] [ ] [ ] [
15 . ] [ ] [ ] [
16 . ] [ vacat ] [
17 . ] [
18 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
19 . ] [ ] [ ] [
20 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
21 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
91
22 . ] [ ] [ ] [
23 . ] [
24 . ] [
] [
25 . ] [

26 . ] [
27 . ] [ ] [
.28-34

Column 15

5 . ] [ ] [
6 . ] [ ] [
7 . ] [ ] [
8 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
9 . ] [
10 . ] [
11 . ] [ ] [
12 . ] [ ] [
13 . ] [ ] [
14 . ] [ ] [ ] [
15 . ] [ ] [ ] [

16 . ] [ ] [ ] [
17 . ] [
18 . ] [ ] [ ] [
19 . vacat ] [
92
20 . ] [ ] [
21 . ] [ ] [ ] [
22 . ] [ ] [ ] [
23 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
24 . ] [ ] [
27 - 25 .
28 . ] [ ] [
35 - 29 .

Column 16

8 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
9 . ] [
10 . ] [ ] [
11 . ] [ ] [
12 . vacat
13 . vacat
14 . ] [ ] [ ] [
15 . ] [ ] [ ] [
16 . ] [
17 . ] [
18 . ] [ ] [ ] [
19 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
20 . ] [ ] [
21 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
93
22 . ] [ ] [
23 . ] [
24 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
25 . ] [ vacat
26 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
27 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
28 . ] [
35 - 29 .

Column 17

6 . ] [ ] [ vacat
7 . ] [ ] [ ] [
8 . ] [ ] [
9 . ] [
10 . ] [
11 . ] [ ] [
12 . ] [
13 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
14 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
15 . ] [ vacat
16 . ] [
17 . ] [ ] [ ] [
18 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
19 . ] [ ] [ vacat
94
20 . ] [
21 . ] [ ] [ ] [
22 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
23 . ] [
24 . ] [ vacat ] [ ] [
35 - 25 .

Column 19

6 . ] [ ] [ ] [
7 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
8 . ] [ ] [
9 . ] [ ] [
10 . ] [ ] [ vacat ] [ ] [
11 . ] [ ] [ ] [
12 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
13 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
14 . vacat

15 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
16 . ] [ ] [
17 . vacat
18 . ] [ ] [
19 . ] [ ] [
20 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
21 . ] [
95
22 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
23 . ] [ ] [ ] [
24 . ] [ ] [
25 . ] [
26 . ] [
27 . ] [ ] [ ] [
28 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
29 . ] [ ] [ ] [
30 . ] [ ] [
31 . ] [ vacat
35 - 2 3 .

Column 20

1 . ] [ ] [
2 . ] [ ] [
3 . ] [ ] [
4 .
5 .
6 .
7 .
8 .
9 .
10 .
11 . vacat
96
12 .
13 .
14 .

15 .
16 .
17 .
18 .
19 . ] [
20 .
21 . vacat
22 . ] [
23 .
24 . vacat
25 .
26 . ] [ ] [ ] [
27 .
28 . ] [ ] [
29 . ] [ ] [
30 . ] [ ] [ ] [
31 . ] [ ] [ ] [
32 . ] [ ] [ ] [
33 . vacat ] [ ] [ ] [
34 . ] [ ] [

97
Column 21

1 .
2 .
3 .
4 . vacat
5 .
6 .
7 .
8 . vacat
9 .
10 .
11 .
12 .
13 .
14 . vacat
15 .
16 . ] [
17 .
18 .
19 .
20 .

21 .
22 . vacat
23 .
98
24 .
25 .
26 .
27 .
28 .

29 . ] [
30 . ] [ vacat
31 . ] [
32 . ] [ ] [
33 . ] [ ] [ ] [
34 . ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [

Column 22

1 .
2 .
3 .
4 .
5 .
6 .
7 .
8 .
9 .
10 .
11 .
99
12 .
13 .
14 .
15 .
16 .

17 .
18 . vacat

19 .
20 . vacat
21 .

22 .
23 .
24 .
25 .
26 . vacat
27 . } {
28 .
29 .
30 .
31 .
32 . vacat
33 . ] [
34 .

100
2.3. English Translation

Column 0

8. [ ] and a[l]l of us from
9. [ ]for in every (way) let us undertake an adulterous act
10. [ ] vacat
11. [ al]l that you shall
12. [ ] you will intensify your anger and will be unrelenting, for who is there
13. [who ] the heat of your anger vacat
14. [ the sim]ple and the humble and the lowly ones quiver and tremble
15. [ ] And now we are prisoners!
16. [ ]this
17. [ ]hasten (?), and [to] relent from your anger[ ] vacat
18. [ ]by your anger since we will depart to the house of[ ]the Great [H]oly One
19. [ ] And now your hand has come near to strike [ ]and to do away with all
20. [ ]because he ceased his words at the [time] of our imprisonment[ ] a fire that has
appeared
21. [ ] befo[re the Lord of] Heaven
22. [ ]th[em] and attacking from behind them. And no longer
23. [ ] vacat
24. [ ] seeking favor and from the Lord of Eternity
25. [ ]before the Lord of Eternity. vacat
19-36(?).
101

Column 1

1. [ wer]e descend[in]g, and with the women
2. [ ]and also the mystery of wickedness, which
3. [ ]times, and the mystery that
4. [ ]we did not make known
5. [ ] not
6. [ ] until
7. the day o[f ]the mystery, whether they
8. are all your sons, and[ ] great,
9. medicines, acts of sorcery, and divi[nations ]
10. the earth, and that I will seek to[ ] part of
11. the deed that until n[ow ]which is upon
12. the dry land, to establish[ ] see,
13. I have given all of them [ ]and if
14-17.
18. [ ] strike against
19. [ ]
20. [ ] vacat
21. [ ]them a strong bond
22. [ ] [ ]
23. [ ] and from
24. [ ] and as a curse for all flesh
102
25. [ ]the Lord, and by messengers he sent to you
26. [ ]to the earth, and to go down to strengthen the people
27. [ ]what to do. Mankind to the earth
28. [ ]he did to them, and also to all flesh
29-36(?).

Column 2

1. Then suddenly it occurred to me that the conception was from Watchers, and the seed from
Holy Ones, and of Nephil[in ]
2. and my mind wavered concerning this infant. vacat
3. Then I, Lamech, was upset, so I approached Batenosh my wife and sa[id to her ]
4. I bear witness by the Most High, by the Mighty Lord, by the King of all A[ges ]
5. [one of] the sons of Heaven, that you must truthfully recount everything for me, whether[ ]
6. you must [truthfully] recount for me, without lies. The son (born) from you is unique (?) [ ]
7. by the King of all Ages that you will speak truthfully with me, without lies.[ ]
8. Then Batenosh my wife spoke with me very harshly, and wept[ ]
9. and she said, O my brother and my husband, you yourself should remember my pleasure[ ]
10. in the heat of the moment, and my panting breath! Now I [am telling] you everything
truthfully[ ]
11. [ ] entirely. Then my mind wavered greatly within me. vacat
12. And when Batenosh my wife saw that my demeanor had changed because of [my] ang[er ]
13. Then she controlled her emotions and continued speaking with me. She was saying to me, O
my husband and my brother,[ ]
103
14. my pleasure. I swear to you by the Great Holy One, by the King of He[aven ]
15. that this seed is from you, and from you this conception, and from you the planting of [this]
fruit[ ]
16. and not from any stranger, nor from any of the Watchers, nor from any of the sons of Hea[ven.
Why is the appearance of]
17. your face changed and contorted like this, and your spirit[ ]upon you like this? [ I]
18. am speaking truthfully with you. vacat [ ]
19. Then I, Lamech, ran to Methuselah my father and [t]ol[d] him everything[ to Enoch]
20. his father in order to learn everything from him with certainty, since he is a beloved and [
with the Holy Ones]
21. his lot is apportioned, and they make everything known to him. When Methusel[ah my
father] heard[ ]
22. he ran to Enoch his father to learn everything truthfully from him[ ]
23. his will. And he went through the length of the land of Parvain, and there he found the end of
[the] ea[rth ]
24. [and] he said to Enoch his father, O my father and my lord, I have co[me] to you[ ]
25. [ ]to me, and I say to you, do not to be angry that I came here to s[eek] you[ out ]
26. fearful of you[ ]
27-36(?).

104
Column 3

1. [ ] not
2. [ ] all and not for the length
3. [ ]for in the days of Jared my father
4. [ ]the sons of
5. [Heaven] (were) living [ ] vacat
6. [ ]until the day of
7. [ ] and they will be for you
8. [ ]the houses of manki[nd][ ]and upon
9. [ ]will be over all the earth
10. [ ]in my land to that sea
11. [ ]he will place all of it as one fruit. The earth
12. [ ]the earthhe called his people. Now go
13. [ ] truthfully that without lies
14. [ ][ ][ ]
15. [ ] And reaches by way of a spring to
16. [ ] everything with
17. [ ] he is the one who will divide the entire earth, and with
18. [ ] vacat
19-23.
24. [ ] and for food
25. [ ]
26. [ ] he gave to Methus[elah his son ]
105
27. [ and he gave to Methu]selah his son understanding and[ ][ ]
28. [ ] [ ]to him th[at] in every sea[ ]
29. [ ]the Lord[ will give]to [him] an ever[las]ting name forests [ ]
30. [ ]and unt[il ]
31. [ ] [fr]om the womb [ ]
32. [ ]untiland on his name (?)[ ] and he gave to[ ]
33-36.

Column 4

1. Now [ ] they will cause much trouble
2. and [ ] and why[ ] [ ]
3. above [ ][ ] for all ages much, and the evil
4-10.
11. I decided to enact judgment and ju[stice] upon [ ] the name
12. of the Great H[o]ly One, and an end [ ]them from the face of the earth
13. not..[ ]
14. [ ] upon them
15-36.

106
Column 5

1. He wrote all of them in the scroll as a remembrance, all[ ]
2. vacat Now to you, Methuselah [my] so[n ] of this
3. child, for when I, Enoch, [ ]n[ot] from the sons
4. of Heaven, but from Lamech your son [ ]
5. and in resemblance he is not[ ]
6. and not [ because of]
7. his appearance your son Lamech was afraid, and also from [ ]and truly [ ]
8. truly trusting that vacat [ ]
9. Now I am talking to you, my son, and making known to you th[at ], then truthfully [ ]
10. Go, say to Lamech your son,[ The chi]l[d is t]r[ul]y from you [and ]n[ot] from the sons[ of
Heaven ]
11. and his exaltation on the earth, and every act of judgment I will entrust to him[ ]
12. he lifted his face to me and his eyes shone like [the] su[n ]
13. this child is a light, and he[ ]
14. the seed from a stranger[ ]
15. [ ]
16. Then they will be ensnared and destroyed [ ]
17. forever, giving according to their impurity [ ]
18. doing much violence, they will act (thus) until[ ]
19. they will boil over, and every path of violence from[ ]
20. And now I am making known to you, my son, [ to Lamech]
21. your son make known by this mystery all[ that]
107
22. will be done in his days. And look,[ ]
23. blessing the Lord of All[ ]
24. When Methuselah heard [my] w[ords ]
25. and he spoke with Lamech his son of a mystery[ ]
26. And when I, Lamech, h[eard ]
27. rejoicing that from me [the] Lor[d of ] had brought forth[ ]
28. vacat [ ]
29. A [c]o[p]y of the book of the words of Noah [ ]
30-36.

Column 6

1. from iniquity. Through the uterus of she who bore me I burst forth for uprightness, and when I
emerged from my mothers womb I was planted for righteousness.
2. All of my days I conducted myself uprightly, continually walking in the paths of everlasting
truth. For [the] Holy One had instructed me to w[alk]
3. in the ways of the paths of truth and to keep myself away from the highway of deceit, which lead
to everlasting darkness, and to c[ons]ider whether
4. I would the Lord. So I girded my loins in the vision of truth and wisdom, in the robe of
supplication, and[ ]
5. [ ][ ] all the paths of violence. vacat
6. T[h]e[n] I, Noah, became a grown man. I held fast to righteousness and strengthened myself in
wisdom [ ]
108
7. I went and took Emzera his daughter as my wife. She conceived by way of me and gave
birth to th[r]ee sons,
8. [and daughters.] Then I took wives for my sons from among the daughters of my brothers, and
gave my daughters to the sons of my brothers according to the custom of the eternal statute,
9. [which] the [Lo]rd of Eternity [gave ] to humanity. vacat In my days, when there were
completed for me, according to the calculation by which I reckoned,
10. [ ] ten jubilees. Then the time of my sons taking women for themselves
in marriage came to a close,
11. [and the Lord of] Heaven [appeared to me] in a vision. I looked and was shown and informed
about the conduct of sons of Heaven, and how all
12. [ ] heaven. I hid this mystery within my heart, and did not make it known to
anyone. vacat
13. [ ] to me, and the great Watcher on an errand to me, and by an emissary of
the great Holy One to me[ ]
14. [ ] he r[ev]ealed, and he spoke with me in a vision. He stood before me and loudly
(?) proclaimed, To you, O No[ah]
15. [ And from an em]issary of the great Holy One to me I was hearing a voice, They
are speaking to you, O Noah,
16. [ ] before me. So I considered all the behavior of the sons of the earth. I
understood and saw all of[ ]
17. [ ] they would succeed, and they chose among them [ ]
18. [ ]two weeks. Then was sealed up [ ]
19. [ ] bearing witness to the blood that the Nephilin had poured out. I was
silent, and waited until[ ]
109
20. [ ] holy ones, who with the daughters of me[n]
21. [ ] making (it) un[cl]ean by the divinatory arts. And I approached [one]
of them and he said, To you [ ]
22. [ ] and examining [ ]
23. [ ]But I, Noah, f[o]und grace, prominence, and righteousness in the eye[s]
of [the] L[ord of ]
24. [ ] And the eternal people, and the blood of je[al]o[usy] the Most
High, who [ ]
25. [ ] unto the gates of heaven, which the Kin[g] of a[l]l [Ages]
26. [ ] to humans and cattle and wild animals and birds and[ ]
27. [ ]the[ enti]re deed, and [ever]y [ ]
28-36.

Column 7

1. [ ] [you shall r]u[le] over them; the earth and all that is upon it, in the seas and
on the mountains
2. [ ] every heavenly body; the sun, the moon and the stars, and the
Watchers
3. [ ] and throughout this entire year, and the jubilee, and the years, their
activ[ity] and
4. [ ] on account of to you and to from
all of them
5. [ ] honor, and my reward I am paying to you
110
6. [ ] vacat
7. [ ] the great Holy One. Then I rejoiced at the words of the Lord of
Heaven, and I cried out
8. [ ] and everything, and with concerning this
9. [ ]he caused me to prosper and testified (?) to me. vacat
10. [ ] until they proclaimed the blood
11. [ ]
12. [ ]he will render this pure by the blood upon
13. [ wi]th him will be for him
14. [ ] to all humanity through you
15. [ ] vacat
16. [ ]I have to you [ ]much
17. [ ] [ ] branching off (?), which he sought
18. [ ]and who will force him to[ ] the beautiful one immensely (?)
19. [ ]the heavens very much, and the ends of[ ] to remove me and to build
20. [ concerning wh]at I dreamt. So I blessed the great Hol[y O]ne, and the insight
21. [ ]and I every deed of
22. [ sp]oke with me and made k[nown] to me, and revealing all
23. [ ] their sons, and the assembly of
24-36.

111
Column 8

1. its mate after it, [ ][ ]I tied. And each was
2. in to the end of[ ]
3. The[n I, Noah, ]
4. forever [ ]
5-8.
9. and throughout the entire flood [ ]
10. that you by the King of Heav[en ]
11. by you. And with me[ ]
12. this and all[ ]
13. and he showed (?) [ ]
14. and [ ]
15. in your week [ ]
16. [ ] [ ]
17. and according to its week and a written account, wh[ich ]
18. its week, and [ ]
19. and about three weeks [ ]
20-29.
30. [ ][ ] to every
31. [ ] these, and in a garden and
32. [ ] take for yourself and for your
33. [ ] to your sons after you for all
34. [ ] do not fear and do not go
112
35. [ ] Then I went
36. [ ]

Column 9

1. your father to his vacat [ ]
2. all he will not save, and all[ ] to and to
3. [ ] [ and ]I[ am gi]ving this irrevocable decision to[ ]
4-37.

Column 10

1. great. vacat Then [I] bles[sed] the Lord of All, who from me and kept safe[ ]
2. to Noah words, all of th[em ] in [ ] vacat
3. in the night [ ] Then [I] went[ ]
4-7.
8. Now (you all) go and give praise and glory, for the Creator [ ]
9. [u]ntil all and listen to[ ]all of you to your Lord, and
10. to the King of all Ages forever and ever, unto all ages. [ ] vacat
11. Then (it) was on the earth and he took from[ ]
12. finding, for in the wa[ter] upon [ ]the ark rested on one of the
mountains of Ararat, and the eternal fire
113
13. [ ] and I atoned for all the earth in its entirety. To begin, the
[he-goat] was
14. placed u[pon ] first, and after it came upon [ ] and I burned the fat
upon the fire. Second, [ ]
15. [Th]en all of their blood to the base of the altar and [I] poured (it) out, and all of their flesh I
burned upon the altar. Third, I offered the young turtledoves
16. wi[th] them upon the altar; their blood and all (of the rest) of them upon it. I placed fine wheat
flour, mixed together with oil containing incense, for their meal-offerings.
17. portion of (?) I said a blessing, and was putting salt on all of them, and the scent of my
offering rose up to the [he]avens. vacat
18. Then the Most High b[lessed] [ ]
19-35.

Column 11

1. [ ] N[o]w I, Noah, was at the door of the ark the springs rec[eded ]
2-4.
5. [ ] which And my son their sons[ ]
6-7.
8. [ ]and [al]l of them all [ ]
9. [ ] the mountains and the wildernesses, the hinterlands and [the] co[astlands], a[l]l[
] not
10. [ ] four. vacat
114
11. [Then] I, Noah, went out and walked throughout the land, through its length and through its
breadth,[ ]
12. [ ]upon it; rejuvenation in their leaves and in their fruit. The entire land was full of grass,
herbs, and grain. Then I blessed the Lord of
13. [Heaven,] whose praise endures forever, and to whom (be) the glory! Once again I blessed the
one who had compassion on the land, and who removed and obliterated from it
14. all those doing violence and wickedness and deceit, but rescued the righteous man one, and
he obtained all for his sake. vacat
15. And a[ppeared] to me from heaven, speaking with me and saying to me, Do not fear, O
Noah! I am with you and with those of your sons who will be like you forever.
16. [ be fr]uitful and multiply, and fill the land. Rule over all of all of them; over its seas and
over its wildernesses, over its mountains and over everything that is in them. I am now
17. [gi]ving everything to you and to your sons for food; that of the vegetation and herbs of the
land. But all blood you shall not eat. The awe and fear of you
18. [ ]forever. He said to [ ] years [ ]
19. [ ] I am for you through years (?) your children[ ]
20-35.

Column 12

1. [ ] I [hav]e now placed my bow [in a cloud], and it has become a sign for
me in the cloud, in order to be
2. [ ]the [ea]rth
3. [ ]many. And was revealed to me
115
4. [ ] the Lord[ ] [ ]
5. [ ]
6. [ ] vacat
7. [ ] my son[ ]on the mountains of
8. [Ararat ]on the mountains of Ararat. After this, I went down to the base of
this mountain, my sons and I, and we built
9. ci[ties ] for the devastation on the land was great. Then [son]s[ and daugh]ters were
born to[ my sons] after the flood.
10. To my oldest son [Shem] was born first a son, Arpachshad, two years after the flood. And all
the sons of Shem, all together, [wer]e
11. [Ela]m and Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud and Aram, as well as five daughters. And the s[ons of
Ham (were) Cush, Mitzrai]n, Put, and Canaan, as well as
12. seven daughters. And the sons of Japheth (were) Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal,
Meshech, and Tiras, as well as four daughters.
13. [Then] I, along with all of my sons, began to cultivate the earth. I planted a great vineyard on
Mount Lubar, and in four years it produced abundant wine
14. for me, and I brought forth all of the wine. vacat When the first feast came, on day one of the
first feast, which is in the
15. [first] month,[ ] in my vineyard, and in the midst of my vineyard I opened this vessel,
and began to drink from it on the first day of the fifth year
16. [after the planting of ]the vineyard. On that day I called together my sons, my grandsons, and all
of our wives and their daughters. We gathered together and went
17. [ ]the[ altar]. I was blessing the Lord of Heaven, the Most High God, the
great Holy One, who saved us from the destruction
116
18. [ ] [ ] us, and for all his , which my fathers hid and until[ ]
19. beautiful[ ] by my righteousness. And I lay down upon my bed, and the wine [ ]
20. [ ] pure and [ ]
21. [ ][ ][ ] [ ] I from you, who the Most High God
22. [ ]I stirred[ ]
23. [ ] which I, Noah, [ ]
24. [ ]
25. [ ] vacat
26. [ ]
27. [ ] every year on
28-35.

Column 13

3. [ ] and to you [ ] the king, and began[ ]
4-6.
7. [ ] and the decree [ ] [ ] to all
8. [ ]the wood [ the bir]ds of the heavens, the beasts of the field, the [cattl]e of the
land, and the creeping things of the dry ground going [ ]
9. [ ] the stones, and the clay objects (they) were chopping, taking of it for
themselves. As I continued watching, the gold, the sil[ver],
10. the the iron, and all of the trees (they) were chopping, taking of it for themselves. As I
continued watching, the sun, the moon,
117
11. and the stars (they) were chopping, taking of it for themselves. I was watching until the
swarming things of the earth and the swarming things of the water consumed it. So the water
12. ceased, and it ended.
13. I turned to see the olive tree, and the olive tree had grown in height! [This continued] for many
hours, with a bursting forth of many branches [ ]
14. good and beautiful fr[uit] appearing in them. I was pondering this olive tree, and the abundance
of its leaves[ ]
15. [ ]everything, and tying ropes (?) onto it. Now I wondered very greatly about this olive
tree and its leaves. I was (still) wondering when[ ]
16. the [four] winds of heaven blowing powerfully and violently against this olive tree, knocking off
its branches and breaking it to pieces. First, [a wind] swelled up from
17. west. It struck it, caused its leaves and fruit to fall from it, and scattered it to the winds. And
after this [a wind swelled up]
18. and a northern wind from[ ] and from its fruit[ ]
19. [ ]
20. [ ] and its fruit[ ]
21-34.

Column 14

4. [ its] fruit. You were contemplating the [wo]od, an upper part
being knocked off from
5. [ ]
6. [ al]l of [the] branches, and all the fr[ui]t of the foliage
118
7. [ w]e know. Look!
8. [ ] in you, take [ ] vacat
9. [Now] listen and hear! You are the great cedar tree that was standing before you on a mountain
top in your dream.
10. [And] the shoot which emerged from it, gre[w h]igh, and was rising up to its height (concerns)
three sons water from the earth.
11. As for the fact that you saw the first shoot adhering to the cedar trunk, note too the one division
branching off, and the wood from it
12. [No]w the first son will not separate from you for all of his days, and among his seed your name
shall be recalled. From his division a[l]l your sons
13. and in him the [fi]rst son shall come forth as a righteous planting for all the day, and
14. [ ] standing fast forever. As for the fact that you saw the shoot adhering to the tr[un]k [of
the cedar tree ]
15. [ ] As for the fact that you saw the branch of the last shoot, which from it
[ ]
16. vacat the darkness, and a few of their boughs entering into the midst of the boughs
of the first one, (concerns) two sons branches
17. [ ] one to the south of the Land and one to the north of the Land. As for the fact that you
saw a few of their boughs entering into the midst of the boughs of the first one
18. [ ] of this shoot were settling in his land and all the coastlands to the Great Sea, and
not they [se]ttled in the midst of the [coas]tlands
19. [ ]to comprehend the mystery, there will be to you an end you will search [ ]
20. [ ]and the mystery entering into it, and [the] first one for himself their every
god (?) which [ ]
119
21. [ ] for himself in an allotment in Amania, next to Elam the [Gr]eat
[S]ea [ ]
22. [ ]serve, first, exchanging his allotment for an allotment [ ]
23-24.
25. [ ] by a mira[cle] (supra) [ ]
26. [ ] and a seed (supra) [ ]
27. [ ]the cedar tree[ ]
28-34.

Column 15

5. [ ]with evil to all [ ]
6. [un]til there was [ ]
7. the Merciful One to.. [ ]these[ ]
8. and them to all [ ]from them a profusion of wrongdoing, and
settling in your [lan]d
9. the ends of the earth. As for the fact that you saw all of those crying out and turning away, the
majority of them will be evil. As for the fact that you saw [ ]
10. the great warrior coming from the south of the Land, the sickle in his hand and the fire with
him, he has crushed all [ ]
11. [ ] and the Mighty Lord is the one who will come from the south of the
Land[ ]
12. [ ]the torches and the evil one. And he threw all [the reb]ellious ones onto
the fire[ ]
120
13. and the pits (?) were covered, and [ ]the As for the fact that you saw (that) they
plucked up[ ]south
14. [ ] a chain on them, four mighty angels[ ]
15. [ ] for them a chain, from all the peoples of the earth who will not have power
over[ ]
16. [ ]the [ag]itated one because of their conduct, their inadvertent error, their
wavering on account of a great bl[asph]emer, and their fruit
17. such that he may couple this people to himself. He will cut out a great mountain, and from
it he will consecrate and separate between
18. [ ]between all the peoples, and all of them will be serving them and getting
entangled[ ]all
19. vacat You, Noah, do not be amazed at this dream, and may there not be
added upon it [ ]
20. [ ]I have related everything to you in truth, and thus it is written
concerning you[ ]
21. and I will j[oi]n some of your people to you to you. [Then I], Noah, [awoke] from my
sleep. The sun rose, and I, [Noah, ]
22. to bless the Everlasting God. And[ ]I[ we]nt to Shem, my son, and relat[ed]
everything to [him]
23. [ ] to you to you the righteous one[ ]to make known what to
you[ ]
24. to you[ ]to take for yourself the Mo[st High] God[ ]
25-27.
28. [ ]their [ ] in it
121
29-35.

Column 16

8. [ ]as a spring in[ w]est[ un]til it reaches [ ]
9. of the sea that is between them; the source of the Mahaq up to the Tina [R]iver. It then passes
as a spring the entire length
10. of the land of the north, all of it, until it reaches to (the) source of [ ]and up to the lan[d ]
11. This boundary line crosses the waters of the Great Sea until it reaches Ga[de]ra, and
12. And Noah divided (it) by lot for Japheth and his sons to receive as an inheritance forever. vacat
13. vacat
14. For Shem emerged the second lot, for him and his sons to receive as[ an inheritance forever ]
15. [ ]the waters of this Tina River emerge, until [ ]as a spring[ ]
16. [up] to the Tina River, which the Maeota Sea, which reaches the gulf of
17. the Great Salt Sea. And this boundary goes as a spring from this gulf, wh[ich ]
18. to [ ] up to the gulf of the sea that faces toward Eg[yp]t. It then passes [ ]
19. [ ][ ][ ] until it reaches the allotment of[ ][ ]
20. [ ] [ ]to the east
21. [ ][ ]their [sons], [a]ll the sons of [Noah ]
22. [ ]to [N]oah
23. [ ]and went
24. [ ][ ] between[ ][ ][ ] [ ]
25. [ ] vacat
26. And for Ham[ there eme]rged[ the thi]rd[ share] to inherit for him[ and his sons forev]er
122
27. [ up ]to the G[iho]n[ River ] reaches to [the sou]th (of)
28. [ ] Shem
29-35.

Column 17

6. [ ] [ ] vacat
7. [And] Shem divided his [po]rtion between his sons. There fell first to [E]lam (an area) in the
north, along the waters of the Tigris River, until it reaches the Erythrean
8. Sea, to its source which is in the north. And aft[er him ](there fell) to Asshur (the area) toward
the west, until it reaches the Tigris[ ] And after him
9. (there fell) to Aram the land that is between the two rivers until it reaches the peak of Mount
Ar[arat], at this settlement. And after him to Lud
10. fell this Mount Taurus. This portion passes to the west until it reaches Magog; everything al[ong
]the gulf that is by the Eastern Sea,
11. in the north, adjoining this gulf that which is above the three portions to [the] its south. For
Arpachshad un[til ]it reaches
12. to which turns to the south; the entire land irrigated by the Euphrates, and all [ ]
13. [ ]a[l]l of the valleys and the plains that are between them, and the coastlands that are
within this gulf; a[l]l un[til] it reaches[ ]
14. [ ] to Amana, which abuts Mount Ararat, and (from) Amana until it reaches the
Eup[hrates ]to[ ] until it re[aches ]
15. [ ] the portion that Noah, his father, divided for him and gave to him. vacat
123
16. [And] Japheth divided between his sons. First, he gave to Gomer (an area) in the north, until it
reaches the Tina River. And after him (he gave) to Magog, and after him
17. to Madai, and after him to Yavan; all the islands that are alongside Lud, and between the gulf
th[at] is n[ex]t to Lud and the [se]cond gu[lf]. To Tubal (he gave) that which is across
18. [the] second g[ulf]. To Meshech [ ]. To [Tiras] (he gave) four [island]s, and up to
the next to it, within
19. [the Sea that reaches alongside to the por]tion of the sons of Ham [ for]ever vacat
20. [ ]
21. [ ] that he gave [ ] all[ ]
22. [ ]the sons of Noah [di]vi[ded] th[eir] allotment[s between their
sons ]
23. [ ]
24. [ ]and his sons vacat [ ][ ]
25-35.

Column 19

6. [ ] [ ]
7. [ ] I called there on the na[me of G]o[d], and I said,
You are
8. God and King of Etern[i]ty. And he spoke with me in the night and why
wander? Up until now you have not reached the holy mountain. So I set out
9. to [g]o there. I was going to the south of Moreh , and went until I reached Hebron. For this
region Hebron was b[u]ilt, and I lived
124
10. [the]re for [two] years. vacat Now there was a famine in all of this land, and I heard
that there wa[s] w[h]eat in Egypt. So I set out
11. to go[ ]to the land that is in Egypt [ ] and there was [ ]I[ reached] the
Carmon River, one of
12. the heads of the River, [I] sai[d] [ ][ until] now we have been within our
land. So I crossed over the seven heads of this river, which
13. af[terwards en]ters [int]o the Great Sea [o]f Salt. [ After this I said], Now we have left our land
and entered the land of the sons of Ham, the land of Egypt.
14. vacat Now I, Abram, dreamt a dream in the night of my entry into Egypt.
I saw in my dream that there was a single cedar and a single date palm
15. on a mountain, having sprouted together from [one] roo[t]. And m[e]n came seeking to cut
down and uproot the [ce]dar, thereby leaving the date palm by itself.
16. But the date palm cried out and said, Do not cut down the cedar, for the two of us are sp[rung]
from o[ne] root! So the cedar was left on account of the date palm,
17. and they did not cut me down. vacat Then I awoke in the night from my
sleep, and I said to my wife Sarai, I dreamt
18. a dream, (and) on acco[unt] of this dream I am afraid. She said to me, Tell me your dream, so
that I may know (about it). So I began to tell her this dream,
19. [and I] sa[id] to [her], this dream who will seek to kill me, but to spare you. Yet,
this is all the kindness
20. th[at you] must do for me: in all cities that [we will ent]er s[a]y of me, He is my brother. I will
live under your protection, and my life will be spared because of you.
21. [ t]hey [will s]eek to take you away from me, and to kill
me. Sarai wept because of my words on this night
125
22. when we en[ter]ed into the dist[ri]ct of E[gypt ] And Pharaoh Zoa[n ]
t[he]n Sarai to turn toward Zoan
23. [ and] she was secretly [v]ery concerned that no man would see her (for) [fiv]e
years. Now at the end of those five years
24. to me, and three men from nobles of Egypt his[ ] by Phara[oh] Zoan
because of my words and my wisdom, and they were giving
25. m[e many gifts They as]ked erudition and wisdom and truth for themselves, so I read
before them the book of the words of Enoch
26. [ ]in the womb in which he had grown. They were not going to get up until I
would clearly expound for them the words of
27. [ ] with much eating and much drinking[ ]the wine
28. [ ][ ] to you, I [ ][ ]
29. [ he wa]s entering and I said to I to Zoan, by[ ] a[l]l
the words of Enoch
30. [ ] [ ]
31. [ ] vacat
32-35.

Column 20

1. [ ][ ]
2. [ ] [ ] how irresistible and beautiful is the image of her face; how
3. lovely h[er] foreh[ead, and] soft the hair of her head! How graceful are her eyes, and how
precious her nose; every feature
126
4. of her face is radiating beauty! How lovely is her breast, and how beautiful her white
complexion! As for her arms, how beautiful they are! And her hands, how
5. perfect they are! Every view of her hands is stimulating! How graceful are her palms, and how
long and thin all the fingers of her hands! Her feet
6. are of such beauty, and her legs so perfectly apportioned! There is not a virgin or bride who
enters the bridal chamber more beautiful than she.
7. Her beauty surpasses that of all women, since the height of her beauty soars above them all!
And alongside all this beauty she possesses great wisdom. Everything about her
8. is just right! Now when the king heard the words of Herqanos and his two companions that
the three of them spoke as one he greatly desired her, and sent someone
9. to be quick in acquiring her. When he saw her he was dumbfounded by all of her beauty, and
took her for himself as a wife. He also sought to kill me, but Sarai said
10. to the king, He is my brother, so that I would be benefited on account of her. Thus I, Abram,
was spared because of her, and was not killed. I,
11. Abram, wept bitterly in the night I and Lot, my brothers son, with me when Sarai was taken
from me by force. vacat
12. That night I prayed and entreated and asked for mercy. Through sorrow and streaming tears I
said, Blessed are you Most High God, my Lord, for all
13. ages, for you are Lord and Ruler over everything. You are ruler over all the kings of the earth,
having power to enact judgment on all of them. So now
14. I cry out to you, my Lord, concerning Pharaoh Zoan, king of Egypt, for my wife has been
forcefully taken from me. Bring judgment against him for me, and manifest your mighty hand
15. through him and all of his house, that he might not prevail this night in defiling my wife for me!
Thus, they will come to know you, my Lord, that you are Lord over all the kings
127
16. of the earth. So I wept and was deeply troubled. During that night the Most High God sent a
pestilential spirit to afflict him, and to every person of his household an
17. evil spirit. It was an ongoing affliction for him and every person of his household, so that he
was not able to approach her, nor did he have sexual relations with her. She was with him
18. for two years, and at the end of two years the afflictions and hardships grew heavier and more
powerful over him and every person of his household, so he sent
19. a message to all the wise me[n] of Egypt, and to all the magicians, in addition to all the
physicians of Egypt, (to see) if they could heal him and (every) person
20. of his household of this affliction. But all of the physicians and magicians and all of the wise
men were not able to restore him to health. To the contrary, the spirit began afflicting all of
them (as well),
21. so that they fled the scene! vacat At this point Herqanos came to me
and asked that I come and pray over
22. the king and lay my hands upon him, so that he would live. This was because he had seen [me]
in a dream But Lot said to him, Abram, my uncle, cannot pray over
23. the king while his wife Sarai is with him! Now go and tell the king that he should send his wife
away from himself to her husband, so that he (Abram) can pray over him and he may live.
24. vacat Now when Hyrcanus heard the words of Lot, he went (and)
said to the king, All these afflictions and hardships
25. that are afflicting and troubling my lord, the king, are due to Sarai, the wife of Abram. Just
return Sarai to Abram her husband
26. and this affliction and the putrid spirit will depart from you. So the [k]i[ng] called me and said
to me, What have you done to me?! Why were you saying
128
27. to me, She is my sister, when she was your wife? That is why I took her as a wife for myself!
Here is your wife. Take her, go and get yourself out of
28. the entire district of Egypt! But now pray over me and my household, that this evil spirit may be
expelled from us. So I prayed over [him in order to] heal
29. him, and I laid my hands upon his [h]ead. Then the affliction was removed from him, and the
evil [spirit] rebuked [from him]. So he recovered, rose up, and the king gave
30. to me on t[hat da]y many gift[s], and the king swore to me by an oath that he did not have sexual
relations with her, [nor] did he [de]file her. Then he returned
31. Sarai to me, and the king gave to her [m]uch si[lver and g]old and much clothing of fine linen
and purple, which [ ]
32. before her, as well as Hagar. Thus he restored her to me, and appointed for me a man who
would escort me [from Egyp]t to[ ] to your people. To you [ ]
33. vacat Now I, Abram, grew tremendously in many flocks and also in silver and gold. I went up
from Egy[p]t, [and] my brothers son [Lot wen]t
34. with me. Lot had also acquired for himself many flocks, and took a wife from the daughters of
Egy[p]t. I was encamping [with him]

Column 21

1. at every place of my (former) encampments until I reached Bethel, the place where I had
built the altar. I built it a second time,
2. and offered upon it burnt offerings and a meal offering to the Most High God. And I
called there on the name of the Lord of the Ages. I praised the name of God, blessed
129
3. God, and gave thanks there before God because of all the flocks and good things that he
had given to me, and because he had worked good on my behalf and returned me
4. to this land in peace. vacat
5. After this day Lot parted from me due to the behavior of our shepherds. He went and
settled in the Jordan Valley along with all of his flocks,
6. and I also added a great deal to what he had. He continued pasturing his flocks, and
(eventually) reached Sodom. He bought a house for himself in Sodom,
7. and lived in it while I was living on the mountain of Bethel. It was disturbing to me that
Lot, my brothers son, had parted from me.
8. vacat Then God appeared to me in a vision in the night, and said to me, Go up to
Ramat-Hazor, which is to the north of
9. Bethel, the place where you are living. Lift up you eyes and look to the east, to the west, to
the south, and to the north, and look at this entire
10. land that I am giving to you and to your descendants for all ages. So on the following day I
went up to Ramat-Hazor and I saw the Land from
11. this high point: from the River of Egypt until Lebanon and Senir, and from the Great Sea to
Hauran, and all the land of Gebal up to Kadesh, and the entire Great Desert
12. that is east of Hauran and Senir, up to the Euphrates. He said to me, To your descendants
I will give all of this land, and they will inherit it for all ages.
13. I will make your descendants as numerous as the dust of the earth, which no one is able to
reckon. So too your descendants will be beyond reckoning. Get up, walk around, go
14. and see how great are its length and its width. For I shall give it to you and to you
descendants after you unto all the ages. vacat
130
15. So I, Abram, went out to go around and look at the Land. I began to travel the circuit from
the Gihon River, and came alongside the Sea until
16. I reached Mount Taurus. I then traversed from alo[ng] this Great Sea of Salt and went
alongside Mount Taurus to the east, through the breadth of the land,
17. until I reached the Euphrates River. I journeyed along the Euphrates until I reached the
Erythrean Sea, to the East, and was traveling along
18. the Erythrean Sea until I reached the gulf of the Red Sea, which extends out from the
Erythrean Sea. I went around to the south until I reached the Gihon
19. River, and I then returned, arriving at my house in safety. I found all of my people safe and
went and lived at the Oaks of Mamre, which are near Hebron,
20. to the northeast of Hebron. I built an altar there and offered upon it a burnt offering and a
meal offering to the Most High God. I ate and drank there,
21. I and every person of my household. Then I sent an invitation to Mamre, Arnem, and
Eshkol, three Amorite brothers (who were) my friends, and they ate
22. with me and drank with me. vacat
23. Before these days, Chedarlaomer, the king of Elam, Amraphel, the king of Babylon, Arioch,
the king of Cappadocia, (and) Tiral, the king of Goiim, which
24. is Mesopotamia, came and waged war with Bera, the king of Sodom, and with Birsha, the
king of Gomorrah, and with Shinab, the king of Admah,
25. and with Shemiabad, the king of Zeboiim, and with the king of Bela. All of these banded
together for battle at the Valley of Siddim. The king of
26. Elam and the kings who were with him overpowered the king of Sodom and all of his allies,
and they imposed a tribute on them. For twelve years they were
131
27. paying their tributes to the king of Elam, but during the thirteenth year they rebelled against
him, so that in the fourteenth year the king of Elam brought together all
28. of his allies. They went up the Way of the Desert, destroying and plundering from the
Euphrates River (onward). They destroyed the Rephaim who were in Ashtera
29. of Karnaim, the Zumzamim, who were in Amman, the Emim, [who were in] Shaveh-
Hakerioth, and the Hurrians, who were in the mountains of Gebal, until they reached El-
30. Paran, which is in the desert. They then turned back and destroyed Ein-[Dina ],
which is in Hazazon-Tamar. vacat
31. Now the king of Sodom went out to meet them along with the king of [Gomorrah, the k]ing
of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela. They engaged the battle
32. in the Valley o[f Siddim] against Chedarla[omer and the kings] who were with him, but the
king of Sodom was crushed and fled, while the king of Gomorrah
33. fell, and many from [al]l[ ][ ] The king of Elam plundered all of
the goods of Sodom and of
34. [Go]morrah, [and all] the p[oss]essions [of and all th]at they fou[nd
there], while Lot, the son of Abrams brother,

Column 22

1. who was living in Sodom together with them along with his flocks, was taken captive. But
one of the shepherds
2. that Abram had given to Lot, who had escaped the captors, came to Abram. At that time
Abram
132
3. was living in Hebron, and he informed him that his brothers son Lot had been captured,
along with all of his property, but that he had not been killed. Also that
4. the kings had set out (on) the Way of the Great Valley toward their province, (all the while)
taking captives, plundering, destroying, killing, and heading
5. for the city Damascus. Then Abram wept over his brothers son Lot. Having collected
himself, Abram got up
6. and chose from his servants three hundred and eighteen warriors fit for battle. Arnem,
7. Eshkol and Mamre also set out with him. He chased after them until he reached Dan, where
he found them
8. resting in the Valley of Dan. He swooped upon them at night from all four sides, killing
9. among them throughout the night. He crushed them and chased after them, and all of them
were fleeing before him
10. until they reached Helbon, which is situated to the north of Damascus. (There) he took
away from them everyone they had captured,
11. all that they had plundered, and all of their own goods. Lot, his brothers son, he also saved,
along with his property. All
12. those whom they had taken captive he brought back. When the king of Sodom heard that
Abram had brought back all of the captives
13. and all of the plunder, he went up to meet him. He came to Salem, which is Jerusalem, and
Abram encamped in the Valley
14. of Shaveh, which is the Valley of the King the Valley of Bet-Hakerem. And Melchizedek,
the king of Salem, brought out
15. food and drink for Abram and for all of the men who were with him. He was the priest of
the Most High God, and he blessed
133
16. Abram, saying, Blessed be Abram by the Most High God, the Lord of heaven and earth!
And blessed be the Most High God,
17. who delivered those who hate you into your hand! So he gave him a tenth of all the
property of the king of Elam and his allies.
18. vacat Then the king of Sodom drew near and said to Abram, My lord, Abram,
19. give me anyone who belongs to me of the captives with you whom you have rescued from
the king of Elam. But as for all the property,
20. it is left to you. vacat Then Abram said to the king of Sodom, I lift up
21. my hands this day to the Most High God, the Lord of heaven and earth, (swearing) that I
will take neither string nor sandal strap
22. from all that which belongs to you, lest you should say, All the wealth of Abram (derives)
from my
23. property. (This) excludes that which my young men who are with me have already eaten,
and also the portion of the three men who
24. went with me. (Only) they have authority to give you their portions. So Abram returned all
of the property and all
25. of the captives, and gave (them) to the king of Sodom. Every last one of the captives who
were with him from that land he set free
26. and sent all of them away. vacat
27. After these things God appeared to Abram in a vision, and said to him, Look, ten years
28. have elapsed since the day you came out of Haran; two years you spent here, seven in Egypt,
and one (has passed)
29. since you returned from Egypt. Now inspect and count all that you have; see that by
doubling they have increased beyond
134
30. all that came out with you on the day of your departure from Haran. And now do not fear; I
am with you, and will be for you
31. support and strength. I am a shield over you, and a buckler for you against those stronger
than you. Your wealth and your property
32. will increase enormously. Abram said, My Lord God, I have wealth and property
in great abundance, yet what are
33. all [th]ese things to me while I, when I die, will go stripped bare, without children. One of
my household servants will receive my inheritance;
34. Eliezer, son of Dameseq, he the one acquiring an inheritance from me. But he said to
him, This one will not receive your inheritance, but one who will go forth






135
2.4. Textual Notes

Column 0: This column has been tentatively reconstructed by B. Zuckerman and M. O. Wise, and was
subsequently incorporated into Fs commentary (3
rd
ed.). The fragments used were those originally
published by Milik as 1Q20 in DJD 1. While I have followed the general placement of fragments in the
reconstruction, I differ with some of the specific readings based on the excellent, scaleable set of
photographs now available through Inscriptifact (www.inscriptifact.com). The original readings of Milik
are incorporated into the notes where available, as are two re-readings of the 1Q20 fragments published
prior to their reconstruction: GMT (listed as 1Q20, p. 26) and B
1
(listed as col. 0 of Das Genesis-
Apokryphon, p. 166). The material in B
1
is extremely confusing, since he includes under col. 0 the
beginning of some lines from what is now termed col. 1 (= col. II in Milik!).
0.1: ] [ ] Mil ] [ ] ; F/AW ] [ . In infrared photo ISF_DO_0067
the bottom of a lamed precedes what Milik read as a nun (I follow him, although the top of this letter is
missing). The horizontal base stroke of a possible mem begins the next word, which is followed by a
final nun. This letter is difficult to discern unless magnified, since it runs into the top of the lamed below
it (line 2). In Zuckermans drawing of the reconstructed column (cf. F, p. 115), the fragment containing
the top margin (1Q20, frg. 6) is flipped over, so that the back side is viewed a mistake pointed out to
me by Daniel Falk. This seems to have skewed the placement of the lamed in the final word of the line,
although a lamed is also present when the fragment is flipped back to the front (approx. 1 letter space
closer to the margin line). When flipped back over, the placement of the earlier lamed is also confirmed.
0.2: F/AW ] Mil ; B
1
.
0.4: [ ] Mil [ ] ; B
1
[ ] ; F/AW [ ] [ . The fragment (1Q20, frg. 3) is torn at
this spot, but when placed back together a mem and a lamed are clear in the final word. Miliks reading of
a tav to begin this word seems best, based on the left upper and lower corners of the letter remains.
Remnants of at least one letter follow the lamed.
0.5: B
1
/F/AW ] Mil ; GMT .
0.5: B
1
/F/AW ] Mil ; GMT . The penultimate letter is too large to be a yod, and fits
well the expected shape of an aleph.
0.5: Mil/B
1
/GMT/F ] AW . The vav is clear on the original photos, as initially detected by Milik.
0.7: B
1
/AW ] Mil/GMT/F . A crack runs from top right to bottom left of the first three letters.
When enlarged, the left downstroke of the mem and lower right bend of the kaph are easily seen.
0.8: B
1
/F/AW ] Mil/GMT . The outline of a final aleph is clear on ISF_DO_0665. In addition,
the preceding two letters appear to be separated, making a penultimate tav unlikely.
0.10: ] [ ] F/AW ] [ . The reading of F/AW is problematic. First, there is a space of
6-8 letters between their final nun and the beginning of . Second, a large blank space (at least that of
a word break) between the letter combinations yod-shin and shin-het would be required. Third, what they
read as the right part of a shin is clearly an ayin in ISF_DO_00661 (the joint of the left and right strokes
is visible). Finally, the faint remains of a final nun can be seen preceding . My letters are far less
certain.
0.13: F/AW ] Mil ; B
1
. The final word is quite certain, but the beginning of
is obscured and may be directly preceded by other letters. It does, however, fit with the use of this word
at several other points in the scroll.
0.15: Mil/B
1
/GMT/AW ] F . Although the resh is slightly obscured, the upper part of the letter
is far too large to be that of a yod.
0.17: ] Mil/GMT ; B
1
/F ; AW . The end of this word is written compactly,
making the fourth and fifth letters difficult to read. The het and nun (as separate letters) are quite clear
on an enlargement of ISF_DO_00661, with the following letter being either a gimel (with the lower
136
extension of its vertical stroke hidden by the bottom, horizontal stroke of the preceding nun), or a nun. I
find a nun to be more likely based on physical remains, meaning, and context.
Column 1: This column has been pieced together from several disjoined pieces of the manuscript. The ends
of lines 1-22 (i.e. the left edge of col. 1) are found along the right edge of the fragment containing col. 2.
The beginning of lines 6-13 are preserved in Miliks 1Q20, frg. 1, Col. II. The so-called Trever
Fragment accounts for the remainder of the column, from lines 23-29. Because several fragments are
involved, this column has been the object of several critical mistakes in line numbering and word
placement. These are noted below.
1.1: [ ] [ ] B
1
] ... [ ; B
3
] ... [ ; MQS/F/AW [ ;
GMT ] ... [ . The top of what MQS/F/AW read as a vav in is actually cut off, and is
followed by a vertical stroke with a foot at the bottom. I have, therefore, read this as a tav, after which
there is room for a yod, thus forming a peal pl. part. of descend. This fits well with
contemporaneous stories surrounding the cohabitation of the sons of God with the daughters of
mankind, recounted in Gen. 6:1-4 (cf. 1 En. 6-7; Jub. 4:15; 6:1-3). F notes the visible downstroke of
the qoph in the word (p. 120), which is clearly seen in IMneg. 3854. The readings of B
1
/B
3
are to
be excluded on paleographic grounds.
1.3: [ ] B
1
[ ; B
3
[ ; MQS [ ; F [ ; AW [ . The ayin is relatively clear on IMneg. 3854, although
a shin should not be ruled out absolutely. It is certainly not a samekh, as transcribed by AW.
1.4: In MQS/F/AW, the letters [ precede / . This is apparently a mistake first made by MQS,
and followed by F and AW, in which letters belonging to the previous line were included on this line
instead (i.e. my [ of the previous note). The mistake is apparently attributable to IMneg. 3853, on
which a fragment from line 3 is askew, and appears to be part of this line. The correct placement is
apparent on all other photographs. Very little remains before the word , certainly not enough to read
confidently the letters suggested.
1.4: B
1
/F ] MQS/GMT/AW ; B
3
. The last word of this line is uncertain, despite the lack of
indicators to this effect in some previous editions (neither B
1
nor F include diacritical marks above the
final two letters). Only the top of the first letter remains, and it does not have the flat, horizontal line
expected of a tav. The dalet and ayin are certain. The penultimate letter has a vertical tear through it, but
appears to be a yod. Although the lower part of the final nun is difficult to discern, it is visible on IMneg.
3853 (which is the best photograph of this word).
1.7: MQS/F/AW have mistakenly skipped a line here. Their lines 6 and 8 (my line 7) clearly follow one
another in the photographs, and account for a disagreement in our line numbering until 1.23 (cf. note
below). B
1
s numbering is correct for those portions of col. 1 not originally included in Mils 1Q20.
However, B
1
inexplicably places Mils col. II (the right side of col. 1 elsewhere) in his col. 0! The
problem remains uncorrected in B
3
.
1.7: ] B
1
; B
3
[ . The aleph is clear, especially on IMneg. 3853.
1.10: ] Mil ; B
1
(0:26) ; F ; AW . On ISF_DO_0067 several
unidentified letters can be made out. What all others read as a tav I have broken into a vav and dalet,
since the initial vertical stroke is leaning to the left and does not have the left leg expected of a tav. The
ink of this word appears very blurred on the original photos, but is clarified by infrared photography.
1.11: GMT/F/AW ] Mil ; B
1
(0:27) .
1.11: ] ] F ] . The three letters are close together, but the bottom of a kaph for the third letter is
clear on ISF_DO_0067. There is no paleographic evidence for the bottom horizontal stroke of Fs bet.
Another possible reading is ] [they] arranged.
1.12: ] B
1
(0:28) ; Mil/GMT/F/AW . Both and
are paleographically possible, but the latter makes much better sense following the preposition at the
end of line 11. The final three letters of are uncertain, with only the very top portions remaining.
1.13: ] Mil ] ; B
1
(0:29)/F ; AW . There are horizontal rips through both words,
making this reading far from sure. More letters are required than the readings of Mil/B
1
/F provide, and
137
it appears that two words should be read on ISF_DO_03796, 00661, and 00665. The letters with
circlets are speculative, and the final nun certain.
1.18: [ ] MQS/F/AW [ ; B
3
[ . F/AW have followed MQS without revision, but I see
no evidence for either their initial aleph, or their word break, on any of the photographs. A partial letter
stands before the lamed, but there appears to be enough room for a word break between the two. A peh
is assured following the lamed (contra B
3
), and in IMneg. 3853 and 3854#1 a shin is quite clear in the
ante-penultimate position. The letter between the peh and shin is blurred, but appears to be a gimel in the
same two photographs. B
3
s reading is untenable.
1.23: Here begins the Trever fragment. The line numbering is uncertain from this point forward, since the
fragment is a floating piece with no obvious join with the rest of the column. I have left one line
between MQS/Fs line 22 and 23, since the join there does not look correct, and the letter remains do
not clearly line up (the lamed in particular). The same arrangement is employed by B
3
. MQS/F have
mistakenly left an empty line between lines 23 and 25, which directly follow one another on the
fragment. Judging by the drawing on p. 116 of his commentary, it is surprising that F does not employ
dots above any of the letters. My emendations of this and following lines are based on IMneg. 6x6.
1.24: GMT/F/B
3
/AW ] B
2
. The reading is certain.
1.25: F ] MQS/GMT/AW ; B
3
. The het is clear for
both words on IMneg. 6x6, neither letter containing the short, leftward overhang of the top cross-stroke
expected of a heh. B
3
s kaph is undoubtedly a mem.
1.26: ] MQS/GMT/AW ; F .; B
3
] . There is a crack running horizontally
through the word, obscuring some of its letters. When enlarged, however, most letters can be discerned
with certainty on IMneg. 6x6.
1.27: [ ] MQS/F/AW [ ; B
3
[ . The letter preceding yod does not have the left downstroke
characteristic of an ayin. It appears instead to have the upper, horizontal stroke more common for a resh
or dalet.
Column 2: The first of the columns originally published by AY, col. 2 has been widely commented upon,
accounting for many sources cited in the textual notes. Col. 2 exists on a single leaf of parchment,
detached from the soft side of the scroll by Trever in 1949. Photos for this column are found in the
AY, IMneg., and BZ collections.
2.1: AY/J/MBE/Pu/GMT/F/AW ] Kut ; B
1
} { ; Qim
1
. Kutschers
suggestion is impossible based on available space. Although Qimrons reading is attractive on linguistic
grounds, the left leg of what I read as tav appears too close (and the foot too short) to the following aleph
to be a nun. Since an Aramaic form similar to ours is known from 11QtgJob 4:9 (), it seems that
in this line we find the standard Aramaic word, while that used in 2.15 () is a Hebraism.
2.1: Qim
1
/F/AW ] AY ] [ ; J/GMT ; MBE ; B
1
; B
3
/ . The readings of B
1
and
MBE are incorrect based simply on space considerations and letter remains. B
3
is no improvement.
Qimron was the first to point out that what is read by AY/J/GMT as a heh is actually the combination
zayin-resh. Indeed, the upper horizontal stoke of the resh is visible on BZ1-2T, as is the following ayin,
which is split apart by a crack in the leather.
2.4: ] AY/F ; Pu ] [ ] [ ; B
1
; J/GMT/AW . The reading of
J/GMT/AW is the least likely, since what they transcribe as mem does not have the horizontal bottom
stroke required by that letter in BZ1-2T or IMneg. 3853 (this reading seems to favor grammatical
considerations over the physical evidence). Puech reads the aleph as part of the following word (i.e. a 1
sg. imperf. aphel), which is grammatically possible. However, the word break discerned by all others is
quite clear, and the imperfect would seem strange in this context (direct speech to Batenosh). The
earlier letters of his reading do not look correct to me. I largely agree with the readings of AY/F/B
1
,
but opt for a yod instead of vav in . F noted the enigmatic nature of this form, which he leaves
untranslated, and argues that the preceding letters cannot be the 1 sg. pers. pro. (as J/GMT/AW
and I read), since at this time it always ends with heh. In his discussion of orthography (p. 263),
138
however, he notes the substitution of aleph for an expected heh in numerous other places, raising the
possibility that this was a scribal slip based on phonetics. The form is widespread in subsequent
Palestinian Aramaic (cf. Sokoloff, DJPA, p. 64). F also notes that some word like swear to me is
expected before . I tentatively take to be a (unique) denominative part. related to the noun
witness, bearer of testimony.
2.6: ] AY/J/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
. The final two letters are very clear on the plate of AY and
IMneg. 3854#1. The top of the initial het is apparent in IMneg. 3854 and 3854#1, but is difficult to
discern in AYs plate. The letters following this word can be seen on the IMneg. photos.
2.9: ] AY/J/F/GMT/AW ; B
1
. What all others have read as one word may justifiably be
split into two based on the very close spacing between words elsewhere in the scroll (e.g. in 2.3
and in 2.23). The right horn of the dalet is clear in BZ1-2T.
2.10: J/Pu/F/GMT/AW ] B
1
. Either reading is possible, since the text is badly damaged here
(although one would not gather this from J/GMT). Yet, the overall ink remains seem to fit slightly
better. The best photograph is IMneg. 3854#1, in which the downstroke of a qoph does appear possible
in the first position. It may very well be that neither suggestion is correct.
2.11: [ ] AY [ ; J [ ; Pu/B
1
/F [ . When enlarged, IMneg. 3854 and 3854#1 show
clearly that there is no letter between the lamed and aleph at the end of the word. The first two letters of
the last word have the long, horizontal base strokes expected of a bet, kaph, or mem. Puech asserts that
this word is prcd sans doute by , although the negative imprint of an aleph is quite evident.
2.17: ] AY/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW . I am convinced that the penultimate letter is a kaph, and not a
bet. seems paleographically preferable when IMneg. 3854 and 3854#1 are enlarged (although a bet
cannot be ruled out absolutely), and mirrors the syntax used earlier in the line. A plene spelling is also
used for this suffix in 5.9 (where it is subsequently corrected) and 20.26 (with a heh), showing that it was
pronounced kha by the scribe/community who wrote or copied the scroll. This type of ending is
common in Qumran Hebrew (see Qimron, Hebrew, p. 58-9).
2.20: ] ] AY ] ; J/GMT/AW ; B
1
] ; F ] . At least one letter can be seen following the resh, but
the ink is severely blurred. Puech noted that J/GMT/AWs reading est une lecture
palographiquement exclue, with which I agree. There is not the sweeping right to left downward
stroke expected of an ayin, but a more vertical stroke (possibly the gimel suggested by F). In any case, the
basic idea suggested by both J and F seems plausible (i.e. a word roughly parallel to ).
2.22: F/B
2/3
] AY [ ; J/GMT/AW . Two facts are relatively clear: 1.) there is a space
between the lamed and ; 2.) there are at least four letters preceding at the beginning of the line.
This rules out the readings of AY/J/GMT/AW, while leaving F/B
2
s proposal quite possible. The ayin
is more easily discerned than the preceding 2 (or 3) letters, which are highly speculative.
2.23: J/B
1
/F ] AY ; Du-So/Gre ; dMed ; MBE ; GMT ;
AW . The readings of GMT and AW are easily dismissed on physical grounds, since more than
one letter would be required between the qoph and tav of GMT, and the lower extension of a final letter
form is clearly seen in the third or fourth space (contra AW). It appears that AW have strictly followed
MBEs (p. 41, n. 1) suggestion that these letters represent the word the upper layer, stratum (of
the three). Not even Milik, however, ignored the final kaph, confessing that his reading was in spite of
the final form of the Kaph in the middle of a word (which does occur occasionally in the script of the
Qumran manuscripts). He ignored to mention, however, that this practice never occurs elsewhere in
the Genesis Apocryphon, which may have caused GMT to propose the even less plausible . The
other readings (except for AY; cf. note on 2.9 above) are also paleographically untenable, aside from
being unlikely on other grounds (cf. Ligne, Textes, p. 223-5; and F, p. 137 for discussion). These words
are fairly clear on IMneg. 3854#1, and Fs interpretation remains the most reasonable.
2.23: AY/J/B
1
/F/GMT/AW ] vdW . See F, p. 136-7 for discussion.
2.23: ] ] AY ] ; J/F/GMT/AW ] ; B
1
] . The word is surprisingly clear at the
end of this line in BZ1-2T. Although makes good sense here, it is surprising that this reading has
139
been perpetuated, since even the plates of AY show it to be untenable on paleographic grounds. My
reading is supported by the parallel in 1 Enoch 106:8, And when Methuselah heard the words of his
son, he came to me at the ends of the earth.
2.25: ] AY/F [ ] [ ; J/GMT [ ; B
1
[ ; AW [ . The lamed is much closer to
than it seems in the transcriptions of AY and F, with only one, small letter between them. This
also renders the readings of B
1
and AW untenable.
2.25: Gin/J/GMT/F/AW ] AY ; B
1
. Both and are materially possible, but the latter is
preferable on grammatical grounds. B
1
s proposal may stem from his misreading of the preceding
(without the vav and following ), which then forced him to provide a vav, rather than dalet, in order to
make sense of the phrase. Here the dalet introduces direct discourse (cf. F, p. 138). Ginsberg argues
that this word is written junctim with the following , but this is very unlikely.
2.25: B
1
/Qim
1
/F ] AY/J/GMT/AW . Qimron finds this reading materially preferable, although
the word is blurred and difficult to read. This finds support in the of 22.28. It is truly remarkable
that those including diacritical marks in their text do not make use of them here. Happily, the meaning
remains the same in either case.
2.25: ] [ ] AY ] ; J ; B
1
; GMT/AW ; F ] . The readings of B
1
and F can be excluded
with certainty, since the second letter has a bottom, horizontal stroke not characteristic of an aleph or
final kaph. The extended downstroke of the last letter assures that it is a final form.
Column 3: This column is very badly damaged, with the most helpful photos being the BZ set. There are a
number of lines in the lower portion of this column (cf. BZ3-4B or IM neg. x 86-4447) that have not
been transcribed by MQS, F, AW, or B
3
. They contain little readable text.
3.4: ] MQS/F/AW [ ; B
3
[ . The bet of my is clearly visible on BZ3-4T, ruling out the
transcription of B
3
.
3.10: ] MQS/AW ; F ; B
3
[ . The yod at the end of this word is
quite clear when enlarged, while there is not enough room to accommodate an aleph before the following
lamed (contra F). The question remains as to what this word may mean. MQS does not translate, and
AWs translation, lower for this sea, fails to convince. I believe that it must either be the noun
land, earth plus the 1 sg. possessive suffix (my land), or a peal inf. const. of the verb visit,
happen upon, also followed by the 1 sg. suffix (lit. in my happening upon). I have opted for the
former only because of the frequent use of throughout this section and the scroll in general. The
following is used alternately as both the near (this) and far (that) demonstrative pronoun in the
scroll. B
3
s suggestion is not plausible.
3.11: MQS/F/AW ] B
3
[ . All four letters of are confidently identified on IMneg. x
86-4447, 4453.
3.12: ] B
3
. B
3
s reading is not correct. Perhaps he is referring to the clear earlier in the line?
3.15: ] B
3
. The text is in very poor shape here. Apart from
the initial , the only word of B
3
containing any plausibility is the last. His overall reading falls several
letters short of the number required for this space.
3.17: ] MQS/F/AW [ ; B
3
.
Upon scrutinizing BZ3-4M and IMneg. x 86-4447, 4453 it is apparent that B
3
has read the first word
incorrectly. The gimel is especially decisive in this regard. The ayin of is also quite clear, and the bet
and dalet of B
3
may be dismissed on material grounds there is no base stroke for the first letter, while
the second clearly has a break in the top (i.e. the valley between the two strokes of my ayin).
3.24: ] MQS/F/AW . The reading of MQS/F/AW cannot be correct. It is clear on
BZ3-4M that there are three letters between the two lameds, and there is far too much space for the
second lamed to be followed by the pronominal suffix - alone. The mem and aleph are quite clear, while
the kaph could also be a bet.
3.29: ] This phrase is very clear on BZ3-4B, with the only question being whether the final letters are
or (I first read the latter, but the foot of the left leg required by a tav seems to be missing). I have
140
chosen the former, which I translate as the plural of forest, reed marsh, and which may allude to
the dominion over creation given to Noah. The latter option (i.e. with a tav) would constitute a suffixed
verbal form from study, work (i.e. I studied them), also possible in this context. Reading
as two words ( to me cities) is unlikely, since the yod/vav runs directly into the ayin.
Column 4: This is another poorly preserved column, of which only some parts along the outer edges remain. It
is the last column of the present sheet of parchment. By following the left margin we are able to
determine that, like the next sheet, it contained 36 lines per column. The BZ photos and IMneg. 3838
are the most helpful.
4.1: ] MQS/AW ; F . There is clearly a letter before what I read as a kaph, and the others as a mem
(contra F). Due to a crack in the leather running through the word in BZ3-4T, the tops and bottoms of
the letter are unaligned. However, the sloping line on the left side of MQS/F/AWs mem has a
noticeable convex shape to it, suggesting that it is, rather, the right stroke of an ayin. Indeed, the top of
the ayins left stroke can be seen next to the top of the final nun in the photographs.
4.1: ] B
3
. Either reading is possible, but it is astonishing that B
3
has not included any diacritical marks.
The second letter is almost completely missing in every available photograph, yet the remaining right,
slanting stroke appears to me to be that of a gimel.
4.11: MQS/F/AW ] B
3
. B
3
has not transcribed the mem, which is evident on all photographs.
4.12: ] MQS/F/AW [ ; B
3
[ . The lower stroke of a final letter at the end of the second word is
readily seen on IMneg. 3838.
Column 5: This column begins a new sheet of parchment containing columns of 36 lines, with the majority of
preserved text for this column adjoining the right margin. A small peh, written in a different scribal
hand, may be seen in the top, righthand corner of the sheet. This, along with similar markings in the
same corner of cols. 10 and 17 (both also at the beginning of new parchment sheets), must have been
part of the manuscript preparation process. All three letters were written rather crudely in comparison
to the neat hand of the scribe(s) of this manuscript, and were first noted by M. Morgenstern, A New
Clue to the Original Length of the Genesis Apocryphon, JJS 47.2 (1996), 345-47. I do not see any
reason to assume automatically that the sheets comprising this manuscript began with the letter aleph, as
Morgenstern does. It seems more likely that the letters were by penned by those who initially prepared
the leather, in order to assure proper joinery. One can imagine a large stack of such sheets from which
some were taken (beginning with the next letter in the stack) when a new manuscript was
commissioned.
5.1: ] MQS/F/AW ] ; B
3
. The reading of B
3
is implausible for two reasons:
1.) where he has the combination tav-space-ayin there is clearly a letter with a flat, horizontal base stroke
(my kaph) followed by a yod/vav; and 2.) there is no yod between the lamed and heh.
5.1: ] This is a highly speculative reading, since there is a crack running through the entire
phrase in BZ4-5T and the correct alignment of letters is difficult to ascertain. Further work on this line
may yield more certain results.
5.3: ] I follow the reading of AY (18), B
1
et al. with some reservation. In support of this proposal, the 1
sg. pronoun is typically followed by a proper name (but cf. 5.9).
5.5: B
3
] MQS/GMT/F/AW . The horizontal top stroke of the bet (as opposed to sloping stroke
of a mem) is clear on BZ4-5T.
5.7: B
3
] Although I follow B
3
here, the reading is extremely tenuous (more than B
3
s transcription
suggests). His foregoing words, ] [ , are far from certain.
5.8: MQS/F/AW ] B
3
. The letters have a large, horizontal crack running through them, and are
unreadable. At best, B
3
s reading should be viewed as a reconstruction.
5.9: ] [

] MQS/AW

; F

; B
3
] [

. The transcription of F is misleading, since there are at least two intervening words between
and (not including the supralinear ). B
3
is incorrect in reconstructing [ , since there
are clearly one or two letters placed between the lamed and .
141
5.11: ] ] MQS/F/AW ] [ ; B
3
] [ . The initial shin is clearly visible in
BZ4-5M and IMneg. x 86-4445, ruling out the reconstruction of MQS/F/AW. B
3
s confident reading is
unwarranted, and a simple letter count proves it incorrect. It is relatively clear that the first word
contains the letters for , although the peh is least certain. The following words are less sure the
aleph may actually belong with , the bet could also be a peh, and there may be a word break after the
lamed. Whatever the case, the initial word indicates a different implication for this line than that first
suggested by MQS or B
3
, revealing that Noah, not the giants or Watchers, is the subject.
5.12: MQS/F/AW ] B
3
. The second letter is certainly a yod/vav. See IMneg. x 86-4445.
5.14: ] B
3
] . For a similar expression see 2.15-16.
5.16: M (margin) ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. In IMneg. x 86-4445
it is clear that B
3
is correct in transcribing a yod rather than an aleph for the imperfect prefixes of these
two verbs. There is not enough room, however, for both bet and heh between the tav and lamed of his
.
5.17: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. B
3
s reading is plausible, but far from certain. The first
letter appears to be a kaph rather than a bet.
5.18: GMT/B
3
] MQS/F/AW . In BZ4-5M it is plain that the yod of has a vertical crack running
through it, and is also blurred, making it appear larger than a typical yod. This has resulted in
MQS/F/AWs tenuous aleph.
5.19: B
3
] MQS/F/AW . The suggestion of B
3
is supported by IMneg. x 86-4445, where the tops
of all of the letters are discernible. Especially notable is the top of the shin, where the join between the
left, upright stroke and the short, intermediate stroke is visible. A question lingers regarding a noticeable
basestroke standing between the lamed and qoph, which remains unexplained in my transcription.
5.20: F/B
3
] MQS/GMT/C/AW . The resh is relatively sure on both BZ4-5M and IMneg. x 86-4445.
However, what MQS/GMT/AW read as zayin appears to be a yod based on the larger head and shorter
downward extension typical of the latter. also better fits the typical syntax of the scroll.
5.22: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. BZ4-5M reveals that the illegible letter of
MQS/F/AW/B
3
is a yod. According to their reading, this would have to be the definite object marker
, which is not found elsewhere in the scroll. It is preferable to read this as a 3 m. sg. impf. itpeel from
be done. B
3
s reading is incorrect, since there is plainly a space after the dalet of , and no
evidence for the base stroke of his nun.
5.24: ] ] MQS/F/AW ] ; B
3
] . No lamed is visible on BZ4-5M or IMneg. x 86-4445. Rather, the right,
lower corner of what may be a mem, bet, or kaph appears less than one full letter space after .
Thus, the reading of MQS/F/AW may be ruled out, while my and B
3
s suggestions remain speculative.
5.27 B
3
] MQS/F/AW ; B
1
; GMT . B
1
has missed the first word here, although the
mistake is remedied in B
3
. The dalet of B
3
appears to be correct on IMneg. x 86-4445, and fits the
context well.
5.27 ] ] AY (19/) ... ; MQS/F/AW ] ; GMT ] ; B
1
] ; B
3

]. The yod of is quite clear in the photographs, but has been overlooked by AY and B
1
/B
3
. The
first letter of the following word is tentative, both mem and bet fitting the scant ink remains.
5.29 ] [ ] [ ] Ste/GMT ] [ ; MQS/F/AW ] [ ; B
3
] [
] . The central words are easily read on the infrared photographs. The
surrounding words, however, are more difficult to discern because of an additional layer of parchment
covering them. The name is assured based on the work of Bearman and Zuckerman, even though
the word cannot be seen on the plates available to me (cf. Ste, 66). The initial word is almost completely
obscured by the overlaying piece of leather, and so no conclusion can be reached with certainty.
Nevertheless, in BZ4-5B some ink traces can be seen through this layer, appearing to represent the
upper, left corner of a shin (in the ante-penultimate position) and perhaps a final nun. If we reconstruct
the name based on its occurrence five lines earlier, it is approximately 1.5 letters too long for
the space available between the right margin and . This proves B
3
s suggestion unlikely. The word
142
, on the other hand, fits much better, and agrees with usage in roughly contemporaneous Aramiac
texts (4Q543 1a-c.1; and 4Q545 1 ai 1; cf. 4Q203 8.3).
Column 6: The IMneg. and BZ sets of infrared photographs provide useful information for reading this
column. The column begins with full lines at the top and the right margin preserved, but slowly tapers
toward the bottom, gradually losing text from the beginning and end of its lines.
6.1: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. The bet is discernible on BZ6T when it is enlarged and the contrast
is enhanced. Neither the ink remains nor spacing fit the reading of B
3
.
6.2: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. The word is abundantly clear on BZ6T.
6.2: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
. This word is somewhat stretched and distorted in BZ6T, but
the vertical stroke of another letter is clearly visible between the ayin and mem (especially when enlarged),
and the upper, horizontal stroke of a resh fits suitably the ink remains. This suffixed verb (cf.
in the following line) makes good sense in context, although it might be expected in the aphel rather than
peal conjugation. A verbal form also helps make sense of the next line, the syntax of which is difficult
(cf. following note). B
3
s proposal may be ruled out based on the physical remains (e.g. the second letter
is clearly an ayin). See the similar use of this verb in 4Q534 1 i 6.
6.3:

MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. It is not impossible that the initial letter is kaph instead of bet, but
the latter makes better sense in connection with the noun path. There is no doubt regarding the
samekh, which is especially clear on BZ6T.
6.3: B
3
] MQS/GMT/F/AW . Previous attempts to interpret the beginning of this line have
provided as many difficulties as solutions. First, we should expect an infinitive to precede the phrase
based on the related, following expression, and to put me on guard. I have supplied
] [ at the end of line 2 for this reason, although the specific form of the word is far from certain
(especially given that we might expect a pael here when considering other Aramaic dialects; a Hebraism
perhaps?). As for , the area where the downstroke of a yod/vav would be expected (based on the
placement of its head in relation to neighboring letters) is entirely blank, while the thin vertical
downstroke of what must be a resh or dalet can be plainly seen clinging to the left side of the aleph. This
reading is further supported by its better contextual sense. I take to be part of an extended
construct chain (so also B
3
; for this form cf. Dan. 4:34, 5:23), although the defective spelling is
uncharacteristic, and the indefinite seems odd (but cf. the following , which must be
translated as definite to make sense). A 1 sg. peal verb is also conceivable, but is difficult to make sense
of in relation to the following phrase . B
3
and I arrived at this reading independently.
6.3: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. B
3
reads aleph in place of the prefixed vav of the following word,
which stands in direct contradiction to the physical remains.
6.3: GMT/F ] MQS/AW ; B
3
. The ink remains fit well (see especially BZ6T). The
penultimate letter has the indisputable head of a yod/vav, not a resh (contra B
3
).
6.3: F ] MQS/AW ; B
3
] . While the ayin is not certain, a vav may be ruled out, based on ink
remains and spacing. The fact that B
3
does not include a circlet over his vav undermines confidence in
his reading.
6.4: ] B
3
. Although intriguing, I cannot reconcile the reading of B
3
with the physical evidence.
The second letter (my ayin) is especially decisive, as is the upper loop of what appears to be a qoph.
BZ6T is the best photo here.
6.6: B
3
] Here I follow the reading of B
3
, which suitably fits the letter remains and narrative context.
6.7: ] MQS/AW ; Qim
2
] [ ; F ] [ .; B
3
. These words have a large
horizontal crack running through them, making them very difficult to read. Fs proposal cannot be
correct, since it is clear that a letter with a horizontal top stroke follows the lamed, and that he has too
few letters within his brackets (there must be at least 8 letters overall). The individual characters
suggested by MQS/AW are not impossible, but their reading also contains too few letters. Qimrons
initial proposal of for the second word fits the ink remains well and is followed here (as well as by
B
3
). On BZ6T, the possible negative imprint of a lamed (now eroded away) precedes , making it
143
quite possible that some form of the name of Emzeras father once stood here. Unfortunately, it is now
impossible to tell the precise combination of letters, since only the very tops remain. Fs can be
ruled out based on available space, but remaining possibilities are , (cf. Jub. 4:33), , or
something similar. Qimron reconstructed ] [ at the end of line 6 and ] [ preceding
(Bakiel, brother of my father), but this is unlikely based on the space and ink remains at the beginning
of this line. B
3
s suggested ...] [ / meinem Onkel [Raguel?] is impossible based on the word
alone, since it falls at least two letters short of the available space. His absence of diacritical marks is
utterly nonplussing.
6.8: ] [ ] MQS/F/B
3
] [ ; AW ] [ . MQS/F/AW/B
3
(as well as Qim
2
) place at the end
of the preceding line, but two factors make this improbable. First, there is no final nun visible where it
would be expected in line 7 (i.e. this line appears to be shorter than line 8). Second, there is far too
much space for the word alone before the in line 8 (there is space for 7-10 letters). AWs
does not make sense syntactically, and is presumably an error.
6.9: ] [ ] MQS/AW ] [ ; Qim
2
; F ] [ ; B
3
] [ ) ? ( .
BZ6T reveals that the letter preceding heh cannot be a bet (as F suggests), but should be either a dalet or
resh. There is also far too much space for ] [ alone to fill out the beginning of the line. Qimron
must have meant to include brackets (or ghosted letters) for , since the leather is completely
missing for these words in all of the photographs. For the grammatical problems with Qimrons
suggestion cf. F, pp. 147-8. My own suggestion is uncertain, and remains too short to fill the available
space. Nonetheless, something of similar import is called for.
6.9: ] Qim
2
/MQS/GMT/F/AW/B
3
; . The mem of is obscured, but the nearly effaced
bottom stroke is discernible on BZ6T (for the theologumenon cf. 0.18). I refer those who might
argue that there is not enough space for a mem (as I first thought), to the occurrence of in line 2,
where the letter is pinched and overlaps the ensuing aleph.
6.11:

MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
} { . The descending, diagonal cross-stroke of the second aleph is
apparent on BZ6T and IMneg. x 86-4447, 4452. The superscripted tav is written in a different hand and,
apparently, with a different composition of ink (it has not eaten away the leather like the original script).
6.11: GMT/F ] MQS/AW ; B
3
. The downstroke of a probable yod/vav can be seen
preceding the lamed in IMneg. x 86-4447, 4452 (the lamed cannot be seen on BZ6T), rendering B
3
s
proposal unacceptable. The kaph of fits the scant ink remains well.
6.13: MQS/AW/B
3
] GMT/F . The bet of GMT/F is incorrect, as plainly seen on all
photographs. It appears that this line contains a poetic triplet of corresponding phrases, describing who
is speaking to Noah in his vision. In this configuration, each figure is paired with a descriptive nominal
clause (on/by a) and the word , all of which must have been preceded by a (now lost) verb at the
beginning of the line. This explanation alleviates much of the trouble previous commentators have had
making sense of the line. It should be noted that AW has misplaced the superscripted ayin of the second
.
6.13 MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. Although the letters mem and bet often look similar in this scroll, the
second letter is better read as a bet (see especially BZ6T).
6.13: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. B
3
s interpretation of (which is paleographically possible) as the
city Tyros (Tyre) is very unlikely given the similarity in meaning between errand and the
following visitation, sending, and the general structure of this line (see note to 6.13: ,
above).
6.13: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. B
3
has mistakenly omitted the preposition bet, which is
clearly seen on BZ6T (although it is less clear on the other photographs).
6.13: ] B
3
. There is an intervening letter after and preceding B
3
s . A sweeping right to
left stroke, discernible on BZ6T, suggests the possibility of ayin.
6.14: ] This could also be read . The meaning is uncertain, and may be meant to serve as either an
adverb (i.e. solemnly, loudly), or a subject (cf. in the following line).
144
6.15: ] I (along with AW) take this as a subject followed by the 3 m. sg. aphel of , which makes
better sense of the line than other suggestions.
6.16: [ ] MQS/F/AW [ ; B
3
[ . The right horn of the dalet is clear in BZ6B, as are slight ink
remains of the lower extension of the qoph and the upper extension of the lamed. The final letter could
also be a vav, although the 1 sg. suffix makes better sense in this context.
6.16: ] MQS/AW ; GMT/F ; B
3
. There is a large crack
running vertically between these words in BZ6B and IMneg. x 86-4447, but neither the space nor ink
remains suggest two additional letters here.
6.16: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. Although not impossible, B
3
s reading is paeographically and
contextually less satisfying than the initial transcription of MQS.
6.16: M (margin) ] MQS/GMT/F/AW/B
3
. The third letter is quite clearly a zayin, as noted by M.
6.17: ] MQS/F/AW . A single, vertical line can be clearly seen following the resh in
BZ6B. The bottom portion of a bet, or similar letter, is also clear at the beginning of the following word.
A bet is to be preferred, since in Hebrew the verb regularly takes this preposition with the direct
object when meaning choose, select (perhaps another Hebraism; cf. Jastrow II, p. 155).
6.18: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. The second letter is clearly a samekh on BZ6B and IMneg. x 86-
4447. This word may indeed be based on the verbal root seal, close up, as suggested by
MQS/GMT/F/AW (most likely as a pael act. part. [AW], and not the assimilated preposition plus the
pass. part. [F]). In this context, however, it is also possible that we have a phonetic parallel of the
biblical and Qumran Hebrew noun hostility, hatred, enemy. This noun is used only twice in
the Hebrew Bible (Hos. 9:7-8) to describe the sin of the adulterous and idolatrous Israelites, who by
their deeds have brought near the day of Gods vengeance. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls the word
enjoys wider usage, both as a general noun (e.g. 1QS 3:23; 1QM 13:4; 4Q286 frg. 7 ii:2) and a proper
noun (e.g. 1QM 13:11; 4Q390 1:11; cf. also Jub. 11:3-7, 19:28). The form is found in 4Q475, line
5. (Cf. DDD, 1033-35).
6.19: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. I find no evidence for a fifth letter in this word. The lower part of
the vertical stroke that others read as a vav should be read as a dalet or resh, since an upper, horizontal
stroke is visible on IMneg. x 86-4447, 4452. This also rules out B
3
s suggestion. Here Noah is referred
to as a witness to the bloodshed set in motion by the Watchers.
6.19: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. A horizontal crack runs through the word on all photos, but a peh
appears to fit the upper remains of the letter better than a kaph.
6.21: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. The samekh is clear in all photographs, while a peh remains
paleographically possible (along with nun) in the penultimate position.
6.21: ] [ ] This word is uncertain but makes sense in conjunction with the preceding . If correct,
this is an irregular usage of the root / in the aphel, perhaps with an object suffix.
6.21: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. The vav, aleph, and lamed are the only sure letters in this reading. I
admit that for my proposal to be correct the leather would have to be shrunken (as is often the case near
the end of lines in this column), or the two words placed very close together, since there does not
appear to be enough room for these words as typically written and spaced. The final letter does not
have the curved tail typical of a final nun in this scroll.
6.23: ] [ ] MQS/F/AW ] ; B
3
] . The reading is very
difficult, and remains tentative. The first word (and especially the first letter), however, disprove the
proposal of B
3
. Additionally, there is no sign in any of the photographs of his second qoph.
6.24: ] [ ] [ ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. The reading of
MQS/F/AW is surprising for several reasons, not least the certainty ascribed to their final two words,
both of which cannot be correct. Their is actually , with the top of the dalet visible in BZ6B.
What they read as three letters following this word can be no less than five, with the lamed followed
directly by yod and aleph. Both MQS/F/AW and B
3
have the lamed following the qoph too closely. My
suggested is quite uncertain, but it seems that a noun in construct relationship with is needed.
145
The expression blood of anger and jealousy is found in Ezek. 16:38 to express the
coming judgment of God on Israel the harlot (). The bottom stroke a mem, or similar letter, can be
seen in the third position of MQS/F/AW/B
3
s . Alternatively (and perhaps more fitting in this
context), the may refer to burnt offerings sacrificed by Noah, in which case the following words
may be reconstructed .
6.25: [ ] MQS/F/AW [ . The extended downstroke appears too far left of the lamed to be a final kaph.
Column 7: This column is missing much of its right side. The piece of parchment containing what remains of
col. 7 also preserves most of the top and left margins, in addition to the right edge of col. 8. There are
no BZ photographs for this column, and so I have relied primarily on the IMneg. set. These are quite
good in all parts save the leftmost edge of the column, where they are slightly blurred.
7.2: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
] [ . There certainly existed more at the beginning
of this line than what is reconstructed by B
3
. I do not find convincing evidence for his ,
especially for his ayin, which appears to me to be the lower portion of a lamed.
7.2: ] GMT/F/AW/B
3
begin a new sentence with this word, which is certainly possible. However, for
the conflated relationship between the stars and Watchers in Enochic literature cf. 1En. 18:14-16, 21:1-
6.
7.3: ] [ ] ] [ (their passing) would also make good sense here.
7.4: ] MQS/F/AW . Either reading is paleographically tenable, but I favor based on the ink
remains at the beginning of the word.
7.5: MQS/F/AW ] B
3
.
7.8: ] MQS/F/AW . There are clearly other letters between the lamed and the word
(that is, if MQS/F/AW are referring to the same lamed as read in my preceding word I see
evidence of no other).
7.9: ] I have taken this as a verbal form (with suffix) from the root he caused me to prosper. It
may also be a 3 m. sg. peal perfect verb from , followed by a 1 sg. pronominal suffix and preceded by
the relative , although this seems less likely given the more regular use of the full form in the early
columns of the scroll. The most common meaning of this verb is to be sharp, but it can also mean
to teach diligently, speak distinctly, memorize (cf. Jastrow II, 1607).
7.9: ] Both the reading and meaning of this word are far from certain. I have translated it as a
denominative peal/pael verb from the noun(s) / witness/testimony. This, however, is typically a
Hebrew word only, with my proposed meaning found only in the hiphil conjugation.
7.10: ] MQS/F/AW/B
3
. I do not find the tav of MQS/F/AWs convincing, since
there appears to be only one vertical stroke at the end of the word. If the following word once read
/ , this could be connected to a Book of Noah mentioned in the Greek Mt. Athos ms. of the
Aramaic Levi Document, For thus my father Abraham commanded me, for thus he found in the
writing of the book of Noah concerning the blood. (Cf. J.C. Greenfield, M.E. Stone, and E. Eshel, The
Aramaic Levi Document, Leiden: Brill, 2004, ??).
7.17: ] B
3
[ . The first letter is obscured, but the lower stroke of what may be a bet is visible in
IMneg. x 86-4444 and 4446. The third letter is almost certainly a tsade, with the small, upper stroke also
perceptible in these photos. The second letter could also be a zayin. Although very tentative, I take this
word as a 3 m. participle from the root split, divide, branch off. If this were the case, the use of
vav would constitute a Hebraism.
7.17: ] An alternative meaning of this root () in Hebrew is lay bare, which makes good sense in this
context but is typically found only in the hiphil.
7.18: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. Without better context it is unclear how to
understand this phrase. may be an irregular form of the adverb (cf. the following line), in
which case it should be preceded by a verb. I have translated as such (following F), but we would
typically expect the object (apparently ) to precede the adverb (cf. 13.15; 20.33; 22.32), since
regularly stands at the end of a phrase. Perhaps begins a new phrase. It is also possible that
146
and stand in a partitive relationship (to one of the beautiful ones), although we would expect
an intermediate if this were the case (cf. 10.12; 19.11; 22.1, 33). MQS/AW translate as an
adjective modifying in (one beautiful), but this seems unlikely. B
3
s initial is quite plausible
(which would change the dynamics of the phrases meaning), although his final word is not
correct (the first letter is not a vav, but has the sloping right stroke of a shin, or, less likely, an ayin).
7.19: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. The samekh of B
3
is probable in the second position
(providing the meaning to help me) based on the right, sloping side of the letter seen in IMneg. x 86-
4444 and 4446. A penultimate nun, however, is not present on either photograph the yod directly
follows the tav. Presumably, the final yod is still a (defective) form of the 1 sg. pronominal suffix.
7.20: [ ] B
3
. One very obscured letter may be seen preceding the possible het, but I see no
evidence to support the overconfident reading of B
3
.
7.20: MQS/F/AW ] B
3
. Although its top slightly overlaps the following lamed, the second
letter is quite clearly a kaph.
7.21: ] B
3
. The tsade and tav are very close together, leaving too little space for a het.
7.22: ] [ ] B
3
. A horizontal crack runs through the word, but a vav can be seen preceding the aleph
in IMneg. x 86-4444. There is no lamed present. I adopt B
3
s following , although with some
reservation.
7.23: ] B
3
. In this and the following word I have used the narrowband infrared photo of Gregory
Bearman #0325 (1997), which gives a much clearer reading than the IMneg. set. A letter, probably vav,
precedes B
3
s resh, which may alternatively be read as a dalet.
7.23: MQS/F/AW ] B
3
. The tav is very clear in Bearman #0325 (cf. previous note), although it
could easily be mistaken for an aleph in the IMneg. set.
Column 8: Very little is preserved of this column and the script is badly disintegrated. A few words cling to
the right margin of the fragment containing partial remains of col. 7. For this portion I have used
Bearman #0324 and the IMneg. photographs. A bit of text from the upper two lines adjoins the left
margin of the column on a separate piece of parchment, containing remains of col. 9. The same is true
of eight lines in the lower portion of the column. The BZ set of photographs are extraordinarily clear
for what remains of the upper portion of this side, while the lower eight lines are preserved only on the
IMneg. photos.
8.1: ] It is quite possible that this is a reference to the animals entering the ark, rather than to
Noah and his wife (as suggested by F). In Gen 7:2 the phrase is used twice to speak of an
animal and its mate.
8.1: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. The entirety of this phrase is tentative, but the
letters can be made out with certainty in BZ8-9, showing that MQS/F/AWs final nun is actually
the downstroke of a qoph. The tav suggested by MQS/F/AW/B
3
at the end of is very unlikely.
Rather, this letter has the base stroke of a kaph/mem/tsade. The negative impression of a lamed is plainly
seen to the left of the margin line in BZ8-9, prompting my reading .
8.9: ] MQS/F/AW/B
3
] . This reading is uncertain, and would require the bet to be contorted
somewhat by the shrunken leather. An aleph at the end of the word appears quite tenable based on
Bearman #0324.
8.15: ] This word, along with the following lines, can be read on both Bearman #0324 and IMneg. x
86-4444. It is also possible that the preposition here is a kaph, rather than a bet. Based on the content of
the following lines apparently a teaching concerning the dispensation of weeks (cf. Jubilees) I
understand this to be a defectively spelled form of week with a 2 m. pl. pronominal suffix
(which is also a stark Hebraism). The m. form of the number seven ( ) is another possibility, but it
is difficult to make sense of it with a suffix. It may alternatively derive from the roots to swear an
oath or to satiate, satisfy.
8.17: ] While many letters in this phrase are clearly visible, some crucial ones are obscured.
The prepositional kaph of the first word could equally be a bet and in its week, since the distinguishing
147
lower right corner of the letter is blurred in Bearman #0324. The key fifth letter of the following word
is now little more than a large smudge of ink, with the preceding letter certainly being a yod or vav. I had
first read this as , which would also make sense in this context, but the lower and upper
horizontal strokes of a bet or kaph appear to be present on IMneg. x 86-4446.
8.29: Here begin eight lines of text from a floating fragment which, according to IMneg. x 86-4444/4446 and
IMneg. 3839/3839#1, belongs to the lower, left portion of column 8, and should be attached to the
right margin of col. 9. This portion of text was apparently available to B
3
, since he includes words and
phrases from it in his edition. The line numbering is unsure, although the first line should be placed
approximately here according to the fragments position in the above mentioned photos. B
3
begins his
transcription at line 22, which does not appear to be correct. Bearman #0327, 0328 and 0329 also
contain this fragment, although there the script is further disintegrated and more difficult to read.
8.33: ] B
3
(8.26) . A space is visible preceding the lamed in IMneg. x 86-4444 and 4446, while
the lamed itself is touching the following bet.
8.34: ] B
3
(8.27) . The first two letters are nearly imperceptible. I follow B
3
with reservation.
8.35: [ ] B
3
(8.28) [ . B
3
s tet and het may be ruled out based on the physical remains.
The first two letters of my are very difficult to read, and may be incorrect.
Column 9: This column is very badly damaged, and little of certainty can be recovered because of the
advanced disintegration of its script. The only preserved portions are those segments attached to the
upper right and left margins, adjoining the columns on either side. The best photo for most of the
preserved text is IMneg. 3839, which has picked up the ink remains quite well. There appear to be 37
(rather than 36) lines in this column, based on a count along the fully preserved left margin.
9.3: ] The word seems to be a form of the noun final decision, irredeemable
sentence. (cf. Jastrow I, p. 467).
Column 10: Portions of each margin are preserved for col. 10, although the center is in various stages of
disintegration. A new sheet of parchment begins here, with the joint seam and scribal dots (to indicate
where the manuscript preparer should inscribe lines) clearly seen in all photographs. The standard
length of the columns on this sheet is 35 lines, and there is a very crudely written tsade (indeed, I
continue to question whether it is a tsade) in the upper, righthand corner of the sheet (cf. cols. 5 and 17).
10.1: GMT/AW/B
3
] MQS/F . The aleph is clear on BZ10T.
10.1: ] [ ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. There are at least three letters between the bet and
lamed, the word fitting well the remaining traces of ink. Likewise, there is room for two letters
between MQS/F/AWs lamed and tav (= my heh; I see no persuasive evidence for a tav in BZ10T). For a
similar phrase cf. 5.23, . B
3
s reading is impossible based upon spacing alone.
10.1: B
3
] MQS/GMT/F/AW . The left, upper part of the mem is quite clear on IMneg. x 86-4451.
10.1: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. This part of the line bows downward and is very difficult
to read. I see no grounds for B
3
s proposal.
10.2: ] ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
] . While my reading is far
from certain, the reading of MQS/F/AW/B
3
is impossible. First, between the end of (the last
letter of which is undoubtedly a het) and the following lamed there are no less than four letters. Second,
the letter between the two lameds of their is definitely not a yod, since in BZ10T a lower,
horizontal stroke is readily apparent in this position (i.e. a mem, or similar letter). Finally, it is clear that
there is a word break between the nun of my and the following letter. Following this phrase there
appears to be a short segment of text (3-4 letters) which has been effaced.
10.3: MQS/F/AW/B
3
] I follow the reading first offered by MQS with reservation. There appears to
be too much space between the lameds for a yod alone, but BZ10T is very difficult to read here.
Additionally, the lameds of in 20.12 are also spaced farther apart than one might expect.
10.8: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
] . The transcription of B
3
may be safely
ruled out based on ink remains and the fact that nowhere else does the scroll use the (later) definite
object marker . The word could also mean sound, healthy.
148
10.9: ] MQS/AW ; F ; B
3
. The final two letters are surprisingly plain on IMneg. 3840
(most notably the join of the ayins two strokes), but difficult to read on the other photographs.
10.9: MQS/F/AW/B
3
] The second letter is not absolutely clear on any of the photographs, and
to your son should be considered a possibility.
10.9: ] B
3
. B
3
s reading is not impossible, but the word is too obscured to posit with any
certainty.
10.11: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
] [ . There is not enough room for B
3
s reading.
10.11: ] If this phrase is correct, a subject would need to be supplied. Perhaps following
?
10.12: MQS et al. ] AY (20/) . The second letter is clearly not aleph, but vav (cf. 12.8 for the
same spelling).
10.13: [ MQS et al. ] AY (20/) .
10.13: MQS/F/AW ] B
3
. The first letter is clearly a vav in all photographs, and is probably used
here in its tempral sense.
10.13: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. is read because it makes good sense in the present, sacrificial
context. The tops of the letters are eroded, so that the proper reading could also be or . The
middle letter has the long base stroke of a bet/mem/nun, and not a tav, while the first letter has a single
downstroke (contra B
3
). The best photo here is IMneg. x 86-4451.
10.14: B
3
] MQS/F/AW . Although a bit obscured, it is clear in BZ10M that there is at least
one other letter between the heh and lamed. In the IMneg. photos it is clearly distinguished as an ayin.
10.14: ] B
3
] . The samekh is unmistakeable in IMneg. 3840 and x 86-4451. The other letters are less
difficult to distinguish.
10.14: B
3
] MQS/GMT/F/AW . The heh is clear in the IMneg. photos.
10.15: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
] [ . The reading is very uncertain, but B
3
cannot be
correct based on the spacing of the lameds (to name only one reason).
10.15:

] The superscripted aleph is of a different scribal hand.

10.16: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
] [ . It is relatively clear
that there are three words here, the last two ending with the 3 m. pl. suffix. Much of the phrase may be
read with confidence on IMneg. 3840 and x 86-4451.
10.16: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
] . In all available photos it appears that this word ends with a
final letter form (i.e. an extended downstroke). It definitely contains at least two more letters than
previous suggestions allow.
10.17: B
3
] MQS/GMT/F/AW . The vav is placed above the extended base stroke of the kaph,
giving the initial appearance of two letters with shorter base strokes.
10.18: ] [ ] The lower horizontal stroke of a bet or similar letter is visible in BZ10M, but beyond this
nothing is legible. In Gen 9:1 the Lord blesses () Noah after he makes his offering.
Column 11: Col. 11 is attached to col. 12, and in similar condition (see below).
11.1: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. Either reading is possible based on the scant ink remains, but the
reading of MQS et al. makes better sense here.
11.1:

] The superscripted yod appears to be in a different scribal hand than the surrounding script,
having a much larger head than is typical.
11.1: MQS/AW ] F ; ] . The reading of MQS/AW is preferable to F, since the letters
are the most clearly discernible of this difficult word. While I follow the transcription of MQS/AW,
AWs translation lion does not seem plausible. The following letters may belong to a form of to
relent, retard.
11.5: ] MQS/F/AW . The space between the yod an aleph seems rather large. While the reading of
MQS and F may be correct, I find this rendering more compelling based on the very limited context (i.e.
Noah speaking) and the following word . These letters may also be the latter part of the word
, which occurs in 11.9.
149
11.9: MQS/AW ] F/B
3
. The dalet is clear in BZ11T.
11.9: F ] MQS/AW ; B
3
. I follow F with hesitation, since the first few letters are
very difficult to read on the photographs. F translated the word as thickets, taking it to be related to
the feminine noun (branch, sprout). This strikes me as unlikely, especially since the Aramaic
words (transient, passerby) and (traveler, border, side) might lend themselves geographic
extrapolations, such as my intermediate regions or some similar term (perhaps plains). B
3
s
transcription is not impossible, nor (which may be materially best). In any case, this appears to
be another topographic reference of some sort.
11.13: ] MQS/AW ; F . MQS/AWs reading of the dalet looks correct (contra F), while the
preceding two letters are very obscured. A mem is certainly possible in the second position, and helps
make sense of the phrase, which I take (with F) to be in a periphrastic relationship with the following
(part. + pron.).
11.14: MQS/F/AW ] B
3
. The first word is too disintergrated to read with certainty.
The bottom of the yod in is perceptible on BZ11TM.
11.15: ] MQS/AW ; F ] [ ; B
3
. There is too
much space between and (approximately 6 letters, depending on which they are) for Fs
reconstruction to be correct. The words and (cf. 6.13) seem equally implausible in this gap
and would not be expectd based on other usage of divine titles. A possible mem stands before the word
, but there is not enough room following it for both a resh and a heh. I have taken the following,
faint, vertical stroke as a final nun (so also B
3
), although this is far from certain. This would make an
intervening more plausible. AW curiously follows Fs translation, but not his transcription.
11.16: [ ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
] [ . B
3
s reconstruction is too
short to start at the beginning of the line. In addition, it is clear in BZ11TM that the word directly
precedes .
11.16: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. The suffix is prospective, referring to the following list of
geographic features. It is best read in BZ11TM or BZ11BM.
11.16: ] MQS ; F , AW ; B
3
. Fs suggested reading fits the context and
letter remains well, however there is too much space for only a yod and mem at the beginning of the
word. A preceding bet fits the letter spacing well and mirrors the following prepositions.
11.18: ] Perhaps , as the second letter has the bottom portion of nun, bet, kaph or peh. Certainly not
.
11.19: ] MQS/F/AW ] [ . In BZ11BM there appears to be a horizontal top stroke before the
shin of MQS/F/AW, suggesting that it is not a yod/vav. If is correct, it may refer to the period of
time in which something occurred (i.e. in the years of your sons), as in 12.13 ( ; also cf. F, p.
161), although we might then expect a construct phrase. The shin may possibly be a tet.
Column 12: Here begins the column first published by Greenfield and Qimron (hence the switch from MQS
to GQ). The left central portion is its best preserved part, with much of the surrounding area being
severely disintegrated. The BZ photographs are glossy, and are at times difficult to read.
12.1: ] [ ] There does not appear to be room for all the letters suggested by GQ, nor is there any
evidence of a final nun, even though the leather where it should be is in-tact. I follow their proposal
with hearty reservation, although the general import is, no doubt, correct.
12.1: GQ/B
2/3
/F ] GMT/AW . The aleph is certain.
12.1: GQ/F/AW ] B
3
. Either reading is possible for the first word, with the
crucial fourth letter being badly damaged. A horizontal crack runs through the final word, but there
appear to be more than two letters preceding the aleph.
12.3: ] GQ/F . There seems to be space for at least two letters at the beginning of this word. The
left downstroke of the ayin can be faintly seen, while a full shin would nearly overlap the following aleph.
12.7: GQ ] F ] [ . There is not sufficient room for to be reconstructed at the end of
this line.
150
12.8: GMT/AW ] GQ/F ; B
2/3
[ . The leather has a wide, horizontal split in it, and the
penultimate kaph/nun, along with a following letter (resh/dalet?) are easily mistaken for a final mem. In
BZ12T the letters preceding this are unreadable. The mention of a vineyard () here would be odd,
given its introduction in line 13.
12.8: ] GQ/B
2/3
/GMT/F/AW . The aleph is clear on BZ12T and IMneg. 3841, ruling out the
reading of GQ et al. While the top of the penultimate letter is slightly obscured in the photos, it is
almost surely a nun, or less likely a kaph. The 2 m. sg. ending (-) is grammatically acceptable, but
makes little sense in this context. I have read the letter as a nun, thus representing a 1 pl. perf. form of
the verb we built (for other examples of this form cf. 12.16) a reference to the more widespread
tradition that Noah and his sons built cities after leaving the ark (cf. Jub. 7:14-17, 35; 4Q244 frg. 8).
12.9: ] [ ] [ ] GQ ] [ ] [ ; GMT/AW [ ] [ ; Bern ] ... ; B
2/3
/F ] [ ] [ .
This area is badly damaged and any reconstruction is speculative. The suggestion of GMT/AW can be
ruled out based on available space (at least 8-9 letters between the lamed and the final bracket), while the
reconstruction of GQ makes little sense at this point in the narrative (Noah begets his sons and
daughters already in col. 6!). B
2/3
/Fs proposal is attractive, and is essentially followed here, although the
spacing for this phrase does not seem quite right (perhaps due to distortion of the leather). The phrase
, commonly employed in the scroll, is not possible based on space and remains. Bernsteins
suggestion (p. 41) is based on a mistaken reading at the end of the previous line (cf. previous note), and
is therefore doubtful.
12.14: ] GQ/GMT/AW ; B
2/3
; F
. In general, the reading first offered by B
2
fits the slight ink remains quite well. Fs
addition of an aleph at the end of is speculative, since the very beginning of the line is gone. It is
kept here only because it better fits the conventional grammar of the scroll. B
2/3
/Fs is unlikely
based on available space and ink remains, although there may be one vertical stroke between the aleph
and upper right corner of the penultimate tav (there is a tear in the leather here) perhaps a yod. This
word should probably be read as an aphel 1 sg. perf. form of .
12.15: ] [ Kis/B
2/3
/F ] GQ ] [ . The reconstruction is based on Jub 7:2 (cf. F, p. 161-62 for
discussion). GQ base their reconstruction on Jub 7.1 instead.
12.15: ] GQ/B
2/3
/GMT/F/AW . The word (as well as the preceding ) are clearly
visible on BZ12M, but blurred beyond recognition in the IMneg. photos.
12.15: ] AY (21/)/GQ/B
2/3
/GMT/F/AW . There would have to be at least 8 letters in
this word if it includes two yods. The aleph preceding the tav is clear on BZ12M, and mirrors the
morphology of / in 10.14 and 21.1.
12.16: ] [ ] GQ ] [ ; B
2/3
/F ] [ . The letter remains do not support the
suggestion of B
2/3
/F. Most conspicuously absent is the lamed. The occurrence of here (best seen
in BZ12M) also disproves GQs reconstruction.
12.16: GQ et al. ] AY (21/) . The first letter plainly has the lower bend of a caph, not the join of
a bet. The same expression (with caph) is found at 21.21, 25; 22.1.
12.16: GQ et al. ] AY (21/) . There is no doubt that the word ends with an aleph, as is typical
of this verbal form in the scroll.
12.17: ] [ ] GQ ] [ ; B
2/3
] [ ; F ] [ . None of the
previously proposed reconstructions is satisfying. First, there is far too much space for any of them to
fit as proposed somewhere between 15 and 20 letters. Furthermore, there is no trace of the top of a
lamed, as reconstructed by GQ/B
2/3
/F. I find no evidence for B
2/3
s . My own suggestion is
speculation based on narrative context.
12.18: ] GQ/F . The base stroke of the left leg of the tav, as well as the letter
combination het-dalet-vav of , are plain on BZ12M.
12.19: ] GQ/F . The first word is uncertain, although the tet is
quite clear. Only the vertical stroke of the qoph, read by GQ/F as a final nun, remains. There does not
151
appear to be room for a vav (i.e. full orthography) between the qoph and shin. Alternatively, it may read
, which would have to mean either my folly or my drinking (spelled with a tet rather than the
typical tav), but this seems less likely. Remains of the upper, horizontal stroke of a kaph are faintly
visible in , as well as the tops of shin and kaph in .
12.27: ] GQ/F . The bottom stroke of a letter other than yod can be distinguished preceding
the lamed in BZ12B.
Column 13: Most of the right margin of this column is shared with the left side of col. 12, forming one, large
leaf of parchment. Large portions of the upper and lower sections of the column are completely eaten
away, leaving us to wonder about the full content of Noahs dream. In addition to the BZ photographs,
IMneg. x 86-4449 is especially useful.
13.8: ] B
3
. The right horn of the dalet and base stroke of the mem are plainly seen on BZ13T.
13.8: ] MQS/AW ; F/B
3
. The reading is very uncertain, but the peh of MQS/AW/F does not
appear correct based on the fragmentary top of the letter.
13.11: GMT/B
3
] MQS/F/AW . The small, right strokes of the final tsades
are quite plain on IMneg. 3843, solving the interpretive conundrum of F.
13.11-12: / MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
/ . The first two letters of the first word are almost entirely
missing on the photographs, but the two legs expected of the lower portion of an aleph are absent.
is more certain, with the left side of the mem and the full yod visible on IMneg. 3843.
13.13: M (margin)/B
3
/AW ] MQS/GMT/F . The heh is clear on BZ13TM and IMneg. 3843.
13.13: ] MQS ; GMT ; F ; B
3
, AW . This
phrase has obviously puzzled commentators, although much may be gained by a careful study of the
infrared photographs. The initial bet is abundantly clear on BZ13TM and IMneg. 3834, as is the base
stroke of another bet following it. A full ayin may be discerned in the next position, the sloping lower
line of which renders all previous proposals very unlikely. An obscured (but small) letter finishes the
word, likely a yod, making it probable that here we have an infinitive construct (acting nominally) of
/ a bursting forth. This makes good sense in the present context. The first letters of the next
word are somewhat obscured, but the top of the second letter does not resemble a typical vav/yod, and a
bottom stroke is visible running into the base of the following peh (cf. especially IMneg. 3834). The
word branches also fits the context well (for use of this same root cf. line 16).
13.14: ] [ ] MQS/AW ; GMT ] [ ; F ] [ ; B
3

] [ . Every letter of the word , except the yod, is clear in BZ13TM. The letters of
my are starkly visible in IMneg. 3834, although the area preceding these letters is mostly missing.
Fs reconstruction of works with the available space, despite the spacing proposed by MQS and B
3

(the former with too much and the latter with too little). is known as an alternate form of the
adjective , but is often used as an itpael verbal form (so B
3
), which should not be absolutely ruled out
here.
13.15: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. Significantly more text is preserved on IMneg. x 86-4449 than
on the other available photographs, although the ink is somewhat blurred. The final letters of
MQS/F/AW appear to be correct there, while the vav-kaph combination of B
3
may be confidently ruled
out. The meaning of this word is not entirely clear, although it may reflect a binding activity involving
woven ropes or cords (cf. 1 En. 10:4), which fits the limited context well. Jastrow (p. 1524) provides the
related meaning yarn.
13.15: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
has apparently skipped this word by mistake. It is clear on BZ13TM.
13.16: ] F ] [ ; B
3
. B
3
s reading seems correct based upon IMneg. x 86-4449, but he and
others ignore a number of other letters following this word. The final word appears to be , making it
likely (but not certain) that the intervening word is and arguing against previous reconstructions of
the beginning of the following line.
152
13.17: ] MQS/AW ; GMT ; F ] [ ; B
3
. The
proposals of GMT, F and B
3
are incorrect, since the letter preceding is neither aleph nor final nun.
A final mem is more likely, but not assured. This line may begin with the word .
13.18: ] ] MQS/F/AW ; ] . The nun of is fully preserved in
IMneg. x 86-4449. The ink traces of the following word do not fit B
3
s ] .
Column 14: This column has no top, bottom, or right margins but is attached to col. 15 by its partially intact
left margin. Even the available IMneg. photographs appear to have been taken some time after the
unrolling of the scroll and are in an advanced state of deterioration. In general, the BZ set is superior
for this column.
14.9: ] MQS/AW ; GMT ; F ] [ ; B
3
. The bottom of the
word , as well as the letter heh, are visible on BZ14T and BZ14M. There is insufficient room for the
transcription of B
3
.
14.9: B
3
] MQS/GMT/F/AW . The final kaph is plainly seen on BZ14T.
14.9: MQS/GMT/AW ] F ; B
3
. Portions of the final mem (especially its right, lower bend
and left, upper protrusion) are visible on BZ14T.
14.10: B
3
] MQS/GMT/F/AW . If the letter following the lamed is a peh (which is not entirely
clear), there must be another letter between it and the aleph because of spacing and ink remains. The left
portion of an upper, horizontal stroke can be seen near the aleph in BZ14T, suggesting that this is
probably the emphatic form of , as in lines 11, 14 and 15. A tav fits the existing ink remains well.
14.10: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ] [ ; B
3
. Either reading is possible, since the top of the final letter is
missing.
14.10: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; M (margin) . The word is relatively clear on BZ14T.
14.10: ] Four letters appear in the middle of the margin separating cols. 14 and 15 at this point. The last
letter, which may have a space between it and the others, is a gimel. Might this be a mark from scribal
preparation of the manuscript?
14.11: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. The right horn of the dalet is easily seen on BZ14T and BZ14M.
14.12: ] [ ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
] [ . Despite efforts, I am not able to
find either of the final kaphs transcribed by MQS/F/AW and B
3
in any of the photographs. There is a
gaping, horizontal tear in the leather here. I see possible evidence for only one extended downstroke
preceding , which I take as the qoph of . This word is highly uncertain, but fits the available
space reasonably well.
14.12: ] [ ] MQS/AW ; GMT ] [ ; F ] [ ; B
3
] . The
parchment is split and shrunken here, but it seems that there are actually two final letters very near to
each other (my final kaph and final nun).
14.14: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
. The word , along with its medial yod/vav is
surprisingly clear on BZ14T. If the preceding is read correctly, this is apparently a rare usage of the
infinitive absolute plus participle in order to add emphasis.
14.15: ] MQS/F/AW ; GMT ; B
3
.
GMTs reading is incorrect. MQS/F/AW read an aleph preceding , which is possible (and in
which case I read ), but the ink remains actually overlap the following het, and seem more likely to
be transferred or smeared ink. The peh and samekh of are relatively clear, and this word must stand
in the construct state with .
14.15: ] MQS/F/AW ] [ ; B
3
. The base stroke of the nun is clear in BZ14M. This is
a peculiar orthography, and the expected form () may have prejudiced previous readings.
Perhaps here we see influence from the Hebrew ?
14.15: ] B
3
. There is a hole in the leather (on the BZ photos) where my circlets are
placed, but there does not appear to be the space or ink remains to support the reading of B
3
. IMneg.
3846 was taken before the hole split apart, but the ink is so blurred that the letters are illegible.
153
14.16: ] MQS/F/AW ; GMT . My suggestion is tentative, but there does appear to be a
letter between the aleph and lamed transcribed by MQS/F/AW. The conjunctive vav preceding is
clear.
14.17: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ] [ ; B
3
[
. This entire phrase is discerned with relative ease on BZ14T and BZ14M. The
reading has been independently confirmed by the collaborative study of E. Eshel and M. Bernstein. B
3
s
proposal is definitely not correct.
14.18: ] MQS/F/AW . The lower, left leg and foot of the tav are visible in BZ14T.
14.19: ] MQS/F/AW ] [ ; M (margin) ] [ . This phrase is largely
effaced on BZ14T and BZ14M, but, when contrast-enhanced, the remains of a lamed can be discerned
preceding the lamed of . In addition, the two rightmost, slanting arms of a shin are visible preceding
the tav of , making / improbable. Just as unlikely is the preposition , proposed by
MQS/F/AW. I must stress the uncertainty of my own proposal for this word, although the initial heh
and yod/vav (the heh may even be preceded by a small additional letter) are fairly certain. The subsequent
lamed of is also unsure, and it is possible that these letters should be read as a suffix attached to the
preceding word.
14.22: ] MQS/F/AW . Two letters attached to the end of are visible in
BZ14B, making it likely that this word is a form of the shaphel verb to exchange, change.
Column 15: Although parts of each margin are preserved, this column is badly damaged and missing most of
its upper and lower sections. Much of the text is eaten away by the corrosive ink in the available photos
(BZ and IMneg.; IMneg. 3844 and IMneg. x 86-4448 appear to have been taken when the column was
in slightly better condition).
15.9: ] MQS/AW ] [ ; GMT ] ... [ ; F ] [ ; B
3
. It is clear that there are at least four, and likely five,
letters in this word. Two horizontal base strokes, belonging to two bets or similar letters, are visible in
BZ15T. In IMneg. 3844 the ink remains of the first letter rule out an ayin (contra B
3
).
15.9: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
. The reading of MQS/GMT/F/AW may, of course, be
correct, but I have transcribed the word thus because of the preceding word, which is itself uncertain.
In addition, there is a dot of ink above the penultimate yod/vav, which is likely only an accidental spill.
B
3
s transcription is simply incorrect.
15.9: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. B
3
has presumably transcribed this word incorrectly due to
the ink at the top of the tav (and previous three letters) being eroded away. In reality, the base stroke of
the left leg of the tav (B
3
s nun) would require the transcription , and not that of B
3
.
15.10: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW/B
3
. There is simply too much space for alone to be
written. This is most evident in IMneg. x 86-4448, where 8-9 letters are clearly discernible (even if some
of them are difficult to read). The base stroke of the bet of is also visible in IMneg. x 86-4448.
15.10: F ] MQS/AW ; B
3
] . A casual glance at BZ15M and BZ15T shows
that B
3
s transcription is impossible (albeit creative), and that there can be no doubt about the proposal
of MQS et al. The meaning of this word has troubled commentators (cf. the various translations, or lack
thereof), but this must begin a descriptive phrase concerning the great man mentioned at the
beginning of the line. The root can mean squeeze, crush, and is translated by F as oppress.
15.11: ] MQS/AW ; F ] [ ; B
3
[ . Although F was correct in his
reconstruction, he has placed these words at the beginning of the line when there are, in fact, at least
three words preceding them. A letter directly preceding the mem of is visible in the photographs,
but it is too obscured to be read with certainty. B
3
s suggestion is safely ruled out based upon the clear
base stroke of the bet in .
15.12: M (margin)/B
3
] MQS/F ; GMT/AW . Although any of these options may potentially be
correct, paleographically is to be preferred. The first letter extends even farther down than is
typical for a vav/yod, while the final letter is particularly short.
154
15.13: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
. These words are more difficult
to read than they first appear. On IMneg. x 86-4448, the first seven letters appear to form one word.
The important fourth and fifth letters are likely het and bet, although this is not absolutely certain (I see
no evidence for an intervening yod, as transcribed by B
3
). The second word definitely has one letter
(dalet or resh) standing between the lamed and qoph, and ends with a tav. This argues against previous
transcriptions, yet it remains unclear what this word is or means. There may be a base stroke (i.e. a bet
or similar letter) in the penultimate position.
15.13: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. The reading of MQS/F/AW is understandable when examining
the manuscript. The head of the dalet has split apart on several of the photographs, making it look like
the partial loop of a qoph (but see IMneg. x 86-4448, where the dalet is unmistakeable). The downstroke
of the following resh, which extends no further down than any of the other letters, was taken instead as
the qophs downstroke. It is also conceivable that this should be read as the common prepositional
phrase .
15.14: MQS/F/AW ] B
3
. The shin and resh are abundantly clear on BZ15M.
15.15: ] There is a hole in the leather here, distorting all letters but the final yod. The two middle letters
(which may even be the first and second of three) have base strokes typical of mem, bet or other such
characters. Another possibility is .
15.16: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
[ . The left leg of the second gimel is partially effaced, but the
joint is very comparable to that preceding it (and is too low for the stroke interchange of a yod). The heh
is also obscured, but discernible. Each photograph has proven helpful for this word, depending on
which letters is being examined.
15.16:

] The superscripted mem is most visible on BZ15M.

15.18: ] B
3
. This word is made out with certainty on BZ15M.
15.19: B
3
] MQS/F/AW . B
3
is to be credited with this perceptive reading, which is
most easily distinguished on IMneg. x 86-4448.
15.19: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
. The first three letters of this aphel verb are discernible in all
of the photos, especially when the contrast is enhanced.
15.20: B
3
] MQS/F/AW . The tav is clear in BZ15M.
15.22: M (margin) ] MQS/F/AW . The best photograph here is BZ15B,
where the reading of the last two words is relatively clear despite the damaged parchment. The word
was first suggested by M, and makes good sense in this context.
Column 16: Col. 16 is the last of this sheet of parchment, and is significantly narrower than those surrounding
it. Like the preceding columns, it is missing a sizable portion of its upper and lower parts. The BZ
photos for this column are washed out in places, but but remain very valuable in others. In general, the
IMneg. set is read more easily.
16.9: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
[ ; Esh [ . Whatever the letter preceding the aleph, it is not
a nun or yod. On BZ16M and IMneg. 3844 there is a clear upper, horizontal stroke, assuring that it is
either a kaph or a mem. Graphically, the letter looks more like a typical kaph, but the following mem of
looks very similar, and a mem makes better sense of the word. It is preceded by the bottom of a short,
vertical stroke almost surely a yod. I see no clear evidence of a lamed at the beginning of the word in
any of the photographs.
16.9: MQS/GMT/F/B
3
/AW ] Esh . The penultimate vav is plainly visible on BZ16T, BZ16M,
and IMneg. x 86-4450.
16.9: ] MQS/F/AW/Esh ; GMT ; B
3
. Scrutiny of the photographs certifies that previous
readings are not correct. First, the initial letter is definitely not a bet (contra MQS/F/AW), but quite
possibly a mem. In IMneg. x 86-4450 and BZ16M the upper part of this letter, with its characteristic
upward slanting (from left to right) stroke and small horn in the upper, righthand corner, is plainly seen.
This judgment is confirmed when closely compared with mems from this and surrounding lines. It
appears that the slanting, upper stroke of this mem has been mistaken as the rightmost stroke of an ayin
155
by others. Second, the last letter is not a final nun, as transcribed in previous editions, but a qoph. This is
especially clear on IMneg. 3884, but can be discerned on any of the photographs by examining the
letters lower extension in comparison with surrounding qophs and final nuns (the qoph of , almost
directly under this word, provides the nearest parallel). The nun has a characteristic right to left curve at
the end of the tail, while the qoph is straight throughout. When these factors are taken into account, it is
most plausible that the central letter is a heh or het, the right leg of which has been taken by previous
readers as the left stroke of the ayin. The left leg has been transcribed as a yod/vav. This is further
confirmed by a horizontal stroke connecting the two legs at the top, visible in IMneg. 3845. Perhaps the
most convincing refutation of the proposals and is a simple comparison with the assured
occurrence of / later in the line.
This leads to my proposed , which appears to be a parallel to the Mauk Sea of Jub. 8:22, 26,
exhibiting a spelling similar to a Syriac Chronicle containing this portion of Jubilees (.; cf.
VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, I.266 and II.54 [n. to 8:22], who argues for the Syriac being a better
witness to the text at this point). In fact, when it is recognized that the Genesis Apocryphon is
describing Japheths allotment in the opposite direction as Jub. 8:25-29, it becomes clear that this
reference fits nicely with the placement of the Mauk in Jubilees.
16.9: ] B
3
. The base stroke of the bet is seen clearly in IMneg. x 86-4450.
16.9: M (margin) ] MQS/GMT/F/AW/B
3
/Esh . The letters bet and kaph look very similar in this
portion of the manuscript, and while the first letter of this word has an angular bend at its lower, right
corner (presumably causing others to transcribe it as bet), there are nearby instances (e.g. in line
10) where an assured kaph has the very same characteristic. In fact, if any single factor distinguishes bet
from kaph in this section of the scroll it is the height of each letter the bet being shorter and more
compressed than the kaph. If this is taken into account, the present letter should certainly be read as a
kaph. Furthermore, when compared to the word in line 17, transcribed by all as , one recognizes
that almost no difference exists between the first letters of each the two. Whatever one judges this letter
to be, the two words should be read the same. In addition to this paleographic reasoning, I prefer kaph
because a geographic adverb seems plausible in both cases, and a translation such as regarding sight
(cf. the use of in Ezek 1, 8:2, 10:9 and Dan 10:6) or as a spring (so F) makes the best sense in this
context. Interestingly, M appears to have corrected his initial reading of to in the margin of the
copy of his M.A. thesis available in the Judaica Reading Room of the University and National Library at
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram.
16.9: ] Another word plainly follows at the end of the line in BZ16M, and especially BZ16T.
16.11: ] [ ] MQS/AW ; GMT/F ] [ ; B
3
] [ ; Esh . The gimel and resh are badly
damaged, but fit the remaining ink traces well. I do not find enough space for both dalet and yod, as
reconstructed by GMT/F/Esh. The penultimate letter is definitely not an ayin, as transcribed by B
3
.
Esh has apparently forgotten to add brackets around the letters dalet and yod.
16.12: ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
] [ . There is a wide, horizontal crack running through
these words, and the bottom portion has shrunk and shifted significantly in relation to the top. MQS et
al. begin the line with , but when looking below the crack it becomes obvious that other letters
precede this word. Once this is recognized, the letters nun, vav and het/heh may be made out, supplying
the subject of the verb. This reading was arrived at with the gracious assistance of E. Eshel.
16.12: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. The order of the last three letters, and especially the vav, is
evident in all of the photographs.
16.12: ] Slight traces of a lamed may precede this word.
16.15: ] ] B
3
] . The letter following the (uncertain) word has a base stroke, and should be read as
a bet despite the frequent employment of the prepositional phrase throughout this section.
16.17: B
3
] MQS/GMT/F/AW ] [ . There is a vertical split in the leather along the margin line, but I do
not see evidence of a lamed preceding the word .
156
16.17: MQS/GMT/F/AW/B
3
] Esh . See note to 16.9 above. Eshel (41, n. 16) mentions as Fs
reading alone, but it is also espoused by MQS and others. The initial letter, which she reads as bet, is
indeed clearly visible.. That it is a bet is less sure, however. Like the same word in line 9, the letter is
taller than a typical bet in this part of the scroll, and almost certainly is a kaph.
16.17: ] MQS/F/AW ; GMT ... ; B
3
. B
3
is correct in transcribing , as seen on
any of the photographs (but see especially BZ16M). The join between the two leftmost strokes of the
shin is visible on IMneg. 3845, especially when the contrast is enhanced.
16.18: ] F ] [ ] [ . Fs reconstruction is untenable, since the final nun preceding is plainly
seen on BZ16M.
16.18: ] [ ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
. This word is badly eroded, with only the very tops
(and a few other bits) of the letters remaining. The best photo is IMneg. x 86-4450, where the top of
the tsade is very clear, and too high relative to the surrounding letters to be the valley of an ayin. A
Branch of the Egyptian Sea is mentioned in the parallel account of Jub 8:14.
Column 17: This column begins a new sheet of parchment containing 34-35 lines per column. It is in similar
condition as col. 16, although less of the top and bottom margins remain. It is also among the wider
columns of the scroll. A qoph, written in a scribal hand very different than that of the scrolls main text,
is easily seen in the upper, righthand corner of this sheet. The BZ photos are again more washed out
than the IMneg. set but prove useful in several crucial areas.
17.7: GMT/F ] MQS/B
3
/AW . There is almost nothing left of these letters, save some slight ink
remains of their lower parts. The first letter could be either bet or peh, while the others are too
fragmentary to reach a definite conclusion. Supplying a verb, along with GMT/F, seems to me the
better option (cf. Jub 9:2a and F, 173).
17.7: GMT/F ] MQS/AW ] [ ; B
3
] [ . There is a vertical crack along the margin, and it
appears that the word has simply pulled apart at the mem.
17.8: ] [ ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
] [ . The second letter of this word does not resemble a
samekh. The lower, right corner (which should be gently sloping from right to left if MQS et al. are
correct) is clearly the angular corner of a bet, mem, kaph or nun. Nor does the spacing favor reading
/, which would fall short of filling the available space. Both the spacing and ink remains
support reconstructing , as at the end of the line.
17.8: ... ] AY (22/) ... ; MQS/F/AW ; B
3
]
[ ] [ ] [ . The remaining ink traces and spacing do not correspond to B
3
s suggested
reading. The articular aleph at the end of is plain on BZ17T and IMneg. x 86-4450, making it less
likely that followed this word. fits well the existing tops of the letters at the end of the line.
This possibility is further strengthened by the following , which would mirror the repetitive syntax
of this section.
17.9: ] [ ] MQS/F/AW ] [ . It is quite clear on BZ17T that the word following is not .
Rather, the word begins with two parallel vertical strokes (of which only the bottoms are visible), which
I read as a heh. This is followed by another vertical stroke, which appears to be a resh or dalet, making the
designation likely. Ararat is mentioned as a range elsewhere in the scroll (cf. 10.12; 12.8), but as a
single mountain here and in 17.14.
17.9: ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
] [ ] [ .
The first two words close the description of Arams portion, the word being especially clear on
BZ17T. The end of this line solves the problem of where Lud fits into the apportionment among
Shems sons. In IMneg. x 86-4450 the final three words are read with much more confidence than in
BZ17T, where the letters are badly skewed and blurred. There is no sign of a qoph (or final nun), as
transcribed by B
3
, which is one of several reasons that his reading should be rejected. The letters
following , at the end of the line, are enigmatic and difficult to contextualize. The tet is quite certain,
and I had first read , although it is unclear what this might mean. I continue to wonder if the scribe
157
had begun a word (e.g. note the phrase at the beginning of the next line), but then abandoned it
for some reason.
17.10: B
3
] MQS/F/GMT/AW . These words are easily recognizable on BZ17T.
17.10: ] [ ] MQS/F/AW ; B
3
] [ . There seems to be too much space and ink for
alone to precede the yod/vav of my . The lamed of is followed directly by another in BZ17T,
although its upper portion is effaced. Mention of Tubal (B
3
) makes very little sense at this point in the
description, while the next line seems to require previous mention of a hence, my . In
general, the last half of this line is in very poor shape.
17.10: ... ] MQS/F/AW ... ; B
3
. While B
3
s reading is not impossible (albeit the spacing
does not seem quite right to me), it seems better to take this as a mention of an Eastern Sea. This
would make better sense in connection with at the beginning of the next line (what would the
phrase and to the southeast in the north signify?). If correct, this must be a reference to the modern
Caspian Sea.
17.11: MQS et al. ] AY (22/) . Although irregular in the scrolls morphology, there is no doubt that
here the relative pronoun has elided with the preposition (cf. also 17.7; 20.7; 21.29; 22.14, 21).
17.11: ] [ ] MQS/GMT/F/AW ; B
3
] [ . B
3
is certainly correct in reading the
second letter as a dalet rather than a yod, since the head of the letter (with its two horns) is easily seen on
IMneg. x 86-4450. Hence, we must have here a directional reference to south. This makes good
sense in describing Luds portion, which we would expect to run along the north of the three portions
(i.e. Aram, Asshur, and Arpachshad) mentioned in this line. MQS et al. appear to be correct, however,
in reading the penultimate letter as a dalet (or resh the upper, righthand corner is missing) rather than
yod/vav. This is best seen on IMneg. x 86-4450 and BZ17T.
17.12: ] MQS/F/AW ] [ ; B
3
] [ . The suggestion of MQS et al. does not fit the ink
traces or the context particularly well. The spacing, however, is approximately correct for their
reconstruction.
17.13: MQS/GMT/F/AW ] B
3
. This entire phrase is abundantly clear on
IMneg. x 86-4450 and BZ17M, despite B
3
s lack of diacritical marks.
17.14: ] MQS/F/AW/B
3
. I find the proposal of MQS et al. completely unconvincing.
Following the lamed, a mem (possibly bet) can be made out, yet it is at least one letter space removed from
the lamed (hence, my aleph). In addition, my mem is quite clearly followed by the letters nun and aleph.
The following word is less certain, but the relatively sure two words later makes a relational
preposition or verb such as this plausible. fits the remaining ink traces fairly well, although a
possible vertical stroke before the mem continues to give me pause.
17.16: MQS et al. ] AY (22/) . The word is , as elsewhere.
17.17: ] MQS/AW ; F/B
3
] [ . The initial letters dalet and bet/mem are discernible in
BZ17M, ruling out the proposal of F/B
3
. Although the second letter may possibly be a mem, this does
not greatly alter the meaning. The base word is apparently the noun border, side, preceded by a
compound preposition, used in a manner similar to the biblical expression / on the other side,
beyond, across from. If correct, this phrase is paralleled in Jub. 9:11, where Tubal receives the other
side of the second branch. A defective aphel participle is less plausible, as is a pael form, which typically
carries more idiomatic meanings (e.g. be with child).
17.18: ] [ ] MQS/F/AW [ ; B
3
] [ . Very little remains of the
first two words, and it must be admitted that any of the proposed readings is possible. My suggestion
does not contradict the physical remains, and is based partially on Jub. 9:11. There is definitely no vav
preceding the lamed of .
17.18: ] [ ] My restoration follows Jub. 9:13.
17.18: ] MQS/F/AW ; ] [ . The heh of is clear in BZ17M, and I see no evidence for a
final letter. In addition, it is obvious in all the photographs that there are one to two letters standing
between the two lameds.
158
17.19: ] [ ] MQS/AW ] [ ; F ] [ ; B
3
[ . The reconstruction
offered by MQS/AW and F would not adequately fill the damaged area of the manuscript, which is why
I also reconstruct the word . F/B
3
s proposed (versus MQS/AWs ) better conforms to
the morphology of this word in the scroll.
17.19: [ ] MQS/F/AW [ . This area is badly damaged, and the ink smeared. My reading accords
with the parallel section ending at 16.12.
Column 18: While a large portion of the middle of this column is extant, the leather itself has been almost
completely destroyed by the ink, leaving nothing but the long shreds of leather intact between each line.
Because of this, there is nothing left to recover but stray letters here and there. The right and bottom
margins are completely missing.
Column 19: This column resumes once again the columns first published by AY, and has, therefore, been
commented upon by many more scholars than most of the preceding columns. It has been
conventional to follow the line numbering of AY for this column, even though it has been observed
multiple times their numbering is one line off (e.g. line 7 should actually be line 6). I have chosen to
adhere to this convention in order to avoid confusion. The plate of this column in AY (i.e. IMneg.
3856) remains very useful, but recourse to the scaleable photos of the IMneg. and BZ sets has proven
crucial in certain cases. For the remaining columns the BZ photographs show the scroll with a netting
over it, presumably intended to help keep the leather in-tact.
19.7: ] [ ] J/F/AW ] [ . A final nun is easily identified preceding the word
in IMneg. 3856 and BZ19TM. This rules out the reconstruction first suggested by J and followed by
F/AW. AW has apparently made a curious scribal error by placing this reconstruction in line 6 instead
of line 7, as it is situated (but not numbered) in J. This may be due to the confusion mentioned in the
previous note.
19.8: ... ] J/GMT/AW ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] , [ ; B
1
] .. [ ;
Du-So/Mi-To/F ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ; B
3
] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ . It is difficult to know where to begin when critiquing previous reconstructions of
this line, but it must be admitted at the outset that the beginning several words are almost entirely
missing and may never be recovered with any certainty. Consideration of all the photographic evidence
proves every reconstruction to date untenable, and unfortunately reveals more about what is not there
than what is. Rather than try to reconstruct a coherent text in this line (my actual readings should be
viewed as tentative) I have attempted to reflect as accurately as possible the extant letter remains and
spacing. This is no small task, since many parts of the line have split and pulled away from each other.
Particularly troubling is the reconstruction of Du-So/Mi-To/F, who seem to have spent very little time
assessing the spacing of the line. For instance, I can find no grounds for their transcription
at this point in the line. Furthermore, it can be clearly seen in BZ19TM and IMneg. 3856 that the letter
preceding is not a final mem, but a dalet. The proposal of J/GMT/AW is slightly better, but still far
from accurate, while that of B
1/3
is impossible. Suffice to say that at any point in this line where I differ
in transcription with any of the previous reconstructions (which is nearly every letter) it is purposeful
and meant as a rejection of their reading. The word seems an allusion to the mantra that the
Israelites are commanded to recite in Deut. 26:5, A wandering Aramean ( ) was my father,
which also refers to the descent of Abram into Egypt.
19.9: ] [ ] AY/B
1
/F/AW ] [ ; J ] [ . Js reconstruction appears unlikely. The lower
extension of what is probably a final letter is visible in the fourth position on BZ19TM, and there also
seems to be too much space for the word alone. The same phrase is used in 19.10-11.
19.9: ] AY ] [ ] [ ; J ] [ ; F ] [ ] [
; B
1
/GMT/AW ] ... [ . On all of the photos it is clear that there are at least two
intervening words between those transcribed successively by F. The first word is not certain, but agrees
with Gen 12:6, where Abram camps at the Oak of Moreh and receives a visitation from the Lord. This
has implications for the debate (cf. F, p. 180) whether , at the end of the previous line, refers
159
the mountain east of Bethel (Gen 12:8), or Jerusalem, arguing strongly for the former. It should be
noted that Jub. 13:5-7, 15 also makes much of the same mountain, between Bethel and Ai.
19.9: ] [ ] AY/J ] [ ] [ ; GMT/F/AW ] [ ] [ ; B
1

] [ . IMneg. 3856 and BZ19TM reveal beyond doubt that previous proposals are not correct.
IMneg. 3856 shows a broad base stroke (my mem) following the lamed, while it is also clear that the letter
preceding the nun is not a mem (cf. Fs [ ). A final letter is visible preceding the bet of ] [ , which
renders the transcription ] [ impossible. Hence, it seems that here we have reference to Abram
himself founding the city of Hebron, which may also be the implication of Jub 13:10 When he reached
Hebron (Hebron was built at that time), he stayed there for two years.
19.10: AY/J/GMT/F/AW ] B
1
. There is not enough space for a heh between the lamed and aleph.
19.10: ] [ ] [ J/GMT/AW ] AY ] [ ] [ ; B
1
] [ ; Gin/Mu
1
/F ] [ ] [ . Ginsberg
was the first to suggest that the initial letter has the shape of an ayin rather than tet (cf. AY), and this
judgment appears correct (see especially IMneg. 3856). J/GMT/AW were correct in placing an aleph at
the end of the word, since in both BZ19TM and IMneg. 3856 the resh and aleph can be seen touching
each other.
19.11: ] [ ] J/GMT/AW ] [ ; B
1
] [ ; F ] [
. There is more text to be accounted for at the beginning of this line than any of the earlier
transcriptions reflect. The first word is far from certain, but matches the remaining traces of ink, while
there is certainly a bet preceding , and probably yet another letter.
19.11: AY/J/GMT/F/AW ] B
1
. The top of the second letter is partially effaced, but does
not appear to be a nun (cf. IMneg. 3856).
19.12: AY/J/B
1
/GMT/F ] AW . AWs transcription is incorrect.
19.13: ] AY/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW . It is surprising that the kaph, which is entirely visible in
BZ19TM, has been overlooked by so many commentators. It is, however, more difficult to discern on
the original plates of AY than on other photographs. G. Anderson and P. Beaulieu have helpfully
pointed out that the root is used in the sense of go out in Gen 26:26, as well as in Assyrian texts.
19.14: J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY . The spacing appears to fit best, although the end of the
word is badly damaged.
19.15: ] [ ] [ B
1
] AY/J ] [ ] [ ; F ] [ ] [ ; AW ] [
] [ . B
1
s reading is plausible, although it remains far from certain. Fs reading fits neither the
available space nor the ink remains, and AW has forgotten the word .
19.15: B
1
/Qim
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY/Kut/J . The letters bet and qoph are directly next to each
other, leaving no room for a vav. See Qim
1
(pp. 14-15) or Ck (p. 372) for further discussion.
19.16: Gin
2
/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AW . This reading is recognizable even on the
original plates of AY, although more certainty is gained by consulting BZ19TM. The words following
these have been the subject of much speculation in the past (cf. F, p. 186), but are now quite widely
agreed upon. The spacing is acceptable for these and the following words, despite Mu
2
s objection (p.
44).
19.17: ] AY ] [ ; J/GMT/AW ] [ ; B
1
] [ ; Qim
1
; F <> . These
words are very faint on the manuscript, but the first six letters can be recovered with relative certainty by
enhancing the brightness and contrast of BZ19BM. The aleph and qoph are read as one word (with an
intervening tav) by Qim
1
/F, although F must emend the reading to <> in order to make sense
of it. Such close proximity of words is not uncommon in the scroll, and, despite Fs claim to the
contrary, there is no evidence of a tav between what is quite clearly an aleph and a qoph. The final word is
longer than even Qimron recognized, although the final two or three letters are unclear even with
modification. The penultimate letter appears to have a single, upright stroke, making it probable that
here we have an object suffix referring to either the cedar tree alone (-) or both the cedar and date
palm (-) attached to a peal 3 pl. perf. verb from .
160
19.18: ] [ ] AY ] [ ; J/GMT/AW ] [ ; Mu
1
/F ] [ ; B
1
] [ .
The suggestions of J/GMT/AW and Mu
1
/F may be ruled out by the certainty of the mem after ,
which is apparent on BZ19BM. Following (the nun of which is almost completely effaced) there is
room for an intervening letter before the aleph of . I propose a dalet here, which would make sense of
the phrase and agree with syntactic convention in the scroll (cf. 0.11; 22.29). There is no physical
evidence of an aphel form of the verb (contra B
1
), while a participle is quite coherent in this context.
The spacing for several of the proposed readings, in particular J/GMT/AW and Mu
1
/F, is not even
close to accurate. Given the above factors, it is remarkable that the reconstruction of J has been carried
over into the recent texts of GMT and AW.
19.18: al. ] AY . The aleph is clear in all of the photographs and has been duly noted by a number
of commentators (cf. F, p. 187).
19.19: ] [ ] [ ] J/GMT/AW ] [ ] [ ; B
1
; F ] [ ] [ . The
reconstructions of J/GMT/AW and F do not adequately fit the ink traces visible on BZ19TM and
BZ19BM, in which the aleph and mem of are clearly visible (as is the mem following ] [ , when
contrast is enhanced). Furthermore, the lower extension of a final letter preceding renders the
reconstruction untenable. All three of the previous proposals are also a bit short in relation to the
available space.
19.19: ] AY/J/B
1
] [ ; GMT/AW ] [ ] [ ; F ] [ . There are more letters
here than is reflected in previous readings, and I do not see convincing evidence for the word .
The vav of GMT/AW is definitely not present.
19.19: Gin/J/Pu/Qim
1
/GMT/F/AW/B
3
] AY ] [ ; B
1
. Gin, J, GMT and AW reconstruct the bet,
which is no longer necessary. Although a hole has disintegrated most of the bet, all three letters can be
discerned on BZ19BM (the last two clearly).
19.20: ] AY ] [ ; Gin/J/F ] [ ; B
1
/GMT/AW . The word is not correct. A hole has
destroyed part of each of the letters, but in BZ19TM the last letter clearly has a left leg, which appears to
belong to a tav. In any case, it is not a resh. The first letter has the right to left, sloped stroke of an ayin,
while the two (or perhaps one?) middle letters, of which only the very tops remain, are compatible with
my reading.
19.20: ] [ ] [ ] Gin ] [ ; J/F ] [ ; B
1
/GMT/AW ] [ . My own reconstruction is
obviously very tenuous but draws attention to some shortcomings of earlier suggestions. For example,
the upper remains of a lamed are visible (ruling out the proposal of J/F), and there appear to be two
letters between it and the aleph of . Fortunately, the basic meaning is clear from the surrounding
context.
19.20: B
1
/F ] AY/Gin/J/GMT/AW . The ink traces seem to cover too large an area to be those of
a yod, although there is a hole in the leather here.
19.20: AY/Gin/J/GMT/F/AW ] B
1
. The tet is obvious in all photographs.
19.22: ] J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY . The letters following this phrase, combined with the clarity
of the reading on BZ19BM, leave no doubt that this is a reference to Pharaoh Zoan.
19.22: ] AY/F [ ; J/GMT/AW ; B
1
. What I have read as yod at the end of the
word preceding may equally be placed at the beginning of the next word (where it would be read as
a vav), as AY/F propose. B
1
s is not correct, since on BZ19BM it is clear that his gimel does not have
the righthand leg required by that letter. In addition, the letter preceding it does not have the
characteristics of a sin. This may instead be a verb meaning something like be reluctant, fear, referring
to Sarais reticence to go to Zoan. Fs reconstructed , earlier in the line, does not appear correct
due to the lower extension of a final letter following the lamed.
19.23: ] [ ] J/GMT/AW ] [ ; F ] [ . This reading is highly uncertain,
but the upper remains of a lamed appear in approximately the expected place for Fs proposed , and
the other ink traces do not contradict such a reading. The word is not implausible at the beginning
of the line.
161
19.23: ] [ ] J/GMT/AW ] [ ; B
1
; F ]
[ . J/GMT/AWs suggestion is too short to fill the available space, while Fs is much too long. B
1
s
reading does not fit the ink remains, some of which are visible on BZ19B. These remains generally fit
the letters and spacing suggested here, although the spacing would have to be compact.
19.23: Qim
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY/J/B
1
. This mistake of the earlier readings was first noted by
Qimron and is quite obvious on the photographs.
19.24: ] J ] [ ; B
1
] [ ; GMT/AW ] ... [ ; F ] [ ; Pu
had already noticed the lamed preceding , apparent even on the plates in AY, but this observation
went unheeded by all but F. Furthermore, the space before this word is far too large to read simply .
The line may, however, begin with this word, since what remains of the first letter may be interpreted as
an aleph. The upper portion of the aleph in is apparent in BZ19B (despite Fs assurances to the
contrary), as is the vav at the beginning of this word. Mu
1
also reads .
19.24: ] [ ] AY/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] [ . In BZ19B it appears to me that a bet precedes the
possible word , and that the previous word is not , since a horizontal, bottom stroke can be clearly
seen as part of the last letter. It may be that others have read my [ ( the left leg of the heh is clear in
BZ19B) as a , which it resembles. B
1
s foregoing transcription is not plausible.
19.24: ] AY/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW . This reading is amazingly plain on BZ19B, although it appears
more obscured (but still discernible) on the plates of AY. Here is an instance where a mistaken reading
(without any critical marks!) has been passed along for some time without being noticed.
19.25: [ ] J/GMT/AW ] [ ] [ ] [ ; B
1
; F ] [ ] [ . J/GMT/AWs
reconstruction is much too long, since there are only three letters at most between the second lamed and
the next word. The vav/yod and final nun are clear following this lamed on BZ19B, assuring that this
word is , and not . The first lamed is directly preceded by another letter, the remains of which fit an
aleph, supporting the suggestion of B
1
.
19.25: ] AY/J/GMT/AW ; B
1
/F . I am indebted to M. Berstein (with E. Eshel) for this
reading. I first read , but when the first letter is compared to the samekh of in 19.23 the
similarity of the sloping, righthand stroke and the protrusion at the upper, lefthand corner are clear and
decisive. The peh is the least definite letter paleographically speaking and could also be read as bet, since
the critical top portion is somewhat obscured. This would result in the equally plausible ,
brilliance, understanding. Either word makes good sense in the present context. The resh is sure in
BZ19BM and BZ19B, rendering all earlier proposals untenable. Based on the context, I take as a
reference to book learning, scribal wisdom, erudition (safrah or saparah), rather than an actual book
(sifra). This meaning is also found in the Syriac ~-+ (sefro).
19.25: Qim
1
/F ] AY ] [ ] [ ; J/GMT/AW ] [ ; B
1
. I am not
nearly as convinced as Qim
1
that J/GMT/AWs ] [ does not fit the ink traces, since large parts of
each of these letters are effaced, especially the area where the bottom of the bet would be. Nevertheless,
his reading also fits the remains, and I follow him here. The word is reasonably certain.
19.26: ] AY/J/GMT/AW . The third letter is plainly not a peh, but a tet, as may be seen when the
size and contrast of BZ19B are enhanced. Both letters preceding the tet have horizontal base strokes
characteristic of a bet or similar letter. This noun has the advantage of making sense with the following
(the first letter of which is very uncertain).
19.26: ] AY ] [ ; J/GMT/AW ] [ ; Pu ; B
1

] [ ; F ] [ . The first word of this phrase is uncertain, but the blurred letters do fit
B
1
s quite nicely. The second word is more sure but may either represent the peal 3 m. pl. perfect
() or pl. participle () of . I have taken it as the latter, although it must be translated
idiomatically (e.g. they were not about to). The graphic reading of the final word is certain, but it
has been taken to mean different things. AY translate it as the noun for place (= Hebrew ),
while most others take it to be an infinitive from or . The latter makes better sense here and is
found again in 20.20.
162
19.26: ] AY ] [ ; J ; B
1
; Pu/GMT/AW ... ; F ] [ . This
entire phrase is marvelously clear and intact in BZ19BM and BZ19B. The meaning, however, is more
obscure. The first word must be a 1 sg. imperfect verb, which I take to be from the root / . This
verb typically means to bubble up, flow forth, but can also be used of speech, i.e. to utter, expound.
This is especially true in the aphel. The second word typically means brilliant, shining, clear as an
adjective, but is used once in the Isaiah to refer to clarity of speech (Is. 32:4; ). Hence, I
tentatively take this as a reference to the purity of teaching given by Abram. One should note that AW
consistently transliterates what are intended to be ellipses in GMT as three, undiscernible letters.
Column 20: This column is the first whose text is preserved nearly in its entirety, although a few lines at the
top are obscured by decay. For this and the following columns the BZ photos generally portray the
scroll in worse condition than the AY plates and certain of the IMneg. photographs. Despite this, there
are isolated cases where the BZ set provides clear evidence against previous readings.
20.2: ] J ; B
1
; GMT/AW ... ; F ] [ . Judging from the plates of AY (which are much better
than the others in this area) there is no room for another letter between the tsade and het, while the
bottom tip of a yod/vav can be discerned before both letters. Indeed, the expected (plene) form would
have a yod in the second position, not the third as in F (cf. Jastrow II, p. 928). B
1
s transcription is not
plausible.
20.3: ] [ ] [ ] J ] [ ; B
1
] [ ; GMT/AW ] [ ; F
] [ . The readings of J and F do not posit enough letters to fit the available space and ink remains
and must be incorrect. When BZ20T is enlarged, and the contrast enhanced, the remains of a mem and
tsade can be recognized, leading to my proposed reading, and rendering B
1
s suggestion improbable (the
word soft was first suggested by Kutscher). My reading requires the het and heh to be spaced
compactly and so remains uncertain. I am quite convinced, however, of the presence of some form of
the word forehead for the second word of the line. The first word of the line, and the vav
preceding , are very uncertain.
20.4: ] AY/J/GMT/F/AW ] [ ; Pu ; B
1
] [ . BZ20T shows quite convincingly the letter
combination shin-peh-yod/vav in the middle of this word, leading to my proposal. The most certain of
these letters is the peh, leaving the suggestions of B
1
and Pu doubtful. If correct, this word appears to be
a m. sg. pael part. paired with the preceding noun chain (although the initial letter may also be
a kaph; i.e. ). Fs question (p. 194) Is there room for all that? may be answered affirmatively.
20.4: AY/J/B
1
/GMT/F ] AW . This appears to be a case of dittography by AW.
20.5: AY/J/GMT/AW/F ] B
1
. The bottom stroke of the first letter can be seen below the lamed in
BZ20T and IMneg. 3859.
20.5: F/GMT/AW ] AY ] [ ; J ; Pu ; B
1
. Fs reading was first
suggested by Michaud, and fits the letter remains fairly well. The traces of the first two letters do not
support the suggestion of Puech (especially the second, which appears to have a semi-horizontal base
stroke), and the final dalet of this word extends no farther down than the surrounding letters (contra B
1
).
Js proposal is too short.
20.5: J/B
1
/Mu
2
/GMT/AW/F ] AY . The final aleph is obvious in AYs plates.
20.7: B
1
/Qim
1
] AY/J/GMT/F/AW . Once scrutinized, it is quite clear that the final letter is a
tav that has had its lower, left leg effaced (the upper, left leg and joint are the key indicators).
20.7: Ros/J/GMT/F/AW ] AY/Gin/B
1
. The letters are undisputed, but there has been a
longstanding debate over whether they should be divided into two words. If the letters are divided as in
AY/Gin/B
1
, the noun is difficult to make sense of, while the compound preposition (dalet plus lamed)
has disturbed other commentators. I find the latter problem less troubling, and better fitting the context
here. For a fuller discussion cf. F, p. 197.
20.17: F ] AY/J/B
1
/GMT/AW . F understands this to be the 3 f. sg. ind. personal pronoun, rather
than a 3 m. sg. peal perfect verb. His position accords better with the following , since others must
163
either take to be a mistaken verbal form (i.e. it is meant to be the feminine ; so AW?) or the
suffix of to be feminine, despite its typical morphology (-) in the scroll.
20.22: ] [ ] J/GMT/F/AW ] [ ; B
1
] [ . Even the plate in AY reveals that alone does not
account for the available space. B
1
s suggestion is more acceptable with regard to space, but still falls
approximately one letter short.
20.25: AY/Gin/J/GMT/F/AW ] B
1
. The slight ink remains visible on BZ20M and IMneg. 3859
do not allow a decisive judgment regarding B
1
s proposed aleph. The first letter is almost completely
effaced, and his reading remains possible, but the yod of an imperf. form would better fit the expected
syntax and morphology.
20.26: AY/B
1
/J/GMT/F/AW ] Kut/Gin . The reading of Kut/Gin is not paleographically
plausible. was first suggested to Kutscher by Moshe Greenberg (cf. Kut, 31).
20.26: J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY . The penultimate letter is clearly a yod in all of the
photographs.
20.26: ] [ ] [ GMT/AW ] AY/F/Qim
1
; J ] [ ] [ ; B
1
. While B
1
may be
overoptimistic about his ability to read these letters, his proposal makes good sense, both supplying a
subject for and fitting the available space and ink traces. Qim
1
vigorously defends the reading of
AY and F, but he does not adequately deal with the large space (well over a typical word division)
between the preceding and the first lamed, which is also a problem for J. Moreover, both Qim
1
and
F (p. 210) go on at length, without great success, to explain the anomalous form . Js proposal may
be safely ruled out, as previously noted by Puech (p. 590).
20.26: ] [ B
1
/Qim
1
/F ] AY/J/GMT/AW ] [ . The reading of AY/J/GMT/AW is
implausible for two reasons. First, Qim
1
noted the oddity of a conversive imperfect such as ,
which is not known elsewhere in Qumran Aramaic. Second, the word would fall at least one letter
short of filling the available space. The proposal of B
1
/Qim
1
/F is preferable by all accounts.
20.27: Ros/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY . The reading adopted here is supported by several of the
targums (Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Neofiti 1; cf. F, p. 211).
20.28: ] [ ] [ ] AY ] [ ; J/GMT ] [ ; B
1
] [ ] [ /
29
; F ] [ ; B
3

] [ ] [ /
29
; AW . The faint remains of an aleph can be seen at the beginning
of my on BZ20B when enlarged and contrast-enhanced. Even if not deemed an aleph, the ink
remains of this letter exclude the reconstructions of J/GMT (already disputed by Puech) and F. Fs
proposal is also far too short. There does not appear to be a word break before the resh, as posited by
B
1
. He likely broke the word here (and created an additional vav at the end of the word) based on his
belief that this word is continued on the following line something which happens nowhere else in the
manuscript. The word , at the beginning of the next line, is better understood as an aberrant form of
the 3 m. sg. pronoun (cf. F, p. 212). AWs transcription is difficult to make sense of, and appears to
have incorporated two distinct readings from variant editions of the text one which read and the
other to begin the phrase! There are definitely not two occurences of here.
20.29: J/GMT/AW ] AY ] [ ; B
1
/F . The first word is badly damaged and
very difficult to read, and the transcription of B
1
/F should not be absolutely excluded. The word at
the end of the line is graphically tenable and makes better sense than AYs ] [ .
20.30: ] [ J/B
1
/GMT/AW ] AY ] [ ; F ] [ . In reaction to Js transcription of , F
states that the adj. is not found on the photograph of this column (p. 214). He is mistaken, as noticed
by all other editions. A full word is plainly visible immediately following ] [ on the plate in AY.
20.30: ] [ B
1
/F ] AY ] [ ] [ ; J ] [ ; GMT/AW ... ] ... [ . I follow
the suggestion of B
1
with hesitation, since on all the photographs there appears to be a final kaph
approximately where the dalet of would be placed. It is nearly impossible, however, to tell what
was written in this area.
164
20.32: B
1
/Qim
1
/F ] AY ] [ ; Gin/J/GMT/AW ] [ . The root , first suggested by
Ginsberg, appears correct. The ending, however, must be longer than a heh alone based on space and
ink traces (despite a crack in the leather between this and the following word).
20.32: ] [ ] AY ] ; J ] [ ; B
1
] [ ] [ ; F ] [ ;
GMT/AW vac ... . The second half of this line is largely effaced, accounting for the
wide range of readings to date. Some issues can, however, be resolved. First, there is clearly no vacat at
the end of the line, as GMT/AW suggest. The ending -, first proposed by J, is not at all sure (contra
GMT/AW), and one might more tenably expect a sg. verb to go with the sg. noun . Later in the
line, the remains of what may be a final nun and then a lamed may be discerned, where I read the end of
] [ . B
1
s proposal, apparently reading the final letter at the end of the line as the end of the word
, is grossly inaccurate with regard to available space, and also does not take due account of the
lamed less than halfway between ... and the end of the line.
20.33: ] AY/F ; J/B
1
/GMT/AW . What is perceptible with difficulty on AYs plate is starkly
obvious on BZ20B. The second and third letters are very clearly gimel-bet, not aleph-zayin (the bottom of
the bet is also easily seen on IMneg. 3859). The typical Aramaic meanings of this verb are knead, create,
grow in size [used only of parasites] (Jastrow I, 207; Sokoloff, p. 119). While the last meaning must be
the general sense in which the word is used here, this attestation represents a novel usage and so adds to
our knowledge of the Aramaic lexicon at this time. Context dictates the meaning to be something such
as I grew, became wealthy, a meaning which seems distantly related to the nominative meaning
border, outer limits (i.e. the limits of Abrams possessions were affected).
20.33: ] [ ] [ F ] AY/GMT/AW ] [ ; J ] [ ; B
1
] [ ] [ . The best view of the lamed is found on
AYs plate, which shows only the negative imprint where the ink has eaten away the leather. This
imprint looks too far away from the nun of (approx. 2-3 letters) to have a vav alone intervening.
20.34: B
1
] J/GMT/AW ] ; F . A single, vertical stroke is visible following the resh on BZ20B,
making a heh likely. The variant spelling is, however, found in 22.13.
Column 21: Only a small portion of the bottom of this column is missing. The text is otherwise in excellent
condition compared to the rest of the scroll.
21.1: ] AY/GMT/F/AW ] [ ; Ros/Qim
1
/B
1
; J . The split in the leather at the inscribed margin
line appears to be quite clean, and I am unconvinced that an entire letter has been lost. J certainly did
not see an intact bet when viewing the photograph and should have placed this letter in brackets. The
letter preceding the lamed is unlikely to be an ayin judging from the length of the stroke still visible, which
is not intersected by another line. If two strokes did intersect above what is currently visible, the space
between letters would be rather large. Qim
1
is undecided on whether this letter is an ayin or kaph but
agrees that there was no letter preceding it. The only other defective spelling of is in 20.6.
21.2: ] AY/J/GMT/AW ] [ ; B
1
; F . It is puzzling that no previous editions
have incorporated what is quite clearly the upper portion of a lamed at the beginning of this line. This
letter can be seen in both AYs plate and BZ20B. It appears that the lamed was followed by a small letter
and then the word . The lamed may also have been preceded by another letter. Which word stood
here is difficult to surmise, but the clear physical evidence should not be disregarded. Perhaps it is the
word , for myself?
21.3: Qim
1
/B
2/3
/F ] AY/J ] [ ; GMT/AW . Qimron first noted the trace of a lamed, the
direct object marker, at the beginning of this line. It is also visible in BZ21T.
21.6: Gin/Kut/Ros/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY . Although the middle letters are obscured, and either
reading is paleographically possible, there has been overwhelming agreement that is to be read here.
21.8: Kut/Gin/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY . Kutscher observed that this is a misprint in AY (see F,
p. 219, for discussion).
21.9: ] AY/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW . This should be read as two words, as elsewhere (cf. lines 1 and
7). For other examples of close spacing see the note on 2.9.
165
21.10: Gin/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY . For the linguistic reasoning behind this change see
Ginsberg, p. 148.
21.23: VdK/B
1
] AY/J/GMT/F/AW . One could not ask for a clearer resh than in this word (cf.
the plate in AY), and only adherence to the form expected from the MT/SP could have prompted the
transcription of by AY/J/GMT/F/AW. The interchange between dalet and resh is a common one,
and related forms are attested in the LXX (Oopyo i) and Jub. 13:22 (Tergal).
21.24: B
1
/F ] AY/J/GMT/AW . The transcription of this word determines to which referent it
belongs, and even whether it is a pronoun or verb (for discussion cf. F, p. 233). The letter is very short,
prompting me to read yod, although vav is also possible.
21.26: Kut/Gin/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY . This is a misprint in AY.
21.30: ] [ ] AY ] [ ] [ ; J/Qim
1
(?) ] [ ; B
1

] [ ; GMT ... ] ... [ ; F ] [ ; AW ] [ . The reading has
garnered widespread support based on the toponym in Gen 14:7. The word cannot be
read (contra B
1
and AW), although it makes good sense in light of this usage in Targum Onkelos. The
bottom of a single, vertical stroke can be seen following the final nun in BZ21B, which may represent a
dalet. The following reconstructions of B
1
/F and AW are conjecture, but are likely close to correct,
conflating the various people groups of in Gen 14:7 into a single designation (for further
discussion cf. F, p. 237). Qimron does not give a reading, but seems generally to agree with J.
21.31: ] [ B
1
/F/AW ] AY/J/GMT ] [ . There is a large, vertical crack in the leather
from line 30 downward. One can observe in the word (discussed in the previous note) that the
leather to the right of the split has shrunken significantly. This shrinkage accounts for the space left by
AY/J/GMT, and allows for the words to be written continuously.
21.31: Pu/B
1
] AY ] [ ; Gin ; J ; GMT ...; F/AW ] [ ] [ . Gin and F/AW have superior
readings based on linguistic grounds alone. Both (from ; cf. Jastrow II, p. 873) and (cf.
21.24; Dan. 7:21; 4QEnGiants
c
1:4) are verbs commonly used with the noun to describe
engagement in battle. However, Puech (p. 591) is correct in his paleographic analysis, stating that
traces de toutes les letters, p, taw, het ligature avec taw are visible on the plate in AY (as well as in
BZ21B). F may be correct that the root has not previously been known to carry this meaning, but
it seems best to follow the physical evidence of the manuscript. Despite its lack of previous attestation,
the verb makes good sense in context here, referring to the act of entering into or engaging the
battle.
21.32: ] [ J/B
1
] AY/Pu/GMT/F/AW ] [ . Contra Pu, there does
not seem to be enough room for the longer reading (it is approximately 2-3 letters too long). Mu
1
(pp.
25-26) has provided additional argumentation for a shorter reading, positing several possibilities. F does
not include these words in his translation, causing one to wonder if he meant them to be in his
transcription.
21.33: ] [ ] AY ] ; J/GMT ] ; B
1
] ; F ] ; AW ]
. Both readings are paleographically acceptable, but I have chosen for two reasons. First,
the word , understood by those who transcribe it as pits, is otherwise unattested in Aramaic
the closest corollary being irrigation ditch (cf. F, p. 238). Second, the traces of letters following
this word do not appear to fit any of the suggested reconstructions.
21.34: B
1
/Qim
1
/F ] AY/GMT/AW . The concern here is whether the verb is active, and belongs
with a hypothetical pl. subject (i.e. they took captive), or passive, and belongs with Lot (i.e. Lot was
taken captive). Either is plausible, although the latter form is used in 22.3, and is therefore adopted
here. Cf. Qim
1
, 18 for further discussion.
Column 22: Like col. 16, this column stands last on its sheet of parchment, and is significantly narrower than
those preceding it. An especially curious trait of this column is that the following sheet was cut off in
antiquity. The reason for this is not clear, although the photographs plainly show that the seam and its
thread are intact, and that to the left of the seam is a clean cut-mark. That the cut was made in antiquity
166
is assured, since this column was rolled at the core of the scroll and could not have been tampered with
before its unrolling by Biberkraut. Along with the fact that the last line of the column ends mid-
sentence, the cut proves that this is not the end of the original scroll. The BZ photographs present the
column in worse condition than the AY plate and some of the IMneg. photos but again shed light on a
few readings that are unclear in the others.
22.27: Kut/Gin/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY . The fourth letter should be read as a vav, as in 21.8.
22.28: Kut/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY ) ? ( . Kutscher (p. 34) was the first to note that the
verb carries the meaning to spend time, assuring that this is the correct reading.
22.30: Gin/J/B
1
/GMT/F/AW ] AY ; Qim
1
. AY transcribes the Hebrew form rather than
the Aramaic, as Ginsberg noted. Qim
1
argues that the third letter is not a he, and that the last letter
looks like a waw-shaped letter crossed by a diagonal line. It appears to me, however, that the final heh
has simply been partially effaced (particularly the left leg; cf. the vav at the beginning of this word and
in the following line for such effacement), while the third letter has been partially destroyed by a crack in
the leather (and perhaps effaced as well).
22.34: ] AY/J/GMT ] [ ; B
1
] [ ; Qim
1
] [ ; F/AW ] [ .
Despite being in significantly worse condition, BZ22B reveals some aspects of the first word that cannot
be discerned on AYs plate. First, it is apparent in both photos that the bottoms of some of these letters
have been effaced. The top of the first letter clearly has the two horns of a dalet or bet (this is visible in
IMneg. 3865 as well). It also has a vertical downstroke on the right side. More crucial is the fourth
letter, which can clearly be identified as the top of a qoph in BZ22B. Thus, it is likely that we have here
neither nor , but . In any case, can be ruled out. The word is part of Eliezers
enigmatic description in Gen 15:2. The slight traces following this word fit the letters of . The
illegible final word does not appear to be , as suggested by B
1
, since a horizontal bottom stroke can
be perceived on AYs plate for the letter preceding the lamed. Qim
1
s reading will be dealt with below.
22.34: ] AY/J/F ; B
1
; Qim
1
; GMT/AW ] [ . This word is admittedly
difficult, but a few observations may be made. First, there appears to be a space preceding the lamed,
making it likely that this letter begins a new word. The preceding letter also appears to have a horizontal
base stroke on AYs plate and IMneg. 3865 (contra B
1
/Qim
1
). Second, the letter preceding the resh
looks like a tav that has had its right leg effaced and its top destroyed by a vertical crack in the leather. I
can attribute the vertical line and short foot on AYs plate and IMneg. 3865 only to a tav (or, less
plausibly, a nun) and am unconvinced that it is a yod/vav or mem, as others have suggested. A very short
piece of this letters right leg can be seen between the crack and the effaced area to its right. The letter
between the lamed and my proposed tav has been understood by all except B
1
as a dalet, but the top of
this letter looks much more like a mem that (like the tav) has had its lower portion effaced. Qim
1
cannot
be correct in reading , since there is simply not room (or evident ink traces) for a lamed-mem
after his lamed-dalet (cf. other mems in this column). Admittedly, the results of my reading are less than
satisfying morphologically, since the root is otherwise unattested in the itpeel conjugation. I take this
word to be a nominative participle, the reflexive usage of which makes logical sense here i.e. the one
inheriting for himself. Happily, the general sense of the line is relatively clear despite the difficulty of
this reading.





167







SECTION II
THE DIVISION OF THE EARTH IN GENESIS APOCRYPHON 16-17: A CASE
STUDY ON ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE BOOK OF JUBILEES











168



CHAPTER 3
THE BACKGROUND OF GENESIS APOCRYPHON 16-17

The primarily textual work of the preceding section is aimed to provide a more solid
foundation for future textual, linguistic, and exegetical analysis of the Genesis Apocryphon.
While it is impossible to comment adequately on all parts and aspects of the Apocryphon
here, the remainder of the dissertation is dedicated to one area where new textual discoveries
may enhance our understanding of the scrolls content and theological outlook the
apportionment of the earth among Noahs sons and grandsons in GenAp 16-17. These
columns were chosen for several reasons: 1.) they include a number of substantial
advancements in reading the scroll; 2.) they represent our most direct parallel with the Book
of Jubilees, whose relationship with the Apocryphon remains unclear; and 3.) they attest to
one broad, thematic concern in the scroll, as will be demonstrated below. The thesis of
Section II is that the Genesis Apocryphon preserves a simpler, shorter account of the earths
division than Jubilees, and that the two texts are more likely based on a common source than
directly related. The evidence suggests that the shared source may well have included an
actual map.
To avoid unwieldiness, this section has been split into two chapters. The present
chapter seeks to contextualize Chapter 4 within the wider settings of: 1.) the book of
Genesis; 2.) the ancient Hellenistic map of the inhabited earth (oikumene), on which both the
Apocryphon and Jubilees partly depend; and 3.) the extant narrative of the rest of the
169
Genesis Apocryphon. Chapter 4 then provides a detailed, comparative analysis of GenAp
16-17 and the parallel passage in Jubilees (8:11-9:15).

3.1. External Background I: Genesis 10 and Other Biblical Texts
Genesis 10, or the so-called Table of Nations, forms the primary biblical backdrop
to the various geographic accounts to be discussed in the following chapters.
199
The Table
of Nations stands between Noahs drunken episode, after which his grandson Canaan
receives a curse (Gen 9:18-28), and the confusion of tongues and dispersion of peoples at
the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9). It is essentially a genealogy that has been inconsistently
supplemented with geographic, folkloric, and etiological information.
200
The following tables
attempt to present the information of Gen 10 succinctly:

199
A biblical parallel to Gen 10 is found in 1 Chr 1:1-24.
200
The traditional source-critical interpretation of this uneven combination is that it represents the
two distinct sources comprising the chapter, J and P. The most popular theory is that P has provided the
genealogical framework for the chapter, while most of the non-genealogical material may be attributed to J.
For a clear survey of the standard views see James C. VanderKam, Putting the in their Place: Geography as an
Evaluative Tool, Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed.
J. C. Reeves and J. Kampen; JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 46-69 [esp. 50-53]. A
more detailed explanation is given by Skinner, Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1930 [2d ed.]) 187-95; or
W. Zimmerli, 1. Mose 1-11 (Zrcher Bibelkommentare; Zrich: Zwingli Verlag, 1943) 367-96.
170
TABLE 1
GENEALOGICAL INFORMATION

Japheth (10:2-5)
Gomer
Ashkenaz
Riphath
Togarmah
Magog
Madai
Javan
Elishah
Tarshish
Kittim
R/Dodanim
Tubal
Meshech
Tiras


















Ham (10:6-20)
Cush
Seba
Havilah
Sabtah
Raamah
Sheba
Dedan
Sabteca
Nimrod
Egypt
Ludim
Anamim
Lehabim
Naphtuhim
Pathrusim
Casluhim (whence
came the Philistines)
Caphtorim
Put
Canaan
Sidon
Heth
Jebusites
Amorites
Girgashites
Hivites
Arkites
Sinites
Arvadites
Zemarites
Hamathites

Shem (10:21-31)
Elam
Asshur
Arpachshad
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Joktan
Almodad
Sheleph
Hazarmaveth
Jerah
Hadoram
Uzal
Diklah
Obal
Abimael
Sheba
Ophir
Havilah
Jobab
Lud
Aram
Uz
Hul
Gether
Mash


171
TABLE 2
ADDITIONAL (NON-GENEALOGICAL) INFORMATION

Japheth
1. From these the maritime nations branched out. (10:5)
Ham
1. Nimrod (10:8-12):
a. is the first mighty man ( ) on the earth
b. is a mighty hunter before the Lord ( )
c. ruled over Babylon, Erech, Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar (from which
Asshur went forth)
d. built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and Resen
2. Afterward the clans of the Canaanites spread out. The Canaanite territory extended from
Sidon as far as Gerar, near Gaza, and as far as Sodon, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim,
near Lasha. (10:18-19)
Shem
1. Shem is the father of all the sons of Eber and the older brother of Japheth (10:21;
).
201

2. In the days of Peleg ( ) the earth was divided ( ).
3. The settlements of Joktans descendants extended from Mesha as far as Sephar, the hill
country to the east. (10:30)
202



201
There has been some scholarly disagreement whether Shem or Japheth is the older brother (i.e. the
referent of ), but the former seems preferable. See Skinner, Genesis, 219.
202
On the possible placements of these toponyms see Skinner, Genesis, 222-23.
172
The LXX closely resembles the MT version, differing in only a few details.
203
The
chapter ends with the statement, These are the groupings of Noahs descendants, according
to their origins, by their nations; and from these the nations branched out over the earth
after the Flood (10:32). There is no explicit indication that the geographic locations
connected with individuals or people groups are divinely appointed, or assigned by Noah,
although the first point may have been assumed by an ancient audience. It simply appears to
be the way things happened according to the inclinations and wanderings of Noahs various
descendents. This passage forms the scriptural foundation upon which Noahs division of
the earth in both the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees is built.
There are several other passages that deserve brief mention alongside Gen 10 as
potentially influencing the geographic strategy and content of the Genesis Apocryphon and
Jubilees. The strongest impact may well have been made by Deut 32:8, which reads:


] [
204


When the Most High dealt nations their inheritances; upon his separation of human beings;
He set up the boundaries of peoples, according to the number of the sons of God [Israel].


203
For a brief summary see VanderKam, Putting them in their Place, 50; or J. M. Scott Geography in
Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 24-27. A much
more detailed analysis is provided by Skinner, Genesis, 195-223; or U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of
Genesis (Vol. 2: From Noah to Abraham; trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964) 172-224. These
commentators also discuss the importance of the 70 or 72 person scheme of Gen 10 as representative of the
common ancient conception that the world was populated by this number of nations.
204
Most LXX manuscripts (reading either oyyt iov tou or uiov tou ) and two Qumran
manuscripts (4QDeut
q, j
) reflect the non-bracketed reading. The MT contains the bracketed Israelites
instead, which seems to be a later gloss. For details see M. S. Heiser, Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of
God, BSac 158 (Jan-March 2001) 52-74.
173
This piece of ancient poetry lent itself naturally to an association with the Table of
Nations. Indeed, the two were explicitly connected by a number of ancient interpreters.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan was among these, expanding the first phrase to read, When the
Most High dealt the world as an inheritance to the peoples who went forth from the sons of
Noah.
205
It is likely that this passage also left its imprint on the author of the Genesis
Apocryphon, suggesting that it was the Most High (a favored appellation for God in the
Apocryphon) who ultimately instigated the division of the earth.
A passage that seems to have had a more specific impact on portions of the Genesis
Apocryphon is the description of Israelite tribal allotments in Josh 15-19:48. Here we find
some remarkable affinities in the vocabulary, phraseology, syntax, and overall structure used
to describe geographic districts. Similarities to Joshua description are most clearly seen in
GenAp 16-17, but are also present in GenAp 21.15-19.
A number of other passages delineating the borders of the Israelites territory likely
influenced the Genesis Apocryphons description of Arpachshads, and later Abrams,
apportionment. Among these Gen 15:18-19, Ex 23:31, Num 34:2-12, and Deut 11:24 must
have figured prominently,
206
along with the later Davidic and Solomonic reports.
207


205
The same association between these passages may be found in Sifre Devarim, Yalqut Shimoni, and
Rashis Metsudah.
206
These passages were the recipients of frequent geographic expansion by later exegetes. The
authoritative study of the targumic and rabbinic traditions associated with Gen 10 and Num 34 remains the
unpublished thesis of P. S. Alexander, The Toponomy of the Targumim with Special Reference to the Table of Nations and
the Borders of the Holy Land (D. Phil. thesis; Oxford University, 1974). The first of the above passages includes a
nuance that may have influenced the fundamental rhetorical argument taken up by the Genesis Apocryphon
and Jubilees. In Gen 15:18 the Lord says, to your seed I have given this land, from the River of Egypt to the
Great River, the Euphrates. A number of early rabbis, commenting on this verse, noted that [this phrase]
does not read I will give (), but I have given () (Genesis Rabbah [Theodor-Albeck] 44:22). The fact
that the land had already been given to Abrams descendents before he had received this promise may also have
raised questions for earlier commentators.
207
E. g. 2 Sam 8:3 (Qeri); 1 Kgs 5:1 (Hebrew); 2 Kgs 24:7; Ezek 47:13-23.
174

3.2. External Background II: The Ionian Map of the Inhabited Earth (oikoumene)
Several scholars have noted the dependence of Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon
on notions of the inhabited earth (Greek oikumene) current in contemporary Hellenistic
culture.
208
Such dependence is indeed striking when the Greco-Roman sources are
consulted, and therefore it seems best to sketch briefly some basic tenets and developments
of Hellenistic geographic science before examining the geography of our Jewish works.
The most ancient Greek source envisioning the world is the description of Achilles
spectacular shield in Homers Iliad, thought by modern scholars to date to the 8
th
century
B.C.E.
209
Unlike later geographic descriptions this account tells of a cosmological, and not
simply terrestrial, map. The important thing to note regarding the shield for our purposes,
however, is that it is circular in shape and surrounded by the encompassing Ocean
(1|tovoio), that vast and mighty river (18:606). The importance of Homers description
in shaping later conceptions of the world is attested to by Strabo and the Stoics, who
declared Homer the founder of geographic science.
210

A significant advancement in the study of geography appears to have emerged in the
6
th
century B.C.E., as Greek philosophers were seeking more systematic and naturalistic
explanations for the world around them.
211
Much of the geographic innovation during this

208
See (on Jubilees only) P. S. Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi of the Book of Jubilees, JJS
38 (1982), 197-213; and idem, Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish), ABD 2.980-82. This will be
discussed more fully in the following chapter.
209
See The History of Cartography: Volume One (ed. J. B. Harley and D. Woodward; Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1987), 131. The passage concerning Achilles shield is found in the Iliad 18:480-610. For an
English translation and commentary see The Iliad of Homer (ed. and trans. R. Lattimore; Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1951), 388-91, 411.
210
Strabo, Geography 1.1.2 (Jones, LCL).
211
History of Cartography, 134.
175
period was attributed by later authors to Anaximander (ca. 610-546 B.C.E.), who studied
under the renowned Thales in the Carian city of Miletus. The early 3
rd
century C.E.
geographer, Agathemerus, reported that Anaximander was the first to venture to draw the
inhabited world on a map.
212
Hecataeus (fl. ca. 500 B.C.E.), also from Miletus, was
considered the first to compose a Circuit of the Earth (tpi oo yn), and is believed to have
improved considerably on the map of Anaximander.
213
Both authors described the world as
a flat, circular-shaped disk, much like the shield of Achilles.
214
The available evidence leads
us to believe that the basic layout of world maps like those drawn by Anaximander and
Hecataeus were first produced in Ionia, on the western seacoast of Asia Minor.
215
This has
led modern scholars to speak of a relatively standardized Ionian world map (oikumene),
216

which exerted considerable influence over geographic science well into the Middle Ages.
217

An Ionian understanding of the cosmos is also reflected in numerous rabbinic works.
218


212
Agathemerus, Geographiae informatio 1.1, in Geographi Graeci minores, (2 vols. and tabulae; ed. K. O.
Mller; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1855-56) 2:471-87. The Greek words for on a map are tv i vo|i, which could
alternately mean a painting. Cf. W. A. Heidel, Anaximanders Book, The Earliest Known Geographical
Treatise, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 56:7 (1921) 239-88; and History of Cartography, 134,
n. 18.
213
Agathemerus, Geographiae informatio 1.1.
214
Neither the writings of Anaximander nor Hecataeus have survived. We are dependant upon later
references to them in authors such as Herodotus, Strabo, and Agathemerus. The flat disk is sometimes
described as one end of a drum-shaped cylinder
215
History of Cartography, 135. For the close relationship between Ionia and Caria see Strabo, Geography
1.4.7.
216
Along with the other secondary works referred to in this section see R. Talbert, Kartographie, in
Der Neue Pauly Enzyklopdie der Antike (ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider; Stuttgart, Weimer: J. B. Metzler, 1999)
6:301-308. The Ionians are also closely associated with maps and geographic conceptions by Herodotus (e.g.
2.15-17).
217
One famous late example is the Hereford Map, produced by Richard of Haldingham around 1290
A.D. For a rudimentary overview of the later reception of the Ionian map see P. S. Alexander, Notes on the
Imago Mundi, 201-203; also J. M. Scott, Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity, 159-70. A far more
detailed account is given in History of Cartography, 283-370.
218
E.g. y. Avodah Zarah 3.42c; Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 3; Derekh Eretz Zuta 9; Genesis Rabbah 4.5, 3.10, 23.7;
Numbers Rabbah 13.16; Esther Rabbah 1.7; Midrash Psalms 93:5; etc. See Z. Safrai, Geography and Cosmography
176

Map 1: A Reconstruction of Hecataeus World Map
219


Herodotus (late 5
th
cent. B.C.E.) attested to some of the standard traits of the Ionian-
based maps common in his day. Although largely dependent upon the Ionians, he
upbraided them when he said, [f]or my part, I cannot help but laugh when I see numbers of
persons drawing maps of the world without having any reason to guide them; making, as

in Talmudic Literature, The Literature of the Sages: Second Part (ed. S. Safrai et al.; CRINT 3b; Assen: Van
Gorcum/Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006) 506.
219
From E. H. Bunbury, A History of Ancient Geography (2 vols.; London: John Murray, 1879) 1:149.
177
they do, the ocean stream to run all around the earth, and the earth itself to be an exact
circle, as if described by a pair of compasses, with Europe and Asia of just the same size.
220

Through this critique we learn that Greek maps depicted the general shape of the earth very
much like Achilles shield, with the earth forming a planed circle and surrounded by the
Ocean River. Aristotle (4
th
cent. B.C.E.)
221
and the later Stoic philosopher Geminus (1
st
cent.
B.C.E.)
222
shared Herodotus disdain and disparagement of these flat, round maps, attesting
to their enduring popular use well after it had been argued that the inhabited world must be
greater in length (east to west) than in breadth (north to south), and that the earth was not a
plane, but spherical in shape.
223

Herodotus went on to state that contemporary Greek maps divided the earth into
three continents: I wonder, then, at those who have mapped out and divided the world into
Libya, Asia, and Europe; for the difference between them is great.
224
Here he appears to
ridicule the fact that the three continents are depicted as roughly equal in size, when it is
clear from basic observation that they are not. According to Herodotus, the boundaries
separating these three continents were the Nile river in the south, and the Phasis or Tanais
rivers in the north, with the northern river apparently fluctuating depending on the particular
map consulted.
225
The Great Sea (i.e. Mediterranean), which was itself subdivided and

220
Herodotus 4.36 (Godley, LCL).
221
Aristotle, Meteorologica 2.5.362b.13 (Lee, LCL).
222
Geminus, Introduction aux phnomnes (ed. and trans. Germaine Aujac; Paris: Belles Lettres, 1975)
16.4.5.
223
W. A. Heidel, The Frame of the Ancient Greek Map (New York: American Geographical Society, 1937)
63-102. Cf. History of Cartography, 135-6.
224
Herodotus 4.42. Also cf. 2.16.
225
Ibid, 4.45. The Phasis is the modern Ister, and the Tanais the modern Don. For the alternative
practice of dividing the oikumene by isthmuses, see Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 198-99.
178
named according to region, formed a massive inlet, dividing Europe from Libya and
connecting to the Ocean River at the Pillars of Heracles, or Gadira.
226
It is such Ionian maps
that Alexander the Great likely consulted during his campaign to the East, as Arrian may
suggest.
227
While little physical evidence of Ionian maps has come down to us from
antiquity, there can be no doubt of their existence. In fact, such maps may have been known
to the general populaces of major Greek cities.
228

Greek geographic science continued to develop, although many fundamental aspects
of the Ionian map appear to have persisted. Democritus (ca. 460-370 B.C.E.) and
Dicaearchus of Messana (fl. ca. 326-296) argued that the oikoumene should be drawn as an
oval, being half again as long as it is broad, in a proportion of three to two.
229
Dicaerchus
and Timosthenes of Rhodes (fl. 270 B.C.E.) placed the navel (omphalos) of the earth at
Rhodes, rather than Delphi a practice which many followed.
230
Eratosthenes (ca. 275-194
B.C.E.), a brilliant polymath who worked largely in Alexandria, is considered by many to
represent the zenith of Greek cartography. He noted the advances made possible by the
conquest and discoveries of Alexander the Great.
231
Although his work is preserved only in

226
The modern Straights of Gibraltar.
227
See Heidel (The Frame of the Ancient Greek Map, 26-7) citing Arrian, Anabasis 6.1.2.
228
There is both archeological and textual evidence to support this. A number of coins types have
been found (especially around Ionia) which incorporate maps, while the prop of a map is incorporated into
Aristophanes (5
th
century) Athenian comedy The Clouds. Cf. History of Cartography, 138, 158-9; and Heidel, The
Frame of the Ancient Greek Map, 11-12.
229
History of Cartography, 137, 152.
230
Ibid, 152-3. Philip Alexander elaborated on the Jewish practice of placing Jerusalem at the omphalos
of the world. P. S. Alexander, Jerusalem as the Omphalos of the World: On the History of a Geographical
Concept, Judaism 46 (1997) 148-63 [esp. 149-50]. The essay was reprinted in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality
to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (ed. L. I. Levine; New York: Continuum, 1999) 104-119 [esp. 105-106].
231
History of Cartography, 153-7.
179
the writings of later authors (e.g. Strabo and Pliny the Elder) it is clear that Eratosthenes also
knew of the earth being divided into three continents by the Tanais and Nile rivers.

Map 2: A Reconstruction of Dionysius Periegetes World Map
232


Geographic treatises continued to be composed by Greek and Roman authors, such
as Strabo, (ca. 64 BCE to 21 C.E.), Claudius Ptolemy (c. 90-168 C.E.), and Agathemerus.
Others, such as Polybius (ca. 200-118 B.C.E.), Manilius (fl. ca. 90 B.C.E.), Diodorus Siculus
(ca. 80-20 B.C.E.), Pliny the Elder (ca. 23-79 C.E.), Dionysius Periegetes (fl. ca. 124 C.E.)
and Arrian (ca. 97-175 C.E.), borrowed from common geographic knowledge in treating
associated areas of philosophy or poetry. The individual contributions of each of these

232
From Bunbury, A History of Ancient Geography, 2:490.
180
authors (especially Strabo and Ptolemy) could be enumerated at length, but here it is
necessary only to note several commonalities shared by them. These few points may also
serve as an apt summary of the Ionian world map in general, especially as it relates to the
Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees:
1. The inhabited world was viewed as flat (earlier) or spherical (later), and is drawn in the
shape of a circle (earlier) or oval (later; after Democritus).
233

2. It is divided into three continents: Europe, Asia, and Libya (i.e. modern Africa). The
continents were considered to be either roughly the same size (earlier) or to vary (later;
after Herodotus). Since east always stood at the top of the ancient map, Asia would be
portrayed in the upper central portion, with Europe on the lower left and Libya on the
lower right.
3. The three continents were typically divided by rivers, or alternately (and less commonly,
it seems) by isthmuses. When divided by rivers, the Nile is consistently the southern (i.e.
rightward) border, separating Libya and Asia, while either the Phasis or Tanais River
separates Europe from Asia in the north (left).
As we will see in Chapter 4, the main points of contact between the Hellenistic maps
and the geographic picture underlying the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees are the division
of three continents by way of the Tanais and Nile rivers and the employment of numerous
terms not mentioned in Genesis (e.g. Gadera, the Maeotan Sea, and the three gulfs
representing the Aegean, Tyrrhenian, and Adriatic Seas). It should be emphasized, however,
that the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees freely combined Hellenistic geography with other

233
A yet later elaboration of the regular, flat oval is an arch-shaped oval.
181
conceptions of the earth based on other sources, such as Scripture and geography native to
Judea and the surrounding regions.
That Hellenistic geographic coneptions of the earth were well-known in Judea during
the 2
nd
century B.C.E. is not surprising, since the process of Hellenization begun by
Alexander and carried on by his successors would certainly have included this aspect of
Greco-Ionian philosophy. It is not difficult to imagine Hellenistic governors and aristocrats
compelled to move to a new and foreign region relying on and taking with them available
maps and ideas about geography.

Excursus: Babylonian Geography
A late-Babylonian map of the world, first published in the late 19
th
century,
234
has drawn
the attention of some scholars of Judaism, especially as it relates to 1 Enoch 77.
235
James
VanderKam has convincingly shown that such a connection is tenuous at best,
236
and there
is no reason to believe that the Babylonian map relates directly to the geography of the
Genesis Apocryphon or Jubilees.
At first glance, the Babylonian map displays two basic affinities with the Ionian world
map: 1.) the circular shape of the map; and 2.) the earth-encompassing marratu, a river
surrounding the terrestrial sphere much like the Greek Ocean River on Achilles shield.
However, there are also significant differences between the two maps. These include: 1.) the
nag regions on the Babylonian map, which lie outside the marratu and have no analogue on

234
A recent, comprehensive treatment of the map is found in W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic
Geography (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998) 20-42.
235
P. Grelot, La gegraphie mythique dHnoch et ses sources orientales, RB 65:1 (January 1958),
33-69. Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 15-18.
236
J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 77, 3 and a Babylonian Map of the World, RevQ 42:2 (March 1983)
271-78.
182
the Ionian map; and 2.) the severely restricted scope of the Babylonian map, which depicts
only a limited portion of Mesopotamia inside the marratu.
237
While it seems possible that
there were some basic, early points of contact between Mesopotamian and Ionian
cartography (e.g. the notion of a disk surrounded by water), it is plain that the geography of
the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees depends upon a developed form of the latter, and not
the former.

3.3. Internal Background I: The Geographic Substructure of the Genesis
Apocryphon
Noahs division of the earth in GenAp 16-17 should not be viewed in isolation from
the rest of the extant scroll, especially since close investigation shows that these columns
present only one component of a more widespread set of rhetorical and theological
assertions: 1.) that Noah was destined from birth to oversee the post-diluvian apportionment
of the earth among his descendents; 2.) that this role was divinely granted and viewed as
highly important; and 3.) that this apportionment did not agree with the description found in
Gen 10. The goal in this part of the chapter is to examine some of the passages which attest
to this stance, and also to point out that Jubilees was not as concerned with these matters.

3.3.1. Getting to Know Noah
The following list of passages attests to a Noahs divinely appointed role as
apportioner of the earth. It also makes clear that he was granted significant authority over
the earthly, or geographic, realm.


237
Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 40-42.
183
3.3.1.1. Genesis Apocryphon 3.17
The early columns of the scroll contain tales generally paralleled in 1 Enoch.
238

Column 2 opens with Lamech, Noahs father, deeply concerned about the conception of his
son, whom he fears may be the fruit of an illicit union between his wife Batenosh and one of
the angelic Watchers. Despite Batenoshs vehement denials, Lamech thinks it best to
consult his father Methuselah on the matter. Methuselah, in turn, makes haste to his father
Enoch for counsel. GenAp 3.1-5.24 narrates Enochs lengthy response to these allegations
(it is far longer than the parallel version in 1 En 106), in which he quells all fear regarding
Noah and foretells the childs key role in the post-deluge reestablishment of righteousness
upon the earth. Amid this badly damaged section a few words are preserved, with which
Enoch predicts one of the activities that Noah will undertake, He is (the one) who will
divide the entire earth ( ).
239
Fitzmyer comments that these words are
an echo of Gen 10:25, which plays on the name of Shems great-great-grandson Peleg
( ), by indicating that in his days the earth was divided ( ).
240
While this word-play
may indeed be in the background here, the statement should also be read in light of Noahs
role as divider of the earth in GenAp 16 and Jub 8. Here Enoch is forecasting one of
Noahs tasks following the Flood to designate the boundaries within which each of his

238
See, e.g., the articles of M. J. Bernstein, From the Watchers to the Flood: Story and Exegesis in
the Early Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon; and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Patriarchs Who Worry about their
Wives: A Haggadic Tendency in the Genesis Apocryphon.
239
Previous editions read only [ . See the textual notes.
240
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 140.
184
sons and their offspring should sojourn. That Enoch prophesies Noahs future task is
significant, since it is he who has special access to the divine mysteries.
241


3.3.1.2. Genesis Apocryphon 7.1-2
These lines contain a statement of Noahs newfound role as master and caretaker of
the earth. Gen 9:3-4 declares that the fear and awe of Noah will be over all living creatures of
the earth, but in GenAp 7.1 this governing role is extended to the earths various
topographic regions as well, [You shall r]u[le] over them, the earth and all that is upon it;
over the seas and over the mountains ( ] [ ] [ ). Both
in Genesis and the Genesis Apocryphon such language harks back to Adams position of
authority in the Garden of Eden (cf. Gen 1:26-30), casting Noah as a new Adam of
sorts.
242
A novel feature in the Apocryphon, however, is its extension of Noahs lordship to
the geographic features of the earth, a feature absent in Gen 9:26-30.

3.3.1.3. Genesis Apocryphon 11.9-12
In the middle of a fragmentary section following Noahs exit from the ark a few
partial lines relate, in geographic terms, his post-flood inspection of the earth. Line 9 reads,
the mountains and the wildernesses, the intermediate regions
243
and [the] coa[stlands,

241
In light of the scrolls keen interest in the area of the earth received by each of Noahs descendents
it is significant that the same language of receiving an allotment is employed for Enoch in GenAp 2.20-21,
[ and with the Holy Ones] is his lot apportioned. In contrast to the earthly allotments of Noahs progeny,
Enochs lot () is a heavenly one.
242
On this point see M. E. Stone, The Axis of History at Qumran, Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. G. Chazon and M. E. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden:
Brill, 1999) 139-141, 148.
243
See the textual note on this word.
185
]a[l]l ( ] [ ] [ ). This statement apparently recounts what Noah
surveyed upon leaving the ark,
244
providing a geographically enhanced version of the concise
reports in Gen 8:13-14 and Jub. 5:30-31 that the earth had dried up and become visible. This
innovation emphasizes the vast scope of what Noah was able to see from the top of Mt.
Lubar. Two lines later (following a vacat) we read, [Then] I, Noah, went out and walked
through the land, through its length and through its breadth ( ] [
). The specific combination of surveying the earth from a height and then
walking through its length and breadth clearly gestures forward to Abrams analogous survey
and walking tour in col. 21 (cf. Gen 13:14-18 and below), thereby forging an explicit literary
link between Noah and Abram.
245


3.3.1.4. Genesis Apocryphon 11.16-17
Here again is an expanded assertion of Noahs dominion over the land, perhaps the
actualization of the prediction in col. 7, and rule over all of it; over its seas and its
wildernesses and its mountains, and over everything in it. For I am surely [gi]ving the whole
of it to you and to your children (
] [ ). As in col. 7, the effect is to draw attention to Noahs divinely granted
control over the various geographic features of the earth. Like the preceding example,
language reminiscent of the Abramic promises of Gen 12 and 15 is employed.



244
So Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 155.
245
This connection is made even more explicit by the words of God to Noah in GenAp 11.15, which
are clearly fashioned after Gods blessing of Abram in Gen 15:1.
186
3.3.1.5. Genesis Apocryphon 16-17
Although cols. 16-17 will be detailed in the next chapter, a few important aspects
must be noted here. First, these columns appear to be an equivalent to the Table of Nations
in Gen 10, yet it is clear that the Genesis Apocryphon differs from the biblical account
regarding where Noahs descendents belong. To be sure, Genesis hands out geographic
information parsimoniously. The most direct indicators are that Japheths sons receive the
islands/coasts of the nations (10:4-5), Hams sons the great cities of Mesopotamia (Gen
10:6-12) and the Levant (10:15-19), and Shems sons various sites assigned by scholars to
Arabia and Mesopotamia (10:27-30).
246
By this account, one might justifiably infer that the
Land of Canaan was thus named in the Pentateuch because it was simply the region where
this particular group of Hamites settled following the Flood. This, however, is a markedly
different picture than one gains from reading cols. 16-17 of the Genesis Apocryphon (or Jub
8:11-9:15), in which it is unmistakably clear that each son is apportioned a different
continent with sharply drawn borders: Japheth receives Europe, Asia goes to Shem, and
Ham ends up with Libya.
Within this basic scheme, the Levantine lands of Lebanon, Syria, and Phoenecia
typically called the Land of Canaan in the Pentateuch originally had nothing to do with
Hamites, or Canaanites. Rather, it was apportioned to Arpachshad, son of Shem. This is
not an entirely surprising move by a Judean author, but it does create tension with the verses
in Gen 10 mentioned above. The Apocryphons partial resolution of this tension will be
examined in the following background segment.


246
See Skinner, Genesis, 187-223.
187
3.3.2. Abram, Heir of Arpachshads Share
Noahs role as apportioner of the earth and the various boundaries set in GenAp 16-
17 reverberates throughout the remainder of the scroll, as evidenced in a pair of passages
recounting the exploits of Abram.

3.3.2.1. Genesis Apocryphon 19.12-13
These lines are part of a major exegetical expansion on the narrative of Abram and
Sarai entering Egypt in Gen 12:10-20. Reaching the Carmona River, one of the seven
tributaries of the River of Egypt,
247
Abram exclaims, [Up till] now we have been inside our
land ( [ ). After crossing the seven tributaries, Abram makes another
announcement, Look! Now we have left our land and entered into the Land of the Sons of
Ham, the Land of Egypt. ( ). This river is the
landmark used to distinguish the land granted to Shem from that of Ham elsewhere in the
Genesis Apocryphon ([16.27]; 21.11, 15, 18-19),
248
as well as in Jubilees (8:15, 22-23;
10:29).
249
It is particularly interesting that this statement occurs here in the narrative, since it
indicates that Abram is aware of the borders of the lands allotted to Noahs sons, and that he
considers the Levant our land, even before its borders are laid out for him by God in
GenAp 21.8-22 (or Gen 15:18-21). This suggests that when God promised Abram the land
in the latter passage he was simply reemphasizing a previously ratified (but now defunct)

247
Cf. the discussion in Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 182.
248
The names River of Egypt ( ) and Gihon River ( ) are used to refer to the Nile in
the Genesis Apocryphon. Both are used of the Nile in the Bible (cf. Gen 2:13; 15:18), and this may have been
a conscious effort by the author to associate the two names. There most certainly would have been other
references to this river in what is now missing of cols. 16-17.
249
As noted above, it is also the standard topographic feature dividing Asia from Libya according to
Ionian maps.
188
promise, rather than making an entirely new one.
250
Indeed, the Apocryphons author may
have gathered this from Genesis itself, since in 15:18 God tells Abram, to your seed I
hereby give () this land, with the verb in the perfect tense.
251


3.3.2.2. Genesis Apocryphon 21.8-22
A large portion of col. 21 consists of an elaboration on Gen 13:14-18. In Genesis,
Abram is told to survey all the land around him and then to hike about through its length
and breadth. This, God promises, is the land that he and his descendants are to possess for
eternity. Genesis and Jubilees contain no further elaboration of what Abram could see while
gazing north, south, east and west, nor where he trekked afterward, before settling in
Hebron. In the Genesis Apocryphon, however, all curiosity is put to rest. Here Abram is
told in a nocturnal dream (the preferred mode of revelation in the scroll) to climb up Ramat-
Hazor, the highest hill in the region of Bethel,
252
and from there to survey the Promised
Land. From this height Abram is able to see from the River of Egypt in the south to
Lebanon and Senir in the north, and from the Great Sea (i.e. Mediterranean) in the west to
Hauran in the East, including the whole land of Gebal, up to Qadesh, and the Great Desert
east of Hauran and Senir, up to the Euphrates River.

250
This event was also expanded upon in Rabbinic literature. See G. Sarfatti, Notes on the Genesis
Apocryphon, 258; M. R. Lehmann, 1Q Genesis Apocryphon in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim,
251; and G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 111-12.
251
Cf. note 9, above.
252
Bethel is where Abram was currently dwelling (see GenAp 21.9). For the site identification of
Ramat-Hazor (with Baal Hazor of 2 Sam. 13:23) and other toponyms in this section see H. Bardtke, Die
Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer: Die Sekte von Qumran (Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1958) 150-
52. Cf. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 220-23.
189
Abrams subsequent walking tour provides even more geographic detail. Following a
circuit beginning in the southwest, at the Gihon River (i.e. River of Egypt), Abram skirts the
Great Sea up to Mount Taurus in the north, strikes eastward to the Euphrates and then
southward to the Erythrean and Red Seas, whence he arrives back at the Gihon. When
placed on the map, it becomes apparent that this is the very same area previously allotted to
Abrams ancestor Arpachshad in GenAp 17.11-14 and Jub 9:4.
253
The border is even
narrated in the same, counterclockwise direction as in col. 17.
Both additions to the Abram narratives from Genesis reinforce the earlier division of
Noah and his sons, and reveal that Abram was aware of his ancestral claim on the Levant.
In lieu of this, we should read Gods promise to give Arpachshads portion to Abram and
his descendents in GenAp 21.8-14 not as a pledge ex nihilo (as one may gather from
Genesis), but rather as a vow to restore to Abram what has rightfully been his since the days
of yore.

3.3.3. Summary
Viewed together, these passages give us a glimpse of what the author of the Genesis
Apocryphon is doing. The prominence of Noahs role as distributor and the way in which
the earth is divided under his watchful eye bring legitimacy to the bold claim that the Levant
was intended for Shem, Arpachshad, Abram, and eventually the Israelites from the very
beginning of the earths repopulation after the Flood. As noted above, the reader of Genesis

253
In order to define clearly the land promised to Abram, the Genesis Apocryphon has no doubt
drawn upon other biblical passages providing such information. Most relevant is Gen 15:18, in which the Lord
again promises the Land to Abram, but goes on to define its extremities as the River of Egypt and the
Euphrates River two terms used in the Apocryphons description here. The author probably also intended
other biblical passages to be evoked and subsumed by the boundaries listed, such as those defining the
kingdoms of David and Solomon. E.g. Exod 23:31; Num 34:1-15; Deut 11:24; Josh 15:1-12, 21-62; 2 Sam 8:3
(Qeri); 1 Kgs 5:1 (Hebrew); 2 Kgs 24:7; Ezek 47:13-23.
190
struggles to discern such a claim. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case as soon as
the biblical writer is on the scene, the Land of Canaan is filled with Canaanites and related
tribes, and there is no indication that things were originally meant to be any different.
Although it is clear from the geographic allotments of Jub 8:11-9:15 that its author is
making the same basic claim as the Apocryphon, an outstanding difference exists: in Jubilees
this theme is seriously truncated, being confined to chapters 8-9 and a few, isolated passages
nearby.
254
Not one of the geographic passages listed above is paralleled in Jubilees. Where
we might expect to hear something of Abrams clear right to the land later in Jubilees, there
is only silence. Instead, the land is promised to him anew, precisely as recounted in Genesis.
The sustained presence, even prominence, of the theme of land and land rights woven
throughout the extant narrative of the Genesis Apocryphon is unique, and signifies an
important distinction over against Jubilees.

3.4. Internal Background II: Noahs Arboreal Dream in Genesis Apocryphon 13-15
GenAp 13-15 contain the patchy remains of a symbolic vision given to Noah while
he is asleep. Because it is so damaged, the vision has been largely ignored by those studying
the Apocryphon. Yet new readings made possible by narrowband infrared photographic
technology allow more information to be culled from these columns information that may
help explain how the Genesis Apocryphon eased some of the tension with Genesis brought
about by its distinctive geographic substructure. Based on these readings it appears that the
dream provides the reader with background information that is crucial for understanding the

254
Primarily Jub 10:27-36.
191
following columns and ingeniously designed to resolve tension with Genesis. At the same
time, the dream addresses some of the thorny exegetical issues of Gen 9-10.

3.4.1. What can we say about Columns 13-15?
In order to understand these columns it is first necessary to establish what may be
said with relative certainty about their content. Seven points will be proposed here, although
the list may grow with future research.

1. Noah is the recipient of an apocalyptic, symbolic dream and its interpretation
Noahs visionary experience may be termed apocalyptic, if judged according to the
widely accepted definition of John Collins.
255
In cols. 14-15 we find Noah being told the
meaning and significance of the symbols in his dream, as clearly seen in the recurring use of
second person verbs and phrases such as (and concerning what you saw). It is
likely that the dreams interpretation is being related by the same great watcher ( )
or great holy one ( ) who Noah says spoke with me in a vision in GenAp
6.11-14. At the very least, we may assume that a divine being is speaking to Noah, since the
mystery () is mentioned in 14.18-20, just as it is in 6.12. The two-part format of self-
described dream and supernatural explanation resembles that of other apocalyptic visions,
such as those in Daniel, 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra. Most notable for our purposes are Dan 2 and

255
A summary of his definition may be found in J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998) 7. This is based (in part) on his widely cited, fuller formulation found in Introduction:
Towards the Morphology of a Genre, Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula: Scholars,
1979) 1-20 [9]. See further the observations of D. Hellholm, The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the
Apocalypse of John, Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting (Semeia 36; ed. A. Yarbro Collins;
Missoula: Scholars, 1986) 13-64; and D. E. Aune, The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre, Early
Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting (Semeia 36; ed. A. Yarbro Collins; Missoula: Scholars, 1986) 65-
96.
192
4, of which precise wording, and several symbolic elements, are mirrored in the Genesis
Apocryphon. It is evident that the author of the Apocryphon is drawing imagery and
language from Daniel, or at least that the two works spring from the same social and
interpretative circles. The transcendent reality envisioned in the dream will be touched upon
in the following points.

2. The dream employs tree or garden imagery to portray a succession of historic persons or periods, at least
some of which are brought to a destructive end
Beginning at the top of col. 13 we encounter what seems to be the destruction of a
garden, or tree, including mention of bringing the destruction to an end (GenAp 13.11-12).
The imagery and language of this section are strongly reminiscent of the Flood in Gen 6:11-
8:19, and it seems likely that this is the event being cryptically described. Next, we find
Noah (in the first person) describing a great olive tree, which grows astoundingly, but is then
debranched and scattered by the four winds of heaven. When the text is picked up once
again, in col. 14, Noah is being addressed in the second person, indicating an intervening shift
from the dream to its interpretation. Although the text is badly damaged, the top of the
column depicts Noah having the destruction of an unidentified tree explained to him. The
language used here is similar to that of the olive tree in col. 13, but it is difficult to know
whether the same tree is the subject in both places. Beginning at GenAp 14.9, and
continuing until we lose the text again in line 22, an explanation of a great cedar tree
standing upon the mountaintops along with its shoots, offshoots, and boughs, is given to
Noah. It soon becomes clear that this cedar is none other than Noah.
256
The vision

256
The choice of trees as symbols of various persons, groups, or generations should be viewed in light
of biblical and broader ancient Near Eastern use of tree imagery. For background see G. Widengren, The King
193
culminates in col. 15 with a description of wickedness and a subsequent judgment brought
about by the Mighty Lord, who is symbolized as a fearsome warrior coming from the south,
with sickle in hand and fire at his side.
257
This may be followed by a short description of
restoration, after which Noah awakes (GenAp 15.21). While it is very difficult to guess how
all of these components relate to one another, it is relatively clear that underlying these
columns is a historical framework, which begins with or precedes Noah and continues until
an eschatological consummation of divine judgment.

3. In col. 14 Noah is portrayed as a great cedar tree, and his three sons are symbolized by three shoots
springing from its trunk
258

GenAp 14.10 recounts a shoot that rises from the cedar, representing three sons.
Since Noah has just been informed in the preceding line that he is the cedar, this is a
transparent allusion to Shem, Ham, and Japheth. As we will see below, the portrayal of
Noah and his sons as a tree is of great interest, since a number of other Jewish authors
depend on this same imagery. John Reeves has noted the especially interesting association
of Noah and his sons with the well-known tree planted beside still waters of Ps 1:3 in

and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion: King and Saviour III, UU (Uppsala: Lundequists, 1951); E. O.
James, The Tree of Life (SHR 11; Leiden: Brill, 1966) 110-13, 129-62; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 145-53; and P. W. Coxon, The Great Tree of Daniel 4, A Word in Season: Essays
in Honor of William McKane (ed. J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies; JSOT Sup. 42; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986). Some
biblical passages equating humans and trees are Dan 4, Ezek 17, 31, Ps 1:3, 52:10, 92:12-15, and 128:3. The
imagery has continued into modern writings, such as the Book of Mormon (Jacob 5, 1 Nephi 10:12-14, 15:12-
18).
257
See point 6, below.
258
The portrayal of Noah as a cedar is echoed in GenAp 19.14-17, where Abram also has a symbolic
dream in which he is a cedar and Sarai a date palm (cf. Ps 92:13-16). This parallel raises the possibility that the
Genesis Apocryphon associates patriarchs with the symbol of the cedar tree, and may imply that the olive tree
of col. 14 does not represent one of the major patriarchal figures. At present, the identification of the olive tree
must remain a mystery.
194
Bereshit Rabbah 26:1-2.
259
This image also seems intertwined with the description of righteous
Noah as an upright planting.
260
In GenAp 14.11 it becomes clear that each son is
symbolized by a separate shoot, since there we read of the first shoot adhering to the cedar
stump, and later in 14.15 of the last shoot. So far, then, we can envision a cedar on the
mountaintops (i.e. Noah) with three shoots branching off from it (i.e. Shem, Ham, and
Japheth).

4. The future of the three cedar shoots, as well as their offshoots and boughs, is elaborated upon in
considerable depth
From line 10 to at least line 22 of col. 14 various tree parts are described as animated
objects, while the collection of tree-related terms attests to the detail employed by the author
to describe the interactions and altercations between them. The first shoot (
) is said to cling to the cedar, and not branch off from it for all of its days.
Moreover, Noahs seed is to be called by this shoots name, and in the future it will produce
an upright planting that will stand fast forever. This shoot is undoubtedly Shem, whose
line will eventually produce Abram and the Israelites. Following a break in the text, there is
a somewhat confusing section mentioning: 1.) the last shoot ( ), which
must be either Ham or Japheth; 2.) an offshoot ( ) turning aside from his father (i.e.
the last shoot); and 3.) some of their boughs entering the boughs of the first one, with

259
The passage is found on pp. 243-44 of the Theodor-Albeck edition, and also in Midrash Tehillim
1:12. See J. C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (Monographs
of the Hebrew Union College, 14; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1992) 99-100.
260
Significantly, the author of the Apocryphon employs this imagery several times (2.15; 6.1; 14.13).
The metaphor is dependent on biblical usage (e.g. Isa 60:21; 61:3), and the same imagery is used to refer to
other blameless individuals or groups during the Second Temple period. See S. Fujita, The Metaphor of Plant
in Jewish Literature of the Intertestamental Period, JSJ 7 (1976), 30-45; and Reeves, Jewish Lore, 100.
195
their being ambiguous in the text as it stands. This last mention of boughs is in
connection with two sons, who can safely be identified as Ham and Japheth due to the
following line (14.17), which contains the expression one to the south of the Land, and one
to the north of the Land. This phrase must reflect the geographic distribution of the earth
narrated in GenAp 16-17 and Jub 8:11-9:15, where Ham inhabits the southern portion of the
earth, Japheth the northern portion, and Shem the center. In sum, the last shoot (i.e. Ham
or Japheth) produces an offshoot (i.e. a son) which turns away from him, while some
boughs, most likely of the two shoots or their offshoots, enter into the boughs of the first
shoot (i.e. Shem).

5. Geographic allotments and boundaries play a role in the description of future interactions between the
shoots, offshoots, and their boughs
In GenAp 14.21, shortly after the mention of some boughs entering the boughs of
the first shoot, we find the phrase in an allotment in Amania, next to Elam, which may
also be followed by a reference to the Great Sea. The following line appears to contain the
additional phrase exchanging his allotment for an allotment These lines show that the
dreams interpretation includes specific geographic details in close proximity to the
explanation of the cedar trees various outgrowths, and reflects once again the authors
geographic concern outlined above. Notably, the region mentioned in line 21
(Amania/Amana) is included as part of Arpachshads allotment in GenAp 17.14 and Jub 9:4,
which also lay next to Elam.

196
6. The dream culminates with a judgment scene
GenAp 15.10-11 relates that the warrior coming from the South, the sickle in his
hand and fire with him, whom Noah saw in his dream, is none other than the Mighty
Lord.
261
The foregoing lines describe the apostasy and evil to precede the Lords coming,
while the following lines elaborate the punishment to be imposed upon the wicked,
including being thrown onto the fire, and bound with a chain. These punishments are
probably inflicted by the four angels mentioned in 15.14, as in 1 En 10. The entire episode
is rife with biblical and non-biblical imagery of eschatological judgment drawn from a variety
of sources.

7. Noah begins dividing the earth between his sons shortly after awaking from his dream
Upon waking in 15.21, Noah blesses God and tells Shem everything about his
dream. The column becomes almost completely unreadable at line 24, where Noah
seemingly enjoins Shem to dedicate himself to serving God Most High. The next readable
portion of text begins at GenAp 16.8-9, at which point we are part way through a geographic

261
It is not impossible that 15.10-12 refers to two figures: a great warrior coming from the south
(15.10), and the Mighty Lord (15.11). According to this understanding, which has been argued in personal
communication by E. Eshel, the one coming from the south could be considered an evil individual (one of the
Seleucid or Ptolemaic kings, according to Eshel), and line 11 could be read with the Mighty Lord as the subject
(preceded by a now lost verb) and the following one who will come from the south of the land as the object
of the Lords presumed action. I find this explanation unlikely for a number of reasons: 1.) the Lord is
expected to come in judgment, typically from the south, in Deut 33:1-3, Judg 5:4-5, Ps 18:5-20, 50:1-6, 68, Isa
42:13-25, 63:1-6, Zech 9:13-17, and 1 En 1:3ff., 61:1ff., 77:1; 2.) a number of these passages portray the Lord
coming with fire, an element accompanying the great warrior of GenAp 15.10; 3.); the imagery of a sickle, or
harvest, also associated with the great warrior in 15.10, is used to describe the Lord reaping judgment in Joel
4:11-16, Matt 13:30, 39, Mark 4:26-29, and Revelation 14:14-20; 4.) the syntax of the phrase in 15.11
seems most easily read as a further qualification of the preceding ; and 5.) the
general context of wickedness and wrongdoing in these and surrounding lines would fit well with a divine
judgment scene. The following mention of throwing rebels onto the fire (15.12) and four great angels (15.14)
further support this idea. Together, these points argue strongly that the great warrior and Mighty Lord should
be viewed as synonymous in these lines, thus presenting a climactic scene of divine judgment on human (and
perhaps angelic) evildoers.
197
description of the lands allotted by Noah to Japheth. This description must have already
been underway for at least two or three lines, leaving approximately sixteen lines
unaccounted for between the end of Noahs dream and the beginning of Japheths
allotment. When we consider that Noah is still instructing Shem in 15.24, and that there
must have been some introduction to the earths division (likely several lines; cf. Jub 8:10-
11), it becomes very likely that one episode (the dream) led into the other (the earths
division).

3.4.2. Some Associated Traditions
The previous survey explored only what may be gathered about Noahs dream and
its interpretation by reading the extant text of the Genesis Apocryphon. There are, however,
some traditions preserved in roughly contemporaneous or later Jewish and Manichaean
works, which appear somehow related to these columns and may help us understand better
their obscure content.

3.4.2.1. The Dream of the Garden
First, there is an intriguing link between the Genesis Apocryphon and a tale that I
will call the Dream of the Garden; a dream preserved in several ancient corpora, including the
Dead Sea Scrolls. In his Books of Enoch, J. T. Milik observed that the so-called Book of Giants,
which he related to the Enochic corpus, had a healthy representation among the Dead Sea
Scrolls.
262
He further ventured that these fragments contain an earlier form of the

262
Milik, Books of Enoch, 57-58. For analysis of Milik and the Book of Giants at Qumran see the
studies of F. Garcia Martinez, The Book of Giants, Qumran and Apocalyptic (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill) 97-115;
Reeves, Jewish Lore; and L. T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran (TSAJ 63; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1997); and Reeves, Jewish Lore.
198
Manichaean Book of Giants. An abbreviated form of the Manichaean version, dubbed by
Milik the Midrash of Shemhazai and Azael, later found its way into the rabbinic corpus via a
certain Rav Yoseph.
263
The Midrash is preserved in several medieval rabbinic sources,
including Bereshit Rabbati, Yalqut Shimoni, and the Chronicles of Jerahmeel.
264
While Miliks
proposed line of transmission has subsequently been questioned,
265
it is clear that the
Qumran, Manichean, and rabbinic sources all share some form of the Dream of the Garden.
The portion of the Midrash of Shemhazai and Azael of present interest is one of a pair of
dreams had by Heyah and Aheyah, sons of the Watcher Shemhazai, and may be translated as
follows:
266







263
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 339. Rav Yoseph is questionably identified by Milik as Rabbi Joseph bar
Hiyya, head of the academy in Pumbedita in the early fourth century C.E. For the numerous disputes with this
proposal see J. C. Greenfield and M. E. Stone, The Books of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch, Numen
26:1 (June 1979) 89-103 [102]; G. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (NHS 24; Leiden: Brill,
1984) 166-67; and Reeves, Jewish Lore, 88.
264
The texts are presented synoptically by Milik (Books of Enoch, 321-26 [325]), although caution has
been urged by Greenfield and Stone (The Books of Enoch, 102) regarding the uncritical use of this
collection. Jerahmeels version may now be found in the recent, critical edition by E. Yassif, The Book of Memory,
that is The Chronicles of Jerahmeel (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2001) 117 [Hebrew]. The text of Yalqut may also
be found in A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch [ ] (6 sections; Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books [ ],
1967) 4:128. Some of these above texts are thought to depend on the now lost Midrash Abkir; cf. A
Marmorstein, Midrash Abkir, Debir 1 (1923), 113-44; and Reeves, Jewish Lore, 86.
265
Greenfield and Stone, The Books of Enoch, 102; Stroumsa, Another Seed, 167; Reeves, Jewish
Lore, 88.
266
This is the version found in Bereshit Rabbati (Milik, Books of Enoch, 325). The other versions are
generally the same, but vary in details and wording.
199
And one of them saw in his dream a large and glorious garden, planted with various species
of trees and various types of choice fruits. And angels were descending with axes in their
hands, and were cutting down the trees until none remained except for one tree of three
branches.

This dream is analogous in meaning to the previous dream, which is about a great
stone surface covered with lines of writing. In this dream an angel comes with a knife and
scrapes all lines off the stone save one, which contains four words. The common meaning
of the dreams is then related to the brothers by their father, Shemhazai:
267




My sons, in the future the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to bring a flood on the world
and cause it to be destroyed, and none will remain in it except one man and his three sons.

The man and his three sons are, of course, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, as one
version of the Midrash specifies.
268
The fragmentary Manichaean version of the dream states
that one of the giants (Narmn)
269
saw (in his sleep) a gar[den full of] trees in rows. Two
hundred came out, the trees
270
Enoch explains that these represent the Egregoroi, or

267
Milik, Books of Enoch, 326.
268
See the excerpt from Yalqut (or Midrash Abkir) in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, 4:128.
269
Who equates to Hayah in the Qumran Book of Giants. See Reeves, Jewish Lore, 94.
270
This is found in the Middle Persian Kawn. For the text (see W. B. Henning, The Book of
Giants, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 11 (1943) 52-74 [57, 60; Fragment j 39-41]. For a rich,
creative commentary on the Qumran and Manichaean dreams cf. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 95-102.
200
, of the Book of Watchers, on whose account the giants were born from women.
271

Shortly after this, the same fragment contains the isolated verb pulled out, or uprooted,
which may refer to the destruction of these trees, as in the rabbinic Midrash.
The discovery of a Book of Giants among the Dead Sea Scrolls supported the earlier
suspicion that the Manichaean Book of Giants is somehow related to 1 Enoch.
272
Focusing
only on the Dream of the Garden, we find several pertinent fragments:
273


4QEnGiants
b
ar (4Q530), fragments 2ii + 6 + 7i + 8, lines 3-6
[] ]
274
[ ]
) ? ( [
275
] [ ] ... [
...

Then the two of them (i.e. Hahyah and Mahavai) dreamt dreams, and the sleep of their eyes
fled from them. And [they] ro[se up, ope]ned their eyes, and came to [Shmihazah, their
father(?). Then ]they told him their dreams in the assembly of [their] co[mpatriots,] the
Nephilin[ in] my dream I was seeing this very night


271
Milik, Books of Enoch, 305. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 95.
272
This connection was first argued by Isaac de Beausobre, Histoire critique de Maniche et du Manichisme
(2 vols.; Amsterdam, 1734-39; repr. New York: Garland, 1984) 1.429. Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 298; or Reeves,
Jewish Lore, 24.
273
Aramaic transcriptions are those of Puech, DJD XXXI, 28, although I do not subscribe to all of
his reconstructions. Puech gives reference to the earlier editions of Milik, Beyer, and Stuckenbruck (whose
notes are particularly useful). Translations are my own (ellipses do not necessary reflect the correct spacing).
274
There is presumably a case of dittography here, which I have not included. Cf. Puech, DJD XXI,
28, 33.
275
The vav is superscripted (an apparent scribal correction) in the manuscript.
201
A following fragment (8, lines 7-8) from the same scroll confirms that one of the
dreams concerns a garden scene and the trees in it:
276


... ] ... [ ] [ ] ... [
] ... ... [ ...

gardeners, and they were watering [every tree in this garden ]gigantic [ro]ots went
up from th[ei]r trunk [ ]I was [watching] until tongues of fire from [ ] in
all the waters, and the fire burned in all

Another manuscript, 6Q8, appears related to these Cave 4 fragments. Fragment 1
depicts Mahavai fearfully recounting for his brother Hahyah something that had been shown
to him, presumably in a vision. In fragment 2 we find the phrases its three shoots (
), I was [watching] until they came ( [ ]), and this garden, all of
it ( ) on successive lines.
277
Other fragments, clearly related to these lines,
preserve the expressions all gardeners ( ) and and he cut (). While there is
some disagreement whether the texts texts from caves 4 and 6 represent variant versions of
the dream, as proposed by Beyer and Stuckenbruck,
278
or two copies of the very same text,
as Puech reconstructs,
279
it is clear that both include a garden, trees, gardeners, shoots, and

276
Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 304.
277
The transcriptions are from Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 201. Translations are my own.
278
Cf. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants, 114-15, 201-203.
279
E. Puech, Les Fragments 1 3 du Livre Des Gants de la Grotte 6 (pap6Q8), RevQ 74 (1999) 227-
38 [235]. Also see idem, DJD XXXI, 28. Puechs view is less convincing.
202
are visionary in nature. There is no reason to doubt, therefore, that both texts refer to the
same basic dream, even if they represent two distinct versions of it.
Turning to the Genesis Apocryphon, several correlations with the Dream of the Garden
are evident. Both accounts concern the fate of trees in general, which are symbolic
representations of divine or human beings. Both present Noah, who was mistaken as semi-
divine by his father at birth, as a tree with three shoots equating to three sons. In all
versions other trees are destroyed by divine means, and this typically involves cutting.
Finally, the destruction of the earth and its inhabitants by the Flood is the general topic of
each dream. It is clear that these texts all draw on a flexible but common tradition a
parable of sorts wherein Noah and his sons constitute the only tree in the garden to
survive the destructive cutting, burning, and demolition (i.e. the Flood) inflicted by the
Lords agents. In all of these works the parable is given to the recipient by way of a symbolic
dream before the Flood occurs, even if its message held a radically different significance for
Noah versus Shemhazais two sons.
The above similarities, however, should be viewed alongside some important
differences. For instance, in the Genesis Apocryphon: 1.) it is Noah, not a giant, who
receives the dream;
280
2.) specific trees are singled out and explained rather than referred to
collectively; 3.) the three shoots of Noahs tree are extended to offshoots and branches; and
4.) instead of simply ending with the Flood, Noahs dream takes us well beyond it, to the
judgment of sinners by the Mighty Lord. Thus, while the Genesis Apocryphon contains
imagery which bears a family resemblance to the Dream of the Garden, here that imagery is

280
It is interesting, however, that Noah is mistaken by Lamech as a giant in the early columns of the
scroll. Noahs close connection to the Watchers and Giants in this genre of Aramaic literature (inherited by the
Essenes of Qumran) is an area deserving of further study.
203
couched in a work focused largely on the progeny of Noah until the end of time, rather than
only on the Flood and related plights of Hahyah and Mahavai.

3.4.2.2. Cursed be Canaan
The second connection concerns the book of Jubilees. Although the parallel of
GenAp 16-17 and Jub 8:11-9:15 has already been touched on, and will be dealt with at length
in the following chapter, a close examination of GenAp 14 reveals that the connection with
Jubilees may go deeper than simply the sharing of geographic data. It appears that the
connection also extends to the ideological and theological outlook underlying the earths
division. Jub 10:27-36 relates the dispersion of Noahs sons to their previously allotted
inheritances following the Tower of Babel episode. Focusing largely on Ham and his sons
we hear that, while traveling to his proper heritage in the southwestern extremity of the earth
(somewhere around ancient Mauretania), Canaan sees the beauty of the area from Lebanon
to the stream of Egypt, and decides to settle there despite the fact that it is given to
Arpachshad in Jub 9:4. Appalled at this breach of their solemn oath before the Lord and
Noah (cf. Jub 9:14-15), Ham and his other sons beg Canaan to rethink his rash decision and
avoid a terrible curse. Undeterred, Canaan and his sons stay put, and so doom their progeny
to pay the heavy price of such an act. This little vignette is an exegetical windfall for the
author of Jubilees, simultaneously explaining how a portion rightfully belonging to Shem
could be called the Land of Canaan in the Torah, validating the curse being given to
Canaan instead of Ham after Noahs drunken episode in Genesis 9:25-27, and providing
Shems descendants pre-approval for the eventual re-conquest of this region under the
command of Joshua son of Nun. Following Canaans infraction we read of another glitch in
the dispersion of Noahs sons, in which Madai, son of Japheth, also settles in a region
204
belonging to Shem. Madai, however, petitions his kin and receives the proper permission
for his move, thereby avoiding a curse. As with Canaan, one purpose of this story is
etiological, explaining why there is an area named Mediqin (Media) within Shems allotment.
Turning to the section concerning the cedar shoots in GenAp 14, we read the following
phrases:

As for the fact that you saw the offshoot of the last shoot, which (14.15)

a few of their boughs entering into the midst of the boughs of the first one, (concerns)
two sons one to the south of the Land and one to the north of the Land. As for
the fact that you saw a few of their boughs entering into the boughs of the first one of
this shoot were settling in his land and all the coastlands to the Great Sea (14.16-17)

exchanging his allotment for an allotment (14.22)

These statements gain significance when read alongside Jub 10. As proposed above,
the offshoot of the last shoot in line 15 must be a son of either Ham or Japheth, assuming
that the first shoot is Shem. The phrase settling in the Land and the coastlands helps us
narrow the identity of this offshoot to Canaan, since in Jub 10:29 we read that Canaan and
his sons illegally settled in the land of Lebanonand on the seacoast. The last shoot,
therefore, appears to be Ham, with the few boughs entering into the boughs of the first
one being the symbolic representation of Canaan and his sons entering the region
belonging to Shems progeny. If so, the boughs of the first one must refer to Arpachshad
and his family. It is even possible that the exchange of allotments found in line 22 refers to
Madais move into Shems territory, though this is far less certain. These similarities suggest
205
that Genesis Apocryphon shares Jubilees concern for defending Israels claim to the land
called Canaan in the Pentateuch. According to both texts, the eventual conquest of this land
by the Israelites merely restored to Shems descendants what was rightfully theirs from the
beginning, at the same time providing Canaan his just desserts.
As with the Dream of the Garden, however, this parallel is only partial. While Jubilees
first mentions this episode after the earth has been divided and the confusion at Babel, the
Genesis Apocryphon places it before the division, and in the context of a divinely inspired
dream. By drawing on both the Dream of the Garden and Jub 10 one is able to deduce that at
least a part of Noahs dream in GenAp 13-15 concerns the patriarch and his offspring,
symbolized by trees and their various parts, and that the dream likely addresses
(prophetically) Canaan illegally settling in the inherited lands of Arpachshad.

3.4.3. The Setting and Import of the Dream in the Genesis Apocryphon
A final area of interest is the setting and function of the dream-vision, especially as
they relate to the book of Genesis. By the time the dream begins in GenAp 13.7 it appears
that the Flood is being recounted to Noah (13.7-12).
281
The The last sure phrase preceding
this is found in 12.19, where we read And I lay down upon my bed, and the wine [
( ...] ),
282
which follows the celebration of Noahs vineyard harvest in
the foregoing lines (12.13-18). This parallels the much shorter account of Gen 9:20-21,
where we read of Noah planting a vineyard, pressing wine from its produce, and then lying

281
A rehearsal of previous history is not uncommon in visions describing the future (see, e.g., 1 En
85). Also cf. G. I. Davies, Apocalyptic and Historiography, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5 (1978)
15-28.
282
Cf. the similar language in Dan 7:1.
206
down drunk and uncovered inside his tent. In the ensuing verses of Genesis Ham enters,
sees Noahs nakedness, and proceeds to tell his two brothers outside. The episode
culminates in Noah cursing Hams son Canaan, but blessing Shem and Japheth. This brief
story contains a number of interpretative perplexities. First, how did Noah know what his
youngest son had done to him if he was asleep (Gen 9:24), and what, precisely, had Ham
done? Further, how is it that Noah goes on to foretell what will happen to his sons at a
future time? Perhaps most perplexing, why does Noah curse Hams son Canaan for what
appears to be an offense by Ham himself? Such difficulties have led modern biblical critics
to speculate about the muddle of various sources and textual corruptions that could have
produced such confusion,
283
or to hypothesize that something has erstwhile dropped out of
an earlier, more coherent version of the story.
284
Ancient commentators, unsurprisingly, saw
things quite differently. For them, any exegetical difficulty implied a shortcoming on the
part of the reader, not the text. Hence, the wise interpreter discerned that Noah was able to
forecast his sons future dealings through the gift of prophecy, and that there must be
perfectly reasonable explanations for what happened inside the tent, or why Canaan was
cursed rather than Ham.
285


283
E.g. Skinner, Genesis, 181-87. Cf. W. Brueggemann, Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching (Interpretation; Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1982) 90-91. Brueggemann suggests that, because of the
complicated transmission process of this passage, we are no longer able to know what was intended by the
shaping of this text (91).
284
E.g. N. M. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989)
63-64, 66.
285
An introduction to ancient Jewish and Christian interpretive views on this passage may be garnered
from the following works: R. Graves and R. Patai, Hebrew Myths (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1964)
120-22; H. Hirsch Cohen, The Drunkenness of Noah (Judaic Studies 4; Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama,
1974) 13-14; A. I. Baumgarten, Myth and Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29, Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman
Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (3 vols.; ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 3:55-71; H. F. Stander, The
Church Fathers on (the cursing of) Ham, Acta Patristica et Byzantina 5 (1994) 113-25; and J. A. Bergsma and S.
A. Hahn, Noahs Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27), JBL 124.1 (Spring 2005) 25-40.
207
The lines following GenAp 12.19 (which concerns Noah falling asleep) are very
fragmentary, but it appears that the present topic of Noahs narration continues until a vacat
at 12.25. The approximately fifteen lines between this vacat and our first glimpses of Noahs
dream in 13.7 almost certainly contain the earliest part of the vision, which is now almost
entirely lost.
286
From this we may gather that Noahs wine-induced sleep was followed
closely by the beginning of the dreams, and that his tent-enveloped slumber provides the
immediate context for the following columns.
Noahs reception of a dream during his sleep is not unique among ancient exegetical
treatments of Genesis, but it is very rare. The only other sure instance of this motif occurs
in the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, where Gen 9:24 reads,
(And Noah awoke from his wine, and he knew
through the narration of a dream what his son Ham had done to him).
287
Less certain is a Greek
variant found in the same verse of some LXX manuscripts. These witnesses
288
replaced the
last word of the phrase tEt vntv t Not oo ou oivou (And Noah awoke from the
wine), which depends on the Hebrew (his wine), with the words uvou ouou .
These words could simply mean his sleep, which would make perfectly good sense in this
setting, or it may carry the secondary meaning his dream.
289
In this case, we would have

286
Judging by isolated words in GenAp 12.21-22, it is possible that the vision begins even before the
vacat, shortly after Noah lay down on his bed.
287
See E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav,
1984) 10.
288
Which include Origen in the Greek; see The Old Testament in Greek, Volume I. The Octateuch, Part I.
Genesis (ed. A. E. Brooke and N. McLean; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1906) 22.
289
The first possibility strikes me as the more likely, since the standard Greek word for dream would
be ovti pou. See H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (9
th
ed. with revised
supplement; Oxford: Oxford University, 1996) 12??.
208
another rare example of the tradition found in Pseudo-Jonathan and the Genesis
Apocryphon. The Apocryphon, however, is unique in relating the contents of the dream. In
doing so, its author apparently breaks from the overwhelmingly dominant reading of these
verses, for the events of Gen 9:20-24 have widely been interpreted by Jews and Christians to
reflect very poorly on the otherwise admirable Noah.
290
A number of contemporary scholars
refer to the incident as the sin of Noah, despite any explicit statement to this effect in the
text itself.
291
John Calvin sums up the traditional reading of these verses in his commentary
on Genesis:

The holy patriarch, though he had hitherto been a rare example of frugality and
temperance, losing all self-possession, did, in a base and shameful manner, prostrate
himself naked on the ground, so as to become a laughing-stock to all God brands
him with an eternal mark of disgrace.
292


In contrast, the dream of GenAp 13-15 is divinely inspired and involves the
transmission of otherworldly knowledge, suggesting that this episode is viewed by our author
in a positive light. The author of the Apocryphon, therefore, did not understand the
incident in the typical negative way, but rather crafted a decidedly positive portrayal of Noah
a portrayal that would cohere with the ultra-righteous, idealized characterization of the

290
A representative example is found in Bereshit Rabbah 36:4 (Theodor-Albeck):
, . Also see the
commentaries of Rashi or Ibn-Ezra on this passage, and b. Sanh. 70a, 108a.
291
This view is reflected in most commentaries. See, e.g., C. Westermann, Genesis (BKAT I/1;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974) 644-61; G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC 1; Waco, TX: Word
Books, 1987) 198-99; K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26 (NAC; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996) 412; W.
A. Gage, The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology (Winona Lake, Ind.: Carpenter, 1984) 12; J. H.
Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 129; B.
K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 70.
292
Jean Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis (Vol. 1; trans. Rev. J. King; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948) 300-301. What Calvin saw as a moral breakdown on Noahs part some modern
scholars have assigned to dichotomous sources (cf. Skinner, Genesis, 181-82).
209
patriarch throughout the rest of the scroll. Although in the minority, other ancient and
modern commentators have also made cases for Gen 9:20-24 reflecting neutrally, or even
positively, on Noah.
293
These have typically shifted all shameful and sinful behavior to Ham
and Canaan.
294
Several ancient rewritings of Genesis appear to have handled these issues by
simply leaving the events out of their compositions altogether.
295

The motive for wishing to reinforce Noahs righteous image is not difficult to
discern. There are numerous indications that during the third to second centuries B.C.E.
Noah enjoyed a flurry of interest among certain Jewish groups,
296
perhaps because of his
relevance for those who adopted an apocalyptic worldview and felt that they too lived

293
An ancient example of this is Philo of Alexandria, who employs a Greco-Roman distinction
between various types of drunkenness to argue that righteous Noah was drunk (tn) in a positive, or
sober (vno iio) way, befitting of those who are extremely wise. Interestingly, this type of drunkenness
could lead to the ideal state in which to receive divine oracles; a topic deserving of further exploration in
connection with Noahs dream in Apocryphon. See Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.68, 73 (Marcus;
LCL); and On Planting 139-177 (Colson and Whitaker, LCL). On the Hellenistic theme of sober drunkenness
in Philo and other sources cf. H. Lewy, Sobria Ebrietas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der antiken Mystik (Beihefte
zur ZNW, 9; Giessen: Tpelmann 1929); and S. Brock, Sobria Ebrietas According to some Syriac Texts,
ARAM 17 (2005) 181-95. For a modern, positive view of the story, see W. E. Brown, Noah: Sot or Saint?
Genesis 9:20-27, The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke (ed. J. I. Packer and S. K. Sonderland;
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 36-60. Cassuto seems to view Noahs act as neutral, placing the emphasis on
Hams transgression and warning that we must not read into the Pentateuchal narrative more than it actually
states, taking the words at their face value. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Noah to
Abraham, (Vol. 2; trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964) 152.
294
Yet others hold an intermediate position, arguing that what Noah did was wrong, but that he was
not culpable for his sin since he was the first to drink wine. See N. Koltun-Fromm, Aphrahat and the Rabbis
on Noahs Righteousness in Light of the Jewish-Christian Polemic, The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental
Christian Interpretation (ed. J. Frishman and L Van Rompay; Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5; Leuven: Peeters, 1997)
57-71. Koltun-Fromm compares this Christian view with the more negative rabbinic interpretation. The same
apologetic is found Ephrem; see L. Van Rompay, Antiochene Biblical Interpretation: Greek and Syriac, The
Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation, 112-13. The view was defended by Saint John
Chrysostom in his Homilies on Genesis, 18-45 (The Fathers of the Church, 82; Washington, DC: Catholic
University of America, 1990) 202-205; and much more recently by G. A. F. Knight, Theology in Pictures: A
Commentary on Genesis, Chapters One to Eleven (Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1981) 105; and N. Sarna, Genesis,
65.
295
E.g. Pseudo Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Sefer ha-Yashar, and the Samaritan Asatir.
296
See J. C. VanderKam, The Righteousness of Noah, Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and
Paradigms (SBLSCS 12; ed. J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg; Chico: Scholars, 1980) 13-32; and especially
Stone The Book(s) Attributed to Noah.
210
amidst a hopelessly wicked generation.
297
While it appears that concentration on Noah
eventually waned, possibly due to the growing attention received by Enoch,
298
it is clear that
both patriarchs were depicted as supreme paradigms of righteousness. Admirers of these
men, so beloved by God, were apparently not interested in buoying their own faith by
pondering the common depravity shared by these upright individuals. Rather, they were
attracted to the idea of super-human heroes peerless benchmarks against which the
corruption of their own generation could be measured. The Genesis Apocryphon must be
cited as the primary example for such an exalted view of Noah, and provides good grounds
for its positive reading of Noahs drunkenness. Yet the questions remain, why place an
apocalyptic vision here, and what does this move accomplish?

3.4.3.1. : And it was revealed
To find the reason why Noah received a vision during his sleep one need look no
further than the wording of Gen 9:21, which reads ,
Having drunk of the wine he became inebriated, and was uncovered inside his tent.
Standard translations do not always reflect the ambiguity of the word , which in this
context literally means he/it was uncovered/revealed. Almost all early interpretations and
translations of this verse take to refer to Noah lying exposed i.e. physically naked
within his tent. This understanding is supported by the next verse, which states that Ham,

297
See D. E. Aunes helpful discussion of this worldview (albeit in a later period) in The New Testament
in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 227-31.
298
Cf. Stone, The Book(s) Attributed to Noah, 18.
211
the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father ( ).
299
The LXX uses a
passive, aorist form of the verb yuvo o (tyuvo n) to translate , more strongly
implying the idea of nudity.
300
Targums Onqelos and Neofiti preserved the ambiguity of
Genesis by translating as .
301
Yet others, such as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, leave
no room for doubt about Noahs state, choosing the word (he stripped himself
naked) instead.
302
Some English translations join Pseudo-Jonathan in making explicit what
Genesis implies, writing that Noah became drunk and lay naked inside his tent.
303

Despite this typical, unflattering reception of Noah in Gen 9:21, it important to note
that the word represents an anomalous morphology of the verb in the Hebrew
Bible. It is the only instance of in the hitpael conjugation, save one, disputed occurrence
in Proverbs 18:2. The latter verse has itself proven knotty for commentators, declaring that

299
For a survey of the traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations of these verses see Bergsma and
Hahn, Noahs Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27). The authors point to the well
documented biblical connection between the verbal root and the noun , which together refer to an act
(usually unauthorized) of sexual intercourse. It is apparently due to this combination that some Jewish and
Christian commentators understood Hams transgression to entail a homosexual assault on his father. Also see
M. Vervenne, What Shall We Do with the Drunken Sailor? A Critical Reexamination of Genesis 9.20-27,
JSOT 68 (1995) 33-55 [esp. 33-41].
300
The Vulgate makes Noahs condition even less ambiguous, translating bibensque vinum
inebriatus est, et nudatus in tabernaculo suo. See the remarks of Vervenne, What Shall We Do with the
Drunken Sailor? 46.
301
So too the Peshitta, ,\. The marginalia noted in Dez Machos edition of Neofiti are of
interest here, making sure the reader is aware of the negative connotations of Noahs actions. Drawing on the
Yerushalmi, we first read ] [ , And he stretched himself out inside the
tents of the Syrians, and was despised in[side the tents.] After this there is an alternative reading for
(And he relaxed) which seems, in contrast, an attempt to downplay any possibility of nakedness or
wrongdoing on Noahs part. A. Dez Macho, Neophyti I: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana: Tomo I
Gnesis (Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1968) 51. Rashi, in his Metsudah
() on Genesis, questions the wisdom of Noah planting grapes as the first crop, foreshadowing his
disapproval of the following actions of Gen 9:21-22.
302
Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch, 10.
303
New American Bible and New Living Translation (emphasis mine).
212
the fool takes no delight in understanding, but rather in the of his heart.
304

Whatever the exact meaning of ,
305
it is clear that it has nothing at all to do with
physical nakedness, but rather with the act of revealing or uncovering ones thoughts or
intentions.
While the hitpael of in Gen 9:21 logically suggests a reflexive or passive meaning
of uncover or reveal, rabbinic commentators took the unexpected morphology to
intimate a connection to a second meaning of , to go into exile:

: Rav Yudah, Rav Simon, and Rav Hanan, in the name of Rav Shmuel son
of Rav Yitzhak (said): is not written, but , intimating exile () for him and for
the (following) generations
306


Contrary to the interpretations surveyed above, the author of the Apocryphon
appears to have neither taken Noah as the subject of (going back to 9:20a), nor
connected it with Noahs nakedness in 9:22. Rather, he seemingly read in reference to
an unstated, but implied, subject a revelatory vision received by Noah. A translation to
accompany this understanding might be, Having drunk of the wine he became inebriated,
and it [i.e. a vision] was revealed inside of his tent.

304
The LXX and Peshitta have an alternative reading (opoou vn/~.), meaning foolishness.
See Waltke, Proverbs: 15-31, 65.
305
Some English translations for the second strophe of this verse have been, but only that his heart
may reveal itself. (American Standard); but only in revealing his own mind (New American Standard); but
that his heart may discover itself. (King James); but rather in displaying what he thinks. (New American
Bible); but delights in airing his own opinions. (New International).
306
Bereshit Rabbah (Theodor-Albeck) 36:4.
213
While such a reading may at first appear fanciful, there are numerous indicators that
the root / in general, and the hitpael conjugation more specifically, carried heavy
connotations of divine communication and visionary experience. In the Hebrew Bible the
common Hebrew idiom to uncover the ears ( ) often refers to a matter revealed
to humans by the Lord, and more generally entails the relation of privileged information
between two parties.
307
The use of this idiom in Job 33:16 is worthy of full citation:



In a dream, a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls upon people as they slumber in bed;
then he [God] opens peoples ears.

In Amos 3:7 the Lord is depicted as revealing () his plan, or secret (), to the
prophets.
308
Balaam experiences an unveiling of the eyes ( ), allowing him to see
what the Almighty sees (Num 24:4, 16; cf. Num 22:31), and a matter ( ) is revealed
( ) to Daniel in Dan 10:1. Gen 35:7 recounts how God had revealed himself (
) to Jacob at Luz. Isaiah used the verb in a similar way, choosing it to speak of the
Lord revealing himself.
309
Finally, the Psalmist entreats God to open my eyes ( ),
that he might see wonders ( ; Ps 119:18). Some of these uses of the root ,
especially the opening of the ears or eyes to Gods hidden knowledge () and mysteries

307
Cf.
1
in A. Even-Shoshan, New Concordance to the Tanakh (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1980).
The Lord opens the ears in 1 Sam 9:15; 2 Sam 7:27; 1 Chr 17:25; and Job 36:10, 15 (also see 1 Sam 3:21).
Sharing of information between human parties is found in 1 Sam 20:2, 12-13; 22:8, 17; and Ruth 4:4.
308
Humans who reveal secrets are censured in Proverbs using the same phraseology (11:13, 20:19,
25:9).
309
See, e.g., Isa 22:14, 40:5, and 56:1. Cf. Ps. 98:2.
214
(), are carried into the Hebrew sectarian writings from Qumran most notably CD,
1QS, 1QH, and the instruction texts.
310
In fact, it appears that these particular idioms
became a dominant way of talking about the specially revealed knowledge granted to the
sect.
311

Biblical Aramaic uses this meaning of /, although not in the hitpeal, solely to
speak about revelation of the divine mysteries (), a deep thing (), and a
hidden matter ().
312
It is significant that these revealed subjects come to Daniel by
way of a symbolic dream and a vision ( ), similar in genre to that found in GenAp 13-15.
Mysteries are also mentioned several times in connection with Noahs various dream-visions
in the Apocryphon (e.g. 5.21, 25; 6.12; and 14.9).
The most compelling evidence, however, comes from Qumran Aramaic, our nearest
point of comparison for the Apocryphon. In the 4QEnoch fragments, a pael infinitive
construct form of / is found in the phrase , all of them
began to reveal mysteries to their wives (= 1 En 8:3).
313
Furthermore (and unlike Biblical or
Qumran Hebrew), the Aramaic lexicon of the Dead Sea Scrolls preserves a number of
instances of / in the hitpeal conjugation. For the group(s) writing this corpus of

310
For all instances of these idioms see M. G. Abegg et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance: Volume One
(2 parts; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 1:178-79. Some of the more striking examples are: CD 2:14-15, 3:13, 15:13; 1QS
5:9, 8:16; 1QpHab 11:1; 1QH
a
9:21, 26:1; 2 ii 8; 1Q26 1:4; 4Q175 11; 4Q268 1:7; 4Q270 2 ii 13; 4Q299 8:6;
4Q416 2 iii 18; 4Q418 123 ii 4, 184:2; 4Q427 7 i 19. The biblical idiom of uncovering the nakedness is not as
prevalent in the non-biblical scrolls (CD 15:13; 4Q251 17:6; cf. 11Q19 66:12-13).
311
The hitpael of is not present in the Qumran Hebrew lexicon.
312
Dan 2:19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 47 bis. The peal form is used for both active and passive verbs. The
haphel conjugation is used to connote the alternative meaning to exile.
313
The phrase in its entirety must be reconstructed from two fragments belonging to different
manuscripts of 4QEnoch, both of which recount the transgression of the Watchers (cf. 1 En 8). 4Q202
(4QEn
b
ar) 1 iii 5 contains the initial words , while 4Q201 (4QEn
a
ar) 1 iv 5 preserves the
following . See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 189, n. i.
215
literature it is evident that this particular form was used in a passive, not reflexive, sense,
specifically denoting divine revelation. In 4Q212 (4QEn
g
), is used in the Apocalypse
of Weeks (1 En 92:14) to describe the revelation of the righteous law to all the people of
the earth.
314
Both and are found in 4Q536 (4QBirth of Noah
c
ar) to speak of
luminaries ([] ) and mysteries () being revealed to the Elect of God, which
may or may not refer to Noah.
315
Whoever the subject, the occurrence of the verbs in this
text is significant, since its general topic is the relation of privileged, divine knowledge to an
individual.
316
[ is found two more times in another copy of this text, 4Q534, although
with very little surrounding context.
317
Again, however, it is clear that the general context of
the scroll deals with divine revelation and instruction. The uncertain reading [ in
4Q546 (4QVisions of Amram
d
ar) would also fit this trend, falling within a divine visitation
granted to Amram.
318
Finally, the symbolic, visionary text 4Q541 (4QApocryphon of Levi
b

(?) ar) may also employ two non-hitpeal forms of / in reference to divine secrets.
319

From the information presently available, therefore, it appears that the root / in
Qumran Aramaic was used exclusively to refer to divinely revealed wisdom and secrets.
320


314
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 434, 437 n. 14a, 449-50. He suggests (450) that the righteous law is
brought about by human agency, but this does not diminish the fact that proper understanding of the law was
originally imparted from the divine realm.
315
4Q536 2 i + 3:3, 2 i + 3:8. Puech, DJD XXXI, 165-67.
316
Cf. Chapter 1, 43-46.
317
4Q534 1 i 12, 3:1. Puech, DJD XXXI, 133, 143, and 149. The spellings of these two occurrences
are less certain. They read [ and [ respectively.
318
4Q546 9:2. Puech, DJD XXXI, 361.
319
4Q541 7:1, 24 ii 3. The readings are (if the transcription of Puech is accepted) and
respectively. Puech, DJD XXXI, 239-40, 252-54.
320
An additional, corroborating occurrence is found in 11Q10 (11QTargum of Job) 27:3-4. This,
however, is a reflection of the underlying Hebrew of Job 36:10.
216
Moreover, the hitpeal form denoted such information being revealed to someone in the
passive sense.
In light of the lexical usage of / sketched above, it is wholly plausible that the
author of the Genesis Apocryphon understood in Gen 9:21 to entail divine revelation,
thereby prompting him to insert Noahs symbolic dream-vision at this point in his rewritten
account. When this possibility is placed alongside our limited knowledge of the dreams
contents, the full import of this insertion can be tentatively appreciated. First, the dream
acts to authorize the following division of the earth by Noah. By including within the dream
a prescient account of the activity of Noahs progeny in reference to their allotted
geographic portions, the boundaries are implicated in the divine plan, or mystery. Hence,
what Jubilees accomplishes with the heavenly book (Jub 8:11-12), the Genesis
Apocryphon may achieve through a divinely inspired dream-vision both being
authoritative sources of heavenly wisdom, and stamps of divine authority. This difference in
approach would not be surprising, since it reflects a broader discrepancy in attitude between
Jubilees and the Apocryphon regarding dreams.
Second, the righteous image of Noah is upheld. By reading in reference to a
vision any inference of wrongdoing on Noahs part is neutralized, for it would be
unthinkable that Noah both sinned and partook of the divine mysteries at the same time. In
this way, any blame inherent in Gen 9 would be shifted to Ham.
Third, by placing a dream-vision here the author of the Apocryphon solves several
notorious interpretative conundra related to Gen 9:20-27. Questions about how Noah
knew ( ) what his youngest son had done upon waking,
321
why he spoke in terms of the

321
Ephrem dealt with this puzzling statement by proposing that Noah had been both sleeping and
awake. He was sleeping in that he had not perceived his nakedness, but awake in that he had been aware of
217
future during his curse and blessings, and why he cursed Canaan rather than Ham, could all
be answered with the Apocryphons vision. Noah was able to curse and bless his sons in
futuristic terms because he had just been told what was to happen in his dream.
Furthermore, it would be natural for Noah to curse Canaan rather than Ham upon waking,
since he had just foreseen the grave transgression that this grandson would commit in the
future by settling in a land rightfully apportioned to one of Shems offspring. This line of
reasoning finds a partial parallel in some later Syrian Christian exegetes, who understood
Noahs statements to be prophetic of what would take place in the future.
322


3.4.4. Summary
To summarize, it seems likely that the symbolic dream given to Noah in GenAp 13-
15 was inserted by the author into the succinct plot of Gen 9:20-27 for a number of reasons.
These include the authorization of Noahs subsequent division of the earth, a defense of
Noahs righteous image, and an explanation of why Noah cursed Canaan rather than Ham
after waking from his sleep. The contents of the dream included an apocalyptic recitation
and foretelling of history, which focused at certain points on Noah and his sons as
represented by trees, shoots, branches, etc. This aspect of the dream is paralleled in other
sources containing The Dream of the Garden. One topic of the vision appears to be the
usurpation of Arpachshads allotted portion by Canaan, which finds a thematic parallel in
Jub 10:27-36. A key difference between these two texts, however, is their conflicting
placement of this information. In the Apocryphon it is revealed to Noah (and the reader)

everything that his youngest son had done to him. St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works (trans. E. G.
Mathews and J. P Amar; FOTC 91; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University, 1994) 145.
322
See, e.g., the commentary on Genesis, excerpting a number of early Syrian fathers, published by A.
Levene, The Early Syrian Fathers on Genesis (London: Taylors Foreign Press, 1951) 52, 198.
218
before his curse, thereby putting Canaans transgression and Noahs curse in a causative and
sequential relationship. In Jubilees, notification of Canaans disobedience occurs well after
Noahs curse and, therefore, the two are not related in quite the same way. While the dream
may have served a number of helpful purposes for the author of the Apocryphon, it is likely
that the most imminent reason for the visions placement at this point in the story may be
found in the word of Gen 9:21. It is on this portentous note that we enter into the
next major portion of the Apocryphon, and the most direct parallel with the Book of
Jubilees Noahs division of the habitable earth.














219



CHAPTER 4
A COMPARATIVE COMMENTARY ON THE EARTHS DIVISION IN
JUBILEES 8:11-9:15 AND GENESIS APOCRYPHON 16-17

The central chapter of this section is dedicated to a thorough comparison of the
division of the earth into geographic districts for Noahs sons and grandsons in the Genesis
Apocryphon and Jubilees. These passages provide the most direct and extensive parallel
between the two works, and may serve as an important case study against which to measure
previous and subsequent comparisons. My most immediate goal in this chapter is to further
our understanding, and perhaps dating, of the Genesis Apocryphon. However, in order to
achieve this it has been necessary to spend significant time investigating both texts. This has
resulted in a detailed commentary of the relevant section of Jubilees followed by a similar
treatment of the Genesis Apocryphon.
The comparison has led to the conclusion that the two works differ in a number of
significant details, while still bearing a remarkable affinity to one another in overall design
and perspective i.e. the way in which they rewrite the Table of Nations of Gen 10. This
combination most plausibly suggests that the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees depended
upon a common cartographic source, or less plausibly that one author used the other from
memory or an intermediate written source. If one chooses to view their relationship as one
of direct dependence, then it seems preferable to infer that Jubilees borrowed from the
Genesis Apocryphon.
220
A detailed geographic discussion of lands and toponyms not naturally familiar to
most readers easily lends itself to confusion and disinterest. For this reason, a hypothetical,
reconstructed map, drawn with the present passages in mind, has been included near the
beginning of this chapter.
323
This is accompanied by other, previous attemts to graphically
represent the map underlying Jubilees.


Map 3: Reconstruction of Jubilees World Map according to Gustav Hlscher
324


323
It must be kept in mind that any such map is a fixed piece of interpretation, as the following
discussion should make clear. Many parts of my map, therefore, remain less certain than they may appear. It is
important to view the map alongside the (often qualifying) arguments accompanying it in this chapter.
324
From G. Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten: Ein beitrag zur Erdkenntnis des hebraschen Alterums
(Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosphische-historische Klasse 1944/48, 3;
Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universittsverlag, 1949) 58.
221

Map 4: Reconstruction of Jubilees World Map according to Michel Testuz
325


Map 5: One Reconstruction of Jubilees World Map according to Philip Alexander
326


325
From M. Testuz, Les ides religieuses du livre des Jubils (Geneva: Librarie E. Droz/Paris: Librarie
Minard, 1960) 58.
222

Map 6: Another Reconstruction of Jubilees World Map according to Philip Alexander
327


Map 7: Reconstruction of Jubilees World Map according to Francis Schmidt
328


326
From Alexander, Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish), ABD 2.982.
327
From Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi of the Book of Jubilees, JJS 38 (1982), 197-213
[213].
223
4.1. Jubilees 8:11-9:15
The apportionment of the earth in Jubilees has been discussed often, but many
nagging questions remain regarding the accounts overall structure and a number of its
details. Before a proper comparison can be made with the Genesis Apocryphon, therefore,
it is necessary to undertake a detailed analysis of this passage. The account may be divided
into two segments: 1.) Noahs division of the earth into three parts between his sons; 2.) the
subsequent division of each sons apportionment between his own sons (i.e. Noahs
grandsons).
329
The inheritance of each son or grandson is comprised of a report of that
apportionments borders or general placement in relation to those portions surrounding it,
with some allotments garnering far more attention than others.
330
In describing the
allotments the author utilizes a limited set of geographic topoi as reference points.
A perusal of previous attempts to grapple with Jubilees 8:11-9:15 reveals that some
commentators have not adequately appreciated the broader horizon of the map on which
the borders of each descendent must be placed. Thus, a site may be suggested for a
toponym which simply does not cohere with a foundational observation: Shem receives
Asia, Ham receives Libya, and Japheth receives Europe. Because of this, my own comments
will incorporate two guiding principles: 1.) border descriptions and place identifications
should make sense within the overall framework of the map and the authors clear intention
to place Noahs descendants on specific continents; 2.) Jubilees situates the progeny of Noah

328
From Schmidt, Naissance dune geographe juive, in Mise gographe. Recherches sur les representations
juives et chrtiennes de lspace (ed. A. Desrumeaux and F. Schmidt; Paris: Vrin, 1988) 13-30 [23].
329
James Scott notes that the two stage format of Jubilees (as well as the Genesis Apocryphon) finds a
partial parallel in the two-stage description from the Htpin ynoi n oi|out vn of Dionysius Periegetes.
J. M. Scott, Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees (SNTS Mon. Ser. 113; Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 2002) 32.
330
Generally speaking, inordinate attention is given to Shem, and more specifically to his son
Arpachshad, in the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees.
224
on a Hellenistic, Ionian world map, and this is the first context within which specific regions,
borders, and toponyms should be considered (as opposed to identification with biblical
toponyms).
331
In the following treatment, sites in need of extended discussion concerning
their identification or description will be included as excurses.

4.1.1. Noahs Division Among his Sons: Jubilees 8:10-30
This section begins with the statement: At the beginning of the thirty-third jubilee
[1569-1617] they divided the earth into three parts for Shem, Ham, and Japheth each in
his own inheritance.
332
The following report that one of the angels was present at this
division gives it the stamp of divine authority, as does the later declaration that the
allotments of each son emerged from the book (8:11) a trope in Jubilees denoting divine
mandate.
333
This stands in contrast to the previous announcement that, during the days of
Peleg, [t]hey divided it in a bad way among themselves and told Noah (8:9). Given the
transparent desire of Jubilees to place Shem in Asia, Ham in Libya, and Japheth in Europe, it
is quite possible that here the author is subtly attempting to supplant the account of Gen 10
with his own version of the Table of Nations, since Genesis unambiguously (and without

331
An excellent resource for toponyms in the ancient world (although not schematized according to
the Ionian model) is the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (ed. R. J. A. Talbert; Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000). For Jubilees dependence on the Ionian map see P. S. Alexander,
Notes on the Imago Mundi, 197-213; and idem, Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish), 2.980-82. A
partial critique of Alexanders association of Jubilees with the Ionian map is given by J. M. Scott, Paul and the
Nations (WUNT 84; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995) 16-24. While Scott raises some credible
correctives, he fails to deal with the substance of Alexanders argument, which is that most of Jub 8:11-9:15 can
be explained only in lieu of the Ionian map, and not biblical texts. In the end, much of his critique does not
convince. For Alexanders response see his article Jerusalem as the Omphalos of the World, 106-109.
332
All English quotations of Jubilees are from the translation (Vol. 2) of J. C. VanderKam, The Book of
Jubilees (2 vols.; CSCO 510-511; Scriptores Aethiopici 87-88, Leuven: Peeters, 1989).
333
On the use of heavenly tablets and books in Jubilees see F. Garca Martnez, The Heavenly
Tablets in the Book of Jubilees, Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange; TSAJ 65;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 243-60. The broader setting at Qumran, with minimal attention to Jubilees, is
discussed by F. Ntscher, Himmelische Bcher und Schicksalsglaube in Qumran, RevQ 3 (1958-59) 405-411.
225
qualification) places Hams descendents in various parts of Asia.
334
In this case, Gen 10 may
represent the bad division undertaken by Noahs sons of their own accord, while Jubilees
8-9 explains the proper division subsequently overseen by Noah and an angel, and derived
from the heavenly book.

4.1.1.1. Shems Portion: 8:12-21
Shem inherits the center of the earth (8:12), by which the author means the
continent of Asia as defined by rivers in the north and south, and seas to the east and west.
The description of Shems allotment begins from the middle of the mountain range of
Rafa,
335
from the source of the water of the Tina River (8:12).
336
The border progresses
toward the west through the middle of this river. One then goes until one reaches the
water of the deeps from which this river emerges.

Excursus 1: The Tina River
Philip Alexander puts forth two problematic suggestions in his brief description of
the Tina. First, following Hlscher,
337
he argues that the Tina has an east-west alignment.
338

This is called into question, however, by the double mention of Japheths eastern border in
8:25 and 28, which follows the Tina. Here the boundary is described as traveling
northeast, suggesting that the alignment may instead be northeast for the Tina and

334
Cf. Gen 10:8-20, where the Hamites are identified with the ancient cultural centers of
Mesopotamia. At least one of Japheths sons (Madai/Media) is apparently identified with the Asian province of
Media as well, an outlier accounted for in Jub 10:35-36.
335
The ancient Rhipaean and modern Ural Mountains in west-central Russia. See R. H. Charles, The
Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902), 69-70; and Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten,
58-9.
336
The ancient Tanais (or Tanis) and present-day Don in western Russia.
337
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 67.
338
P. S. Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 197-213 [207].
226
southeast for the Nile. In general, directions throughout Jubilees geographic description
appear to be vague indicators, such that north may mean in a more or less northerly
direction (e.g., in 8:26).
Second, Alexander proposes that the water of the deeps
339
is simply another reference
to the world-encompassing Ocean in the east.
340
The placement of the water of the deeps
is significant, since it also affects at which end the Tina Rivers mouth (8:16, 25) should be
placed. Alexander fixes the mouth at the meeting point of the Tina and the Ocean River,
assuming that the latter flows into the former. It should be noted, however, that nowhere is
the Tina said to adjoin this outer river, and other considerations suggest that this is not the
case. According to 8:12, the water of the deeps is a point along the river between its
source and mouth, implying that the deeps are some distance removed from the rivers
source near the Rafa Mountains and outer Mauq Sea (i.e., this portion of the Ocean River).
That the river emerges suggests that the author believed it to disappear and then reemerge
at a source of underground water i.e., the water of the deeps.
341
Based on these factors,
the most plausible assumption is that the deeps refer to an inland spring or lake rather than
the outer river, and that the Tina and Mauq are not joined. Indeed, Herodotus states that
the river begins by flowing out of a great lake, and enters a yet greater lake called the
Maeetian.
342
Strabo reports that the Orontes, Tigris, and Nile similarly disappear
underground for a time before reemerging.
343
Some of the earliest preserved maps agree
with this.
344
Hence, the mouth of the Tina is best taken as its exit into Meat Sea, and not
the Ocean in the east. Strabo suggests the same thing when he says that the mouth of the

339
Translated the Water(s) of the Abysses by Charles and Alexander.
340
Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 207.
341
This also seems to be the opinion of Charles (The Book of Jubilees, 70), who wrote that the Tina is
said to spring from the waters of the abysses.
342
The Meat Sea of Jubilees. Herodotus 4.57 (Godley, LCL).
343
Strabo, Geography 6.2.9 (Jones, LCL).
344
Examples which show the river ending at a mountain range (!) near the outer Ocean, but not
connected to it, are the Anglo-Saxon or Cotton world map (c. 1050), the late 13
th
century Hereford Mappa
Mundi, and the 14
th
century Higden world map. The fine facsimile edition of a thirteenth-century copy of
Claudius Ptolemys map in Claudii Ptolemaei Geographiae: Codex Urbinas Graecus 82 (Leiden: Brill; Leipzig: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1932), Tabula XVII. VRB. GR. 82, ff 91 (90)
v
92 (91)
r
; and the famous Peutinger map also
have the river end at a mountain range without connecting to the outer waters, but these maps are based on an
entirely different schema than the Ionian map. All of these maps portray the Tanais stopping short of the
Ocean at a mountain range, which must also be what the mental map of Jubilees presumes.
227
Tanais (o ou ]ovo io) is the most northerly point [of Lake Maeotis].
345
This
identification of the Tinas mouth also makes better sense in connection with 8:25, where
Japheths allotment begins toward the north of the mouth of its waters, whence it travels
northeast toward Gog and all that is east of them. Going northeast from the mouth
would make little sense if the latter is placed at the extreme northeastern point of the Tina.

From here the Tina pours into the Meat Sea,
346
from which it extends as far as the
Great Sea. Hlscher has plausibly proposed that this mention of the Great Sea should be
understood in terms of its northernmost point, at the Pontus Euxinus.
347

Leaving the Tina, we enter among the most difficult segments of the earths division in
Jubilees; Shems western border. Throughout the following discussion it should be borne in
mind that we are making our way from the Tina River, which empties into the Black and
then Aegean Seas, to the mouth of the Gihon River
348
in the south. Accordingly, a boundary
roughly following the western coast of Asia Minor and the Levant is to be expected. Many
earlier attempts at identifying the sites named in following verses pay little attention to this
fact, and suggest places that simply do not appear to belong in this description. As will be
seen, where one puts any one site may greatly affect the region where surrounding sites are
searched for, thereby limiting the scope of investigation.
Jubilees 8:13 continues, [The border] goes until it reaches Karas. This is in the bosom
of the branch that faces southward.

345
Strabo, Geography 2.5.25. This phrase implies the word oo o (mouth), which was used in the
preceding sentence.
346
The ancient Maeotis and modern Sea of Azov, bordered on the north and east by Ukraine and
Russia.
347
The modern Black Sea. See Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 62. He is followed by Alexander, Notes on
the Imago Mundi, 207. This suggestion gains support from Strabos statement to the same effect in
Geography 2.5.25.
348
The Nile, or the River of Egypt in the Genesis Apocryphon.
228

Excursus 2: Karas
Karas
349
has previously been identified with two places, although both proposals
have met with skepticism. Dillmann was the first to suggest that Karas is the region of
Chersones (Xtpoo vnoo) in Thrace, just northwest of where the Hellespont empties into the
Aegean Sea.
350
He thereby implied that the branch that faces southward is the Aegean
Sea.
351
Charles disagreed with this placement based on his belief that the branch that faces
southward should be identified with the Branch of the Egyptian Sea in 8:14. The latter
he understood to be synonymous with the ancient Sinus Heroopoliticus, or modern Red Sea.
Charles identification of the Branch of the Egyptian Sea was, in turn, founded on Isa 11:15,
which mentions the same toponym: .
352
Following this logic, Charles had to
situate Karas somewhere near the Sinus Heroopoliticus, and for this reason viewed Karas as
a truncated form of Rhinocurura (Pivo|oupou pov),
353
a region located somewhere south of
the Mediterranean coast between Palestine and Egypt.
354
In order for this identification to
work, however, Charles had to posit a corruption in the text, since this site was clearly not
in the bosom of the Red Sea.
Of these two identifications, Dillmanns is preferable. It must be admitted that
identifying the branch which faces southward of 8:13 with the Aegean makes far more
sense in context than Charles proposal of the Red Sea, since the latter does not cohere with

349
Transcribed Krs by Dillmann, Charles, and Hlscher.
350
A. Dillmann, Das Buch der Jubilean oder der kleine Genesis, Jahrbcher der Bilblischen wissenschaft
2 (1850) 230-56; 3 (1851) 1-96 ***exact page?***. He is followed by O. Wintermute, Jubilees, in The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983, 1985), 2.72; and F.
Schmidt, Jewish Representations of the Inhabited Earth during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Greece and
Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays (ed. A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi
and the Israel Exploration Society, 1990 [also published in Hebrew]) 119-34 [121].
351
So too Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 63, 67.
352
Based on the observation of E. Littman, Das Buch der Jubilen, in Die Apokryphen und
Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (ed. E. Kautzsch; 2 vols.; Tbingen: Freiburg i. B. und Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1900) 2.39-199 [55, n. p].
353
Another (earlier) form of the name is Rhinocorura (Pivo|opou pov). See Hippolytus of Rome in
R. Helm and A. Bauer, Hippolytus Werke: Die Chronik (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955) 10.
354
Charles (The Book of Jubilees, 70) gathers this from a pair of references in Epiphanius of Salamis
(Ancorat. cxii) and George Syncellus (Chronography 50), where the western border of Shems allotment is
identified with Rhinocurura of Egypt. These sources do not, however, seem closely linked to the earths
division in Jubilees (see the following chapter).
229
the ensuing statement in 8:14: His share goes toward the Great Sea and goes straight until it
reaches to the west of the branch that faces southward, for this is the sea whose name is the
Branch of the Egyptian Sea. Charles suggestion would entail reaching the Red Sea (or at
least Rhinocurura) turning around and returning to the Mediterranean, then turning around
yet again and going back to the west side of the Red Sea. This confusion stems from
Charles misidentification of the Sea of Egypt, as will be demonstrated below.
Recently, Esther Eshel has proposed an alternate site to the two outlined above.
355

Based on a tenuous connection between the phrase (the branch of the
Egyptian Sea) in Isa 11:15, the matching expression in Jub 8:14, and the words
(the branch of the Reed Sea) in GenAp 21:18, she assumes that each is speaking of the
modern Red Sea (ancient Sinus Heroopoliticus).
356
Despite the multiple problems with this
assumption (cf. Excursus 3, below), she goes on to suggest that the identification of Isaiahs
tongue with the Sinus Heoopoliticus gains backing from the present mention of Karas,
identifying the latter with a small island named Icarus in the Persian Gulf, found on Greek
and Roman maps.
357
While drawing conclusions about Isaiah based on Jubilees is
questionable, there is indeed such an island, and the phonological resemblance to Karas is
impressive. Still, it seems her assumption that Jubilees tongue of the Egyptian Sea is the
modern Red Sea has caused her to overlook a major problem; while she rightly states that
Karas is part of Shems lot, she fails to explain how a description of his western border could
jump from the outlet of the Tina River all the way to the northern Persian Gulf, and then
back to the bosom of the branch which faces southward, which is likely the Aegean Sea.
Such a proposal makes little sense in its broader context, and if we are left only with the
identifications of Dillmann, Charles, and Eshel, we would still be compelled to adopt that of

355
E. Eshel, Isaiah 11:15: A New Interpretation Based on the Genesis Apocryphon, DSD 13:1 (2006),
44. Eshel fails, however, to mention Charles identification and attributes the identification of
Chersones to Schmidt rather than Dillmann.
356
That this is the case with the Genesis Apocryphons is nearly certain based on numerous
ancient Jewish references to this body of water as the Red Sea (n tpupo o ioooo). These include the LXX,
Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament (Acts and Hebrews). See G. I. Davies, The Way of the Wilderness: A
Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament (SOTS Mon. Ser. 5; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1979) 4-13, 30-31. We should thus understand the of the Genesis Apocryphon to
be equivalent to our modern Red Sea, or Gulf of Suez, and the adjoining (lit. Red Sea, GenAp 17.7-
8; 21.17, 18) to refer to the Persian Gulf, or Indian Ocean more generally. Cf. M. Copisarow, The Ancient
Egyptian, Greek and Hebrew Concept of the Red Sea, VT 12 (1962) 1-13; and Fitzmyer, The Genesis
Apocryphon, 225-26.
357
Ibid.
230
Dillmann. However, Eshel has pointed the way toward a fourth proposal that is preferable
to any of these three.
An identification of Karas with the southeast Aegean island of Icarus (I|opi o),
358
or
its mainland counterpart Caria (Kopi o or Kopt),
359
located on the southwestern corner of
Asia Minor, has several advantages. Although small, the island enjoyed widespread fame
because of its association with Icarus, the son of Daedalus, who according to Homers Iliad
crashed into the Aegean at this spot after the wax which fastened his wings had been melted
by the sun.
360
Mainland Caria was closely linked to Icarus
361
and the surrounding group of
islands,
362
and was even used in early times to denote all of Asia Minor.
363
Herodotus hailed
from one of the great Carian cities, Hallicarnassus, and spoke of the regions wide renown.
364

In addition, the portion of the Aegean Sea surrounding the island, off of the Carian coast,
was called the Icarian Sea (I|opi o Ht ioyo), and was famous for its formidable sailing
waters.
365
As Eshel has noted, Alexander the Great later named an island in the Persian Gulf
after the original Icarus during his campaign in the east.
366
In sum, the entire southeastern
region of the Aegean at times bore the general identification Icarus, or Caria.
367
This
identification has the advantage of: 1.) being in the bosom of the Aegean; 2.) being
situated approximately where we would expect Shems western border to fall; and 3.)
allowing the subsequent verse to make sense. In addition, Icarus and Caria phonologically
fit the toponym Karas better than Chersones or Rhinocurura.


358
Modern Ikaria.
359
The latter is a gentilic denoting region, and is used by Herodotus 7.97-98.
360
Strabo, Geography 14.1.19.
361
Strabo (Geography 14.2.28) goes on at length about the foreign and barbaric language used by the
Carians (cf. Herodotus 1.142, 171). One wonders, therefore, if the name Icarus betrays a Semitic linguistic
background, which in Hebrew might appear something like (Island of Caria).
362
Strabo, Geography 2.5.21; 12.8.5.
363
Ibid, 1.4.7.
364
Herodotus 1.171.
365
Herodotus 6.95-96; Strabo, Geography 10.5.13; Arrian, Indica 7.20.5 (Brunt, LCL).
366
Arrian, Indica 7.20.3-6.
367
Yet another reason for considering this region as Karas is its close proximity to Ionia, where the
map used by Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon was first developed.
231
From Karas and the Aegean Sea Shems share continues straight until it reaches to
the west of the branch that faces southward, for this is the sea whose name is the Branch of
the Egyptian Sea (8:14). If Karas is indeed Icarus/Caria (or even Dillmanns Chersones)
this must mean a southward extension to the main body of the Mediterranean, and then a
straight extension to the west side of a branch that faces southward. Previous
commentators have taken the two branches of 8:13-14 to be the same, but since the second
is further qualified by the statement for this is the sea whose name is the Branch of the
Egyptian Sea it is worth considering whether this is a previously unmentioned branch (i.e.,
another branch facing south), different than the branch in 8:13. Precisely which bay this
could be has again been a source of confusion, and depends upon ones location of the Sea
of Egypt.

Excursus 3: The Branch of the Egyptian Sea
As mentioned above, many commentators assume that the Branch of the Egyptian
Sea is the modern Red Sea (i.e. biblical ) based on a portion of Isa 11:15: And the
Lord will utterly destroy () the branch of the Sea of Egypt ( ).
368
Hence,
a parallel has often been drawn between our branch and the of GenAp 21.18.
However, such an identification makes little sense at this point in the description of Shems
border, and a more plausible possibility exists.
Alexander has noted that the Egyptian Sea (Aiyu io t ioyo) was not known by
ancient Hellenistic geographers as an alternate name for the Sinus Heroopoliticus, but was
rather the common designation for the eastern end of the Great Sea, stretching between Asia
Minor and Egypt.
369
The Great Sea was divided by ancient Hellenistic geographers into

368
This verse has troubles of its own, such as the meaning of the initial verb, which may alternatively
be translated he will split. Some commentators have suggested that this word may have originally read
and he will dry up. A treatment of the issues may be found in most commentaries; e.g., W. A. M.
Beuken, Jesaja 1-12 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2003) 301-302.
369
Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 205. So too Wintermute, Jubilees, 72, n. k.
232
regions each bearing their own name so that the Mediterranean could be spoken of as a
whole (as in 8:12 and 8:14), or in terms of its smaller, constituent parts. Strabo mentions the
Egyptian Sea numerous times, noting that it reaches from the shores of Alexandria in the
south
370
to Rhodes and the Icarian Sea in the north.
371
He further describes it as skirting the
southern edge of Cyprus, connecting to the Issican and Pamphylian Gulfs (which lie along
the southern shores of Asia Minor), and then following the coastlines of Seleucia, Issus,
Syria, Phonecia and Egypt back toward Alexandria.
372
On the west, the Egyptian Sea
borders the Libyan and Carpathian Seas. Agathemerus notes that the Icarian and Egyptian
Seas lie near each other,
373
and Manilius declares that the shores of Cyprus are battered by
Egypts river (Tonantem Aegyptique).
374
Josephus knew of this part of the Great Sea as
such,
375
and it was still in coinage as late as Michael the Syrian (12
th
century CE).
376
When
forced to choose whether Jubilees is basing its identification of the Sea of Egypt on the
possible Isaianic connection to the Red Sea, or unanimous Hellenistic usage of the term,
there is no doubt that the latter makes far better sense at this point in the account.
If correct, the branch that faces southward of 8:14 must be sought in or along the
Egyptian Sea as described above.
377
The best candidates for such a branch are: 1.) The
Aegean Sea; 2.) The Pamphylian Sea, which is formed by a large bay situated along the
southern coast of central Asia Minor; or 3.) the Issicus Sinus, or Myriandric Gulf, at the
northeast corner of the Mediterranean, along the shores of Cilicia.
378
The Pamphylian Sea

370
Strabo, Geography 17.1.7, 1.2.28.
371
Ibid, 2.5.24, 10.5.13.
372
Ibid, 14.6.1.
373
Agathemerus, Geographiae informatio 3.9.
374
Manilius, Astronimica 4.634-5 (Goold, LCL).
375
Josephus, Jewish War 4.609 (Thackeray, LCL).
376
Michael uses the designation ( ~.. ,.- ) in a geographic reference which may ultimately depend
upon Jubilees. See J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d'Antioche: 1166-1199 (5 vols.;
Paris: Ernest LeRoux; 1899, 1901, 1905, 1910, 1924. Repr.1963) 1.20 [Latin trans.]; 4.9 [beginning of line 59;
Syriac].
377
Alexander (Notes on the Imago Mundi, 205) presumes that the branch is the entire Egyptian
sea, embracing everything between Asia Minor and Egypt. This, however, fails to adequately account for the
fact that it faces south, and is considered only a branch of the Egyptian Sea, and not the entire Great Sea.
378
Based on his earlier identification of Karas, Charles guessed that this tongue was a promontory
of land rather than a gulf, identifying it with the modern Sinai Peninsula. See his 1917 translation notes, The
233
seems the best candidate for several reasons: 1.) the border is said to extend to the west of
this branch, and an extension to the west of the Aegean seems an ill fit for a description of
Shems western border; 2.) an extension to the west of the Issicus would allow the boundary
to nicely follow the Syrian and Phoenecian coasts southward, but would leave the island of
Cyprus (likely Caphtor; see Excursus 7 below) outside of the allotment, thereby disagreeing
with its inclusion in Shems lot in Jub 8:21; 3.) an identification with the Pamphylian Sea
resolves both of these issues, and fits well the following description of the borders
extension southward. It is also possible that the Pamphylian and Issican Seas are being
thought of as a single unit by our author.
379


In Jub 8:15, we read that the boundary turns southward toward the mouth of the
Great Sea on the shore of the waters.

Excursus 4: The Mouth of the Great Sea
Philip Alexander, relying on Pseudo-Aristotle, states that the mouth of the Great
Sea is, of course, [a reference] to the Straits of Gibraltar.
380
He was preceded by Hlscher,
who noted that the phrase on the shore of the waters closely resembles to the shore of
the sea waters in 8:23 (describing Hams portion), which may refer to the area near the
Straits, where the Great Sea and Atel Sea meet.
381
Despite these references to the Pillars
forming a mouth, there are several factors which give one pause over this identification in
Jubilees and are ignored by the above commentators: 1.) Most obviously, what do the Pillars
of Heracles have to do with the western border of Shems allotment? While we might
expect areas of the Great Sea to be included in geographic descriptions (as they no doubt are

Book of Jubilees or Little Genesis (Translations of Early Documents, Series 1: Palestinian Jewish Texts [Pre-
Rabbinic]; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917) 73, n. 8.
379
As in Strabo, Geography 2.5.18.
380
Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 205.
381
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 68. So too J. M. Scott, The Division of the Earth in Jubilees 8:11-9:15
and Early Christian Chronography, in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange; TSAJ
65; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 295-323 [311-12]. These statements (one may also include 8:26, 28) could
also be read as a general reference to a shoreline, where the sea and land meet.
234
elsewhere in Jubilees), this seems a strange inclusion for Shem;
382
2.) the direction
southward is certainly not what we would expect if the Straits of Gibraltar are meant a
problem equally incommodious for any of the Egyptian Sea possibilities discussed in the
preceding excursus; 3.) the ensuing description is difficult to reconcile with this placement of
the mouth, even if one does accept the doubtful identification of Afra with the Roman
province of Africa in Jub 8:15; 4.) Pseudo-Aristotle, whom Alexander cited for support, did
not associate the Pillars of Heracles with the mouth of the Great Sea, but rather with the
outer, earth encompassing Ocean, or Atlantic.
383
The same is true of Hippolytus of Rome,
who is quoted by James Scott to support an identification of the mouth of the Great Sea
with the Pillars of Heracles.
384
Hippolytus, in fact, explicitly says that the Straits form the
mouth of the Western Sea (i.e. the Atlantic, or Atel Sea in Jubilees), and not the Great Sea.
385

Strabo discussed of the Straits as a mouth at some length, but did not specify to which sea
it belongs.
386

An identification of the mouth with the Nile Delta would make much better sense in
every respect, although I have been unable to find direct reference to the Delta as the mouth
of the Great Sea in the ancient sources.
387
One piece of indirect evidence may be the
reference to the Delta region of the Nile as a source, or head () in GenAp 19.12.
In Jub 8 the Tina Rivers source and mouth are on opposite ends, with the former on its
northern end and the latter in the south. Perhaps the Apocryphons location of the Gihons

382
Admittedly, Ocean (), which likely refers to the conjunction of the surrounding body of
water with the Mediterranean Sea at the Straits of Gibraltar/Gadera, is spoken of as part of Shems western
border in the later rabbinic treatments of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Num 34:6 and Rav Judah ben-Ilais
boundary description in j. Hall. 60a. These are built on Num 34:6, which simply lists the Great Sea as the
western border of the Land of Israel. In Jubilees, however, it appears that Japheth, father of the Sea Peoples,
receives a large portion of the Great Sea (see below). This seems to argue against Shems reception of the
entire Mediterranean in his apportionment. For more on the targumic and rabbinic sources cf. P. S. Alexander,
Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish), ABD, 2.986-87.
383
Pseudo-Aristotle, De Mundo 393a. The best critical Greek edition is Aristotelis qui fertur libellus De
Mundo (ed. W. L. Lorimer; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1933) 58-59. An English translation may be found in The
Works of Aristotle, Volume 3 (ed. W. D. Ross; 11 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931 [repr. 1950-68]).
384
Scott, The Division of the Earth, 311.
385
Hippolytus, Chronicon 156. One finds the same statement in parallel portions of the Chronicon
Paschale and the Chronographia of George Syncellus, both of which draw on Hippolytus.
386
Strabo, Geography 3.5.6.
387
The Delta is called a mouth repeatedly in the ancient sources, but this is typically in reference to
the Nile River, and not the Great Sea. Thus, we are left with ancient references to two different mouths (the
Ocean and the Nile), neither referring to the Great Sea.
235
source at its northern end points toward its mouth being in the south. If this is the case,
then the Delta as the Great Seas mouth makes good sense. While the evidence is not
overwhelming, I haltingly take the meeting place of the Nile and Great Sea to be the mouth
mentioned here because of its alleviation of the problems listed above. However, I remain
open to other alternatives, including the standard Pillars of Heracles interpretation.

Wherever one locates the mouth of the Great Sea, the border moves next toward
the west of Afrauntil it reaches the water of the Gihon River (8:15).

Excursus 5: Afra/Fara
Most commentators have placed Afra together with two toponyms mentioned later
in relation to Japheths allotment Fara and Aferag (8:27) identifying all three sites as the
Libyan province of Africa.
388
Aferag, it appears, can be dissociated from the others, and will
be dealt with below. Afra and Fara, however, stand a better chance of referring to one and
the same site, and will thus be treated together here. If the two sites are the same, then we
should keep in mind that it is a common meeting point between the allotments of Shem and
Japheth.
The term Libya, not Africa, was used by Hellenistic geographers to denote the southern
continent as a whole, and the region stretching along the Mediterranean coast west of Egypt
more specifically. Indeed, one looks in vain for the term Africa, in any of its forms, in
Herodotus, Strabo, and even later geographers such as Agathemerus (3
rd
cent. C.E.), giving
an impression that the term was unknown to many Greek and Roman geographers. Charles
suggested that Afra and Fara [seem] to be Africa in its early limited sense, apparently
referring to the Roman province.
389
It is true that for Josephus (drawing on Alexander
Polyhistor) and Claudius Ptolemy it occasionally is used to refer to a small, middle portion of
the northern Libyan coast, roughly equivalent to modern Tunisia. Yet even this area seems
to first accrue the name Africa only after the Punic wars (c. 146 B.C.E.), under Roman

388
Charles (The Book of Jubilees, 71) identifies only Afra and Fara as Africa. Those who identify all
three as such are: E. Tisserant, Fragments syriaques du Livre des Jubils, RB 30 (1921) 55-86, 206-32 [85];
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 68; Schmidt, Jewish Representations, 121, n. 11; and apparently C. Werman,
, 278, n. 26. Wintermute (Jubilees, 74) presents both views, but does not give a final ruling on the
matter.
389
Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 71.
236
rule.
390
The term did not gain more widespread use until its later role as a Roman proconsul,
sometime between the reigns of Augustus and Claudius (c. 27 B.C.E. 54 C.E.). Simply put,
the suggestion of Africa for the terms Afra, Fara, and Aferag in Jubilees is anachronistic if
the traditional date of composition is accepted.
Concerning the present mention of Afra in the description of Shems allotment, the
same question could be asked here as that regarding the mouth of the Great Sea above:
What would Africa, especially if located on the central Libyan coast, have to do with Shems
western border? The problem is equally difficult for Fara in the account of Japheths
portion. There the boundary runs from Gadir until it reaches the west of Fara. Then it
goes back toward Aferag and goes eastward toward the water of the Meat Sea (8:27). We
would not expect Libya to figure so significantly into the apportionment of Japheth, since it
is clear from the text as a whole that this is Hams domain and that Japheth is restricted to
Europe. This is especially true of the Roman province of Africa, which does not seem to
hold special significance for any of the sons allotments.
An attractive possibility for the site of Afra/Fara is Pharos, the small island associated
with the city of Alexandria, at the west edge of the Nile Delta.
391
This island was world-
renowned since the time of Homer, and would eventually house the famous lighthouse that
was listed as one of the worlds seven wonders. It was also noted by ancient historians and
geographers as the only serviceable harbor for a great distance in either direction, from Libya
to Joppa,
392
and was a landmark closely associated with the Delta region. A late reference in
Michael the Syrian, bishop of Antioch, mentions that the island was also known as Isis
Pharia at an earlier time.
393
Aside from the islands popularity as a geographic reference and
seafaring point, its situation at the western edge of the Nile Delta fits well with the common
Ionian use of the Nile as a dividing point between the continents of Libya and Asia, in
addition to the westernmost point of the Egyptian Sea. This sites employment in a

390
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.133, 239-41 (Thackeray, LCL); Claudius Ptolemy, Geography, Book 4.
Cf. Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 68. For both Josephus and Ptolemy, the term Libya is far more commonly used
to refer to the continent as a whole or its entire northern coast. On Ptolemy see J. L. Berggren and A. Jones,
Ptolemys Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2000)145.
391
For a good overview see G. Vrs, Taposiris Magna, Port of Isis: Hungarian Excavations at Alexandria,
1998-2001 (Budapest: Egypt Excavation Society of Hungary, 2001) 58 ff.
392
Diodorus Siculus 1.31.2 (Oldfather, LCL). Josephus, Jewish War 4.613.
393
.-~ ~ ... See Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien 1.37 [Latin trans.]; 4.21 [line 30 of right col.;
Syriac]. Michael presents this as an alternate appellation for Pharos -~.
237
description of Japheths borders is not as odd as it may first seem (certainly no more odd
than Africa), but actually helps make sense of Jub 8:27, since the boundary would then
transect the Great Sea diagonally, from Gadir to Pharos, thereby including the four islands
that are said to belong to Japheths son Tiras in Jub 9:13. If Afra/Fara is identified with
Pharos, the result would be a common meeting point of the boundaries of Japheth, Shem,
and Ham at the westernmost point of the Nile Delta, a solution which works quite nicely
when placed on the ancient map.
The linchpin of this argument may, in fact, be found in the latter columns of the
Genesis Apocryphon. In GenAp 19.13 we read of Abram and Sarai crossing the seven
branches of the Nile Delta. Immediately after crossing the last tributary Abram exclaims,
Now we have left our land and entered the land of the sons of Ham, the land of Egypt.
Assuming that the Apocryphon and Jubilees have a similar understanding of each sons
allotment, this story shows that Abram reached the end of our land i.e. Shems (or, more
specifically, Arpachshads) inheritance after crossing the Niles seventh tributary. This is
precisely the vicinity of Alexandria, and Pharos.

Once at the Gihon (Nile) River, matters once again become clear. The boundary
moves along the southern bank of the Gihon until it reaches its end, presumably at the edge
of the terrestrial disk where it meets the encircling body of water (here the Atel Sea; cf. 8:22).
From here it goes eastward until it reaches the Garden of Eden, toward the south side of
it (8:16), the Garden of Eden being the easternmost (and uppermost) point on the map. It
continues circling around the eastern edge of the earth until it again reaches the Rafa
Mountains, turning there to rejoin the Tina River at its mouth. This final mention of the
Tinas mouth suggests that the description overlaps for a portion of the border, between the
Rafa Mountains and the Meat Sea. Put another way, the stretch dividing Asia from Europe
is described at both the beginning and end of the account of Shems allotment.
Shems border is explained in a counter-clockwise direction, beginning at the Rafa
Mountains and ending at the mouth of the Tina River. From the Tina, it runs along the
eastern edge of the Aegean Sea, across the Egyptian Sea (probably including Cyprus within
238
its bounds), and to the western edge of the Nile Delta, whence it skirts the Gihon and the
eastern limits of the world before once again meeting the Tina.
Jubilees 8:17-21 presents a recapitulation of Shems allotment, which explains the
importance of his land in theological terms. We read in 8:19 that [Noah] knew that the
Garden of Eden is the holy of holies and is the residence of the Lord; (that) Mt. Sinai is in
the middle of the desert; and (that) Mt. Zion is in the middle of the navel of the earth. The
three of them the one facing the other were created as holy (places). Furthermore, it is
a blessed and excellent share (8:21).
394
The sites listed in these verses deserve further
study, but are all within the border described above, and as such will be elaborated upon
below only as needed.
395


4.1.1.2. Hams Portion: 8:22-24
Hams account is far shorter and simpler than those of Shem and Japheth, and
presents fewer difficulties concerning identification. The boundary begins on the Egyptian
side of the Gihon River, on the right (i.e. south) side of the garden. This refers to the
Garden of Eden, as the end of 8:23 makes clear, and is envisioned at the eastern extremity of

394
We hear nothing of this sort for the allotments of Shems brothers, alerting the listener that there
is something very special about both Shem and the land he is to occupy: [Noah] recalled everything that he
had said in prophecy with his mouth, for he had said: May the Lord, the God of Shem, be blessed, and may
the Lord live in the places where Shem resides (8:18). By allotting Asia to Shem and quoting this altered form
of Gen 9:26-27, the author of Jubilees draws together the biblical themes of the election of Shem and the
sanctity of the Levant and related places in Asia. 8:21 begins the list of the sites encompassed by Shems
border.
395
The sites are: Eden, the land of the Erythrean Sea, the land of the east, India, Erythrea and its
mountains (cf. 9:2), Bashan, Lebanon, the islands of Caphtor, the Sanir and Amana mountain ranges, the
Asshur mountain range, Elam, Asshur, Babylon, Susan, Madai, the Ararat Mountains, and an area lying across a
northern (likely Caspian) sea.
239
the earth by Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and the Genesis Apocryphon.
396
From here the description
moves southward and goes to all the fiery mountains, which are unidentified and probably
owe to mythical ideas concerning the far southern portion of the earth.
397
Since one goal of
the Ionian map appears to have been symmetry, this range was probably meant to balance
the more well-known Mountains of Qelt in the north (Jub 8:26).
398

Turning westward, the boundary goes toward the Atel Sea; it goes westward until it
reaches the Mauq Sea, everything that descends into which is destroyed (8:22).
399
The Atel
Sea has been unanimously understood as an abbreviated reference to the ancient Atlantic Sea
(Aiovi|n o ioooo), while the Mauq has fostered more discussion.

Excursus 6: The Mauq Sea
There has been no shortage of propositions regarding the etymology of this name.
Charles was the first to question whether the word Mauq might be a distorted form of

396
Jub 8:16; 1 En 32:2-3, 60:8, 70:1-3; GenAp 2.23. The Genesis Apocryphon does not actually
mention the Garden of Eden, but it is very likely considered the dwelling place of Enoch in the scroll. See P.
Grelot, Parwam de Chroniques, 30-38. All of these references are ultimately based on Gen 2:8 And the
Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east. The Gihon is also related to the garden in Gen 2:13, where it
is one of the four rivers of Paradise.
397
The southernmost area of the earth was the least well-known by ancient geographers, and included
a healthy dose of speculation. Charles (The Book of Jubilees, 73) and Hlscher (Drei Erdkarten, 60) mention the
fiery mountains of 1 Enoch 18:6-9 and 24:1-3 along with this verse, but the connection with Jubilees does not
seem a direct one. The mountains name may have something to do with the southern region being the
warmest of the inhabited earth (cf. Jub 8:30), but more likely it is based on the biblical notion that the Lord will
come from a mountain in the south, in a fiery state, to judge the earth (cf. Chapter 3, n. 55; also 1 En 18:8-11;
GenAp 15.10-11). Interestingly, the late 13
th
century Hereford Mappa Mundi, which bears a number of
striking affinities to the presumed world map of Jubilees, has the mons ardens (burning mountain) in this area
(cf. also the Anglo-Saxon or Cotton world map in the British Library manuscript Cotton MS Tiberius B.V.I [c.
1050], and most other medieval mappae mundi). It seems quite certain that these are an echo of the tradition
found much earlier in Jubilees, and (with Alexander) I would argue that Jubilees map bore the same basic
features as these much later models.
398
See Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 199, 210.
399
There are textual problems with this verse, which have been sufficiently dealt with by VanderKam.
See VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 2.54-5.
240
1|tovo , the Great Ocean Stream.
400
Tisserant went a step further, proposing that it is a
shortened and corrupted form of the Hebrew ] [ (waters of the Ocean).
401
He
has been followed by Alexander, Schmidt, and Werman.
402
Hlscher offered an entirely
different explanation, relating Mauq to the word (circle), which stood for the
Horizontkreises of the earth.
403
Wintermute, in turn, considered it to be a mem-
preformative noun from the Hebrew root , with the meaning place of the boundary [of
waters].
404
All of these explanations have shortcomings, not entirely accounting for the
phonetic values or spelling of the name Mauq.
Given the etiological explanation following the seas mention in Jub 8:22, the likely form
of the name in the Genesis Apocryphon (16.9; ), and the later witness of the Syriac
Chronicle to the Year 1234 (.),
405
VanderKams suggestion that the name is based on
the verb destroy (), and could be translated by something like Sea of Destruction
appears to be correct.
Based on the description of the two seas here and elsewhere in Jubilees, it seems
plausible that the Atel Sea occupies the southern half of the surrounding body of water,
while the Mauq Sea constitutes the northern half.
406


400
Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 73.
401
Tisserant, Fragments Syriaques, 85, n. 1.
402
Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 205; Schmidt, Jewish Representations, 124, n. 22;
Werman, , 278, n. 25.
403
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 61. He was followed by K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubilean, (JSHRZ II.3;
Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus [Gerd Mohn], 1981) 374, n. d to v 22. VanderKam (The Book of Jubilees,
2.54) links the to Isa 40:22.
404
Wintermute, Jubilees, 73, n. s.
405
See the textual notes to GenAp 16.9 and VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 2.54-5.
406
Contrary to Hlscher (Drei Erdkarten, 61-2), who considers the Atel to be a small segment of the
larger Mauq (). Alexander (Notes on the Imago Mundi, 205) makes a suggestion similar to mine, but
considers the water of the abysses/deeps to be part of the outer river as well (with which I disagree; see
Excursus 1).
241

Reaching the Mauq Sea, we read, It comes to the north to the boundary of Gadir
and comes to the shore of the sea waters, to the waters of the Great Sea, until it reaches the
Gihon River (8:23). Gadir (lo tipo, next to the Straits of Gibraltar) is the point at which
the boundary turns east again, following the northern Libyan coast until it reaches the waters
of the Gihon at the Nile Delta. The course of the Gihon is then traced back to the right side
of the Garden of Eden, whence the account began.
The description of Hams allotment runs in a clockwise direction, encompassing the
entirety of Libya. It is clear from the sources that pre-Roman geographic knowledge of this
continent was restricted primarily to its northern parts.

4.1.1.3. Japheths Portion: 8:25-30
The third share of the earth falls to Japheth, beginning on the other side of the Tina
River toward the north of the mouth of its waters i.e. on the northwestern side of the
Tanais, near the Meat Sea. From this point the territory runs toward the northeast,
(toward) the whole area of Gog and all that is east of them. Here one apparently skirts the
Tina, moving toward the Rafa Mountains in the northeast. Gog has typically been
understood as a region somewhere in the northern parts of Asia, in either Lydian Asia Minor
or in the general vicinity of Scythia, which is itself a somewhat amorphous territory.
407
If
such is the case here, the author is defining Japheths portion by what is on the other side of
the river, rather than describing part of the allotment itself. Hlscher, however, took Gog to
be the land belonging to Magog (9:8) i.e., the land northwest (to the left) of the Tina, and

407
For the former see Gog, ABD, 2.1056. A good list of sources for the land of Scythia is provided
by Charles (The Book of Jubilees, 70).
242
therefore within Japheths boundaries.
408
Either interpretation is possible, although that of
Hlscher seems more likely here based on the clear, frequent employment of the Tina as a
border between the lands of Shem and Japheth.
8:26 continues, It goes due north and goes toward the mountains of Qelt, to the
north and toward the Mauq Sea. It comes to the east of Gadir as far as the edge of the sea
waters. Although this verse continually mentions the direction north in its description, it
is clear that this means a westerly moving tour along the northern circuit of the earth, and
not a strict following of the cardinal direction. This includes drawing near to the Qelt
Mountains,
409
the Mauq Sea, and then the Straits of Gibraltar.
From Gadir the border begins to move back toward the east, to the Tina River. It
first goes until it reaches the west of Fara (8:27) i.e. the Alexandrian island of Pharos.
410

It then goes back toward Aferag and goes eastward toward the water of the Meat Sea.

Excursus 7: Aferag
As noted in the discussion of Afra/Fara above, Aferag has often been taken as yet
another form of the name Africa.
411
In addition to the earlier arguments against the
identification of any of these sites with Africa, two further complications are noteworthy
regarding Aferag: 1.) it would be odd for two terms referring to the same place and differing
significantly in spelling to occur so close together, in the way they do here; 2.) what would it
mean to go until it reaches the west of Fara (i.e. Africa) only to then go back toward
Aferag (i.e. Africa)? This hardly makes sense.

408
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 71.
409
The modern Pyrenees or Alps [or a conflation of the two], in the region of ancient Celt i.e.
northern Spain and southern Gaul. Hlscher (Drei Erdkarten, 71) places the Qelt range in the northwest of the
Erdkreises.
410
See Excursus 5, above.
411
See note 59, above.
243
Charles suggestion that Aferag may refer to the province of Phrygia, in Asia Minor, is
far more plausible.
412
This would more sensibly bring the border back into the general
region of the northeast Agean, whence one could travel eastward toward the water of the
Meat Sea, as described in 8:27. Indeed, it is clear from several ancient sources that Phrygia
Hellespontica (also Phrygia Epictitus, or Phrygia Minor) stretched to the northeast corner of
the Aegean Coast, where the Hellespont issues from the Pontus Euxinus.
413
This possibility
is bolstered considerably by the fact that Phrygia and Africa were spelled the same in later
targumic, rabbinic, and Samaritan sources.
414


From here the border again reaches familiar territory, going to the edge of the Tina
River toward the northeast until it reaches the banks of its waters toward the mountain range
of Rafa. It goes around the north (8:28). The next verse adds that Japheths eternal
inheritance includes five large islands and a large land in the north. Four great islands in
the Great Sea are also mentioned as part of Japheths son Tiras allotment in Jub 9:13. Since
Shem has already been allotted the islands of Kaftur (probably Cyprus; see Excursus 8,
below), we may deduce that these four are likely Crete, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. Based
on a reference to the islands and the shores of the islands in the description of Madais
portion (9:9), Hlscher and Alexander have suggested that the fifth great island of 8:28 is

412
Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 74.
413
See, e.g., Strabo, Geography 12.4.1, 3, 10. Here the region is given several names: n Ei |no
|oiout vn 1puyi o, Eiinoovio|n 1puyi o, and i|pov 1puyi ov. Cf. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman
World, map 52.
414
Phrygia is frequently spelled with an initial aleph in Semitic languages, and closely resembles the
form used in Jubilees. In fact, in later sources it is spelled exactly like Africa: . See Arukh ha-Shalem
[Hebrew] (9 vols.; ed. A. Kohut; New York: Pardes Publishing House, 1955) 1.243-44. Also P. S. Alexanders
unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Toponymy of the Targumim (Oxford, 1974) 303 [Table 1]; 309 [Table 16].
Michael the Syrian (Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, 4.9 [line 8]) uses the form ~.-, and the Samaritan
Asatir . M. Gaster, The Asatir, 18/ [Hebrew text section].
244
Britain, or the British Isles more generally.
415
These islands were indeed known to the
Ionians,
416
making this identification plausible.
417

Japheths allotment, like Shems, is described running counterclockwise. It begins at the
Tinas mouth and encircles the entire continent of Europe, including a large portion of the
Great Sea,
418
until it returns to its source-waters near the Rafa mountains. As with Shems
allotment, the beginning and end of the description overlap for the length of the Tina River.
The final verse of Japheths description states that his land is cold while the land of Ham is
hot. Now Shems land is neither hot nor cold but it is a mixture of cold and heat (8:30).
Apart from reflecting a general climatic reality, the division of the oikumene into three climata
was a trope of Hellenistic geography.
419


4.1.2. The Subdivision among Noahs Grandsons: Jub 9:1-15
Following the tripartite division of the earth by Noah, his sons proceed to subdivide
the three continents among their own progeny. This typically consists of listing various
places within each allotment, defining where each of Noahs grandsons is to dwell and
providing a more detailed picture of the world map employed by the author of Jubilees.


415
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 72; Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 207.
416
Herodotus (3.115) knew of them only vaguely, but by the time of Strabo (Geography 1.4.3) they are
described in detail.
417
Charles (The Book of Jubilees, 75) also noted the reference to islands in 1 Enoch 77:8. Although
there are some textual issues with this passage, it says, I saw seven large islands in the sea and on the land
two on the land and five in the Great Sea. G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New
Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 107.
418
This is not surprising in light of the connection of Japheths descendents with the maritime
nations ( ) in Gen 10:4-5.
419
See Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 60-61. Also cf. Alexanders (Notes on the Imago Mundi, 202-3)
description of the so-called Macrobius maps.
245
4.1.2.1. Hams Sons: 9:1
The allotments of Hams sons are described very briefly and simply, consisting of
little more than a list of their names: There emerged a first share for Cush to the east; to the
west of him (one) for Egypt; to the west of him (one) for Put; to the west of him (one) for
Canaan; and to the west of him was the sea. The order employed is that of the Gen 10:6,
and no geographic indicators are used to demarcate the boundaries between the sons, save
the outer sea bordering the westernmost point of the continent. This may be due in part to
the logical inference of geographic location based on most of the inheritors names. In
biblical and subsequent Jewish tradition Cush was identified with Nubia and Ethiopia,
420

Egypt () with the land of the same name, and Put with modern Libya, west of Egypt
along the ancient Libyan coast. Although in the Bible Canaan is typically associated with the
region bearing that name in the Levant, here he is obviously placed in the region of modern
Algeria and Morocco (ancient Mauretania). Thus, the Jubilees account begins in the east and
ends in the west, moving neatly from top to bottom on the east-oriented map. This is
notable, since the same cannot be said for the biblical account, which situates Canaan
northeast of the first three sons.

4.1.2.2. Shems Sons: 9:2-6
Jubilees treatment of Shems sons is much more detailed than that of the sons of
Ham. Elam and his children are the first to receive their allotment, to the east of the Tigris
River until it reaches the east of the entire land of India, in Erythrea on its border, the waters
of Dedan, all the mountains of Mebri and Ela, all the land of Susan, and everything on the

420
Gen 2:13 places the Land of Cush alongside the Gihon. Also see 2 Kgs 19:19, Jer 46:9, and
Cush, ABD 1.1219.
246
border of Farnak as far as the Erythrean Sea and the Tina River (9:2). In general, this
describes everything east of the Tigris, from the Erythrean Sea in the south to the Tina River
in the far north. This includes the ancient Near Eastern region of Elamtu, the city of Susan
(Susa), and the Zagros and interior Iranian mountain ranges, to which the Mebri and
Ela mountains of Jubilees must belong.
421
Hlscher appears to have rightly identified
Farnak as the ancient region of the Pharnacotis River in ancient Margiane,
422
known to Pliny
the Elder and Claudius Ptolemy and situated directly east of the Caspian Sea, in modern
southeast Turkmenistan.
423
Although the region of biblical Dedan is traditionally understood
to be in western Arabia,
424
the identification of the waters of Dedan with this site would be
an extreme outlier compared with the other sites mentioned. One can, therefore, appreciate
Alexanders statement that it is hard to say what precisely these are.
425
Yet Hlschers
suggestion of Dodone/Sidodone,
426
along the southern Persian coast in ancient Carmania,
should be duly considered.
427
This site is mentioned by Arrian, in his account of Nearchus
voyage along the Erythrean coast, as a desolate little region, with nothing but water and

421
The standard Mesopotamian sites may be found in most Bible atlases, but the maps in the The
Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period (ed. S. Parpola and M. Porter; Finland: Casco Bay
Assyriological Institute, 2001) are particularly excellent. For more on the Mebri and Ela mountains cf.
Werman, , 279, n. 32.
422
Or Merv; modern Mary.
423
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 69, n. 8. Charles (The Book of Jubilees, 75) must be credited for first putting
this identification forward, albeit tenuously. Hlscher cited a passage in which Assarhadon states that he
subdued the land of Parnaki. This identification is followed by Wintermute, Jubilees, 74; and Schmidt
Jewish Representations, 125.
424
Dedan, ABD, 2.121-23. So Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 75.
425
Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 207-8.
426
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 69. The manuscript evidence disagrees over the spelling of the name.
The known forms are 2ioo vn, 2ioio vn, 2io vn, Ioo vn, and Loo vn.
427
A helpful map is found in the back of Vol. II of E. Iliff Robsons edition, in the Loeb Classical
Library series (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933).
247
fish, at which Nearchus temporarily anchored.
428
This certainly fits well within the context
of Jubilees, and is preferable to the biblical site. If Hlschers identifications of Farnak and
the waters of Dedan are correct, the author of Jubilees must have had access to sources of
considerable detail regarding the eastern territories of Persia.
Asshur is listed next, inheriting the whole land of Asshur, Nineveh, Shinar, and Sak
as far as the vicinity of India, (where) the Wadafa River rises (9.3). Asshur (i.e. Assyria),
Nineveh, and Shinar (i.e. Babylonia) are well-known sites referring to the central regions of
Mesopotamia.
429
Sak, which VanderKam has noted refers to Scythia,
430
would be somewhere
to the northeast of these regions, in the vicinity of the Caspian Sea. That the allotment goes
as far as the region of India suggests that it moves eastward, up to Indias border,
presumably protruding into part of Elams share. The Wadafa River might be a reference to
this border, although its identification has eluded commentators.
431
The Hydaspes
(`) River
432
is one candidate, having several of the phonological elements present
in Wadafa and being situated in the northwestern region of India. This river was famous
during the Hellenistic and Roman periods as the site of a battle between Alexander the Great
and an Indian army during his eastern campaign.
433
Judging by the ensuing descriptions,

428
Arrian, Indica 37.8. A helpful map is found in the back of E. Iliff Robsons first edition of Arrian
(vol. 2) in the Loeb Classical Library series (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933). The revised
edition of Brunt no longer contains the map.
429
Cf. Jub 10:26; Gen 10:10-12.
430
VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 2.56.
431
For a survey of views and an argument for this reading see VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 2.56-7.
432
The modern Jhelum.
433
See Arrian, Anabasis 5.9-18 (Brunt, LCL).
248
Asshurs allotment must cover the lower-central and eastern parts of Mesopotamia,
stretching from there northeast to the south of the Caspian Sea and up to northern India.
Arpachshad receives all the land of the Chaldean region to the east of the
Euphrates which is close to the Erythrean Sea; all the waters of the desert as far as the
vicinity of the branch of the sea which faces Egypt; the entire land of Lebanon, Sanir, and
Amana as far as the vicinity of the Euphrates (9:4). This is the first allotment of a grandson
in which the description moves in a definite direction clockwise. The district of Chaldea
equates to the lower portion of Mesopotamia (i.e., below Babylon),
434
dovetailing with
Asshurs portion to the north and Elams to the east. In the Bible it is typically associated
with the city of Ur (Gen 11:28, 31; 15:7). As described in Jubilees this region borders the
Erythrean Sea on the south. All the waters of the desert may refer either to oases, as
Hlscher and Alexander assumed,
435
or to the water surrounding the land on its coastal
borders.
436
In both cases, the desert must be a reference to the Syrian Desert, stretching
between Mesopotamia and the Levant, in addition to the entire Arabian Peninsula to the
south.
437

The branch of the sea which faces Egypt is the most difficult designation in
Arpachshads territory, causing Charles to confess I dont know what is meant here.
438

There are two possibilities: 1.) The ancient Sinus Heroopoliticus (modern Red Sea); or 2.)

434
Chaldea, ABD, 1.886.
435
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 70; Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 207-8.
436
At least this would be a logical deduction if Hlschers suggestion for the waters if Dedan is
correct.
437
So Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 70.
438
Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 76.
249
the eastern region of the Great Sea, called by ancient geographers the Sea of Egypt.
439

Alexander asserted that the first interpretation is confirmed by GenAp 21.17-19, where
Abram states that he hiked along the Euphrates River and Erythrean Sea, until he reached
the branch of the Red Sea ( ).
440
It is true that Abram is retracing Arpachshads
(and thereby his own) borders, but Alexander must assume that the Red Sea ( ) and the
Egyptian Sea ( ) are one and the same something that is not explicit in the text.
Given the popular association of the Sea of Egypt with the Great Sea (an association argued
forcefully by Alexander himself), it is easy to see why Hlscher adopted the second option.
441

While I agree with Hlscher, the two seas essentially demarcate the same general area the
northern Sinai.
From here the border moves north and then east, from Lebanon
442
to Sanir
443
and
Amana,
444
and finally back to the Euphrates.
The fourth portion falls to Aram, who receives the areas north of Asshur and
Arpachshad, the entire land of Mesopotamia between the Tigris and the Euphrates to the
north of the Chaldeans as far as the vicinity of the mountain range of Asshur and the land of
Arara (9:5). That is, those portions of Mesopotamia not already allotted to Arpachshad

439
See Excursus 3, above.
440
Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 205-6.
441
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 70. He suggests that this also einschlielich der Sinaihalbinsel, which
makes good sense given the earlier descriptions of Shem and Ham.
442
Here perhaps meaning all of Palestine (cf. Jub 10:29).
443
Biblical Senir and modern Mt. Hermon (cf. Deut 3:8-9).
444
The vicinity of Mt. Amanos, in northern Syria (see below). All three mountains are also mentioned
together in Cant 4:8. Amana has alternately been identified with the anti-Lebanon range (cf. Charles, The Book
of Jubilees, 72).
250
(Chaldea) and Asshur (Asshur, Nineveh, and Shinar), as well as the regions north of this.
The mountain range of Asshur may form a boundary between the allotments of Aram and
Lud (9:6; see below).

Excursus 8: The Mountains of Asshur
There has been a longstanding hypothesis that the Mountains of Asshur in Jub 8:21
and 9:5-6 and Mount Taurus ( )
445
of GenAp 17.10 and 21.16 refer to the same
geographic feature. Avigad and Yadin were the first to propose that, since both are located
in the same general vicinity by Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon, and since both fall
within the sub-allotment of Shems son Aram in the two works,
446
it may be that Jubilees
misread the name in its Aramaic and Hebrew sources.
447
This might have happened,
argued Avigad and Yadin, if the author of Jubilees mistakenly read the Aramaic (or
) as , or the Hebrew as . F. Garca Martnez adopted a firm
stance on this issue, declaring that the mountains of Asshur can only be Mount Taurus:
of 1QapGn XVII, 10.
448
In his opinion, the confusion of the author of Jubilees could
have derived only from Aramaic, and this provides evidence for his belief that Jubilees and
the Genesis Apocryphon depend on a common, Aramaic exemplar (i.e. the Book of Noah) at
this point.
449
This is a debatable claim, since one could argue that the Hebrew
would be more easily mistaken as Mountains of Asshur than any of the other options
presented by Avigad and Yadin, including the Aramaic . E. Eshel has recently
advocated this possibility, arguing that the Mountains of Asshur in Jubilees (Hebrew
) is a scribal error for the Taurus Mountains ( ) due to a simple mix-up between
heh and aleph.
450


445
Literally, Mountain of the Bull.
446
Based on my reading at the end of GenAp 17.9 it may be seen that the overlap actually occurs in
the description of Luds portion.
447
Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 30. It is now standard to assume that Jubilees depends
only on a Hebrew Urtext, and not an Aramaic one. See VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 2.VI-VII.
448
F. Garcia Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 40.
449
Assuming Jubilees to otherwise depend on a Hebrew source.
450
Eshel has related this idea to me in personal communication, but has also indicated that she
intends to publish it in an article in the forthcoming Festschrift for Betsy Halpern-Amaru, Heavenly Tablets:
251
A number of factors are left unaccounted for in the above proposals, and warrant some
caution over their acceptance: 1.) Jubilees mentions mountains (in the plural), while the
Taurus of the Genesis Apocryphon is a single peak; 2.) the description in GenAp 21.16
makes clear that Mount Taurus is to be equated with the mount elsewhere called Amanus (or
Taurus Amanus)
451
off the northern end of the Mediterranean coast of Syria (near the
Issican Gulf) and still used in rabbinic literature to mark the northern border of Israel;
452
3.)
Jubilees already has an Amana mountain (8:21, 9:4), distinct from the Mountains of Asshur,
which appears to be a better candidate to parallel the Apocryphons Mount Taurus based on
the locations described for each; 4.) the references to the Mountains of Asshur in Jubilees
seem to indicate a region further north and east than the description of Mount Taurus in
GenAp 21.16, the former being mentioned primarily alongside Mesopotamian sites; 5.) the
upper Zagros, or eastern Taurus range, which constitute the Median highlands, are in the
area where Jubilees seems to place the Mountains of Asshur. These mountains do, in fact,
border the northeast edge of Assyria, and are nearby the Mountains of Ararat (cf. Jub 8:21).
Hence, the name Mountains of Asshur is not incoherent with its context in Jubilees a
fact that weakens considerably the allegation of scribal confusion.
While it remains possible that some form of the scribal confusion hypothesis of Avigad
and Yadin, Garca Martnez, and (most plausibly) Eshel is correct, the above factors make it
entirely reasonable that the term Mountains of Asshur in Jubilees is not a mistake, but simply
represents another range of mountains further north and east of the Mount Taurus of the
Genesis Apocryphon (= Mount Amana in Jubilees).
453
With Alexander, therefore, I identify
the Mountains of Asshur with the eastern Taurus and northwestern Zagros Mountains
(surrounding Lake Van), which are an extension of the former range into central, modern
Kurdistan.
454



Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; SJSJ 119; Leiden: Brill, due
out June 2007).
451
See Tg. Ps.-J. 34:7-8 ( ); and y. Hallah 4:8. Amanus is also mentioned by Josephus, Jewish
Antiquities 1.130.
452
Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 30.
453
Zeitlin (The Dead Sea Scrolls, 255-56) took this position, but based it on the faulty claim that
[t]he Book of Jubilees was written in the pre-Hellenistic period.
454
Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 208.
252
The region of Arara
455
abuts these mountains, being situated around Lake Van
between Kurdistan and Armenia. Arams share is described from south to north.
The final son is Lud, who acquires the mountain range of Asshur and all that
belongs to it until it reaches the Great Sea and reaches to the east of his brother Asshur
(9:6). In Jub 9:5 we read that Arams portion reaches as far as the vicinity of the mountain
range of Asshur, but not that it includes these mountains. Thus, it is seems that the
southern feet of these form the boundary between the two shares. Since Luds allotment
stretches from the Great Sea to the east of Asshurs land, it must run along the northern
borders of the shares of Arpachshad, Aram, and Asshur to the south. The areas covered by
Luds portion are Asia Minor and some of the northerly regions of Asia to the east of it,
perhaps ending around the Caspian Sea.
Jubilees ordering of the sons of Shem largely follows the biblical listing (Gen 10:21-
31; 1 Chr 1:17). The only difference is an inversion of the last two sons, Jubilees having Lud
in the last, rather than penultimate, position. There are no known biblical variants agreeing
with Jubilees order, but the same scheme is found in Josephus Jewish Antiquities 1.143-44.

4.1.2.3. Japheths Sons: 9:7-13
The final son of Noah to subdivide his inherited land is Japheth.
456
The first share
falls to Gomer, eastward from the north side as far as the Tina River (9:7). This
description is extremely ambiguous, but from the surrounding allotments we may gather that
it stretches westward from the Tina, with Magog to the northwest, and Javan and Tubal to

455
Biblical Ararat; ancient Urartu.
456
A broader treatment of the geographic territory occupied by Japheth and his sons in a number of
Jewish texts (including Jubilees) has been given by J. Maier, Zu ethnographisch-geographisch berlieferungen
ber Japhetiten (Gen 10, 2-4) in frhen Judentum, Henoch 13 (1991), 157-194.
253
the southwest (likely separated from Gomer by the lower part of Magogs portion). This
would roughly equate to modern Russia.
Magog comes next, receiving the land north of him [i.e. Gomer]all the central
parts of the north until it reaches the Meat Sea (9:8). This too is a rather vague report,
although mention of the Meat Sea suggests that Magogs portion skirts to the south of
Gomer, in addition to being north (and presumably west) of it. A modern equivalency of
Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland (i.e. the central and northern parts
of Eastern Europe) must be rough modern parallels, granting, of course, the considerable
differences between ancient and modern maps.
Madai occupies the land west of his brothers [i.e. Gomer and Magog] as far as the
islands and the shores of the islands (9:9). The designation west of his brothers suggests
the general region of northwestern Europe, roughly equating to the modern countries of
Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and northern France. Charles first suggested
that the islands mentioned in this verse are the British Isles.
457
Given that Madais portion
does not appear to occupy any part of the southern European coast, this proposal is quite
plausible.
458
Although brief, the description moves from east to west.
The fourth share is apportioned to Javan, who receives every island and the islands
that are in the direction of Luds border (9:10). The words every island cannot literally
mean every island in existence, since we know from elsewhere that islands are apportioned

457
Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 76. He is followed by Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 72; Alexander, Notes
on the Imago Mundi, 207; and Werman, , 280, n. 35.
458
As an addendum to this verse Jub 10:35-36 amusingly recounts that when Madai saw the land
near the seait did not please him. Instead, he pleaded for a land grant from Elam, Asshur, and Arpachshad
(his wifes brother), thereby living in the land of Mediqin near his wifes brother until the present. This story
creatively reconciles Jubilees world map with the clear etymological relationship of Madai to the Near Eastern
land of Media.
254
to Shem, Tiras, and apparently Madai.
459
Rather, this must mean every island within certain
geographic parameters. The most logical conclusion is that every island means every
island in the Aegean Sea.
460
A further qualification is then added by stating that these include
the islands hugging the coast of Asia Minor, which belongs to Lud. It is striking, and
perhaps significant, that Javan (i.e. Greece) is not only denied territory in Asia, but also
relegated to small islands only a point that will be revisited below.
Tubal receives the middle of the branch which reaches the border of Luds share as
far as the second branch, and the other side of the second branch into the third branch
(9:11). Commentators have been divided as to the meaning of branch (or tongue; )
in this verse. It must either refer to a peninsula of land,
461
or a gulf of water.
462
The latter is
preferable, since the term clearly refers to gulfs elsewhere in the narrative. The first branch
(i.e. the branch which reaches the border of Luds share) is then the Aegean Sea, the second
branch the Adriatic Sea, and the third branch the Tyrrhenian Sea. If this is correct, Tubal is
allotted the mainland peninsulas of Greece and Italy, and presumably the lands connecting
them to their north.
463

Next, Meshech is apportioned all the (region on the) other side of the third branch
until it reaches to the east of Gadir (9:12). That is, southern France, Spain, and Portugal.

459
Charles (The Book of Jubilees, 77) entertains the possibility that the first mention of islands in this
verse actually refers to coastlands, and not islands.
460
So Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 72; and Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 207.
461
So Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 77. Charles states that a tongue in Jubilees can be either
promontory of land, or bay, in the notes published with his later translation, The Book of Jubilees (1917), 73, n.
8.
462
So Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 72; Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 205; and apparently
Schmidt, Jewish Representations, 122, map 1.
463
E.g, modern Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia.
255
The shares of Javan, Tubal, and Meshech are described from east to west, corresponding to
the east to west description of Gomer, Magog and Madais portions in the north.
The last son to whom Japheth allots land is Tiras. His inheritance amounts to the
four large islands within the sea which reach Hams share (9:13). Precisely which islands
constitute the four large islands has been a matter of some debate. All agree that they
must include Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily, but the fourth has been variously taken as
Cyprus,
464
Malta,
465
and Crete.
466

The confusion here is doubtless connected to the following aside in the last bit of
Tiras description, The islands of Kamaturi emerged by lot for Arpachshads children as an
inheritance. Charles put this sentence in brackets, believing it to be an interpolation.
467

Whether he is correct or not, it is understandable why the original author, or a later redactor,
wanted to clarify this issue in light of the earlier statement that Shem received the islands of
Caphtor (8:21) as part of his allotment.

Excursus 9: The Islands of Caphtor/Kamaturi
Two key issues must be resolved to reach a decision on the identity of these islands:
1.) to which islands do the islands of Caphtor in 8:21 refer?; and 2.) are the islands of
Caphtor and the islands of Kamaturi synonymous? Beginning with Charles the second
question has been unanimously answered affirmatively, so that the identification of Caphtor
may also be applied to Kamaturi with some confidence (and vice versa).
468
Unfortunately,
the geographic identification of Caphtor/Kamaturi is not entirely clear. Charles notes that

464
Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 74, 77. Wintermute (Jubilees, 75) seems to agree with this.
465
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 72.
466
Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 206-7; Werman, , 280, n. 37.
467
Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 77. VanderKam does not follow him.
468
See especially Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 77; and Wintermute, Jubilees, 75.
256
Caphtor is linked to Cappadocia, north of Syria in Asia Minor, by several of the Targums
and the Peshitta.
469
This is easily ruled out, since here we find Caphtor/Kamaturi referring
to an island, or a group of islands, as in Jer 47:4.
470
Charles opts for the island of Crete,
although he admits that modern commentators have linked Caphtor to a number of sites,
including Cilicia, Cyprus Crete, or Coptos (a city in the upper Thebaid).
471
Hlscher, Berger
and Wintermute agree that the island is Crete,
472
but Alexander is certain that Cyprus must
be one of these.
473
Schmidt withholds judgment, merely listing Crete and Cyprus as
possibilities, while Caquot makes the unlikely suggestion that the islands of Kamaturi refer to
the Aegean islands along the coast of Asia Minor.
474
It seems most logical to understand
Caphtor/Kamaturi as a reference to Cyprus, since it is the nearest to Shems allotment.
However, the possibilities that both Cyprus and Crete, or Crete alone, are meant cannot be
absolutely excluded. While I find Cyprus location a strong argument for its identification
with Caphtor/Kamaturi in Jubilees, the matter must remain unresolved in the absence of
further evidence. Of course, the fourth great island of Tiras must remain equally ambiguous.
If Caphtor/Kamaturi refers to Cyprus, it must be Crete. If Shem receives Crete instead,
then Cyprus must belong to Tiras. If, however, both Crete and Cyprus are meant, then
Hlschers proposal of Malta may be possible (although I find this a far less likely option).

4.1.3. Summary: Jubilees Division of the Earth
When read in tandem with chapter 10:27-35, Jub 8-9 reveals a creative marriage of
the Table of Nations from Gen 10, the Ionian world map, and Jubilees apologetic desire to
provide the Israelites (i.e. the descendents of Arpachshad) a legitimate claim to the biblical

469
Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 72.
470
The Jeremiah passage reads . It is possible that in Jubilees the phrase was originally
intended to be singular (i.e. the island of Caphtor) as in Jeremiah. If the original Hebrew of Jubilees was
written , as Charles assumes, the first word could have then been translated as either singular or plural.
471
Cf. Caphtor, ABD 1.869-70.
472
Hlscher, Drei Erdkarten, 69; Berger, Das Buch der Jubilean, ??; Wintermute, Jubilees, 75.
473
Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 206.
474
Schmidt, Jewish Representations, 124; Caquot, Annuaire du Collge de France (1980-81), 508-9.
These Aegean islands are clearly given to Javan earlier.
257
land of Canaan i.e. the eventual land of Israel. Schmidt suggests that this cocktail
emerged as the result of an inter-Israelite conflict regarding the growing trend of Jewish
openness toward Hellenization, with Jubilees advocating a conservative, anti-Hellenizing
stance.
475
While this may partially account for Jubilees concern, it seems likely that Jubilees
is also making a claim on the land vis--vis foreign occupation. The laughably small
allotment of Javan (i.e. Greece) in particular suggests that the Greeks may be the targets of
such a claim. This would fit well with the standard opinion that Jubilees was written in the
midst of the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids.
476
Thus, not only is Jubilees taking a
stand against pro-Hellenistic Israelites, but also against those modern Canaanites, the
Greeks, who have dared usurp a land not their own.
477
This apologetic could easily be
appropriated by others, such as the Essenes or later Christian groups, who viewed
themselves as the true remnant of Israel i.e. the rightful heirs of the Promised Land.
Jubilees heavy dependence on the Ionian world map is obvious through its division
of the world into three parts by way of the Tina and Gihon rivers, as well as many of the
other sites employed. If the identifications of Karas with Icarus/Caria, Afra/Fara with
Pharos, and the Egyptian Sea with the eastern Mediterranean are correct, then this
dependence on Hellenistic geography is even further underscored. Jubilees strict focus on
geographic regions (and not on ethnic or linguistic developments), as well as its division
schema (first among Noahs sons and then among his grandsons) are additional factors
setting this account apart from its biblical exemplar.

475
F. Schmidt, Naissance dune gographie juive, Mose Gographe: Recherches sur les reprsentations juives
et chrtiennes de lespace (ed. A Desremaux and F. Schmidt; tudes de psychologie et de philosophie 24; Paris:
Vrin, 1988) 13-30 [26-30]; idem, Jewish Representation, 132-33.
476
On the date of Jubilees see the excursus in Chapter 1, 38-40.
477
Cf. Alexander, Jerusalem as the Omphalos of the World, 106-7.
258

4.2. Genesis Apocryphon 16-17
Noahs division of the earth in the Genesis Apocryphon is woefully fragmentary, and
as a result many issues are less clear than in Jubilees. Perhaps it is for this reason that some
scholars dealing with the division of the earth in early Judaism merely gesture toward these
columns as an obvious parallel to Jubilees, presumably with little of interest to offer on its
own.
478
Despite the scrolls incomplete nature, this is certainly not the case. It is true that
GenAp 16-17 follow the same general structure as Jubilees, Noah first dividing the world
into three sections among his sons, who in turn distribute their respective shares among
their own sons. This remains one of the most striking parallels between the two accounts.
In addition, there is significant overlap in the major landmarks used to delineate territories
from one another, attesting to a common dependence on the tripartite Ionian world map.
In the following comments I will make frequent reference back to Jubilees and
summarize some of the more interesting points of comparison and contrast at the end of the
chapter. For more detailed explanations of individual readings the textual notes may be
consulted.

4.2.1. Noahs Division among his Sons: Genesis Apocryphon 16

4.2.1.1. Japheths Portion: 16.8-12
The first glimpses of Noahs distribution are picked up already in progress, and we
are immediately faced with difficulty reading the text and contextualizing the places

478
A representative example may be found in J. M. Scott, Geography in Early Judaism, 28, 36. Of course,
this is understandable given the relatively recent publication of these columns.
259
mentioned. It is clear, however, that the account begins midway through a description of
Japheths allotment. Line 9 begins, of the sea that is between them, source of (the) Mahaq,
up to the Tina River. It then passes by line of sight the length of
10
the whole land of the
north, in its entirety, until it reaches the source of
Several words in this line have fostered debate and confusion. The first word of the
line has been read by some as branch () or branches (), which is a geographic
term used elsewhere in both Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon, although it does not
occur in Jubilees description of Japheths share. The other word that has drawn attention is
what most read as , which has been understood by some to occur once in the center of
line 9 (my ) and once toward its end (my ). There are good paleographic reasons to
believe that neither of these readings is correct, but taken together they have generated some
theories that must be addressed briefly.
Esther Eshel has recently argued that the term in the Genesis Apocryphon is an
alternate name for the Euphrates River, which is elsewhere called by the expected
(GenAp 16.16; 17.12, 14[?]; 21.12, 17 bis, 28).
479
Eshel based her argument in part on an
enigmatic geographic reference to a certain in Isa 11:15 a term that has frustrated
exegetes for centuries. Paired with her transcription of branches or bays at the
beginning of the line, she proposed that, in contrast to Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon
allots Japheth the majority of Asia Minor, up to the (her Euphrates River) and then back
to the Tina River. Hence, the division of the earth in the Genesis Apocryphon stands closer
at this point to its parallel account in Josephus than to Jubilees.

479
Eshel, Isaiah 11:15, 38-45.
260
A serious difficulty with this interpretation is its ill fit with the rest of the GenAp 16-
17, in which it is relatively clear that 1.) Japheth receives only the land north of the Tina
River (17.16); 2.) Shem is granted the waters of the Tina River (16.15); and 3.) Lud is
apportioned Asia Minor, as in Jubilees (17.9-10). Another problem is a comparison with
Josephus account, which clearly has different motives.
480
Of course, most decisive are the
paleographic problems mentioned above, which Eshel fails to address despite disagreement
over the first instance of in the editions.
481

As the passage is transcribed here, several terms present in Jubilees description of
Japheths portion are also discernible in the Genesis Apocryphon. While the sea that is
between them is difficult to pinpoint, it is apparently linked to the source of the Mahaq,
which is equivalent to the outer Mauq Sea in Jubilees.
482
From here the border reaches up
to the Tina River, indicating that the border is progressing in a clockwise direction the
opposite of Jubilees. [T]he whole land of the north, in its entirety may then refer to the
land bordering the Tina, on its northern bank i.e. the lands of Gomer and Magog.
483

Indeed, 17.16 later records that Gomers portion lies in the north, until it reaches the Tina
River. The word preceding this phrase makes the best sense as a geographic adverb,
based on either the meaning sight or spring for the word .
484


480
Cf. the following chapter.
481
The first letter is transcribed as a mem by Garcia-Martinez and Tigchellar and Beyer.
482
See the textual note. My reading is similar to that found in a Syriac Chronicle loosely quoting
Jubilees text at this point (.; cf. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 2.53-54, n. to 8:21).
483
Alternatively, it may refer to the general situation of Japheths portion in its entirety. This seems
less likely, however, based on this lines placement in the description.
484
See the textual notes.
261
In 16.11 the description of Japheths share concludes, stating that this boundary
crosses the waters of the Great Sea until it reaches to Ga[de]ra. Here again we see a
significant difference in comparison with Jubilees, which ends at the northeastern end of the
Tina River. Like Jubilees, however, this description does traverse the Great Sea, apparently
including a large portion of it within Japheths lot.
Though many questions must remain unanswered regarding Japheths share in the
Genesis Apocryphon, it is clear that, as in Jubilees, his portion includes the land of the north
and employs the Tina River as a major border. Unlike Jubilees, the portion is described in a
clockwise direction, and uses Gadera as its point of origin and termination. The description
ends by stating that Noah divided by lot for Japheth and his sons to inherit as an eternal
inheritance (16.12).

4.2.1.2. Shems Portion: 16.14-25
Although the parchment comprising the middle of col. 16 is relatively well preserved,
the script itself is badly deteriorated and fragmentary due to the corrosive traits of the ink.
Thankfully, however, a number of toponyms are still legible and give some idea of how these
lines compare to the description of Jubilees. GenAp 16.14 begins, To Shem fell the second
lot, for him and his sons to inherit That Shem receives the second share indicates that
Japheths lot comes first in the earths division, and that Ham is the last to receive his share.
This order (Japheth-Shem-Ham) stands in stark contrast to the more expected order found
in Jubilees (Shem-Ham-Japheth).
The first extant geographic detail of the section is the mention of the waters of this
Tina River (16.15), which emerge and then progress to a now lost destination. Jub 8:12 also
includes the Tina very near the beginning of its description, although only after naming the
262
Rafa Mountains and the source of the water of this river. It is unclear whether the
Apocryphon listed these features, but it is probable that some description of the upper Tina
and its source preceded the present mention of the river, since the phrase this Tina River
seems to assume a directly antecedent reference.
485

Following a half line of illegible text is a second reference to the Tina River, and
then, after another short break, to the Maeota Sea ( ),
486
which reaches the gulf
of the Great Salt Sea. This boundary goes by line of sight to the waters of this gulf,
which (16.16-17). Again, Jubilees provides a similar description, moving from the outer
edges of the earth to the Meat Sea and then into the bosom of the branch that faces
southward (Jub 8:12-13) by way of the Tina River. It is clear that both texts use the Tina to
describe the border between Shem and Japheth, and that the descriptions run the same
direction and employ like landmarks. The similarities, however, break down somewhat in
the details. Beyond probably not mentioning the Rafa Mountains,
487
the Genesis
Apocryphon uses a form for the Maeotian Sea that is morphologically closer to its Greek
exemplar Moioi than the Meat of Jubilees. Additionally, the Apocryphon names the
Great Salt Sea,
488
rather than the more typical Great Sea of Jub 8:12. The mention of the

485
This may, in fact, be one argument against the reconstruction of Morgenstern, Qimron, and Sivan
(and followed by Fitzmyer) at the end of 16.14, which I have followed for the time being.
486
The ancient Maeotis (Gk. Moioi); equivalent to Jubilees Meat Sea.
487
Based on available space at the end of GenAp 16.14.
488
This is apparently another way to refer to the Great Sea, or Mediterranean, based on the later
appellation this Great Sea of salt ( ) in GenAp 21.16, which is clearly speaks of the
Mediterranean. The Mediterranean is simply called the Great Sea ( ) in 21.11-16. Cf. Fitzmyer, The
Genesis Apocryphon, 172.
263
gulf of this sea directly after the Maeotis in the Apocryphon shows that the author
considered the Great Sea to extend through the Pontus Euxinus, as in Strabo and Jubilees.
489

The next recognizable landmark is the gulf of the sea that faces toward Eg[yp]t in
GenAp 16.18. Lack of context precludes certainty, but this gulf probably refers either to the
entire eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea (i.e. the Egyptian Sea of Hellenistic
geographers), or to a smaller gulf comprising only part of the Mediterranean (e.g. the
Aegean, Pamphylian, or Issican/Myriandric gulfs). In my opinion, the second option is
more likely, in which case this gulf equates to Jubilees Branch of the Egyptian Sea
(8:14).
490
If this is the case, the two accounts describe the same feature in a slightly different
manner.
Unfortunately, this is the last reference of any substance in Shems portion. The
remaining seven lines are too disintegrated to read with any certainty, but reveal that at line
18 the account is less than half finished, being roughly eleven and a half lines long.
491
It is
apparent that, like Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphons border description moves
counterclockwise. A number of the same landmarks are also employed, despite the regular
inconsistency in details between the two accounts.

4.2.1.3. Hams Portion: 16.26ff.
There are several indicators that a description of Hams portion begins at line 26: 1.)
mention of Shem receiving the second lot in GenAp 16.14, which is preceded by Japheths

489
See note 20, above.
490
Cf. Excursus 3, above.
491
The lines in this column are irregularly short for the scroll due to its placement at the end of a
sheet of parchment (so too col. 22). In a typical column the section would be closer to nine or ten lines long.
264
allotted lands; 2.) the presence of a large vacat midway through 16.25; and 3.) convincing
remains of the word , And to Ham, at the beginning of 16.26. Unfortunately, there is
almost nothing legible remaining of this section, save a clear gimel in line 27, which may well
belong to the name Gihon. Based on the preceding descriptions, we would not expect this
description to be longer than ten to twelve lines (and probably shorter, given the typical
disinterest in the Hamites and their allotments), putting us near the end of the column.

4.2.2. The Subdivision among Noahs Grandsons: Genesis Apocryphon 17

4.2.2.1. Hams Sons?
While the first five lines of col. 17 are completely missing, there are a number of
reasons to believe that they once contained a description of Hams allocation of his share
among his sons: 1.) as suggested above, the account of Hams portion likely ended around
the end of col. 16; 2.) the division of Shems lot among his sons begins in 17.7, and is
preceded by a half-line vacat, leaving at least six lines of text unaccounted for at the top of
the column; 3.) a review of the allotments of Japheth, Shem, and Ham, while plausible,
would likely not have taken up six lines; 4.) Japheths distribution among his sons in 17.16-19
takes up less than four full lines; 5.) placing Ham first would create a chiastic structure with
the preceding list of Japheth-Shem-Ham. It is also worth recalling that Jubilees description
of Hams sons is very brief. Considering that Ham has three less sons than Japheth, it is
quite likely that the last lines of col. 16 and the beginning lined of col. 17 contained both a
review of the land distributed to Noahs three sons, and the subdivision of Hams share.


265
4.2.2.2. Shems Sons: 17.7-15
The subdivision of Shems lot among his sons is relatively well preserved. The list
begins much like Jubilees, stating that Shem divided his [sh]are between his sons (17.7).
492

The first son to receive his share is Elam, in the north, next to the waters of the Tigris
River, until it reaches the Erythrean Sea, to its source which is in the north (17.7-8). While
both the Tigris and Erythrean Sea are cited in Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphons account is
much shorter and less precise, never mentioning such exotic sites as India, the mountains of
Mebri and Ela, or Farnak. We also read nothing of the Tina River for the allotments
northern border, as in Jub 9:2. To be sure, we gain a far less exact picture of Elams lot from
the Genesis Apocryphon than from Jubilees. Nevertheless, the same basic area seems to be
in view, generally comprised of everything east of the Tigris River, from the Erythrean Sea in
the south to the Tina in the north. Both accounts jump from place to place, but appear do
so in a somewhat similar pattern, moving from the Tigris down to the Erythrean Sea, and
then back up toward the north.
The portion of Asshur follows in GenAp 17.8, And af[ter him], (the region) to the
west (fell) to Asshur, until it reaches to the Tigris
493
No more than a few words can
follow this mention of the Tigris, showing again that this description is much shorter and far
more schematic than that of Jubilees. All that we can gather in the Apocryphon is that
Asshurs share is west of Elam, and that it involves the Tigris River. This, of course, lines up
well geographically with the description in Jubilees 9:3, although there we hear nothing about
being to the west of Elam, or the Tigris River.

492
Jubilees 9:2 reads, Shem, too, divided (his share) among his sons.
493
In col. 17 of the Genesis Apocryphon the word and after him commonly (but not always)
signals the next apportionment to be listed. For this reason, the inclusion of this part of line 8 within Elams
portion is to be rejected (cf. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 96-7, 173-4).
266
The third distribution falls to Aram, the land that is between the two rivers until it
reaches the summit of Mt. Ara[rat], in that region (17.9). When paired with the following
allotment of Arpachshad, it is clear that this refers to the middle and upper regions of
Mesopotamia, and north into modern Kurdistan and Armenia. Jub 9:5 is again longer than
the Apocryphon,
494
and differs in the sites chosen to describe the allotment. While it lists
the mountain range of Asshur in the north, here we apparently have Mt. Ararat instead.
495

In addition, Jubilees employs the Tigris, Euphrates, and land of Chaldea to demarcate the
specific area of Mesopotamia being referred to. Despite these differences, the geographic
area described by both texts is once again the same, with both narratives moving from south
to north.
Next, to Lud falls this Mt. Taurus, and this portion passes to the west until it
reaches to Magog; everything ne[xt to] the branch that is in the Eastern Sea, in the north,
which embraces this branch that which is on top of the three portions to south of this
one (17.10-11). Here we surprisingly find a significantly longer and dissimilar description
than that provided by the author of Jubilees. Mt. Taurus (or Taurus Amanus) is ituated near
the border between northern Syria and Cilicia in southern Asia Minor, and constitutes a
standard landmark used to distinguish the regions to its north and south.
496
The Eastern
Sea, in the north, must refer to the Caspian Sea, which would be expected near Luds
eastern frontier. This is confirmed by the mention of Magog, who receives a portion that
would border this area in Jub 9:8 (the Genesis Apocryphon is too vague to be sure where

494
Although by less of a margin than with most other portions.
495
Some have read my Mt. Ararat as the mountains of Asshur based upon Jubilees, but this is
doubtful. See the textual notes.
496
Cf. Excursus 8, above.
267
Magogs portion lies). That a branch is referred to may hint that the author of the Genesis
Apocryphon understood the Caspian to be an inlet of the outer Ocean River,
497
but this is
not certain.
498
The final statement that Luds share sits on top of the three portions to the
south, indicates that his portion runs along the tops of three allotments to its south. These
must be Asshur, Aram, and Arpachshad. As in Jubilees, Lud receives Asia Minor and the
land northeast of it, but in the Genesis Apocryphon this area is explained in an entirely
different way. Interestingly, despite their differences both accounts appear to begin with a
point somewhere in the middle of the allotment and then move first to the west, and then
toward the east.
The final description is that of Arpachshad, which stands apart from the others
because of its added length. His section begins, un[til] it reaches to which turns to the
south, the entire land irrigated by the Euphrates, and all (17.11-12). The land irrigated
by the Euphrates is a technical reference to southern Mesopotamia, approximately from Hit
southward,
499
and is equivalent to Jubilees Chaldean region to the east of the Euphrates

497
Alexander (Notes on the Imago Mundi, 206) argues that in Jubilees the Eastern Sea cannot be
connected to the outer waters because of the east-west orientation if the Tina River (but cf. Excursus 1, above).
This is questionable, but would line up with the descriptions of some Hellenistic geographers (e.g. Hecataeus
and Eratosthenes). The seemingly more common view among Ionian-dependant geographers (e.g. Strabo,
Arrian, and Pseudo-Aristotle) was that the Caspian was open on its northeastern end to the outer sea, thereby
forming a large gulf. This is still seen on the famous late 13
th
century Hereford Mappa Mundi, or the late 14
th

century Higden world map. If, indeed, Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon disagreed on this point (which I
find doubtful) it would be of no mean importance. However, any such difference is impossible to demonstrate
at present.
498
Alternatively, the branch may be the Aegean Sea, but this would require a significant leap in the
description, from the Aegean to the Caspian within one or two words. This seems a less likely option.
499
See the article by W. S. LaSor, Euphrates, in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (4 vols.;
ed. G. W. Bromiley et. al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 2.202-204. Mesopotamia is roughly divisible into
three regions upper, middle, and lower. The lower region was distinguished in antiquity by an impressive
network of irrigation ditches ciphering water away from the Euphrates and enabling a productive environment
for agriculture; hence, the land irrigated by the Euphrates. This region was also regularly inundated by
flooding from the Euphrates during the rainy season, which may also be partially responsible for the
designation here.
268
(9:4). The following line continues, a[l]l of the valleys and plains which are between
them and the coastlands that are in the bosom of this gulf, every until it reaches
Where precisely the valleys and plains are located is unsure, though an identification
somewhere within the Levant is expected. The coastlands () that lay in the bosom of
this gulf are likely the Sinai, Israeli, Lebanese, and Syrian seacoasts, but may alternatively
refer to an island lying at the east edge of the gulf of the Mediterranean (i.e. the
Egyptian Sea). The first option is considerably strengthened by the fact that a different,
more technical word for island () is used later in this column (17.17).
500

The last extant segment of Arpachshads share reads, to Amana, which adjoins Mt
Ararat, and (from) Amana until it reaches the Eup[hrates] (17.14). Amana is also
mentioned (along with Lebanon and Senir) toward the end of Jubilees account of
Arpachshads land. This region could be linked either to Mt. (Taurus) Amanus, in northern
Syria next to the Issican Gulf, or with the biblical district in the vicinity of the Amana River
(modern Nahr Barada), which runs from the Anti-Lebanon mountain range through
Damascus. The following reference to Mt. Ararat, as well as the placements of Mt. Taurus
and Amans in the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees, argues strongly for adopting the former
option. This also advocates for a southerly location for Mt. Ararat, in modern Kurdistan.
As in Jubilees, the Euphrates is among the last toponyms mentioned.
Arpachshads portion is among the most similar in comparison with Jubilees. Both
accounts are roughly the same length, follow a clockwise direction, and list a number of the
same sites. Despite this general resemblance, however, there remain stark differences in

500
If an island is meant (which I find unlikely), then Cyprus is certainly the best candidate. This
would shed some new light on questions about the islands of Caphtor/Kamaturi in Jubilees (cf. Excursus 9,
above).
269
wording and description, such as their entirely unrelated manners of depicting the region of
southern Mesopotamia.

4.2.2.3. Japheths Sons: 17.16-19
The entire subdivision of Japheths portion between his sons is, not surprisingly,
more succinct than the version in Jubilees. To Gomer, the first to receive his share, fell
(that) in the north until it reaches to the Tina River (17.16). This is strikingly similar to
Jub 9:8, which adds only that Gomer received what is eastward in the north.
The next two sons are simply listed without further elaboration: And after him [i.e.
Gomer] to Magog, and after him to Madai (17.16-17). Since we find that Gomer is placed
next to the Tina, we may assume that, like Jubilees, the author of the Genesis Apocryphon
understands these allotments to be moving consecutively toward the west. Jubilees,
however, expands considerably upon both shares.
Javan comes next, receiving every island that is alongside Lud, and (that) between
the gulf th[at] is n[ea]r Lud and the [s]econd gul[f]. The words every island mirror exactly
the phrase in Jubilees, but in this portion is also found one of the most intriguing differences
between Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon. While the former allots Javan only the
Aegean Islands, it is clear that the Apocryphon assigns him the mainland of Greece as well
i.e. the land lying between the gulf that is near Lud (the Aegean Sea) and the second gulf
(the Adriatic Sea). Fitzmyer, basing himself on Jubilees, has understood the second gulf to
go along with the following word to Tubal, thereby leaving Lud with only islands as
in Jub 9:10. However, we have no other instance in cols. 16-17 where a site related to one of
Noahs sons or grandsons is listed before he is named. Considering a probable second
mention of the second gulf at the beginning of 17.18, it is quite certain that everything
270
preceding belongs within the portion of Javan. As in Jubilees, the reference to Luds
share in describing the Aegean Islands demonstrates that Lud (and, therefore, Shem) has
already received all of Asia Minor.
501

Tubals abrupt description consists of three Aramaic words: that which is on the
other side of the second g[ulf] (17:17-18). Here too there is a discrepancy with Jubilees,
linked to the difference regarding Javan. While in Jubilees lengthier account Tubal is
apportioned both mainland Greece and Italy, here he receives Italy alone i.e. that lying to
the west of the Adriatic. While disagreeing with the overall scope of Tubals share, Jub 9:11
contains a phrase remarkably similar to that of the Genesis Apocryphons report, and the
other side of the second branch into the third branch.
Of the last two sons, very little readable text remains. It is clear that Meshech is
listed after Tubal, although only his name is preserved. His description was quite short
probably four to seven words and likely mentioned the third gulf (the Tyrrhenian Sea)
and Gadir, as in Jub 9.12.
Not even the name of Tiras is extant, although he is undoubtedly the last son to be
listed both by default (his is the only share not yet described) and based on the traditional
order employed by Genesis and Jubilees. His account may include reference to the four
islands mentioned in Jub 9:13, since his description appears to end by referring to the
[por]tion of the sons of Ham, as in Jubilees. It is worth noting that there does not seem to
be room in the Genesis Apocryphon for Jubilees additional reminder that the islands of
Kamaturi emerged as the inheritance of Arpachshad.

501
Contra Eshel, Isaiah 11:15, 38-45.
271
A basic parallel in structure may be observed between the subdivisions among
Japheths sons in the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees. Beyond using the same order of
names, both texts describe the allotments in two stages: first, from east to west in the north
of Europe, and then once again from east to west in southern Europe.
By all appearances the listing of the shares of Japheths sons ends the body of the
earths division in the Genesis Apocryphon, although this would likely have been followed
by a summary section reviewing the actions taken and solemnizing the occasion with the
taking of oaths (cf. Jub 9:14-15). This possibility is strengthened by the little text which
survives in the following lines, and by a vacat four and a half lines after the end of Japheths
subdivision. Unfortunately, from 17.25 until the text becomes readable again in col. 19, the
manuscript is completely illegible. If extant, we would likely have read of the dispersion of
peoples at the Tower of Babel and the transgression of Canaan settling in the land
apportioned to Arpachshad (Jub 10:18-34). Perhaps it even included the resettlement of
Madai in the region of Mesopotamia, as in Jub 10:35-36.

4.2.3. Summary: The Genesis Apocryphons Division of the Earth and Its Relationship to Jubilees
Having examined the parallel accounts of the earths apportionment in Jubilees and
the Genesis Apocryphon, we are now in a position to make some comparative observations.
To begin with, the similarities between the two texts are striking, and compellingly
demonstrate that they are based on nearly identical exegetical approaches to Gen 10. These
similarities only add weight to the widely held notion that these works are related to each
other in some way an idea advocated even before Avigad and Yadin by Albright and
Trever. Some of the most obvious examples of their connection are:

272
i. The basic, two-fold literary structure of an initial division by Noah and a secondary
division by his three sons
ii. Shared geographic terminology based on the Ionian world map and not present in
Gen 10, such as gulf/branch,
502
the Tina River, the Gihon River, the
Maeota/Meat Sea, the Eastern Sea, the Mahaq/Mauq Sea, etc.
iii. Use of the Tina and Gihon rivers as borders between the continents
iv. Similar formulae at the beginning and end of each section within the initial division
among Noahs sons
v. The basic similarity of the geographic territories received by each son and grandson
vi. The common apologetic background of both works, which promotes the pre-
Canaanite possession of the Levant by the Israelites ancestors

These strong family resemblances make it simply untenable to assert that the
Apocryphon and Jubilees represent completely independent exegetical traditions.
Alongside these general likenesses, however, a host of noteworthy differences have
also emerged. Perhaps most striking is the divergence of the order in which some of Noahs
sons and grandsons are presented. These are laid out in the following chart:


502
Cf. especially the two works common use of the terms first gulf, second gulf, and third gulf to
speak of the Aegean, Adriatic, and Tyrrhenian Seas to distinguish between the allotments of Japheths sons
Javan, Tubal, and Meshech.
273
TABLE 3:
THE ORDER OF THE EARTHS DIVISION IN THE GENESIS
APOCRYPHON AND JUBILEES

Genesis Apocryphon 16-17
Noahs Sons
Japheth (?-16.12)
Shem (16.14-25)
Ham (16.26-?)
_____________________
[Hams Sons?]
[Cush]
[Egypt]
[Put]
[Canaan]
Shems Sons
Elam (17.7-8)
Asshur (17.8)
Aram (17.9)
Lud (17.9-11)
Arpachshad (17.11-14)
Japheths Sons
Gomer (17.16)
Magog (17.16)
Madai (17.17)
Javan (17.17)
Tubal (17.17-18)
Meshech (17.18)
[Tiras] (17.18-19)




Jubilees 8:8-9:15
Noahs Sons
Shem (8:11-21)
Ham (8:22-24)
Japheth (8:25-29)
_____________________
Hams Sons
Cush (9:1)
Egypt (9:1)
Put (9:1)
Canaan (9:1)
Shems Sons
Elam (9:2)
Asshur (9:3)
Arpachshad (9:4)
Aram (9:5)
Lud (9:6)
Japheths Sons
Gomer (9:8)
Magog (9:8)
Madai (9:9)
Javan (9:10)
Tubal (9:11)
Meshech (9:12)
Tiras (9:13)




Genesis 10
Noahs Sons
Japheth
Ham
Shem
_____________________
Hams Sons
Cush
Egypt
Put
Canaan
Shems Sons
Elam
Asshur
Arpachshad
Lud
Aram
Japheths Sons
Gomer
Magog
Madai
Javan
Tubal
Meshech
Tiras
274
When placed beside each other in this way two major discrepancies in sequence are
evident between the Apocryphon and Jubilees. The first occurs in the initial section dealing
with Noahs sons, where the Apocryphon, Jubilees, and Genesis each have a different order.
The second is in the succession Asshur-Aram-Lud-Arpachshad in the subdivision of Shems
sons, again with three different arrangements represented.
503
The question to be asked is
whether these differences are of any real significance, or are simply arbitrary. In this case it
is quite plain that both the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees are organized according to a
central guiding principle, and that these principles are not the same.
In the Genesis Apocryphon Noahs progeny are consistently listed directionally,
following their placement on the Ionian map. During the initial division Noahs sons are
listed from north to south (or left to right on the ancient map, which is quite literally
oriented, with east at the top): Japheth, Shem, and Ham. For the secondary division
among the grandsons this order is likely reversed, now moving in a chiasmic manner from
south to north: Ham, Shem, and Japheth. All of the grandsons, with a few necessary
exceptions, are listed from east to west (or top to bottom). The placement of Lud in the list
is somewhat flexible since the author makes clear that his allotment runs along the north
edge of three portions belonging to his brothers. The author of the Apocryphon has chosen
to put him in the penultimate position, between Aram and Arpachshad. Japheths sons
must be listed in a two-tier structure, with a northern and a southern group, since their
allotments do not fit as neatly into a successive east-west alignment as the allotments of the

503
In the lower section of the table I have not listed the Noahs sons according to their actual order
for Gen 10 (i.e. Japheth-Shem-Ham, shown in the upper part of the table), but have adapted them to the
sequence employed by the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees (Ham-Shem-Japheth) for comparative purposes.
From this point, whenever referring to the biblical order of names, I am basing myself on the genealogy of Gen
10 (//1 Chr 1:1-17). Cf. VanderKam, Putting Them in their Place, 48-53.
275
sons of Shem and Ham. Finally, Tiras almost certainly received only islands, as in Jubilees,
and is accordingly put at the end of Japheths sons.
In Jubilees the picture is quite different. Here it is obvious that, in general, the
author utilized the standard order of names found in Gen 10, regardless of their placement
on the map.
504
One exception is Jubilees order of Aram and Lud, which has been reversed
from the biblical succession of Lud and Aram in Gen 10:22 (//1 Chr 1:17). While the
biblical versions unanimously place Lud before Aram, Josephus also lists the sons as Jubilees
does,
505
suggesting that Aram-Lud may once have been an alternate order in one of the
Greek recensions. For the initial division among Noahs sons the author chose to follow the
more common biblical sequence of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, instead of the unique order of
Japheth, Ham, and Shem used in the body of Gen 10. The secondary division lists all of the
grandsons in their biblical succession (save Aram and Lud), but the larger structure of the
section deviates from this trend by presenting the groups in the sequence Ham, Shem, and
Japheth (or south to north), as appears to be the case in the Genesis Apocryphon. While
these exceptions produce some incoherence, it remains clear that Jub 8:11-9:15 is based
largely on the biblical taxonomy of Noahs descendents.
As mentioned above, this disagreement in organizing strategies is most clearly seen
in the initial lists of Noahs sons, and the secondary register of Shems sons. Most notable in
the latter group is Arpachshad, who is moved from the middle to the end of the list in the
Apocryphon. We find full agreement between the texts for the sons of Japheth and Ham,

504
Cf. Gen 6:10, 9:18, 10:1; and 1 Chr 1:4 for Noahs sons, and Gen 10 and 1 Chr 1 for his grandsons.
505
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.143-45.
276
since here the two strategies of the Apocryphon and Jubilees overlap they are listed both
according to the biblical arrangement and from east to west.
A second important difference is the brevity of the Genesis Apocryphon when
compared to Jubilees. With the exception of Lud, Arpachshad, and Javan, the extant parts
of the Apocryphon regularly contain shorter and simpler descriptions of each allotment.
Good examples of this are the shares of Elam and Asshur, which include a number of sites
not found in the Genesis Apocryphon, such as the waters of Dedan, the Mebri and Ela
mountains, and the Wadafa River. As Werman has argued, this seems to reveal a more
comprehensive knowledge of geography on the part of Jubilees,
506
especially of those lands
in the eastern regions of middle Asia (from the Tigris into India). This disparity cuts against
the grain of the standard view, espoused by Avigad and Yadin, Fitzmyer, and others, that the
Apocryphon is regularly more expansive than the shorter accounts of Jubilees and 1 Enoch.
It also adds another important example to Nickelsburgs earlier caution that such expansion
is not always the case.
Finally, there are numerous other differences between Jubilees and the Genesis
Apocryphon regarding geographic details, toponyms, and formulaic language. Taken
individually most of these discrepancies are not of great significance. However, when
viewed together they become quite impressive, and demonstrate a sustained divergence in
how the allotments are portrayed. Some of the most important examples of this are:

i. Japheths portion being described in opposite directions, and with different points of
orientation (Gadera vs. the northeast end of the Tina River)

506
Werman, , 281.
277
ii. The direction west and the Tigris River being mentioned only in the Genesis
Apocryphons description of Asshurs allotment
iii. The Genesis Apocryphon including Mt. Ararat and not mentioning the Tigris or
Euphrates in Arams portion
iv. The Apocryphons reference to the Eastern Sea and three portions to the south in
its description of Luds share
v. Jubilees absence of valleys and plains, coastlands, or Mt. Ararat in Arpachshads
allotment
vi. Javans reception of mainland Greece in the Genesis Apocryphon
vii. The variation in geographic terms, such as the Apocryphons independent use of the
Great Salt Sea, the Reed Sea ( ), the land irrigated by the Euphrates, and
probably Mt. Taurus; or Jubilees exclusive use of Farnak, Sak, Babel, Shinar, and
several other toponyms
viii. Formulaic use of the phrase and after him () in the Apocryphon to introduce
most grandsons

Based on the above observations, what are we to make of the relationship between
these passages? If one were to presume a direct literary connection between the two texts
(i.e. one had direct access to a copy of the other and borrowed from it for its own
composition) the balance must tip in favor of the Genesis Apocryphon being the earlier
work. There are at least four factors that argue for this position:

i. Regarding the differences in order, it seems more likely that the later, dependent text
would correct toward the order of sons and grandsons found in Gen 10, rather than
278
away from it. Thus, it easier to envision Jubilees taking the directional account of the
Apocryphon and re-presenting it according to the biblical arrangement than vice
versa.
ii. The fact that the Genesis Apocryphon is typically shorter than Jubilees may be seen
as an argument for its priority. As noted in the first chapter, however, respected
scholars have used the relative length of a text to argue both sides of this issue
both that the shorter text is earlier (del Medico, Fitzmyer) and that it is later (Avigad
and Yadin, Vermes). This should stand as a warning to exercise caution in placing
too much emphasis on the relative length of an account.
507
It seems that in each case
a most important factor to consider is the broader setting and goals of each text
under discussion. It is not entirely surprising, for example, that Jubilees condenses
the Enochic story of the Watchers, since this is not a major focus or concern of his
work. One would be hard pressed to find a commentator who argues that because
Jubilees is shorter in this case, it is also earlier than the Book of Watchers. In the
present case, however, we would be surprised if a work like the Genesis Apocryphon
(so obviously focused on the topic of geography and Noahs role as divider of the
earth throughout the scroll) would pass over the additional geographic and
theological material of Jubilees.
iii. A related matter is the greater simplicity of the descriptions in the Apocryphon,
which regularly exhibits less geographic specificity and elaboration than Jubilees. A
logical inference from this phenomenon, especially given the scrolls geographic

507
One wonders if perhaps the text-critical maxim lectio brevior lectio potior has had too much influence
on some in this debate.
279
bent, is that its author was working with more rudimentary geographic knowledge
than the author of Jubilees.
iv. A relatively unexplored aspect of Jub 8:11-9:15 is its inclusion of what may be called
theological and geographic add-ons. The prime example of this is Jub 8:17-21,
which is appended to the geographic description of Shems allotment and recasts it
in hyperbolic, theological terms. While a study of this passage is beyond our
purview, this passage has the feel of an authorial observation interpolated into the
otherwise orderly structure of Noahs distribution an added commentary of sorts
on the blessedness and excellence of Shems portion.
508
The aside about Shems
inheritance of the islands of Kamaturi in Jub 9:13 may be another such addition, as
Charles assumed.
509
A less certain example is the brief statement about the climate
of each sons region in Jub 8:30.
510
It is relatively clear that the Genesis Apocryphon
has neither the first or second of these passages, again attesting to the shorter,
simpler quality of its account. That Jubilees added some additional comments to the
less cluttered Apocryphon seems the more plausible scenario.

Of course, it would be preferable to base an argument for the priority of the Genesis
Apocryphon on a firmer foundation, since none of these points can be judged conclusive
evidence. Added to this is the perennial caveat concerning the fragmentary state of the

508
This passage should be read alongside Jub 4:26, which lists four places on earth that belong to the
Lord: the Garden of the Eden, the mountain of the east, Mt. Sinai, and Mt. Zion.
509
Charles, The Book of Jubilees, 77.
510
I am not suggesting that these passages are interpolations placed into a simpler form of Jubilees at
some secondary stage of the book, but that the original author may have included these comments as further
explanation of an earlier, less adorned version of the earths division, such as that in the Genesis Apocryphon.
280
Apocryphon. Still, when viewed together these four factors place the onus on anyone who
would argue that Jubilees contains the earlier account. For this to be the case, the author of
the Genesis Apocryphon must have had sufficient motive to change the biblically-based
order of Jubilees, shorten and simplify the descriptions of most allotments, and pass over
Jubilees theological observations, which would have suited his overall program quite nicely.
The latter points may be countered by a supposed desire on the authors part to preserve
parchment, but this is a somewhat unsatisfactory argument and does nothing to address the
question of order.
But should we assume that the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees are directly related?
The numerous discrepancies in order, direction, length, geographic terminology, and other
details point away from this theory. A more plausible and satisfying conclusion is that both
works depend on a common source or tradition, and that each drew from it in their own
unique way. The evidence strongly suggests that this source was cartographic, and not
textual, as Alexander and others have already supposed.
511
If both authors obtained their
information from a similar (or the same) map, it would have been perfectly natural for each
to list the sons and grandsons according to different principles, or to describe allotments in
different directions, with different starting points, and in slightly different ways. This
explanation would also lead us to expect the large extent of agreement exhibited between the
Apocryphon and Jubilees.
One discrepancy that remains unaccounted for under the common map theory is the
variation and independence in geographic terminology. Perhaps each author had access to a

511
Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 197; idem, Geography and the Bible, 2.982; Schmidt,
Jewish Representations, 127-28; Scott, Paul and the Nations, 23-24. For some of the evidence of early maps
see Chapter 3, n. 228.
281
different map (but drafted according to the same basic scheme), each of which used slightly
alternate terms for certain features. Most disagreements, however, can be explained by the
supposition that Jubilees either supplemented the maps sites based on a more extensive
knowledge of (primarily eastern) geography, or simply included more of the maps
information in his account. The Apocryphons distinctive terms (with the exception of Mt.
Taurus) can be explained as originating from elsewhere in the Bible (e.g. ), or by
common reasoning (e.g. the land irrigated by the Euphrates). In any case, there is no
doubt that theorizing a common map, or map tradition, behind both of our texts best
accounts for the odd pastiche of similarities and differences laid out above.
If one accepts that an actual map lay behind both the Genesis Apocryphon and
Jubilees, it is worth asking what this map may have looked like. As in the reconstructed map
provided earlier in this chapter and the earlier reconstructions of Hlscher, Alexander, and
Schmidt,
512
it seems safe to assume that the earth was depicted as a circle (or, less likely, an
oval) surrounded by an encompassing body of water. That is to say, the basic design of the
map was Ionian. The terrestrial disk would have been penetrated in its center by the Great
Sea, from which branched the Tina and Gihon rivers to the northeast and southeast
respectively, dividing the circle into three roughly equal portions. Onto this basic layout the
sons and grandsons of Noah from Gen 10 were likely inscribed, each in the general
geographic region corresponding to his (re-)assigned allotment. It is clear that a number of
major landmarks must have been indicated by an illustration and an accompanying written
legend. These would have included features such as the Maeota Sea, Mt. Taurus, Mt. Ararat,
Karas, the Erythrean Sea, and others. These points of orientation were then used by our

512
All three may be found in either Schmidt, Jewish Representation, 122-23; or VanderKam,
Putting Them in Their Place, 64-65.
282
two authors to convert the map into a written account by way of an organized description of
each heirs allotted territory. As Alexander has noted, there were plenty of discrepancies
between this map and Gen 10,
513
and the former must be understood as a remarkable
example of theologically and politically motivated biblical exegesis rather than an attempt to
accurately portray the biblical Table of nations (for which one should look to Josephus or
the Targums). Ironically, this was achieved with the extensive aid of Hellenistic geographic
science. The influx of Greek knowledge, influence, and domination following the campaign
of Alexander the Great in 333 B.C.E. must have laid the groundwork for this creative fusion
of the Ionian conception of the earth, Judean politico-religious ideology, and the esteemed
book of Genesis. With the Greeks must have come their maps, and it was only a matter of
time before some disgruntled groups in Judea utilized these toward their own ends by
producing a cleverly revised adaptation.
With the common map theory in mind we may readdress the question of which text
might be earlier. Of the four factors leading to the above suggestion that the Genesis
Apocryphon should be considered earlier if a direct relationship is assumed, at least two still
apply here. The fact that the Genesis Apocryphon is shorter and simpler continues to bear
some weight, especially considering the scrolls interest in geographical matters (at least as
they relate to the Israelites). Connected to this are the additional, and rather exotic,
toponyms included by Jubilees that are not present in the Apocryphon. As suggested by
Werman, these seem to reflect a more developed geographic lexicon on behalf of Jubilees.
Of course, it is entirely possible that two contemporaneous authors in slightly different
situations had varied levels of geographic knowledge, or even that the author of the

513
Alexander, Notes on the Imago Mundi, 200.
283
Apocryphon wrote after Jubilees but was simply less educated in distant eastern topography.
Yet the fact that both authors wrote exegetical treatments of Genesis in Judea and harbored
some of the same concerns lessens this possibility appreciably. At present it seems best to
assign this part of the Apocryphon chronological priority.
A concluding point worthy of brief comment is the divergent portrayal of the
portion of Javan in each work. Is it of any significance that the Apocryphon apportions
Javan mainland Greece while Jubilees does not? This certainly appears to mark Jubilees (or,
perhaps, its source) with a greater disdain for the Greeks an unsurprising deportment if its
author was writing in the wake of the recent Antiochean persecutions and during the
ongoing upheaval of the Hasmonean revolt and expansion efforts. Should the fact that the
Apocryphons author does not deprive Javan of the Greek Peninsula cause us to place him
in a different social or historical situation? The very premise of earths division and its
presupposed map belies a concern over Israelite rights to the Levant, and foreign
domination would naturally lead to this position. But foreign domination was not an
infrequent occurrence in Judea. A date in the Roman period (after 63 B.C.E.) is quite
unlikely for a number of reasons, which will be enumerated in the concluding chapter. A
date preceding Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Hasmoneans is more tenable, but the
question persists whether this would provide a setting more amicable toward the Greeks.
Ultimately, a date either before the Antiochean persecutions (perhaps the post-Ptolemaic
feudal wars between the diadochoi [c. 223-187 B.C.E.], during which the Judeans must have
felt entirely helpless?) or after their memory had faded somewhat under Hasmonean rule
seems slightly preferable, but must remain little more than an educated guess at present.
As a final caveat, it should be stated that an earlier date for the Genesis
Apocryphons division of the earth section does not necessarily imply that the work as a
284
whole is earlier than Jubilees. Flusser has argued that the authors of works like these drew
freely from a variety of traditions, adding or subtracting from each as their purposes and
preferences dictated,
514
and this seems a valid enough statement. Hence, the author of the
Apocryphon may easily have adopted an early version of the earths division and left it
relatively unchanged. Yet until proven otherwise, and in lieu of other case studies of the sort
undertaken here, the nature of the parallel passages treated in this chapter point toward the
Apocryphon as the earlier of our two works.














514
Flusser, Kirjath Sepher ( ) 32, 382-83.
285



CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

In light of the preceding chapters, we may now close with a reappraisal of some of
the issues surveyed in Chapter 1. The topics to be covered in this chapter are: 1.) the
exegetical nature of the Genesis Apocryphon, and 2.) its provenance and date of
composition. An ancillary goal is to provide an apt summary of the main points that have
emerged in earlier chapters.

5.1. The Exegetical Nature of the Genesis Apocryphon
The author of the Genesis Apocryphon rewrote at least parts of the book of
Genesis, in Aramaic, guided by a demonstrable modus operandi and influenced by several
distinctive topics of interest. While some portions of his rewriting overlap with elements of
the Enochic corpus (e.g. 1 En 106-107 and the Book of Giants) and the Book of Jubilees
(e.g. the chronology of Abram and Sarai in Egypt and the division of the earth), the fruit of
our authors labor is unique, and almost never matches these other works precisely.

5.1.1. Relationship to Genesis
Much of the scroll reflects a very loose take on what would much later be called the
canonical Genesis. Some may contend that such exegetical flexibility calls into question the
shape and authoritative status of Genesis in the few centuries preceding the Common Era,
but this notion does not appear to gain support from the Genesis Apocryphon. As argued
286
in Chapters 3 and 4, both Noahs dream and the earths division among his children are best
understood as interpretive reworkings, intended to alleviate difficulties in Genesis. That is,
the Genesis Apocryphon is biblical interpretation. This is most evident in the way that the
above two episodes straighten out perceived difficulties with Canaan (not Ham) being
cursed in Gen 9:25, Shem apparently not receiving the Levant in Gen 10, and the nominally
justified obliteration of the Canaanites exhorted in the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua.
All of these factors impacted the Apocryphons exegetical deportment, and were woven
together with its strong conviction about the Israelites exclusive right to the Land of Israel.
All of this presupposes a form of Genesis at least akin to our major versions (LXX, MT, SP),
which was venerated enough to warrant an interpretative rewriting. In addition to these
larger interpretive issues, the scroll appears to make exgetical adjustments at a more detailed
level, such as its explanatory substitution of for in GenAp 21.32 (Gen 14:9).
515


5.1.2. Exegetical Unevenness: Noah and Abram
There is wide variation in the extent to which the Apocryphon treats the different
parts of Genesis. This is most evident in its dissimilar handling of the Noah and Abram
narratives. In fact, were these two parts of the scroll preserved on different manuscripts,
and in two different scribal hands, it is conceivable that they would be considered two
different works.
The Noah section is supplemented with an astounding amount of extra-biblical
material, to the point that the narrative as we know it from Genesis nearly disappears
(although the fragmentary state of the scroll may contribute to this perception). The Abram

515
Cf. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 44.
287
columns, however, contain much less expansion, intimating that traditions attached to this
patriarch were less developed at the time when the scroll was written, at least within the
particular circles in which the Apocryphon was produced. Whatever the situation, the
scrolls author pays far more attention to Noah. Significantly, almost all of the extra-biblical
information pertaining to Abram is unique, and did not find its way into later traditions. The
same cannot be said for the Noah section.
The question of different sources for the two sections is one deserving of further
study.
516
Significant differences beyond the extent of exegetical expansion appear to exist,
such as variation in Aramaic syntax and the use of divine epithets.
517
There are, however,
numerous connections as well, such as the employment of symbolic dreams and the shared
geographic concern discussed in the preceding chapters. If different written sources do
underlie the text (which would be unsurprising), they have been carefully woven together by
our author.

5.1.3. The Exalted Status of Noah (and Abram)
Noahs immensely righteous status is a striking feature of the Genesis Apocryphon.
His exaltation is, in fact, unrivaled by any other work from the Second-Temple or rabbinic
periods of Judaism.
518
The one event that is either omitted, neutralized, or understood
negatively by nearly every other ancient exegete (Noahs drunken episode) is creatively

516
See the early comments of P. Winter, Das aramische Genesis Apokryphon, TLZ 82 (1957) 257-
62 [260]. Cf. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 34.
517
The latter point has been raised by Moshe Bernstein in personal communication, and is indeed
striking. I look forward to his upcoming publication on this topic.
518
For the sources see VanderKam, The Righteousness of Noah; and my article, Noah, in the
Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; forthcoming).
288
turned into a positive by the Apocryphon by converting the story into a locus of the divine
revelation of heavenly mysteries. Even Enochs presence in the scroll seems to be
supportive of Noah, pointing forward to the righteous planting to come (cf. GenAp 6.1-
2). It is clear that messianic expectations and an Urzeit-Endzeit typology are at play in Noahs
depiction, with his setting in history and divinely mandated role constituting a
foreshadowing of things to come again in the future.
519

While Noahs premier status is among the most distinctive aspects of the scroll, he is
not the only patriarch to receive a makeover. Abram is also the beneficiary of a very positive
image, a fact evident in his reception of a symbolic dream on the cusp of entering Egypt.
The dream is quite plainly intended to clear Abram of all selfish or malicious intent in asking
Sarai to act as his sister during their stay by attributing the impetus for this move to the Lord
himself. One might justifiably ask the author if the decision reflects any better on the Lord
than it does Abram, but at least all culpability is removed from the latter (and we may safely
assume that such a divine mandate was considered well beyond questioning). In general,
then, the author of the Genesis Apocryphon was interested in presenting all of the
patriarchs, and especially Noah, in a most blameless light.

5.1.4. Apocalypticism and Heavenly Wisdom
The messianic and Urzeit-Endzeit themes inherent in Enochs prophetic portrayal of
Noah have already been noted. These and other factors indicate that the author and
authorizing community of the Genesis Apocryphon embraced an apocalyptic worldview.
520


519
For similar motifs in Jubilees see Scott, Geography in Early Judaism, 35 (esp. n. 53).
520
So Ligne, Les Textes de Qumran, 2.211-12.
289
This is perhaps seen most clearly in Noahs dream-visions in cols. 6-7 and 13-15, both of
which may properly be termed apocalypses. The outlook was one that viewed history as
moving imminently toward a (second) cataclysmic judgment and placed a premium on the
divine mysteries (),
521
which were revealed to a succession of righteous individuals
through angelically mediated visions. Significant in these dream-visions was a cache of
heavenly wisdom, identified by the author with true righteousness in the eyes of the Lord.
In a number of Second-Temple period Jewish works this wisdom was viewed to have passed
through an impeccably pedigreed chain of individuals, within which Enoch, Noah, Shem,
and Abram figured as important links. In GenAp 19.24-29 Abram is depicted as a purveyor
of this divine wisdom to Pharaohs courtiers, which may have been an etiological attempt to
explain any useful wisdom found in Egyptian circles at the time of the scrolls formulation.
This reserve of knowledge was apparently broad, notably including calendrical, sacrificial,
and medical (apotropaic) teachings.

5.1.5. Dreams
Dream-visions are the preferred mode of divine revelation in the scroll.
522
They are
often, but not always, symbolic. Both Noah and Abram experience such dreams, although
Abrams pair is of a slightly different type. In the first dream (GenAp 19:14-21) he does not
receive an angelic interpretation, as in both of Noahs visions, but rather deciphers its
meaning himself. His second vision is not symbolic, relating directly the dimensions of the
Promised Land without the mediation of symbolism, or its related angelic interpretation.

521
Cf. the recently completed doctoral dissertation of S. I. Thomas, The Revelation of the raz in the Dead
Sea Scrolls: Cosmic and Earthly Dimensions (Ph.D. diss.; University of Notre Dame, 2007).
522
See GenAp 6-7; 13-15; 19.14-21; and 21.8-14.
290
Indeed, Abrams dreams do not deal with the transcendental divine mysteries, as Noahs do,
but rather see to the more pressing exigencies of his physical wellbeing in Egypt, and the
allotted borders of his land (cf. the connection to Noah in GenAp 11.15-20). The absence
of all of these dreams in Jubilees constitutes a considerable departure from the Apocryphon,
and attests to Jubilees reticence to embrace this mode of revelation.

5.1.6. Rights to the Land of Israel
The right of Israelites to inhabit and rule over the Land of Israel i.e. the region
allotted to Arpachshad during the earths division was of extreme importance to our
author. Chapter 3 outlined the breadth of this motif in the Genesis Apocryphon, and its far
more truncated presence in Jubilees. Indeed, the Apocryphon is peerless in its emphasis on
Noahs authorized position as the apportioner of the habitable earth. The stress placed on
original rights to the land seems most plausibly to reflect a social situation where the
authorizing community felt either threatened by foreign domination and/or criticism, in
which case it fills a retaliatory and paraenetic function, or a need to justify and propagandize
its own right to rule. Of course, these two options are not mutually exclusive, and could
have operated at the same time.

5.1.7. Hellenistic Influence
Like Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon displays a considerable amount of Greek
influence. Most significant in both works are their heavy indebtedness to the Ionian world
map a dependence explored at length in Chapter 4. Other possible examples occur during
Abrams exploits in Egypt and Canaan, such as the use of the name Hyrcanus ( ) for
291
one of Pharaohs nobles,
523
the description of Sarais beauty in GenAp 20.2-8,
524
and the
association of King Arioch with Cappadocia () in Asia Minor (21.23).
525
These factors
speak to an interaction with Hellenistic science and culture, and, together with the preceding
points, reveal a composition far from the unbiased, fresh, and simplistic work described by
Vermes and others.
526
The presence of these Greek elements provides a very early terminus
post quem for the scroll of approximately the early 3
rd
cent. B.C.E. Presumably, this is the
earliest we could expect the penetration of Hellenistic geographic science into Judea
(probably via one of the outlying Greek cultural centers, such as Samaria, Gaza, or
Alexandria).

5.1.8. Purpose
Why was the Genesis Apocryphon written? As mentioned earlier, one might ask
whether works now dubbed rewritten Bible, or parabiblical, were originally intended to

523
GenAp 20.8. See the important discussion of Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 197-99. J. H. A.
Hart (in The Encyclopdia Britannica; 11
th
ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1910, 14:210) suggests that
Hyrcanus ((p|ovo ) is a Greek surname, of unknown origin, borne by several Jews of the Maccabaean
period. That the name is of Greek origin uncertain, especially since the lexeme hur (up) is not typical at the
beginning of Greek names. Contra Hart, Hyrcanus seems to be a primary or alternate/secondary name rather
than a surname. In Josephus there are three individuals bearing the name: 1.) Joseph the Tobiads son, simply
named Hyrcanus (c. 200 B.C.E.; born, interestingly enough, out of an Alexandrian affair; Antiquities 12.186
[Marcus, LCL]); 2.) the Jewish high priest John, son of Simon, who was also called Hyrcanus (high priest c.
135-104; now often referred to as Hyrcanus I; War 1.54 [Thackeray, LCL]); 3.) Hyrcanus, son of Alexander
Jannaeus and Alexandra (high priest c. 79-40 B.C.E.; now typically called Hyrcanus II; War 1.109). Fitzmyer
and others favor John Hyrcanus II as the most likely historical allusion in the Genesis Apocryphon, but there is
really almost no good reason for this. All of the individuals listed above had connections to the Ptolemies of
Egypt, causing one to wonder if the name is actually Egyptian in origin, rather than Greek. The entire topic is
deserving of further study.
524
See S. J. D. Cohen, The Beauty of Flora and the Beauty of Sarai, Helios 8 (1981) 41-53.
525
The Apocryphon is apparently the first to make this association, although there are grounds to
believe that the Hebrew exemplar of the LXX once read as well. See Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon,
231-32.
526
See section 1.2.2.1. in Chapter 1.
292
supplant, or at least be on equal footing with, their eventually victorious canonical
counterparts.
527
If so, books like Jubilees and 1 Enoch might be considered canonically
challenged, failing to ultimately succeed in their allotted task (at least over the long run). Of
course, it is now virtually impossible to affirm or deny such a question, but we might ask in
response, What did biblical interpretation look like before the method so familiar to us now
i.e. a lemmatized scripture passage followed by a discrete segment of commentary, or
midrash in the rabbinic sense? The first sure instances of this type of exegesis are the
Qumran Pesharim, which appear to be later than most examples of rewritten Bible.
The historical first of the Pesharim, with their distinctive lemmatized structure,
present us with at least three alternatives: 1.) lemmatized commentaries existed before the
Pesharim, but we simply lack any surviving examples of the genre; 2.) everything preceding
the Pesharim was not considered a commentary on the authoritative text of Genesis,
Leviticus, or the like, but was intended as a new and equally authoritative version of it; or 3.)
the so-called rewritten Bible genre actually was how biblical interpretation looked before
lemmatized commentaries existed, and audiences simply knew the difference between the
authoritative text (e.g. Genesis) and the text interpreting it (e.g. the Genesis Apocryphon). I
tend to view the Genesis Apocryphon, and the rewritten Bible genre more generally, as a
combination of points 2 and 3. The Pesharim, and even more so the rabbinic midrahim,
attest to the concretization of what may be termed Scripture, or Bible a text which claims
ultimate authority over all others (or under which all others are subsumed). Here the
distinction between Scripture and interpretation was sharp, and little ambiguity existed. The
line was much fuzzier with works like the Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, and Pseudo-Philos

527
Cf. the discussion in section 1.2.1. of Chapter 1.
293
Biblical Antiquities, but this does not mean there was no line at all. Rewritten Bible seems to
be an interpretive genre standing between the halcyon days of interbiblical exegesis, when
the scriptures were still relatively open to change, and the dawn of lemmatized commentary
with pesharim-type texts.
The Genesis Apocryphon is an exegetical work based on the book of Genesis.
Standing at a crossroads in scriptural interpretation, it was meant to be read alongside the
authoritative text, and not instead of it. It filled perceived gaps in information, addressed
interpretative perplexities, and drew (or manufactured) explicit connections between varied
events or persons in the narrative. Based on its particular theological and ideological
concerns, it also emphasized certain themes, characters, or events, and even revised certain
stories. In short, the scroll provided its constituency the proper lens through which to read
Genesis. While the nature and purpose of the Apocryphon greatly resemble the Book of
Jubilees, the preceding chapters have shown that its characteristic methods and concerns
share less commonality.

5.2. Provenance and Date
A number of factors have exerted considerable influence on the now standard dating
of the Genesis Apocryphon to the 1
st
century B.C.E. Several of these now appear to be
founded on false or outdated assumptions, and so the time is ripe to readdress the topic in
light of our findings.

5.2.1. The Judean Sitz im Leben
The Genesis Apocryphon has commonly been considered a product of Judea. For
some this was rooted in an assumption that the scroll was written by the Essenes at Qumran,
294
but this has rightly been questioned (see below). A more solid reason for locating the
scrolls composition in Judea is the geographic knowledge that it reflects. Noteworthy in this
regard is the double mention of Ramat-Hazor in GenAp 21-8-9, which Bardtke justifiably
labeled palstinisches Lokalkolorit.
528
Other toponyms suggest an intimate familiarity with
the geography of this part of the Levant, such as the unique use of the Great Valley (
) to refer to the Jordan Valley in GenAp 22.4,
529
the mention of an unknown people
group (the Zumzam) in Ammon in GenAp 21.29,
530
and the qualification that the Valley of
Shaveh, which is the Valley of the King in Gen 14:17 also goes by the name the Valley of
Bet-Hakerem.
531
That the author knew the hitherto unattested name of the easternmost
branch of the Nile Delta (the Carmon []; GenAp 19.11) is also striking, and together
with the possibly Egyptian origin of the name Hyrcanus may suggest some familiarity with
Lower Egypt as well. One might also call attention to the observation of Kutscher and
Fitzmyer that the Aramaic employed by the scroll shows affinity with other Western
dialects,
532
or the many connections with other Jewish works widely regarded to be of Judean
origin (e.g. Jubilees and the Enochic literature). When we add that the scroll was discovered

528
H. Bardtke, Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer, 150.
529
Cf. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 241.
530
Ibid, 236. This name is used instead of the biblical Zuzim (; Gen 14:5).
531
Perhaps modern Ramat-Rahel, situated just east of the main road between Jerusalem and
Bethlehem. See Y. Aharoni, Beth-Haccherem, Archaeology and Old Testament Study (ed. D. W. Thomas;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 171-84. This has been challenged, however, by Gabriel Barkay, Royal Palace, Royal
Portrait? BAR 32:05 (September/October 2006). Barkay argues that ancient Beth-Hakerem is in fact modern
Ein-Kerem, which seems quite likely given the evidence.
532
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 36; idem, Aramaic, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols.; ed.
L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; Oxford: Oxford University, 2000) 1:48-51 [50]; and M. Sokoloff,
Qumran Aramaic in Relation to the Aramaic Dialects, The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery:
Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-025, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam;
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Shrine of the Book, 2000) 746-54 [747]. Cf. the statements of Kutscher
to this effect, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, 15.
295
in the Judean Desert there is every reason to believe that the scroll was composed in Judea,
and none to contradict it. There is no cause to doubt a Judean Sitz im Leben.

5.2.2. A non-Qumran (but Qumran-friendly) Work
The Judean origins of the scroll make it theoretically possible that it was composed
by the faction of Essenes still considered by most scholars to have resided at Khirbet
Qumran.
533
As seen in Chapter 1, a number of early commentators took this stance,
534
but it
has subsequently been almost totally abandoned. There are at least two sound reasons for
this retreat. First, as Fitzmyer has argued at some length, there is nothing in this text that
clearly links it with any of the known beliefs or customs of the Qumran sect.
535
One might
add that a work not originating with the group responsible for the Qumran sectarian
literature does not necessarily mean that it is not Essene,
536
since the Essenes appear to have

533
I continue to stand in the camp of F. M. Cross, J. C. VanderKam, E. C. Ulrich, D. Dimant, E. Tov,
and many others, who consider the so-called sectarian scrolls to have been produced by a faction of Essenes
(either celibate or married, it is difficult to tell) living at Qumran. This hypothesis, however, has been
repeatedly questioned, most recently (and most competently) by Yizhak Magen. See Y. Magen and Y. Peleg,
Back to Qumran: Ten Years of Excavations and Research, 1993-2004, Qumran, the Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Brown University, November 17-19, 2002 (ed.
K. Galor, J-. B. Humbert, and J. Zangenberg; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 55-113. Cf. H. Shanks, Qumran the
Pottery Factory, BAR 32:5 (2006). The debate is somewhat tertiary to the present discussion, since the real
question is not whether the Genesis Apocryphon was composed by monk-like Essenes along the shore of the
Dead Sea, but whether it was written by those who produced the sectarian literature (e.g. the Community Rule
texts, the War Scroll, the Cave 4 instruction texts, etc.).
534
See the discussion of the scrolls literary genre in Chapter 1. This opinion also appears to be
presupposed by F. Garcia Martinez (Qumran and Apocalyptic, 140-41), when he says the mention of Mt. Lubar
here [4QpsDan
b
] and in the narrative of the deluge in 1QapGn XII, 10-13, gives the impression that it
constitutes a Qumranic tradition.
535
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 23. This is a marked departure from the position held in his
earlier edition (1966), where he favored Essene authorship. Cf. D. Dimant, The Library of Qumran: Its
Content and Character, The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery, 170-76 [176], for a similar view.
536
This, however, is the assumption of Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 22. My understanding of the
sectarian literature is essentially synonymous with that of D. Dimant, Qumran Sectarian Literature, Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2/II; ed. M. E. Stone; Assen: Van Gorcum/Minneapolis: Fortress,
1984) 483-550 [esp. 487-89].
296
been a rather large parent group of those who cordoned themselves off at Qumran. Still,
Jubilees and the Enochic literature were found at Qumran and are not considered sectarian,
and Fitzmyer is justified in placing the Apocryphon alongside these as an imported work.
A second reason to doubt a Qumran origin is the scrolls language of composition.
The Aramaic literature from the Qumran caves simply does not seem to share the same
theological outlook as the Hebrew sectarian literature. This has already been argued by
Segert
537
and Lamadrid,
538
and was later supported by Fitzmyer,
539
Dimant,
540
and others. We
could add to these points Dimants observation that the sectarian literature lacks any
apocalyptic visions of the type found in the Apocryphon,
541
or that the scroll does not
exhibit the traits argued by Tov to constitute a Qumran scribal school.
542

Although the Genesis Apocryphon was not composed by the Essenes of Qumran, it
was certainly read and used there. When considering the theological and ideological tenets
underlying the scroll it becomes clear why this was the case. The Apocryphons apocalyptic
perspective, emphasis on exclusive Israelite rights to the Land of Israel, concern with the
esoteric divine mysteries, interest in calendrical issues (evident in the scant remnants of col.
8), exaltation of the patriarchs, and perhaps even its penchant for dreams and their
interpretations, line up with interests present either in the sectarian literature or outside

537
S. Segert, review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon (1966), JSS 13:2 (1968) 281-83 [282].
538
A. G. Lamadrid, review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon (1966), Estudios bblicos 28 (1969)
168-69 [169].
539
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 24.
540
D. Dimant, Qumran Sectarian Literature, 488. Cf. idem, The Library of Qumran, 175.
541
Ibid.
542
E. Tov, Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School, The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty
Years after their Discovery, 199-216. In further support of the Genesis Apocryphons difference regarding scribal
practices is its unique practice of placing successive letters in the upper, right-hand corner of each parchment
sheet.
297
descriptions of the Essenes (e.g. in Josephus or Pliny the Elder). Hence, there are plenty of
elements in the scroll that could have been embraced by the sect, even if all of its details may
not have suited their needs or tastes.

5.2.3. Is 1Q20 the Autograph of the Genesis Apocryphon?
Some scholars have speculated that the single manuscript on which the Genesis
Apocryphon is preserved (1Q20) may, in fact, be the compositions autograph. This notion
was first proposed by Fitzmyer,
543
and received guarded votes of confidence from Moraldi
544

and Kaufman.
545
If this were the case, dating the scroll would become much easier, since we
could then depend directly on the relatively reliable tools of paleography and Carbon-14 or
Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy dating.
There are, however, multiple reasons to reject this claim. Armin Lange suggested
that the Apocryphon could not be an autograph based on what he considered a gloss in the
description of Sarais beauty in GenAp 20.6,
546
but his case was somewhat deficient.
547
More
convincing are the comments of Hammershaimb
548
and Wise,
549
both of whom give

543
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon (1966), 12, 16 [cf. 2004, 24-25].
544
L. Moraldi, I manoscritti di Qumrn (Turin: Unione Tipografico: Editrice Torinese, 1971) 609.
545
S. A. Kaufman, The Job Targum from Qumran, JOAS 93:3 (1973) 317-27 [327, n. 62].
546
A. Lange, 1QGenAp XIX10-XX32 as Paradigm of the Wisdom Didactic Narrative, Qumranstudien:
Vortrge und Beitrge der Teilnehmer des Qumran seminars auf dem internationalen Treefen der Society der Biblical Literature,
Mnster, 25.-26. Juli 1993 (SIJD 4; ed. H-. J. Fabry, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1996) 191-204 [192].
547
In my opinion, he does not adequately counter the earlier conclusions of VanderKam, The Poetry
of 1QGenAp XX, 2-8a, RevQ 10 (1979-81) 57-66.
548
E. Hammershaimb, On the Method, Applied in the Copying of Manuscripts in Qumran, VT 9:4
(1959) 415-18.
549
M. O. Wise, Thunder in Gemini, 121, n. 58.
298
numerous reasons to doubt that any of the scrolls from the Qumran caves (and, in Wises
case, especially 1Q20) are autographs. Based on their argumentation, the numerous
supralinear additions, scribal corrections, and particularly fine manuscript execution of 1Q20
show beyond doubt that it is not an autograph.
550
Especially determinative is Wises
recourse to known autographs from the Cairo Geniza, which exhibit very different
characteristics than any of the scrolls from the Qumran. To this could be added that those
documents from the Judean Desert that are undoubtedly original compositions are written in
cursive, not formal, square scripts. This suggests that composition was typically done in
cursive and then converted by a professionally trained scribe (in a formal hand) into a scribal
copy. Considering these points, it seems safe to assume that 1Q20 is a copy of an earlier
work. Of course, the distance between the composition and its copy is another matter.

5.2.4. Date of the Present Manuscript (1Q20)
Fitzmyer has already gathered most of the relevant information for dating 1Q20 by
paleographic and other technological means.
551
The various opinions regarding the date of
the Apocryphons script specifically, or the Herodian scripts more generally, are:


550
A pertinent example is the supralinear, exclamatory particle in GenAp 13.14, which is inserted
after the similar particle/conjuction and appears to be in the same hand as the main text. There is no
grammatically compelling reason for this doubling of exclamations, for the phrase makes perfect sense without
the , and is not followed by this word elsewhere in the scroll. The most likely explanation for this
unnecessary word is that it is a correction, based either on an exemplar or the identical phrase in the preceding
line.
551
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 25-26.
299
Author(s) Date
Avigad and Yadin
552
End of 1
st
cent. B.C.E. First half of 1
st
cent. C.E.
Avigad
553
50 B.C.E. 70 C.E.
Milik
554
50 B.C.E. 50 C.E.
Birnbaum
555
Third quarter of 1
st
cent. C.E.
Cross
556
30 B.C.E. 70 C.E.
Burrows
557
First half of 1
st
cent. C.E.
Dupont-Sommer
558
End of 1
st
cent. B.C.E. First half of 1
st
cent. C.E.
Fitzmyer
559
End of 1
st
cent. B.C.E. Beginning of 1
st
cent. C.E.
Beyer
560
Around 0 (i.e. early Herodian)

Cross has never dated the Genesis Apocryphon specifically, but assigned the War
Scroll (1QM) to the early Herodian period (ca. 30-1 B.C.E.).
561
As noted by Avigad, the

552
Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 15, 38 [, ].
553
N. Avigad, The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents, Aspects of the Dead
Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana 4; ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958) 56-87 [71, 74].
554
J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery, 135. Milik does not specify the Genesis Apocryphon as exhibiting
the Herodian script, but clearly places it alongside other manuscripts from this period elsewhere.
555
S. A. Birnbaum, The Hebrew Scripts (2 parts; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 1:150-55 [87B, 87C].
556
F. M. Cross, The Development of the Jewish Scripts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in
Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. G. E. Wright; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965) 169-264 [174].
557
M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking, 1955) 119.
558
A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (trans. G. Vermes; Oxford: Blackwell, 1962;
repr. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973) 281.
559
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 25-26.
560
Beyer, Die aramischen Texte, 165.
561
Cross, The Development of the Jewish Scripts, 176, line 4.
300
script of the Apocryphon closely resembles that of 1QM, and therefore it is likely that Cross
would date both manuscripts to the late 1
st
cent. B.C.E. The tendency to date scripts with
such precision has been criticized by Gregory Doudna, who laid out some of the
shortcomings of this method while affirming its basic usefulness.
562
More broadly, Doudna
has led a charge to shift the dating of the scrolls earlier by approximately a century,
563
but his
views have gained little adherence to date.
The initial radiocarbon date of the Genesis Apocryphon was 2013 32 years (= 73
B.C.E.-14 C.E.).
564
A robust debate has ensued among specialists in the field over the
technical veracity of the initial findings, with a handful of scientists arguing for a slightly later
date than first proposed.
565
These critiques have been responded to in kind, with the above
date still being favored by the majority of researchers.
566
The median date suggested by all of
the studies does not deviate far from the turn of the era. When combined with the

562
G. Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 675-
682. Doudna argues from paleographic, archeological, and radiocarbon evidence that the scrolls date to a
slightly earlier period than that typically accepted (see following note). Cf. G. Doudna, The Legacy of an
Error in Archaeological Interpretation: The Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls Found at Qumran, Qumran, the Site
of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates (ed. K. Galor, J.-B. Humbert, and J. Zangenberg;
Leiden: Brill, 2006) 147-57. The fact that Doudna is not an expert in any of these disciplines gives one pause in
readily accepting his conclusions.
563
See G. Doudna, Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls Found at Qumran: the Case for 63 B.C.E., The
Qumran Chronicle 8:4 (1999).
564
See G. Bonani et al., Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Atiqot 20 (1991) 27-32 [30].
565
See G. A. Rodley, An Assessment of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Radiocarbon 35:2 (1993) 335-38 [337]; and J. Atwill and S. Braunheim, Redating the Radiocarbon Dating of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, DSD 11:2 (2004) 143-157.
566
See I. Carmi, Are the
14
C Dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls Affected by Castor Oil Contamination?
Radiocarbon 44:1 (2002) 213-216 [214]; and J. van der Plicht, Radiocarbon Dating and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A
Comment on Redating, DSD 14:1 (2007) 77-89. Carmi slightly adjusts the calibration used by Bonnai et al.
for the earlier date, resulting in a range of 45 B.C.E.-50 C.E.
301
paleographic dates assigned to the scroll, a date around the late 1
st
cent. B.C.E. for this copy
emerges as most tenable.
567


5.2.5. Language
The final and most decisive recourse for dating the Apocryphon (i.e. its composition,
and not the present copy) has typically been to the philological study of its Aramaic
language.
568
The early and insightful work of Kutscher has been exceedingly influential in
this regard,
569
impacting the proposed date of Avigad and Yadin even before his study had
been published.
570
Kutscher did not enjoy the benefit of working with the entire Aramaic
corpus from the Judean Desert, and was thus forced to use Biblical Aramaic (BA; especially
Daniel) and the Western Aramaic (WA) targum and dialect traditions (especially Targum
Onqelos [TO] and Palestinian Christian Aramaic [CA]) as his main points of orientation.
Curiously, he does not settle on a basic date for any of these, save CA (ca. 500 C.E.). He
supplemented the two ends of his spectrum with other, admittedly distant, reference points,
such as Nabataean and Palmyrene. In the end, the best Kutscher could do with such a
limited body of comparative material was say that the Aramaic of the Apocryphon fell
somewhere between BA and the later TO and CA. Thus, he settled on a date in the 1
st
cent.

567
This date has also been independently suggested, in personal communication, by a Polish
epigrapher of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Dr. Przemyslaw Dec (Department of Jewish Studies, Jagiellonian
University, Krakow). He believes the script to fall toward the earlier end of Avigads proposed spectrum.
568
See, e.g., the statement of Fitzmyer (The Genesis Apocryphon, 27-28), When all these reasons are
considered, they are not very convincing, except for the philological argument of Kutscher. The rest, for what
they are worth, serve merely to confirm his dating
569
Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon.
570
Avigad and Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 38 [-].
302
B.C.E. ( 1
st
cent. C.E.).
571
While judicious and well wrought, the study leaves one wishing
for a more secure mooring by which to date the scroll. Especially helpful would be a
proposed relative date for BA.
A more detailed, comprehensive comparison with Daniel was performed by Rowley
several years after Kutschers article. Although overlooked by some subsequent
commentators, he credibly demonstrated that, [w]hile most of the points that have been
examined could singly sustain no firm argument, their cumulative weight makes it clear that
the language of the scroll is very close to that of the Aramaic parts of the book of Daniel,
though slightly later.
572
He concluded that, [o]n linguistic grounds there is nothing to
preclude a date in the second century B.C., since there is nothing that would require any long
interval between the date of the Aramaic of Daniel and the language of the Genesis
Apocryphon.
573
Similar sentiments were expressed by Black and Fitzmyer.
574
Fitzmyer added
his own linguistic treatment of the scrolls language in his commentary, and ended in
agreement with the conclusions of Kutscher, the Aramaic of this scroll is a representative
of Middle Aramaic and forms a transition between Daniel and later Western Aramaic.
575


571
Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, 22, 28.
572
H. H. Rowley, Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon, Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented
to Godfrey Rolles Driver (ed. D. Winton Thomas and W. D. McHardy; Oxford: Clarendon, 1963) 116-129 [129].
573
Ibid. It should be borne in mind that elsewhere Rowley has argued for a relatively late, 2
nd
cent.
B.C.E. date for the Aramaic of Daniel, which undoubtedly affects how early he is willing to date the
Apocryphons language. H. H. Rowley, The Aramaic of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University, 1929).
574
M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 197-98; Fitzmyer (The Genesis Apocryphon, 35) proclaimed,
it can be seen that the language of the Genesis Apocryphon is not far removed from that of Daniel. When one
allows for Hebraisms in the latter and its fairly clear Masoretic encrustations, the language is otherwise closely
related.
575
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 36.
303
Later studies sought to refine Kutschers verdict as more of the Aramaic texts from
the Judean Desert were published, a task only recently completed.
576
Out of this corpus a
third major point of reference was introduced with the publication of the Job Targum from
Cave 11 (11QtgJob). The original editors sought to fit this scroll into the serological
typology laid out by Kutscher, though they admitted that Il est plus difficile de dterminer
la date, ou la priode de lorigine du texte.
577
They judged, however, that notre targum de
Job soit plus ancient [than the Apocryphon] et que sa garammaire soit plus proche de
laramen de Daniel que du Genesis Apocryphon (1QGenAp).
578
Hence, the Aramaic of the
Job Targum was placed between that of Daniel and the Genesis Apocryphon, resulting in a
suggested date to the second half of the 2
nd
cent. B.C.E. Rather meager comparative
evidence was provided to support this claim, but the shortage was remedied by the later
studies of Kaufman
579
and Sokoloff.
580
Kaufman offered some astute comments, such as his
suggestion that 1QapGen and 11QtgJob represent two different literary Aramaic
traditions:
581


The first, represented by the Job Targum, is chronologically closer to Official
Aramaic but less imitative of it. The second, as in the Genesis Apocryphon, is more
distant but more imitative, at least as regards certain specific features. The

576
A desideratum in Qumran Aramaic has recently been filled with the grammar of U. Schattner-
Rieser, Laramen des manuscripts de la mer Morte: 1. Grammaire (Instruments pour ltude des Langues de lOrient
Ancien 5; Prahins: ditions du Zbre, 2004).
577
Le Targum de Job de la Grotte XI de Qumrn (ed. J. P. M. van der Ploeg, A. S. van der Woude, and B.
Jongeling; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 3.
578
Ibid, 4.
579
Kaufman, The Job Targum from Qumran.
580
M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1974) 9-26.
581
Kaufman, The Job Targum from Qumran, 326.
304
relationship between these two traditions remains unclear, but it does not appear to
be merely a matter of straight-line development.

Kaufman ultimately shifted the date of the Job Targums Aramaic to the 1
st
cent. B.C.E., and
that of the Apocryphon to the 1
st
cent. C.E. This modification, however, was based firmly
on a supposition that the Aramaic of Daniel must be fixed around the middle of the 2
nd
cent.
B.C.E. Sokoloff, marshalling a good deal of linguistic data, essentially agrees with the earlier
dates of Kutscher and the Targums original editors.
582

From the above studies a standard litany of linguistic traits has emerged, which has
been used to determine the relative age of the Aramaic of our scroll. These include
characteristics which argue both for later and earlier dates, with the usual orientation
points being the book of Daniel and the Job Targum. Those in the earlier camp are
generally considered on par with Daniel and earlier than 11QtgJob, while the later group is
thought to postdate both texts. Some common examples are listed below:

Traits suggesting that the Genesis Apocryphon is later than 11QtgJob and Daniel
1. The Apocryphons occasional use of the relative pronoun instead of (roughly
6% of the time). Only the latter is used in BA and 11QtgJob, while predominates
in later dialects.
583
The late date of is now seriously questioned by its presence in
other manuscripts of early works (e.g. 4Q196 [Tobit], 4Q213a [Aramaic Levi
Document], and 4Q201 [Book of Watchers]), and should not be considered decisive.

582
Sokoloff, The Targum to Job, 9.
583
Cf. Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, 6; Rowley, Notes on the Aramaic of
the Genesis Apocryphon, 121; Le Targum de Job, 4; Kaufman, The Job Targum from Qumran 325; Sokoloff, The
Targum to Job, 22; and Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 35.
305
2. The Apocryphon frequently (but not always) employs the demonstrative pronoun
rather than the form () normally found in BA.
584
The only occurrence of this
word in 11QtgJob is the later form . Again, the early use of is now attested in
4Q209 [Astronomical Enoch] and other 3
rd
-2
nd
cent. B.C.E. works.
3. The Genesis Apocryphon employs either or in a number of situations where BA
and 11QtgJob have only , an example being the scrolls mixed use of and (if,
whether). In general, the Apocryphon is not uniform in its use of these two
letters.
585
The form is now attested in 4Q438-39 [Testaments of Judah and
Joseph] as well.
4. The Apocryphon consistently uses a preformative in the causative conjugations
(aphel), rather than the much more dominant of BA and 11Qtg Job (haphel).
586

Kutscher and Sokoloff misleadingly imply that the same phenomenon in the
reflexive/passive itpael/hitpael stem gives further testimony of the Apocryphons
later character. Cook, however, has shown that this example proves quite the
opposite, and would favor an earlier date for the Apocryphon.
587
As it turns out, the
aphel dominates in Qumran Aramaic more generally, even in the earliest texts (e.g.

584
Cf. Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, 4, 17-18; Rowley, Notes on the
Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon, 121; Le Targum de Job, 4; Kaufman, The Job Targum from Qumran 324;
Sokoloff, The Targum to Job, 21; and Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 35.
585
Cf. Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, 4, 19; Rowley, Notes on the
Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon, 118-120; Le Targum de Job, 4; Kaufman, The Job Targum from Qumran
325; and Sokoloff, The Targum to Job, 23.
586
Cf. Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, 4, 18-19; Rowley, Notes on the
Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon, 123; Le Targum de Job, 4; Kaufman, The Job Targum from Qumran 325;
Sokoloff, The Targum to Job, 16; and Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 35.
587
E. M. Cook, Qumran Aramaic and Aramaic Dialectology, Studies in Qumran Aramaic (Abr-
Nahrain, Sup. 3; ed. T. Muraoka; Louvain: Peeters, 1992) 1-21 [13-14]. Also see the distinction in Rowley,
Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon, 123.
306
4Q196 [Tobit], and 4Q209 [Astronomical Enoch]). The haphel seems to be
preserved only as a historical relic.
588

5. The Genesis Apocryphon employs the later form (there) rather than the
earlier , found in both BA and 11QtgJob.
589
As with the above examples, the
later form has now been found in a number of early works from Qumran.

Traits suggesting that the Genesis Apocryphon is earlier than 11QtgJob
1. 11QtgJob employs the nota accusativi (in ) at least once, in addition to one
instance in Daniel 4:22, while the Apocryphon always has the allegedly earlier direct
object marker .
590
is also found in the New Jerusalem texts (4Q554
a
and 5Q15)
and the Wadi Murabaat and Hever contracts, but is otherwise missing from Qumran
Aramaic.
591

2. The Genesis Apocryphon assimilates the letter significantly less than 11QtgJob,
and even BA. It also dissimilates the geminate root and exhibits nasalization
(insertion of the letter ) more often.
592
These have generally been understood as

588
Cf. E. M. Cook, The Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (2 vols.;
ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 2:359-78 [373]; and Schattner-Rieser, Laramen des
manuscripts de la mer Morte, 73-74.
589
Cf. Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, 4; Le Targum de Job, 4; Kaufman, The
Job Targum from Qumran 325; Sokoloff, The Targum to Job, 23.
590
Cf. Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, 20-21; Le Targum de Job, 4 (where one
other instance is reconstructed; XXXIV, 9); Kaufman, The Job Targum from Qumran 325; Sokoloff, The
Targum to Job, 16; and Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 35.
591
Cf. Schattner-Rieser, Laramen des manuscripts de la mer Morte, 103, 121.
592
Cf. Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, 5, 19-20; Rowley, Notes on the
Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon, 125; Le Targum de Job, 4; Kaufman, The Job Targum from Qumran 325;
Sokoloff, The Targum to Job, 17-18.
307
earlier traits, but Fitzmyer has questioned their relevance.
593
They are now
recognized to represent a wider trend in the Aramaic manuscripts from Qumran.
594


These few examples readily demonstrate that the publication and scrutiny of the Aramaic
corpus from the Judean Desert has cast the most compelling factors for a later date of the
Genesis Apocryphon into grave doubt. The orthography of the scroll has occasionally been
discussed as an indicator for relative dating as well, but this too has been seriously
questioned by Cook and Fitzmyer.
595

Although it is frequently left unsettled in the above studies, the date assigned to
Daniels Aramaic plays a critical role in any relative dating of the Genesis Apocryphon or the
Job Targum. While some parts of Daniel were almost certainly penned around the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes (ca. 174-164 B.C.E), it is widely acknowledged that the majority of its
Aramaic chapters are earlier than this.
596
Albright, basing himself on the more exhaustive
work of Wilson,
597
argued that the majority of the Aramaic portions of Daniel originated in
the 3
rd
cent. B.C.E., and that Ezra must have preceded this by around a century.
598


593
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 36, n. 112.
594
Cf. Cook, Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 363; Schattner-Rieser, Laramen des manuscripts de la
mer Morte, 44-45.
595
Cook, Qumran Aramaic, 1-7; idem, Remarks on the Testament of Kohath from Qumran Cave
4, JJS 44:2 (1993) 205-219; Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 36, n. 112.
596
See the helpful sketch of J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 38. Also see
his overview of the Aramaic dating, 13-20.
597
R. D. Wilson, The Aramaic of Daniel, in Biblical and Theological Studies by the Members of the Faculty
of the Princeton Theological Seminary Published in Commemoration of the One Hundredth Anniversary of the Founding if the
Seminary (New York: Scribners, 1912) 261-306.
598
W. F. Albright, The Date and Personality of the Chronicler, JBL 40 (1921) 115-117.
308
Allowances for similar or significantly earlier dates were made by Driver,
599
Rosenthal,
600
and
Kitchen.
601
Most recently, Collins appears to have settled somewhere in the early 3
rd
century
with his judgment that the balance of probability favors a date in the early Hellenistic
period for the Aramaic portions of Daniel.
602
If one sides with the majority in assigning the
brunt of Daniels Aramaic to the early 3
rd
cent. B.C.E. (and Ezras to at least the 4
th
), then
what compelling evidence is there to date the Genesis Apocryphon, which appears to be
only slightly later than Daniel on linguistic grounds, to the 1
st
cent. B.C.E.? Even allowing
for a full century of development the scroll could date to the early 2
nd
cent. B.C.E., and there
is nothing in the scrolls content to preclude such a date. When one digs deeper, however, it
becomes clear that the 1
st
cent. B.C.E. date is based largely on the assumption by some (e.g.
most scholars working on Qumran Aramaic) that the Aramaic of Daniel must date to
around 165 B.C.E., when the book came to a close.
603
Most Daniel scholars would reject
this oversimplistic, late dating.
Alongside these considerations one should factor the following points: 1.) Kutschers
conviction that BA originated from eastern Aramaic (in contrast to the Apocryphon);
604
2.)
the almost timeless quality of the so-called Reichsaramische used by Daniel, which

599
G. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Scribners, 1913 [rev.
ed.]) 502-503.
600
F. Rosenthal, Die aramaistische Forschung seit Th. Nldekes Verffentlichungen (Leiden: Brill, 1939, repr.
1964) 66.
601
K. A. Kitchen, The Aramaic of Daniel, Notes on some Problems in the Book of Daniel (ed. D. J.
Wiseman; London: Tyndale) 31-79.
602
Collins, Daniel, 17.
603
See the similar perplexity at this late date expressed by Cook, Remarks on the Testament of
Kohath, 205-219 [217].
604
Kutscher, The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, 2. Cf. Le Targum de Job, 8-9.
309
changed very little over a several-century stretch (beginning as early as the 6
th
cent. B.C.E.);
605

and 3.) the opinions of several scholars who have voiced legitimate concerns over dating
texts from varied, unknown locales and social circles within a typological series, as Kutscher,
Sokoloff, Kaufman, Fitzmyer, and others have done.
606
This point is especially poignant in
light of solid evidence that several distinct orthographies operated in Qumran Aramaic
around the same time, probably due to slightly different authorial settings or individual
scribal penchants.
607

Together, the above points make clear that a relative date of the Genesis
Apocryphons Aramaic to the 1
st
cent. B.C.E. on linguistic grounds breaks down under
scrutiny. If one were to take seriously the typological placement of the scroll in relation to
BA (and it is not clear that this is the way to proceed), then the date widely agreed upon by
Daniel experts should be used as an orientation point i.e. the early 3
rd
cent. B.C.E.
Theoretically, this would allow for a date as early as the late 3
rd
or early 2
nd
cent. B.C.E., even
when taking into account the Job Targum. However, the most compelling support for a
significantly earlier date comes from other Aramaic texts from Qumran. A number of these
date to the 2
nd
cent. B.C.E. based on paleography and radiocarbon measurement, or are
datable to this period on other grounds, and yet are written in an Aramaic that does not
differ substantially from that of the Apocryphon.
608
Given the culmination of evidence, it

605
See the landmark study of H. H. Schaeder, Iranische Beitrge I, Schriften der Knigsberger Gelehrten
Gesellschaft, geisteswiss. Kl., 6/5 (Halle: Niemeyer, 1930) 199-296.
606
R. I. Vasholz, An Additional Note on the 4QEnoch Fragments and 11QtgJob, Maarav 3 (1982)
115-18; Wise, Thunder in Gemini, 103-151; and Cook, Remarks on the Testament of Kohath, 218-19.
607
Cf. Cook, Remarks on the Testament of Kohath, 218-19.
608
E.g. 4Q201-203 (Book of Watchers, Animal Apocalypse, Book of Giants); 4Q208-209
(Astronomical Enoch); 4Q213-14 (Aramaic Levi); 4Q542 (Testament of Qahat); 4Q543-549 (Visions of
Amram); to name only the earliest manuscripts.
310
seems time to adjust the linguistic terminus post quem of the Genesis Apocryphon from the 1
st

cent. B.C.E. to at least the early 2
nd
cent. B.C.E.

5.2.6. Relationship to Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and Other Works
Fitzmyer has meticulously argued that every attempt to find concrete historical
allusions in the Apocryphon so far has failed to pass muster.
609
Lacking such data, the best
prospects for assigning the scroll a general date remain comparative analyses with other early
Jewish works. This and other studies have stressed the Genesis Apocryphons affinity with
texts like 1 Enoch (including the Book of Giants), Jubilees, the testamentary literature
(especially Levi and Qahat), and even Daniel all works dating from the 3
rd
to 2
nd
cents.
B.C.E. in their original forms. This affinity is evinced in the scrolls literary genre, basic
(apocalyptic) worldview, specific theological concerns, stance on divine revelation, and even
language of composition (with the exception of Jubilees). Put simply, the Genesis
Apocryphon belongs with these texts. To this group might be added many of the
remaining Aramaic texts from Qumran, such as the Amram and Pseudo-Daniel fragments.
The Genesis Apocryphons relationship to Jubilees is mixed. On first inspection
there are a number of striking similarities between the two, as in the case of the earths
division, some chronological details, or the basic literary genre employed. These parallels
certainly speak to some sort of association. Yet, when the related motifs are scrutinized it
becomes clear that they are used in different ways, and to different extents. Along with this
go more basic differences, such as a dissimilar attitude toward apocalyptic visions, disparate
portrayals of Noah, and even different languages of composition. At present, the best

609
Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 26-28 (and throughout his commentary).
311
explanation for this mixture is that both works originated in Judea around same period of
time and drew from a common reserve of exegetical traditions surrounding Genesis. As
argued in Chapter 4, one of the shared sources accessible to both authors seems to have
been a map re-visioning the Table of nations from Gen 10 according to an Ionian scheme
and in concert with a robust apologetic stance on the Land of Israel.
610
However, the
Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees do not appear dependently related in the sense that one
drew directly from the other, and this should encourage the utmost care in using their
parallel passages for relative dating.
A similar picture emerges with regard to the Enochic literature. Again there are
some striking similarities, most noticeably the birth of Noah parallel (GenAp 2-5 and 1 En
106-107). But there are also marked differences in details of the stories and their handling.
In 1 Enoch, the purpose of chapters 106-107 is somewhat ambiguous, although it seems to
be primarily paraenetic, warning its hearers of acting in a way akin to the Watchers and tying
into the surrounding Epistle of Enoch. In the Apocryphon the story functions very
differently, being largely directed toward the exaltation of Noah and his unique, salvific role
in human history. The connection of the Book of Giants to 1 Enoch remains uncertain,
611

but here too we have seen similarities with the Genesis Apocryphon. Although the
relationship between the Enochic corpus and the Apocryphon has not been a focus of the
present study, it is an area highly deserving of further study.
The publication of all of the Genesis Apocryphons extant columns has finally made
it possible to place each of its fragmentary portions within a broader (albeit still patchy)

610
If one were to subscribe to a Book of Noah, it is certain that this tradition was part of it. Cf.
note 82.
611
See Nickelsburg 1 Enoch 1, 8, 11, 172-73.
312
narrative framework. This has revealed what may be the most striking and important
difference between the scroll and the two works with which it is so often compared: the two
most significant parallels (GenAp 16-17//Jub 8:11-9:15 and GenAp 2-5//1 En 106-107) are
much more at home in the Genesis Apocryphon than they are in the other books. We have
seen that the division of the earth in the Apocryphon is the culmination of a process that
begins at Noahs birth, and is stressed multiple times throughout the scroll. Moreover, the
theme continues on with Abram, who is unambiguously cast as Arpachshads geographic
successor. The same cannot be said for Jubilees, where the theme pops onto the
narratological scene for a brief time, and then disappears again. The story of Noahs birth is
even starker. In 1 Enoch these chapters have every indication of being an add-on,
completely unmoored from their surroundings.
612
In contrast, the tale plays several
important roles in the larger narrative structure of the Apocryphon, not least of which is a
heightening of Noahs status and an adumbration of his future roles. If Milik and
Nickelsburg are correct in supposing that 1 En 106-107 uses older Noachic tradition, then it
is likely that GenAp 2-5 looks very much like what was used. In the Genesis Apocryphon
both stories are parts of an organic whole. This is not the case in Jubilees and 1 Enoch.
It is not entirely certain what to make of this phenomenon, but the most logical
conclusion seems to be that the Genesis Apocryphon preserves the stories in their original
setting, while Jubilees and 1 Enoch do not. If this is judged to be the case, we have perhaps
the strongest argument yet for the preliminary suggestion of Avigad and Yadin that the
Apocryphon is an earlier witness to these accounts than other known works.


612
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 539-42.
313
5.2.7. Summary: A Second Century B.C.E. Companion to Genesis
After surveying the evidence, there are a number of factors recommending an early
to mid 2
nd
cent. B.C.E. date for the Genesis Apocryphon, rather than the standard 1
st
cent.
B.C.E. hypothesis:
i. Its fondness of apocalyptic, symbolic dream-visions
ii. The literary genre it employs (rewritten Bible)
iii. The unique portrayal of Noah, which seems to predate the now suppressed Noah
sections of 1 Enoch
iv. The name Hyrcanus (), which probably does not refer to one of the historical
figures mentioned by Josephus, but is only known as a name from the late 3
rd
cent.
B.C.E. (Hyrcanus the Tobiad) to early 1
st
cent. B.C.E. (the Jewish high priest
Hyrcanus II) i.e. the pre-Hasomonean and Hasmonean periods
v. The brevity and simplicity of its account of the earths division in relative to Jubilees
vi. The fact that the parallels with Jubilees and 1 Enoch are more integrated into the
narrative of the Apocryphon
vii. The scrolls apologetic tenor regarding the exclusive Israelite right to inhabit the
Land of Israel, which seems most at home in a pre-Hasmonean or Hasmonean
setting.
None of these points is very convincing on its own, but their cumulative weight is
more significant. In general, the above features demonstrate that the Genesis Apocryphon is
allied most closely with other literature from the 3
rd
-2
nd
cents. B.C.E. it is in this period that
the scroll finds its literary home. Additionally, we have seen that the Aramaic of the
Apocryphon does not stand in the way of a 2
nd
century date. In fact, it may now be possible
to list the scrolls language as one of the factors arguing for this period. I favor a date close
314
to that of Jubilees; perhaps slightly earlier based on points i, v, and vi, as well as its
employment of Aramaic as the language of composition. A safe range would be 200-150
B.C.E, although an earlier date should not be ruled out absolutely.
The Genesis Apocryphon is a remarkably creative and rare example of Second
Temple period Jewish exegesis from the Hellenistic era. At one and the same time it
embraced a Hellenistic understanding of the earth, and used that understanding to advocate
a radical adherence to the Most High God and an exclusive Israelite right to inhabit the
Levant. Along with Jubilees and some other Jewish Hellenistic works it demonstrates how
biblical exegesis transitioned between so-called inter-biblical exegesis and later, lemmatized
commentaries such as the Pesharim (although it was no doubt synonymous with both of
these for a period). Behind our scroll was a community aware of the culture around it, but
eminently concerned to uphold its own traditions and system of beliefs. One can only hope
that with future discoveries in the partially unpublished Aramaic and Syriac corpora we
might find further attestation of some of the Genesis Apocryphons missing pieces, and gain
a yet better understanding of this fascinating text.






315



BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abegg, Martin G., and M. O. Wise. 1Q20 (1QapGen ar). Pages 2-35 in The Dead Sea Scrolls
Reader: Part 3. Parabiblical Texts. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill,
2005.
__________, J. E. Bowley and E. M. Cook, in consultation with E. Tov. The Dead Sea Scrolls
Concordance. 2 Volumes. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Aharoni, Yohanan. Beth-Haccherem. Pages 171-84 in Archaeology and Old Testament Study.
Edited by D. W. Thomas. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967.
Albright, William Foxwell. The Date and Personality of the Chronicler. Journal of Biblical
Literature 41 (1921): 104-124.
Alexander, Philip S. The Toponomy of the Targumim with Special Reference to the Table of Nations and
the Borders of the Holy Land. D. Phil. Thesis, Oxford University, 1974.
__________. Notes on the Imago Mundi of the Book of Jubilees. Journal of Jewish Studies
38 (1982): 197-213.
__________. Retelling the Old Testament. Pages 99-121 in It is Written: Scripture Citing
Scripture. Essays in Honor of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M.
Williamson. Cambridge: Cambrideg University, 1988.
__________. Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish). Pages 978-88 in The Anchor Bible
Dictionary. Volume 2. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
__________. Jerusalem as the Omphalos of the World: On the History of a Geographical
Concept. Pages 104-119 in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam. Edited by L. I. Levine. New York: Continuum, 1999. Repr. from Judaism
46 (1997): 148-63.
Attridge, Harold W., T. Elgvin, J. Milik, S. Olyan, J. Strugnell, E. Tov, J. VanderKam, and S.
White, in consultation with J. C. VanderKam. Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts,
Part 1. DJD XIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
Atwill, Joseph, and Steve Braunheim. Redating the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Dead Sea Discoveries 11:2 (2004): 143-157.
Aune, David E. The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre. Pages 65-96 in Early
Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting. Semeia 36. Edited by A. Yarbro
Collins. Missoula: Scholars, 1986.
316
__________. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987.
Avigad, Nahman, and Yigael Yadin. A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea.
Description and Contents of the Scroll, Facsimiles, Transcription and Translation of Columns II,
XIX-XXII [ . ]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press
and Heikhal ha-Sefer, 1956.
Avigad, Nahman. The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents.
Pages 56-87 in Apects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scripta Hierosolymitana IV. Edited by C.
Rabin and Y. Yadin. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958.
Baillet, Maurice, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. Les petites grottes de Qumrn. DJD III. Oxford:
Clarenon Press, 1962.
Bardtke, Hans. Review of N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon. Theologische
Litaraturzeitung 83 (1958): 343-46.
__________. Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer: Die Sekte von Qumran. Berlin: Evangelische
Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1958.
Barthlemy, Dominique, and J. T. Milik. Qumran Cave 1. DJD I. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955.
Baumgarten, Albert I. Myth and Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29, Pages 55-71 in Christianity,
Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Volume 3. Edited
by J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Bernstein, Moshe J. Re-arrangment, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical
Features in the Genesis Apocryphon. Dead Sea Discoveries 3:1 (1996): 37-57.
__________. Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions. Pages 1-
26 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center 12-14 January 1997.
Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 31. Edited by E. G. Chazon and M. E.
Stone. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
__________. Rewritten Bible: A Generic Category which has Outlived its Usefulness?
Textus 22 (2005): 169-96.
__________. From the Watchers to the Flood: Story and Exegesis in the Early Columns
of the Genesis Apocryphon. Pages 39-64 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related
Texts at Qumran . Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced
Studies Research Group on Qumran, 1517 January, 2002. Studies on the Texts of the
Desert of Judah 58. Edited by E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. A. Clements.
Leiden: Brill, 2005.
__________. Divine Titles and Epithets and the Sources of the Genesis Apocryphon.
Forthcoming article.
317
Beausobre, Isaac de. Histoire critique de Maniche et du Manichisme. 2 volumes. Amsterdam,
1734-39. Repr. by New York: Garland, 1984.
Berggren, J. L., and A. Jones. Ptolemys Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical
Chapters. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Berger, Klaus. Das Buch der Jubilean. Jdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit II.3.
Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus [Gerd Mohn], 1981.
Bergsma, John A. and Scott A. Hahn, Noahs Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan
(Genesis 9:20-27), Journal of Biblical Literature 124.1 (Spring 2005): 25-40.
Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 1-12. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament.
Freiburg: Herder, 2003.
Beyer, Klaus. 1QGenAp: Das Genesis-Apokryphon. Pages 165-186 in Die aramischen
Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palstina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairo
Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1984.
__________. 1QGenAp: Das Genesis-Apokryphon. Pages 68-70 in Die aramischen Texte
vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palstina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairo Genisa,
der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten: Ergnzungsband. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.
__________. 1QGenAp: Das Genesis-Apokryphon. Pages 89-101 in Die aramischen Texte
vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palstina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairo Genisa,
der Fastenrolle un den alten talmudischen Zitanen: Band 2. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2004.
Birnbaum, Solomon A. The Hebrew Scripts. Part 1. Leiden: Brill, 1971.
Black, Matthew. The Recovery of the Language of Jesus. New Testament Studies 3 (1956-
57): 305-13.
__________. The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New
Testament. London: Nelson, 1961.
Bloch, Rene. Midrash. Columns 1263-81 in Supplment au Dictionnaire de la Bible. Volume 5.
Edited by L. Pirot, A. Robert, and H. Cazelles. Paris: Librairie Letouzey et An,
1957.
Bonani, Georges, et al. Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atiqot 20 (1991): 27-
32.
__________. Midrash. Pages 29-50 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice.
Volume 1. Brown Judaic Studies 1. Translated M. Howard Callaway; Edited by W. S.
Green. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978.
318
Brock, Sebastian. Sobria Ebrietas According to some Syriac Texts. ARAM 17 (2005):
181-95.
Brooke, Alan E., and Norman McLean, eds. The Old Testament in Greek, Volume I. The
Octateuch, Part I. Genesis. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress , 1906.
Brooke, George J., J. Collins, P. Flint, J. Greenfield, E. Larson, C. Newsom, . Puech, L. H.
Schiffman, M. Stone, and J. Trebolle Barrera, in consultation with J. C. VanderKam,
Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. DJD XII. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1996.
__________. Rewritten Bible. Pages 777-80 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Volume 2. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; New York: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Broshi, Magen, E. Eshel, J. Fitzmyer, E. Larson, C. Newsom, L Schiffman, M. Smith, M.
Stone, J. Strugnell, and A. Yardeni, in consultation with J. C. VanderKam, Qumran
Cave 4. XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. DJD XIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Brown, Walter E. Noah: Sot or Saint? Genesis 9:20-27, Pages 36-60 in The Way of Wisdom:
Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke. Edited by J. I. Packer and S. K. Sonderland. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Interpretation.
Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1982.
Bunbury, E. H. A History of Ancient Geography among the Greeks and Romans from the Earliest
Ages till the Fall of the Roman Empire. 2 Volumes. London: John Murray, 1879.
Burrows, Millar. The Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking, 1955.
Calvin, Jean. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis. Volume 1. Translated by
Rev. J. King. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948.
Caquot, Andr. Annuaire du Collge de France (1980-81): 508-9.
__________. Supplments Qoumrniens la Gense, Revue dhistoire et de philosophie
religieuses 80 (2000): 339-58.
Carmi, Israel. Are the
14
C Dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls Affected by Castor Oil
Contamination? Radiocarbon 44:1 (2002): 213-216.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Volume 2: From Noah to Abraham.
Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964.
Chabot, Jean-Baptiste. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d'Antioche: 1166-1199. 5
Volumes. Paris: Ernest LeRoux, 1899, 1901, 1905, 1910, and 1924. Repr.1963.
319
Charles, Robert H. The Book of Enoch. Translated from Professor Dillmanns Ethiopic Text. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1893.
__________. The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis. Translated from the Editors Ethiopic Text
and edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices. London: A. & C. Black, 1902.
__________. The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis. Translated from the Ethiopic Text.
Translations of Early Documents, Series I: Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-Rabbinic).
London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917.
Chiesa, Bruno. Biblical and Parabiblical Texts from Qumran. Henoch 20 (1998): 131-33.
Clarke, Ernest G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance. Hoboken, NJ:
Ktav, 1984.
Cohen, H. Hirsch. The Drunkenness of Noah. Judaic Studies 4. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of
Alabama, 1974.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beauty of Flora and the Beauty of Sarai. Helios 8 (1981): 41-53.
Collins, John J. Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre. Pages 1-20 in
Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia 14. Edited by J. J. Collins. Missoula:
Scholars, 1979.
__________. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
__________, and D. C. Harlow. The Dictionary of Early Judaism. 2 Volumes. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, forthcoming.
Cook, Edward M. Qumran Aramaic and Aramaic Dialectology. Pages 1-21 in Studies in
Qumran Aramaic. Abr-Nahrain Supplement 3. Edited by T. Muraoka. Louvain:
Peeters, 1992.
__________. Remarks on the Testament of Kohath from Qumran Cave 4. Journal of
Jewish Studies 44:2 (1993): 205-219.
__________. The Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pages 359-78 in The Dead Sea Scrolls
after Fifty Years. Volume 2. Edited by P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill,
1998.
Copisarow, Maurice. The Ancient Egyptian, Greek and Hebrew Concept of the Red Sea.
Vetus Testamentum 12 (1962): 1-13.
__________. The Apocalyptic Imagination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Coxon, P. W. The Great Tree of Daniel 4. Pages 91-111 in A Word in Season: Essays in
Honor of William McKane. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series 42. Edited by J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.
320
Crawford, Sidney White. The Rewritten Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts. Eretz-
Israel 26 [F. M. Cross Festschrift] (1999):1-8.
Cross, Frank Moore. The Development of the Jewish Scripts. Pages 169-264 in The Bible
and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by G. E.
Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.
Davies, G. I. The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old
Testament. Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series 5. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Davila, James R. 4QMess ar (4Q534) and Merkavah Mysticism. Dead Sea Discoveries 5
(1998): 367-81.
Del Medico, H. E. The Riddle of the Scrolls. Translated by H. Garner. London: Burke, 1958.
Translation of LEnigme des Manuscrits de la Mer Morte. Paris: Librarie Plon, 1957.
Dez Macho, Alejandro. Neophyti I: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana: Tomo I
Gnesis. Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1968.
Dillmann, C. F. August. Das Buch der Jubilean oder der kleine Genesis. Jahrbcher der
Bilblischen wissenschaft 2 (1850) 230-56; 3 (1851) 1-96.
Dimant, Devorah. Qumran Sectarian Literature. Pages 483-550 in Jewish Writings of the
Second Temple Period. Compendia Rerum Judiacarum ad Novum Testamentum 2/II.
Edited by M. E. Stone. Assen: Van Gorcum/Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984.
__________. The Library of Qumran: Its Content and Character. Pages 170-76 in The
Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-
025, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society/Shrine of the Book, 2000.
__________. Qumran Cave 4. XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. DJD XXX.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001.
Doudna, Gregory. Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls Found at Qumran: the Case for 63
B.C.E. The Qumran Chronicle 8:4 (1999).
__________. 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
__________. The Legacy of an Error in Archaeological Interpretation: The Dating of the
Dead Sea Scrolls Found at Qumran. Pages 147-57 in Qumran, the Site of the Dead Sea
Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Edited by K. Galor, J.-B. Humbert, and
J. Zangenberg; Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Driver, Godfrey Rolles. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Revised edition.
New York: Scribners, 1913.
Dupont-Sommer, Andr. Le crits essniens dcouverts prs de la mer Morte. Paris: Payot, 1959.
321
__________. The Essene Writings from Qumran. Translated by G. Vermes. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1962. Repr. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973.
Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction, including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and
also the Works of similar type from Qumran. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.
Elgvin, Torleif, in collaboration with S. J. Pfann. An Incense Altar from Qumran? Dead
Sea Discoveries 9.1 (2002): 20-33.
Eshel, Esther. Isaiah 11:15: A New Interpretation Based on the Genesis Apocryphon. Dead
Sea Discoveries 13.1 (2006): 38-45.
Evans, Craig A. The Genesis Apocryphon and the Rewritten Bible. Revue de Qumran 13
(1988): 153-65.
Even-Shoshan, Avraham. New Concordance to the Tanakh [ ].
Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1980.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A., S. J. Some Observations on the Genesis Apocryphon. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 22 (1960): 277-91.
__________. The Aramaic Elect of God Text from Qumran Cave IV. Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 27 (1965): 348-72.
__________. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary. Biblica et Orientalia 18.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966.
__________. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary. Second revised edition.
Biblica et Orientalia 18A. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971.
__________. Aramaic. Pages 48-51 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Volume 1.
Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000.
__________. The Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary. Third revised
edition. Biblica et Orientalia 18/B. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2004.
Flusser, David. Review of N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon. Kiryath Sepher
[ ] 32:4 (1956-57): 379-83 [Hebrew].
Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 Volumes. New York: Doubleday,
1992.
Fujita, Saichiro. The Metaphor of Plant in Jewish Literature of the Intertestamental
Period. Journal of Jewish Studies 7 (1976): 30-45.
Gage, Warren A. The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Carpenter, 1984.
322
Garca Martnez, Florentino. Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran.
Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
__________, and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Genesis Apocryphon. Pages 28-49 in The Dead
Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Volume 1. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
__________, and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, 1Q20. Pages 26-27 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Study
Edition. Volume 1. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
__________. The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees. Pages 243-60 in Studies in the
Book of Jubilees. Edited by M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange. Texte und Studien zum
antiken Judentum 65. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.
Gaster, Moses. The Asatir: The Samaritan Book of the Secrets of Moses. Together with the Pitron or
Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the Death of Moses. Oriental Translation
Fund, New Series 26. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1927.
Ginsberg, H. Louis. Notes on Some Old Aramaic Texts. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 18
(1959): 143-49.
__________. Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1966).
Theological Studies 28 (1967): 574-77.
Goranson, Stephen. Qumran a Hub of Scribal Activity, Biblical Archaeology Review 20/5
(September-October 1994): 36-39.
__________. 68. Inkwell. Page 202 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture. Edited by
R. Martin Nagy et al. Raleigh: North Carolina Museum of Art, 1996.
Graves, Robert, and Raphael Patai. Hebrew Myths: the Book of Genesis. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday and Co., 1964.
Greenfield, Jonas C., and E. Qimron. The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII. Pages 70-77 in
Studies in Qumran Aramaic. Abr-Nahrain Supplement 3. Edited by T. Muraoka.
Louvain: Peeters, 1992.
__________, and M. E. Stone. The Books of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch. Numen
26:1 (June 1979): 89-103.
Grelot, Pierre. La gegraphie mythique dHnoch et ses sources orientales. Revue Biblique
65:1 (January 1958): 33-69.
__________. Parwam des Chroniques lApocryphe de la Gense, Vetus Testamentum 11
(1961): 30-38.
__________. Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1966). Revue
Biblique 74 (1967): 102-105.
323
Hammershaimb, Erling. On the Method, Applied in the Copying of Manuscripts in
Qumran. Vetus Testamentum 9:4 (1959): 415-18.
Harley, John B., and David Woodward. The History of Cartography: Volume One. Cartography in
Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean. Chicago and London:
University of Chicago, 1987.
Harrington, Daniel J. The Bible Rewritten (Narrative). Pages 239-47 in Early Judaism and
its Modern Interpreters. Edited by R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg. Atlanta:
Scholars, 1986.
Hart, J. H. A. Hyrcanus. Page 210 in The Encyclopdia Britannica. Volume 14. 11
th
Edition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1910.
Hartman, Louis F. Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1966).
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 495-98.
Heidel, William A. Anaximanders Book, the Earliest Known Geographical Treatise.
Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 56:7 (1921): 239-88.
__________. The Frame of the Ancient Greek Maps: With a Discussion of the Discovery of the
Sphericity of the Earth. American Geographical Society Research Series 20. New York:
American Geographical Society, 1937.
Heiser, Michael S. Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God. Bibliotheca sacra 158 (January-
March 2001): 52-74.
Hellholm, David. The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John. Pages
13-64 in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting. Semeia 36. Edited by A.
Yarbro Collins. Missoula: Scholars, 1986.
Helm, Rudolf, and A. Bauer, eds. And trans. Hippolytus Werke: Die Chronik. Die griechischen
christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. Hippolytus, Band 4. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1955.
Hempel, Johannes. Review of N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon. Zeitschrift fr die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1957): 233-34.
Henning, Walter B. The Book of Giants. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
11 (1943): 52-74.
Hlscher, Gustav. Drei Erdkarten: Ein beitrag zur Erdkenntnis des hebraschen Alterums.
Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosphische-
historische Klasse 1944/48, 3. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universittsverlag, 1949.
Homer. Iliad. Edited and translated by R. Lattimore. Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, 1951.
324
Horowitz, Wayne. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Mesopotamian Civilizations 8. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998.
James, Edwin O. The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study. Studies in the History of Religions
11. Leiden: Brill, 1966.
Jellinek, Adolf. Bet ha-Midrasch [ ]. 2 volumes. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books [
], 1967.
Jongeling, Bastiaan, C. J. Labuschange, and A. S. van der Woude. The Genesis
Apocryphon from Cave 1 (1QGenAp). Pages 77-119 in Aramaic Texts from Qumran.
Semitic Study Series 4. Leiden: Brill, 1976.
Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 volumes. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926-1965.
Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza. Second Edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959.
Kaufman, Stephen A. The Job Targum from Qumran. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 93:3 (1973): 317-27.
Khairy, Nabil I. Ink-wells of the Roman Period from Jordan. Levant 12 (1980): 155-62.
Kister, Menahem. Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakha. Pages 571-88 in The Madrid
Qumran Congress. Proceeding of the International Congress on the Dea Sea Scrolls, Mardrid 18-
21, March 1991. Volume 2. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Edited by
J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial
Complutense, 1992.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. The Aramaic of Daniel. Pages 31-79 in Notes on some Problems in the
Book of Daniel. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. London: Tyndale.
Knight, G. A. F. Theology in Pictures: A Commentary on Genesis, Chapters One to Eleven.
Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1981.
Kohut, Alexander, ed. Arukh ha-Shalem [ ]. 9 Volumes. New York: Pardes
Publishing House, 1955 [Hebrew].
Koltun-Fromm, Naomi. Aphrahat and the Rabbis on Noahs Righteousness in Light of the
Jewish-Christian Polemic. Pages 57-71 in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental
Christian Interpretation. Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5. Edited by J. Frishman and L Van
Rompay. Leuven: Peeters, 1997.
Kugel, James L. In Potiphars House. New York: Harper Collins, 1990.
Kutscher, Yehezkel. The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study.
Pages 1-35 in Apects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scripta Hierosolymitana IV. Edited by C.
Rabin and Y. Yadin. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958.
325
Lamadrid, Antonio G. Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1
(1966), Estudios Bblicos 28 (1969): 169.
Lange, Armin. 1QGenAp XIX
10
-XX
32
as Paradigm of the Wisdom Didactic Narrative.
Pages 191-204 in Qumranstudien: Vortrge und Beitrge der Teilnehmer des Qumran seminars
auf dem internationalen Treefen der Society der Biblical Literature, Mnster, 25.-26. Juli 1993.
Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 4. Edited by H-. J. Fabry, A.
Lange, and H. Lichtenberger. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.
Le Daut, R. Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1966), Biblica
48 (1967): 141-45.
Lehmann, M. R. 1Q Genesis Apocryphon in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim.
Revue de Qumran 1 (1958-59): 249-63.
Levene, Abraham. The Early Syrian Fathers on Genesis. London: Taylors Foreign Press, 1951.
Lewy, Hans. Sobria Ebrietas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der antiken Mystik. Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 9. Giessen: Tpelmann 1929.
Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9
th
Edition, with revised
supplement. Oxford: Oxford University, 1996.
Ligne, H. L Apocryphe de la Gense. Pages 205-42 in Les texts de Qumran: Traduits et
annots. Volume 2. Edited by J. Carmignac, . Cothenet, and H. Ligne. Paris:
ditions Letouzey et An, 1963.
Littman, Enno. Das Buch der Jubilen. Pages 39-119 in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen
des Alten Testaments. Band 2. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Tbingen: Freiburg i. B. und
Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1900.
Lundberg, Marilyn, and B. Zuckerman. New Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave
One. CAL-News 12 (1996): 1-5.
Magen, Yizhak, and Yuval Peleg. Back to Qumran: Ten Years of Excavations and
Research, 1993-2004. Pages 55-113 in Qumran, the Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Brown University,
November 17-19, 2002. Edited by K. Galor, J.-B. Humbert, and J. Zangenberg. Leiden:
Brill, 2006.
Maier, Johann. Zu ethnographisch-geographisch berlieferungen ber Japhetiten (Gen 10,
2-4) in frhen Judentum. Henoch 13 (1991): 157-194.
Marmorstein, A. Midrash Abkir. Debir 1 (1923): 113-44.
Mathews, Edward G., and Joseph P. Amar, eds. St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works.
Fathers of the Church 91. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1994.
326
Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman
and Holman, 1996.
Meier, John P. The Historical Jesus and the Historical Law: Some Problems within the
Problem. CBQ 65 (2003): 52-79.
Mendels, Doron. The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature: Recourse to
History in Sencond Centurey B.C. Claims to the Holy Land. Texte und Studien zum antiken
Judentum 15. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987.
Meyer, Reinhold. Review of N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon. Deutsche
Literaturzeitung 80 (1959): 586-87.
Michaud, H. Une livre apocryphe de la Gense en Aramen. Positions luthriennes 5 (April
1957): 91-104.
Michelini Tocci, Franco. I manoscritti del Mar Morto: Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Bari:
Laterza, 1967.
Milik, Jzef T. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea. Studies in Biblical Theology 26.
Translated by J. Strugnell. London: SCM Press, 1959.
__________, with the collaboration of M. Black. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from
Qumrn Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.
__________. crits pressniens de Qumrn: dHnoch Amram. Pages 91-113 in
Qumrn. Sa pit, sa thologie et son milieu, etudes prsentes par M. Delcor. Bibliotheca
ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 46. Paris et Gembloux: Duculot;
Louvain: Leuven University, 1978.
__________. Le modles aramens du Livre dEsther en la grotte 4 de Qumrn. Mmorial
Jean Starcky. Volume 2. Revue de Qumran 15 (1992): 321-406.
Moraldi, Luigi. I manoscritti di Qumrn. Turin: Unione Tipografico; Editrice Torinese, 1971.
Morgenstern, Matthew, E. Qimron, and D. Sivan. The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of
the Genesis Apocryphon. With an Appendix by G. Bearman and S. Spiro. Abr-
Nahrain 33 (1995): 30-54.
Morgenstern, Matthew. The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon [
]. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, 1996.
__________. A New Clue to the Original Length of the Genesis Apocryphon. Journal of
Jewish Studies 47 (1996): 345-47.
Mller, Karl Otfried. Geographi Graeci minores: E codicibus recognovit prolegomenis annotatione
indicibus instruxit tabulis aeri incisus illustravit. Volume 2. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1856.
Repr. by Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1965.
327
Muraoka, Takamitsu. Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon. Revue de Qumran
8 (1972-75): 7-51.
__________. Further Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon. Revue de Qumran 16
(1993): 39-48.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. The Bible Rewritten and Expanded. 89-156 [especially 89-90]
in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Edited by M. E. Stone. Assen:
VanGorcum/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
__________. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
__________. Patriarchs Who Worry about their Wives: A Haggadic Tendency in the
Genesis Apocryphon. Pages 177-99 in George W.E. Nickelsburg in Perspective: An
Ongoing Dialogue of Learning. Volume 2. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of
Judaism 80. Edited by J. Neusner and A. J. Avery-Peck. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Repr.
from Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 May 1996. Studies on the Texts of the
Desert of Judah 28. Edited by M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon. Leiden: Brill, 1998,
137-58.
__________, and J. C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation based on the Hermeneia
Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.
Nir-El, Y., and M. Broshi. The Black Ink of the Qumran Scrolls. Dead Sea Discoveries 3.2
(1996): 157-67.
Ntscher, Friedrich. Himmelische Bcher und Schicksalsglaube in Qumran. Revue de
Qumran 3 (1958-59): 405-411.
Parpola, S. and M. Porter, eds. The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period.
Finland: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2001.
Perrot, Charles. Pseudo-Philon: Les Aniquits Bibliques. Tome II. Sources chrtiennes 230. Paris:
ditions du Cerf, 1976.
Plicht, Johannes van der. Radiocarbon Dating and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Comment on
Redating, Dead Sea Discoveries 14:1 (2007): 77-89.
Ploeg, Johannes P. M. van der, A. S. van der Woude, and B. Jongeling, eds. Le Targum de Job
de la Grotte XI de Qumrn. Leiden: Brill, 1971.
Puech, mile. Review of B. Jongeling, C. J. Labuschange, and A. S. van der Woude, Aramaic
Texts from Qumran. Revue de Qumran 9 (1977-78): 589-91.
__________. Les Fragments 1 3 du Livre Des Gants de la Grotte 6 (pap6Q8). Revue de
Qumran 74 (1999): 227-38.
328
__________. Qumrn Grotte 4. XXII: Textes Aramens, Premire Partie: 4Q529-549. DJD
XXXI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001.
Qimron, Elisha. Towards a New Edition of the Genesis Apocryphon. Journal for the Study
of the Pseudepigrapha 10 (1992): 11-18.
__________. Toward a New Edition of 1QGenesis Apocryphon. Pages 107-109 in The Provo
International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and
Reformulated Issues. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Edited by D. W.
Parry and E. C. Ulrich. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Reeves, John C. What Does Noah Offer in 1QapGen X, 15? Revue de Qumran 12.3 (1986):
415-19.
__________. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions.
Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 14. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College,
1992.
__________. The Flowing Stream: Quranic Interpretations and the Bible. Religious Studies
News SBL Edition 2.9 (December 2001).
Rodley, Gordon A. An Assessment of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Radiocarbon 35:2 (1993) 335-38.
Rosenthal, Franz. Die aramaistische Forschung seit Th. Nldekes Verffentlichungen. Leiden: Brill,
1939. Repr., 1964.
__________. Review of N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 18 (1959): 82-84.
Rowley, Harold H. Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon Pages 116-29 in
Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver. Edited by D. Winton
Thomas and W. D. McHardy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.
Safrai, Zeev. Geography and Cosmography in Talmudic Literature. Pages 506? in The
Literature of the Sages: Second Part. Compendia Rerum Judiacarum ad Novum
Testamentum 3b. Edited by S. Safrai et al. Assen: Van Gorcum/Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2006.
Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992.
Samuel, Athanasius Yeshue. Treasure of Qumran: My Story of the Dead Sea Scrolls. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1968.
Sarfatti, Gad ben Ami. Notes on the Genesis Apocryphon [
]. Tarbiz [] 29 (1959-60): 192 [Hebrew].
329
__________. An addition to Notes on the Genesis Apocryphon [
]. Tarbiz [] 28 (1958-59): 254-59 [Hebrew].
__________. A New Edition of the Genesis Apocryphon [
] (Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1
[1966]). Leshonenu [] 33 (1968-69): 115-28 [Hebrew].
Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1989.
Schaeder, Hans Heinreich. Iranische Beitrge I. Pages 199-296 in Schriften der Knigsberger
Gelehrten Gesellschaft, geisteswiss. Kl., 6/5. Halle: Niemeyer, 1930.
Schattner-Rieser, Ursula. Laramen des manuscripts de la mer Morte: 1. Grammaire. Instruments
pour ltude des Langues de lOrient Ancien 5. Prahins: ditions du Zbre, 2004.
Schmidt, Francis. Naissance dune geographe juive. Page 13-30 in Mise gographe. Recherches
sur les representations juives et chrtiennes de lspace. Edited by A. Desrumeaux and F.
Schmidt. Paris: Vrin, 1988.
__________. Jewish Representations of the Inhabited Earth during the Hellenistic and
Roman Periods. Pages 119-34 in Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays.
Edited by A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and
the Israel Exploration Society, 1990 [Repr. from Hebrew; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-
Zvi, 1989].
Schuller, Eileen M. Response to Patriarchs Who Worry about Their Wives: A Haggadic
Perspective in the Genesis Apocryphon. Pages 200-212 in George W. E. Nickelsburg
in Perspective: An Ongoing Dialogue of Learning. Volume 2. Supplements to the Journal
for the Study of Judaism 80. Edited by J. Neusner and A. J. Avery-Peck. Leiden:
Brill, 2003.
Scott, James M. Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Pauls Mission to
the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians. Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 84. Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
1995.
__________. The Division of the Earth in Jubilees 8:11-9:15 and Early Christian
Chronography. Pages 295-323 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by M. Albani, J.
Frey, and A. Lange. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 65. Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1997.
__________. Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees. Society for New
Testament Studies Monograph Series 113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2002.
Segal, Michael. Between Bible and Rewritten Bible. Pages 10-28 in Biblical Interpretation at
Qumran. Edited by M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
330
Segert, Stanislav. Die Sprachenfragen in der Qumrngemeinschaft, Pages 315-39 in
Qumrn-Probleme: Vortrge des Leipziger Symposions ber Qumran-Probleme vom 9. bis 14.
Oktober 1961. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 42. Edited by H.
Bardtke. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963.
__________. Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1966).
Journal of Semitic Studies 13:2 (1968): 281-83.
Sellers, O. R. Excavation of the Manuscript Cave at Ain Feshka. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 114 (1949): 5-8.
________. Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1966), Journal
of Semitic Studies 13 (1968): 281-82.
Skinner, John. Genesis. International Critical Commentary. Second Edition. Edinburgh: T &
T Clark, 1930.
Sokoloff, Michael. The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1974.
__________. Qumran Aramaic in Relation to the Aramaic Dialects. Pages 746-54 in The
Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-
025, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society/Shrine of the Book, 2000.
Starcky, Jean. Un texte messianique aramen de la grotte 4 de Qumrn. Pages 51-66 in
Ecole des langues orientales anciennes de lInstitut Catholique de Paris: Mmorial du
cinquantienaire 1914-1964. Travaux de lInstitut Catholique de Paris 10. Paris: Bloud et
Gay, 1964.
Steiner, Richard C. The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah on a Fragment of the
Genesis Apocryphon: New Light on a Lost Work. Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995): 66-
71.
Stone, Michael E. The Axis of History at Qumran. Pages 133-49 in Pseudepigraphic
Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of
the International Symposium of the Orion Center 12-14 January 1997. Studies on the Texts
of the Desert of Judah 31. Edited by E. G. Chazon and M. E. Stone. Leiden: Brill,
1999.
__________. The Book(s) Attributed to Noah. Dead Sea Discoveries 13.1 (2006): 4-23.
Strabo. Geography. Translated by H. L. Jones. 8 volumes. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1917-32.
Strack, Hermann L. and Gunter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated
and Edited by M. Bockmuehl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Repr., 1995.
Stander, Hendrik F. The Church Fathers on (the cursing of) Ham, Acta Patristica et
Byzantina 5 (1994): 113-25.
331
Stroumsa, Guy. Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology. Nag Hammadi Studies 24. Leiden:
Brill, 1984.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T. The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Tranlation, and Commentary.
Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 63. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.
Talbert, Richard J. A. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton and Oxford:
Princeton University Press, 2000.
Thomas, Samuel I. The Revelation of the raz in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Cosmic and Earthly
Dimensions. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Notre Dame, 2007.
Tisserant, Eugene. Fragments syriaques du Livre des Jubils. Revue Biblique 30 (1921): 55-
86, 206-32
Tov, Emanuel. Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special
Attention to 4QRP and 4QparaGen-Exod. Pages 111-34 in Community of the Renewed
Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by E. C. Ulrich and
J. C. VanderKam. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.
__________. Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School. Pages 199-
216 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem
Congress, July 20-025, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Shrine of the Book, 2000.
Trever, John C. Preliminary Observations on the Jerusalem Scrolls. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 111 (1948): 3-16.
__________. Identification of the Aramaic Fourth Scroll from Ain Feshka. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 115 (1949): 8-10.
__________. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Personal Account. Second Edition. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1977.
Turner, Eric. Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World. Oxford: Oxford University, 1971.
Ulrich, Eugene C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans/Leiden: Brill, 1999.
VanderKam, James C. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Harvard Semitic
Monographs 14. Missoula: Scholars, 1977.
__________. Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and other Second-Century Sources. Society of
Biblical Literature 1978 Seminar Papers 1 (1978): 229-51.
__________. The Textual Affinities of the Biblical Citations in the Genesis Apocryphon.
Journal of Biblical Literature 97/1 (1978): 45-55.
__________. The Poetry of 1QGenAp XX, 2-8a. Revue de Qumran 10 (1979-81): 57-66.
332
__________. The Righteousness of Noah. Pages 13-32 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism:
Profiles and Paradigms. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies
12. Edited by J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg. Chico: Scholars, 1980.
__________. 1 Enoch 77, 3 and a Babylonian Map of the World. Revue de Qumran 42:2
(March 1983): 271-78.
__________. The Book of Jubilees. 2 Volumes (1. Critical Text; 2. Translation). Corpus
Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 510-11. Scriptores Aethiopici 87-88.
Louvain: Peeters, 1989.
__________, and J. T. Milik. The First Jubilees Manuscript from Qumran Cave 4: A
Preliminary Publication. Journal of Biblical Literature 110/2 (1991): 243-70.
__________. Putting the in their Place: Geography as an Evaluative Tool. Pages 46-69 in
Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth
Birthday. Edited by J. C. Reeves and J. Kampen. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Van Rompay, Lucas. Antiochene Biblical Interpretation: Greek and Syriac. Pages 103-123
in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. Traditio Exegetica
Graeca 5. Edited by J. Frishman and L Van Rompay. Leuven: Peeters, 1997.
Vasholz, Robert I. An Additional Note on the 4QEnoch Fragments and 11QtgJob.
Maarav 3 (1982): 115-18.
Vaux, Roland de. Review of N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon. Revue Biblique 64
(1957): 623-25.
__________. Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1966). Revue
Biblique 74 (1967): 100-102.
Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Studia Post-Biblica 4.
Leiden: Brill, 1961. Second revised edition, 1973.
__________. 2. The Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran. Pages 318-25 in E. Schrer, The
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Volume 3.1. Translated, revised, and
edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986.
Vervenne, Marc. What Shall We Do with the Drunken Sailor? A Critical Reexamination of
Genesis 9.20-27. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 68 (1995): 33-55.
Vrs, Gyz. Taposiris Magna, Port of Isis: Hungarian Excavations at Alexandria, 1998-2001.
Budapest: Egypt Excavation Society of Hungary, 2001.
Wacholder, Ben Zion. How Long did Abram Stay in Egypt? Hebrew Union College Annual
35 (1964): 43-56.
333
__________. The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness.
Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1983.
Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31. New International Commentary on the
Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Waco, TX: Word Books,
1987.
Werman, Cana. Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage. Harvard
Theological Review 90.1 (January 1997): 1-22.
__________. Qumran and the Book of Noah, Pages 171-82 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives:
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the
International Symposium of the Orion Center 12-14 January 1997. Studies on the Texts of
the Desert of Judah 31. Edited by E. G. Chazon and M. E. Stone. Leiden: Brill,
1999.
__________. The Book of Jubilees in a Hellenistic Context [
]. Zion [] 66:3 (2001): 275-96 [Hebrew].
__________. The Book of Jubilees and the Qumran Community. Meghillot [] 2 (2004):
37-55 [Hebrew].
Westermann, Claus. Genesis. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament I/1. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974.
Widengren, Geo. The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion: King and Saviour
III, cta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala: Lundequists, 1951.
Wilson, Robert D. The Aramaic of Daniel. Pages 261-306 in Biblical and Theological Studies
by the Members of the Faculty of the Princeton Theological Seminary Published in Commemoration
of the One Hundredth Anniversary of the Founding if the Seminary. New York: Scribners,
1912.
Winter, Paul. Note on Salem Jerusalem. Novum Testamentum 2 (1957): 151-52.
Wintermute, Orval S. Jubilees. Pages 35-142 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Volume 2.
Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.
Wise, Michael O. Thunder in Gemini, and other Essays on the History, Language and Literature of
Second Temple Palestine. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series
15. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994.
Woude, Adam S. van der. Bijbelcommentaren en bijbelse verhalen: De handschriften van de Dode Zee in
nederlandse vertaling. Amsterdam: Proost en Brandt, 1958.
Wright, Addison G. The Literary Genre Midrash (Part 2). Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28
(1966): 417-57.
334
Yassif, Eli. The Book of Memories, that is the Chronicles of Jerahmeel [
]. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2001 [Hebrew].
Zeitlin, Solomon. The Dead Sea Scrolls: 1. The Lamech Scroll A Medieval Midrash: 2.
The Copper Scrolls: 3. Was Kando the Owner of the Scrolls? Jewish Quarterly Review
[New Series] 47:3 (January, 1957): 245-68.
Zimmerli, Walther. 1. Mose 1-11. Zrcher Bibelkommentare. Zrich: Zwingli Verlag, 1943.
__________. Ezekiel 2. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Zuckerman, Bruce, and M. Lundberg. Ancient Texts and Modern Technology: The West
Semitic Research Project of the University of Southern California. AJS Perspectives
(Fall/Winter 2002): 14.