The Literature of the Sages: A Re-visioning Edited by Christine Hayes LEIDEN | BOSTON For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Contents Foreword CRINT Foundation vii Notes on Contributors viii Setting the Stage Introduction 3 Christine Hayes 1 The Rabbis of History and Historiography Hayim Lapin 2 Tradition, Scripture, Law, and Authority Tzvi Novick 11 64 Part 1 Intertextuality 3 Intertextuality and Tannaic Literature: A History Christine Hayes 95 4 Intertextuality and Amoraic Literature Alyssa M. Gray 5 Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 217 272 Part 2 East and West 6 The Greco-Roman West and Rabbinic Literature in Palestine and Babylonia 311 Richard Hidary For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam vi Contents 7 The Impact of ‘Pagan’ Rome Katell Berthelot 344 8 From West to East: Christian Traditions and the Babylonian Talmud 374 Michal Bar-Asher Siegal 9 The Sasanian East and the Babylonian Talmud Yishai Kiel 401 Part 3 Halakha and Aggada 10 Halakha and Aggada in Tannaic Sources 463 Steven D. Fraade and Moshe Simon-Shoshan 11 Halakha and Aggada in Post-Tannaic Literature 544 Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Yonatan Feintuch, and Jane L. Kanarek 12 Resources for the Critical Study of Rabbinic Literature in the Twenty-First Century 621 Shai Secunda Index of Primary Sources 633 Index of Modern Authors 641 Subject Index 644 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Chapter 5 Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Introduction Literary works are not created in a vacuum. Just as one historical period is a product of events in the period preceding it, so also a book or an essay does not exist of itself but is connected by overt and covert threads to previous literary works. In this article, we intend to examine whether and to what extent ‘rabbinic literature’ is related to ‘Second Temple literature’. The term ‘rabbinic literature’ refers to a well-defined corpus of compositions and tractates encompassing the sayings and deeds of the rabbis.1 The earliest work of rabbinic literature is the Mishna, which was edited in the early third century.2 The outer boundary of this literature is more problematic. Midrashic activity continued well into the Middle Ages, and due to a tendency to create continuity between early and late midrash, ancient and later materials can be found in the same passage.3 In this chapter, however, the outer boundary of rabbinic literature to be discussed is not later than the ninth century and includes the 1 Reviews of rabbinic literature are found in Safrai, Literature of the Sages, First Part; Safrai et al., Literature of the Sages, Second Part. Concise summaries are found in Ben-Eliyahu – Cohn – Millar, Handbook of Jewish Literature from Late Antiquity; Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, takes a more limited approach to the content of rabbinic literature. 2 This was the common view until the last few decades and is still widely accepted by many scholars. However, Shamma Friedman has shown that many mishnayot are based on Tannaic materials attested in the Tosefta. Hence, the Tosefta preserves a layer of Tannaic materials older than some materials in the Mishna (see especially his detailed research Tosefta Atiqta). In any case, Friedman is wary of sweeping conclusions (ibid., 93). Judith Hauptman explicitly argued that a significant stratum of the Tosefta represents a kind of discussion and negotiation with an ‘ancient Mishnah’ or ‘Ur-Mishnah’, while our Mishna is an adaptation and cultivation of the Ur-Mishna in light of the Tosefta (Rereading the Mishnah). Hauptman acknowledges that the redacted Tosefta is later than the redacted Mishna (ibid., 259). Against these scholarly approaches, see the emphatic remarks of Brody, Mishnah and Tosefta Studies. For details of this debate, see the discussion of Tannaic intertextuality in chapter 3. 3 The differences between scholars can be discerned by their various introductions to midrashic literature. Stemberger, Introduction, includes all the minor midrashim, even those from the Geonic period that use Geonic materials, such as Midrash Ve-hizhir (312). The review of Lerner, ‘Works of Aggadic Midrash’, shows the complexity of the dating problem (esp 176–229). © Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515697_007 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 273 Tanhuma-Yelamdenu literature and other midrashim based mainly on Tannaic and Amoraic traditions. At the same time, this chapter excludes Josippon (Sefer Yosipon), which does not purport to be part of the midrashic project; nor is the hekhalot corpus included, owing to its unique style and ideas as well as doubts about its connection with the rabbinic world, on the one hand, and Second Temple literature, on the other.4 The creators, authors, and editors of rabbinic literature are part of a group known as ‘the rabbis’. The use of the term ‘rabbis’ for a distinct social group began sometime after the destruction of the Second Temple. However, many scholars argue that this group was an extension of the Second Temple Pharisees, documented in Josephus, early Christian writings, and rabbinic literature.5 While rabbinic literature records mainly the words of rabbis who flourished after the destruction of the Second Temple, it occasionally mentions and cites some pre-destruction figures, institutions, and historical events. Accordingly, the question arises to what extent the literature created during the Second Temple period is present within rabbinic literature. This question has accompanied the study of rabbinic literature almost from the very beginning. Nachman Krochmal pointed out several ‘external books’ whose content was familiar to the rabbis. He claimed that some of the books were still being read by rabbis in the Geonic era, even while emphasizing the prohibition the rabbis imposed on reading these books.6 Other scholars tended to sharpen the distinction between Second Temple literature and rabbinic literature. Louis Ginzberg, in the introduction to his Legends of the Jews, emphasized that the rabbis rejected apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature and avoided any reference to it. He concluded ‘that one literature should have drawn from the other’ but this ‘is precluded by historical facts’.7 While pointing out that the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha continued to exist and 4 On Josippon’s debt to Greco-Roman literature and use of Jewish materials as reworked by church fathers see Dönitz, ‘Historiography among Byzantine Jews’. For diverse views on the literary, cultural, and conceptual affinity of Second Temple, Tannaic, and hekhalot literature see Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism; Elior, Three Temples; Schäfer, ‘Hekhalot Literature’; Himmelfarb, ‘Heavenly Ascent’; and Boustan, ‘Rabbinization’. The only hekhalot composition that shows real proximity to Second Temple literature is 3 Enoch (Himmelfarb, ‘Heavenly Ascent’, 96–98). 5 The degree of affinity and continuity between the Pharisees and the sages is disputed; see Cohen, ‘Significance of Yavneh’; Schiffman, ‘Second Temple Literature and Rabbinic Judaism’; Stemberger, ‘The Pharisees and the Rabbis’. See also chapter 1 of this volume. 6 Krochmal, More nevukhei ha-zeman, 61–65. 7 Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 1:ix. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 274 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam were known to Jews throughout the mishnaic and talmudic periods, Abraham Kahana emphasized the rabbis’ opposition and hostility towards them.8 However, the comments of both Ginzberg and Kahana reveal how close the two literary worlds were. Indeed, Chanoch Albeck insisted on the existence of links between rabbinic legends, especially of the late midrash and Second Temple literature.9 Recently, John Reeves and Annette Yoshiko Reed gathered the traditions of Enoch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from ancient to medieval times, and pointed out the rabbinic acquaintance with Enochic traditions.10 Additionally, as the scrolls of the Judean Desert were discovered, it became clear that the connections between Second Temple Judaism and rabbinic derashot are tighter than previously thought.11 At the same time the realization has dawned that there are conceptual and even literary connections between Second Temple and rabbinic literature even in biblical interpretation and theological questions.12 Yet tracing the intertextual echoes of Second Temple literature in rabbinic literature is difficult. As our acquaintance with the extensive literature created during the Second Temple period in the Land of Israel and the diaspora broadens, so does the recognition that the rabbis silenced, shelved, and almost completely ignored this corpus. As mentioned above, rabbinic literature recognizes sages and persons who flourished during the Second Temple period, but ‘the external books’, with the exception of Ben Sira, are never mentioned by their name in any rabbinic work. The naive reader of rabbinic literature receives the impression that between the Bible and the rabbis nothing happened in the Jewish literary world. Indeed, a few mishnayot and decrees are set (by the rabbis) in the time of the Second Temple, but they betray no awareness of the existence of the widespread literary production known to us from this period. As we have seen, however, this wall of silence is uneven and occasionally cracked. Familiarity with Second Temple literature has allowed scholars to identify later sayings and stories derived from it, even when these intertextual echoes appear casually and without a clear reference in rabbinic literature. To 8 9 10 11 12 Kahana, Ha-sefarim ha-hitsonim, 1:viii–x. Particularly important are his comments on the affinity between Jubilees and Pirkei de-R. Eliezer, in his translation of Zunz, Ha-derashot be-Yisrael, 136–40. Albeck also commented on the use made by midrash Genesis Rabbati of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbati, 17–18). Reed – Reeves, Enoch from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. See, especially, Sussmann, ‘History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls’; Noam, From Qumran to the Rabbinic Revolution. Many examples of such possible connections in the field of halakha can be found in Werman – Shemesh, Revealing the Hidden. In dozens of articles, Menahem Kister weaves connections between the rabbis and Second Temple traditions (e.g., Kister, ‘Observations’). See also the invaluable contribution to the subject by James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible; In Potiphar’s House. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 275 understand why so little Second Temple material infiltrated and survived in rabbinic literature requires a consideration of the rabbis’ expressed attitude towards previous literature. Rabbinic Attitudes to ‘External Books’ Rabbinic sayings about the halakhic status of Second Temple works are few and fragmentary and the rabbis’ attitude towards these works is vague and ambivalent. The rabbis recognized twenty-four sacred books (bTaan 8a; ShSR 4:11; EcclR 12:11–12; NumR 13:16; 14:4, 8; 18:21) and in mYad 3:5, these books of Holy Scripture are said to ‘defile the hands’, a criterion for canonicity that has been variously explained.13 A related teaching in the Tosefta states: ‘The gilyonim (“sheets”, i.e., Gospels, see below) and books of the minim (=heretics) do not defile the hands. And the books of Ben Sira and all books written thereafter do not defile the hands’ (tYad 2:13).14 The separate reference to Ben Sira indicates that while not canonical, it was not considered a prohibited book like the Gospels or heretical writings. On the contrary, the rabbis probably deemed it necessary to state explicitly that Ben Sira does not defile the hands because others thought the book should be among the Holy Scriptures or should receive the same halakhic treatment as these books.15 The chronological designation ‘all books written thereafter’ takes the time of the writing of Ben Sira as a starting point; it implies that the Tannaim knew literary works that were created during and after the Second Temple period. The book of Ben Sira and similar books are distinguished from heretical literature in other respects as well. The Mishna states: ‘All of the Holy Scriptures may be saved from burning (on the Sabbath)’ (mShab 16:1). The Tosefta presents the other side of this ruling: ‘The gilyonim and the books of minim one does not save from burning. But they are allowed to burn where they are; they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them’ (tShab 13:5). The clear distinction between Holy Scriptures that should be saved from fire even on the Sabbath, and the books of minim that must be left to burn, may signal an intermediate status for Ben Sira and Second Temple literature, and indeed, many scholars have argued that these writings were accepted by the rabbis as books that may be kept and even read, as long as they are not given a sacred status like the Bible. 13 14 15 According to the talmudic explanation, this halakha was established in order to protect Scripture from damage or misuse (bShab 14a and see also mYad 4:6). This interpretation raises many problems; for other suggestions see Baumgarten, ‘Sacred Scriptures Defile the Hands’. On this halakha see Jaffé, ‘Index Librorum Prohibitorum’. Labendz, ‘Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature’, 355, n38. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 276 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam This conclusion may resolve an apparent contradiction arising from the following mishna: ‘These are they that have no share in the world-to-come: He who says that there is no resurrection of the dead in the Tora, and (he who says) that the Law is not from heaven, and an Epicurean. Rabbi Akiva says: Also he who reads the sefarim ha-hitsonim (= external books)’ (mSan 10:1). Rabbi Akiva’s negative approach to ‘the external books’ appears to contradict the moderate attitude in the above-cited sources. It is possible, however, that Rabbi Akiva did not ban the reading of these books outright, but merely held that they should not be read in the way the Bible was read. This may mean that they should not be read in a liturgical setting, or that they should not be studied and interpreted as the Bible is studied and interpreted.16 According to the Talmud Yerushalmi, the ‘external books’ mentioned by Rabbi Akiva in mSan 10:1 are for example the books of Ben Sira and the books of Ben Laana. But the books of Homer and all the books written from now on, one who reads them is like one who reads a letter. What is the reason? ‘More than this my son be careful’ (Eccl 12:2) – They are given to higayon (= learning by heart) and are not given to yegia (= exertion). ySan 10:1, 28a If the rationale provided in the last sentence applies only to ‘the books of Homer’ then Rabbi Akiva’s teaching is a sweeping prohibition on the book of Ben Sira and its likes, as compared to a certain permission regarding the treatises of Homer and books of its kind. Shlomo Naeh, however, argued that the rationale in the last sentence applies to the first clause, mentioning the books of Ben Sira and Ben Laana, rather than to the second, mentioning the books of Homer. Naeh also suggested emending the last line based on a Geniza fragment: ‘They are given to higayon and are given to yegia’. Thus, whereas the books of the Greek poet Homer are compared to the reading of an epistle, a descriptor for a neutral text that has no halakhic or holy status, Ben Sira’s book is ‘given to higayon’ – learning by heart, and to ‘yegia’ – exertion, which, according to Naeh, accords to Ben Sira the same status as the rabbis’ sayings. Hence, the Yerushalmi did not ban the book of Ben Sira or condemn it as a book which 16 Ginzberg, ‘Some Observations on the Attitude of the Synagogue’, 129–31. This position was adopted and sharpened by Haran, Biblical Collection, 124–40. On the other hand, some claimed that the ban was intended to prevent any contact with the ‘external books’ because their content was considered contradictory and violated the beliefs of the rabbis; see Moore, ‘Definition of the Jewish Canon’, 113–25. For further discussion and another proposal, see Leiman, Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 86–92. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 277 should not be possessed and studied at all. Rather, the Yerushalmi deprived it of the status of a written biblical book on the one hand, while granting it the honorable status of rabbinic oral instruction – which requires effort to study by heart – on the other hand. Indeed, among the many citations of Ben Sira in rabbinic literature are citations in the Yerushalmi from which a few halakhot are derived, a fact that reinforces Naeh’s suggestion. This assimilation to rabbinic oral instruction also imposes limits on Ben Sira. Just as the sayings of the rabbis were given to study, but must not be written, so there is a prohibition on writing Ben Sira. According to Naeh, the prohibition of writing is the reason for Rabbi Akiva’s reading prohibition, since it is impossible to read that which is not written.17 In spite of the novelty of Naeh’s proposal, his final conclusion is in line with the prevailing attitude that the rabbis did not grant Ben Sira the status of a biblical book but regarded it and its like as legitimate works. However, neither interpretation of the tradition regarding the book of Ben Sira explains the rabbis’ overall silencing of ‘the external books’. On the contrary, if these books were indeed ‘given to learning by heart and exertion’, a much more significant presence within the pages of rabbinic literature would have been expected. Perhaps the rabbis’ abstention from citing these works is related to the fact that they knew them as written works. An objection to writing already existed during the Second Temple period, and it encompassed works related in one way or another to religious or theological issues. Josephus clearly distinguishes between the biblical books and books written since the time of Artaxerxes. The latter are untrustworthy because they were not written by prophets (Ag Ap 1:40). A few sentences earlier Josephus gives the impression that there is a ban on writing for all but a select few: ‘It is not open to everybody to write the records, and … there is no discrepancy in what is written; seeing that, on the contrary, the prophets alone had this privilege, obtaining their knowledge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to God’ (Ag Ap 1:37). From this statement we can deduce that historical writing requires divine inspiration and therefore only the prophets, evidently including Josephus himself, were allowed to write the past.18 17 18 Naeh, ‘Notes’, 243–49. Naeh’s reading and the explanation of the Yerushalmi are not devoid of difficulties; see Ben-Dov, ‘Book of HGY and Ancient Reading Practices’, 430–31, n25. Ben-Dov argues that according to Naeh the Yerushalmi’s midrash should be read as ‘they were given for higayon, given for yegia, (but were not given for writing!)’. According to Naeh, being given for higayon and yegia should be understood as standing in contrast to being given for writing, even though the clause ‘but were not given for writing’ does not appear at all and is only implied. Later, Josephus reports that he himself wrote a book about the last Jewish war against the Romans. Indeed, Josephus claimed in the same book that he was endowed with the gift of prophecy; see Gray, Prophetic Figures, 44–52. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 278 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam An overwhelming resistance to writing is at the core of the oral culture of the rabbis. Although no explicit prohibition is found in Tannaic literature, the Babylonian Talmud attributes the following exegesis to the school of Rabbi Yishmael: ‘“Write down these commandments” (Exod 34:27): “these” (i.e., Scriptures) you write, and you do not write laws (halakhot)’ (bGit 60b). From this tradition it is clear that only the words of the Tora may be written, while all other traditions and laws are taught and studied orally. Yaacov Sussmann argued that the chief motivation for this prohibition was the existence of pseudepigrapha, quasi-biblical books attributed to biblical figures that purported to stand alongside the biblical canon.19 According to the rabbis, by taking on written form, non-canonical books revealed their improper pretense to a value and status equal to the Scriptures. As opposed to the biblical period, when prophets enjoyed divine inspiration, in the post-biblical world prophecy no longer exists, and consequently writing should be prohibited. The rabbis’ silencing and disposal of written literature created in the Second Temple period was therefore deliberate. This sentiment is encapsulated in the following midrash: ‘Everyone who brings into his house more than (the) twentyfour (biblical) books, he brings a commotion into his house’ (EcclR 12:11).20 Nevertheless, the rabbis apparently did recognize the value of some of these compositions (especially Ben Sira), either because of an intimate acquaintance with them or because of a deeply rooted tradition, and thus avoided a sweeping ban. The Yerushalmi’s definition of ‘external books’ suggests that the book of Ben Sira is just one of a group of literary works. Similarly, the Tosefta pointed out, in addition to the book of Ben Sira, ‘all the books written from now on’. This category of works is probably not limited to the fourteen or fifteen books excluded from the Jewish canon but included (for some reason) in the Septuagint and named ‘apocryphal’ in Protestant Christianity. Other collections, such as the Bible of the Ethiopian Church, which includes Jubilees,21 1 Enoch, and more, 19 20 21 Sussmann, ‘Oral Torah Understood Literally’, 372. Ibid., 370–73. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law, 13–35, attributed the writing prohibition to the Pharisees, but an explicit prohibition is found only in Amoraic literature. This literary fact, together with other considerations, led Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 140–47, to conclude that a consolidated ideology of ‘oral Tora’ was established only in the Amoraic period. Shlomo Naeh introduces a more complex approach, whereby it was forbidden to write down only ‘halakhot’, but writing other texts was permitted (Naeh, ‘Structure and Division’, 505–12); see his explanation to Ecclesiastes Rabba in ‘Notes’, 247. Despite all that has been written on the subject, there is still room for innovation on the relationship between orality and literacy in rabbinic culture; see Fraade, Legal Fictions, 365–79. While the book of Jubilees is not discussed in this chapter, because we found no direct reference to or quote from it in rabbinic literature, it is worth noting that Jubilees and For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 279 also do not exhaust the definition provided by the Tosefta. Apparently, the rabbis saw the book of Ben Sira as representative of all para-biblical literature that was composed during the Second Temple period. Some of these books have been preserved by Christian churches, some were found in the caves near Qumran, and some were lost.22 When attempting to determine the extent to which post-biblical literature is intertextually present in the works of the rabbis, the search for explicit references to books belonging to this collection does not suffice. One must also consider a variety of clues to rabbinic familiarity with literary traditions expressed through anonymous quotes as well as paraphrases of stories and statements from Second Temple literature. The echoes of earlier traditions in rabbinic literature may be divided into five categories according to the degree of similarity between them and extant Second Temple literary works, which we now list. Known Books Mentioned Explicitly This category refers to books from the Second Temple period known to us by name and content and cited in rabbinic literature.23 This is the simplest group to identify, consisting of Ben Sira, the Gospels, and the Septuagint.24 22 23 24 rabbinic sources offer opposing exegeses of biblical verses (e.g., Gen 17:14; Lev 18:21) and diverging views on such topics as conversion, interethnic sexual unions, and marriage, circumcision, and pre-Sinaitic law observance. According to Bickart and Hayes, ‘Apocrypha in Rabbinic Literature’, 596, these ideological and exegetical differences raise the possibility of rabbinic familiarity with, and pointed polemic, against Jubilees, but it is also possible that the rabbis were familiar with these ideas and interpretations from other sources or from groups or individuals who held these views. See also Finkelstein, ‘The Book of Jubilees’; Ron, ‘The Book of Jubilees’; and idem, ‘The Book of Jubilees, Part 2’; and Vermes, ‘Leviticus 18.21’. The discovery of Second Temple literary works, including those at Qumran, and new conceptions of canon formation, have led to an updating and expansion of Second Temple literature to include Jewish literature related to the Bible. The many additions to the initial collection of Apocrypha can be shown by examining the contents of the following three collections: Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha; Feldman – Kugel – Schiffman, Outside the Bible. Indeed, there are citations and paraphrased citations from these three texts in rabbinic literature without the explicit name of the work (see below). Here we deal only with explicit citations. The only composition from the Second Temple period that is mentioned in rabbinic literature besides Ben Sira is the Scroll of Fasting (Megillat Taanit), a short Aramaic semihalakhic composition which counts thirty-five days on which it is forbidden to fast, because on these days miracles and victories occurred in the Second Temple period, and especially in the Hasmonean era. Evidently, the sages considered this work a legitimate part of their own literature, and therefore it is essentially different from the Apocrypha For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 280 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam Ben Sira There are five explicit quotations from Ben Sira in Palestinian sources, all of them from the Amoraic period.25 Beginning with the Yerushalmi (yHag 2:1, 77c; yBer 7:2, 11b; yNaz 5:3, 28a), the book is cited repeatedly in rabbinic literature, often in the same way that Scripture is cited.26 For example, the Mishna forbids the study of maase merkava (i.e., the chariot vision of Ezekiel 1), and maase bereshit (the creation chapters at the beginning of Genesis). Regarding the origin of the prohibition, the Yerushalmi states the following: ‘Rabbi Eliezer in the name of Bar Sira: “What is beyond you, you do not have to know; what is deeper than the abyss, do not investigate; ponder what is permitted to you; you have no concern with hidden things”’ (yHag 2:1, 77c). Indeed, very similar wording is found in the extant Hebrew book of Ben Sira, ‘Things beyond you, do not search; what is hidden from you do not investigate; ponder what is permitted to you; you have no concern with hidden things’ (Ben Sira 3:21–22). Not only did Rabbi Eliezer recognize the link between the Mishna and Ben Sira’s words, and cite it correctly, but he also considered the book to be a legitimate source for studying halakha.27 In the Bavli the situation is more complicated. There are twenty-two citations attributed to Ben Sira, but only two-thirds of them are found in the extant book of Ben Sira. Of these, fewer than half are identical or quite similar to Ben Sira in wording; the rest are paraphrases of Ben Sira’s sayings.28 Notably, over half of the quotes are found in the sugya that discusses the legitimacy of the book of Ben Sira (bSan 100b). At the opening of this sugya, Rav Yosef says that one is forbidden to read Ben Sira, but a few lines later he remarks that there are ‘excellent sayings’ in the book (ibid.). Another sugya cites the work as though it were part of the Hagiographa (Ketuvim – see bBK 92b; cf bYev 62b). In sum, the Bavli is quite ambivalent about Ben Sira. Scholars believe that the text of Ben Sira quoted in the Bavli was not only the text of the extant Greek or Syriac translations, or the text found in the Hebrew manuscripts that have come down to us from antiquity; rather, the rabbis had access to versions of Ben Sira that were contaminated by additional proverbs 25 26 27 28 and Pseudepigrapha, which were composed in extra-Pharisaic circles and rejected by the rabbis later on. See Noam, Megillat Taanit, and also eadem, ‘Megillat Ta‘anit’). All of them are discussed by Labendz, ‘Book of Ben Sira’, 369–76. For a detailed list and discussion see Segal, Sefer Ben Sira ha-shalem, 37–42. Additional (not so clearly stated) references were suggested by Kister, ‘A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira’, and Labendz, ‘Book of Ben Sira’. For special takes on some of these citations see Ilan, Integrating Women, 155–74; Wright, Praise Israel, 183–95. For a link between Ben Sira and the Mishna, see recently Furstenberg, ‘Rabbinic Ban’. Labendz, ‘Book of Ben Sira’, 376–79. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 281 in Aramaic.29 The process of adding materials to Ben Sira continued well into the Middle Ages, as the book known as Alpha-Beta de-Ben Sira proves.30 Even though Ben Sira is among the ‘external books’, its reception is an exception to the rule of exclusion. The positive attitude to this book and its presence in the rabbis’ library may be ascribed both to an ancient tradition that considered it a legitimate work, and to the simple fact that the content of the book is very close to biblical wisdom literature, primarily the book of Proverbs. By contrast, other Second Temple compositions probably deviated much further from the biblical heritage as the rabbis perceived it and therefore had no place in their library. Before moving to the Gospels and the Septuagint, we should emphasize that Ben Sira is not only quoted much more than the Gospels and the Septuagint, but is also the only ‘external book’ that has a kind of halakhic authority. The Gospels Parallels between rabbinic literature and the New Testament, and their utility for illuminating both corpora, have been discussed in previous studies.31 We restrict ourselves here to showing that the rabbis both knew of the Gospels and cited them. As mentioned above, Tannaic literature twice refers to the gilyonim (tShab 13:5; tYad 2:13). This word is a transcript of the Greek εὐαγγέλιον with an added Hebrew suffix to denote the plural form. Acquaintance with the Greek name of these compositions is reflected in the talmudic discussion that accompanies this mishna: ‘Rabbi Meir called it ʾawen gilayon (= a sheet of falsehood). Rabbi Yohanan called it ʿawon gilayon (= a sheet of sin)’ (bShab 116a). Both rabbis interpret the word euangelion, ‘good news’, in reverse. Greek eu means ‘good’ but the rabbis interpret it as ‘falsehood’ (ʾawen) or ‘sin’ (ʿawon): the Gospels are not the ‘good news’ but the ‘bad news’. It is impossible to know 29 30 31 Segal, Sefer Ben Sira ha-shalem, 40–41. A manuscript of the book of Ben Sira with many additions was found in the Cairo Geniza, known as manuscript C. This is an expression of an ancient or late-ancient processing of the original essay; see recently, Reymond, ‘Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C’, 221–42. See Yassif, Tales of Ben Sira. On the overlap between the Bavli’s Ben Sira proverbs and those of the medieval composition see ibid. 39–44. The four-volume commentary of Strack – Billerbeck, Kommentar, lists possible parallels between the New Testament and rabbinic literature. For a critique of the value of such parallels see Sandmel, ‘Parallelomania’. On the relationship of the New Testament and rabbinic literature generally see Vermes, ‘Jewish Studies’; Alexander, ‘Rabbinic Judaism’; and Bieringer et al. (eds), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. For Jesus traditions in rabbinic sources see Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud; idem, Jewish Jesus. For a detailed discussion of talmudic sources that attest to rabbinic familiarity with New Testament traditions more broadly see chapter 8 in this volume. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 282 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam whether the rabbis refer to the four canonical Gospels or to other, apocryphal gospels that were in circulation in their day, but in any case, the very use of the plural form indicates that they were aware of the existence of several. Moreover, the Bavli tells a story about a dispute between Rabban Gamliel, his sister Imma Shalom, and a Christian philosopher. The Christian introduces the argument that ‘since the day you were exiled from your land the Law of Moses has been withdrawn and the ʿawon gilayon has been introduced’ (bShab 116b). The Jewish antagonists answer by quoting a verse from the Gospels: ‘I came not to destroy the Law of Moses nor to add to the Law of Moses’ (ibid.). The content and style of this citation is very similar to Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them’ (Matt 5:17).32 The Septuagint The existence of a translation of the Pentateuch into Greek was well known to the rabbis. Rabbinic traditions from the Land of Israel list the changes introduced into the Greek Tora scroll presented to King Ptolemy.33 These appear to be ‘quotes’ from the translation, but of the fifteen changes mentioned in rabbinic literature, only four are actually found in the extant version of the Septuagint. In light of this, it seems that the list of changes is based on an independent tradition. The story of the translation by seventy-two elders, known from the Letter of Aristeas, is found only in the Bavli (bMeg 9a–b). However, the many differences between the legend related in the Bavli and the story told in the Letter of Aristeas suggest that the former did not draw directly from the latter, but rather from an independent Palestinian version relating the same tradition.34 In conclusion, there is no doubt that rabbis were aware of the existence of other books beside those of the canonized Bible, but with the exception of Ben Sira, no single book is identified and openly cited by the rabbis. There was probably a twofold reason for this. The rabbis naturally removed from their literary world compositions that ran contrary to rabbinic values and ideology 32 33 34 Alongside the similarities, there is also a difference, and it is not known whether the Bavli quoted here the Matthean Sermon on the Mount, or a paraphrase that was familiar to the rabbis from their disputes with Christians. See Zellentin, Rabbinic, 137–66; Paz, ‘Torah of the Gospel’. For another attempt to point out an affinity between one of the Sermon on the Mount’s parables and rabbinic literature, see Turan, ‘A Neglected Rabbinic’. MekRY pisha 14 (ed Horowitz-Rabin, 50–51); yMeg 1:11, 71c. The ‘changes’ tradition has been discussed by many scholars; see esp Tov, Greek and Hebrew Bible, 1–20; Veltri, Libraries, 106–46; Simon-Shoshan, ‘Tasks of the Translators’, 16–23. See the discussion in Fisch, ‘Septuagint’. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 283 such as the Christian Gospels, certain Bible translations, and perhaps some of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (e.g., Enoch, Jubilees). As for other compositions which did not contradict the rabbinic world, it was still necessary to uphold a gap between them and the Bible, and to that end, the rabbis prohibited their reproduction and their use in written form. Unknown Books Mentioned by Name The Dead Sea Scrolls include many previously unknown works from the Second Temple period. The discovery of the Qumran library confirmed the intuition that only some, and perhaps only a small part, of the literary production of the Second Temple period has survived to our time.35 In rabbinic literature, there are clues to the existence of additional compositions of which the rabbis were aware. The very term ‘external books’ indicates the existence of multiple extra-biblical, pre-rabbinic works. It is likely that this phrase refers to all Jewish literature compiled during the Second Temple period.36 In addition, the rabbis sometimes mention specific books that are unknown to us. Alongside ‘the books of Ben Sira’, the tradition from the Yerushalmi quoted above mentions ‘the books of Ben Laana’. Scholarly attempts to identify this person and his book or books have not produced convincing results to date.37 The earliest mention of a named work by the rabbis that is unknown to us is the Sefer Gezerata (the Book of Decrees), mentioned in the Scroll of Fasting. The scroll states that on the fourth of Tammuz, the Book of Decrees was annulled. Obviously, this book was viewed negatively by the author(s) of the scroll. There are many hypotheses concerning the content of the book. The communis opinio is that it was a halakhic book composed by the Sadducees. According to the Scholion (a late antique rabbinic interpretive tradition that accompanied the scroll), the book dealt with people sentenced to death. No part of this book appears to have survived after the destruction of the Second Temple, aside from the tradition that the Pharisees polemicized against it.38 35 36 37 38 This statement is even more true for Hellenistic Jewish literature. Remains of this literature have been gathered at Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. For estimates of the size and genres of this literature see Herr, ‘End of Jewish Hellenistic Literature’. Leiman, Canonization, 92, offers that only books with a biblical orientation were considered as ‘external books’. Likely, there was no one agreed definition among the rabbis. Ibid., 181–82, n370; Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 108, n53. On the Book of Decrees see Shemesh – Werman, ‘Halakhah at Qumran’, 126–29. For its abolition tradition see Noam, ‘From Philology to History’. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 284 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam The term ‘books of Aggada’, which appears several times in rabbinic literature, should also be mentioned in this context. These were probably not ancient literary works from the Second Temple period. More likely they were rabbinic productions, some probably including ancient traditions.39 The status of these books was, according to one opinion in the Yerushalmi, higher than that of the ‘external books’. Rabbi Yohanan claimed: ‘A covenant is sealed that he who studies homiletics (= aggada) from a book will not quickly forget’ (yBer 5:1, 9a). On the other hand, there were scholars who sharply criticized these books as inaccurate, and Rabbi Yoshua Ben-Levi, who was slightly older than Rabbi Yohanan according to rabbinic chronology, reported that he had almost completely avoided reading them (yShab 16:18, 15c). Another rabbi even cursed those who wrote books of Aggada (ibid.). Citations and Allusions Relative to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha This category includes sentences or fragments that can be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty to derive from Second Temple works. The emphasis in this category is on similarity and sometimes even on verbal identity. Unique phrases, sentences, and traditions deriving from ‘external books’ were apparently embedded in rabbinic literature. The Books of Maccabees There are four books that Christians labeled ‘Maccabees’ although only the first two were included in the Orthodox Christian canon and became part of what is today considered the Apocrypha. Scholarly consensus holds that even though both books are preserved only in Greek, 1 Maccabees was originally composed in Hebrew, and 2 Maccabees in Greek. Scholars debate whether the books of Maccabees, and with them the story of Hanuka, was intentionally suppressed by Jews in rabbinic times and possibly even before.40 For example, both are absent from the Qumran library. In Egypt, where many Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha fragments have been preserved on papyrus, not a single line of the books of Maccabees has been found to date.41 Nevertheless, rabbinic 39 40 41 On these books see Sussmann, ‘Oral Torah’, 293–95. On this debate see recently Noam, Shifting Images, 199–201. On the suppression of 1 Maccabees itself within this debate see Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, 8–10. A fragment of a translation of 4 Maccabees into Coptic has been found in Antinoopolis; see Delattre, ‘Text Coptes et Grecs d’Antinoé’, 1:133–35. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 285 literature does include evidence of some familiarity with these books, or at the very least, with traditions they contain. 1 Maccabees There are two instances in which the rabbis appear to cite a specific passage from 1 Maccabees. One citation appears in Seder Olam, ‘an exegetically-based rabbinic chronography’42 detailing the relative dates of biblical events from Adam to Alexander the Great’s death, an event which symbolizes, in the eyes of the author, the end of the biblical period as well as the end of the era of prophecy. According to Chaim Milikowsky, the editor and commentator of the critical edition of this work,43 Seder Olam is part and parcel of rabbinic literature, in spite of its exceptional nature as a chronological work, and notwithstanding the strong Hellenistic influence it reflects. Milikowsky believes that the original main body of the work was probably composed after the destruction of the Second Temple and before the days of Rabbi Yosi, a secondcentury CE rabbi to whom Seder Olam is attributed and who was probably the one who transmitted the work and possibly contributed to its composition.44 In the thirtieth and last chapter of the book it is stated that ‘King Alexander Macedon reigned twelve years, and then died’ (30:20).45 According to Greek historians, Alexander indeed ruled twelve years and seven or eight months, but this information is never found in rabbinic literature. On the other hand, the same statement appears verbatim in 1 Macc 1:8. Solomon Zeitlin therefore suggested that Seder Olam is citing the Hebrew original of 1 Maccabees46 and Milikowsky surmises that the Hebrew 1 Maccabees might also be the source of Seder Olam’s biblical style.47 The second citation relates the story of the Hasmonean victory over the Seleucid general Nicanor in 161 BCE, which was subsequently marked as a holiday. Although the different renderings of this story within rabbinic literature – in the two talmudim and the two scholia on Megillat Taanit48 – are recounted 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 This is the definition suggested by Milikowsky, in ‘Seder Olam’, 231; idem, Seder Olam, 1:3 (Heb). For the Greek term ‘chronography’, meaning a composition engaged in ordering periods and events, see p18, n8. Milikowsky, Seder Olam. See the introduction in Milikowsky, Seder Olam, 1:3–214; idem, ‘At the Beginning of Rabbinic Literary Culture’. Milikowsky, Seder Olam, 1:322. Zeitlin, First Book of Maccabees, 70, note to verse 7. Milikowsky, Seder Olam, 2:520, nn76, 79. Scholia O and P on Megillat Taanit, 13 Adar; yTaan 2:13, 66a (= yMeg 1:6, 70c); bTaan 18b. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 286 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam in Hebrew, some of them bear a surprising similarity to the second-century BCE Greek version of 1 Macc 7:26–50.49 Like 1 Macc 7:47, the parallel rabbinic tradition in all its manifestations underscores the abuse of Nicanor’s corpse.50 Also, Nicanor’s raising of his hand against the Temple, justifying its amputation and public display (1 Macc 7:47), is similarly described in the scholia and the talmudim. Finally, these rabbinic traditions and the Hebrew version underlying the extant Greek of 1 Maccabees share several Hebrew terms and expressions. These include Mount Zion; the verbs denoting mockery and blasphemy; Nicanor’s threat: ‘When I come back whole, I shall burn/break down that house/tower’; and the description ‘he spoke arrogantly’. Of the different variants of the story in rabbinic sources, it is the version in the Yerushalmi that displays the greatest affinity to 1 Maccabees. This fact prompted Bezalel Bar-Kochva and Menahem Kister to suggest a literary dependence between this latter rabbinic version and the Hebrew original of 1 Maccabees.51 The evidence for literary dependence substantiates the conjecture that rabbinic authors or redactors had access either to the Hebrew original of 1 Maccabees, or to some early historical Hebrew traditions that circulated in Judea even prior to the composition of 1 Maccabees. Moreover, in the case of the Nicanor story, it is possible to reconstruct, based on the extant sources, the features of the lost Hebrew original of 1 Maccabees, especially its flowery language and masterfully interpolated biblical associations and allusions. These attributes can still be discerned in the Greek text of 1 Maccabees, even if modified by translation, and in rabbinic literature, even if modified by redaction and transmission.52 2 Maccabees The second book of Maccabees was, according to consensus, composed in Greek. Yet, there are clear indications that the book was known to the rabbis of the Land of Israel, because they appear to quote it. A revised version of 2 Macc 7 – the story of the mother and seven sons who died rather than 49 50 51 52 The story of this battle is also recounted in 2 Macc 14:12–36, 15:1–36, but there are no echoes of this version in the rabbinic accounts. Josephus paraphrases 1 Maccabees’s account in Ant 12:402–12. For a detailed comparison of all the extant versions see Noam, Shifting Images, 32–58. For a commentary of 1 Maccabees’s text and discussion of its historical circumstances and battle strategy see Goldstein, I Maccabees, 326–43; Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 347–75. Scholia O and P, 13 Adar; yTaan 2:13, 66a; yMeg 1:6, 70c; bTaan 18b. Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 370; Kister, ‘Ahor va-kedem’, 235. For further elaboration, and for the conjecture that the Bavli and the scholia have preserved another ancient, authentic tradition that is not dependent on 1 Macc, see Noam, Shifting Images, 32–58, esp 54–55. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 287 bow to idols in the time of the Antiochean persecutions of 168 BCE – is presented in the early midrash of Lamentations Rabba. In the rabbinic version the (Hellenistic) king is replaced by a Roman emperor (kesar). There are major differences between the two versions: the rabbinic text is interested in the verses that the sons adduce to justify their refusal to eat pork and their willingness to die for this refusal, while Greek 2 Maccabees is interested in the sorts of torture that were in store for the sons. However, the penultimate episode of the story in Lamentations Rabba indicates that the midrash closely alludes to, if not quotes, from 2 Maccabees. In 2 Macc 7:32–34 the youngest son says to the king: ‘It is true that our living Lord is angry with us and is making us suffer because of our sins, in order to correct and discipline us. But this will last only a short while, for we are still His servants, and He will forgive us. But you are the cruelest and most disgusting thing that ever lived. So don’t fool yourself with illusions of greatness while you punish God’s people’. Similarly, the youngest son is given a speech in the midrash: The emperor asked him: If (your God) has all these attributes, why does He not save you from my hands, as he saved Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the hands of Nebuchadnezzar? He answered him: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were righteous and Nebuchadnezzar was a proper king who was deemed worthy of a miracle being performed in his time, but you are not worthy, and we have been found guilty and deserving of death by the hands of heaven. If you do not kill us, God has many executioners: Many bears, many wolves and lions and snakes and leopards and scorpions who will attack and kill us. In the end, however, the Holy One blessed be He will seek revenge from you because of our blood. LamR 1.5053 This looks like an imaginative expansion of 2 Maccabees’s Greek, but the motif of a final speech rebuking the ruler as unworthy and attributing the 53 The answer given by the youngest son to the emperor appears in rabbinic traditions associated also with the martyrs Pappos and Lolianus (the earliest being Sifra emor 9:5), answering the emperor who is about to execute them. For this tradition see in detail Noam, Megillat Taʿanit, 295–97. It is impossible to know whether this motif in the Pappos and Lolianus story in the Sifra was taken from a tradition like that of 2 Maccabees or whether it was taken by Lamentations Rabba from a proto-Sifra, but this is not essential to the argument presented here. Even if the latter is the case, it shows that the editor of Lamentations Rabba knew the sort of theological argument used by the son in 2 Maccabees, and found and inserted it into his text, because it made similar arguments. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 288 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam punishment to God is the same, and it indicates the midrashic author’s knowledge of 2 Macc 7. This same episode is also related in the Bavli (bGit 57b), but it appears that its author was familiar with only a midrashic version of the story, similar to that of Lamentations Rabba, and not necessarily with the version in 2 Maccabees. While the verses cited by the sons in the Talmud and in the midrash are the same and appear in almost the same order, the youngest son’s description of himself and his brothers as sinners requiring punishment from God is missing from the Bavli version. 4 Maccabees There may be a point of contact between the story of the mother and her seven sons in the midrash and 4 Maccabees. Toward the end of the story in Lamentations Rabba, the mother says to her last surviving son: ‘My son. Go to Abraham your father and tell him: So said my mother: You should not be overpleased with yourself, saying: I built an altar and sacrificed my son. See, our mother built seven altars and sacrificed seven sons in one day. Yours was just a trial, I actually did it’ (LamR 1.50). This reference is found in the Bavli version too, but not in 2 Macc. However, it bears a similarity to the version of the same story in 4 Maccabees, which is entirely devoted to the martyrological chapters of 2 Maccabees and expands in a philosophical discourse on the merits of martyrdom. 4 Maccabees is imbued with the figure of Abraham as the protomartyr throughout, and the sacrifice of Isaac is mentioned often (4 Macc 16:5; 18:11, 23). In 4 Macc 14:20 the mother herself is described as being ‘of the same mind as Abraham’. It is possible that the author of Lamentations Rabba was also aware of 4 Maccabees, but there is no way to be sure, since the sacrifice of a child so obviously recalls the story of the Akeda in the Jewish imagination. The author of 4 Maccabees and the author of the midrash could have made this association independently. 2 Baruch Baruch ben Neriah, Jeremiah’s scribe (Jer 32:12–16; 26:4–32; 43:3–6; 45:1–2) was the inspiration for several apocryphal compositions; of these, 1 Baruch was incorporated into the Christian Apocrypha.54 It is not quite clear what sparked an apocalyptic interest in this minor biblical figure. It is the accepted view of scholars, though, that the authors of 2, 3, and 4 Baruch used the biblical Baruch (who was himself witness to the destruction of the First Temple) as an inspiration for their mourning of the Second Temple and for messianic expectations 54 For a summation see (among others) Salvesen, ‘Baruch’. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 289 following its destruction.55 Rabbinic literature also tells stories about Baruch ben Neriah that are not even hinted at in the Bible, such as his serving as Ezra’s teacher (bMeg 16b) or his intercalation of the year outside the Land of Israel (ySan 1:2, 19a). In Mekhilta de-R. Yishmael, pisha 1, he even complains that he was never blessed with the Holy Spirit visiting him and making him a prophet. Perhaps this tradition is a rabbinic polemic against apocalyptic circles that adopted the figure of Baruch as a prophet and the books of Baruch as authoritative. Despite this possible rejection of Baruch as a prophet by the rabbis, 2 Baruch is cited in several rabbinic compositions.56 2 Baruch 10:18 includes an admonition to the Temple priests: ‘You priests, take the keys of the sanctuary, and cast them to the highest heaven, and give them to the Lord and say: Guard your house yourself, because, behold, we have been found to be false stewards’. Two central literary elements can be derived from this verse. The first is the common accusation found in many Jewish sources that the Jerusalem priests had not served their God well. The second is a universal idea that the keys of a temple should be returned to the gods in the event that their temple is destroyed. As Meir Ben Shahar has shown, this idea is a literary motif already present in Greek mythology.57 Throwing the keys back to heaven in association with the destruction of the First Temple is found in Palestinian sources (yShek 6:2, 50a; LevR 19:6), but not in association with priests. In both the Yerushalmi and Leviticus Rabba we are informed that King Jehoiachin went up to the roof of his palace with the keys of the Temple and threw them up, saying that God no longer finds him reliable, and therefore he is returning the keys.58 In the Bavli this tradition underwent some marked changes: When the Temple was first destroyed groups of young priests with the keys of the Temple court in their hands banded together and climbed to the roof of the Temple. They said before Him: Master of the World: Since we have not been loyal stewards in Your Presence, here are the keys 55 56 57 58 See e.g., Jones, Jewish Reactions, 81–82. 2 Baruch has come down to us only in Syriac. Manuscript Bibliotheca Ambrosiana in Milan, however, is prefaced by a statement indicating that it was translated into Syriac from Greek. See e.g., Gurtner, Second Baruch, 6. Indeed, a Greek fragment of the book was found on a papyrus from Egypt (P. Oxy. III 403). It is most likely that this Greek version is a translation of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original (ibid., 10–11). Ben Shahar, ‘Suicide’, 2:781–83. One could argue that already in LevR 19:6 there is a clear parallel to 2 Baruch, because the king adds ‘we’ have not been true stewards. However, this version may be influenced by the Bavli, see MSS variants in Margulies, Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah, 2:436. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 290 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam returned to you; and they threw them upward. A sort of hand came out and took them. bTaan 29a The editors of the Bavli may have known the tradition about throwing the keys of the Temple to God on the eve of the destruction of the Temple, and a hand coming out to catch them, from the tradition found in the Talmud Yerushalmi about the destruction of the First Temple, but they chose to associate the event with the priests of the first destruction, probably under the influence of 2 Baruch, and quoting it almost verbatim. Later midrashim also knew this tradition, and always, as in 2 Baruch, in association with priests. It is cited in both versions of Avot de-R. Natan (A 4; B 7) and in the even later Pesikta Rabbati 26 and Second Targum to Esther 1:2. The last two are of special interest, because alongside the story of the return of the keys by the priests and their declaration, these versions cite another tradition taken from 2 Baruch: God sends four angels with torches in their hand to burn the Temple, indicating that God himself, rather than Israel’s enemies, was responsible for the calamity (= 2 Bar 6:4–7:2).59 The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah60 The book of Isaiah was of special interest to early Christianity. It is the most oft-cited biblical book in the New Testament, with the messianic expectations voiced in Isaiah’s prophecies interpreted as referring to Jesus.61 The Ascension of Isaiah, an apocryphal composition conserved in its entirety only in Ethiopic, is thus often considered a purely Christian work, and in its present form is certainly Christian, but it includes a clearly defined Jewish composition referred to by scholars as the Martyrdom of Isaiah.62 This composition relates, among other details, the otherwise unknown story of the martyrdom of Isaiah at the hands of the wicked King Menasseh. In this story (3:6–10) Isaiah boasts that he is greater than Moses, who had said that no one can see God and live (Exod 33:20) but he, Isaiah, had seen God and lived (Isa 6:1). God punishes Isaiah for his boasting. He incites Menasseh to cruelly execute Isaiah by sawing him asunder. While he is being executed, Isaiah continues to prophesy, until the saw reaches his mouth (Mart Ascen Isa 5:1–11). 59 60 61 62 The tradition about the four angels, independent of the tradition about the returning of the keys, is found in another late (and rather obscure) midrash – Lamentations Zuta 9:1, on which see now Pinchuk, ‘Titus’ War Council’. See on this tradition, Kalmin, Migrating Tales, 29–52. See e.g., Moyise – Menken (eds), Isaiah in the New Testament, especially in the introduction. See Knibb, ‘Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah’, 2:143. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 291 A story of Isaiah’s martyrdom at the hands of Menasseh is found in the Yerushalmi: ‘When Menasseh became king (lit., stood up) he hunted after Isaiah, wishing to kill him. (Isaiah) escaped to a cedar tree that swallowed him, except for his tsitsit, which revealed (his hiding place). They came and told (Menasseh). He said to them: Go saw the cedar. They went and sawed the cedar and blood appeared’ (ySan 10:2, 28c). Except for the fact that in both stories Isaiah is executed by sawing, the stories are not identical. The story of Isaiah being swallowed by a tree is not the same as the story in which he is executed in the king’s presence and continues to prophesy, although the two probably derive from a common source that told of Isaiah’s execution by King Menasseh. In the Babylonian Talmud, however, details from these older accounts are interwoven. bYev 49b begins by relating that a genealogical scroll was found in Jerusalem (a megillat yohasin), in which, among other details, it was stated that Menasseh killed Isaiah. This is followed by Isaiah being accused of having contradicted Moses, an accusation that is proven by several examples. The first example is exactly the boasting incident cited by the Ascension of Isaiah (Exod 33:20 vs. Isa 6:1). Then, when Isaiah understands that he will be executed, he pronounces the name (of God) and is swallowed by a cedar, exactly as in the Yerushalmi’s story. But when at the command of Menasseh the cedar is sawn asunder, Isaiah continues to prophesy, until the saw reaches his mouth, as in the Ascension.63 The Bavli’s mention of the scroll found in Jerusalem suggests that these details come directly out of a book. And indeed, the comparison with Moses as well as the report of Isaiah’s prophesying throughout his execution must both derive from the Martyrdom. However, the story of the cedar comes from the Yerushalmi or from a similar tradition. It appears that the Bavli (unlike the Yerushalmi) knew the Martyrdom in detail, and not just a tradition that Isaiah was martyred by Menasseh. 1 Enoch and the Book of Giants The term ‘Enochic literature’ refers to three apocalyptic compositions dating from the third century BCE to the ninth century CE, each of which has as its hero the biblical figure of Enoch, who is mentioned in Genesis 5:20–24 as a human being who did not die but was taken up by God.64 All three books devoted to Enoch include apocalyptic visions and the hero’s tours of the heavenly regions. 2 Enoch need not concern us, since it was unknown to the rabbis, and may actually be a Christian composition.65 Also 3 Enoch is not relevant 63 64 65 For a detailed discussion of these parallels see Kalmin, Migrating Tales, 29–52. For a detailed overview of this literature see e.g., Reed, Fallen Angels. On 2 Enoch see Böttrich, ‘“Book of Secrets of Enoch”’. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 292 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam here, since it belongs to the post-rabbinic mystical literature that has come to be designated hekhalot literature.66 1 Enoch, its earlier parts dated to the third century BCE, has come down to us in its entirety only in Ethiopic; in the Ethiopian Church it is considered part of Scripture.67 It was translated into Ethiopic from Greek, and indeed fragments of the book in Greek are preserved on papyri from Egypt from late antiquity.68 It was, however, composed in Aramaic, as substantial fragments of the book discovered at Qumran indicate.69 Rabbinic literature in general rejects the superhuman dimensions assigned to Enoch in the Enochic literature. Genesis Rabba is at the forefront of rabbinic polemics against Enochic apocalypticism. In GenR 25:1, Enoch is described as being half wicked and a flatterer. Further on in the same section, the rabbis argue on several counts that Enoch died like all humans.70 A different polemical approach is found in the Bavli, where the biblical Enoch is not mentioned by name even once. A third approach is that of (the Babylonian) Targum Onkelos, which states explicitly, in its translation of Gen 5:24, that Enoch died.71 Yet despite the Bavli’s rejection of any Enochic mystical and apocalyptic theology, there is evidence that Babylonian rabbis were acquainted with the first part of 1 Enoch (the Book of the Watchers), and with another Enochic composition not included in 1 Enoch, known as the Book of Giants (on which see below). 1 Enoch 6–8 relates the sins of the sons of God who cohabited with the daughters of Adam.72 An allusion to this tradition is found in bYom 67b.73 This tractate, devoted to Yom Kippur, inquires about the meaning of the term Azazel, which the Bible associates with the scapegoat sent to the desert on Yom Kippur (Lev 16:8, 10). The answer the Bavli provides is that the term Azazel indicates that the goat ‘atones for the sins of Uza and Azael’. Azael is the 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 On 3 Enoch see Herrmann, ‘Jewish Mysticism in Byzantium’. 3 Enoch is often very similar to rabbinic literature. For example, the tradition in bHag 15a–b, about Aher (i.e., the sage Elisha ben Abuya) ascending to heaven and encountering the angel Metatron, whom he mistakes for God, is related in 3 Enoch 16. See Schäfer, ‘Metatron in Babylonia’. However, while in 3 Enoch Metatron is identified with Enoch, in the Babylonian Talmud he is not. The best summation of this information is in Milik, Books of Enoch, 83–88. See ibid., 71–78. Ibid., 139–272. On the rabbinic anti-Enochic polemic see Reed, Fallen Angels, 136–39. On this particular GenR tradition see Schäfer, ‘Genesis Rabbah’s Enoch’. More positive attitudes to Enoch are evident in later rabbinic texts. In the (Geonic) tractate Derekh Erets (Rabba) 1:18, Enoch is identified together with Elijah and the messiah as those who entered the Garden of Eden alive. In PsYon to Gen 5:24, as in 3 Enoch, Enoch is specifically identified with Metatron. For which see Reed, Fallen Angels, 22–41. For a discussion of this text within the reception history of 1 Enoch see ibid., 235. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 293 name which 1 Enoch 8 gives to one of the fallen angels of Genesis 6. The sins of these angels that have to be atoned for on Yom Kippur are their forbidden relations with the daughters of Adam which resulted in the birth of giants. That this is indeed what the Bavli means can be clarified with the help of the small (Babylonian) tractate Kalla Rabbati 3.6,74 which states: ‘Do not be trapped by your eyes, for there is no trap like the eyes, as you find that Uza and Azael fell prey to their eyes, as it is written: “And the sons of God saw the daughters of Adam” (Gen 6:2)’.75 The Book of Giants was another Enochic composition, mentioned in the works of various ancient writers, but not incorporated into the Ethiopic 1 Enoch. It is partially preserved in Manichean writings from late antiquity in languages as disparate as Sogdian (an Iranian language used by Iranians living along the Silk Road) and Coptic (used by Egyptian Christians).76 It is also partially preserved at Qumran.77 It relates the fate of the sons of the leader(s) of the fallen angels (and their human wives), especially Ahiah the son of Shemhazai – also mentioned in 1 Enoch 6 as the leader of the fallen angels – and his vision concerning the coming flood. The Bavli shows familiarity with this book in the same way it shows knowledge of 1 Enoch, i.e., by mentioning unique names from this composition. In bNid 61a, in a discussion of Moses’s planned war with the kings of Transjordan, Sihon and Og, mentioned in Num 21, we read: ‘Sihon and Og were the sons of Ahiah son of Shemhazai’. Following this statement we are informed that ‘Og was a refugee from the generation of the flood’.78 Targum Pseudo-Yonathan is also acquainted with the tradition of these names,79 where Gen 6:4 (‘and there were nephilim in the land then’) is translated: ‘Shemhazai and Uziel were nephilim from heaven and were in the land then’. 74 75 76 77 78 79 On this tractate, its post-talmudic date, and its direct connection to the Bavli see Epstein, ‘Studies in Massekhet Kalla Rabbati’, 381–84. Epstein does not discuss the book of Enoch in this context, nor does he inquire from where the names come. These names (‫ועזאל‬, ‫עוזה‬, ‫ )עזה‬also appear in 3 Enoch 5 as the names of fallen angels. On this composition see Henning, ‘Book of Giants’. See Milik, Books of Enoch, 298–317. For further acquaintance with this tradition in much later rabbinic traditions, see ibid., 317–39. There is a long-standing controversy on the date of this Targum. Shinan, Embroidered Targum, 193–202, dates it to the eighth century; cf, however, Hayward, Targums and the Transmission of Scripture, 126–54, who considers it much earlier. Recently, Leeor Gottlieb (‘Towards a More Precise Understanding of Pseudo-Jonathan’s Origins’) suggests that the book is a twelfth-century medieval translation, but we were not convinced. Gavin McDowell (‘Date and Provenance of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’) makes a similar argument for a similar though slightly earlier (11th century) date, based on other sources. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 294 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam Jannes and Jambres Jannes and Jambres are the names given to two Egyptian magicians who contested Moses’s magical prowess when he confronted Pharaoh. They are mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:8 by name, and in the Damascus Document (5:17), which speaks of Johana (Jannes) and his brother as Moses’s rivals. Even Pliny mentions a certain Jannes in association with the Jewish Moses (Nat hist 30.2.11). Papyri fragments from a Jewish composition relating the exploits of Egyptian magicians use these names.80 Little of this composition can be reconstructed, except that Jannes is the senior magician, who despite God’s warning, contends with Moses, pays with his life, and is then replaced by his brother Jambres. These Egyptian magicians are not mentioned in a rabbinic document before the Bavli. In bMen 85a, however, we read: ‘Said Johana and Mamra to Moses: You are bringing hay to a hayfield. He said to them: As people say: To a town of greens, bring greens’. In this enigmatic text Moses maintains a dialogue with two men with names similar to Jannes and Jambres. If they are the Egyptian magicians, we can imagine that they are telling Moses it is futile to try to overcome Egyptians with magic, since Egypt is the land of magic (cf bKid 49b). This statement may be a quotation from a composition about these magicians, perhaps the one mentioned at Qumran since the spelling of the name Johana is similar,81 or the one found on papyri in Egypt. In any case, Moses’s answer is clearly a Babylonian invention, since it uses the typical Babylonian expression ‘people say’ (‫)אמרי אינשי‬. That a tradition about these magicians (and perhaps a familiarity with the composition referring to them) was current in talmudic Babylonia has recently become evident from a newly published Babylonian incantation bowl that mentions the two brothers.82 Finally, Targum Pseudo-Yonathan was clearly familiar with the names of Jannes and Jambres. In its translation of Exod 1:15, the Targum inserts a dream dreamt by Pharaoh and interpreted by his two chief magicians (‫;)יֵ ינִ יס וְ ְיִמ ְּב ֵרס‬ the two names appear again in the translation to Exod 7:11 and again as Balaam’s two servants in PsYon to Num 22:22.83 In all these cases, the spelling 80 81 82 83 On this composition see Pietersma, Apocryphon of Janes and Jambres. He believes the composition is Jewish and predates its appearance in 2 Timothy, but that it was originally composed in Greek, and not translated from an Aramaic Vorlage. He thinks the Damascus Document is referring to another composition or tradition; see especially pp11–23. He may also be mentioned in GenR 25:3: ‘In a proverb they say: Shilo sinned and Johana is punished’ although the context is unclear. See Shaked – Ford – Bhayro, Aramaic Bowl Spells, 181: ]‫פתקא דנפק יוחנא ו[ממרא‬. And in a similar form in the printed Tanhuma ki tisa 19; but this is probably a later addition, influenced by the Targum, since it is absent in the parallel Tanhuma ed S. Buber ki tisa 13. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 295 of the names is closer to the Greek transcription than to their rendering in the Bavli, which may indicate that the Targum’s author relied on the Greek original rather than on the Babylonian Talmud. Informal Borrowings from Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha More difficult to assess are the complex traces in rabbinic texts – usually late ones – of traditions found in pseudepigraphic compositions. These intertextual echoes are clearly not quotations and it is impossible to decide whether the rabbis were acquainted with the Second Temple books in question as they are known to us today, or whether they used common traditions that were also known to the authors of the Second Temple works. The fact that some shared narrative motifs are commonly found in folk literature of the region makes claims of direct dependence even more tenuous. We will briefly describe two examples, though there are clearly more. Tobit The book of Tobit is an apocryphal composition that became part of the Christian canon. It is preserved in full in Greek in the LXX codices, though fragments in Hebrew and Aramaic have survived at Qumran (4Q196–200). The folktale concerns a certain Tobias who goes from Nineveh to Ecbatana to marry his cousin, whose previous seven husbands were killed on their wedding night by the demon Asmodeos. Asmodeos appears as Ashmedai in bPes 110a and in a complex legend in bGit 68a–b that shares narrative motifs with the Testament of Solomon (see below). A story similar to the one of the book of Tobit appears in the printed version of the Tanhuma (haazinu 8) but with significant shifts in detail and emphasis.84 Here, a son of poor parents goes to marry his rich uncle’s daughter, whose previous three husbands have all died on their wedding night. He survives with the help of Elijah and the resourceful bride. The story contains many elements reminiscent of Tobit. For example, during the wedding night the father of the bride goes out to dig a grave for his son-in-law (cf Tobit 8:10). On the other hand, there is not a single name from the book of Tobit in this retelling, and Elijah, who appears in the midrash, is absent from Tobit. There are also no historical details in the Tanhuma story. Certainly, the editor of the Tanhuma knew the same basic storyline, but, there is little to no indication that the rabbinic authors knew Tobit in a fixed, written form, within a given context and in association with certain named individuals. 84 Lindbeck, ‘Brides Who Challenge Death’. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 296 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam Testament of Solomon The demon Asmodeos had a life of his own in the literary world of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha. He appears again in the Testament of Solomon, which, as it now stands, is a Christian work (Jesus is mentioned in chapter 11), though scholars believe the composition is in its base Jewish. In it, King Solomon relates how he overcame demons and made them his slaves in the building of the Temple.85 Chapter 5, devoted to Asmodeus, is wholly dependent on the book of Tobit. Asmodeus describes himself as ‘always hatching plots against newlyweds’, and is repelled by the angel Raphael, and by the “liver and gall of a fish smoking on coals” as in Tobit. Both the Babylonian Talmud and Babylonian incantation bowls mention a demon named Ashmedai. In both sources he is sometimes designated ‘King of Demons’, a title he bears neither in the book of Tobit nor in the Testament of Solomon.86 However, the Testament of Solomon describes Solomon building the Temple with the help of demons. This motif is found in a long and convoluted story in the Bavli in which Solomon builds the Temple with the aid of one demon – Ashmedai (bGit 68a). The Testament of Solomon and the story in the Babylonian Talmud share some common motifs, as shown by Richard Kalmin.87 While it is difficult to prove that the author of the Bavli’s story borrowed directly from the book of Tobit or from the Testament of Solomon, the strong intertextual echoes suggest a complex network of shared traditions.88 Quotes from Second Temple Literature of Unknown Origin The fifth category includes phrases, sentences, or traditions that appear to derive from unknown Second Temple works. We bring one prominent example (though there are many more). Pesikta Rabbati In some cases the presence of Second Temple style or themes may indicate that a rabbinic source is citing or drawing from an unknown Second Temple 85 86 87 88 See Duling, ‘Testament of Solomon’. And see Ilan, ‘Rav Joseph the Demon’. On Ashmedai see especially pp384–85; 390–91, and bibliography there. Kalmin, Migrating Tales, 95–129. See also Kiel, ‘Usurpation’. For more on this tradition at the intersection of East and West, see chapter 8 of this volume. Kiel, ‘Usurpation’, has argued that the talmudic legend in Gittin elaborates on earlier Palestinian rabbinic traditions while incorporating, adapting, and reworking traditions from the Testament of Solomon, and from Christian, gnostic (Nag Hammadi), and Iranian sources. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 297 work. An example may be found in a long passage from a late midrash that describes the destruction of the Temple: ‘And it came to pass that the flock went astray and did not obey the words of her master, and hated the shepherds of her sheep and good providers, and kept away from them’. ‘The flock’ – These are Israel who are compared to a flock ‘you, My flock, the flock that I tend’ (Ezek 34:31); ‘hated her shepherds’ – and appointed false shepherds. PesR 26; trans Ilan All the chapters of Pesikta Rabbati begin with biblical verses that are studied and interpreted in the next paragraphs. In contrast, the verse that is cited and interpreted in this chapter is not found in the Bible, although it begins with the word ‫‘( ויהי‬and it shall come to pass’, or ‘and it came to pass’), as do many biblical passages. Its mixed, archaized style is clearly not rabbinic. In fact, this kind of biblicized style appears in rabbinic literature only here and in another text about King Yannai in bKid 66a, which will be discussed below. Also, the interpretative midrash that follows relates to it the way rabbinic midrash usually relates to biblical verses. This must therefore be a citation of some extra-biblical authoritative source, unknown to us. The verse bears a strong resemblance to the Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch. In this allegory of Israel’s history Israel is likened to a flock that has gone astray: ‘And again I saw those sheep that they again erred and went many ways, and forsook their house, and the Lord of the sheep called some from amongst the sheep and sent them to the sheep, but the sheep began to slay them’ (1 Enoch 89:51–52). Nevertheless, in spite of the similarity, the verse cited in Pesikta Rabbati does not appear to be a citation of the Animal Apocalypse. Moreover, the motif of Israel as errant sheep appears in the words of the biblical prophets (Isa 53; Jer 50; Ezek 34) as well as in New Testament writings (Mt 18:12; 1 Pet 2:25). It is quite possible, then, that Pesikta Rabbati quotes an otherwise unknown work that employed this prevalent motif. Traditions Shared in Common with Josephus Notwithstanding the significant differences between the writings of the historian Flavius Josephus and rabbinic literature in terms of content, aim, authorship, addressees, language, and date, the two reflect a shared storehouse of at least thirty-five anecdotal traditions concerning post-biblical persons and events of the Second Temple period, from the conquest of Alexander the Great to the destruction of the Temple. For example, both Josephus and rabbinic literature relate a miraculous encounter between Alexander the Great and the Jewish high priest, in which the former prostrates himself in front of the latter For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 298 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam (Ant 11:302–47; bYom 69a and parallels).89 Both recount traditions about a heavenly voice heard by John Hyrcanus while officiating as high priest in the Temple (Ant 13:282–83; tSot 13:5 and parallels);90 about a high priest who was pelted with citrons in the Temple during the festival of Sukkot (Ant 13:372–74; mSuk 4:9, tSuk 3:16 and parallels);91 about a rupture between the Pharisees and the Hasmonean dynasty which broke out during a feast (Ant 13:288–98; bKid 66a);92 about a miracle of rainfall in Herod’s days (Ant 15:425, Sifra be-hukotai 1:1 and parallels);93 about secondary figures such as a certain Joseph son of Ellemus (Ben Elam) who served as high priest for one day only (Ant 17:165–66; tKip 1:4 and parallels);94 and more.95 Many scholars have posited that the rabbis were familiar with Josephus’s writings, or some earlier or later version of them, from which they drew these stories. Others have suggested that certain parallels derive from an ancient repository of traditions that served the historian and also reached the redactors of rabbinic literature centuries later.96 The most current research concludes that Josephus did not influence rabbinic literature either directly or indirectly and that similarities point to vestiges of a shared infrastructure.97 This conclusion rests on several considerations. First, the stories in question are contextually incongruent in Antiquities and missing altogether from War. This means that there is not a Josephan sequence from which the rabbis later ‘extracted’ material to interpolate into their discourse. The original form of these legends must be sought not in one or the other (Josephus or rabbinic literature) but in an unknown pool of traditions that preceded Josephus just as it preceded rabbinic literature. Second, 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Ben Shahar, ‘High Priest’. Noam, Shifting Images, 59–75. Ibid., 117–36. Noam, ‘Story of King Janneus’. Ilan, ‘Miracle of the Rainfall’. Baratz, ‘Joseph the Son of Ellemus (Ben Elam)’. In both corpora we also find similar anecdotes which occurred on the eve of or during the Great Revolt, such as the corruption of the last high priests, the abolishment of the sacrifice honoring the Roman emperor, the prediction to Vespasian that he will become emperor (ascribed by Josephus to himself and by the rabbis to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai), and more: See Fisch, Ben Shahar, and Ilan in Ilan – Noam, Josephus and the Rabbis, 1:526–43; 2:566–96; 2:604–64, respectively. These affinities do not represent a shared literary source, but rather reports of the same historical events. For elaboration see Tal Ilan, introduction, ibid. 2:547–65. For references see Vered Noam, introduction to Ilan and Noam, Josephus and the Rabbis, 1:24–40; Noam, Shifting Images, 17–28. The authors of the current chapter, with the participation of Daphne Baratz and Yael Fisch, have been engaged in recent years in a collaborative project that closely examines the phenomenon of parallel traditions about Second Temple history found in the writings of Flavius Josephus and in rabbinic literature. See further, Ilan and Noam, Josephus and the Rabbis. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 299 the traditions cited in rabbinic literature often retain authentic early motifs that are both anomalous in rabbinic literature and missing from the Josephan version of the story altogether, either because of his reworking of the traditions, or because he wrote in Greek, uprooting basic features of the original Hebrew. Because the transmitters and late redactors of rabbinic works could neither have drawn these linguistic or topical characteristics from Josephus, nor arrived at them independently, we must assume that they had before them an early Hebrew or Aramaic source, identical with or similar to Josephus’s source, which they preserved in a form closer to the original. Third, there are significant differences between the parallels. Sometimes the identity of the protagonists differs.98 In other instances, the order of events differs. Finally, the Josephan traditions sometimes contain details and data that shed light on the versions recounted in rabbinic literature, or reinforce a didactic rabbinic message, but are missing from the rabbinic traditions. This omission suggests that the rabbis were not familiar with the relevant passages in Josephus. The conclusion that a shared but now lost Second Temple era repository underlies the parallels between Josephus and rabbinic literature has significant ramifications. On the one hand, it means that Josephus cannot be added to the list of Second Temple works cited by the rabbis. On the other, the reconstruction and characterization of the rabbinic materials paralleled in Josephus can lead us to a hidden treasure trove of pre-rabbinic materials that were available to the anonymous rabbinic redactors, thus adding to the currently known Second Temple library a pool of lost, probably mostly oral, historical and pseudo-historical early traditions. One closing example: The story of the rift between the Hasmoneans and the Pharisees is recounted by Josephus as a conflict between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees (Ant 13:298–88). In bKid 66a a very similar story is told about Alexander Yannai’s reign. Vered Noam has shown that the language of that story indicates beyond doubt that it was composed during the Second Temple period. The political theme and the parallel in Josephus also attest to its early composition. In her estimation the story is part of a collection of Pharisaic legends which were transmitted and narrated even after the Temple’s destruction. The unique, archaic language suggests that it does not reflect an oral tradition, but rather a story copied from a written text.99 98 99 Even if in some cases it could be argued that this is a deliberate reworking that moves the spotlight from Herod to Janneus, or from John Hyrcanus to Janneus (or vice versa), in other instances, when secondary, unknown heroes are involved, it is difficult to attribute the difference to reworking. Rather, it is more likely that these are essentially different traditions. Noam, ‘Story of King Jannaeus’. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 300 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam Conclusion The intertextual presence of Second Temple traditions in rabbinic literature seems clear. The rabbis mention by name only one composition – the book of Ben Sira. However, rabbinic sayings and stories reflect awareness of other pre-rabbinic Jewish books and indicate that they knew traditions which derive from apocryphal compositions both known and unknown to us. Their composers also had access to a repository of oral traditions which had been used centuries earlier by Flavius Josephus. This survey of traditions in rabbinic literature that can be linked to Second Temple literature is a first step towards a reconstruction of the rabbis’ Second Temple library that must have been one of their sources of inspiration. Bibliography Adelman, R., The Return of the Repressed: Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer and the Pseudepigrapha, Leiden, Brill 2009 Albeck, Ch. (ed), Midrash Bereshit Rabbati (Midraš Berešit Rabbati ex libro M. Mosis Haddaršan collectus … ed. Ch. Albeck), Jerusalem, Mekitse Nirdamim 1940, repr 1967 (Heb) Alexander, P.S., ‘Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament’, Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 3/4 (1983) 237–46 Alon, G., Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and the Talmud, Jerusalem, Magnes 1977 Baratz, D., ‘Joseph the Son of Ellemus (Ben Elam)’, in Ilan – Noam, Josephus and the Rabbis, 1:417–24 (Heb) Bar-Kochva, B., Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids, Cambridge, Cambridge UP 1989 Baumgarten, A.I., ‘Sacred Scriptures Defile the Hands’, Journal of Jewish Studies 67 (2016) 46–67 Baumgarten, J.M., Studies in Qumran Law, Leiden, Brill 1977 Ben-Dov, J., ‘The Book of HGY and Ancient Reading Practices’, in A. Feldman – M. Cioată – C. Hempel (eds), Is There a Text in This Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke, (STDJ 119) Leiden, Brill 2017, 423–37 Ben-Eliyahu, E. – Cohn, Y. – Millar, F., Handbook of Jewish Literature from Late Antiquity, 135–700 CE, Oxford, Oxford UP 2012 Ben Shahar, M., ‘The High Priest and Alexander the Great’, in Ilan – Noam, Josephus and the Rabbis, 1:91–144 (Heb) For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 301 Ben Shahar, M., ‘Suicide of the Priests while the Temple Burnt’, in Ilan – Noam, Josephus and the Rabbis, 2:781–83 (Heb) Bickart, N. – Hayes, C., ‘The Apocrypha in Rabbinic Literature’, in J. Klawans – L.M. Wills (eds), The Jewish Annotated Apocrypha, Oxford, Oxford UP 2020, 593–97 Bieringer, R. – Martínez, F.G. – Pollefeyt, D. – Tomson, P.J. (eds), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, (JSJ Sup 136) Leiden, Brill 2010 Böttrich, C., ‘“The Book of Secrets of Enoch” (2 En): Between Jewish Origin and the Christian Tradition. An Overview’, in A.A. Orlov – G. Boccaccini (eds), New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only, (Stud. Judaeoslavica 4) Leiden, Brill 2012, 37–67 Boustan, R.S., ‘Rabbinization and the Making of Early Jewish Mysticism’, Jewish Quarterly Review 101 (2011) 482–501 Bregman, M., The Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature: Studies in the Evolution of the Versions, Piscataway NJ, Gorgias 2003 (Heb) Brody, R., Mishnah and Tosefta Studies, Jerusalem, Magnes 2014 Charles, R.H. (ed), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 2 vols, Oxford, Clarendon 1913 Charlesworth, J.H. (ed), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols, Garden City NY, Doubleday 1983–1985 Cohen, S.J.D., ‘The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis and the End of Jewish Sectarianism’, Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984) 27–53 Delattre, A., ‘Text Coptes et Grecs d’Antinoé’, in R. Pintaudi (ed), Antinoupolis I: Scavi e materialli, Firenze, Istituto Papirologico G. Vitelli 2008 Dönitz, S., ‘Historiography among Byzantine Jews: The Case of Sefer Yosippon’, in R. Bonfil et al. (eds), Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, (Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 14) Leiden, Brill 2011, 951–68 Duling, D.C., ‘Testament of Solomon’, in Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:935–58 Elior, R., The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism, Oxford, Littman Library of Jewish Civilization 2004 Epstein, Y., ‘Studies in Massekhet Kalla Rabbati: Text Redaction and Period’ (PhD diss, Hebrew University 2009) (Heb) Feldman, L.H. – Kugel, J.L. – Schiffman, L.H. (eds), Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society 2014 Finkelstein, L., ‘The Book of Jubilees and Rabbinic Halaka’, Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923) 39–61 Fisch, Y., ‘The Septuagint’, in Ilan – Noam, Josephus and the Rabbis, 1:145–67 (Heb) Fraade, S.D., Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages, (JSJ Sup 147) Leiden, Brill 2011 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 302 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam Fried, L.S., Ezra and the Law in History and Tradition, Columbia, University of South Carolina Press 2014 Friedman, S., Tosefta atikta: Masekhet Pesah Rishon. Synoptic Parallels of Mishnah and Tosefta Analyzed with a Methodological Introduction, Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan UP 2002 (Heb) Furstenberg, Y., ‘The Rabbinic Ban on Maʿaseh Bereshit: Sources, Contexts and Concerns’, in L. Jenott – S. Kattan Gribetz (eds), Jewish and Christian Cosmogony in Late Antiquity, (TSAJ 155) Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2013, 39–63 Giambrone, A., ‘Aquila’s Greek Targum: Reconsidering the Rabbinical Setting of an Ancient Translation’, Harvard Theological Review 110 (2017) 25–45 Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society 1913 Ginzberg, L., ‘Some Observations on the Attitude of the Synagogue towards the Apocalyptic-Eschatological Writings’, Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1922) 115–36 Goldstein, J.A., I Maccabees: A New Translation, with Introduction and Commentary, (Anchor Bible 41) Garden City NY, Doubleday 1976 Gottlieb L., ‘Towards a More Precise Understanding of Pseudo-Jonathan’s Origins’, Aramaic Studies 20 (2021) 104–20 Gray, R., Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, New York, Oxford UP 1993 Gurtner, D.M., Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text, New York, Clark 2009 Haran, M., The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages, Jerusalem, Mosad Bialik and Magnes 1996 (Heb) Hauptman, J., Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts, (TSAJ 109) Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2005 Hayward, C.T.R., Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into Judaism and Christianity, (Stud. into the Aramaic Interpr. of Scripture 10) Leiden, Brill 2010 Henning, W.B., ‘The Book of Giants’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and Asian Studies 11 (1943) 52–74 Herr, M.D., ‘The End of Jewish Hellenistic Literature: When and Why?’, in I.M. Gafni – A. Oppenheimer – D.R. Schwartz (eds), The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, Jerusalem, Merkaz Zalman Shazar 1996, 361– 75 (Heb) Herrmann, K., ‘Jewish Mysticism in Byzantium: The Transformation of Merkavah Mysticism in 3 Enoch’, in R. Boustan – M. Himmelfarb – P. Schäfer (eds), Hekhalot Literature in Context: Between Byzantium and Babylonia, (TSAJ 153) Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2013, 85–116 Himmelfarb, M., ‘Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature’, Hebrew Union College Annual 59 (1988) 73–100 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 303 Holladay, C.R., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Atlanta GA, Scholars Press 1983–1996 Ilan, T., Integrating Women into Second Temple History, (TSAJ 76) Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 1999 Ilan, T., ‘The Miracle of the Rainfall in Herod’s Day’, in Ilan – Noam, Josephus and the Rabbis, 1:411–16 (Heb) Ilan, T., ‘Rav Joseph the Demon in the Rabbinic Academy in Babylonia: Another Connection between the Babylonian Talmud and the Magic Bowls’, in C. Cordoni – G. Langer (eds), “Let the Wise Listen and Add to Their Learning” (Prov 1:5): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday, (Studia Judaica 90) Berlin, de Gruyter 2016, 381–94 Ilan, T. – Noam, V. (eds), in collaboration with M. Ben Shahar – D. Baratz – Y. Fisch, Josephus and the Rabbis, vol 1, The Lost Tales of the Second Temple Period, Jerusalem, Yad Ben-Zvi 2017 (Heb) Ilan, T. – Noam, V. (eds), Josephus and the Rabbis, vol 2, Stories of the Destruction, Jerusalem, Yad Ben-Zvi 2017 (Heb) Jaffé, D., ‘Index Librorum Prohibitorum: The Tannaim and Jewish Christian Books; Philological and Historical Perspectives’, Early Christianity 8 (2017) 447–57 Jaffee, M.S., Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE–400 BCE, Oxford, Oxford UP 2001 Jones, K.R., Jewish Reactions to the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: Apocalypses and Related Pseudepigrapha, (JSJ Sup 151) Leiden, Brill 2011 Kahana, A., Ha-sefarim ha-hitsonim la-Tora, la-Neviim, la-Ketuvim, ve-shaar sefarim hitsonim, 2 parts in 4 vols, Tel Aviv, Masada 1937 (Heb) Kalmin, R., Migrating Tales: The Talmud’s Narratives and Their Historical Context, Oakland, University of California Press 2014 Kiel, Y., ‘The Usurpation of Solomon’s Throne by Ashmedai (bGit 68a–b): A Talmudic Story in Its Iranian and Christian Contexts’, in J. Rubanovich – G. Herman (eds), Irano-Judaica, vol 7, Jerusalem, Yad Ben-Zvi 2019, 439–71 Kister, M., ‘Ahor va-kedem: Aggadot ve-darkhei midrash be-sifrut ha-hitsonit u-vesifrut hazal’, in J. Levinson – J. Elbaum – G. Hasan-Rokem (eds), Higayon L’Yona: New Aspects in the Study of Midrash, Aggadah, and Piyyut in Honor of Professor Yona Fraenkel, Jerusalem, Magnes 2006, 231–59 (Heb) Kister, M., ‘A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira’, Tarbiz 59 (1990) 303–78 (Heb) Kister, M., ‘Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha, and Other Jewish Writings’, in J.C. Reeves (ed), Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, Atlanta, Scholars Press 1994, 1–34 Knibb, M.A., ‘Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah’, in Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:143–176 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 304 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam Krochmal, N., More nevukhei ha-zeman: sefer more emuna tserufa umelamed hokhmat Yisrael … More nebuche ha-seman sive director errantium nostrae aetatis, Leviv / Lemberg, Shnaider 1851; critical re-edition with introduction by Y. Amir, Jerusalem, Carmel 2010 (Heb) Kugel, J.L., In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts, Cambridge MA, Harvard UP 1994 Kugel, J.L., Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era, Cambridge MA, Harvard UP 1998 Labendz, J.R., ‘Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Perspectives’, Harvard Theological Review 102 (2009) 355–88 Labendz, J.R., ‘The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature’, AJS Review 30 (2006) 347–92 Leiman, S.Z., The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, Hamden CT, Archon 1976 Lerner, M.B., ‘The Works of Aggadic Midrash and the Esther Midrashim’, in Safrai et al., The Literature of the Sages, Second Part, 133–229 Lévi, I., ‘La Pesikta Rabbati et le 4e Ezra’, Revue des études juives 24 (1892) 281–85 Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine, New York, Feldheim 1965 Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1962 Lindbeck, K., ‘Brides Who Challenge Death: A Jewish Folktale Motif Retold in Different Cultural Contexts’, Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary E-journal 10 (2013) Mack, H., The Mystery of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan, Jerusalem, Mosad Bialik 2010 (Heb) Margulies, M., Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah: A Critical Edition Based on Manuscripts and Genizah Fragments with Variants and Notes, vol 1–3, repr New York, Jewish Theological Seminary 1993 (Heb) McDowell, G., ‘Date and Provenance of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: The Evidence of Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer and the Chronicle of Moses’, Aramaic Studies 20 (2021) 121–54 Milik, J.T., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4, Oxford, Clarendon 1976 Milikowsky, Ch., ‘At the Beginning of Rabbinic Literary Culture: External Sources of Knowledge – Legitimate or Illegitimate?’, in M. Bar-Asher Siegal – T. Novick – C. Hayes (eds), The Faces of Torah: Studies in the Texts and Contexts of Ancient Judaism in Honor of Steven Fraade, (JAJ Sup 21) Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2017, 413–32 Milikowsky, Ch., ‘Seder Olam’, in Safrai et al., The Literature of the Sages, Second Part, 231–37 Milikowsky, Ch., Seder Olam: Critical Edition, Commentary, and Introduction, Jerusalem, Yad Ben-Zvi 2013 (Heb) Moore, G.F., ‘The Definition of the Jewish Canon and the Repudiation of the Christian Scriptures’, in Essays in Modern Theology and Related Subjects, New York, Scribner’s Sons 1911, 99–25 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 305 Moyise, S. – Menken, M.J.J. (eds), Isaiah in the New Testament, London, Clark 2005 Naeh, S., ‘Kariana de-igarta: Notes on Talmudic Diplomatics’, in A. Maman – S.E. Fassberg – Y. Breuer (eds), Shaarei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar Asher, vol 2, Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic, Jerusalem, Mosad Bialik 2007, 228–55 (Heb) Naeh, S., ‘The Structure and Division of “Torat Kohanim” (A): Scrolls’, Tarbiz 66 (1997) 483–515 (Heb) Noam, V., ‘From Philology to History: The Sectarian Dispute, as Portrayed in the Scholium to Megillat Ta‘anit’, in L.M. Teugels – R. Ulmer (eds), Recent Developments in Midrash Research: Proceedings of the 2002 and 2003 SBL Consultation on Midrash, Piscataway NJ, Gorgias 2005, 53–95 Noam, V., From Qumran to the Rabbinic Revolution: Conceptions of Impurity, (David and Yemimah Jeselson Library) Jerusalem, Yad Ben-Zvi 2010 (Heb) Noam, V., ‘Megillat Taanit: The Scroll of Fasting’, in Safrai et al., The Literature of the Sages, Second Part, 339–62 Noam, V., Megillat Taanit: Versions, Interpretation, History; with a Critical Edition, Jerusalem, Yad Ben-Zvi 2003 (Heb) Noam, V., Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, Oxford, Oxford UP 2018 Noam, V., ‘The Story of King Janneus (b. Qiddushin 66a): A Pharisaic Reply to Sectarian Polemic’, Harvard Theological Review 107 (2014) 31–58 Paz, Y., ‘The Torah of the Gospel: A Rabbinic Polemic against the Syro-Roman Lawbook’, Harvard Theological Review 112 (2019) 517–40 Pietersma, A., The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians, (VT Sup 43) Leiden, Brill 1994 Pinchuk, M., ‘Titus’ War Council in the Eyes of an Unknown Midrash’, Zion 84 (2019) 301–10 (Heb) Reed, A.Y., Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature, Cambridge, Cambridge UP 2005 Reed, A.Y. – Reeves, J.C., Enoch from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, vol 1, Sources from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Oxford, Oxford UP 2018 Reymond, E.D., ‘The Poetry of Ben Sira Manuscript C’, in J.K. Aitken – R. Egger-Wenzel – S.C. Reif (eds), Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting – Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 Years, Berlin, de Gruyter 2019, 215–36 Ron, Z., ‘The Book of Jubilees and the Midrash on the Early Chapters of Genesis’, Jewish Bible Quarterly 41 (2013) 143–55 Ron, Z., ‘The Book of Jubilees and the Midrash Part 2: Noah and the Flood’, Jewish Bible Quarterly 42 (2014) 103–13 Safrai, S. (ed), The Literature of the Sages, First Part: Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates, executive ed P.J. Tomson, (CRINT 2.3a) Assen/Maastricht, Van Gorcum – Philadelphia, Fortress 1987 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam 306 Ben-Shahar, Ilan and Noam Safrai, S. – Safrai, Z. – Schwartz, J. – Tomson, P.J. (eds), The Literature of the Sages, Second Part: Midrash and Targum; Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism; Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science; and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, (CRINT 2.3b) Assen, Van Gorcum – Minneapolis, Fortress 2006 Salvesen, A., ‘Baruch’, in M. Goodman (ed), The Oxford Bible Commentary: The Apocrypha, Oxford, Oxford UP 2001, 112–17 Sandmel, S., ‘Parallelomania’, Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962) 1–13 Schäfer, P., ‘Genesis Rabbah’s Enoch’, in S.K. Gribetz et al. (eds), Genesis Rabbah in Text and Context, (TSAJ 166) Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2016, 63–80 Schäfer, P., ‘Hekhalot Literature and the Origins of Jewish Mysticism’, in M. Goodman – P. Alexander (eds), Rabbinic Texts and the History of Late-Roman Palestine, Oxford, Oxford UP 2010, 265–80 Schäfer, P., Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton NJ, Princeton UP 2007 Schäfer, P., The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other, Princeton NJ, Princeton UP 2012 Schäfer, P., ‘Metatron in Babylonia’, in R. Boustan – M. Himmelfarb – P. Schäfer (eds), Hekhalot Literature in Context: Between Byzantium and Babylonia, (TSAJ 153) Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2013, 29–39 Schiffman, L.H., ‘Second Temple Literature and Rabbinic Judaism’, in A. Lange – E. Tov – M. Weigold (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, vol 2, (VT Sup 140) Leiden, Brill 2011, 595–617 Scholem, G.G., Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, New York, Jewish Theological Seminary 1965 Segal, M.Z., Sefer Ben Sira ha-shalem, repr of 2nd ed, Jerusalem, Mosad Bialik 1978 (Heb) Shaked, S. – Ford, J.N. – Bhayro, S., Aramaic Bowl Spells: Jewish-Babylonian Aramaic Bowls, Leiden, Brill 2013 Shemesh, A. – Werman, C., ‘Halakhah at Qumran: Genre and Authority’, Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003) 104–29 Shinan, A., The Embroidered Targum: The Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch, Jerusalem, Magnes 1992 (Heb) Simon-Shoshan, M., ‘The Tasks of the Translators: The Rabbis, the Septuagint, and the Cultural Politics of Translation’, Prooftexts 27 (2007) 1–39 Smelik, W.F., Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Cambridge UP 2013 Stemberger, G., ‘The Pharisees and the Rabbis: How Much Continuity?’, in J. Sievers and A.J. Levine (eds), The Pharisees, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans 2021, 240–54 Stone, M.E., ‘The Hebrew Testament of Naphtali’, Journal of Jewish Studies 47 (1996) 311–21 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam Second Temple Literature and the Rabbinic Library 307 Strack, H.L. – Stemberger, G., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, M. Bockmuehl (trans), 2nd ed, Minneapolis, MN, Augsburg Fortress 1996 Strack, H.L., – Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash, München, C.H. Beck 1922–28 Sussmann, Y., ‘The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Observations on Miqsat Maʿase Ha-Torah (4QMMT)’, Tarbiz 59 (1990) 11–76 (Heb) Sussmann, Y., ‘Tora she-beal pe – peshuta ke-mashmaa – koho she kotso shel yod’, in Y. Sussmann – D. Rosenthal (eds), Mehkerei Talmud, vol 3, Jerusalem, Magnes 2005, 209–25 (Heb) Tov, E., The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, (VT Sup 72) Leiden, Brill 1999 Turan, S., ‘A Neglected Rabbinic Parallel to the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:22– 23; Luke 11:34–36)’, Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008) 81–93 Veltri, G., Libraries, Translations, and ‘Canonic’ Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, (JSJ Sup 109) Leiden, Brill 2006 Veltri, G., Eine Tora für den König Talmai. Untersuchungen zum Ubersetzungsverständnis in der jüdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur, (TSAJ 41) Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 1994 Vermes, G., ‘Jewish Studies and New Testament Interpretation’, Journal of Jewish Studies 31 (1980) 1–17 Vermes, G., ‘Leviticus 18:21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis’, in J. Petuchowski – E. Fleischer (eds), Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, Jerusalem, Magnes 1981, 108–24 Werman, C. – Shemesh, A., Revealing the Hidden: Exegesis and Halakha in the Qumran Scrolls, Jerusalem, Mosad Bialik 2011 (Heb) Wright, B., Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint, Leiden, Brill 2008 Yassif, E., The Tales of Ben Sira in the Middle Ages: A Critical Text and Literary Study, Jerusalem, Magnes 1984 (Heb) Zeitlin, S., The First Book of Maccabees: An English Translation by Sidney Tedesche; Introduction and Commentary, New York, Dropsie College 1950 Zellentin, H.M., Rabbinic Parodies of Jewish and Christian Literature, (TSAJ 139) Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2011 Zunz, L., Ha-derashot be-Yisrael (Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden), trans from 2nd ed 1892, M. Zack, edited and supplemented by Ch. Albeck, Jerusalem, Mosad Bialik 1947 and repr (Heb) For use by the Author only | © 2022 Meir Ben Shahar, Tal Ilan, and Vered Noam