Rewritten Scripture

The term "Rewritten Bible" was introduced by Géza Vermes in 1961 to describe works from late Second Temple period that "retell" or "rewrite" Scriptures with characteristic changes. Since then, much has been written about this category of texts. Today some researchers are tired of discussing this concept, suggesting even a move away from the notion. Others, on the contrary, apply it to an increasing number of texts, including even works lying outside the specific context of late Second Temple Jewish literature. This article discusses the phenomenon of the "Rewritten Bible" (RewB) and takes up a polemic with certain approaches to the category, concerning terminology, scope, and character, as well as indication of the purposes of rewriting activity. The article shows that the category remains useful and important, within certain methodological clarifications.

Aside from other strands in its rich history of interpretation, the episode of the three youths in the fiery furnace (Dan 3) was interpreted by early Christians as a theophany (or rather, more specifically, a manifestation of the Logos-to-be-incarnate, a “Christophany”), as a foreshadowing of the mystery of the incarnation, and, especially in Byzantine hymns about “the three youths equal in number to the Trinity,” as an allusion to the Trinitarian God. The current scholarly concepts, however, fail to distinguish properly between the various types of exegesis involved in each of these cases, and obscure the importance of the earliest and most enduring Christian exegesis of OT theophanies.

In this essay I will examine the exegetical and hermeneutical features found in 4Q158 1‒2, and their relation with other literary compositions. I will argue that 4Q158 displays a specific interpretative approach towards its base text in which specific exegetical motives function as the exegetical trigger for expansions of different sorts. Where exegesis takes place the text chiefly exhibits a word- and verse-centred exegetical approach. The scribe tends to explicate the base text by means of explicitly transcribing a lacking dialogue or command. Furthermore, a case was observed where Genesis 32 was juxtaposed with Exodus 4, probably on the basis of thematic similarities. These expansions are thoroughly embedded in their literary context, and they show a strong tendency towards coordination and harmonization between related stories.
Like many other examples in Early Judaism, 4QRP did not evolve ex nihilo. The text actively engages with existing tradition to which it relates in a number of different manners.

”בין מקרא משוכתב לפרשנות אלגורית: פירושו של פילון האלכסנדרוני לסנה הבוער” (“Between Rewritten Bible and Allegorical Commentary: Philo’s Interpretation of the Burning Bush”)עיוני מקרא ופרשנות יא: מנחות ידידות והוקרה ליעקב כדורי, תש”ף, עמ’ 267־276, בעריכת מיכאל אביעוז, אריק לווי, ויוסף עופר. Studies in Bible and Exegesis 11: 267-76. Presented to Yaakov Kaduri. Edited by Michael Avioz, Eric Lawee, and Yosef Ofer. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2020.

This essay discusses the phenomena of "Fortschreibung" of an authoritative text (within the text itself) and its "rewriting" or "Neuschreibung" (in terms of a parallel text), using the Book of Jubilees and the Qumran texts as examples. It shows how these processes are linked to the development of identity.

If quoting, please refer to the published version as per below.

ABSTRACT

The historical-critical method that characterizes academic biblical studies too often remains separate from approaches that stress the history of interpretation, which are employed more frequently in the area of Second Temple or Dead Sea Scrolls research. Inaugurating the new Eisenbrauns series, Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible, A More Perfect Torah explores a series of test-cases in which the two methods mutually reinforce one another. The volume brings together two studies that investigate the relationship between the composition history of the biblical text and its reception history at Qumran and in rabbinic literature.

The Temple Scroll is more than the blueprint for a more perfect Temple. It also represents the attempt to create a more perfect Torah. Its techniques for doing so are the focus of part 1, entitled “Revelation Regained: The Hermeneutics of KI and 'IM in the Temple Scroll.” This study illuminates the techniques for marking conditional clauses in ancient Near Eastern literature, biblical law, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. It also draws new attention to the relationship between the Temple Scroll’s use of conditionals and the manuscript’s carefully organized spacing system for marking paragraphs. Syntax serves as a technique, no less than pseudepigraphy, to advance the Temple Scroll’s claim to be a direct divine revelation.

Part 2 is entitled “Reception History as a Window into Composition History: Deuteronomy’s Law of Vows as Reflected in Qoheleth and the Temple Scroll.” The law of vows in Deut 23:22-24 is difficult in both its syntax and its legal content. The difficulty is resolved once it is recognized that the law contains an interpolation that disrupts the original coherence of the law. The reception history of the law of vows in Numbers 20, Qoh 5:4–7, 11QTemple 53:11–14, and Sipre Deuteronomy confirms the hypothesis of an interpolation. Seen in this new light, the history of interpretation offers a window into the composition history of the biblical text.

The volume shows the significance of syntax and historical linguistics for understanding how ancient scribes established claims of religious and textual authority. Appendixes on the use of conditionals in biblical law and the Dead Sea Scrolls provide resources for further research.

KEYWORDS

Pentateuch, Biblical Law, Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran, Historical Criticism, History of Interpretation, Historical Linguistics, Reception History, Composition History, Redaction, Exegesis, Innerbiblical Exegesis, Rewritten Scripture, Halakic Exegesis, Legal Exegesis, Legal Hermeneutics, Covenant Code, Law of Vows, Syntax, Grammar, Oaths, Vows, Pleonasm, Conditionals, Casuistic Law, Scribal Practice, Textual Authority, Interpolation, Revelation, Voicing, Protasis, Apodosis, Lexik, Bundesbuch, Auslegungsgeschichte, Entstehungsgeschichte des Dtn, Wirkungsgeschichte, Grammatik, Innerbiblische Exegese

REVIEWS

"A More Perfect Torah is an important contribution to the ongoing dialogue about text and composition. The best feature of the work is the author's effort to bring together two often insular disciplines—biblical studies and the history of Jewish interpretation."
—Matthew McAffee, Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.1 (2014)

"L. has provided us with two fine detailed studies that nicely demonstrate the interplay of language and hermeneutics. The brief summary presented here does not do full justice to his arguments, which draw parallels from cuneiform law and rabbinics as well as from the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls."
—John J. Collins in Theologische Literaturzeitung 139.2 (2014)

"[In this book,] Levinson accomplishes his goal with a clarity and specificity that is–in sum–nearly unassailable. . . . [He] states his case clearly, carefully, and brilliantly. . . . Levinson’s argument is so persuasive and his critical skills so sharpened by use that readers may find themselves bewitched into accepting without argument or question the conclusions he proffers. . . . [As a result,] it is so very tempting to surrender and suggest that Levinson has uttered the final word on the subject. The book is just that good."
—Jim West, "Zwinglius Redivivus" blog (2013)

"This cutting-edge monograph is the first in the new Eisenbrauns series Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible. It is presented in two parts, the first of which, 'Revelation Regained: The Hermeneutics of ky and 'm in the Temple Scroll', was co-authored with Molly Zahn. By examining the syntax, linguistic forms, and the spacing system employed, the authors explain the replacement of the conditional particle ky ('if') in Deuteronomy with 'm ('if' or 'when') in 11QT as the redactor's desire to resolve the inconsistent arrangement and awkward content of the pre-existing laws. This textual sprucing was further accompanied by re-presenting the speeches of Moses as direct divine revelation, to construct a superior and definitive finished product for the Temple Scroll's audience(s). A separate analysis of the reception of Deuteronomy's law of vows (in Num. 20, Qoh. 5.4-7, 11QT 53.11-14 and Sifre Deut.) is then shown to illuminate the compositional history of the earlier biblical forms. This is a highly persuasive and compelling study, less accessible to non-specialists, but essential reading for understanding the development of authoritative Judaean texts in the Second Temple Period."
—Sandra Jacobs, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38:5 (2014): 194

“In the final analysis, this short book about biblical literature should challenge scholars of rabbinic Judaism in a number of productive ways. First, the book’s daunting melding of hermeneutics with historical linguistics argues against the separation of labor that currently characterizes a great deal of work on rabbinic Judaism. Second, the book convincingly destabilizes the categories of scripture and rewritten scripture. This is not only a helpful reminder that the history of biblical exegesis begins before scripture was fixed. By showing how the earliest exegetical impulses have impacted biblical texts, Levinson is shaking the canonical foundation on which many histories of biblical exegesis begin. Third, the book demonstrates what can be seen by working both forward and backward through time. A great deal of scholarship on rabbinic Judaism is structured chronologically—from the Torah to the Talmud. There are plenty of good reasons for this, and certainly no justification for wholesale change. Indeed, the first chapter of the present work is perfectly chronological. But the second chapter disturbs this all-to-neat structural device, demonstrating that the shakiness of some foundations can best be seen not just by looking down from above but by climbing down and probing deeply and carefully. Finally, Levinson’s contribution to our understanding of the Second Temple period quest for a more perfect Torah sheds general light on rabbinic literature, especially by implicit contrast. Rabbinic Judaism—with its belief in the dual Torah, and its employment of explicitly exegetical midrashic styles—developed an entirely different approach, whereby revelation could be regained from a Torah that need not, and no longer could, be perfected by rewriting.”
    —Jonathan Klawans, The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 18 (2015): 167–170

“A More Perfect Torah contains two short yet richly rewarding studies which seek to combine what are frequently considered separate disciplinary pursuits within biblical studies, skillfully demonstrating the benefits of a broader and more integrative approach to the field. . . .

“The two studies. . .demonstrate that history critics must at least consider Rewritten Scripture and reception history as avenues of historical-critical inquiry. Moreover, the studies show that the evidence of Rewritten Scripture or reception history will, in certain cases, be determinative or strongly corroborative of historical-critical conclusion. The studies in this volume thus not only issue a challenge to the boundaries between disciplinary specialization within biblical studies, but significantly problematize any distinction between Scripture and Rewritten Scripture or between Bible and reception.”
—Deane Galbraith, University of Otago, Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception 4:1 (2014): 105–8. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.11157/rsrr4-1-636

Ever since Géza Vermes in 1961 coined the influential term Rewritten Bible, its merits have been intensely debated by scholars. However, any widespread consensus still eludes exegetes regarding a precise definition, the works the term may apply to, and how to employ the term – even the name itself remains a debated issue. This study addresses the status quaestionis by surveying the reasons for either employing or rejecting the term presented during the past fifty years, as well as the various definitions and the works they have been applied to.

Tanulmányomban arra keresem a választ, hogy vajon a Királyok könyvé-nek recepciója milyen módon történt meg a qumráni közösség irodalmá-ban, továbbá arra, hogy e szentírási könyv i.e. 2-1. századi újraírásainak, parafrázisainak-főként az úgynevezett Sámuel-Királyok apokrifon és az Elisa-apokrifon szövegek-hátterében milyen korabeli eszmék és szerzői indítékok kereshetők. Ehhez a tanulmány első felében rövidebben fogok értekezni a qumráni szentírási könyvekről és a Királyok könyvének qumráni kéziratairól, továbbá a szentírási újraírás problematikájáról beszélek, vizsgálódásom második felében pedig a Királyok könyvének qumráni újraírásaival, a vonatkozó kéziratok szentírási parafrázisaival foglalkozom részletesen.

This essay seeks to explore the development of Lot’s characterization in the story of the separation of Abram and Lot, in Genesis 13, from the Hebrew text through the earliest re-tellings before the end of first century B.C.E.  Given the parameters mentioned above I will be limiting my discussion to LXX, Jubilees and Genesis Apocryphon as these reflect the earliest developments of traditions concerning Lot.  While, on the whole, the Hebrew text is somewhat ambiguous regarding Lot’s status and character, there are times when phrases and or gaps in the story appear to have led subsequent re-tellers to certain conclusions or at least “left the door open” for negative readings.  In those problematic and/or ambiguous texts, re-tellers tended to shift the focus away from any potential difficulties surrounding Abram to Lot’s ethical and relational separation from his uncle.  The result of this analysis will be to show that through changing wording, adding interpretive information or omitting problematic portions altogether Lot has, by the end of the first century, been further developed from a somewhat ambiguous, though at times questionable, character into one who can quite easily be read as an unrighteous outsider.