¹ Moshe J. Bernstein provides a clear overview of the various surveys and representative views (“ ‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness?” Textus 22 [2005] 169–96). Among more recent treatments, see especially Petersen, Anders Klostergaard, “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon—Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism?” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies (ed. Hilhorst, Anthony, Puech, Émile, and Tigchelaar, Eibert; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Zahn, Molly M., “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (ed. von Weissenberg, Hanne, Pakkala, Juha, and Marttila, Marko; BZAW 419; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011) 93–119Google Scholar.

² See, e.g., VanderKam, James C., “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Canon Debate (ed. McDonald, Lee M. and Sanders, James A.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002) 91–109Google Scholar; and idem, “The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works,” in The Bible as a Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov; London: The British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2002) 41–56, esp. 42–43, 52–53. See also Najman, Hindy, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 44Google Scholar.

³ See Geza Vermes's classic description of “rewritten Bible”: “In order to anticipate questions, and to solve problems in advance, the midrashist inserts haggadic development into the biblical narrative” (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies [2nd ed.; StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1973] 95). More recently he reaffirms: “The aim [of ‘Rewritten Bible type exegesis’] is expository, not historical or theological” (“Bible Interpretation at Qumran,” in Yigael Yadin Memorial Volume [ed. Amnon Ben-Tor et al.; ErIsr 20; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989] 184*–91*, at 188*). Cf. Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible?,” esp. 172–73 and 182–83; Najman, Seconding Sinai, 43–44.

⁴ “[T]he rewriting of the Bible was carried out in the Second Temple period largely to convey ideological messages” (Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible?,” 193). On the distinction between exegesis and ideology, see Bernstein, Moshe J., “4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary,” JJS 45 (1994) 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1–2; but cf. the important caveat of Kugel: “[E]ven in cases of blatantly ideological interpretations, it is usually quite difficult to decide whether a given interpreter set out to patrol all of Scripture in search of a place to ‘plant’ an expression of his own ideology, or whether, on the contrary, faced with a particular exegetical stimulus in the biblical text—an unusual word, an apparent incongruity, or the like—the interpreter came up with an explanation that, in one way or another, also reflected his own ideology or the issues of the day. For these reasons, it seems best to leave aside any distinction between ‘pure’ and other forms of exegesis” (Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998] 21–22; cf. idem, In Potiphar's House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990] 248–51); Zahn, Molly M., Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95; Leiden: Brill, 2011) 14–15 n. 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Samely, Alexander, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuchal Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis (TSAJ 27; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1993) 82–85Google Scholar.

⁵ Cf. Devorah Dimant: “The functions of the biblical materials in works considered as ‘rewritten Bible’, are defined in relation to their role within the compositional structure. . . . While the implicit quotations are reworked in a way as to preserve their essential lexical and syntactical structure, in the expansions the author is free to shape them according to the narrative plot and his own aims. It is often done by adding details to a general picture or group which figured in the original context” (“Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity [ed. Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling; CRINT 2/1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988] 379–419, at 403, 406).

⁶ Brooke, George J.: “[I]t can generally be said that Rewritten Bible texts are those which closely follow their scriptural base text and which clearly display an editorial intention that is other than or supplementary to that of the text being altered” (“Rewritten Bible,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls [ed. Shiffman, Lawrence H. and VanderKam, James C.; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000] 2:777–81, at 778)Google Scholar. VanderKam speaks of works that “exhibit both adherence and yet a certain independence from a scriptural text” (“Wording,” 42). On this dialectical relationship, see further Thomas Willi's description of the “gehorsame Unbotmäßigkeit der Auslegung” (Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels [FRLANT 106; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972] 54).

⁷ See the superb treatment of this question in Kratz, Reinhard G., “Die Suche nach Identität in der nachexilischen Theologiegeschichte: Zur Hermeneutik des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes und ihrer Bedeutung für das Verständnis des Alten Testaments,” in Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (ed. idem; FAT 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 157–80Google Scholar, esp. 174–75; and T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung, 54–56, 66–68, 132–89, esp. 149, 152–53, 166, 169, 177–78; see also Steck, Odil Hannes, Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 157–58Google Scholar. For an alternative description of this relationship under the dual rubrics of exegesis and authorization, see Najman, Seconding Sinai, 45. By this account, the literary activity of rewriting is ultimately an authority-conferring strategy, a means of authorizing interpretations. Cf. also Segal, Michael, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. Henze, Matthias; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005) 10–28Google Scholar, at 11–12.

⁸ “Ancient biblical interpretation is an interpretation of verses not stories” (Kugel, Traditions, 24).

⁹ As reflected in Kugel's formulation: “Exegetical motifs . . . were the very fabric of ancient biblical interpretation. Individual authors may have put their own stamp on the motifs that they inherited, and even the choice to include or not include a given motif may reflect the tastes, ideology, or other particulars of a specific author. But the motifs themselves constituted the raw material out of which most ancient retellings and commentaries were made” (Traditions, 28).

¹⁰ A point also emphasized by Dimant: “But here lies another pitfall; to set out from unresolved difficulties of a given biblical episode in order to review the solutions offered to them in later writings is to look for common interpretative aims. Such an investigation usually entails playing down or disregarding the specific function of a biblical text in individual compositions” (“Use and Interpretation of Mikra,” 379).

¹¹ Studies on this pericope have tended to focus on its relationship to traditions in other literature. These include Brock, Sebastian P., “Abraham and the Ravens: A Syriac Counterpart to Jubilees 11–12 and Its Implications,” JSJ 9 (1978) 135–52Google Scholar; Knowles, Michael, “Abram and the Birds in Jubilees 11: A Subtext for the Parable of the Sower?” NTS 41 (1995) 145–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Silver, Daniel J., “‘Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore”’—Some Reflections on Jubilees, Chapter 11” in “Open Thou Mine Eyes . . .”: Essays on Aggadah and Judaica Presented to Rabbi William G. Braude on His Eightieth Birthday and Dedicated to His Memory (ed. Blumberg, Hermanet al.; Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1992) 255–72Google Scholar.

¹² Crawford, Cory D., “On the Exegetical Function of the Abraham/Ravens Tradition in Jubilees 11,” HTR 97 (2004) 91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Ibid., 93.

¹⁴ One may doubt whether can mean “method of sowing” in the Hebrew Bible, as Crawford claims (cf. HALOT 282 as against the references in BDB 282 for the meaning “sowing”). But this is not necessarily consequential, since the author of Jubilees (or another early interpreter) may have understood it to mean such nonetheless.

¹⁵ Crawford, “Exegetical Function,” 94.

¹⁶ Unless otherwise noted, all translations are from the second volume of The Book of Jubilees (ed. James C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; CSCO 510–511; Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88; Louvain: Peeters, 1989).

¹⁷ Crawford cites approvingly S. P. Brock's conjecture that the seed-plow was “perhaps introduced from [Mesopotamia] into Syria and Palestine (where it is still used) already in antiquity” (Brock, “Abraham and the Ravens,” 140 n. 118; Crawford, “Exegetical Function,” 94). It is possible to argue, of course, that the author of Jubilees presumed a Palestinian readership possessing first-hand acquaintance with the agricultural methods of the region and therefore felt no need to draw this obvious inference. Still, if the raison d’être of the story is to show how the Lord gave the land of promise to Abraham's “seed/sowing,” the absence of Canaan itself from the pericope strikes one as a rather glaring omission.

¹⁸ See, in a slightly different connection, the reflections of Levenson, Jon D. and Madigan, Kevin: “As far as the Hebrew Bible goes, it would be most unwise to make a sharp division between Abraham and his descendants as the recipient of the promise” (Resurrection: The Power of God for Jews and Christians [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009] 211)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Jub. 1.7; 13.1–3, 20–21; 14.7, 18; 15.10; 17.3; 19.9; 22.27–30.

²⁰ In both Genesis and Jubilees, Abram clearly understands this as a future promise, not as a past accomplishment.

²¹ On the importance of the promises within the reception of the Pentateuch in Second Temple Judaism, see especially Kratz, “Friend of God, Brother of Sarah, and Father of Isaac: Abraham in the Hebrew Bible and in Qumran,” in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran (ed. Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz; FAT 2/35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 79–105, at 94–101; cf. idem, “ ‘Abraham, mein Freund’. Das Verhältnis von inner- und ausserbiblischer Schriftauslegung,” in Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition. Festschrift für Matthias Köckert (ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeiffer; BZAW 400; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009) 115–36, at 128–32, with literature.

²² Crawford, “Exegetical Function,” 95.

²³ Ibid., 92; Knowles, “Abram and the Birds,” 146; Book of Jubilees (ed. VanderKam) 2:46–47.

²⁴ Construing the consonants as (in Tiberian representation, C [Here and in the following notes I am using modern linguistic convention only for the purpose of descriptive precision. This by no means implies that ancient interpreters thought in precisely such categories.]): Aquila ἀπεσόβησε(ν); Rashi ; so BDB 674: “and he drove them away [perh. orig. blow away, drive away by blowing, or by a sound like blowing]”; cf. HALOT 728 (1) “cause to blow”; (2) “frighten away”; see also James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) 174.

²⁵ . Frankel attributes this to the translator's misreading of the Hebrew (Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta [Leipzig: Vogel, 1841] 214; see also idem, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik [Leipzig: Barth, 1851] 13; Katz, Peter, “Notes on the Septuagint,” JTS 47 [1946] 166–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 167), while Prijs thinks it is rather to be understood as a deliberate “aggadic interpretation” on the part of the translator (Jüdische Tradition, 73; cf. Barnes, W. Emery, “The Recovery of the Septuagint,” JTS 36 [1935] 123–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 129).

²⁶ (variant: “made to fly away”).

²⁷ : Gen. Rab. 44.16 . Cf. Geiger, Abraham: “Abraham brachte sie, die zerschnittenen Theile zurück, d. h. er belebte sie wieder” (Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judentums [2nd ed.; Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Madda, 1928] 458Google Scholar; [1st ed.: Breslau: Julius Hainauer, 1857]). See further Ginzberg, Louis, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909/1925) 1:236Google Scholar; 7:229.

²⁸ : Apoc. Ab. 14.9 “And I did what the angel had commanded me. And whatever [Azazel] said to me about the descent, I answered him not” (cf. Apoc. Ab. 14.4–14; R. Rubinkiewicz, OTP 1:696).

²⁹ “and he kept on striking it (sc., the bird )” (cf. Gen. Rab. 44.16 in next note); Levy, Wörterbuch, 4:494 “abschneiden, abhauen, zerschlagen.” See b. Shabb. 87a, which interprets Exod 19:8 with the comments: “Moses told the people things that shatter human understanding—i.e., he first proclaimed the punishments for disobedience to the law, and only then the reward for its fulfillment.”

³⁰ Gen. Rab. 44.16 offers an interesting combination of multiple construals: (“And the ayiṭ descended upon the corpses, etc.” R. Assi said, “Abraham took a hoe and kept striking them but they were not smitten [cf. Jastrow's odd rendering “And Abraham took a knocker and tried to frighten them away by knocking but they minded not” (Dictionary, 678)], yet Abraham turned them away by repentance.” R. Azariah said, “Whenever your sons are made corpses without sinews and without bones, your merit will stand for them”). Both interpretations understand the “bird of prey” () to symbolize the plurality of nations and the corpses to represent Israel. R. Assi's interpretation first reads as a derivative of “to strike, smash” then as “to turn away, repent.” Although it is unclear, R. Azariah's interpretation may represent , Abraham “brought them back to life” by his merit. See further the extensive note in Midrash Bereshit Rabba (ed. Julius Theodor and Chanoch Albeck; Berlin: n.p., 1902/1903–1935/1936; repr., Jerusalem: Shalem, 1996) 1:438. On the relationship of this text in Gen. Rab. to the rendering of Gen 15:11 in , see Y. Maori, (The Peshitta Version of the Pentateuch and Early Jewish Exegesis) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995) 233. For additional cases of variation between and in rabbinic literature, see Victor Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur (Vienna: Alfred Hodler, 1906–1915; repr., New York: KTAV, 1970), xiv.

³¹ Charles: “and Abram ran to meet them before they settled on the ground” (APOT 2:30); M. Goldmann: [“The Book of Jubilees”] in [The Apocryphal Books] [ed. Abraham Kahana; 2 vols.; Tel Aviv: Masada, 1959] 1:219–313). Compare 1 Sam 17:48.

³² Note also the meaning of the verb (G and C) “to shout at, fall upon with shouting, scream at” (HALOT 817).

³³ It is possible that another construal of is made fruitful here with respect to the agricultural motifs (farming, plowing) in Jub. 11, namely, a derivation from C “to cut, strike, dig” (Levy, Wörterbuch, 4:494; Jastrow, Dictionary, 1510). Per Jastrow, the nominal derivative refers to “an incision or groove” (that a plow makes in the soil; Dictionary, 1556); cf. b. Baba Batra 36b “Let every incision that the plough makes go into the soil” (Jastrow, Dictionary, 1556; Levy, Wörterbuch, 4:494). Similarly, the implement Abram uses to “strike” the birds in Gen. Rab. 44:16 is apparently a “hoe” (see Levy s. “Schlägel, Hacke” [3:116]). Given this usage, one may cautiously suggest that the phrase was interpreted as something like, “The birds kept coming down, so Abram had them (the farmers) plow grooves (in the ground for the seed).” As noted above, little agreement obtains among ancient interpreters about the antecedent of due to the superficial lack of concord between the (collective) singular and the plural pronoun (compare , which brings the prepositional phrase into concord with the sg. “bird”): does refer to the bird(s), the corpse-pieces, or perhaps another unnamed party? Apoc. Ab. 13 understands the singular “unclean bird” to designate Azazel himself. Rabbinic interpretation, on the other hand, sees the sg./pl. shift as an indication that the bird symbolizes the plurality of the nations unified against Israel (see Gen. Rab. 44.15–16; ).

³⁴ For additional evidence of the influence of Gen 15 throughout the composition of Jubilees, see Livneh, Atar, “Judgment and Revenge: The Exodus Account in Jubilees 48,” RevQ 98 (2011) 161–75Google Scholar, at 166 n. 12.

³⁵ For the phrase and proposed emendations, see Book of Jubilees (ed. VanderKam), 2:84 n.

³⁶ Cf. in v.10 ( and ; cf. Book of Jubilees [ed. VanderKam], 2:84; Katz, “Notes on the Septuagint,” 67).

³⁷ This is part of a constellation of additions concerning ritual details in vv. 9–10 (altar, ritual slaughter, blood rite, libation, etc.) that serve similar ends. “Thereby, Abraham's procedure as described in Genesis 15 becomes, unambiguously and emphatically, a sacrifice” (Christopher T. Begg, “Rereadings of the ‘Animal Rite’ of Genesis 15 in Early Jewish Narratives,” CBQ 50 [1988] 36–46, at 38). On the supposed “scarecrow” () apparatus on the Jerusalem temple mentioned in m. Mid. 4.6 (cf. Josephus, Jewish War 5:244; Temple Scroll 46:1–4; ’Abot R. Nat. B 39 [Schechter 105]), see the discussion in Lieberman, Saul, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950) 173–77Google Scholar; and Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:271–72. The additional clause in Jub. 14.12 may also reflect the influence of 2 Sam 21:10. This passage describes the valiant deeds of another defender-against-birds, Rizpah bat Ayyah, who protected the impaled corpses of her two sons and five other descendents of Saul: she “took sackcloth and spread it on a rock for herself, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens; she did not allow the birds of the air to come on the bodies () by day, or the wild animals by night.” Note that these events happened, according to 2 Sam 21:9, “in the first days of the harvest, the beginning of the barley harvest” (), and that her protective watch continued until the rains.

³⁸ Compare (“What is this bird-of-prey? This is the unclean bird-of-prey—that is, an unclean bird”); cf. ; Apoc. Ab. 13.2. On the complex text of Neofiti here, see Levy, B. Barry, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study (2 vols.; Studies in Judaism; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1986–1987) 1:136–39Google Scholar.

³⁹ On the “traveling” or “transfer” of exegetical motifs, see Kugel, In Potiphar's House, 255–56; idem, Traditions of the Bible, 27–28.

⁴⁰ “Der Ursprung der Rabenlegende und der Tradition von der anschließenden Götzenverbrennung könnte in Ep Jer 53f liegen” (Klaus Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen [JSHRZ 2.3; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981] 288 n. 11e); similarly Kratz, “‘Öffene seinen Mund und seine Ohren’: Wie Abraham Hebräisch lernte,” in Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (ed. idem; FAT 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 340–51, at 345; idem, “Der Brief des Jeremia,” in Das Buch Baruch; Der Brief des Jeremia; Zusätze zu Ester und Daniel (ed. Odil H. Steck, Reinhard G. Kratz, and Ingo Kottsieper; ATD-Apokryphen 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) 69–108, at 82, 106.

⁴¹ Crawford, “Exegetical Function,” 96.

⁴² For as a position of helplessness, compare 2 Sam 18:9; Zech 5:9 (over against Ezek 8:3; 1 Chron 21:16).

⁴³ Translation of Ball, C. J., “Epistle of Jeremy,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (ed. Charles, Robert H.; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 1:596–611Google Scholar, at 1:607–8.

⁴⁴ “If we presume, as seems likely, that the verses from the Epistle of Jeremiah became associated with Abrahamic traditions, then we can also hypothesize that the ravens tradition, of which reflections are seen in Jubilees and the Syriac literature, arose as an explanation of the odd use of the word ‘crow’ and became part and parcel of the patriarch's discovery of monotheism and rejection of idols. The difficulty we encounter is discerning whether or not Genesis 15 had a part to play in the pre-Jubilees form of the ravens tradition. It is possible that Jubilees itself educed the link between Genesis 15 and the ravens tradition by using the latter to illuminate the former” (Crawford, “Exegetical Function,” 96).

⁴⁵ Here Crawford follows the dating of Moore, Carey A. (Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions [AB 44; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977] 327)Google Scholar. Compare also the reflections on dating in Kratz, “Der Brief des Jeremia,” 81–84.

⁴⁶ “[T]he author of 2 Maccabees 2 knew of other Jeremiah traditions, so one cannot be sure his source was the letter of Jeremiah” (VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001] 135).

⁴⁷ Ball thinks the text is not in order and suggests it originally read “like clouds” rather than “like crows” reflected in the Greek and Syriac translations of the Epistle (“Epistle of Jeremy,” 607–8). Though Ball finds the image of the crows inappropriate to the context, compare Hartom's explanation: “Perhaps he compares idols to this bird [a crow] precisely for the reason that it is a loathsome bird which is of no use to people and which cries out loudly and does nothing at all!” He continues, “If we suppose that [the author] knew the lxx or the [Hebrew] version from which the translation was made, we are justified to suppose that he is alluding to the indecent disposition which is attributed to this bird there” (Hartom, “” [Epistle of Jeremiah] in [The Apocryphal Books] [ed. Abraham Kahana; 2 vols.; Tel Aviv: Masada, 1959] 1:337–49, at 347n. 53). He refers to Jer 3:2, the only other occurrence of the word “crow” in the lxx; cf. Ball, “Epistle of Jeremy,” 608 n. 55.

⁴⁸ Jub. 11.11–13: “Then Prince Mastema sent ravens and birds to eat the seed which would be planted in the ground and to destroy the land in order to rob mankind of their labors. Before they plowed in the seed, the ravens would pick (it) from the surface of the ground. 12 . . . [T]he ravens and birds reduced them to poverty and ate their seed. 13 The years began to be unfruitful due to the birds. They would eat all the fruit of the trees from the orchards. During their time, if they were able to save a little of all the fruit of the earth, it was with great effort.”

⁴⁹ “Jubilees connects the demons/evil spirits with many kinds of sin, but bloodshed and idolatry are prominently consistent among them. In general the demons are agents of Mastema in causing evil of every sort in human society—evils that remind one of what happened before the flood” (-VanderKam, “Demons,” 345; cf. 340–41, 347).

⁵⁰ Isa 47:13–15 (cf. 50:11; Jer 43:12) clearly lies behind the idol burning in Ep Jer 55. Idol polemic passages such as this also resonate within Jub. 12.12–14, but there the burning motif is triggered primarily by the text of Gen 11:28 (). See Kugel: “The original purpose of ‘Haran Perished in the Furnace’ was to clarify the troubling biblical assertion” (Traditions, 268–69; see discussion at 267–70). The fact that it is organic to the text of Genesis suggests that the fire motif was not introduced by Jubilees on the basis of an external source such as Ep Jer.

⁵¹ There are clear reasons why Abram's conversion was located in his youth. While it is a biblical given that the forefathers practiced idolatry (Josh 24:2 “In olden times, your ancestors—Terah, father of Abraham and father of Nahor—lived beyond the Euphrates and they worshiped other gods” []), Jubilees makes clear that Abram rejected this patrimony at an early age and thereby absolves him of guilt (Book of Jubilees [ed. VanderKam], 2:47). The timing of this event at the end of seventh Jubilee is clearly also significant for the author: “During the patriarch's youth, a period for which there are no biblical givens, the writer locates most events in the final or seventh year of year weeks” (VanderKam, “Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (ed. idem; JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 522–24, at 534–35.

⁵² Given these existing connections, it might be less of a stretch than first appears to note that Judg 8:4 (“And Gideon went to the Jordan and crossed []—he and the three hundred men with him, exhausted yet pursuing []”) is reflected in as πεινῶντες καὶ διώκοντες (). This latter reading, with the simple transposition of consonants (), could make for a productive connection to Abram and the Chaldeans’ common pursuit of ravens. See further notes 78 and 82 below.

⁵³ Gen. Rab. 43.2 (Theodor-Albeck 42.2 [1:416–17, consult note]; 44.9 [1:431–32]); b. Ned. 32a. On the numerous connections between Gen 14 and 15, see John H. Sailhamer, “A Study in Inter-biblical Interpretation,” TJ 10 (1989) 33–48, at 45–48; repr. in idem, An Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995) 298–311, at 309–11.

⁵⁴ On the parallels with the golden calf episode and with Jeroboam (1 Kgs 12:26–32), see Shalom-Guy, Hava, “,” Shnaton 16 (2006) 15–27Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Note in Gen 19:3 (Lot's banquet for the angels visiting Sodom, which mirrors and contrasts with Abraham's in the previous chapter).

⁵⁶ Adrian Schenker, “Critique textuelle ou littéraire au Ps 110(109) 3. Les initiatives de la Septante et de l’édition protomassorétique à la fin du 3e ou au 2e siècle,” in Un carrefour dans l'histoire de la Bible. Du texte à la théologie au IIe siècle avant J.-C. (ed. Innocent Himbaza and Adrian Schenker; OBO 233; Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007) 112–30.

⁵⁷ Schenker observes that the decisive detail for making the connection to Gideon, , is missing in ; cf. Ps 2:7). From this fact, he concludes that the masoretic plus reflects a secondary redactional re-interpretation of the psalm undertaken in the early Hasmonean period. In Schenker's view, the attempt to align the psalm with Gideon reflected in -Ps 110:3 represents an effort to immunize the psalm against polytheistic or Davidic–messianic misinterpretations: “En résumé, on peut comprendre le Ps 110,3 du TM comme une nouvelle interprétation du psaume, qui lui donnait une signification immunisée contre des malentendus polythéistes ou messianiques davidiques. Le jeune sauveur et juge institué par yhwh, v. 6 (), ressemblait à Gédéon. Si cette interprétation du psaume selon le TM est juste, la nouvelle rédaction du v. 3 conviendrait bien au début du temps des Hasmonéens” (ibid., 125). Schenker thus argues for a strong contrast between an emphasis on Gideon, who refused the monarchy, and Davidic-royal expectations: “Ce régent semblable au juge Gédéon serait ainsi ni roi ni fils de David! Il serait bien plus comme un des anciens juges d'Isräel, donc justement comme Gédéon, qui refusa la royauté, parce que yhwh était le roi d'Isräel, Jg 8,22–23” (ibid., 124). These connections are indeed intriguing, but whether a deliberate association with Gideon entails an anti-royalist position is less clear—both with regard to the Gideon narrative itself, which is not at all straightforward on this point, and with regard to the reuse of the Gideon material elsewhere. See, e.g., Isa 9:3 () and 10:26 (), where Gideon's battle is held up as a model for the future destruction of “Assyria” in direct connection with explicit Davidic royalist hopes (Isa 9:5–6; 11:1–10).

⁵⁸ See discussion in Willi, Chronik als Auslegung, 157–58.

⁵⁹ See esp. Shalom-Guy, Hava, “The Call Narrative of Gideon and Moses: Literary Convention or More?” JHS 11 (2011) 2–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with literature.

⁶⁰ Cf. Isa 10:26, where God will arouse a scourge as in the smiting of Midian at the Rock of Oreb and lift up his staff ().

⁶¹ See esp. Zakovitch, Yair, “And You Shall Tell Your Son . . .”: The Concept of the Exodus in the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991)Google Scholar.

⁶² See the verbal correspondences catalogued in Zakovitch, Concept of the Exodus, 18–20; and Sailhamer, John H., The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992) 141–43Google Scholar.

⁶³ For many of these connections, see Sailhamer, Pentateuch as Narrative, 280–81; idem, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009) 370–71.

⁶⁴ Compare Reinhard G. Kratz's description of the Chronicler's work: “Der Chronist sucht offenbar zuallererst in seinem Quellen selbst nach verborgener, implizierter Identität und Einheit, die er dann mit Bezug auf die Vorlage im eigenen Werk explizit macht und woraus er die Identität Israels und seines Gottes begründet. Somit ist die Chronik . . . durchaus ‘als Auslegung’ zu verstehen” (Kratz, “Identität,” 164); cf. Thomas Willi's description, also in connection with Chronicles, of “exegetical history writing” (auslegende Geschichtsschreibung): “Wenn der Chronist der Nötigung, Geschichte der vorexilischen Zeit zu schreiben, nachgeben wollte, so blieb ihm . . . nur ein Weg: der der Interpretation des überlieferten Materials, mithin der Auslegung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes. Weder die Verdrängungs- noch die Ergänzungstheorie vermag diesem eigenartigen Verhältnis zwischen Deuteronomisten und Chronisten gerecht zu werden, das sich zwischen den beiden Polen der Abhängigkeit und Freiheit, Gebundenheit und Kühnheit bewegt, ja das man als die gehorsame Unbotmäßigkeit der Auslegung bezeichnen möchte” (Chronik als Auslegung, 54). Also: “Ihre Art der Geschichtsschreibung, Auslegung im besten Sinne des Wortes, hat das Ziel, zum Verständnis der Quelle anzuleiten, die Primärvorlage auf einen bestimmten historisch-theologischen, d.h. heilsgeschichtlichen Gegenstand hin durchsichtig zu machen, zu erhellen, den Text der Vorlage auf dieses Thema hin zu konzentrieren und Zusammenhänge aufzudecken” (Chronik als Auslegung, 66).

⁶⁵ VanderKam suggests that another factor contributing to the story's placement in Abram's youth may have been “the more widely attested phenomenon of signaling the presence of a great person already at an early time in his/her life (the Moses/Sargon syndrome, something we also find for Noah, among others)” (personal communication, May 2005). On this, see Isaac Leo Seeligmann, “Voraussetzungen der Midraschexegese,” in Congress Volume: Copenhagen 1953 (ed. G. W. Anderson et al.; VTSup 1; Leiden: Brill, 1953) 150–81, at 155; repr., Isaac Leo Seeligmann: Gesammelte Studien zur hebräischen Bibel [ed. Erhard Blum; FAT 41; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004] 1–30).

⁶⁶ For attempts to explain the derivation, see Charles, Jubilees, 88 n. 12; Bernhard Beer, Leben Abraham's nach Auffassung der jüdischen Sage mit erläuternden Anmerkungen und Nachweisungen (Leipzig: Oskar Leiner, 1859) 95–96; Hermann Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die Kleine Genesis (Leipzig: Fue's Verlag [R. Reisenland], 1874) 265–67; Book of Jubilees [ed. VanderKam], 1:66 n.; Lester Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation (BJS 115; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 165.

⁶⁷ The derivation and meaning of the name in Genesis remains highly uncertain, though suggestions include connection with a place name or with the ibex (HALOT 1792–93).

⁶⁸ Epist. 78, ad Fabiolam, Mansio 24 [PG 22:713]: “Hoc eodem vocabulo [= Thare] et iisdem litteris scriptum invenio patrem Abraham, qui in supradicto apocrypho Geneseos volumine, abactis corvis, qui hominum frumenta vastabant, abactoris, vel depulsoris sortitus est nomen” (as cited in Book of Jubilees [ed. VanderKam], 2:66 n.).

⁶⁹ Beer, Leben Abraham's, 95–96.

⁷⁰ “Könnte nicht von dem Verbum abgeleitet sein? Wenn diesem mit demselben Rechte, wie seinem Synonym (Tuch's Genesis S. 287), die Bedeutung hinwegwehen, durch wehen ver-scheuchen, ἀποσοβεῖν, zugeschrieben werden darf, so würde die Annahme, sei mittelst des präformativen aus gebildet, geraden Weges zu der Hieronymianischen Deutung abactor, depulsor gelangen” (Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 266 n. 3).

⁷¹ Charles, Jubilees, 88 n. 12.

⁷² “It appears that a phonetic form was before the translator () and a popular etymology was made on this basis” (Goldmann, “,” 49 n.). As Rönsch states, “Ganz anderer Art sind die Ableitungen aus älterer Zeit” (Das Buch der Jubiläen, 267).

⁷³ The root (C in BH, JArm^t “to burden”; JArm^gb, MHeb = “to trouble” [HALOT 379]) occurs as a verb in the Hebrew Bible only in Job 37:11; the nominal derivative (“burden” or “trouble”) is found in Deut 1:12 and Isa 1:14.

⁷⁴ For another clear use of Job in connection to Abraham in Jubilees (where Mastema mirrors the satan in Job 1–2), see the ‘aqedah account in Jub. 17–18 (esp. 17.16–18).

⁷⁵ Aquila: καίπερ ἐκλεκτὸν ἐνοχλήσει πάχος “although a thick mass troubles the chosen ().”

Theodotion: καὶ ἐκλεκτὸν καταπλάσσει νεφέλη “And (if) a cloud shall plaster over ( “to plaster over, besmear”: : ) the chosen.”

Symmachus: 1) ἀλλὰ καὶ καρπῷ ἐπιβρίσει νεφέλη “But indeed a cloud shall weigh down with fruit” (). Gray thinks καρπός means “corn” or “grain” here [see LSJ 879] and reflects Hebrew related to “grain” rather than a interchange (George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Job [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921] 291). But this equivalent (καρπός = ) is not otherwise attested; 2) Syh: ἀλλὰ καρπὸν δώσει νεφέλη “But a cloud will give fruit.”

11Q10 (11QtgJob) Col. XXIX: “With them also he causes the cloud[s] to gleam, and he discharges from a cloud his fire.”

Targ. Job (Miqra’ot Gedolot): “Yet with brightness he loads the thick-cloud, his rain scatters a cloud.”

Rashi: “ ’Aph-Beri is the name of the angel appointed over the clouds and he scatters the cloud of the rain of the Omnipresent.” See t. Nid. 16b .

⁷⁶ See Isa 41:2–4, 8–9; 42:6 (cf. 49:6, 8), where the servant “Israel”—the “seed of Abraham my friend” (; 41:8)—is apparently addressed in terms of Abraham's calling and designated “a light to the nations” (); cf. Isa 51:2. See E. J. Kissane's comments on Isa 42:6: “Jahweh called Israel of old in the person of Abraham (xli. 2), and because of that election, He is now about to intervene to deliver Israel, in order that the national life may be restored, and the spiritual mission of Israel may be accomplished. I called thee. The reference is to the call of Abraham as described in xli. 2” (The Book of Isaiah [Dublin: Richview Press, 1943] 237 [italics in original]). See also 41:2; Calvin ad loc. N.B. in relation to Jubilees the clear contrastive function of these passages in Isaiah with the idol polemics to which they are juxtaposed. On the function of this appeal to Abraham in Deutero-Isaiah, see esp. Kratz, Kyros in Deuterojesaja-Buch: Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55 (FAT 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991) 43–47; 153–57; 161–63; idem, “Abraham mein Freund,” 119–22; idem, “Friend of God,” 82–83.

⁷⁷ This would be similar to the phenomenon Kugel designates “back-referencing”: “[T]he incorporation of such additional biblical texts into an originally simple motif, so that the motif then seems simultaneously to address multiple problems from different places in the Bible, is a very common phenomenon” (In Potiphar's House, 254).

⁷⁸ One might mention in passing the graphic similarity of the word used in direct connection with (as either subject or object), “thick cloud,” and “raven,” the specific bird of Jubilees 11, which, as suggested above, seems to derive in the first instance from the Gideon narrative (cf. Isa 10:26). Along similar lines, one might note that “raven” () plays nicely upon “famine” () as a part of the larger analogical relationship between Abraham and Joseph in the book of Jubilees (see further below). Daniel Silver, by contrast, finds in the mention of ravens in this wholly negative portrayal—an unusual perspective in the ancient world, he argues—evidence that the author was an unsophisticated farmer (Silver, “Quoth the Raven,” 268). This supposition is extremely difficult to reconcile with the textual virtuosity so abundantly evident within Jubilees.

⁷⁹ See esp. Odil Hannes Steck, “Die getöteten ‘Zeugen’ und die verfolgten ‘Tora-Sucher’ in Jub. 1,12: Ein Beitrag zur Zeugnis-Terminologie des Jubiläenbuches (I),” ZAW 107 (1995) 445–65 and “Die getöteten ‘Zeugen’ und die verfolgten ‘Tora-Sucher’ in Jub. 1,12: Ein Beitrag zur Zeugnis-Terminologie des Jubiläenbuches (II),” ZAW 108 (1996) 70–86; see also VanderKam: “[The author of Jubilees’] comprehensive knowledge of the Scriptures must constantly be borne in mind when one studies passages in the book; they should, in some way, be connected with the biblical base, whether in Genesis/Exodus or in other places. This is true even for those sections that clearly depart from the narrative in Genesis/Exodus in significant ways. They should retain a relationship of some kind to the scriptural text, although that relationship may consist only in allusions to or collocations of other passages in the Bible” (“Jubilees’ Exegetical Creation of Levi the Priest,” RevQ 17 (1996) 359–73; repr., From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature [ed. idem; JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000] 545–62, at 545).

⁸⁰ Thus Brock: “Jubilees gives the ravens episode in order to introduce Abraham as the inventor of the seed-plow” (“Abraham and the Ravens,” 140). As Knowles correctly observes, “this attribution is incidental to the narrative's broader themes of fruitfulness, covenant fulfillment, and the role of demonic opposition in the lives of God's people” (“Abram and the Birds,” 146 n. 6); cf. van Ruiten, Jacques T. A. G. M., Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8 (JSJSup 161; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 27Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Jon D. Levenson (personal communication) makes the intriguing suggestion that the story of Abram and the ravens may also anticipate, to some extent, Abram's later difficulties in matters of seed/offspring. If so, Abram's symbolic defeat of the powers of sterility here would “look forward both to Sarah's conception of Isaac but also to Sarai and Abram's defeating the power of sterility through the use of a surrogate mother.”

⁸² See Landsberger, Benno, “Corrections to the Article, ‘An Old Babylonian Charm against Merḫu’,” JNES 17 (1958) 56–58Google Scholar, at 56 n. 4 (regarding the text: “Enlil made the seeder-plow go over the soil”). On Mesopotamian depictions of cultural achievement and their “desacralization” in biblical sources, see, e.g., Albertz, Rainer, “Die Kulturarbeit im Atramḫasīs im Vergleich zur biblischen Urgeschichte,” in Geschichte und Theologie. Studien zur Exegese des alten Testaments und zur Religionsgeschichte Israels (ed. Kottsieper, Ingo and Wöhrle, Jakob; BZAW 326; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003) 1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Di Vito, Robert A., “The Demarcation of Divine and Human Realms in Genesis 2–11,” in Creation in the Biblical Traditions (ed. Clifford, Richard J. and Collins, John J.; CBQMS 24; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1992) 39–56Google Scholar, esp. 51–56. On the topos of the first inventor (πρῶτος εὑρητής) in Greek literature, see Adolf Kleingünther, ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΕYΡΗΤΗΣ. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung (Philologus Suppl. 26; Leipzig: Dietrich, 1933) 1–55; Klaus Thraede, “Erfinder II (geistesgeschichtlich),” RAC 5 (1962) 1191–278; and Erkki Koskenniemi, The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism (WUNT 2/206; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 53; van Ruiten, Abraham in Jubilees, 27 n. 13.

⁸³ See n. 76 above.

⁸⁴ Against the claim of Brock, among others, see n. 80 above.

⁸⁵ Compare the reading preserved in Glycas (ὁ Ἀδὰμ ἀπεσόβει τὰ πετεινὰ καὶ ἑρπετά) (Michaelis Glycae Annales [ed. Immanuel Bekker; Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weber, 1836] 206, cited by Charles, Jubilees, 25 n.) with the reading of Aquila on Gen 15:11 (ἀπεσόβησε(ν)).

⁸⁶ Also noted by van Ruiten: “The description in Jub. 11:13c looks like an antithesis to the description of the paradisiacal situation after the angels taught Adam how to till the land” (Abraham in Jubilees, 28 n. 14).

⁸⁷ Compare the treatment of Gideon's victory in Isa 10:26 (cf. 9:3). On the general effect, see the reflections of van Ruiten: “By keeping the ravens away from the fields and by inventing a sowing machine, Abram is able to cancel at least part of the influence Mastema has over mankind” (ibid., 28–29).

⁸⁸ Perhaps a wordplay is intended here between “famine” () and “raven” () of Jub. 11.11–12.

⁸⁹ Lev 25:19: .

⁹⁰ On the similarities between the presentation of the patriarchs in the biblical narrative, see Zakovitch: “The phenomenon of assimilation is, as we have endeavored to show, a creative force which left its impression both on extrabiblical literature, which retells the biblical stories, and on stories in the Bible itself” (“Assimilation in Biblical Narrative,” 195). Also: “[Assimilation] arises when a traditionist or editor increases the affinity of stories already similar in themselves by adding to one of them material borrowed from the parallel tradition or composed by him under the influence of the parallel tradition” (“Assimilation in Biblical Narrative,” 176). See also Dimant, “The Use and Interpretation of Mikra,” 417.

⁹¹ E.g., Jub. 6.17–19: “For this reason it has been ordained and written on the heavenly tablets that they should celebrate the festival of weeks during this month—once a year—to renew the covenant each and every year. 18 This entire festival had been celebrated in heaven from the time of creation until the lifetime of Noah—for 26 jubilees and five weeks of years. Then Noah and his sons kept it for seven jubilees and one week of years until Noah's death. From the day of Noah's death his sons corrupted (it) until Abraham's lifetime and were eating blood. 19 Abraham alone kept (it), and his sons Isaac and Jacob kept it until your lifetime. During your lifetime the Israelites had forgotten (it) until I renewed (it) for them at this mountain.”

⁹² Compare Gen 6:13 (; cf. 17) with Jub. 11.11 (“Then Prince Mastema sent ravens and birds to eat the seed which would be planted in the ground and to destroy the land in order to rob mankind of their labors”). Compare also the etymology of Noah's name in Gen 5:29 ().

⁹³ Compare also the angelic instruction to Adam regarding how to “do everything that is appropriate for working [the land of the Garden]” in Jub. 3.15 (cf. 3.35). On the relationship between Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses and the writing/teaching motif, see VanderKam, , The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001) 118–20Google Scholar, 123.

⁹⁴ Cf. Charles, Jubilees, 80 n.; Kratz, “ ‘Öffene seinen Mund’,” 345.

⁹⁵ On which see VanderKam, , “The Demons in the Book of Jubilees,” in Die Dämonen/Demons: The Demonology of the Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in the Context of their Environment (ed. Lange, A., Lichtenberger, H., and Römheld, K. F. Diethard; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 339–64Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ “The structure of the book, with ch. 1 serving as an introduction to the narrative, implies that the perspective presented in it is one that the author wished to impress upon his readers” (Book of Jubilees [ed. VanderKam] 2:132). On the importance of Jubilees 1 within the composition as a whole, see esp. Steck, “Die getöteten ‘Zeugen’ (I–II)”; see further Teeter, Andrew, “Torah, Wisdom, and the Composition of Rewritten Scripture: Jubilees and 11QPsa in Comparative Perspective,” in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period (ed. Schipper, Bernd U. and Teeter, D. Andrew; JSJSup 163; Leiden: Brill, 2013) 233–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 244–59.

⁹⁷ Compare similar observations in van Ruiten, Abraham in Jubilees, 27–29.

⁹⁸ The separation of the chosen line from the Gentiles is one of the fundamental thematic features of the book of Jubilees that characterizes the author's viewpoint (see VanderKam, “Origins and Purpose,” 19). “Jubilees is an all-out defense of what makes the people of Israel distinctive from the nations and a forceful assertion that they were never one with them. It is an outright contradiction of the views expressed in 1 Macc. 1.11–13 that Israel could avoid problems by covenanting with the gentiles. For the author of Jubilees that was a recipe for disaster, and the only way to prevent such difficulties was by greater adherence to the distinctive ways of the covenant between God and the people whom he had chosen from creation” (Book of Jubilees [ed. VanderKam], 2:140–41; cf. VanderKam, “Origins and Purpose,” 20–22). According to the narrative arrangement, Abraham's separation from the idolatrous ways of the Chaldeans prevents the disaster of the birds.

⁹⁹ The notion of the forefathers serving as narrative types for their future descendants has clear precedent in the biblical text itself. See Umberto Cassuto, “” (“Abraham”) in (Encyclopedia Biblica) (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1950–1988) 1:61–68, at 65–66; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) 372–89; Yair Zakovitch, (Inner-biblical and Extra-biblical Midrash and the Relationship between Them) (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2009) 132–44. On typologization as a literary, exegetical, and historiographic strategy in the reworking of sources in Chronicles, see Willi, Chronik als Auslegung, 160–69; Kratz, “Identität,” 168.

¹⁰⁰ For connections between Abraham (and Noah) and Adam, see Fishbane, Michael, Text and Texture (New York: Schocken Books, 1979) 17–39Google Scholar; idem, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 72–73; Levenson, Jon D., The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993) 84Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Kratz: “Neues wird im Alten gesagt, weil das Alte das Neue in sich schließt, Altes wird neu gesagt, weil das Neue as dem Alten hervorgeht” (“Identität,” 170). Cf. Augustine: “quamquam et in Vetere Novum lateat, et in Novo vetus pateat” (Quaest. Hept. 2.73).

¹⁰² “. . . daß sich der Prozeß der Auslegung, der sich im literarischen Werden der biblischen Bücher vollzieht, in der sich daran anschließenden Produktion der außerbiblischen Literatur mehr oder weniger nahtlos fortsetzt” (Kratz, “Abraham mein Freund,” 116); cf. idem, “Innerbiblische Exegese und Redaktionsgeschichte,” in Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (ed. idem; FAT 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 126–56. On the distinction between inner-literary and book-external processes, see idem, “Identität,” 176–77; Steck, Prophetenbücher, 142 n. 28.

¹⁰³ See nn. 14 and 73 above.

¹⁰⁴ Crawford, “Exegetical Function,” 97 n. 25.

¹⁰⁵ Kugel, Traditions, 24.

¹⁰⁶ See especially Steck, Prophetenbücher, 158, as well as the nuanced discussion of the importance of distinguishing means and ends in such analysis in Kratz, “Identität,” 164–65 (cf. 174–75).

¹⁰⁷ “Das Jubiläenbuch zeigt sich in seiner Verwendung der Abraham-Gestalt als ein genuines Stück Biblischer Theologie,” (Mogens Müller, “Abraham-Gestalt im Jubiläenbuch,” SJOT 10 [1996] 238–57, at 256. Compare the reflections of Kratz on Chronicles: “Indem das ChrG diese Identitätsbestimmung in der Rezeption älterer Überlieferung vornimmt und selbst das Ergebnis dieses Rezeptionsvorgangs darstellt, vollzieht sich in der literarischen Genese des ChrG die Bildung von Theologie” (“Identität,” 175).