lap, as in the case of rewritings attributed to Moses or Ezekiel, these are
two distinct types, and the general but vague term “parabiblical” obfus-
cates the differences.
The first type consists of interpretative rewritings of earlier scripture,
in the form of “rewritten scripture,” or as a paraphrase or retelling of either
entire books, or sections of books, or even as a pastiche of different pas-
sages. These rewritings sometimes have expansions that may go back to
older sources or traditions, or derive from the interpretation of the author.
The best-preserved examples of the first type are the book ofJubileesand
theTemple Scroll(see fig. 46), both of which contain extensive interpreta-
tive rewritings of parts of the Torah, as well as parts that have no direct
correspondence in the Torah and that may have been taken from other
sources or traditions. Less well-preserved examples are theApocryphon of
Joshuaand many other fragmentary manuscripts that deal with events
from the Torah and Joshua. These include some parts of theGenesis Apoc-
ryphon(see fig. 42), some of the Moses Apocrypha, notablyWords of Moses
(1Q22) andApocryphal Pentateuch A(4Q368) andB(4Q377). A few texts
are related to the books of Samuel and Kings, such asVision of Samuel(a
misnomer for 4Q160) orParaphrase of Kings(4Q382), and to the prophets,
especially thePseudo-Ezekielmanuscripts. We also find works of this type
relating to the books later collected as Ketuvim, for exampleApocryphal
Lamentation A(4Q179), which rewrites parts of Lamentations, andWiles of
the Wicked Woman(4Q184) andBeatitudes(4Q525; 5Q16), which are cop-
ies of one or two works closely related to the text of Proverbs 1–9.
These compositions represent different degrees and kinds of rewrit-
ing. In the case ofJubileesand theTemple Scroll,the compositions both re-
write Torah and claim to be Torah themselves. They complement the
pentateuchal Torah as its valid and authoritative interpretation. For other
rewritten Mosaic texts, a similar relation to the Pentateuch may be as-
sumed but cannot be established because the texts are too fragmentary.
TheApocryphon of Joshuais a good example of different aspects of the
process of rewriting: the author tackles exegetical problems in the scrip-
tural book of Joshua, reworks Joshua according to his own agenda (the
centrality of Jerusalem and the status of the land of Israel), and provides
an interpretation of the prophetic curse in Josh. 6:26. In cases like this, it is
not clear whether theApocryphonintended to complement or supplement
the book of Joshua. In any case, the preserved manuscripts of the
Apocryphon of Joshuaoutnumber those of the scriptural Joshua. On the
other hand, it is not clear to what extent the extensive use and reworking of212eibert tigchelaarEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:03 PM