With Aramaic translation the situation is more complex. Although the
fragmentary Qumran Leviticus targum has exegetical parallels with the
later Leviticus targums and rabbinic exegesis, the actual text from Qumran
was not taken up by the rabbis. Nor was the Job targum found at Qumran.
Like the targum to Job preserved by the rabbinic community, this is a very
literal translation. Rabbinic tradition (t. Šabb.13:2) mentions that both
Rabba Gamliel I and II buried Job targums in the belief that translation
was part of the oral law and so should not be written down. No mention of
sectarian provenance appears, and in any case there is nothing at all sectar-
ian about the (pre-) Qumran Job targum. Yet there is no literary relation-
ship between the two Job targums. The Second Temple version apparently
fell into disuse and was replaced later by a much younger one, probably
dating to the Byzantine period. The rabbinic tradition, then, continued the
pattern of translation but initially rejected putting it in writing. All pre-70-
c.e.targums were lost, and later texts, composed or at least recorded after
the rabbis, loosened up their prohibition of writing down the oral law and
replaced the old, lost ones.
Another type of biblical interpretation that deserves mention has come
to be called “rewritten Bible.” Some of the exegetical presumptions of these
texts are similar to those of rabbinic aggadah. Here we need to distinguish
form from content. Whereas the Second Temple texts among the Pseud-
epigrapha and numerous Dead Sea Scrolls allow the authors to invade the
actual biblical texts, as is done in theGenesis Apocryphon, Jubilees,and for
halakah in theTemple Scroll,it seems that the barrier between written and
oral tradition for the rabbis meant that such books were totally forbidden.
The rabbis maintained this distinction strictly, even with the gradual
abeyance of the prohibition of writing down the oral law, with the result
that not a single literary connection can be established between these early
Jewish texts and rabbinic literature. However, parallels are also evident in
the specific units of interpretation and sometimes in the actual content. In
general terms, specific passages in the Second Temple texts use exegetical
techniques similar to those of the rabbis. The interpretations of the rabbis
are often quite different, though. At times there are common interpreta-
tions, and these were no doubt part of the traditions inherited by the rab-
bis from Second Temple times, but more often rabbinic tradition directly
contradicts the interpretations found in earlier books.
One type of exegesis found in the Dead Sea Scrolls with no real reso-
nance in rabbinic literature is the pesher. This form of contemporizing ex-
egesis assumes a two-step process of prophecy and fulfillment, on the con-428lawrence h. schiffmanEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:20 PM