הערות על "המגילה החיצונית לבראשית"

I. The Gen. Apocryphon and the Methods of the Midrash It is usual to class the Genesis Apocryphon (published by N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, Jerusalem, 1956) with Apocryphal literature, and it has particularly close affinities with the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. But, in some ways it resembles Midrashic literature, bearing signs of the method dubbed by Heinemann "creative interpretation" (be'ur yoẕer), which, in his view, characterised Rabbinic 'Aggada in contrast to Apocryphal literature (Heinemann, The Methods of the Aggadah, Jerusalem, 1949, pp. 13, 176). The Genesis Apocryphon applies this method somewhat differently from the Midrash. The latter consciously reveals the methods of interpretation it adopts, whereas the Gen. Apocryphon offers the reader a finished literary composition which does not inform him of its exegetical motivations. 1. The story of the remarkable events accompanying the birth of Noah (c. 2) is prompted by the text "And he called his name Noah, saying, This one shall comfort us..." How did Lemech know that this son was destined to comfort him? This exegetical difficulty prompted many homiletical explanations in Rabbinic compilations too. 2. The Gen. Apocryphon saw in the juxtaposition of the birth of Noah (Gen. 5:28–31) and the descent of the sons of God (Gen. 6:1–4) an allusion to the fact that, at the time of the birth, Lemech suspected that his son had been sired by one of the sons of God, in line with R. 'Aqiva's ruling: "Interpretation may be founded on the juxtaposition of texts" (Sifre, Bemidbar, 131). 3. Lemech wife's name, Bat-'enosh ("daughter of man") derives from an interpretation founded on the above juxtaposition of texts: "And the sons of God saw the daughters of men... and took them wives of all which they chose". The "daughters of men" is rendered in Aramaic by the words benat 'enasha, hence the name Bat-'enosh. There is no arbitrary concoction of names as is usual in Apocryphal literature (v. Heinemann, ibid., p. 21). 4. Abraham's dream, on his entry into Egypt (c. 19), in which a cedar and palm respectively symbolise Abraham and Sarah, becomes intelligible on the basis of rabbinic exegesis of the text: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon" (Psalm. 92:13, cf. Gen. Rabba 41:1). 5. The Gen. Apocryphon borrowed many details relating to the story of Abraham and Sarah's dealings with Pharaoh (cc. 19–20) from the parallel story of their dealings with Abimelech (Gen. 20). This approach is common in Midrashic literature. 6. Hagar is mentioned as being one of the gifts bestowed on Sarah by Pharaoh (c. 20, line 32). This idea is undoubtedly prompted by the interpretation of the phrase "Egyptian bondwomen" (Gen. 16:1) found in Gen. R. (45:1). II. Correspondence between the Gen. Apocryphon and the Midrash The story told in the Gen. Apocryphon of Abraham and Sarah's entry into Egypt and the latter's abduction to Pharaoh's house (cc. 19–20) and that related in Midrash Tanḥuma (Lekh Lekha 5) contain similar expressions reflecting mutual influence or a common source. III. Controversy between the Apocryphon and Midrash According to the Gen. Apocryphon and the Book of Enoch (106) the name Noah was given by Enoch prophetically. It seems that the Midrash Tanḥuma (Gen. 11) was familiar with this conception and deliberately meant to reject it. This approach is akin to all the ancient Midrashim which were loathe to acknowledge the special role given to Enoch in Apocryphal literature.