The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) provides an excellent subject for discussion in a symposium that is devoted to "Early Usage and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls" and that is intent upon an analysis of Scroll material in its shared and unique dimensions. The text was unknown until the discovery of its sole manuscript in Qumran Cave I. Its relationships to the Enochic literature and the Book of Jubilees have been noted since its first publication by Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin,¹ and scholars has discussed and disputed whether it is a product of the Qumran community. Unfortunately, its poor state of preservation has severely limited its interpretation, not least with respect to the issues of interest to this symposium. This paper will attempt a new look, nevertheless, focusing primarily on the stories of the birth of Noah and Abram's and Sarai's sojourn in Egypt with a view toward patterns of narrative technique and questions of social setting. Occasional appeal will be made to other fragments of text, which are just now being brought into the discussion, thanks to the work of Jonas Greenfield, Elisha Qimron, and Matthew Morgenstern.²

1.0. Lamech's Account of Noah's Birth: Cols. 1-5

1.1. The Story in Comparison with 1 Enoch 106-107

   Columns 1-5 contained an extensive account of Noah's birth, narrated in the first person singular by Lamech his father. Since the story is already in progress at the top of column 2, it must have begun somewhere in the lower half of column 1.³ Thanks to parallels between cols. 2-5 and 1 Enoch 106-107--where Enoch recounts the story of Noah's birth--we can reconstruct the overall content of the story in the Genesis Apocryphon:

1QapGen	1 Enoch
2:19-26	106:4-5a + 7-8
3:3	106:13
5:9-10	106:18
5:18?	106:19
5:20?	107:2
5:24-25	107:3

   The story in the Apocryphon seems to have progressed as follows. Lamech marries Bitenosh,⁴ who gives birth to Noah (col. 1||106:1), whose glorious appearance is then described (col. 1||106:2-3). Lamech concludes from the child's appearance that his wife was impregnated by one of the watchers (2:1||106:5-6) and is struck with fear at the prospect (2:2-3||106:4a). Lamech confronts Bitenosh, demanding that she speak the truth under oath, but she insists that the child is Lamech's (2:3-18|| -). Lamech then runs to Methuselah, asking that he, in turn, request Enoch to query the holy ones (2:19-21a||106:4-7). Methuselah goes to Enoch, who is at Parvaim, and tells him about the miraculous birth (2:21b-26+[27-34]||106:8-12). Enoch responds at great length, describing the sin of the watchers, the judgment that will come through the Flood, and Noah's role in that judgment (columns 3-4||106:13-17, signalled by 3:3||106:13b). He assures Methuselah that the child is Lamech's (5:3-8) and tells Methuselah to return with that news (5:9-+11||106:18). He continues his speech with a description of the eschaton (5:+11-23||106:18-107:2). Methuselah returns to Lamech, conveying Enoch's information (5:24-25||107:3). The section concludes with a brief description of Lamech's positive response to the news (5:26-27).

   Although the severely damaged condition of columns 1, 3, 4, and 5 of 1QapGen limits our ability to compare this version of the Noah story in detail with 1 Enoch 106-107, some conclusions are possible. First, a comparison of 1QapGen with the Aramaic 4QEnc and the Greek Chester Beatty papyrus of 1 Enoch indicates that the Apocryphon's version was approximately 3.74 times as long as that in 1 Enoch 106-107.⁵ The following table indicates the (estimated) number of lines for each narrative component in the respective versions and the proportion of the whole occupied by each component.

	1 Enoch 106-107			1 QapGen
	lines		%age	lines	%age
	Greek	Aramaic
1. Beginning	14	5	15	6	4.5
2. Lamech/Bitenosh	-	-	-	15	12
3. Lamech to Methuselah	14	5	15	2.5	2
4. Methuselah to Enoch	23	8.3	24	13.5	10.5
5. Enoch's oracle	38	13.7	40	87	68
6. Methuselah to Lamech	6	2	6	2	1.5
7. Lamech's response	-	-	-	2	1.5
TOTALS		34	100	128	100

The bar graph presents this information visually. [Our apologies, the graph will appear in book.]

   From these estimates and the preserved material in 1QapGen, we note the following. a) In both cases the first person narrator is the person of immediate concern. In 1QapGen it is Lamech the father; in 1 Enoch, it is Enoch, the author of the corpus. b) The beginning of the narrative (1) may have been about the same length in 1QapGen as it is in 1 Enoch; however, this estimate and the content of the section are uncertain. c) Although in 1 Enoch Lamech suspects that Noah's conception was of angelic origin (106:6), the stormy emotional scene between Lamech and his wife in 1QapGen 2 (2) has no counterpart in 1 Enoch 106-107. d) 1 Enoch stresses the child's miraculous appearance by a double repetition of the initial description (106:2-3 + 5-6 and 10-12), and the child's appearance suggests to Lamech that the child is a portent of things to come (106:6). 1QapGen 1 must have had an initial description of the child, but 2:19 (3) is much shorter than its counterpart to 1 Enoch 106:5-6 and briefly summarizes the action in column 1 without repeating the description. e) Methuselah's address to Enoch (4) in 1QapGen 2:26-34 was a somewhat longer than its counterpart in 1 Enoch and almost certainly repeated the description of the child in the first part of the story. f) Enoch's oracle (5) in 1QapGen is more than six times longer than its counterpart in 1 Enoch 106:13-107:1. Some preserved wording at 1QapGen 5:18 indicates that this final section of Enoch's speech contained a prediction of the eschaton similar to 106:19-107:1.

   The existence of two versions of the same story--such as we have in 1 Enoch 106-107 and 1QapGen 1--naturally raises the question of their relationship to one another. Is 1 Enoch 106-107 dependent on 1QapGen? Is 1QapGen an expansion of 1 Enoch 106-107? Are both dependent on a common source, perhaps to be identified with a Book of Noah? Although I shall not treat this issue in detail, I shall suggest below (4.2) that my findings have some bearing on the matter. My task is, rather, an interpretation of Apocryphon's account of Noah's birth, as we know it from the preserved and fragmentary parts of cols. 1-5 and by inference from 1 Enoch 106-107, and as we can understand it in the context of the rest of the scroll. Part of that context is the story of Abram and Sarai in Egypt, which will be the subject of part 2 of this paper.

1.2. Interpretive Tendencies in 1QapGen 1-5

   The account of Noah's birth that once stood in 1QapGen was a massive expansion of a brief notice in Gen 5:28-29 whose motifs and tendencies reflect its author's interests and historical setting.

1.2.1. Reflections of Enochic Traditions

   Traditions preserved in the early strata of 1 Enoch, some of them about Enoch, are a major component in this story's interpretation of Genesis. 1) The versions in both 1 Enoch 106-107 and 1QapGen presume the myth of the watchers and the women recounted in 1 Enoch 6-11. Lamech suspects that the child has been fathered by one of the heavenly beings that were mating with human women, and Enoch summarizes the story and assures Methuselah that Noah is not a child of the watchers. 2) The linkage to Methuselah and Methuselah's association with Enoch point to parts of 1 Enoch (e.g., chaps. 72-82; 83-84; 85-90). 3) Enoch's association with the angels is paralleled in 1 Enoch 12:1-3. 4) The parts of the Apocryphon's story that have no counterpart in 1 Enoch 106-107 contain terms typical of 1 Enoch 6-11, such as "watchers and holy ones" (2:1, 16, 20; cf. 1 Enoch 1:2; 10:1; 12:2), "the sons of heaven" (2:5; 1 Enoch 6:2; a!ggeloi is used in the Greek of 1 Enoch, as is typical in that version),⁶ "the Great Holy One" (2:14, 16; 1 Enoch 1:3; 10:1), and "Lord/King of all the ages" (2:4, 7; 1 Enoch 9:4).

   The story of the watchers and the women was not simply presumed by the author of the Apocryphon. The scroll had at least two columns preceding the present column 1 (1Q20), which appear to have actually contained a version of the story of the watchers and the women similar to that now in 1 Enoch 6-11.⁷ References in 1Q20 to God's wrath (1:1, 2) and to certain individuals who are "bound (Nyrys), 1:4) parallel elements in the Enoch story⁸ and would provide the reader with a context for Lamech's suspicion about the angelic conception of Noah (1QapGen 2). Lines 2-3 of 1QapGen 1 refer to "the mystery (of evil)," which may be identified with the watchers' revelations in 1 Enoch 8:1-4; 16:3.

1.2.2. Eschatology

   Because of the badly damaged condition of the Apocryphon and the fragmentary form of its narrative in columns 1-5, we cannot determine the degree to which the Apocryphon's version of the story of Noah's birth was driven by an eschatological Tendenz. However, we may note the following. a) The story of the watchers and the women in 1 Enoch 6-11 involves an eschatological recasting of Genesis 6:1-4. 1 Enoch 10-11--though it begins with the immediate problem of the pre-diluvian situation and its solution--provides a scenario for the eschaton and the final and complete eradication of all evil from the earth.⁹ b) The story in 1 Enoch 106-107 has a sharply focused eschatological Tendenz. Noah's physical appearance indicates things to come and reflects his role as the remnant figure at the time of the Flood. As such, he may portend a similar figure who will survive the eschatological judgment that will parallel the Flood. Enoch utters a bipartite oracle to Methuselah--the first half about the flood (106:15-17), the second half about subsequent history which concludes with the great judgment (106:18d-107:1). This double structure and its Urzeit/Endzeit typology is paralleled also in 1 Enoch 91:5 and 6-9, as well as in 1 Enoch 93:4, 9-10 + 91:12-17. There is clearly enough room in 1QapGen 5:9-19 to have contained some of this material and a few words of it are preserved in 5:18.

1.2.3. Revelation

   Enoch's function as revealer in both versions of the story reflects his traditional role in the earlier strata of 1 Enoch, where he is the recipient and transmitter of revelations. While we cannot be certain of many of the details in the story in the Apocryphon, the extraordinary length of the section that transmitted Enoch's speech is noteworthy, and Enoch's revelatory role was crucial in the resolution of the crisis precipitated at the beginning of the narrative.

1.2.4. A Psychologizing Focus on the Characters' Emotions

   A major feature in the story of Noah's birth in the Apocryphon is its interest in the psychological dynamics between husband and wife. The lines 3-18 of column 2 recount a bitter dispute between Lamech and Bitenosh--of which there is no hint in 1 Enoch 106-107, let alone Genesis 5. Lamech suspects that his wife has conceived through one of the watchers or sons of heaven, and he puts her under an oath to speak the truth. She denies the allegation by reminding him of her sexual pleasure when they made love. The point is a bit obscure. The issue is not whether Lamech and his wife have been to bed together, but whether this child was conceived under other circumstances. Perhaps Bitenosh appeals to her pleasure in order to affirm her love and thus to deny that she would sleep with someone other than her husband. In any case, Lamech is furious with her response, and so, with great emotion, she again refers to their lovemaking and then employs a double oath to underscore a triple assertion that the Lamech is the father and a triple denial that the child has been conceived by an angel.

I swear to you by the Great Holy One, by the King of the Heavens:

from you is this seed,

and from you is this conception,

and from you is the planting of this fruit;

and not from any stranger,

and not from any of the watchers,

and not from any of the sons of heaven (2:14-16)

   The situation is serious enough because Lamech suspects adultery; it is exacerbated by his concern that his wife has consorted with a divine being, that is, a kind of demon. Abhorrence of such an unnatural confusion of the heavenly/spiritual and the earthly/human is expressed in the Enochic version of Noah story in 106:14-17 (cf. the divine oracle that Enoch receives in the account of his ascent in 1 Enoch 15:3-7).

   The interaction between Lamech and Bitenosh reflects an explicitly psychological interest that has an increasing number of parallels in post-biblical literature. In content, its closest parallel is perhaps in the book of Tobit (2:11-14), where Tobit and his wife Hannah argue about a goat that she has brought home; he accuses her of having stolen it and she denies the allegation and accusing him of hypocrisy. Other examples of this kind of intense psychological interest in scenes that depict male/female interactions appear in Joseph and Aseneth 6-9, the Testament of Job 24-26, and the Testament of Joseph 3-9. These parallels notwithstanding, there is also a major difference between this text and other early Jewish haggadah (Jubilees; parts of the Testament of Job; the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, to the extent that it preserves Jewish material). Much in these latter texts focuses on moral vices and virtues as such and not on the psychology of the persons who embody these characteristics. Lamech's narrative, however, presumes the immorality of the alleged adultery, but focuses on the anger and anguish felt both by himself and by his wife, and indeed on the pleasure of their lovemaking.

1.3. Literary Genre

1.3.1. Predecessors in Israelite and Greek Literature

   Our interpretation of this story should place it on its generic horizon.¹⁰ Genesis 17, 21, Judges 13, and 1 Samuel 1 recount stories about the divinely induced conceptions of heroes, persons who would play a positive role in the divine economy. The present story also recounts the birth of a hero, but it evokes stories that are alien to the biblical accounts about divinely induced conceptions and that derive from Greek myth.¹¹ Behind it lie the accounts of the mating of the watchers and the women (1 Enoch 6-11 + 12-16), and behind them stand Greek tales about, and references to sexual encounters between gods and humans. Nonetheless, the Noah story is veiled in ambiguity. Speaking through Lamech, the author recalls the stories of the watchers and women and their divine-human coupling, only to allow Bitenosh and Enoch to deny that the present situation is a case in point. Noah's glorious appearance powerfully evokes the imagery of divine epiphany. Little wonder that Lamech suspects that Bitenosh, a "daughter of man" (cf. Gen 6:2,4; 1 Enoch 6:1, 7:1), has slept with a divine being.¹² Nonetheless, what the author gives with one hand he takes away with the other. The telltale similarity to a suspected divine father turns out to be deceptive.¹³ Noah's epiphanic glory does not indicate divine conception. It reflects his "divine beauty"¹⁴ and is a sign of his divinely appointed function. The heroes of biblical stories about special conception all have divinely appointed roles to play, but this is never indicated by visible, epiphanic appearance.¹⁵

1.3.2. The New Testament

   If we carry the generic discussion one step further, to the New Testament, the ambiguity is heightened. Without explaining what he means, Fitzmyer observes laconically that the account of Noah's birth "is not without its significance for the understanding of the genre of the Lucan and Matthean Infancy Narratives."¹⁶ Wherein lies "its significance"? Like the gospel stories, it recounts the birth of a divinely appointed savior figure. The similarities to the Matthean account are especially close. Matthew 1:18-25, like the Noah story, is told from the husband's point of view and focuses on Joseph's concern about Mary's pregnancy. This concern is alleviated by means of a divine revelation (an angel rather than Enoch), which concludes with the command to give the child a name that signifies his salvific function. The Matthean story, however, has a particular twist that makes it a foil to the Apocryphon's story. Lamech thinks that Bitenosh was impregnated by a divine being, but the child is his own. Joseph thinks that Mary has slept with another man, but Mary is pregnant through divine agency--though Matthew gives no indication that the Holy Spirit (vv 18, 20) had sexual intercourse with Mary.¹⁷

   In the case in Luke 1:26-35, the story of Jesus' conception is told from Mary's--rather than Joseph's--point of view, and we hear nothing of the latter's suspicion. Nevertheless, the issue of the conception is even more complicated than in Matthew, because the language--though it is not explicitly sexual--employs physical imagery:

the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the Most High will overshadow you. (Luke 1:35)

   But however one wishes to read this metaphor, the result of this activity is the conception of a child who is "holy" and "son of God," titles for the angels in 1 Enoch and elsewhere.¹⁸ Again, I do not suggest that Luke posits sexual intercourse between the Holy Spirit and Mary.¹⁹ Nonetheless, much traditional Christian exegesis of this text misses the point by raising the possibility that it could refer to divine human coupling, only to dismiss it. However Luke may have construed the conception process, one must ask how a gentile reader of Luke's gospel might have interpreted this story and whether Luke phrased his text to allow such an interpretation? Would the story have evoked mythic tales about intercourse between gods and women? Might it have reminded one of the subtly phrased story about Zeus impregnating Danae through a shower of gold (Apollodorus, Library 2.4.1)?

   In conclusion, the story of the birth of Noah in the Genesis Apocryphon attests a pair of tendencies in the interpretation of Genesis during the Greco-Roman period. One is derived from Greek myth and from psychologically focused narrative; the other reflects the apocalyptic eschatology of early Enochic traditions. Several questions remain open. What is the import of the emotional interchange between Lamech and Bitenosh in 1QapGen 2? What is the relationship between the psychologizing and eschatological tendencies? A partial answer will be found as we consider a second story in 1QapGen, the sojourn of Abram and Sarai in Egypt.

2.0. Abram's Account of His Sojourn in Egypt (1QapGen 19:13-20:32)

2.1. Outline of the Story

   The story of Abram's sojourn in Egypt recounted in Gen 12:10-20 has been expanded in 1QapGen to nine times its original size, from approximately 520 characters in the Hebrew Bible to approximately 4550 in 1QapGen. In this transformation, the tightly written Genesis account has been interpolated with additional narrative details, motifs, and whole genres completely absent in Genesis.

   We may summarize the Apocryphon's revision of Genesis as follows. As the story begins, Abram has a dream, which he interprets for Sarai (19:14-19). Then, in the account of Sarai's abduction, the comment in Gen 12:15--that the princes have praised Sarai's beauty --is spelled out in a lengthy wasf that dwells in delicious detail on the features of her physical beauty. After Sarai's abduction, Abram's prayer for vindication catalyzes Pharaoh's affliction (20:12-16). Then the account of Pharaoh's affliction and healing is narrated as a contest in which Abram accomplishes what the Egyptian magicians and healers cannot do.

2.2. Narrative Features

   The Apocryphon's retelling of the Genesis story is shaped by a number of features that are paralleled in its version of the story of Noah's birth and in the sources, traditions, and tendencies that shaped that story.

2.2.1. First Person Narrator

   As we have seen, the first person singular narrative voice is a striking feature of the scroll's version of the story of Noah's birth. It recurs here. As the text of the Abram story emerges at the top of column 19, it is Abram, the major character, who narrates the story. This first person narrative continues well into column 21--to the beginning of the section corresponding to Genesis 14.²⁰

2.2.2. Psychologizing Interest

   Like the Apocryphon's version of Noah's birth story, this story is interested in the characters' emotions and in their expression of these emotions. When Abram awakes from his dream, he is frightened (19:18), and when he explains the dream, Sarai weeps and greatly fears that trouble lies ahead (19:21, 23). The emotional temperature of the scene involving husband and wife is reminiscent of the interchange between Lamech and Bitenosh, although here there is no confrontation between the two. When Sarai is taken to Pharaoh's house, the author adds some narrative tension by having Pharaoh threaten to kill Abraham (thus fulfilling a non-biblical detail in Abram's dream, viz., that Pharaoh's princes would attempt to kill Abram [19:15] and justifying Sarah's ambiguous statement about Abram being her brother). After Sarai's intervention, Abram weeps--three times (20:10, 12, 16).

2.2.3. Eroticism

   In a massive embellishment of Genesis 12:15, the author elaborates the story of Sarai's abduction through the use of the genre of the wasf,²¹ whose erotic details--totally lacking in Genesis--fit well with the erotic tone of Bitenosh's double reference to her sexual pleasure. This lingering on the many fine features of Sarai's beauty then provides explicit motivation for Pharaoh's decision to bring Sarai to his house. Different from his Genesis counterpart, Pharaoh is said to have loved her very much (Mxr) (20:8). This reference parallels other emotional elements in the Apocryphon.

2.2.4. Revelation

   Reference to revelation is another feature that this author has added to the Genesis account. In Gen 12:11-13 Abram's warning to Sarai is straightforward and based on the common sense observation that oriental monarchs do as they please when it comes to beautiful women, and, indeed, Pharaoh's abduction of Sarai follows a report about Sarai's beauty (Gen 12:14). The author of the Apocryphon has a different explanation for Abram's warning and for his request that Sarai state that they are brother and sister. Abram is warned of coming events in "a dream in the night" that predicts that Pharaoh's princes will attempt to kill him and that Sarai will claim that "we are both from one family." Thus Abram is depicted as the recipient and interpreter of revelatory dreams. This has some foundation in Gen 15:12-21, where Abraham sees a vision about his and Israel's future; however, that is very different from this portrayal of him as the dreamer and interpreter. The motif of revelation has already appeared in the figure of Enoch in the story of Noah's birth.

2.2.5. Demon and Exorcist

   In another departure from Genesis, which reflects contemporary beliefs, the author states that Pharaoh's affliction is caused by an evil spirit, who has been sent by God. This parallels 1 Enoch 15:11-16:1, and especially Jubilees 10:1-13, where evil spirits are the cause of sickness.²² In that the demon is dispatched by God, this detail differs from texts that depict the evil spirits as a kingdom unto themselves, or as a hoard that is under the power of an arch-demon, e.g., Mastema. The notion that an evil spirit could wreak physical havoc at God's behest recalls 2 Cor 12:7-9, where Paul's thorn in the flesh is "an angel of Satan" that keeps Paul from the sin of arrogance.

2.2.6. Abram and the Figure of Daniel

   The features in this author's portrayal of Abram mentioned in the previous two paragraphs indicate that this author is recasting the biblical patriarch in the mold of Daniel. He is the recipient and interpreter of dreams (Dan 2; 7-12).²³ In addition, his healing of Pharaoh makes him the winner of a contest in which all the healers and sages of Egypt fail (Dan 2, 5; Prayer of Nabonidus).²⁴

2.2.7. Abram, the Enochic Tradition, and the Story of the Watchers

   Finally, we note additions to the Genesis story that tie 1QapGen 19-20 to the Enochic tradition. Although the text is damaged at 19:<25, it appears that the author describes Abram reading to the Egyptian princes from "the [book] of the words of [En]och."²⁵ The key words, )tmkx and )+#wq, which appear immediately previous to this narrative detail, are major Enochic expressions for the content of the sage's message.²⁶ Equally remarkable is the Aramaic formulation Kwnx ylm btkl Nwhymdwq tyrqw. The language is employed in contexts describing the formal reading of a binding document (cf. 1 Enoch 13:10).²⁷ Thus, this author shows a respect for the Enochic corpus that parallels its usage in the Apocryphon's Noah story and, perhaps, the account of the watchers and the women in 1Q20.

   More striking is the way in which the author has reshaped the Genesis 12 story to conform to the story of the watchers and the women. The parallels are the following:

1 Enoch 6-11	1QapGen 20
Sons of Heaven see beauty of the women	Pharaoh sees Sarai's beauty
They desire her	He loves her
They take them as their wives	He takes her as his wife
They have intercourse with them
The dead, the earth, the holy ones pray	Abram prays
God sends angels for judgment	God sends a spirit
	Pharaoh does not have intercourse with Sarai

   In Gen 12:15 Pharaoh simply hears the princes' report about Sarai's beauty (1QapGen 19?-20:8). Here he witnesses it for himself. His love for her (20:8) parallels the desire ascribed to the watchers (6:2). The reference to Pharaoh's taking her as his wife (Gen 12:19) is drawn into the Apocryphon's narrative much earlier (20:9), at a point that corresponds to 1 Enoch 6:2/7:1. Of necessity, the reference to intercourse is deferred until later in the narrative.. Abram's prayer for divine vindication (20:12-15) is spoken in the idiom of the prayer for vindication in 1 Enoch 9. It is specifically in response to this prayer that God exacts justice in behalf of Abram and does so through the agency of a spirit (20:16-20; cf. 1 Enoch 10). The stories differ in that here God's judgment prevents intercourse between Pharaoh and Sarai, whereas in 1 Enoch 6-11 the judgment comes after the divine-human mating has produced the giants, whose devastating activity triggers the prayer.

   In summary, the major elaborative features in the Apocryphon's interpretation of Genesis 12 are all consonant with, and similar to features in the Noah story. The story is narrated by the protagonist in the first person singular. The emotions of various of the characters are emphasized. Connections with Danielic and Enochic apocalyptic literature are evident. Revelation plays an important role, and Abram has been cast in the mold of Daniel. Especially important is the common use of the story of the watchers and the women.

2.2.8. Triangulation in the Plot

   There is, however, another parallel in plot between the story about Abram and the Apocryphon's legend of Noah's birth that is created by means of the Apocryphon's versions of the two stories. At the center of the Noah story in columns 1-5 and the story of Abram's sojourn in Egypt in columns 19-20 is an episode whose major characters are husband and wife. In focus are the husband's concern about the possibility that his wife has had or will have sexual relations with someone other than himself and the alleviation of that concern with the assurance that such extra-marital sex has not taken place. Moreover, when Lamech suspects that Bitenosh has conceived from one of the watchers, she takes an oath that she has not done so. Similarly, Abram prays that Pharaoh will not defile his wife, and after, ironically, an evil spirit keeps Pharaoh from consummating the relationship, the king swears an oath to Abram that he has not had intercourse with her. This striking narrative feature, which the two stories have in common with one another, but not with their sources or other parallels, requires some consideration, since it may well reveal something about the interests and social world of the Apocryphon's author.

   In both the Lamech episode and the Abram story, the third member of the erotic triangle is a larger than life figure. In the first instance, the alleged lover is a divine being, one of the "watchers," "holy ones," "nephilin," or "sons of heaven" (2:1, 5, 16). For Abram the cause of anxiety is the Egyptian Pharaoh, at the very least one whose political and social status was qualitatively different from Abram's, at the maximum, one who was thought to be a son of God. Jewish and Christian interpretations of Genesis 6:1-4--the source of the story of the watchers and the women--understood "sons of god" to mean, alternatively, divine beings or sons of "nobles," "rulers," or "judges."²⁸ This latter meaning fits well with Pharaoh's playing out the role of one of the watchers, and it may also relate to an interpretation of 1 Enoch 6-11 that identifies the giants with the Diadochoi.²⁹ Another point of consideration is Bitenosh's use of the term zar as a synonym for "watchers" and "sons of heaven." In the logic of the narrative, given the child's appearance, it is hardly a reference to some other human other than her spouse and must refer to "a being foreign to this world."³⁰ Nonetheless, the expression should be noted, since in the Abram story, Pharaoh is a foreigner to Abram's race, i.e., an Egyptian rather than an Israelite (to speak anachronistically).

3.0 Accounting for the Parallels Between the Stories

   The author of the Apocryphon has shaped these two stories in a common direction. First, in both stories, the wife is brought to the foreground as a viable character, who participates in a conversation with her husband and whose sexuality is emphasized. Secondly, the story is told from the husband's point of view and focuses on his expressed anxiety that his wife has been or will be drawn into a sexual relationship with a "stranger." Finally, in both cases the anxiety is shown to be unfounded.

   From these parallels I conclude that the author of the Apocryphon is concerned about some kind of miscegenation. The sexuality of Israelite women is seen to constitute a danger. The precise nature of this danger is unclear, and the range of possibilities is wide, depending upon how literally one takes the text. It could refer to: adultery in general; intercourse with someone of different social status; intercourse with a non-Israelite; intercourse with a divine being; marriage (of one's daughter) to a non-Israelite.³¹ Since we do not have access to the full scroll, we cannot determine whether and how this erotic motif may have been explicated in other stories that would have easily lent themselves to this: Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Rachel, Judah and Tamar, Joseph and Potiphar's wife.³² Possible analogies do appear in other texts, however. In 1 Enoch 12-16, the wording of the story of the watchers and the women suggests a critique of priests who have defiled themselves sexually.³³ A concern about mixed marriages and their defiling consequences occurs repeatedly in the Book of Jubilees (20:4; 22:20; 25:1-9; 27:8-10; 30:7-17; 41:2), which may be of more than passing concern, given the Apocryphon's relationship with that text.³⁴ One other detail is worth mentioning; the husband's anxiety turns out to be unfounded. This is, of course, due to narrative necessity: Noah cannot have been fathered by a watcher, and the biblical story precludes intercourse between Pharaoh and Sarai. Nonetheless, this outcome takes on significance when it concludes a story in which the anxiety has been introduced. In the one instance, Bitenosh is shown to be faithful; in the other, God is in control. The sexuality of Israelite women is a clear and present danger, but it need not be fatal.

   The erotic motifs in the Apocryphon are of more than passing interest. Certainly, the text does not evidence a misogynistic or an ascetic, anti-sex bias.³⁵ To the contrary, the two stories highlight the erotic element. Bitenosh makes two references to her orgasm. The author allows the princes an enthusiastic description of Sarai's body. The presence of the motif needs to be considered in relation to other elements in the Scroll and its context. How does one relate the erotic element to the eschatological emphasis in Enoch's oracle? Whatever the author's eschatological horizon and proclivities, these do not preclude the author from an interest in the erotic and a concern about husbands and wives, the humanness of their interactions, and their faithfulness toward one another, or, more broadly, a concern about proper marriage for Israelite women.

   This intriguing interest in sex, marriage, and the eschaton can be compared and contrasted with the apostle Paul's instructions to the Corinthian congregation. In 1 Corinthians 7, in the context of his belief that "the appointed time has grown very short" and that "the form of this world is passing away" (7:29, 31), Paul states that "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (7:1), and he counsels the unmarried remain in that state (7:8, 27), so that they can attend to their religious responsibilities rather than family matters (7:32-35). Having said this, Paul concedes the power of the sex drive. Thus, he counsels against sexual abstinence in marriage and advises those who cannot exercise self-control to marry, since "it is better to marry than to burn" (7:9). Thus, for Paul the imminent eschaton is given priority, and family life is seen as a burden, marriage is permitted by concession, and sex is only to be tolerated.

   In the context of this comparison, I suggest that the author of the Apocryphon evidences a much more positive attitude toward sex and marriage, his eschatological viewpoint notwithstanding. To put it bluntly, it is difficult to imagine Paul being very interested in Bitenosh's orgasm or Sarai's breast and legs. The author of the Apocryphon appears to affirm sexuality, even if he recognizes its dangers. Paul also recognizes the dangers of sexuality and his eschatological intensity notwithstanding, he tolerates concessions, spelling them out in halakic fashion.

   Having compared and contrasted the viewpoints of the Apocryphon's author and the apostle Paul, I leave it to others to consider how the viewpoint in the Apocryphon would have played out in a Qumran context. What is this scroll doing in a collection of texts that belonged to a supposedly celibate community? Is the viewpoint espoused in the scroll--with its erotic interests and its focus on husband/wife relationships and interactions--likely to be the expression of a Qumranite? Is the Scroll more likely to have been the composition and, at first, the property of a wing of the Essene movement in which marriage was normal?³⁶

4.0 Implications and Broader Considerations

4.1. The Stories in the Context of the Scroll

   Our findings about the stories of Noah's birth and Abram's and Sarai's sojourn in Egypt can be brought together now and placed in the broader context of the whole scroll of the Apocryphon, to the extent that the fragments permit this.

4.1.1. Revelation

   The motif of revelation in Enoch's oracle about the Flood and the eschaton and in Abram's dream about coming events in Egypt recurs in columns 13-15. According to Greenfield and Qimron, these columns "contained a vision about trees and about heavenly matters that affect them."³⁷ It is the third instance in which a section of Genesis that has no reference to revelation has been substantially elaborated through an appeal to revelation.

4.1.2. The Enochic Tradition

   Much of the Apocryphon's elaboration of Genesis derives from, or parallels traditions that are connected with the figure of Enoch. The Apocryphon's version of Noah's birth story devotes much more space to Enoch's oracle than its counterpart in 1 Enoch 106-107. The story of the watchers and the women, which is presumed in the birth story, appears to have been told in the opening columns of the Apocryphon. The Noah portion of the scroll also mentions the "holy ones" intercourse with the daughters of men (6:20) and the blood shed by the Nefilin (6:19),³⁸ and the title "the Great Holy One" appears in 6:15; 12:17. The story of the watchers and the women has also informed the account of Abram and Sarai in Egypt, which also makes reference to Abram's reading "the Book of the Words of Enoch" in the presence of the Egyptian princes. Perhaps more striking, because it is paralleled in 1 Enoch in the Epistle of Enoch (chaps. 92-105) rather than in the story of the watchers, are Noah's descriptions of his life in terms of the two ways of uprightness/truth and violence/deceit (col. 6).³⁹

   This substantial influence of Enochic traditions is noteworthy because it is paralleled in the Book of Jubilees 4:15-27; 5:1-12; 7:21-24), which appears to have been, in turn, one of the sources of the Genesis Apocryphon. At the same time, there is no indication that any of the aforementioned examples of Enochic influence on the Apocryphon has been mediated through the Book of Jubilees.⁴⁰ Rather, Jubilees and the Apocryphon are two separate, but related instances of the powerful influence that the Enoch traditions exerted on Jewish interpreters who sought to apply the events of primordial history to their own time.

4.1.3. A Psychologizing Tendency

   We have noted a focus on the characters' emotions in the stories of Lamech and Abram and Sarai in Egypt. The tendency also occurs in the second part of the Lamech story and in the latter part of the material about Abram. At 2:25 in words not paralleled in 1 Enoch 106-107, Methuselah says to Enoch, "Do not be angry with me...." At 21:7, Abram states, "it grieved me that Lot...had parted from me." After Lot is captured, a third person narrator tells us, "Abram wept for Lot his nephew; then he summoned up his courage, rose up, and chose...the best men for war" (22:5) Neither reference to Abram's emotions appears in the Genesis account.

4.1.4. First Person Accounts and the Structure of the Genesis Apocryphon

   The first person singular narration that we have noted in Lamech's account of Noah's birth and in the main part of the Abram stories appears also in preserved parts of columns 6-12, where Noah recounts his own story (6:2, 6; 7:7; 10:13, 15; 12:3, 8, 10, 13, 15-17, 19). A clue to this usage has been discovered by Richard Steiner, who reconstructs at 5:29 the words, "The Book of the Words of Noah" (xwn ylm btk) and argues that they served as a superscription to entire section running from 5:29 to column 17.⁴¹ Thus, we have in succession a set of first person narratives placed in the mouths of Lamech, Noah, and Abram. This suggests that the scroll presented itself as a collection of extracts from a Book of Lamech, a Book of Noah, and a Book of Abram, all of them narrated in the first person voice of their central figure.⁴² Another hint of such a notion may be found in 19:25, where Abram is said to have read from "the [book] of the words of Enoch." The material preceding Lamech's account may have been presented as a book of Enoch. Scholars have tended to identify 1 Enoch 6-11 as a Noachic fragment, as it may well have been. However, in the sequence of the present text, a first person account preceding Lamech's story would have to be attributed to Enoch. The author of the Apocryphon may well have had access a form of the Enochic corpus that included chaps. 6-11 and have included material from it as part of the "Book of the Words of Enoch" (cf. 1 Enoch 1:1).

   The Apocryphon, then, elaborates the anonymous account in Genesis and casts the material into a first person form, attributed, successively, to various of its major characters: Lamech, Noah, and Abram, with, at least, an implied Book of Enoch. Thus, the events in Genesis are presented to the reader in a new form, recited by the central characters in various sections of its narrative.

   This tendency to recast the biblical narratives into the first person singular needs to be related to the Apocryphon's dependence on the Book of Jubilees. Although Jubilees is not narrated as first person singular accounts of its major characters, it is a pseudepigraphic recasting of Genesis (and parts of Exodus). This ascription, different from Genesis itself, is explicitly Mosaic--after a fashion. In fact it uses the first person plural and founds its authority on the claim that it was dictated to Moses by "us angels of the presence." Thus, the anonymous text of Genesis, believed to be Mosaic in Hellenistic times, is recast into the explicitly Mosaic narrative of Jubilees, ascribed more basically to the angels of the presence. That text, in turn, informs the Genesis Apocryphon, which retells the stories as a series of pseudepigraphic patriarchal narratives. On the one hand the Apocryphon moves away from the angelic revelation of Jubilees (which provides authority for its halakah); on the other hand, it provides reliability for its narrative by placing it on the lips of the characters themselves.

   Scanning a broader horizon, we may note the first person singular narrative in the Qumran Aramaic Levi material (4QLevia 1 2; 4Q213) and other patriarchal texts (4Q537, Jacob; 4Q538, Judah?; 4Q215, Naphtali). The parallels to the Levi and Naphtali material in the Testaments of Levi and Naphtali and general use of first person narrative in the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs and other testaments have led, in the scholarly mind, to an association of first person narrative with the testamentary form. However, the Genesis Apocryphon indicates the existence in the Greco-Roman period of a broader corpus of first person haggadic narrative attributed to the patriarchs.⁴³ The picture is complicated by the use of the first person narrator in the Book of Tobit and in apocalyptic works like 1 Enoch, because both of these texts have been influenced by the testamentary form. In any case, further work needs to be done on the use of first person narration, its characteristics, the forms in which it occurs, its relationships to other types of "rewritten Bible" and the broader phenomenon of pseudepigraphy, and its possible parallels in contemporary non-Israelite literature.

4.2. The Source of the Noah Story and the Relationship Between its Two Versions

   I return, finally, to a question raised at the beginning of this paper: what is the relationship between the versions of Noah's birth story in the Apocryphon and 1 Enoch 106-107? Is one dependent on the other, or are both dependent on a common source from a Book of Noah? There is perhaps some consensus that 1 Enoch's version of Noah's birth story is a summary of a longer story that constituted the first part of an older Book of Noah, and that the Genesis Apocryphon's version preserves a fuller form of the old Noachic material.⁴⁴ Without discussing the details, I think it probable that 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees have preserved parts of a Noachic corpus. Moreover, as we have seen, the Genesis Apocryphon 5-16 claims to contain material from "the Book of the Words of Noah." But what of columns 1-5? Although the fragmentary condition of the scroll qualifies any conclusions about this subject, several considerations suggest to me that the Apocryphon's version of the story is dependent on 1 Enoch 106-107 rather than on a common source in a Book of Noah. 1) The the episode between Lamech and Bitenosh in 1QapGen 2 is paralleled in the additions to the story of Abram and Sarai in Egypt and by other references to the characters' emotions; this seems to indicate an authorial tendency in the Apocryphon rather than a remnant from earlier tradition in column 2. 2) The first person narration by Lamech fits the technique of the Scroll and need not derive from a source. 3) The Apocryphon devotes more space to Enoch and his activity than does 1 Enoch 106-107; he would have had to be very prominent in any source from which this story was taken. This suggests an Enochic rather than a Noachic source for the Lamech version of the story. 4) If the source of 1QapGen had been a Book of Noah, it is strange that the superscription identifying "The Book of the Words of Noah" follows the Lamech material and precedes the section on Noah's life and activities.

   I suggest that a Noah book may have provided source material for 1 Enoch 106-107, whose author enhanced the figure of Enoch and added some eschatological material drawn from other parts of the Enochic corpus. The Apocryphon's author further elaborated the Enochic story with the haggadic motifs that were of interest to him and with Enochic material, which has also influenced other parts of the Apocryphon.⁴⁵

* I have profited from the discussion of a previous draft of this paper that was read at the biennial meeting of the Taskforce on Apocalyptic of the Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Theologie, held in Bethel, Germany in March, 1995. [Back to text]

¹ A Genesis Apocryphon (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1956). The major comprehensive study of the scroll, from which I have learned much is Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (2nd ed.; BO 18A; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971). [Back to text]

² Jonas C. Greenfield and Elisha Qimron, "The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII," Abr-Nahrain Supp. 3 (1992) 70-77. Correspondence about the text with my friend and companion in Enoch studies, Jonas Greenfield, was broken off by his premature and lamented death. In writing the paper, I derived my "first-hand" knowledge of the unpublished parts of the scroll from Emanuel Tov, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile Edition of the Texts from the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 1993) microfiche 126. After the conference, Professor Qimron kindly made a transcription of the Apocryphon available to me, and I happily acknowledge his permission to cite it in a few places below. I also wish to acknowledge the help of Matthew Morgenstern, who has been working with Professor Qimron in the publication of a new edition of the text. [Back to text]

³ My estimate is conservative; I am allowing about as much space for the beginning of the story as it occupied in 4QEn^c; see below n. 5. [Back to text]

⁴ On the vocalization see the discussion by Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 82-83. [Back to text]

⁵ My calculations are based on a comparison of 4QEn^c (J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1976]), the Chester Beatty Papyrus (Campbell Bonner, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968 reprint]), and the edition of Avigad and Yadin. 1 Enoch 106:13-107:2, preserved in 4QEn^c 5 2:17-30 (Milik, Enoch, 209-10), occupies 14 lines x 55 characters, a total of 770 characters, compared to the Greek (Bonner, Enoch) of 39 lines x 30 characters, a total of 1170 characters. Taking this 66% relationship of the Aramaic to the Greek and multiplying it by the total 2850 characters in the Greek of 106-107 (95 lines x 30 characters), we arrive at an estimated 1881 characters for the Aramaic of 1 Enoch 106-107, which tallies roughly with Milik's estimate that chapters 106:1-107:2 covered 35 lines in 4QEn^c 5:1:26-2:30. I estimate the length of the story in 1QApGen to have been 128 lines (6 lines for col. 1 + 34 lines each for cols. 2-4 + 27 lines for col. 50--a total of 135 lines, reduced to 128 to allow for vacats) x 55 characters, a total of 7040 characters, which is 3.74 times as long as the estimated 1881 characters of the Aramaic 1 Enoch 106-107. [Back to text]

⁶ The Greek of 1 Enoch, and the Ethiopic version following it, use the term "holy angels" throughout chaps. 1-36 and 97-107. Where it exists for the relevant passages, the Aramaic always uses the term "watcher" or "watcher and holy one"; see Milik, Enoch, 387. [Back to text]

⁷ See D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, ed., DJD 1, 86-87. [Back to text]

⁸ God's wrath is presumed in references to the judgment (10:6, 12-14; cf., e.g., 1:9; 10:22). On the binding of the watchers, cf. 10:4, 11, 14. [Back to text]

⁹ George W. E. Nickelsburg, "Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11," JBL 96 (1977) 388-89. [Back to text]

¹⁰ Here I am indebted, in part, to the doctoral dissertation of my student, Beverly A. Bow, The Birth of Jesus: A Jewish and Pagan Affair (The University of Iowa, 1995). [Back to text]

¹¹ Nickelsburg, "Apocalyptic and Myth," 395-97. On the Samson story, however, see Rüdiger Bartelmus, Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt (ATANT 65; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979) 79-112. [Back to text]

¹² That the author is playing on this word and its relationship to Genesis 6 has been noted by Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 82-83; Gedaliahu A. G. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (Nag Hammadi Studies 24; Leiden: Brill, 1984) 23-24, 58; and James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1995) 96. [Back to text]

¹³ It was suggested to me at the first reading of this paper in Bethel, Germany, that the disjunction in the narrative might indicate a polemic against a tradition that Noah was a divine figure of some sort. The only possible indication that I have found of this is in Philo, De Praemiis et Poenis 23, which identifies Noah with Deucalion, who was the son of Prometheus, according to Apollodorus (Library 1.46). For a detailed discussion of Jewish and Gnostic stories about impregnation through rebellious divine beings, see Stroumsa, Another Seed. [Back to text]

¹⁴ See Otto Betz, "Geistliche Schönheit: Von Qumran zu Michael Hahn," Die Leibhaftigkeit des Wortes, O. Michel and U. Mann, ed. (Fs. Adolf Köberle; Hamburg: Im Furche, 1985) 72-75. [Back to text]

¹⁵ See, however, the account of Jesus' birth in the Protevangelium of James 19. [Back to text]

¹⁶ Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 79. [Back to text]

¹⁷ It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss in detail the account of the birth of Melchizedek, which is attached to the end of some MSS. of 2 Enoch. Even the most basic problems are complex: text, date, Jewish or Christian provenance. The following facts are noteworthy, however. The father of Melchizedek is said to be Nir, the brother of Noah. Although the story occupies a place in 2 Enoch that is analogous to chapters 106-107 in 1 Enoch, it contains a stormy scene between Nir and Sopanim, his wife, which parallels 1QApGen 2 rather than 1 Enoch 106-107. Different from the Noah stories, Sopanim conceives without benefit of any male partner, although the conception is not virginal as in Matthew. This single-parent conception, moreover, is due to priestly abstinence from sexual intercourse, of which there is no hint in 1QApGen, or Matthew for that matter. [Back to text]

¹⁸ 1 Enoch 6:1, "sons of heaven"; 1:2; 12:2 and passim, "holy ones." For the two terms together, cf. Wis Sol 5:5; 1QH 11:22. [Back to text]

¹⁹ On this issue with respect to Matthew and Luke, see Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977) 124-25, 290-91. [Back to text]

²⁰ For the first person singular, see 19:14; 21:15 and cols. 19-21:21. For a shift from first person to third person narration, cf. Tobit 1:1-3:6 and 3:7ff. [Back to text]

²¹ On this genre, see M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, "Philologische Miszellen zu den Qumrantexten," RQ 2 (1959) 46-48; Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 119-20. [Back to text]

²² It was suggested in the session that "evil spirit" ()h#y)b xwr, 20:16, 28, 29) need not refer to a personified spirit, i.e., a demon of sorts. However, cf. Jub. 10:13 in the context of a story about the progeny of the watchers. For the Aramaic expression as a cliche in the exorcism formulae of later amulets and bowls, see Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993) amulets 19:24-5, 26, 36-37; 25:5; 26:10; bowls 16:7; 23:3, 10; 25:2; 27:7-8. [Back to text]

²³ B. de Handschutter, "La rêve dans l'Apocryphe de la Genèse," W. C. van Unnik, ed., La Littérature juive entre Tenach et Mischna (Leiden: Brill, 1974) 52-54. [Back to text]

²⁴ On the literature about these contests, see John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 42-47. [Back to text]

²⁵ See Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 118. [Back to text]

²⁶ For "wisdom" as a summary of the contents of Enoch's writings, cf. 1 Enoch 1:8; 37:1-4; 82:2-3; 92:1; 93:10; 104:12-13. The Epistle of Enoch makes frequent reference to "the path(s) of righteousness or truth. See also below, n. 39. [Back to text]

²⁷ In 1 Enoch 13:10, the Aramaic verb is llm. This expressions, with either verb is the regular targumic translations of the Hebrew )rq/rbd ynz)b, which appears in biblical contexts describing formal readings; see Harry M. Orlinsky, "The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators," HUCA 46 (1975) 94-103. [Back to text]

²⁸ See Philip S. Alexander, "The Targumim and Early Exegesis of "Sons of God" in Genesis 6," JJS 23 (1972) 60-71. [Back to text]

²⁹ See Nickelsburg, "Apocalyptic and Myth," 396-97. On the claim that Ptolemy I was thought to have descended from Dionysus, see ibid., n. 61. [Back to text]

³⁰ Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 90. [Back to text]

³¹ For the range of meanings for the biblical verb zur, see BDB, 266. [Back to text]

³² It is impossible to determine how long the original scroll was. The extant part consists of four sheets of 4, 5, 7, and 6 columns respectively. The fragments 1Q20 indicate at least two more columns for the first sheet.. To the end of the scroll, where the suture marks on column 22 can still be seen, would have been added at least one more sheet of at least five columns. This would have constituted a scroll of roughly 3.3 meters, not a very long scroll in comparison to the great Isaiah scroll (7.34 m.) or the Temple Scroll (8.148+ m.). [Back to text]

³³ See David W. Suter, "Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch," HUCA 50 (1979) 115-35; George W. E. Nickelsburg, "Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee," JBL 100 (1981) 584-87. [Back to text]

³⁴ On the relationship of 1QapGen to the Book of Jubilees, see Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 16-17; and Greenfield and Qimron. "Apocryphon," 76. [Back to text]

³⁵ J. W. Doeve ("Lamechs achterdocht in 1Q Genesis Apocryphon," NedTTs 15 [1961] 401-15) suggests that Essene authorship of the story is reflected in Lamech's suspicion of Bitenosh's unfaithfulness, which corresponds to the attitude that Josephus attributes to the Essenes in JW 2.8.2 (§119-21). If this is the case, why does the author show Lamech's suspicion to be unfounded? [Back to text]

³⁶ CD 12:1; 19:2-5; 4Q270 101:12-13; 4Q416 2 3:20-4:5. [Back to text]

³⁷ Greenfield and Qimron, Apocryphon, 74. [Back to text]

³⁸ Communication from Matthew Morgenstern; citations are from his handout at the Orion conference, used with permission from Professor Qimron. [Back to text]

³⁹ References to 1QapGen 6 by permission. Cf., e.g., 1 Enoch 91:2-4, 18-19; 92:1-5; 94:1-4; 104:13-105:2. On "violence and deceit" as the epitome of sin, cf. 93:4, 91:11. [Back to text]

⁴⁰ Note, for example, that the names of God which 1QapGen has in common with 1 Enoch do not appear in Jubilees. [Back to text]

⁴¹ Richard C. Steiner, "The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah on a Fragment of the Genesis Apocryphon: New Light on a 'Lost' Work," DSD 2 (1995) 66-71. [Back to text]

⁴² See Avigad and Yadin, Apocryphon, 38. [Back to text]

⁴³ Cf. Steiner ("Heading," 71), who notes that the "Words of Noah" cannot be his testament. [Back to text]

⁴⁴ See Milik, Enoch, 55; Florentino García Martínez, "4QMessAr and the Book of Noah"; ibid., Qumran and Apocalyptic (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 41. [Back to text]

⁴⁵ One possible indication that 1QapGen 1-5 is dependent on a source other than 1 Enoch 106-107 is Jub. 2:28, where Lamech's wife is called Betanos. However, since the Apocryphon knows Jubilees and Jubilees indicates no knowledge of the present story, there is no reason to take the name here as evidence of a source other than Jubilees. [Back to text]