The purpose of this paper is to investigate the practice of pseudepigraphy in the scrolls found at Qumran. Two matters need to be clarified at the outset. The first, rather obvious, fact is that due to the diverse nature of the Qumran library, there is no assurance that we are studying a practice which was prevalent at Qumran. The second, more complex, issue relates to the term "pseudepigraphy," whose meaning needs to be clarified. First, I shall introduce its better known relative, pseudepigrapha.

The perception of the importance of the body of writings generally referred to as the Pseudepigrapha has increased over the last half century, since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. ¹ The term "pseudepigrapha," however, has been employed in two different ways in recent scholarship and a very important distinction must be made for the purpose of this paper. Originally, pseudepigrapha was used to describe texts falsely ascribed to an author (usually of great antiquity) in order to enhance their authority and validity. Gradually, this word was expanded to include a collection of Jewish and Christian writings dating from the last centuries BCE to the first centuries CE which did not become part of the canon in either religion. ² Although the term "apocrypha," which accompanies it in the phrase "Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha" (the pairing perhaps ultimately owes its existence to E. Kautzsch and R. H. Charles), can be defined fairly narrowly as a particular group of deuterocanonical works which appear, with some variation, in the Roman Catholic, Greek, Slavonic and Ethiopic Bibles, the term "pseudepigrapha" has lost much of its specificity. Indeed, the first volume of Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ³ "Apocalyptic Literature and Related Works," generally follows the narrow generic definition of pseudepigrapha, works ascribed falsely to an author of antiquity. The second volume, with the unwieldy subtitle, "Expansions of the 'Old Testament' and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works," demands the broader understanding of the classification. There are in fact many more works in the second volume which are not technically pseudepigraphic than there are in the first.

The relationship between the pseudepigrapha and the Qumran scrolls has become increasingly significant in contemporary scholarship as it has become evident that these two corpora share certain works, genres, and historical contexts. To begin with an obvious though important fact, copies of works which belong to the narrowly-defined pseudepigrapha, such as Jubilees, 1 Enoch and early forms of the Testaments of Levi and Naphtali, have been discovered in the Qumran caves. Less obvious, however, but perhaps more significant is the way in which the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha have subtly influenced the manner in which we name, define and characterize fragmentary Qumran documents.

As the known Qumran corpus has grown in scope, we have been introduced to the fragments of many heretofore unknown works connected with the Hebrew Bible. Scrolls editors have sometimes resorted to indicating the relationship to biblical texts by adding "pseudo-" or "apocryphal" to the name of the appropriate biblical text or figure. Thus we find Apocryphon of Moses, Pseudo-Moses, Apocryphon of Samuel-Kings, Apocryphon of Jeremiah, Pseudo-Ezekiel, Pseudo-Daniel, Pseudo-Jubilees, Apocryphal Psalms, Non-Canonical Psalms, as well as the Apocrypha of Jacob, Judah, and Joseph. In the naming of Qumran texts, the categories "apocryphal" and "pseudepigraphical" have become virtually synonymous or often overlapping terms. The salient feature of pseudepigraphy, the false attribution of authorship, appears no longer to be relevant in the categorization of works as "pseudo-X." I am convinced that the practice of using this terminology in naming Qumran texts has obscured their true nature in many instances. The term "apocryphal" should, prima facie, denote a relationship to a body of material which is canonical or non-apocryphal from the standpoint of the author or audience but this is not always the case. Although the term "pseudo-" sometimes implies that the ancient author is consciously writing pseudepigrapha, in other instances it means only that the work has some unexpressed relationship to a biblical or other work on the same theme. While we need a common set of references for these documents, our terminology should be more discriminating.

Thus I use the term "pseudepigraphy" rather than "pseudepigrapha." I am interested in studying the phenomenon, at Qumran, of composing texts or portions of texts which are placed into the mouth of ancient figures. I hope to distinguish between works which are "genuinely" pseudepigraphic (if that not be too harsh an oxymoron) and those to which, out of convenience or expedience, the term "pseudo-" was attached by their editors. In the course of this analysis, I shall introduce the following categories:

1. Authoritative pseudepigraphy,

2. Convenient pseudepigraphy,

3. Decorative pseudepigraphy.

Once we perceive the range of the use of pseudepigraphy in the Qumran texts, I shall focus on the classification and functions of pseudepigraphy.

I admit that I still have more questions than answers and that I do not have a ready alternative in each instance where I reject a title. It is, of course, easy to find fault with other scholars' work, particularly when it was done in the early, more naive, period of Qumran scholarship. I intend to highlight the problems and to offer some preliminary clarifications in the hope that others will take up the challenge and provide further solutions.

What is the nature of the pseudepigraphy in works which were known before the Qumran discoveries? ⁴ If we were to survey lists of Second Temple works which are technically pseudepigraphic, we would certainly find a common core of documents such as Jubilees, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Psalms of Solomon, the Prayer of Manasseh and, allowing for some chronological freedom, perhaps the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. It is clear that during the later Second Temple period the technique of pseudepigraphy was frequently employed. Yet, we cannot be certain whether the audience knew that the words were not those of the ancient writer but of a contemporary or whether they were "fooled" by the pseudonymous attribution. ⁵ Perhaps at different times, in different places, in different circles, pseudepigraphy had different implications. In instances where pseudepigraphy may have been an accepted method of composition, the use of the term "pseudepigraphy" by modern scholars may nevertheless carry a pejorative overtone, since "pseudo-" tends to mean "not genuine." This development reflects a modern attitude concerning the morality or appropriateness of writers adopting the voices of others, despite the fact that no such stigma may have been attached to the genre in antiquity.

The literary forms which employ pseudepigraphy are varied and include rewritten Bible (both narrative and legal, such as in Jubilees), ⁶ expansions of biblical stories in 1 Enoch and similar books, testaments, prophetic visions, sapiential literature, prayer and poetry. It is clear, however, that the phenomenon of pseudepigraphy does not always operate the same way or to the same end. One of our goals is to clarify its distribution and function.

After surveying literature from the last decades on pseudepigraphy, I have found that a great deal of the scholarship focuses on the function of pseudepigraphy in the context of apocalyptic literature. ⁷ Several of the works and genres which I listed above belong, to greater or lesser degrees, to that family. Once prophecy was believed to have come to an end, the cycle of history, visions of the future (especially eschatological rewards and punishments), the revelation of cosmic truths and the disclosure of long-hidden secret doctrines were most effectively expressed through the mediation of a sage or visionary whose words bore the mark of divine authority and approval. Since everything prophesied before the time of the actual author could be "foreseen" with great accuracy, greater weight was given to future predictions. The authors of these works may have regarded themselves as heirs (or even redivivi) of the writers whose names they borrowed, mediating and reproducing the message of biblical figures in the post-biblical age.

The Enoch literature, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra and the Testaments certainly belong to this category and Jubilees, because of its apocalyptic perspective, probably does as well. The function of pseudepigraphy in these examples is to strengthen the work's authority. This phenomenon is "strong" or "authoritative pseudepigraphy." Prophecies are placed in the mouth of the ancient patriarch or prophet to make them more convincing. In the case of Jubilees, however, apart from its apocalyptic component, the author has adopted a pseudepigraphic stance to promulgate legal truths and a correct system of halakhah. ⁸ In particular, prescriptive legal material and prophetic/apocalyptic predictions are best suited to strong, authoritative pseudepigraphy.

In the case of the testamentary literature, what better way to inculcate morals and values in a society which needs chastisement than through the patriarchs of old? ⁹ The loosely authoritative, even prescriptive, nature of the pseudepigraphy remains but the technique is adopted to convey a moral message. This "convenient" pseudepigraphy is a "lighter" or "weaker" form of authoritative pseudepigraphy. We shall see other examples of convenient pseudepigraphy where the authoritative dimension is lacking. The model of the Testaments is actually intermediate between the purely authoritative and the purely convenient techniques.

Sapiential works such as Ecclesiastes and the Wisdom of Solomon are ascribed to Solomon because he was the wise man, par excellence, of antiquity. Words of wisdom are placed in his mouth and adorned with his reputation and authority to enhance their acceptability. Authorial assertion is less critical for sapiential literature than for works, such Enoch and Jubilees, which might have fallen on deaf ears without this claim. The Solomonic authorship of biblical wisdom books may have established a tradition to which later writers of sapiential literature felt they belonged, in contrast to the more artificial assumption of the prophetic mantle by the authors of Enoch or Jubilees. This is also a weaker form of authoritative pseudepigraphy.

In the Prayer of Manasseh, pseudepigraphy facilitates biblical expansion. This work attempts to fill in the gap left by 2 Chron. 33:12 and it lacks even the lighter Tendenz characterized above. It seems to owe its existence to the biblical story, although there is no reference to Manasseh in the text itself. ¹⁰ But, based on its contents, it could have been just another extra-biblical poem of its genre. Similarly, the Psalms of Solomon apparently owe their attribution not to any internal "evidence" but to the similarity between the messianic Ps. Sol. 17 and the canonical Psalm 72 which is explicitly headed "To/of Solomon." It is not clear whether the Solomonic authorship would have affected the reader of these poems. The fact that these works are pseudepigraphic only "externally" (i.e., by title and not by content) is worth keeping in mind. The term which I suggest for this type is "decorative" pseudepigraphy.

This brief survey of pseudepigraphy outside Qumran is intended to establish a framework in which we can examine the issue at Qumran. In these texts we have seen what I call a range of degrees of "pseudepigraphicity," as well as its roles or functions. There is, however, a quality which is shared by most of these works and which is critical to the way that pseudepigraphy should be examined and evaluated: this is the fact that they are externally and internally wholly pseudepigraphic (the Prayer of Manasseh and the Psalms of Solomon are exceptions). Their "pseudepigraphicity" is an essential feature of the work and the pseudepigraphic stance is maintained throughout (some modification of the latter statement might be required in the case of 1 Enoch). These qualities furnish useful standards for comparison with the Qumran material. ¹¹

As I have already noted, we may be creating an artificial corpus by speaking of the "Qumran scrolls." Even a descriptive approach must be used with caution in light of the haphazard nature of the collection. With this point in mind, our first step is an acknowledgment of the obvious fact that Qumran literature is largely anonymous and not pseudonymous. ¹² The major whole documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Community Rule, the War Scroll, and the Zadokite fragments or Damascus Document do not indicate their authorship. Neither do the Thanksgiving Hymns, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, the pesharim or the document known as Miqs[at Ma(ase ha-Torah, however we may classify it generically. Whether the Teacher of Righteousness or any other particular Qumran figure wrote these texts, whether a unique personal imprint exists in the Thanksgiving Hymns, whether the interpretations of the pesharim are divinely inspired, none of this is known because no names are found internally or externally.

Among the works found only at Qumran, what might be considered pseudepigraphic and by what definitions? Here I return to my earlier remarks on nomenclature to demonstrate the complexity of the endeavor. Having remarked on the varied and often unenlightening official names of some Qumran texts, we may add to that list other works which need to be evaluated in regard to pseudepigraphy, such as 4QReworked Pentateuch, testament-type works attributed to Levi, Naphtali, Qehat, and Amram, to mention but a few, the Apocryphon of Joshua (formerly Psalms of Joshua) and other scripturally-based texts such as the Genesis Apocryphon. Furthermore, on the dust jacket of a very recent English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find the following assertion: "Twelve texts not included in the Bible that claim Moses as their author [my emphasis]. New psalms attributed to King David and to Joshua." ¹³ These claims and the titles highlight the difficulty. Scholars have not yet examined carefully many of these texts and they certainly have not examined the entire corpus in detail to see just what claim is made by the texts themselves regarding authorship and speaking voice. The fact that terms like "apocryphal" are, at least in part, dependent on the canon makes our analysis even more complex.

Names are not attached explicitly, as far as we can tell, to most of the fragmentary legal texts found at Qumran, with the possible exception of the Ordinances where Moses' name seems to appear (4Q159 5 4, 7). Regardless of the fact that many of them ¹⁴ are written in an overtly biblical style or employ language which paraphrases or borrows from the Pentateuch, we do not sense that we are reading texts whose personal authorial voice is loud and clear. From the complete texts of the community rules, their fragments and from Scripture-like texts, pseudepigraphy appears to have been superfluous for the writing of legal codes. If pseudepigraphy were ever de rigeur at Qumran as a literary device, it may have been used only in texts which were attempting to proclaim a legal or theological doctrine to the outside world and considered unnecessary in works intended for insiders. Otherwise, we would expect to find an authoritative figure such as Moses as the putative author of various legal texts at Qumran. ¹⁵

Of the presence of pseudepigraphic texts at Qumran there can be no doubt, since the "library" possessed multiple copies of Jubilees and 1 Enoch as well as testament-type works. It is important to note that neither of these works is claimed by scholars to be of Qumranic origin. Moreover, I believe that one could argue that fully-pseudepigraphic works such as these were not composed at Qumran. It might even be claimed, based on the authoritative status of Jubilees within other Qumran texts, that its pseudepigraphy was taken at face value, that is, that its ascription to Moses was accepted just as Second Temple authors generally accepted the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. ¹⁶

The Aramaic Levi Document, the Hebrew Testament of Naphtali and the Aramaic fragments of testament-like works assigned to Jacob, Judah and Joseph (very fragmentary) and Qehat and Amram (a bit more substantial) are indubitably also pseudepigraphic in the fullest sense. They are "autobiographical," as far as we can tell, containing exhortations for virtuous behavior to the descendants of the speaker and prophetic visions of the eschaton. ALD also includes prescriptive priestly halakhah which might have required strong pseudepigraphy for its authority. In all these texts, pseudepigraphy intersects with apocalyptic and authoritative pseudepigraphy is characteristic of their composition.

These are the indisputable examples of pseudepigraphy at Qumran. Turning now to a group of substantially-preserved Qumran documents, we shall examine to what degree they are pseudepigraphic and how pseudepigraphy functions in them. We shall then scrutinize less well-preserved documents for any light that they may shed. Because a number of them belong to the category usually labeled "rewritten Bible," some remarks on the nature of pseudepigraphy within that genre need to be prefaced to the discussion.

Unlike prophecies or testaments, legal texts and narratives need not have an explicit author. A rewritten Bible text makes no claim to strong pseudepigraphy if the text does not speak in the first person, whether in the name of, or as a narrative about, an ancient figure. Likewise, narrative texts which retell a biblical story but make no explicit or implicit claim to be part of a canonical work also lay no claim to strong pseudepigraphy. Jubilees is thus the exception to the model of most rewritten Pentateuch texts because it claims the authorship of the angel/Moses. Unlike Jubilees, narratives which include first person speeches by characters in the story ought not be construed as authoritative pseudepigraphy but rather as convenient pseudepigraphy. The goal of convenient pseudepigraphy is, in this case, obvious. The retelling and expansion of the biblical story is accomplished more easily, and the narrative rendered more vivid, through the creation and insertion of speeches into the mouths of characters. At an early stage of biblical exegesis, before the development of the commentary form, rewriting offered one of the few literary options for interpretation. The rewriter/interpreter was able to put words into the mouths of characters to convey his reading without creating an authoritatively pseudepigraphic work since the work as a whole makes no claim to authority or to pseudepigraphy.

2. Reworked Pentateuch

The Reworked Pentateuch manuscripts published in DJD 13 remain very difficult to classify. Most of the text is quite literally rewritten Bible, wherein a passage from the Pentateuch has been adjusted by slight rearrangements, the addition of exegetical comments and occasional omissions. How do we assess, from the standpoint of pseudepigraphy, a text like 4QRP which rewrites pentateuchal material in a minimal fashion as if it were literally rewriting the Bible? ¹⁷ Assuming that the author of RP conceives of the Bible as the backdrop against which he is rewriting, shall we conclude that 4QRP has employed pseudepigraphy in the rearrangement and slight modification of pentateuchal material? (By that token, we might even have to speak of the Samaritan Pentateuch as pseudepigraphic!) If we take into consideration the possibility that the author intended to rewrite a biblical text and "improved" it by rearranging certain details, harmonizing contradictions and juxtaposing like material, then perhaps we should not think of this role as pseudepigraphy. We could conclude instead that this is a form of editorial work which makes no claim to authorship.

Amid various minor adjustments and insertions, however, the author of RP has inserted some atypical passages which have received much public attention in advance of the publication of DJD 13. Such passages include 4Q364 3 ii, which contains a narrative addition to Gen. 28:6 in the form of a dialogue between Rebecca and Jacob; 4Q365 6a ii-c, the Song of Miriam; and 4Q365 23 4 ff., a completely extra-biblical legal addition inserted after Lev. 23:42-44 which details the wood festival, already presumed to be part of the Qumran calendar on the basis of the reconstruction of the Temple Scroll (columns 23-24 and 43).

The first two additions present us with a specific question: how are we to evaluate the larger adjustments made to a work which is fundamentally the Hebrew Bible, slightly enlarged and expanded? Herein lies one of the key distinctions between works which are wholly pseudepigraphic and those which contain so-called "pseudepigraphic interpolations." From the perspective of the writer of Miriam's song or Rebecca's dialogue with Isaac about Jacob, this composition is an addition to the biblical text and, although written in the style of the biblical text, the author was not trying to mislead the reader as to its authenticity. After all, that was the conventional manner in which to retell the biblical story and to include interpretive remarks. If Scripture said that Miriam sang a song, then supplementing that song would be appropriate.

If we are to characterize this literary activity as pseudepigraphy, it is of the type that I call convenient, rather than authoritative, pseudepigraphy. It is simply a formal way to supplement the biblical text and to introduce exegetical or interpretive remarks without rewriting the whole in a non-pseudepigraphic style, an approach which seems not to have been available as yet. This is the same kind of convenient pseudepigraphy which we will find in the Genesis Apocryphon, where it is less obvious because it is not surrounded by biblical passages written in biblical style. I would suggest, therefore, that convenient pseudepigraphy not be considered evidence of intent to deceive on the author's part.

The legal passage regarding the wood festival, on the other hand, cannot be categorized as convenient pseudepigraphy, for the author of RP introduces the law with rm)l h#m l) 'h rbdyw, "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying." He attempts to give the force of Mosaic law to a practice which was apparently important to his group and its calendar and which, furthermore, has scriptural precedent (Neh. 10:35; 13:31). ¹⁸ The author of RP (or his source, if the final editor of 4QRP is not responsible for the composition of this passage) meant the reader to take it as a divine imperative, to be obeyed like the remainder of the commandments in the Pentateuch. This phrase constitutes an internal claim to pseudepigraphy in a way in which the above-mentioned additions to Genesis and Exodus do not. It forces us to consider whether this work, which we would not have defined as pseudepigraphic on the basis of the rest of its contents, is actually a pseudepigraphon or pseudepigraphy for the sake of halakhic rulings, similar to what we find on a much broader scale in Jubilees. This characterization is awkward, however, since the passage is surrounded by the biblical text and does not merely resemble it or build upon it, as Jubilees does. The alternative is to suppose that the composer of RP assumed the authority to add to the biblical text and did not intend to compose a pseudepigraphon. This passage (but not the work as a whole) must be considered pseudepigraphic in the strongest, authoritative sense by the modern reader.

3. 4Q158 Biblical Paraphrase

4Q158, published by Allegro under the title Biblical Paraphrase, is close enough to 4QRP for that the editors of 4QRP, Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White Crawford, claimed it as another copy of the same text. ¹⁹ Like 4QRP, large pieces of 4Q158 are pentateuchal. The supplementary material, however, is far more extensive and this phenomenon has led me to conclude that 4Q158 is not a copy of RP or even an example of the genre of minimally rewritten Bible. ²⁰ I believe that the extrabiblical additions in 4Q158 are not pseudepigraphic in spirit. Rather, the attempt by its composer to clarify the biblical text through rearrangement and supplementation is a form of interpretation. Any pseudepigraphic qualities which the text possesses are "convenient" rather than "authoritative." Thus, while some aspects of the status of 4QRP as a biblical or pseudepigraphical text may be open to debate, 4Q158 should be considered an example of rewritten Bible with no functional pseudepigraphic overtones at all.

4. The Temple Scroll

Much better known than the "Reworked Pentateuch" texts and probably more significant for our discussion is 11QT, the Temple Scroll. ²¹ Here the arguments for "pseudepigraphicity" are more concrete but the situation is slightly more complex. ²² A large part of 11QT consists of large segments of rewritten Pentateuch.

One of the most characteristic features of the scroll is the author's quoting of whole chapters as they appear in the Pentateuch - or in the version which he accepted - but changing their grammar to the first person to dispel any doubt that God is speaking. This type of change...is in fact one of the principal characteristics of certain pseudepigraphic works as well. ²³

Thus, whenever Deuteronomy says, "which the Lord your God...," 11QT reads "which I...." Furthermore, as Yadin pointed out, many of the supplementary laws in 11QT are also phrased in the first person. Our initial impression is that the composer of 11QT wanted to present the laws of the deuteronomic portion of his Pentateuch as divinely utterances, like the earlier sections of the Torah.

The composer of 11QT was not, however, composing a pseudepigraphon in the manner of Jubilees or creating a document which was completely "pseudo-God" in authorship, for in many columns God is referred to in the third person using the Tetragrammaton. Yadin believes that

the author of the scroll converts the words of Moses from the Deuteronomic source into the words of God by transposing the text from the third to the first person, but that he leaves in the third person the words found in the priestly sources and transmitted from God's lips. ²⁴

This theory, however, attributes a great deal of sophisticated source criticism to the ancient composer. Is it not equally plausible that in the process of composing the Temple Scroll from various, not necessarily biblical, sources, the composer integrated texts which referred to God in different ways? Indeed, the text from which he borrowed the first person recasting of Deuteronomy may well deserve the title pseudepigraphon but the Temple Scroll as a whole may not be a pseudepigraphon. If the author intended to convince or to mislead his audience by presenting the Temple Scroll as the genuine word of God, he failed at his task because he did not maintain the transformation to pseudepigraphon. The portions of the Pentateuch which appear unedited in the Temple Scroll should perhaps be viewed as a copying of the Torah and not as a new Moses pseudepigraphon. If the author of the reworked portions intended his material to be taken as divine in origin, that is to say, if he were employing pseudepigraphy, then the presentation of genuine pentateuchal material alongside his new composition would be part of his deception. Although 11QT is internally pseudepigraphic, it is so only in part. In my view, this lack of the pretense precludes us from considering the entire work as a pseudepigraphon.

It is interesting that neither Yadin nor Wise considers the Temple Scroll to be pseudepigraphic but for different reasons. Responding to Moshe Goshen-Gottstein's characterization of the Temple Scroll as "a 'halakhic pseudepigraph'," Yadin writes,

In my opinion there is no warrant for applying the modern concept 'pseudepigraph' to a work whose author believed himself to be presenting a true Law, revealed to him under unique circumstances, whether by authority of tradition or divine inspiration.

He continues:

I have not the slightest doubt that we must consider this problem from the exclusive point of the author and his readers, that is, if they believed that the scroll construed a true Law of the Lord. It is perhaps of interest that, contrary to some of the pseudepigraphical books which intentionally attribute their words to a particular historical personality and often mention geographical sites and historical persons, the scroll deliberately avoids this. ²⁵

Michael Wise chooses one of Yadin's options and writes,

This man [the author of 11QT] conceived of himself as a new Moses; hence the Temple Scroll is, properly speaking, not a pseudepigraphon. The redactor was not writing in the name of a long-dead hero of the faith, claiming that he had discovered a lost writing which that hero had produced. Rather his claim was to the same relationship with God that Moses had. ²⁶

The focus of Yadin and Wise on authorial intent is important and leads me to ask the following question: From how many perspectives must the question of pseudepigraphy in a work such as 11QT be considered? 1) That of the ancient author who might have believed what Yadin or Wise think he did; or 2) that of the ancient audience who might have accepted the belief of that ancient author or, alternatively, might have accepted the notion of pseudepigraphy as a literary convention; or 3) that of the modern scholar, whose perspective is much more limited and best served by employing descriptive terminology? ²⁷ The answer to this question is critical for establishing an agenda for the broad analysis of the phenomenon of pseudepigraphy.

5. Genesis Apocryphon

A substantial Qumran text with stronger claims to pseudepigraphy than most other examples of rewritten Bible is the Genesis Apocryphon of Cave 1. A first person narrative by a biblical persona must be considered more pseudepigraphical on the formal level than first person speeches embedded in a third person narrative. In the Genesis Apocryphon, not only are the speeches pseudepigraphical but so are large portions of the narrative. The Apocryphon has not one but three speakers/narrators of this type. Lamech, Noah and Abraham all narrate their own adventures but - this is a critical point - not all of the text is first person narrative. The portions of the Lamech segment where he is off-stage, as it were, while the action focuses on his father Enoch and grandfather Methuselah, are narrated by an unnamed narrator. Some of the story of Noah's division of the earth among his sons appears to refer to Noah in the third person (16:12 qlx, "he divided"; 17:16, glp yd )qlwx
yhwb) xwn hl bhyw hl "the portion which Noah his father apportioned to him and gave to him"). ²⁸ It is well known that Abraham tells his own story from his initial appearance in column 19 (= early in Genesis 12) to the middle of column 21 (= end of Genesis 13). The Apocryphon moves to a third person narrative at the beginning of Genesis 14 and continues to Genesis 15, whose equivalent is interrupted by the end of the manuscript (end of column 22). All three of the extant sections of the Apocryphon employ both first and third person narration.

Whatever the reasons for the shifts from first person narrative to third, the fact remains that the first person parts of the text show, at first glance, an appearance of strong pseudepigraphy. In the case of 1QGenAp, unlike some examples of rewritten Bible, we can view this problem from two perspectives, that of these sections of the work and that of their likely hypothetical sources. ²⁹ It is possible that some sources of the Apocryphon may have been completely pseudepigraphic, both externally and internally, from a formal standpoint and that the editor of the Apocryphon integrated their first person form into his narrative. That is to say, these sources could have been pseudepigraphic works which purported to speak in the voices of Lamech, Noah and Abraham. But from the standpoint of the final author/composer of the Apocryphon (and possibly his sources, if they were not authoritatively, but conveniently, pseudepigraphic), this form of convenient pseudepigraphy should be recognized as another example of a technique employed by the earliest biblical interpreters.

In order to retell the story vividly and to rewrite in a fashion which commented on, but did not directly interfere with, the biblical text, some rewriters (going beyond the examples of rewritten Bible discussed above where only first person speeches are introduced) apparently chose to place their stories in the mouths of characters in the narrative who are clearly different from the biblical narrator. Moreover, the author of the Genesis Apocryphon avoided the forgery issue by writing in Aramaic. ³⁰ Of course, the author of the Apocryphon in its final form makes no attempt to maintain the pseudepigraphic stance overall, probably for the same reason suggested above for the disiecta membra, the separate parts of the whole. When convenient, he employs strong pseudepigraphy in the form of first person narrative but, where inappropriate, he readily lets the mask drop and reverts to the third person narrative with which we are familiar from the Bible. ³¹

D. 11QPsa - Psalms Scroll and Non-Canonical Psalms

The Psalms Scroll, 11QPsa, is another substantial text where the issue of pseudepigraphy may be raised from two different perspectives. The narrow perspective, of course, is that of Psalm 151A and B, known prior to the Qumran discoveries as LXX Psalm 151. Unlikely to be historically Davidic, we might consider 151A pseudepigraphic only in the sense that other psalms ascribed to David in MT, LXX or the Syriac tradition are pseudepigraphic. To David, the poet par excellence, was ascribed the authorship of later songs, just as his son Solomon, the wise man par excellence, became the author of later wisdom works. Such pseudepigraphy I term "decorative" because it is even less functional than convenient pseudepigraphy; it is not organic to the text and often the supposed author is linked to the text only by the title. Psalm 151A, however, demonstrates a closer relationship with David than do other decoratively pseudepigraphic psalms. Not only is it associated with his life (other psalms are similarly associated, in their titles) but it even describes events in David's life autobiographically. The voice of the psalm is David's voice. This individual text is thus externally and internally completely pseudepigraphic. The same was probably true of Psalm 151B when complete; however it breaks off in the middle at the end of the scroll. These psalms are poetic examples of strong pseudepigraphy which we might compare either to the prose rewritten Bible or, perhaps, to the testamentary genre. ³²

A larger pseudepigraphic question may be raised regarding the Psalms Scroll. In light of the prose passage listing David's compositions (11QPsa 27 2-11), are we to assume that the compiler of the scroll considered all of the texts Davidic? This matter is of course related to the better known problem of whether the Psalms Scroll is a biblical or a liturgical document. Even granting that the text is to be considered biblical or canonical, was everything in it believed to be Davidic? The question can be taken back, theoretically, another step: Did the authors of those non-biblical texts included in the Psalms Scroll intend them to be taken as Davidic? We can mix and match the answers: the texts could be pseudepigraphic on both levels, on neither level or on either level, since there is nothing internal to them which makes them Davidic and nothing explicit in the document which claims Davidic authorship.

Among other poetic texts, we find pseudepigraphic attributions in the titles of four psalms published by Eileen Schuller in Non-Canonical Psalms. Two are named (Obadiah and Manasseh), while a third is connected to a "king of Judah" and a fourth, to "the man of God." ³³ She has discussed these attributions and their connection to the rest of the collection, asking the key question

about the relationship between the psalm titles and the psalms themselves. Were the works in 4Q380 and 4Q381 in fact composed as pseudepigraphic psalms, i.e., as the utterances of a specific biblical figure, or do we have a collection of psalms in which the titles ascribing them to biblical characters were added secondarily? ³⁴

Schuller concludes on the basis of the limited evidence that "the attribution of these psalms to historical figures seems to be only secondary, and the principle of pseudepigraphy was probably not the guiding factor in their composition." ³⁵ We thus have another instance of decorative pseudepigraphy which is unconnected with the body of the work.

E. Other Moses Pseudepigrapha

Beyond these large examples, there are many other texts about which the issue of pseudepigraphy may be raised. If we recall the remark on the dust jacket of Wise, Abegg and Cook's translation, concerning a dozen non-biblical texts found at Qumran which claim Moses as their author, ³⁶ we wonder to which texts those translators are referring. The Temple Scroll is probably the best known but I question whether we should refer to it as "pseudo-Moses" or "pseudo-God" since, in its rewriting of the Pentateuch, God becomes the speaker of more of the text than before. I do not believe that we should refer to 4QRP in those terms since any pseudepigraphy which it contains is not only partial but minimal in its overall scope. 4Q374 is correctly seen by Newsom not to be a Moses apocryphon, despite its earlier classification as such. It is a pseudo-prophetic text but we cannot tell with whom to associate it. ³⁷ Further, and more important for the current discussion, it is also not clear on what level pseudepigraphy functions in this text.

Some texts which have been seen as pseudo-Mosaic have no incontrovertible internal evidence that they are ascribed to Moses while others need to be examined further. 1Q22 (Dibre Moshe/Dires de Moïse) is a good example. ³⁸ There is no doubt that it is a narrative about Moses in which he speaks, again raising the question of its being "pseudo-God," "pseudo-Moses" or neither, but this is not a text composed independently. Rather, it is constructed completely out of pentateuchal verses with supplementation. The revisions in this text are much more extensive than those in 4QRP and portions of biblical verses are even rearranged into new combinations. Since the text makes no claim to Mosaic authorship but appears to be an anonymous narrative, the pseudepigraphy is not authoritative but convenient, as in rewritten Bible. The laws which are included in 1Q22 are found already in the Pentateuch; therefore legal pseudepigraphy, which might narrowly be strong pseudepigraphy, is not involved.

There are, however, several other texts which are likely to be Moses pseudepigrapha and in which the function of the pseudepigraphy is stronger. These are the apparently legal texts 4Q375-376 and 1Q29, which overlaps with them. In 4Q375, the speaker addresses the people directly in biblical style (although not explicitly in the name of God). ³⁹ Following pentateuchal material about the law of the false prophet, the speaker continues with additional regulations concerning the testing of this individual. ⁴⁰ This constitutes the introduction of legal pseudepigraphic material into a larger context, similar in some ways to what we have seen earlier in 4QRP. Strugnell has argued that 4Q376 (which overlaps with 1Q29) is another copy of 4Q375 (with which it has no overlap), containing non-pentateuchal material on the use of the Urim and Tummim. According to Strugnell, these three texts, and perhaps 1Q22 which has no clearly extra-pentateuchal material, are Moses apocrypha. ⁴¹

Strugnell distinguishes these works from Jubilees and 11QT: in Jubilees the dictating angel is the pseudepigraphic author, while in 11QT it is apparently God. In both cases, then, "Moses functions only as an amanuensis." ⁴² I think that he is right to exclude Jubilees from the comparison but what the other texts, including the Moses pseudepigrapha and 11QT, have in common is the introduction of new legal material into what is fundamentally a biblical framework. We might compare the law of the king in 11QT with the law of the trial of the false prophet in 4Q375-376. It is strong legal pseudepigraphy and it is likely that in certain circles this form of composition was required in order to maintain the notion that all law has a divine/Mosaic source. Dimant, in differentiating these texts from 4Q390 (see below), writes that they

have none of the literary features or the religious concerns characteristic of the known apocalyptic pseudepigrapha attributed to Moses, such as the Testament of Moses or Jubilees. The Qumran documents are rather a kind of rewritten-Torah pieces [sic], a rewriting of mainly legal materials. They can be labeled as Moses apocrypha only to the extent that they rewrite the Torah. In this respect, they resemble the Temple Scroll rather than the Moses-pseudepigrapha. ⁴³

Dimant's criteria for inclusion in Moses pseudepigrapha differ considerably from mine (and perhaps from Strugnell's). Although I agree with Dimant that perhaps we ought to distinguish between legal and apocalyptic Moses material, they may both be categorized by their technique as pseudepigraphy. In my classification, if it claims to be by Moses, it is Moses pseudepigrapha.

In this context, it is worth observing that many Qumran legal texts, including those whose style resembles biblical idiom like 4Q251 Halakha, make no pretense of pseudepigraphy and simply present lists of laws without specifying a source. There is no clear allusion in the surviving fragments to either God or Moses as the authoritative promulgator of the laws. It is tempting to refer to one form of legal code as a Torah btkb# (biblical) type and the other as a proto-Torah hp l(b# (proto-mishnaic) sort, where laws are enumerated without scriptural support. For now it must suffice to distinguish between pseudonymity and anonymity.

Regarding 4Q390 which, according to Dimant, is a Moses pseudepigraphon from Qumran, I remain ambivalent about the evidence that it is pseudo-Mosaic, although it is certainly pseudo-prophetic. If it is Mosaic, however, Dimant is correct to stress the difference between this Moses apocryphon, which is apocalyptic, and the ones which are not (e.g., 1Q22, 1Q29 and 4Q375-376). ⁴⁴ Although Dimant suggests that we might compare 4Q390 with 2Q21, I think that the latter text is not particularly different from 1Q22; it supplies exegesis or extra-biblical supplementation to explain what Moses did in the d(wm lh) outside the camp. The difference between 2Q21 and 4Q390 is likely to be the difference between convenient narrative pseudepigraphy, as in most examples of rewritten Bible, and prophetic pseudepigraphy which is, by its very nature, strong and authoritative. Dimant groups 4Q390 with Jubilees, ALD, 11QT and non-Qumranic texts, arguing that it does not derive from Qumran but from a related group. Regardless of the pseudonymous author, whether Moses or a later prophet, Dimant's conclusion coincides with my tentative hypothesis that pseudepigraphic apocalyptic was not written at Qumran.

F. Prophetic Pseudepigraphy

When we think of the "authors" of pseudepigrapha which were known before the Qumran discoveries, the names which immediately come to mind are Moses, David, Solomon and Baruch. Qumran adds Ezekiel to this group in the various representations of the text called pseudo-Ezekiel (or Second Ezekiel) by Dimant. It appears to be a pseudepigraphic interpolation into a prophetic text, similar to several of the legal texts in which new laws were introduced into a pre-existing framework and made to appear part of it. Thus pseudo-Ezekiel contains pseudonymous autobiographical narrative (strong or authoritative pseudepigraphy) side-by-side with visions which correspond to canonical Ezekiel. A fuller picture awaits Professor Dimant's publication of all of the texts she has assigned to this group.

Similarly, 4Q384 (4QpapApocryphon of Jeremiah B?) shares with the rest of the pseudo-Moses, pseudo-Ezekiel and pseudo-Jeremiah material the usual problems of the assignment of fragments, as well as the use of nomenclature and the presence of citation formulas. ⁴⁵ Its editor, Mark Smith, underlines the issue of naming when he writes, "Originally designated by J. Strugnell as 'Pseudo-Jeremiah', D. Dimant labels this collection of manuscripts [a selection from 4Q385-390] as 'An Apocryphon of Jeremiah', which describes the prophet's life in third-person narrative." ⁴⁶ He makes the further observation that some of the fragments appear to be pseudo-prophetic and should thus be assigned to "pseudo-Jeremiah" rather than "Apocryphon of Jeremiah." My reaction to his comment is that a non-biblical narrative about a prophet is not strong pseudepigraphy and that the term "apocryphon" may be applied (although I believe that it begs certain questions of canon and the author's intent). Non-biblical prophecy by a biblical prophet, on the other hand, constitutes strong pseudepigraphy. Only if 4Q384 is found to contain such material should we label it pseudepigraphy, although we cannot be certain whether the pseudepigraphy is authoritative or convenient. If we find "prophecies" which seem to be directed primarily at members of Jeremiah's generation and are linked to the narrative, the pseudepigraphy may still be labeled as convenient. If, however, it is clearly directed across the ages at the Jews of the Second Temple period, is it likely to be strong, authoritative pseudepigraphy.

The final group of non-pentateuchal texts on which I would like to comment are those presented by Emanuel Tov in the proceedings of the first Orion Symposium (4QapocrJosh^{a,b,c, etc}). ⁴⁷ He suggests that "paraphrase" would be a better term than "apocryphon" for these works, a sentiment with which I wholly agree, since it describes a sort of rewritten Bible. ⁴⁸ If Tov has correctly integrated these texts, then we have another example of that common form of convenient pseudepigraphy which pervades all rewritten Bible texts containing speeches. The text as a whole is not pseudepigraphic but anonymous because there is no authorial voice. The function, or strength, of the pseudepigraphy of Joshua's speeches is thus attenuated. However I do not agree with Tov's characterization of the paraphrase of Joshua as similar to "the Book of Jubilees, the second half of the Temple Scroll, 4QparaGen-Exod (4Q422) and several other fragmentary compositions." ⁴⁹ Jubilees contains the strongest authoritative pseudepigraphy and the Temple Scroll, although not totally pseudepigraphic, contains elements of authoritative pseudepigraphy and gives an overall impression of pseudepigraphy which seems to add authority to its contents. 4Q422, on the other hand, like most Qumran narrative texts, is not pseudepigraphic at all, as far as I can tell. It makes no claim to speak in a voice other than its own. I would rather compare the Joshua Apocryphon material to 1Q22, 4Q377 (Moses Apocryphon C) ⁵⁰ or to 4Q368, which integrates biblical text with non-biblical data and which bears the unproductive official title, "Pentateuchal Apocryphon." ⁵¹

G. Where Do We Not Find Pseudepigraphy at Qumran?

It is worthwhile to observe where we do not find pseudepigraphy, although we might have expected it based on a comparison with other Second Temple literature. For example, to the best of my knowledge we do not find at Qumran sapiential literature attributed to Solomon or to any other sage of antiquity. Despite the tradition of the Solomonic authorship of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (continued by the Wisdom of Solomon and other works), none of the sapiential texts published in DJD 20 is attributed to anyone. ⁵² All of these are anonymous, even when the author speaks in the first person. Certainly, a pseudepigraphic incantation against demons is attributed to Solomon (11Q11 1) together with one to David (11Q11 4), a precursor of later magical tradition found in rabbinic literature and the Testament of Solomon, but Solomon's absence from the wisdom texts should make us consider the larger picture.

It must be noted that the apocalyptic War Scroll, 1QM, stands out by not having an ancient prophet or sage as its speaker. Frequently, in Second Temple literature, predictions of the "end of days" are put into the mouths of speakers such as Daniel, Enoch, Moses, Baruch, Ezra or the twelve patriarchs. Authoritative pseudepigraphy is thus quite common in this genre and we might have expected the War Scroll also to adopt this form of strong pseudepigraphy. Arguments from silence are extremely hazardous, to be sure, but these two observations, taken together, tend to support a position to which I have alluded very tentatively, that the writings of the Qumran group avoid authoritative pseudepigraphy.

IV. Conclusions

My investigation into the topic of pseudepigraphy at Qumran, its levels, roles, and functions, is still in an initial phase. My conclusions, such as they are, must be considered tentative; perhaps at this stage it would be more appropriate to call them observations.

1) There are at least two major (and one minor) levels of pseudepigraphy in ancient literature:

a) Authoritative: the speaker of the work is a purported ancient figure.

b) Convenient: the work is anonymous and individual pseudepigraphic voices are heard within the work.

c) Decorative: the work is associated with a name without particular regard for content or, more significantly, to achieve a certain effect.

Convenient pseudepigraphy is particularly important for the genre we call rewritten Bible, since much rewritten Bible is anonymous, like Scripture itself. Jubilees is an exception to that rule and its strong authoritative pseudepigraphy makes it stand out (in contrast to 4QRP, for example). The addition of pseudepigraphic speeches to rewritten biblical narrative creates a localized, weaker form of pseudepigraphy which is completely conventional and which functions to render the work more vivid.

2) We should distinguish between texts which are both internally and externally pseudepigraphic, and thus strongly pseudepigraphic, and those which are pseudepigraphic only internally, where the pseudepigraphy is convenient. Only the former can be said to function pseudepigraphically as a whole. Decorative pseudepigraphy is only external.

3) We should probably classify only authoritatively pseudepigraphic works as pseudepigraphy.

4) Works which are partially pseudepigraphic, either through interpolation of legal material or of speeches, should not be classified as pseudepigraphic in toto.

5) Prophetic literature is only to be considered pseudepigraphic if it is authoritative and if the prophecies are pseudepigraphic. Narratives about prophetic figures are the same as any other rewritten Bible.

6) The terms "apocryphal" and "pseudepigraphic" should be used very sparingly in characterizing the Qumran texts. The nature of the authorship should not create the title of the work. In particular, the term "apocryphal" should be limited because of its implications regarding canon. Rewritten Bible should probably never be classified as apocrypha or pseudepigrapha, in light of its function as biblical exegesis.

7) There appear to be several kinds of legal texts at Qumran: pseudepigraphic and anonymous, biblically styled and non-biblically styled. Within the pseudepigraphic, some are pseudo-Moses and some are pseudo-God.

8) There appear to be no pseudepigraphic apocalyptic texts native to Qumran.

9) The absence of pseudepigraphy from certain genres at Qumran should be noted since this omission may mark a distinction between Qumranic and other Second Temple literature.

* Effective collegial criticism is one of the most valuable aspects of scholarship. At the oral presentation of this paper in Jerusalem in January 1997, a variety of critical comments were voiced by Professors Albert Baumgarten, Devorah Dimant, Sara Japhet, George Nickelsburg and Emanuel Tov. Their remarks compelled me to rework some of my ideas in a more nuanced fashion and have been taken into consideration, to the best of my ability, in the preparation of the written form of this article. No doubt there remain areas where they fail(ed) to convince me as I fail(ed) to convince them. At a later stage of writing, the paper benefited from the criticism of Professors Alan Brill and Yaakov Elman and Ms. Shani Berrin and, from beginning to end as usual, from that of Ms. Judith C. bernstein97.

¹ An excellent example of a broad treatment of the relationship between the Qumran texts and the Pseudepigrapha is M. E. Stone, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha," DSD 3 (1996) 270-95. See particularly 270-74, "Definitions of Scrolls and of Pseudepigrapha."

² Cf. Stone's remarks in "Dead Sea Scrolls and Pseudepigrapha," 270-71.

³ J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 volumes; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983-85).

⁴ The question of pseudepigraphy in the Bible itself is beyond the scope of this discussion but a salient difference between biblical and Second Temple literature must be noted. It is fairly clear that, unlike most of the biblical authors, the Second Temple authors were writing against the background of something "canonical," "authoritative," "official," "authorized," or "approved," i.e., the Bible. Which versions, sections or texts, which authorities determined their status and the component parts, if any, into which the "Bible" was to be divided are not germane to this point. The fact that the Second Temple authors acknowledged the authority of the Bible as a point of reference enables us to employ terms such as "apocryphal" and "pseudepigraphical" in the context of their literary works.

⁵ One perspective is adopted by J. H. Charlesworth, "Pseudepigrapha, OT," ABD 5.539b, who writes "Why did the authors of these writings attribute them falsely to other persons? These authors did not attempt to deceive the reader. They, like the authors of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the additions to Isaiah, attempted to write authoritatively in the name of an influential biblical person. Many religious Jews attributed their works to some biblical saint who lived before the cessation of prophecy and who had inspired them." It must be noted, however, that the Second Temple authors, lacking the perspicacity of modern biblical scholars, probably did not assume that any of those biblical works was pseudepigraphical and therefore could not have employed them as a model for their own work.

⁶ We shall argue that the pseudepigraphy of Jubilees differs from that of most other examples of rewritten Bible. This phenomenon relates to the apocalyptic and legal aspects of the text and not to its recapitulation of biblical narrative.

⁷ A representative selection of references:

"The vision is not published under its writer's name, but is attributed to a famous figure drawn from the past. This pseudepigraphy is typical of the apocalypses...."; M. E. Stone, "Apocalyptic Literature," in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M. E. Stone; CRINT 2.2; Philadelphia: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984) 383;

"Pseudepigraphy as such is a common feature of very much of the literature, Jewish and pagan alike, of the Hellenistic-Roman age. In Jewish literature it is particularly widespread in this period, very few of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha being other than pseudepigraphic in attribution. Yet, it can be claimed that the pseudepigraphy of the apocalypses forms a special class in the Jewish writings because of the nature of the claims made for their content and teaching" (ibid., 427).

"The pseudepigraphic form [emphasis in the original] necessarily became a firm rule for Jewish apocalyptic, since the apocalyptists' unheard-of claim to revelation could only be maintained by reference to those who had been endowed with the spirit in ancient times"; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 1.205.

"Generally speaking, it is true that Jewish apocalyptic is pseudonymous. The several writers throw their prophecies into the remote past and write in the name of some honoured figure of antiquity who, it is claimed, had received divine revelations which he recorded in a book and passed onto those who succeeded him"; D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: SCM Press, 1964) 127-28.

"A much cherished literary genre was pseudepigraphic-apocalyptic prophecy, where exhortation is based on special revelations which the authors claim to have received concerning the future destinies of Israel. Pseudepigraphy, i.e. the placing of the revelations in the mouths of the great men of the past, endowed the admonitions and consolations with special prestige and great authority"; E. Schurer, G. Vermes and F. Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87) III.1.179.

⁸ Cf. the remarks of M. de Jonge, Outside the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 2: "Moses and the angel are the authorities behind this view of Israel's earliest history and this particular interpretation of its halakhah (binding regulations)."

⁹ Pseudepigraphy of this type may not seem as dissonant to the modern reader as the prophetic/apocalyptic's post eventum pronouncement of truths to buttress arguments about the future or the assertion that the correct legal interpretations of the Mosaic Pentateuch were written by Moses in Jubilees.

¹⁰ M. Smith, "Pseudepigraphy in the Israelite Literary Tradition," in Pseudepigrapha I (ed. K. von Fritz; Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique; Vandoeuvres-Genève, 1972) 212, actually speaks of "the anonymous prayers attributed to Azariah and Manasseh and the anonymous psalms attributed to Solomon." G. W. E. Nickelsburg suggested at the oral presentation of this paper that it was worth considering whether the Prayer was created for an expanded account of Manasseh's life such as we find in the Didascalia. In that case, the pseudepigraphy would be more than what I shall term "decorative."

¹¹ Albert Baumgarten (electronic mail communication May 11, 1998) suggests a conceptual distinction between the terms "pseudonymity" and "pseudepigraphy" which might prove valuable in further study of this topic. In the former, any name from the past will do for the purported author, while in the latter there is a need for an authoritative figure who is brought back on the stage of history. Examples of pseudonymity would be the author of the Letter of Aristeas or Scriptores Historiae Augustae. The particular names chosen by the authors of both are not as significant as the choice of Enoch for 1 Enoch or the angel/Moses for Jubilees.

¹² M. Smith, "Pseudepigraphy," 212: "The first two books of the Maccabees are not pseudepigrapha, but anonymous. So are the great majority of the works found at Qumran."

¹³ M. Wise, M. G. Abegg, Jr. and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: Harper, 1996).

¹⁴ We must remember that we are dealing with fragments in many instances.

¹⁵ For further discussion of legal pseudepigraphy at Qumran, see L. H. Schiffman's essay, "The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha of the Second Temple Period" in this volume, 000-000, and my remarks on the Temple Scroll and Moses pseudepigrapha below.

¹⁶ Cf. CD 16:3 and 4Q228 1 i 2, 9.

¹⁷ The analysis of 4QRP is still in its initial stages. There is currently a good deal of discussion concerning whether all the manuscripts identified as 4QRP belong to a single work. A question has also been raised whether one or more is to be considered a "real" biblical text, rather than a "reworked" one. This issue can complicate the question of the work's pseudepigraphy.

¹⁸ Cf. Y. Yadin, ed., The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983) 1.122-24.

¹⁹ J. M. Allegro, ed., Qumran Cave 4, I (4Q158-186) (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) 1-6; S. White Crawford and E. Tov, Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. W. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 189-91.

²⁰ A similar view to mine will be argued by M. Segal in a forthcoming article in Textus.

²¹ On 11QT, see especially Schiffman's essay in this volume, "The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha," 000-00.

²² Many scholars, for example, do not consider 11QT to be a product of the Qumran group and this may be important for the overall picture of pseudepigraphy at Qumran. For our limited purposes, however, I do not think that we can divorce it from the Qumran corpus as easily as we might Jubilees, for example.

²³ Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.71.

²⁴ Ibid., 73.

²⁵ Ibid., 391-92, n. 8. Goshen-Gottstein's classification of the scroll as a pseudepigraphon is meant to exclude the possibility that the author is writing what he believes to be Torah, while Yadin denies the work's pseudepigraphy by claiming that the author is writing what he believes to be Torah. Schiffman, in his article in this volume, sets the question, "Is the Temple Scroll a Moses pseudepigraphon or a divine pseudepigraphon?"; Schiffman, "The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha," 000.

²⁶ M. O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (SAOC 49; Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1990) 200.

²⁷ From the standpoint of Yadin's reader, rather than his author, the Temple Scroll may be pseudepigraphy if he does not share the author's preconceptions.

²⁸ Examination of the recently published fragments of the Genesis Apocryphon; J. C. Greenfield and E. Qimron, "The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII," Abr-Nahrain Supp 3 (1992) 70-77; M. Morgenstern, E. Qimron and D. Sivan, "The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon," Abr-Nahrain 33 (1995) 30-52, indicates that the only clear-cut first-person reference to Noah in the passages about apportioning the earth is 16:7,
yhwnb Nyb hql[x] yrb M#w "Shem my son [di]vided it among his sons." Were it not for the suffix on rb, it would be tempting to suggest that the section of the Apocryphon about the division of the earth was not treated as a first person speech by Noah, and the discussion of this section as pseudepigraphy would be excluded.

²⁹ On the question of the sources of the Genesis Apocryphon, at least as far as the Noah material, see most recently R. C. Steiner, "The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah on a Fragment of the Genesis Apocryphon," DSD 2 (1995) 66-71, and my forthcoming "Noah and the Flood at Qumran," in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Texts, Reformulated Issues and Technological Innovations (ed. E. Ulrich and D. Parry; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998).

³⁰ In this way, we can distinguish very strongly between the sort of rewritten Bible we find in the Genesis Apocryphon or Jubilees and that found in the so-called Reworked Pentateuch texts where the question of imitation, copying or forgery of the biblical original is of paramount importance.

³¹ G. W. E. Nickelsburg, in a very interesting recent article, "Patriarchs Who Worry About Their Wives: A Haggadic Tendency in the Genesis Apocryphon," in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 May 1996 (eds. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon; STDJ 28; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998) 137-58, focuses on the issue of first person narrative in the Apocryphon (156-57) and suggests that this is one of the major contributions of the author of the Apocryphon. He distinguishes correctly between Jubilees and the Apocryphon and suggests that the Apocryphon "provides reliability for its narrative by placing it on the lips of the characters themselves." I am not certain whether the first person speeches and narratives are directed at asserting reliability or creating vividness. I hope that this essay responds in part to Nickelsburg's call for "further work...on the use of first person narration, its characteristics, the forms in which it occurs, its relationships to other types of 'rewritten Bible' and [especially] the broader phenomenon of pseudepigraphy..." (157).

³² I owe the suggestion of the testamentary analogy to my colleague Professor Yaakov Elman.

³³ E. M. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection (HSS 28: Atlanta: Scholars, 1986). 4Q381 33 8 reads "Prayer of Manasseh, King of Judah, when the King of Assyria imprisoned him" (151), and 4Q380 1 ii 8 "Tehillah of Obadiah" (251). The anonymous king of Judah appears in 4Q381 31 4 (128) and the man of God in 4Q381 24 4 (115). "The Pseudepigraphic Attribution of the Psalms" is discussed by Schuller in her Introduction, 27-32.

³⁴ Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms, 30. She notes that the latter is the usual explanation for the titles in the canonical Psalter (as well as in LXX and the Talmud).

³⁵ Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms, 32.

³⁶ Note 13, above.

³⁷ C. A. Newsom, "4QDiscourse on the Exodus/Conquest Tradition" in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (ed. M. Broshi et al.,; DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995) 100, precludes its being a Moses pseudepigraphon and allows for the possibility that the speaker may be Joshua.

³⁸ D. Barthelemy and J. T. Milik, ed., Qumran Cave I (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955) 91-97.

³⁹ I am not certain that the distinction made by Strugnell ("4QApocryphon of Mosesa," DJD 19.130) and approved of by Schiffman (000-000), between Moses speaking ex parte sua and Moses speaking ex parte Domini, is compelling. For a Jewish reader in the Second Temple period, if a text described Moses presenting legal material, the presumption would be that the source of the laws was God. It is only from a formal standpoint that we can discuss the purported author of the pseudepigraphy; practically, the function would have been the same. For a more thorough discussion of "pseudo-God" vs. "pseudo-Moses," see Schiffman, 000-000; for "Moses the pseudepigrapher" at Qumran, see Strugnell, 133-36.

⁴⁰ Text in DJD 19.113-15.

⁴¹ Strugnell suggests that "1Q22 would provide the dramatic and pseudepigraphic framework of 4Q375" (118). As we have seen, though, the laws which survive in 1Q22 are not pseudepigraphic and stand in sharp contrast to those of 4Q375-376.

⁴² DJD 19.132. Strugnell classifies these texts as belonging "to the genre of 'proclamation of law' by Moses (who speaks in the first-person singular) to a 'thou' (which is Israel or sometimes Aaron, but not Moses), God being usually referred to in the third-person masculine singular. The model, of course, is the biblical book of Deuteronomy.

⁴³ D. Dimant, "New Light from Qumran on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha," in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), 2.410, n. 18. A similar comment is made by Stone, "Dead Sea Scrolls and Pseudepigrapha," 273, n. 9.

⁴⁴ Dimant, "New Light," 410 and n. 18.

⁴⁵ M. Smith, "4QpapApocryphon of Jeremiah B?" in DJD 19.137-52.

⁴⁶ DJD 19.137.

⁴⁷ E. Tov, "The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada," in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 233-56.

⁴⁸ Tov, "Rewritten Book of Joshua," 233.

⁴⁹ Tov, "Rewritten Book of Joshua," 248.

⁵⁰ This text is more likely, in my view, to be a piece of rewritten Pentateuch about Moses than a Moses pseudepigraphon.

⁵¹ For the texts of 4Q368 and 4Q377, see, for the moment (based on a reconstruction of the original transcriptions of J. T. Milik and J. Strugnell), A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four (ed. B. Z. Wacholder and M. G. Abegg; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1995) 3.135-39 and 164-66, respectively.

⁵² Cf. the soon-to-be published copies of 4QInstruction A, the already known 4Q184, Wiles of the Wicked Woman and 4Q185 in praise of wisdom, the wisdom hymn found in 11QPsa and also in Ben Sira; Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (ed. T. Elgvin et al.; DJD 20; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997).