Footnotes

1.

Midrash (plural, midrashim) refers to a non-literal elaboration of a biblical text, often for homiletic purposes; Midrash is a genre of rabbinic literature.

Endnotes

1.

Renée Bloch, “Quelques Aspects de la Figure de Moïse dans la Tradition Rabbinique.” Cahiers Sioniens 8 (1954), pp. 210–285; reprinted in Moïse, l’Homme de l’Alliance (Paris, 1955), pp. 53–167; and also “Note Méthodoligique pour l’Étude de la Littérature Rabbinique,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 43 (1955), pp. 194–225. That latter article has been translated by William Scott Green and William J. Sullivan as “Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Vol. 1. Theory and Practice, ed. Green Brown Judaic Studies 1 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), pp. 51–75.

2.

Bloch made two major proposals for dealing with the series. First, she suggested a relative sequence for them based on a somewhat mechanical principle of “longer is later.” Although this may often be correct, it is just as likely that a given author may abbreviate as well as expand a source. Accordingly, her sequence may have to be held in some doubt pending further, more detailed analysis. Second, she noted that the basic story of Moses’ infancy in those rabbinic writings is known from Josephus and from pseudo-Philo (see next note), both of which can be dated with security to the end of the first century A.D. Thus, we must imagine a trajectory for the extra-biblical infancy story of Moses from at least the second half of the first century and on into those rabbinic texts still awaiting critical analysis for both manuscripts and contents.

3.

Josephus. Loeb Classical Library. 10 vols. Trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, Louis H. Feldman. The Antiquities, which tell the story of Israel from the dawn of creation to the eve of the first war with Rome, are contained in Vols. 4–10, and I cite by volume and page. For general background Harold W. Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed., Michael E. Stone. Compendia Rerum ludaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.2 (Assen: Van Gorcum and Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 185–232.

4.

This retells, with deletions, summaries, expansions and additions, the biblical story from Adam to the death of Saul. It is extant only in a Latin version, usually considered a translation from a Greek version of the Hebrew original. See Guido Kisch, Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Publications in Medieval Studies X (Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University, 1949). I cite from Montague Rhodes James, Biblical Antiquities of Philo (London: SPCK, 1917). For general background see George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, pp. 89–156 (esp. pp. 107–110, 153).

5.

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 4.252–253.

6.

The only available copy of this text is an unedited manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford (Ms.Heb.d.11; Cat. No. 2797). It is composed of 388 parchment folios and contains a collection of various writings brought together by Eleazer ben Asher. There are clearly two different hands at work; compare, for example, folio 37b with 38a. One is more ancient, using a different script on older parchment and marginally annotated by the redactor. This includes folios 38a–46b and it is with these that I am interested here. The second hand is in later German rabbinical script and includes all of the work except those folios just mentioned. See also Bloch, “Methodological Note,” p. 73, note 38. See also Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. Geza Vermés, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black. 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973-) Vol. 1, p. 117.

7.

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 4.254–259.

8.

Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 9:2–10, pp. 99–102.

9.

Even though pseudo-Philo’s account is more developed than Josephus’, it is just as likely that the latter abbreviates than that the former expands these scenes. In any case, pseudo-Philo shows that the divorce and remarriage elements were already in the story by the last quarter of the first century A.D.

10.

Sefer ha-Zikronot, 38b.12–16.