The Rewritten Bible in Late Antiquity: »Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer«, »Jubilees«, and the »Cave of Treasures«

by Gavin McDowell

523 pages, Hardcover

Published December 15, 2025

Reviews

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

1st, tho it has Wiki page, I’d never heard of this book Pirke of Rabbi Eliezer before.

2nd, while Wiki covers surface of PRE, McDowell is gold mine on contents, sources & editing.

Big picture of PRE is that, beyond 1st century CE, dialogue between Christians & Jews, & after 630 or whenever Muslims as well, was much heavier than one might believe from today. It died off in Western Europe in the Empire after pogroms of First Crusade, in France after Jewish well-poisoning canards really erupted in the crackdown on Albigensians, & in Spain in the post-El Cid era, as the Reconquista got its second wind. In Middle East heartland, I think it was more gradual withering.

Notes:

1st, idea that the serpent of Genesis is Satan enters Judaism via PRE, which likely takes it from Islam & Samael, as did Christianity, tho hints of it go back as far as OT pseudepigrapha. The “Occultation of Abraham,” author notes, clearly came from Muslim world & is first attested in Judaism here.

2nd, apparently some knowledge of "Qumran" scrolls — NOT the actual scrolls at Qumran, but the represented documents — existed circa 800 CE.

3rd, “chair for Elijah” at circumcisions appears to originate here.

4th, McDowell asks how much Jews of this era knew of the “pseudepigrapha,” & within that, how much came fr Christians, or Muslims, & how much was directly maintained.

5th, Geza Vermes invented term “rewritten bible” & later defended it against claims it was not a unitary class of literature. Sefer ha-Yashar led him to idea. The literary category extends as late as the Historia scholastica.

6th, PRE author may have known Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, or at least traditions from it.

7th, re author noting pseudo-Jonathan likely depended on PRE rather than traditional idea that reverses that. Wiki cites McDowell putting PJ’s provenance in 12th c Italy. (Historia scholastica was 12th c France.) Wiki page also has counterarguments with conclusion pJ was composite text.

8th, covered in more depth below, I am unconvinced by McDowell’s claims of direct or even semi-direct dependence of PRE on Cave of Treasures, a Christian rough parallel to Book of Jubilees. This is main reason it doesn’t get a fifth star. Nonetheless, his critique is a fascinating look at the time and place behind PRE, at a point where Judaism and Christianity in the Middle East, perhaps pushed by the rise of Islam, were undergoing a final separation, despite many Christians’ belief that happened centuries earlier.

And, THIRD time this year, my massive notes exceed Goodreads' limit! So, trimming for
Part 1: About book

PRE only known to Xn world in Reformation times. Only translated into modern lang in 1916.

Haman described as descendant of Amalek.

Part 2, PRE in its time? Date circa 750 CE. Location Palestine. Shows interactions with both Christians and Muslims. (Note Ishmael, a stand-in for Muslims, having Fatima and Aisha as his two wives.)

Ch 3, PRE in relation to rabbinic tradition. Not highly dependent on Talmud. Some connection to later hekhaloth literature. Postulation by others of distant connection to Nag Hammadi literature; author agnostic. McDowell notes that Jews of 6th-7th centuries CE started writing apocalypses again.

Shades of some Qumran apocalypses.

McDowell says it may also be connected to some Jewish liturgical poetry, but this is largely beyond his scope. Targums, he says the most pertinent point of comparison is Targum Neofiti, only complete Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch still in existence.

Summary: PRE author “in dialogue” with many strains of Judaism of era, but few explicit borrowings or even precise parallels.

Ch 4: PRE & Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Lots of material overlap not in earlier material. PJ also has the same two wives for Ishmael. (Both also call Hagar an idol-worshiper.) Same time or not? See above for McD 12th C on PJ.

Among weird common material? Post-”fall,” Yahweh is said to cut the legs off the serpent. (It was condemned to crawl on its belly, ergo, rabbis presumed it had legs before.) On the “mark of Cain,” PRE says just that it’s a Hebrew letter; PJ that it’s a letter from Ha-Shem. Both call the fallen angels of Gen. 6 the “Nephalim,” which is what it means — “fallen” — even tho most ancient writings use that for the hybrid offspring, with the angels called “Watchers.” “Sam[m]ael” is replaced with “Satan” by PJ in in story about devil entering the Golden Calf.

Cain supposedly son of the “rider of the serpent” in PRE and Samael as malakh Yahweh in PJ. PRE first to state this in Jewish literature, tho some Gnostic material has this. Supposedly rewritten to defend his honor. Talmud claims serpent penetrated Eve but does not claim it was possessed, nor that it impregnated Eve.

The errors, copying, etc.? In many cases, PJ appears to correct PRE. Of course, this presumes a unitary construction of PJ. PRE and PJ bth have Cain using a stone to kill Abel. PJ adds a lengthy expansion that makes Abel into a Dostoyevskian nihilist.

Part 2: PRE and Jubilees, qv: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of... for summary, it too is “rewritten Bible,” from creation to “promised land.” History is subdivided into 49 year jubilees, per Leviticus, each subdivided further into seven-year “weeks.” Written in Hebrew, likely 2nd century BCE. Translated into Greek, whether for explicitly Xn popularity reasons (author, and it’s canonical in Ethiopia) or for Jewish diaspora first.

McDowell is examining whether Hebrew Jubilees survived to time of PRE and if so, was it used.

“While there is no evidence that a full Hebrew version of Jubilees has survived intact, many of the ancient traditions did persist, often existing in tandem with competing traditions found in rabbinic literature. Furthermore, they reveal a complex of Jubilees-like literature that is not identical
to the book found at Qumran and preserved in Ethiopic. In the end, there may have been multiple “books of Jubilees” in Late Antiquity.”

From there, he looks at other Hebrew docs that PRE might have used, and whether they used full Jubilees or at least an offshoot.

“Another interesting case involves those works which seem to reflect a lost source of Jubilees. This is most prominent in Sefer Refuʾot. Midrash Vayissaʿu— another case where material from Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs coexist in the same document—might be another example. The Testaments and Jubilees have much in common. It leaves one to wonder if they might have originally drawn from a common source.”

“An isolated curiosity is Saadia Gaon’s reference to a “Book of Jubilees” that is unrelated to the work preserved in Ethiopic and rediscovered at Qumran. Is this a lost version of Jubilees, a continuation, or something else?”

“For the remaining cases, one can suspect the influence of Jubilees traditions from intermediary works transmitted by Christians, especially chronicles.”

Next, Jubilees in Xn tradition.

And on Jubilees and use by PRE? Right away, McDowell says:

“Theoretically, it would have been possible for Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer to have had recourse to Jubilees, even without postulating a secret transmission of the book among Jews or the sudden reappearance of the book in Hebrew. The present chapter argues, however, that PRE does not know Jubilees.”

He then discusses 10 parallels, basing all on previous work on Jubilees and PRE. Conclusion? None show dependence, despite Jubilees still being out there. Why?

“I propose that geography is the main reason. The knowledge and transmission of Jubilees was a principally Byzantine phenomenon, restricted to writers in or around Constantinople. The Jews, Christians, and Muslims of the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate simply did not know Jubilees, apart from perhaps some of the names of the wives of the patriarchs. Knowledge of the work was being pushed out by a competing tradition. Part Three of this study will examine this competitor: the Cave of Treasures. This work is the mirror-image of Jubilees: It was known within the caliphate but unknown, owing to the lack of a Greek version, in the Byzantine Empire. The comparison will reaffirm that region, rather than religion, was determinative for the sources of PRE.”

That leads to Part 3, what is the Cave of Treasures, then, its possible relationship with PRE.

“The Cave of Treasures (Cav. Tr.) is not merely a book but an entire cycle of literature. In fact, it is two cycles. One is a tributary of the apocryphal work known as the Testament of Adam. … The work was written in Syriac, but the earliest manuscript (Kölner Papyruskodex 3221) is a Coptic text from the fifth century or earlier. It is probably the first work to mention the cave. The book called Cave of Treasures is the starting point for the second cycle.”

“It is important to know the difference between the Cave of Treasures (the work) and the cave of treasures (the cave). In both cycles, the cave of treasures is the repository of the gifts that the Magi bring to the infant Jesus. It is therefore a Christian topos. The difference between the Testament of Adam cycle and the Cave of Treasures cycle lies in the contents of the cave apart from gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

“In the Testament of Adam, the cave holds Adam’s prophecy, passed down from generation to generation among the Magi until the birth of Christ. This story, naturally, reappears in Infancy Gospels and other literature affiliated with the Nativity story, including writings about Mary. It is found, for example, in the Transitus Mariae (both Syriac and Ethiopic)5 as well as the Armenian Infancy Gospel (whichwas translated from Syriac).” ….

“In the work called the Cave of Treasures, the eponymous cave is not the repository of Adam’s prophecy but of Adam himself. This work, pseudonymously attributed to Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373) but written no earlier than the sixth century, presents itself as a genealogy of the Messiah.”

So, I’m wondering, why would this book influence a Jew of, oh 300 or so years later? As for the “How”? McDowell notes it almost certainly circulated in Arabic, primary language of the Abbasid Caliphate. (That said, 750 date for book is at start of that caliphate. THAT said, Umayyads would surely have been conversant in Syriac, Cave’s original language.) McD later pushes the Arabic again; I remain unconvinced.

Next chapter says much of its diffusion was via the Arabic, primarily a subversion called Book of the Rolls. NOTE: Wiki references this as the “Arabic Apocalypse of Petert.” Says its probably 9th-11th century in origin, most likely 10th century, which of course makes it too late to have influenced PRE.

That next chapter is Cave in Muslim and Christian tradition. (Note nothing about Jewish tradition.)

“The first known Christian work to use Cav. Tr. as a source is also the most famous. The Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius (ca. 691) is one of the most consequential apocryphal apocalypses, rivaling 4Ezra in terms of its diffusion and influence. It is perhaps most famous for its histrionic account of the Arab conquests, where “Ishmaelites” swarm the Near Eastern territories of the Roman Empire to punish the sinful Christian population. It also incorporates the legends of Gog and Magog and the Last World Emperor, where the final ruler of the Roman Empire beats back the barbarians imprisoned in former times by Alexander the Great.”

Then, Cave in Islam.

“Just as the earliest Christian work to use Cav. Tr. is the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, the first possible Muslim use of Cav. Tr. is also an apocalypse—the Qurʾān, the revelation of God to the prophet Muḥammad.”

Really? Qur’an as apocalypse? He says yes with footnote:

“On reading the Qurʾān this way: Stephen J. Shoemaker, “A New Arabic Apocryphon from Late
Antiquity: The Qurʾān,” in The Study of Islamic Origins: New Perspectives, ed. Mette Bjerregaard
Mortensen et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021), 29–42.”

Innnnteresting.

Says use of Cave in Qur’an itself debatable but that it indeed entered into other Muslim literature.

Conclusion:

“The Cave of Treasures was the History Bible of Eastern Christianity and early Islam just as Jubilees was the History Bible of Byzantium. ... The Islamic use of Cav. Tr. is more difficult to explain. One can draw a parallel between the use of Jubilees by Byzantine historians and the use of Cav. Tr. in early Islamic historiography. Byzantine Christians shared few of the theological presuppositions of Jubilees. Nevertheless, they continued to use the work as a historical source, in part, one suspects, because the work was ancient and therefore had a pedigree. More importantly, the work contained information that could not be found in the canonical Scriptures. The same is true of Cav. Tr. in Islamic tradition. Although the work is Christian in orientation, it provides important details that supplement the sparse narratives of the Qurʾān.”

Last main chapter — did Cave of Treasures material get into PRE? As with Jubilees, he looks at 10 cases of parallel material to see if there is any dependence. They are Satan & the serpent; Adam’s penitence; burial of Adam; sacrifice of Abel; twin sisters (population of world by sis's of Cain & Seth, first explicit in Jubilees); Cainites & Sethites; Adam in Ark; Abraham & Melchizedek; the navel of the Earth (Mt Moria; the wood of the cross.

On Melchizedek, PRE in general has a more positive take than rabbinic lit, which may have been a quiet backlash against Hebrews. Both identified him with Shem. Rabbis have Shem/Melchizedek lower than Abraham; McDowell notes Xh interpretations of Psalm 110, which of course includes Hebrews. In PRE he ranks higher, including being Abraham’s mohel! In Cave, Melchizedek initiates Abraham into “holy mysteries.” He also offers Abraham the Eucharist.

That said, there are failures on this one. Namely, McDowell does not mention Philo calling Melchizedek Logos, nor some Qumran material calling him the archangel Michael, let alone 11QMelchizedek in particular. Nor a Nag Hammadi document saying he WAS Jesus, namely, Melchizedek as the first tractate from Codex IX.

Wood of the Cross? Ties with PRE’s look at Esther & Haman; remember his gallows was from wood intended for Mordechai. “’According to Esth 7:10, the king’s servants “hanged Haman
on the wood he had prepared for Mordechai.’” Jesus as new Haman a rabbinic commonplace? (Both Septuagint & Josephus use “crucified” for “hanged.”) PRE contradicts Esther in having Haman put on new wood, though. Cave, interestingly, claims Jesus’ cross was from Ark of the Covenant wood that had been built into the Second Temple! PRE says Haman’s cross came from the Holy of Holies & Elijah in disguise told Artaxerxes this, in accordance with passage in Ezra! (6:11)

McDowell notes Cave’s tradition of cross’s wood pretty much sui generis in Xianity. So, could it instead have earlier common source with PRE on this?

“The working hypothesis of this chapter is that PRE knew of Cav. Tr. and its traditions through oral channels. Knowledge of Syriac varied among Jews. Some Jews knew and even wrote in Syriac (which is, after all, a dialect of Aramaic). Concrete examples of Judeo-Syriac, however, are rare. Others knew Syriac without writing it.”

I am not so convinced, re Melchizedek especially.

Indeed, his overall book conclusion leaves this open:

“Most of the non-rabbinic traditions in PRE, however, are neither Second Temple nor even Jewish at all. In fact, all the traditions shared between PRE and Cav. Tr. Are of Christian origin. The Cave of Treasures did not invent most of these traditions. They are, therefore, still ancient, but they date to the third or fourth century CE rather than the second or third century BCE.”

Middle of 4th century CE is 350, or 400 years before PRE.

That said, this is true:

“The Christian influence on PRE encourages us to rethink traditional assumptions about the relationship between Judaism on the one hand and Christianity and Islam on the other. For example, Syriac literature is believed to be particularly indebted to ancient Jewish tradition. Among Syriac works, the Cave of Treasures has been singled out as “the richest source for Jewish traditions.”2 Frequently, however, PRE is the earliest Jewish source recording these Syriac traditions.”

That said, he still thinks Arabic language, not Syriac, is prime vehicle. I’m not convinced.

“Arabic language and literature can account for the circulation of other non-rabbinic traditions in PRE that were only discussed briefly in the main body of this study. Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 21, for example, narrates how a raven assisted Adam and Eve with the burial of Abel. The earliest securely datable work to report this tradition is the Qurʾān (5:27–32). It is repeated in Arabic sources ad nauseam.4 It is so common that it even has its own entry in Stith Thompson’s Motif-Index of Folk Literature (A 2223.7: “Ravens show Adam how to bury the dead”).5 In other words, it is hardly surprising that PRE has a variant of a story that first appears in the Qurʾān. Given the popularity of such a tradition, it might have been harder to explain its absence.”

OTOH, let us not forget Judaistic, often non-rabbinic, & Christian, often syncretistic, influences on late pre-Qur’anic northwest Arabia. And, per the start of this book, we know Qumran material allegedly was still discussed at this time. McDowell even notes Karaites had some halakah in common with Qumran. Continuing tradition?

He concludes by referencing “Boyarim School” & citing 750 as date of final & full “parting of ways.” Talks about Judaism as “still a blurry category.” No more than Xianity, IMO.

“What does this have to do with Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer? I had initially drafted a brief section on the author’s religious identity but eventually cut it because it seemed like the answer to a question no one was asking. The author was a rabbinic Jew. Nevertheless, what initially prompted this section was scholarship tying PRE to the ʿĪsāwiyya, a Jewish group of the Umayyad period that recognized the prophethood of both Jesus and Muḥammad (but maintained, to the displeasure of everyone else, that they were only sent to their own communities). A related scholarly endeavor involved tying the early Karaites to Second Temple literature, especially literature from Qumran (with PRE as a separate witness to the phenomenon).”

“The linguistic metaphor of a shared koine also informs literal linguistic barriers. The Jews and Christians of Western Europe had a different biblical koine than the Jews and Christians of the Middle East.”