Katharina Keim's monograph, Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer: Structure, Coherence, Intertextuality, is based on her 2014 dissertation completed under the supervision of Professors Philip Alexander and Renate Smithuis at the University of Manchester. While scholarship on Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer (PRE), a relatively late midrashic composition dating to the mid-eighth or early ninth century CE, has recently burgeoned, Keim provides a new perspective through her analysis of the overall structure and coherence of the composition. Applying the principles of “form criticism,” usually reserved for the study of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature, Keim reveals new insights into the genre and composition of PRE.

Though considerably revised, the book still reads very much like a doctoral dissertation, with a review of the literature (chapter 1), an overview of the recension and redaction history of the text (chapter 2), a “text-linguistic” description of PRE (chapter 3), and an analysis of “intertextuality” (chapter 4), with a conclusion on the implications of this scholarship (chapter 5), and three appendices (on the overall structure of PRE, smalls forms, and comparison of Michael and Sammael in PRE). Chapters 3 and 4 are the heart of the book, where she deploys the terms “text-linguistic” and “intertextuality” rather idiosyncratically. Her characterization of the late rabbinic Hebrew of PRE is minimal; rather, the emphasis is on “small forms,” genre, and coherence of the text. Further, her concept of “intertextuality” differs from its classic use, namely how midrash reads one biblical passage through another (the Mekhilta's use of Song of Songs in the reading of the Exodus narrative, for example) (Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994]). Keim minimally engages PRE as an interpretive composition of the Hebrew Bible (qua midrash), focusing rather on the relationship of PRE to other sources: classic rabbinic literature, Aramaic Targum, Pseudepigrapha, piyyut (liturgical poetry), and Christian and Islamic traditions. This is hardly “intertextuality,” but allows for a more open discussion about tracing the threads, the question of influence, and/or polemical interaction between sources.

On the dating and provenance of PRE, Keim aligns with recent scholarship, which situates the composition in Palestine after the rise of Islam. Though not definitive, she adopts Gerald Friedlander's date of the early ninth century. The argument for provenance is based on the minhag and Halakhah unique to Palestine, teachings in the names of Palestinian tannaitic rabbis (albeit pseudepigraphic), and the sources PRE draws on (such as Bereshit Rabbah). Most interesting is the implied alliance between PRE and the “Mourners of Zion” sect in the analysis of messianic motifs (section 3.5.4.4, pp. 106–10). She argues that the characterization of Menachem ben Ammiel, the one messiah named, aligns with that of the Davidic line, based on Philip Alexander's work on Pesikta Rabbati (2016), though this figure is identified by the text in PRE 19 with Ephraim and Joseph (perhaps a scribal gloss). This calls for more research and a comparison of the manuscript traditions. In the second chapter, she reviews the very complex process of textual transmission, attributing much scholarly acumen to the recent work of Eliezer Treitl (“Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer: Text, Redaction and a Sample Synopsis” [PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2012]). But she then cites only the second printed edition of Dagmar Börner-Klein's work, recently beautifully presented in bilingual German-Hebrew edition (Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer: Nach der Edition Venedig 1544 unter Beruecksichtigung der Edition Warschau 1852 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004]).

The main body of the work, chapter 3, entails a reexamination of the genre of PRE as midrash through a study of “small forms,” based on the “Manchester-Durham Typology of Anonymous and Pseudepigraphic Jewish Literature in Antiquity” project, which seeks to create an “inventory of structurally important literary features” in the microstructure of the composition. By analyzing “small forms” such as lemmata, question and answer units, lists, and parables, Keim attempts to characterize the genre of PRE. Based on the format of citations from the Hebrew Bible—“as it is said” (שנאמר), for example—followed by a comment, or the conclusion of a passage in the form of a prooftext, she argues that PRE is not a “lemmatic commentary.” That is, it is not exegetical in the same way that classic rabbinic midrash is. Yet she seems to reject, without addressing why, the category “Narrative Midrash,” which I (The Return of the Repressed: Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer and the Pseudepigrapha [Boston: Brill, 2009]) introduced to the scholarly lexicon.

In terms of content, Keim does not go into any depth on the relationship between the narrative rewrite and the interpretation of a biblical passage that this new genre of midrash presents. She raises the question of the near absence of homilies in the form of petiḥot, and suggests that this genre may no longer have been used in Palestine at the time. This is highly unlikely given the prevalence of this form in the nearly contemporaneous Tanḥuma literature. Keim also itemizes the “question and answer units” (as in מניין״—from where do we know this,” and מה עשה״ —what did he do?”), lists, and parables (in the mashal-nimshal form). Appendix 2, at the end of the book, is an excellent resource for these. Keim asserts that such itemization is a means of “profiling” PRE, yet admits that none of these forms are unique to PRE. I am not sure what is gained by the detailed work. On the level of macrostructure, as in the lists of Ten Kings, Abraham's Ten Trials, the Blessings of Amidah, and the Ten Divine Descents that run throughout the text, Keim concurs with many scholars (Elbaum, myself, and Stein) that it is clearly a coherent composition, most likely the hand of one author.

While the scholarship is comprehensive, it lacks in-depth engagement with the text of PRE and the work of other contemporary scholars (primarily those working in Hebrew). For example, the observation that PRE draws on the wisdom sayings (“maxims”) from Pirke Avot, often at the opening of a chapter, to introduce an ethical teaching, was already noted by Dina Stein (Maxims, Magic, Myth: A Folkloristic Perspective of Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer [in Hebrew] [Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004]). The work of Jacob Elbaum (“Rhetoric, Motif and Subject-Matter: Toward an Analysis of Narrative Technique in Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer” [in Hebrew], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Folklore 13–14 [1991–92]: 99–126, and “Meshiḥiyut be-Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer: ’Apokalipsah u-midrash,” Teudah 11 [1996]: 245–66) in characterizing the unique linguistic phrases and messianic themes in PRE is not addressed; and my own work (Adelman 2009) on genre, the relationship between PRE and the Pseudepigrapha, Sammael and the personification of evil, Palestinian Halakhah/minhag, and an in-depth reading of “Jonah's Sojourn in the Netherworld,” while acknowledged, is mostly ignored.

Part of the awkwardness in Keim's book arises from separating the “close” reading of a passage (as in “Jonah and the Big Fish,” discussed in 3.2.2, pp. 57–61) from its parallel sources (as in the Christian tradition on “the sign of Jonah,” discussed in 4.7.1, pp. 184–85). That being said, her work on the cosmology in PRE as “scientific” knowledge is fascinating, reflecting perhaps the impact of Sasha Stern's work on the calendar (Time and Process in Ancient Judaism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011]) and Annette Yoshiko Reed's seminal article (“Was There Science in Ancient Judaism?,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 36, nos. 3–4 [2007]: 461–95). This may be of interest to nonspecialist readers on science in late antiquity, in addition to those working in the field of rabbinic literature. The comprehensive appendices at the end of the book should be a reference point for any scholar working on PRE.