Reconsidering Jubilees: Prophecy and Exemplaritytions and texts that we have since come to know as Pentateuchal or pro
phetic.^3 Perhaps, then, we could argue that Jubilees is interpreting texts we
know as Pentateuchal.
But if we claim that Jubilees reflects some of the earliest interpretation
of the Pentateuch — then we are assigning a secondary status to Jubilees vis
a-vis the Pentateuch. But this flies in the face of Jubilees' self-presentation:
Jubilees claims that it is itself a revelation that is already and always inscribed
in the heavenly tablets, long before Sinai.
It is Jubilees' claim to be revealed that has led some to say that Jubilees
intends to replace Genesis or the Pentateuch.^4 However, such a suggestion is
also in tension with Jubilees' self-presentation. Jubilees knows of a first To
rah and understands that it is offering a second Torah that is already prior to
the first Torah from Sinai, but Jubilees never claims to replace the first Torah,
which it treats as having continued authority.
Indeed, there are some passages in Jubilees where the characterization of
"interpretation" seems more apt, and others where what seems called for is a
characterization of "parallel traditions" or even "expanded traditions," of
which we possess much shorter versions in the Pentateuch. To be sure, we can
state with confidence — as has been argued most recently by Aharon
Shemesh^5 — that Jubilees played a prominent role for some of the authors and
- See the exemplary discussion by G. J. Brooke, "The Formation and Renewal of
Scriptural Tradition," in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A.
Knibb, ed. C. Hempel and J. Lieu (Leiden: Brill, 20051,39-60. See also J. C. Reeves, "Exploring
the Afterlife of Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Medieval Near Eastern Religious Traditions: Some
Initial Soundings," JSJ 30 (1999): 148-77, and R. A. Kraft, "The Pseudepigrapha in Christian
ity," in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. C. Reeves,
SBLEJL 6 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 55-86. - See, for example, B. Z. Wacholder, "Jubilees as the Super Canon: Torah-Admonition
versus Torah-Commandment," in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meet
ing of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, ed. M. Bernstein,
F. Garcia Martinez, and J. Kampen, STDJ 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 195-211. For an incisive and
critical assessment of Wacholder's argument, see M. Himmelfarb, "Torah, Testimony, and
Heavenly Tablets: The Claim to Authority in the Book of Jubilees," in A Multiform Heritage:
Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft, ed. B. G. Wright III,
Homage Series 24 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 19-29; see her most recent discussion of Jubi
lees' status in A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia: Uni
versity of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 53-55. For another view of Jubilees' self-understanding
vis-a-vis the Pentateuch, see C. Werman, "The ' [ torn] and the [ teudd]' Engraved on the Tab
lets," DSD 9 (2002): 75-103 (esp. 93-95). - See A. Shemesh's essay for this volume, "4Q265 and the Authoritative Status of Ju
bilees at Qumran."