Enoch and the Mosaic Torah- The Evidence of Jubilees

The Relationship between Jubilees and the Early Enochic Books

l. Manuscript Evidence. At least one apparently Enochic astronomical
text from Qumran dates to circa 200 B.C.E. The most important evidence for
establishing the relative antiquity of AB is the manuscript evidence from
Qumran, which yielded four fragmentary Aramaic scrolls that bear a rela­
tionship to the Ethiopic version familiar to us. The nomenclature, dating,
and contents of the manuscripts are detailed in the following table:^2

Qumran

Document

Paleographic

Dating Contents

4QEnastra

(4Q208)

ca. 220-180

B.C.E.

Table of moon phases possibly summarized

in 1 En 73:4-8

4QEnastrb

(4Q209)

ca. 10 B.C.E.-

10 C.E.

Table of moon phases, but also parts of

1 En 76:14-77; 78:10; 78:17-79:2; 82:9-13

4QEnastrc

(4Q210)

ca. 50 B.C.E. Parts of 1 En 76:3-10; 76:13-77:3; 78:6-8

4QEnastrd

(4Q211)

ca. 50-1 B.C.E. Unparalleled in 1 Enoch but apparently a

completion of 82:15-20

The relationship between these Qumran manuscripts and the dating of AB
is, unfortunately, not straightforward. The Qumran texts are quite fragmen­
tary and witness to a larger document that included material that was sum-

2. For the source of this information and general discussion of the date of AB, see J. T.
   Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976),
   7-22; also M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 2:11-12.
   The dating of any individual scroll may be debated. The paleographic dates provided here
   are those of Milik. Few scholars have the expertise, resources, and access necessary to reas­
   sess Milik's work. His proposed dates have been challenged by radiocarbon dating: see
   A. Jull, D. Donahue, M. Broshi, and E. Tov, "Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Frag­
   ments from the Judean Desert," Atiqot 28 (1996): 85-91 (here 86), and G. Doudna, "Dating
   the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis," in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A
   Comprehensive Assessment, ed. R Flint and J. VanderKam, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1998-99),
   1:430-65. However, as Doudna points out, even carbon dating can produce erroneous results
   due to sample contamination, inaccurate calibration curves, laboratory error, and other fac­
   tors. Doudna reports a date range for 4QEnastra of 160-40 B.C.E. (one sigma, i.e., 68 percent
   confidence [462]), but also points out the possibility of contamination in the group of texts
   to which the sample of 4QEnastra belonged (452). We have chosen, for the present, to disre­
   gard the carbon dating until greater confidence can be expressed about the certainty of the
   results.