WHICH IS OLDER, JUBILEES OR THE ? AN EXEGETICAL APPROACH

James Kugel

Scholars have long been puzzled by the relationship between the Gen- esis Apocryphon (1Q20) and the book of Jubilees (as well as by the Apocryphon’s relationship to another text, the account of Noah’s birth in 1 Enoch chapters 106–107).1 Almost from the time of the Apoc- ryphon’s discovery, similarities between the two works were noticed, leading to speculation that the author of one of the texts had known, and borrowed liberally, from the other. But which came first? On this question researchers have been, and still are, fundamentally divided. Among those who have maintained the priority of the Apocryphon over Jubilees are Ben Zion Wacholder,2 Pierre Grelot,3 Geza Vermes,4 and, more recently, Cana Werman.5 Those who have taken the oppo- site position include Joseph Fitzmyer,6 George W. E. Nickelsburg,7 and Craig A. Evans.8 Still others, including Florentino García Martínez,9 have suggested that the two texts drew on a common source. One particular focus for comparison has been the two texts’ account of the division of the world among Noah’s sons and grandsons, since

1 I deal briefly with the connection between theApocryphon and 1 Enoch 106–107 later in this article. 2 Ben Zion Wacholder, “How Long Did Abram Stay in Egypt,” HUCA 35 (1964): 43–56, at 53. 3 Pierre Grelot, Review of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Cave 1, in RB 74 (1967): 102–5, at 103. 4 Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition (StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 124. 5 Cana Werman, “Qumran and the Book of Noah,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the . Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of the , 12–14 January 1997 (ed. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 171–81. 6 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (BibOr 18; : Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966), 14. 7 George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Patriarchs Who Worry About Their Wives,” in Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon, Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpreta- tion of the in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 137–58, at 145. 8 Craig A. Evans, “The Genesis Apocryphon and the Rewritten Bible,” RevQ 13 (1988): 153–65, at 162. 9 Florentino García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies in the Aramaic from Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 40–41. 258 james kugel both the Apocryphon and Jubilees contain a wealth of geographic details in their accounts that are not present in the Bible. Two recent studies have focused on this issue. In his 2007 doctoral dissertation, Daniel Machiela has sought to reconstruct the map of the world underlying the two texts; his conclusion is appropriately tentative, but he ultimately suggests that the similarities between the two texts are best explained by postulating the existence of a common source from which the two drew some of their material.10 Esther Eshel, in a 2007 article on the same topic, has come down on the side of the Apocry- phon’s priority to Jubilees, though she also points out the similarity between the world map found in the Apocryphon and in Josephus’s much later account of the division of the world in his Jewish Antiqui- ties 1:122–147; Josephus differs from theApocryphon , she notes, only in small details, and “these are due to the differing amounts of detail provided.”11 If so, it would seem to me, the evidence of her study can- not be considered decisive. We are still at something of an impasse.

Overall Character of the Two Works

In considering this question one more time, I wish to start by offer- ing an overall characterization of the works in question. The book of Jubilees is a lengthy, exegetical retelling of much of the book of Genesis and part of Exodus. It presents itself as the words dictated by the angel of the presence to Moses on Mount Sinai. Pseudepigraphy is a conven- tion in many literatures, and it apparently became a literary common- place in late Second Temple Judea; a great many pseudepigraphic texts originated in that period—testaments, apocalypses, and other texts in which some ancient biblical worthy talks about events from the distant past. Many of these writings make little effort to disguise their pseude- pigraphic character: apparently, this form of invention had simply become an accepted literary premise. Still, I believe that the author of

10 Daniel Machiela “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees” (Ph.D. diss., Notre Dame University, 2007), 310–11. See now, Daniel A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17 (STDJ 79; Leiden: Brill, 2009). 11 Esther Eshel, “The Imago Mundi of the Genesis Apocryphon,” in Lynn LiDonnici and Andrea Lieber, Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 111–31, at 131.