London: W. Davis, 1682, 1:36-59. For the French original, see Pierre Gibert, ed., Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (1678): Suivi de lettre sur l’inspiration (Paris: Bayard, 2008). On Simon, see Jean-Louis Ska, “Richard Simon: Un pionnier sur les sentiers de la tradition,” rsr 97 (2009): 307-16.

Marc Brettler, “Torah,” in The Jewish Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 2. See also James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 3.

Marc Brettler, “Torah,” in The Jewish Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 2. See also James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 3.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, in particular, On Abraham 1.1-6. On discursive practices responsible for a shaping of the Pentateuchal material as exemplary, see Hindy Najman, Past Renewals: Interpretive Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Kugel, Traditions, 15-17, sees an approach to the Bible as a “Book of Instruction” as an intrinsic component of ancient interpretation. For the pedagogical bias in our interpretation of the Bible, see David Lambert, How Repentance Became Biblical: Judaism, Christianity, and the Interpretation of Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), especially 91-92. See, also, John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), 154-78.

See, in particular, On Abraham 1.1-6. On discursive practices responsible for a shaping of the Pentateuchal material as exemplary, see Hindy Najman, Past Renewals: Interpretive Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Kugel, Traditions, 15-17, sees an approach to the Bible as a “Book of Instruction” as an intrinsic component of ancient interpretation. For the pedagogical bias in our interpretation of the Bible, see David Lambert, How Repentance Became Biblical: Judaism, Christianity, and the Interpretation of Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), especially 91-92. See, also, John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), 154-78.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 134. See, also, Ulrich, “From Literature to Scripture,” 8-9.

Ibid., 134. See, also, Ulrich, “From Literature to Scripture,” 8-9.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 381-88.

See Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 381-88.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

James C. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1-30, esp. 27.

James C. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1-30, esp. 27.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Werman, “תורה and תעודה,” 77-78.

Werman, “תורה and תעודה,” 77-78.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cf. VanderKam, “Studies on the Prologue,” 271; and Kugel, “Jubilees,” 20. Both call upon a rabbinic reading to support this approach: “ ‘Tablets’ refer to the Ten Commandments, ‘torah’ to Scripture [i.e. the Pentateuch], ‘the commandment” to Mishnah, ‘that I have written’ to the Prophets and Writings, ‘to teach them’ to gemara, teaching that all of these were given to Moses at Sinai” (b. Ber. 5a). But, there is little reason to push the rabbinic penchant to atomize, supposing each term to have its own separate referent, back on Jubilees.

Cf. VanderKam, “Studies on the Prologue,” 271; and Kugel, “Jubilees,” 20. Both call upon a rabbinic reading to support this approach: “ ‘Tablets’ refer to the Ten Commandments, ‘torah’ to Scripture [i.e. the Pentateuch], ‘the commandment” to Mishnah, ‘that I have written’ to the Prophets and Writings, ‘to teach them’ to gemara, teaching that all of these were given to Moses at Sinai” (b. Ber. 5a). But, there is little reason to push the rabbinic penchant to atomize, supposing each term to have its own separate referent, back on Jubilees.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 499, suggests that the verse underwent a later addition that expanded the apparent contents of the revelation in question.

Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 499, suggests that the verse underwent a later addition that expanded the apparent contents of the revelation in question.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Kugel, Jubilees, 64-65.

Kugel, Jubilees, 64-65.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 65.

Werman, “תורה and תעודה,” 78, recognizes the literary connection to the “Commandment” Torah but assumes that it is to be identified with the Pentateuch.

Werman, “תורה and תעודה,” 78, recognizes the literary connection to the “Commandment” Torah but assumes that it is to be identified with the Pentateuch.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, also, James C. VanderKam, “The End of the Matter? Jubilees 50:6-13 and the Unity of the Book,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Early Judaism, ed. L. LiDonnici and A. Lieber (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 267-84, esp. 279-80.

See, also, James C. VanderKam, “The End of the Matter? Jubilees 50:6-13 and the Unity of the Book,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Early Judaism, ed. L. LiDonnici and A. Lieber (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 267-84, esp. 279-80.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, also, Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 397. Jubilees, thereby, bridges a divergence in language between Exod 24:12 and Exod 31:18, which originates, in part, in a source critical difference—E versus P. See, above, n. 51 and 55.

See, also, Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 397. Jubilees, thereby, bridges a divergence in language between Exod 24:12 and Exod 31:18, which originates, in part, in a source critical difference—E versus P. See, above, n. 51 and 55.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See the resulting suggestions in Kugel, Jubilees, 27; and Armin Lange, “From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library,” in Helmer and Landmesser, One Scripture or Many? 51-107, esp. 104-5.

See the resulting suggestions in Kugel, Jubilees, 27; and Armin Lange, “From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library,” in Helmer and Landmesser, One Scripture or Many? 51-107, esp. 104-5.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lambert, Repentance, 123-26.

Lambert, Repentance, 123-26.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Segal, Jubilees, 288-89.

Segal, Jubilees, 288-89.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 215-16.

As Reed writes, “Jubilees’ epistemology centers on a view of heaven as the ultimate source for all true knowledge” (“Enoch and Mosaic Traditions,” 363). That places Jubilees within a wide-ranging form of idealism that betrays traces of what is generally labeled as Platonism. Platonism, in any event, provides a helpful model for understanding the relationship between the Pentateuch, “Commandment” and “Testimony” Torot, and Heavenly Tablets as one of emanation. The Torah of Moses may be an attenuated, decidedly human affair, mixed in content and, ultimately, incomplete, but it is a reflection of works that are themselves divinely-authorized copies of the heavenly tablets that are the truest, most essential repository of the world’s hardwiring, divine law and events. Cf. Philo’s theory of the Law of Moses as a copy of a copy. On this, see Najman, “The Law of Nature,” 73-86, and “A Written Copy of the Law of Nature: An Unthinkable Paradox?” in Past Renewals, 107-20. On Jubilees and Hellenism, see Cana Werman, “Jubilees in the Hellenistic Context,” in LiDonnici and Lieber, Heavenly Tablets, 133-58, esp. 152-56. See Wright, “Jubilees, Sirach” 122-25, for the sense in which the sage in Ben Sira has direct access to the very source of Torah, namely, Wisdom, and, therefore, is in a position to render its meaning.

As Reed writes, “Jubilees’ epistemology centers on a view of heaven as the ultimate source for all true knowledge” (“Enoch and Mosaic Traditions,” 363). That places Jubilees within a wide-ranging form of idealism that betrays traces of what is generally labeled as Platonism. Platonism, in any event, provides a helpful model for understanding the relationship between the Pentateuch, “Commandment” and “Testimony” Torot, and Heavenly Tablets as one of emanation. The Torah of Moses may be an attenuated, decidedly human affair, mixed in content and, ultimately, incomplete, but it is a reflection of works that are themselves divinely-authorized copies of the heavenly tablets that are the truest, most essential repository of the world’s hardwiring, divine law and events. Cf. Philo’s theory of the Law of Moses as a copy of a copy. On this, see Najman, “The Law of Nature,” 73-86, and “A Written Copy of the Law of Nature: An Unthinkable Paradox?” in Past Renewals, 107-20. On Jubilees and Hellenism, see Cana Werman, “Jubilees in the Hellenistic Context,” in LiDonnici and Lieber, Heavenly Tablets, 133-58, esp. 152-56. See Wright, “Jubilees, Sirach” 122-25, for the sense in which the sage in Ben Sira has direct access to the very source of Torah, namely, Wisdom, and, therefore, is in a position to render its meaning.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Najman, “Torah of Moses,” 213. Najman’s work has been particularly influential in moving us beyond the earlier consensus view of treating pseudepigraphy as pious fraud.

Najman, “Torah of Moses,” 213. Najman’s work has been particularly influential in moving us beyond the earlier consensus view of treating pseudepigraphy as pious fraud.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” 10-28.

See Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” 10-28.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lambert, Repentance, 123-26. See, also, David Lambert, “Did Israel Believe that Redemption Awaited its Repentance? The Case of Jubilees 1,” cbq 68 (2006): 631-50.

Lambert, Repentance, 123-26. See, also, David Lambert, “Did Israel Believe that Redemption Awaited its Repentance? The Case of Jubilees 1,” cbq 68 (2006): 631-50.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation