The Status and Interpretation of Jubilees in 4Q390

TL;DR

Hanneken argues that 4Q390 uses the book of Jubilees as Scripture, both by continuously adopting its language and themes and by creatively reworking its plain sense to fit a different set of beliefs. This case, he suggests, adds to evidence challenging the use of the category "biblical" in study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially where that category excludes Jubilees.

Key findings

• Parallels between Jubilees and 4Q390 have long been noted; careful examination indicates 4Q390 interprets Jubilees as Scripture. The argument rests on two foundations: 4Q390's continuous adoption of Jubilees' language and themes, and its wrestling with the plain sense of the text to fit a different set of beliefs — an adaptation that "does not negate the claim that Jubilees was used as authoritative literature, but rather strengthens it."
• On chronology, the "historical apocalypse" in Jubilees 23 corresponds with events in 1 Maccabees, perhaps up through the retreat of Bacchides in 159 B.C.E., with "strikingly no trace" of the high priesthood of Jonathan starting in 152. Whereas Jubilees predicts eschatological restoration in the same generation as the Maccabean revolt, 4Q390 allows for 140 years following the revolt, or at least seventy years — supporting a composition date for 4Q390 much later than Jubilees.
• The essay's broader implication is that 4Q390 adds to evidence challenging the category "biblical" in Scrolls scholarship, and that appreciating 4Q390 as scriptural interpretation casts light on scriptural interpretation in general.

Methods

• Comparative textual study of 4Q390 and Jubilees, treating 4Q390 as a unit of text without committing to any characterization of its relationship to other fragments labeled "Apocryphon of Jeremiah," nor to its title, chronology, or date.
• Chronological analysis of 4Q390's eschatological scheme: seven jubilees (343 years) of the devastation of the land, a seven-year revolt (4Q390 2 i 4), a 490-year total, and 140 years remaining afterwards (seventy of which are mentioned in 4Q390 2 i 6 as internal strife), with paleographic dating allowing 140 years after the Maccabean revolt.

Limitations

• Stated in the paper: the chronology proposed by 4Q390 "involves some complexity beyond the scope of the present essay"; the argument does not require a firm stance on relationship to other fragments, title, chronology, or date. Explicit mention of another seventy years "would have to be imagined in the unreadable second column."
• Evident from the text: the supplied text is only the opening of the essay (the introduction and the beginning of the chronology discussion); the detailed treatment of the two stated foundations of the argument is not included, so the specific parallel passages and their analysis cannot be assessed here.