Tension Between Text and Tradition in the Book of Jubilees

The book of Jubilees is predominantly considered non-canonical in current times, but its strategic rewriting of the Genesis narrative provides insight into the motives and beliefs of the book’s composer. An observation I found particularly striking in Sidnie White Crawford’s Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times discussed Jubilee’s treatment of Israel’s ancestors, especially the Tribe of Levi, to make them appear more authoritative. Crawford’s analysis of this tendency seems to reaffirm Michael Satlow’s assertion in How the Bible Became Holy that the practices of early Jews were based more on tradition than on text and yet to indicate a movement by some toward giving texts greater authority to scriptural texts.

Crawford remarks that “Levi is hardly an important figure in Genesis,” making his appointment as the head of the priestly tribe seem somewhat strange and unprecedented (75). The writer of Jubilees therefore endeavors to explain the significance of Levi and grant him greater authority. Levi only makes a significant appearance in Genesis “with his brother Simeon to avenge the defilement of their sister,” so in Jubilees this story is emphasized, and particular praise is applied to Levi’s actions (76). Furthermore, Jubilees asserts that the priestly line of Levi has been the “keeper of a scribal tradition that emphasizes the study and observance of the law and the preservation of the tradition in written form” (78). These two details given by Crawford appear almost contradictory: the author of the book rewrites the narrative of Genesis to fit his exegetical needs while reaffirming the significance of preserving tradition in written documents. The fact that this writer is able to simply revise the events described in Genesis illustrates Crawford’s point that texts were still being formed and transformed throughout the Second Temple period. This idea seems to correspond with Satlow’s statement that Israelites looked more to tradition than to texts to learn how to practice their faith because where tradition did not match up with the texts, the author of Jubilees revised a text to reflect the practice. Thus, given the author’s willingness to change events, the emphasis Jubilees places on the line of Levi maintaining a “scribal tradition” seems almost contradictory.

While these changes clearly occurred at a time when scriptural texts were still being created and altered, what more could this confusing combination of elements indicate to later readers? Could the Jubilee author’s emphasis on this scribal tradition indicate a tendency by some to begin attributing more authority to texts? If so, how does one reconcile these alterations with the focus on preserving laws and traditions in written form?