The close relationship between the “watcher traditions” of Jubilees 5:1–12 and 1 Enoch 6–11 on the one hand and the sons of God narrative of Genesis 6:1–4 on the other is well documented. Early in the modern study of Jubilees, Charles observed the affinity of the watchers’ punishment in Jubilees 5 with that in 1 Enoch 10–11. Van Ruiten also noted the similarity in these two texts but doubted a direct relationship. More recently, Segal has argued that 1 Enoch 10–11 served as the source material for the rewritten narrative in Jubilees 5.
Drawing upon advances within the fields of orality and memory, the current study will argue that the author of Jubilees has utilized the “watcher story” from 1 Enoch 6–11 rather than Genesis 6 as his guiding narrative, but that this, along with his pentateuchal content, has been accessed from memory. The overall shape of the jubilean watcher story in Jubilees 5 corresponds with the watcher tradition contained in 1 Enoch 6–11. This is evident from the jubilean sequence of concise summary statements that parallel the more detailed narrative from the Book of Watchers.
Still, the author is much more “at home” in the Genesis text. Where he has inserted pentateuchal content into his retelling, often dislocated from its sequence in Genesis (e.g. Jub 5:1 // Gen 6:1–2, 4; Jub 5:2–3 // Gen 5, 7, 12; Jub 5:8 //Gen 6:3), the precise phraseology and vocabulary from Genesis are retained. However, so-called memory variants between Jubilees and Genesis abound (e.g. בני האדם vs. האדם; פני כול האדמה vs. פני האדמה from Jub 5:1 // Gen 6:1–2).
The close correspondence of Jubilees with Genesis in conjunction with these variants suggests that the author was very familiar with the pentateuchal material but was accessing it cognitively. These data suggest that the jubilean author was not “retelling” either narrative—Genesis or 1 Enoch. Rather he was performing the angel story anew (from memory), but was influenced by both of the major adaptations of that tradition, and they influenced his textual instantiation in unique ways based on his relative familiarity with each. These conclusions inform our understanding of the transmission of our sacred texts as well as the scribal apparatus that stewarded them.