[1] Heb. _deror_. The same word (_duraru_) is used in the Code of
Hammurabi in the similar enactment that wife, son or daughter sold
into slavery for debt are to be restored to _liberty_ in the fourth
year (§ 117).
JUBILEES, BOOK OF, an apocryphal work of the Old Testament. The Book of
Jubilees is the most advanced pre-Christian representative of the
Midrashic tendency, which had already been at work in the Old Testament
Chronicles. As the chronicler had rewritten the history of Israel and
Judah from the standpoint of the Priests' Code, so our author re-edited
from the Pharisaic standpoint of his time the history of the world from
the creation to the publication of the Law on Sinai. His work
constitutes the oldest commentary in the world on Genesis and part of
Exodus, an enlarged Targum on these books, in which difficulties in the
biblical narration are solved, gaps supplied, dogmatically offensive
elements removed and the genuine spirit of later Judaism infused into
the primitive history of the world.
_Titles of the Book._--The book is variously entitled. First, it is
known as [Greek: ta Iôbêlaia, hoi Iôbêlaioi], Heb. [Hebrew: haiuvalim].
This name is admirably adapted to our book, as it divides into jubilee
periods of forty-nine years each the history of the world from the
creation to the legislation on Sinai. Secondly, it is frequently
designated "The Little Genesis," [Greek: hê leptê Genesis] or [Greek: hê
Mikrogenesis], Heb. [Hebrew: bereshit zutta]. This title may have arisen
from its dealing more fully with details and minutiae than the biblical
work. For the other names by which it is referred to, such as _The
Apocalypse of Moses_, _The Testament of Moses_, _The Book of Adam's
Daughters_ and the _Life of Adam_, the reader may consult Charles's _The
Book of Jubilees_, pp. xvii.-xx.
_Object._--The object of our author was the defence and exposition of
Judaism from the Pharisaic standpoint of the 2nd century B.C. against
the disintegrating effects of Hellenism. In his elaborate defence of
Judaism our author glorifies circumcision and the sabbath, the bulwarks
of Judaism, as heavenly ordinances, the sphere of which was so far
extended as to embrace Israel on earth. The Law, as a whole, was to our
author the realization in time of what was in a sense timeless and
eternal. Though revealed in time it was superior to time. Before it had
been made known in sundry portions to the fathers, it had been kept in
heaven by the angels, and to its observance there was no limit in time
or in eternity. Our author next defends Judaism by his glorification of
Israel. Whereas the various nations of the Gentiles were subject to
angels, Israel was subject to God alone. Israel was God's son, and not
only did the nation stand in this relation to God, but also its
individual members. Israel received circumcision as a sign that they
were the Lord's, and this privilege of circumcision they enjoyed in
common with the two highest orders of angels. Hence Israel was to unite
with God and these two orders in the observance of the sabbath. Finally
the destinies of the world were bound up with Israel. The world was
renewed in the creation of the true man Jacob, and its final renewal was
to synchronize with the setting-up of God's sanctuary in Zion and the
establishment of the Messianic kingdom. In this kingdom the Gentiles had
neither part nor lot.
_Versions: Greek, Syriac, Ethiopic and Latin._--Numerous fragments of
the Greek Version have come down to us in Justin Martyr, Origen,
Diodorus of Antioch, Isidore of Alexandria, Epiphanius, John of
Malala, Syncellus and others. This version was the parent of the
Ethiopic and Latin. The Ethiopic Version is most accurate and
trustworthy, and indeed, as a rule, slavishly literal. It has
naturally suffered from the corruptions incident to transmission
through MSS. Thus dittographies are frequent and lacunae of occasional
occurrence, but the version is singularly free from the glosses and
corrections of unscrupulous scribes. The Latin Version, of which about
one-fourth has been preserved, is where it exists of almost equal
value with the Ethiopic. It has, however, suffered more at the hands
of correctors. Notwithstanding, it attests a long array of passages in
which it preserves the true text over against corruptions or omissions
in the Ethiopic Version. Finally, as regards the Syriac Version, the
evidence for its existence is not conclusive. It is based on the fact
that a British Museum MS. contains a Syriac fragment entitled "Names
of the wives of the Patriarchs according to the Hebrew Book of
Jubilees."
_The Ethiopic and Latin Versions: Translations from the Greek._--The
Ethiopic Version is translated from the Greek, for Greek words such as
[Greek: drys, balanos, lips], &c., are transliterated in the Greek.
Secondly, many passages must be retranslated into Greek before we can
discover the source of the various corruptions. And finally, proper
names are transliterated as they appear in Greek and not in Hebrew.
That the Latin is also a translation from the Greek is no less
obvious. Thus in xxxix. 12 _timoris_ = [Greek: deilias], corrupt for
[Greek: douleias]; in xxxviii. 13 _honorem_ = [Greek: timên], but
[Greek: timên] should here have been rendered by _tributum_, as the
Ethiopic and the context require; in xxxii. 26, _celavit_ = [Greek:
ekrypse], corrupt for [Greek: egrapse] (so Ethiopic).
_The Greek a Translation from the Hebrew._--The early date of our
book--the 2nd century B.C.--and its place of composition speak for a
Semitic original, and the evidence bearing on this subject is
conclusive. But the question at once arises, was the original Aramaic
or Hebrew? Certain proper names in the Latin Version ending in -_in_
seem to bespeak an Aramaic original, as Cettin, Filistin, &c. But
since in all these cases the Ethiopic transliterations end in -_m_ and
not in -_n_, it is not improbable that the Aramaism in the Latin
Version is due to the translator, who, it has been concluded on other
grounds, was a Palestinian Jew.[1] The grounds, on the other hand, for
a Hebrew original are weighty and numerous. (1) A work which claims to
be from the hand of Moses would naturally be in Hebrew, for Hebrew
according to our author was the sacred and national language. (2) The
revival of the national spirit of a nation is universally, so far as
we know, accompanied by a revival of the national language. (3) The
text must be retranslated into Hebrew in order to explain
unintelligible expressions and restore the true text. One instance
will sufficiently illustrate this statement. In xliii. 11 a certain
Ethiopic expression = [Greek: en emoi], which is a mistranslation of
[Hebrew: bi]; for [Hebrew: bi] in this context, as we know from the
parallel passage in Gen. xliv. 18, which our text reproduces almost
verbally, = [Greek: deomai]. We might observe here that our text
attests the presence of dittographies already existing in the Hebrew
text. (4) Hebraisms survive in the Ethiopic and Latin Versions. In the
former nûha in iv. 4, is a corrupt transliteration of [Hebrew: na]. In
the Latin eligere in te in xxii. 10 is a reproduction of [Hebrew:
behar be] and _in qua ... in ipsa_ in xix. 8 = [Hebrew: ba ... asher].
This idiom could, of course, be explained on the hypothesis of an
Aramaic original. (5) Many paronomasiae discover themselves on
retranslation into Hebrew.
_Textual Affinities._--A minute study of the text shows that it
attests an independent form of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch. Thus
it agrees at times with the Samaritan, or Septuagint, or Syriac, or
Vulgate, or even with Onkelos against all the rest. To be more exact,
our book represents some form of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch
midway between the forms presupposed by the Septuagint and the Syriac;
for it agrees more frequently with the Septuagint, or with
combinations into which the Septuagint enters, than with any other
single authority, or with any combination excluding the Septuagint.
Next to the Septuagint it agrees most often with the Syriac or with
combinations into which the Syriac enters. On the other hand, its
independence of the Septuagint is shown in a large number of passages,
where it has the support of the Samaritan and Massoretic, or of these
with various combinations of the Syriac Vulgate and Onkelos. From
these and other considerations we may conclude that the textual
evidence points to the composition of our book at some period between
250 B.C. and A.D. 100, and at a time nearer the earlier date than the
later.
_Date._--The book was written between 135 B.C. and the year of
Hyrcanus's breach with the Pharisees. This conclusion is drawn from the
following facts:--(1) The book was written during the pontificate of the
Maccabean family, and not earlier than 135 B.C. For in xxxii. 1 Levi is
called a "priest of the Most High God." Now the only high priests who
bore this title were the Maccabean, who appear to have assumed it as
reviving the order of Melchizedek when they displaced the Zadokite order
of Aaron. Jewish tradition ascribes the assumption of this title to John
Hyrcanus. It was retained by his successors down to Hyrcanus II. (2) It
was written before 96 B.C. or some years earlier in the reign of John
Hyrcanus; for since our author is of the strictest sect a Pharisee and
at the same time an upholder of the Maccabean pontificate, Jubilees
cannot have been written after 96 when the Pharisees and Alexander
Jannaeus came to open strife. Nay more, it cannot have been written
after the open breach between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees, when the
former joined the Sadducean party.
The above conclusions are confirmed by a large mass of other evidence
postulating the same date. We may, however, observe that our book points
to the period already past--of stress and persecution that preceded the
recovery of national independence under the Maccabees, and presupposes
as its historical background the most flourishing period of the
Maccabean hegemony.
_Author._--Our author was a Pharisee of the straitest sect. He
maintained the everlasting validity of the law, he held the strictest
views on circumcision, the sabbath, and the duty of shunning all
intercourse with the Gentiles; he believed in angels and in a blessed
immortality. In the next place he was an upholder of the Maccabean
pontificate. He glorifies Levi's successors as high-priests and civil
rulers, and applies to them the title assumed by the Maccabean princes,
though he does not, like the author of the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, expect the Messiah to come forth from among them. He may
have been a priest.
_The Views of the Author on the Messianic Kingdom and the Future
Life._--According to our author the Messianic kingdom was to be brought
about gradually by the progressive spiritual development of man and a
corresponding transformation of nature. Its members were to reach the
limit of 1000 years in happiness and peace. During its continuance the
powers of evil were to be restrained, and the last judgment was
apparently to take place at its close. As regards the doctrine of a
future life, our author adopts a position novel for a Palestinian
writer. He abandons the hope of a resurrection of the body. The souls of
the righteous are to enjoy a blessed immortality after death. This is
the earliest attested instance of this expectation in the last two
centuries B.C.
LITERATURE.--_Ethiopic Text and Translations_: This text was first
edited by Dillmann from two MSS. in 1859, and in 1895 by R. H. Charles
from four (_The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees ...
with the Hebrew, Syriac, Greek and Latin fragments_). In the latter
edition, the Greek and Latin fragments are printed together with the
Ethiopic. The book was translated into German by Dillmann from one MS.
in Ewald's _Jahrbücher_, vols. ii. and iii. (1850, 1851), and by
Littmann (in Kautzsch's _Apok. und Pseud._ ii. 39-119) from Charles's
Ethiopic text; into English by Schodde (_Bibl. Sacr._ 1885) from
Dillmann's text, and by Charles (_Jewish Quarterly Review_, vols. v.,
vi., vii. (1893-1895) from the text afterwards published in 1895, and
finally in his commentary, _The Book of Jubilees_ (1902). _Critical
Inquiries_: Dillmann, "Das Buch der Jubiläen" (Ewald's _Jahrbücher d.
bibl. Wissensch._ (1851), iii. 72-96); "Pseudepig. des Alten
Testaments," Herzog's _Realencyk._[2] xii. 364-365; "Beiträge aus dem
Buche der Jubiläen zur Kritik des Pentateuch Textes"
(_Sitzungsberichte der Kgl. Preussischen Akad._, 1883); Beer, _Das
Buch der Jubiläen_ (1856); Rönsch, _Das Buch der Jubiläen_ (1874);
Singer, _Das Buch der Jubiläen_ (1898); Bohn, "Die Bedeutung des
Buches der Jubiläen" (_Theol. Stud. und Kritiken_ (1900), pp.
167-184). A full bibliography will be found in Schürer or in R. H.
Charles's commentary, _The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis_
(1902), which deals exhaustively with all the questions treated in
this article. (R. H. C.)