The Book of Jubilees is in certain limited aspects the
most important book in this volume for the student of religion.
The modern Jubilee movement
teaches that the "ferment" of the kingdom of Messiah did not begin
with Jesus and did not end with Him. The still-fermenting gospel and
kingdom is like new wine in new wineskins. Periodically, the old
wineskin (church) must be thrown away or, as among the Aztecs, burned
down and a new wineskin built to contain the bubbling wine. The wine
continues to ferment because it includes all of the leaven of all
religious groups.
The History of
Heredotus, Chapter Three reads:
About the time when Cambyses
arrived at Memphis, Apis
appeared to the Egyptians. Now Apis is
the god whom the Greeks call Epaphus. As soon as he appeared, straightway all the
Egyptians arrayed themselves in their gayest garments, and fell to feasting and jollity: which when Cambyses saw, making sure that these
rejoicings were on account of his own ill success, he called
before him the officers who had charge of Memphis, and demanded of
them-
"Why, when he was
in Memphis before, the Egyptians had done nothing of this kind, but
waited until now, when he had returned with the loss of so many of
his troops?" The officers made answer,
"That
one of their gods had
appeared to them, a god
who at long intervals of time had been accustomed to show himself in
Egypt-
and that
always on his
appearance
the whole of
Egypt feasted and kept jubilee."
From "The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of
the Old Testament" R.H. Charles
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913
1. SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE BOOK.
The Book of Jubilees is in certain limited
aspects the most important book in this volume for the student of
religion. Without it we could of course have inferred from Ezra and
Nehemiah, the Priests' Code, and the later chapters of Zechariah the
supreme position that the law had achieved in Judaism, but without
Jubilees we could hardly have imagined such an absolute supremacy as
finds expression in this book.
This absolute supremacy of the law
carried with it, as we have seen in the General Introduction, the
suppression of prophecy -at all events of the open exercise of the prophetic
gifts.
And yet these gifts persisted during all the
so-called centuries of silence-from Malachi down to N.T.
times, but owing to the fatal incubus
of the law these gifts could not find expression save in
pseudepigraphic literature.
Thus Jubilees represents the
triumph of the movement, which had been at work for the past three
centuries or more.
And yet this most triumphant manifesto of
legalism contained within its pages the element that was destined to
dispute
its supremacy and finally to reduce the law to the wholly secondary
position that alone it could rightly claim.
This element of course is
apocalyptic, which was the source of the higher theology in Judaism,
and subsequently was the parent of Christianity, wherein apocalyptic
ceased to be pseudonymous and became one with prophecy.
The Book of
Jubilees was written in Hebrew by a
Pharisee
between the year of the accession of Hyrcanus to the high priesthood
in 135 and
his breach with the Pharisees some years before his death in
105 B.C.
It is the most advanced pre-Christian
representative of the midrashic tendency, which has already been at
work in the Old Testament Chronicles. As the Chronicler had rewritten
the history of Israel and Judah from the basis of the Priests' Code,
so our author re-edited from the Pharisaic standpoint of his time the
history of events from the creation to the publication, or, according
to the author's view, the republication of the law on Sinai. In the
course of re-editing he incorporated a large body of traditional
lore, which the midrashic process had put at his disposal, and also
not a few fresh legal enactments that the exigencies of the past had
called forth. His work constitutes an enlarged Targum on Genesis and
Exodus, in which difficulties in the biblical narrative are solved,
gaps supplied, dogmatically offensive elements removed, and the
genuine spirit of later Judaism infused into the primitive history of
the world. His object was to defend Judaism against the attacks of
the hellenistic spirit that had been in the ascendant one generation
earlier and was still powerful, and to prove that the law was of
everlasting validity. From our author's contentions and his
embittered attacks on the paganisers and apostates, we may infer that
Hellenism had urged that the levitical ordinances of the law were
only of transitory significance, that they had not been observed by
the founders of the nation, and that the time had now come for them
to be swept away, and for Israel to take its place in the brotherhood
of the nations. Our author regarded all such views as fatal to the
very existence of Jewish religion and nationality. But it is not as
such that he assailed them, but on the ground of their falsehood. The
law, he teaches, is of everlasting validity. Though revealed in time
it was superior to time. Before it had been made known in gundry
portions to the fathers it had been kept in heaven by the angels, and
to its observance henceforward there was no limit in time or in
eternity.
Writing in the palmiest days of the
Maccabean dominion, in the high-priesthood of John Hyrcanus, looked
for the immediate advent of the Messianic
kingdom.
This kingdom was to be ruled
over by a Messiah sprung, not from Levi -that is, from the
Maccabean family, as some of his contemporaries expected-but from
Judah.
This kingdom would be gradually realized on earth, and the transformation of
physical nature would go hand in hand with the ethical transformation of
man till there was a new heaven and a new earth.
Thus, finally, all
sin and pain would disappear and men
would live to the age of 1,000 years in happiness and peace, and
after death enjoy a blessed immortality in the spirit world.
2. VARIOUS TITLES OF THE BOOK.
Our book was known by two distinct titles even
in Hebrew.
(a) Jubilees
(b) The Little
Genesis
(c) Apocalypse of
Moses and other alleged names of the
book.
(a) Jubilees. This appears
from Epiphanius (Haer. xxxix. 6) to have been its usual designation.
It is found also in the Syriac Fragment entitled
'Names of the Wives of the Patriarchs according to the Hebrew Book of
Jubilees,' first published by Ceriani, Mon. sacra et profana, ii.
1.9-10, and reprinted by the present writer in his edition of The
Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees. This name admirably
describes the 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. The writer pursues a perfectly symmetrical
development of the heptadic system. Israel enters Canaan at the close
of the fiftieth jubilee, i.e. 2450.
(b) The Little
Genesis. The epithet 'little' does not
refer to the extent of the book, for it is larger than the canonical
Genesis, but to its character. It deals more fully with details than
the biblical work. The Hebrew title was variously rendered in Greek.
1 [(Gk.) he lepte Genesis (or Lepte
Genesis)] as in Epiphanius, Syncellus, Zonaras, Glycas.
2 [(Gk.) he Leptogenesis] in Didymus of
Alexandria and in Latin writers, as we may infer from the Decree of
Gelasius.
3 [Gk.) ta lepta geneseos] in Syncellus.
4 [(Gk.) Mikrogenesis] in Jerome, who was
acquainted with the Hebrew original.
(c)
1 The Apocalypse of Moses.
another version?
2 The Testament of Moses.
3 The Book of Adam's Daughters.
4 The Life of Adam.
1 The Apocalypse
of Moses. This title had some currency
in the time of Synceflus (see i. 5, 49). It forms an appropriate
designation since it makes Moses the recipient of all the disclosures
in the book. 2 The Testament of Moses. This title is found in the
Catena of Nicephorus, i. 175, where it precedes a quotation from x.
21 of our book. It has, however, nothing to do with the Testament of
Moses, which has become universally known under the wrong title -the
Assumption of Moses. Ronsch and other scholars formerly sought to
identify Jubilees with this second Testament of Moses, but this
identification is shown to be impossible by the fact that in the
Stichometry of Nicephorus 4,300 stichoi are assigned to Jubilees and
only 1100 to this Testament of Moses. On the probability of a
Testament of Moses having been in circulation -which was in reality
an expansion of Jubilees ii-iii see my edition of Jubilees, p. xviii.
3 The Book of Adam's Daughters. This book is identified with Jubilees
in the Decree of Gelasius, but it probably consisted merely of
certain excerpts from Jubilees dealing with the names and histories
of the women mentioned in it. Such a collection, as we have already
seen, exists in Syriac, and its Greek prototype was used by the
scribe of the LXX MS. no.135 in Holmes and Parsons' edition. 4 The
Life of Adam. This title is found in Syncellus i. 7-9. It seems to
have been an enlarged edition of the portion of Jubilees, which dealt
with the life of Adam.
3. THE ETHIOPIC MSS.
There are four Ethiopic MSS., a b c d, the
first and fourth of which belong to the National Library in Paris,
the second to the British Museum, and the third to the University
Library at Tubingen. Of these a b (of the fifteenth and sixteenth
century respectively) are the most trustworthy, though they cannot be
followed exclusively. In a, furthermore, the readings of the Ethiopic
version of Genesis have replaced the original against bed in iii. 4,
6, 7, 19, 29; iv. 4, 8, &c. For a full description of these MSS.
the reader can consult Charles's Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book
of Jubilees, pp. xii seqq.
4. THE ANCIENT VERSIONS-GREEK, ETHIOPIC, LATIN,
SYRIAC.
(a) The Greek Version is lost save for some
fragments which survive in Epiphanius [(Gk.) peri Metron kai
Stathmon] (ed. Dindorf, vol. iv. 27-8). This fragment, which consists
of ii. 2-21, is published with critical notes in Charles's edition of
the Ethiopic text. Other fragments of this version are preserved in
Justin Martyr, Origen, Diodorus of Antioch, Isidore of Alexandria,
Isidore of Seville, Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, John of
Malala, Syncellus, Cedrenus. Syncellus attributes to the Canonical
Genesis statements derived from our text. This version is the parent
of the Ethiopic and Latin Versions.
(b) The Ethiopic Version. This version is most
accurate and trustworthy and indeed as a rule servilely literal. It
has, of course, suffered from the corruptions naturally incident to
transmission through MSS. Thus dittographies are frequent and lacunae
are of occasional occurrence, but the version is singularly free from
the glosses and corrections of unscrupulous scribes, though the
temptation must have been great to bring it into accord with the
Ethiopic version of Genesis. To this source, indeed, we must trace a
few perversions of the text: 'my wife' in iii. 6 instead of 'wife';
xv 12; xvii. 12 ('her bottle' instead of 'the bottle'); xxiv. 19
(where the words 'a well' are not found in the Latin version of
Jubilees, nor in the Mass., Sam., LXX, Syr., and Vulg. of Gen. xxvi.
19). In the above passages the whole version is influenced, but in a
much greater degree has this influence operated on MS. a. Thus in
iii. 4, 6, 7, 19, 29, iv. 4, 8, v.3, vi. 9, &c., the readings of
the Ethiopic version of Genesis have replaced the original text. In
the case of b there appears to be only one instance of this nature in
xv. 15 (see Charles's Text, pp. xii seqq.).
For instances of corruption native to this
version, see Charles on ii. 2, 7, 21, vi. 21, vii. 22, x. 6, 21, xvi.
18, xxiv. 20, 29, xxxi. 2, xxxix. 4, xli. 15, xlv. 4, xlviii.
6.
(c) The Latin Version. This version, of which
about one-fourth has been preserved, was first published by Ceriani
in his Monnmenta sacra et profana, 1861, tom. i. fase. i. 15-62. It
contains the following sections: xiii. 10b-21; xv. 20b-31a; xvi.
5b-xvii. 6a; xviii. 10b-xix. 25; xx. 5b-xxi. 10a; xxii. 2-19a; xxiii.
8b-23a; xxiv. 13-xxv. 1a; xxvi. 8b-23a; xxvii. 11b-24a; xxviii.
16b-27a; xxix. 8b-xxxi. 1a; xxxi. 9b-1 8, 29b-32; xxxii. 1-8a,
18b-xxxiii. 9a, 18b-xxxiv. 5a; xxxv. 3b-12a; xxxvi. 20b-xxxvii. 5a;
xxxviii. 1b-16a; xxxix. 9-xl. 8a; xli. 6b-18; xlii. 2b-14a; xlv.
8-xlvi. 1, 12-xlviii. 5; xlix. 7b-22. This version was next edited by
Ronsch in 1874, Das Buch der Fubilaen . . . unter Befugung des
revidirten Textes der . . . lateinisehen Fragmente. This work attests
enormous industry and great learning, but is deficient in judgement
and critical acumen. Ronsch was of opinion that this Latin version
was made in Egypt or its neighbourhood by a Palestinian Jew about the
middle of the fifth century (pp.459-60). In 1895 Charles edited this
text afresh in conjunction with the Ethiopic in the Oxford Anecdota
(The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees). To this work
and that of Ronsch above the reader must be referred for a fuller
treatment of this subject. Here we may draw attention to the
following points. This version, where it is preserved, is almost of
equal value with the Ethiopic. It has, however, suffered more at the
hands of correctors. Thus it has been corrected in conformity with
the LXX in xlvi. 14, where it adds 'et Oon' against all other
authorities. The Ethiopic version of Exod. i. 11 might have been
expected to bring about this addition in our Ethiopic text, but it
did not. Two similar instances will be found in xvii. 5, xxiv. 20.
Again the Latin version seems to have been influenced by the Vulgate
in xxix. 13. xlii. II (canos meos where our Ethiopic text = [(Gk.)
mou to geras] as in LXX of Gen. xlii. 38); and probably also in
xlvii. 7, 8, and certainly in xlv. 12, where it reads 'in tota terra'
for 'in terra'. Of course there is the possibility that the Latin has
reproduced faithfully the Greek and that the Greek was faulty; or in
case it was correct, that it was the Greek presupposed by our
Ethiopic version that was at fault.
Two other passages are deserving of attention,
xix. 14 and xxxix. 13. In the former the Latin version 'et creverunt
et iuvenes facti sunt' agrees with the Ethiopic version of Gen. xxv.
27 against the Ethiopic version of Jubilees and all other authorities
on Gen. xxv. 27. Here the peculiar reading can be best explained as
having originated in the Greek. In the second passage, the clause
'eorum quae fiebant in carcere' agrees with the Ethiopic version of
Gen. xxxix. 23 against the Ethiopic version of Jubilees and all other
authorities on Gen. xxxix. 23. On the other hand, there is a large
array of passages in which the Latin version preserves the true text
over against corruptions or omissions in the Ethiopic version: cf.
xvi. 16, xix. 5, 10, 11, xx. 6, 10, xxi. 3, xxii. 3, &c. (see my
Text, p. xvi).
(d) The Syriac Version. The evidence as to the
existence of a Syriac is not conclusive. It is based on the fact that
a British Museum MS. (Add. 12154, fol. 180) contains a Syriac
fragment entitled, Names of the Wives of the Patriarchs according to
the Hebrew Book called Jubilees.' It was first published by Ceriani
in his Monumeitta Sacra, 1861, torn. ii. fasc. i. 9-10, and reprinted
by Charles as Appendix III to his Text of Jubilees (p. 183).
5. THE ETHIOPIC AND LATIN VERSIONS-TRANSLATIONS
FROM THE GREEK.
Like all the biblical literature in Ethiopic,
Jubilees was translated into Ethiopic from the Greek. Greek words
such as [drus, balanos, lips, schinos, pharaggs, &c., are
transliterated into Ethiopic. Secondly, many passages must be
retranslated into Greek before we can discover the source of their
corruptions. And finally, many names are transliterated as they
appear in Greek and not in Hebrew.
That the Latin is derived directly from the
Greek is no less obvious. Thus in xxxix. 12 [(Lt.) timoris = (Gk.)
deilias], a corruption of douleias; in xxxviii. 13 [(Lt.) honorem =
(Gk.) timen], which should have been rendered by (Lt.) tributum.
Another class of mistranslations may be seen in passages where the
Greek article is rendered by the Latin demonstrative as in (Lt.)
huius Abrahae xxix. i6, huic Istrael xxxi. 15. Other evidence
pointing in the same direction is to be found in the Greek
constructions which have been reproduced in the Latin; such as xvii.
3 (Lt.) mem or fuit sermones' = (Gk.) hemnesthe tous logous: in xv.
22 (Lt.) consummavit loquens = (Gk.) Sunetelese lalon: in xxii. 8
(Lt.) 'in omnibus quibus dedisti' = en pasin ois edokas.
6. THE GREEK-A TRANSLATION FROM THE
HEBREW.
The early date of our book -the second century
B.C.- and the fact that it was written in Palestine speak for a
Semitic original, and the evidence for such an original is
conclusive. But the question at once arises, was the original written
in Hebrew or Aramaic? Certain proper names in the Latin version
ending in -in seem to bespeak an Aramaic original, as Cettin xxiv.
28; Adurin xxxviii. 8,9; Filistin xxiv. 14-16. But since in all these
cases the Ethiopic transliterations end in -n and not in -nit is not
improbable that this Aramaising in the Latin version is due to the
translator, who, as Ronsch has concluded on other grounds, was a
Palestinian Jew. Again, in the list of the twelve trees suitable for
burning on the altar some are transliterations of Aramaic names. But
in a late Hebrew work -written at the close of the second century
B.C.- the popular names of such objects would naturally be used.
Moreover, in certain cases the Hebrew may have already been
forgotten, or, when the tree had been lately introduced, been
non-existent.
But the arguments for a Hebrew original are
many and weighty. (1) A work which claims to be from the hand of
Moses would naturally be written in Hebrew; for Hebrew, according to
our author, was the sacred and national language, xii. 25-6; xliii.
15. (2) The revival of the national spirit is, so far as we know,
accompanied by a revival of the national language. (3) The existing
text must be retranslated into Hebrew in order to explain
unintelligible expressions and restore the true text. Thus (Ar.) la
'eleja in xliii. 11 = (Gk.) en emoi; which is a mistranslation in
this context of (Hb.); for (Hb.) here = (Gk.) deomai, 'pray,' as in
Gen. xliv. 18. In xlvii. 9 the text = (Lt.) 'domum (= Hb. )
Faraonis', but the context demands (Lt.) 'filiam (= Hb.)
Faraonis',though here the argument is not conclusive, since (Hb.)
might have been corruptly written for (Hb.) which in Aramaic =
'daughter'. Again in xxxvi. 10 (cp. also xxxix. 6) the text = (Gk.)
ouk anabesetai (= ja'arg) (Gk.) eis to biblion tes zoes. But ja'arg
must = 'will be recorded'. Now this meaning is unattested elsewhere
in Ethiopic, but the difficulty is solved when we find that it is a
Hebrew idiom: see I Chron. xxvii. 24, 2 Chron. xx. 34. (4) Many
paronomasiae discover themselves on retranslation into Hebrew, as in
iv. 9 there is a play on the name Enoch, in iv. 15 on Jared, in viii.
8 on Peleg, &c. (5) Many passages are preserved in Rabbinic
writings, and the book has much matter in common with the Testaments
xii Patriarchs, 'which was written about the same date in Hebrew.
Both books, in fact, use a chronology peculiar to themselves. (6)
Fragments of the original Hebrew text or of the sources used by its
author are to be found in the Book of Noah and the Midrasch Wajjisau
in Jellinek's Beth-ha-Midrasch, iii. 155-6, 3-5, reprinted in
Charles's edition of the Ethiopic text on pp. 179-81.
7. TEXTUAL AFFINITIES.
A minute study of the text shows that it
attests an independent form of the Hebrew text of Genesis and the
early chapters of Exodus. Thus it agrees with individual authorities
such as the Samaritan or the LXX, or the Syriac, or the Vulgate, or
the Targum of Onkelos against all the rest. Or again it agrees with
two or more of these authorities in opposition to the rest, as for
instance with the Massoretic and Samaritan against the LXX, Syriac
and Vulgate, or with the Massoretic and Onkelos against the
Samaritan, LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate, or with the Massoretic,
Samaritan and Syriac against the LXX or Vulgate. But the reader must
here be referred to Charles's Book of Jubilees (pp. xxxiii--xxxix)
for a full classification of these instances. A study of these
phenomena proves that our book represents some form of the Hebrew
text midway between the forms presupposed by the LXX and the Syriac;
for it agrees more frequently with the LXX, or with combinations into
which the LXX enters, than with any other single authority. Next to
the LXX it agrees most often with the Syriac or with combinations
into which the Syriac enters. On the other hand, its independence of
the LXX is shown by a large array of readings, 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 like
considerations we may conclude that the textual evidence points to
the composition of our book at some period between 250 B.C. and 100
A.D. and at a time nearer the earlier date than the latter. 4
8. THE VALUE OF THE BOOK OF JUBILEES IN THE
CRITICISM OF THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS.
From a study of the facts which are referred to
in the preceding Section it will be clear that before and after the
Christian era the Hebrew text did not possess any hard and fast
tradition. It will further be obvious that the Massoretic form of
this text, which has so long been generally as conservative of the
most ancient tradition and as therefore final, is after all only one
of many phases through which the text passed in the process of over
1,000 years, ie. 400 B.C. till A.D. 600, or thereabouts.
As we pursue the examination of the materials
just mentioned we shall see grounds for regarding the Massoretic text
as the result partly of conscious recension and partly of unconscious
change extending over many centuries. How this process affected the
text in the centuries immediately preceding and subsequent to the
Christian era, we have some means of determining in the
Hebrew-Samaritan text which, however much it may have been tampered
with on religious or polemical grounds, still preserves in many cases
the older reading, even as it preserves the older of the alphabet.
Next we have the LXX of the Pentateuch, to which we may assign the
date 200 B.C.; next the Book of Jubilees just before the Christian
era; the Syriac Pentateuch before A.D. 100; the Vulgate of the fourth
century; the Targums of Onkelos and Ps.-Jon. in their present form
A.D. 300-600.
We have above remarked that the evidence of 6
shows that the Massoretic text is only one of the phases through
which the Hebrew text has passed; and if we consider afresh the
materials of evidence suggested in that Section in connexion with
their dates, and given in some fullness in the Introductions to
Charles's Text and Commentary, we shall discover that in some
respects it is one of the latest phases of the Hebrew Pentateuch that
has been stereotyped by Jewish scholars in the Massoretic
text.
This conclusion will tally perfectly with the
tradition that all existing Massoretic MSS. are derived in the main
from one archetype, i.e. the Hebrew Codex left behind him by Ben
Asher, who lived in the tenth century, and whose family had lived at
Tiberias in the eighth.
We shall now proceed to give a list of readings
in the Massoretic text which should be corrected into accord with the
readings attested by such great authorities as the Sam., LXX, Jub.,
Syr., VuIg.
The following list was published in Charles's
Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees in 1895. More than
two-thirds of the emendations of the Book of Genesis here suggested
were subsequently accepted independently, on the evidence of the
Sam., LXX, Syr., Vulg., without a knowledge of Jubilees, by C.J. Ball
in his edition of the Hebrew Text of Genesis, 1896, by Kittel in his
edition of the Hebrew Text of Genesis, 1905, and more than half in
the recent Commentary of Gunkel.
[What follows contains many phrases written in
Hebrew. At the time of scanning there was not an accessible means to
accurately reproduce the Hebrew script. If this information is
desired please see Mr. Charles book.]
9. DATE OF (a) THE ORIGINAL TEXT AND (b) OF THE
VERSIONS.
(a) Jubilees was
written between 153 B.C. and the year
of Hyrcanus' breach with the Pharisees. (1) It was written during the
pontificate of the Maccabean family, and not earlier than 155 B.C.,
when this office was assumed by Jonathan the Maccabee. For in xxxii.
1, Levi is called a 'priest of the Most High God.' Now the only
Jewish 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. Despite the objections of
the Pharisees, it was used by the Maccabean princes down to Hyrcanus
II (Jos. Ant. xvi. 6.2). (2) It was written before 96 B.C.; for since
our author was of the strictest sect a Pharisee and at the same time
an upholder of the Maccabean pontificate, Jubilees cannot have been
written later than 96, when the Pharisees and Alexander Jannaeus were
openly engaged in mortal strife. (3) It was written before the public
breach between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees when Hyrcanus joined the
Sadducean party. As Hyrcanus died in 105, our book was written
between 153 and 105.
But it is possible to define these limits more
closely. The book presupposes as its historical background the most
flourishing period of the Maccabean hegemony -such as that under
Simon and Hyrcanus. The conquest of Edom, which was achieved by the
latter, is referred to in xxxviii. 14. Again our text reflects
accurately the intense hatred of Judah towards the Philistines in the
second century B.C. It declares that they will fall into the hands of
the righteous nation, and we learn from I Macc. and Josephus that
Ashdod and Gaza were destroyed by Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus
respectively. But it is in the destruction of Samaria, which is
adumbrated in the destruction of Shechem, xxx. 4-6, that we are to
look for the true terminus a quo. Now all accounts agree in
representing the destruction of Samaria as effected by Hyrcanus about
four years before his death. Hence we conclude that Jubilees was
written between 109 and 105 B.C.
Many other phenomena point to the
second-century origin of our book, which are given in Charles's
edition, pp. lviii-lxvi. Amongst these we might mention the currency
of older and severer forms of the halacha than prevailed in the
rabbinical schools, or were registered in the Mishnah. The severe
halacha regarding the sabbath in 1.8, 12, were indubitably in force
in the second century B.C., if not earlier, but were afterwards
mitigated by the Mishnah and later Judaism. Again the strict halacha
in xv. 14 regarding circumcision on the eighth day was a current,
probably the current, view in the second century B.C. and earlier,
since it has the support of the Samaritan text and the LXX. This
strict law was subsequently relaxed in the Mishnah. In xxxii. 15 the
severe law of tithing found in Lev. xxvii. 15 is enforced, but
rabbinic tradition sought to weaken the statement. As regards the
halacha laid down in iii. 31 regarding the duty of covering one's
shame, it is highly probable that such a halacha did exist in the
second century B.C., when Judaism was protesting against the exposure
of the person in the Greek games. See also iii. 8-14 notes and xx. 4
note.
Other cases of strict rules afterwards relaxed
are the limitation of trees for use with burnt offerings (see xxi.
12-15 notes), the restriction of the eating of the passover to the
court of the Lords house (see xlix. 20 note), the close adherence to
the exacting demand of Lev. xix. 24 that the fourth year's fruit
should be holy (see vii. 36 notes), though here we have a variant
reading. Note that the rest of the firstfruits belong to the priests,
who are to eat them 'before the altar.' On the other hand, the
thank-offerings in xxi. 8-10 do not belong to the priest. The
computation of the Feast of Weeks is different from the later
prevalent Pharisaic reckoning (see xv. 1 note; xvi. 13, xliv. 4-5),
while the account of the Feast of Tabernacles in xvi. 21-31 is
peculiar to Jubilees.
Finally, we might draw attention to the fact
that the Pharisaic regulation about pouring water on the altar (Jer.
Sukk. iv. 6; Sukk. 44a) at the feast of tabernacles appears to have
been unknown to him. We know that the attempt of the Pharisees to
enforce its adoption on Alexander Jannaeus resulted in a massacre of
the former. Attention might also be drawn to the fact that the
Priests and Levites still numbered in their ranks, as in the days of
the author of Chronicles, the masters of the schools and the men of
learning, and that these positions were not filled as in the days of
Shammai and Hillel by men drawn from the laity. This inference is to
be deduced from the fact that the Levites are represented as the
guardians of the sacred books and of the secret lore transmitted from
the worthies of old time (x. 4, xlv. 16).
(b) Date of the Ethiopic and Latin Versions.
There is no evidence for determining the exact date of the Ethiopic
version, but since it was practically regarded as a canonical book it
was probably made in the sixth century. Ronsch, as we have already
pointed out in 4, gives some evidence for regarding the Latin version
as made in the fifth century.
10 JUBILEES FROM ONE AUTHOR BUT BASED ON
EASTERN BOOKS AND TRADITIONS.
Our book is the work of one author, but is
largely based on earlier books and traditions. The narrative of
Genesis forms of course the bulk of the book, but much that is
characteristic in it is due to his use of many pseudepigraphic and
ancient traditions. Amongst the former might be mentioned the Book of
Noah, from which in a modified form he borrows vii. 20-39, x. 1-15.
In vii. 26-39 he reproduces his source so faithfully that he leaves
the persons unchanged, and forgets to adapt this fragment to its new
context. Similarly our author lays the Book of Enoch under
contribution, and is of great value in this respect in determining
the dates of the various sections of this book. See Introd. to I Book
of Enoch, in loc. For other authorities and traditions used by our
author see Charles's edition, 13.
11. JUBILEES IS A PRODUCT OF THE MIDRASHIC
TENDENCY WHICH HAD BEEN ALREADY AT WORK IN THE O.T. BOOKS OF
CHRONICLES.
The Chronicler rewrote with an object the
earlier history of Israel and Judah already recounted in Samuel and
Kings. His object was to represent David and his pious successors as
observing all the prescripts of the law according to the Priests'
Code. In the course of this process all facts that did not square
with the Chronicler's presuppositions were either omitted or
transformed. Now the author of Jubilees sought to do for Genesis what
the Chronicler had done for Samuel and Kings, and so he rewrote it in
such a way as to show that the law was rigorously observed even by
the Patriarchs. The author represents his book to be as a whole a
revelation of God to Moses, forming a supplement to and an
interpretation of the Pentateuch, which he designates 'the first law'
(vi. 22). This revelation was in part a secret republication of the
traditions handed down from father to son in antediluvian and
subsequent times. From the time of Moses onwards it was preserved in
the hands of the priesthood, till the time came for its being made
known.
Our author's procedure is of course in direct
antagonism with the presuppositions of the Priests' Code in Genesis,
for according to this code 'Noah may build no altar, Abraham offer no
sacrifice, Jacob erect no sacred pillar. No offering is recorded till
Aaron and his sons are ready' (Carpenter, The Hexateuch, i. 124).
This fact seems to emphasize in the strongest manner how freely our
author reinterpreted his authorities for the past. But he was only
using to the full a right that had been exercised for nearly four
centuries already in regard to Prophecy and for four or thereabouts
in regard to the law.
12. OBJECT OF JUBILEES -THE DEFENCE AND
EXPOSITION OF JUDAISM FROM THE PHARISAIC STANDPOINT OF THE SECOND
CENTURY B.C.
The object of our author was to defend Judaism
against the disintegrating effects of Hellenism, and this he did (a)
by glorifying the law as an eternal ordinance and representing the
patriarchs as models of piety; (b) by glorifying Israel and insisting
on its separation from the Gentiles; and (e) by denouncing the
Gentiles and particularly Israel's national enemies. In this last
respect Judaism regarded its own attitude to the Gentiles as not only
justifiable but also just, because it was a reflection of the
divine.
But on (a) it is to be observed further that to
our author the law, as a whole, was the realization in time of what
was in a sense timeless and eternal. It was observed not only on
earth by Israel but in heaven. Parts of the law might have only a
time reference, to Israel on earth, but in the privileges of
circumcision and the Sabbath, as its highest and everlasting
expression, the highest orders of archangels in heaven shared with
Israel (ii. i8, 19, 21; xv. 26-28). The law, therefore, was supreme,
and could admit of no assessor in the form of Prophecy. There was no
longer any prophet because the law had made the free exercise of his
gift an offence against itself and God. So far, therefore, as
Prophecy existed, it could exist only under the guise of
pseudonymity. The seer, who had like Daniel and others a message for
his time, could only gain a hearing by issuing it under the name of
some ancient worthy.
13. THE AUTHOR -A PHARISEE WHO RECOGNIZED THE
MACCABEAN PONTIFICATE AND WAS PROBABLY A PRIEST.
Since our author was an upholder of the
everlasting validity of the law, and held the strictest views on
circumcision, the Sabbath, and the duty of complete separation from
the Gentiles, since he believed in angels and demons and a blessed
immortality, he was unquestionably a Pharisee of the strictest sect.
In the next place, he was a supporter of the Maccabean pontificate.
He glorifies Levi's successors as high-priests and civil rulers, and
applies to them the title priests of the Most High God '-the title
assumed by the Maccabean princes (xxxii. 1). He was not, however, so
thoroughgoing an admirer of this dynasty as the authors of Test. Lev.
xviii. or Ps. cx, who expected the Messiah to come forth from the
Maccabean family. Finally, that our author was a priest might
reasonably be inferred from the exaltation of Levi over Judah
(xxxi-xxxii), and from the statement in xlv. i6 that the secret
traditions, which our author claims to publish, were kept in the
hands of Levi's descendants.
14. INFLUENCE ON LATER LITERATURE.
On the influence of Jubilees on I Enoch i-v,
xci-civ, Wisdom (?), 4 Ezra, Chronicles of Jerachmeel, Midrash
Tadshe, Book of Jasher, the Samaritan Chronicle, on Patristic and
other writings, and on the New Testament writers, see Charles's
edition, pp. lxxiii-lxxxvi.
15. THEOLOGY. SOME OF OUR AUTHOR'S
VIEWS.
Freedom and determinism. The author of Jubilees
is a true Pharisee in that he combines belief in Divine omnipotence and
providence with the belief in human freedom and responsibility. He
would have adopted heartily the statement of the Pss. Sol. ix. 7
(written some sixty years or more later) (Gk.) ta erga emon en ekloge
kai exousia tes psuches emon, tou poiesai dikaiosunen kai adikian en
ergois cheiron emon: v. 6 anthropos kai e meris autou para soi en
stathmo ou prosthesei tou pleonasai para to krima sou, o theos. Thus
the path in which a man should walk is ordained for him and the
judgement of all men predetermined on the heavenly tablets: 'And the
judgment of all is ordained and written on the heavenly tablets in
righteousness -even the judgment of all who depart from the path
which is ordained for them to walk in' (v.13). This idea of an
absolute determinism underlies many conceptions of the heavenly
tablets (see Charles's edition, iii. 10 note). On the other hand,
man's freedom and responsibility are fully recognized: 'If they walk
not therein, judgment is written down for every creature' (v. 13):
'Beware lest thou walk in their ways, And tread in their paths, And
sin a sin unto death before the Most High God. Else He will give thee
back into the hand of thy transgression.' Even when a man has sinned
deeply he can repent and be forgiven (xli. 24 seq.), but the human
will needs the strengthening of a moral dynamic: 'May the Most High
God . . . strengthen thee to do His will' (xxi. 25, xxii. 10).
The Fall. The effects of the Fall were limited
to Adam and the animal creation. Adam was driven from the garden
(iii. 17 seqq.) and the animal creation was robbed of the power of
speech (iii. 28). But the subsequent depravity of the human race is
not traced to the Fall but to the seduction of the daughters of men
by the angels, who had been sent down to instruct men (v.1-4), and to
the solicitations of demonic spirits (vii. 27). The evil engendered
by the former was brought to an end by the destruction of all the
descendants of the angels and of their victims by the Deluge, but the
incitement to sin on the part of the demons was to last to the final
judgement (vii. 27, x. 1-15, xi. 4 seq., xii. 20). This last view
appears in I Enoch and the N.T.
The Law. The law was of eternal validity. It
was not the expression of the religious consciousness of one or of
several ages, but the revelation in time of what was valid from the
beginning and unto all eternity. The various enactments of the law
moral and ritual, were written on the heavenly tablets (iii. 31, vi.
17, &c.) and revealed to man through the mediation of angels (i.
27). This conception of the law, as I have already pointed out, made
prophecy impossible unless under the guise of pseudonymity. Since the
law was the ultimate and complete expression of absolute truth, there
was no room for any further revelation: much less could any such
revelation, were it conceivable, supersede a single jot or tittle of
the law as already revealed. The ideal of the faithful Jew was to be
realized in the fulfilment of the moral and ritual precepts of this
law: the latter were of no less importance than the former. Though
this view of morality tends to be mainly external, our author strikes
a deeper note when he declares that, when Israel turned to God with
their whole heart, He would circumcise the foreskin of their heart
and create a right spirit within them and cleanse them, so that they
would not turn away from Him for ever (i. 23).
Our author specially emphasizes
certain elements of the law such as circumcision (xvi. 14, xv. 26,
29), the Sabbath (ii. 18 seq., 31 seq.), eating of blood (vi. 14),
tithing of the tithe (xxxii. 10), Feast of Tabernacles (xvi. 29), Feast of
Weeks (vi. 17), the absolute prohibition of mixed marriages (xx. 4,
xxii. 20, xxv. 1-10). In connexion with many of these he enunciates
halacha which belong to an earlier date than those in the Mishnah,
but which were either modified or abrogated by later
authorities.
The Messiah. Although our author is an upholder
of the Maccabean dynasty he still clings like the writer of I Enoch
lxxxiii-xc to the hope of a Messiah sprung from Judah. He makes,
however, only one reference to this Messiah, and no role of any
importance is assigned to him (see Charles's edition, xxxi. 18 n.).
The Messianic expectation showed no vigorous life throughout this
century till it was identified with the Maccabean family. If we are
right in regarding the Messianic kingdom as of temporary duration,
this is the first instance in which the Messiah is associated with a
temporary Messianic kingdom.
The Messianic
kingdom. According to our author (i.
29, xxiii. 30) this kingdom was to be brought about gradually by
the progressive spiritual development of man and a corresponding
transformation of nature. Its members were to attain to the full
limit of 1,000 years in happiness and peace. During its continuance
the powers of evil were to be restrained (xxiii. 29). The last
judgement was apparently to take place at its close (xxiii. 30). This
view was possibly derived from Mazdeism.
The writer of Jubilees, we can hardly doubt,
thought that the era of the Messianic
kingdom had already set in. Such an
expectation was often cherished in the prosperous days of the
Maccabees.
Thus it was entertained by the writer of I Enoch lxxxiii-xc in the
days of Judas before 161 B.C. Whether Jonathan was looked upon as the
divine agent for introducing the kingdom we cannot say, but as to
Simon being regarded in this light there is no doubt. Indeed, his
contemporaries came to regard him as the Messiah himself, as we see
from Psalm cx, or Hyrcanus in the noble Messianic hymn in Test. Levi
18. The tame effus1on in 1 Macc. xiv. 8-15 is a relic of such
literature, which was emasculated by its Sadducean editor. Simon was
succeeded by John Hyrcanus in 135 B.C. and this great prince seemed
to his countrymen to realize the expectations of the past; for
according to a contemporary writer (Test. Levi 8) he embraced in his
own person the triple office of prophet, priest, and civil ruler
(xxxi. i5), while according to the Test. Reuben 6 he was to 'die on
behalf of Israel in wars seen and unseen'. In both these passages he
seems to be accorded the Messianic office, but not so in our author,
as we have seen above. Hyrcanus is only to introduce the Messianic
kingdom, over which the Messiah sprung from Judah is to rule.
Priesthood of Melchizedek. That there was
originally an account of Melchizedek in our text we have shown in the
note on xiii. 2,5, and, that the Maccabean high-priests deliberately
adopted the title applied to him in Gen. xiv, we have pointed out in
the note on xxxii. I. It would be interesting to inquire how far the
writer of Hebrews was indebted to the history of the great Maccabean
king-priests for the idea of the Melchizedekian priesthood of which
he has made so fruitful a use in chap. vii as applied to our
Lord.
The Future Life. In our text all hope of a
resurrection of the body is abandoned. The souls of the righteous
will enjoy a blessed immortality after death (xxiii. 31). This is the
earliest attested instance of this expectation in the last two
centuries B.C. It is next found in Enoch xci-civ.
The Jewish Calendar. For our author's peculiar
views see Charles's edition 18 and the notes on vi. 29-30, 32, xv.
I.
Angelology. We
shall confine our attention here to notable parallels between our
author and the New Testament. Besides the angels of the presence and
the angels of sanctification there are the angels who are set over
natural phenomena (ii. 2). These angels are inferior to the former.
They do not observe the Sabbath as the higher orders; for they are
necessarily always engaged in their duties (ii. 18). It is the higher
orders that are generally referred to in the New Testament but the
angels over natural phenomena are referred to in Revelation: angels
of the winds in vii. 1, 2, the angel of fire in xiv. 18, the angel
of the waters in xvi. 5 (cf. Jub. ii. 2). Again, the guardian angels
of individuals, which the New Testament refers to in Matt. xviii. 10
(Acts xii. 15), are mentioned, for the first time in Jubilees xxxv.
17. On the angelology of our author see Charles's edition.
Demonology. The demonology of our author
reappears for the most part in the New Testament:
(a) The angels which kept not
their first estate, Jude 6 ; 2 Peter ii. 4, are the angelic watchers
who, though sent down to instruct mankind (Jub. iv. 15), fell from
lusting after the daughters of men. Their fall and punishment are
recorded in Jub. iv. 22, v.1-9.
(b) The
demons are the spirits which went forth
from the souls of the giants who were the children of the fallen angels, Jub. v. 7, 9. These demons attacked men and ruled over
them (x. 3, 6).
Their purpose is to corrupt and
lead astray and destroy the wicked (x.
8).
They are subject to the prince Mastema (x. 9), or Satan.
Men sacrifice to them as gods (xxii. 17). They are to pursue their
work of moral ruin till the judgement of Mastema (x. 8) or the
setting up of the Messianic kingdom, when Satan will be no longer
able to injure mankind (xxiii. 29).
So in the New Testament, the demons are disembodied spirits (Matt. xii. 43-5; Luke xi. 24-6). Their chief is
Satan
(Mark iii. 22). They are treated as divinities of the heathen
(I Cor. x. 20). They are not to be punished till the final judgement
(Matt. viii. 29). On the advent of the Millennium Satan will be bound
(Rev. xx. 2-3).
Judgement. The doctrine of retribution is
strongly enforced by our author. It is to be individual and national
in this world and in the next. As regards the individual the law of
exact retribution is according to our author not merely an enactment
of human justice -the ancient lex talionis, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth; it is observed by God in His government of the world. The
penalty follows in the line of the sin. This view is enforced in 2
Macc. v. 10, where it is said of Jason, that, as he robbed multitudes
of the rites of sepulture, so he himself was deprived of them in
turn, and in xv. 32 seq. it is recounted of Nicanor that he was
punished in those members with which he had sinned. So also in our
text in reference to Cain iv. 31 seq. and the Egyptians xlviii. 14.
Taken crassly and mechanically the above law is without foundation,
but spiritually conceived it
represented the profound truth of the
kinship of the penalty to the sin
enunciated repeatedly in the New
Testament:
'Whatsoever a man sows that shall
he also reap' (Gal. vi.;); 'he that doeth wrong shall receive again
the wrong that he hath done' (Col. iii. 25, &c.). Again in
certain cases the punishment was to follow instantaneously on the
transgression (xxxvii. 17).
The final judgement was to take place at the
close of the Messianic kingdom (xxiii. 30). This judgement embraces
the human and superhuman worlds (v. 10 seq., 14). At this judgement
there will be no respect of persons, but all will be judged according
to their opportunities and abilities (v. 15 seq.). From the
standpoint of our author there could be no hope for the
Gentiles.
16. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
(a) Greek Version: see above, 4 (a). Ethiopic
Version: this text was first edited by Dillmann from two MSS. cd in
1859, and by R. H. Charles from four MSS. abcd. The Ethiopic Version
of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees with the Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, and
Latin Fragments, Oxford, 1895. Latin Version: see above, 4
(a).
(b) Translations. Dillrnann, Das Buch der
Jubilaen . . . aus dem Aethiopischen ubersetzt (Ewald's Jahrbucher d.
bibl. Wissensch., 1850-1, ii. 230-56; iii. 1-96). This translation is
based on only one MS. Schodde, The Book of Jubilees, translated from
the Ethiopic ('Bibliotheca Sacra,' 1885-7): Charles, The Book of
Jubilees, translated from a text based on two hitherto uncollated
Ethiopic MSS. (Jewish Quarterly Review, 1893, v. 703-8; 1894, vi.
184-217, 710-45; 1895, vii. 297-328): Littmann, Das Buch der Jubilaen
(Kantzsch's Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des A. T., 1900, ii.
31-119). This translation is based on Charles's text.
(c) Commentaries. Charles, The Book ofjubilees,
1902. Ronsch published a Commentary on the Latin Version. See above,
4.
(d) Critical Inquiries. Dillmann,
'Pseudepigraphen des A. T.,' Herzog's R. E.2, xii. 364-5; 'Beitrage
aus dem Buche der Jubilaen zur Kritik des Pentateuch-Textes'
(Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preussischen Akad., 1883); Beer, Das Buch
der Jubilaen, 1856; Singer, Das Buck der Jubilaen, 1898; Bohn, 'Die
Pedeutung des Buches der Jubilaen' (Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1900,
167-84). For a full bibliography see Charles's Commentary or
Schurer.
- From The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of
the Old Testament
- by R.H. Charles, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1913
- Scanned and Edited by Joshua Williams,
Northwest Nazarene College
Source
Apocalyptic
Index
Home
Page
Counter added 2.24.05 11:22a
3421
