similar provisions in connexion with the sabbatical (seventh) year. “The foundations of Lev. xxv. are laid in the ancient provisions of the Book of the Covenant (Exod. xxi. 2 seq.; xxiii. 10 seq.) and in Deuteronomy (xv.). The Book of the Covenant enjoined that the land should lie fallow and Hebrew slaves be liberated in the seventh year; Deuteronomy required in addition the remission of debts” (Benzinger). Deuteronomy, it will be noticed, in accordance with its humanitarian tendency, not only liberates the slave but remits the debt. It is evident that these enactments proved impracticable in real life (cf. Jer. xxxiv. 8 seq.), and so it became necessary in the later legislation of P, represented in the present form of Lev. xxv., to relegate them to the 50th year, the year of jubilee. The latter, however, was a purely theoretic development of the Sabbath idea, which could never have been reduced to practice (its actual observance would have necessitated that for two consecutive years—the 49th and 50th—absolutely nothing could be reaped, while in the 51st only summer fruits could be obtained, sowing being prohibited in the 50th year). That in practice the enactments for the jubilee-year were disregarded is evidenced by the fact that, according to the unanimous testimony of the Talmudists and Rabbins, although the jubilee-years were “reckoned” they were not observed.
The conjecture of Kuenen, supported by Wellhausen, that originally Lev. xxv. 8 seq. had reference to the seventh year is a highly probable one. This may be the case also with Ezek. xlvi. 16–18 (cf. Jer. xxxiv. 14). A later Rabbinical device for evading the provisions of the law was the prosbul (ascribed to Hillel)—i.e. a condition made in the presence of the judge securing to the creditor the right of demanding repayment at any time, irrespective of the year of remission. Further enactments regarding the jubilee are found in Lev. xxvii. 17–25 and Num. xxxvi. 4. (W. R. S.; G. H. Bo.)
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 τὰ Ἰωβηλαῖα, οἱ Ἰωβηλαῖοι, Heb. היובלים. 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,” ἡ λεπτὴ Γένεσις or ἡ Μικρογένεσις, Heb. בראשית זוטה. 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 δρῦς, βάλανος, λίψ, &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 = δειλίας, corrupt for δουλείας; in xxxviii. 13 honorem = τιμήν, but τιμήν should here have been rendered by tributum, as the Ethiopic and the context require; in xxxii. 26, celavit = ἔκρυψε, corrupt for ἔγραψε (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 = ἐν ἐμοί, which is a mistranslation of בּי; for בי in this context, as we know from the parallel passage in Gen. xliv. 18, which our text reproduces almost verbally, = δέομαι. 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 nûḫa in iv. 4, is a corrupt transliteration of נע. In the Latin eligere in te in xxii. 10 is a reproduction of בהר ב and in qua ... in ipsa in xix. 8 = אשר ... בה. 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
- ↑ In the Ethiopic Version in xxi. 12 it should be observed that in the list of the twelve trees suitable for burning on the altar several are transliterated Aramaic names of trees. But in a late Hebrew work (2nd century B.C.) the popular names of such objects would naturally be used. In certain cases the Hebrew may have been forgotten, or, where the tree was of late introduction, been non-existent.
