Jubilee Book, Book of

JUBILEE BOOK, Book of. - A Jewish apocryphon that paraphrases Gen. 1-13; 24.

The Fathers call it Leptogenesis (Didymus of Alexandria, Enarrat. in epist. I Io. 3, 12), because the content of the Book follows Gen. 1-13; 24; L. dei G. (St. Epiphanius, Haer., XXXIX, 6), from the material that is divided, with chronological exactness, into jubilee periods of seven weeks of years, and according to events indicated as to month, year, weeks of years, as well as jubilee period; and Apocalypse of Moses (the Byzantine chronographers), from the fact of the Revelation received by the lawgiver. The Gelasian Decree mentions it among the non-canonical writings under the name Liber de filibus Adam.

It was written originally in Hebrew and in Palestine. It remains complete only in Ethiopic and a third of it in Latin; the two versions go back to the Greek one; moreover, Syriac and midrashic fragments remain. G. cites the biblical text literally: it agrees for the most part with the Septuagint, but also with the Masoretic text and with the Samaritan version.

The author seems to be a priest of the Temple or a supporter of priests: Levi, in fact, is given prominence over Judah (31, 13 ff.), the sons of Levi preserve the writings of Jacob and of his fathers (54, 16); the existence of the Temple is presupposed (49, 20), with Zion consecrated for the sanctification of the land. Contaminations also appear: e.g., the laurel crown on the head at the feast of tabernacles (8, 3) is of Hellenistic flavor; likewise the division of septenaries into septenaries used by the Alexandrian Jews, which smacks of an Egyptian environment.

G. knows the Book of Enoch (4; 17-23) and that of Noah (10, 13; 21, 10); it is independent of the Book of the Testaments (Charles); it is not accurate in citing legal provisions of the Law (16, 22; cf. Num. 29, 13-33) and the prescriptions of the Mishnah (49, 20); it does not have too much regard for practice, as appears from the calendar founded on the solar year of 364 days (neither Hebrew, nor of other peoples); at times it is faithful in reporting the words of the Patriarchs (from whom the history of Israel is understood to have originated), and at times it has interested omissions, as of Gen. 3, 17.

The time of composition seems to some to be the beginning of the 1st century A.D., because only thus would be explained the bitterness against Edom, and the fear of religious decadence against which one is put on guard. For others, instead, the veneration for the tribe of Levi and the vindication of the most ancient rights of the Jewish people over Idumea, conquered in 125 B.C., causes the writing to be attributed to the age of John Hyrcanus: one witnesses, in fact, a renewal of ancient hopes, for which the halo is sought from the past. Hence the ideological complex.

G. (1, 27; 33, 18) supposes that God on Sinai orders the angel of the face (cf. Is. 63, 9) to reveal to Moses the history of creation and of the events that followed. And Moses writes. This paraphrase of Genesis, with additions, omissions, modifications, has as its purpose to demonstrate the antiquity of the Jewish people, linking its history back to creation; and to inculcate a rigid observance of the Law, establishing its authority.

Antiochus and Hellenism had opposed, as contrary to nature and to natural law, two things: circumcision and the sabbath. To prove that such institutions are part of eternal law, the author says that the angels themselves - at least the two highest orders of the celestial hierarchy - were created circumcised (15, 27) and had to observe the sabbath (1, 18).

After Moses history is nothing more than a prediction: God announces to Moses the entry of the Israelites into the Promised Land, the infidelities, the punishments and the return. The Lord, answering the prayer of the lawgiver, lifts the veil of the future, which is the time in which the author lives: God now creates in them a new spirit; they will be faithful forever and will know that he loves them.

The Messiah of this time - one does not know where to place him. The new holy people (the Hasideans) stood for the Hasmonean princes: but how could one expect a Messiah of Levitic origin, instead of the traditional one, of Davidic origin? And since they did not want to displease the Hasmoneans, the messianic role remained in the shadows (cf. 21, 18).

The sons of Judah will in the future be the terror of the Gentiles; their military leader, Levi, who one day was almost cursed with Simeon, is now blessed first (31, 15). It seems that the principate prevails over the priesthood. Hence the various conceptions are affected: e.g., those of the final lot (not of traditional idea), of sheol (a place for the impious and sinners), of the great judgment (prior to the messianic period). Center of interest is the Palestinian society contemporary with the author, exalted by successful wars and prosperous conditions. Moses, lawgiver of the present time, was less suited to treat the final lot than Enoch, who was transferred from the earth to converse with God.

Emmanuele da San Marco