JUBILEES, BOOK OF. — Jewish apocryphal work paraphrasing 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; Book of Jubilees (St. Epiphanius, Haer., XXXIX, 6), from the fact that its material is divided, with chronological precision, into jubilee periods of seven weeks of years, and according to events indicated by month, year, weeks of years, and also 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 originally written in Hebrew and in Palestine. It survives complete only in Ethiopic, while one third survives in Latin; the two versions derive from the Greek; in addition, Syriac and midhāšic fragments remain. The Book quotes the biblical text literally: it agrees for the most part with the Septuagint, but also with the Masoretic text and the Samaritan version.
The author appears to have been a priest of the Temple or a supporter of the priests: Levi, in fact, is given prominence over Judah (31, 13 ff.), and the sons of Levi preserve the writings of Jacob and his fathers (54, 16); the existence of the Temple is presupposed (49, 20), with Zion consecrated for the sanctification of the earth. Yet contaminations also appear in it: for example, the laurel crown worn on the head at the Feast of Tabernacles (8, 3) has a Hellenistic flavor; likewise, the division of groups of seven into groups of seven, used by the Alexandrian Jews, suggests an Egyptian environment.
The Book knows the Book of Enoch (4; 17–23) and that of Noah (10, 13; 21, 10); it is independent of the Book of Testaments (Charles); it is not exact in citing the legal provisions of the Law (16, 22; cf. Num. 29, 13–33) and the prescriptions of the Miṣnāḥ (49, 20); it pays little heed to practice, as appears from the calendar based on a solar year of 364 days (neither Hebrew nor that of any other people); at times it is faithful in reporting the words of the Patriarchs (from whom the history of Israel is understood to have originated), while at other times it makes calculated omissions, such as that of Gen. 3, 17.
For some, the time of composition seems to be the beginning of the first century A.D., since only then could the hostility toward Edom and the fear of religious decline, against which a warning is issued, be explained. For others, however, the veneration for the tribe of Levi and the assertion of the very ancient rights of the Jewish people over Idumea, conquered in 125 B.C., lead them to assign the writing to the time of John Hyrcanus: one is witnessing, in fact, a revival of the ancient hopes, whose halo is sought in the past. Hence the ideological complex.
The Book (1, 27; 33, 18) supposes that God, on Sinai, commands the angel of the presence (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, and modifications, aims to demonstrate the antiquity of the Jewish people by linking its history with creation, and to inculcate strict observance of the Law by establishing its authority.
Antiochus and Hellenism had opposed two things as contrary to nature and natural law: circumcision and the Sabbath. To prove that these institutions belong to 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 were required to observe the Sabbath (1, 18).
After Moses, history is no more than a prediction: God announces to Moses the Israelites’ entry into the Promised Land, their infidelities, punishments, and return. The Lord, responding to the lawgiver’s prayer, lifts the veil of the future, which is the time in which the author lives: God is now creating in them a new spirit; they will be faithful forever and will know that he loves them.
The Messiah of this period is difficult to identify. The new holy people (the Hasideans) stood by the Hasmonean princes: but how could one await a Messiah of Levitical origin instead of the traditional one, of Davidic origin? And since it was not desired 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 along with Simeon, is now blessed first (31, 15). It seems that the principate prevails over the priesthood. Consequently, the various conceptions bear its imprint: for example, those concerning the final destiny (which is not a traditional idea), the fe'ōl (a place for the impious and sinners), and the great judgment (prior to the messianic period). The center of interest is the Palestinian society contemporary with the author, exalted by successful wars and prosperous conditions. Moses, the lawgiver of the present age, was less suited to dealing with the final destiny than Enoch, who was taken from the earth to converse with God.