Book of Jubilees: Introduction: Authorship and Date

AUTHORSHIP AND DATE

According to Charles, the author was not only a priest but a Pharisee "of the straitest sect." We have already seen that many of the positions advocated in the Book are essentially un-Pharisaic in character. Such a fundamentally Pharisaic doctrine as the resurrection of the body, is not accepted, and it is more than doubtful whether the author looked for the advent of a Davidic Messiah. Moreover, it is difficult to conceive any Pharisee at any time advocating the adoption of a solar calendar. Then, again, though there were, of course, Pharisaic priests in later times, when the influence of Pharisaism had become all-powerful, it would certainly be remarkable to find in the second century B.C. so priestly a writer as our author a member of the Pharisaic party. For that party arose from the ranks of the people. It was essentially a lay movement, and it championed popular religious, as opposed to priestly, tradition. All this has been instinctively felt by the Jewish scholars 1 who have discussed the problems connected with the authorship and general character of our Book. By these scholars our Book has been variously ascribed to Essene (Jellinek, 1855), Samaritan (Beer, 1856-7), Hellenist (Frankel, 1856), and Jewish-Christian (Singer, 1898) authorship. None of these views is entirely satisfactory. None can be said for the view that the author belonged to the party--if party it can be called--of the Hasidim ("Assideans" or "Hasideans") who are referred to in I Maccabees. 2

Jubilees distinctly takes up this position, and appears to have been an admirer of the Maccabean Priest-Princes--at any rate, of John Hyrcanus 1 and Simon Maccabæus. Still there is a certain affinity between our author and the Hasidim, and if he was not actually a "Hasid," he may very well have been in sympathy with members of that party in fundamental religious positions. Recently Leszyrisky, 2 has maintained the thesis that Jubilees was written by a Sadducean author, and, it must be admitted, makes out a strong case. Unfortunately, scholars are not yet agreed as to the real character and position of the Sadducean party, but of recent years there has been a growing consensus of opinion that the party had a real religious basis. It was not, as it is sometimes represented to have been, a mere political party of worldly opportunists who used religious questions as a stick to beat the Pharisees, who represented true religion, while the real interests

We may sum up by saying that the author was undoubtedly a pious priest, a devoted adherent of the Law, and an upholder of priestly tradition; he was certainly not a Pharisee, but has affinities with the Hasidim or "pious" of early Maccabean times; not improbably he was a Sadducean priest. The exact date of the composition of Jubilees cannot be

Footnotes

xxix:1 With the distinguished exception of Dr. K. Kohler (in JE, s.v. Jubilees), who accepts Charles's view, though he suggests that the book may reflect early Hasidæan practice.

xxix:2 Cf. 1 Macc. vii.

xxx:1 It is true that John Hyrcanus favoured the Pharisees, according to Josephus (Ant., xiii. 10, 5), who even speaks of him as their "disciple." But this probably means no more than that he adopted a conciliatory attitude towards them. He also had intimate friends among the Sadducees (Josephus, Ant., xiii. 10, 6).

xxx:2 Die Sadduzäer (1912), pp. 179-236.