Exodus. At the same time, there is a certain Midrashic tendency observable in the way the author rewrites the older narratives, which reminds one of the work of the Chronicler as compared with the earlier canonical books which he remodelled. But Jubilees is not at all like the typical Midrash of the later Rabbinical period; it is more independent, and resembles rather such works as the "Chronicles of Jerahmeel," or the earlier (narrative) part of the "Apocalypse of Abraham." The Book, which was probably composed in Hebrew, is divided into fifty chapters, and appears to be complete. TITLES The Book was known under various titles, most of them in Greek as referred to in later Greek writers. The most important are "Jubilees" (= rà 'Iwẞnλaîa Ἰωβηλαία or οἱ Ἰωβηλαῖοι) and “ the little Genesis " (= ἡ λεπτὴ Γένεσις and variants). Both of these seem to go back to Hebrew originals, and there would thus appear to have been two authoritative Hebrew titles of the original Hebrew work, viz. ha-yôbělîm (or sefer hâ-yôbělôth), and Berĕshîth zûtā. In the latter the epithet "little " refers not to the extent of the work, but to its relatively inferior position as compared with the canonical Genesis. It is also noteworthy that a clear reference to our Book is made in the recently recovered fragments of a Zadokite Work." 2 The passage runs as follows (xx. I): And as for the exact statement of their periods to put Israel in remembrance in regard to all these, behold it is treated accurately in the Book of the Divisions of the Seasons according to their Jubilees and their Weeks. This is remarkably like the opening words of the Prologue of our Book: This is the history of the division 1 Applied also to certain minor midrashim ("midrash zûtā," etc.). 2 First published by Schechter in 1910 (Cambridge Press). of the days. of the events of the years according to their (year) weeks, according to their jubilees. Cf. also the colophon at the end of the Book : Herewith is completed the account of the division of the days. Other titles of our Book are: The Apocalypse of Moses (Syncellus); The Testament of Moses (the Catena of Nicephorus); The Book of Adam's Daughters (perhaps applied only to a portion of Jubilees); The Life of Adam (perhaps an amplified excerpt of our Book). VERSIONS AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE The complete text of the Book is extant in an Ethiopic Version, which is also the most accurate that has survived. Four MSS. of it are known, and are preserved in European Libraries, the two most important in the National Library in Paris and in the British Museum respectively. A critical edition of the text, based on all the known MSS., has been published by Dr. Charles (Oxford, 1895), which was preceded by an important one by Dillmann (published 1859). Fragments of a Greek, Latin and (possibly) a Syriac version are also extant. The fragments of the Greek version are contained in numerous citations in Justin Martyr, Origen, Diodorus of Antioch, Isidore of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Syncellus and other writers. The Latin version, of which about one-fourth has been preserved, is very valuable for the criticism of the text. The fragments that have survived were first published by Ceriani (in his Monumenta Sacra et Profana, 1861), and have been edited by Rönsch (1874), and more recently by Charles (in his edition of the Ethiopic text referred to above). What may possibly be a fragment of a Syriac Version of our Book is contained in a British Museum MS. (Add. 12154, fol. 180) entitled Names of the Wives of the Patriarchs according to the Hebrew Book called Jubilees." But whether this is really part of a complete version is very doubtful (see Charles, op. cit., Appendix iii.). It is generally agreed that both the Ethiopic and Latin versions were translated from the Greek which, it. may be inferred from the large number of quotations scattered about in different writers over a wide period, must have been widely diffused. The fact that a Greek text underlies these versions is clear from such phenomena as the presence, in the Ethiopic, of transliterations of Greek words (e. g. Aíov," of the sun," in xxxiv. II), proper names are transliterated as they appear in Greek, not in Hebrew; and certain textual corruptions can only be explained by reference to an underlying Greek text. Similar phenomena characterize the Latin version. Thus in Xxxviii. 12, timoris deus, which is corrupt for Sovλeías; and sometimes the Greek has been misunderstood, as e. g. in xxxviii. 13, “honorem "=TIμýv, which should have been rendered by "tributum.' = It is more difficult to determine whether a Semitic original underlies the Greek, and, if that be the case, whether the original Semitic text was Hebrew or Aramaic. It must be admitted that in a number of passages where the text of the canonical Genesis is cited the Ethiopic agrees with the LXX against all other authorities (see Charles' Jubilees, p. xxxiv). But these cases are not, on the whole, either numerous or important. On the other hand, the Ethiopic often agrees with the LXX, supported by other authorities (especially the Samaritan text and version) against the Masoretic Hebrew text, and there are other variations in the textual phenomena. From a survey of these phenomena Charles deduces the conclusion, no doubt rightly, that "our book attests an independent form of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch. Our book represents some form of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch midway between the forms presupposed by the LXX and the Syriac.” 2 1 They may be due to assimilation in the Greek Version with the LXX. 2 Jubilees, p. xxxviii. It agrees with the LXX, or with combinations into which the LXX enters, more often than with any other authority or group of authorities. On the other hand, it is often independent of the LXX, and in a considerable number of cases attests readings, with the support of MT and Sam., against the LXX, and manifestly superior to the latter. It is noteworthy that it never agrees with M against all the other authorities. These phenomena suggest that the composition of Jubilees is to be assigned to some period between 250 B.C. (LXX version of the Pentateuch) and A.D. 100 [when M was finally fixed], and at a time nearer the earlier date than the latter." 1 2 "in me; = A number of considerations may be adduced which suggest that the original language of Jubilees was Hebrew. Thus mistranslations of Hebrew. words occur, e. g. in xliii. II, the word rendered (as corrected) "I pray thee," is, in the Ethiopic, in me a confusion of the Hebrew hî déoμa (Gen. xliv. 18) with the Hebrew word (spelt in exactly the same way) which there are also numerous Hebraisms surviving in the Ethiopic and Latin versions, as well as paronomasiae based upon Hebrew words.3 It is noteworthy, also, that the author lays special stress upon the sacred character of Hebrew, which was originally the language of creation (cf. xii. 25-26; xliii. 15). Moreover, he represents his work as having emanated from Moses, and a genuinely Mosaic work would naturally be written in Hebrew. Finally, certain parts of Jubilees, or of something remarkably like Jubilees, have survived in Hebrew. form in certain Hebrew books, especially the Chronicles of Jerahmeel, and the Midrash Tadshe. It is not improbable, also, that a Hebrew form of Jubilees was known to the compiler of the Pirke de R. Eliezer (see Friedlander's Introduction to the latter book, p. xxii). The only ground for suggesting that the Semitic 1 Op. cit., p. xxxix. = 2 Cf. e. g. xxii. 10, eligere in te " Heb. bahar bě. original may have been Aramaic rather than Hebrew is the presence of certain Aramaizing forms of proper names (e. g. Filistin, with the termination ʼn instead of m) in the Latin version. But in all these cases the Ethiopic transliteration has m (not n), and it seems probable that the Aramaizing forms in these cases are due to the Latin translator, who there is other ground for supposing was a Palestinian Jew. We may, therefore, safely conclude that the original language of our Book was Hebrew. AFFINITIES With other LITERATURE Though there is no reason to doubt the essential unity of our Book (that is to say, that it was composed and written in its present form by one author), it is equally clear that this writer incorporated earlier traditions and legends into his work. Thus he refers explicitly to Noachic writings (xxi. 10; cf. x. 13), and has apparently incorporated two considerable sections of a "Book of Noah in vii. 20-39 and x. 1-15. It is well-known that this Noachic Book was also one of the sources of the Book of Enoch, 1 Enoch, vi.-xi., lx., lxv.-lxix. 25, and cvi.-cvii. being probably derived from it. There is reason, also, to believe that the author of Jubilees was acquainted with some form of the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch). According to Charles the parts of 1 Enoch with which our author was acquainted are 1 Enoch vi.-xvi., xxiii.-xxxvi. and lxxii.-xc. He seems clearly to refer to the last section in iv. 17: And he [Enoch] was the first among men that are born on earth who learnt writing and knowledge and wisdom and who wrote down the signs of heaven according to the order of their months in a book, that men might know the seasons of the years according to the order of their separate months. Here the Enoch-book referred to forms a description of 1 Enoch lxxii.-lxxxii. ("the Book of the courses of the Heavenly Luminaries "), while iv. 19 (And |