The Book of Jubilees is very critical to Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture's project of proving that the Philippines is the Garden of Eden and the land of creation. One of Tim's arguments for including the Book of Jubilees as canonical scripture is that many of the Church Fathers cited the book as scripture. In his annotated Book of Jubilees Tim provides a list of Fathers who cited from Jubilees.
 |
| The Book of Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pgs 40-41 |
That list is quite nonsensical because there is no indication of what works exactly is being referred to. Tim has taken this list mostly from R.H. Charles but provides no link or reference where it can be found. It can be found in the introduction to his translation of The Book of Jubilees but with a whole lot more information than Tim has provided. Several of those authors are cited at length in the Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti on pages 849-864. The text is in Latin.
In this article I propose to look at three of those sources to ascertain just how they employed the text of Jubilees. Did they cite it? Yes. But did they cite it as canonical scripture? That's what we are going to find out. I will only be looking at three of these citations because of space and lack of availability of the original sources. The three are: Jerome, Epiphanius, and the Decretum Gelasii. I believe these three sources will show a normative trend within the Church as regards the canonical status of Jubilees.
First the Decretum Gelasii. In his Torah Test Tim crows that a Pope quoted Jubilees.
Certainly the church quoted Jubilees, even a Pope.
Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, p. 41
Decretum Gelasii. — In this decree (de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis), the date of which is doubtful (see Zahn, Gesch. des Kanons, ii. i. 259-267), our book is included among the writings to be rejected: Liber de filiabus Adae, hoc est Leptogenesis apocryphus.
Once again Tim does not know what he is taking about. Pope Gelasius does not quote Jubilees. The Decree of Pope Gelasius places the Book of Jubilees on the list of rejected books. Why? We are not told but the book is included in a long list with various spurious Acts, Gospels, and Revelations. There were many false gospels and other texts floating around long ago and the church needed to determine what was and was not scripture. There were many deciding factors but the canon was generally agreed upon by all before this point as seen in its liturgy and the bulk of orthodox literature. The councils which promulgated such lists only confirmed what was already widely practiced. In fact the list of canonical books in the Decretum Gelasii actually originates with the Council of Rome in 382. The list of prohibited books is newly appended. The list of accepted and prohibited books as well as the entire decree can be read at this link. It also includes a list of approved Orthodox teachers whose writings are profitable to read. Oddly enough this list bans Eusebius's Church History.
Tim repeats ad nauseam that the Church has no right to ban books which were accepted as scripture. What does he do with this list? Are we to accept every book that comes along proclaiming to be a Gospel or a Revelation? Of course not. The first canon of the New Testament was promulgated by the heretic Marcion. The Church was forced to meet his challenge. Subsequent councils and theologians decreed what was and was not scripture and to be read in the Church in order to safeguard the Church from false teachers. This raises the question of how we can know what is and is not scripture. The answer is pretty simple, the witness and testimony of the Church which is Christ's body on earth and the pillar and ground of the truth. As Augustine said:
But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.
Tim shows his hate for the Church by proclaiming that it was taken over by Satan in the early first century. He blasphemes the Church with such pernicious doctrine. Once again St. Augustine takes him to task.
Let us love our Lord God, let us love His Church: Him as a Father, Her as a Mother: Him as a Lord, Her as His Handmaid, as we are ourselves the Handmaid's sons. But this marriage is held together by a bond of great love: no man offends the one, and wins favour of the other.
What does it serve you, if you acknowledge the Lord, honour God, preach His name, acknowledge His Son, confess that He sits by His right hand; while you blaspheme His Church?
Hold then, most beloved, hold all with one mind to God the Father, and the Church our Mother.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801089.htm
What is Timothy Jay Schwab's epistemic ground for accepting the Bible as scripture when he rejects the Church's authority to prescribe what is and proscribe what is not scripture? He has no ground except himself and his subjective "testing" which is very shaky ground to stand on. I know he will retort by appealing to the community at Qumran but they did not compile the New Testament. There were no letters of Paul or Gospels found in the caves at Qumran. Frankly he has no ground to stand on for his acceptance of the New Testament except his own opinion. Tim is fond of the Cepher Bible saying that "all in his group has one" and that he "loves it in his personal studies." But that Bible version adds not only to the Old Testament but also the New with the insertion of Acts 29. That he would accept such a Bible as genuine shows that he does not base his canon of the New Testament on the witness of the Church.
The residents of Qumran were also not representative of some remnant of the "True Israel©" which preserved the scriptures as opposed to the Pharisees and Saducees. Jesus called out their hypocrisy but still said the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses and commanded the people to do as they say (Matthew 23:2-3). He never called them pretenders. We never find Jesus Christ arguing the doctrine Tim preaches concerning Qumran vs Jerusalem. Again, these decrees prescribing scripture and proscribing spurious books were not introducing anything new. They were confirmation of the regular practice of the Church.
The final biblical canon for both religious communities was determined not by a council so much as by widespread use of sacred literature in the communities of faith. Councils typically confirm widespread practice, and that was the case when decisions about canon were made by councils in the fourth and fifth centuries and later: they simply endorsed choices made earlier by majorities or by consensus and convenience rather than by conscious council decisions. Bruce correctly states: “It is probable that, when the canon was ‘closed’ in due course by competent authority, this simply meant that official recognition was given to the situation already obtaining in the practice of the worshipping community.”
The Biblical Canon, Lee Martin McDonald, pg. 160
The implication is that Jubilees was excluded from the canon because it was never considered to be part of the canon by the Church in her practice or doctrine and not because the Church was taken over by Satan and he used the Bishops to cover up the truth. Such thinking is anti-Christian and contradicts Jesus' saying that he would build his Church and the gates of hell would not triumph over it.
This decree was promulgated around 492 and the reason I cite it first is because any citation of Jubilees after this date will not be cited as scripture. Any citation after this date which does so in a manner affirming the canonicity of Jubilees is out of line with the teaching of the Church. So we can dispense with those citations. That really only leaves two important citations before this decree and those are Jerome and Epiphanus.
Here is what R.H. Charles writes about Jerome:
Jerome {ob. 420). — See quotations in notes on x. 21, xi. 11-13. For other quotations see Index II.
The references Charles gives lead to Jerome's epistle 78. Here is what Jerome says about Jubilees.
This word, memory suggests, I know I never found elsewhere in holy scripture among the Hebrews, except in an apocrypha book, Genesis, which is called lepte, that is small, by the Greeks; there is it put in the building of the tower for stadium, in which boxers and athletes exercize and the speed of runners is tested.
I find in the above mentioned apocryphal volume Geneseos when the ravens who had been laying waste men’s grain are driven away, the name father Abraham written with this same word and these letters, as the one who drives away or repells them. So we may imitate Thare and be careful to keep away the birds of heaven which hasten to devour a lot of wheat beside the road.
Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt.
The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is law.
The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah, the sixth, Jeremiah, the seventh, Ezekiel, the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among the Jews Thare Asra.
To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job, the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms; the third is Solomon, in three books, Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth, the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim; the sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more expressively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Chronicles; the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.
The list looks like this:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges/Ruth, 1-2 Kings. 3-4 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve minor prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Daniel,1 -2 Chronicles, 1-2 Esdras, Esther.
That is 22 books and it does not include Jubilees. It also predates the Drectum Gelasii to the year 392. It is in alignment with the Council of Rome from 382 except it excludes Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees and the numbering is not the same due to some books, such as the Twelve minor prophets, being counted as one. Why he does not include Jubilees in this canon despite referring to it as "holy scripture among the Hebrews" is uncertain.
Epiphanius {ob. 404 a.d.), Haer. xxxix. 6, See Jub. iv. 9, 11 and the continuation of the quotation in my note on iv. 10. For passages where Epiphanius has used our text without acknowledgment see Index II.
There are actually quite a few places in his Panarion where Epiphanius cites Jubilees. I will only look at one. It is as follows:
6,1 But as we find in Jubilees which is also called “The Little Genesis,” the book even contains the names of both Cain’s and Seth’s wives, so that the persons who recite myths to the world may be put to shame in every way. (2) For after Adam had sired sons and daughters it became necessary at that time that the boys marry their own sisters. Such a thing was not unlawful, as there was no other human stock. (3) Indeed, in a manner of speaking Adam himself practically married his own daughter who was fashioned from his body and bones and had been formed by God in conjunction with him, and it was not unlawful. (4) And his sons were married, Cain to the older sister, whose name was Saue; and a third son, Seth, who was born after Abel, to his sister named Azura.
6,5 And Adam had other sons too as the Little Genesis says, nine after these three, so that he had two daughters but twelve sons, one of whom was killed but eleven survived. (6) You have the reflection of them too in the Genesis of the World, the first Book of Moses, which says, “And Adam lived 930 years, and begat sons and daughters, and died.”
In this passage Epiphanius is very clearly citing from Jubilees in order to confute the Sethians a group of gnostic heretics who believed Seth was not a mere man. But does that mean he considered the Book of Jubilees to be canonical scripture? No. He never lists the book in his canon. However, he draws extensively from its pages and uses it authoritatively. Read "From Jewish Apocrypha to Christian Tradition: Citations of Jubilees in Epiphanius's Panarion" for an insightful study on his use of this book within the context of canon formation in the 4th century. Despite his usage of this text as authoritative it should be noted that one man does not make the tradition of the Church. The article covers a lot of ground and the issues it discusses are rather complex.
And he showed Moses through an angel that there would also be twenty-two heads from Adam to Jacob, otherwise Israel, when he said: "And I will choose for myself from his seed a people more numerous than any other people.” And the heads, which are the generations, concerning whom the Lord spoke, are as follows: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu—for the Scripture omits Cainan from the number —Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, otherwise Israel —altogether, twenty-two generations. Therefore there are twenty-two letters among the Hebrews, which are these…Therefore also there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament; but they are said among the Hebrews to be counted as twenty- two though they are (really) twenty-seven, because five of their letters also are double…for the books also are counted in this manner.
On Weights and Measures, pg. 43
Epiphanius then goes on to list those books by title. They are as follows:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges/Ruth, 1-2 Kings. 3-4 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve minor prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Daniel, 1 -2 Chronicles, 1-2 Esdras, Esther.
That is the same list as Jerome gives and it also excludes Jubilees from the canon despite referencing it when refuting the Sethians and using it authoritatively. It is very important to understand that 1-2 Esdras is what we know as Ezra and Nehemiah. The book referred to as 2 Esdras which is part of the Christian apocrypha is not included in the Hebrew bible and was not found at Qumran as Timothy claims it was. It is also known as 4th Esdras. It was written after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. That means Jesus did not quote it as Tim is wont to say. Here we see Tim's astonishing ignorance on full display in this graphic from his annotated Jubilees which proclaims this massive error.
 |
| Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pg. 22 |
In his notes on Jubilees 2:22-23 Charles says there might be a lacuna at verse 22. He then cites various authors such as Epiphanius, Syncellus, and the Midrash where groups of 22 are mentioned. Among these groups of 22 are 22 letters and 22 sacred books. He then fills in the lacuna as follows:
Thus we should probably restore the lacuna as follows: — As there were two and twenty letters and two and twenty (sacred) books and two and twenty heads of mankind from Adam to Jacob, so there were made two and twenty kinds of work, etc. The thirty-nine books of the Old Testament are equalised to the number of letters by the following device. The twelve minor prophets count as one book, similarly Judges and Ruth, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations are taken together, and the two books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles are reckoned respectively as one each. Thus the thirty-nine are reduced to twenty- two.
No text of Jubilees (Hebrew, Ethiopic, Greek, Syriac) says anything about 22 letters and 22 books. These categories were added later (and in other texts) to Jubilees’ list of two groups of 22.
VanderKam, Jubilees Commentary, pg. 199
VanderKam says no known copy of Jubilees has this text and there is not even space for it in copies found at Qumran. According to him there is no lacuna in the text.
What really matters though is that Tim thinks Charles is correct and has this note in his annotated Book of Jubilees:
It is probable that at end of 22 above there is a lacuna in the text (indicated by the dotted line). Charles restores the missing words as follows: As there were two and twenty letters, and two and twenty (sacred) books [viz. in the Old Testament], and two and twenty heads of mankind from Adam to Jacob, so there were made two and twenty kinds of work, etc.
Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pg. 60
If this verse is authentic then what it means is that the Book of Jubilees is not scripture. Here you have the author of Jubilees telling us there are 22 sacred books. It would be impossible for Jubilees to fit anywhere in a list of 22 sacred Hebrew texts. Perhaps one could pair it with Genesis and make the two one book but no list of the Old Testament canon ever has that pairing. There are always said to be only five books of Moses and Jubilees is never on that list. One of the oldest lists of the Old Testment canon comes from Melito of Sardis who lived in the 2nd century.
13. Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since you have often, in your zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and has also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing your zeal for the faith, and your desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that you, in your yearning after God, esteem these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation.
14. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books. Such are the words of Melito.
He lists 26 books. Except for the omission of Esther and the addition of Wisdom his list is identical to that of Jerome and Epiphanius. The difference is that he counts some books as separate which are counted as one elsewhere. That is very significant because it shows a continuity within the church regarding the Old Testament canon regarding the book under question. Jubilees never makes the cut at anytime whatsoever.
Origen is also on the list of men who cited Jubilees. Origen, like Jerome, was a man of letters. He was one of the most learned men of his day or any day. His output was voluminous and he was famous for making several critical editions of the Hebrew bible in both Greek and Hebrew known as the Hexapla. He knew what the Hebrew canon was and it did not include Jubilees.
1. When expounding the first Psalm, he gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows:
“It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.” Farther on he says:
2. “The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, 'In the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'And he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, 'These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, 'The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreïamein, that is, 'Records of days'; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, 'An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.” He gives these in the above-mentioned work.
He has a 22 book canon which includes:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges/Ruth, 1-2 Kings. 3-4 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah/Lamentations/Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Daniel, 1 -2 Chronicles, 1-2 Esdras, Esther, the Maccabees
His canon is different from Jerome in that it excludes the 12 minor prophets and includes the Maccabees. The similarities lie in that it conforms to the number 22 and it omits Jubilees. It is a point of fact that no canonical list of scripture from any Christian theologian has Jubilees or Enoch. Not even the 23 book canon of Jospehus leaves room for Enoch or Jubilees.
In his introduction to Jubilees Tim appeals to the Ethiopian church for Jubilees' canonicity.
The Abyssinian Church, which has continued Jubilees as canon, names it the“Book of the Division of Days,” from the first words at the beginning. This also proves this book was not only in circulation but considered scripture at least by some at that time.
Though continued in the Ethiopian canon this entire time to today, in the Western world, Jubilees appeared lost for about 400 years until it was rediscovered in the Ethiopic. Multiple English translations from the Ethiopic were released from the mid-1800s to mid-1900s before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Once discovered in Qumran as the sixth most numerous scroll, Jubilees is known to have originated in Hebrew and those fragments coalesce with the Ethiopic. This really proved this was preserved in the Ethiopic Geez language and there is no scripture which ever says that is not acceptable. That is a false paradigm in scholarship as the book is preserved regardless and a rmed in Hebrew as well.
Book of Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pg. 40-41
Jubilees was preserved in Ge'ez (not Geez) but so what? The canon of the Ethiopian Church adds more than just Jubilees and Enoch. If we are going to hold them as a kind of standard and accept their inclusion of Jubilees and Enoch as legitimate then why should we not adopt the other books they include? Why not adopt their heretical monophysite or miaphysite Christology? Why appeal to this group at all? Tim rejects the authority of the Church to exclude books so why would he accept the authority of this Church to include books? His argument is contradictory.
Tim makes quite a big deal out of some of the Church Fathers referring to the Book of Jubilees. He even makes unfounded claims like this:
The early church fathers quoted and used the Book of Jubilees in sermons through history until about the 14th century.
Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pgs. 39-40
That is a bald faced lie and shows that Tim is not familiar with the writings of the Church Fathers or the scholastics at all. Reading this sentence it would appear that Jubilees was constantly and regularly appealed to in sermons until the 1300's. That is a lie. If Tim was familiar with the Church Fathers he would know that the Book of Jubilees is not cited in patristic or medieval theological writings in such a manner as he is claiming. If what he was saying were true there would be more than 26 entries on his list. Just think of all the men missing: Augustine, Basil, Athanasius, St Maximus, John of Damascus, Photius, Gregory the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Gregory Palamas, John Cassian, Cyprian, and the list could go on. I would encourage Tim to take his book money and invest in a nice set of the Fathers and actually read them. He won't find them citing Jubilees.
Tim is basing his claim that the Church Fathers cited Jubilees as scripture on the list R.H. Charles provides in his introduction without actually looking up the references to see what these theologians wrote about Jubilees and how they employed the text. The fact that Tim did not bother to research these citations is shown by the bungled reference to Pope Gelasius where he gleefully asserts that even a Pope cited Jubilees. Let's look at one more citation of Jubilees which Tim lists and that is Severus of Antioch. Tim writes:
542 Severus of Antioch discusses the death of Moses and an argument over his remains between satan and the Archangel Michael. This originates in Jubilees and no where in the Old Testament.
On it's face this is completely wrong because Jubilees does not end with the death of Moses. The story of the death of Moses is not in Jubilees. Nevertheless here is what Severus writes:
Therefore the Holy Scripture says in Deuteronomy also: ´Moses the Lord's bondman ended his life there, in the land of Moab, by the word of the Lord; and they buried him there in the land of Moab beside the house of Peor, and no man hath known the end or his grave to this day; which is also confirmed by that which the evangelist wrote, since Luke one of the evangelists said in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, ´And it happened that the poor man also died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. These same details about the burial of Moses men have stated to be contained in an apocryphal Book the more succinct title of which is 'The book of Generation or of Creation, which Moses himself wrote for us.’
While Severus refers to Jubilees the story is likely to be found in the alleged missing chapters of the Assumption of Moses. Like Jerome he refers to Jubilees as apocryphal. Tim gets this reference totally wrong showing once again how poor a researcher he is. He published his own version of Jubilees. Did he really forget that the story of the death of Moses does not occur in Jubilees? That is an incredible blunder.
It is quite evident that while Jubilees was cited by some theologians it was never upheld as being canonical by the normative Orthodox Church. The Ethiopian church is not Orthodox as they reject Chalcedon and teach a false Christology. The two men most familiar with the Hebrew text, Jerome and Origen, do not include Jubilees in their list of canonical scripture nor does Epiphanius, who cited the text authoritatively, or any other Christian theologian. Tim's proof for the contrary is frivolous and frangible. A citation of a text does not mean the person thinks the text is canonical scripture. As Tim says, "That's a false paradigm."
