Ju'bilee (Heb. Yobel', יוֹבֵל or וֹבֵל, a joyful shout or clangor of trumpets; once in the Author. Vers. for תּרוּעָה, Le 25:9, which is elsewhere rendered "a shout," etc.), usually in the connection YEAR OF JUBILEE (שׁנִת הִיּוֹבֵל, or merely יובֵל, as in Le 25:28; Septuag. usually translates ἔτος τῆς ἀφἐσεως, or simply ἄφεσις; but Graecizes Ι᾿ωβήλ in Jos 6:8,13; Josephus Graecizes Ι᾿ώβηλος, Ant. 3, 12, 3; Vulgate annus jubilee, orjubilceus, but buccina in Ex 19:13); also galled the "year of liberty" (שׁנִת דּרוֹר. Eze 46:17), the great semi- centennial epoch of the Hebrews, constituting a festival, and marked by striking public and domestic changes. The relation in which it stood to the sabbatical year, and the general directions for its observance, are given Le 25:8-16,23-55. Its bearing on lands dedicated to Jehovah is stated Le 27:16-25. There is no mention of the jubilee in the book of Deuteronomy, and the only other reference to it in the Pentateuch is in the appeal of the tribe of Manasseh, on account of the daughters of Zelophehad (Nu 36:4). It is rarely mentioned in the prophetical books, but is very frequently referred to by Talmudical writers. SEE FESTIVAL.
I. Signification of the Name. — According to pseudo-Jonathan (Targum on Jos 6:5-9), the Talmud (Rosh Ha-shana, 26, a), Rashi, Aben- Ezra (on Ex 19:3), Kimchi (on Jos 5:6), and other Jewish authorities, the meaning ram, which יובֵל seems at times to bear (see Fürst., Lexicon, s.v.; but Gesenius utterly denies this sense), is the primary one; hence metonymically a ram's horn (comp. Ex 19:13 with Jos 6:5); and so the sound of a ram's horn, like the Latin buccina. According to another ancient interpretation, the Heb. word is from a root יָבִל, to liberate (parallel with דרור, a freed captive; comp. Hitzig on Jer 34:8); an etymology which is somewhat sanctioned by Le 25:10, and the usual rendering of the Sept. (also Josephus, ἐλευθερίανδὲ σημαίνει τοὔνομα, Ant. 3, 12, 3; and by St. Jerome, Jobel est demittens aut mittens, Comment. ad loc.). Others, again, regard the root יבל as onomatopoetic, like the Latin jubilare, denoting to
bejubilant (Gesenius, etc.). Most modern critics, however; derive יובל from the better known root יבל, to flow impetuously (Ge 6:17), and hence assign to It the meaning of the loud or impetuous sound (Ge 4:21) streaming forth from the trumpet, and proclaiming this festival. The other notions respecting the word may be found in Fuller (Misc. Sac. p. 1026 sq.; Critici Sacri, vol. 9), in Carpzov (p. 448 sq.), and, most completely given, in Kranold (p. 11 sq.).
II. Laws connected with this Festival. — These embrace the following three main points:
1. Rest for the Soil. — This enactment, which is comprised in Le 25:11-12, enjoins that, as on the Sabbatical year, the land should lie fallow, and that there should be no tillage nor harvest during the jubilee year. The Israelites, however, were permitted to fetch the spontaneous produce of the field for their immediate wants (טן השדה תאבלו את תבואתה), but not to lay it up in their storehouses.
2. Reversion of landed Property. — This provision is comprised in Le 25:13-34; Le 27:16-24. The Mosaic law enacted that the Promised Land should be divided by lot, in equal parts, among the Israelites, and that the plot which should thus come into the possession of each family was to be absolutely inalienable, and forever continue to be the property of the descendants of the original possessor. SEE LAND. When a proprietor, therefore, being pressed by poverty, had to dispose of a field, no one could buy it of him for a longer period than up to the time of the next jubilee, when it reverted to the original possessor, or to his family. Hence the sale, properly speaking, was not of the land, but of the produce of so many years, and the price was fixed according to the number of years (שני תבואת) up to the next jubilee, so as to prevent any injustice being done to those who were compelled by circumstances to part temporarily with their land (Le 25:15-16). The lessee, however, according to Josephus, in case he had made great outlays on the field just before he was required by the law of jubilee to return it to its owner, could claim compensation for these (Ant. 3, 12, 3). But even before the jubilee year the original proprietor could recover his field, if either his own circumstances improved, or if his next of kin, SEE GOEL could redeem it for him by paying back according to the same price which regulated the purchase (Le 25:26-27). In the interests of the purchaser, however, the Rabbinical law enacted that this redemption should not take place before he had the benefit of the field for two productive years (so the Rabbins understood שני תבואת), exclusive of a sabbatical year, a year of barrenness, and of the first harvest, if he happened to buy the plot of land shortly before the seventh month, i.e. with the ripe fruit (Erachin, 9, 1; Maimonides, Jobel, 11, 10-13). As poverty is the only reason which the law supposes might lead one to part with his field, the Rabbins enacted that it was not allowable for any one to sell his patrimony on speculation (comp. Maimonides, Jobel, 11, 3). Though nothing is here said about fields which were given away by the proprietors, yet there can be no doubt, as Maimonides says (ibid. 11, 10), that the same law is intended to apply to gifts (comp. Eze 46:17), but not to those plots of land which came into a man's possession through marriage with an heiress (Nu 36:4-9; compare Mishna, Berachoth, 8, 10). Neither did this law apply to a house in a walled city. Still, the seller had the privilege of redeeming it at any time within a full year from the day of the sale. After the year it became the absolute property of the purchaser (Le 25:29-30, Keri). As this law required a more minute definition for practical purposes, the Rabbins determined that this right of redemption might be exercised from the very first day of the sale to the last day which made up the year. Moreover, as the purchaser sometimes concealed himself towards the end of the year, in order to prevent the seller from redeeming his house, it was enacted that when the purchaser could not be found, the original proprietor should hand over the redemption — money to the powers that be, break open the doors, and take possession of the house; and if the purchaser died during the year, the original proprietor could redeem it from the heir (comp. Mishna, Erachin, 9, 3,4; Maimonides, Jobel, 12, 1-7). Open places, however, which are not surrounded by walls, belong to landed property, and, like the cultivated land on which they stand, are subject to the law of jubilee, and must revert to their original proprietors (Le 25:31). But, although houses in open places are thus treated like fields; yet, according to the Rabbinic definition, the reverse is not to be the case; i.e. fields or other places not built upon in walled cities are not to be treated as cities, but come under the jubilee law of fields (comp. Erachin, 9, 5). The houses of the Levites, in the forty-eight cities given to them (Nu 35:1-8), were exempt from this general law of house property. Having the. same value to the Levites as landed property had to the other tribes, these houses were subject to the jubilee law for fields, and could at any time be redeemed (Le 25:32; comp. Erachin, 9, 8), so that, even if a Levite redeemed the house which his brother Levite was obliged to sell through poverty, the general law of house property is not to obtain, even among the Levites themselves, but they are obliged to treat each other according to the law of landed property. Thus, for instance, the house of A, which he, out of poverty, was obliged to sell to the non-Levite B, and was redeemed from him by a Levite C, reverts in the jubilee year from C to the original Levitical proprietor A. This seems to be the most probable meaning of the enactment contained in Le 25:33, and it does not necessitate us to insert into the text the negative particle לא before יגאל, as is done by the Vulgate, Houbigant, Ewald (Alterthümer, p.421), Knobel, etc., nor need we, with Rashi, Aben-Ezra, etc., take גאל in the unnatural sense of buying. The lands in the suburbs of their cities the Levites were not permitted to part with under any condition, and therefore these did not come under the law of jubilee (ver. 34). The only exception to this general law were the houses and the fields consecrated to the Lord, or to the support of the sanctuary. If these were not redeemed before the ensuing jubilee, instead of reverting to their original proprietors, they at the jubilee became forever the property of the priests (Le 27:20-21). The conditions, however, on which consecrated property could be redeemed were as follows: A house thus devoted to the Lord was valued by the priest, and the donor who wished to redeem it had to pay one fifth in addition to this fixed value (Le 27:14-15). A field was valued according to the number of homers of barley which could be sown thereon, at the rate of fifty silver shekels of the sanctuary for each homer for the whole fifty years, deducting from it a proportionate amount for the lapse of each year (Le 27:16-18). According to the Talmud the fiftieth year was not counted. Hence, if any one wished to redeem his field, he had to pay one fifth in addition to the regular rate of a sela (shekel), and a pundium (=1-48th sela) per annum for every homer, the surplus pundium being intended for the forty-ninth year. No one was therefore allowed to sanctify his field during the year which immediately preceded the jubilee, for he would then have to pay for the whole forty-nine years, because months could not be deducted from the sanctuary, and the jubilee year itself was not counted (Mishna, Erachin, 7, 1). If one sanctified a field which he had purchased, i.e. not freehold property, it reverted to the original proprietor in the year of jubilee (Le 27:22-24).
3. Manumission of those Israelites who had become Slaves. — This enactment is comprised in Le 25:554. All Israelites who through poverty had sold themselves as slaves to their fellow Israelites or to the foreigners resident among them, and who, up to the time of the jubilee, had neither completed their six years of servitude, nor redeemed themselves, nor been redeemed by their relatives, were to be set free in the jubilee, to return with their children to their family and to the patrimony of their fathers. Great difficulty has been experienced in reconciling the injunction here, that in the jubilee all slaves are to regain their freedom, with Ex 25:6, where it is enacted that those bondmen who refuse their liberty at the expiration of the appointed six years' servitude, and submit to the boring of their ears, are to be slaves forever (ועבדו לעלם). Josephus (Ant. 4, 8, 28), the Mishna (Kidushin, 1, 3) and Talmud (ibid. 14, 15), Rashi, Aben-Ezra, Maimonides (Hilchoth Abadim, 3, 6), and most Jewish interpreters, who are followed by Ainsworth, Bp. Patrick, and other Christian commentators, take,לעל to denote till the jubilee, maintaining that the slaves who submitted to have their ears bored are included in this general manumission, and thus try to escape the difficulty. But against this is to be urged, that, 1. The phrase,עבד לעל is used in Le 25:46 for perpetual servitude, which is unaffected by the year of jubilee. 2. The declaration of the slave that he will not have his freedom, in Ex 21:5, unquestionably shows that perpetual slavery is meant. 3. Servitude till the year of jubilee is not at all spoken of in Le 25:40-42 as something contemptible, and therefore could not be the punishment designed for him who refused his freedom, especially if the year of jubilee happened to occur two or three years after refusing his freedom; and that it is bondage beyond that time which is characterized as real slavery; and, 4. The jubilee, without any indication whatever from the lawgiver, is here, according to this explanation, made to give the slave the right to take with him the maid and the children who are the property of the master the very right which had previously been denied to him. Ewald, therefore (Alterthümer, p. 421), and others, conclude that the two enactments belong to different periods, the manumission of slaves in the year of jubilee having been instituted when the law enjoining the liberation of slaves at the expiration of six years had become obsolete; while Knobel (on Ex 21:6) regards this jubilee law and the enactments in Ex 21:5-6 as representing one of the many contradictions which exist between the Jehovistic and Elohistic portions of the Pentateuch. All the difficulties. however, disappear when the jubilee manumission enactment is regarded as designed to supplement the law in Ex 21:2-6. In the latter case the
regular period of servitude is fixed, at the expiration of which the bondman is ordinarily to become free, While Le 25:39-54 institutes an additional and extraordinary period, when those slaves who had not as yet completed their appointed six years of servitude at the time of jubilee, or had not forfeited their right of free citizenship by spontaneously submitting to the yoke of bondage, and becoming slaves forever (עבד עלם), are once in every fifty years to obtain their freedom. The one enactment refers to the freedom of each individual at different days, weeks, months, and years, inasmuch as hardly any twenty of them entered on their servitude at exactly the same time, while the other legislates for a general manumission, which is to take place at exactly the same time. The enactment in Le 25:39-54, therefore, takes for granted the law in Ex 21:2-6, and begins where the latter ends, and does not mention it because it simply treats on the influence of jubilee upon slavery.
4. That there must also have been a perfect remission of debts in the year of jubilee is self evident, for it is implied in the fact that all persons who were in bondage for debt, as well as all the landed property of debtors, were freely returned. Whether debts generally, for which there were no such pledges, were remitted, is a matter of dispute. Josephus positively declares. that they were (Ant. 13, 2,3), while Maimonides (Jobel, 10, 16) as positively denies it.
III. Time when the Jubilee was celebrated. — According to Le 25:8-11, it is evident that forty-nine years are to be counted, and that at the end thereof the fiftieth year is to be celebrated as the jubilee. Hence the jubilee is to follow immediately upon the sabbatical year, so that there are to be two successive fallow vears. This is also corroborated by verse 21, where it is promised that the produce of the sixth year shall suffice for three years, i.e. forty-nine, fifty, and fifty-one, or the two former years, which are the sabbatical year and the jubilee, and the immediately following year, in which the ordinary produce of the preceding year would be wanting. Moreover, from the remark in verse 22, it would appear that the sabbatical year, like the jubilee, began in the autumn, or the month of Tisri, which commenced the civil year, when it was customary to begin sowing for the ensuing year. At all events, ver. 9 distinctly says that the jubilee is to be proclaimed by the blast of the trumpet," on the tenth of the seventh month, on the day of atonement," which is Tisri. SEE ATONEMENT, DAY
OF. The opinion that the sabbatical year and the jubilee were distinct, or that there were two fallow years, is also entertained by the Talmud (Rosh Ha-Shana, 8 b, 9 a), Philo (On the Decalogue, 30), Josephus (1.c.), and many other ancient writers. It must, however, be borne in mind that, though there was to be no sowing, nor any regular harvest, during these two years, yet the Israelites were allowed to fetch from the fields whatever they wanted (Le 25:12). That the fields did yield a crop in their second fallow year is most unquestionably presupposed by the prophet Isaiah (37:30). Palestine was, at all events, not less fruitful than Albania, in which Strabo tells us (lib. 11, c. 4, sec. 3), "The ground that has been sowed once produces in many places two or three crops, the fruit of which is even fifty-fold." It must, however, be remarked, that many, from a very early period down to the present day, have taken the jubilee year to be identical with the seventh sabbatical year. Thus the "Book of Jubilees," which dates prior to the Christian era, SEE JUBILEES, BOOK OF, divides the Biblical history from the creation to the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan into fifty jubilees of forty-nine years each, which shows that this view of the jubilee must have been pretty general in those days. Some Rabbins in the Talmud (Erachin, 12 b, with 33 a), as well as many Christian writers (Scaliger, Petavius, Usher, Cunaeus, Calvitius, Gatterer, Frank, Schröder, Hug, Rosenmüller), support the same view. As to the remark, "Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year" (ver. 10), "a jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you" (ver. 11), it is urged that this is in accordance with a mode of speech which is common to all languages and ages. Thus we call a week eight days, including both Sundays, and the best classical writers called an olympiad by the name of quinquennium, though it only contained four entire years. Moreover, the sacred number seven, or the sabbatic idea. which underlies all the festivals, and connects them all into one chain, the last link of which is the jubilee, corroborates this view, inasmuch as we have,
1. A Sabbath of days;
2. A Sabbath of weeks (the seventh week after the Passover being the Sabbath week, as the first day of it is the festival of weeks);
3. A Sabbath of months (inasmuch as the seventh month has both a festival and a fast, and with its first day begins the civil year);
4. A Sabbath of years (the seventh year is the sabbatical year); and,
5. A Sabbath of Sabbaths, inasmuch as the seventh sabbatical year is the jubilee. SEE SABBATH.
IV. Mode of Celebration. — As the observance of the jubilee, like that of the sabbatical year, was only to become obligatory when the Israelites had taken possession of the promised land, and cultivated the land for that period of years, at the conclusion of which the festival was to be celebrated, the ancient tradition preserved in the Talmud seems to be correct, that the first sabbatical year was in the one-and-twentieth, and the first jubilee in the sixty-fourth year after the Jews came into Canaan, for it took them seven years to conquer it, and seven years more to distribute it (Erachin, 12, 6; Maimonides, Jobels 10:2). The Bible says nothing about the manner in which the jubilee is to be celebrated, except that it should be proclaimed by the blast of a trumpeter SEE TRUMPETER. As in many other cases, the lawgiver leaves the practical application of this law, and the necessarily complicated arrangements connected therewith, to the elders of Israel. Now tradition tells us that the trumpets used on this occasion, like those of the feast of trumpets, or new year, were of rams' horns, straight, and had their mouth piece covered with gold (Mishna, Rosh Ha-Shana, 3, 2; Maimonides, Jobel, 10, 11); that every Israelite blew nine blasts, so as to make the trumpet literally "sound throughout the land" (Le 25:9); and that "from the feast of trumpets, or new year (i.e. Tisri 1), till the day of atonement (i.e. Tisri 10), the slaves were neither manumitted to return to their homes nor made use of by their masters, but ate, drank, and rejoiced, and wore garlands on their heads; and when the day of atonement came the judges blew the trumpet, the slaves were manumitted to go to their homes, and the fields were set free" (Rosh Ha- Shana, 8 b; Maimonides, Jobel, 10, 14). Though the Jews, from the nature of the case, cannot now celebrate the jubilee, yet on the evening of the day of atonement the conclusion of the fast is announced in all the synagogues to the present day by the blast of the Shophar or horn, which, according to the Rabbins, is intended to commemorate the ancient jubilee proclamation (Orach Chajim, cap. 623, sec. 6, note).
Because the Bible does not record any particular instance of the public celebration of this festival, Michaelis, Winer, etc., have questioned whether the law of jubilee ever came into actual operation; while Kranold, Hupfeld, etc., have positively denied it. The following considerations, however, speak for its actual observance:
1. All the other Mosaic festivals have been observed, and it is therefore surpassing strange to suppose that the jubilee which is so organically connected with them, and is the climax of all of them, is the only one that never was observed.
2. The law about the inalienability of landed property, which was to be the result of the jubilee, actually obtained among the Jews, thus showing that this festival must have been observed. Hence it was with a view to observing the jubilee law that the right of an heiress to marry was restricted (Nu 36:4,6-7); and it was the observance of this law, forbidding the sale of land in such a manner as to prevent its reversion to the original owner or his heir in the year of jubilee, that made Naboth refuse to part with his vineyard on the solicitation of king Ahab (1Ki 21:1-4).
3. From Eze 46:17, where even the king is reminded that if he made a present of his landed property to any of his servants it could only be to the jubilee year, when it must revert to him, it is evident that the jubilee was observed. Allusions to the jubilee are also to be found in Ne 5; Isa 5:7-10; Isa 61:1-2; Eze 7:12-13 (Isa 37:30 is less clear). Ewald contends that the institution is eminently practical in the character of its details, and that the accidental circumstance of no particular instance of its observance having been recorded in the Jewish history proves nothing. Besides the passages to which reference has been made, he applies several others to the jubilee. He conceives that "the year of visitation" mentioned in Jer 11:23; Jer 23:12; Jer 48:44, denotes the punishment of those who, in the jubilee, withheld by tyranny or fraud the possessions or the liberty of the poor. From Jer 32:6-12, he infers that the law was restored to operation in the reign of Josiah (Alterthümer, p. 424, note 1). It is likely, however, that in the general declension of religious observances under the later monarchs of Judah this institution yielded to the avarice and worldliness of landed proprietors, especially as mortgaged property and servants would thereby be released (see Jer 34:8-11; comp. Nehemiah 5). Indeed, it is intimated that the Babylonian captivity should be of such a duration as to compensate for the years (sabbatical and jubilee together) of which Jehovah had thus been defrauded (2Ch 36:21).
4. The general observance of the jubilee is attested by the unanimous voice of Jewish tradition. This unanimity of opinion, however, only extends to the observance of the jubilee prior to the Babylonian captivity, for many of the later Rabbins affirm that it was not kept after the captivity. But in the Seder Olam (cap. 30), the author of which lived shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, we are positively assured that it was observed. Josephus, too (Ant. 3, 12, 3), speaks of it as being permanently observed. This is, moreover, confirmed by Diodorus Siculus (lib. 40), who tells us that the Jews cannot dispose of their own patrimony (ἰδιους κλήρους πωλεῖν), as well as by the fact that we have distinct records of the law respecting the redemption of houses in cities without walls, which forms an integral part of the jubilee law, being strictly observed to a very late period (Erachin, 31 b; Baba Kama, 82 b).
V. Origin, Design, and Importance of the Jubilee. — The foundation of the law of jubilee appears to be so essentially connected with the children of Israel that it seems strange that Michaelis should have confidently affirmed its Egyptian origin, while yet he acknowledges that he can produce no specific evidence on the subject (Mos. Law, art. 73). The only well proved instance of anything like it in other nations appears to be that of the Dalmatians, mentioned by Strabo, lib. 7 (p. 315, edit. Casaubon). He says that they redistributed their land every eight years. Ewald, following the statement of Plutarch, refers to the institution of Lycurgus; but Mr. Grote has given another view of the matter (History of Greece, 2, 530).
The object of this institution was that those of the people of God who, through poverty or other adverse circumstances, had forfeited their personal liberty or property to their fellow citizens, should have their debts forgiven by their coreligionists every half century, on the great day of atonement, and be restored to their families and inheritance as freely and fully as God on that very day forgave the debts of his people and restored them to perfect fellowship with himself, so that the whole community, having forgiven each other and being forgiven of God, might return to the original order which had been disturbed in the lapse of time, and, being freed from the bondage of one another, might unreservedly be the servants of him who is their redeemer. The aim of the jubilee, therefore, is to preserve unimpaired the essential character of the theocracy, to the end that there be no poor among the people of God (De 15:4). Hence God, who redeemed Israel from the bondage of Egypt to be his peculiar people, and allotted to them the promised land, will not suffer any one to usurp his title as Lord over those whom he owns as his own. It is the idea of grace for all the suffering children of man, bringing freedom to the captive and rest to the weary as well as to the earth, which made the year of jubilee the symbol of the Messianic year of grace (Isa 61:2), when all the conflicts in the universe should be restored to their original harmony, and when not only we, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, but the whole creation, which groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, may be restored into the glorious liberty of the sons of God (comp. Isa 61:1-3; Lu 4:21; Ro 8:18-23: Heb 4:9).
The importance of this institution will be apparent if it is considered what moral and social advantages would accrue to the community from the sacred observance of it.
1. It would prevent the accumulation of land on the part of a few to the detriment of the community at large.
2. It would render it impossible for any one to be born to absolute poverty, since every one had his hereditary land.
3. It would preclude those inequalities which are produced by extremes of riches and poverty, and which make one man domineer over another.
4. It would utterly do away with slavery.
5. It would afford a fresh opportunity to those who were reduced by adverse circumstances to begin again their career of industry, in the patrimony which they had temporarily forfeited.
6. It would periodically rectify the disorders which crept into. the state in the course of time, preclude the division of the people into nobles and plebeians, and preserve the theocracy inviolate.
VI. Literature. — The Mishna (Erachin, ch. 8, 9) gives very important enactments of a very ancient date respecting the jubilee. In Maimonides (Jod Ha-Chezaka, especially the tract so often above referred to as Hilchoth Shemita Ve-Jobel, ch. 10-13) an epitome will be found of the Jewish information on this subject which is scattered through the Talmud and Midrashim. Of the modern productions are to be mentioned the valuable treatises of Cunaeus, De Rep. Hebr. chap. 2, sec. 4 (in the Critici Sacri, 9:278 sq.), and Meyer, De Tempor. et Diebus Hebroeorum (in Ugolini Thesaurus, 1, 703, 1755), p. 341-360; Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses (Engl. version, Lond. 1814), vol. 1, art. 83, p. 376 sq.; Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie (Berl. 1825), 1, 502 sq; the excellent prize essays of Kranold, De Anno Hebr. Jubiloeo (Götting. 1837), and Wolde, De anno Hebr. Jubiloeo (Göttingen, 1837); Bhhr, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus (Heidelberg, 1839), 1, 572 sq.; Ewald, Die Alterthümer des Folkes Israel (Götting. 1854), p. 415 sq.; Saalschitz, Das Mosaische Recht (Berlin, 1853), 1, 141, etc.; and Archaologie der Hebraer (Konigsb. 1856), 2, 224, etc.; Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Nordhausen, 1855), 1, 463, etc.; Keil, Handbuch der Biblischen Archäologie (Frankf. a. M. 1858), 1, 374, etc. Hupfeld (Commentatio de Hebroeorum Festis, part 3, 1852) has lately dealt with it in a willful and reckless style of criticism. Vitringa notices the prophetical bearing of the jubilee in lib. 4, c. 4 of the Observationes Sacroe. Lightfoot (Harm. Evang. in Luc. 4, 19) pursues the subject in a fanciful manner, and makes out that Christ suffered in a jubilee year. For further details, see Wagenseil, De anno Jubiloeo Hebr. (Altdorf, 1700); J.C. Buck, De anno Hebroeor. jubiloeo (Viteb. 1700); Carpzov, De annojubiloeo (Lips. 1730; also in his Apparat. crit. p. 447): Ode, De anno Heb. jubilate (Traj. a. K. 1736; also in Oelrich's Collectio, 2, 421-508); Laurich, Legislatio Mosaica de anno semiseculari (Altenb. 1794); also Marck, Syllog. dissert. 302; Bauer, Gottesd. Verfass. 2, 277; Hullmann, Urgesch. des Staats, 73; Van der Hardt, Dejubil. Mosis (Helmstadt, 1728); Jochanan Salomo, De jubil. Hebr. (Danz. 1679); Meier, De mysterii Jobelcei (Brem. 1700), Reineccius, De origine Jubiloeorum (Weissenfels, 1730); Stemler, De anno Jobeleo (Lips. 1730); Van Poorteren, Jubilcus Hebroeorum (Cob. 1730); Walther, De Jubiloeo Judoeorum (Sodin. 1762). Other monographs, relating, however, rather to later times, are cited by Volbeding, Index, p. 128, 162. SEE SABBATICAL YEAR.