Although this book is also known as “The Apocalypse of Moses”[297] (Syncellus), it is not an apocalyptic work in the proper sense of the word. It purports, however, to have been given through angels to Moses on Mount Sinai, and can, therefore, in a certain sense be described as an apocalypse; but it scarcely touches upon the themes which form the main content of the apocalyptic works proper. It is also called the “Little Genesis,” as it follows the narrative as given in the Book of Genesis and Exodus i.-xii., but this is divided into fixed periods of time, or “Jubilees,” hence its name; for this word is directly derived from the Hebrew term _Jobel_ which, according to most modern scholars, means “ram” or “ram’s horn”; the year of Jubilee thus means literally “the year of ram’s horn”; the fiftieth year was so called because it was proclaimed by the blowing of rams’ horns (see Lev. xxv.). “As the author seeks to reproduce the history of primitive times _in the spirit of his own day_, he deals with the biblical text in a very free fashion. Many things that did not happen to interest him, or that he considered objectionable, were either omitted or altered, while others were still further amplified by the addition of numerous particulars of one kind or another” (Schürer, _Op. cit._, II, iii. p. 136). It is impossible to fix the exact date of the book with any certainty, but that it belongs at the latest to the second half of the first century B.C. may be unhesitatingly stated. That it was written by a Palestinian Pharisee is the opinion of most scholars; it is true that it is strongly legalistic in character, so much so that the Messianic Kingdom is conceived of as the outcome of a gradual process which is bound up with the study of the Law. The writer, moreover, greatly extols the Sabbath, Circumcision, the dietary laws, the laws of purification, etc.; its strongly marked spirit of exclusiveness is also said to betray its Pharisaic origin. But with the exception of the last point there is nothing in all this which forbids us to believe in Sadducæan authorship (see above, Chapter IV, § ii. (_b_)). Leszynsky seems to us to have proved his contention that the author was a Sadducee, who ascribed Mosaic authorship to the book for the purpose of obtaining the needful authority for Sadducæan views concerning the Law. The details of his argument would take us too far afield; he discusses the question with much learning on pp. 181-234 of his book.