[vc_row fade_scroll=”yes” enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930724485{padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text el_class=”abstract”]Recent news reports speak of a rapprochement and dialogue between Christians and Jews. But the crux of the matter, according to the interpretation proposed here, is not goodwill around a table, but rather the nature of God<\/b> at the center of their respective traditions. The starting point is clear: the God of the Jews is not reconcilable with the God of the Christians<\/b>. This is not for the sake of controversy, but simply because of adherence to what the texts say when read literally<\/b> and without theological superstructures.<\/p>\n
The approach follows the usual \u201clet’s pretend\u201d method: we pretend that the texts say what they actually say, without forcing them into subsequent doctrines. The privileged lens is the Book of Jubilees<\/b> (2nd century BC), a text accepted as sacred scripture by Coptic Christianity and which has come down to us in the Geez<\/b> language. A literal<\/b> translation, as stated in the UTET edition referred to, allows us to isolate the most explicit statements on the relationship between God and Israel, on the theme of election<\/b>, predestination<\/b>, the Sabbath<\/b>, and the covenant<\/b>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930712862{margin-top: 20px !important;margin-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_video link=”https:\/\/youtu.be\/EI36abFpV-s” align=”center”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1725610661138{margin-top: 30px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\nLiteral reading and context of the Book of Jubilees<\/h2>\n
The Book of Jubilees<\/b> is a major rewriting of biblical history from creation<\/b> to the Exodus<\/b> (roughly up to Exodus 12), dictated to Moses by God through the angel of the Presence<\/b> (malach<\/i>, who \u201cis always with him\u201d). The context is important: the author, probably close to the Essene<\/b> milieu, writes in a Hellenized Middle East<\/b>, where Greek philosophy pushes towards universalistic concepts and a metaphysically perfect God. Despite this, Jubilees reaffirms<\/b> the ancient idea: the God of whom the Scriptures speak is the God of Israel<\/b>, not an abstract universal entity, and establishes an exclusive relationship<\/b> with a concrete family<\/b>.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n \u201cWrite for Moses… until all know that I am the God of Israel, the father of all the children of Jacob and the king on Mount Zion. And Zion shall be holy, and Jerusalem also.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n (Jubilees, chap. 1; quotations taken from the literal translation by UTET)<\/em><\/span>[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]From the outset, therefore, the horizon is particular<\/b>: God does not present himself as \u201cGod of the world\u201d in the modern sense, but as God of Israel<\/b>, King of Zion<\/b>, Father of the children of Jacob<\/b>. This is the key that Hellenism cannot dissolve.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” responsive_css=”margin_top_large:50px|margin_bottom_large:20px|margin_bottom_small:30px”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_single_image image=”2038″ alignment=”center”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930770591{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n Jubilees takes up an episode already known in Genesis 18: the arrival at Abraham’s house of three visitors, recognized as belonging to the group of the Elohim. In the Jubilees account, the voice is \u201cGod’s,\u201d but the text preserves significant traces:[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n \u201cWe came to Abraham at the well of the oath… we returned in the seventh month…\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]This first person plural<\/b> is not a stylistic whim; in a literal reading, it recalls the group dimension<\/b> of those beings. In parallel, the author emphasizes that from Isaac<\/b>\u2014not from all of Abraham’s sons\u2014will come the holy lineage<\/b>, destined to be \u201cpart of the Most High\u201d<\/b> and to be under his dominion when \u201cthe Lord, having descended to Earth,\u201d will dwell among them<\/b>. Late Jewish theology will prefer an immobile and \u201cother\u201d God; Jubilees preserves the operational, historical, localized<\/b> trace: a God who descends<\/b>, stays<\/b>, governs<\/b>, makes covenants<\/b>, demands signs<\/b>.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930770591{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n The text is clear: election precedes history<\/b>. Even before family lines develop, they are predestined<\/b>:<\/p>\n Sanctification<\/b> (qadosh<\/i>) means to separate<\/b>, to set aside<\/b> for someone: it does not indicate universal moral perfection, but belonging<\/b>. Jubilees even specifies that not all peoples were sanctified<\/b> and that the Sabbath<\/b>, to which we return, is a sign<\/b> and privilege<\/b> of Israel.<\/p>\n This logic is consistent with Deuteronomy 32<\/b>, where Elyon<\/b> \u201cdivides the nations\u201d and assigns to each a son of the Elohim<\/b>; Yahweh<\/b> takes Jacob<\/b> as \u201chis portion\u201d and Israel<\/b> as \u201chis inheritance.\u201d The picture is political-sacred<\/b>: the nations have rulers (angels\/Elohim)<\/b>; Israel does not<\/b>: over Israel, its God reigns directly<\/b>, who \u201cgave no angel power over Israel.\u201d<\/b>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” responsive_css=”margin_top_large:50px|margin_bottom_large:20px|margin_bottom_small:30px”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_single_image image=”1891″ alignment=”center”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930838361{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n Circumcision<\/b> is, in Jubilees, an eternal<\/b> and generational<\/b> covenant that seals<\/b> belonging. It is not benevolent ethical advice, but a mark of alliance<\/b>: an identity sign<\/b> through which Israel recognizes and is recognized. The author reiterates that the covenant does not concern<\/b> the excluded branches (Ishmael, Esau). In modern terms, we could say that Jubilees puts in writing the \u201cexclusive contract\u201d<\/b> that regulates Israel’s rights and duties towards its God.<\/p>\n This reading clashes<\/b> with a later universalistic view, but it is perfectly in line with the most ancient biblical lexicon<\/b>, where covenants are family<\/b>, tribal<\/b>, and national<\/b>, not \u201chumanitarian\u201d in the philosophical sense.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930857330{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n Another often overlooked element is time<\/b>. Jubilees opens with the division of years, seven-year periods, and jubilees<\/b>. The God described is attentive to calendars<\/b>, orders<\/b>, and rhythms<\/b>; he is not the abstract Eternal One who \u201chas no time,\u201d but a lord of history<\/b>.<\/p>\n \u201cThis account of the division of time is according to the law and for testimony… calculated in all the years of the world.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hence the feeling of \u201ccontradiction\u201d with respect to the theology of immutability<\/b>. Where Hellenistic thought pushes towards a perfect, impassive, immutable God<\/b>, Jubilees and large portions of the Old Testament continue to show an active divinity<\/b>: one who descends<\/b>, blesses<\/b>, threatens<\/b>, repent<\/b>, changes his mind<\/b>, punishes or suspends punishment<\/b>. History<\/b>, in the words of the transcript, \u201cexplodes\u201d<\/b> and refuses to be buried under the concrete of subsequent elaborations.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” responsive_css=”margin_top_large:50px|margin_bottom_large:20px|margin_bottom_small:30px”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_single_image image=”1806″ alignment=”center”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930874383{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n The key point of \u201cseparation\u201d is the Saturday<\/b>. In Jubilees, God chooses<\/b> the lineage of Jacob<\/b> and inscribes it as his firstborn son<\/b>, sanctifying it for himself<\/b>:<\/p>\n \u201cAmong those I have seen, I have chosen… the lineage of Jacob… And he did not sanctify all peoples<\/b>, but sanctified only the people of Israel<\/b>. To them alone<\/b> did he grant to eat and drink and rest in it<\/b> on Earth.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Sabbath is not a gift \u201ctailored to humanity\u201d; it is a sign of identity<\/b> granted to Israel<\/b>. From the perspective of the Jubilees, the others are \u201cgentiles\u201d<\/b> from the beginning, predestined<\/b> not to be part of this separation<\/b>. Here we see the irreconcilable<\/b> distance from the Christian perspective, which universalizes<\/b> the signs (baptism, Eucharist, Sunday) and proposes a God for all<\/b>.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” responsive_css=”margin_top_large:50px|margin_bottom_large:20px|margin_bottom_small:30px”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_single_image image=”1468″ alignment=”center”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930874383{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n The editor of the UTET edition, professor emeritus of Biblical Philology (Hebrew and Aramaic), notes that the author of Jubilees is influenced by the concerns of his time: the emerging Jewish (and later Christian) theology is moving towards a single God, creator ex nihilo, omnipotent and immutable. These concepts are not<\/b> clearly present in the ancient Bible, where bara’<\/i> does not necessarily imply creation from nothing and where God interacts<\/b> and compromises<\/b> in history.<\/p>\n The tension is explicit: the perfect God \u201ccannot but be immutable,\u201d<\/b> but the stories<\/b> continue to represent a ruler<\/b> who moves<\/b>, decides<\/b>, claims<\/b> a people for himself, claims<\/b> property, and defends<\/b> borders. The Old Testament and the studies cited in the transcript (e.g., Jewish scholar Lia Bat Adam<\/b>) paint a character profile<\/b> of Yahweh<\/b> that is anything but \u201cApollonian\u201d: jealous<\/b>, exclusive<\/b>, demanding<\/b>, punitive<\/b>, wrathful<\/b>, fierce<\/b>, but also wise<\/b> and terrible<\/b>. A personality that is \u201cnot easily satisfied<\/b>,\u201d far removed from the ideal of the immobile Prime Mover.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930874383{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n To understand the context, Deuteronomy 32<\/b> is decisive: Elyon<\/b> \u2018the Most High\u2019 divides the nations<\/b> among the sons of Elohim<\/b>; Yahweh<\/b> is given Jacob<\/b>. The result is a veritable geopolitics of the sacred<\/b>:<\/p>\n This map contrasts with later Christian universalism, which posits one God for humanity<\/b> and salvation extended to all<\/b>.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” responsive_css=”margin_top_large:50px|margin_bottom_large:20px|margin_bottom_small:30px”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_single_image image=”1758″ alignment=”center”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930874383{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n If God wants<\/b> a people for himself<\/b>, why bring others into the world<\/b>? The question, in Jubilees, remains unsettling<\/b>. The transcription offers a clue<\/b> that comes from the Talmud<\/b>, collected in a passage from Shimon ben Zoma<\/b>: the work of the nations<\/b> would make life easier for Israel. It is a moderate<\/b> formulation compared to other statements found in the vast Talmudic corpus, but it suggests an instrumental function<\/b> of the nations towards the chosen people. It is not a dogma, but an ancient point of view<\/b> that helps us understand why<\/b> \u201cothers\u201d exist in the logic of a particular<\/b> and partisan<\/b> God.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930874383{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n At this point, the outcome is inevitable: the God of the Jubilees\/Old Testament<\/b> and the God of Christianity<\/b> do not overlap<\/b>. The former is local<\/b>, exclusive<\/b>, patrician<\/b> (in the sense of pater familias<\/i>), bound by covenants<\/b>, ruler<\/b> of his<\/b> people; the latter is universal<\/b>, metaphysical<\/b>, immutable<\/b>, \u201cGod for all<\/b>.\u201d For this reason, human, political, and cultural dialogue is always possible and desirable; but theologically<\/b>, the two figures remain irreconcilable<\/b>.<\/p>\n These are different acts<\/b>, based on different images<\/b> of God. The attempt to \u201celiminate misunderstandings\u201d risks overlooking the core<\/b>: it is not a misunderstanding of terminology, but two incompatible theologies<\/b>.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” responsive_css=”margin_top_large:30px|margin_bottom_large:50px|margin_bottom_small:30px”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_separator color=”black”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1725610661138{margin-top: 30px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n The Book of Jubilees<\/b>, read literally<\/b>, does not diminish but accentuates<\/b> the particular<\/b> profile of the biblical God: he descends<\/b> to Earth, chooses<\/b> a lineage<\/b>, demands<\/b> signs, establishes<\/b> calendars, sanctifies<\/b> a day for that<\/b> people, excludes<\/b> other family branches, and does not entrust<\/b> Israel to any angel<\/b>. He is a historical<\/b>, exclusive<\/b>, demanding<\/b> God: a ruler<\/b> among other rulers (Elohim<\/i>), with Elyon<\/b> at the top.<\/p>\n Hence the break<\/b> with the universal<\/b> God of Christianity. It is not a question of theological good manners; it is the ontological<\/b> difference between two models of God<\/b>. One can and must dialogue about ethics, memory, peace, but without pretending that the texts<\/b> say what they do not<\/b> say. History<\/b> (and Jubilees is \u201csacred\u201d history in the form of a chronicle) resists<\/b> the concrete pouring of theoretical arrangements. And if we listen to it, it reminds us that it is not always<\/b> \u201cthe God of the world\u201d who speaks: often, it is the God of Israel<\/b> who claims Israel<\/b>.<\/p>\n As always, the proposal is methodological<\/b>: let’s pretend that<\/i> the texts say what we read. And then, as free readers, each of us<\/b> can draw our own conclusions<\/b>.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” responsive_css=”margin_top_large:30px|margin_bottom_large:50px|margin_bottom_small:30px”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_separator color=”black”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1725610661138{margin-top: 30px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n What is the Book of Jubilees?<\/b><\/p>\n It is a \u201cchronological\u201d rewriting of biblical history, from creation to the exodus from Egypt, presented as a revelation to Moses through the angel of the Presence. It is considered canonical<\/b> in some traditions (such as the Copts<\/b>) and parabiblical<\/b> in others.<\/p>\n Is the God of Jubilees universal or particular?<\/b><\/p>\n Particular<\/b>: he explicitly identifies himself as the God of Israel<\/b>, \u201cfather of the children of Jacob\u201d and \u201cking of Zion.\u201d The relationship is exclusive<\/b> and based on a covenant<\/b>.<\/p>\n Why is circumcision central? What role does the Sabbath play? What does Deuteronomy 32 teach? How did we arrive at the \u201cunchanging\u201d God of Christianity? \u2014<\/p>\n Reference text: Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Edited by Paolo Sacchi, vol. I. Book of Jubilees (translation by Luigi Fusella). UTET – De Agostini, Novara, 2013.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" [vc_row fade_scroll=”yes” enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930724485{padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text el_class=”abstract”]Recent news reports speak of a rapprochement and dialogue between Christians and Jews. But the crux of the matter, according to the interpretation proposed here, is not goodwill around a table, but rather the nature of God at the center of their respective traditions. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2036,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[44,56,50,279,278,280,55,259,99,59],"class_list":["post-2043","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog","tag-antico-testamento-en","tag-bibbia-en","tag-bible","tag-book-of-jubilees","tag-deuteronomio-en","tag-deuteronomy","tag-elohim-en","tag-libro-dei-giubilei-en","tag-old-testament","tag-yahweh-en"],"yoast_head":"\n\u201cWe came to Abraham\u201d: plurality and concreteness<\/h2>\n
Predestination and election: before the choice, there is separation<\/h2>\n
\n
The covenant and the sign: circumcision as a \u201cdocument\u201d of belonging<\/h2>\n
A God who acts in history and with time<\/h2>\n
Saturday: the key to separation<\/h2>\n
From the \u201cGod of the Fathers\u201d to the \u201cperfect God\u201d: the theological revolution<\/h2>\n
Deuteronomy 32: a geopolitical map of the \u2018sacred\u2019<\/h2>\n
\n
Why create \u201cother peoples?\u201d: the provocation and the possible answer<\/h2>\n
Two paths of faith with no possibility of encounter<\/h2>\n
\n
My conclusion: read the texts thoroughly<\/h2>\n
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/b><\/h3>\n
\n<\/b>Because it is the sign<\/b> of the eternal covenant<\/b>: a bodily document<\/b> certifying Israel’s membership. It does not apply to all of Abraham’s descendants: Ishmael<\/b> and Esau<\/b> are excluded<\/b>.<\/p>\n
\n<\/b>It is the sign of identity<\/b> granted only to Israel<\/b>: God does not sanctify<\/b> all peoples on the Sabbath, but separates<\/b> Israel and grants<\/b> them to \u201ceat, drink, and rest\u201d on that day on Earth<\/b>.<\/p>\n
\n<\/b>It shows the division of nations<\/b> among the sons of the Elohim<\/b>: Yahweh<\/b> takes Israel<\/b> as his own inheritance<\/b>. The result is a plural<\/b> picture of \u201csupernatural\u201d powers, with Yahweh<\/b> directly<\/b> above Israel.<\/p>\n
\n<\/b>Through a theological<\/b> evolution that began in the post-exilic Jewish environment and was accelerated by contact with Hellenism<\/b>: the one<\/b> God, creation from nothing<\/b>, and immutability<\/b> were affirmed. But the oldest texts preserve the memory of a different God of the Fathers<\/b>: mobile<\/b>, interactive<\/b>, demanding<\/b>.<\/p>\n