The Place of The Law in The Religion of Ancient Israel - Moshe Weinfeld

THE PLACE OF THE LAW IN THE RELIGION
OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
SUPPLEMENTS
TO
VETUS TESTAMENTUM
EDITED BY
THE BOARD OF THE QUARTERLY
H.M. BARSTAD PHYLLIS A. BIRD R.P. GORDON
A. HURVITZ A. van der KOOIJ A. LEMAIRE
R. SMEND J. TREBOLLE BARRERA
J.C. VANDERKAM H.G.M. WILLIAMSON
VOLUME C
THE PLACE OF THE LAW
IN THE RELIGION
OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
BY
MOSHE WEINFELD
BRILL
LEIDEN
BOSTON
2004
VTS-100-weinfeld.qxd 2/3/2004 9:48 AM Page iii
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Acknowledgement of outside financial support:
Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, 50 Broadway (34
th
floor), New York, NY
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Weinfeld, Moshe.
The place of the law in the religion of ancient Israel / by M. Weinfeld.
p. cm. (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, ISSN 0083-5889 ; v. 100).
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 90-04-13749-1 (alk. paper)
1. Wellhausen, Julius, 1844-1918. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 2.
JewsHistoryTo 70 A.D. 3. JudaismHistoryTo 70 A.D. 4. Bible. O.T.Criticism,
interpretation, etc. 5. P document (Biblical criticism) I. Title. II. Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum ; v. 100.
DS121.W453W45 2004
222.106dc22
2003065433
ISSN 0083-5889
ISBN 90 04 13749 1
Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands
VTS-100-weinfeld.qxd 2/3/2004 9:48 AM Page iv
CONTENTS
Abbreviations .............................................................................. vii
Introduction ................................................................................ xi
PART ONE
A REVISION OF WELLHAUSENS
PROLEGOMENA
1. The Basic Prejudice of the Prolegomena ................................ 3
2. Wellhausens Literary Criticism and Its Fallacy ................ 16
3. Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source
Against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background .............. 34
4. Wellhausen in Light of his Contemporaries ...................... 64
PART TWO
THEOLOGICAL FEATURES
IN THE PENTATEUCH
5. Theological Currents in Pentateuchal Literature ................ 77
6. God the Creator in the Priestly Source and
Deutero-Isaiah ........................................................................ 95
Appendix. Concerning the Sabbath and Circumcision
in P ........................................................................................ 119
Bibliography ................................................................................ 125
Indices .......................................................................................... 139
v
WEINFELD_f1_v-ix 2/4/04 9:44 AM Page v
This page intentionally left blank
ABBREVIATIONS
AAeg Analecta Aegyptiaca
AB Anchor Bible
AcOr Acta orientalia
AfO Archiv fr Orientforschung
AfO Beih. Archiv fr Orientforschung, Beihefte
AHw Akkadisches Handwrterbuch, W. von Soden, Volumes 13,
Wiesbaden 19651981
ANET
2
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament
2
, ed.
J. B. Pritchard, Princeton 1955
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
AOATS Alter Orient und Altes Testament Sonderreihe
ARM Archives royales de Mari
ARW Archiv fr Religionswissenschaft
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament
BWANT Beitrge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BWAT Beitrge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago, Chicago 1956
CahRB Cahiers de la Revue biblique
CB The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CTA Corpus des tablettes en cuniformes alphabtiques dcouvertes Ras
Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 1939 (MRS 10), ed. A. Herdner,
Paris 1963
DBSupp Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplment, ed. L. Pirot and A. Robert,
Paris 1928
EI Eretz Israel
EJ Encyclopedia Judaica, Volumes 116, Jerusalem 1972
vii
WEINFELD_f1_v-ix 2/4/04 9:44 AM Page vii
viii .nnnr\i.+ioxs
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IB Interpreters Bible
IBoT Istanbul Arkeoloji Mzelerinde Bulunan Bo<aky
Tabeltleri(nden Seme Metinler), Volumes 13, Istanbul
19441954; Volume 4, Ankara 1988
ICC International Critical Commentary
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IOS Israel Oriental Studies
JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazki, Wissenschaftliche Verent-
lichenung der deutschen Orientgesellschaft, Leipzig 1916
KeH Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
KTU
2
The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and
Other Places (Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, KTU:
second enlarged edition), ed. M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and
J. Sanmartn, Mnster 1995
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazki, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,
Vorderasiatische Abteilung, Berlin 1921
LCL Loeb Classical Library
MIO Mitteilungen des Instituts fr Orientforschung
MRS Mission de Ras Shamra
MVAG Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-gyptischen Gesellschaft
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
OTS Old Testament Studies
OtSt Oudtestamentlische Studin
WEINFELD_f1_v-ix 2/4/04 9:44 AM Page viii
.nnnr\i.+ioxs ix
PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research
PW A. Pauly and G. Wissowa (eds), Realencyclopdie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, Volumes 123, Stuttgart 18941959
RAC Reallexikon fr Antike und Christentum, ed. T. Klauser, Volumes
110, Stuttgart 195078
RB Revue biblique
RHA Revue hittite et asianique
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
ScrHier Scripta Hierosolymitana
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
StBoT Studien zu den Bo<hazky-Texten
SVT Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
TBC Torch Bible Commentary
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel and
G. Friedrich, transl. by G. W. Bromiley, Volumes 110,
Grand Rapids 196476
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TWNT Theologisches Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Kittel
and G. Friedrich, Volumes 110, Stuttgart 193369
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
UAVA Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen
Archologie
VAB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek
VT Vetus Testamentum
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
ZA Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie
ZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZTK Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche
WEINFELD_f1_v-ix 2/4/04 9:44 AM Page ix
INTRODUCTION
One hundred and twenty years have elapsed since the appearance
of Julius Wellhausens Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels in 1883, which
was essentially a second edition of his Geschichte Israels (vol. I) of
1878.
1
The great impression made by the Prolegomena at the time of
its publication renders it a sort of milestone on the road traveled by
biblical scholarship.
Wellhausens revolutionary aim in the Prolegomena was to prove
that the main legal sections of the Pentateuch: Exod 12, 2531,
3540, all of Leviticus, and the legal material in Numbers, which
comprise the Priestly Code (P), are in fact a reection of postexilic
Judaism and must therefore be considered a deviation from the
prophetic religion which preceded it. The Priestly Code, he main-
tained, is the constitution of Judaism, which arose as an entirely
new phenomenon after the return from the Exile.
2
So convincing was Wellhausens thesis that his conclusions became
normative and have predominantly remained unchallenged. Nearly
the entire community of Western scholars agreed with Wellhausens
argument; even the great orientalist Theodor Nldeke, though he
had originally rejected the Graan positions maintained by Wellhau-
sen, nally consented to the dominant view and accepted the late-
ness of P.
3
Similarly, the English scholar Samuel Rolles Driver, who
xi
1
Citations will be made from the English translation (Wellhausen 1885 [here-
after: E.T.]), when referring to the original they are from the sixth German edi-
tion (Wellhausen 1905). For a full bibliography of Wellhausens works see Rahlfs
(1914), and for an evaluation of the impact of the Prolegomena on biblical scholar-
ship see the articles in Knight (1982).
2
This was the prevalent view of 19th-century German scholars. Thus, for exam-
ple, E. Meyer who entitled his book on the Judean community of the Persian period
(Meyer 1896). The constitution of this community according to his viewthe
Priestly Code (ibid. 222224).
3
Nldeke (1869: 127129) touches upon the very foundations of Wellhausens
thesis (cf. Nldeke 1908: 202203). The argument he adduced from the plea of the
Elephantine community for the restoration of their temple and its cult carries lit-
tle weight. Their appeal to the Jerusalemite high priest was unanswered (Aramaic
Papyri 1923: No. 30/31) and even the approval eventually received from Bagoi
and Deliah to construct the temple stipulated that only meal and frankincense were
to be oered (No. 32), not, as originally requested, meal, frankincense and burnt
WEINFELD_f2_x-xiii 2/4/04 9:44 AM Page xi
xii
rarely allowed himself to become unquestioningly convinced by attrac-
tive theories, preferring at all times to weigh matters independently,
accepted the thesis of the Prolegomena, though not without reserva-
tion (note especially his rejection of the supposed indication of late
Hebrew in P [Driver 18821883, against Giesebrecht 1881]). The
only giant of the 19th century who did not surrender was August
Dillmann (1886: 655657). Thus, until today, Wellhausens view of
Ps date is taken as an axiom, a foregone conclusion according to
which one establishes the dating of institutions, concepts, literary
strata, and even linguistic usages in the Bible.
More than half a century ago Yehezkel Kaufmann set out in his
Hebrew History of the Israelite Religion (vol. I, 1937)
4
to prove that the
Priestly Code antedates the Book of Deuteronomy, and therefore
stems from the First Temple period. While Kaufmanns line has
found considerable support among Jewish scholars in Israel and else-
where,
5
Christian scholarship has generally adhered to the Wellhau-
senian approach. This is true despite the absence of any attempt on
the part of these scholars to deal systematically with the challenge
presented by those who nd evidence for an early dating of P.
In this study, we shall examine the underlying assumptions of
Wellhausens thesis and attempt to determine just how reliable they
are. We shall do this in part one by analyzing the following issues:
the spiritual atmosphere which motivated Wellhausens theory (Chap-
ter 1); the literary-critical arguments (Chapter 2); the fallacy of Well-
hausens assumptions in the light of Ancient Near Eastern discoveries
(Chapter 3); Wellhausens methodology in light of his contemporaries
(Chapter 4). The nal two chapters provide an explanation for the
dierences between the outlooks of priestly and deuteronomic liter-
ature (Chapter 5), and challenge Wellhausens conception of the
priestly tendency to demythologize his source (Chapter 6).
* * *
Translations of biblical passages are predominantly from those pub-
lished by the Jewish Publication Society of America. However, in
oerings (No. 30: 25). The letters exchanged are to be viewed in light of the deutero-
nomic law of centralization and are not related to P.
4
Hereafter cited as Kaufmann HIR.
5
Speiser 1960, 1964: XXIVXXVI; Greenberg 1968; Milgrom 1970a, 1976,
1983; Weinfeld 1969, 1971a, 1972: 179243; Haran 1978; Seeligmann 1978; Japhet
1978; Hurvitz 1982; Zevit 1982.
WEINFELD_f2_x-xiii 2/4/04 9:44 AM Page xii
xiii
certain places when the context demanded it, I have deviated from
the Societys rendering. Most of the translations of other Hebrew
sources (especially Rabbinic) are my own in addition to the transla-
tions from German.
* * *
I would like to thank the many people who helped me in the tech-
nical preparation of this study: Tania Shapiro, Yonat Studd, Danielle
Saranga, and Bar Zecharia have printed the entire material anew;
Eran Wiesel, Noga Ayali and Naphtali Meshel have checked all the
references to primary and secondary sources; Je Finckleman has
prepared the bibliography and David Emanuel has assisted in the
nal checking of the bibliographical sources, and the editing and
arrangement of the material.
WEINFELD_f2_x-xiii 2/4/04 9:44 AM Page xiii
PART ONE
A REVISION OF WELLHAUSENS PROLEGOMENA
1
WEINFELD_f3_1-15 2/4/04 9:45 AM Page 1
CHAPTER ONE
THE BASIC PREJUDICE OF THE PROLEGOMENA
While it may seem that the dispute between Wellhausen and his
opponents about the date of the Priestly Code is of a merely tech-
nical, chronological naturedid P precede D or vice versathe fact
is that the two sides dier on quite essential issues in the concep-
tion of Israels law. One clearly observes an important undercurrent
in a letter Wellhausen wrote to his friend Ferdinand Justi (dated
March 5, 1893):
The Jews of old are not very likeable, but they are to be respected.
They perished in war against the Romans, but in a manner quite
dierent from the Athenians and Spartansalthough of military mat-
ters they comprehended nothing and knew no discipline. To be sure,
they did not perish at all, but rather triumphed, despite everything,
over Rome. One may lament this fact, but it must be recognized (Boschwitz
1968: 58, n. 8; the emphasis is mine).
1
The true nature of the case against Wellhausen becomes clearer
when we consider just what it is that gave rise to his view of the
role of the Priestly Law in Israels history. Wellhausen correctly sensed
that the Torah of Pharisaic Judaismthe Law rejected by Chris-
tianityis rmly rooted in the Priestly Code. Prescriptions about cir-
cumcision (Gen 17); Sabbath observance (Exod 16; 31:1217; 35:13;
Num 15:3236); forbidden foods (Lev 11); purity, impurity, and men-
strual taboos (Lev 1215); the sanctity of the Land and the laws
thereto attached such as the years of release and the Jubilee (Lev
25), the New Year (Lev 23:2325; Num 29:16), the Day of Atonement
(Lev 16, 23:2632) and so forthall these laws come to the fore in
the priestly stratum of the Pentateuch, and not in other strata such
as the Book of the Covenant (Exod 2123) and the Deuteronomic Code
(Deut 1226). He perceived that this law culminates in Pharisaic
Oral Law, as established by the Pharisees and practiced by Jews to
3
1
Wellhausens observations about the lack of military training and discipline
among the Jews in their war against the Romans are to be refuted now in light of
the War Rule from Qumran (1QM).
4 cn.r+rn oxr
the present day.
2
This halakhah, which seemed so strange to the lib-
eral Protestant, not conforming to the prophetic faith and its rejec-
tion of the cult, could not possibly have developed from classical,
First Temple Israelite religion. It was a mere aberration, the roots
of which had only to be found. And so Wellhausen set about tire-
lessly to the task of nding them.
The Pharisees were the subject of the rst of Wellhausens his-
torical and theological works, published in 1874 (the book was a
product of lectures delivered in 18711872). Here he discussed the
notion of theocracy in Judaism, a term rst used by Josephus (Ag.
Apion 2.165) that Wellhausen believed the Pharisees had set out to
implement. It was only natural then, given what we have already
said about the contents of P that Wellhausen searched for some con-
nection between P and Second Temple theocracy. This connection,
once drawn, became the foundation of Wellhausens theory that P
is a product of Second Temple times. The Priestly Torah, accord-
ing to his view, is not the ideal Torah of Israel, from which the
prophetic message and the Christian gospel derive, but the Torah
of Judaism (Judentum). Wellhausens credo, as he wrote it in his entry
on Israel in the Encyclopedia Britannica (Wellhausen 1881: 396432)
is as follows:
Judaism . . . is an irregular product of history. It lives on the stories of
the past, but is not simply the total of what had been previously
acquired; it is full of new impulses, and has an entirely dierent phys-
iognomy from that of Hebrew antiquity, so much so that it is hard
even to catch a likeness. Judaism is everywhere historically compre-
hensible, and yet it is a mass of antinomies . . . The Creator of heaven
and earth becomes the manager of a petty scheme of salvation; the
living God descends from His throne to make way for the law. The
law thrusts itself in everywhere; it commands and blocks up the access
to heaven; it regulates and sets limits to the understanding of the divine
working on earth. As far as it can, it takes the soul out of religion
and spoils morality. It demands a service of God, which, though
revealed, may yet with truth be called a self-chosen and unnatural
one, the sense and use of which are apparent neither to the under-
standing nor the heart. The labour is done for the sake of the exer-
2
Cf. Meyer (1896: 222): Beschneidung, Sabbatheiligung, Enthaltung vom
Schweineeisch und hnliche Wunderlichkeiten beim Essen . . . das sind die Charak-
teristica des Judenthums in den Zeiten des Antiochus Epiphanes, des Tacitus und
Juvenal wie in der Gegenwart. Sie sind es im babylonischen Exil geworden (my
emphasis).
+nr n.sic rnrtricr or +nr PROLEGOMENA 5
cise; it does no one any good, and rejoices neither God nor man . . . The
ideal is a negative one, to keep ones self from sin, not a positive one,
to do good upon the earth, . . . The occupation of the hands and the
desire of the heart fall asunder . . . There is no connection between the
Good One and goodness.
He goes on to claim that the Gospel
. . . develops hidden impulses of the Old Testament, but it is a protest
against the ruling tendency of Judaism. Jesus understands monotheism
in a dierent way from his contemporaries . . . He feels the reality of
God dominating the whole of life, He breathes in the fear of the Judge
who requires an account for every idle word . . . This monotheism is
not to be satised with stipulated services . . . it demands the whole
man, it renders doubleness of heart and hypocrisy impossible. Jesus
casts ridicule on the works of the law, the washing of hands and ves-
sels, the tithing of mint and cummin, the abstinence even from doing
good on the Sabbath. Against unfruitful self-sanctication He sets up
another principle of morality, that of the service of ones neighbor . . .
Thus religion ceases to be an art which the Rabbis and Pharisees
understand better than the unlearned people which know nothing of
the law (Wellhausen 1889: 9799 [E.T. 508510]).
What follows is much in the same vein; Wellhausen continues extolling
the Church and denigrating Judaism.
The same bias appears in Wellhausens Israelitische und jdische Ge-
schichte (1914): the New Testament is presented here as the apex of
the spiritual creativity of the true Israel, while the vast Hebrew
literature which ourished in the Middle Ages did not emerge from
the true roots of Israels tradition.
3
Judaism, as opposed to Christianity,
sees salvation as a miraculous event, utterly unrelated to the reli-
gious and ethical behavior of the individual. The idea of individual
responsibility before God, he concludes, is quite far removed from
Judaism (Wellhausen 1914: 364365).
Wellhausen presents here a completely distorted view of the situ-
ation. His views correspond to those of his contemporaries in Germany,
especially Emil Schrer and Wilhelm Bousset, who never made an
eort to study Rabbinical sources or to read the literature of the
Jewish school and synagogue, and yet dared to dene Judaism in a
very condent manner: What Bousset lacked in knowledge, he made
up, however, in the positiveness and condence of his opinions . . . by
3
Wellhausen (1914: 358) Die ausgedehnte jdische Literatur des spteren Mit-
telalters kann man nicht eigentlich als ein Gewchs aus der alten Wurzel betrachten.
6 cn.r+rn oxr
an . . . unsupported assertion coming by force of sheer reiteration
(Moore 1921: 242).
4
Jewish halakhah is, and always has been, a labor
for its adherents, hence the various complaints concerning its rigid-
ity, stiness, etc.
5
Yet its observance has never been a matter of
labor done for the sake of the exercise but rather an instructive
discipline in the demanding and multifaceted service of God. Claiming
that halakhah ignores the commandment of the heart and the real-
ity of God dominating the whole of life is simply a misrepresenta-
tion. Wellhausen apparently was unaware that the biblical words I
have set the Lord always before me (Ps 16:8) are displayed promi-
nently upon the lectern of every synagogue, and he apparently knew
nothing of a Judaism that struggles against a commandment of men,
learned by rote (hdmlm yna twxm) (Isa 29:13).
6
Smend (1982a; 1982b) has presented a thorough and most valu-
able discussion of Wellhausens attitude towards Jews and Judaism.
He rightly concludes that in those days nobody would be blamed
for thinking or talking like him. To be sure, this does not mean that
he and his contemporaries were free of anti-semitic feelings. As the
excerpt at the beginning of this chapter shows, Wellhausen was not
happy at all about the survival of the Jews, and on other occasions
he did not hide his feelings of aversion to Jews (Smend 1982b: 269,
n. 95). According to W. R. Nicoll in the protocol of his meeting
with Wellhausen in Eldena near Greifswald (August 3, 1881): Well-
hausen hates Jews (Darlow 1925: 42; cf., however, for the reser-
vations of Smend 1981: 165). We should admit that Wellhausens
personal feelings do not count when it comes to scholarly matters.
What we try to show here is that Wellhausens characterization of
Judaism is false, independent of his personal feelings towards Jews.
He himself testies that besides some Mishnah and Mekhilta, he
never studied any Rabbinic composition systematically (Wellhausen
4
On the prevailing anti-Jewish atmosphere of German theologians in the 19th
century, see also the debate between Blenkinsopp (1977: 1920; 1980) and McKane
(1979: 6667). On the religious sentiment of Wellhausens own time, see Silberman
(1982).
5
See the references of Smend (1982: 278, n. 140141), especially those con-
cerning Buber. On Bubers attitude towards institutionalized religion, see Amir (1982:
114118).
6
Note the medieval philosopher Bachya ben Joseph ibn Paquda (Paquda 1962:
2.144151, 198200 [the chapters dealing with repentance and spiritual account-
ing]); both his idea and its formulation derive from Isa 29:13, despite Wellhausens
idea of the unauthentic roots of medieval Jewish writing.
1874: 123, n. 1), this makes him ill-qualied to say what Pharisaic
Judaism is and is not. In another note (ibid. 19, n. 1) he says that
the Mishnah from beginning to end is characteristic of the Pharisees,
and that there is no point in going into details as it is all the same.
Clearly no one who had studied Mishnah properly would make such
a statement. One mishnaic passage that he certainly did not learn
is the dictum a man may oer much or little, so long as he directs
his mind towards Heaven (m. Menah. 13:11); had he learned it, he could
not have claimed that Judaism separates the legal act from the proper
thought and the understanding of the heart.
As noted by Liebeschtz (1967: 245268), this conscious decision
to forego the careful study of Rabbinic literature is especially aston-
ishing on the part of a scholar whose lifes ambition was historical
interpretation based on philological examination.
7
As for Wellhausens
work on the Pharisees, his devoted friend Wilamowitz quotes
Wellhausens own attestation about his lack of the necessary histor-
ical training: Ich habe nur den Josephus gelesen, sagte er; das tun
die Theologen nicht (Wilamowitz-Moellendor 1928: 188). This
ignorance of Jewish sources crippled Wellhausen not only in his study
of the Pharisaic period (i.e. the time of Jesus), but also in his eval-
uation of topics treated in the Priestly Code of the Pentateuch. For
instance, in his discussion of the shoulder, two cheeks, and maw
given to the priests, he makes reference to Josephus (Wellhausen
1905: 148, [E.T. 154]), but not to the m. Hul. 10:1, (cf. Siphra 17:6).
Elsewhere, discussing Ps outlawing of the high places since the erec-
tion of the Tabernacle, he cites (in Latin!) the m. Zebah. 14:4, but
neglects to mention the Mishnayot which follow describing the sub-
sequent legalization of the high places (Wellhausen 1905: 37, n. 1).
Y. Kaufmann accuses Wellhausen of willful distortion (Kaufmann
HIR 1.132133, n. 34) but it is just as likely that the case is one of
citation from faulty, incomplete secondary sources. Wellhausens
superciality in dealing with Rabbinic material is a far more serious
shortcoming than his hatred of Talmudists, a hatred he certainly did
not lack (cf. Wellhausen 1874: 123). G. F. Moore (1921: 241, n. 47)
has related to the lack of training in Judaic sources among the New
Testament scholars of Wellhausens age:
7
The late Prof. I. L. Seeligmann drew my attention to Liebeschtz study.
8 cn.r+rn oxr
It is not without signicance that all these authorsSchrer, Balden-
sperger, Weiss, Boussetwere New Testament scholars, the oldest of
them scarcely past thirty years old. Schrer was the only one who
thought it necessary to know anything about the rabbinical sources,
and he found in Surenhusius Mishna just the right material for the
demonstration of legalism. Beyond this he never went; the others
did not go so far.
One of the biggest distortions of Judaism in Boussets book on Jesus
(Bousset 1892) is his statement that later Judaism had neither in
name nor fact the faith of the Father-God; it could not possibly rise
to it (cf. Moore 1921: 242). However, whoever opens a Jewish
prayer book will hardly miss the phrases, our father, our king or
our father in Heaven.
It is also evident that Wellhausen failed to see that the Jewish reli-
gious experience is one of the joys of fullling a commandment, of
observance of the law, not for the sake of the exercise but in order
to perform the will of the Creator. He has entirely missed the fact
that Judaism sancties life by eradicating the separation of jus (law)
from fas (religion), by rendering all aspects of lifethe synagogue,
the home, the marketa continuous act of divine service. Every step
taken by the Jew is directed by his awareness that he is fullling
Gods will.
The notion, which Wellhausen ascribed to Jesus as the antithesis
of Judaism, that true monotheism is not to be satised with stipu-
lated services . . . it demands the whole man is an authentically
Jewish view. Rabbi Jose is quoted as saying, And let all your deeds
be done for the sake of Heaven (m. Avot 3:12; cf. Av. R.Nathan II
30 [Schechter 1997: 65]). Elsewhere this statement is attributed to
Hillel the Elder, who is said to have performed such deeds as eat-
ing, drinking, and bathing for the sake of Heaven. This same con-
cept is expressed in the words of the "amora Bar Kappara (b. Ber.
63a): Under which short passage are all the laws of the Torah sub-
sumed? In all your ways know him (Prov 3:6). At any rate, it was
not Jesus who invented this sort of monotheism. Urbach (1975: 341)
has written on this:
One cannot overlook the danger to the observance of the precepts
from the standpoint of Hillel, for if every act can be done in the name
of Heaven, then something is abstracted from the absolute value of
the precept and a way is opened for the nullication of the worth of
the ritual laws whose connection with the knowledge of the Lord is
not clear or simple. In truth, Jesus reached such extreme conclusions
in his polemic against the Halakha, as is reported in the Gospels.
Jesus was in fact perpetuating a dispute current in the Judaism of
his age: the school of Hillel demanded, as we have seen, that one
should direct all his deeds to Heaven. The opposing school of Shamai
held that such religious intent is only necessary for deeds which go
into the performance of a divine command and not for other actions
(Urbach 1975: 450). In order to characterize the Pharisaic attitude,
Wellhausen (1874: 19; 1905: 11 [E.T. 116]) adduces Shamais and
not Hillels view about the Sabbath, and thus distorts the picture.
But Judaism, as is well known, adopted Hillels view.
8
It conceives
of the commandments as the concretization of a few ethic-religious
principles (b. Mak. 23b24a):
R. Simlai preached: 613 precepts were uttered to Moses: 365 prohi-
bitions, corresponding to the number of days in the solar year, and
248 injunctions, corresponding to the number of organs of a mans
body . . . David deduced the number to 11, as it is written, A psalm
of David, Lord, who may dwell in Your tent, etc. (Ps 15:15) . . . Isaiah
proceeded to reduce the number to 6, as it is written, He who walks
in righteousness, speaks uprightly, etc. (Isa 33:15) . . . Micah further
reduced the number to 3, as it is written, He has told you, O man,
what is good, and what the Lord requires of you, etc. (Mic 6:8) . . . Again
came Isaiah and reduced the number to 2, as it is said, Thus said
the Lord: Observe what is right and do what is just, etc. ( Isa
56:1) . . . Amos nally reduced the number to 1, as it is said, Seek
me, and you will live (Am 5:4).
The point of the homily is that the essence of the divine command
and all the individual precepts it entails can be expressed in any
number, however small, of general religious-ethical demands, and
was so expressed by classical prophets and psalmists. Another talmudic
view, that of R. Nahman bar Yizhak, is that the reduction of the
number of commandments to one, expressed according to R. Simlai
in the passage from Amos, is better expressed in the words of
Habakkuk: The righteous shall live by his faith (wtnwmab) (Hab 2:4).
This notion that the Faith of the righteous is equal to the whole
Law also appears in Gal 3:1112; however, in contrast to the talmudic
8
On the theological aspect of the controversy between Shamai and Hillel see
Urbach (1975: 340).
10 cn.r+rn oxr
passage, it appears as part of the Pauline polemic against the obser-
vance of the precepts of the Torah.
Urbach (1975:342343) realized that the rst lesson of R. Simlais
homily was intended to express the idea that there exist precepts for
every day of the year and for every organ of the human body: man
is to be both spatially and temporally wholly engaged in the fulll-
ment of Gods will. The individual commandments are thus no more
than detailed elaboration and concretization of mans submission to
(and nearness to) the Divine. Such a view is directly opposed to that
voiced by Wellhausen in his book on Pharisees (1874: 19):
The sum of the derived chokes the source, the 613 written laws and
the thousand other non written regulations allow little room for the
conscience. The sum of the method became the aim, one forgets God
for the Torah, and the way to him (the prosgvg) for the etiquette,
through which he should make accessible (my translation).
This view was in fact held by those Christian scholars who failed to
acquire a true understanding of the nature of Judaism. The English
biblical scholar G. A. Smith (1918: 60) writes on Deut 4:7 (For
what great nation is there that has a God so close): Legal Judaism
lost this sense of the constant nearness of God (Deut 4:7), and did
compensate for the loss by its apocalypses. Only relatively recently
has the trend been reversed as Christian scholars have begun to get
acquainted with Judaism (Klein 1975).
As for the service of ones neighbor, it was the same R. Simlai
who preached that the Torah both begins and ends with acts of
kindness: it opens with Gods providing raiment for Adam and his
wife, and ends with His attending to the burial of Moses (b. Sota
14a). The lesson is an obvious one: loving kindness, as practiced by
God Himself, is the alpha and omega of the Law.
9
Wellhausens
claim that Pharisaic Judaism, as an outgrowth of the priestly reli-
gion, is characterized by moral insensitivity (E.T. 500: For what
holiness required was not to do good, but to avoid sin) and unten-
9
Compare Tg. Ps.-J. to Deut 34:6 with Matt 25:3132 Rabbi Simlai, a third
century sage, was a kind of apostle (= emissary/sage) whose preaching polemi-
cized with Christians (Rosenfeld 1983); it is against this background that we should
understand the anities of his sermons to the New Testament. See my remark: A
professor of philosophy stated in a class that the God of the Old Testament is a
cruel God. When he was asked: How can one say that the God who commands
to love the neighbor and the foreigner as himself (Lev 19:18, 39) is a cruel God.
He replied that he took this idea from a theological textbook (1995b:89).
able. Lev 19 (especially vv. 8, 3334) and Lev 25 are replete with
moral demands, and the idea that P is morally apathetic is just as
distorted as the notion that Pharisaic Judaism is. Wellhausen, as it
appears, did not feel the true pulse of Judaism. Proper intent (hnwwk)
in performing the commandments was always a crucial issue to the
Rabbis (Urbach 1975: 390391). There would have been no place
for the many talmudic discussions of this topic, if, as Wellhausen
contended, the commandments were merely exercised.
As for Christian morality, which achieves great heights, the Gospels
themselves attest to the fact that this is rooted in Pharisaic Judaism:
10
And one of them (the Pharisees), a legal expert (nomikw)
11
asked him,
to test him: Master, which is the greatest commandment (ntol meglh)
in the law?, And he said to him: You shalt love the Lord your God
with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
12
This is the rst and great commandment, and the second is like it,
You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two command-
ments hang all the law and the prophets (Matt 22:3539).
The Pharisees questions about the great commandment actually
correspond with the dictum of R. Akiva: Love your neighbor as
yourself : That is a major principle in the Law (Siphra to Lev 19:18).
13
10
Cf. Siphra, Kedoshim 1:1: Why was [this chapter] said to the entire people?
Because the essentials of the Law are subsumed in it; see the discussion of Flusser
(1979: 36).
11
Cf. Luke 10:25. In 4 Macc 5:4, Elazar, standing before Antiochus, is called
nomikw. In 2 Macc 6:18, he is called one of the rst scribes (Elezarw tiw tn
prvteuntvn grammatvn, i.e., one engaged in the interpretation of Torah (rdm
hrwth). This expression can be compared to similar ones in Sirach (hrwt pwt [15:1],
hrwt rwd [35:15]) and in Qumran literature. Such epithets are occasionally reck-
oned among the Pharisaic scribes but are not identical to them; see for example
Luke 11:45, where the nomikw does not see himself as one of the Pharisees. The
Pharisees are the members of the sect; the sopherim are the ocials and assorted
Temple scribes, and the nomiko are the learned preachers and interpreters of the
Law. On Moses as a nomikw see Lieberman (1950: 8182).
12
dinoia (cf. Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27) never appears in the LXX for Hebrew
t[d, and represents, I believe, Hebrew rxy, as in the LXX Gen 6:5; 8:21; 1 Chr
29:18 in accord with the midrashic comment on with all thy heart; with both
your inclinations yrxy (Siphre Debarim 32 [Finkelstein 1969: 55] et parall.). In con-
trast, snesiw in Mark 12:35 = Hebrew [dm or t[d, which replaced classical bl
in Rabbinic Hebrew (Ben David 19671971: 92; cf. Ibn-Ezras commentary to Deut
6:5). damw pn, bbl appear in Qumran as intelligence (t[d), strength (jk) and
fortune (wh). (1QS 1:12; cf. 3:2; CD 13:11). The LXX rendered dam in Deut 6:5
with Greek sxw. The Aramaic translations render dam as skn (property) or wmm
(money). For the whole issue see Weinfeld (1982a).
13
See Flusser (1979: 36). It is best to avoid interpreting ntol as principle
(llk) as Flusser does, since llk is not the same as hwxm at all; see M. Smith (1945).
12 cn.r+rn oxr
On the other hand, Jesus statement that all the law and the
prophets hang on these two commandments corresponds to Hillels
reaction to the heathen who wanted to be converted on the condi-
tion that Hillel teach him the entire Torah while standing on one
foot. Hillel replied: What is hateful to you do not do to your
neighbor, this is the entire Torah, all the rest go and study (that
is, all the rest is a commentary) (b. abb. 31a; cf. Av.R.Nathan II 26
[Schechter 1997: 53]). This saying appears in the Palestinian Targum
as a translation of Lev 19:18 Love your neighbor as yourself (cf.
Urbach 1975: 589, 955, n. 93). In the parallel of Mark 12:2833
we read:
And one of the (Pharisaic) scribes came and . . . asked him: which is
the rst commandment of all? and Jesus answered him, the rst of all
the commandments is Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with
all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.
14
This is the rst commandment. And the second is like it, namely this:
you shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other com-
mandment greater that these. And the scribe said unto him: Well,
Master, thou hast said the truth, for there is but one God; and there
is no other than he: And to love him with all the heart and with all
the understanding (snesiw) and with all the soul and with all the
strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole-
burnt-oerings and sacrices.
Both Luke 10:2528 and Matt 22 clearly state that the legal expert
approached Jesus to test him, and Jesus withstood the trial. Jesus thus
revealed his awareness that the two commandments mentioned are
The phrase ntol meglh appears in the Letter of Aristeas in connection with the
honoring of parents (Flusser 1979: 36). Second in order of importance is the love
of neighbor, expressed in the language of the LXX Deut 13:7, your friend who
is as yourself. For the view that honoring ones parents is the most important com-
mandment, see y. Pea 1:1 (15d): R. Simeon ben Yohai says: the respect of father
and mother is so great that the Holy One, Blessed be He, preferred it above His
own honor . . . R. Abba bar Kahana said: scripture equates the easiest of the com-
mandments with the most stringent. The easiest is to let (the mother-bird) leave the
nest, the most stringent is the honoring of father and mother. The same view may be pre-
sent in the Siphre to Deut 13:7: your friend who is as yourself; this is your father
(Finkelstein 1969: 151).
14
The word used here for dam is sxw. In the LXX Deut 6:5 the word dnamiw
appears; however, sxw is used in 2 Kgs 23:25. In Hebrew and Aramaic sources
of the Second Commonwealth and thereafter, dam is interpreted as money; cf.
CD 9:1; 12:10; m. Ber. 9:5; Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J. to Deut 6:5. The scribes at
Qumran apparently understood dam as fortune.
the basis of Pharisaic Judaism. By expressing the view of the Pharisees,
Jesus reveals his own opinion as well. Christian interpreters have
always realized this, though they have consistently felt compelled to
stress the dierence between the position of the Pharisees and that
of Jesus:
Die Heraushebung und Zusammenstellung der zwei Gebote tritt also
nicht eigentlich als eigener Gedanke Jesu auf, sondern auch ein ehrlicher
und nach dem Heil verlangender Schriftgelehrter konnte wissen, dass
dies die wichtigsten Gebote des alten Bundes waren . . . Aber die einzel-
nen ernsten Rabbinen haben nicht vermocht, diese Erkenntnis fr die
Welt fruchtbar zu machen; erst dadurch, dass Jesus fr diese Anschauung
eintrat, hat er gewissermassen die Seele der alten Religion entdeckt,
aus der Umklammerung einer tausendgliederigen Gesetzesberlieferung
befreit und ihren edelsten Gehalt in die neue Religion hinbergefhrt.
Der ganze Wust des Zeremonial-Gesetzes aber mit seinen zahllosen
Einzelheiten ist damit zurckgedrngt und zum Absterben gezwungen
(Bousset 1917: 186).
The tendentious inaccuracy of such interpretation speaks for itself.
Neither the Pharisees nor Jesus considered the traditional meticulous
observance of the commandments in any way a contradiction to the
precepts of the love of God and neighbor, nor did the authors of
the Gospels themselves (cf. Matt 5:1720; Luke 16:17). As a matter
of fact, as we have stressed, the Pharisees considered observance to
be the very realization of these ideals. It was Hillel, one of the great-
est of the Pharisees, who considered Lev 19:18 as the basis of the
whole Torah. And it was this same Pharisaic Hillel who taught that
man must love his fellow men and bring them near to the Law
(m. Avot 1:12), a lesson that recalls Jesus befriending of the sinners
in order to bring them to faith. Hillels school indeed ruled that the
Law is to be taught to all men, even sinners, since many sinners
in Israel, after having been brought to the study of the Law, have
become righteous, pious, and proper men. This view was opposed
by the school of Shamai, who taught one should teach only those who
are wise, humble, of distinguished ancestry, and rich (Av. R.Nathan
I 3; [Schechter 1997: 1415]).
The two essential commandments, love of God and love of neigh-
bor, combine in the teaching of R. Akiva, the Pharisee par excellence.
R. Akiva, who saw in the commandment of the love of neighbor a
major principle, longed throughout his life to fulll literally the
commandment to love God with all your soul, and interpreted it
as even if he takes away your life (Siphre to Deut 6:5; m. Ber. 9:5).
14 cn.r+rn oxr
Moreover, just as Jesus promised the Pharisee who concurs in his
teaching a share in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 12:34), we are
told that after R. Akiva performed the ultimate act of love of God
with all your soul, i.e. gave up his life as a religious martyr, a
Voice from Heaven proclaimed, Happy are you R. Akiva; you are
summoned to Life in the next world (b. Ber. 61b).
15
Love of God and love of neighbor are also associated with each
other in such apocryphal sources as the Testament of Issachar (5:2; 7:6)
and the Testament of Dan (5:3; see Ginsberg 1976: 203), and traces
of this connection are found in the following midrashic passage:
16
This is the book of the descendants of Adam, when God created man,
he made him in the likeness of God (Gen 5:1)Ben Azzai says: this
is a major principle in the Torah . . . Ben Zoma says: We have a more
inclusive one: Hear O Israel . . . You shall love the Lord, etc. Ben
Nanas says: We have a still more inclusive one: Love your neighbor
as yourself.
17
In light of all this how can it be claimed, as it was by Wellhausen,
that Jesus contrasted the love of neighbor with the view of the
Pharisees? It is astounding that Wellhausen was able to speak of the
dierence between Christian and Jewish morality, while at the same
time totally ignoring the mishnaic treatise Avot, the most abundant
source available for the study of Pharisaic morality.
It is to be stressed that Wellhausens approach is a reection of
the prevailing view among Christian theologians in late 19th and
early 20th-century Germany (Blenkinsopp 1977), a view that has
since been opposed by American theologians such as G. F. Moore
and others (Moore 1921; Sanders 1977: 3334). However, we are
not concerned here with defending Jewish belief, but rather with
revealing the distorted nature of Wellhausens claims concerning it,
claims which led to his prejudiced view of P: the dry regulations
15
The Kingdom of Heaven, the Next World (= World to Come), and
Paradise are all the same in the Gospels; see Matt 13:2426; Luke 18:1819.
16
For a full discussion of this passage and for the version quoted here of an
unknown origin, see Gen. Rab. (Theodor Albeck 1965: 237). Recently the two
ideas have been found associated with one another in an early Persian collection
of midrashim entitled Pitron Torah (Urbach 1975: 3070).
17
The midrash continues with the dictum of R. Shimon ben Pazi who says: We
have even one more inclusive principle: You shall oer one lamb in the morning,
etc. It may be that this last view of Shimon ben Pazi is expressed in opposition
to the words of the Pharisee reported in Mark 12:33 (quoted above); see Wellesz
(1906).
of P simply could not be an authentic Israelite creation of the
prophetic age; they must be a manifestation of decline and decay
of a Judaism which began in the exile and paved the way for the
subsequent Pharisaic theocracy. This theocracy, whose establishment
is attributed by P to Moses, is but a ctional retrojection of exilic
and postexilic realities, a fabrication of Second Temple scribes who
wished to portray the priestly ideology of Second Temple times.
A theory of this type, of course, is a response to the natural expec-
tations of the liberal Protestant who abhors ceremony and ritual. We
hear of Wellhausens preoccupation with this problem in the intro-
duction to the Prolegomena, where he wrote that as a student he had
been plagued by the matter of the Law and its place in Israels her-
itage. Though thoroughly acquainted with the prophets and the his-
torical literature, he found himself unable to formulate a stand on
the nature of the Law. With the aid of Knobels Commentary, he
made his way through the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers,
and became more and more convinced that a gap between two
wholly distinct worlds separates the Law from historical and prophet-
ical books. When he learned in 1867 that Karl Heinrich Graf placed
the Law later than the prophets, he accepted Graf s hypothesis
almost without knowing his reasons (Wellhausen 1905: 34). It is
thus obvious, given Graf s view of the Law and its negative aspects,
how Wellhausen came to be so entranced by this approach.
Moreover, Wellhausens determination that the Law upon which
Judaism is based is not a heritage from the original Israel, lent legit-
imization to Christianitys rejection of that Law. Thus a Christian
scholars estimation of Wellhausens study of the Gospel of John
included the statement that with the Prolegomenas publication, I and
others have received the impression that we are dealing here not
with Moses but with Jesus (Bestman 1912: 245). Boschwitz too wrote
that the impression one gets from reading Wellhausens book on
the history of Israel is that the image of Moses has been dwarfed
and shrunken, so that practically nothing of Moses the Lawgiver
remains (Boschwitz 1968: 79).
Wellhausens distorted view of the Pharisaic Judaism, whose ori-
gin is to be seen in P, brought with it the distortion of the view of
P itself. The cult of P is, in Wellhausens opinion, estranged from
the heart, it is a dead work, and thus serves as a forerunner of
the Pharisaic lore that demands washing of hands and vessels, tithing
of mint and cummin, etc. (Wellhausen 1905: 424).
16
CHAPTER TWO
WELLHAUSENS LITERARY CRITICISM
AND ITS FALLACY
In order to substantiate his theory, Wellhausen made use of literary-
historical criticism, which, it is readily to be admitted, he did with-
out bias. His prejudice is always there in the background but never
emerges in his discussions. With great skill he analyzed the tradi-
tions of the Pentateuch, and attempted to nd a historical foothold
like de Wette (1805). Just as de Wette sought the historical back-
ground for Deuteronomy in Josiahs reign, so Wellhausen sought an
appropriate historical period for P in the theocracy of the Second
Temple, and indeed he found it. Unlike de Wette, however, Wellhausen
was unable to cite historical data from the period he chose which
might parallel P itself, and was forced instead to invent evidence
that remained subjective no matter how persuasively it was argued.
Wellhausens discussion of the historical place of P is outlined in
ve chapters: (1) the place of worship; (2) the sacrice; (3) the sacred
feasts; (4) the priests and the Levites; (5) the endowment of the clergy.
In his view, all of these exemplify the transition of Israelite tradition
from natural living custom to dead word. Let us summarize briey
his main arguments.
(1) The Place of Worship: The cult of Israel was rooted in nature.
The people worshipped their God everywhere: at eld altars, high
places, local sanctuaries, etc. Josiahs reform changed the situation
and exclusively based cult worship in the Jerusalem Temple. This
doctrine, embodied in the Deuteronomic Code, pervaded in P and
actually produced Ps image of the Tabernacle. By projecting the
Tabernacle into the period of the desert wanderings, P aims to show
that the centralization of the cult was prevalent in Israel from the
beginning of its history, the Tabernacle being the ctitious creation
of a postexilic scribe.
(2) The Sacrice: The old ritual was mainly based on the holy meal
(jbz) of the people at Gods table. On special occasions, the whole
meal was dedicated to God as a burnt-oering (hlw[). The zeah and
the 'olah were the only components of the animal sacrice. P added
vrrrn.tsrxs ri+rn.nv cni+icisv 17
two other sorts of sacrice: the sin-oering (tafj), and the guilt-
oering (a). These sacrices originated in exilic times and were
motivated both by the feeling of guilt that prevailed after the exile
and the desire to atone for sin through sacrice. By the same token,
all kinds of festal oerings (both twlw[ and twafj) were added. The
increase in sacrice and sacred gifts is to be taken as the natural
consequence of the hierocracy of the Second Temple period. Well-
hausen perceived this development as a manifestation of the decay
of the popular nature of sacrice. He surmised that it was accom-
panied by a decrease in the natural, spontaneous joy and singing
which characterized sacrice in First Temple times (to substantiate
this he adduces Am 5:23).
(3) The Sacred Feast: The old festivals grew out of Israels natural
life and were the blossom of life (Wellhausen 1905: 75 [E.T. 77]).
The ancient holidays were the feasts of the harvest, the rst fruits,
and the ingathering; it was P that turned them into an elaborate
sacricial system (Num 2829). The old festivals have no xed dates
as they have in P, since their occurrence is determined by the ripen-
ing of the crops. Because the New Year and the Day of Atonement
have no connection with nature and agriculture, they are totally
absent from the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomic Code.
Their prominent place in the priestly Law is due to the fact that
they originate in the postexilic period, when feelings of sin and the
need for confession began to pervade the national consciousness, and
the Jews ceased to engage in agriculture and turned to commerce
(Wellhausen 1905: 106108 [E.T. 108110]).
(4) The Priests and the Levites: Priests are unnecessary in the older
sources; anyone may slaughter and oer sacrices ( Judg 6:1921;
13:1519; 1 Sam 14:3436). In Deuteronomy the priests take a
prominent position and are called the priests the Levites; however,
a further development occurs in P, where the distinction is made
between the Aaronite priests and the Levites. This is to be explained
against the background of the Josianic reform. The Levites are the
descendants of the priests of the high places who were disqualied
by Josiah from priesthood (2 Kgs 23:9). Ezekiel (44:67) provided
those disqualied priests with their degraded function, and this was
sanctioned by the priestly legislator of the Second Temple period.
At the head of the priestly hierarchy stands the High Priest who
represents, as it were, the king: he wears a diadem, presides over
the congregation of Israel, and his death absolves sinners (Num
18 cn.r+rn +vo
35:2526). This is a retrojection of the Second Temple reality when
High Priests functioned as Pope.
(5) The Endowment of the Clergy: Sacricial gifts and tithes were con-
sumed at rst by their owners at the various holy places. However,
P requires that these are given to the priests and the Levites. The
priests receive all the sin and guilt oerings, the rstlings, and the
rst fruits, while the Levites receive the tithes. Furthermore, 48 cities
are to be given to the Levites. This gift is an invention of the pos-
texilic period: Judaism is just the right soil for such an articial
growth as the forty-eight priestly and Levitical cities (Wellhausen
1905: 155 [E.T. 161]).
All this led Wellhausen to the conclusion that Israelite law, orig-
inally tied to nature, was deprived by P of its natural bias and
became dry and monotonous, the prototype of Pharisaism. This ide-
alization of nature and vitality typies, of course, the Romantic period
to which Wellhausen belonged, and particularly recalls the works of
Nietzsche (Boschwitz 1968: 3031), who Wellhausen had signicantly
inuenced (Boschwitz 1968: 8283). But while Nietzsche rejected
even Christianity, seeing it as an outgrowth of this unnatural Juda-
ism, Wellhausen saw Christianity in a favorable light,
1
as a release
from the chains of Judaisms legalistic, institutionalized nationalism,
and framework for the cultivation of ethical individualism.
* * *
One must admit that Wellhausens thesis has a certain appeal, an
internal logic and method. It demonstrated a developmental pro-
gression in the ve major aspects of Israelite worship, from the nat-
ural to the routine and fossilized, from early days to the Second
Temple period. It is no wonder that so captivating a theory was so
broadly welcomed, and has remained a standing pillar of scholar-
ship right down to the present day. Let us then start with the cri-
tique of the ve major aspects of Israelite worship.
(1) The Place of Worship
As is well known, the Tabernacle as presented in P is anachronis-
tic and has utopian features. However, this does not permit us to
1
Wilamowitz-Moellendor (1928: 189): Wellhausen always remained a Christian,
and never ceased inviting the Lord Jesus as guest at his mid-day meal.
consider the Tabernacle as pure ction, beingas it werea retro-
jection of Solomons Temple, as Wellhausen contends. The Tabernacle
constitutes an ancient tribal institution that accompanies Israel from
its beginning, as expressed in the words of Nathan the prophet:
From the day I brought the people of Israel out of Egypt to this
day I have not dwelled in a house, but have moved about in Tent
and Tabernacle (kmbw ljab) (2 Sam 7:6).
Wellhausens argument (Wellhausen 1905: 4546, n. 1) that Nathan
refers to war situations, when the ark was taken out to the battle,
has no cogency, since 2 Sam 7:67 is not concerned with the ark
but with the Tent and Tabernacle (kmw lha) as a shrine and a
holy abode (see also Haran 1962: 22). Neither can the evidence
about the Tabernacle in Shiloh ( Josh 18:1) be dismissed. It is clearly
attested in the ancient story about the sons of Eli in 1 Sam 2:22:
they (the sons of Eli) were lying with the women who were attend-
ing at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting (ynh ta bky ra taw
d[wm lha jtp tabxh), a phrase that has anities with the passage
in Exod 38:8 and seems to reect ancient reality.
2
Similarly we read
about the Tabernacle of Shiloh in Ps 78:60: He abandoned the
Tabernacle of Shiloh, the Tent He had set in Adam (wly km fyw
dab k lha). The shrine of Shiloh, as the rst dwelling place of
God in the land of Israel is also found in Jer 7:12: go to my place
at Shiloh, where I had established (ytnk) my name at rst,
3
and
there is no warrant for ignoring the tradition preserved in this verse.
The usage of lkyh and tyb in connection with the Shilohs shrine
(1 Sam 1:7, 9, 24; 3:3, 15; Judg 18:31) cannot serve as evidence
against the existence of a tent or tabernacle in Shiloh, since tyb in
its general sense stands for any dwelling place, including tent. Thus,
for example, David is said to have entered the house of Yahweh
(hwhy tyb) in 2 Sam 12:20 but in his days no divine house was yet
in existence.
The Tabernacle in Shiloh is called the camp (hnjmh) in the land
of Canaan ( Judg 21:12; cf. Josh 18:9).
4
As such, it continues the tra-
2
The phrase is missing in LXX B and 4QSam
a
, but is preserved in the Lucianic
recension which has signicant readings in the books of Samuel-Kings; cf. also
Josephus, Antiq. Jud. 5.339. There is no justication, therefore, for deleting this
phrase; see also Cross (1973: 202, n. 34).
3
For the reection of the destruction of the Shiloh sanctuary in the 11th cen-
tury BCE in this verse see Day (1979: 8794).
4
There is no warrant for deleting hl hnjmh la (with LXX Josh 18:9), since
20 cn.r+rn +vo
dition of the tent of meeting and camp of the Israelites in the
desert. The camp of Shiloh may be traced back to the period
when the Israelites were still moving around in camps together with
their families, as was the case with the tribe of Dan (cf. Judg 13:25;
18:12 and the mention of children and cattle in 18:21).
5
Indeed,
according to old traditions, the camp stands at the background of
the whole enterprise of conquest and settlement. The camp of Gilgal
serves as the basis for all Joshuas military undertakings ( Josh 1:11;
3:2; 6:11, 14; 9:6; 10:6, 15, 43; cf. also the camp of Makedah in
Josh 10:21), while the camp of Shiloh serves as the place of the
divine oracle for division of the land amongst the tribes ( Josh 18:110;
19:15; 21:2). It is true that one can hardly distinguish in the narra-
tive of Joshua between authentic facts and later reconstruction, but
it seems clear on the basis of all the sources that the tradition that
the Israelites moved around in a camp (where the Tabernacle was
stationed) cannot be seen as ction. The site of Shiloh was espe-
cially important. Shiloh was renowned for its ancient priesthood
descending from Egypt (1 Sam 2:27). The fact that the name of
Pinhas, son of Eleazar ociating in Shiloh ( Josh 22:13, 3031) is
undoubtedly Egyptian, points to the traditions authenticity. The
Tabernacle of Shiloh is not then a retrojection of the Temple of
Jerusalem, but a predecessor and prototype of it. As indicated above,
both Jer 7:12 and Ps 78:60 consider the Temple of Jerusalem as the
successor of the Shiloh Tabernacle.
Shiloh was seen as the exclusive religious center of the tribal fed-
eration of Israel ( Josh 22:934). Similarly, Jerusalem considered itself,
at the time of Jeremiah, as the exclusive religious center of Judah
and Israel. One must admit that in spite of the general similarity
between these two religious centers, there is a dierence between
Jerusalem after the centralization of cult and Shiloh as presented in
Josh 22:934. Shiloh was the exclusive shrine since it contained the
Tabernacle with the Ark that the Israelites brought with them from
the desert, while Jerusalem became the exclusive place of worship
only by virtue of the Hezekianic-Josianic reforms and not because
the same phrase occurs in Judg 21:12. It seems to have been lost in LXX Josh
18:9 by haplography (cf. v. 10).
5
The expedition of the Danites exemplies the way tribes used to move during
their conquest campaigns; see Malamat (1970).
of the Ark and Tabernacle. One should add that the sin attributed
to the Trans-Jordanian tribes in Josh 22:910 is not that of wor-
shipping at local sanctuaries but rather the creation of a distinct cul-
tic center, a big altar in an unclean land (v. 19), an act of rebellion
against God that was liable to arouse His wrath (vv. 1920, 29, 31).
It is this danger which leads the entire congregation to declare a
holy war of utter destruction (vv. 12, 13). Only after the Trans-
Jordanian tribes manage to convince their brethren that the altar
was meant to serve as a witness, a symbol of the solidarity of the
tribes who built it, is the attack discontinued. As I tried to demon-
strate elsewhere (Weinfeld 1983b: 6263), the conict between the
tribes west of the Jordan and Trans-Jordan in this matter has to be
understood as a relationship between colony and mother city, simi-
lar to those known to us from ancient Greece. Religious as well as
political ties connected the mother city and its colony; the Greek
colonies were bound by a covenantal oath and common cult, and
this was also the case with the Trans-Jordanian tribes in Josh 22.
The conict, as such, has nothing to do with the centralization of
the cult but with the acceptance of the Tabernacle in Shiloh as the
legitimate central shrine by the whole federation of tribes (Kaufmann
1959: 239240).
Even though Jerusalem, as the exclusive place of worship, was not
the outcome of the Shiloh theology, it could still base its ideology
upon it. This could be shown by an analysis of Lev 17. The law in
Lev 17 about the Tabernacle, as the only place of worship, has to
be understood against ancient Israelite reality when the tribes were
dwelling in camps. Lev 17:3 explicitly speaks about slaughtering
in the camp or outside the camp, a situation that ts the wan-
derings in the desert and the rst conquering campaigns of the
Israelites in Canaan. As will be shown below, the camp gradually
disappeared from the scene of Israelite history, and the city became
more prominent. Therefore we must admit that Lev 17:34, which
speaks about the camp and outside the camp, must be very
ancient, at any rate, long before the establishment of the monarchy
and the centralization of cult. The basic law of Lev 17 can by no
means be considered a product of post-deuteronomic times. If this
law were composed after the centralization of the cult, its eect
would have been to ban the eating of meat for the majority of the
people, who were unable to bring their animals to Jerusalem for
22 cn.r+rn +vo
sacricial slaughter.
6
A closer look at the law of Deut 12 will indeed
show that in its innovations it reacts upon the old reality reected
in Lev 17. According to Lev 17, shedding the blood of animals needs
expiation: for it is the blood, as life that expiates (v. 11; Milgrom
sin 1971). The expiation is done by dashing the blood on the altar
(v. 6); blood of hunted animals, which cannot be brought to the
altar, should be covered with earth (v. 13; cf. Gen 4:10; Isa 26:21;
Job 16:18; Ezek 24:68). Deuteronomy permits profane slaughter,
and has to dispense with this view by asserting that blood of pro-
fane slaughter has no more value than water has: you shall pour
it on the ground like water (vv. 16, 24; see Weinfeld 1972: 213214).
One can still trace the background of Lev 17 in this new ordi-
nance. In Deut 12:15 we read: the pure and impure alike may con-
sume it as of the gazelle and deer (lyakw ybxk). What is the meaning
of the gazelle and the deer, in the context of this law and why is it
specied here? The answer is that with the reference to hunting ani-
mals such as gazelle and deer the author undoubtedly alludes to Lev
17 which distinguishes between cattle and sheep, that are t for
sacred slaughtering and game which is not. By mentioning gazelle
and deer the author wants to make clear that just as until now
only hunted game such as gazelle and deer could be eaten in a state
of impurity (since their blood was not brought to the altar [Lev
17:13]), so from now on domestic animals too, when slaughtered as
profane, could be eaten in a state of impurity. On the other hand,
Deuteronomy follows his predecessor in Lev 17 and prohibits the
consumption of blood (12:16, 23). Furthermore, it quotes the old
law. In Lev 17 we read: ynbl ytrma k l[ . . . awh db rbh pn yk
d lkat al km pn lk lary, For the life of the esh is in the
blood . . . therefore I say to the Israelites no person among you shall
eat blood (vv. 1112). This is congruent with the priestly law in
Gen 9:4: wlkat al wmd wpnb rb a but esh with its life, its blood,
you shall not eat. This concept of blood as life in the esh, and there-
fore a kind of taboo which should not be eaten, is taken over in Deut
12:23: rbh [ pnh lkat alw pnh awh dh yk dh lka ytlbl qzj qr,
6
Dillmann (1897: 585): Die Behauptung einer nachdeuteronomischen oder gar
nachexilischen Abfassung dieses Stcks (Kal. Wl a.) ist geradezu widersinnig, denn
niemals konnte es einem Gesetzesbearbeiter, der Dt 12, 15f. 15, 22. als aner-
kanntes Gesetz vor sich hatte, einfallen, ein Gebot wie v. 37 mit dem Beisatz 7
b
aufzustellen.
But be careful not to eat the blood because the blood is the life,
you shall not eat the life with the esh (cf. v. 16).
7
Lev 17 is there-
fore ancient and in its basic form it goes back to pre-monarchic
times.
Although the basic part of Lev 17 is ancient, we must admit that
it was later applied to the new reality created after the establish-
ment of the monarchy. The Law of the Tabernacle rst became
valid for the Shiloh Tabernacle and then later used for the legit-
imization of the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem. By adding
the phrase this shall be to them a law for all time throughout the
ages trdl hl taz hyht lw[ tqj (v. 7), the author of the Holiness
Code enabled the application of an ancient law to the new enter-
prise of centralization sponsored by Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4, 22). Haran
(1978: 132133) quite plausibly suggested that the centralization of
cult in Hezekianic times was based on Lev 17. But contrary to
Harans suggestion, this does not mean that the very law of Lev 17
was contrived in the days of Hezekiah. Centralization of the cult
and the prohibition of profane slaughter could be understood against
the background of Sennacheribs siege in 701 BCE when the cities
of Judah were in enemy hands (2 Kgs 18:13) and only Jerusalem
remained under Judean sovereignty. Under such circumstances,
Jerusalem could be proclaimed as the only legitimate place for wor-
ship, but this of course could not be continued after Judah was lib-
erated, hence the deuteronomic permission of profane slaughter.
As Knohl (1987) has convincingly demonstrated, P precedes the
Holiness Code (H); the author of H used ancient priestly laws and
adjusted them to the late monarchic reality. This supposition explains
many diculties in the priestly literature, and this is exactly what
happened with the law of Lev 17. The Holiness Code utilized the
ancient law of the Tabernacle (of Shiloh) in order to base the cen-
tralization of the cult in Jerusalem.
The Tent of Meeting in priestly literature constitutes the proto-
type of any big shrine in Israel. It especially corresponds to the
Tabernacle at Shiloh (Haran 1962), but in later times, and partic-
ularly after the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem by David and the
establishment of the tent there (2 Sam 6:17), the privilege and status
7
The rst part of the sentence is not found in priestly literature. ytlbl qwj qr
is a kind of deuteronomic homiletic warning; cf. ytlbl qwj/rmh in Deut 8:11;
Josh 23:67 (Weinfeld 1972: 11).
24 cn.r+rn +vo
of the Tabernacle were granted to Jerusalem (Cross 1947; 1973:
231232, n. 52). But instead of the wandering Tabernacle and the
moving camp, now comes the built Temple and the city established
forever, which is so boldly pronounced in Ps 132:8, 1314:
Arise, O Lord, come to your resting place, you and your mighty
ark . . . for the Lord has chosen Zion, he has desired it for his seat:
This is my resting place for all time, here I will dwell, for I desire it.
In Davids Tent, burnt-oerings and yml were oered (2 Sam 6:17)
and a regular cult was maintained (compare v. 18 with 1 Kgs 8:55,
6263). This site served for decades as the central cultic shrine of
the United Kingdom (1 Kgs 1:31; 2:29), and I believe that Cross is
right in assuming that the anachronistic descriptions of the Tent of
Meeting derive not necessarily from Solomons Temple but from
Davids Tent. The terms tent (lha) in Isa 16:5 and the booth
(hksu) in Am 9:11 both preserve the memory of the period in which
the cult was performed in Davids Tent, and it is to be noted that
just as the Tabernacle at Shiloh could be called The House of
YHWH (1 Sam 7:24, cf. Judg 18:31), so Davids Tent is designated
(2 Sam 12:20).
8
I would suggest that the psalmists prayer Who may
stay in Your tent and who my reside in Your holy mountain? (Ps
15:1) also refers to the Davidic Tent ideology. Finally, I would add
that in Isaiahs vision of the shrine of Mount Zion and its assem-
bling place (harqm) covered with a cloud by day and a glow of
aming re by night (Isa 4:56), accompanied by dwbk, hpj and,
whks, draw on the traditional conception of the Tent of Meeting,
encased in a cloud by day and in re by night (Num 9:1516; note
the arqm in 10:23). YHWHs kaod is thus enveloped in a sukkah
and huppah.
The Jerusalemites of course saw their Temple and their chosen
city as the embodiment of the Tabernacle and camp of the ancient
ideal institutions; however, there were other cities and sites in monar-
chic Israel which claimed these privileges. It may be assumed, there-
fore, that the Tabernacle and Camp of the priestly literature served
as a prototype for other ancient holy cities as well. For example, the
8
Another term denoting this early cultic center is naweh, also rooted in the
nomadic tradition (Artzi 1968), used in this sense in 2 Sam 15:25. In Isa 33:20,
mo'ed, "ohel and naweh occur in one verse, and this bears signicance for the ques-
tion of the existence of an "ohel mo'ed in Davids time (cf. Jer 25:30; 31:22; 50:7).
priestly ordination that the leper must dwell outside the Camp
(Lev 13:46; Num 5:2) is reected in the ancient northern Israelite
practice of banishing the leper from the cities within the land (2 Kgs
7:3; that the law of Num 5:12 applies to all the cities may be
learned from the plural hynjm). P also speaks of the condemned be-
ing taken out of the camp for execution (Lev 24:1415; Num 15:35
36); this is precisely the law to which ancient Israel conformed when
execution had been performed outside the city (1 Kgs 21:10, 13).
That Ps camp (hnjm) stands for the city (ry[) of the period after
the settlement in the Land becomes clear from Lev 14. The author
opens here with the law about the leper detained outside of the
camp (hnjml wjm) (v. 3), but when he passes to the law about the
leprous house in the possessed land (v. 34), he uses instead the term
outside the city (ry[l wjm) (vv. 4041, 45, 53). The Temple Scroll
of Qumran (Yadin 1977: 215216) has applied Ps application of
the laws of the camp to the cities in the settled land. The author
of the Temple Scroll commands the removal of the lepers, and those
who have a discharge, from the cities (11QT
a
48: 1417), this is, of
course, in accordance with Num 5:14, which decreed the removal
of the same from the camp.
The Camp and the Tabernacle in the priestly literature have a
long history and were variously interpreted in ancient Israelite tra-
dition; therefore, they cannot be seen as an invention of the Second
Temple period. As will be shown below, the Tabernacle as presented
in P, absorbed some characteristic features of the Hurrian-Hittite
cult prevailing in pre-Davidic Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the basic con-
cept of the Tabernacle as shelter for the Ark of YHWH of the
ancient tribal confederacy has not been changed.
By the same token, the congregation (hd[) and the chieftains (yayn)
around the Tabernacle as depicted in P cannot be seen as a pro-
jection of the Second Temple hierocracy, as argued by Wellhausen.
These are rmly rooted in historical reality.
9
Scholars who have rec-
ognized this and still accept Wellhausens view on the lateness of P
failed to realize that the idea of the retrojection of Second Temple
institutions is at the very foundation of Wellhausens complex, and
9
While we may not accept Noths theory of the Israelite tribal amphictyony, we
must admit that he succeeded in demonstrating that institutions of the 'edah are as
old as the period of the Judges (Noth 1930). On the 'edah and its functioning in
the pre-monarchic period see Weinfeld (1983b).
26 cn.r+rn +vo
as it has been gradually abandoned, the entire structure has become
unsound. Noth, for instance, maintains that P has preserved an
authentic tradition in its description of the twelve nei"im, and that
Ezekiel has drawn on the priestly term denoting the minor kings as
nei"im. But because of his loyalty to Wellhausenian norm, he per-
sists in assigning the priestly literature to the exilic period (Noth
1930: 151152). Cross (1947), who sees the Tent of Meeting as the
most ancient, goes right on contending that the descriptions of the
Tent in priestly literature are from the exilic period, a sort of revival
of ancient custom (Cross 1973: 321322). Y. Kaufmann rightly stressed
that not only does P contain no prohibition of the high places, but
even such passages as Judg 1921, which Wellhausen himself assigned
to priestly redaction, assume the existence of local sanctuaries, such
as the House of YHWH in the hill of Ephraim ( Judg 19:18) and
the shrines at Mizpah (20:1) and Beth-El (20:26-28; see Kaufmann
HIR 1.132).
(2) The Sacrice
It is simply not true that the sin-oerings and the guilt-oerings were
unknown before the exilic period, as Wellhausen argues. These are
attested in a chronicle from the time of Joash King of Judah (9th
century BCE) where we read: Money from guilt-oerings and sin
oerings was not brought into the house of the Lord; it belonged
to the priests (2 Kgs 12:17). According to P, money which substi-
tutes these oerings, just as the oerings themselves, belong to the
priests; the terms sin-oering and guilt-oering here are with-
out a doubt technical terms just as in Leviticus. It may be deduced
from this verse that it was permissible to convert these oerings into
monetary equivalents as stipulated in Lev 5:18, 21 etc.; hence the
oerings themselves must be of ancient origin as recognized by de
Vaux (1961: 430), who otherwise accepts Wellhausens theory.
10
The guilt-oering sacrice is likewise attested in Hos 4:8: They
consume the guilt-oering sacrice(s) of my people, and yet desire
their transgression (wpn way nw[ law wlkay ym[ tafj). According to
the priestly law, the guilt-oering, which serves to expiate the peo-
10
For monetary remittance instead of the sin and guilt oerings, see Levine
(1974: 9596); Milgrom (1976: 1415 and appendix).
ples oences (in contrast to that which expiated priestly oences),
is given to the priests (Num 18:9). The prophet here denounces the
priests because of their greediness for these sacrices: they seek out
the peoples transgressions in order to receive more guilt-oering
sacrices. Wellhausens argument that such interpretation is too sophis-
ticated and that it ts the exegete and not the priest (Wellhausen
1905: 72) looks strange (Anderson Freedman 1980: 362; Levine
1974: 107). By the same token, Wellhausens own interpretation of
wlkay as meaning live and not just consume is highly forced.
Elsewhere the guilt-oering is mentioned in Ps 40:7: you do not
ask for burnt-oering and sin-oering (tla al hafjw hlw[), and
there is no justication for considering this a late, postexilic verse.
Another verse which attests the existence of a sacrice for expiation
of sin is Mic 6:7: shall I give my rstborn for my transgression, the
fruit of my body for the sin/expiation of my soul (ypn tafj)? tafj
may be interpreted here as a sin of the soul or as the sacrice
oering which is an expiation for the soul. Although the prophet
refers to human and not animal substitution, it is clear that a sacrice
for expiation of sin, that is, a guilt-oering, is intended here (contra
Wellhausen 1905: 7879 [E.T. 73]). The same applies to Isa 53:10
where guilt-oering is linked to soul (pn) like in Mic 6:7. As will
be shown later, expiation for the soul, or ransom for the soul, is
also common in Ugarit (sl np ).
One should add that the translation of tafj as sin-oering,
which undoubtedly inuenced Wellhausens notion of the feeling of
guilt underlying the sin-oering (Wellhausen 1905: 78 [E.T. 80]),
turned out to be incorrect. J. Milgrom (1971) has shown that the
sin-oering derives from aFej' , to purify, and thus means a pur-
gatory oering and not a sin-oering as was usually rendered. As
we shall see below, purgative oerings were very common in the
temples of the Ancient Near East and especially in the Hittite-Hurrian
and Syrian religions. There is no justication then for regarding the
sin-oering as a peculiarly Israelite oering that developed from the
feeling of guilt characteristic of the exilic period. The guilt oering
is essentially a sacrice of compensation/restoration and not a feel-
ing of guilt per se (Milgrom sin 1971).
Wellhausens claims that the burning of incense was not instituted
until the Second Temple period, and that it was this innovation that
brought about the introduction of the altar of gold (Exod 30:110)
is unfounded as well. The word incense (trfq) is found in various
28 cn.r+rn +vo
ancient texts (e.g. 1 Sam 2:28; Isa 1:13) and there is no justication
to translate trfq other than incense in these texts as Wellhausen
did. By the same token, the incense altar is attested in old tem-
ple accounts such as 1 Kgs 6:2022; 7:48, and there is no basis to
see these scriptures as late additions. Furthermore, Isa 6:46, which
describes an altar in the hekal lled with smoke, undoubtedly points
to the incense altar inside the temple (Nielsen 1986: 103107).
(3) The Sacred Feasts
The Pentateuchal Law, which described the full agricultural, natural
setting of the Israelite festivals, is none other than the priestly law
of Lev 23. Oering the rst sheaf at the beginning of the harvest,
the two loaves, the construction of tabernacles at the Sukkot festival
and the four species prescribed for this feast are mentioned only
here. How, asked Kaufmann, can such a law be conceived of as a
detachment from nature? Wellhausens only treatment of the ques-
tionone which he obviously sensed himselfis his forced expla-
nation of these rituals as part of an older stratum of P (Wellhausen
1905: 83, n. 1 [E.T. 86, n. 1]).
Careful scrutiny reveals that the ceremonies described in Lev 23
belong to the provincial sanctuaries (Kaufmann HIR 1.124125; cf.
Elliger 1966: 317), that is, it stems from the pre-centralization period.
The sheaf oering and the two loaves were to be presented by the
individual farmer from his own rst-fruits, at the beginning and end
of the harvest respectively;
11
this permitted him to partake of his
crops himself. Later, post-centralization interpretation saw the 'omer
as one sheaf oered by all Israel. This led to the practical question
of whose property it was to be taken from. In Second Temple times,
special priest-owned grain was produced for this purpose (t. Menach.
10:21; b. Menach. 85b; m. eqal. 1:4). The detachment from nature
thus came about in the wake of the deuteronomic reform, while in
P the pastoral is still at the forefront. Similarly, while the autumn
11
The farmer was to present two lambs as a elamim oering along with the two
loaves (Lev 23:20). The oerings mentioned in verses 1819a, corresponding to
those in Num 28:2728, are communal oerings that occur in the Leviticus pas-
sage by aggregation (e.g. Elliger 1966: 317). The elamim are not mentioned in
Numbers. The mistaken notion that the two lambs are also a communal oering
created the anomaly of communal elamim, which occur nowhere else in the Pentateuch
(Homan 19051906 ad loc.).
festival is still called Sukkot by D, dwelling in booths and the taking
of the four species are not mentioned, since after the centralization
such practice entailed signicant diculty (Weinfeld 1972: 217218).
This developmental pattern, from the provincial to the metropol-
itan, is also evidenced in the Passover festival. Ps paschal feast is a
familiar zea (Exod 12); in D, Passover is a communal oering (Deut
16) from which all the ancient rites have been eliminated (Weinfeld
1972: 216217). The priestly Passover is one of three institutions
utterly unaccounted for in Wellhausens theory, as it is both illogi-
cal and historically incorrect to suppose that a centralized, communal
oering transformed into a home sacrice. The other two are non-
sacricial slaughter, which as we have seen could not have been pro-
hibited (Lev 17) after it has been permitted (Deut 12), and the tithe,
which could not have been declared as YHWHs (i.e., of the priests;
see Lev 27:3033) after having previously been eaten by the own-
ers at the chosen place (Deut 14:2223). In all of these cases, the
direction of development is clearly the opposite of what Wellhausen
believed (these three indisputable points were already noted by
Hofmann 19021903).
Other dierences between P and the non-priestly law-codes with
regard to the festivals are not to be explained on the basis of devel-
opment at all, but rather as reections of the priestly literatures
nature, for P is essentially distinct from other strata of the Pentateuch.
Concern with aairs of the Temple and matters of sanctity occupy
a major portion of the work; sacrices, priestly duties, and Levitical
duties come to the fore. This is to be accounted for by the fact that
the social circle in which P took shape was priesthood (Weinfeld
1969; 1972: 179180). For instance, xity of dates, which charac-
terizes the priestly festivals, is to be expected in literary sources which
originate with, and address, cultic personnel.
As for the New Year and the Day of Atonement, the simple fact
that they are purely temple-centered observances (as in the New
Moon) is sucient to explain their absence in the non-priestly sources.
Wellhausen believed that these observances were simply non-existent
in pre-exilic times. For him, a look at German Jewry of the 19th
century was decisive: the Jews whom Wellhausen knew scrupulously
abstained from work and engaged in prayer during the Day of
Atonement, dutifully attending the Gottesdienst: unless a man has
wholly cut himself adrift from Judaism he keeps this day, however,
indierent he may be to all its other usages and feasts (Wellhausen
30 cn.r+rn +vo
1905: 107 [E.T. 112]). If the essential features of the New Year and
the Day of Atonement are prayer and confession, devoid of any con-
nection to the soil or to nature, Wellhausen reasoned, they must
have been conceived and born in exile.
The true explanation, however, lies elsewhere. These two holy
days were not an occasion for a festival pilgrimage to the temple,
and as their observance was connected with priestly rites performed
in the temple, the laity played but a passive role in their celebra-
tion. Hence it was the priestly scribes who made it their business to
set down in writing details of these observances. The other strata of
the Pentateuch seem to take the existence of these holy days for
granted. If we were to assume, as Wellhausen did, that silence indi-
cates unawareness, we should be forced to conclude that Deuteronomy
knows nothing of the worship of God in His temple, since it is silent
about the candelabrum, the incense, the daily oering and the fes-
tival sacrice; indeed, we should then ask, what on earth did the
author of Deuteronomy expect Israel to do in the place which
YHWH shall choose, as he so persistently demands?
In fact, Wellhausens claim that the New Year and Day of Atone-
ment originated in the exile seems most surprising. From where did
this notion arise, that ancient peoples invent for themselves new fes-
tivals? If newly instituted festivals that originated from real events
such as Hanukkah in commemoration of the Maccabean revoltare
not admitted to the existing sacred calendar, and do not share the
same status as the ancient holy days, then the two days under con-
sideration, which commemorate no historical event, are less likely to
be admitted.
A further notion of Wellhausens, that the Sabbath began as a
day of joy and pleasure and was transformed, in postexilic times to
a day of ascetic abstinence (Wellhausen 1905: 110 [E.T. 116]), is
entirely false. The Sabbath is known in the early literature (2 Kgs
4:23; Hos 2:13; Am 8:5 and elsewhere) not as a day of relaxation
alone, but as a day of cessation from daily activity: the prophet
warned against opening the granaries on the Sabbath for this rea-
son (Am 8:5), not because he viewed this act as particularly strenu-
ous (see appendix). The stress laid upon the Sabbath in exilic and
postexilic literature ( Jer 17:2127; Ezek 20:13, 21, 24; Isa 56:2, 4,
6; 58:1314; Neh 13:1521) attests not to innovation but to the resur-
gence and strengthening of an ancient but sadly neglected obser-
vance. P, for its part, emphasized the Sabbath in the same way that
it does circumcisionby all accounts an ancient ritebecause of its
particular interest in sacral institutions and symbols (Weinfeld 1968:
127128).
(4) Priests and Levites
There was always a fundamental dierence between the ocial priest-
hood (Elide and Aaronide), which served in established sacricial
centers such as Shiloh and Jerusalem, and the lower cultic servants
who also belonged to the sacerdotal tribe of Levi (Deut 18:18), but
did not hold a priestly oce. Being a product of the Jerusalemite
priestly circles, P was certainly devoted to preserving this distinction,
and thus refers to the priests and the Levites as two functionally
separate entities. The Levites are presented in P as being respon-
sible for labor (hdwb[) and watch (trmm) and are not permitted to
approach the altar. Sacrice proper, as well as the burning of incense,
is the exclusive domain of the priests. Deuteronomy, which takes
the distinction between priests and Levites for granted,
12
attempts to
equalize the two castes by awarding the Levites the same privileges
as the priests of Jerusalem. If a Levite should come to the chosen
place, he is to eat equal shares of sacricial oerings, like his fel-
low Levites (Deut 18:78). The deuteronomic usage of the priests
the Levites (v. 1), omitting the conjunction found in P, reects this
tendency. There is no basis for Wellhausens contention that the dis-
tinction between priests and Levites was caused by the Josianic reform
and rst legalized by Ezekiel.
Kaufmann argued against Wellhausens claim that the High Priest
of P was but a phantom of the contemporary Second Temple
priest. The national leader, according to P, has to receive from the
High Priest the decision of the Urim before going o to battle (Num
27:21). Would such a law be enacted at a time when no political
leader and no Urim existed?
12
The Levite dwells in your gates, occasionally turning up at the central Temple
(Deut 18:10), while the priests serve continually and receive the choice portions of
the sacrice (vv. 35); see the addendum in Weinfeld (1979: 41) and Milgrom
(1978: 45).
32 cn.r+rn +vo
(5) The Endowment of the Clergy
In Wellhausens reconstruction, tithes were initially eaten by the own-
ers in the sanctuary, as described in Deut 14:2223, and were sub-
sequently transformed by P into priestly dues. He claimed that the
tithe of livestock (Lev 27:3233) was instituted after Nehemiah
(10:3839), despite the clear reference to such a tithe, which was
delivered to the king, in 1 Sam 8:17. Kaufmann argued persuasively
to the contrary: the tithe began as holy to YHWH (Lev 27:30;
Kaufmann HIR 1.148149) and was later transferred to the priests
(Num 18:21). Later still it was given to the owners, who had to par-
take of it in a state of purity (Deut 14:2223).
The same process may be discerned in the Law of Firstlings.
Originally YHWHs, that is, property of the sanctuary (Exod 13:2,
12; 22:28; Lev 27:26), the rstlings were transferred in P to the priest
(Num 18:18), and nally in D were prescribed to be eaten by the
owners in a pure state (Deut 15:20). The process is one of desacral-
ization and not the opposite, most fully achieved in the Book of
Deuteronomy.
The law of the Levitical cities (Num 35), it is also admitted, dis-
plays certain utopian features (Haran 1961; Greenberg 1968), but
there is absolutely no justication for seeing it as pure invention.
Mazar (1960) has suggested that these cities were settled by Levites
who served the King in the period of the United Kingdom. The
Levites loyally supported the monarchy; the King therefore dispersed
them to the outposts of his realm and to conquered towns. This
may be corroborated by the fact that Levites were given the tithe
of Israel (Num 18:2122; see Weinfeld 1970: 201202). As is known
from Ugaritic documents, royal servants were granted whole cities
for the collection of tithes for the King (Heltzer 1976: 4851). These
cities did not actually become the property of the servants; rather,
they were given the perpetual right to collect the tithes from the
inhabitants and equally had their homes there (cf. the grant in PRU
III 16.153: . . . he gives the city forever [ana dri ] to his grand-
children . . . his grain, his wine of its tithe). This indeed explains
the long misunderstood fact that large cities such as Shechem, Hebron,
Ramot-Gilead, etc., were given away to the priests and Levites
( Josh 21:11, 21). These cities were the Levites home, not their prop-
erty, and it is in this context that they functioned; never is it said
that these cities were their inheritance (hljn), only that they were
cities in which to dwell (Num 35:23; Josh 21:2). As the Levites
possessed no real estate, it was necessary to provide pasture for their
livestock (Num 35:5). The utopian features of the law are no pos-
texilic fabrication; they reect the period following the North-South
schism, when the Levitical priests were expelled from the North as
Judahite loyalists (2 Chr 11:1314), and Levitical cities ceased to be
a pan-Israelite institution based of the federation of the twelve tribes.
*
The ve pillars of Wellhausens construction do not stand on solid
ground and can no longer be maintained. The sacral character of
P is no literary image of the priestly rule of the Second Temple
days, as Wellhausen believed. It is, rather, the creation of the priestly
circles in ancient Israel, whose basic tendencies belong to early Israels
history. Wellhausen depicted the early cult as an articially planed
(and planned) piece of wood. He could not see the possibility that
the wood was planed by professional craftsmen as soon as the tree
was felled, and need not be the result of later developments.
34
CHAPTER THREE
SOCIAL AND CULTIC INSTITUTIONS IN THE
PRIESTLY SOURCE AGAINST THEIR ANCIENT
NEAR EASTERN BACKGROUND
We have challenged Wellhausens view from a theological bias and
literary critical perspective. We shall now look at Wellhausens ve
basic principles against the background of the Ancient Near East.
However, before going into details we must clarify the following
point. Modern scholars are aware of the fact that the Priestly Code
contains ancient customs and rituals, but they nevertheless justify
Wellhausens thesis by saying that these ancient customs were adopted
by P in the postexilic period. Wellhausens thesis, however, stands
or falls by his own argumentation and not by our interpretation.
The lateness of P has been established by the ve basic contentions
described above, and it is these contentions we are going to chal-
lenge here. If these are refuted there is no justication for putting
P in the postexilic period at all. Furthermore, what is crucial for
Wellhausens thesis is the character of P as presented by him. He
says that P reects a dry articial code devoid of naturalness and
spontaneity and therefore ts the postexilic period when Israel was
no more a free and independent nation. It is this very principle, that
dry prescriptions are the outcome of loss of vitality, that we are
going to challenge rst. According to Wellhausen, in the early times
the cult was not subject to precise regulation:
So long as the sacricial worship remained in actual use, it was zeal-
ously carried on, but people did not concern themselves with it theo-
retically, and had not the least occasion for reducing it to a code . . . At
all times, then, the sacricial worship of Israel existed, and had great
importance attached to it, but in the earlier period it rested upon cus-
tom, inherited from the fathers, in postexilic times on the law of
Jehovah, given through Moses (1905: 5960 [E.T. 59, 61]).
Finally he writes:
If formerly the sacrice had taken its complexion from the quality of
the occasion which led to it, it now had essentially but one uniform
ixs+i+t+ioxs ix +nr rnirs+rv corr 35
purposeto be a medium of worship. The warm pulse of life no longer
throbbed in it to animate it; it was no longer the blossom and the
fruit of every branch of life; it had its own meaning all to itself. It
symbolised worship, and that was enough. The soul was ed; the shell
remained, upon the shaping out of which every energy was now con-
centrated. A manifoldness of rites took the place of individualizing
occasions, technique was the main thing, and strict delity to rubric
(ibid. 76 [E.T. 78]).
Now, Wellhausen was simply unaware of the existence of ordered,
prescribed, institutionalized cult in the great cultural centers of the
Ancient Near East. All cult was based on ceremonial precision. In
the Ancient Near Eastern documents from the second and rst mil-
lenium BCE we encounter prescribed temple rites that are even more
elaborate than those of the Priestly Code. Most noteworthy in this
regard are the Hittites. Dozens of charts pertaining to each festival,
as well as detailed instructions for every aspect of their observance
remain from ancient Hittite civilization.
1
Thus, for example, it is
stated: the king must observe the festival yearly, and the festival
must be celebrated meticulously (akuwaaran = correctly, exactly;
for the text, see Singer 1983: 134135). Also preserved are precise
requirements of conduct for the sacricial system:
They shall bring bread . . . the bread shall be covered in a cloth
2
. . . the
singers shall run ahead . . . they shall place three loaves of bread upon
the table . . . they shall pour out a triple libation of wine and strong
drink . . . the bread is placed before the king . . . they drink from the
chalice three times, standing . . . they break the bread . . .
3
Another example:
The king and the queen put on their ritual dress . . . Two palace ser-
vants (and) one guardsman march before the king . . . Entertainers stand
beside the king, they dance and play tambourines . . . other worshipers
of statues are clad in red garments. They stand beside the king, hold
1
Cf. Gterbock (1970), for a survey and characterization of the festival texts.
Cf. also the detailed studies: Gterbock (1960); Carter (1962); Singer (1983), and
see the general discussion in Gurney (1977: 3133).
2
The Jewish custom of covering the loaves while reciting the wdyq for Sabbath
evening appears to be rooted in Temple practice; other attempts to explain it are
dubious.
3
Dinol Darga (196970: 105, II, 3839, [my translation]); cf. also the detailed
prescriptions for the festival of the Warrior god (ANET
2
: 358361 [Goetze]).
36 cn.r+rn +nnrr
their hands up and whirl around on the spot; they also recite psalmo-
dies . . . Two palace servants bring to the king (and) the queen water
for their hands. The king (and) the queen rinse their hands. The chief
of the palace servants hands them a linen and they wipe their hands . . .
The foreman of the cooks presents a libation vessel with wine to
the king. The king touches it with the hand. The foreman of the cooks
pours out three libations before the throne and three for the War-god.
The king (and) the queen drink in standing position . . . The litur-
gists sing. They play [various instruments] and sing psalmodies. The
cupbearer brings one sacricial loaf of our weighing a prisu and 3
upnu from the outside. He gives them to the king and the king breaks
them (ANET
2
: 358361 [Goetze]).
With their detail, these instructions surpass those of P, and remind
us of the later Jewish Halacha. The meticulous performance of the
rites and strict delity to the rubric, which Wellhausen ascribes to
P, are clearly expressed in the confessions and prayers of the Hittite
kings. Thus, for example, we read in Muwatallis prayer to the storm-
god of Kummanni:
Whatever I . . . now nd from hieroglyphic records, this I shall carry
out and [what] I have [not] brought into correspondence with the
[ce]remonial rites (aklai-) o[f the gods], you, O storm-god, my lord,
know [i]t. And whenever I shall examine ( punuk-) a venerable old
man, [as] they remember [a (certain)] rite and tell it, I shall also carry
it out . . . I shall follow the (covenantal) bond (iiul ) o[f the gods] that
I am rediscovering, and it shall be henceforth carried on (KBo XI 1;
Lebrun 1980: 294296).
The written instructions of the gods, which the king rediscovered,
are associated here with the iiul, which like Hebrew tyrb, repre-
sents the covenantal law imposed on the people and is characteris-
tic of the Priestly Code where the law is called tyrb (cf. Weinfeld
1973: 6469). Hebrew traditions are very instructive when compared
with the kings declaration that he will carry out whatever has been
referred to him through the recollection of a venerable old man.
This corresponds to the tradition preserved in Mishna 'Eduyyot con-
cerning the collection of testimonies given by sages on legal matters
not attested in the conventional written lore.
4
Scrupulous adherence
to traditional ritual instructions also occurs in other Hittite texts. In
4
Hittite punuk- equals Akkadian ita"alu (Gtn from a"lu) examine or explore
which is normally applied to witnesses.
a Hittite text describing the ritual performed in connection with
Murilis aphasia we read:
As soon as they dispatched the substitute oxen (GUD puhugarin) in what
manner the rite . . . is written in the old tablets . . . and in what man-
ner its iiul (bond/covenant; Weinfeld 1973: 65) is performed and in
what manner the rites to the god of burnt oerings (ambai ) and peace
oerings (keldiya)
5
are performed on account of the old tablets, they do
it in exactly that manner (Gtze Pedersen 1934: 1013, ll. 2832).
Similarly, in a text that refers to the transfer of a deity from the
temple in Kizzuwatna to Samuha:
And the rites and bonds (iiul
I.A
) which were connected with the
temple of the black deity, it came about that the writers . . . and the
temple personnel began to change them, and I, Murili . . . wrote them
down again on a cuneiform tablet (von Schuler 1965: 165166; [my
translation]).
The notion that the ritual must be performed according to the writ-
ten rules occurs also in the Ugaritic texts. Thus we nd in RS
61/24.277:9: db k.sprtthe sacrice according to the prescriptions
(Dietrich Loretz 1969: 168 [my translation]). All this teaches us
that prescribed instructions were most fundamental in the life of
ancient peoples in the area and cannot be considered a specic devel-
opment of Judaism, as Wellhausen suggested. Furthermore, the for-
mulation of the prescriptions in the Priestly Code are very similar
to the formulations of the Hittite codes, as well as to those of Ugarit,
and it seems, therefore, to have a common origin. Thus, for exam-
ple, we read in a Hittite festival ritual calendar: One (fattened)
bull . . . seven lambs for the deity . . . one goat for the protective god
of Karana . . . they shall oer for the weather god and put upon it
bread and groats . . . and libate wine (Dinol Darga 19691970:100,
I.424). This recalls the prescriptions of the festival oerings in Num
29:26: One bull, one goat, seven yearling lambs . . . and their meal
oerings and libations. Similarly, we nd in a Hittite cult inven-
tory: For the Storm-god . . . the daily oering is as follows: 1 hand-
ful of our, 1 cup of beer . . . 1 bull, 14 sheep . . . 4 seahs of our,
4 vessels of beer . . . (cf. Carter 1962: 54; KBo II 1.ii: 2529). This
5
For ambai as burnt oering cf. Kmmel (1967: 40); for keldi, which commonly
corresponds to Akkadian ulmnu and Ugaritic lm cf. Laroche (1978: 141). For the
pair ambai-keldi cf. Haas Wilhelm (1974: 8587).
38 cn.r+rn +nnrr
is to be compared with the cultic prescriptions for the festival in
Num 29:1316 where we nd 13 bulls and 14 sheep for sacrices,
as well as our for meal oerings and wine for libation.
Besides festival prescriptions, we nd among the Hittites another
type of cult inventory that lists various objects dedicated to the god,
6
such as a mace of bronze, a copper knife, 10 scepters . . . a ring
plated with silver . . . 1 handful of our, 1 cup of beer (Carter 1962:
5455; KBo II 1.i: 2842). This is analogous to the inventories in
Num 7: a silver bowl . . . a silver basin . . . both lled with choice
our . . . one gold ladle (passim).
Not only in the temple rituals do we nd exact prescriptions.
These are also attested in ceremonies connected with the various
spheres of life such as birth, physical aiction, etc. Thus, we nd
in the Hittite documents prescriptions for the purication of a child-
bearing woman (Ppanikri ritual; Sommer Ehelolf 1924) which
involve, as in Lev 12, the oering of birds for sin atonement (ar-
tar watul ) and a lamb for a burnt oering (enumae; ibid. 4446,
col. II:23).
7
No less instructive is another Hittite prescription for a
childbearing ritual in which we read:
[But (when) the woman gives birth, and whi]le the seventh day (after
birth) is passing . . . [And if a male child has been bo]rn . . . when the
third month a[rrives] . . . they [cl]eanse . . . if a female child is born . . .
[wh]en the fourth month arrives they clean[se] (Beckman 1983: 142143;
KBo XVII 65, Rev 3844).
This is very close to the law in Lev 12 where it is prescribed that
after the birth of a male, the mother shall remain in a state of blood
purication for one week and 33 daysaltogether 40 days
8
and
after the birth of a female two weeks and 66 days (v. 5)altogether
80 dayswhich is close to the period of two and three months in
the Hittite documents.
Another Hittite document (Otten 1961: 116117), which contains
a ritual for absolving a house from guilt prescribes two birds for the
6
For the distinction see Carter (1962: 125); cf. the distinction between descrip-
tive and prescriptive rituals by Levine (1965); cf. also Rainey (1970).
7
Cf. Haas and Wilhelm (1974: 37). The term is not altogether clear; according
to Haas-Wilhelm (ibid. 7577) it connotes Besanftigung, Beruhigigung. This may
correspond to the Hebrew term wxr associated with the oerings in the Bible.
8
Cf. the Greek sources where the childbearing woman undergoes purication
when 40 days have elapsed after birth (Milgrom 1991: 744, 763765).
Annunaku (infernal deities) and one bird for the Api deity (Rs,
III:3233). The priest takes these oerings to the desert and burns
cedar (Rs, IV:4041). This parallels the purication ceremony of a
house aicted with leprosy in Lev 14:3353 where two birds
together with cedar wood and crimson are taken for the purication
ceremony, and one of the birds is sent free into the open country
(= desert).
9
Most interesting in the comparison of the ritual pre-
scriptions of the Hittite ritual with those of the Israelite Priestly Code
is the literary structure of the prescription series. The Hittite pre-
scriptive documents are provided with title lines introducing the
instructions, and with resumptive subscripts that overlap the begin-
ning title. Thus we read at the beginning of the Ppanikri text quoted
above (Sommer Ehelolf 1924): Thus speaks Ppanikri, the priest
of the land Kummanni: If a woman sits on the birth stool . . . and
the dish broke down . . . (Rs, I:13). At the end of this tablet we
read: If a woman sits on the birth stool and the bath tube broke.
This is the word of Ppanikri the priest of Kummanni (Rs, IV:
3740). The same applies to the ritual against pestilence of Zarpiya
of Kizzuwatna (Schwartz 1938). The tablet opens: Thus (speaks)
Zarpiya . . . if the year (is) bad and there is constant dying . . . and
concludes: Word of Zarpiya . . . if the year (is) bad (and) there is
constant dying . . .
The same phenomenon is encountered in the Israelite priestly pre-
scriptive instructions, for example: Speak to the Israelite people and
say to them: if a mans wife has gone astray . . . and she has deled
herself or if a t of jealousy comes over one . . . (Num 5:12, 14).
The conclusion of this law corresponds stylistically to the formula-
tion of the beginning: This is the Torah of Jealousy, if a woman
goes astray . . . and deles herself . . . or if a t of jealousy comes over
him . . . (Num 5:2930).
10
This phenomenon of closing o laws by colophons resuming the
title lines may be discerned in the ritual laws of Lev 1115com-
pare 11:2 with 11:46, 15:2 with 15:33, 13:2 with 14:56 (the sub-
scription refers to 13:228 as demonstrated by Fishbane 1980:
439442), and Josh 20:2 with 20:9 (ibid. 443446). In the later stages
9
Cf. the scapegoat in Lev 16, which is sent o to the desert (v. 21).
10
For an analysis of the chapter with its title, line, and subscription cf. Fishbane
(1974). It should be pointed out, pace Fishbane, that this particular archival tech-
nique is not found outside the Hittite prescriptions.
40 cn.r+rn +nnrr
of the editing of these prescriptive laws this structural phenomenon
gradually disappeared (Fishbane 1980). At any rate, the parallel with
the Hittite material in the technique of closing o ritual prescrip-
tions is striking and cannot be ignored.
Similarities between Hittite-Hurrian and Israelite ritual instructions
are found, then, in content as well as in form, and as I have shown
elsewhere, the genre of apodictic law formulated in the second per-
son, so characteristic of the Israelite law, has its antecedents in the
Hittite instructions (Weinfeld 1973). Further analogies of Hittite rit-
uals with the Priestly Code will be mentioned later in the discus-
sion. These similarities can be explained, in my opinion, by the fact
that the Jerusalemite priesthood, which stands behind the composi-
tion of the Priestly Code, drew upon the cultic heritage of the pre-
Israelite Jerusalem kingdom, which was of Hittite-Hurrian origin (cf.
recently Mazar 1981); cf. Ezek 16:3: your father was an Amorite
and your mother a Hittite.
Let us now refer to the ve central pillars of Wellhausens thesis
and check their validity against the background of the Ancient Near
East.
The Place of Worship
As stated above, Wellhausen maintained that the old cult was rooted
in nature with the people worshipping everywhere. The reform of
Israel changed the situation and based the cult on the exclusive wor-
ship at the Jerusalem Temple. This doctrine pervaded the Priestly
Code and actually produced the image of the Tabernacle, which is
the ctitious creation of a postexilic scribe. By projecting Ps Tabernacle
into the period of the desert wanderings, P aims to show that the
centralization of cult was prevalent in Israel from the beginning of
its history. However, even internal biblical evidence does not bear
out this view. The Tabernacle (km), or the Tent (of Meeting)
([d[wm] lha), constitutes the ancient Israelite cultic institution that
Nathans prophecy describes in 2 Sam 7:6. The priestly description
of the Tabernacle, to be sure, is inuenced by the Tabernacle of
Shiloh (cf. Haran 1962), Davids Tent (cf. Cross 1973: 231232,
n. 52; 1981), and Solomons Temple; though, as it is presented in
the Pentateuch, seems somewhat anachronistic. However, the very
tradition of the Tent as a basic cultic institution is by no means
ctitious. A Tent
GI
ZA.LAM.GAR (= Akkadian kutru/kultru) as
an important cultic institution is attested in the Hittite cultic and
mythological texts (Popko 1980). The
GI
ZA.LAM.GAR is called there
the tent of the deity (DINGIR.
LIM
-a
GI
ZA.LAM.GAR; KUB
XXXV 135, rev. 20 [ibid. 103]). In the myth of Elkunira, which
is the Hittite version of the Ugaritic myth of El (Elkunira = El qny
"r; cf. Otten 1953a), we indeed nd Ba'al coming to the source of
the Euphrates and entering the tent (
GI
ZA.LAM.GAR) of Elkunira
(cf. Honer 1965: 8). This parallels the description of Els abode,
who sits at the sources of the two rivers while Asherah enters his
tent (qr; CTA 4 IV:2026, and cf. Cross 1973: 36). In another
Ugaritic text we hear about Yamms messengers arriving at the
mountain of El, to the gathered council, pr m'd which reminds us
of the priestly d[wm lha (ibid. 3738).
In a Luwian text (Otten 1953b: 109) we read that certain men
go into the steppe. They erect the uwai of the storm god and pull
a tent around it (KUB XXXV 133, i: 1415). In the festival texts
we read that the great assembly (alli aear) was held in a tent
(Singer 1983: 98101), and according to Singer (1983:100), the tent
was built after the model of a temple with more than one room. In
some cases we nd the tent standing before the gate of the temple
(IBoT III 148, 11:6162), and in one instance the tent is located
within a house (cf. Otten 1958: 46). This may explain 1 Kgs 8:4,
according to which the Tabernacle was brought into the Temple
after it was completed by Solomon. The very fact that the Hittite
tent is pictured within the house may support the hypothesis of
R. E. Friedman (1980) that the Tabernacle was located in the
Jerusalem Temple.
As has been indicated, El in the Ugaritic texts dwells in a tent
(also called qr ), which shows that the concept of a divine Taberna-
cle has a long history in the Ancient Near East (cf. Cliord 1971).
F. M. Cross (1973: 177178 and n. 34) raised the possibility that
the huge platform of the hmb uncovered by A. Biran at Tel Dan
(1974: 4043) once formed the basis of a Tent or Tabernacle. A
similar proposal has been suggested by Cross for the platform discov-
ered on the Samaritan site of Tel-er-Ras on Mt. Gerizim by R. J.
Bull (1968; Bull Campbell 1968); all these suggestions seem quite
plausible.
42 cn.r+rn +nnrr
Sacrice
As stated above, the old ritual, according to Wellhausen, was mainly
based on the holy meal, the jbz, where the people ate at Gods
table. On special occasions, the whole meal was dedicated to God,
and this became the burnt oering (hlw[). The jbz and the hlw[
were the only forms of animal sacrice. The Priestly Code added
two other sorts of sacrice: the sin oering (tafj) and the guilt
oering (a). These sacrices originated, according to Wellhausen
(1905: 7174 [E.T. 7275]), in exilic times and were motivated both
by the feelings of guilt, which prevailed after the exile, and by the
desire to atone for sin through sacrice. By the same token, all kinds
of festal oerings, burnt oerings and sin oerings were added. The
increase in sacrice and sacred gifts is to be taken as the natural
consequence of the hierocracy of the Second Temple period.
Now, large numbers of sacricial oerings are not an indication
of late, priestly innovation, as Wellhausen contended. They are
the accepted norm in the highly complex structure of worship in
Ancient Near Eastern religion. The fact that P alone of all the
Pentateuchal documents deals with the details of sacrice teaches us
about Ps nature, not the date of its institutions.
The same is true of sacricial categories. The notion that early
Israel knew only the hlw[ and jbz and that the tafj and a are
postexilicclearly the outcome of the evolutionary approach espoused
by Wellhausen (1905: 7274 [E.T. 7274])is refuted by our cur-
rent knowledge of ancient cultures in Syria, Ugarit, and Asia Minor.
Ugaritic, Hurrian, and Hittite texts describe elaborate oerings and
rituals, with appropriate appellations for each type of oering. One
Hittite text, for example, discusses the type of sacrice to be brought
after committing the sin of bestiality:
One bird for peace oering (takula ) . . . one bird for sin (watula ),
one bird for imprecation (hurtiya = Akk. erretu) . . . one lamb and one
bird for burnt and peace oering (ambai takula )
11
. . . one bird for
11
Hittite takul (= peace) is here paired with the Hurrian ambai (= burnt oering);
for the latter see Kmmel (1967: 40). Hurrian keldi (= Hebrew yml, see below)
also appears in connection with ambai; see Haas Wilhelm (1974: 8587); Laroche
(1980). The term keldi as an oering bringing peace/well-being occurs in Alalakh
stratum VII (which demonstrates Hurrian inuence), text no. 126*: 1200 fowl, six
goats . . . one sheep for their peace/well-being (keldiunu) . . . When you oer (the
(false) testimony (kutrueni )
12
and one lamb and one bird they send away
as nakui (KUB XLI 11, RS 812; Honer 1973a: 8688; Haas
Wilhelm 1974: 55).
The passage subsequently mentions quantities of silver, gold, and
other articles of value, apparently presented as the price of a guilt
oering (a; cf. Milgrom 1991: 339345) either in place of, or in
addition to the animal sacrices;
13
the text closes with a declaration
14
of atonement.
15
The entire ceremony recalls the biblical a oering
associated with (Lev 5:13), which mentions all of the following con-
cepts: testimony, imprecation, sin, guilt, monetary value (vv. 15, 18,
25; see also 2 Kgs 12:17, and cf. above), confession (v. 5; also Num
5:58), and atonement.
Oerings of this type frequently occur in the Hurrian texts as well;
here, as part of a purication ceremony, the sacrice brought for
sin is called arni, a loanword from Akkadian arnu (= iniquity) corre-
sponding to the Hittite watul, the guilt oering is called par(i )li
oense (= Hittite aratar), the imprecation sacrice is referred to
as el(a)mi (the equivalent of Akkadian mmtu) or idarni (= Akk. erretu),
and the Hurrian peace oering is called keldi, corresponding to the
Hittite takul (Haas Wilhelm 1974: 54, 5961 and cf. above, n.
12). Thus, for example we read in a Hurrian ritual (Haas Wilhelm
1974: 156, ll. 2224; cf. 166, ll. 5860; [my translation]):
He sacrices a bird as enumae [above, note 8] and for purication
[itkalzi; Laroche 1980: 128129 and cf. Haas Wilhelm 1974: 83
84] . . . then (oers) nine birds and one lamb as a burnt oering [ambai;
above, n. 5]; nine birds and one lamb as a peace oering [keldi; above,
n. 12].
There are also other names pertaining to oerings such as ananei,
aapi, uwalzi, kibie, adandi, unii, zurgi, etc., designated for various
occasions (see the list in Haas Wilhelm 1974: 317319). However,
sacrice) . . . there shall be peace (ulmu) . . . See Haas Wilhelm (1974: 139), and
cf. n. 5 above.
12
Honer (1973a: 86, n. 30) refers to the tdu[ in Exod 25:16, but this has no
connection with sacrice. More relevant is d[ in Lev 5:1, which appears in the
context of sin and imprecation.
13
Silver and gold etc., accompanying expiatory oerings are also found in Ugaritic
ritual texts; cf. KTU
2
1.43, 1.112, 1.119, etc.
14
Honer (1973a: 8688) assigns these words to a priest or magician.
15
Ll. 1930: He who sinned, he who committed the oence . . . let the sacricer
(here) from [this si]n be puried.
44 cn.r+rn +nnrr
the most common types of oerings are: the burnt oering (ambai ),
the peace oering (keldi = Hittite takul ), the sin oering (arni = Hittite
watul ), and the guilt oering ( parili = Hittite aratar). All these cor-
respond to the Hebrew tafj, a tafj, hlw[, and yml. We know
that these are types of sacrices because they are preceded by the
particle ana = for, like the lamedh before the Hebrew oerings:
tafjl, hlw[l etc. (cf. Haas Wilhelm 1974: 131132 [KBo V 1.iii:
2728; KUB XLI 48, iii: 7, 21] and e.g. Lev 1:3, 10, 14; 3:1; 4:4,
32; 5:6, 15, 25 etc.,). Thus we nd in the Hittite-Hurrian texts, a
lamb for enumae or ambai (burnt oering, above nn. 5, 8), a bird
for parili (= Hittite aratar, oense; Haas Wilhelm 1974: 5058)
and a bird for watul (sin).
16
A similar variety of oerings appear in the Ugaritic documents
(for the texts cf. Xella 1981) and with respect to contents and ter-
minology, these are much closer to the priestly ritual lists. Thus we
nd here the burnt oering rp often paired with the peace oering
lmm. rp is identical with hlw[, whose root hl[ connotes to go up
(= to disappear)
17
by means of re.
18
Indeed, the Egyptian term for
burnt oering: sb n st = to perish in re, contains both elements
the Hebrew '1h and the Ugaritic rp. Ugaritic lmm, as well as tp
(KTU
2
1.119:32) equals Hebrew yml and is identical with the
Egyptian term tpw, peace oering, derived from tp, be at peace
(Avishur 197879: 262).
As in the Hittite and Hurrian ritual documents, so too in the
Ugaritic cultic texts, we nd many other terms for oerings (cf.
Herdner 1978: 89; de Tarragon 1980), but most signicant for our
discussion are the terms "ap np found there.
19
"ap np appears in the
Ugaritic cultic texts along with gold and silver, burnt oerings (rp),
peace oerings (lm<m>), and bird oerings (cf. RIH 77/2 B, 77/10
B), not unlike the Hittite guilt oerings mentioned above. It seems
that "ap and np here reect oerings concerning anger and (sin of
16
As in a Hittite parallel to tafj this may support Levines view (1974: 101103)
that the term tafj connotes not only the ritual of purication as Milgrom (197172;
1971 Sin) argues, but also expiation of sin.
17
For this meaning cf. Gen 17:22, 35:13, Exod 16:14 etc. Cf. qls in later
Hebrew. The same applies to an and wr and see Yalon (1967: 93, n. 1).
18
For hl[ burn cf. twrnh ta twl[hb (Num 8:2) and cf. qysh to kindle in
later Hebrew; see Yalon (1971: 478479).
19
Cf. Xella (1981); KTU
2
1.43:12, 15; 1.90:23; 1:104:6; RIH 77/2 B:4; 77/10
B:29; 78/4:8.
the) soul respectively. In two instances we nd such phrases as sl
np (KTU
2
1.46:1) or sl "ap w np (RIH 77/10 B:9, followed by gold
and silver, and oerings), which overlap Hebrew pn l[ rpk, express-
ing expiation of the soul (cf. Levine 1974: 6777). KTU
2
1.46 opens
with [b ym d] sl which apparently refers to the ablution ceremony
of the New Moon day. A ritual for the New Moon day is prescribed
in the Priestly Code (Num 28:1115), where a goat as a sin oering
is mentioned (v. 15).
20
In Ezek 45:1819, we likewise nd a purica-
tion ceremony for the rst day of the rst month. In the continua-
tion, the prince is acting on behalf of himself and the people beginning
on the fourteenth day of the month (vv. 2125). In the Ugaritic text
just quoted, we similarly nd the king performing rituals, starting
with the ablution on the rst day and continuing with the fourteenth
day of the month and going on with the fteenth ( ym mlat = the
day of the full moon).
21
Another instructive text that mentions expiatory sacrices or sin
oerings is RS 1.002 + 1.002 [a] = CTA 32 (cf. KTU
2
1.40). Here
we nd a liturgy concerning the transgressions of the people of
Ugaritmen and women,
22
king and queenand the expiatory
sacrices associated with it. The verb for transgressing is t". The
people of Ugarit have sinned with "ap (anger), and qrt np (impa-
tience), and ask for forgiveness not only for them and their king
and queen, but also for the strangers living in Ugarit ( gr myt "ugrt ).
23
This reminds us of Num 15:2224, where after the expiation oerings
brought on behalf of the people (vv. 2425), we read: The whole
Israelite community and the stranger residing among them shall be
forgiven (v. 26). The term mr, which often appears in this text, has
20
The New Moon day as a day of atonement is most clearly expressed in the
Jewish Liturgy for the New Moon: tdlwt lkl hrpk mz ttn m[l ydj yar
d[b rpkl tafj yry[w wxr yjbz ynpl ybyrqm twyhb The New Moons have you
given to Your people, a season for atonement for all their generations, when they
brought You free will oerings and he-goats as sin oerings in order to atone for
themselves. The phrase tdlwt lkl hrpk mz the season for atonement for all
their generations reects, in my opinion, the commemoration of the souls on the
New Moon day. This is alluded to in the hjpm jbz performed on the New Moon
day in 1 Sam 20:29; cf. Malamat (1968: 173, n. 29).
21
For the restorations cf. KTU
2
1.109 Xella (1981: 49), RIH 77/10 B:1012:
b arb't 'rt yrt mlk . . . [b ym ml]at y[ql ] n alpm.
22
Cf. paragraph IV with the pronominal suxes, 3rd pers. masc. -km and para-
graph V with the 3rd pers. fem. -kn.
23
The Strangers in the Ugaritic walls; cf. the term yr[b ra rg your
stranger in your gates in the book of Deuteronomy.
46 cn.r+rn +nnrr
been identied by G. del Olmo Lete (1989; see also Weinfeld 1995a:
212213) with Akkadian marum signifying a royal decree of free-
dom like rwpyk wy (Lev 25:910). There are other oerings in Ugarit
whose nature cannot be clearly established. These are: ', which may
correspond to Hebrew hbdn (cf. Greeneld 1969: 6061) and npt,
which seems to correspond to Hebrew hpwnt (cf. Hillers 1970; Caquot
1979: 441).
As in P, we often nd in the Ugaritic lists of oerings two birds,
'rm, and the specic mention of doves, ynt (or ynt qrt; Herdner 1978:
7; and Xella 1981, Glossar) as well as tr, turtledove (Virolleaud
1968: 586588; RS 24.260:5, 13).
The two types of Israelite purication oerings, tafj and a,
are few in comparison with the many categories present in the Hittite,
Hurrian, and Ugaritic texts. These oerings, therefore, cannot be
viewed as a late, peculiarly Israelite innovation.
In addition to the Hittite, Hurrian, and Ugaritic texts, the Priestly
Code in Israel also prescribes numerous oerings of birds. We are
reminded of the burnt oering of birds (Lev 1:14), the dove for a
sin oering and the dove for a burnt oering (Lev 5:7), the dove
oered in the womans purication after childbirth (12:6), the two
birds oered in the lustration of the leper (14:46), the two birds
oered in connection with the plagued house (14:49), those oered
in purication from discharges (15:14, 29), and the two doves oered
at the purication ceremony of the ryzn (Num 6:10). The bird
oerings in Hittite and Hurrian culture are designated for lustration,
so too are the previously mentioned ritual ceremonies of Leviticus.
As in the Priestly Code (Lev 14:132, 4853; Num 19:6), the Hittite
and Hurrian ceremonies are performed with cedar wood, crimson,
and oil.
24
These Hittite-Hurrian lustration ceremonies are directed towards
the demonic-chthonic forces (cf. Haas Wilhelm 1974: 5052). Thus,
we read in a ritual for absolving a house from guilt, mentioned
above:
He takes three birds; two birds he sacrices to the Annunaku [infernal
gods], one to the god of the pit, and he speaks as follows: Behold,
24
Cf. Haas Wilhelm (1974: 186: 3032 [cf. 182, 192]): the priest takes the
red wool which is tied to the cedar wood . . . and sprinkles with the good oil
(.DG.GA= amnu bu, cf. Hebrew bwfh m, 2 Kgs 20:13, Ps 133:2 etc.).
you primeval gods [karuilies siunes],
25
not for you is commanded ox or
sheep. When the Weather-god drove you down to the dark Underworld,
he ordained this sacrice for you (Otten 1961: 130133; [my translation]).
In the Ugaritic rituals, the bird oerings are mostly designated to
"in "ilm (passim), which are associated with Reseph, the infernal deity
identical to Nergal (cf. Xella 1981: 41). This points to the chthonic
character of the bird oerings. The same applies to the bird oerings
in the Israelite lustration ceremonies, as for example in the purication
rituals of the leper (Lev 14:7) and the leprous house (v. 53). In
both cases the live bird, which is dipped in the blood of the slaugh-
tered one, is driven into the open country. This implies transfer to
the realm of the demons (cf. Lev 17:7), which is to be compared
with the scapegoat sent to lzaz[ i.e. driven into the desert (Lev 16:21,
and see Kaufmann HIR 1.542543). The ancient Greeks also prac-
ticed sin and expiation oerings.
26
As in the Hittite and Ugaritic
sphere, where the sin and guilt oerings are associated with the
chthonic deities, the Greeks directed their purication oerings towards
Apollo (Stengel 1920: 133), the chthonic deity which corresponds to
Nergal and Reseph (cf. Loewenstamm 1965). Similar to the Israelite
guilt oering (a) brought for inadvertent trespass (l[m) upon sanc-
tums (cf. Milgrom 1976; id. 1991: 339345), we nd in Greece the
aresthra oerings brought for violation of sacral property (Cary
1968: 218221).
Purication Rites of the New Year and Day of Atonement
All of the Ancient Near Eastern religions celebrated the New Year
with ceremonies of purication and atonement from sin. In Meso-
potamia, ceremonies of expiation were held during the rst eleven
days of the year,
27
while in Israel the period lasted ten days (see
25
This may be equated with the Ugaritic rpim qdmnym the ancient ghosts in
the Ugaritic text recently published (KTU
2
1.161 cf. Xella 1981: 281287), which
are paralleled there by rpi ar, the ghosts of the netherworld, and are then iden-
tical with the Annunaku. For the Hittite karuilies siunes and their equivalents in Sumerian,
Akkadian, and Hurrian, see Laroche (1974).
26
Cf. Stengel (1920: 127129) and the purication laws of the stele of Cyrene
and the holy laws of the island of Cos discussed in Weinfeld (1988: 274275).
27
The New Year celebrations were variously observed in Nisan and Tishri.
Occasionally both were celebrated. The aktu festival in Sumerian times was cele-
brated both in the autumn and in the spring.; see Falkenstein (1959). Indeed, Ezek
48 cn.r+rn +nnrr
Ezek 40:1, and cf. the prevalent tradition of the ten days of repen-
tance from hnh ar to rwpyk wy). The comparison of the New Year
purication rites in Mesopotamia and in Israel is most instructive.
Thus, we read in a Babylonian text discussing the aktu New Year
ceremony:
On the fth day of the month Nisannu . . . the urigallu-priest shall arise
and wash with water and shall [put on?]
28
a linen in front of the god
Bel . . . He shall recite the following prayer . . . [H]e shall enter the
temple Ezida, into the sanctuary of the god Nabu, with censer, torch,
and egubb-vessel to purify the temple, and he shall sprinkle water . . . on
the sanctuary, . . . In the court of the sanctuary he shall place a silver
censer, upon which he shall [scatter]
29
aromatic ingredients and cypress.
He shall call a slaughterer to decapitate a ram, the body of which the
mamau-priest shall use in performing the kuppuru-ritual for the tem-
ple. He shall recite the incantations for exorcising the temple. He shall
purify the whole sanctuary, including its environs, and shall remove
the censer. The mamau-priest shall lift up the body of the aforemen-
tioned ram and proceed to the river. Facing west, he shall throw the
body of the ram into the river. He shall (then) go out into the open
country. The slaughterer shall do the same thing with the rams head.
The mamau-priest and the slaughterer shall go out into the open coun-
try (ANET
2
: 332333 [Sachs]; Thureau-Dangin 1921: 136141, ll.
285361).
In what follows, the king recites the confession in front of the urigallu-
priest:
I did [not] sin . . . I was not neglectful (of the requirements) of your
godship . . . I did not forget its rites [of the Esagila temple] . . . (Thureau
Dangin 1921: 144, ll. 423425; ANET
2
: 334 [Sachs]).
Parallel elements are found in the account of the atonement cere-
mony in Leviticus 16: (1) washing in water
30
and dressing in linen
(v. 4), bringing the censer into the Temple for the purication cer-
emony (vv. 1213); (2) the sprinkling on the sanctuary and its appur-
tenances (vv. 1416); (3) purication of the sanctuary through
45:1820 speaks of purication ceremonies at the beginning of syn; see Tadmor
(1976: 301305).
28
The text reads: TG.GADA.L. ina pni Bl . . . i-de-ku; the last sign could be
read q and the word seems to be derived from edqu to dress, clad.
29
Read with CAD H: 87a, s.v. qu: i-sr-raq and not i-hi-qa.
30
Cf. in the Ugaritic rituals: yrt mlk brr (CTA 36:10), and the ritual texts in
Herdner (1978: 13) and the references therein. Cf. also the Hittite festival rituals,
e.g. the AN.TA.UM festival in Gterbock (1960, ll. 1921, 2627 etc.).
slaughtering animals (vv. 11, 1415); (4) the banishing of the scape-
goat, i.e., the recipient of the sin, into the desert (vv. 2122); (5) the
departure of the man who handled the scapegoat outside of the
camp (v. 26); (6) the recital of the confession (v. 21).
31
The dierences between the Babylonian purication ceremony and
the Israelite Day of Atonement ritual are: (a) In Israel blood is sprin-
kled and not water;
32
(b) the Israelite ceremony does not include
incantations; (c) in Babylonia the scapegoat is thrown into a river
while in Israel it is sent away into the desert; (d) in Israel the High
Priest confesses his sins (v. 11) and the sin of the people (v. 21)
whereas in Babylonia the king only confesses his own sins.
These dierences show that apotropaic ceremonies were condi-
tioned by local circumstances although the basic features were com-
mon. Indeed, in Assyria, which is closer to the Northern Syrian
culture, we nd a substitution rite with closer similarities to that of
Leviticus 16. Here, as part of an exorcism rite, a goat is taken to
the desert (ana mudabiri ), where its head is cut o and parts of the
animal are buried together with cedar, honey, and oil (cf. Ebeling
1931: 7375, n. 19).
The Hittite substitution rituals seem to be closest to the biblical
scapegoat ritual. Here, as in Lev 16:21, the ram is driven out to the
plain and hands are laid upon the animal before it is banished. No
less signicant is the fact that colored wool was tied to the animals
neck and horns (cf. Gurney 1977: 4752). This corresponds to the
instruction in m. Yoma 4:2, according to which a crimson colored
strap is to be tied to the goats head.
33
The word used to describe the driving away of the substitute
among the Hittitesnakui, from nakk- (= send away, drive away)
is the equivalent of Hebrew jl ( pi'el ), used in regard to the scape-
goat in the Day of Atonement ritual (Lev 16:10, 21) as well as the
31
One could add two more details: (1) Lev 16:16, 33 corresponds to the pre-
scription that the Mesopotamian priest should purify the whole sanctuary includ-
ing its environs; (2) the prescription in the Mesopotamian ritual, that the priest shall
remove the censer corresponds to m. Yoma 7:4 where the removal of the censer
from the Holy of Holies is considered a special act for which the High Priest has
to wash himself and dress in linen. For another analogy cf. Weinfeld (1975: 108,
n. 85).
32
On the special signicance of blood in Israelite cult, see McCarthy (1969).
33
Two other substitute animals, such as the birds for lustration in Leviticus 14,
were also given the crimson colored strap, see y. eqalim 4.2:48a. See Albeck (1952:
460461).
50 cn.r+rn +nnrr
birds for the lustration of the leper and the leprous house (14:7, 53).
Alongside the nakui, which is sent away, we nd in the Hittite magic
ritual the tarpalli or tarpaa which serves as a substitute to be oered
in place of the endangered man (Gurney 1977: 5258). The two
goats of the Israelite ceremony may thus be perceived as a nakui
and a tarpalli; the same may be true of the two birds used in the
ceremonies of the leper and the leprous house. It would also appear
that the Jewish practice of twrpk observed prior to the Day of
Atonement (cf. Kapparot, EJ), in which the worshipper swings a
fowl about his head and recites: This is my substitute, my exchange,
my expiation, this fowl shall go to its death and I shall enter life,
has its origin in the notion of tarpalli.
34
For just as in the later Jewish
custom, the Hittite-Hurrian ritual includes swinging the fowl around
the penitents head (cf. HaasWilhelm 1974: 4244), and in the
tarpalli rite the king actually pronounces the words let these (sub-
stitutes) die and I shall not die (Kmmel 1967: 8, ll. 1516).
Rituals of purication and atonement were, thus, characteristics
of the ocial cult all over Mesopotamia, Asia-minor, and Northern
Syria as early as the second millenium BCE. Why then should the
prescriptions and rituals of atonement of the Israelite Priestly Code
be late, postexilic innovations rather than a product of the ocial
cult of the First Temple period?
No doubt it is the bias against the Pharisaic law that stands behind
this view. According to Wellhausen, the priestly scribesi.e. the
proto-Pharisees in the postexilic periodcomposed these strange laws,
and not priests of the classical period. How far this prejudice per-
vaded biblical scholarship may be learned from the fact that even
an independent and sober scholar such as de Vaux was led astray
in this matter. Referring to the Day of Atonement rites and their
absence in the lay sources ( J, E, and D) and in Neh 8, he says
(1961: 510): The argument from silence is not, of course, decisive,
but it does furnish a presumption that the feast had not yet been
instituted in the time of Esdras and Nehemias. When he tries to
provide an argument for the late composition of the whole complex
of purity laws in Lev 1116, he reveals his prejudice (463464):
34
Tarpalli equals Akkadian dinnu (see Kmmel 1967: 1922). For the equation
of Hebrew hrpk with Akkadian dinnu cf. trpk wna (may we be your substitute,
e.g., m. Sanh. 2:1); for ana dinn PN in Akkadian letters cf. CAD, D: 148b150, s.v.
dinnu.
All these various prescriptions are evidence of very primitive ideas,
they are the remains of old superstitious rites. And yet there is not
reference to them in the pre-exilic texts, just as there is no reference
to the ashes of the red heifer or to the use of lustral water in the
years before the Exile. There is only one possible conclusion, and it
must apply to all the laws about purity in Lev 1116: after the exile,
the Jews became increasingly conscious of the need for purity, and the
fear of impurity eventually became an obsession with them; hence the
writers of the Priests Code multiplied the instances of impurity and
prescribed all the correct remedies for it; they borrowed material on
every side, integrated popular superstitions into the Levitical system
and imposed so many prescriptions that the law became too complicated
to be practical. Post-biblical Judaism travelled even further in the same
direction. The ritual had at rst served to give expression to the holi-
ness of God and of his people, but it changed into a narrow system
of formal observance, a yoke heavy to be borne; what had once been
a protection became an iron collar. Jesus condemned the scribes and
the Pharisees for putting heavy loads upon the necks of other men
(Mt 23:4) and thereby preventing them from entering the Kingdom
of Heaven (Mt 23:13). He proclaimed that the only uncleanness which
brings delement is moral uncleanness (Mt 15:1020) and St. Paul laid
down that nothing of itself is unclean or impure (Ro 14:14).
35
The theological explanation serves the case of the faithful Christian
who does not observe these laws. He is not subject to these post-
prophetic laws that were composed by proto-Pharisaic Jews. In fact,
the obsession ascribed by de Vaux to the postexilic Jews was also
the obsession of all the civilized peoples in Mesopotamia, Syria,
and Asia-Minor. The silence of the non-priestly law codes in Israel
concerning impurity is quite understandable. These do not at all
treat ocial ritual ceremonies; it is only natural that the priestly
codes (H and P) should be concerned with such laws.
The Sacred Feasts
According to Wellhausen, as stated above, the old festivals have no
xed dates, as they have in P, since their occurrence is determined
by the ripening of the crops. The New Year and the Day of Atone-
ment, as they have no connection with nature and agriculture, are
totally absent from the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy.
35
In fact, views about spiritual purity found in the Gospels are attested in the
Rabbinic literature as well, e.g. just as water puries from ritual impurity so does
Torah purify the impure from impurity: (Canticles Rabbah 1:2, no. 3).
52 cn.r+rn +nnrr
Their prominent place in the priestly law, according to Wellhausen
(1905: 103107 [E.T. 108112]), is due to the fact that they origi-
nate in the postexilic period, when feelings of sin and the need for
confession began to pervade national consciousness.
Now, even internal evidence shows that this is not true. The priestly
law of Leviticus 23 describes the full agricultural, natural setting of
the Israelite festivalssuch as the rst sheaf, the two loaves at
Pentecost, the construction of twkws, and the four species prescribed
for this feast. But the main arguments of Wellhausen are here refuted
by evidence from the Ancient Near East.
The New Year and the Day of Atonement were established institu-
tions all over the Ancient Near East, as has just been shown. Further-
more, the very function of New Years day being commemorated
by loud blasts (of the rpw), h[wrt wrkz (Lev 23:24, cf. Num 29:1
and the appellation wrkz wy for hnh ar in the Jewish liturgy) nds
its parallel in Hittite and Mesopotamian cultures. As we may learn
from Num 10:910, the blasts of the trumpets in war and on fes-
tive days are in remembrance before the Lord. Traditionas pre-
served in Judaismhas it that on this day everybody is judged and
his fate destined for the whole coming year (cf. m. Ro. Ha. 1:2).
These features of the New Year are clearly attested in Hittite and
Mesopotamian literature. Thus we read in a Hittite text:
For the Weather-god, the mighty festival of the beginning of the year,
(the festival) of heaven and earth, has arrived. All the gods have gath-
ered and come to the house of the Weather-god. If any god has sor-
row in his soul, let him dispel the evil sorrow from his soul. At this
festival eat and drink and be satised! Pronounce the life (TI-tar memai-)
of the king and queen. Pronounce [the life] of heaven and earth, [pro-
nounce the life] of the crops (cf. Otten 1956; Gurney 1977: 39).
As in the m. Ro Haana, where we nd mankind and the crop
judged on New Years day for the coming year, so also here, the
king and the queen as well as the crops are pronounced for life on
New Years day. Furthermore, the demand to dispel sorrow from
the soul on this day is paralleled by Neh 8:1011. Nehemiah asks
the people gathered for worship on New Years day to eat and drink,
because this is a holy day for our Lord, and one ought not to be
sorrowful for joy in the Lord is your strength. On decreeing the
fate on New Year we similarly read in a Neo-Babylonian text:
In Ubsukina the chapel of the fates ( parak imti ) at the beginning of
the year (MU.SAG) on the eighth and on the eleventh, the gods of
heaven and earth stand before him (the god Nabu) . . . the fate of my
life they decree there (Langdon 1912: 128, col. II:5465).
Fixed dates for festivals are not the product of the priestly circles in
postexilic times, as Wellhausen contended. These are basic features
of Ancient Near Eastern worship. Thus we read, for example, in a
letter from Mari:
Three days of the new month had passed, let (my lord) send me the
calculations ([m]untam) of the calendar which the lord keeps in his
hands so that I can calculate the days until the oerings (ARM XIII
29:812).
Cultic inventories of spring and autumn festivals with exact dates
and cultic activities prescribed for them are known to us from the
aktu festival in Mesopotamia (Thureau-Dangin 1921: 8688), but
more instructive are the outlines of the Hittite and Ugaritic festivals.
Here we nd prescriptions for ceremonies and oerings for each day
of the festival are more elaborately portrayed than in P (cf. above,
n. 1). The fourteenth and fteenth of the month, which are most
prominent in the priestly calendar in the Pentateuch (Lev 23:5, 6,
34; Num 28:16, 17; 29:12), also play a very important role in the
cultic calendars of the Hittites and the people of Ugarit. Thus we
read in the so-called AN.TA.UM festival:
[On the fourteenth day] in the evening, the king [goes] in(to?) the
tarnu house [evidently to prepare for the following day; Gurney 1977:
3536] . . . The next day the king goes to the tarnu house of the [box-
wood] trees; they slaughter oxen and sheep at the stela of the Storm-
god . . . (Gterbock 1960: 86, ll. 2730; KUB XX 63 + XI li; KUB
XX 42; KUB XI 22 and cf. Laroche 1971: no. 611).
The ritual for the fourteenth and fteenth days of the month is well
preserved (ibid.). It consists of meat oerings, bread oerings and
libations. The rituals of these festive days involve purication cere-
monies (ablutions) and the washing of hands, and are accompanied
by music and various contests (cf. Carter 1962: 4749). The princes
participate in the ceremony (Gurney 1977: 3233). Similar pro-
ceedings are attested in the recently discovered ritual texts from
Ugarit, as, for example:
On the fourteenth day the king washes himself . . . on the day of the full
moon (b ym mlat; cf. Blau Greeneld 1970: 1516) bulls are slaugh-
tered . . . two sheep and a dove . . . (Virolleaud 1968: 592593 [RS
24.253], no. 13 = KTU
2
1.109; Xella 1981: 49).
54 cn.r+rn +nnrr
Or RS 24.256:
The princes and princesses (wbn mlk wb[nt] mlk) ascend . . . on the thir-
teenth the king washes himself, on the fourteenth they descend . . . and
the holy one (priest) sings, on the fteenthwave oerings (npt): a
lamb for Il . . . two lambs . . . seven cows and fourteen sheep . . . (Herdner
1978: 2126; KTU
2
1.112).
As in the Hittite texts, we nd the washing of hands here also
(Virolleaud 1968: 586588, no. 11:6; cf. Blau Greeneld 1970:
15). The enumeration of oerings here reminds us of Num 2829,
and as shown above, similar lists occur in Hittite festival invento-
ries. Especially instructive are the fourteen sheep which occur in the
Hittite daily festival rituals (KBo II 1.ii: 2529), as well as in the
Ugaritic text just quoted, compared with the fourteen sheep sacriced
daily during the twkws festival according to Num 29 (vv. 13, 17, 20,
23, 26, 29, 32).
No less instructive is the information found in the Hittite festival
texts about casting lots among the priests in order to decide who
will perform a certain sacred function (Carter 1962: 124; KUB XVII
35, i: 1720). This is not found in the Priestly Code but was the
practice of the Second Temple period (cf. m. Tamid 3:1; 5:2),
36
and
in light of the Hittite text, there is no doubt that this practice can
be located to the First Temple period.
The great assemblies often mentioned in the Hittite outlines of
festivals
37
parallel the solemn gathering (trx[) attached to the main
festivals in Israel (Lev 23:36; Num 29:35; cf. Deut 16:8). One of
these assembly days, the concluding day of the autumn festival
twkws, has been related, according to Jewish tradition,
38
to a prayer
for rain (gh tlypt). Interestingly enough, the last day of the Hittite
AN.TA.UM festival is said to be the day when the king per-
forms the Rain Festival (cf. Gterbock 1960: 8182, II:524).
Most instructive for our purposes is the Hittite ceremony of tak-
ing the AN.TA.UM plant to the king and queen on the ninth
36
The story about introducing the lot in m. Yoma 2:12 concerns only the removal
of the ashes. The other lots (twsyp) mentioned there were not innovated but belonged
to the old tradition, according to which the tasks of the priests as well as their por-
tions were determined by lot, cf. Luke 1:9.
37
Cf. the ninth, tenth, and sixteenth day of the AN.TA.UM festival (Gterbock
1960).
38
Cf. Targum. Pseudo-Jonathan to Lev 23:36: arfym l[ h dq halxl wht yynk
you will be gathered to pray before the Lord for rain.
day of the AN.TA.UM festival.
39
The taking of the AN.TA.
UM plant is analogous to the taking of the rdj yrp fruit and palm
branches, etc., on the rst day of twkws (Lev 23:40): wyb kl tjqlw
warh. In both cases the taking of the plants is not clear. According
to the prevalent Jewish tradition these were taken and waved cere-
monially during the festival celebration, as may be learned from Jub
16:3031 (going around the altar), Josephus (Ant. Jud. 3.245), 2 Macc
10:67 and the Mishnah (Sukk. 3:9). This may shed light on the
nature of the taking of the AN.TA.UM plant during the Hittite
festival. We know the law described in Lev 23:40 is of ancient ori-
gin, because by Nehemiahs time it was already misunderstood. In
those days the returnees from exile understood the law as if refer-
ring to the taking of the plants for constructing the twkws (Neh 8:15).
The traditional custom prevailed, apparently, with the aid of the
memory of local Judean citizens who did not leave the land after
the destruction, and so retained the proper procedure (cf. Albeck
1952: 254).
Following the law about taking the plants in Lev 23:40, we see
the injunction to rejoice before the Lord seven days. This com-
mandment serves as the basis for the ute (lylj) celebrations dur-
ing the Second Temple period Festival of Sukkot, as attested in m.
Sukk. 4:1. These celebrations were expressed by dancing, singing, and
playing (m. Sukk. 5:4). Isa 30:29 demonstrates that this custom was
rooted in the First Temple period: For you there shall be singing
as on a night when the festival is hallowed (gj dqth lylk); there
shall be rejoicing as when they march with the ute (lyljb lwhk)
on their way to the Lords hill, to the Rock of Israel. This way of
celebrating the festival nights is indeed reected in the recently dis-
covered cultic texts from Ugarit. We often nd there the phrase
and at sunset the king dances (= celebrates)
40
and it is associated
there with singing and playing the ute. Thus we read, for exam-
ple, in RS 24.266 (KTU
2
1.119): In the house of Ba'al of Ugarit . . . at
39
The king takes the AN.TA.UM in the temple of Arinna, while the queen
takes the plant to her palace at Hattua (Gterbock 1960: 81, II:56). Although
formally exempted from obligations dependent on time (mrg mzh h[ twxm), Jewish
women nowadays take the four species home and even pronounce the proper bene-
diction before the taking.
40
Cf. the index in Xella (1981: 367); lj is derived from lwj to dance (cf. e.g.
Jud 21:21, 23, Ps 87:7: ylljk yrw etc.), and in Ugarit seems to be equivalent
to the Hebrew ggj (feasting).
56 cn.r+rn +nnrr
sunset the king celebrates (w l mlk) . . . on the seventh day . . . they
play the ute (mllm) at sunset, and the king celebrates . . . And in
RS 24.256 (KTU
2
1.112): The princes and the princesses ascend
seven times, on the third day the gods ascend and at sunset the king
celebrates . . . on the fourteenth day . . . the holy one sings (wqd yr).
41
As in Isa 30:29 the festival eve is being celebrated here by playing
the ute and singing, and the ascending is mentioned as well as
the sanctication.
Entertaining the gods during the festivals was also very common
amongst the Hittites (dusk; Carter 1962: 4750; see also Gterbock
1964: 72) and as in the Ugaritic texts, this was associated with music,
42
singing, and the princes participating in the celebrations. Racing,
mock ghting, eating, and drinking were characteristic features of
the Hittite festivals (ibid. Carter; Gterbock), and as I have shown
elsewhere (Weinfeld 1993: 466), the description of David playing
(dancing) before the Lord at a procession of the divine cart (2
Sam 6:5, 2021) has important parallels in the Hittite cult.
The festival of twkws as described in Lev 23:40 thus has its
antecedents in Hittite and Ugaritic cultic feasts, and is therefore to
be seen as the true reection of the old Israelite Autumn Festival.
The Deuteronomic Code, on the other hand, represents a more spir-
itualized character of the festivals. Here the festivals have a familial
nature; the importance is not in the national communal festivity, but
the individual joy within the family: You shall rejoice before the
Lord your God with your son and daughter, your male and female
slave, the Levite, the stranger, the orphan and the widow (Deut
16:14). Furthermore, the joy that has naturally always been linked
to the ingathering of the crops
43
was also applied here to the festi-
val of Pentecost (Deut 16:11) and again individualized. The joy
in Deuteronomy (12:12; 14:26; 16:11, 14) represents an inner reli-
gious feelingthanksgiving to the Lord for his blessingsand is
therefore devoid of the cultic acts prescribed in Lev 23:3941.
44
41
Alternatively, he sancties while singing.
42
A prominent musical instrument there is the ute: GI.GD (= long reed); see
Gurney (1977: 34) and the double pipe as shown on monuments (ibid., pls. VI, VIII).
43
Cf. the Hittite names of the autumn festivals: festival of cutting the grape
and festival of the grain pile (Gterbock 1970: 176), which is to be compared
with Hebrew ysah j.
44
For the character of the rejoicing in Deuteronomy cf. Braulik (1994).
The festival calendars as depicted in P are thus to be seen against
the background of the Ancient Near Eastern festivals as known to
us from Ugaritic and Hittite sources. There is, however, a signicant
dierence between the Israelite priestly festival texts and those of the
Hittites and Ugarit. In contrast to the latter, where the king appears
as leading the festive ceremonies, in the Israelite festival texts the
king does not play any role. How can this be explained? As M.
Noth (1966: 1107) has demonstrated, the crystallization of biblical
law has to be seen against the background of the tribal federation
of the pre-monarchic period, and there is, therefore, no place for
the king or for any royal legislature in Old Testament law. The only
law, which mentions the kingDeut 17:1420is actually concerned
with restrictions upon the king in deference to the ancient heritage,
and not with his authority as legislator. The king is subject to the
law and not its initiator. In fact, even among the Hittites the king
appears guarding and performing the sacred law, but not initiating
it. Every god together with its temple had its xed traditions and
the king as ruler of the country had to see to it that these traditions
were kept and not violated. A similar situation prevailed in Israel
after the establishment of the monarchy. In the monarchic period,
the kings appeared to lead the festive celebrations and sacrices (1
Kgs 12:32; 13:1, 2 Chr 2930, 35; cf. 1 Sam 13:9, 14:3435, 2
Sam 6:1718, etc.), as in the Hittite and Ugaritic festivals. If we miss
them in the laws it is because of their pre-monarchic background.
Indeed, Ezekiel, for whom the Davidic dynasty was indispensable to
the future of Jerusalem, does not imagine an ideal festival without
the participation of the nations leader, as named by him: ayn (cf.
Ezek 45:17, 2223; 46:2, 10, 1213). The same applies to the
Chronicler, according to whom the great Passover celebrations dur-
ing the monarchy were led by kings Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Chr
2930, 35). The priestly festival inventories reect, then, the old tra-
dition that stands behind the Pentateuchal laws and which formed
at a time when there was no king in Israel. Of course, the priestly
instructions were written during the time of the monarchy, but their
basic character could not be changedin contrast to the postexilic
period, when the king became a part of the ideal sacred reality of
the nation.
58 cn.r+rn +nnrr
Priests and Levites
Ancient Near Eastern discoveries also disprove Wellhausens con-
struction of the history of the priests and Levites in ancient Israel.
The relegation of the Levites to service as external functionaries is
notas Wellhausen suggesteda particularly Israelite development
associated with the Josianic reform. J. Milgrom (1970b) observed that
a parallel institution was extant in the Hittite temples. There we
nd, similar to the situation in the Israelite Temple, two types of
temple personnel: temple ocials, i.e. priests who are in charge of
the inner temple area (karimnale ), and non-priests who watch the
outside area of the temple (aliyattalle = L.ME .DINGIR-lim;
Honer 1973b: 219). As with the Levites, the outside keepers in the
Hittite cultic are also bound by law to assist the internally serving
priests in their tasks.
45
According to Wellhausen (1905: 142 [E.T. 148]), the High Priest
(lwdg hk) of the Priestly Code reects the head of the Second Temple
theocracy: No gure of such incomparable importance occurs any-
where else in the Old Testament. Now, the rank of High Priest is
to be found throughout Mesopotamian religion, corresponding lin-
guistically and functionally to the Israelite lwdg hk: in Ugarit rb khnm
(Rainey 1967: 7072); in Assyriaang rab (van Driel 1969: 175177);
in Elampsisu rab (Mmoires de la dlgation en Perse IV, no. 3, 11:
68). No evidence exists for viewing the Israelite High Priesthood as
a postexilic imitation of the king, as Wellhausen contends.
Further regulations contained in the Hittite priestly instructions
resemble laws found in the Priestly Code. The Hittite priests are
commanded against being remiss with consecrated objects (KUB XIII
4, ii: 3258; cf. Sturtevant-Bechtel 1935: 152155; and cf. Lev 5:15),
against making substitution for animals designated for sacrice (ibid.
152153 [ii: 1231]; cf. Lev 27:910),
46
and against partaking of
sacricial meat after the allotted time (ibid. [ii: 13]; cf. Lev 7:1518;
22:30; 19:58), or giving away sacricial meat (ibid. [ii: 45]; cf. Lev
45
Cf. the text (KUB XIII, 4), which includes instructions to priests and temple
functionaries, published by Sturtevant Bechtel (1935: 127174); see also ANET
2
:
207210 (Goetze).
46
Prohibitions also exist against exchanging the temple land (IV, 17), a regula-
tion not found in the Priestly Code but attested in Ezek 48:14.
6:11, 19; 7:6). These texts also speak of an ordeal in which a sus-
pect is made to drink water (ibid. 164165 [iv: 5055]), much the
same as the biblical hfws in Num 5:1131.
The Endowment of the Clergy
Wellhausens discussion of this topic began with his analysis of the
term dy alym (Langdon 1912: 110, iii: 30; 142, ii: 10]). He believed
the expression to have originated with the temple owners practice
of lling the priests hand (with moneysee Jud 17:5). Later, it was
used to refer to the ocial act of appointing priests and to the
oerings made at the celebration of their consecration. The expres-
sion reects the development of the institution. The priest, who orig-
inally depended upon an employer, became a collector of vast amounts
of sacred gifts.
Today, the knowledge of Akkadian suces to refute this hypoth-
esis. The term qtam mull (= dy alym) has the sense of consecrat-
ing for duty; cf. the phrases brutu umall qt"a (consecrated me to
priesthood; Streck 1916: 254, i: 9) and udduu erti . . . umall qt"a
(consecrated me to restore temples; Langdon 1912: 110, iii: 30; 142,
ii: 10). The term dy alym in Hebrew has precisely the same meaning.
The Wellhausenian view that the priestly tithe is a reection of
postexilic reality is completely refuted by the evidence about the tithe
from the Ancient Near East (Weinfeld 1971b). According to Wellhausen
(1905: 150152 [E.T. 156158]), the tithe was originally eaten by
its owner and only during the Second Temple was it appropriated
by the Temple and its personnel. The evidence from the Ancient
Near Eastern documents shows the opposite. The appropriation of
the tithe by the Temple was a natural feature of the institution.
Underlying all documents relating to the tithe is the notion that the
tithe was a tax that was indispensable for the maintenance of the
temple and its personnel (cf. Dandamajew 1969: 8290; Salonen
1972). The priestly laws that assign the tithe to the divine sphere
(to the Lord [Lev 27:3033] or the Levites [Num 18:2132]) are
then in harmony with the institution of the tithe known to us from
the Ancient Near East. On the other hand, the deuteronomic law,
which prescribes the consumption of the tithe by the ownerexcept
every third year, when the tithe has to be left for the Levites, stranger,
poor, etc.,reects a trend toward desecularization and seems to be
60 cn.r+rn +nnrr
the outcome of the cultic reform. This explains the fact that
Deuteronomy provides for conversion of the tithe into money (as
against Lev 27:33).
Wellhausens contention that the tithe of the cattle and sheep is
a late invention that was not in existence even at the time of Nehemiah
(10:3839) is very strange, and is actually contradicted by the
Mesopotamian texts in which the tithe of animals is referred to quite
often (cf. Salonen 1972: 22 and passim).
The law of the Levitical cities in the Priestly Code (Num 35:18),
which was considered by Wellhausen as a priestly ction, can now
be better understood against the background of Ancient Near Eastern
tithe procedure. As is known from Ugaritic documents, whole cities
were granted to royal servants by the king as part of their tithes (cf.
PRU III: 6970 [RS 16.276:19]; 146147 [RS 16.153:113]). These
cities did not actually become the property of the servants; the ser-
vants were given the perpetual right to collect the tithes of the inhab-
itants (cf. Heltzer 1976: 4851). It seems that the giving of cities to
the Levites must be understood in a similar manner. B. Mazar (1960)
has suggested that these cities were settled by the Levites who served
the king in the period of the United Kingdom. This, then, goes well
with the fact that the tithe is given to the Levites (Num 18:2123).
Cities were given to the Levites in order to collect the tithes, and
not as their inheritance. They had their homes there and functioned
there, but it is never said that these cities became their hljn. Cities
such as Shechem, Hebron, Ramot Gilead, etc., belonged to the tribes
Ephraim, Judah, etc.; they were given to the priests and Levites in
order to perform their functions there.
Shemitta and Jubilee
Another area in which the study of the Ancient Near East has shat-
tered a convention created by Wellhausen is the institution of the
Year of Release and the Jubilee. These are attested in the various
law codes of the Pentateuch, and here too, as in many other cases,
the separate codes dier with regard to their nature. The Book of
the Covenant ordains that slaves are to be released after seven years
and that the land is to be left fallow in the seventh year (Exod 21:2;
23:1011). Deuteronomy repeats the slaves manumission laws (15:12),
and designates the seventh year for the remission of debts (15:16),
but does not mention the sabbatical year in connection with elds
and crops. The Priestly Code commands the Sabbath of the soil
(Lev 25:27), relegates the manumission of slaves to the Jubilee year
(Lev 25:812), and makes no mention of the remission of debts.
Wellhausen (1905: 111114 [E.T. 116120]), true to his doctrine of
evolution from the primitive to the complete, reconstructed the his-
tory of the institution as follows:
A) Both the release of slaves and the sabbatical of the soil were orig-
inally determined by individual reckoning: a slave who had served
his master for six years was freed in the seventh; a farmer who
had worked his eld for six successive years left it fallow in the
seventh. Wellhausen held that this practice is in fact contained in
the Book of the Covenant even though the theory does not quite
t the text. The sabbatical of the soil is treated alongside the weekly
Sabbath (Exod 23:1012) and the two are phrased identically: Six
years you shall sow your land . . . but in the seventh year you shall
let it rest . . . Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh
day you shall cease from labor. It is thus quite unlikely that the
Sabbath was reckoned on a national basis while the year of release
was reckoned individually.
B) According to Wellhausen, Deuteronomy represents the second stage
in the evolution of hfym. Deuteronomy was the rst to ordain a
general, nationwide release, and the enactment referred to debts
alone. The manumission of slaves, he held, remained as in the
Book of the Covenant, xed by individual reckoning.
C) The Priestly Code represents the third stage. The Priestly Code,
thought Wellhausen, accepted the notion of the general release but
applied it to the soil, while it invented the institution of a Jubilee
in the 50th year to deal with the manumission of slaves. The rea-
son for the change in the law was simply the unwillingness of the
master to set his slaves free every seven years. As a concession, the
slaves were permitted to be kept until the ftieth year, similarly,
property was ordered to be returned to the original owner in the
Jubilee.
This theory is quite logical and was accepted by many scholars. So
long as no external evidence of the existence of these institutions
was known, Wellhausens view remained plausible (though here, too,
one might ask how a nation suddenly came up with a new con-
ceptthe Jubileewithout any practical, historical precedent). The
discovery of external evidence considerably damages his argument:
we now know that in Mesopotamia, at the beginning of the second
millennium, there existed a year of general release, the marum or
andurrum-year, in which debts were cancelled and property returned
62 cn.r+rn +nnrr
to its original owner (Weinfeld 1995a). The andurrum, equivalent to
Hebrew rwrd, is called in Sumerian ama-ra-gi
4
return to the
motherto the bosom of the family, an idea underlying the rwrd
of the Pentateuch: Each of you shall return to his holding and each
of you shall return to his family (Lev 25:10). The Hebrew phrase
axy lbwybto go out in the Jubilee (Lev 25:3031, 33, 54)is the
precise equivalent of the Mesopotamian: ina durri u. In a striking
similarity to Lev 25:9, where the Jubilee is proclaimed by the sound
of the horn, the rwrd-year in Mesopotamia is proclaimed by the rais-
ing of the torch (Weinfeld 1995a). These acts are the classical, ancient
methods of publicizing any announcement (see Jer 6:1: Blow the
horn in Tekoa, set up a re signal at Beth-hakkerem).
The question of individual vs. national reckoning is raised anew
by the Mesopotamian evidence. In the dynasty of Hammurapi we
nd a year of general release (marum) alongside the release accord-
ing to years of actual labor:
If an obligation came due against a seignior and he sold (the services
of ) his wife, his son, or his daughter, or he has been bound over to
service, they shall work (in) the house of their purchaser or obligee for
three years, with their freedom reestablished in the fourth year (codex
Hammurapi 117 as cited in ANET
2
: 170171 [Meek]).
In light of this passage, Wellhausens theory that individual reckon-
ing preceded the centralized method and that the Jubilee is but a
ctional, postexilic invention is not substantiated. The knowledge that
both institutions were in force in the period of Hammurapi, cen-
turies before the Israelite conquest of Canaan, implies that the sab-
batical and Jubilee yearsincluding the remission of debts, the release
of slaves, and the return of propertyreect an ancient patriarchal
practice whose detailed observance was faithfully preserved by the
priestly author.
47
We may note that Wellhausens ignorance of the Ancient Near
Eastern cultural context of Israelite religion was criticized even by his
contemporaries: He remained a theologian, writes von Wilamowitz-
Moellendorf (1928: 189190), this is the explanation of his approach.
47
The Jubilee cannot be viewed as a utopian institution. If this were the case
we would be unable to account for the detailed provisions of the law of a house
within a walled city, which is an entirely practical issue (Lev 25:2930) and indi-
cates that the Jubilee was initially a tribal-patriarchal practice which had to be
revised in the case of urban settlements (Loewenstamm 1965: 580).
He objected to immersing himself in Babylonian and Assyrian stud-
ies, as he should have done. In contrast, he did learn Arabic . . . here
he was also an historian. The historian E. Meyer (1897: 26) writes
as follows:
Does Wellhausen believe that his Israelitische und jdische Geschichte suc-
ceeds in giving an adequate picture of the inuence of Assyria on the
history of Israel and Judah? On the great turning-point which came
about with Tiglat-Pileser IIIs conquest there is not a word, not to
mention the condition of the Assyrian Empire thereafter, its provinces
and vassal states and everything connected with it.
This accusation concerns only history and is not really relevant to
Wellhausens views on law and institutions. In regard to these, one
has to admit that the evidence from the Ancient Near East adduced
here was not yet available at the beginning of this century and
Wellhausen could not be blamed for not making use of it. The last
fty years have not only produced new evidence concerning the cult
and religion of biblical times, but have also established a rm basis
for their proper understanding. This evidence gives us, of course, a
better chance for evaluating the institutions of the Priestly Code.
Wellhausen could not avail himself of all this and therefore could
speculate about the date of P only on the basis of internal evidence.
Now that we have external evidence our views have naturally changed,
although we still lack positive proof for dating P. If new evidence
emerges for the late date of P we should, of course, consider it, but
as long as it does not, Wellhausens arguments cannot be accepted.
64
CHAPTER FOUR
WELLHAUSEN IN LIGHT OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES
The Founders of the Modern Discipline
The school of the prominent orientalist and historian Heinrich Ewald
(18031875) transformed biblical studies into a legitimate scholarly
discipline based on philology and oriental history, and not just on
source criticism, theology, and philosophy as it was before. Ewald
did important research in Hebrew and Arabic grammar and he is
rightly considered as the father of Hebrew syntax.
As a historian, Ewald produced the important work Geschichte des
Volkes Israel bis Christus (vols. 17, 18431855) and this work may still
be used today with great prot. However, some of its decisive his-
torical observations were later unjustiably ignored by his pupil Julius
Wellhausen in his Israelitische and jdische Geschichte. Thus, for exam-
ple, in order to show the historical background of the priestly layer
in the Pentateuch (what he termed Das Buch der Ursprunge), Ewald
(1851: I
2
.99) adduced the passages where the patriarchs are promised
kings as their descendants: waxy yxljm yklmw mm hyhy ywg lhq (Gen
17:56; cf. 28:3; 35:11; 48:4).
1
In Ewalds view, the stress on kings
and assemblies or coalitions of nations coming out of Israel reects the
ourishing monarchy and its greatness,
2
before the division of the
Kingdom.
3
Strangely enough Wellhausen ignored this altogether when
discussing the date of P. He even distorted the evidence by stating
that in contrast to the author of JE, who does not conceal his age
1
Note that the promise of kings to Abraham in Gen 17 contrasts with the
promise to Ishmael in the same chapter: for Ishmaels future only princes are
reserved and not kings (v. 20).
2
This corresponds with my opinion (Weinfeld 1981a: 425426) concerning the
Jahwistic idea of great nation (lwrg ywg), which reects an identical historical reality.
3
In his commentary on Genesis, Westermann (1974: 315) recognized the broad
universal meaning of kings and nations in Gen 17, and tried to explain it (fol-
lowing Hoftijzer) in the light of Deutero-Isaiahs prophecies (e.g. 41:2). However,
he disregarded old sources that refer to hklmmw ywg with no universal eschatological
implications (e.g. Exod 19:6; 1 Kgs 18:10).
vrrrn.tsrx .xr nis cox+rvron.nirs 65
(= the monarchic period), P deprives his work of all real value . . . such
as it possesses . . . for the age of the Kings (Wellhausen 1905: 336
[E.T. 338]). In fact the opposite is true; JE does not refer at all to
Kings in Israel while P explicitly does.
Ewald developed a school that laid the basis for future scholarly
research. His pupil August Dillmann (18231894), an orientalist and
Semitic philologist, wrote an in-depth philological commentary on
the Hexateuch (18861897), free of historical-theological construc-
tion and still among the best ever composed. Dillmanns peer, the
renowned Julius Wellhausen (18441918), excelled himself in Semitic
philology and Islamic history, there is no necessity to dwell upon his
philological achievements and describe his impact on biblical criti-
cism. Another pupil of Ewald, who heavily inuenced biblical research,
was Bernhard Duhm (18471928); his main preoccupation was Israelite
prophecy. It was the combination of Semitic philology and a his-
torico-critical approach which made the Ewald school predominant
in 19th-century biblical criticism.
Positivist Historicism and the Philological
Critique of Dillmann and Driver
Wellhausen wrote the Prolegomena in the 19th century when histori-
cism was the guiding principle in the study of humanities. Every cul-
tural phenomenon had to be explained historically; the principle of
synchronism was simply not considered. Consequently, Wellhausen
searched for the historical circumstances of the Priestly Code. Because
he could not nd them in the First Temple period, he searched in
the Second Temple period. However, today we know that real his-
torical circumstances of any ancient law code can hardly be found.
The Mesopotamian law-codes do not reect empirical reality, but
rather present a system of ideal norms formulated by a scribal cir-
cle; consequently, they reveal the moral inclinations of these scribes
and not the prevailing legal situation (Kraus 1960: 283285; Finkel-
stein 1961). Private documents pertaining to lawsuits and judicial
proceedings discovered in Mesopotamia do not show any corre-
spondence to the law-codes. The latter were composed by scribes
and studied in their schools, but were not used as codes guiding the
judges in court. The judges acted according to the customary law,
which was periodically checked and revised by royal decrees and
66 cn.r+rn rotn
regulations.
4
The codes, however, which were literary legal creations,
served only as an ideal legal scheme, mainly for didactic purposes.
The same applies to Israel. The Priestly Code, which is rightly con-
sidered by Wellhausen as the law-code par excellence of the Pentateuch,
actually constitutes a compilation of legal maxims from dierent peri-
ods and should not be seen as the ideal code of the Jerusalemite
priesthood. Any suggestion for the precise dating of these laws is
therefore doomed to failure (Haran 1980).
A. Dillmanns dating of the Pentateuchal sources (Dillmann 1886:
668670) refutes Wellhausens on the following grounds:
1. According to Wellhausen, the codes of JE and D were already
crystallized at the end of the First Temple period, but P, which
deviates so radically from the JE and D codes,
5
is not likely to
have been created at a time when the community of returnees
was so anxious to observe the ancient statues.
2. The Priestly Code contains laws regarding such matters as the
borders of the twelve tribes and the distribution of the land (Num
26:54), the allocation of Levitical cities and the establishment of
cities of refuge on both sides of the Jordan (Num 35), the appoint-
ment of the national leader (Num 27:1523) by the decision of
the Urim and Thummin (Num 27:21), etc. These laws are com-
pletely irrelevant and meaningless for the postexilic period.
3. On the other hand one would expect to nd in a law-code com-
posed in the postexilic period laws that answer the needs of the
time such as explicit prohibition of intermarriage, the functions
of Levites as singers, musicians, and gatekeepers; however, all
these are absent from P.
4. The literature of the exilic and postexilic period, starting with the
book of Jeremiah, is strongly inuenced by the book of Deute-
ronomy. In P, however, no trace of this book is to be found. On
the contrary, in Deuteronomy one can nd priestly phrases (Dill-
4
The Bible makes reference to the law of the daughter (Exod 21:9), the law
of the birthright (Deut 21:17), the law of redemption and the law of inheritance
( Jer 32:78) and the law of kingship (1 Sam 10:25) without elaborating on what
these entail. While Deut 24:23 mentions the document of divorce (seper keritut;
see also Jer 3:8; Isa 50:1), it is noted not in order to explain the law of divorce
(as does the Mishnaic tractate Gittin) but in the specic context of the remarriage
of the divorced woman to her previous husband.
5
For example, the Hebrew slave is not set free after seven years service in P
(Lev 25) as he is in JE and D (Exod 21; Deut 15).
mann 1886: 668670; Weinfeld 1972: 179181) which point to
the priority of P over D and not vice versa.
These points make it very dicult to accept Wellhausens dating of
P even as a possibility, and it should, therefore, come as no surprise
that the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen approach was totally unacceptable
to Dillmann. Being a devoted disciple of Ewald, Dillmann reacted
angrily to Wellhausens theory, which nally brought about the demise
of their relationship (Barnikol 1957: 701702, n. 4; on Dillmanns
reactions to Wellhausens views see especially Baudissin 1895: 1921).
Dillmanns unbiased philological approach stands in sharp contrast
to Wellhausens, in which speculative interpretation exceeds the close
reading of the text. Dillmann reacted to Wellhausens thesis thus:
That the priestly cultic laws were written or even composed for the
rst time in the Babylonian exile, where no cultic worship existed, is
contrary to common sense. It should not be denied that the Law-code
got its nal shape and order during the exile and the time of Ezra,
and I myself have indicated that several passages should be ascribed
to the last editorial activity. But that the Priestly Code was written
only a hundred years after the Exile, cannot be demonstrated at all.
Ezekiel speaks against it, a lot of priestly laws speak against it, the
practice of the postexilic period is against it. What is true is that the
tendencies of the Priestly Code were fully realized in the postexilic hie-
rocracy but this does not mean that these did not exist before . . . For
the details see the discussions in my commentaries . . . (1897: vi; [my
translation]).
It is astonishing that until now Dillmanns commentaries on the
Hexateuch, which contain close to two thousand pages, were not
confronted with Wellhausens thesis in order to check the arguments
and counter arguments.
Samuel Rolles Driver, another great philologist of that period, who
was not swept by the stream, also saw the diculties and the weak
points in Wellhausens theory. For example, Driver (1891: 137)
observed that the Day of Atonement, the Jubilee, the Levitical cities,
the sin oering, and other communal sacrices can be ancient, but
the writers of the old sources may simply not have found the appro-
priate occasion for mentioning them. This is a most critical argu-
ment against Wellhausen, because it is these very laws that served,
for Wellhausen, as the point of departure for dating P. Regarding
the lack of cultic prescriptions in D, Driver rightly pointed out that
the plan of D would not naturally include an enumeration of minute
details (Driver 1891: 138).
68 cn.r+rn rotn
Driver also observed that some of the laws in D might be regarded
as a relaxation of sanctions by D with respect to P. Though Driver
was not specic, I would proer some examples of these changes:
D permits eating profane slaughter that P prohibits; D allows con-
sumption of rstlings and tithes in Jerusalem by the owners, whilst
P assigns these to priests and Levites only; D dispenses with the old
taboo prescriptions connected with the Passover rites, as they occur
in P and in JE.
Concerning Ezekiel and his relationship to P, Driver (1891: 150)
remarked that Ezekiel seems to be dependent on Lev 26; being a
prophet, his attitude towards the sacricial system of P may have
been a free one (ibid. 140), hence the dierences between P and
Ezekiels message. Driver observed that the legal institutions appeared
ancient and that not all of them were practiced because of their
ideal, utopian nature (ibid. 145).
All of these arguments are valid and could actually serve as a
point of departure for challenging Wellhausens position. Dillmann
was 20 years older than Wellhausen and further on in his academic
career; therefore, he did not feel it necessary to show any favor to
Wellhausen and thus rejected his thesis right away (Barnikol 1957).
Driver, however, did not elaborate because of his respect for Well-
hausen. He was more outspoken against Duhm, and did not accept
his postulated Trito-Isaiah (Driver 1891: 245), which for some rea-
son received universal acceptance. One should add here that Driver
introduced a system to his work, which should be emulated by us
all. In his Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, he accom-
panied his discussions with lists of expressions characteristic of the
literary works he addressed. In his view, style and phraseology are
decisive in questions of date and authorship. Unfortunately, Well-
hausens and Duhms predominant views ignored this approach and
consequently distorted the history of Israel in many respects. When
adopting of the date of P proposed by Wellhausen, all sorts of estab-
lishments and social institutions lose signicance in Israels history.
Totalanschauung: The Case of Duhm
Alongside the general prevailing tendency in the 19th century was
the so-called Totalanschauung, which meant seeing all the details in
light of a dominant, general idea. According to this tendency the
historian and theologian ought to discover the continuum which leads
to the real aim (in Christian theology: the coming of Jesus).
Furthermore, the historian should dene the various stages of this
continuum. This tendency is recognizable in Ewalds Geschichte des Volkes
Israel but is most prominent in Wellhausens synthetic works: the
Prolegomena and Israelitische und jdische Geschichte as well as in B. Duhms
theology of the prophets (1875). Admittedly, a Totalanschauung is desir-
able especially in the study of the Bible, because it constitutes a doc-
ument of belief, and contains a spiritual message. It is certainly
important to get an opinion not only about the details of a phe-
nomenon but also about the nature of the whole and the way it has
developed. However, once the general idea, reached by intuition,
serves for xing dates and authorship, it damages the research.
Wellhausens thesis about the development of Israelite religion from
a natural stage to a formalistic one is the product of Totalanschauung.
It is this tendency which lies behind his Prolegomena and Israelitische
und jdische Geschichte.
Duhms work was originally published in 1875 under the title
Theologie der Propheten als Grundlage fr die innere Entwicklungsgeschichte der
israelitischen Religion (Theology of the prophets as the basis for the
inner history of development of the Israelite religion), which speaks
for itself in spite of Duhms declaration that he approaches his inves-
tigation without any prejudice or bias. The same pertains to his
denition of theology that the proper treatment of theology could
be realized when one recognizes the continuity between the Israelite
and Christian religion (Duhm 1875: 7). With respect to the relation-
ship between the Prophets and the Mosaic Law, he takes Wellhausens
stand that the priestly law comes after prophecy (ibid. 9). Other prej-
udices lie behind Duhms thesis about the non-authenticity of the
prophecies of consolation, and behind the distinction between Deutero-
Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah as well as his isolation of the Songs of the
Servant. All of these are hypotheses based on subjective criteria, and
not on philological and historical considerations. They were accepted
in scholarship because of the credit given to the prestigious Ewald
school and because of the brilliance of its scholars.
It seems that tracing the history of ideas was far more important
for the Totalanschauung than facts and events, and hence the neglect
of real historical facts. Wellhausen simply did not pose the elemen-
tary questions that every historian should. Important institutions like
70 cn.r+rn rotn
New Years Day and Day of Atonement, Shemitta and Jubilee, priests
and Levites, sacrices of dierent kinds, Levitical cities, cities of
refuge, etc., all of these are seen as late, postexilic constructions, in
spite of the fact that such institutions existed in the Ancient Near
East hundreds of years before the emergence of Israel.
The same situation exists with respect to the 19th century state-
ments concerning the date and authorship of prophecies, especially
by Duhm. He was so condent in his views about the authorship
of Isaiah that he divided the book according to a xed chronologi-
cal system: (1) prophecies of Isaiah the son of Amoz; (2) post-Isaianic
authors until Ezra; (3) additions from the period between Ezra and
the Maccabeans; (4) supplements from the time of the Hasmoneans.
His dating inuenced philology and not vice versa. Let us take, for
example, the prophecy against the Philistines in Isa 14:2832. This
passage opens with the superscription: In the year that King Ahaz
died; its contents and language can be ascribed to Isaiah without
any diculty, but Duhm dates it to the period after the battle of
Alexander at Issus. Following this dating, the superscription must be
of course wrong; he therefore reads instead of Ahaz, Ochus, that is,
Artaxarxes III who died in 338. Even at the end of the 19th cen-
tury (e.g. Skinner 1896; Driver 1891: 213) there was enough his-
torical evidence from Assyrian sources to show that this oracle perfectly
ts the circumstances of Isaiahs time: the year of Ahaz death (727
BCE) is also the year of Tiglath-Pilesers death; so Isaiah warns the
Philistines not to rejoice about the rod (Tiglath-Pileser) that is bro-
ken because new tyranny will spring out of the same root. Presup-
positions about date and authorship of a text were thus more important
for Duhm than the philological and historical evidence.
Another example is the ascription of Deutero-Zechariah by Stade
and his followers to the wars among the Diadochi. Unfortunately,
very little attention has been paid to historical geography in this
matter. Thus, for example, the beginning of Zech 9 can only be
understood against the background of Tiglath-Pilesers campaigns to
Syria in the years 739738 BCE (Malamat 19501951; Tadmor
1961: 266271). However, in many commentaries and introductions
(e.g. Fohrer 1970: 466467; in spite of his mentioning Tadmor 1961),
with the exception of Rudolph (1976) who puts philology rst, one
still nds that Hadrach, Damascus and Hamath in this prophecy are
associated with the collapse of the Persian empire. The all-important
question: what do we hear about Hadrach in the Hellenistic period?
is never considered.
Constructive Trends in the Early and Mid 20th Century
The progress made in biblical research in the last four generations
has been mainly due to new ndings. The Gunkel-Gressmann school
used material from the Ancient Near East to elucidate patterns and
genres in biblical literature. As already indicated, various literary
types discovered in the Ancient Near East nd their counterparts in
Israelite literature. The comparison with the literary forms outside
Israel helps us to understand the genre, its general features, and its
particularities within Israelite literature.
In contrast to the Totalanschauung system, where each phenome-
non has its historical rubric, in the so-called Form-Geschichte system
scholars stress the nature of the phenomenon and its function in life,
rather than its date. From the Ancient Near East we learn that lit-
erary forms as well as the social behavior underlying these forms did
not change for centuries, and this renders exact dating impossible.
The term Sitz im Leben, coined by Gunkel, actually means looking
for the dynamics of a certain social-religious phenomenon. Thus, for
instance, the so-called ascension Psalms, which are rooted in liturgy
(as recognized by Mowinckel 1962: 106107), opened a new vista
in the understanding of divine kingship as experienced in ancient
Israel. By the same token the distinction between apodictic and casu-
istic law (introduced by Alt 1953) advanced the understanding of the
nature of legal formulations and their diverse functions in the life of
ancient Israel. This was successfully combined with the study of
covenants, which has been developed in the last thirty years. Covenantal
ceremonies and written covenantal documents turned out to be a
most important factor in Ancient Near Eastern society. A typical
structure for covenants has been discovered in the Ancient Near East
and in Israel, and sheds new light on the biblical covenants.
6
6
Of course, it is not enough to point out the analogy. Research should be made
in the way the covenantal form developed in Israel, focusing on its intrinsic value.
The covenant actually constitutes the bond of God-People-Land. The privileges of
election and the promise of land are conditioned by observance of the Torah, which
means loyalty to God. One should be reminded here that nomism was not born
72 cn.r+rn rotn
Constructive critique against these dogmatic approaches was
launched by Israeli scholars in the middle of the 20th century. The
linguistic fabric of biblical works is being carefully analyzed, and the
historical and sociological background of the various documents is
being examined afresh. The rst to do this was Y. Kaufmann in the
thirties, but unfortunately, because of his educational background,
he himself was sometimes caught in the Totalanschauung system and
therefore also constructed radical theories that cannot be accepted.
His critical analysis of Wellhausens approach to the law (HIR 1) is
based on sound philological and literary critical arguments, but his
views about the history of the conquest, the authorship of prophetic
writings, and the contacts of Israel with Canaanite culture are far-
fetched; they are meant to form diametrical opposition to the Wellhau-
senian approach (cf. my review of Kaufmanns works: Weinfeld 1963),
and therefore are not less dogmatic than those of his peers. He did,
however, refrain from precise dating and determining authorship.
Linguistic evidence also renders Wellhausens dating of the priestly
literature impossible. Recent studies by A. Hurvitz (1982) demon-
strate that the Hebrew of P antedates that of Ezekiel and that the
latter is a linguistic link between the pre-exilic P and postexilic lit-
erature. The idea that the priestly document was inuenced by the
writings of one prophet is far less credible than the opposite, i.e.
that Ezekiel was one of many writers inuenced by the priestly style.
In the same fashion, it is more likely that the Psalmic literature
inuenced Jeremiah than that Jeremiah was the father of psalmody
and prayer (Wellhausen 1914: 147). Gunkel has conclusively shown
that psalmody and prayer existed throughout the Ancient Near East
thousands of years before Jeremiah (Gunkel 1926; GunkelBegrich
1933). The methodological point is clear: the literary genre inuences
the individual writer who belongs to the literary circle which cre-
ated it, not vice versa.
in the time of Ezra, as is often thought through Wellhausens inuence, but is a
development of a tendency existing in the old Israelite tradition. Loyalty to the
covenant means fullling its commandments. Not enough research has been done
in the question of the Land and its place in the covenantal imagery. After all, the
Pentateuch and the historiographical books of Joshua-Kings revolve around the idea
of gaining the land or losing it. On the other hand, not enough has been done in
investigating the problem of the Covenant of the Book of the Torah, its develop-
ment, and its impact on Israel and Judaism.
The linguistic case against the Wellhausens dating was in fact
stated by his contemporary, the Jewish historian H. Graetz:
Wellhausen is a blunderer in the elementary facts of Hebrew, and his
criticism is largely inuenced by his Anti-semitism which he takes no
pains to disguise . . . and then the nonsense of making Ezra the author
of the Pentateuch or of a part of it! The critics should be ashamed of
such idle chatter. Ezras Hebrew style, which we know well, is to the
artistic diction of the Pentateuch as the Greek style of a Byzantine
writer is to that of Plato. Ezra could not have written a single com-
plete verse of the Pentateuch. Besides which Ezras bitterest enemies,
the Samaritans, have accepted the Pentateuch in its entirety as their
holiest book. Would they have done this if it had been a work of
Ezra? (1887: 9)
Not all of Graetzs accusations are valid. Wellhausens commentaries
on Samuel (Wellhausen 1871) and the Minor Prophets (Wellhausen
1863) indicate that he was in fact a master of biblical language and
style. While his anti-Semitism cannot be denied (see his letter to
Justi), it is nowhere to be discerned in his critical writings. The search
for Hegelian inuence upon Wellhausen is also misguided. Wellhausens
approach was essentially that of literary historical criticism and in
the main was free of philosophical doctrine (Perlitt 1965). What
Graetz writes, however, of Hebrew style and of the Samaritans
remains true today.
In order to advance biblical scholarship we should base ourselves
on philology, history, literary criticism, and textual analysis, but not
on world-views and ideology that could be dened in various ways.
By means of philology, especially with the rich philological data avail-
able today, one is able to distinguish in an objective manner (mainly
by lexicography and stylistics) what is postexilic and what is not. By
studying Ancient Near Eastern literature we not only learn about
social and cultic institutions, their nature and antiquity but, more
importantly, about ancient genres of literature.
* * *
The brilliant suggestions of Wellhausen have led us astray just as his
philological suggestions have enlightened our eyes. Wellhausen prop-
agated the idea that Jeremiah was the father of Psalmodic lyric (the
Psalms would not have come into being without Jeremiah, Wellhausen
1914: 141), and Ezekiel the originator of the priestly law (Wellhausen
1914: 148). These notions were subsequently refuted by later inves-
tigations. In the last century, we have learned about legal cultic
74 cn.r+rn rotn
instructions in the Ancient Near East that have anities to Israelite
priestly prescriptions (cf. Weinfeld 1983a). Furthermore, we now have
an Ancient Near Eastern literary type of cultic prescriptive and
descriptive documents that are identical to those found in Israelite
priestly literature (Levine 1963, 1965; Rainey 1970). To say that
Ezekiel was the father of written priestly law in Israel today seems
absurd. Similarly, Wellhausens view that the Psalms and Wisdom
literature is the product of individualism in the Second Temple period
(Wellhausen 1914: 206207) sounds today childish. The genres of
individualistic literature such as personal prayer and speculative wis-
dom about the fate of the individuals were already highly developed
in Mesopotamia and Egypt in the second millennium BCE.
Julius Wellhausens heroic attempt to depict the Law of Judaism,
manifested in the priestly stratum of the Pentateuch, as originating
in the Second Temple theocracy and the antithesis to classical
prophecy, is ultimately a failure. It is based on biased, foregone con-
clusions, argument from silence and misunderstandings, and is refuted
by the ndings of subsequent scholarship. The challenge that now
confronts scholars, particularly non-Jewish scholars in the West, is
to deal systematically with this state of aairs. They must present
new ndingslinguistic, legal, or otherin support of their claims
that all or part of P dates from after the exile, and these must be
considered on their own merit. Alternatively, they must renounce
the view that the priestly law and literature are a crossroads in
Israelite history, and must begin to regard them as an intrinsic and
authentic element of Israels religion from her very inception. This
will entail a thorough re-evaluation of all that is based on the con-
ception of ancient Israel presented by Wellhausen and a reconsid-
eration of all that has been taken for granted since the publication
of the Prolegomena. I sincerely hope that biblical scholarship will prove
itself adequate to the task of facing this new agenda.
75
PART TWO
THEOLOGICAL FEATURES IN THE PENTATEUCH
CHAPTER FIVE
THEOLOGICAL CURRENTS IN
PENTATEUCHAL LITERATURE
In Pentateuchal literature, we meet two schools of crystallized theo-
logical thought: that represented in the priestly strand (P) and that
reected in the Book of Deuteronomy (D). These schools were, to
be sure, antedated by JE,
1
but the latter constitutes a narrative source,
in which neither uniform outlook nor any concrete ideology can as
yet be discerned as in P and in deuteronomic literature. Each of the
latter, on the other hand, embodies a complex and consistent theo-
logy, which is dicult to nd in the earlier sources. These two schools
dier from each other in their religious conception, their mental cli-
mate and their mode of expression. Scholars of the Graf-Wellhausen
School endeavored to explain these dierences in historical terms.
In their opinion, P crystallized during the exilic period, when Israel
was severed from its land and from agricultural life; consequently,
they developed a schematic religion of sacral mores devoid of a
national-territorial setting. The Book of Deuteronomy, on the other
hand, having received its xed form during the Josianic period,
reects a religion deeply rooted in the life of a people settled on
its land and leading a natural, agricultural, and political existence.
Y. Kaufmann (HIR 1.113115), in opposing this view, convincingly
called into question the hypothesis of Ps lateness and of its depend-
ence on D; he did not, however, provide any explanation to account
for the dierences between these two works.
As an example, one of Wellhausens central arguments for his late
dating of P was that in Ps calendar of festivals, the New Year and
the Day of Atonement appear (Lev 23:2332; Num 29:111), but
receive no mention in the calendars of JE and D (Exod 23:1219;
34:1826; Deut 16). Wellhausen explained this discrepancy by the
77
1
We speak of JE as a single document even though it comprises two separate
sources, J and E, because it is extremely dicult to distinguish between these two
sources throughout the Tetrateuch. Only in the book of Genesis is it possible to
do this with some measure of success (Speiser 1964).
78 cn.r+rn ri\r
assumption that these festivals were nonexistent in the days of the
First Temple, and they were created during the postexilic period out
of a sense of sin and as a result of the awakening of a desire for
repentance. In his opinion, these festivals served in accordance with
the demands of the times, to replace the natural festivities of Passover,
Pentecost, and Tabernacles, which had been observed in the days
of the First Temple but which could not be kept in exile (E.T.
108112). In other words, the appearance of these days on Ps cal-
endar was the product of the Exile and the consequent inability to
perform the natural festivities.
Kaufmann (HIR 1.120121) rightly argued against Wellhausen that
the New Year and the Day of Atonement were known in the time
of the First Temple. From the outset, however, they had no con-
nection to sanctuaries (at least in the larger ones) with regard to the
purication of the sanctuary
2
very much like the New Year festivals
of other Ancient Near Eastern peoples (Thureau-Dangin 1921: 3839,
8688, 136138). One cannot argue, as Wellhausen claimed, that
these festivals were created during the Exile to replace the agricul-
tural ones that arose from a sense of sin or a feeling of penitence
that moved the hearts of the exiles. On the contrary, these festivals
were grounded in a sacral way of life, and they reected, therefore,
the days when the cult was performed in the sanctuariesin the
First Temple periodand not when temple worship ceased. I must
add that Wellhausens very contention regarding the creation of new
festivals by the Babylonian exiles is strange, for a people does not
invent new festivals unless some new event demands it. Even in such
a case the new holiday does not stand on the same footing with the
recognized traditional festivals (cf. Hanukkah and Purim in the Second
Temple period).
Wellhausens question, however, as to why the New Year and
Atonement festivals are mentioned twice in P and not in the other
sources still awaits an answer. This problems solution may lead us
to the solution of other major problems of the same type. The solu-
tion appears to be this: in contrast to the three pilgrimage festivals,
2
In this context, the Babylonians also employ the verb kuppuru, the D form of
kaparu. Concerning the terms kippur and kippurim, see most recently Levine (1969).
However, semantically Hebrew kippur does not equal Akkadian kuppuru as Levine
suggested; see Landsberger (1967: 31 n. 95). On the Day of Atonement, see
Loewenstamm (1958).
ctnnrx+s ix rrx+.+rtcn.r ri+rn.+tnr 79
whose celebration was predicated on the farmers dwelling on his
land (barley harvest, wheat harvest, and vintage), the ceremonies of
the New Year and the Day of Atonement were tied to the sanctu-
ary and to the priesthood, but the common people played no active
role. Therefore, we would expect the literature produced by priestly
circles to devote considerable attention to these festivals and their
observation, while the literature of the masses shows no interest in
them whatsoever.
Similarly, it is possible to explain why the precept of festival pil-
grimages is absent from P. This commandment is directed only
towards the common people as opposed to the priests, who dwelt
in the temples all year long. Therefore, those sources intended for
the common people, stress this precept over and over again (Exod
23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16). The author of P, on the other hand, who
was concerned primarily with temple rituals and their procedures,
did not speak of the pilgrimages, which were by their very nature,
a concern of the masses. Instead, he spoke of the ceremonies and
sacrices associated with the celebration of these festivals (Lev 23:921;
Num 2829).
3
Sinaitic Revelation presents another problem that accentuates the
diering viewpoints of the sources under consideration. JE and D
devote considerable space to this matter, while P does not address
it at all. Even if we should say that P regarded this event as self-
understood, and even if we consider the fact that he did mention
laws given on Mount Sinai, it is still dicult to explain his total
silence about such an important event. On the other hand, the author
of P preserves for us the account of another kind of revelation not
mentioned in JE or D. According to P, on the eighth day of the
Tabernacles dedication, the Glory of the Lord appeared to all the
people, who thereupon shouted and prostrated themselves.
4
This
3
This is not a question of material interest or prestige; if it were, we would only
expect the priests to be interested in having great numbers of pilgrims come to the
sanctuary. It is, rather, as we have suggested, a point-of-view based on a Weltanschauung.
Actually, the festivities of the pilgrims enriched the religious experience of the pub-
lic, but added nothing to the divine service taking place in the temple. The mass
celebration taking place in the temple court and surroundings had no connection
to the xed procedure inside the temple proper.
4
And all the people saw, and shouted, and fell on their faces (Lev 9:24); cf
Exod 19:18. For the dierences in the conceptions of revelation in these sources,
see Weinfeld (1968). On the concept of h dwbk and its correspondence to Akkadian
melammu.
80 cn.r+rn ri\r
revelation took place at the time when the re came forth from
before the Lord to consume the sacrices. This re is understood as
an expression of divine approval of the Tabernacle and the orders
of service performed within. Thus, in place of a theophany narra-
tive that associated the giving of laws to a nation, the author of P
describes a theophany in connection with the Tabernacles dedica-
tion, and God coming to dwell among Israel (cf. Exod 25:8; 29:45).
Indeed, it is not accidental that the formula expressing the covenan-
tal bond between God and Israel, and I will be their God (Weinfeld
1970) appears in the context of the dedication of the Tabernacle
and the priesthood in Exod 29:45, in the chapter that parallels Lev
89 (the regulations appear in Exod 29, while Lev 89 describes
their execution).
It is my view that the divergences between the two schools of P
and D stem from a dierence in their sociological background and
not a variance in their historical-chronological setting. The problem
at hand concerns two independent ideologies arising from two dis-
similar circles, and not necessarily from two distinct historical periods.
Jeremiah and Ezekiel constructed their spiritual worlds on the basis
of D and P, Jeremiah on Deuteronomy and Ezekiel upon Leviticus.
This fact demonstrates the existence of two theological currents. It
would be absurd to argue, as Wellhausen attempted, that Ezekiel
served as the starting point for the priestly literatures development,
or as others claimed, that Jeremiah served as the impetus for
Deuteronomys composition. Insofar as we now know, the prophets
utilized predened literary formsthe mashal and the prayer, the
qinah and the psalm
5
in order to create their speeches and reproofs;
therefore, they naturally made use of Israels legal literature as well.
One of the greater literary documents of the Bible, whose author-
ship may easily be determined, is the work that we designate as P.
There are no dierences of opinion as to the provenance of this
composition. All scholars acknowledge the fact that it was the work
of priests, and the documents name is evidence of this. The authors
of this document were, therefore, the bearers of an important tem-
ple oce, and the literary maturity of the composition indicates they
were priests of the central sanctuary in Jerusalem (Weinfeld 1968).
The identity of the circle from which D arose is somewhat more
dicult to determine. As a result of our research on the Book of
5
Confer Ginsberg (1969), on the dependence of Second Isaiah on Pss 96 and 98.
Deuteronomy, it seems that the work received its essential form at
the hands of the scribal circles in the courts of Hezekiah and Josiah
(cf. Weinfeld 1972). If this basic premise is correct, we are confronted
with two discrete literary schools representing two ideological cur-
rents, the provenance of the second being the royal court (D).
6
The temple and the court represented the centers of learning in
the ancient world. The priests, ministrants of the temple, and the
scribes, ocials of the court, were at that time both equally con-
sidered men of learning. They alone were engaged in the eld of
literary composition. The priests thematically composed literature
that treated the sacral realm and divine worship, while the scribes
wrote literature primarily relating to man and the mundane world.
It is conceivable that this thematic dierentiation was not an absolute
one. It was possible for the priest to engage in mundane literary
activity, and equally plausible for the scribe to compose sacral liter-
ature, although the latter possibility is admittedly more remote.
7
Broadly speaking, however, there was a basic demarcation between
these two elds of composition. The priestly vocation required a
comprehensive knowledge of ritual minutiae in which the priest was
expected to be skilled and procient. The scribal oce entailed an
extensive knowledge of diverse aairs: state aairs and royal matters,
administrative and military matters, and of geographical, historical,
and political aairs, all of which demanded intensive specialization.
8
There is no extant evidence attesting to such an amalgamation of
functions. Any combination of such diverse and unrelated functions
would only have reduced the professional competence of the priest
or scribe. At any rate, we have yet to meet either with priests who
composed royal annals or with scribes who composed ritual texts.
Though both the priest and the scribe functioned in the literary
world, the subject matter of their respective creations was distinctly
6
Torah instruction sponsored by the court is found in 2 Chr 17:79. An anal-
ogous procedure appears in Assyria where royal ocers instruct the people (foreign
settlers) in serving the gods as well as the king. In Israel, the instruction became
especially necessary after reforms in worship ( Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah), so
that as in Assyria it was aimed to train the people in new methods of worship.
With respect to this problem see Weinfeld (1972).
7
The ritual texts were kept strictly secret. It does not seem that anyone, who
was not a member of the ocial circle, was permitted to occupy himself with such
things. See Weinfeld (1964b) and Hallo (1962: 25 n. 59).
8
Concerning the Egyptian scribes diversied knowledge see the satirical letter
in ANET
2
: 475479 (Wilson).
82 cn.r+rn ri\r
dierent. Priestly composition was grounded entirely on religion and
belief in the supernatural, in which all is subordinate to divine rule,
while scribal composition was grounded on secular-empirical reality.
The same literary genre might appear in both schools of writing;
however, the subject of P would be the deity, whereas the subject
of the scribal composition would be the king. Thus, for example, we
nd in Egypt royal annals composed by court scribes alongside annals
of the gods written by temple priests (Otto 1952).
It is against the background of this typological distinction that we
must understand the character of priestly and deuteronomic com-
position. The Israelite priestly school, whose roots lay in the temple,
drew its inspiration from the divine-sacral sphere, but the deutero-
nomic school, which was rooted in court reality, drew its inspiration
from the political-national sphere. Both of these schools were founded
on religion and divine faith; nevertheless, their respective spiritual
worlds were fashioned and crystallized each in its own distinct and
individual manner. The ideological realm of P reects a religious-
theocentric orientation, while the deuteronomic world has a religious-
anthropocentric orientation.
Consequently, the sacral and supernatural atmosphere of P is not
the product of the Babylonian Exile; it is derived from a compact
circle of learned priests, whose sole interest lay in the Temple and
in all that pertained to it. Indeed, the majority of the laws found in
P focus on the divine Tabernacle: its construction and the minis-
trations performed therein. It is the pervading presence of God in
the midst of Israel (viz. the sanctuary) that gives meaning to Israelite
religious life. Remove the divine immanence and the entire Priestly
Code collapses. Not only would the worship of God cease, but also
laws relating to the social sphere would become inoperative. The
laws of asylum, for instance, are inconceivable without a High Priest
(Num 35:25); the law of suspected conjugal indelity cannot be imple-
mented without a sanctuary (Num 5:1113); the laws of warfare are
unimaginable without the participation of sacral persons, who march
forth with their holy trumpets in hand (Num 31:6; cf. 10:9); mili-
tary operations cannot be conducted without the presence of the
High Priest bearing the Urim (Num 27:21) etc.
The priestly laws could not presuppose the postexilic theocracy,
as Wellhausen believed, because postexilic Judah did not conduct
wars, nor were its leaders appointed by the congregation (lary td[).
We cannot speak either of the presence of God in a temple when
9
See the words of von Rad (1957: 262): Wir mssen uns den geistigen Lebenskreis
des alten vorkniglichen Israels noch als einen sakral geschlossenen vorstallen. Alle
Lebensgebiete ruhten in einer letztlich vom Kultus her normierten Ordnung und
hatten sich noch nicht eigengesetzlich verselbstndigt.
the ark, upon which the Glory of God dwelt between the cherubim
and to which the ritual of the sanctuary was oriented (Haran com-
plex 1961: 291302), was non-existent at that time. The reality
reected in the Priestly Code accords more with the ancient life of
Israel, which was grounded on sacral dogma
9
and prescriptions that
continued to mould the life of the Israelites even after the estab-
lishment of the monarchy (Noth 1966). The reality depicted in the
ancient narratives, which recount their tales freely and untenden-
tiously, is indeed similar to that reected in P. Thus, Saul and David
conduct their military campaigns according to the instructions pro-
vided by the Urim; holy wars resound with the blast of priestly trum-
pets and horns ( Josh 6; Judg 20:2628; 1 Sam 4), and the booty is
brought to the house of God ( Josh 6:24; 2 Sam 8:11; 2 Kgs 12:19;
cf. Num 31:5054).
The regime of holiness and taboo underlying P is not the prod-
uct of the theological ruminations of postexilic priests, but derives
from the prevailing Israelite reality during the era of the Judges and
Monarchy. We know the sacral institutions, which occupy a central
place in the priestly theology, from early biblical literature. For exam-
ple, the Sabbath, new moon, days of solemn rest (wtb), and holy
convocations (dq arqm) are not peculiar to P (cf. Weinfeld 1968).
Like P, the early sources also speak of days on which one refrained
from work (Amos 8:5), partook of holy meals (1 Sam 20:2430),
made pilgrimage to holy men (2 Kgs 4:23), gathered in sacral assem-
blies and holy convocations (Isa 1:13), oered sacrices and poured
libations (Hos 9:45) etc. Matters concerning purity and delement,
which P details, are also known to us from early biblical literature.
The participants in a sacral event must purify themselves and cleanse
their garments (Gen 35:2; Exod 19:10; 1 Sam 16:5); Israelite war-
riors must observe sexual abstinence and consecrate their utensils
before departing for war (1 Sam 21:6); women cleanse themselves
of menstrual impurity (2 Sam 11:4); lepers are ejected from the city
(2 Kgs 7:35); and persons deled by contact with the dead are for-
bidden to enter the House of the Lord (Hos 9:4).
84 cn.r+rn ri\r
The same is true of matters concerning the temple and holy taboos.
The danger that ensues from approaching the divine sanctum, so
frequently mentioned in P, also appears in the early sources (1 Sam
6:1920; 2 Sam 6:69). Furthermore, these old sources reect reg-
ulations for sacrices and alimentary oerings to the Deity (Exod
23:18; 34:25; 1 Sam 2:1317; 21:7ynph jl; Amos 4:5; cf. Lev
7:13); they also describe cultic practices, which constitute an essen-
tial part of priestly teaching. The early sources also contain references
to holy consecrations, communal sacrices, and sin and guilt-oerings.
The Nazirite institution, one of the most ancient in Israel, is only
ever mentioned in P (Num 6). Non-sacricial slaughter, prohibited
by the Holiness Code (H) (Lev 1926) appears in 1 Sam 14:3235:
Behold the people are sinning against the Lord by eating with the
blood, i.e. by eating without rst sprinkling the blood upon an altar
(Kaufmann HIR 1.127129).
Though we can learn much about Ps character from its contents,
we can understand so much more about its worldview by consider-
ing its omissions. Most astonishing is Ps reticence to include civil-
social ordinances and regulations pertaining to conjugal life, which
occupy a great deal of space in Deuteronomy. Even when we
encounter laws dealing with such issues in P, they always appear in
a sacro-ritual light. Thus incest, for example, is described as a sin
that deles the land and desecrates the holy name of God, who
dwells in the land (Lev 18:2430; 20:2227)a conception also
encountered in the book of Amos (2:7b). Moreover, of the incest
prohibitions concerning menstrual uncleanness, bestiality, Molech
worship (Lev 18:2123), necromancy, clean and unclean animals
(20:5, 25) etc., incest is conceived as a distinctly sacral matter and
not an issue of civil law.
The Sabbatical year, which in Deuteronomy has a patently social
character, emerges as a sacral institution in P: The land shall keep
a Sabbath to the Lord (Lev 25:2), which is to say the obligation
to rest falls upon the land, so that if the land does not fulll this
duty while the nation dwells thereon, it must pay back this obliga-
tion during its years of desolation when the people are in Exile:
Then shall the land make up for its Sabbath years . . . throughout
the time that it is desolate it shall observe the rest that it did not
observe in your Sabbath years while you were dwelling upon it
(Lev 26:3435). Here, in contradistinction to Deuteronomy, which
only mentions the remission of debts (Deut 15:111), there is no ref-
erence to the year of release that cancels the debts of the poor.
I must point out that in practice the two laws are not mutually
exclusive; it is quite likely that both were either observed or regarded
as obligatory, and in each case there was a connection between them.
However, for us, the way in which the two laws appear in the sources
is important, because it informs us of the writers ideology. For exam-
ple, the priestly writer concerns himself with the taboo of the sev-
enth year and its sacral implications, while the author of Deuteronomy
is concerned with the social aspect of this law and completely ignores
the sacral side.
This reminds us of how P and D portray the Sabbath. In P, the
rationale for the Sabbath is that God worked six days during the
worlds creation and rested on the seventh (Gen 2:13; Exod 31:17),
which is to say mans Sabbath rest reenacts, so to speak, Gods rest
on the seventh day of Creation. This viewpoint is appropriate to the
priestly circle, which replicates events from the divine sphere in its
sanctuary ritual (cf. Weinfeld 1968: 109110). Contrary to this, Deu-
teronomy supplies another reason for the Sabbath: the Israelite is
obligated to rest on the Sabbath not because God rested on this day
but rather to provide a respite for his servants: so that your male
and female slave may rest as you do (Deut 5:14). Alongside the
social motivation, there appears the religious one: Remember that
you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God freed
you from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; there-
fore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath
Day (Deut 5:15). Thus, God derives the Sabbath not from Creation,
as in P, but from the Exodus.
With both the sabbatical year and the Sabbath, the social moti-
vation may have existed alongside the sacral without conict. The
author of P specically selected the sacral reason and developed it
in his own way, while Deuteronomy chose the social motivation and
formulated it to suite his unique purposes, i.e. humanly (Weinfeld
1961). Another example that demonstrates the dierent theologies of
the two compositions under consideration is the law concerning depar-
ture to war. According to P, when the people go forth to battle, the
priests are to blow trumpets (Num 10:9). At the end of the war, the
soldiers must undergo purication rites (Num 31:1920) and give an
oering to the sacral domain from the booty (Num 31:5054).
86 cn.r+rn ri\r
Deuteronomy, on the other hand, does not mention blowing trum-
pets, or purication rites; rather, it speaks of a priest, who, before
the war, goes forth to speak to the people encouraging them and
implanting in them a spirit of valor.
10
To the extent that there are
regulations to conduct within the battle-line, these instructions con-
tain provisions connected with the maintenance of cleanliness and
health no less than with the preservation of the sacral state of the
camp (Deut 23:1015).
The law of retaliation also instructs us concerning the dierent
theologies of D and P. This law, the lex talionis, stands alone in the
Covenant Code and appears in various contexts in P and D. In P
it is associated with the law of the blasphemer (Lev 24:1622), while
Deuteronomy connects it to the law of the false witness (Deut 19:21),
i.e. in the context of civil and criminal legislation.
Just as P concerns itself with codifying sacral legislation, D con-
cerns itself with civil-secular laws such as the judiciary (Deut 16:1820;
17:813), the monarchy (17:2024), the military (17:20), and civil
and criminal laws that treat the family and inheritance (21:2023;
22:1329; 24:14; 25:59), loans and debts (15:121; 24:1013), lit-
igations and quarrels (25:13, 1012), trespassing (19:14), false testi-
mony (19:1521) etc. However, as we shall see below, even institutions
and practices that were originally sacral in character, D recasts in
secularized forms. For example, the piercing of the slaves ear, which
according to the Covenant Code must be done before God i.e. in
the temple (Exod 21:6; Paul 1970), according to Deuteronomy (Deut
15:17) it is performed near any door, without any reference to a
sanctuary. Similarly, the cities of refuge, which according to P are
Levitical cities, i.e. cities belonging to the sacral realm, are trans-
formed in Deuteronomy for nothing more than the pragmatic pur-
pose of holding the manslayer in protective custody from the avenger
of blood (Greenberg 1959; Kaufmann 1959: 266267). On the other
hand, in P, the manslayer is required to dwell in the city of refuge
until the death of the High Priest (Num 35); thus he achieves the
expiation of his sin by dwelling in the city of refuge.
The absence of sacral institutions in D is no less surprising than
the absence of socio-legal institutions in P. The very book that makes
the chosen place such a central concern completely ignores the
10
See Deut 20:19; for the military orations in deuteronomic composition see
Weinfeld (1972).
sacral institutions that accompany it, and without such institutions
the conduct of sacral worship is unimaginable. In short, the most
essential charges and rites of the Israelite cultus
11
nd no mention
whatsoever in Deuteronomy. The exhortations regarding the awe
and reverence with which the sanctity of the temple must be respected
(waryt ydqmw, Lev 19:30; 21:23, 6) and the restrictions imposed to
avert the desecration of the sanctum are familiar to us from early
Israelite literature and gure prominently in P, but nd no mention
whatsoever in Deuteronomy. Even if the author of Deuteronomy
presupposed these regulations, he should still have provided some
intimation of their existence when setting forth the ordinances con-
cerning the chosen place. The fact that he did not allude to them
implies that these regulations did not concern to him and may even
have conicted with his purposes.
Deuteronomys omission of sacral law ( fas) is particularly glaring
because P dedicates such an important place to it. D entirely fails
to warn against cursing Gods nameregarded as among the most
heinous of sins in Israel, that the Covenant Code (Exod 22:27) and
P (Lev 24:1516; Num 30; cf. 1 Kgs 21:13) mention. Sorcery, Molech
worship, and necromancy, which according to P, H, and the testi-
mony of historical books, were punishable by death (Exod 22:17;
Lev 18:21; 20:16, 27; 1 Sam 28:3, 9), are of course forbidden by
Deuteronomy, but without any punishment specied.
On the other hand, we nd in Deuteronomy the application of
capital punishment in two cases where other law codes did not
required it: the rebellious elder (Deut 17:12), and the instigator of
idolatry (Deut 13:213). I have discussed the political character of
the latter law elsewhere (Weinfeld 1972: 81116), and I need not
point out that the law of the rebellious elder also has political impli-
cations (disobedience to superior judicial authority).
The non-sacral character of the legal conception of Deuteronomy
is also manifested by the fact that severe religious and cultic oenses,
which according to P are punishable by kareth, do not even appear
in Deuteronomy, because all of these oenses relate to the sphere
of sacral legislation ( fas), while Deuteronomy deals with the jus. These
religious and cultic oenses include: the eating of fat or blood (Lev
11
The holy ministrations involve the presentation of the showbread, the kindling
of candles, the burning of incense, the oering of the suet, the daily and seasonal
sacrices, and the receipt and disposal of the holy donations.
88 cn.r+rn ri\r
7:2527), the consumption of the esh of sacriced animals whilst
in a state of impurity (Lev 7:2021), the delement of the sanctuary
and its appurtenances (Num 19:13, 20; Lev 22:3), the breach of the
covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:14), failure to oer the paschal sacri-
ce (Num 19:13), and abstinence on the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:29).
Until now, we have discussed the selective purposes of two sources,
P and D. I would also like to mention some of the implications of
the dierent selection with specic reference to the conception of
holiness. Holiness in the Book of Deuteronomy possesses more of a
national than a cultic aspect; it is a condition that derives from the
relationship existing between God and Israel. Israel is holy because
God has chosen Israel and set it apart from all other nations: For
you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peo-
ples on the face of the earth the Lord has chosen you to be a peo-
ple for his own possession out of all the peoples that are on the face
of the earth (Deut 14:2). According to Deuteronomy, therefore, holi-
ness devolves automatically upon every Israelite, who consequently
must not profane it by delement. This is, of course, very dierent
from Ps conception, which views holiness as contingent upon phys-
ical proximity to the divine presence, and upon the preservation of
that proximity through ritual means. Thus, according to H, only the
priests are forbidden to eat nebelah (Lev 22:8; cf. Ezek 44:31), though
lay Israelites are not forbidden, if they should do so they must
undergo ritual purication afterwards (Lev 11:3940; cf. 17:15), as
must a person who carries it. Deuteronomy, on the other hand, for-
bids all Israelites to eat nebelah, because it makes no distinction between
priests and laity in matters concerning holiness. Similarly, the Book
of Deuteronomy applies the prohibition against self-mutilation to all
Israelites (Deut 14:1), while P restricts it to the priests (Lev 21:5; cf.
Ezek 44:20, 31). The reason for this divergence between the laws is
that P essentially regards the priests as part of the sanctuary or the
divine sphere; therefore, they possess a greater degree of holiness
than the lay Israelites. As a result, the priests are treated as holy
persons (Lev 21:8). Deuteronomy, on the other hand, regards all the
people of Israel as holy, not by reason of their physical proximity
to the tangible sanctity of the Deity, but by virtue of their election
by God.
A polemical note is mildly discernable in Deuteronomy against
the priestly view. There is doubtless some signicance to the fact
that the rationale of wdq [ a holy people appears particularly in
a context addressing self-mutilation and the eating of nebelah (Deut
14:12, 21)transgressions that P and H specically associate with
the priests. By attaching the rationale to these interdictions, the author
of Deuteronomy surely wished to emphasize that those practices,
previously forbidden mainly to the priests because of their special
degree of holiness, were henceforth prohibited from the entire peo-
ple because they were all holy. It is no accident, therefore, that
the concept of a holy people, which permeates Deuteronomys theo-
logical system, is completely absent from earlier biblical sources. JE
and P speak of holy men (Exod 22:30) and of being holy (Lev
11:45; 19:2; 20:6), but not of a holy people. The dierence is not
merely one of phraseology; it is also one of theological importance.
When sanctication and holiness are discussed in P, these concepts
do not refer to a single historical act of God, as in Deuteronomy,
but to holiness that is contingent upon the observance of ritual purity.
For this reason P employs the expression Sanctify yourselves and
be you holy.
In Deuteronomy, on the other hand, ritual purity is not the pre-
condition of holiness but the necessary result thereof: You shall not
cut yourselves . . . you shall not eat anything that dies of itself because
you are a holy people (by divine election). Furthermore, the ritual
purity, which the holiness necessitates, takes on a national charac-
ter in Deuteronomy. Thus, while in P ritual purity applies only to
the cultic sphere (clean and unclean, Lev 11:43; 20:26), it is extended
in D to include the separation from idolatry and all who practice it
(Deut 7:6), which in P is not motivated by holiness (Lev 19:4; 26:1;
Num 33:5056).
The idea expressed in Exod 19:6, but you shall be to Me a king-
dom of priests and a holy nation (wdq ywg), though similar to Ds
notion because you are a holy people is in fact completely dierent.
Like Isa 61:6, You shall be called the priests of the Lord, and you
shall be called the ministers of our God; you shall consume the
wealth of nations, and you shall fatten yourselves from their sub-
stance, the verse from Exodus means that if Israel abides by the
covenant, it will become a treasured people (hlgs [)
12
from among
12
Concerning the meaning of this expression see Greenberg (1951). Recently this
expression has been found in a Ugaritic text in a context similar to that in the
Bible: the king calls his vassal his servant and his special treasure (PRU V
84.60:712); see also Weinfeld (1972: 226 n. 2).
90 cn.r+rn ri\r
all the peoples . . . a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, (on this
verse see Moran 1962) they will merit a special relationship to God
and be considered mankinds nobility. Exod 19:6, therefore, does not
provide a basis for the observance of the commandments like
Deuteronomy, but it expresses the reward and the merit that follow
upon keeping the covenant.
Deuteronomy does, however, recognize holiness in the sense of
merit, as we see from Deut 26:1719, where we hear of the mutual
acceptance of obligations: the people obligate themselves to obeying
the Lord, and observing His laws and commandments (who shall
observe all His commandments in v. 18 appears out of place).
Similarly, God obligates Himself to give Israel the status of a trea-
sured people . . . high above all the nations . . . and a holy people
(wdq [). ywg (nation) and hklmm (kingdom) are political concepts,
while [ (people) is an ethnic one, implying a blood tie (Speiser
1960). It would seem that the concluding formula as He promised
represents a clear reference to Exod 19. Here and elsewhere, how-
ever, D developed the notion and essentially saw in it the basis for
the fulllment of obligations. The high status of the holy people, which
is bestowed upon Israel, is not only a merit and reward, but also
primarily a responsibility (noblesse oblige).
In like manner, the Holiness Code knows of national holiness and
merit as we learn from Lev 20:26, You shall be holy to Me, for I
the Lord am holy, and I have set you apart from other peoples to
be Mine. The phrase To belong to someone expresses a partic-
ularly close relationship; the source of the expression is in the sphere
of family law (cf. Weinfeld 1970). However, P generally omits the
lamedh of reference and urges Israel to be holy in the sense of observ-
ing the rules of purity and holiness (Lev 11:44; 19:2).
An echo of the dierence in views concerning the scope of Israelite
holiness, which we alluded to above, appears in the priestly narra-
tive of Korahs rebellion. Korah and his adherents demand an equal
status for priests and Levites, a status that Deuteronomy takes for
granted.
13
Korahs contention, similar to the deuteronomic stand-
point, is that all members of the Israelite congregation are equally
holy (Num 14:3). Moses, on the other hand, claims that there exists
a hierarchic system of holiness and asserts that the next days cere-
13
Cf. the Deuteronomic expression the Levitical priests and Deut 18:68.
mony of incense-burning before the Lord will prove just whom the
Lord has chosen to be holy (v. 7). Indeed, P when speaking of priests
only employs the verb rjb; when referring to Levites and lay Israelites
it employs the verb ldbh (Num 8:14; 16:9; Lev 20:26). This is cer-
tainly a meaningful dierence in phraseology.
As opposed to the deuteronomic concept of the holiness of the
people, P promulgates the concept of the holiness of the land.
According to P, the western side of the Jordan is the land in which
Gods Tabernacle dwells ( Josh 22:19); consequently, all inhabitants
14
of the land, without adhering to status or ethnic aliation, are sub-
ject to the sacral code.
15
The resident alien
16
and the native Israelite
alike are all required to observe Torah regulations, because it is the
persons residence in the land that subjects him to the religious-cultic
ordinances. Residence in the land is deemed an automatic recogni-
tion of the local god; this also includes the obligation to worship
Him (cf. 2 Kgs 17). Conversely, an Israelite residing outside the land
of Yahweh is deemed to dwell in an unclean land and worship for-
eign gods (1 Sam 26:19; and cf. Josh 22:1619 = P).
17
Therefore,
the resident alien and the native Israelite both draw their sustenance
from a common sacral source; consequently, both are required to
observe the code of holiness that it entails.
Deuteronomy does not share this viewpoint. According to Deuter-
onomy, the laws of the Torah apply only to those who are related
to the Israelite nation by blood and race,
18
while the resident alien
14
The term in all your settlements (kytwbwm lkb) that indicates the area
within which a ritual law applies is much more inclusive than Deuteronomys term
in your gates (kyr[b), which primarily refers to Israelite cities and districts. P
wants to insure the observance of the law in all the inhabited areas of the land,
while D is interested only in the Israelite sector.
15
This is less applicable to the priests, whose physical proximity to the tangible
sanctity of the Deity is greater. The view expressed here is identical with the notion
of the concentric circles found in P. According to this notion, the Israelites occupy
the outer circle; therefore, their sanctity is less.
16
The concept of residence (bwt) appears in P but never in Deuteronomy.
17
See Kaufmann (HIR 1.519). This point of view is among those rooted in the
most ancient Israelite religion (Hos 9:3; Amos 7:17).
18
In Deuteronomy we nd the rgw ja (brother and sojourner), while in P we
see rgw jrza native and sojourner. Therefore, according to P the characteristics
of an Israelite are his roots in the land (cf. the phrase native of the land, Exod
12:19, 48; Num 9:14; as to the signicance of the word native, see Ps 37:35:
And spreading himself like a leafy tree in its native soil. See Tur-Sinai 1955). In
place of native, the term brother appears in Deuteronomy. The latter term
signies a blood relationship between the members of the nation and not simply a
territorial relationship.
92 cn.r+rn ri\r
is not regarded as an Israelite, and therefore not required to observe
the sacral laws of the congregation even though he dwells in the
land and is willing to subject himself to them. To be sure, he does
enjoy the full protection of the laws and the same political and eco-
nomic rights that all Israelites enjoy. However, because he is not a
true Israelite, he is not required to assume the special sacral oblig-
ations imposed upon the holy people.
Deuteronomy intentionally dierentiates, then, between the Israelite
and the resident alien in all matters pertaining to religious obliga-
tions, whose fulllment it regards as exclusively binding upon the
holy people only. In Deut 14:21 we read: You shall not eat any-
thing that dies of itself: you may give it to the stranger (rg), who is
within your town, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a for-
eigner; for you are a people holy to the Lord your God . . . The
Holiness Code (Lev 17:15), on the other hand, ordains: and every
person that eats what dies of itself . . . whether he is a native or a
stranger (rg) shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water . . .
The two passages thus stand in apparent contradiction to each other
(Seeligmann 1954). The source of the contradiction is, apparently,
the divergent viewpoints of the two documents. P is only concerned
with the ritual problem of impurity: all who eat nebelah, whether
Israelite or resident alien, carry impurity upon themselves. The land
is unable to bear impurity no matter who the carriers of the impu-
rity may be (cf. lest the land vomit you out when you dele it,
Lev 18:28). The Book of Deuteronomy, on the other hand, regards
the prohibition only as a matter of noblesse oblige. Israel must abstain
from eating nebelah, because it is an act unbecoming to a holy peo-
ple and not because it causes impurity from which one must purge
himself by ritual bathing (Lev 11:40; 17:15). Consequently, it does
not impose this noble obligation upon those who are not of the holy
people.
It is commonly asserted (Bertholet 1896) that the ger in P is sub-
ject to Israelite laws and has a similar status to the proselyte of the
postexilic period. This view is supposed to serve as additional sup-
port for the crystallization of P in the postexilic period. This view,
however, is without foundation, for P imposes upon the ger only those
obligations aecting the sanctity and purity of the congregation.
19
At
19
Such as: regulations concerning sacricial procedure (Lev 17:8; 22:1719; Num
15:14); the prohibition against eating blood (Lev 17:12); the prohibition of eating
the same time, P does not require the ger to observe the regulations
and ceremonies that are part of Israels special religious heritage but
do not involve ritual purity. Thus, for example, such covenant signs
of P as the Sabbath and circumcision (Exod 31:1617; Gen 17:1011),
the non-observance of which entails the kareth penalty (Exod 31:14;
Gen 17:14), are not binding upon the ger. The latter must submit
to circumcision only if he chooses to observe the paschal ritual, that
is, if he wishes to take part in the distinctly Israelite ceremony (Exod
12:48; cf. Num 9:14). If he does not wish to do so, however, he
may remain uncircumcised. From here we also see that the ger is
not required to perform the paschal ritual even though the Israelite
who fails to do so incurs the penalty of kareth (Num 9:13).
With respect to the festival of booths, the law explicitly states: All
that are native (jrzah lk) in Israel shall dwell in booths, from which
we may infer that the law does not apply to the resident alien.
Bertholet (1896: 171172) contends that the ger was accidentally omit-
ted from the law, but his supposition is groundless. Whenever the
priestly law applies to both the native Israelite and the resident alien,
we nd they are generally coupled together in such formulations as
the native or the stranger, who sojourns among you (Lev 16:29;
18:26), for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you (Num
15:16), of the children of Israel and the strangers that sojourn in
Israel (Lev 20:2), etc. We would have to assume, therefore, that an
entire clause was accidentally omitted, which is highly improbable.
Considering that such fundamental Israelite precepts as the Sabbath,
circumcision, paschal sacrice, and Sukkot celebrations do not apply
to the resident alien, we must conclude that the regulations, which
the Priestly Code imposes upon him, are not indicative of his com-
plete assimilation into the Israelite congregation. These regulations
must, instead, be taken as obligations and restrictions that P, on the
one hand, has imposed upon the ger, but the author of Deuteronomy
has not.
leaven, whose presence was forbidden in Israelite territory during the Matzoth fes-
tival (Exod 12:19), regulations concerning delement by a corpse (Num 19:10); the
impurity of nebelah (Lev 17:1516); the impurity of incest and Molech worship (Lev
18:26; 20:2); the impurity of spilt blood (Num 35:15, 34); blasphemy (Lev 24:16;
Num 15:30) and likewise the regulation concerning abstinence on the Day of
Atonement (Lev 16:29); the day when the sanctuary and the congregation, among
whom God dwells, must be purged of all impurity (Lev 16:16, 19; cf. Exod 30:10).
94 cn.r+rn ri\r
The dierence between the priestly and deuteronomic attitudes
toward the ger is not, then, a result of historical development, as is
generally believed, but stems from dierent denitions of status. Ps
author, to whom sacral-ritual matters are of primary importance, is
concerned with preserving the sanctity and purity of the congrega-
tion that inhabits the holy land; therefore, he takes steps to ensure
that this sanctity will not be profaned by the ger. The author of
Deuteronomy, on the other hand, who is free of such sacral con-
ceptions, or indierent to them, does not impose upon the ger the
obligation of holiness that is limited to the people of Israel.
The distinctions between the attitudes of these two theological
compositions should serve as the starting point for identifying dierent
theological conceptions in Israel during the First Temple period. As
I suggested, the theological conceptions of P and D nd their con-
tinuation and their crystallization in the prophetic literature from the
close of that period: Jeremiah representing the latter point of view
and Ezekiel representing the former. This development by itself is
worthy of serious analysis.
CHAPTER SIX
GOD THE CREATOR IN THE PRIESTLY
SOURCE AND DEUTERO
-
ISAIAH
Since Wellhausen, it has almost become commonplace that the priestly
literature (P) is distinguished by its abstract religious thought. Holzinger
(1893: 376377) followed Wellhausens lead in contending that P is
free from anthropomorphic descriptions. According to the generally
accepted theory, P was composed during the postexilic period, the
time when monotheism reached its height. It is therefore natural,
according to this theory, that the author of P should set before us
a more rened and more abstract description of the deity than the
earlier Pentateuchal sources. We must admit that a comparison of
Gen 1 with Gen 2 reveals dierences of great signicance with regard
to the conception of God and Creation. In this respect, Wellhausen
(1905: 303 [E.T. 303304]) was correct in saying that the descrip-
tions of Gen 1 give us a sober reection about nature, while the
two following chapters place us on the ground of marvel and myth.
In Gen 1, God acts by means of his word, and everything is cre-
ated by the breath of his mouth, while in Gen 2 he works in a thor-
oughly human manner: he plants a garden (2:8), forms man from
the dust of the earth (2:7), fashions the beasts and the birds of the
sky (2:19), takes a rib from Adam and forms a woman with it (2:21),
etc. In Gen 1 we have a systematic, almost rationalistic description
of the process of creation, while in Gen 2 we have an almost mytho-
logical account. Surely there is no possibility of assuming that the
two accounts (Gen 1 and Gen 23) came from a single hand or
crystallized in the same literary circle. On this fact, there was already
agreement before Wellhausen. The latter, however, sought to derive
historical conclusions
1
from this fact. Our question is: to what extent
were his conclusions justied? In connection with this, we must clearly
answer two questions: (1) Is the change in the conception of God
95
1
As is well-known, Wellhausens view concerning the dating of Gen 1 is linked
to his general point of view concerning the dating of P; however, to avoid digress-
ing we shall have to consider Gen 1 separately.
96 cn.r+rn six
and of Creation necessarily the result of an historical development?
(2) Is there a complete detachment from the world of myth and of
anthropomorphism in Gen 1 and P?
Before answering these questions, let us briey explain the iden-
tity of the group that produced P, one of the largest literary docu-
ments of the Bible. The identity of Ps compilers can easily be
determined, and there is no disagreement regarding the provenance
of this document. As is demonstrated by the name assigned to it,
all scholars agree that it came from the hands of the priests. The
authors of P were, then, the bearers of an important temple oce,
and from the literary maturity of the composition, it is quite plau-
sible that they were the priests of the central sanctuary at Jerusalem
(Noth 1948: 265).
2
One of the priests central tasks was teaching Torah. The pur-
pose of this instruction was to educate the people and guide them
in their everyday lives, which were generally subject to the sacral
domain. The priests sat in judgment and decided casesoriginally
this was accomplished in a primitive manner (ymtw yrwa) and later
on by sitting in judgment (Deut 17:813; Ezek 44:24 etc.; see Weinfeld
1977: 76). They guided the people with reference to various patho-
logical diseases like leprosy
3
and gonorrhoea (Lev 15), participated
in the valuation of property (both movable and immovable, Lev 27),
and even managed the temple bank (2 Kgs 12:56 and 2 Kgs
22:34).
4
All of these responsibilities, which we have enumerated,
2
Hempel (1954: 19431967) sees the provenance of P in the temple at Hebron,
but this idea is not plausible. Of course it is possible that a number of traditions
in P are connected with Hebron, but it is dicult to accept his assumption that
the nal redaction of P took place in this provincial temple, which is not men-
tioned in the monarchic period. I agree with the opinion of Kaufmann (HIR 1)
that P, unlike D, does not call for the centralization of the cult; it does not follow
from this, however, that the book was not written in Jerusalem, for even prior to
the centralization of worship at Jerusalem the Jerusalem Temple was the most
important of the sanctuaries. It is altogether natural, therefore, that it should have
served as a quarter for priestly scribes; see Haran (1962).
3
The law of leprosy does not concern itself with leprosy in the narrow sense
only, but includes prescriptions for various kinds of skin diseases such as burns (Lev
13:2428), inammations (vv. 1823), white discoloration (vv. 3839), baldness and
forehead baldness (vv. 40, 43). See Baentsch (1903: 363364); Milgrom (1991:
771817).
4
In Israel, like Mesopotamia, there was a cash box in the temple where the
contributions to the temple were kept. The priests in the temple concerned them-
selves not only with the collection of revenues but also with the assessment of natu-
ralia according to a xed scale (Lev 27). The two functions of collector and assessor
oor +nr cnr.+on .xr rrt+rno-is.i.n 97
required knowledge and prociency in many areas. This fact also
nds its expression in their many-faceted literary productivity. The
priests took charge of the temple archives,
5
apparently edited the
temple annals, and also engaged in the writing of history. Like its
parallel sources, P records the events of history from creation to the
conquest of Palestine, albeit with a sacral purpose.
The priests, it seems, were among the societys scholarly individ-
uals,
6
and their literary creativity must be examined with this in
mind.
7
In light of this, if the sober view prevailing in P is part of
the mentality of a particular circle we must ask: what forces us to
assume its lateness and attribute it to the exilic or postexilic period?
On the contrary, a circle of learned priests is likely to be much more
active in literary productivity whilst it plays an active role in peo-
ples lives. The so-called scientic character of the Creation Story
in Gen 1 must then be attributed to the erudition and speculative
inclination of the priests, who composed this document, rather than
to an enlightened epoch, which was free from mythology.
In fact, if we carefully examine Gen 1, we nd that its rational-
ism is noticeable only in its literary frame and in its manner of pre-
sentation, and not at all in its actual content. This chapter is based
upon a faith founded upon the bedrock of mythology, apparent not
only from ancient mythological echoes, which are heard herein, but
from the very purpose of the priestly narrative, the Sabbath. Scholars
of the Wellhausen school see in the section concerning the Sabbath,
which concludes this passage, the late seal of the priestly editor, who
in Mesopotamian temple, and palace, have been treated in Oppenheims article
(1947). On the whole, see Hurowitz (1986).
5
It is not accidental that P has preserved genealogical tables and census lists.
Mendenhall (1958) has examined the authenticity of the census lists found in the
Book of Numbers. He claims, with a degree of justication, that these are ancient
documents from the period of the tribal confederacy that were later revised and
edited in light of the monarchys military and administrative organization. Be that
as it may, with the date of these lists, it is clear that the priests of the central sanc-
tuary preserved them. In this way, important documentary material found its way
into P; cf. Levine (1965). Royal documents were also preserved in Assyrian and
Babylonian temples (Meissner 1925: 330332).
6
Concerning the priests as scholars associated with the temple just as the scribes
were associated with the court, see Weinfeld (1964b).
7
Indeed, Gunkel (1922: 117) also realized this in his evaluation of Ps style: The
dryness of thought and the dignity of the form joins itself to a unied picture: it
is the Teacher who speaks like this; anciently spoken: this is how the Priest speaks
(my translation).
98 cn.r+rn six
carried on his work in the period when the Sabbath and circumci-
sion became the essential identifying symbols of Judaism.
8
However,
it is strange that just the Sabbath, which constitutes the high-point
of Gen 1 and according to some scholars theoretically belongs to
the nal stage of the narratives development,
9
is presented in a form
that reects a clearly mythological (or anthropological) line of think-
ing: God made his work in six days and rested on the seventh.
10
Moreover, as is known, there stands alongside the Creation by
word in Gen 1, physical making (vv. 7, 16, 21, 25, 26);
11
there-
fore, many scholars (Stade 1905: 349; Schwally 1906: 159161;
Schmidt 1964: 164167) contend that we have before us two strata:
one, which tells about actual making and a second concerning
Creation by word, of which the second is said to be later (von
Rad 1934: 12; Procksch 1967: 99100; cf. Schmidt, op. cit.). However,
the dilemma we then confront is that the late Sabbath is bound up
with making and not with the abstract function of Creation by
word, which allegedly is later and more rened. The fact of the
matter is that making, in the chapter before us, serves as an expres-
sion for the materialization of Creation and does not represent a
8
See the appendix concerning the Sabbath.
9
Following Ziegler, Gabler, and Ilgen (Schmidt 1964: 913). It is a widely
accepted assumption that the P six day Creation pattern was superimposed, and it
is still possible to nd traces of an eight-day scheme within the narrative (Westermann
1974: 111120).
10
Cf. Exod 20:11. In Exod 31:17 (= P), the expression pnyw was refreshed
( JPS translation) is added, increasing the anthropomorphic content. The gross anthro-
pomorphism expressed by this word makes Galling wonder, for in his comment
upon the verse he states: Noticeable, is the anthropomorphic expression he rested,
which, by the way, would be much better suited to a discernable opinion in Ex.
23:12 and Deut 5:1214 (concerning men and animals resting from work) (Beer
Galling ad loc.). Gunkel sensed the diculty with the priestly interpretation of the
Sabbath and therefore argued that this anthropomorphic line of thought belongs
to the Vorlage of the priestly account. If so, however, it is dicult to account for
the fact that the priestly author, who according to Gunkel avoided anthropomorphisms,
did not attempt to mitigate the formulation that he allegedly found before him.
Even according to Gunkel, the priestly author introduced far-reaching changes in
the account before him to the extent that he changed the division of the days of
Creation from eight to six. If so, why was he afraid to introduce stylistic changes
of a far less drastic nature than the aforementioned innovation? For the relevance
of divine rest and refreshment in the Akkadian texts see below.
11
This diculty was already observed by Genesis Rabba (31): And God made
the rmamentThis is one of the verses over which Ben Zoma raised a commo-
tion: He madehow remarkable! Surely it [came into existence] at [Gods] word:
[as it is written,] By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the
host of them by the breath of His mouth (Ps 33:6).
contradiction to the concept of Creation by word (Cassuto 1961:
1617).
12
Even though the priestly editor may have had before him
two traditions, one that told of Creation by word and another that
spoke of actual making, he combined the two without distinction.
In the description as it stands one can detect no preference for one
tradition over the other. The editor has, apparently, attached no
meaning whatsoever to the dierences between these traditions.
13
Ps cosmic-mythical motivation of the Sabbath teaches us that one
cannot attribute abstraction to the author of P. On the contrary, the
Sabbaths amalgamation to the Creation-tradition gives the act of
Creation a mythological rather than an abstract character. The Sab-
bath in P is based on the idea that God made His work within six
days. From this it follows that the Creation is the product of Gods
handiwork rather than the fruit of His reason or abstract word.
Apparently, in early times, there circulated Creation stories with-
out any connection to the Sabbath (Seeligmann 196061: 162163;
Schmidt 1964: 7073); it was the priestly editor who turned the
Creation story into an etiology of the Sabbath. The priestly authors
crystallization of Gen 1 was for the distinct purpose of providing a
basis and a motivation for the Sabbath.
14
12
Clear evidence of the fact that Creation by word and making go hand in
hand can be found in Isa 48:13: My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and
my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth
together and similarly Isa 45:12: It was my hands that stretched out the heav-
ens, and I commanded all their host. (For the diculties in separating a divine
st tradition from the word account see Westermann (1974: 116118).
13
Hasel (1968: 370371) has cogently criticized Schmidts position (op. cit.) con-
cerning the dierent stages of interpretation represented by the word account and
the act account.
14
The motivation of the Sabbath in Exod 20:11 is derived from the priestly lit-
erature, while Deut 5, which reects a theological position opposed to P (Weinfeld
1969), naturally gives another reason for the Sabbath. Budde (1883: 493496) claims
that Exod 20:11 preserves an ancient tradition, upon which P drew; his contention,
however, does not stand the test of analysis. The blessing and sanctication,
accompanying the Sabbath in Exod 20 are derived from Gen 2:3 and form the
essence of Ps doctrine (for blessing see Gen 9:1; 17:16, 20; 35:9; for the sanctication
of time see Lev 25:10). Seeligmann (196061) correctly argues that the formula
therefore (k l[) sometimes serves to introduce a secondary usage. With this, he
raises the question as to whether one might conclude that the reference to the
Sabbath in Ex. 20, like the phrase therefore he blessed, might be later than that
in Gen 2:13. In view of the considerations I have raised, I think it is possible to
answer this question in the armative. Budde, in his aforementioned article, points
to the peculiarity of the Sabbath commandments formulation in Exod 20 as opposed
to Gen 2, in order to prove that the former is not dependent on P. Among other
reasons, he cites the therefore that Gen 2 lacks. In fact, the evidence he presents
100 cn.r+rn six
The Sabbath itself was an ancient institution in Israel that existed
long before the composition of P;
15
only its association with the
Creation tradition constitutes the innovation of the priestly circles,
which were occupied with theological speculation, and the sacral-
ization of institutions and customs accepted among the people. Indeed,
the priests were especially commanded concerning the sanctication
of the Sabbath: and they shall keep My Sabbaths holy (Ezek 44:24).
The Holiness Code hints at the connection between the Sabbath
and the sanctuary: You shall keep My Sabbaths and revere My
sanctuary (Lev 19:30; 26:2). Apparently, just as in Mesopotamia,
where Creation was said to have ceased with the building of Marduks
temple (Enma eli VI: 5154 [ANET
2
: 68 (Speiser)]; cf. V: 119130
[Landsberger Wilson 1961: 164167]); so in Israel, Gods resting
on the seventh day was connected with the building of His Tabernacle.
Gods entry into His Tabernacle is regarded as His having come to
His resting place (Ps 132:8, 14);
16
also in Mesopotamia the sanctu-
ary is dened as the gods resting place at the conclusion of Creation
(e.g. Enma eli VI: 52: kummukku lu nubattani i nuapi qerebu The
cellar should be our nights lodging; let us rest in it.). It is no acci-
dent that the commandment of Sabbath observance appears in P at
the conclusion of the instructions of the Tabernacles construction
(Exod 31:1217), and similarly at the beginning of the description
of the Tabernacles erecting (Exod 35:13). These warnings appar-
ently forbid working on the Tabernacles construction on the Sabbath.
At the same time, however, they hint at the connection between
Gods work in creating the world and the work involved in con-
structing the Tabernacle. Particularly instructive in this connection
is the Ugaritic text that tells of the building of Baals temple and
describes the burning of the re during six days (cf. Exod 35:3) with
its extinguishing on the seventh day. In this manner, the work is
brought to conclusion, and Baal begins with the preparations for the
dedicatory festivities (ANET
2
: 134 [Ginsberg]). Similarly, there is
contradicts his argument, for as Seeligmann has noted, the formula therefore is
evidence of a secondary use of tradition. Concerning Schmidts (op. cit.) obvious dis-
comfort concerning this question see (Hasel 1968: 371).
15
See appendix concerning the Sabbath.
16
Cf. also 2 Chr 6:41; Ps 95:11; Isa 66:1. On the relationship between Gods
rest and the rest of the people of God, which coincides with the completion of the
central sanctuary (Deut 12:910; 2 Sam 7; 1 Kgs 8:56) and Gods rest, see von
Rad (1966); cf. also Weinfeld (1981b: 501512).
undoubtedly signicance in Buber and Rosenzweigs (1936: 3944)
previously mentioned claims, that the completion of work on the
Tabernacle is described in language that generally resembles the con-
clusion of Ps Creation narrative. The following comparison demon-
strates this similarity:
Gen 12 Exod 3940
And God saw everything that he And Moses saw all the work, and
had made, and behold, it was behold, they had done it; as the
very good. (1:31) LORD had commanded, so had
they done it. (39:43)
hnhw h[ ra lk ta yhla aryw w[ hnhw hkalmh lk ta hm aryw
.dam bwf .w[ k hwhy hwx rak ,hta
Thus the heavens and the earth Thus all the work of the Tabernacle
were nished, and all the host of the tent of meeting was nished.
of them. (2:1) (39:32)
.abx lkw rahw ymh wlkyw .d[wm lha km tdb[ lk lktw
And on the seventh day God So Moses nished the work. (40:33)
nished his work, which he had
done. (2:2)
wtkalm y[ybh wyb yhla lkyw .hkalmh ta hm lkyw
.h[ ra
So God blessed the seventh day And Moses blessed them. (39:43)
and hallowed it. (2:3)
dqyw y[ybh wy ta yhla rbyw .hm ta rbyw
.wta
And you shall make it and all its
furnishings holy. (40:9; cf. Exod 29;
Lev 8:1012, 15, 30)
.wylk lk taw wta tdqw
Practically speaking, the Sabbath commandment becomes operative
with the building of the Tabernacle, which according to P repre-
sents the classic Revelation of God to his people (Weinfeld 1964b:
61, n. 20). It appears that the priesthood dramatized the conclusion
of Creation by the Sabbath in the same way that the people of the
Ancient Near East dramatized the Creation in their cultic dramas.
The Sabbath, in fact, represented the conclusion of a cultic cycle,
for on the Sabbath they changed the showbread (Lev 24:59), and
the temple guards (2 Kgs 11:5, 9).
Von Rad (1972: 41) contends that Gen 2:13 was not intended
to establish the Sabbath as a cultic and religious institution. In his
102 cn.r+rn six
opinion, the passage only explains that Creation reached its climax
and God concluded it on the seventh day, which he sanctied. A
cursory glance at the work of the priestly author, however, will prove
to us that no priestly narrative exists without a cultic purpose. P has
no interest in the description of heavenly processes for their own
sake. The important priestly chapters in Genesis only serve the priestly
sacral purpose. The Sabbath in the description of Creation (cf. Exod
31:17), the rainbow in Gen 9,
17
and circumcision in Gen 17 con-
stitute the three signs that signify Gods covenant with mankind in
two of its stages (antediluvian and postdiluvian) and with Abraham
and his seed.
18
The observance of the Sabbath, which is a peculiarly
Israelite institution, could only be commanded by God after He had
revealed Himself to His people; the seventh day itself, however, had
been sanctied since the days of Creation, according to P. The
mythological and cosmological motivation of the Sabbath belongs,
then, to the author of P and testies to the character of this source.
Creation by Word
The Creation by word is regarded as the height of the abstrac-
tion in Gen 1. The great distance, as it were, between the Creator
and His Creation is expressed by means of the creative word. Thus
the priestly author conveys the idea of Gods transcendence (von
Rad 1972: 39; Gunkel 1922: 104105). This transcendence, how-
17
With reference to this chapter von Rad (1972: 101) remarks: One properly
understands this chapter of priestly theology only when the etiological undertones
are examined (my translation). If so, it is dicult to understand why the Sabbath,
which is also a sign like the rainbow in Gen 9, has no etiology.
18
We have before us a concentric circle of covenants made with Creation and
mankind: with the conclusion of the Creation a covenant is made with all the ani-
mals (man is given only vegetation), while after the ood, a new covenant with
mankind alone is concluded (the sons of Noah), and the spilling of animal blood
is permitted (Gen 9:3). Finally, there is the covenant with Abraham and his seed
exclusively. These are all covenants of grant, with which there are associated signs
(the Sabbath, the rainbow, and circumcision) as testimony to the endurance of the
respective covenants. In the rst covenant, God grants man and beast the grass
and fruit trees for food (Gen 1:2930); in the second covenant, He grants the sons
of Noah also the beasts for food (Gen 9:3), while in the third covenant, He gives
the children of Abraham the land of Canaan (Gen 17:8). The expressions Behold,
I have given you (Gen 1:29), I give you (Gen 9:4), and And I will give to you
(Gen 17:8), represent legal formulae on the same plane (cf. Gen 15:18; 20:16; 23:11;
Lev 6:10; Num 18:8, 21). On the grant covenant see Weinfeld (1970).
ever, is only imagined for two reasons. First, physical making and
creating
19
are the terms employed in the overwhelming portion of
the Creation narrative in Gen 1: the sky (v. 7), the luminous orbs
(v. 16), animal life (vv. 21, 25), and man (v. 27), all of which do not
accord with the concept of divine transcendence. Moreover, if we
examine the text, we see that creation by God Himself is the high-
est form of Creation, as opposed to verbal creation (cf. Cassuto 1961:
1617). Man, who is the crown of Creation, is not brought into
being through the divine word but is personally formed by God.
God Himself likewise creates the luminaries and the sky, which are
also exalted creations, unlike the plants and animals, which are fash-
ioned from previously existing matter (water and earth). The truth
of the matter is that at the very basis of the description of Creation
is a system that has no relationship to abstraction but whose source
is the desire to establish a hierarchy among the objects of creation.
The vegetable kingdom is created by means of the elements; the
animal kingdom, whose status is medial, is created jointly by the ele-
ments and by the deity, while man, the sky and the luminaries,
which are close to the divine sphere with reference to their place
and their nature, are created by God without the help of the ele-
ments.
20
Second, creation by speech and by command is not Ps
invention, for this notion already occurs in the cosmogonies of Ancient
Near Eastern peoples. Marduk demonstrates his ruling power by
means of the star, which is created at his command and disappears
at his command.
21
Only after he reveals to the assembly of the gods
his power through the word of his mouth, do the gods make him
19
The notion that the Hebrew word arb denotes creatio ex nihilo (Wellhausen and
likewise Gesenius Buhl 1921: 113b) is based on a misunderstanding (Bhl 1913).
20
Also, in the Creation account there are concentric circles, which are one of
the priestly conceptions characteristics (see above).
21
See Enma Eli IV: 1928 (ANET
2
: 66 [Speiser]). In this section (lines 19, 23,
24, 25, and 26) one must read lu-ma-u (= star or constellation) rather than lu-ba-
u (= garment), as has been done until now. See Borger (19591960) and similarly
AHw s.v. lumu (563a); CAD s.v. lumu (L 245). With reference to the meaning of
lumu see Landsberger Wilson (1961: 170171). Marduk demonstrates his power
as king of the gods by the fact that his order is immediately fullled: at his com-
mand the star disappears, and at his command the star appears. According to Th.
Jacobsen (in a personal communication) Marduk appears here in the form of a king
issuing commands. F. Rothschild of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
who completed a study of basileomorphism as a root-metaphor in biblical thought,
rightly argues that the divine word in Gen 1 is the royal word. The argument is
supported by Gen 1:10, where God appears as a king with his council (see below).
104 cn.r+rn six
their king. A more striking parallel, for our purpose, is found in
Memphite theology,
22
according to which the god Ptah brings his
creations into being by means of his heart and tongue, which means
by the word of his mouth. In the same text ( Junker 1940: 63) we
nd a parallel to the creators state of mind at the conclusion of
Creation, which is expressed in Scripture by the phrase that it was
good, and particularly to the verse that concludes the biblical pas-
sage: And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it
was very good (Gen 1:31). In the eighth section of the Shabaka
Stone it is stated: And so Ptah was satised (or rested ANET
2
:
5, n. 19 [Wilson], which corresponds very closely to Gods rest in
the biblical source), after he had made everything, including the
divine order. Also in Old Testament sources outside of P and par-
ticularly in the hymns and doxologies, which we have no reason to
attribute to P, we nd Creation by speech. Thus in Ps 33:6: By
the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all their host
by the breath of his mouth, and similarly Ps 107:25; 148:5 etc.
Creation by speech is not, then, the product of the rened spirit
of the priestly author. It belongs to the legacy of the entire Ancient
East, and the similarity with the Egyptian Memphite theology is par-
ticularly obvious. The only innovation of P in the Creation narra-
tive is the theological speculation concerning the Sabbath. For this
purpose the scheme of six days of Creation was set up, while the
remaining elements of this section are either drawn from outside or
from ancient Israelite traditions, which we shall address in the fol-
lowing section.
Anthropomorphic Conceptions in P
Since Gunkel (1921; 1922), scholars have assumed a connection
between Gen 1 and Babylonian mythology. Only recently have points
of contact between Gen 1 and Egyptian material been uncovered.
S. Hermann (1961) found interesting parallels to Gen 1 in the descrip-
tion of Creation in Egyptian texts. It seems, in fact, that the priestly
Creation narrative is much closer to Egyptian texts than to Babylonian
22
In the Shabaka Stone, cf. Junker (1940); Drr (1938: 2325, 134136) and
similarly Morenz (1960: 174); Schmidt (1964: 174175).
texts. The strands, which connect Gen 1 to Babylonian mythology,
are extremely thin and almost impossible to distinguish.
23
The prime-
val waters and their division, and the chaos and darkness are not
peculiar to the Babylonian cosmogony, for they also appear in
Egyptian, Hindu, and other descriptions of Creation, as Gunkel (1922:
103, 107) himself admitted. Moreover, there are great dierences
between Babylonian mythology and Gen 1 that can only be explained
with diculty, if we assume a direct borrowing from Babylonian
material.
24
Even the wht (deep), upon which Gunkel based his the-
ory concerning the relationship of Gen 1 to the Babylonian creation
epic, does not prove anything at all, for this word, as it appears in
Gen 1:2 has no connection with the Babylonian Timat (Heidel 1951:
98101; Schmidt 1964: 8081, n. 5; cf. Lambert 1965: 203). It is
possible that behind the biblical term an ancient conception of the
mythological origin of wht is hidden, which is indicated by the lack
of a denite article h' (ha-) and its feminine form. In Scripture itself,
however, it appears only as a formulaic expression without any mytho-
logical signicance.
25
On the other hand, our passage contains clear
signs of Egyptian inuence. We have pointed to the connection with
Memphite theology, but we nd much stronger similarities between
Gen 1 and Egyptian cosmogony in the Wisdom of Meri-ka-re with
respect to the description of creation. Hermann (1961) rightly refers
to this text as die kleine Genesis because of its marked similari-
ties to Gen 1 both in content and spirit. Thus we read:
He created heaven and earth . . . and drove out chaos (or the water
monster; see ANET
2
: 417, n. 49 [Wilson]). He breathed into them
(mankind) the breath of life, and those who have issued from his body
are according to his likeness (snnw.f ) . . . he created for them plants,
animals, fowl, and sh . . . He made the light of day . . . (ANET
2
: 417
[Wilson], and similarly Volten [1945: 73, ll. 131134]).
23
Even those who argue for a relationship between the Israelite and Babylonian
creation stories admit that the historical connection between them is impossible to
establish; see Heidel (1951: 139140) and also Ridderbos (1958: 247251).
24
Thus, for example, the following elements are absent from the Babylonian
account in a cosmogonic context: the wind; the darkness and chaos; the creative
word.
25
Gunkel relied on Isa 51:910. From these verses, however, there is no proof,
because these verses, and also Psalms and Job, have a direct connection with the
mythological epics, which describe the triumph over the primeval demonic creatures
(e.g., tywl ,ynt ,y), while in Gen 1 there is no hint whatsoever of this struggle.
106 cn.r+rn six
We have found, then, a cosmogony similar in its content and char-
acter to Gen 1, but to which one cannot impute an abstract con-
ception of God as has been attributed to Gen 1.
The Image of God
The cosmogony found in the Wisdom of Meri-ka-re can also shed
light on the problem of the creation of man in Gods image and
likeness (cf. The Wisdom of Ani, 810; Brunner 1957: 137138). The
creation of man in Gods image was understood abstractly in Hellenistic
Judaism (Wisdom of Solomon 2:23 and Philos De Opicio Mundi, 49),
and many sought to force this conception upon Gen 1:26 (for the
references see Kaufmann HIR 1.238240). In this manner, they found
additional support for establishing the abstract character of the pas-
sage. Nevertheless, even scholars of the Wellhausen school (for exam-
ple, Gunkel 1922 and Skinner 1930: 32) have already insisted that
this interpretation is untenable and that the real meaning of the
verse is that mans external form was, as it were, copied from Gods
form. Mans exalted state and his domination over the rest of cre-
ation are the results of his divine image, but one must not see in
these characteristics the essential meaning of the image of God (Horst
1961: 226). Ezekiel, who is inuenced by the priestly school, sees
God in human form (Ezek 1:26),
26
as does Daniel (7:9). Now, we
have learned from the Egyptian parallel that this conception of mans
being created in Gods form is not necessarily connected with an
abstract theological conception, which is divorced from all mythical
thinking. It is clearly stated there that mankind issued from the deitys
body in a manner similar to the Babylonian epics account of man
being fashioned from the blood of the gods (cf. the various tradi-
tions in Heidel 1951: 6671, 118119; Labat 1935: 4951). It appears
that the notion of mans creation in Gods likeness serves only to
tell us that of all the creatures, man is the only one who belongs to
the family of the gods. According to the polytheistic conception,
divine blood ows in mans veins; in other words, man is part and
26
Scholars of the Wellhausen school obviously must say the opposite, that Ezekiels
vision made possible the doctrine of the image of God in P (for example see
Humbert 1940: 172). The notion that Ezekiel came before P is being contested
more and more, and it now has few supporters.
parcel of the gods esh and blood. The more rened Israelite tra-
dition does not speak of Gods esh and blood, but of His outward
form. Indeed, the notion that man belongs to the genus of the gods
is common to all Ancient Near Eastern traditionsa fact that comes
to the fore in the preaching of Paul when he quotes the Greek poets:
To gr ka gnow smn (Acts 17:28).
Recent years have witnessed a growing tendency to see the source
of the priestly notion of the divine image in the royal ideology of
the Ancient East (Loewenstamm 19571958 and Wildberger 1965),
for both in Egypt and in Mesopotamia the king was described as
being formed in a gods image and likeness. The Babylonian or
Assyrian king is the almu (cf. CAD, s.v. almu, [, 85]) or muulu
27
Hebrew: twmd imageof the deity, while the Egyptian monarch

is the gods ntj or twt (cf. Wildberger 1965: 484486). According
to this assumption, a democratisation of the idea in Israel took place
in which all that was said of the king became applicable to all men
(Horst 1961: 230). Although this theory is logical (and perhaps one
should also add to the king the priest or the royal ocial as an
intermediate step in the democratisation),
28
it is not necessary for
understanding the source of the concept of Gods image for two rea-
sons: rst, the democratisation, as we have seen, is already present
in the ancient Egyptian literature
29
and is not, therefore, an Israelite
innovation or an innovation of P. Second, the notion of a king being
fashioned in a deitys image does not occur in a cosmogonic con-
text, while the notion of man being so created does appear in such
a context, which is close in both spirit and content to Gen 1. There
is no reason, then, to look for the concepts source in royal hymns
rather than in cosmogonic literature. Even if the concept originated
27
Cf. Waterman 19301936: 452453, No. 652, rev. 1013.
28
iptum ipat
d
Marduk ipu alam
d
Marduk, It is Marduk, who is invoked; the
priest (who administers the oath) is the image of the god Marduk (Meier 19411944:
150, ll. 225226). Prof. Moran of Harvard has called my attention to the fact that
one cannot derive from here the idea that the priest is actually conceived of as the
gods image, because in the administering of oaths, the priest functions as the rep-
resentative of Marduk, who is the god of oaths. Cf. also
aml
aquppar alam
d
Nergal
aml
mubarr alam
d
Diqum in a list of ocials (CT XXIV, pl. 50 [BM 47406], cf. Frank
1909: 104).
29
This idea especially stands out in the epilogue to The Wisdom of Ani: . . . it is
not only the wise man, who is the image (of god), as though the masses of mankind
were beasts . . . (X, 810; Brunner 1957: 137).
108 cn.r+rn six
in a royal ideology
30
and was borrowed from there by the cosmogonic
sphere, the fact that the notion of mans creation in the image of
the deity was common in ancient mythological Egyptian literature
prevents us from assuming that the idea of creation in Gods image
in P is necessarily a late and abstract conception.
There are those who claim that the biblical phrase in our image,
after our likeness excludes the possibility of the interpretation that
man is created literally in Gods image (Khler 1948 and similarly
von Rad 1957: 149). The use in this verse of the plural, which, theo-
retically, refers to the heavenly court, teaches us that man was cre-
ated in the image of the angels and not in the image of God Himself.
Against this assertion one must ask: is it not stated explicitly in Gen
1:27 And God created man in his image where the singular is
employed?
31
The fact is that the plural serves only to emphasize the great
importance of the creation of man, who is the purpose of Creation.
32
An act of such signicance as the creation of man must be preceded
by consultation with the heavenly court.
33
All the heavenly beings
are, as it were, partners in the execution of this exalted project.
Gods turning to the angels for consultation is mentioned on addi-
tional occasions in the Genesis narrative
34
and generally comes at a
time when man is involved. Man is gifted with the divine power of
God and the angels;
35
therefore, whenever a threat to this power is
expected, Gods assembly convenes to take counsel. After man has
eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and there is a suspicion
30
The comparison of man to God in terms of royal conceptions is found in Ps
8, which possibly belongs to the kingship Psalms (see for example Bentzen 1948:
1213, 39). There, however, the expressions image and likeness are missing.
31
We cannot strike out this stitch, as some scholars have sought to do (see
Hermann 1961: 420, n. 27). On the contrary, it appears that this verse, which is
couched in poetic style and forms part of a complete poetic unit (Cassuto 1961:
57), gives the impression of being archaic. It solemnly emphasizes the creation of
man, who is the crown of Creation.
32
In the Babylonian creation account, creation of man also appears as an exalted
event (Enma Eli VI: 2, 37; Heidel 1951: 119120).
33
Also in the Babylonian epic the creation of man is associated with a heavenly
consultation: Enma Eli VI: 4: i-nam-din mil-ku, he gave advice.
34
In this regard and in many other respects, there is a certain unity in the rst
eleven chapters of Genesis (Kaufmann HIR 2.404415).
35
There lies hidden behind the biblical account an element of the gods jeal-
ousy against mana regular phenomenon in pagan mythology. This motif, how-
ever, belongs to the mythical substratum of the passage, while the Israelite story
itself gives no inkling of this notion.
that he might also eat of the tree of life and, as a result, turn into
a truly divine creature, God says to his condantes: Behold, the
man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil: and now,
lest he put forth his hand, and also take from the tree of life, and
eat, and live forever (Gen 3:22). A similar feature is found in the
Gilgamesh Epic (ANET
2
: 95 [Speiser]). Before the gods grant Utnapishtim
eternal life, Ea asks Enlil to take counsel, as a consequence of which
Enlil decrees: Utnapishtim and his wife shall become gods like us
(lu em k [var. kma] il nima [Gilg. XI: 202]). However, with regard
to Gilgamesh, who also seeks eternal life, Utnapishtim asks, Who
will call the gods to assembly for your sake? (ana ka mannu il
upaarakkumma [Gilg. XI: 205]). In response to the attempted con-
struction of the Tower of Babel, God descends to see what is tak-
ing place and returns to His palace to inform His concomitants of
the situation and the inherent dangers therein. Then follows the fate-
ful decision: Let us then go down and confound their speech there,
so that they shall not understand one anothers speech (Gen 11:7).
Also in the priestly narrative, which manages to rise above popular
conceptions like those we have found in J, there prevails a view of
the heavenly host that shares the heavenly palace with the Creator,
36
and serves Him as a body of advisors (cf. 1 Kgs 22:1023; Isa 6
and similarly Job 1).
We have discovered, then, in the priestly description of Creation,
anthropomorphic features like those common throughout the Ancient
Near East: Gods work and rest (cf. Lambert 1965: 297298), the
image of God, and God and His council, all of which reect a clearly
mythological line of thinking that forbids us from seeing in the priestly
narrative of Creation any deliberate de-anthropomorphism or abstrac-
tion. What is peculiar about the priestly description as against the
earlier sources is the systematic presentation of the material that can-
not be attributed to a postexilic liberation from mythology, but must
be attributed to the priests erudition and speculative tendencies.
36
The fact that P does not mention angels elsewhere still does not justify (see
Gunkel 1922 and similarly Skinner 1930 on this verse) our saying that he does not
know of them or believe in them. There lies at the foundation of the chapter con-
cerning the Passover in Exod 12a chapter, which is predominantly from priestly
sourcesthe notion of repelling the despoiler, who is the angel of destruction
(Loewenstamm 1987: 8094). In Ezekiel, who drew upon P, we nd a developed
angelology, and it appears that in this also he follows P.
110 cn.r+rn six
God the Creator in Isa 4048
37
Scholars who insist on Ps lateness, and as a consequence the late-
ness of Gen 1, seek support for their theory in the supposed ideo-
logical relationship between Gen 1 and the description of Creation
in the prophecies of Second Isaiah. The truth of the matter is, how-
ever, that if we compare the description found in Isa 4048 with
Gen 1 we see that the conception of God the Creator in this group
of prophecies is signicantly dierent from that of P. Let us now
examine the conception of God and Creation in Isa 4048, where
the idea of Creation is developed intensively, and let us analyse the
dierences between these descriptions and those in Gen 1.
The prophecies in Isa 4048 appear to have anities with the
description of Creation in Gen 1; in fact, the prophet makes use of
terminology reminiscent of Gen 1, and perhaps even borrowed from
there, for example arb created (and perhaps also tyar begin-
ning, Isa 46:10), j darkness and rwa light (45:7), wht chaos
(45:18), hwhy jwr the spirit of the LORD (40:13), [qr stretched
out (42:5), twmd likeness (40:18), and the expression abx lk all
their host (45:12, cf. Gen 2:1).
38
Also in other idioms his language
is similar to P, for example lag redeemed, (48:20) rb lk all
esh, (40:5) and hwhy dwbk the glory of the LORD (40:5). In fact,
Kapelrud (1964) expressed the opinion that Second Isaiah knew Gen
37
The unique background of this collection of prophecies has been discussed by
M. Haran (1963). He emphasizes the unity of this prophetic collection from the
standpoint of motifs and subject matter, which are interwoven therein, and he cor-
rectly notes that the end of Chapter 48 represents a much greater break than the
end of Chapter 55, which many regard as the conclusion of Second Isaiah. Y.
Kaufmann also argues for the unity of this collection (HIR 8.76). It is a fact that
the motifs that are reiterated again and again in this group of propheciesthe
polemic against idolatry, the dispute with the nations, the declaration of Gods unity,
the cosmogonic hymns, the proof from the former things and the latter things,
and the references to the extent of Cyrus accomplishmentare not even hinted
at in the prophecies that follow. It appears to me that in Isa 4048 we are deal-
ing with anonymous prophecies having a common religious and historical back-
ground, which were appended to the scroll of Isaiah the son of Amoz. It is not
unlikely that they came from the pen of a single author, although it is dicult to
prove this. In any case, Chapters 4048 stand out for their unity, and in light of
the aforementioned facts, it is completely justiable to regard them as a prophetic
unit that stands by itself.
38
The basic elements of the hymns are derived from ancient sources (de Boer
1956: 8586); their utilization and development is peculiar to the world of the
prophet.
1, an apparently logical assumption. Nevertheless, it seems that the
prophet, who indeed drew upon images and expressions from Gen
1, did not accept the conception that arises from this chapter. On
the contrary, as we shall see further on, we nd in Isaiah 4048,
arguments against that conception. The mythological notions, which
stand out in Gen 1, such as the existence of primeval matter before
Creation, the image of God, the consultation with the heavenly coun-
cil, and Gods work and rest are negated in the framework of the
cosmogonic hymns of Isa 4048. The fact that in these hymns the
prophet employs language similar to Gen 1 does not demonstrate
identication with the viewpoint found in Gen 1 but only the use
of identical terminology, whose source is the common subject mat-
ter. Let us examine the evidence in this regard.
First, already in the second verse of Gen 1 there is a notion that
contradicts ideas in Isa 4048. This verse conceals within it a mytho-
logical conception, as Gunkel and many other scholars have already
understood (see the summary of the various views on this question
in Childs 1960: 3042). Indeed, this verse has caused great diculties
to scholars adhering to Wellhausens school of thought, according to
which an abstract, non-mythical conception prevails in P. In fact, as
I have already shown above, there is no room for this view, and
one must understand this verse against the general theological back-
ground of P. In short, according to P chaos existed prior to Creation,
and the Creators greatness consisted of His ability to impose order
upon this chaotic condition.
39
The darkness and the primeval water
signify, according to this conception, malevolence and evil, which
the God of benevolence and goodness comes to remove and cast
away. This point of view accords with the priestly conception of the
existence of a demonic sphere, in contrast to the divine sphere, which
embodies the good. The demonic realm, which is subject to the rule
of animistic forces, consists of the wilderness into which the scape-
goat is sent (Lev 16:21), the eld into which the lepers bird of
purication is sent (Lev 14:7), and the area outside of the camp
where the satyrs abound (Lev 17:57). In fact, one must point out
that with the creation of light, according to Gen 1, the darkness did
39
Gunkel (1922) correctly rejects the assertion that v. 1 hints at the creation
from chaos. It would, in fact, be foolish to assume that God created darkness and
chaos in order to remove them afterwards (it is understood that we cannot deal
thoroughly with the problem in the present context).
112 cn.r+rn six
not subside completely but was pushed back into the dominion of
night, which is also numbered among the malevolent forces. Darkness
and night are subject to the dominion of demons and despoilers,
according to the ancient sources.
40
Thus Jacob struggles with the
demon at night, but when dawn arrives the demon says to him: Let
me go for the day is breaking (Gen 32:27), which is to say, My
rule is limited to the dark night, and I cannot remain any longer.
It is possible that Jacob was saved because he succeeded in holding
out until dawn, which is the time when the benevolent powers arise.
Moses also is seized in the net of the demon, who despoils at night;
Moses meets it in the lodging place, and it seeks to kill him (Exod
4:24). The angel of death, who kills the rst born of Egypt, also
operates in the middle of the night (Exod 12:1213, 2223, cf. 2
Kgs 19:35), and it appears that in general the night is identied with
death and evil. God does not seek it, nor does He cause his light
to shine upon it ( Job 3:4); therefore, it is subject to the rule of
demons and despoilers. For this reason the night is not an accept-
able time for prayer and supplication of God: Are thy wonders
known in the darkness or thy saving help in the land of forgetful-
ness? But I, O Lord, cry to thee; in the morning my prayer comes
before thee (Ps 88:1314). In this matter, P follows the primitive
conception as is also clear from the reference to the primeval waters.
These primeval waters of the wht are not completely eliminated,
but a special sphere is assigned to themthe sea. The living waters
40
An interesting attempt to uncover the demonic background of the priestly pro-
hibition of eating blood (Lev 19:26; cf. Ezek 33:25) was made by Grintz (1966).
Against this background he explains the episode of 1 Sam 14:3235, and particu-
larly emphasizes that the slaughtering takes place at night, the time of demons. Lev
17, which forbids slaughtering outside of the temple precincts lest people sacrice
to satyrs, also derives, according to Grintzand correctly sofrom this background.
While Grintz assumption regarding the source of these two prohibitions makes
sense, it is not at all relevant to the development of the Israelite cult, as he tries
to make it. It is a fact that the author of Lev 17 prohibits secular slaughtering for
all time (v. 7) for the reason noted above. If so, then the danger of associating with
demons exists in all periods and not only in the wilderness period. The author of
the Book of Deuteronomy, on the other hand, permits secular slaughtering; in eect,
he abolishes the previous restrictions (Deut 12:2021). The priestly laws pertaining
to the domain of impurity also have no connection whatsoever with the period of
the wilderness wandering. The conception of the wilderness as the dwelling-place
of malevolent powers existed in all periods (cf. Isa 13:21; 34:14) and in all places.
It is only that the author of P gave clear expression to this demonic conception in
his teaching.
alone (Lev 14:5; Num 19:17) belong to the sacral domain, but the
waters of the sea embody the powers that rebel against God.
41
Against this dualistic conception the anonymous prophet arises and
declares: who fashions light and creates darkness, establishes well-
being and creates evil. I the LORD do all these (Isa 45:7). God
created darkness and light, well-being and evil together; the dark-
ness and evil are not independent demonic forces. Scholars (Nyberg
1938: 347348; Luzzatto 1867, Skinner 1896, Volz 1932 and simi-
larly Muilenburg 1956 and North 1964) have correctly argued that
this verse is not necessarily intended as a polemic against Persian
dualism, but it constitutes a protest against dualistic conceptions,
remnants of which clung also to Israelite religion.
An additional verse in which the protest against the conception
of Gen 1:2 can be heard is Isa 45:18: For thus says the LORD,
who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and
made it, he established it; he did not create it a chaos (wht), he
formed it to be inhabited! Most of the modern commentators (Duhm
1914, Volz 1932, and also North 1952) sensed in this verse an echo
of Gen 1:2, but their adherence to the Wellhausen school, with
respect to the dating of the sources, prevented them from correctly
seeing the relationship between the two biblical passages. Thus, for
example, Duhm claimed that the clause he did not create it a
chaos had nothing to do with Gen 1:2 because Gen 1 is later
than Second Isaiah!; this verse could not have been written in the
form before us, Duhms argument continues, if the prophet had
known the phraseology of Gen 1. It is as though Duhm wavers
between two opinions on this matter. On one hand, he accepts the
notion that Gen 1 was non-existent in the time of Second Isaiah;
on the other hand, he is prepared to grant the possibility that Gen
1 had already taken shape at that time; however, he argues that the
prophet could not have said anything that even apparently contra-
dicted the description. Surely, it is better to assume that the text
already existed but was not authoritative for the prophet under con-
sideration? Volz joins to the chaos (wht) in 45:18 the darkness (j)
in v. 19, and he says that the chaos and darkness, which indeed go
hand in hand in the late Gen 1, were already known in ancient
41
The living waters as opposed to the waters of wht correspond, in some degree,
to the Babylonian conception of the living waters of Aps as against the waters of
Timat. See Enma Eli I: 35 (ANET
2
: 61 [Speiser]).
114 cn.r+rn six
times as terms expressing primeval chaos. However, if we accept the
assumption that our prophet knew Gen 1, it is unnecessary to force
the explanation that chaos and darkness were known to him from
another source.
42
It seems that this verse embodies a polemic against the point of
view in Gen 1:2. The prophet is opposed to the view of P, accord-
ing to which there existed primeval matter that included earth,
deep, and darkness. According to the prophet, God created dark-
ness just as He fashioned the light. He fashioned the earth just as
He created the heavens (note carefully: who formed the earth and
made it!). Lest it be said that if God created all the elements of
creation hinted at in Gen 1:2, we must also say that He created the
chaos mentioned there, the prophet adds: he did not create it a
chaos, he formed it to be inhabited.
43
The material was created in
an orderly and organized fashion from the beginning and did not
exist in a chaotic manner.
Second, in Isa 4048 there is, reiterated over and over again, the
idea that God is not to be compared to anything else: To whom
will you liken God or what likeness (twmd) compares with him (Isa
40:18); To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like
him? (Isa 40:25; cf. 46:5: To whom will you liken or equate or
compare me [ynwlymtw; cf. Akk. muulu, which means likeness] that
I should be like him?). This idea stands in direct opposition to the
notion of the image and likeness of God found in Gen 1:26 (cf. Gen
5:1), this likeness and image in the context of Second Isaiah is
not purely accidental.
44
Undoubtedly, a polemical element against
42
It appears to me that Jeremiah also knew Gen 1. See Jer 4:23: I looked on
the earth, and lo, it was waste and void (whbw wht); and to the heavens, and they
had no light (rwa yaw). Jeremiah sees in his vision the chaos, which prevailed
prior to the Creation, before God declared, Let there be light.
43
Ehrlichs explanation (1968: 167) is quite astute; he claims that chaos is the
subject, and that one should read not an idol (= disgrace; tb al) in place of to
be inhabited (tbl) in the second hemistich. Consequently the verse doesnt delin-
eate the pagan gods creating the world, but YHWH; however, the comment is
based upon an arbitrary emendation, therefore, we cannot support it.
44
Duhm (1914) is aware of the relationship between Isa 40:18 and Gen 1:26,
but he is unable to determine the nature of this relationship. Also Volz (1932) insists
on the relationship between the verses, but he claims das Hochgefhl, das dort
durchbricht, ist unserem Propheten fremd. We, however, have contended above
that the sublimity and abstraction attributed to the concept of the image of God
in Gen 1 are the product of late Judaisms speculation, unrelated to the real mean-
ing of the biblical passage.
the priestly doctrine exists, which Ezekiel also followed, according to
which God has a human form (Weinfeld 1962: 14).
This abstraction of Second Isaiahs also nds its expression in his
opening prophecy, which may be regarded as the prophets call (cf.
Cross 1953). Unlike First Isaiah and Ezekiel, he does not experience
a theophany when he receives his call, nor do we hear of visio dei
in connection with him. In this regard, he is also dierent from
Jeremiah, who did not see a vision, but did sense that his lips had
been touched. Contrasting all these, Second Isaiah neither sees nor
feels but only hears hidden voices.
45
Third, according to the priestly account of Creation, God con-
sults His advisors before the creation of man, Let us make man in
our image according to our likeness (Gen 1:26). We have already
considered the meaning of this consultation. This verse, however,
cannot be reconciled with the view of our prophet,
46
who declares
that God accomplished his creation by himself: who stretched out
the heavens alone, who spread out the earthwho was with me?
(Isa 44:24)
47
and he rules out the possibility of God consulting any-
one: who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as his counsellor
45
It is true that unlike the cosmogonic passages, the prophetic visions do not
describe the deitys nature, but convey the mystic experiences of the prophet him-
self. However, there is undoubtedly signicance to the way the prophet describes
his mystic experience. The fact that only Second Isaiah eliminates the visual ele-
ment from his vision is not pure coincidence, but points to a particular idiosyn-
crasy of the prophet, especially when there is additional evidence on the nature of
his theology.
46
According to Cross (1953), Isa 40:18 reects a heavenly scene, which is to
say a dialogue between God and his council. However, Kaufmann (HIR 8.8283)
argues that there is no hint, either here or elsewhere in Second Isaiah, of a heav-
enly council, and that no room exists for seeing any consultation with angels. It
makes more sense to understand the calls as directed towards visionary images (cf.
wyx trbm in v. 9) that are so abundant in Second Isaiah. The fact is that unlike
Isa 6 and Zech 3, 1 Kgs 22 where actual visio dei is represented, our prophet knows
of no physical description of the heavenly council whatsoever.
47
The Qere is ytam; nevertheless the Kethib is correct; cf. 1QIsa
a
, which reads
yta aym. H. L. Ginsberg (1969: 49, n. 22) has shown that the clause ydbl ym hfn
in Job 9:8 reects the inuence of Isa 44:24. In Job the verb hfn has a dierent
sense, not spreading out or stretching out as in Second Isaiah, but rather bow-
ing or lowering like dryw ym fyw he bowed the heavens and came down in
Ps. 18:10 ( = 2 Sam 22:10), this aligns it with the context: y ytmb l[ rwdw ( Job
9:8). According to Ginsberg, this verse was inuenced by Micah 1:3 hnh yk
ra ytwmb l[ rdw dryw wmwqmm axy hwhy For behold, the LORD is coming forth
out of his place, and will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth.
Thus the word wdbl alone in Job 9:8 has no meaning, and this teaches us that
the expression has been taken over from Isa 44 and joined, rather articially, to a
new context.
116 cn.r+rn six
has instructed him? Whom did he consult for his enlightenment?
(Isa 40:1314).
48
This conception not only contradicts the priestly
view of Creation, but also challenges beliefs that were rooted in
Israel for hundreds of years. The heavenly host, depicted by Micaiah
the son of Imlah, is pictured like a council, whose task is to advise
God: the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and
on his left . . . and one said one thing, and another said another (1
Kgs 22:1920). Isaiah (the son of Amoz) in his revelation hears God
taking counsel with his advisors: whom shall I send, and who will
go for us (Isa 6:8; cf. this matter in Cross 1953). The priestly view
is actually rooted in this ancient world of ideas that our prophet
opposes.
Finally, we come to the verse, which threatens the myth of Gods
work and rest, a myth lying at the foundation of the priestly Creation
account. Unlike the priestly description, according to which God
accomplished his creative work within six days and rested on the
seventh (cf. Exod 31:17), our prophet says: the Creator of the ends
of the earth does not faint or grow weary,
49
his understanding is
unsearchable (Isa 40:28). Gods rest (jnyw) and refreshment (pnyw)
50
are distinctly anthropomorphic conceptions, which may be learned
from the following example: and the king and all the people, who
were with him, arrived weary (ypy[) and then he refreshed himself
(pnyw) (2 Sam 16:14). According to our prophets point of view,
God accomplished the creationwhich is seen as an uninterrupted
processby means of his intellect alone; therefore, there is no rea-
son to speak of cessation of work, rest and relaxation. His under-
standing is unsearchable (Isa 40:28) depicts it as limitless, endless,
48
The idea is also found in the Egyptian Hymn to Aton: You created the world
according to your desire while you were alone (ANET
2
: 370 [Wilson]), but there
it does not occur in the context of consultation as in the passages we have discussed.
49
Cf. Mek. de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exod 20:12 (ed. Lauterbach 1933: 255): And
rested on the seventh dayAnd was He subject to such a thing as weariness? Has
it not been said: The Creator of the ends of the earth fainteth not neither is he
weary (Isa 40:28).
50
Prof. Loewenstamm drew my attention to the Akkadian clich: nuu libbi//nuppu
kabitti which means calming the heart//comforting the soul cf. e.g. ana nuu
libbi iltiunu u nuppu kabittiunufor calming the divine heart and comforting their
soul (Goetze 1963: 129, l. 6; compare also Enma Eli II: 76), which might point
to an abstract understanding of jnyw ,pnyw in our case. However, there the abstract
connotation is clear because of the objects libbu//kabittu whereas in our case the
verbs are intransitive and mean resting and refreshing in the concrete sense
i.e. after performing work.
and operates without pause. In this regard, the prophet approaches
the conception of Creation found in wisdom-literature ( Job 28:2328;
Prov 8:22) as well as the late anti-anthropomorphism that nds
expression in the Aramaic Targums: with wisdom God created etc.
(Tg. Neof. Gen 1:1).
One must admit that not all the anthropomorphisms in Gen 1
are literal because as we have seen, these belong to the literary con-
ventions of the cosmogonic literature. However, granted that some
of the expressions dealt with here are not literal, it is nevertheless
clear that P used anthropomorphic concepts to convey his ideas,
whereas Isa 4048 avoided, or even struggled, with them. Additionally,
I should point out that our modern distinction between real and
symbolic is not representative of the primitive mind. The state-
ment of Frankfort (1946: 21) that for the primitive . . . there is a
coalescence of the symbol and what it signies is undoubtedly cor-
rect. Indeed, the argument of symbols and allegories did not solve
the problem of the anthropomorphisms in Rabbinic literature, much
less the Old Testament. It seems that in most instances the writer
and the reader as well understood the written material verbally, as
do many believers today.
It is not accidental, then, that only Genesis 1 maintains mytho-
logical notions: the existence of primeval material, the image of God,
consultation with angels, and Gods work. It is true, there is no
extended and systematic polemic against the cosmogony of Gen 1;
however, the cosmogonic sections alone of the anonymous prophet
contain hidden contradictions to Gen 1, and this should teach us
that the prophet, who gave monotheism its most polished expression,
intended to rene it from mythological and anthropomorphic dross.
APPENDIX
CONCERNING THE SABBATH
AND CIRCUMCISION IN P
Wellhausen (1905: 110, 340) gave wide circulation to the view that
the sections in P dealing with the Sabbath and circumcision reect
the exilic period. He conceived the Exile as the time when Judaism
was severed from the living cultic religion and began to be based
upon commandments that did not depend upon the land. According
to this view the Sabbath and circumcision, which are particularly
stressed in P, were turned into the symbols of Judaism during the
Babylonian Exile, and so they remained until today. This notion has
become axiomatic in biblical scholarship, and it serves as an impor-
tant point of departure in establishing Ps date.
1
Just as we have raised the question concerning the account of cre-
ation in Gen 1, so shall we also inquire whether this emphasis on
the Sabbath and circumcision is necessarily the result of an histori-
cal development, or characteristic of the priestly circle that gave birth
to this source? We have already addressed the connection between
the priesthood and the Sabbath. Certainly, the connection between
the priesthood and circumcision should be even more obvious, for
this is the ritual act upon which mans entry into the cultic com-
munity depends, the physical holiness of which the priests sought to
preserve. The observance of this precept constituted a kind of status
confessionis, and in the patriarchal stories (Gen 34:1517; see Haran
1965: 4445) circumcision appears as a precondition to the for-
eigners joining and becoming a part of Israel (cf. Exod 12:48). It
similarly appears in other ancient Israelite traditions (like Exod
4:2426; Josh 5:29), and overwhelming religious signicance is given
to circumcision long before the Exile (cf. uncircumcised in 1 Sam
119
1
Noth (1948: 250): Fr P steht aus allgemein bekannten Grnden die nachdeutero-
nomische Abfassung fest; darber hinaus setzt das Gewicht, das fr ihn die nichtkul-
tischen rituellen Observanzen der Sabbatruhe und der Beschneidung haben (Gen
2, 2.; 17, 10.), doch wohl das Hervortreten dieser Ordnungen speziell unter den
nach Babylonien Deportierten in der ersten Hlfte des 6. Jahrhunderts voraus. Damit
ist ein terminus a quo gegeben.
120 .rrrxrix
14:6; 17:36 etc., and similarly Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; 9:2425; Ezek
44:7). Indeed, Wellhausen has not successfully established the claim
that the precept of circumcision acquired a particularly great empha-
sis during the Babylonian Exile, nor has any evidence been pre-
sented even to support the claim. We shall similarly demonstrate
further on that his claims concerning the Sabbath are unsustainable.
Wellhausen claimed that a tendency to observe the Sabbath more
stringently was initiated during the period of the First Temples
destruction and thereafter. He presented evidence for this claim from
the period of the Return (Isa 56:2; Neh 13:1522). However, this
evidence merely pointed to a laxity of Sabbath observance during
that period, which had long been observed, and not to any rst
attempts to establish this institution. On the contrary, in the pre-
exilic period, the Sabbath was observed more stringently. Even those
who oppressed and crushed the poor were careful to avoid selling
grain or conducting business on the Sabbath (Am 8:5). The same
picture is also clear in epigraphic evidence. The Hebrew letter from
Yabneh-Yam (Naveh 1960; cf. Cross 1962: 4246) mentions a farmer
who ceased gathering and storing away his harvest before the
Sabbath (tb ynpl; lines 56).
2
Reference to the observance of the
Sabbath is also found among the Jews of Elephantine see Porten
(1969: 116118).
Though it was necessary during the Return to ght against car-
rying burdens and trading on the Sabbath,
3
many other biblical pas-
sages inform us that the Sabbath was observed in pre-exilic times
both as a day of abstention from work and as a day of solemn
assembly and worship (2 Kgs 4:23; Isa 1:13; Hos 2:13 etc.). Wellhausen,
who could not ignore these facts, admitted the existence of the
Sabbath during the pre-exilic period, but claimed that it was char-
acterized by joy and pleasure, while the late priestly Sabbath had
an ascetic character (1905: 109110). The Sabbath in P, according
to Wellhausen, is not to be understood as a day of rest and relax-
2
It is also possible to read ebet as an innitive, with the sense of abstention from
work (Talmon 1964: 32).
3
See Neh 13:15 and similarly Jer 17:1921 As for the late character of this
prophecy, see the commentary of Rudolph (1947: 109). Isa 58:13 also apparently
refers to Sabbath trading. The rendering Geschft for pj is indeed appropriate.
Compare also Isa 58:13 where krd tw[ ,xpj tw[ and pj awxm are the equiv-
alents of ibtam epu, harrnum epu, and ibtam kadu, and mean carrying on
business, see Weinfeld (1982b: 278279, n. 18).
s.nn.+n .xr cinctvcisiox ix r 121
ation for the worker, but as a general day of abstention. Truly, we
must admit that the Sabbaths character in P is dierent from its
character in other sources. In the priestly circles, the Sabbath under-
went a process of sacralization appropriate to a class that was con-
cerned with the sacral aspects of peoples lives; therefore, it appears
here in a dierent light. In P the sanctication of the day is empha-
sized because the regulations are written from a priestly perspective.
This does not mean, however, that the essential nature of the Sabbath
in P is dierent from other sources. Wellhausens view that in early
times the Sabbath was a rest day only for the employee, and not
the employer, is challenged by Amos 8:5, because the food-sellers
and merchants described are employees not employers. Their occu-
pation does not involve any great exertion on their part, but they
are, nevertheless, very careful not to engage in it on the Sabbath.
Moreover, the Sabbath in Amos 8:5 bears the stamp of a day of
taboo and abstention and not a day of rest. The owners of store-
houses do not want to rest at all; what prevents them from selling
grain is the fear of a taboo. As in other areas, so with regard to the
Sabbath, Wellhausen was caught up by the concept of evolution and
sought to place the secular before the sacred. However, it is known
today that the development took place in the opposite direction: from
the sacred to the secular as conrmed by our ever-increasing knowl-
edge about the Ancient Near East (see for example von Soden: 1959).
The post-Wellhausen scholars discerned a number of facts that
tended to contradict his theory; their adherence to the Wellhausen
school made it impossible, however, for them to draw the appro-
priate conclusions. Thus, for example, Baentsch (1903: 182) argued
that originally the Sabbath was indeed ein kultischer Festtag but
that with cultural development in Israel the social and economic
signicance of the day was emphasized to the point that rest became
the essence of Sabbath observance; P, however, turned the clock
backwards. It is obvious that these circular arguments are the result
of the a priori assumption that D came before P. Actually, P reects
the earlier stage of kultischer Festtag. Wellhausen claimed that in
P we sense the late Sabbath as it took shape in the rabbinic halakah.
In Exod 16:23, Moses does not command that the Israelites bake
and cook for the following days consumption, but rather: whatever
you want to cook or bake today, bake and cook, and whatever is
left over after you have cooked and baked, leave aside for tomor-
row morning. On the contrary, the great miracle was that the raw
122 .rrrxrix
manna, which usually spoiled if any left over for the next day, did
not spoil if left over from Friday until the Sabbath (Noth 1959: 108).
The leftover portion remained, then, raw and not cooked (this is
also the view of Ibn-Ezra; see likewise the commentary of Nachmanides
on the passage in question), but one must not draw the conclusion
that they were enjoined from cooking manna on the Sabbath. The
priestly view of the Sabbath, is that the Sabbath is a day when all
creative work should cease insofar as God ceased and does cease
His creativity on this day. The sin of those who went out to gather
manna on the Sabbath was their lack of faith in God and in His
word
4
(cf. so that I might test him [v. 4])the same matter, with
reference to which the people, who disobeyed Moses and left the
manna until morning, failed (v. 20)not the gathering itself. Moses
does not say, Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day
you shall not gather, but rather but on the seventh day, which is
a Sabbath, there will be none (v. 26). The children of Israel were
supposed to believe that no manna would fall on that day. Thus,
their going out to gather it on the Sabbath meant a lack of faith in
God. The lesson of the passage is, therefore, theoretical and theo-
logical, and not practical or cultic (see von Rad 1957: 281). The
falling of the manna was, according to P, a kind of one-time test of
the children of Israel to determine whether they would be obedient
to Gods ordinances. Indeed, men of little faith were found, who did
not believe in the LORD and countermanded His instructions. In
this light one must also understand the verse: Let no man go out
of his place on the seventh day (v. 29). The intention is not that
the act of going out is forbidden, but rather that one should not go
out to gather manna as people did during the week.
5
4
See Mek. de-Rabbi Ishmael: On the seventh day some of the people went out
together, and they found nonethese were the faithless in Israel (Horovitz 1960: 169).
5
See the comment of Ibn-Ezra on the verse quoted: Let no man go out of
his place . . . to gather manna as did those, who went forth to gather. Even the
rabbis did not feel that the real meaning of this verse was to forbid going beyond
the Sabbath limit, for there were among them scholars who were of the opinion
that the Sabbath limit was an innovation of the scribes (see b. sota 30b, b. 'Erub.
35b). The prohibition against carrying between the private and public domain is
not in any wise derived from our verse but from Exod 36:6 (b. abb. 96b). There
is, then, no basis whatsoever for Beers assertion in his commentary (1939: 89) that
the Talmudic tractates Shabbat and Erubin and all their regulations are a devel-
opment of Exod 16:29. The views of the Samaritans, Karaites, and author of Jubilees
represent exaggerated notions, like their other stringencies in the Sabbath laws that
have no real scriptural support.
s.nn.+n .xr cinctvcisiox ix r 123
Wellhausen (1905: 110) sees support for the regulation of the rab-
binic halakah against cooking on the Sabbath in the interdiction
against kindling re in Exod 35:3. Already the rabbis (Mek. de-Rabbi
Ishmael on this verse and in the parallel passages in rabbinic litera-
ture) and also modern commentators (see Beer Galling 1939:
165167; Noth 1959: 221; Driver 1911: 379) have asked why the
kindling of re on the Sabbath is singled out by Scripture from
among the many things the Sabbath halakah forbids. Beer and Galling
correctly point out concerning this: Denn ob man am Sabbat
neugekochtes Essen oder nur Brot vom Tage zuvor isst, bedarf vor
Beginn des Zeltbaues keiner Regelung. Actually, this is not the only
verse that causes astonishment, for the very occurrence of the Sabbath
commandment within the description of the building of the Taber-
nacle seems strange to us. The fact is, however, that the author of
P does not come to teach us about the Sabbath in this context. The
Sabbath is mentioned here only to teach us that the building of the
Tabernacle does not take precedence over the Sabbath (see Cassutos
commentary on this verse, 1967: 454455). After the conclusion of
the instructions concerning the Tabernacle, the LORD commands
Israel concerning the observance of the Sabbath (Exod 31:1217),
and this command is repeated by Moses (35:13) before building
and erecting the Tabernacleall of this to warn the children of
Israel not to engage in the Tabernacles construction on the Sabbath.
Since the work involved in the Tabernacle was associated with the
casting of metals (silver, gold, bronze)something that requires the
kindling of reScripture found it proper to warn specically against
kindling re.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albeck 1952: .b"yt ylwry ,d[wm rds :hnm yrds h ,qbla j
Alt 1953: A. Alt, Die Ursprnge des israelitischen Rechts, in: Idem, Kleine Schriften
zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Volume 1, Munich 1953, pp. 278332.
Amir 1982: .m .m l tytdhw tytrbjh wtwghb ynwy[ :wyk[w ak" ,tsnkh tybw rbwb", rym['y
.114118 'm[ ,g"mt ylwry ,rbwb
Andersen Freedman 1980: F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24), New York 1980.
Aramaic Papyri 1923: Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (A. Cowley, ed.), Oxford
1923.
Artzi 1968: .791794 'm[ ,j"kt ylwry ,h tyarqm hydpwlqyxna ",hwn" ,yxra 'p
Avishur 1978: ",hytwmwjbw ry[h yr[b bywa awb t[l :tyrgwam l[bl hlypt" ,rwyba 'y
.254262 'm[ (f"lt), g wtn
Baentsch 1903: B. Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri (HKAT), Gttingen 1903.
Bar Ilan 1987: M. Bar Ilan, Magic Seals on the Body among Jews in the First
Centuries C.E., Tarbiz 57 (1987), pp. 3738 (Hebrew).
Barnikol 1957: E. Barnikol, Wellhausens Briefe aus seiner Greifswalder Zeit (1872
1879) an den anderen Heinrich Ewald-Schler Dillmann: Ein Beitrag zum Wellhau-
sen-Problem, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universitt, Halle-Wittenberg,
Ges.-Sprachw. 6/5 (1957), pp. 701712.
Baudissin 1895: W. W. Graf von Baudissin, August Dillmann, Leipzig 1895.
Beckman 1983: G. Beckman, Hittite Birth Rituals
2
(StBoT 29), Wiesbaden 1983.
Beer Galling 1939 G. Beer and K. Galling, Exodus (HAT 3), Tbingen 1939.
Ben David 196771: A. Ben David, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew (Hebrew),
Volumes 12, Tel Aviv 196771.
Bentzen 1948: A. Bentzen, Messias, Moses redivivus, Menschensohn: Skizzen zum Thema
Weissangung und Erfllung, Zrich 1948.
Bentzen 1952: A Bentzen, Daniel
2
(HAT 19), Tbingen 1952.
Bertholet 1896: A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden,
Freiburg 1896.
Bestman 1912: Bestman, J. Wellhausen, Der Alte Glaube 13 (1912), p. 245.
Biran 1974: A. Biran Tel Dan, BA 37 (1974), pp. 2651.
Blank 1940: S. H. Blank, Studies in Deutero-Isaiah, HUCA 15 (1940), pp. 146.
Blau Greeneld 1970 J. Blau and J. C. Greeneld, Ugaritic Glosses, BASOR
200 (1970), pp. 1117.
Blenkinsopp 1977: J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of
Jewish Origins, Notre Dame 1977.
Blenkinsopp 1980: J. Blenkinsopp, Response to William McKanes review of
J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins [ JSOT
12 (1979) 6369], JSOT 18 (1980), pp. 105107.
Boer 1956: P. A. H. de Boer, Second Isaiahs Message (OTS 11), Leiden 1956.
Bhl 1913: F. Bhl, arb, br als Terminus der Weltschpfung im alttestamentlichen
Sprachgebrauch, in: Alttestamentliche Studien (Fs. R. Kittel), Leipzig 1913, pp. 4260.
Borger 195960: R. Borger, Das Wunder Marduks, AfO 19 (195960), p. 113.
Boschwitz 1968: F. Boschwitz, Julius Wellhausen: Motive und Mass-stbe seiner Geschichts-
schreibung, Darmstadt 1968.
Bousset 1892: W. Bousset, Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum: Ein religiongeschicht-
licher Vergleich, Gttingen 1892.
125
126 ninrioon.rnv
Bousset Heitmller 1917: Bousset and Heitmller, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments:
Neu bersetzt und fr die Gegenwart erklrt, Gttingen 1917.
Braulik 1994: G. Braulik, Commemoration of Passion and Feast of Joy: Popular
Liturgy According to the Festival Calendar of the Book of Deuteronomy (Deut
16:117), in: Idem, The Theology of Deuteronomy (transl. by Ulrika Lindblad),
N. Richland Hills, Tex. 1994, pp. 6785.
Brunner 1957: H. Brunner, Altgyptische Erziehung, Wiesbaden 1957.
Buber Rosenzweig 1936: M. Buber and F. Rosenzweig, Die Schrift und ihre Verdeut-
schung, Berlin 1936.
Budde 1883: K. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 112,5), Giessen 1883.
Bull Campbell 1968: R. J. Bull and E. F. Campbell, The Sixth Campaign at
Balah (Shechem), BASOR 190 (1968), pp. 241.
Bull 1968: R. J. Bull, The Excavation of Tell er-Ras on Mt. Gerizim, BA 31
(1968), pp. 5872.
Caquot 1979: A. Caquot, Ras Shamra, Rituels, DBSupp 9, Paris 1979, cols.
14031411.
Carter 1962: C. W. Carter, Hittite Cult-Inventories (Diss. Univ. of Chicago), Chicago
1962.
Cary 1968: E. Cary (ed. and transl.) The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus
(LCL), Volume 1, London 1968.
Cassuto 1961: U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to
Noah (transl. by I. Abrahams), Jerusalem 1961.
Cassuto 1967: U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (transl. by I. Abrahams),
Jerusalem 1967.
Childs 1960: B. S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (SBT 27), London
1960.
Cliord 1971: R. J. Cliord The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting,
CBQ 33 (1971), pp. 221227.
Cross 1947: F. M. Cross, The Tabernacle: A Study from an Archaeological and
Historical Approach, BA 10 (1947), pp. 4568.
Cross 1950: F. M. Cross, Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testament,
BASOR 117 (1950), pp. 1921.
Cross 1953: F. M. Cross, The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah, JNES 12
(1953), pp. 274277.
Cross 1962: F. M. Cross, Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth-
Sixth Centuries B.C.: II. The Murabbat Papyrus and the Letter Found near
Yabneh-yam, BASOR 165 (1962), pp. 3446.
Cross 1973: F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the
Religion of Israel, Cambridge 1973.
Cross 1981: F. M. Cross, The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research,
in: A. Biran (ed.), Temples and High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium
in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem
1981, pp. 169180.
Cross 1984: F. M. Cross, Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus, IEJ 34 (1984),
pp. 260264.
Dandamajew 1969: M. A. Dandamajew, Der Templezehnte in Babylonien whrend
des 6.4. Jh. v. u. Z., in: R. Stiehl and H. E. Stier (eds), Beitrge zur Alten
Geschichte und deren Nachleben: Festschrift fr Franz Altheim, Berlin 1969, pp. 8290.
Darlow 1925: T. H. Darlow, William Robertson Nicoll: His Life and Letters, London
1925.
Day 1979: J. Day, The Destruction of the Shiloh Sanctuary and Jeremiah VII
12, 14, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament
(SVT 30), Leiden 1979, pp. 8794.
Delitzsch 1866: F. Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar ber den Prophet Jesaia, Leipzig 1866.
ninrioon.rnv 127
Dietrich Loretz 1969: M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, Beschriftete Lungen- und
Lebermodelle aus Ugarit, Ugaritica 6 (MRS 17), Paris 1969, pp. 165179.
Dillmann 1886: A. Dillmann, Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua
2
(KeH),
Leipzig 1886.
Dillmann 1892: A. Dillmann, Die Genesis
6
(KeH), Leipzig 1892.
Dillmann 1897: A. Dillmann, Die Bcher Exodus und Leviticus
3
(KeH), Leipzig 1897.
Dinol Darga 196970: A. M. Dinol and M. Darga, Die Feste von Karana,
Anatolica 3 (196970), pp. 99118.
Driver 1882: S. R. Driver, On some Alleged Linguistic Anities of the Elohist,
Journal of Philology 11 (1882), pp. 201236.
Driver 1891: S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, Edinburgh
1891.
Driver 1911: S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (CB), Cambridge 1911.
Duhm 1875: B. Duhm, Die Theologie der Propheten als Grundlage fr die innere Entwicklungs-
geschichte der israelitischen Religion, Bonn 1875.
Duhm 1892: B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (HKAT), Gttingen 1892.
Duhm 1914: B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia
3
(HKAT), Gttingen 1914.
Drr 1938: L. Drr, Die Wertung des gttlichen Wortes im Alten Testament und im antiken
Orient, Leipzig 1938.
Ebeling 1931: E. Ebeling, Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier, Berlin
1931.
Ehrlich 1968: A. B. Ehrlich, Jesaia, Jeremia (Randglossen zur hebrischen Bibel),
Hildesheim 1968.
Elliger 1949: K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwlf kleinen Propheten (ATD 2425), Gttingen
1949.
Elliger 1966: K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4), Tbingen 1966.
Ewald 184355: H. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus
3
, Vol. 17, Gttingen
184355
Falkenstein 1959: A. Falkenstein, akiti-Fest und akiti-Festhaus, in: R. von Kienle
et al. (eds), Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag am 27 August 1958 gewid-
met, Heidelburg 1959, pp. 147182.
Finkelstein 1961: J. J. Finkelstein, Ammis@aduqas Edict and the Babylonian Law
Codes, JCS 15 (1961), pp. 91104.
Finkelstein 1969: ,
2
twr[hw twasrg ypwlj [ yrbd rps l[ yrps ,yflqnyp 'yra 'a
.f"kt qrwyAwyn
Fishbane 1974: M. Fishbane, Accusations of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal
Practice in Numbers 5:1131, HUCA 45 (1974), pp. 2545.
Fishbane 1980: M. Fishbane, Biblical Colophons, Textual Criticism and Legal
Analogies, CBQ 42 (1980), pp. 438449.
Flusser 1979: .f"lt bybaAlt ,twsmw yrqjm :twrxnh twrwqmw twdhy ,rswlp 'd
Fohrer 1970: G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (transl. by D. Green), London
1970.
Frank 1909: C. Frank, Bemerkungen und Beitrge zur Kudurru-Forschung im
Anschluss an W. Hinke, A new boundary stone of Nebuchadrezzar I, ZA 22
(1909), pp. 98124.
Frankfort 1946: H. and H. A. Frankfort, Myth and Reality, in: H. and H. A.
Frankfort et al. (eds), Before Philosophy: The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man,
Chicago 1946, pp. 1136.
Freedman 1957: D. N. Freedman, The Prayer of Nabonidus, BASOR 145 (1957),
pp. 3132.
Friedman 1980: R. E. Friedman, The Tabernacle in the Temple, BA 43 (1980),
pp. 241248.
Galling 1950: K. Galling, Das Gemeindegesetz in Deuteronomium 23, in: W. Baum-
gartner et al. (eds), Festschrift Alfred Bertholet, Tbingen 1950, pp. 176191.
128 ninrioon.rnv
Garscha 1974: J. Garscha, Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung
von 139 (Europische Hochschulschriften 23), Frankfurt 1974.
Geiger 1928: A. Geiger, Urschrift und bersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhngigkeit von der
inner Entwicklung des Judentums
2
, Frankfurt am Main 1928.
Gemser 1955: B. Gemser, The Rb- or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,
in: M. Noth and D. W. Thomas (eds), Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East
(SVT 3), Leiden 1955, pp. 120137.
Gesenius Buhl 1921: W. Gesenius and F. Buhl, Hebrisches und aramisches Hand-
wrterbuch ber das Alte Testament, Leipzig 1921.
Gevaryahu 1957: H. M. I. Gevaryahu, The Qumran Fragment of the Prayer of
Nabonidus, in: J. Liver (ed.), Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew), Jerusalem
1957, pp. 1223.
Giesebrecht 1881: F. Giesebrecht, Zur Hexateuchkritik: Der Sprachgebrauch des
hexateuchischen Elohisten, ZAW 1 (1881), pp. 177276.
Ginsberg 1936: H. L. Ginsberg, The Ugaritic Texts (Hebrew), Jerusalem 1936.
Ginsberg 1969: H. L. Ginsberg, A Strand in the Cord of Hebraic Hymnody,
W. F. Albright Volume, EI 9 (1969), pp. 4550.
Ginzberg 1976: L. Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (transl.; Moreshet 1), New York
1976.
Goetze 1963: A. Goetze, Esarhaddons Inscription from the Inanna Temple in
Nippur, JCS 17 (1963), pp. 119131.
Gtze Pederson 1934: A. Gtze and H. Pederson, Murilis Sprachlhmung: Ein het-
hitischer Text, Copenhagen 1934.
Graetz 1887: H. Graetz, Judaism and Biblical Criticism, The Jewish Chronicle,
August 5, 1887, p. 9.
Greenberg 1951: M. Greenberg, Hebrew s
e
gull: Akkadian sikiltu, JAOS 71 (1951),
pp. 172174.
Greenberg 1959: M. Greenberg, The Biblical Conception of Asylum, JBL 78
(1959), pp. 125132.
Greenberg 1968: M. Greenberg, Idealism and Practicality in Numbers 35:45 and
Ezekiel 48, JAOS 88 (1968), pp. 5966.
Greeneld 1969: J. C. Greeneld, Some Glosses on the Keret Epic, EI, W. F.
Albright Volume, 9 (1969), pp. 6065.
Greenstein 2000: E. L. Greenstein, Recovering the Women Who Served at the
Entrance, in: G. Galil and M. Weinfeld (eds), Studies in Historical Geography and
Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zecharia Kallai (SVT 81), Leiden 2000, pp. 165173.
Grintz 1966: .117 'm[ 'm[ ,(w"kt) al wyx ",dh l[ wlkat al" ,nyrg m"y
Gruber 1969: M. Gruber, The Source of the Biblical Sabbath, JANESCU 1 (1969),
pp. 1420.
Gunkel 1921: H. Gunkel, Schpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit
2
, Gttingen 1921.
Gunkel 1922: H. Gunkel, Genesis
5
Gunkel 1926: H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen
4
Gunkel Begrich 1933: H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die
Gattungen der religisen Lyrik Israels, Gttingen 1933.
Gurney 1977: O. R. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, Oxford 1977.
Gterbock 1960: H. G. Gterbock, An Outline of the Hittite AN.TA.UM
Festival, JNES 19 (1960), pp. 8089.
Gterbock 1964: H. G. Gterbock, Religion und Kultus der Hethiter, Neuere
Hethiterforschung (Historia, Einzelschriften 7), Wiesbaden 1964, pp. 5473.
Gterbock 1970: H. G. Gterbock, Some Aspects of Hittite Festivals, in: Actes de
la XVII
e
Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Ham-sur-Heure 1970, pp. 175180.
Haas Wilhelm 1974: V. Haas and G. Wilhelm, Hurritische und luwische Riten aus
Kizzuwatna (AOATS 3), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974.
Haller 1923: M. Haller, Die Kyros-Lieder Deuterojesajas, in: H. Schmidt (ed.),
ninrioon.rnv 129
Eucharistrion: Studien zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Fs.
H. Gunkel, FRLANT 36), Volume 1, Gttingen 1923, pp. 261277.
Hallo 1962: W. W. Hallo, New Viewpoints on Cuneiform Literature, IEJ 12
(1962), pp. 1326.
Haran 1961: M. Haran, Studies in the Account of the Levitical Cities: I. Preliminary
Considerations, JBL 80 (1961), pp. 4554.
Haran complex, 1961: M Haran, The Complex of Ritual Acts Performed Inside
the Tabernacle, ScrHier 8 (1961), pp. 272302.
Haran 1962: M. Haran, Shiloh and Jerusalem: The Origin of the Priestly Tradition
in the Pentateuch, JBL 81 (1962), pp. 1424.
Haran 1963: rpsb twawbnh tbyfjb yrwfsyhw ytwrps rqjm :twdjl twnwar yb ,rh m
.gkt ylwry ,jm-m yqrp :why[y
Haran 1965: M. Haran, The Religion of the Patriarchs: An Attempt at a Synthesis,
ASTI 4 (1965), pp. 3055.
Haran 1978: M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the
Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Oxford 1978.
Haran 1980: ,ynhkh rwqmh l wnmz t[ybqlhyrwfsyhh l y[lqh yrwjam ,rh m
.112 m[ ,(t) hm wyx
Hasel 1968: G. F. Hasel, review of W. H. Schmidt, Die Schpfungsgeschichte der
Priesterschrift, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1967 in: BiOr 25 (1968), pp. 369371.
Heidel 1951: A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of the Creation
2
, Chicago
1951.
Heinemann 1945: I. Heinemann, The Election of Israel in the Bible, Sinai 16
(1945), pp. 1730 (Hebrew).
Heltzer 1976: M. Heltzer, The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit, Wiesbaden 1976.
Hempel 1954: J. Hempel, Priesterkodex, PW 22, Stuttgart 1954, cols. 19431967.
Herdner 1978: A. Herdner, Nouveaux textes alphabtiques de Ras Shamra
XXIV
e
campagne, 1961, Ugaritica 7 (MRS 18), Paris 1978, pp. 174.
Hermann 1961: S. Hermann, Die Naturlehre des Schpfungsberichtes: Erwgungen
zur Vorgeschichte von Genesis 1, TLZ 86 (1961), pp. 413424.
Hillers 1970: D. R. Hillers, Ugaritic npt Wave-Oering, BASOR 198 (1970), p. 42.
Homann 19023 : D. Homann, Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche
Hypothese, Berlin 19023.
Homann 19056: D. Homann, Das Buch Leviticus, Berlin 19056.
Honer 1965: H. A. Honer, The Elkunirsa Myth Reconsidered, RHA 23 (1965)
pp. 516.
Honer 1973a: H. A. Honer, Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near
East, Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his
Sixty-fth Birthday (AOAT 22), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, pp. 8190.
Honer 1973b: H. A. Honer, The Hittites and the Hurrians, in: D. J. Wiseman
(ed.), Peoples of Old Testament Times, Oxford 1973, pp. 197228.
Holzinger 1893: H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch, Freiburg 1893.
Horovitz 1960: H. S. Horovitz, Mechilta dRabbi Ismael, Jerusalem 1960.
Horst 1961: F. Horst, Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes, in: Idem, Gottes Recht:
Gesammelte Studien zum Recht im Alten Testament, Munich 1961, pp. 222234.
Humbert 1940: P. Humbert, tudes sur le rcit du paradis et de la chute dans la Gense,
Neuchatel 1940.
Hurowitz 1986: V. Hurowitz, Another Fiscal Practice in the Ancient Near East:
2 Kings 12:517 and a Letter to Esarhaddon (LAS 277), JNES 45 (1986), pp.
289294.
Hurvitz 1972: A. Hurvitz, The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew (Hebrew), Jerusalem
1972.
Hurvitz 1982: A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source
and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (CahRB 20), Paris 1982.
130 ninrioon.rnv
Japhet 1978: :wtb ",hrwtb yqwjh yxbq yb sjyh tlaw ydb[ rwrj yqwh" ,hpy '
fnwyl .a lawml ygwm :wmdqh jrzmbw arqmb yrqjm ,(ykrw[) walb 'yw rwyba 'y
.231250 'm[ ,j"lt ylwry ,hn y[b wl talmb
Junker 1940: H. Junker, Die Gtterlehre von Memphis, Berlin 1940.
Kapelrud 1964: A. S. Kapelrud, The Date of the Priestly Code (P), ASTI 3 (1964),
pp. 5864.
Kaufmann 1959: .f"yt ylwry ,'g'a yfpww [whyl awbm [ :[why rps ,mpywq 'y
Kaufmann HIR 193756: ylwry ,'j'a ykrk ,tylaryh hnwmah twdlwt ,mpywq 'y
.w"ft-z"xrt byba lt
Klein 1975: C. Klein, Theologie und Anti-Judaismus: Eine Studie zur deutschen theologischen
Literatur der Gegenwart, Munich 1975.
Knight 1982: D. A. Knight Julius Wellhausen His Prolegomena to the History of Israel,
Semeia 25 (1982).
Knohl 1987: I. Knohl, The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath
and the Festivals, HUCA 58 (1987), pp. 65117.
Khler 1923: L. Khler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 4055) stilkritisch untersucht (BZAW 37),
Giessen 1923.
Khler 1948: L. Khler, Die Grundstelle der Imago-Dei-Lehre, Genesis 1,26, TZ
4 (1948), pp. 1622.
Kraus 1960: F. R. Kraus, Ein zentrales Problem des altmesopotamischen Rechtes:
Was ist der Codex Hammu-rabi? Genava 8 (1960), pp. 283296.
Kraus 1961: H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen
2
, Volumes 12, Neukirchen 1961.
Kmmel 1967: H. M. Kmmel, Ersatzrituale fr den hethitischen Knig (StBoT 3),
Wiesbaden 1967.
Kutscher 1959: Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll
(Hebrew), Jerusalem 1959.
Labat 1935: R. Labat, Le pome babylonien de la cration, Paris 1935.
Lambert 1965: W. G. Lambert, A New Look at the Babylonian Background of
Genesis, JTS 16 (1965), pp. 287300.
Landsberger 1967: B. Landsberger, The Date Palm and its By-products according to the
Cuneiform Sources (AfO Beih. 17), Graz 1967.
Landsberger Wilson 1961: B. Landsberger and J. V. K. Wilson, The Fifth Tablet
of Enuma Eli, JNES 20 (1961), pp. 154179.
Langdon 1912: S. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Kniginschriften (VAB 4), Leipzig 1912.
Laroche 1971: E. Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites (tudes et commentaries 75),
Paris 1971.
Laroche 1974: E. Laroche, Les dnominations des dieux antiques dans le textes
hittites, in: K. Bittel et al. (eds), Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Gterbock
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Istanbul 1974, pp. 175185.
Laroche 1976: E. Laroche, Glossaire de la langue hourrite (RHA 34), Paris 1976.
Laroche 1980: E. Laroche, Glossaire de la langue hourrite (tudes et commentaries 93),
Paris 1980.
Lauterbach 1933: J. Z. Lauterbach (ed.), Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Volume 2, Philadelphia
1933.
Lebrun 1980: R. Lebrun, Hymnes et prires hittites (Homo Religiosus 4), Louvain-la-
Neuve, 1980.
Levine 1963: B. A. Levine, Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals, JCS 17 (1963), pp.
105111.
Levine 1965 : B. A. Levine, The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch,
JAOS 85 (1965), pp. 307318.
Levine 1969: ,(f"kt) y[yt rps ,fyyrblwa p"w rps ,lary-ra ",yrwpyk" ,ywl a"b
.8895 'm[
Levine 1974: B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic
Terms in Ancient Israel (SJLA 5), Leiden 1974.
ninrioon.rnv 131
Licht 1963: .460478 'm[ ,g"kt ylwry ,d tyarqm hydpwlqyxna ",yywl ,ywl" ,fkyl "y
Lieberman 1950: S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary
Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.IV Century C.E.
(Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America), New York
1950.
Liebeschtz 1967: H. Liebeschtz, Das Judentum im deutschen Geschichtsbild von Hegel
bis Max Weber, Tbingen 1967.
Loewenstamm 195758: 'm[ ,(h"yt) zk ybrt ",lxb arbn da bybj" ,fnwyl a"
.12
Loewenstamm 1958: ,t"yt ylwry ,g tyarqm hydpwlqyxna ",yrpkh wy" ,fnwyl a"
.595600 'm[
Loewenstamm 1964: wnnl ",yarqmhw ytyrgwah zwrjb tbjrwmh [lxh" ,fnwyl a"
.111126 'm[ ,(d"kt) jk-zk
Loewenstamm 1965: 'm[ ,j"yt ylwry ,g tyarqm hydpwlqyxna ",lbwy" ,tnwyl a"
.582587
Loewenstamm 1976: 'm[ ,w"lt ylwry ,z tyarqm hydpwlqyxna ",r" ,tnwyl a"
.437441
Loewenstamm 1987: .z"mt ylwry ,htwllthb yrxm tayxy trwsm ,fnwyl a"
Luzzatto 1867: S. D. Luzzatto, Il profeta Isaia: Volgarizzato e commentato ad uso deglis-
raeliti, Padova 1867. tyrb[ rwpmw tyqlfya grwtm :hy[y rps
Malamat 19501: A. Malamat, The Historical Setting of Two Biblical Prophecies
on the Nations, IEJ 1 (19501), pp. 149159.
Malamat 1968: A. Malamat, King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical
Genealogies, JAOS 88 (1968), pp. 163173.
Malamat 1970: A. Malamat, The Danite Migration and the Pan-Israelite Exodus-
Conquest: A Biblical Narrative Pattern, Biblica 51 (1970), pp. 116.
Mazar 1960: B. Mazar, The Cities of the Priests and the Levites, in: Congress
Volume: Oxford 1959 (SVT 7), Leiden 1960, pp. 193205.
Mazar 1981: B. Mazar, The Early Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country, BASOR
241 (1981), pp. 7585.
McCarthy 1969: D. J. McCarthy, Symbolism of Blood and Sacrice, JBL 88
(1969), pp. 166176.
McKane 1979: W. McKane, review of J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution
to the Study of Jewish Origins, Notre Dame and London 1977 in: JSOT 12 (1979),
pp. 6369.
Meier 194144: G. Meier, Die zweite Tafel der 2 Serie bt mseri, AfO 14 (194144),
pp. 139152.
Meissner 1925: B. Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien (Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek
1/4), Volume 2, Heidelburg 1925.
Melamed 1945: E. Z. Melamed, Hendiadys (n da duon) in the Bible, Tarbiz 16
(1945), pp. 173189 (Hebrew).
Mendenhall 1958: G. E. Mendenhall, The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26,
JBL 77 (1958), pp. 5266.
Meyer 1896: E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums: Eine historische Untersuchung, Halle
1896.
Meyer 1897: E. Meyer, Julius Wellhausen und meine Schrift: Die Entstehung des Judentums
Halle 1897.
Meyer 1962: R. Meyer, Das Gebet des Nabonid: Eine in den Qumran-Handschriften wieder-
entdeckte Weisheitserzhlung (Sitzungsberichte der Scsischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften zu Leipzig; Phil-Hist. Kl. 107/3), Berlin 1962.
Milgrom 1970a: J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, I: The Encroacher and the
Levite. The Term 'Aboda (Near Eastern Studies 14), Berkeley 1970.
Milgrom 1970b: J. Milgrom, The Shared Custody of the Tabernacle and a Hittite
Analogy, JAOS 90 (1970), pp. 204209.
132 ninrioon.rnv
Milgrom 1971: J. Milgrom, A Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11, JBL 90 (1971),
pp. 149156.
Milgrom Sin 1971: J. Milgrom, Sin-Oering or Purication-Oering? VT 21
(1971), pp. 237239.
Milgrom 197172: .18 m[ (a"lt) m ybrt ",tafjh brq dyqpt" ,wrglym 'y
Milgrom 1976: J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of
Repentance (SJLA 18), Leiden 1976.
Milgrom 1978: ,(j"lt) dy lary-ra ",yrbd rps l wytwrwqml jtpm tjswn" ,wrglym 'y
.4247 'm[
Milgrom 1983: J. Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (SJLA 36), Leiden
1983.
Milgrom 1991: J. Milgrom, Leviticus 116: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB 3), New York 1991.
Milik 1956: J. T. Milik, Prire de Nabonide et autres crits dun cycle de Daniel,
RB 63 (1956), pp. 407415.
Moore 1921: G. F. Moore, Christian Writers on Judaism, HTR 14 (1921, reprint
in 1968), pp. 197254.
Moore 1927: G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age
of Tannaim, Volume 1, Cambridge 1927.
Moran 1962: W. L. Moran, A Kingdom of Priests, in: J. L. McKenzie (ed.), The
Bible in Current Catholic Thought, New York 1962, pp. 720.
Morenz 1960: S. Morenz, gyptische Religion, Stuttgart 1960.
Morgenstern 1943: J. Morgenstern, Deutero-Isaiahs Terminology for Universal
God, JBL 62 (1943), pp. 269280.
Mowinckel 192124: S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, Volumes 14, Kristiania 192124.
Mowinckel 1923: S. Mowinckel, Zu Dt. 23,29, AcOr 1 (1923), pp. 81104.
Mowinckel 1962: S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israels Worship (transl. by D. R. Ap-
Thomas), Volumes 12, Oxford 1962.
Muilenburg 1956: J. Muilenburg, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 4066, Introduction and
Exegesis (IB 5), Nashville 1956.
Naveh 1960: J. Naveh, A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C., IEJ
10 (1960), pp. 129139.
Nielsen 1986: K. Nielsen, Incense in Ancient Israel (SVT 38), Leiden 1986.
Nldeke 1869: T. Nldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, Kiel 1869.
Nldeke 1908: T. Nldeke, Neue jdische Papyri, ZA 21 (1908), pp. 195205.
North 1952: C. R. North, Isaiah 4055: Introduction and Commentary (TBC), London
1952.
North 1964: C. R. North, The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation and Commentary to
Chapters XLLV, Oxford 1964.
Noth 1930: M. Noth, Das System der zwlf Stmme Israels (BWANT 4/1), Stuttgart
1930.
Noth 1948: M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948.
Noth 1959: M. Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus (ATD 5), Gttingen 1959.
Noth 1966: M. Noth, The Laws in the Pentateuch: Their Assumptions and
Meanings, in: Idem, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (transl. by D. R.
Ap-Thomas), London 1966, pp. 1107.
Nyberg 1938: H. S. Nyberg, Die Religionen des alten Iran (MVAG), Leipzig 1938.
Olmo Lete 1989: G. del Olmo Lete, El sacricio de expiacin nacional en Ugarit
(KTU 1.40 y par.), in: La Paraula al Servei dels Homes: XXV Jornades de biblistes
catalans (19631985), Barcelona 1989, pp. 4656.
Oppenheim 1947: A. L. Oppenheim, A Fiscal Practice of the Ancient Near East,
JNES 6 (1947), pp. 116120.
Otten 1953a: H. Otten, Ein kanaanischer Mythus aus Bo<azky, MIO 1 (1953)
pp. 125150.
ninrioon.rnv 133
Otten 1953b: H. Otten, Luvische Texte in Umschrift (Deutsche Akademie der Wissen-
schaften zu Berlin, Institute fr Orientforschung 17), Berlin 1953.
Otten 1956: H. Otten, Ein Text zum Neujahrsfest aus Bo<azky, OLZ 51 (1956),
pp. 101105.
Otten 1958: H. Otten, Hethitisch Totenrituale (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften
zu Berlin, Institute fr Orientforschung 37), Berlin 1958.
Otten 1961: H. Otten, Ein Beschwrung der Unterirdischen aus Bo<azky, ZA
54 (1961) pp. 114157.
Otto 1952: E. Otto, gyptisches Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, in: Handbuch der
Orientalistik: Erster Band, gyptologie; zweiter abschnitt, Literatur, Leiden 1952, pp.
220226.
Paquda 1962: hdwhy 'r :tyrb[l wgrt) twbblh twbwj trwt rps ,l"xz swy r"b yyjb 'r
.b"kt ylwry ,(hazmyyj j"m :tylgnal wgrt) ,wbj ba
Paul 1970: S. M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and
Biblical Law (SVT 18), Leiden 1970.
Perlitt 1965: L. Perlitt, Vatke und Wellhausen: Geschichtsphilosophische Voraussetzungen und
historiographische Motive fr die Darstellung der Religion und Geschichte Israels durch Wilhelm
Vatke und Julius Wellhausen (BZAW 94), Berlin 1965.
Pitron Torah 1978: .j"lt ylwry ,ywrypw yrdm fwqly :hrwt wrtp rps ,brwa a"a
Popko 1980: M. Popko,
GI
ZA.LAM.GAR in den hethitischen religisen Texten,
Rocznik Orientalistyczny 41 (1980), pp. 101104.
Porten 1969: B. Porten, The Religion of the Jews of Elephantine in Light of the
Hermopolis Papyri, JNES 28 (1969), pp. 116121.
Procksch 1967: O. Procksch, The Word of God in the Old Testament, TDNT
4, Grand Rapids 1967, pp. 91100.
PRU III: J. Nougayrol, Le Palais royal dUgarit, III: textes accadiens et hourrites des Archives
Est, Ouest et Centrales (MRS 6), Paris 1955.
PRU V: C. Virolleaud, Le Palais royal dUgarit, V: Textes en cuniformes alphabtiques des
Archives Sud, Sud-Ouest et du Petit Palais (MRS 11), Paris 1965.
Quell 1939: G. Quell, Die Erwhlung im AT, TWNT 4, Stuttgart 1939, pp.
148173.
Rad 1934: G. von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch: Literarisch untersucht und theolo-
gisch gewertet (BWANT 65), Stuttgart 1934.
Rad 1957: G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, Band I: Die Theologie der geschichtlichen
berlieferungen Israels, Munich 1957.
Rad 1966: G. von Rad, There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God: An
Investigation of a Biblical Conception, in: Idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and
Other Essays (transl. by E. W. T. Dicken), New York 1966, pp. 94102.
Rad 1972: G. von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis
9
(ATD 24), Gttingen 1972.
Rahlfs 1914: A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der Schriften Julius Wellhausens, in: K. Marti,
Studien zur semitischen Philologie und Religionsgeschichte: Julius Wellhausen zum siebzigsten
Geburtstag (BZAW 27), Geissen 1914, pp. 351368.
Rainey 1967: .z"kt ylwry ,tyrgwab hrbjh hnbm ,ynyyr p"a
Rainey 1970: A. F. Rainey, The Order of Sacrices in Old Testament Ritual
Texts, Biblica 51 (1970), pp. 485498.
Ridderbos 1958: N. H. Ridderbos, Genesis i 1 und 2, OtSt 12 (1958), pp. 214260.
Rosenfeld 1983: B. Rosenfeld, The Activity of Rabbi Simlai: A Chapter in the
Relations Between Eretz Israel and the Diaspora in the Third Century, Zion 48
(1983), pp. 227339 (Hebrew).
Rot Gerson 1976: L. Rot Gerson, God-fearers in Jewish Inscriptions from Sardis,
in: Eshel Beer Sheba, Volume 1, Jerusalem 1976, pp. 8893 (Hebrew).
Rothstein 1908: J. W. Rothstein, Juden und Samaritener: Die grundlage Scheidung von
Judentum und Heidentum. Eine kritische Studie zum Buche Haggai und zur jdischen Geschichte
im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhundert (BWAT 3), Leipzig 1908.
134 ninrioon.rnv
Rudolph 1949: W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia samt 3. Esra (HAT 20), Tbingen
1949.
Rudolph 1976: W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja IVIII, Sacharja IX-XIV, Maleachi (KAT
13/4), Gtersloh 1976.
Salonen 1972: Erkki Salonen, ber den Zehnten im alten Mesopotamien: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der Besteuerung (Studia Orientalia 43), Helsinki, 1972.
Sanders 1977: E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, London 1977.
Schechter 1997: yjsnh yb twlybqml ynwyx [ rfk z" trwdhm tn yrbd twba
.z"nt qrwy wyn ,(rw[ ,rfsyq jnm) ylym twmdqa" twpswtb rfk trwdhmb twpswtlw
Schmidt 1964: W. H. Schmidt, Die Schpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift (WMANT 17),
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964.
Schuler 1965: E. von Schuler, Die Kaker: Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des alten Kleinasien
(UAVA 3), Berlin 1965.
Schrer 1973: E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ,
Volumes 13, rev. and ed. G. Vermes et al., Edinburgh 197387.
Schwally 1906: F. Schwally, Die biblischen Schpfungsberichte, ARW 9 (1906),
pp. 159175.
Schwartz 1938: B. Schwartz, The Hittite and Luwian Ritual of Zarpiya of
Kezzuwatna, JAOS 58 (1938), pp. 334353.
Seeligmann 1954: .546549 'm[, d"yt ylwry ,b tyarqm hydpwlqyxna ",rg" ,mgylz a"y
Seeligmann 196061: wk wyx ",tyarqmh hyprgwyrwfsyhb yygwlwyfya twdwsy" ,mgylz a"y
.141169 'm[ ,(a"kt)
Seeligmann 1978: ",wtbjm lw[bw arqmh yqwjb tybyrw twbr[ ,hawwlh" ,mgylz a"y
.a lawml ygwm :wmdqh jrzmbw arqmb yrqjm ,(ykrw[) walb 'yw rwyba 'y :wtb
.183206 'm[ ,j"lt ylwry ,hn y[b wl talmb fnwyl
Silberman 1982: L. H. Silberman, Wellhausen and Judaism, Semeia 25 (1982), pp.
7582.
Singer 1983: I. Singer, The Hittite KI.LAM Festival, Part 1, (StBoT 27), Wiesbaden
1983.
Skinner 1896: J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah with Introduction and Notes (CB),
Volumes 12, Cambridge 189698.
Skinner 1930: J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis
2
(ICC),
Edinburgh 1930.
Smend 1981: R. Smend, Wellhausen in Greifswald, ZTK 78 (1981), pp. 141176.
Smend 1982: R. Smend, Julius Wellhausen and his Prolegomena to the History of
Israel, Semeia 25 (1982), pp. 120.
Smend 1982: R. Smend, Wellhausen und das Judentum, ZTK 79 (1982), pp.
249282.
Smith 1918: G. A. Smith, The Book of Deuteronomy (CB), Cambridge 1918.
Smith 1945: .h"t ylwry ,(rwfqwd tdwb[) yanth twrpsl twrwbh yb twlybqm ,tyms 'm
Soden 1935: W. von Soden, Eine babylonische Volksberlieferung von Nabonid
in den Danielerzhlungen, ZAW 53 (1935), pp. 8189.
Soden 1959: W. von Soden, Religise Unsicherheit Skularisierungstendenzen und
Aberglaube zur Zeit der Sargoniden, in: Studia Biblica et Orientalia (Analecta Biblica
12), Rome 1959, pp. 356367.
Soden 1983: W. von Soden, Kyros und Nabonid: Propaganda und Gegenpropa-
ganda, in: H. Koch and D. N. MacKenzie (eds), Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte der
Achmenidenzeit und ihr Fortleben (Archologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, Ergnzungsband
10), Berlin 1983, pp. 6168.
Sommer Ehelolf 1924: F. Sommer and H. Ehelolf, Das hethitische Ritual des Ppanikri
Komana (KBo V 1 = Bo 2001) (Boghazki-Studien 10), Leipzig 1924.
Speiser 1960: E. A. Speiser, Leviticus and the Critics, in: M. Haran (ed.), Yehezkel
Kaufmann Jubilee Volume: Studies in Bible and Jewish Religion Dedicated to Yehezkel Kaufmann
on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, Jerusalem 1960, pp. 2945.
ninrioon.rnv 135
Speiser People, 1960: E. A. Speiser, People and Nation of Israel, JBL 79
(1960), pp. 157163.
Speiser 1963: E. A. Speiser, Unrecognized Dedication, IEJ 13 (1963), pp. 6973.
Speiser 1964: E. A. Speiser, Genesis
2
(AB 1), New York 1964.
Stade 1905: B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, Volume 1, Tbingen
1905.
Stengel 1920: P. Stengel, Die griechischen Kultusaltertmer
3
, Munich 1920.
Stengel 1972: P. Stengel, Opferbrauche der Griechen, Berlin 1910, reprint Stuttgart 1972.
Streck 1916: M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Knige bis zum untergange
Ninivehs (VAB 7), Volume 2, Leipzig 1916.
Sturtevant Bechtel 1935: E. H. Sturtevant and G. Bechtel, A Hittite Chrestomathy,
Philadelphia 1935.
Tadmor 1961: H. Tadmor, Azriyau of Yaudi, ScrHier 8 (1961), pp. 232271.
Tadmor 1976: ym[ ,wyylt ylwry ,ztyarqm hydpwlqyxna yy,hnh aryy ,rwmdt yj
.301312
Talmon 1953: S. Talmon, The Sectarian djyA Biblical Noun, VT 3 (1953),
pp. 133140.
Talmon 1963: S. Talmon, Wisdom in the Book of Esther, VT 13 (1963), pp.
419455.
Talmon 1964: S. Talmon, The New Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century
B.C. in Historical Perspective, BASOR 176 (1964), pp. 2938.
Tarragon 1980: J. M. de Tarragon, Le Culte Ugarit daprs les texts de la pratique en
cuniformes alphabtiques, (CahRB 19) Paris 1980.
Thackeray 1926: H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Life. Against Apion (LCL), Volume
1, London 1926.
Theodor Albeck 1965: ylwry ,1-3 ykrk ,
2
tyarb rdm ,qbla 'jw rwdwayt 'y
.h"kt
Thureau-Dangin 1921: F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, Paris 1921.
Tigay 1976: .504517 ym[ ,wyylt ylwry ,z tyarqm hydpwlqyxna yy,tbyy ,yagyf jyyy
Tov 1984: E. Tov, The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the Alterations Inserted
into the Greek Pentateuch and Their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX,
JSJ 15 (1984), pp. 6589.
Tur-Sinai 1955: 'm[ ,w"ft ylwry ,a tyarqm hydpwlqyxna ",jrza" ,ynys-rwf h"n
.188189
Uenheimer 1963: B. Uenheimer, History and Eschatology in the Book of Micah,
Bet Mikra 7 (1963), pp. 4865 (Hebrew).
Urbach 1975: E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (transl. by I. Abrahams),
Volumes 12, Jerusalem 1975.
van Driel 1969: G. van Driel, The Cult of Aur, Assen 1969.
Vaux 1961: R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (transl. by J. McHugh),
London 1961.
Virolleaud 1968: J. Virolleaud, Les nouveaux textes mythologiques et liturgiques
de Ras Shamra XXIV
e
Campagne, 1961, Ugaritica 5 (MRS 16), Paris 1968, pp.
545595.
Volten 1945: A. Volten, Zwei altgyptische politische Schriften (AAeg 4), Copenhagen 1945.
Volz 1932: P. Volz, Jesaia II (KAT 9/2), Leipzig 1932.
Waterman 19301936: L. Waterman, Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire,
Volumes 14, Ann Arbor 19301936.
Weinfeld 1961: M. Weinfeld, The Origin of the Humanism in Deuteronomy,
JBL 80 (1961), pp. 241247.
Weinfeld 1962: al ybrt ",yrbd rpsb jlwphw twhlah tsyptb hnpmh" ,dlpnyyw 'm
.117 'm[ ,(b"kt)
Weinfeld 1963: 'm[ ,(r"kt) ak dlwm ",mpywq laqzjy l tyarqmh wtnm" ,dlpnyyw 'm
.432437
136 ninrioon.rnv
Weinfeld 1964a: ",nhs ynpl t[ybh hamb laryb tymwalh h[dwth twrr[th ,dlpnyyw 'm
ylwry ,yn [bw y[b wl talmb wywrwg-b dwdl gwm "ntb yrqjm bwq :wtb
.396420 'm[ ,d"kt
Weinfeld 1964b: ,(r"kt) j arqm tyb ",wl hxwjmw laryb qwjh tsyptl" ,dlpnyyw 'm
.5863 'm[
Weinfeld 1968: zl ybrt ",ynh why[y tawbnbw a tyarbb arwbh lah" ,rlpnyyw 'm
.105132 'm[ ,(j"kt)
Weinfeld 1969: M. Weinfeld, Theological Currents in Pentateuchal Literature,
PAAJR 37, New York 1969, pp. 117139.
Weinfeld 1970: M. Weinfeld, The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and
in the Ancient Near East, JAOS 90 (1970), pp. 184203.
Weinfeld 1971a: M. Weinfeld, Pentateuch, EJ 13, Jerusalem 1971, cols. 231261.
Weinfeld 1971b: M. Weinfeld, Tithe, EJ 15, Jerusalem 1971, cols. 11561162.
Weinfeld 1971c: 'm[ b"lt ylwry ,w tyarqm hydpwlqyxna ",br br[ ,br[" ,dlpnyyw 'm
.361362
Weinfeld 1972: M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972.
Weinfeld Brit 1972: laryb twjtpth ylwglgw yjnwmh'dsjhw tyrbh' " ,dlpnyyw 'm
.85105 'm[ ,(b"lt) wl wnnwl ",qyt[h lw[bw
Weinfeld 1973: M. Weinfeld, The Origin of the Apodictic Law: An Overlooked
Source, VT 23 (1973), pp. 6375.
Weinfeld 1975: (wlt) a wtn ,rwa lm wrjrsa l ylaswh t[bh ,dlpnyyw m.
89122 m[
Weinfeld 1977: M. Weinfeld, Judge and Ocer in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient
Near East, IOS 7 (1977), pp. 6588.
Weinfeld 1979: fwqly ",yrbd rpsb jlwphw twhlah tsyptb hnpmh" ,dlpnyyw 'm
.2441 'm[ ,(f"lt) ,arqm rqjb harqym :a "ybrt"
Weinfeld 1981a: M. Weinfeld, Old TestamentThe Discipline and Its Goals, in:
J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Vienna 1980 (SVT 32), Leiden 1981, pp.
423434.
Weinfeld 1981b: M. Weinfeld, Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronment of the
LordThe Problem of the Sitz im Lebem of Genesis 1:12:3, in: A Caquot,
M. Delcor (AOAT 212), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, pp. 501512.
Weinfeld 1982a: (eds) Mlanges bibliques et orientaux en lhonneur de M. Henri Cazelles,
(AOAT 212) Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag (1981), 501512 ,dlpnyyw 'm
djyh rs tlygm) la djyb nwhw jwk t[d lwk wayby wtmal ybdnh lkw"
ryam [whyl wrkz rps :arqmb ynwy[ ,(rw[) rmyyhnpwa 'b :wtb ",(12 hrw ,1 d)
.3741 'm[ ,b"mt byba-la ,nyrg
Weinfeld 1982b: M. Weinfeld, A Comparison of a Passage from the ama Hymn
(lines 6578) with Psalm 107, (AfO Beih. 19), Graz 1982, pp. 275279.
Weinfeld 1983a: M. Weinfeld, Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source
against their Ancient Near Eastern Background, Proceedings of the Eighth World
Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem 1983, pp. 95129.
Weinfeld 1983b: M. Weinfeld, The Extent of the Promised LandThe Status of
Transjordan, in: G. Strecker (ed.), Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit, Gttingen
1983, pp. 5975.
Weinfeld 1983c: M. Weinfeld, Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital:
Ideology and Utopia, in: R. E. Friedman (ed.), The Poet and the Historian: Essays
in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (HSS 26), Chico 1983, pp. 75115.
Weinfeld 1988: M. Weinfeld, The Pattern of the Israelite Settlement in Canaan,
in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986 (SVT 40), Leiden 1988,
pp. 270283.
Weinfeld 1993: M. Weinfeld, Traces of Hittite Cult in Shiloh, Bethel and in
Jerusalem, in: B. Janowski et al. (eds), Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen
Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament (OBO 129) Gttingen 1993, pp. 455472.
ninrioon.rnv 137
Weinfeld 1995a: M. Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near
East, Jerusalem 1995.
Weinfeld 1995b: M. Weinfeld, Review: The Old and New Testaments: Their
Relationship and the Intertestamental Literature, Princeton Seminary Bulletin 14,
1 (1995), pp. 8890.
Wellesz 1906: J. Wellesz, Neutestamentliche Studien, OLZ 9 (1906), pp. 538545.
Wellhausen 1871: J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bcher Samuelis, Gttingen 1871.
Wellhausen 1874: J. Wellhausen, Die Phariser und die Sadducer: Eine Untersuchung zur
inneren jdischen Geschichte, Greifswald 1874.
Wellhausen 1881: J. Wellhausen, Israel, in: The Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume
XIII, London 1881, pp. 369431.
Wellhausen 1885: J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (transl. by J. Black
and A. Menzies), Edinburgh 1885.
Wellhausen 1889: J. Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Volume 4, Berlin 1889.
Wellhausen 1905: J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels
6
, Berlin 1905.
Wellhausen 1914: J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und jdische Geschichte
7
, Berlin 1914.
Wellhausen 1963: J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten
4
, Berlin 1963.
Westermann 1974: C. Westermann. Genesis 111 (BKAT 1/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn
1974.
Wette 1805: W. M. L. de Wette, Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a pri-
oribus Pentateuchi libris diversum, Jena 1805.
Wilamowitz-Moellendor 1928: U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendor, Erinnerungen,
18481914
2
, Leipzig 1928.
Wildberger 1965: H. Wildberger, Das Abbild Gottes, (Gen. 1,2630), TZ 21
(1965), pp. 245259, 481501.
Wilson 1955: J. A. Wilson, An Egyptian Letter, in: ANET
2
, Princeton 1955, pp.
475479.
Xella 1981: P. Xella, I Testi Rituali Di Ugarit I, Roma 1981.
Yadin 1977: .z"lt ylwry ,13 ykrk ,dqmh tlygm ,ydy 'y
Yalon 1967: .z"kt ylwry ,wl yrbd :hdwhy rbdm twlygm ,wly 'h
Yalon 1971: ."lt ylwry ,wl yqrp ,wly 'h
Yaron 1961: R. Yaron, The Law of the Elephantine Documents, Jerusalem 1961.
Zevit 1982: Z. Zevit, Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P,
ZAW 94 (1982), pp. 481511.
INDEX
Akk.ri.x
139
aktu 47f, 53
ana dari 32
ana mudabiri 49
andurrum 61f
Annunaku 47
dinnu 50
edqu 48
erretu 42f
harrnum epu 120
i-nam-din mil-ku 108
ina durri u 62
kabittu, kabitti 116
kummukku lu nubattani
I nuapi qerebu 100
kuppuru, kapru 48, 78
kutru/kultru 41
libbu, libbi 116
lu-ba-u 103
lumu, lu-ma-u 103
mmtu 43
mamau 48
melammu 79
marum 46, 61f
mudabiri (see ana mudabiri)
muntam 53
muulu 107, 114
nuu libbi 116
nuppu kabitti 116
parak imti 52
piu rab 58
qtam mull 59
almu 107
ibtam epu 120
ibtam kadu 120
amnu bu 46
ang rab 58
itaalu 36
ulmnu 37
Timat 105
Eovr+i.x
ntj 107
tpw 44
sb n st 44
Gnrrk
aresthria 47
dinoia 11
dnamiw 12
ntolh 11f
isxuw 11f
nomikow 11
sunesiw 11
snnw.f 105
twt 107
Hrnnrv
lha 24
d[{m lha 24, 40, 41
km/lha 19, 40
rwa 110, 114
ymtw yrwa 96
jrza 91, 93
ja 91
lka 27
hnwma 9
a 17, 42,
46f
rjb 91
WEINFELD_index_138-157 2/4/04 9:47 AM Page 139
140 ixrrx
tyb 19, 24
hwhy tyb 19
arb 103, 110
rb lk, rb 110
lag 110
lwdg ywg 64
wdq ywg 89f
rg 9194
yr[b ra rg 45
hrwt rwd 11
pnh awh dh ,d 22
twmd 107, 110,
114
t[d 11
rwrd 62
ldbh 91
lkyh 19
jbz 16, 29, 42
hjpm jbz 45
h[wrt wrkz 52
hrpk mz 45
ysah gj 56
ggj 55
trdl . . . lw[ tqwj 23
brwj 36
tafj 17, 26f,
42, 44, 46
pn tafj 27
lwj, lj 55
lylj 55
hpj 24
pj 120
j 110, 113
axy lbwyb ,lbwy 62
wrkz wy 52
y 105
rxy 11
dwbk 24
yh dwbk 79
lwdg hk 58
hnwwk 11
rwpyk wy ,rwpyk 46
gj dqth lylk 55
llk 11
pn l[ rpk 45
rwpyk, hrpk 50, 78
twrpk 50
trk 87, 93
bl 11
tywl 105
dymth jl 84
tb ynpl 120
dam 11f
wyx trbm 115
hrwt rdm 11
d[wm 24
kytwbwm lkb ,twbwm 91
hnjm 19, 25
dy alym 59
waxy yxljm yklmw ,lm 64
hklmm 90
l[m 47
waryt ydqm 87
arqm 24
dq arqm 83
lm 80
trmm 31
hlbn 88f, 92
hbdn 46
hwn 24
jnyw ,jwn 116
hljn 32
hljn 60
ydbl ym hfn 115
dryw ym fyw ,hfn 115
qysh ,qsn 44
pn 27
pnyw ,pn 98, 116
an 44
ayn 57
yayn 25f
twkws 52, 54
hks 24
twks 29
qls 44
hdwb[ 31
lary td[ 82
hd[ ,td[ 25, 43
hlw[ 16f, 27, 42
lzaz[ 47
ypy[ 116
ry[l wjm/ry[ 25
k l[ 99
hl[ 44
hlgs [ 89
wdq [ 88
trx[ 54
twsyp 54
abx lk ,abx 110
lyakw ybxk ,ykx 22
wyht ywdq 89
tdqthw ,dq 89
trfq 27f
hnyq 80
hnh ar 52
tyar 110
hwhy jwr 110
wr 44
ixrrx 141
[qr 110
wtb 83
rpw 52
jl 49
yml 28
yml 44
hfym 61
bwfh m 46
kyr[b ,r[ 91
wht 110, 113
whbw wht 114
wht 105, 112,
113
hrwt pwt 11
bwt 91
hpwnt 46
ynt 105
Hi++i+r
ambai 37, 44
ambai takula 42
dusk 56
Elkunira 41
enumae 38, 44
aliyattalle 58
aratar 43f
hurtiya 42
iiul 36f
karimnale 58
karuilies siunes 47
keldi, keldiya 37, 42
kutrueni 43
nakui 43, 49f
Ppanikri 38f
puhugarin 37
punuk 36
alli aear 41
aklai 36
akuwaaran 35
takula 42
tarpalli 50
tarpaa 50
TI-tar memai 52
watula 42
Htnni.x
ananei 43
arni 43
aapi 43
elami 43
uwalzi 43
itkalzi 43
kibie 43
parili 43f
adandi 43
idarni 43
unii 43
zurgi 43
Stvrni.x
ama-ra-gi 62
AN.TA.UM 53
GI.GID 56
.DG.GA 46
L.ME .DINGIR-lim 58
MU.SAG 52
GI
ZA.LAM.GAR 41
Uo.ni+ic
in ilm 47
ap 45
ap np 44
gr myt ugrt 45
t 45
db k.sprt 37
d, b ym d sl 45
ll, mllm 56
tp 44
ym mlat 45, 53
ynt, ynt qrt 46
lm, lmm 37, 44
142 ixrrx
npt 46
rp 44
mlk, w l mlk 56
sl ap 45
sl np 27, 45
srm 46
pr md 41
qd yr, wqd yr 56
qny r, El qny r 41
qr 41
qrt np 45
rb khnm 58
r, yr mlk brr 48
rpi ar 47
rpim qdmnym 47
46
tr 46
REFERENCES FROM ANCIENT NEAR
EASTERN DOCUMENTS
Akk.ri.x
143
Enuma Eli I:35
(ANET 61 Speiser) 113
Enuma Eli II:76 116
Enuma Eli IV:1928
Enuma Eli V:119130
Enuma Eli VI:2,37 (Heidel) 108
Enuma Eli VI:4 108
Enuma Eli VI:5154
Enuma Eli VI:52
Gilgamesh Epic
Gilgamesh Epic XI:202 109
Gilgamesh Epic XI:205 109
Hammurapi Codex
(ANET 170171 Meek) 62
Letter from Mari
(ARM XIII 29:812) 53
List of Ocials (CT XXIV,
pl. 50 [BM 47406]) 107
Temple Program for the
New Years Festival
(ANET 332333 Sachs) 48
Temple Program for the
New Years Festival
(ANET 334 Sachs) 48
Administrative Document
(PRU III:146147) 60
(PRU III:6970) 60
(PRU V 84.60:712) 89
Memoires de la delegation en
Perse IV, no. 3, 11:68 58
Eovr+i.x
Hymn to Aton
(ANET 370 Wilson) 116
Satirical Letter
(ANET 475479 Wilson) 81
Shabaka Stone
(ANET 5 Wilson) 104
The Wisdom of Ani, 810
(Brunner, Altgyptische
Erziehung) 106
Wisdom of Meri-Ka-Re
(ANET 417 Wilson) 105f
Uo.ni+ic
Baal Epos
(ANET 134 Ginsberg) 100
Epic Text
(CTA 4 IV:2026) 41
Epic Text
(CTA 4 IV:3738) 41
Ritual Text (CTA 32) 45
Ritual Text (CTA 36:10) 48
Ritual Text (KTU 1.104:6) 44
Ritual Text (KTU 1.109) 45
Ritual Text (KTU 1.161), 47
144 nrrrnrxcrs rnov .xcirx+ xr.n r.s+rnx roctvrx+s
Ritual Text (RIH 77/10 B) 44
Ritual Text (RIH 77/
10 B:1012) 45
Ritual Text (RIH 77/
10 B:29) 44
Ritual Text (RIH 77/10 B:9) 45
Ritual Text (RIH 77/2 B) 44
Ritual Text (RIH 77/2 B:4) 44
Ritual Text (RIH 78/4:8) 44
Ritual Text KTU 1.46:1) 45
RS 1.002 45
RS 1.002 [a] 45
RS 16.153:113 60
RS 16.276:19 60
RS 24.253:13 53
RS 24.256 54
RS 24.256 56
RS 24.260:13 46
RS 24.260:5 46
RS 24.266 55
Hi++i+r
Cult Inventory
(Kbo II 1.ii:2529) 37
Cult Inventory
(Kbo II 1.ii:2529) 54
Cultic Text
(Kbo V 1.iii:2728) 44
Cultic Text
(KUB XXXV 133, i:1415) 41
Cultic Text
(KUB XXXV 135, rev. 103) 41
Cultic Text
(KUB XXXV 135, rev. 20) 41
Festival of the Warrior God
(ANET 358361 Goetze) 36
Festival Text
(IBoT III 148, II:6162) 41
Festival Text
(KUB XVII 35, I:1720) 54
Instructions for Temple Ocials
(ANET 207210 Goetze) 58
Instructions to Priests
(KUB XIII 4, ii:13) 58
(KUB XIII 4, ii:1231) 58
(KUB XIII 4, ii:3258) 58
(KUB XIII 4, ii:45) 58
(KUB XIII 4, iv:5055) 59
List of Sacrices
(KUB XLI 11, RS 812) 43
List of Sacrices
(KUB XLI 48, iii:21) 44
List of Sacrices
(KUB XLI 48, iii:7) 44
Muwatallis Prayer to storm-god
Kummanni (Kbo XI 1) 36
Prescriptive document
(Rs I:13) 39
(Rs III:3233) 39
(Rs IV:3740) 39
(Rs IV:4041) 39
Ritual for Childbearing
(Kbo XVII 65, Rev 3844) 38
Ritual Text AN.TAH.SUM
Festival (KUB XI 22) 53
Festival (KUB XI li) 53
Festival (KUB XX 42) 53
Festival (KUB XX 63) 53
Htnni.x
Alalakh stratum VII,
text no. 126 (Haas-Wilhelm) 42f
nrrrnrxcrs rnov .xcirx+ xr.n r.s+rnx roctvrx+s 145
Hrnnrv
Hebrew letter from
Yabneh-Yam 120
An.v.ic
Aramaic Papyri No.30 xixii
Aramaic Papyri No.31 xi
Aramaic Papyri No.32 xi
146
BIBLICAL REFERENCES
Genesis
12 95, 101
1 105, 110f, 117,
119
1:1 111
1:2 105, 113
1:7 98, 103
1:10 103
1:16 98, 103
1:21 98, 103
1:25 98, 103
1:26 98, 106, 114
1:27 103, 108
1:2930 102
1:31 101, 104
23 95
2 99
2:13 85, 99, 101
2:1 110
2:2 119
2:3 99
2:7 95
2:8 95
2:19 95
2:21 95
3:22 109
4:10 22
5:1 14, 114
9 102
9:1 99
9:3 102
9:4 22, 102
11:7 109
15:18 102
17 3, 102
17:56 64
17:8 102
17:10 119
17:1011 93
17:14 88, 93
17:16 99
17:20 64, 99
17:22 44
20:16 102
23:11 102
28:3 64
32:27 112
34:1517 119
35:2 83
35:9 99
35:11 64
35:13 44
48:4 64
Exodus
4:2426 112
4:24 119
12 29, 109
12:1213 112
12:19 91, 93
12:2223 112
12:48 91, 93, 119
13:2 32
13:12 32
16 3
16:4 122
16:14 44
16:20 122
16:23 121
16:26 122
16:29 122
19 90
19:6 64, 89f
19:10 83
19:18 79
20 99
20:11 98, 99
20:12 116
2123 3
21 66
21:2 60
21:6 86
21:9 66
22:17 87
22:27 87
22:28 32
22:30 89
23:1012 61
23:1011 60
23:1219 77
23:12 98
23:17 79
23:18 84
25:8 80
ninric.r nrrrnrxcrs 147
25:16 43
29 80
29:45 80
30:110 27
30:10 93
31:1217 3, 100, 123
31:1617 93
31:17 85, 98, 102, 116
34:1826 77
34:23 79
34:25 84
35:13 3, 100, 123
35:3 100, 122
36:6 122
38:8 19
3940 101
39:32 101
39:43 101
40:33 101
Leviticus
1:3 44
1:10 44
1:14 44, 46
3:1 44
4:4 44
4:32 44
5:13 43
5:1 43
5:5 43
5:6 44
5:7 46
5:15 43, 44, 58
5:18 26, 43
5:21 26
5:25 43f
6:10 102
6:11 58f
6:19 59
7:6 59
7:13 84
7:1518 58
7:2021 88
7:2527 88
89 80
9:24 79
1116 50f
1115 39
11 3
11:2 39
11:3940 88
11:40 92
11:43 89
11:44 90
11:45 89
11:46 39
1215 3
12 38
12:6 46
13:228 39
13:2 39
13:1823 96
13:2426 96
13:3839 96
13:40 96
13:43 96
13:46 25
14 25,49
14:132 46
14:3 25
14:46 46
14:5 113
14:7 47, 50, 111
14:3353 39
14:34 25
14:4041 25
14:45 25
14:4853 46
14:49 46
14:53 25, 47, 50
14:56 39
15 96
15:2 39
15:14 46
15:29 46
15:33 39
16 3
16:4 48
16:10 49
16:11 49
16:1213 48
16:1416 48
16:1415 49
16:16 49, 93
16:19 93
16:2122 49
16:21 39, 47, 49, 111
16:26 49
16:29 93
16:29 93
16:33 49
17 21, 29, 112
17:37 22
17:34 21
17:3 21
17:57 111
17:6 22
17:7 23, 47, 112
148 ninric.r nrrrnrxcrs
17:8 92
17:1112 22
17:12 92
17:13 22
17:1516 93
17:15 88, 92, 92
18:2123 84
18:21 87
18:2430 84
18:26 93
18:28 92
1926 84
19:2 89f
19:4 89
19:58 58
19:18 1013
19:26 112
19:30 87, 100
19:3334 11
19:39 10
20:16 87
20:2 93
20:5 84
20:6 89
20:2227 84
20:25 84
20:26 89f, 91
20:27 87
21:5 88
21:8 88
22:3 88
22:8 88
22:1719 92
22:30 58
23 28, 52
23:5 53
23:6 53, 87
23:921 79
23:1819a 28
23:20 28
23:2332 77
23:2325 3
23:24 52
23:2632 3
23:29 88
23:34 53
23:36 54
23:3941 56
23:40 55f
24:59 101
24:1415 25
24:1516 87
24:1622 86
24:16 93
25 3, 11, 66
25:25 61
25:2 84
25:812 61
25:910 46
25:9 62
25:10 62, 99
25:2930 62
25:3031 62
25:33 62
25:54 62
26:1 89
26:2 100
26:3435 84
27 96
27:910 58
27:26 32
27:3035 59
27:3033 29
27:30 32
27:3233 32
27:33 60
Numbers
5:14 25
5:12 25
5:2 25
5:58 43
5:1131 59
5:1113 82
5:12 39
5:14 39
5:2930 39
6 84
6:10 46
7 38
8:2 44
8:14 91
9:13 93
9:14 91, 93
9:1516 24
10:23 24
10:910 52
10:9 82, 85
14:3 90
14:7 91
15:14 92
15:16 93
15:2224 45
15:2425 45
15:26 45
15:30 93
15:3236 3
15:3536 25
16:9 91
18:8 102
18:9 27
18:2132 59f
18:2122 32
18:21 102, 32
19:6 46
19:10 93
19:13 88
19:17 113
19:20 88
26:54 66
27:1523 66
27:21 66, 82
2829 17, 54, 79
28:1115 45
28:15 45
28:16 53
28:17 53
28:2728 28
29:111 77
29:16 3
29:1 52
29:26 37
29:12 53
29:1316 38
29:13 54
29:17 54
29:20 54
29:23 54
29:26 54
29:29 54
29:32 54
29:35 54
30 87
31:6 82
31:1920 85
31:5054 83, 85
33:5056 89
35 32, 66, 86
35:18 60
35:23 33
35:5 33
35:15 93
35:2526 17f
35:25 82
35:34 93
Deuteronomy
4:7 10
5 99
5:1214 98
5:14 85
5:15 85
6:5 11
7:6 89
8:11 23
10:16 120
1216 3
12 22
12:910 100
12:12 56
12:1516 22
12:15 22
12:16 22f
12:2021 112
12:23 22f
12:24 22
13:7 12
13:213 87
14:12 89
14:1 88
14:2 88
14:21 89, 92
14:2223 29, 32
14:26 56
15 66
15:121 86
15:111 85
15:16 60
15:12 60
15:17 86
15:20 32
15:22 22
16 29, 77
16:8 54
16:11 56
16:14 56
16:16 79
16:1820 86
17:813 86, 96
17:12 87
17:1420 57
17:2024 86
17:20 86
18:18 31
18:1 31
18:35 31
18:68 90
18:78 31
18:10 31
19:14 86
19:1521 86
19:21 86
20:19 86
21:17 66
21:2023 86
22:1329 86
23:1015 86
24:14 86
24:23 66
24:1013 86
25:13 86
25:59 86
25:1012 86
26:1719 90
26:18 90
34:6 10
Joshua
1:11 20
3:2 20
5:29 119
6 83
6:11 20
6:14 20
6:24 83
9:6 20
10:6 20
10:15 20
10:21:20
10:43 20
18:110 20
18:1 19
18:9 19f
19:15 20
20:2 39
20:9 39
21:2 20, 33
21:11 32
21:21 32
21:3031 20
22 21
22:934 20
22:910 21
22:1213 21
22:13 20
22:1619 91
22:1920 21
22:19 21, 91
22:29 21
22:31 21
23:67 23
Judges
6:1921 17
13:1519 17
13:25 20
17:5 59
18:12 20
18:21 20
18:31 19, 24
1921 26
19:18 26
20:1 26
20:2628 26, 83
21:12 19f
21:21 55
21:23 55
1 Samuel
1:7 19
1:9 19
1:24 19
2:1317 84
2:22 19
2:27 20
2:28 28
3:3 19
3:15 19
4 83
6:1920 84
7:24 24
8:17 32
10:25 66
13:9 57
14:6 119f
14:3235 84, 112
14:3436 17, 57
16:5 83
17:36 119f
20:2430 83
21:6 83
21:7 84
26:19 91
28:3 87
28:9 87
2 Samuel
6:5 56
6:69 84
6:1718 57
6:17 23f
6:18 23f
6:2021 56
7 100
7:67 19
7:6 40
8:11 83
11:4 83
12:20 19, 24
15:25 24
16:14 116
22:10 115
1 Kings
1:31 24
2:29 24
6:2022 28
7:48 28
8:4 41
8:56 100
12:32 57
13:1 57
21:10 25
21:13 25, 87
22 115
22:1023 109
22:1920 116
2 Kings
4:23 30, 83, 120
7:35 83
7:3 25
8:55 24
8:6263 24
11:5 101
11:9 101
12:56 96
12:17 26, 43
12:19 83
17 91
18:4 23
18:10 64
18:13 23
18:22 23
19:35 112
22:34 96
23:9 17
23:25 12
Isaiah
1:13 28, 83, 120
4:56 24
6 109, 115
6:46 28
6:8 116
13:21 112
14:2832 70
16:5 24
26:21 22
29:13 6
30:29 55f
33:15 9
33:20 24
34:14 112
4048 110f, 117
40:18 115
40:5 110
40:9 115
40:1314 116
40:13 110
40:18 110, 114
40:25 114
40:28 116
41:2 64
42:5 110
44:24 115
45:7 110, 113
45:12 99, 110
45:18 110, 113
45:19 113
46:5 114
46:10 110
48:13 99
48:20 110
50:1 66
51:910 105
53:10 27
56:1 9
56:2 30, 120
56:4 30
56:6 30
58:1314 30
58:13 120
61:6 89
66:1 100
Jeremiah
3:8 66
4:4 120
4:23 114
6:1 62
7:12 19f
9:2425 120
17:1921 120
17:2127 30
25:30 24
31:22 24
32:78 66
50:7 24
Ezekiel
1:26 106
16:3 40
20:13 30
20:21 30
20:24 30
24:68 22
33:25 112
40:1 48
44:67 17
44:7 120
44:20 88
44:24 96, 100
44:31 88
45:17 57
45:1820 47f
45:1819 45
45:2125 45
45:2223 57
46:2 57
46:10 57
46:1213, 57
48:14 58
Hosea
2:13 30, 120
4:8 26
9:3 91
9:45 83
9:4 83
Amos
2:7b 84
4:5 84
5:4 9
5:23 17
7:17 91
8:5 30, 83, 120f
9:11 24
Micah
1:3 115
6:7 27
6:8 9
Habakkuk
2:4 9
Zechariah
3 115
9 70
Psalms
8 108
15:15 9
15:1 24
16:8 6
18:10 115
33:6 98, 104
37:35 91
40:7 27
78:60 19f
87:7 55
88:1314 112
95:11 100
96 80
98 80
107:25 104
132:4 100
132:8 24
132:1314 24
132:14 100
148:5 104
Proverbs
3:6 8
8:22 117
Job
1 109
3:4 112
9:8 115
16:18 22
28:2328 117
Daniel
7:9 106
Nehemiah
8 50
8:1011 52
8:15 55
10:3839 32, 60
13:1522 120
13:1521 30
13:15 120
2 Chronicles
6:41 100
11:1314 33
17:79 81
2930 57
35 57
Matthew 13:2426 14
Matthew 15:1020 51
Matthew 22 12
Matthew 22:3539 11
Matthew 23:13 51
Matthew 23:4 51
Matthew 25:3132 10
Matthew 5:1720 13
Mark 12:2833 12
Mark 12:33 14
Mark 12:34 14
Mark 12:35 11
Luke 1:9 54
Luke 10:25 11
Luke 10:2528 12
Luke 16:17 13
Luke 18:1819 14
Acts 17:28 107
Romans 14:14 51
Galatians 3:1112 9
Arocnvrn. .xr Psrtrrrion.rn.
Wisdom of Solomon 2:23 106
Ben Sira 15:1 11
Ben Sira 35:15 11
Jubilees 16:3031 55
2 Maccabees 10:67 55
2 Maccabees 6:18 11
4 Maccabees 5:4 11
Testament of Dan 5:3 14
Testament of Issachar 5:2 14
Testament of Issachar 7:6 14
Nrv Trs+.vrx+
Dr.r Sr. Scnorrs
1QS 1:12 11
1QS 3:2 11
4QSam to 2 Sam. 7:6 19
1QIsa to Isaiah 44:24 19
11QT 48:1417 25
Covenant of Damascus 9:1 12
War Rule (1QM) 3
Axcirx+ Tn.xsr.+ioxs
Septuagint
LXX Genesis 6:5 11
LXX Genesis 8:21 11
LXX Deuteronomy 6:5 11f
LXX Deuteronomy 13:7 12
LXX Joshua 18:9 19f
LXX B 2 Samuel 7:6 19
LXX Luc 2 Samuel 7:6 19
LXX 2 Kings 23:25 12
LXX 1 Chronicles 29:18 11
Aramaic Targumim
Palestinian Targum to
Lev. 19:18 12
Targum Onkelos Deut 6:5 12
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
to Lev. 23:26 54
Deut 6:5 12
Deut 34:6 10
Targum Neoti to Genesis 1:1 117
Josephus and Philo
Josephus, Antiquites 3.245 55
Josephus, Antiquities 19
Josephus, Contra Apion 2.165 4
Philo, De Opicio Mundi, 49 106
Mishna
Berahot 9:5 12f
eqalim 28
Yoma 2:12 54
Yoma 4:2 49
Yoma 7:4 49
Sukkah 3:9 55
Sukkah 4:1 55
Sukkah 5:4 55
Ro Haana 1:2 52
Sanhedrin 2:1 50
Avot 1:12 13
Avot 3:12 8
Zebahim 14:4 7
Menahot 13:11 7
Hulin 10:1 7
Tamid 3:1 54
Tamid 5:2 54
Tosephta
Menahot 10:21 28
Talmud
Yerushalmi
Pea 1:1 (15d) 12
eqalim 48a 49
Bavli
Berahot 61b 14
Berahot 63a 8
abbat 96b 122
abbat 31a 12
Erubin 35b 122
Makkot 23b-24a 9
Sotah 30b 122
Sotah 14a 10
Menahot 85b 28
Midrash
Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael
on Exodus 20:12
(Lauterbach) 116
on Exodus 20:4 (Horovitz) 122
on Exodus 35:3 123
Siphra 17:6 7
Siphra to Leviticus 19:18 11
Siphra, Kedoshim 1:1 11
Siphre Debarim 32 11
Siphre to Deut. 13:7 12
Siphre to Deut. 6:5 13
Avot R. Nathan 1:3 13
Genesis Rabba 31 98
Genesis Rabbah 14
Canticles Rabbah 1:2 51
Pitron Torah (Persian) 14
Medieval Exegesis
Ibn-Ezra to Exodus 16:23 120
Ibn Ezra to Deut. 6:5 11
Bachya ben Joseph ibn
Paquda (Chovot
Ha-Levavot 2.144151) 6
Bachya ben Joseph ibn
Paquda (Chovot
Ha-Levavot 2.198200) 6
Nachmanides to Exodus 16:23 120
R.nnixic Sotncrs
INDEX OF AUTHORS
155
Albeck 49, 55, (see also
Theodore-Albeck)
Alt 71
Amir 6
Anderson-Freedman 27
Artzi 24
Avishur 44
Baentsch 96, 121
Baldensperger 8
Barnikol 67f
Baudissin 67
Bechtel (see Sturtevant-Bechtel)
Beckman 38
Beer 122
Beer-Galling 98, 123
Begrich (see Gunkel-Begrich)
Ben David 11
Bentzen 108
Bertholet 92f
Bestman 15
Biran 41
Blau Greeneld 5354
Blenkinsopp 6, 14
Bhl 103
Borger 103
Boschwitz 1, 15, 18
Bousset 5, 8, 13
Braulik 56
Brunner 106f
Budde 99
Buhl (see Gesenius-Buhl)
Bull Campbell 41
Campbell (see Bull-Campbell)
Caquot 46
Carter 35, 3738, 5354, 56
Cary 47
Cassuto 99, 103, 108, 123
Childs 111
Cliord 41
Cross 19, 24, 26, 4041, 11516,
120
Dandamajew 59
Dangin (see Thureau-Dangin)
Darga (see Dincol-Darga)
Darlow 6
Day 19
de Boer 110
de Vaux 26, 50f
de Wette 16
Dietrich-Loretz 37
Dillmann xii, 22, 65
Dincol Darga 35, 37
Driver xi, 67f, 70, 123
Duhm 65, 68, 11314
Durr 104
Ebeling 49
Ehelolf (see Sommer-Ehelolf )
Ehrlich 114
Elliger 28
Ewald 64f, 67, 69
Falkenstein 47
Finkelstein 11f, 65
Fishbane 39f
Flusser 11f
Fohrer 70
Frank 107
Frankfort 117
Freedman (see Anderson-Freedman)
Friedman 41
Gabler 98
Galling (see Beer-Galling)
Gesenius Buhl 103
Giesebrecht xii
Ginsberg 14, 80, 100, 115
Goetze 35, 58, 116
Gtze-Pedersen 37
Graetz 73
Graf 15
Greenberg xii, 32, 86, 89
Greeneld 46, (see also
Blau-Greeneld)
Gressmann 71
Grintz 112
Gunkel 71f, 97f, 102, 104106,
109, 111
Gunkel Begrich 72
Gurney 35, 4950, 5253
Guterbock 35, 48, 5356
156 ixrrx or .t+nons
Haas Wilhelm 3738, 42, 46, 50
Hallo 81
Haran xii, 19, 23, 32, 40, 43, 66, 83,
96, 110, 119
Hasel 99f
Heidel 105f, 108
Heidl 108
Heltzer 32, 60
Hempel 96
Herdner 44, 46, 48, 54
Hermann 104f, 108
Hillers 46
Homan 28f
Honer 41, 43, 58
Hoftijzer 64
Holzinger 95
Horovitz 122
Horst 106f
Humbert 106
Hurowitz 97
Hurvitz xii, 72
Ilgen 98
Jacobsen 103
Japhet xii
Junker 104
Kapelrud 110
Kaufmann xii, 7, 21, 26, 28, 3132,
47, 72, 77f, 84, 86, 91, 96, 106,
108, 110, 115
Klein 10
Knight xi
Knobel 15
Knohl 23
Khler 108
Kraus 65
Kmmel 37, 42, 50
Labat 106
Lambert 105, 109
Landsberger 78
Landsberger Wilson 100, 103
Langdon 53, 59
Laroche 37, 4243, 47, 53
Lauterbach 116
Lebrun 36
Levine 26f, 38, 4445, 74, 78, 97
Lieberman 11
Liebeschutz 7
Loewenstamm 47, 62, 78, 107, 109,
116
Loretz (see Dietrich-Loretz)
Luzatto 113
Malamat 19, 45, 70
Mazar 32, 40, 60
McCarthy 49
McKane 6
Meek 62
Meier 107
Meissner 97
Mendenhall 97
Meyer xixii, 2, 63
Milgrom xii, 22, 2627, 31, 38,
4344, 47, 58, 96
Moellendor (see
Wilamowitz-Moellendor )
Moore 6, 14
Moran 90, 107
Morenz 104
Mowinckel 71
Muilenberg 113
Naveh 120
Nielsen 28
Nldeke xi
North 113
Noth 25f, 57, 83, 96, 119, 12223
Nyberg 113
Olmo Lete 46
Oppenheim 97
Otten 38, 41, 47, 52
Otto 82
Paul 86
Pedersen (see Gtze-Pedersen)
Perlitt 73
Popko 41
Porten 120
Procksch 98
Rainey 38, 58, 74
Ralphs xi
Ridderbos 105
Rosenfeld 10
Rothschild 103
Rudolph 70, 120
Sachs 48
Salonen 59f
Sanders 14
Schechter 8, 12f
Schmidt 98f, 100, 104105
ixrrx or .t+nons 157
Schrer 5, 8
Schwally 98
Schwartz 39
Seeligmann xii, 92, 98100
Silberman 6
Singer 35, 41
Skinner 70, 106, 109, 113
Smend 6
Smith, G. A. 10
Smith, M. 11
Sommer Ehelolf 3839
Speiser xii, 77, 90, 100, 103, 109,
113
Stade 70, 98
Stengel 47
Streck 59
Sturtevant Bechtel 58f
Tadmor 48, 70
Talmon 120
Tarragon 44
Theodore-Albeck 14
Thureau-Dangin 48, 53, 78
Tur-Sinai 91
Urbach 812, 14
van Driel 58
Virolleaud 46, 5354
Volten 105
Volz 11314
von Rad 83, 98, 100, 101f, 108, 122
von Schuler 37
von Soden 121
Waterman 107
Weinfeld xii, 11, 2123, 25, 29,
3132, 36f, 40, 4547, 49, 56, 59,
62, 64, 67, 72, 74, 7981, 83,
8587, 89f, 9697, 99100, 102,
115, 120
Weiss 8
Wellesz 14
Wellhausen xixii, 135, 40, 50,
5874, 77f, 95, 97, 101, 103, 106,
113, 119, 123
Westermann 64, 98f
Wilamowitz-Moellendor 7, 18, 62
Wildberger 107
Wilhelm (see Haas-Wilhelm)
Wilson 81, 104105, 116, (see also
Landsberger-Wilson)
Xella 4447, 53, 55
Yadin 25
Yalon 44
Ziegler 98
SUPPLEMENTS TO VETUS TESTAMENTUM
2. Pope, M.H. El in the Ugaritic texts. 1955. ISBN 90 04 04000 5
3. Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Presented to Harold Henry Rowley by
the Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum in celebration of his 65th birthday, 24
March 1955. Edited by M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas. 2nd reprint of the rst
(1955) ed. 1969. ISBN 90 04 02326 7
4. Volume du Congrs [international pour ltude de lAncien Testament]. Strasbourg
1956. 1957. ISBN 90 04 02327 5
8. Bernhardt, K.-H. Das Problem der alt-orientalischen Knigsideologie im Alten Testament.
Unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Geschichte der Psalmenexegese dargestellt
und kritisch gewrdigt. 1961. ISBN 90 04 02331 3
9. Congress Volume, Bonn 1962. 1963. ISBN 90 04 02332 1
11. Donner, H. Israel unter den Vlkern. Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8.
Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Aussenpolitik der Knige von Israel und Juda. 1964.
ISBN 90 04 02334 8
12. Reider, J. An Index to Aquila. Completed and revised by N. Turner. 1966.
ISBN 90 04 02335 6
13. Roth, W.M.W. Numerical sayings in the Old Testament. A form-critical study. 1965.
ISBN 90 04 02336 4
14. Orlinsky, H.M. Studies on the second part of the Book of Isaiah. The so-called
Servant of the Lord and Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. Snaith, N.H.
Isaiah 40-66. A study of the teaching of the Second Isaiah and its consequences.
Repr. with additions and corrections. 1977. ISBN 90 04 05437 5
15. Volume du Congrs [International pour ltude de lAncien Testament]. Genve 1965.
1966. ISBN 90 04 02337 2
17. Congress Volume, Rome 1968. 1969. ISBN 90 04 02339 9
19. Thompson, R.J. Moses and the Law in a century of criticism since Graf. 1970.
ISBN 90 04 02341 0
20. Redford, D.B. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph. 1970. ISBN 90 04 02342 9
21. Ahlstrm, G.W. Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem. 1971. ISBN 90 04 02620 7
22. Congress Volume, Uppsala 1971. 1972. ISBN 90 04 03521 4
23. Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel. 1972. ISBN 90 04 03525 7
24. Schoors, A. I am God your Saviour. A form-critical study of the main genres in Is. xl-
lv. 1973. ISBN 90 04 03792 2
25. Allen, L.C. The Greek Chronicles. The relation of the Septuagint I and II Chronicles
to the Massoretic text. Part 1. The translators craft. 1974.
ISBN 90 04 03913 9
26. Studies on prophecy. A collection of twelve papers. 1974. ISBN 90 04 03877 9
27. Allen, L.C. The Greek Chronicles. Part 2. Textual criticism. 1974.
ISBN 90 04 03933 3
28. Congress Volume, Edinburgh 1974. 1975. ISBN 90 04 04321 7
29. Congress Volume, Gttingen 1977. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05835 4
30. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Studies in the historical books of the Old Testament. 1979.
ISBN 90 04 06017 0
31. Meredino, R.P. Der Erste und der Letzte. Eine Untersuchung von Jes 40-48. 1981.
ISBN 90 04 06199 1
32. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume,Vienna 1980. 1981. ISBN 90 04 06514 8
33. Koenig, J. Lhermneutique analogique du Judasme antique daprs les tmoins textuels dIsae.
1982. ISBN 90 04 06762 0
VTS-serie.qxd 2/13/2004 1:39 PM Page 1
34. Barstad, H.M. The religious polemics of Amos. Studies in the preachings of Amos ii
7B-8, iv 1-13, v 1-27, vi 4-7, viii 14. 1984. ISBN 90 04 07017 6
35. Kraovec, J. Antithetic structure in Biblical Hebrew poetry. 1984. ISBN 90 04 07244 6
36. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Salamanca 1983. 1985.
ISBN 90 04 07281 0
37. Lemche, N.P. Early Israel. Anthropological and historical studies on the Israelite
society before the monarchy. 1985. ISBN 90 04 07853 3
38. Nielsen, K. Incense in Ancient Israel. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07702 2
39. Pardee, D. Ugaritic and Hebrew poetic parallelism. A trial cut. 1988.
ISBN 90 04 08368 5
40. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986. 1988. ISBN 90 04 08499 1
41. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Studies in the Pentateuch. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09195 5
42. McKenzie, S.L. The trouble with Kings. The composition of the Book of Kings in the
Deuteronomistic History. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09402 4
43. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Leuven 1989. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09398 2
44. Haak, R.D. Habakkuk. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09506 3
45. Beyerlin, W. Im Licht der Traditionen. Psalm LXVII und CXV. Ein Entwicklungs-
zusammenhang. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09635 3
46. Meier, S.A. Speaking of Speaking. Marking direct discourse in the Hebrew Bible.
1992. ISBN 90 04 09602 7
47. Kessler, R. Staat und Gesellschaft im vorexilischen Juda. Vom 8. Jahrhundert bis zum
Exil. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09646 9
48. Auffret, P. Voyez de vos yeux. tude structurelle de vingt psaumes, dont le psaume
119. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09707 4
49. Garca Martnez, F., A. Hilhorst and C.J. Labuschagne (eds.). The Scriptures and
the Scrolls. Studies in honour of A.S. van der Woude on the occasion of his 65th
birthday. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09746 5
50. Lemaire, A. and B. Otzen (eds.). History and Traditions of Early Israel. Studies pres-
ented to Eduard Nielsen, May 8th, 1993. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09851 8
51. Gordon, R.P. Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets. From Nahum to
Malachi. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09987 5
52. Hugenberger, G.P. Marriage as a Covenant. A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics
Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. 1994.
ISBN 90 04 09977 8
53. Garca Martnez, F., A. Hilhorst, J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, A.S. van der
Woude. Studies in Deuteronomy. In Honour of C.J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of
His 65th Birthday. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10052 0
54. Fernndez Marcos, N. Septuagint and Old Latin in the Book of Kings. 1994.
ISBN 90 04 10043 1
55. Smith, M.S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume 1. Introduction with text, translation and
commentary of KTU 1.1-1.2. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09995 6
56. Duguid, I.M. Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10074 1
57. Marx, A. Les offrandes vgtales dans lAncien Testament. Du tribut dhommage au repas
eschatologique. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10136 5
58. Schfer-Lichtenberger, C. Josua und Salomo. Eine Studie zu Autoritt und
Legitimitt des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10064 4
59. Lasserre, G. Synopse des lois du Pentateuque. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10202 7
60. Dogniez, C. Bibliography of the Septuagint Bibliographie de la Septante (1970-1993).
Avec une prface de Pierre-Maurice Bogaert. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10192 6
61. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Paris 1992. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10259 0
62. Smith, P.A. Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah. The Structure, Growth and Author-
ship of Isaiah 56-66. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10306 6
63. OConnell, R.H. The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10104 7
64. Harland, P. J. The Value of Human Life. A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis
6-9). 1996. ISBN 90 04 10534 4
65. Roland Page Jr., H. The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion. A Study of its Reflexes in
Ugaritic and Biblical Literature. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10563 8
66. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Cambridge 1995. 1997.
ISBN 90 04 106871
67. Joosten, J. People and Land in the Holiness Code. An Exegetical Study of the
Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 1726. 1996.
ISBN 90 04 10557 3
68. Beentjes, P.C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew
Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. 1997. ISBN 90
04 10767 3
69. Cook, J. The Septuagint of Proverbs Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the
Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10879 3
70,1 Broyles, G. and C. Evans (eds.). Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an
Interpretive Tradition, I. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10936 6 (Vol. I);
ISBN 90 04 11027 5 (Set )
70,2 Broyles, G. and C. Evans (eds.). Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an
Interpretive Tradition, II. 1997. ISBN 90 04 11026 7 (Vol. II);
ISBN 90 04 11027 5 (Set )
71. Kooij, A. van der. The Oracle of Tyre. The Septuagint of Isaiah 23 as Version and
Vision. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11152 2
72. Tov, E. The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint. 1999.
ISBN 90 04 11309 6
73. Garca Martnez, F. and Noort, E. (eds.). Perspectives in the Study of the Old
Testament and Early Judaism. A Symposium in honour of Adam S. van der Woude on
the occasion of his 70th birthday. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11322 3
74. Kassis, R.A. The Book of Proverbs and Arabic Proverbial Works. 1999.
ISBN 90 04 11305 3
75. Rsel, H.N. Von Josua bis Jojachin. Untersuchungen zu den deuteronomistischen
Geschichtsbchern des Alten Testaments. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11355 5
76. Renz, Th. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. 1999.
ISBN 90 04 11362 2
77. Harland, P.J. and Hayward, C.T.R. (eds.). New Heaven and New Earth Prophecy and
the Millenium. Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston. 1999.
ISBN 90 04 10841 6
78. Kraovec, J. Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness. The Thinking and Beliefs of
Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views. 1999.
ISBN 90 04 11443 2.
79. Kossmann, R. Die Esthernovelle Vom Erzhlten zur Erzhlung. Studien zur Traditions-
und Redaktionsgeschichte des Estherbuches. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11556 0.
80. Lemaire, A. and M. Sb (eds.). Congress Volume, Oslo 1998. 2000.
ISBN 90 04 11598 6.
81. Galil, G. and M. Weinfeld (eds.). Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical His-
toriography. Presented to Zecharia Kallai. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11608 7
82. Collins, N.L. The library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek. 2001.
ISBN 90 04 11866 7
83,1 Collins, J.J. and P.W. Flint (eds.). The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception,
I. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11675 3 (Vol. I);
ISBN 90 04 12202 8 (Set )
83,2 Collins, J.J. and P.W. Flint (eds.). The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception,
II. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12200 1 (Vol. II); ISBN 90 04 12202 8 (Set ).
84. Cohen, C.H.R. Contextual Priority in Biblical Hebrew Philology. An Application of the
Held Method for Comparative Semitic Philology. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11670 2
(In preparation).
85. Wagenaar, J.A. Judgement and Salvation. The Composition and Redaction of Micah
2-5. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11936 1
86. McLaughlin, J.L. The Marza in sthe Prophetic Literature. References and Allusions
in Light of the Extra-Biblical Evidence. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12006 8
87. Wong, K.L. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel 2001. ISBN 90 04 12256 7
88. Barrick, W. Boyd The King and the Cemeteries. Toward a New Understanding of
Josiahs Reform. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12171 4
89. Frankel, D. The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School. A Retrieval of Ancient
Sacerdotal Lore. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12368 7
90. Frydrych, T. Living under the Sun. Examination of Proverbs and Qoheleth. 2002.
ISBN 90 04 12315 6
91. Kessel, J. The Book of Haggai. Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. 2002.
ISBN 90 04 12368 7
92. Lemaire, A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Basel 2001. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12680 5
93. Rendtorff, R. and R.A. Kugler (eds.). The Book of Leviticus. Composition and Re-
ception. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12634 1
94. Paul, S.M., R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman and W.W. Fields (eds.). Emanuel. Studies
in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov.
2003. ISBN 90 04 13007 1
95. Vos, J.C. de. Das Los Judas. ber Entstehung und Ziele der Landbeschreibung in
Josua 15. ISBN 90 04 12953 7
96. Lehnart, B. Prophet und Knig im Nordreich Israel. Studien zur sogenannten vorklassi-
schen Prophetie im Nordreich Israel anhand der Samuel-, Elija- und Elischa-
berlieferungen. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13237 6
97. Lo, A. Job 28 as Rhetoric. An Analysis of Job 28 in the Context of Job 22-31. 2003.
ISBN 90 04 13320 8
98. Trudinger, P.L. The Psalms of the Tamid Service. A Liturgical Text from the Second
Temple. 2004. ISBN 90 04 12968 5
99. Flint, P.W. and P.D. Miller, Jr. (eds.) with the assistance of A. Brunell. The
Book of Psalms. Composition and Reception. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13842 8
100. Weinfeld, M. The Place of the Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel. 2004.
ISBN 90 04 13749 1
101. Flint, P.W., J.C. Vanderkam and E. Tov. (eds.) Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran,
and the Septuagint. Essays Presented to Eugene Ulrich on the Occasion of his Sixty-
Fifth Birthday. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13738 6
102. Meer, M.N. van der. Formation and Reformulation. The Redaction of the Book of
Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13125 6
103. Berman, J.A. Narrative Analogy in the Hebrew Bible. Battle Stories and Their Equi-
valent Non-battle Narratives. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13119 1

The Place of The Law in The Religion of Ancient Israel - Moshe Weinfeld

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Place of The Law in The Religion of Ancient Israel - Moshe Weinfeld

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE PLACE OF THE LAW IN THE RELIGION

Hebrew: twmd imageof the deity, while the Egyptian monarch

You might also like