Gary A. Anderson, Saul M. Olyan Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel JSOT Supplement Series 1991 PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OFTHE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
125
Editors
David J.A. Clines
Philip R. Davies
JSOT Press
Sheffield
This page intentionally left blank
Priesthood and Cult

in Ancient Israel
Edited by
Gary A. Anderson
and
Saul M. Olyan
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series 125
Copyright 1991 Sheffield Academic Press

Published by JSOT Press
JSOT Press is an imprint of
Sheffield Academic Press Ltd
The University of Sheffield
343 Fulwood Road
Sheffield S10 3BP
England
Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

and
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain
by Billing & Sons Ltd
Worcester
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Priesthood and cult in ancient Israel.
(Journal for the study of the Old Testament.
Supplement series. ISSN 0309-0787; 125)
I. Anderson, Gary A. II. Olyan, Saul M. III. Series
933
ISBN 1-85075-322-9
CONTENTS
Preface
Abbreviations
List of Contributors
7
10
13
GARY A. ANDERSON
The Praise of God as a Cultic Event
15
BARUCHJ. SCHWARTZ
The Prohibitions Concerning the 'Eating'
of Blood in Leviticus 17
34
JAMES C. VANDERKAM
Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period:
Is the List Complete?
67
SUSAN ACKERMAN
The Deception of Isaac, Jacob's Dream at Bethel,
and Incubation on an Animal Skin
92
SAUL M. OLYAN
The Oaths of Amos 8.14
121
DAVID P. WRIGHT
The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity
150
JACOB MILGROM
The Composition of Leviticus, Chapter 11
183
Contents
ISRAEL KNOHL
The Sin Offering Law in the 'Holiness School'
(Numbers 15.22-31)
192
Index of References
Index of Authors
204
213
PREFACE
The study of the cult and priesthood of ancient Israel is still very
much in its infancy. This is surprising in light of how the field of
biblical studies has grown over the last century and the myriads of
publications it has spawned. It is even more startling that the origin of
much of the theoretical foundation of recent biblical scholarship can
be traced to works which had the concerns of cult and priesthood very
much at center stage. The oft cited works of W. Robertson Smith and
Julius Wellhausen come immediately to mind.
W. Robertson Smith is often regarded as not only a leading figure
in the origins of modern biblical scholarship but also as a pioneer in
the field of the History of Religions. His work on the religion of
ancient Israel not only attempted to interpret the nature of biblical
sacrifice in light of its ancient Near Eastern background but also as a
phenomenon of religious practice more generally. It is an odd fact
that Robertson Smith continues to be read by scholars of religion but
no longer by those who work in the field of biblical studies. In part
this ignorance can be justified: Robertson Smith worked with
paradigms that no longer hold, yet his intuition that students of
Israelite religion should be attentive to the findings of those working
on the study of religious phenomena more generally still seems sound.
J. Wellhausen, on the other hand, was not as concerned with
understanding religious practices more generally. Rather he was
occupied with writing a detailed social and political history of ancient
Israel's religious institutions. He is, of course, widely recognized and
cited as the figure who brought together in a most coherent fashion
the theory of the four-fold nature of Pentateuchal authorship. But it is
not often recognized that his work attempted to do more than
articulate the history of the four literary sources. Wellhausen was also
interested in the development of the cult and its attendant religious
institutions, in particular the sacrificial cult and the various priestly
houses. Indeed, his theory of the development of the priestly houses
shaped his reconstruction of early Israelite history. And his
Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel
reconstruction of the development of Israelite cultic life enabled him

to sort out discrete literary strata in the Priestly source.
It is a curious fact that succeeding generations of biblical scholars
did not show the same interest that Robertson Smith and J. Wellhausen
did in the issues of cult and priesthood. There are many reasons for
this development. One would be the gradual specialization of the
various disciplines. Though it was easy for Robertson Smith to work
in Semitics and the History of Religions while they were both in their
infancy, to do so in later generations would prove to be a very
formidable task. The degree of training and amount of information
produced by both fields were often more than any one scholar could
master. Also, one should note the leading role that the discovery of
Akkadian and Ugaritic materials had among those scholars who
followed Robertson Smith and Wellhausen. Much of the most recent
work in biblical religion and history has attempted to digest and
assimilate the vast new textual sources that have appeared in recent
decades. The type of inner biblical comparisons drawn by Wellhausen,
and the attempts to find parallels in distant religious settings witnessed
in Robertson Smith's work seem less than satisfactory when compared
with the types of comparative study one can now pursue with the
materials of the ancient Near East.
Yet, in spite of this recent history, the present generation of
scholarship is now witnessing a return to the study of cult and
priesthood. This shift has been slow but nonetheless quite perceptible.
The concerns are not exactly the same as those which motivated
Robertson Smith and Wellhausen; indeed one could say that the
concerns and even the methods of analysis of this most recent turn to
cultic life are just beginning to evolve. As a result of this state of
affairs, we have not attempted to assert strong editorial control on the
contributors. Rather, we thought it wiser simply to ask a leading
group of junior and senior scholars to present their latest work on
topics of most interest to them. It is hoped that the reader will be able
to glean from this diversity the rich variety of interpretive paradigms
that are available in this field and may be motivated to contribute his
or her own study in the future.
At least two of the papers treat themes of cultic life from the
perspective of the History of Religions. David Wright addresses the
theme of purity in the priestly source and compares his findings with
recent anthropological thought on the subject. Anderson examines the
Preface
theme of praise in the Bible and attempts to set recent work on its
form critical genre in a comparative perspective. The essays of
Milgrom, Schwartz, and Knohl all examine in detail texts within the P
source. Milgrom attempts to outline the structure of Leviticus 11.
Schwartz examines Leviticus 17 as an example of legal composition
which employs a very definite literary artistry. Knohl examines the
classic doublet of Leviticus 4/Num. 15.22-31. He discusses how these
texts are to be understood in light of the development of the Priestly
and Holiness codes.
Ackerman and Olyan have contributed essays on the relationship of
cultic motifs in Israelite narrative to extra-biblical sources. Olyan
attempts to set the crux of Amos 8.14 against its northwest Semitic
and Israelite pilgrimage background, whereas Ackerman points to
themes of an incubation ritual underlying the narrative of Jacob's
deception of Isaac. Finally, rounding off the volume we have a
contribution on the history of the priesthood. In his essay on the
priesthood in the Second Temple period, VanderKam takes up the
provocative thesis of Cross that the practice of papponymy led to
excision of several high priests in the lists of the high priests from that
era.
This book is the result of several years of discussion between Olyan
and Anderson on a number of important problems in the study of the
cult and priesthood. We were eager to bring into relief the exciting
and critical work on cult and priesthood in ancient Israel being done
by both Jews and Christians. We would like to thank the various
contributors for their patience with the avoidable and unavoidable
delays and their willingness to see the book through to its completion.
We hope that the collection proves stimulating and exposes a wider
audience to this long neglected area of research.
Gary A. Anderson and
Saul M. Olyan
ABBREVIATIONS
AB
ABD
AJSR
AnBib
ANET
AP
ASOR
AT
ATD
BA
BAGD
BASOR
BBB
BDB
BUS
BHT
Bib
BibOr
BKAT
BWANT
BZ
BZAW
CAT
CBSC
CTA
EncJud
EM
Erlsr
ETL
ETS
EvQ
EvT
ExpTim
Anchor Bible
Anchor Bible Dictionary
Association of Jewish Studies Review
Analecta biblica
J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1969).
A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1923).
The American Schools of Oriental Research
Altes Testament
Das Alte Testament Deutsch
Biblical Archaeologist
W. Arndt and F. Gingrich, tr., A Greek-English Lexicon
of the NT (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957).
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Bonner biblische Beitrage
F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament
Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia
Beitrage zur historischen Theologie
Biblica
Biblica et orientalia
Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament
Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
Biblische Zeitschrift
BeiheftezurZAW
Commentaire de 1'Ancien Testament
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes
alphabetiques (Paris: Geuthner, 1963)
Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971)
Ensiqlopedya Miqrait (Hebrew)
Eretz Israel
Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
Erfurter theologische Studien
Evangelical Quarterly
Evangelische Theologie
Expository Times
Abbreviations1
GKC
HAT
HKAT
HSM
HTR
HUCA
ICC
IDE
IDBSup
IEJ
Int
JAOS
JBL
JEOL
JHS
JNES
JSOT
JTS
KAI
KAT
KB
KHAT
KUB
LCL
LeS
NEB
NICOT
NJPS
OBO
QL
OTL
RB
RSV
SANT
SBL
SBLDS
SBLMS
SBLSP
SJLA
TDNT
W. Gesenius, E. Kautsch and A.E. Cowley, Hebrew

Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910).
Handbuch zum Alien Testament
Handkommentar zum Alien Testament
Harvard Semitic Monographs
Harvard Theological Review
Hebrew Union College Annual
International Critical Commentary

G.A. Butlrick (ed.), Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962).
K. Crim, (ed.), IDB, Supplementary Volume (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1976)
Israel Exploration Journal
Interpretation
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Journal of Biblical Literature
Jaarbericht. . . exorientelux
Journal of Hellenic Studies
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Journal of Theological Studies
H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische
Inschriften (Weisbaden: Oito Harrassowiiz, 1966-69)
Kommentar zum A.T.
L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris
Testaments libros (Leiden: Brill, 1958)
Kurzer Handkommentar zum A.T.
Keilschriflurkunden aus Boghazkoi
Loeb Classical Library
Lesonenu
New English Bible
New International Commentary on the Old Testament
The New Jewish Publication Society Translation of the
Holy Scriptures
Orbis biblicus et orientalis
Old Latin
Old Testament Library
Revue biblique
Revised Standard Version
Studien zum Alien und Neuen Tesiament
Society of Biblical Literature
SBL Dissertation Series
SBL Monograph Series
SBL Seminar Papers
Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 19641976-)
11
12
TDOT
THAT
ThWAT
TS
VD
Vg
VT
VTSup
WBC
WC
WMANT
WUNT
ZA
ZAW

G. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, (eds.), Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1974-)
E. Jeeni and C. Westermann, eds., Theologisches
Handworterbuch zum Alien Testament (Munich, 1971-79)
G. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, (eds.), Theologisches
Handworterbuch zum Alien Testament (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1970-)
Theological Studies
Verbum domini
Vulgate
Vetus Testamentun
Vetus Testamentum, Supplements
Word Biblical Commentary
Westminster Commentaries
Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
Zeitschriftfiir Assyriologie
Zeitschriftfiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Gary A. Anderson
University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Baruch J. Schwartz
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
James C. VanderKam
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame
Susan Ackerman
Dartmouth College, Hanover
Saul M. Olyan
Yale University, New Haven
David P. Wright
Brandeis University, Waltham
Jacob Milgrom
University of California, Berkeley
Israel Knohl
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
THE PRAISE OF GOD AS A Cuunc EVENT

Gary A. Anderson
May my prayer be as incense before you,
the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice (Ps. 141.2).
It is a truism in most handbooks about ritual and cultic life in the

Bible to say that prayer and sacrifice are co-ordinated activities. This
is most evident from the opening line of the first book of the Mishnah:
From what time in the evening may the Shema be recited? From the time
when the priests enter the temple to eat their offering until the end of the
first segment of the evening (Ber. 1.1).
This text is often mentioned as an indicator of how prayer had

replaced sacrifice in rabbinic piety, the motivations for such an act
being understood to be rooted in a response to the destruction of the
temple in 70 CE. Yet the equation of prayer with sacrifice, indeed the
legal co-ordination of the two acts, is not original to this post-70
situation. Such an interpretive move had been made much earlier and
with considerable depth in communities like the one evidenced at
Qumran. Indeed, as the brief but tantalizing metaphor of Ps. 141.2
reminds us, the essential co-ordination of the two acts is already
present in the era of the Bible. Scholars have been slow to appreciate
these biblical roots for a variety of reasons, most of which cannot
detain us here. But certainly one of the more important reasons for
the failure to grasp the antiquity of this equation has been the failure
to perceive how prayer in the Bible was not always a spontaneous and
effervescent outpouring of one's feeling toward God but could be
and perhaps more often wasa carefully prescribed cultic act.
16

I
In the present essay I would like to look at one form of prayer, the
prayer of praise, as an essential component of a cultic rubric. Perhaps
the first to note the parallel of joyful prayer in the Psalms with the
role of sacrifice in the Bible was P. Humbert.1 Humbert's study of
these prayers was carried out in the context of a larger research
agenda. He was attempting to clarify how the term for 'joy' in the
Bible (simha) functioned in a cultic context. In this important study he
noted the close association of joy and singing in the Psalms. Whereas
Deuteronomy associated joy with sacrificial feasting, the Psalmist
bestowed pride of place to the act of praising. The special role of
praise in the Psalter is well reflected in the selection of verbs which
parallel 'rejoice'. These include: rinnen, zamar, hoda, ra'am and
hithallel, all verbs of vocal expression.2
This association is also clear in prose texts that often speak of 'joy'
being heard. For example, when Solomon was anointed as king,
Adonijah and his friends heard a loud uproar. When Adonijah
inquired as to its cause, he was told that as Solomon marched to
Jerusalem, there was such great rejoicing that the city was in an
1. P. Humbert, '"Laetari et exukare" dans le vocabulaire religieux de 1'ancien
Testament', in Revue d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses 22 (1942), pp. 185214. Humbert writes (p. 198): 'La simha n'y designe done pas seulement
1'allegresse en general, mais, plus particulierement, les cris rituels et les acclamations
consacres qui ponctuent une ceremonie de caract&re religieux'. This should be
compared to the remark of E. Ruprecht ('Smh, sich freuen', in Theologisches
Handworterbuch zum Alien Testament [Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1976],
p. 830): 'Die elementarste AuBerung der Freude ist der Freudenschrei oder Jubelfur,
der keine oder nur sehr kurze verbale Elemente enthalt wie etwa den Ausruf: "Es lebe
der KOnig Salomo!" (1 Kgs 1.39). Deshalb kann Simhd meist Abstraktbegriff
"Freuden" auch terminus technicus fiir das Freudengeschrei sein'. Ruprecht lists the
following texts as implying joyous singing: Gen. 31.27; 1 Sam. 18.6; 2 Sam. 6.12;
1 Kgs 1.40; Isa. 9.2; 16.10; 22.13; 24.11; 55.12; Jer. 7.34 = 16.9 = 25.10 = 33.11;
48.33; Ps. 137.3; Ezra 3.12; 2 Chron. 20.27; 23.18. The list is certainly a minimal
one. C. Westermann says essentially the same thing in his article on gtt in ThWAT,
1, pp. 417-18. More recently, see the study of H. Lenowitz, The Mock-Simhd of
Psalm 137', in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (ed. E.R. Follis: JSOTSup, 40,
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), pp. 149-59.
2. See Humbert, 'Laetari et exultare', p. 203, Ruprecht, lsmh sich freuen',
p. 830.
ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event
17
uproar (1 Kgs 1.45). In Neh. 12.43 it is stated that 'the rejoicing in

Jerusalem could be heard from afar'. Other texts describe the
particular ritual reflex of joy in terms of singing and dancing. Thus
during the dedication of Jerusalem's walls under Nehemiah, it is said
that the Levites were brought to Jerusalem 'to celebrate the dedication
with thanksgiving and song' (12.27).
Humbert's analysis of the role of joyful praise in the Psalter is
noteworthy in many respects. He appreciated the concrete ritual sense
implied therein. In these contexts joyful praise was 'more than a
simple spontaneous feeling, it was to be sure a veritable ritual
commanded by the circumstances. ..and imposed upon all with the
force of a sacred act'.1 Unfortunately, Humbert's sensitivity to its
cultic role ends with this observation. When he attempts to delve
deeper into its ritual significance he becomes encumbered by his
prejudicial view that non-Israelite joy had an orgiastic, Dionysian
aspect which biblical writers could not accept. Thus, the joyful praise
in the Psalms reflects an interior spiritualization of an earlier
'orgiastic, magical rite'.2
A better means of grasping the role of joyous praise in the Psalms
can be obtained by taking into consideration recent studies on the role
of praise in general. Whereas Humbert's primary concern was to
contrast Canaanite and Isralite joy (Canaan's consisted of orgiastic,
cultic shouts, while Israel's was reflective, pious praise), my concern
will be to examine the variegated role of praise in the Psalms
themselves. Praise, in the Psalms, is not the simple outpouring of good
feelings to God. In certain contexts these acts of praise were conceived
of as prescribed cultic acts.3 It is this commanded quality, or what
Westermann calls its 'forensic aspect', that merits close attention.4
The undersanding of praise as an activity not simply an attitude is
best appreciated when the cultic Sitz im Leben is understood. As
Westermann and Kugel take great pains to show, at a very basic level
praise and sacrifice are parallel activities.5 This would appear obvious
1. Humbert, 'Laetari et exultare', p. 198.
3. See M. Greenberg, 'On the Refinement of the Conception of Prayer in the
Hebrew Scriptures', AJSR 1 (1976), p. 60.
4. C. Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms (Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1981), p. 30.
5. J. Kugel, Topics in the History of the Spirituality of the Psalms', in A. Green
18
from the oft-cited Psalms which correlate in a direct fashion the

relation of praise to sacrifice (Pss. 27.6; 54.6, 8; 141.2). Kugel writes:
[I]t is striking that the Psalter often conjoins the motifs of praising God
and sacrificing animals [Pss. 116.7; 54.8; and 141.1]. Such frequent
juxtapositions may point to something basic about how the act of praise
was apprehended. Apparently it was not the spontaneous overflowing of a
grateful worshiper or the simple expression of religious awe; rather was
praise sometimes presented as an offering in and of itself and, in this
sense, parallel to cultic sacrifice. So it is that (especially post-exilic)
biblical texts connect praise- and prayer-like acts with the general term for
divine service; praise and sacrifice are both referred to as 'aboddh.1
As confirmation of Kugel's assessment, one may compare Ps. 107.432 which describes the acts of thanksgiving which are offered by four
types of people, those who: (1) return from the desert; (2) come back
from a journey at sea; (3) are released from prison; and (4) recover
from illness. In cases 1, 2 and 4 the proper response is to give praise
to God for his gracious act of deliverance. For the third example, the
psalmist enjoins both praise and sacrifice (vv. 21-22), the two being
understood as paired activities. The formulaic expression of all four
exhortations to thanksgiving points to a certain interchangeability and
flexibility in the demonstration of thanksgiving: sometimes sacrifice
and praise were necessary, other times praise was sufficient. Psalm
66.13-17 is also a significant piece of corroborative evidence. In this
text, the psalmist says he paid his vows with sacrifices (vv. 13-15), but
while doing so he told all who were assembled what God had done for
him.
It is crucial to note that praise in these contexts derives its prestige
from sacrifice. 2 Also significant is the fact that many Psalms of
individual lament and thanksgiving acknowledge that the location of
(ed.), Jewish Spirituality from the Bible through the Middle Ages (New York:
Crossroad, 1986), pp. 125-27; C. Westermann, Praise and Lament, pp. 28-29.
Also see K. Koch, 'Denn seine Giite wahret ewiglich', EvT 21 (1961), pp. 533-36.
He sees the call to public thanksgiving (toda) as having its origin in the toddhsacrifice. He is followed by F. Criisemann in his classic study of the Thank-offering,
Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel (WMANT, 32;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969). See especially pp. 44 n. 4 and 82
n. 1.
1. Kugel, 'Topics in the History of the Spirituality of the Psalms', pp. 122-23.
2. See esp. Ps. 141.2.
19
praise is none other than the cultic sanctuary itself.1 Most likely when
the psalmist urges the assembly of the righteous to praise God with
him, we should understand the context as the temple.
The cultic role of praise was appreciated by Gunkel and Begrich,
two very important modern interpreters of the Psalter. They observed
that the thanksgiving Psalms showed a striking similarity to epigraphic
monuments of praise found in or near temples throughout the ancient
Near East.2 Their work has received dramatic confirmation in the last
generation. In a ground breaking article, H.L. Ginsberg drew very
close parallels between the Israelite praise of God and ancient Near
Eastern votive or dedicatory inscriptions.3 What was effected in an
epigraphic framework in the ancient Near East was done verbally
in Israel. Ginsberg took his initial starting point from a line in the
Bir-Hadad stele which read: 'This stele which Bir-Hadad set
up.. .because he prayed to [his god] and he harkened to his voice'.4
What is curious about this inscription is that the word for prayer
(ndr) usually designates a vowed offering. The meaning 'prayer' is
clearly a secondary development. The same confusion is found in Ps.
61.6: 'For you, O LORD, have heard my prayers (nedarim), and have
granted the wish of those that revere your name'. Ginsberg writes:
The psychological explanation for the occasional failure of the Arameans
and Hebrews and the regular failure of the Greeks to distinguish between
vowing and praying is obvious: prayer in the strict sense of petition (as
distinct from praise and thanksgiving) was regularly reinforced by vows,
usually conditional vows; cf. Job 22.27. Gen. 28.20-22; Num. 21.13;
Judg. 11.30-31; 1 Sam. 1.11 and apparently 1 Chron. 4.10 are well
known examples from biblical narrative passages.5
In the Bir-Hadad inscriptions, the statue itself represents Bir-Hadad's

grateful response to his god. Biblical Psalms are distinctive in that the
response to answered prayer is most frequently praise;6 not simply
1. Ps. 9.2-3, cf. 12; 92.5 cf. 14; 107.21-22; 22.26.
2. H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, Einleitung in Psalmen (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 4th edn, 1985 [orig. pub. 1933]).
3. H.L. Ginsberg, 'Psalms and Inscriptions of Petition and Acknowledgement',
in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (New York: American Academy for Jewish
Research, 1945), pp. 159-71.
4. 'Psalms and Inscriptions', pp. 159-60.
5. 'Psalms and Inscriptions', p. 164, n. 14.
6. 'Psalms and Inscriptions', p. 169. Ginsberg states that the Psalms contain no
20
spontaneous praise but praise that was vowed. This praise was to be a
public proclamation of YHWH's faithfulness. In particular, the public
proclamation was directed to 'the meek', 'those that revere the Lord',
'his saints', and 'a great assembly'.1 Just as the statue was an
impressive public documentation of a particular act of beneficence on
the part of one's god, so was praise.
Ginsberg also alluded to evidence within the Psalter itself which
added support to his theory regarding the comparison of votive
inscriptions to Psalms of thanksgiving. He noted that the superscription to Hezekiah's psalm of thanksgiving (Isa. 38.9) was entitled
miktab 'a writing'. He also alluded to the study of Johann David
Michaelis in the ninteenth century, who compared this usage of miktab
with the obscure word miktam which is attested in the superscriptions
to Psalms 16; 56-60.2 Many of the ancient versions confirm the thesis
that miktam is to be understood as referring to an inscriptional
acknowledgement.3 Ginsberg also observed that several Psalm titles
include the expression 'do not destroy' (57.1; 58.1; 59.1; 75.1). This
expression, which derives from an epigraphic setting,4 occurs frequently in apposition to miktdml Ginsberg's work, which had been
largely unnoticed for some thirty years, has been substantiated in
recent years by the work of Greenfield and Miller.5 The latter's work
has been especially important because he demonstrates that recent
epigraphic finds in Israel show undeniable psalmic 'forms, formulae,
vocabulary, and content'.6
It is not enough simply to describe praise as having an important
cultic character, akin in many respects to sacrifice itself. One also
needs to be sensitive to the variant types of praise in the Bible.
other vows 'besides the vow of publicity' but this is a bit of an overstatement.
1. 'Psalms and Inscriptions', p. 168.
2. 'Psalms and Inscriptions', p. 169.
3. So the LXX, Theodotion, Old Latin, Targum and Rabbinic literature.
4. See P. Miller, The Psalms and Inscriptions', in Congress Volume: Vienna,
1980, (ed. J.A. Emerton; VTSup, 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981), p. 313. He compares the
psalmic expression with a curse found in the Kilamuwa inscription: 'whoever
destroys (Sht this inscription may Baal Samad destroy (Sht) his head'.
5. See J. Greenfield, 'The Zakir Inscription as Danklied', in Proceedings of the
Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
Studies, 1969), pp. 174-91, and Miller 'Psalms and Inscriptions'.
6. Miller, 'Psalms and Inscriptions', p. 315.
21
Perhaps the most important study of the role of praise to date is that
of C. Westermann. In his study, he distinguishes between two types of
praise: declarative and descriptive.1 Declarative praise is praise directed toward what God has done. It is often retrospective in outlook; it
catalogues the magnalia dei in historical and/or mythic terms. Its
function is to describe who God was and (hopefully still) is.2
Descriptive praise, on the other hand, is interested in the here-andnow. That which God has done just now is what warrants the
psalmist's personal attention. As an example of this distinction
Westermann points to the types of praise found in Isa. 6.3 (the
Sanctus) and Exodus 15 and Judges 5. The latter two are declarative,
the former is descriptive.3 It is this type of praise that the mourner or
penitent vows to God, but cannot, at present, offer.
Descriptive praise is reserved for discrete occasions within a cultic
sequence and is most often, if not always, reserved for public
1. C. Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, pp. 15-35.
2. Declarative praise is not always positive. Though one can list the past benefits
of faith, one cannot describe them to be true for the present moment. Indeed, this
type of praise might be aptly called 'left-handed praise' in the sense that it often
recalls God's great actions in the past so as to dramatize the fact of God's inertness in
the present. Descriptive praise often functions as a verbal goad, designed to stir the
deity to action. On this, see J. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 18-20). The recollection of past deeds
'challenges YHWH to act like the hero of old, to conform to his magisterial nature'
(p. 19).
3. So also Gunkel and Begrich, Einleitung, p. 276. Westermann's categories
have been called into question by Criisemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte, pp. 22562, esp. 226 n. 1. He prefers to postulate two original types of thanksgiving which
he distinguishes by the forms of address. The address of God in the third person
reflects a stage just prior to the thanksgiving ceremony, while the address in the
second person reflects the praise made during the actual sacrifice. Such a distinction
is flawed in three ways. First, we have no external evidence of such a two-fold
thanksgiving sequence. Secondly, this hypothesis cannot explain the fact that a psalm
which vows to praise God in the future (e.g. Ps. 22.23) can at the same time contain
words of praise to the deity (Ps. 22.4-6) about his past activity. This particular
temporal sequence does not stem from an actual thanksgiving ceremony. Such a
ceremony still lies in the future. Thirdly, the hypothesis of Criisemann flattens out
the tension inherent in descriptive praise. This declaration of past activity stands in
stark contrast to the psalmist's present plight. His praise of God in the third person is
not an act done shortly before the sacrificial offering of thanks, rather it is an attempt
by the psalmist to 'jog' the memory of his God in regard to his past activity.
22
occasions. Indeed, the best way to characterize descriptive praise is to

call it a joyous act:1
Oh magnify the LORD with me,
let us rejoice in his name together (Ps. 34.3).
May those who delight in my vindication shout and rejoice
let them always say: the LORD is great,
who desires the restoration of his servant (Ps. 35.27).2
The identification of cultic praise as a joyous act is not made lightly.

There is a homologous relationship between the cultic role of this
joyous praise and the cultic role of the seldmim offering in the
lamentation sequence. When lamenters have received an assurance of
divine assistance or have experienced divine deliverance they must
offer either praise or a selamim sacrifice. Just as the sacrifice is
identified as a means of demonstrating joy before the Lord (so Deut.
12.11-12 et passim), so also for praise. The description of joyful
praise in the Psalter is much more than an outpouring of spontaneous
feelings, indeed they play an important cultic role, not unlike the role
of the seldmim. The close relationship between the experience of joy
and the act of public praise was noted by Humbert.3 He observed that
in many different psalmic genres the injunction to rejoice is best
understood as a call to communal praise. Westermann went even
further and stated that the phrase 'I will rejoice' (Ps. 31.7) can
function as a formal vow of praise in the body of the Psalm.4 It is not
surprising that in hymns5 and communal Psalms of lament6 the
injunction to rejoice is addressed to the gathered assembly. But even
in Psalms of individual lament and thanksgiving, the vow to give
joyful praise is understood to presume a public audience.7
1. See the study of Humbert, 'Laetari et exultare'. Note that Pss. 9.2-3 and
71.22-23 cited above as well as every text cited in the previous note associate public
praise with the experience of joy.
2. Other references to public proclamations after deliverance can be found in: Pss.
5.12; 9.2-3; 30.12-13; 32.11; 35.27; 40.17 (= 70.5); 64.11; 69.33; 92.2-5 et
passim.
4. Westermann, Praise and Lament, p. 75, n. 27.
5. Pss. 33.21; 48.12; 96.11; 97.1, 8, 11; 100.2; 104.31; 149.2.
6. Pss. 106.5; 126.3; 137.3.
7. Out of 19 examples, 15 include explicit references to a public audience.
23
The vowed, public character of this experience of joy explains why

the mourner or penitent cannot partake of it. Public praise, as a
joyous act, is forbidden to penitents. It is something they can vow, but
not at present experience. This abstention from joyful praise is best
reflected in Psalm 137:
By the waters of Babylon,
there we sat and also wept,
while remembering Zion.
There beside the willows,
we hung up our lyres.
For there, they requested of us,
our captors, the words of a song [dibre Sir],
our tormentors, an expression of joy \simhd}:
'Sing for us, one of the songs of Zion!'
These well-known lines make clear not only the relation between
songs and joy, but also the particular type of song that is implied by
'joy'. The captors do not desire any type of song (dibre sir), but a
joyous song (simhd), a song that declares (siru 'sing for us') in the
present tense the glory due Zion.1 As the other Psalms of lament
already noted make clear, this type of joyous song could be vowed by
the mourner, but could not be performed.2
The equation of praise and joyful song was not lost on the rabbinic
imagination. In m. 'Arak. 2.4 there is a discussion of the role of music
in the temple service. In b. 'Arak. (lla) this mishna serves as the
point of origin for a baraita that seeks to define the halakhic role of
this music. In this baraita, R. Meir claims that the omission of the
song makes the sacrifice invalid while the Sages hold that it does not.
1. The parallelism of dibre sir and simha illustrates very well the seconding nature
of biblical parallelism so well explicated by J. Kugel (The Idea of Biblical Poetry
[New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981], pp. 49-59). In this context, the b word
in the sequence (Simhd ) defines precisely the nature of the a word (dibre Sir). It is
worth noting that in Amos 8.10 Sir (song) is contrasted with qind (dirge).
2. This type of distinction is still operative in Christian liturgy. During Lent, the
words of descriptive praise, that is the alleluias spoken during the consecration of the
Eucharist, are dropped from the liturgy, though the words of declarative praise
remain (e.g. the Sanctus). Upon the completion of this penitential cycle, they are not
only re-introduced in the appropriate places but also encouraged elsewhere in the
liturgy.
24
In the consequent discussion of this contradiction the question is

raised, 'How do we know that the song is obligatory in the first place?'
To which R. Mattenah says:
[It is derived] from here:
Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joy and gladness of
heart [28.47]. Now what service ['abodd] is it that is done with joy and
gladness of heart? It must be said a song [Sir] [Deut. 28.47]. What is
meant here is not just any type of song, but a song of praise as is found in
the Psalter.
Equally important is the mishna in Suk. 5.1: 'It was said: "whoever
has not seen the joy of Bet $6'ebd [the water drawing ceremony] has
never experienced joy'". The event in question is the rite of carrying
water from the spot of its drawing (Siloam) to the Temple Mount.
There was great singing, playing and praising as the water was carried
to the temple.1 Finally we should mention a midrash on the psalm title
'a song of David when he fled from his son to Absalom' (Ps. 3.1). In
b. Ber. 7b an insightful question is asked: 'why does it not read a
dirge for David?' In other words, why would an event of such tragic
proportions be the occasion for a song? R. Shimon b. Abishalom
responded:
It is similar to a man who had an outstanding bond due. Before he paid it
he was sad, but after he paid it he rejoiced. So also for David. For the
Holy One, blessed be he, had said to him: Tm about to bring a tragedy
upon you from your house' [2 Sam. 12.11]. David grieved and said:
'Perhaps it is a servant or bastard who has no relation to me'. When he
saw that it was Absalom he rejoiced. Because of this the Psalm [title]
reads: 'a song. .. '
This midrash not only recognizes the inappropriateness of a song in a

time of grief, it also associates, in the closest manner possible, the
feeling of joy with its outward manifestation in a song of praise.
1. The mishna in question begins with a reference to the flute playing at this event.
The Talmud understands this as inferring the greater importance of the flute-playing
as opposed to vocal singing. Curiously, the Rabbis claim in general that singing was
the essential feature of temple music and thus was considered as abodd.But at the
festival of water-drawing, the act of vocal singing was not considered as abodd.
25
II
Having established the cultic role of praise in the Psalter it is time to

consider what symbolic role this form of religious experience played
in Israelite religion. In order to appreciate this I must reconsider the
role of praise as a concrete expression of 'joy'. In Hebrew as well as
in the other Semitic languages of the ancient Near East (Hebrew,
Jewish Aramaic, Syriac and Akkadian) the term 'joy' is not so much a
general term of emotional happiness, but rather a term which
connotes particular pleasures associated with the observation of
specific rituals.1 In particular, the pleasures that are most characteristic of the experience of joy are those which stand in typological
contrast to those of mourning. Thus, just as mourning consists of
fasting, rending the garments, putting dust on the head, sexual
continence, and lamenting, so the experience of joy included eating
and drinking, putting on festal attire, anointing oneself with oil and
bathing, sexual union, and singing the praises of the Deity. It is not
my point that all these concrete expressions are found each time the
word joy occurs, on the contrary, many times only a few of these
types of behavior are found. What is central here is the fact that
joyous and grievous types of behavior stand in typological contrast.
This is not a point of mere abstraction; one discovers upon a closer
examination of the imagery of the Psalter, that the joyous expression
that is exhorted in the Psalms concludes a sequence that begins with
the speaker of the psalm in a state of lamentation. The moment of
praise marks a boundary in this cultic sequence. To begin the active
praise of God is to signal one's departure from the state of
lamentation.
As any reader of the Psalms knows, the state of the lamenter is very
closely parallel to that of the mourner. They undergo the same sort of
ritual actionsboth tear their garments, lament, and fast. And both
the lamenter and the mourner identify themselves with the dead. The
identification of the lamenter with the dead has long been recognized
1. The use of joy in these various languages is developed in considerable detail in
my book on the terms for joy in the Semitic languages: A Time to Dance, A Time to
Mourn: The Expression of Joy and Grief in Israelite Religion (University Park, PA:
Penn State Press, 1991). I would like to thank Penn State Press for allowing me to
use portions of that book for the composition of this article.
26
by scholars. This identification is possible in Israelite religion because

the abode of the dead, Sheol, is not simply for the physically dead.
Sheol could also be a place one could experience through
lamentation.1 In the psalms of lament, the psalmist's experience is
often described as a descent into Sheol, and the act of deliverance as a
raising up from Sheol:
For great is your steadfast love toward me,
you have delivered me from the very depths of Sheol (Ps. 86.13).
You have shown me many grievous troubles,
but you will bring me to life again.
Even from the depths of the underworld,
you shall bring me up again (Ps. 71.20).
Be gracious to me, O LORD!
O how I suffer from those who hate me,
you, who raise me up from the gates of death
so that I may recount all manner of praise toward you,
while in the gates of the daughter of Zion,
rejoicing in your deliverance! (Ps. 9.14-15).
Upon deliverance the psalmist often goes straight to the temple to
1. Another comparable ritual movement can be found in Lev. 13-14. This text
describes the treatment of one who has a skin disease. This individual who resembles
the mourner in every respect, is banished from the community and resides in the
wilderness, the land of death (Lev. 13.45-46). This process makes him unclean and
so he must be isolated from the camp where the rules of temple-purity are in place.
Once the disease has run its course and he becomes well, he must undergo rites of
purification. He shaves off all his hair, bathes, and then enters the camp (Lev. 14.8-9).
The example of the leper is particularly instructive, for it shows that ritual
isolation in the wilderness, the land of death, is accompanied by the ritual display of
mourning. The leper is, in a way, dead. Thus Miriam is described as one who is like
the dead when she contracts leprosy (Num. 12.12). In this instance death is a
process or state, a process which can culminate in the complete termination of life,
but does not have to. This understanding is nicely reflected in a Rabbinic midrash on
King Uzziah's leprosy in 2 Chron. 26 which resulted in his expulsion from the
temple. According to the schema of Leviticus, he would have to make his home in
the wilderness, the place of death. Thus in Isa. 6.1, when the writer notes that
Isaiah's vision occurred during the year King Uzziah died, this is understood as
referring to the onset of his leprosy (so the Targum and Exod. R. 1.34)! In sum, the
leperand indeed as we will see in a moment the lamenter in generalcould be
characterized as like the dead, living a life which is cut off from the presence of God.
27
fulfill a vow of sacrifice or of praise. Joyous, public proclamation of

deliverance is an integral part of the ritual process:
I will give thanks to the LORD with my whole heart,
I will tell of all your wonderful deeds.
I will rejoice and exult in you
I will sing praise to your name, O Most High (Ps. 9.2-3).
I will also praise you with the harp.
for your faithfulness, O my God;
I will sing praises to you with the lyre,
O Holy One of Israel.
My lips will shout for joy,
when I sing praise to thee,
even my very soul, which you have ransomed (Ps. 71.22-23).
It is tempting to dismiss these descriptions of descent as poetic trope

and nothing more. It is figurative language, language of inexpressible
grief seeking written form. But, as Earth's study so eloquently
reminds us, this temptation should be avoided.1 In the highly realized
world of the cult, terms such as 'death' and 'life' assume specialized
meanings. Death and Sheol are concepts that can be appropriated in
cultic ritual. Indeed the descriptions of descent should be understood
as structural inversions of another common symbolization of biblical
myth: the temple as the entry point to heaven. In regard to the latter,
scholars recognize that the earthly temple and its cultus provides a
means of symbolic entry to the heavenly realm. Thus Clifford argues
that the invitation to a cultic feast in Isaiah 55 is not simply an
invitation to the temple in Zion, but an 'invitation to a feast where
life, or proximity to the deity is proffered'.2 Life in this instance, as
Clifford argues, is to be understood as the experience of the very
presence of God amidst the sacrificial cultus. An even better example
of this phenomena is the description of Isaiah's vision in 6.1-8. In this
text the temple is described as a place 'where a mere mortal. ..can
make contact with the realm of overpowering holiness, where he can
1. C. Earth, Die Errettung vom Tode in den indlviduellen Klage- und Dankliedern
des Alien Testaments (Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1947).
2. R. Clifford, 'Isaiah 55: Invitation to a Feast', in C. Meyers and
M.P. O'Connor (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1983), p. 30.
28
hear the language of angels and respond to it'.1 Stepping into the
throne room of God in Jerusalem is equated with an entrance to the
supernal temple above. The distinctions between earthly and heavenly
temples disappears in the cultic world.
It is in contrast to the availability of the divine presence in the
temple that we should understand the language of descent in the
Psalter. The words of descent in these Psalms are not merely poetic
filigree. These words are associated with ritual actions of self-inflicted
dishevelment that were presumed to identify oneself with the realm of
the dead. The ritual movement of the lamenter is perhaps nowhere
better seen than in the action of David (2 Sam. 12.16-23).2 If our text
preserved the lament David spoke, we would not be at all surprised if
it contained references to entering the realm of Sheol.
In summary, I can say that just as 'life' was experienced in the cult
as being before the very presence of God in the (heavenly) temple, so
'death' was experienced in the cult as being cut off from that presence
outside the temple. Both descent to Sheol and ascent to the temple had
ritual accoutrements.
1. J. Levenson, Sinai andZion (San Fransisco: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 123.
Also note his comment: 'What happened to Isaiah. .. [is that] the Temple mythos
came alive. In Isaiah's ecstatic experience, he sees and hears a session of the divine
council; moreover, he is enabled to take part in it by bearing its message
simultaneously down from heaven and out of the Temple (which are, in fact, the
same thing). The earthly Temple is thus the vehicle that conveys the prophet into the
supernal Temple, the real Temple, the Temple of YHWH and his retinue, and not
merely the artifacts that suggest them. This Temple is an institution common to the
heavenly and the terrestrial realms; they share it. . .Thus, Isa. 6.1-8 shows that the
Temple could serve as both the "meeting place of the gods". .. and the "meeting
place of heaven and earth'" (p. 123).
2. Compare also Ps. 16.9: 'Therefore my heart rejoices, and my inner being
exults, even my flesh abides secure. For You did not abandon me to Sheol, nor
allow your devoted one to experience the Pit. Rather, you showed me the path of
Life: sating me with joys in your presence, delicacies at your right hand forever'. The
joys spoken of here (semahot) refer to concrete pleasures (so the plural form, an odd
construction if the intention is purely emotional) that have become available to the
psalmist once he has experienced deliverance and come before the Lord. One could
compare this to Ps. 23 which describes deliverance as a full table, an overflowing
cup and a head anointed with oil (v. 5). This contrasts with the psalmist's state
before deliverance. At that point, without food, when wine, or oil were unavailable,
the psalmist describes himself as in 'the valley of the darkness [of death]' (v. 4).
29
The psalms of lament are often allusive in regard to the ritual

disfigurement they presuppose. It would certainly be an exaggeration
to assume every psalm of lament was characterized by a form of ritual
defilement. But this ritual process must have been much more
widespread than is often acknowledged. Testimony to such a process
stands out in bold relief in Psalm 30. The psalm begins with a
testimony to the deliverance provided by God:
2
3
4
5
6
I shall extoll you O LORD for you drew me up,

you did not allow my enemies to rejoice over me.
LORD my God, I cried to you and you healed me.
LORD, you raised me up from Sheol,
restored my life from those who descend to the pit.
Sing to LORD, O his servants,
Offer praise at the recollection of his holiness.
For his anger is only momentary,
but for a lifetime is his favor.
In the evening one lies down weeping,
but in the morning there is joyous praise.
This act of praise recounts the deliverance as God's raising the

lamenter from the world of the dead. Sickness took him down; God's
healing power raised him up.1
After this summary of the final act of praise the psalmist recounts
the situation leading up to his deliverance:
7
8
But then I said, during my prosperity, 'I will never be moved.'

O LORD by your favor you made me stand,
as though a mountain of strength.
[But then] you hid your face and I was dismayed.
To you LORD I am calling, to my Lord I make supplication.
1. Perhaps there is a parallel to Daniel's vision of deliverance. His deliverance

took place at night in a dream in the temple. His was a rite of incubation. More than
likely the psalmist was not spending the night in the templehe describes his
existence as in Sheolbut something did transpire within the evening which led to
his redemption in the morning.
30

10
11
'What gain is there should I descend silently1 to the pit?

Can dust give you praise or declare your faithfulness?'
Hear me LORD, grant me grace, LORD my helper!
Having made this plea to God, the psalmist then recounts his
deliverance and returns to the theme with which the psalm began, the
vow of praise.
12
13
You turned my mourning into dancing,

you stripped off my sackcloth,
you girded me with joy(ous attire)
Thus, my heart shall sing your praise and not be silent,
LORD, my God, forever I will praise you!
The experience of deliverance in this psalm is not characterized by a

simple journey to the temple to praise God. The psalmist declares that
his deliverance is observable in his own ritual movement. His state of
mourning has been turned to dancing and his sackcloth has been
replaced by joyous festive attire. The ritual movement from mourning
to joy has mirrored a spatial movement from Sheol to temple, from
the absence of God to the presence of God. Indeed, other laments in
the Bible provide hints that the ritual comportment of the distressed
individual was similar to that of the mourner.2
The invocation to joyful praise is extremely common in laments and
must have served to give public witness to the divine act of
deliverance which the lamenter experienced.3 These calls to praise,
though having a certain aura of spontaneity, ought to be viewed
somewhat differently. These hymns of declarative praise were carefully placed elements in a cultic sequence. They were the tokens of joy
which marked the end of a lamentation sequence.
The cultic role of these hymns of praise is analogous to the votive
or dedicatory monuments which ancient Near Eastern kings were
wont to place in their temples. These monuments testify to the
thankfulness of the supplicant and serve to illustrate graphically the
1. On this translation see, N.J. Tomp, 'La louange realiste du Psaume 30(29)',
ETL 62 (1986), p. 258. Also cf. N. Lohfink, 'Enthielten die im Alien Testament
bezeugten Klageriten eine Phase des Schweigens?', VT 12 (1962), pp. 260-77,
esp. 75-78, and E. Lipiriski, La liturgie penitentielle dans le Bible (Paris: Cerf,
1969), pp. 31-35.
2. See Pss. 69.11-12; 109.24; Isa. 58.3-5; 62.2-3.
3. So Pss. 5.12-13; 9.2-3; 32.11; 34.2-4; 35.27-28; 64.11; 109.28-30.
31
relation of the supplicant to his god. The same applies to the verbal
'monuments' of praise offered to the deity. As Kugel writes, praising
one's god through public song or votive inscription is:
a kind of prise deposition, a formal setting up of the worshiper as subject
to God (one might almost say, in the royal sense, a subject of God,
dependent, indebted), in every sense a devotee. . .In the concentrated
eternity of the temple, the worshiper's best course is simply to be there, to
be there in the same way that the deity is there (through representation)
and so to enable oneself to stand perpetually before the deity, pressing
one's message on the divine king just as a servant or courtier might. The
point is a subtle one, but worth insisting on: the deity is not simply
conceived to be collecting praises, nor, for that matter simply storing up
oxidized calves and sheep in the supernal realm; but by acting the part of
the domestic servant or humble courtier, the worshiper is, as it were,
paying with himself, setting himself in a subservient relationship to the
god'.1
Kugel's analysis can also shed light on the lamentation sequence. If

one can say that the formal act of publicly offering praise is a kind of
prise de position, a verbal demonstration of one's relationship and
immediate proximity to one's god, then one would expect the reverse
situation to hold true for the lamentation. Instead of demonstrating his
proximity to the deity, the lamenter is declaring his present distance
from the deity. Hence the oft-mentioned reproach, 'where is your
god?' Indeed, just as mourning attire can restrict one's access to the
royal court,2 so it also can for the divine court.3
This insight allows us to infer a new level of meaning in the
psalmist's plaintive question: 'Can the dust give you praise or declare
your faithfulness?' One level of meaning here is the obvious one: the
physically dead cannot praise God. But one should also note that
neither can the lamenter praise God in a declarative fashion.4 He is
1. Kugel, Topics in the History of the Spirituality of the Psalms', pp. 127, 12829.
2. See for example Est. 4.1-2 wherein Mordechai cannot enter the royal presence
because of his state of mourning.
3. Thus priests, because they had to enter regularly before the presence of God
were severely restricted as to whom they could mourn for. E. Feldman correlates the
category of mourning with that of uncleanness in his book, Biblical and Post-Biblical
Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology (New York: Ktav, 1977).
4. One thinks of Isaiah's reaction after witnessing the angelic host singing the
sanctus before the Lord (Isa. 6.4): 'Woe to me that I was silent! For a man of
32
like the dust. The psalmist, in his descent to Sheol, has found it
impossible to utter any declarative praise. Indeed by vowing to
provide this praise only upon deliverance, the psalmist shows us that
such behavior is not consonant with his present ritual state. His
musings about Sheol are not merely poetic, as Earth so eloquently
argued. They impinge on and have practical consequences for his
present state of existence.1
It certainly cannot be accidental that the one inscriptional example
we possess of a lament was found in a cave (Khirbet el-Qoni).2
Because caves were used as burial chambers, they were also thought to
be points of entry to the underworld. Perhaps it was for this reason
that the lamenter's thoughts were inscribed on the walls of a cave. In
any event, one cannot help being struck by the imagery of reversal:
Laments could be scribbled on the walls of caves while songs of
thanksgiving were inscribed on steles and placed in temples.
Moreover, laments highlighted the themes of divine absence and
descent, while songs of thanksgiving highlighted those of divine
presence and ascent.
In this study I have endeavoured to show the manner in which the
praise of God has become a cultic act in ancient Israelite psalmody.
Though previous generations of scholars have sensed that this was
true, the precise boundaries of this fact have not been clear. The work
of Ginsberg on the parallels between epigraphic monuments and the
Psalms was particularly important as it demonstrated how praise was a
public act that was often the fulfillment of a previous vow. The role of
praise within the sequence of the vow points to the fact that praise can
be regulated. At certain times it is withheld and at others prescribed.
This regulation of the act of praising can be correlated with the
imagery of ascent and descent in the Psalter. During the moment of
unclean lips am I, and amid an unclean people I dwell'. We understand the verbal
root of 'I was silent', nidmeti (as though from dmh) to be a bi-form of the root dmm.
On this see O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), p. 128.
The common translation, 'I am undone' is sui generis for the verbal root dmh and not
to be preferred.
1. The best article on the importance of these inscriptions for understanding the
psalms of lament is that of Miller, 'Psalms and Inscriptions'.
2. On this inscription, see the important article of A. Lemaire, 'Prieres en temps
de crise: les inscriptions de Khirbet Beit Lei', RB 83 (1976), pp. 558-68. Additional
bibliography can be found on p. 558, n. 1 of Lemaire's article.
33
lamentation, when the psalmist can only vow to praise his God, praise
is consciously withheld. This moment of conspicuous divine absence is
often described as an encounter with death and thus the psalmist often
describes it as a descent into the bowels of Sheol. Curiously, the only
epigraphic evidence we possess of a lament is found in a burial
chamber of a cave in the Judaean desert. Certainly this was not
accidental as the desert, in Israelite religion, was conceived of as a
mythic alloform of Sheol. Conversely, the mention of praise in the
Psalms is always spoken of as taking place in the temple amid a
gathered throng. Often, this act of praising occurs conjointly with the
mention of sacrificial feasting. Because the locus of praise is within
the temple precincts and concludes a lamentation sequence that began
with a near brush with death, the psalmist can only conclude that this
moment in time is a result of divine deliverance. The moment of
praise is not just a return to contented existence but an act of being
raised 'from the very depths of Sheol' (Ps. 86.13).
THE PROHIBITIONS CONCERNING THE 'EATING' OF BLOOD
IN LEVITICUS 17
Baruch J. Schwartz
Today it is generally acknowledged that the prose, poems, prophecies

and prayers in the Bible require close reading as works of literary art.
We have come to agree that the first and primary task of interpretation is that of elucidating how a psalm says what it says, how a
narrative means what it means, how a prophecy expresses what it
expresses. Scholars now concur that only after identifying the text's
formal, structural and stylistic features and determining the expressive
function of each, that is, only after apprehending the unique coherence
of form and content peculiar to the specific text at hand, have we
approached a true historical-philological understanding of the text's
meaning and significance.
This paper is an attempt1 to illustrate that the same is true of
another genre of biblical literature, the so-called 'legal literature' of
the Bible.
There are three major reasons for believing that the 'laws' in the
Bible are works of literary art.2 First, upon examination the 'laws' in
the Torah exhibit numerous non-legal literary features: varied
formulations, peculiar contexts, extraordinary word choice and
1. The attempt is part of an on-going study of the laws in Leviticus, begun in my
doctoral dissertation, 'Selected Chapters of the Holiness CodeA Literary Study of
Leviticus 17-19', (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1987) [Hebrew] (hereafter
'Chapters'). This paper is based primarily on pp. 25-33; 45-54; 204-12; 220-31. An
abbreviated, oral version was delivered at the May 1988 meeting of the Columbia
University Seminar on the Study of the Hebrew Bible. I gratefully acknowledge the
generous support provided by the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust (1981-83 and 198788), the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture (1983-85 and 1987-88) and the
Charlotte and Moritz Warburg Fellowship Trust (1984-86).
2. For full argumentation, see Schwartz, 'Chapters', pp. 1-24.
SCHWARTZ Prohibitions Concerning the 'Eating' of Blood
35
terminology with semantic power far exceeding the strict demand of

legal precision, explanatory and motivational clauses of all types,
repetitions and legally illogical omissions, exhortations and
admonitions woven in the very fiber of the legal statement, and more.
All these can either be explained out of existence (as they usually are
by commentators, who see them as evidence of redactional stages,
secondary interpolations and editorial laxity), or taken as purposeful,
functional, literary elements, rhetorical devices employed with
expressive design. The second option is preferable because (and this is
the second reason) the 'laws' in the Torah form part of a story,
according to which they were spoken in order to be proclaimed, they
were to be proclaimed in order to convince, they were to convince in
order to be observed, and they were to be observed in fulfillment of
the Sinai covenant, which is itself not a historical-legal fact but a
literary model for a theological tenet. The third reason is that the
laws, as well as the story in which they are contained, were composed
in order to be read publicly and understood, to have a lasting,
pedagogical, persuasive influence on later generations of listeners.
These are the main indications that the 'legal collections' are not, and
never were, laws for law-books, lawyers, courts and judges, but
rather artful literary representations of what the authors believed to
have been the commanding voice of the divine lawgiver. As such,
they, no less than biblical narrative, poetry and wisdom texts, invite,
actually require, the application of the method of 'close reading'.
Of course, the proof of a methodological suggestion is in its
application. In the following example, the laws concerning the
ingestion of blood in Leviticus 17, the discussion will be confined to
the rhetorical and literary aspects of the passage: context, structure,
formulation, syntax and terminology. In accord with the demands of
the method of Total Interpretation', the object of inquiry will be not
only the purposeful design which is manifest in these features but also
how these features function as expressive elements. The many other
interesting questions surrounding this chapter, such as the historically
original reason, or reasons, for the prohibition of blood, the
importance of blood in the ancient Near East, the actual dating of the
passage, and questions of textual corruption and versional variants,
will not be addressed directly.
36

I
We begin with the positioning of the blood prohibitions within the

literary unit.1
In ch. 17 God orders Moses to transmit to Aaron and his sons, and
to the entire Israelite community, five proclamations, containing five
laws and constituting the five paragraphs of which the body of the
1. The commentaries on Leviticus to be cited below by the author's name are as
follows: B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus (HKAT; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1903); A. Bertholet, (KHAT; Tubingen: Mohr, 1901); A.T. Chapman and
A.W. Streane (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914);
A. Dillmann, Die Biicher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Victor Ryssel, 1897);
K. Elliger (HAT; Tubingen: Mohr, 1966); C.D. Ginzburg, The Third Book of
Moses, Called Leviticus, in Old Testament Commentary for English Readers (ed.
CJ. Ellicott; London, 1884); D.Z. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (Berlin, 1906);
M.M. Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament, Leviticus
(London: Longmans, I, 1867; II, 1872); M. Noth (ATD; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1962); G. Wenham (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979);
N.H. Wessely (Wiesel), Biur to Leviticus (1805 and frequently reprinted). Hebrew
commentaries to the Pentateuch cited below are Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Nahmanides (all
according to Miqra'ot Gedoldf), Bechor Shor (PeruS la-Hamissa HumSe Torah me'et
R. Yosep Bekor Sor [repr. Jerusalem: Maker, 1978]), Hizkuni (Peruse ha-Torah leRabbenu Hizqlya b. R. Manoah [ed. H. Chavel, Jerusalem: Mossad Harev Kook,
1981]), don Isaac Abrabanel (Penis 'al ha-Torah [repr. Jerusalem: Bene Arbel,
1964]), S.D. Luzzatto (S.D. Luzzatto's Commentary to the Pentateuch [ed.
P. Schlesinger; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1965]), and A. Ehrlich (Mikra Ki-pheshuto, I [repr.
New York: Ktav, 1969]). Monographs on the Holiness Code to be cited by author's
name are: A. Cholewiriski, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium (AnBib, 66;
Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976); C. Feucht, Untersuchungen zum
Heiligkeitsgesetz (Berlin: Evangelischer Verlagsanstalt, 1964); R. Kilian,
Literarische und formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen des Heiligkeitsgesetz (BBB,
19; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963); W. Kornfeld, Studien zum Heiligkeitsgesetz
(Wien: Herder, 1952); H.G. Reventlow, Heiligkeitsgesetz, formgeschichtlich
untersucht (Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961). Studies of Lev.
17 and of the issues arising from it are: H.C. Brichto, 'On Slaughter and Sacrifice,
Blood and Atonement', HUCA 47 (1976), pp. 19-37; N. Fuglister, 'Siihne durch
BlutZur Bedeutung von Leviticus 17,11', in Studien zum PentateuchWalter
Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. G. Braulik; Wien-Freiburg-Basel: Herder,
1977), pp. 163-64; B. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord (Leiden: Brill, 1974);
J. Milgrom, 'A Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17.11', JBL 90 (1971), pp. 149-56;
L. Sabourin, 'Nefesh, sang et expiation (Lv 17, 11.14)', Sciences ecclesiastiques 18
(1966), pp. 25-45. For additional studies, see below.
37
chapter is comprised.1 These are not 'apodictic' laws, nor are they
even 'casuistic' laws in the conventional sense: they do not begin with
'D or DK. They are declarations; their purpose is to announce what will
happen if certain offenses are committed or certain commands not
complied with.
These five paragraphs share a common formulational mold: they all
consist essentially of one compound sentence, containing two clauses.
In all five cases the first clause begins with the subject, that is, the
person upon whom the law is binding, in casus pendens, followed by
the relative "ittfK and a verb in the imperfect, in which the case is
stated; the second, main clause begins with a verb in the converted
perfect, the subject of which resumes the casus pendens, and
pronounces the law itself.2 The explanatory or motivational sections,
which appear in all but the second paragraph, follow. This pattern
is found in all five paragraphs, even the greatly expanded first one
(vv. 3-7).
The first four all open with the formula ]cn] btn&r rrnn tf'K tf'K
iB}[DDina"nriBJn)mjn, followed by verb. Now the lengthy tf'K efat
etc. does not convey any more legal information than a simple "ittfK G^R
would have conveyedwe would still know that the Israelites are
intended. 3 These words are rather an indication of the lawgiver's
1. In light of the syntactic analysis below, the opinion of some commentators
(most recently Wenham, following Bertholet and Dillmann, as well as Reventlow,
Heiligkeitsgesetz p. 36) that vv. 13-16 are one section, along with the view that
vv. 10-14 comprise a single paragraph (e.g. Noth) or that vv. 8-12 constitute a unit
(Brichto, 'On Slaughter and Sacrifice', p. 25) must be rejected. The close
connection between the third and fourth paragraphs, notwithstanding, the chiastic
pattern suggested by M. Paran (Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch
[Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989], pp. 169-70) cannot be upheld.
2. For this use of the converted perfect, see GKC 112oo; on the syntax of the
formulational mold, see GKC 140d and 143b, and lately, T. Muraoka, Emphatic
Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), pp. 93ff.,
esp. 98-99.
3. Even the form-critics do not go so far as to differentiate; see Kornfeld, Studien,
p. 44; R. Sonsino, Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law (SBLDS, 45; Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1980), p. 14. On the BTR tO'K form, especially in H, see A. Jirku,
Das weltliche Recht im Alien Testament (Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1927), pp. 60-63;
Kornfeld, Studien, p. 45; Feucht, Untersuchungen, pp. 22-24, 97-99; Sonsino,
Motive Clauses, passim. Only W. Zimmerli ('Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede
des Ezechiel', ZAW 66 [1954], pp. 12ff.) views the combination of 0'R tf'R with
38
desire to emphasize that his words are binding upon all and that they
must be proclaimed to all. This aim is also reflected in the explicit
reference to the 13 in four of the five paragraphs,1 as well as in the
narrational v. 2, where the lawgiver has styled the divine speech to
begin with the words 'Speak to Aaron and his sons and all the children
of Israel'. This instruction is extremely infrequent in the Torah, and
this is its first occurrence.2
The first three of these four paragraphs conclude with some form
of the rro-threat.3 The fifth paragraph, on the other hand, since its
intent is not to proclaim the inevitable result of some offense but
rather to enact a method of extricating oneself from a situation in
order to avoid otherwise inevitable results, does not conclude with the
rrD-threat; it merely states that the individual who refuses to comply
with the remedy it provides will remain in a state of p^Kfoj. 4 The
smooth transition from the third paragraph to the fifth is achieved by
the fourth: it contains the neJK.. .tf'Ktzfa* formula of the first three, but,
though it mentions the mo-threat in its motivational section (v. 14bp),
it does not actually threaten in its own main clause (v. 13b). It
the rrD-threat as an independent legal Gaming.

1. On the inclusion of the "U in all but the first paragraph, see Schwartz,
'Chapters', p. 205 n. 17.
2. The last point was noted only by Ginzburg. Wessely, Dillmann and Hoffmann,
following Ibn Ezra and others, understand the inclusive v. 2 as pertaining to vv. 3-9
only.
3. This threat is the topic of many studies, most recently an unpublished
dissertation by DJ. Wold (The Meaning of the Biblical Penalty KARETH [PhD
diss.; Berkeley: University of California, 1978]; see also his 'The KARETH Penalty
in P: Rationale and Cases', SBLSP I (1979), pp. 1-45). For the present context it is
sufficient to say thet rro is a divinely-imposed penalty which may take many forms
but always has the same result: extinction of the offender and his line; see my
'Chapters', pp. 27-29.
4. The expression (JJttfa, Ron) |W Hto3 cannot be treated here at length. In brief:
the ]1J) is the sin itself; not, as often thought, guilt or punishment. 'Bearing' sin is
what sinners do until they are somehow relieved of their burden; if they are relieved
of it by God, it is then God who 'bears' the sin (thus, when God is its subject,
\\y Kftu refers not to punishment but to forgiveness); if they are not, they suffer the
consequences and eventually \ ^rish under its weight. ]V) ittu is not the same as rro,
but, unremedied, may lead to it.
39
simply commands how to act, without stating the consequences of

failing to do so.1
It should be clear from the above that the common formulation is
not a frozen or inflexible 'Gattung'. These paragraphs display
considerable variety even in their use of those elements which they all
have in common, not to mention the elements that they do not share.
The common form is nothing more than the syntactical base upon
which the author has constructed five differentthough similar
structures. And since this syntactical basis, this combination of
linguistic elements, appears nowhere else in the Torah, and since its
single components, namely, tf'R 2h*, "in ]D1 etc., and the mD-threat in
its various forms, do appear elsewhere separately, this is certainly no
stereotype, stock legal formulation. It is a device designed by the
author of Leviticus 17 for his own unique use (and which was later
appropriated by Ezekiel in ch. 14).2
Looking at the variable elements in this mold, we can immediately
perceive a progression. In the first two paragraphs, ne) is followed by
two predicates: 'slaughters without having brought'; 'sacrifices but
does not bring'.3 These two paragraphs speak of acts which are
permissible in themselvesslaughtering and sacrificingbut which
lead to rro when certain restrictions are not observed. The last two
paragraphs too speak of permissible actsin the fourth, "itfR is
followed by one predicate, 'hunts', and the actual command, which
comes immediately thereafter, is a positive one'must pour it out and
cover it', not a mD-threat at all. In the fifth as well: neJK is followed
by a single predicate in the positive, 'eats', and the positive command
follows: 'must launder his clothes and bathe'. Only the third
paragraph, vv. 10-12, speaks of an act which is always and under all
1. Verses 13-14 have mistakenly been viewed as a 'prohibition' (of eating the
blood of hunted animalsthus Zimmerli, 'Eigenart', p. 13) rather than as a positive
command how to treat such blood. Reventlow, Heiligkeitsgesetz, p. 48, Kilian,
Untersuchungen, pp. 9-11 and Cholewinski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, p. 17 all assert that
the ma-threat was originally included in this paragraph, whereas Zimmerli
('Eigenart', p. 16) and Wold (Meaning, p. 6 n. 7) believe that the threat appears
even in the paragraph's present form!
2. See Zimmerli, 'Eigenart'; Cholewiriski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, p. 23 and notes;
M. Greenberg, Ezekiel, I (AB; Garden City, NY, Doubleday: 1983), p. 252.
3. For this distinction between "iK'Sn and 131*% see Mendelssohn's note in
Wessely's Biur, cf. Elliger.
40
conditions prohibited; its predicate is unrestricted: 'whoever. ..eats

any blood', and is followed immediately by the rro-threat.
Turning to the next variable element, the formulations of the rrothreat which appear in the chapter, we can see the same progression.
In the first two paragraphs, the threat is formulated in the passive
n~D3iand the last two contain no mD-threat at all: the fourth
paragraph only alludes to it, paraphrasing, citing, as part of its own
motive-section, the threat uttered above (14bp), and the fifth only
intimates that rro may ultimately result, but does not mention it by
name. The third paragraph thus stands at the crossroads between the
standard, impersonal mo -threat and little or no rro -threat, and it
contains the active, emphatic and highly personalized rro-threat Tirm
nay mpa nn rrom Din PR ntenn tisn . This form, attested
elsewhere in the Torah as well, stresses not the mere fact of n"O but
the act of cutting-off performed by the divine extirpator; his personal
involvement in the administration of the punishment, and it occurs
here in the third paragraph only.1
Note that in this third paragraph the victim is not the Efat, as in the
first two paragraphs, but the 2)3]. To appreciate the significance of
this, we turn to the fifth and last paragraph (vv. 15-16). Here, the
rro-threat is not even mentioned, since the intent of the paragraph is
not to proclaim the result of some misdeed but to ordain a corrective
to a given situation. This situationthe eating of carrionarises in
the wake of the previous two paragraphs which deal with the
prohibition of ingesting blood. The fifth paragraph is an exception to
this absolute prohibition, standing in contrast to what precedes it. It
1. Similar formulations appear only in Lev. 20.3, 5, 6; compare TTDRm in
23.30 and especially Ezek. 14.8 (vrrom. ..vrmntfm. ..'33 Timi) and 14.9
(vmatfm v^s 'T rm 'rvwi). For 'as 'nnn, see also Lev. 26.17, Ginzburg's
commentary here, and W.H. Brownlee, 'Son of Man Set Your FaceEzekiel the
Refugee Prophet', HUCA 54 (1983), p. 87. The source-critics' realization that the
active form of the rro-threat is peculiar to H, whereas the passive form is found in
both P and H, does not add much to the discussion, and the numerous form-critical
distinctions between the two which have been proposed (see Reventlow,
Heiligkeitsgesetz, p. 46; Kilian, Untersuchungen, pp.7, 11-12; Zimmerli,
'Eigenart', pp. 15-16; Elliger, p. 228), along with the legal-historical distinctions
which have been suggested (starting with Gunkel's commentary on Gen. 17.14
[HKAT; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922] and culminating in A. Phillips,
Ancient Israel's Criminal Law [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970], pp. 30ff.) fail to
convince.
41
opens with a contrastive waw, this is not a new law but a continuation,
a subcategory of the two preceding paragraphs.
Why cJsabsi instead of tf'Ktf'Ki, if the two are functionally
equivalent? Indeed, so much is tfD] taken as a synonym of G^K in this
paragraph1 that it is construedexcept for its first predicate, bDKD
as being masculine (nfin... ODD* ... inoi... KDDI ... frm... inn 0:01
oil) Rfcw .. .frrv ...!),while throughout the rest of the chapter, in eight
more appearances, it is, as it should be, feminine. The new opening,
however, is not an accidental substitution of an equivalent form.2
^DKH "itdR tisa 'PDI is designed to resume the b:>n n1? ODD tfsi *?D
of the third parargraph's motivational sectional (v. 12ap), which is
itself an echo of Din nn n^DKn tfaaa (v. lOba), and which is further
echoed in the fourth section's paraphrase ibr>n Kb iejn ^D Di
(v. 14ap).
This use of tfStt is further evidence of the interconnection of the
third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. For though tfs] is the legal
equivalent of tin*, it is particularly appropriate, and tends to appear, in
laws pertaining to eating and drinking,3 since its primary meaning, as
is well known, is 'throat, gullet', i.e. the seat of appetite.4 In this
chapter tfs] is a Leitwort, appearing over and over again in one sense
after another, and these appearances are confined to the third, fourth
and fifth paragraphs, those having to do with the ingestion of blood;
these make up a unit.
It is hardly necessary to mention that the first two paragraphs of the
chapter, dealing as they do with sacrificial animals and the place of
their slaughter, are a unit as well. This is borne out by their similar
style and vocabulary, a similarity which is not affected by the fact that
the first is greatly expanded.5 What needs to be stressed is that the
1. Compare Lev. 7.20, 21, 25.
2. Indeed, it can hardly be seen as a formula at all, since outside of the verse in
question the 0EU *7D formulation occurs only in v. 12 of this chapter and in its parallel
(Lev. 7.27); elsewhere tfan bz.
3. See Exod. 12.4, 16; Lev. 7.26 and the expression tftu n-u; 'to fast', literally,
'to deprive the throat' (Lev. 16.29,31; 23.27,29; Num. 30.14; Isa. 58.3), the
opposite of which is 0B3 iraton (Isa. 58.10-11; Ps. 107.9).
4. See C.A. Briggs, The Use of 033 in the Old Testament', JBL 16 (1897),
pp. 25-27; BDB and KB, s.v. 0S3; Sabourin, 'Nefesh', pp. 34-35; J. Licht, 'BM',
in EM, V, pp. 901-902 and references cited.
5. I deal with the first two paragraphs at length in 'Chapters', pp. 33-45.
42
third paragraph too fits in with the first two: not only formallythe
tf'R # pattern; the fact that it serves as the climax of the mDthreatsbut also thematically: for although it prohibits the ingestion
of blood and not having anything to do with the sacrificial act, it
explains its prohibition on the grounds of the sacrificial act. Blood is
not to be eaten because 'I have assigned it to you upon the altar', etc.
The third paragraph is at one and the same time the culmination of the
first three and the introduction to the last three. It is a Janus-faced
passage, looking forward and backward at once.
It should be clear by now that these are not merely 'four similar
laws and an appendix', as most commentators believe and indeed, as
would appear at first glance. The four 'similar' laws come in a clear
order: the first three are prohibitions and the fourth is a command.
The first three threaten rro and the fourth does not. The n"O-threats
also come in a clear order: the first two are restricted to certain
circumstances, the third is absolute; the first two are passive and
matter of fact, the third is active and emphatic. Much more than this,
however, our perception of the differences between the fourth
paragraph and the first three, and of the clear connections among the
last three, enables us to see both the fourth and the fifth, and not the
fifth alone, as 'appendices', or to be precise, as expansions upon, as
subsections of, the third. The third paragraph threatens n~D upon
whoever partakes of any blood, the fourth indicates how the offense,
and its dire consequences, may be avoided in the case of hunted
animals, and the fifth goes on to explain what is to be done in the
event that carrion is eaten, in which case blood has unavoidably been
consumed, in order to avoid the dire consequences which would
otherwise be attendant upon the consumption of blood, i.e. in order to
escape from a situation which could otherwise lead to rro.
All the lines of the formal analysis lead to the following view of the
balanced and designed structure of the chapter: the first three
paragraphs contain three prohibitions, arranged in ascending order of
severity. The last of these three, which is of course the most absolute
and most severe, draws in its wake two positive commands which are
its subsections and which expand upon and clarify it. These last two
or, to be precise, the last three, since they are a unitare arranged in
descending order of severity. The five paragraphs thus make up an
inverted 'V, at the zenith of which stands the absolute prohibition of
partaking of blood and its rationale. This section, vv. 10-12, is
43
therefore the axis upon which the chapter revolves.

The merest glance at the content leads to the same conclusion: all
five paragraphs deal with the legitimate and correct manner of
disposing of the blood of those animals which may be eaten. The first
two speak of sacrificeable animalswhich, in the view of this chapter,
must indeed be sacrificedand the last two speak of animals which,
though they may be eaten, may not be sacrificed. At the center,
between the first two and the last two, stands the axiom upon which all
four depend: that partaking of blood is prohibited. The first two lead
to this axiom and provide its rationale; the last two derive from this
axiom and implement it.1
II
We may now proceed to the close reading of the text itself, beginning
with the first of the three paragraphs, vv. 10-12.
A. The emphatic n~D-threat is pronounced in v. 10 upon anyone
m totow "towho eats any blood'. The text employs the verb ^D
and not nntf, even though blood is a liquid, not a solid, though in no
other expression in biblical Hebrew does the verb "?DR occur with
liquids. The actual act which is signified by such an unusual
expression, here and everywhere else that the expression occurs,2 is of
course an act of eating in which blood, a liquid, is also ingested, that
is, eating of flesh with the blood still in it. This is clearly what is
intended by Gen. 9.4: VwRn Kb IDT itfaan -itoa -|K.3 To be sure,
drinking blood does appear in biblical Hebrew, both literally (as
something that arrows4 or swords5 do, as well as the earth6 and wild
1. Others have seen the issue of the proper disposal of animal blood as a thematic
link between the five paragraphs; see Kalisch, Leviticus; Sabourin, 'Nefesh', p. 27;
Elliger (captioning the chapter 'Umgang mit Blut'); Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon',
pp. 154-55 and Brichto, 'Slaughter', p. 25.
2. In this chapter: vv. 10 (2x), 12 (2x) and 14 (2x); elsewhere: Lev. 3.17;
7.26, 27; Deut. 12.16, 23, 24, 25; 15.23. Compare Din ^DK in Lev. 19.26;
1 Sam. 14.32-34; Ezek. 33.25 (also, if the text is emended, 18.6, 11, 15). See
Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 152; anticipated by Chapman.
3. As apprehended by Luzzatto; contra Hoffmann.
4. Deut. 32.42.
5. Jer. 46.10.
44
animals) 1 and metaphorically (to mean killing)2but here it is an

eating of blood, not a drinking of it, a consumption of blood in the
process of eating, that is intended. The possibility that one might drain
off and drink up the blood is not contemplated.3
This prohibition of 'eating blood' occurs outside of this chapter in
two other places in the Priestly code: Lev. 3.17 and 7.26-27. In all
three passages the modifier "?D 'all, any' appears, and in our chapter it
recurs in v. 14 (i^DKn K1? itoa DT, 'you shall not eat the blood of
any flesh'). In all these cases the intent is inclusive: not just the blood
of sacrificial animals, but any and all blood.
If, as we have seen, vv. 10-12 comprise the overall prohibition, and
the following two paragraphs are specific sub-cases, there would
appear to be an illogical omission. The first paragraph speaks of all
blood, the second speaks of the blood of hunted animals, and the third
speaks of carrion. What is missing is a separate paragraph expressly
prohibiting the blood of sacrificial animals! The place for such a
paragraph would be after v. 12 and before v. 13. The general rule
all blood forbiddenwould thus be followed by the specifics, the
three classes of permitted animals: (1) sacrificial; (2) hunted;
(3) carrion. This structure, however, is ruled out, because of the
reason for the prohibition. Since the rationale behind the general rule,
the reason that blood is prohibited, is none other than the use of
sacrificial blood, this first case, the case of the blood of sacrificial
animals, is combined with the general rule. In other words, since the
rationale which immediately follows the general prohibition speaks
6. Isa. 34.7.
1. Num. 23.24; Ezek. 39.17-19. Drinking blood is also mentioned as something
God does not do when he accepts sacrifices (Ps. 50.13; compare Isa. 1.11).
2. 2 Sam. 23.17 (= 1 Chron. 11.19); Isa. 49.26.
3. It may be, however, in 11.6-7 of the Aramaic text in Demotic script, where the
parallelism n'kl b$r wnSmn/nnbyg dm wnrwh 'Let us eat meat and become fat; Let us
cause blood to flow and drink to saturation' appears; see R.C. Steiner and
C.F. Nims, 'You Can't Offer Your Sacrifice and Eat It Too: A Polemical Poem From
the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script', JNES 43 (1984), pp. 95, 101-102. Steiner (in
a private communication) now accepts the reading nSty instead of nnby'g in 1. 7, as
proposed by Vleeming and Wesselius (BibOr, 39 [1982] p. 501; JEOL 28 [198384], pp. 124-25). I thank Dr Steiner for drawing my attention to this text, as well as
to m. Par. 4.3: nmo nmtf1?! mfcna "ros1? run ^v none? The rabbinic tradition, to be
sure, also includes the statement that blood is a substance which humans are naturally
repulsed from drinking; see m. Mak. 3.15.
45
directly of the case of sacrificial animals, the listener would

immediately think of this case when hearing v. 11, and an additional
paragraph devoted to it would be superfluous.
B. We now come to the rationale itself, the motivational section in vv.
11-12. In this section God speaks about the children of Israel, in the
third person, to Moses, and there is good reason to believe that this
entire section, like vv. 5-7 above and v. 14 below, is not included in
what Moses is instructed to say to the Israelites but is rather intended
for his ears alone.1
Be that as it may, we note the fact that this section begins with "O
and continues with p bi),2 clearly indicating that the three verses are a
unit: the '3 at the head of v. 11 means that this verse explains v. 10,
and the p btf at the head of v. 12 means that v. 11 was said in order
to explain whatever it was that 'I said to the Israelites'. And since
'what I said to the Israelites' is D"i ^DKn K^DDD BJS3 bD, essentially the
same as v. 10, the flow is smooth and circular: law, 'D, rationale,
p *?D, law. Motive clauses which begin with "O and are followed by
p by and a repetition of the law itself occur in a few other places in
the Torah,3 as yet no study of the motive clause has mentioned this.4
This is a concentric structure, in which the law is stated twice, both
before and after the motive clause, which is thus placed in the center,
and its purpose is to emphasize. It is not the law, however, which
receives the emphasis (even though it is repeated), but the motive,
which is surrounded on both sides by the law it explains. 'This is why
I said to the Israelites: "No person among you shall eat blood"'
for this reason and no other. 'That is why the LORD your God
1. Noted first (but only with regard to vv. 5-7) by A. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur
hebraischen Bibel, II (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909), p. 60; see my 'Chapters', p. 25.
2. Etiologies featuring the p *?a + "O pattern are found, for instance, in
Gen. 11.9; 16.14; 21.31 etc. See also Paran, Forms, p. 170 and n. 22.
3. In P only here and Num. 18.24; see also Exod. 20.11 (see A.H. McNeile
[The Book of Exodus (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen, 3rd edn,
1908), pp. Ivii-lviii] as a deuteronomistic element further expanded by a priestly
writer); Deut. 5.15; 15.11, 15; 19.6-7; 24.18,22.
4. Neither B. Gemser ('The Importance of the Motive Clause in Hebrew Law'
[VTSup, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1953], pp. 50-66), nor H. Riicker (Die Begriindungen der
Weisungen Jahwes im Pentateuch [ETS, 30; Leipzig: St Benno, 1973], nor Sonsino
(Motive Clauses).
46
commanded you to observe the Sabbath day' (Deut. 5.15; cf. 15.15;
24.18, 22); "That is why I said of [the Levites]: "They shall receive no
territorial share etc.'" (Num. 18.24)for this reason, and no other.
The rationale, not the law, is what is emphasized.
In v. 12, then, following the words ^mfcp MS1? mo p ^tf, God
quotes himself, citing what he said above.1 He does not, however, do
so precisely: the self-quotation is phrased as a command rather than as
a mo-threat. When we look at other passages, we see that the p *?l?
section is sometimes a literal repetition,2 sometimes a summary.3 Here
we have a compromise between the two: 033 *?D and DDim ian ijn
echo the original command, but the double command *?DKn *?
Di "73K' K'p/tn is a parallelistic paraphrase. This is instructive as a
form-critical phenomenon: it indicates that the author perceives the
n~D-threat and the prohibitive command as substantially, legally,
equivalent, and furthermore that the latter is the essence of the
former. Note, by the way, that the word TPIDR, 'I said', actually means
'I told you to say'since God hasn't spoken to Israel, he has only told
Moses to do so. Of course, what enables the author to write 'I said'
and mean 'I told you to say' is his assumption that words spoken by
the prophet are as if spoken by God himself.
C. The actual motive of the law is thus all contained in v. 11; what
follows in v. 12 is the p btf section, the self-quotation repeating the
law in v. 10. The motive itself is in three clauses:
llaa
llap
lib
The first two, though they are connected by waw, appear to be

entirely separate reasons; in fact most critics take them to be
unrelated, and assign them to different periods and authors. Most
think that the first is the earlier and the second the later, and a few
believe that the reverse is true. Somewhat ironically, virtually all
1. Contra Hizkuni, and more recently Paran (Forms, p. 170), who see TTIDK as a
reference to the blood prohibitions in Lev. 3 and 7, rather than to what was just said
in v. 10.
2. Num. 18.23-24; see also Deut. 15.8, 11.
3. Deut. 5.15; 15.15; 24.18. Exod. 20.11 is in a class by itself.
47
agree that neither represents the 'true' reason for the prohibition of
'eating blood'I1
Nevertheless, the author of the chapter has indicated clearly that he
sees them as a single entity, since, in addition to the waw he has made
the pronominal suffix in the word vnru refer back to none other than
the word Din in the first clause. Moreover, for the author even the
third clause, though it is not joined by a waw, is connected to what
precedes it by means of the word *D. This 'D does not indicate that the
third clause provides the reason for the second; rather, it repeats the
'D of clause 1! Clause 3, it would appear, sums up clauses 1 and 2 in
one clause.
What appears true from the structure of the verse is confirmed
beyond a doubt by the words: clause 1 says that the blood is the seat of
the 2)33; clause 2 says that the blood is designated iSDb; clause 3
combines the two and says that the blood "\sy 2)333:
This third clause does more than merely summarize. It provides the
logical connection between clause 1 and clause 2; it says that clause 2
is true because of clause 1. How does blood "ISDD? K)S33'by means of
life'; the beth is one of agency.2
Thus we have here not three separate motives, nor even two, but
only one: "IDS' e)S3D Kin Din. This is the reason for the prohibition,
1. A summary of the views may be found in my 'Chapters', p. 221 n. 16.
2. Contra J. Milgrom ('im/ *?!> 1SD', Les 35 [1970], p. 160), it does not appear
that there is any verbal idiom -3 ~iS3. Rather, -a follows the verb ~iSD only in
adverbial prepositional phrases (of place: only Lev. 6.23; 16.17, 27; elsewhere
always, as in our verse, beth instrumentii; Exod. 29.33; Num. 5.8; 35.33;
1 Sam. 3.14; Isa. 27.9; Prov. 16.6). Ehrlich (Randglossen, p. 60), emending
totfB33,argued for the so-called beth essentiae: 'the blood as life'; he was followed
by Sabourin ('Nefesh', p. 17) and Milgrom ('Prolegomenon', p. 149). This was
correctly refuted by Levine (Presence, p. 67) and Brichto ('Slaughter', pp. 26-28).
They, however, argue for bethpretii ('the blood in exchange for the life'); compare
LXX ('anti'), on which see Fiiglister ('Suhne', p. 146 n. 13). This misinterpretation
stems from the inappropriate analogy drawn from the preceding clause and from the
phrase tfBiattfS] in Deut. 19.21, and is grammatically impossible since DT is the
subject, and not the object, of 1BD\ The correct sense was apprehended by many
commentators; see Ibn Ezra, Kalisch, Baentsch, Bertholet, Elliger and others.
48
and it is stated on the basis of the two facts stated prior to it and in
preparation for itthat blood is 0DU and that blood is "ISDQ.
This view of the third clause, as the synthesis of the first two, is
what provides the solution to two syntactical problems in it: the
placement of the prepositional phrase tfan before the predicate ~ISD',
and the unnecessary and awkward repetition of the subject Din in the
form of the pronoun ton. Placing 0333 before ")5D is apparently in
order to avoid the idiom tfaja "lED"", which has the same meaning as
033n *M nay, which appears in clause 1 and is not intended here. The
0333 of clause 3 means 'by means of the 033', and this is what is
intended. The other problem, the superfluous Kin, is similar to a passage in Num. 35.33: pun n eprr ton Din. Not the subject, but the
predicate, in fact, the whole concept expressed in the clause, is what is
stressed: blood indeed contaminates the land; blood indeed is "isna by
means of 033.! Note that not only do both syntactical problems now
disappear, it becomes apparent that both features have the same
expressive function: they serve to emphasize the revolutionary idea
expressed in the clause.
D. The first two clauses, synthesized in clause 3, deserve now to be
treated in their own right.
Clause 1: ton Din "itonn 033. There is no dispute that 033 here
means 'life, vitality, living force'; certainly not throat or gullet and
not 'self'.2 What is useful to note is that 033 is used to mean 'life'
particularly in cases when it is the loss of life, or the rescue of
someone from loss of life, that is spoken of, especially when the word
1. All the examples in GKC 135c are cases in which the resumption is due to the
distance separating the subject from the predicate, a condition which does not obtain
here and in Num. 32.33. S. Kogut, 'mpnn ptzfta -urn 'iran', LeS 46 (1982),
pp. 11-12, adduces Isa. 7.14; Num. 18.23 and other passages, and suggests that
the clause containing the postpositioned pronoun is a transformation of Din
1ED' Kin, that is, that it emphasizes the subject ('the blood itself). The reason for
this emphasis is not stated.
2. For the former, see above, p. 41 n. 4. OSJ was taken as 'self by Mendelssohn
(see his translation in Wessely's Biur); Elliger, R. Rendtorff (Studien zur Geschichte
des Opfers im Alien Testament [WMANT, 24; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1967], pp. 231, 239) and, though writing after Levine, B. Lang, 'lED', ThWAT, 4,
p. 305 and Fiiglister, 'Siihne', p. 145.
49
appears in connection with m, whereas in other contexts the word for

life is rm.1
"ifen here means 'living things' in general, and m, which has no
figurative meanings at all,2 of course means blood. All three nouns
KJS], "iton and D"ipossess the definite article, since they are generics,
and the beth inD~n means 'in', literally, 'contained'.3 The statement
'The life-force of all living things is contained in the blood' is a
graphic way of expressing the dependence of life upon blood. The
point is not that blood is life, or that there is life-force, as a force
distinct from the body itself, in blood per se. The point is simply that
when blood is gone, there is no life. Depriving a creature of its blood
ends its life.4 Since bleeding is the way in which slaughtered creatures,
and murdered humans, were seen to die, this was the most logical way
of saying what it was that made them die: the loss of blood. The
statement is no innovation, no great discovery; it is certainly no
abstract theological principle or statement of belief.5 The text is
merely trying to make use of a well-known fact in order to ground its
1. See Sabourin, 'Nefesh'; B. Kedar-Kopstein, 'tan', TDOT 3, pp. 234-250;
Wold, Meaning, p. 82 n. 59 (where the pertinent Sumerian and Babylonian material
is adduced).
2. Of course, DT occasionally appears as a component of a metaphorical
expression Otfma im, en bD, DTjato, etc.). In all cases, however, except
perhaps the poetic idiom D'aa D"i, the word DT itself retains its literal meaning.
3. Milgrom ('Prolegomenon', p. 149) sees here too the beth essentiae, in this
case functioning as a copula: 'the life of flesh is the blood'; compare NEB.
4. See L. Morris, 'The Biblical Use of the Term "Blood"', JTS ns 3 (1952),
pp. 218ff.; compare Fiiglister, 'Siihne', p. 149.
5. Though it has been taken as such by many commentators; see Nahmanides and
Abrabanel who interpret, in accord with Deut. 12.23, that it is 'improper' to eat flesh
with blood; compare Luzzatto, Kalisch (Leviticus, I, p. 125), and Hoffmann (Da
Buck Leviticus, I, p. 123 adducing Ezek. 18.4), who argue that since life belongs
to God, by eating it man would be depriving him, of what is his (followed by
L. Sabourin and S. Lyonnet, Sin, Redemption and SacrificeA Biblical and
Patristic Study [AnBib, 48; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970], p. 176;
J. Milgrom, 'The Biblical Dietary Laws as an Ethical System', Int 17 [1963],
pp. 288-89; Brichto, 'Slaughter', p. 22; Wold, 'Meaning', pp. 83-84; see also
Ezek. 44.7, 15); compare Fiiglister ('Siihne', pp. 150ff.), who maintains that the
idea that blood belongs to God's altar alone was advanced primarily as a means of
preventing idolatrous practices such as blood-divination. Our verse could bear this
interpretation ('I have assigned it to the altar', i.e. it is properly mine and not yours)
were it not for the word DDb and the explanatory CDTUZJEfl bu "iSD1? which follows it.
50
explanation for the prohibition of eating blood. For that purpose,

however, this clause in and of itself is insufficient; a further, equally
well-known fact is required. This is clause 2.
Clause 2: The expression mrnn bo m ]ra, 'to place1 blood on the
altar', is common enough. Actually there is a group of expressions
used to denote the placement of the blood on the altar: depending on
what precisely is done with the blood, the verb may be fatf, pit, mn,
or pif, but all of these are included in the general expression
nnrnn1?!) on |n].2
Whenever these expressions are used they have, of course, a human
subjectusually the priest,3 who places blood upon the altar of God.
Only here is God the subject of such a phrase God himself is the
one who is ]m] the blood on the altar. This extraordinary fact is
obliterated not only by those translators who violently re-arrange the
text to say 'I have assigned it to you for making expiation upon the
altar',4 as if it read rarnn *?s oyntfBJ *?a la:^ DD1? vnm, but also by
translations which elsewhere render ]ro by 'to put' or 'to place' and
here translate it with 'to assign'.5 It has even been contended that there
are two identical but unrelated phrases, one for humans and one for
God.6 Such a view, however, can only obscure the fact that a single
Hebrew verb is used for both, specifically, a verb which literally
means 'to give'. The blood is prohibited because God has 'given' it to
humanity by 'placing' it, that is, ordering it to be placed, on his altar.
Now it is true that when the text speaks of a human placing blood on
an altar this describes a cultic act and when it speaks of God placing
blood on an altar it is a statement of the importance of the role played
by the bloodbut all this is accomplished in Hebrew precisely by not
coining two different phrases, by instead appropriating one cultic
idiom for use in another cultic sense.
The usage is admittedly metaphoric; the author certainly does not
mean that God physically places the blood on the altar. Rather he
portrays God as saying: 'When you place the blood on the altar, you
1. To place' is universally accepted here (see BDB, p. 680a), but see below.
2. An example is Lev. 16.18-19, where )rm is explained by nrm.
3. Exod. 29.12; Lev. 8.15; 9.9; 16.18; etc.
4. NEB; R. de Vaux, Les sacrifices de I'Ancien Testament (Cahiers de la revue
biblique, 1; Paris: Gabalda, 1964), p. 84.
5. NJPS; Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 150.
6. Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 150 and n. 6.
51
do so at my command, because I have assigned it a role to play there'.

But the way he says it is what is crucial. After all, the fact that blood
is placed on the altar, that this is God's command, that its role is to be
13DDall of this is well-known and almost trivial. The true raison
d' etre of the clause can only be learned from how it says the wellknown things that it says. What our clause does, in its unique,
metaphorically graphic way, is to take a set phrase, the 'placing' of the
blood on the altar, and to reverse the conceptual direction of the
action: 'It is not you who are placing the blood on the altar for me,
for my benefit, but rather the opposite: it is I who have placed it there
for youfor your benefit'.
This reading is confirmed by the otherwise unnecessary *3Kl before
the verb vnro. All agree that such a usage is emphatic, and many of the
translations even render it so ('It is I who have')1 but almost never
have commentators even suggested just what is being emphasized.2
The answer is that both 'JR1 and DD1? are stressed: / place it for you
not the opposite. The word DDb is then explained by DD'ncJa] "7U nsD1?:
'It is / who have provided you with the opportunity "to atone for your
lives'".
'To atone for your lives' is of course only a provisional translation
of DDTiete] â "ISD1?. We now turn to the precise meaning.
The meaning of the verb "is? has been the subject of considerable
debate for most of this century, and we are fortunate that most of the
material has been summarized in a few recent treatments of the topic.3
1. Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 150. See also de Vaux, Sacrifices, p. 84 ('je
vous 1'ai donne, moi'); Elliger ('Ich selbst'); and Brichto, 'Slaughter', p. 23 ('I for
My part').
2. Fiiglister ('Siihne', p. 148) suggests that the emphasis may be on the uniquely
priestly notion that expiation is granted directly by God himself.
3. An exhaustive bibliography is impossible. For a review of nineteenth-century
scholarship, see G.B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament (repr. New York: Ktav,
1971, [orig. pub. 1925]), pp. 68ff., to which Kalisch, Leviticus, I, pp. 476-77
may be added. Following Gray, some of the important studies in this century (in
addition to the commentaries) are: C.H. Dodd, 'Hilaskomai, Its Cognates,
Derivatives and Synonyms in the Septuagint', JTS 32 (1931), pp. 352-60;
J. Herrmann, 'Hilaskomai', TDNT 3, pp. 301-17; A. Metzinger, 'Die Substitutionstheorie und das alttestamentliche Opfer mit besonderer Beriicksichtung von
Lev. 17, 11', Bib 21 (1940), pp. 159-87, 247-72, 353-77; I.E. Steinmuller,
'Sacrificial Blood in the Bible', Bib 40 (1949), pp. 556-67; L. Morris, The Use of
hilaskesthai etc. in Biblical Greek', ExpTim 62 (1950-51), pp. 227-33; idem, The
52
1 will only delineate, in very general terms, the important conclusions

of this debate, insofar as they pertain to the passage under discussion.
It is clear that there are passages in the Bible, both cultic and noncultic, both priestly and non-priestly, in which n? is a denominative
verb, derived from the noun "i|>, 'ransom', 'payment', and means 'to
serve as ransom for', 'to be a payment in place of'.1 It is equally clear
that there are passages in the Bible in which 155 has the meaning 'to
wipe away, to purge' (usually impurity, from the sancta) and by
extension, 'to expiate' (i.e. eradicate), a sense which derives from the
Akkadian kuppuru. Such passages divide into three groups: those in
which the primary meaning 'wipe away' is the sole meaning intended;2
Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London: Tyndale Press, 1955); E.Z. Melamed,
'topon maDn', Sinai 44 (1959), pp. 426-36; M.H. ben-Shammai and J. Licht,
'man' in EM, IV, pp. 233-36; de Vaux, 'Sacrifices'; Sabourin, 'Nefesh'; Sabourin
and Lyonnet, Sin, pp. 122ff.; Rendtorff, Studien; B. Levine, 'D'TIB'3', Erlsr 9
(1969), pp. 88-95; idem, Prolegomena to Gray, Sacrifice, pp. vii-xxxvii; idem,
Presence, pp. 55-77, 123-27; Milgrom, '~IBD'; idem, 'Prolegomenon'; idem,
Studies in Levitical Terminology, I (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970);
idem, 'Sin-offering or Purification-Offering?' VT 21 (1971), pp. 237-39; idem,
'Kipper', EncJud, X, pp. 1039-44; idem, 'Atonement in the OT, IDBSup, pp. 7882; idem, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Leiden: Brill, 1983),
pp. 96-103; F. Maass, 'kpr', THAT 1, pp. 842-47; Brichto, 'Slaughter';
P. Garnet, 'Atonement Constructions in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls',
EvQ 46 (1974), pp. 131-63; idem, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls
(WUNT, 2.3; Tubingen: Mohr, 1977); N.H. Young, 'C.H. Dodd, "Hilaskesthai"
and his Critics', EvQ 48 (1976), pp. 67-78; G. Gerleman, Studien zur
alttestamentlichen Theologie (Heidelberg: L. Schneider, 1980), pp. 11-23; Fiiglister,
'Siihne'; Lang, '"IB::'; B. Janowski, Suhne als Heilsgeschehen (WMANT, 55;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982); N. Kiuchi, The Purification
Offering in the Priestly Literature (JSOTSup, 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987),
pp. 87-109; D.P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity (SBLDS, 101; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1987), pp. 291-99.
1. Cultic: e.g. Exod. 30.12-16; Num. 8.19. Non-cultic: in my view, only
2 Sam. 21.3; Isa. 47.11, which Milgrom placed in this category ('Atonement',
p. 80), does not seem to belong, nor do Gen. 32.20; Num. 25.13 and Jer. 18.23,
placed in this rubric by Garnet ('Constructions', pp. 134f.). On Num. 35.31 see
below p. 56 n 1. The recent attempt by A. Schenker ('koper et expiation', Bib 63
[1982], pp. 32-46) to explain ~is5 as 'appeasement-price', and hence to define "is?1?
as 'to appease', is entirely unconvincing; see below.
2. In its primary, non-cultic sense, this use appears in Gen. 32.20
(ns nmK p nrnti. . .vja mD), which is unambiguously to be explained on the
basis of Prov. 16.14: anger, often referred to as nnn or *]2*p, is likened to a foamy
53
those in which this meaning is still present but is used in a technical

sense to denote the manner in which purification is achieved (by
purging the impure object);1 and those in which the sense is
metaphorical: 'to cleanse (of sin or impurity)' in general, or to
perform any act in order to obtain or grant forgiveness or purification.2 It has also been convincingly established that this latter type of
cultic "iSD, even in its metaphorical sense, does not include the notion
of propitiation but only that of expiation.3
substance which appears on the face and which, in order to appease the offended
party, needs to be wiped off, resulting in 'seeing the face'. This has been noted by
Levine ('D'TiQ'D', p. 91; Presence, p. 69 n. 39), followed by M. Gruber ('The
Many Faces of Hebrew D'3S KfoJ "Lift up the Face'", ZAW 95 (1983), p. 254 and
n. 11). The misreadings of mSDR here, most frequently 'cover' (see below) and
'pay off (apparently the result of the fact that the nron mentioned in the verse is to be
the means of appeasement), have been major pitfalls in the study of the non-cultic
sense of "ISD. The most recent example is Schenker ('koper'), who, unaware of
Levine's work, and apparently of the Akkadian derivation as well, and taking absolutely no account of the cultic use of the term, renders D'39195 with the meaningless
'appease the face', and proceeds to develop a general theory of expiation based on this.
1. Frequently; e.g. Exod. 30.10; Lev. 4 passim; 12-15 passim; 16.14-19.
2. All cases of the DttfK-sacrifice; perhaps also Lev. 14.20 and 1.4; Deut. 21.8
(since the spilling of the blood is said to be -ISDD, though it is not applied to any
object). On Num. 35.31-33 see below p. 56 n. 1. Garnet ('Constructions') sees
this usage as a late development, the result of Assyrian influence, and not originally
part of the concept of cultic atonement.
3. This issue has occupied English and German scholarship for most of this
century. The question stems not from the Hebrew text but from the LXX where ~SD is
translated (ex)hilaskomai. Though it is unanimously recognized that outside of the
LXX and NT, this verb indeed means 'propitiate', Dodd ('Hilaskomai') attempted to
demonstrate that this meaning is not expressed in Hebrew IBD, and its association
with the Greek verb originates in the LXX. Following the thorough investigation of
Herrmann ('Hilaskomai'), Morris ('Hilaskesthai' and Apostolic Preaching) demurred,
arguing that ~iS>, 'ransom', in Hebrew is derived from the notion of propitiation, and
further (Apostolic Preaching, pp. 126ff.) that the LXX would not have employed a
verb meaning 'propitiate' if this were not in fact the meaning they attached to the
Hebrew. Morris (Apostolic Preaching, pp. 153-54) re-interpreted a number of
biblical passages in which ~IS3 is held to mean 'purge', insisting that the meaning
'propitiate' is primary. Among the methodological flaws in Morris's work is the fact
that the existence of a biblical belief in a divine wrath which needs to be placated does
not necessarily imply that this process is expressed by the verb "155 (see Young,
'Dodd', p. 70). Further, most of Morris's argument is based on his erronenous
interpretation of ns msDR in Gen. 32.20 (see above, p. 52 n. 2). Garnet, in
54
Further, at present it seems most likely that the previously held

view, that "IBS 'ransom', and "is? 'purge', are etymologically and/or
semantically related with each other, is falsethese are unrelated
homographs. 1 Finally, it is now established conclusively that the
commonly held view, that these terms are somehow connected with
the Arabic kafaraand have the primary meaning 'to cover', is entirely
erroneous.2
'Constructions', though his view of the semantic development is different from
Morris's, persists in deriving the concept of 'ransom' from that of propitiation, and
proceeds to explain virtually all the cultic occurrences of 19? as instances of placating
divine wrath. Though Garnet's starting-point is the Hebrew Bible rather than the
LXX, it is clear nevertheless that the entire issue would not have arisen were it not for
the Greek tradition of translation.
1. The possibility of the double etymology was considered early on by Milgrom
(Studies, I, pp. 29-31). Though some of his later discussions give the impression
that he views all occurrences of the root TSD as derived from one etymon, the most
recent treatment ('Atonement', p. 80) seems to revert to the view that "B3, 'ransom',
is a separate root. Garnet ('Constructions' and Salvation and Atonement) also
appears to prefer this option; at the other extreme is Janowski (Suhne), who derives
even the cultic "19? from 19^, 'payment', and appears to disallow the meaning
'purge' in Biblical Hebrew.
2. The early attempts to assign the primary meaning 'to cover' to the root ~IED are
surveyed by Gray (Sacrifice, p. 68ff.); see also Kalisch, Leviticus at Lev. 1.4 and
S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901), pp. 425-26; for
later literature see Lang, hSD', pp. 304ff. The most comprehensive such attempt in
this century was that of Melamed ('meat'). Still, and despite the tempting parallel
between Jer. 18.23 Onnn b pa'po onRDm mil? â nssn ?*) and Neh. 3.37
(pinon "?R pa'pn anKom anaâ osn "?), it seems that Levine (Presence,
pp. 55ff., 123ff.) has established conclusively that this etymology is unfounded.
Even Milgrom, who originally entertained it only as a possibility ('Kipper', p. 1039)
and limited it to one passage (Num. 17.11)suggesting a semantic development
from 'wipe' to 'rub onto' and thence, perhaps, to 'cover'and only later
('Atonement', p. 80) added a few more passages, remains skeptical. Brichto too
('Slaughter', p. 35), though he disagrees with the etymology Levine suggests,
concurs in his rejection of 'cover', as does Wenham (commentary to Leviticus,
p. 59). The recent attempt by Z. Ben-Hayyim ('jiizfta rraiVuron ro-iun1? ]vv Tim',
I.L. Seeligmann Volume, I [Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein, 1983], pp. 35-37, 39-40) to
re-assert the 'cover' etymology, does not adduce any new evidence, and resorts to
the age-old, erroneous idea that the 'forgiveness' resulting from ms3 is some
transformation of 'covering'; so, apparently, does W. Kornfeld ('Blut in der
Theologie des Alten Testament', in Materialy Kongresu Biblijne w Krakowie 1972
[ed. S. Grzybek and J. Chmiel; Krakow, 1974], pp. 13-29, referred to in Fuglister,
55
Since "iDD is used in cultic contexts in both senses, 'to ransom' and
'to purge away', it is imperative to determine which sense is being
used in each separate passage. Though in most cases this is a
straightforward determination on the basis of context, Lev 17.11 has
always been problematic. What has misled scholars is that in all other
passages dealing with the use of blood in sacrifices, the sense of "ISD is
always the latter'to purge', to expiate. The problem can now be
solved, however, because it has now been universally recognized that
whenever the verb 123 appears as part of the idiom tfsun *?u "ISD, as it
does here, the meaning 'ransom' is intended: 'to act as ransom for
your lives', as payment in place of your lives, which would otherwise
be forfeit.1
This recognition enables us to appreciate what is unique about the
verse. It is the only place in the Priestly code, or for that matter in the
'Siihne', pp. 143 n. 1 and 148 n. 19). 'Covering' of sin, in Neh. 3.37 and
Ps. 32.1 and elsewhere, is simply another metaphor, one which is not expressed by
the verb -159.
1. Besides our verse: Exod. 30.15, 16 and Num. 31.50 (though not
Num. 15.28; see Levine, 'D''Ti3''D', p. 90 n. 16). This important realization of
Levine's ('nniBD', pp. 90-91; Presence, pp. 67-68) may be accepted irrespective
of how one views his theory of when and why such nai is required. Prior to Levine,
nSD' in this verse was universally translated as 'expiate'. Milgrom ('Kipper',
p. 1040) originally saw our verse as an exception to the general rule, but later
reconsidered ('Prolegomenon', pp. 150-51 and n. 11) and finally recanted
('Atonement', p. 80). Not all scholars are aware of this important finding; Fiiglister
('Siihne', p. 145 and passim) persists in seeing both occurrences of 19? in our verse
as 'secure atonement' which he understands as purging away of sin's deadly effect
on the altar by re-invigorating it with life-force (thus the use of blood). Another
recent suggestion is that of N. Zohar, 'Repentance and Purification: The Significance
and Semantics of ntton in the Pentateuch', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 609-18. Dismissing
the meaning 'ransom', 'substitution for life' without so much as a comment
(p. 611), Zohar seems to take both occurrences of ~IBD in Lev. 17.11 to mean
'purge'. He then explains the process as one by which the 'sin-defilement' is
transferred to the 'essence of animation' of the animal (its #03; i.e. its blood), which
is then presented to God by being placed on his altar. Thus, in addition to ignoring
the fixed idiom eJajn ^s 1S5 and with it the uniqueness of our verse within the
priestly literature, Zohar advances a concept of the mSD-process as one of bringing
impurity to the sanctuary rather than removing it from there, a concept which
especially in light of the fact that whenever ~iDD does mean 'purge', the sancta, and
not the sinner, is its objectsurely has no place even elsewhere in the priestly
system.
56
Bible, in which sacrificial blood is said to be a ransom for human life.

This is the only place in which the 19?-action attributed to blood has
the sense of ransom rather than purification.1 The verse takes a word,
or rather a cultic conceptthat blood is "ISDQa concept which
generally has one meaning, and gives it an entirely new one. This new
meaning, 2 contained in the third clause's synthesis of the first two,
is that blood, by virtue of the life of which it is the seat, has been
assigned by God to the altar, i.e. commanded to be offered to God, in
order to serve as ransom for human life.3
Consider the paradox in this: on the one hand, this is a clear
expression of the idea of measure for measure embodied in the
talionic demand, expressed by Priestly law in the phrase
tfsunnntfa:)'life for life' (Lev. 24.18). Man has somehow incurred
a debt of his life, his #32, and this is what he givesa BJS33. On the
other hand it is a rejection, or at least an alleviation, of the very same
talionic demand, since thetfD3that man offers here is not his own, nor
even actually that of an animal, but merely a "IDSa substitute, an
1. The passage closest to our own, both stylistically and conceptually, is the noncultic Num. 35.31-33, now recognized as also belonging to H. In vv. 31-32,
lobpo Ti> 'PK oi^ngi inpn R1?!. . .ns~i tisfr nî inpn R1?!, the noun i^S is, of
course, 'ransom', 'payment'. In v. 33, however, Din '3. ..pRn n iS'jnn K1?!
oatf ma DM 'D ra -jetf -itfR m1? ng?', ? p-m1?! pan rm *prr Kin, the word
-ig3': not only echoes the ~iSD of the preceding verses; it is also, and primarily, the
antithesis of *prp. . . iS'Ttn, in which case it means 'purge, purify'. The play on
words is that "igS 'ransom' cannot ~ig?n 'purify' the land of the blood of the
innocent; only the blood of the homicide can accomplish this.
2. Though 'life' is associated with 'blood' outside of Israel as well, it seems that
Israel was unique among the peoples of the ancient Near East in the specific meaning
and sacrificial role it attached to blood. Thus, not only the unique association of ideas
in our verse, but also, to some extent, its separate components are a radical departure
from non-Israelite thought; see D.J. McCarthy, 'The Symbolism of Blood and
Sacrifice', JBL 88 (1969), pp. 166-76; idem 'Further Notes on the Symbolism of
Blood and Sacrifice', JBL 92 (1973), pp. 205-10; Kedar-Kopstein, 'Di'; Fuglister,
'Siihne', 149-50.
3. The imperfect ISD1 in lib should be taken as customary, habitual action (so
most commentators), not as potential action ('may ransom'). The latter view is taken
by Levine (Presence, pp. 67-68), a result of his theory that atonement depends on
the capricious, unpredictable will of the deity. Milgrom seems to have considered this
possibility ('Kipper', p. 1041; 'can expiate'), but later ('Sacrifices and Offerings,
OT', IDBSup, p. 770) translated 'ransoms'.
57
exchange which God is willing to receive in place of the real thing.1 It

is merely the symbolic representation of the life of an animal, a bit of
its bloodan appropriate symbol, to be sure, since blood embodies
life, but a symbol nonetheless.2
There is yet another paradox here: this is one of the cases in which
the Torah has a hard and fast law which applies to humans and not to
God.3 The lawand it seems to belong to the same literary stratum,
1. It should be noted that one of the reasons scholars have labored so arduously at
proposing other interpretations of how blood serves wnBJsa by ~\Kh, and have
often ignored the obvious derivation from ~v$s, has been their reluctance to admit that
the idea of vicarious sacrifice, indeed, vicarious ^//"-sacrifice, might be at work here;
the most recent example is Fuglister, 'Siihne', pp. 146-47. The mediaevals were not
so troubled; see Rashi (ttfejn'w iBDm aJaan nun; similarly Ibn Ezra). Of the
moderns, the only scholars to concede the point are Kalisch, Leviticus, I, p. 292;
Metzinger, 'Substitutionstheorie', p. 255ff. (very hesitantly); Steinmiiller, 'Blood',
p. 561; the last two stressing the idea of 'grace', thus refraining from imparting any
inherent power to blood while at the same time avoiding the implication that God has
any real desire for ~iSD; compare Garnet, 'Constructions', p. 139. Others see the
atoning force of sacrificial blood in the very act of the killing it necessitates (Morris,
'Biblical Use', p. 221; against this notion see the apt comment by Fuglister,
'Siihne', p. 147: 'das Blut nicht Symbol des Todes, sondern des Lebens ist; Siihne
geschieht nicht durch den Tod, sondern durch das Leben!'), in the transfer of
suffering from the sacrificer to the animal (Ben-Shammai and Licht, 'mSD',
p. 234), in the activation of some hidden divine force contained in blood (L. Dewar,
'The Biblical Use of the Term "Blood"', JTS ns 4 [1953], pp. 204-208;
H. Ringgren, Sacrifice in the Bible [London: United Society for Christian Literature,
1962], pp. 36-37; Sabourin and Lyonnet, Sin, p. 176), in the physical communion
with God (frequently since W.R. Smith, The Religion of the Semites [1894, repr.
New York: Meridian Books, 1966], p. 336; see Sabourin and Lyonnet, Sin,
p. 180), in the presentation to the deity of a substance believed to contain a vital
force he requires (Levine, Presence, pp. 67-69), and in the return of the divine
element to its source (see above, p. 49 n. 5).
2. The Rabbis too, though in a different context, were impressed by the divine
willingness to accept less than a life in payment for a life; see Num. R. 12. 3:
'R. Judah b. Simon said in the name of R. Yohanan:. . .When He said to Moses
"Let each one give to the LORD a payment for his life (itfsa ~iED)", (Exod. 30.12)
Moses asked, "Who can possibly give a payment equal to his life?". .. Said the
Holy One, blessed be He, "I require payment not according to My ability but
according to theirs. This is what they shall give" [i.e. a half-shekel] (Exod. 30.13)'.
3. See M. Greenberg, 'Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law', in J. Goldin
(ed.), The Jewish Expression (New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
1976), p. 24ff. For other examples see Num. 5.21-27 as against Lev. 20.10;
58
the Holiness section of the Priestly codestates that the human

community is under no circumstances permitted to accept a "iaS in
exchange for the life of someone convicted of a capital crime
(Num. 35.31-34). Anyone convicted of such a crime must be put to
death. God, however, is not governed by his own decree: he accepts
1E&, in the form of a symbolic representation, for human life.
E. We come at last to the question of what it is that man has done to
incur this guilt for which he should have had to forfeit his life and for
which, by divine concession, he is able to pay a ransom and redeem
life. How did it become necessary in the first place for man to need
-195?
Clearly I am not speaking here of any capital crime which is under
human jurisdiction. The passage is non-specific; neither murder nor a
sexual offense, nor any of the other capital crimes in Priestly
literature,1 is mentioned, and indeed none is intended, since the idea
that man can escape the capital punishment of the human court by
offering a sacrifice is preposterous in the priestly system.
Milgrom and Levine both postulate that every time a man makes a
sacrifice he commits a capital crime, and must atone for it
immediately by means of the blood. According to Milgrom the sin
involved is that of slaughtering the animal itself, the very 'murder'
spoken of in v. 4.2 The problem with this is that v. 4 proclaims killing
an animal to be tantamount to murder only if it is done outside of the
tabernacle; if performed inside the tabernacle it is a perfectly lawful
act. According to Milgrom's reading, our verse would make it a
capital offense in all cases, and one which requires "II&. According to
Levine, the capital crime is the simple act of daring to approach the
deity, whose wrath is known to be unstable.3 This too is problematic,
Deut. 24.16 as against 5.9 and Deut. 21.15-17 as against the patriarchal narratives.
1. The others are desecrating the Sabbath (Exod. 31.14-15), offering one's
offspring to Molekh (Lev. 20.2), cursing parents (Lev. 20.9), blaspheming
(Lev. 24.16) and encroaching upon the sanctuary, which, according to P, is also
punishable by human agency if nnv is taken as 'shall be put to death' in Num. 1.51;
3.10, 38; 18.7; see Milgrom, Studies, I, pp. 1-59.
2. Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 151 and elsewhere; followed by Brichto,
'Slaughter', pp. 27-28; A. Rofe, onai -iso1? man (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1977),
pp. 19-20 and (implicitly) Wold, 'Rationale', pp. 9, 20-21.
3. Levine, 'D'TBo', p. 69 and Presence, pp. 70ff. Actually, this approach bears
59
its basic premise is foreign to the priestly view of sacrifice. Indeed the
very notion that sacrifice can be intrinsically sinful, that one cannot
sacrifice to God without becoming, at least momentarily, guilty of a
capital crime, is entirely foreign to Priestly thought.
A more likely suggestion is that this passage is a general comment
on the precise dynamic of the ~iSD-action of blood in all sacrifices in
which blood is said to be "iSDa.1 Not every sacrifice is "ISDDin
general, only the non, the DtfK and the n*7iu areand not in every
case of mDD is blood the agent. However, whenever it is, the chapter
says, the action of the blood is a ransoming one, achieved by means of
the life embodied in the blood.
This certainly means that there is more than one priestly doctrine of
atonement by blood. For as postulated elsewhere in P, the "iSD-action
of the blood is one of purification, of decontaminating the sancta, not
of ransoming life. Leviticus 17.11 diverges radically from this
beliefperhaps a result of a real doctrinal dispute between the two
priestly schools, P and H, or perhaps a result of the passage's
rhetorical, literary function in its context; to explain the rationale for
the prohibition of eating blood in a manner suited to the internal logic
of the chapter. In any case, this verse advances a theory unattested
elsewhere in P or anywhere else in the Torah: that 'atonement', i.e.
msD, is not a matter of purifying the sancta from the contamination
generated by sin or physical conditions, nor is it a matter of casting
off sin and sending it away,2 but rather a matter of redeeming oneself
from extreme culpability before God: redeeming one's life. What
enables this passage to make this statement is the existence of an
alternative meaning for the verb is? and the existence of the verbal
expression tfgjn "71? "152. The passage is reflective and interpretive: it
puts forth a new and unique theory of what sacrificial 'atonement' is
and how it works, not a theory of why one needs it. It is a case of
a certain resemblance to Milgrom's view of 'encroachment', (above, note 68), but

has not been advanced by Milgrom in this contextpresumably because the
worshiper's approach to the sphere of the sacred is entirely licit.
1. Hermann ('Hilaskomai', p. 310), followed by many commentators.
Somewhat different is the view recently put forward by Zohar ('Repentance',
pp. 61 Iff.), that the blood of the nRon alone is intended, since only this sacrifice is
one of msD par excellence.
2. As is the iSD-action of the scapegoat (Lev. 16.8, 21-22).
60
inner-biblical exegesis, almost midrashic in nature.1

F. The passage in question thus deals with a topic treated elsewhere in
the Priestly code and outside of itthe prohibition of eating blood
and explains it by means of concepts treated elsewhere in the Priestly
code and outside of itthat blood is connected with life, that
sacrificial blood is "ISDD, that there are things which are "? ISDD
Kfcun. But the combination of these elements is entirely unprecedented
and unparalleled. To read this passage as if it were a recapitulation of
Priestly doctrine would obscure its meaning entirely: what this
chapter says is entirely unique. Nowhere else do we find the meaning
of 'ransom' for the "iDD-action associated with blood; nowhere else is
the blood 'placed' on the altar by God; nowhere else is this the reason
for the prohibition of blood. Elsewhere the reason blood is prohibited
is its nature (since it is the seat of life, it is improper to ingest it), or
its ownershipit belongs to God, like the fat of the animal. Here the
reason is not the nature of blood but rather its role. Since you give it
to me in place of your lives, God says, it may not be eaten.
G. Now it is clearand if it were not, the following verses make it
sothat the only blood which is placed on the altar is that of
sacrificial animals. Thus the only blood which serves as ransom for
man's life is that of sacrificial animals.2 It might then stand to reason
1. The source-critical implication, that Lev. 17, and indeed all of the Holiness
chapters of the Priestly code, represent a later stratum, reflecting and enlarging upon,
and reacting to, the more ancient corpus of Priestly law, has recently been
investigated by I. Knohl, 'nto'npn rVrooRni nnro rmra jn'narri mn^n nto'sn'
(PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988); compare G. Henton Davies,
'Leviticus', IDB, III, pp. 117ff., and Riicker, 'Die Begrundungen',/?a55/m.
2. Though this is agreed upon by all commentators, they differ as to whether our
verse states that all sacrificial blood atones (Gray, 'Sacrifice', p. 76; Herrmann,
'Hilaskomai', pp. 307ff., Levine, Presence, pp. 72-74; Garnet, 'Constructions',
p. 145) or only that of those sacrifices specifically designated as expiatory
(Steinmuller, 'Blood', p. 561; de Vaux, 'Sacrifices', pp. 29 n. 3, 36; Rendtorff,
Studien, p. 23 n. 1), or perhaps the revolutionary idea that the blood of the D'D^tDsacrifice expiates (Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 151). Fiiglister ('Siihne', p. 147)
goes so far as to say that all blood atones, by which he means to include even that of
the paschal offering and of circumcision! My view is closest to that of Sabourin and
Lyonnet, Sin, pp. 175ff. There are certainly cultic acts which atone by some means
other than sacrificial blood; see Gray, Sacrifice, pp. 75f. and especially Brichto,
61
that this is the only blood which the Israelites ought to be prohibited
from eating. This, however, is not the case: as we saw above, and as
emphasized in vv. 12 and 14 as well as in Lev. 3.17 and 7.26-27, all
blood is forbidden. The argument of the chapter is thus as follows:
since the blood of sacrifices is assigned to the altar as ransom for your
lives, anyone who eats any blood wll incur n~O. This, by the way, is
precisely how God quotes himself in v. 14: rro* V^DK ^D. But this
'logic' is entirely illogical: if sacrificial blood is assigned to the altar,
then the blood of sacrificial animals ought to be forbidden, but not
that of deer and gazelles! The most likely explanation is to view this
chapter's innovative interpretation of the prohibition for eating blood
as a sort of rabbinic gezera: all blood is prohibited in order that
humans keep their distance from transgressionthat is, if they were
permitted to eat the blood of wild animals, they would soon eat that of
sacrificial ones as well.
Ill
The remainder of the chapter goes on to state what is to be done with

every other sort of animal whose flesh may be eaten.1 The fourth
paragraph (vv. 13-14) commands that the blood of those hunted
animals which are permitted must be drained and covered.2
Commentators have long supposed that this is some ritual, that the
earth here substitutes for an altar, and that covering the blood
amounts to returning life to its source, or to God.3 We should
'Slaughter', p. 29 and n. 22. Compare the rabbinic dispute as to whether the layingon of hands atones (Lev. 1.4) or 'atonement is accomplished only by the blood'
(b. Zeb. 6a).
1. ^DK11 "ittfK in v. 13 means 'which may be eaten', i.e. are permitted, and not
'edible' (contra Brichto, 'Slaughter', p. 24).
2. The result clause, which contains the commands, begins not with 13b(5
lain inom but with 13ba im PR "[SBJi; this is reflected not only in the Masoretic
accents but also in LXX. See Elliger, who refers to GKC 143d, and compare
Deut. 16.24 where it is clear that pouring out the blood is part of what is
commanded. As for our verse, the suffixed accusative in inosi indicates that both
pouring out and covering are commanded, and indeed taken as one act.
3. Some of the theories which have been propounded to explain the command to
cover the blood of hunted animals are: to provide a visible sign that blood is
prohibited (Bechor Shor), to prevent the false impression that an illicit 'fieldsacrifice' has been performed (Ibn Ezra) or that a human has been murdered
62
distinguish, however, between theories as to the 'original', historical

reason for covering the blood and what this text clearly says. It says,
in a long, emphatic, unambiguous, explanatory motivational section
spoken by God himself and beginning with the word D, that the
reason for this command is that blood is the seat of life (v. 14aa),
indeed, it is life (v. 14bcc); further, that 'I, God, have forbidden the
Israelites to "eat" any blood, and that anyone who does so will incur
n~O'. In other words, the one and only reason given in this text for the
command to cover blood is that blood may not be eaten, and the
reason for that is in v. 11. The command to cover blood has no
separate, independent rationale of its own, because it is a subsection of
the prohibition in v. 10. The only reason blood must be spilled out
and covered up is in order that it not be eaten. This is not a ritual, but
a practical method of complying with the basic command not to eat
blood. Once blood is absorbed into the earth's dust, a process begun
by draining it out upon the earth and completed by tossing or
shoveling some more earth on top of it, it is no longer edible. This too
is a sort of gezerait is an instrumental command. If the hunter
leaves the blood untouched, he, or a passer-by, might be temped to eat
it and thereby incur rro; therefore, 'cover it', because 'whoever eats
it will incur DID'.
Before leaving the motivational section of the fourth paragraph
(v. 14), we should examine its two-part parallel structure:
14a
14b
The first o indicates that both parts of v. 14a provide the rationale for
the command in v. 13; the second 'D may be a repetition of the first (in
which case the two parts of 14b merely repeat what is stated in 14a;
this would be similar to the two occurrences of 'D in v. 11), or it may
be that 14b is intended as the rationale for 14aa: 'I said to the
(Luzzatto), to return the life to its source through the dust of the earth from which
humanity was created (Dillmann), to hide the blood which 'calls out from the earth'
(Gen. 4.10) for vengeance (Kalisch; Milgrom, 'Prolegomenon', p. 152), to hide it
from view so that men will not become insensitive to bloodshed (Ehrlich, Mikra
Ki-pheshuto, p. 229). It is likely that commentators have been influenced by
Ezek. 24.7-8, but the symbolism there is quite different.
63
Israelites: "The blood of all living things you may not eat,
because...'". In either case, the connection between blood and life,
which was the basis for the rationale in the previous paragraph, has
become the rationale itself. In paragraph three the "iSD-action
associated with blood is the reason it may not be 'eaten'; here, in the
context of hunted animals, sacrificial blood is less pertinent. In
contrast, the blood-life connection has actually been strengthened in
this paragraph, so that in the final analysis the chapter contains all
three possible expressions of the connection: in v. 12, life is in the
blood; in 14a, blood is in the life;1 in 14b, blood is life.2
A final feature of this section is that only here does the expression
"ifeD *3D, 'all living things', occur. Since it appears twice, both times in
statements patently designed to echo v. 11 (trn D13 ntonn eJEH), the
addition of bs would seem not to be gratuitous. Rather, the word is
intended to be inclusive: not only the blood of domestic animals, but
that of hunted animals as well, even though they are unsacrificeable, is
inextricably connected with life.
Formthe lengthy, repetitious, motivational sectionand
contentthe rationale itself, which indicates the instrumental nature
of the law in v. 13lead to the same realization: the overall aim of
the lawgiver is to ensure that the prohibition in v. 10 is heeded. He is
far from a disinterested legislator; he employs every possible means,
from persuasion to preventive enactments, to keep the Israelites from
ingesting blood and incurring rro.
1. No satisfactory syntactical explanation has been offered for 14aa

sin 10233 im iton ^D 2)33. If the text is not corrupt (perhaps a conflation of
K'n im -iftn *7D tfsu and Kin iizJan im nton ^), the best solution is to view it as an
anacoluthon: as for the life-force of all flesh, its (i.e. all flesh's) blood is in its lifeforce (i.e. 'connected to' its life; so Abrabanel, Mendelssohn, Hoffmann;
alternatively, with NJPS 'its blood is its life'beth essentiae). Others delete itfsn
(Bertholet; Ehrlich, Mikra Ki-pheshuto, p. 229; BHS; Elliger; Brichto, 'Slaughter',
P- 24).
2. The three distinct blood-life formulae are obscured by LXX, where they are all
translated identically. For the distinction, see Nahmanides.
64

IV
Verses 15-16 do not prohibit the eating of carrion. As has been seen,1
this is one of the differences between the Priestly and non-priestly law
codes: in P, only priests are forbidden to eat carrion (Lev. 22.8),
while ordinary Israelites simply become defiled by doing so and are
therefore required to cleanse themselves; the only sin involved would
be that of failing to cleanse oneself, of remaining defiled. In E and D
all Israel is a 'kingdom of priests' and a 'holy nation' (Exod. 19.6;
Deut. 14.2, 21) and must thus actually abstain, as priests do, from
carrion (Exod. 22.30; Deut. 14.21.).
This law too is known elsewhere in PLev. 11.39-40 states it
explicitly. Here, however, it is repeated, and again, in a form designed
for this chapter, in a context foreign to Leviticus 11. The author of
this chapter, by including the law here, indicates that eating carrion is
not only a matter of becoming defiled from contact with, or consumption of, a deadrather than a slaughteredanimal, a condition which,
though not desirable, can easily be corrected by bathing one's body
and laundering one's clothes.2 He indicates that in his view eating
carrion is alsoperhaps primarilya violation of the prohibition of
'eating' blood, since if carrion is eaten, blood is unavoidably
consumed. The legislator is powerless to outlaw it but is at least able
to present it in a more negative light. This is done in four separate
ways: by including the law in the context of the prohibition of eating
blood; by employing the expression naicn nbm, employed elsewhere
in P for prohibitions;3 by stating the consequences of failing to cleanse
1. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1972), pp. 227-28 and n. 2; see now Wenham. P's legislation is at one and
the same time more lenient than that of E and D, since it does not forbid carrion to the
Israelite, and more stringent, since its provision applies to the ~ia (explicitly exempted
in Deut. 14.21).
2. As distinct from our chapter, the mention of carrion in Lev. 11 is entirely a
result of the chapter's concern with the defilement resulting from contact with a
carcass; see vv. 8, 11, 24, 27 and 31ff.; the same concern is present in the law
requiring an Dto'K-sacrifice of one who has neglected to cleanse himself after such
contact (Lev. 5.2ff.). Defilement is also the primary concern of the prohibition of
carrion to the priests (Lev. 22.8: ra nuno1? ^DK' R1?), which Ezekiel himself attests
that he has observed (Ezek. 4.14).
3. Lev. 7.24; 22.8. Outside of P, too, the context is always negative, and often
65
away the defilement (stating consequences of failing to comply with a

law is very rare, and usually reserved for capital offenses);1 and by
stating that those consequences are potentially deadlysince 'bearing
sin', if uncorrected, will certainly lead to rro.2
Here too, then, the lawgiver has not invented a new law, but given a
new interpretation to an old one, just as he did in v. 11. In fact, the
entire section is of practically no legislative import. Rather, it is
designed to explore the meaning and some of the ramifications of the
prohibition of eating blood.3
prohibitive; in addition to the Pentateuchal texts already mentioned see Jer. 16.18;
Ezek. 44.31.
1. Schwartz, 'Chapters', pp. 30-31.
2. See above, p. 38 n. 4.
3. The present study had already gone to press when F.H. Gorman, Jr, The
Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology (JSOTSup, 91;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) appeared. Gorman's Excursus II ('The Role of Blood
in the Kipper-Act: Blood as Symbol of Life and Death', pp. 181-89) is somewhat
confused. He has not fully apprehended the difference between vv. 3-7 and 8-9, he
has failed to notice that vv. 11 and 14 are not two distinct Priestly texts but one, and
his assertion that the pouring out of animal blood is already prescribed by Gen. 9.4 is
simply incorrect. He has rightly maintained that v. 11 pertains to all blood and not
only to that of D'obttJ, and his description of the overall structure of vv. 10-12
corresponds in the main to that given above. His concluding remarks (p. 188) seem
to indicate that he too has appreciated the structural and thematic centrality of w. 1012 in the chapter. But he has read into v. 11 much more than is there: nowhere does
the text of the verse state that life is sacred, let alone imply that this is the reason that
ingesting blood is prohibited! Thus his rendering, 'for it is the blood, with the life,
that kippers', is questionable, and not only on the obvious grammatical grounds.
Further, he has shifted the focus of vv. 15-16 exclusively to the issue of defilement,
and has even gone so far as to say that the neglect of the 'blood ritual' is what makes
carrion defile, thus confusing two separate issues. Like most scholars, he has
interpreted the pouring out and covering of animal blood mandated by v. 13 as a
sacred act, though he does seem to admit that the only thing that makes it so is the
mere fact that it is commanded. Finally, Gorman reaches no clear conclusion as to the
meaning of "iSD in the chapter, wavering between 'ransom' and 'the ritual elimination
of sin' (expiation), and his statement that 'death is the prerequisite, but, at the same
time, the necessary reason for the ritual manipulation of the blood' is
incomprehensible. The suggestion that the ritual reason for the prohibition of blood is
given by the Priestly writers in Lev. 17 (and not earlier) in order that it follow the
divine instructions for the operation and structure of the cult is an interesting one,
though it necessitates some problematic assumptions concerning the unity of the
Priestly code, and in any case leaves unanswered the question of why this reason has
66
In lieu of summary, we may review what this sort of reading of a

priestly law offers us. First, it yields textually grounded conclusions
concerning the meanings of words, phrases and idioms, as well as
concerning the substance of the laws and rituals themselveswhat
they actually command and why. Second, and this is the motivating
force, it attempts to account for how things are said, not just in
general, form-critical terms but in every specific textual detail. Third,
we are provided with a better glimpse of just what the lawgivers, that
is, the authors of the legal texts, were doingit was far more than
merely legislating. Finally, a by-product: we are able to gain here and
there a new insight concerning the Priestly code, its composition, and
the relationship of its layers to each other.
been omitted in Lev. 3 and 7. A fuller discussion of Gorman's study of P will have
to be left for another occasion.
JEWISH HIGH PRIESTS OF THE PERSIAN PERIOD:

is THE LIST COMPLETE?
James C. VanderKam
In recent years there has been a lively debate about the chronology of
the Jewish high priests who served during the Persian period. Though
the topic had often been broached in older studies, the contemporary
debate has been stimulated by P.M. Cross Jr's provocative paper 'A
Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', which was the presidential
address that he delivered to the Annual Meeting of the Society of
Biblical Literature in 1974.1 Cross argued that the biblical list of six
men who are supposed to have ruled for the 200 years of Persian
dominion is too short and that four names have dropped from the high
priestly genealogy. The trigger for the omission was the widespread
practice of papponymy: the repetition caused by naming grandsons
after grandfathers led to two cases of haplography and thus the
elimination of four names from the list. The present essay is intended
as a re-examination of the high priestly chronology in light of Cross's
hypothesis and the reactions that it has elicited. First, the evidence will
be reviewed; second, theoriesespecially Cross'sabout missing
names will be sketched; third, reactions will be assessed; and fourth, a
case will be made that the existing six-member list is complete.
1. The Evidence
The book of Nehemiah is the only biblical source which provides a
roster of the early postexilic high priests. Chapter 12, which is often
considered to be a later addition to the core of the book,2 begins with
1. The essay was published in JBL 94 (1975), pp. 4-18 and in Int 29 (1975),
pp.187-203.
2. For recent analyses, see H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC, 16;
68
a list of priests and Levites who accompanied Zerubbabel and

Jeshua/Joshua when they came to Yehud from Babylon. Priests are
enumerated in vv. lb-7 (concluding with the notice: 'These were the
chiefs of the priests and their brethren in the days of Jeshua');1 Levites
are named in vv. 8-9. With v. 10 begins what is in all likelihood a
genealogy of the men who held the high priestly office from the time
of the return to the author's day: 'And Jeshua was the father of
Joiakim, Joiakim the father of Eliashib, Eliashib the father of2 Joiada,
Joiada the father of Jonathan, and Jonathan the father of Jaddua'
(12.10-11). This should be the genealogy of high priests because the
office was hereditary, Jeshua/Joshua is named as the first member, and
the thirdEliashibis called the high priest in Neh. 3.1, 20-21.
Moroever, Josephus refers to each of these men as high priest, with
the exception of Jonathan: Joiakim (Ant. 11.5.1, 5 [121, 158]); his son
Eliashib (11.5.5 [158]; 11.7.1 [297]); his son Joiada (11.7.1 [297]); his
son Johanan (11.7.1 [297-301]); and his son Jaddua (11.7.2-8.7 [30247]). The only name that differs from Neh. 12.10-11 is Johanan for
Nehemiah's Jonathan. Nehemiah 12.22, however, presents a second
list of these names which is not outfitted in genealogical dress; it
begins with Eliashib, reproduces the names that follow his in vv. 1011, but reads Johanan in place of Jonathan. That there was a high
priest named Johanan at this time is confirmed by AP 30.18-31.17. In
this missive (408-407 BCE) from the Jews of Yeb to the governor
Bagohi, the writers mention that they had sent a letter some three
years earlier (411-410) to the high priest Johanan (pnv) but had
received no reply (11.409, 17-18).3 Such evidence makes it
Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), pp. 358-66; and J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah
(OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), pp. 333-41.
1. Scriptural citations are from the RSV.
2. The MT lacks the word T"7in at this point, though it is found in every other case
in the list. The LXX also has no verb here.
3. See A.E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1923; repr. Osnabruck: Otto Zeller, 1967), pp. 112, 120. Cf. p. 109 for the
identification with Johanan in Neh. 12.22. The pertinent lines of the letter read thus
in Cowley's rendering: 'Also before this, at the time when this evil [destruction of
the temple at Elephantine] was done to us, we sent a letter to your lordship [Bagohi]
and to Johanan the high priest and his colleagues the priests who are in Jerusalem,
and to Ostanes the brother of ' Anani, and the nobles of the Jews. They have not sent
any letter to us' (11.17.19).
VANDERKAM Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period
69
reasonable to regard the name |D3V of v. 11 as a scribal error for

pnvtwo names that could be difficult to distinguish in Hebrew
script.1
Thus, the data of Nehemiah, Josephus, and AP 30-31 combine to
place a man named Johanan in the high priestly list and to demonstrate
that the following six men held office: Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib,
Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua. It should be added that Nehemiah 12 does
not clarify the dates between which any one of these men functioned
as high priest. Nehemiah 3.1, 20-21 report that Eliashib was in office
when Nehemiah arrived in 445, but, as will be demonstrated below,
this is the latest firm chronological point for a high priest in the
biblical text.
1. This suggestion has often been made. See, for example, C.C. Torrey, Ezra
Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910; repr. New York: Ktav, 1970),
p. 321; W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT, 20; Tubingen: Mohr, 1949),
p. 190; H.H. Rowley, 'Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple', in his Men of God:
Studies in Old Testament History and Prophecy (London: Nelson, 1963), p. 248 n.
5. Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 363; cf. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 339)
confuses matters by associating the 'Johanan son of Eliashib' mentioned in
Neh. 12.23 with this problem. He writes: 'It seems most probable, therefore, that
Jonathan was a nephew of Johanan and that he held office after him'. This Johanan
and his father Eliashib are not, however, the same men as those listed in the roster of
high priests; the statements about their differing family connections make this
evident. The Eliashib and Johanan of Neh. 12.23 are probably the same people as
those mentioned in Ezra 10.6; cf. Neh. 13.4-9. Rudolph (Esra und Nehemia,
p. 190) has noted that the same interchange of the names Jonathan and Johanan
occurs also in Neh. 12.35: where MT has |rav, LXX reads the same name but mss.
BS + have 'Itoavdv. While scribal error is the preferable way for explaining the
difference between the two lists, there is another possibility. The list in vv. 10-11
takes a genealogical form, while that in v. 22 gives names alone, without indication
of relationships. It might have been the case that a man named Jonathan was the son
of Joiada but that he, for some reason, was disqualified from the high priesthood
(possibly he was the son of Joiada whom Nehemiah banished [13.28]). His place
would have been taken by a brother (Johanan), after whose term of office the oldest
surviving son of Jonathan (Jaddua) would have become high priest. Thus the
genealogy in vv. 10-11 would be correct, while the list in v. 22 gives the names of
those who actually held the office.
70

2. Theories About Missing Names
According to the surviving evidence, then, Jeshua/Joshua and five of

his descendants served as high priests in the postexilic age until an
unspecified time. The beginning of the period is known
approximately. Ezra 2.2, in its present context, implies that Joshua
came from exile during the reign of Cyrus and after his proclamation
(i.e., between 539/38 and 530, the year of Cyrus's death). He and
others built the altar at that time (3.2) and soon thereafter laid the
foundations of the second temple (3.7-13). Most of the biblical
passages which mention Joshua, however, associate him with the
second year of Darius (c. 520). This is the case for Ezra 4.24-5.2;
Hag. 1.1, 12, 14-15; 2.1-4; Zech. 1.7; 3.
Eliashib, the third high priest, was, as noted above, a contemporary
of Nehemiah (that is, he was serving as high priest in 445 when the
latter arrived in Jerusalem) and may still have been in office after
432, depending upon the meaning of Neh. 13.28. In that text
Nehemiah reports: 'And one of the sons of Jehoiada [= Joiada], the son
of Eliashib the high priest, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the
Horonite; therefore I chased him from me'. The punctuation in the
RSV presupposes that the title 'high priest' belongs to Eliashib, but the
Hebrew text is ambiguous as to whether it refers to him or Jehoiada.
Extra-biblical texts offer relatively fixed chronological points for two
of the remaining high priests in the list. AP 30-31 place Johanan in
office during the fourteenth year of Darius II, that is, about 410 (see
30.4-12). Josephus (Ant. 11.7.1 [297-301]) relates an episode
involving this Johanan and places it during the reign of Artaxerxes,
who must be the second of that name (404-358). Josephus also
provides a historical context for Jaddua, the sixth and last high priest
in the biblical list: he was a contemporary of Alexander the Great
whom he received when the Macedonian king visited Jerusalem in
332. Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.7 (346-47) may imply that by the
time of Alexander's untimely demise in 323, Jaddua was already dead.
If one combines these chronological markers, the result is a span of
approximately 200 yearsfrom the reign of Cyrus (539/38-530) to
that of Alexander (332-323)in which just six men held the high
priestly office. This would entail an average of 33s years or more per
reigna figure that is quite high but comfortably within the range of
71
the possible. But the data at hand do not permit one to assign roughly
thirty-three years to each man. AP 30-31 provide documentary
evidence that Johanan, the fifth high priest, was in office in 410. This
date would produce no problem for the preceding period (five high
priests in 120 years), but it implies that, if the list is complete, the
tenures of the last two high priests extended some eighty years and
perhaps a few more (410-330 and beyond, even if one makes the
minimal assumption that Johanan began serving in 410). These
numbers would be formidable enough, but, to add to the problem,
some scholars have argued that Neh. 12.22 dates the beginning of
Jaddua's high priesthood to the reign of Darius II (424/3-404). There
one reads: 'As for the Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiada,
Johanan, and Jaddua, there were recorded the heads of fathers' houses;
also the priests until1 the reign of Darius the Persian'. In the context
of Nehemiah 12, the most likely identification of this monarch is
Darius II, though commentators have defended each of the other two.2
Those who think that Darius the Persian is Darius II then move from
this identification to associate the end of the list of high priests in the
previous clause (Jaddua) with the reign of this king.3 If this inference
should be correct, then Neh. 12.22 would locate the beginning of
1. The preposition is "?i> which does not, of course, mean 'until'. There have been
many suggestions for emendation, some of which assume that the preposition is a
remnant of a longer reading. Rudolph (Esra undNehemia, pp. 193-94) thought that
one should augment it in accord with the phrase in v. 23, reading:
ID D'D'n nm IBO ^s. Albright preferred ^JJn ('The Date and Personality of the
Chronicler', JBL 40 [1921], p. 113); and he has been followed by J. Myers (Ezra,
Nehemiah [AB, 14; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965], p. 195). The LXX has ev.
2. Defenders of Darius I (522^486) include Albright ('The Date and Personality of
the Chronicler', p. 113) and Myers (Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 198-99), but their view
depends upon emending *7JJ to "7JJQ. Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 364-65)
believes, with S. Mowinckel (Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia, I: Die
nachchronische Redaktion des Buches. Die Listen [Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1964],
p. 161), that the epithet 'the Persian' is used to distinguish this Darius from Darius
the Mede in Daniel. Among the advocates of Darius II are M. Mor, 'The High Priests
in Judah in the Persian Period', Bet Miqra 23 (1977), pp. 58-61 (Hebrew); and
Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, pp. 193-94 (who emends the text); cf. Blenkinsopp,
Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 340. Torrey (Ezra Studies, pp. 249, 320), for one, thought he
was Darius III (336-31).
3. So Mor, 'The High Priests', pp. 58-61. Cross (e.g. in 'A Reconstruction of
the Judean Restoration', p. 189) also accepts this inference.
72
Jaddua's tenure within the years 424/3-404; and, since his father
Johanan was in office in 410 (AP 30-31), he would have commenced
as high priest between 410 and 404. In other words, he would have
been high priest for about seventy five years and possibly more.
In light of such implausible figures, scholars have for a long time
sought to remedy the situation by adding one or more names to the list
in order to fill the long stretch of years which Nehemiah 12 combined
with Josephus implies. As C.C. Torrey wrote in 1910: 'We can by no
means be certain that his [Johanan's] term of office immediately
preceded that of Jaddua. One or more other incumbents may have
intervened between the two'.1 W.F. Albright also proposed that the
list was short and suggested that a second Jaddua should be added. He
wrote in support of his conjecture: 'There is no difficulty in assuming
that the name was repeated, since this becomes the rule in the third
century with the Oniads'.2 The time of Johanan and Jaddua is not the
only span which has been perceived as too long; some have also sensed
that the gap between Joshua (520 is the last known date of his service)
and Eliashib (445 and beyond) is rather much for one high priest
(Joiakim) to have filled.3
Cross has advanced beyond these less specific proposals to a detailed
and broader thesis in which he posits exactly which names were
omitted and why they are absent from the extant texts. He had
adumbrated his position in earlier publications,4 but in his essay 'A
Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration' he elaborated it in full
form. 5 According to him two pairs of names were omitted from
1. Torrey, Ezra Studies, pp. 320, 263-64. More recently, both Williamson (Ezra,
Nehemiah, p. 363) and Blenkinsopp (Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 338) have suggested that
the list is not complete.
2. Albright, The Date and Personality of the Chronicler', pp. 112 n. 18, 122.
3. E.g. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, p. 192, though he recognizes that an
unusually long reign would have been possible.
4. See Cross, 'Papyri of the Fourth Century BC from Daliyeh', in D.N. Freedman
and J.C. Greenfield (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 60-63; and The Papyri and Their Historical
Implications', in P.W. Lapp and N.L. Lapp (eds.), Discoveries in the Wddt Eddaliyeh (AASOR, 41; Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research,
1974), pp. 20-22 (he adds another Johanan and Jaddua before the final two names
of the list); and 'Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and
Hellenistic Times', HTR 59 (1966), pp. 202-205.
5. Cross, 'Reconstruction', JBL 94 (1975); Cross, 'Reconstruction', Int 29
73
Nehemiah's list through two haplographies induced by papponymya

practice that, as he shows, was common in the Persian and Hellenistic
periods (p. 190). He repeats his earlier conclusion that haplography
had occurred at the end of the high priestly list: the present sequence
Johanan-Jaddua is the remnant of an original Johanan-JadduaJohanan-Jaddua series (pp. 188-89) which resulted when a copyist's
eye jumped from the first to the second instance of Johanan.
Josephus's stories about a Johanan who killed his brother Jeshua
(Ant. 11.7.1 [297-301]) and a Jaddua who greeted Alexander the
Great (11.7.2-8. 7 [302-47]) concern the last two men in the
reconstructed list. That is, the Johanan of Josephus's account is not the
Johanan who is mentioned in the Elephantine papyri. The Artaxerxes
who is mentioned in the Johanan-Jeshua story is Artaxerxes III who
reigned from 358-38, not Artaxerxes II (188-89).
Addition of these two names greatly relieves the problem of the
long reigns which one would otherwise have to assume for Johanan
and Jaddua. Nevertheless, difficulties remain. Cross had calculated that
without these two extra names, the current form of the high priestly
list requires an average of 34.3 years per generation.1 Inserting their
names into the roster yields generations averaging 27.5 years, 'still
suspiciously high' (p. 193). He suspects that, as the average length of
a generation between Jozadak (Joshua's father who, Cross suggests,
was born c. 595) and Johanan (born c. 445) would still be
approximately thirty years, 'at least one generation, two high priests'
names, have dropped out of the list through a haplography owing to
the repetition produced by papponymy' (p. 193). The problem
centers about Eliashib. This third post-exilic high priest, who was
born c. 545 according to Cross's figures, was still in office when
Nehemiah arrived a century later. Moreover, he was spry enough at
his advanced age to help construct the city wall (Neh. 3.1, 20). As it
is unlikely he was capable of this at the age of 100, something must be
amiss in the text.
In order to solve this problem, Cross appeals to Ezra 10.6 and
Neh. 12.23, both of which refer to a J(eh)ohanan who is identified as
(1975). The page references given in the text are to Int 29.
1. He begins with the year 595, which would be a minimal birth date for Jozadak,
Joshua's father (p. 193 n. 32), and continues to 320, by which time Jaddua was
dead (Ant. 11.8,7 [347]).
74
the son of Eliashib. These same names figure in the list of high priests
but as grandfather and grandson. The former text associates this
J(eh)ohanan with Ezra. 'The key to the solution, however, is in the
juxtaposition of the priests Yohanan son of 'ElyaMb and Yoyada' son
of 'ElyaSlb. We must reckon with two high priests named 'ElyaSlb,
and given papponymy, two priests named Yohanan. Thus we have the
following sequence: (1) 'ElyaSlb I father of (2) Yohanan I contemporary of Ezra, followed by (3) 'ElyaSlb II contemporary of Nehemiah
and grandfather of (4) Yohanan IF (pp. 193-94). When Cross's extra
priests are added to all the names from the Bible and Josephus (with
Jaddua's two successors), the result is a sequence of twelve high
priests who average the proper twenty-five years per generation
(p. 203; the dates in parentheses are proposed dates of birth; each
member of the list is the son of the preceding member except
['Elyasrb I]):
1.
2.
3.
[3.
[4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
[9.
[10.
11.
12.
Yosadaq (before 587)

Yesua' (570)
Yoyaqlm (545), the brother of
'ElyaSTb I (545)]
Yohanan I (520)]
'ElyasTb II (495)
Yoyada' I (470)
Yohanan II (445) = AP 30.18-31.17
Yaddua'II (420)1
Yohanan III (395)]
Yaddua'III (370)]
Oniasl(345)
Sim'onl(320)
Cross's hypothesis of two haplographies in the post-exilic high priestly

list has transparent advantages. First, it eliminates the need to posit
several extraordinarily long reigns by high priests at two points in the
genealogy. Second, it incorporates the otherwise puzzling father-son
pair J(eh)ohanan and Eliashib into the high priestly roster without
having to have recourse to the much canvassed question whether 'son'
1. Cross labels him Yaddua' II because Yaddua' is a caritative form of Yoyada'
(hence no. 6 is Yoyada' I). See p. 189 n. 12, where he also provides the evidence
which shows that Onias is a Greek spelling of Honay, which in turn is 'the caritative
or diminutive form of Yohanan'. As a result, no. 11 is Onias I who would also be
Yohanan IV.
75
in this case can mean 'grandson'.1 In Cross's view they are not the
grandfather and grandson of the lists in Nehemiah 12 but are two different high priests who bear the same names as the ones given there.
3. Reactions to Theories of Missing Names
Despite its attractiveness, Cross's theory has encountered significant
opposition. Geo Widengren mounted a strong challenge to part of it in
the course of treating the age-old problem of the historical order in
which Ezra and Nehemiah appeared.2 Since he places Nehemiah
before Ezra, he could not accept Cross's explanation of Ezra 10.6
which has often been regarded as one of the strongest arguments in
favor of reversing the biblical order of Ezra-Nehemiah. Widengren's
handling of the Ezra-Nehemiah problem is not relevant here, but he
does point to some problematic aspects of Cross's arguments. His first
criticism is that it is a weakness to have to resort, in one short list, to
two cases of haplography, neither of which has any textual support.
Second, the list, even as reconstructed by Cross, does not follow the
principle of papponymy: 'Of a supposed list of 12 names (in reality 13
names!), 9 names would be illustrations of papponymy.. .the name of
Eliashib disappears from the list with Eliashib II. After him the
supposed papponymy has changed character in so far as we do not find
a sequence Eliashib + Johanan but Joiada + Johanan' (p. 508). As
Widengren notes, Cross identifies as instances of repetition names that
are not actually identical; that is, he considers full theophoric names as
equivalents of hypocoristic forms (Joiada/Jehoiada would thus be the
same as Jaddua; Johanan/Jehohanan and Onias would be another
example). Of the names that do in fact occur in the list, 'only Joiada,
Johanan, Jaddua, and Onias show a tendency toward papponymythat
is, granted that we accept the hypocoristica as identical with the
complete names' (p. 508).
As a third objection, Widengren questions the claim that generations
averaged approximately twenty-five years; in the dark days of the
1. See the survey in Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 151-54 (Williamson does
not think that 'son' here means 'grandson'); and J.R. Porter, 'Son or Grandson
(Ezra X.6)?', JTS 17 (1966), pp. 54-67.
2. G. Widengren, The Persian Period', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.),
Israelite and Judaean History (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977),
pp. 506-509.
76
sixth century perhaps not all priests married and fathered sons by this
age. Happily, even Widengren himself recognizes that this argument
has little to commend it (pp. 508-509). Finally, he isolates a curious
feature in Cross's list: he identifies his hypothetical Eliashib I as the
brother, not the son, of his predecessor Joiakim whereas Neh. 12.10
makes him his son. 'If Joiakim was born about 535 BCE, Eliashib
could have been born about 500 BCE or some years earlier. That
would give him in 445 an age of fifty-five to sixty years. Such an age
could not possibly have been an obstacle to his participation in the
work on the walls' (p. 509).
Widengren has exposed some important flaws in Cross's proposals
as they relate to the period from the return to c. 410; his criticisms
largely ignore the more problematic time span from c. 410-332 (and
beyond) for which Cross can make a more convincing case that names
are missing from the high priestly list. A critique that resembles
Widengren's has been fashioned by M. Mor.1 With Widengren, Mor
rejects Cross's first reconstructed pair (Eliashib I and Yohanan I), but
unlike Widengren he also deals with the high priestly chronology of
the period from 410-332 and accepts Cross's suggestion that two
names must be added here. His is a more detailed study than that of
Widengren and deserves careful scrutiny.
As he attempts to deal with the high priests and their periods of
service in the fifth and fourth centuries, Mor draws attention to
Neh. 12.22: 'As for the Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiada,
Johanan, and Jaddua, there were recorded the heads of fathers' houses;
also the priests until the reign of Darius the Persian'. He thinks that
proper identification of this Darius holds the key to determining how
far forward in history the high priestly list extended. AP 30 allows
him to recognize in Darius the Persian Darius II, in whose fourteenth
year (410) Johanan was high priest (47-58). This means that the high
priestly lists in Neh. 12.10-11, 22 reach to the time of this king, that
is, the end of the fifth century. As a result, Jaddua, the last high priest
to be named in this chapter, began his term of office during Darius
IFs reignat some point between 410 and 404 (58).
With this limit in mind, he considers the specifics of Cross's case.
First, the additional pair of high priests whom Cross names Eliashib I
1. M. Mor, The High Priests in Judah in the Persian Period', Bet Miqra 23
(1977), pp. 57-67.
77
and Johanan I come from Ezra 10.6 (erroneously given as 6.6 in the
article); Neh. 12.23 (the 'J[eh]ohanan son of Eliashib' passages). But
Mor observes that these texts are problematic in themselves, with
many scholars accepting the arrangement of Nehemiah 12 in which
Johanan is the grandson, not the son of Eliashib. He also mentions the
suggestion of J. Liver and H. Tadmor1 that the author of EzraNehemiah anachronistically gave to 'the chamber of Jehohanan the son
of Eliashib' the name which it had in the time when he wrote (59).
Mor repeats Widengren's objections that Cross has made his
Eliashib I the brother, not the son, of Joiakim, (or at least assigns
them to the same generation), and that the list of high priests does not
in fact exhibit the principle of papponymy (Joiada's successor should
have been named Eliashib, if the principle were operative [59-60]). A
more telling criticism is actually an enlargement of Widengren's
objection to the 25-year generation thesis. Mor notes that with Cross's
proposed birth dates for the high priests, Jaddua would have been
born in c. 420. However, if he began to serve as high priest between
410when Johanan was still in officeand 404the date of Darius
IPs deaththen he would have assumed the office at some time when
he was between the ages of ten and fifteen years. This would be most
unusual for a high priest (60). He makes the point that the generation
principle is not particularly helpful in determining how many high
priests there were from the return to Jaddua; rather, the salient issue
is how long each man held the office (60). There are no data
concerning this matter, but the fixed chronological points which are
available in the sources can function as guidelines in reconstructing
the list. These points are: Joshua returned in 538; Eliashib was high
priest in 445 and he was still in office when Nehemiah left in 432 (see
Neh. 13.4-5); when Nehemiah returned one year later (which he
considers the meaning of 'after some time' in Neh. 13.6) Joiada was
high priest (Neh. 13.28); Johanan served in 410; and Jaddua's term
began between 410 and 404. He sees no need to add names to the list
for the period between Joshua and Johanan and suggests for the priests
named in Nehemiah 12 birth dates that differ somewhat from those
proposed by Cross (using the 25-year generation principle, starting in
effect with Joshua who would have been born in c. 570; Jaddua's
1. J. Liver, 'pnv', EM, III, pp. 590-91; H. Tadmor, 'rrjiburo', EM,
IV,.p. 307 n. 2.
78
birthdate would have been c. 445). Thus, Joshua would have been
about thirty-three years of age when he returned; Eliashib would have
been about seventy-five when Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem and
about eighty-eight when Nehemiah departed. Joiada would then have
assumed the post at the relatively advanced age of sixty-four; by 410
his son was high priest. Since Johanan was born in approximately 470
(incorrectly printed as 410 on p. 62), he was about sixty years of age
when he received the letter from Elephantine. Jaddua then began his
term at about thirty-five yearsa far more likely figure than Cross's
proposed ten to fifteen years of age for him (60-62).
Turning to the high priest Jaddua, Mor argues that Josephus's story
about him and his brother Manasseh who married Nikaso, Sanballat's
daughter, is not, as many claim, a reworked version of the incident in
Neh. 13.28. The two are quite separate. But if Jaddua became high
priest between 410 and 404 and was still in office in 332 when
Alexander the Great visited Jerusalem, then he served an extraordinarily long term. Consequently, as papponymy was widespread at
this time, it is very likely that two names have fallen from the list
through haplography. The repeating names are Johanan-JadduaJohanan-Jaddua, with the last two being the ones about whom
Josephus tells stories in Ant. 11.7.1-8.7 (297-347) (62-67).
If the proposal of Cross, supported by Mor, that two names have
been omitted toward the end of the high priestly list is correct, then a
difficulty in one of Josephus's stories is solved. Josephus says that
when Johanan killed his brother Jeshua, a man names Bagoses was an
important official. He calls him the aipatriyo^ of the other
Artaxerxes. No general of Artaxerxes II is known to have had this
name, but Artaxerxes III (358-38) did have such a commander. Thus,
if the story is placed in the time of the third Artaxerxes (whom
Josephus fused with Artaxerxes II), the name of Bagoses is nicely
explained. This, too, would entail, however, that the Johanan of
Nehemiah 12 and AP 30 is not the Johanan of Josephus's account.
Several of the objections raised by Widengren and Mor should be
retained but in modified form. First, one ought not to insert a pair of
names in the list for the fifth century. There is no hint of papponymy
at this point in the roster (Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan);
thus, the alleged trigger for haplography is absent. It is often claimed
that a generation lasted twenty-five years in antiquity, but there is
rarely much evidence adduced to support the assertion. Moreover, in
79
this case the point is irrelevant. The high priestly office was held for
life, and the practice was that the incumbent was succeeded at death by
his oldest surviving sonwhatever his age might be at that juncture
(provided, of course, that it was not too low).1 In other words, the
hypothetical dates of birth for each high priest are not helpful in this
discussion. According to the lists in Nehemiah 12, combined with the
evidence from AP 30, five high priests served from the return to 410.
Seven Persian monarchs ruled during the same timea period that
includes only the last years of Cyrus, the brief reign of Cambyses, and
the exceedingly short reign of Xerxes II in 424. Despite the repetition
of names in the royal line, there is no need to interpolate additional
ones, just as there is not in the roster of high priests.
Second, Widengren and Mor have pointed out that Cross makes his
Eliashib I the brother, not the son, of Joiakim, while Neh. 12.10
presents them as father and son. They have not, however, seen what is
entailed by this proposal. Cross himself appears to sense that adding
two generations at this point would produce too many extra years. But
if papponymy has caused the omission, then two names had to be
dropped. So, he adds two names but only one generation and in this
way arrives at a 25-year generation for each of the other high priests.
Even Cross's numbers, then, make it unlikely that two names have
fallen from the list of fifth-century high priests.
Third, Cross finds support for his extra pair of high priests
Eliashib I and Johanan Iin Ezra 10.6 and Neh. 12.23 where two
priests who are father and son have these names. These menor at
least J(eh)ohananwere obviously important because a chamber in
the temple is named after the son (cf. also 1 Esd. 9.1) and in
Neh. 12.23 'the sons of Levi, heads of fathers' houses, were written
in the Book of the Chronicles until the days of Johanan the son of
Eliashib'. What is more significant than their importance, however, is
the fact that neither is ever styled 'high priest'. This occasions no
surprise in the Book of Ezra, as no one is there given the title
^nn iron; it is, however, used in Nehemiah but not of these men. In
1. Josephus records a case in which a high priest named Simon, who ruled in the
early Hellenistic period, died and left an infant son Onias. Rather than giving the
office to the child, Simon's brother Eleazar served as high priest (Ant. 12.2.5 [4344]). Later, Eleazar was succeeded by his (?) uncle Manasseh before Onias became
high priest (12.4.1 [157-58]).
80
addition, both Eliashib and J(eh)ohanan are common names for priests
in the age of the restoration.1 Williamson, in commenting on Ezra
10.6, adduces Neh. 13.4 ('Now before this, Eliashib the priest, who
was appointed over the chambers of the house of our God'), and
writes: 'This definition seems intended to identify Eliashib, and may
therefore be presumed to distinguish him from Eliashib the high
priest. We would not expect the high priest to function as a caretaker.
This Eliashib's association with a 'chamber' in the temple immediately
links back to our verse, Ezra 10.6 (the same word, rotf1?, is used), and
suggests that reference may be being made to this family, not the high
priests'.2 If this father-son pair is not from the high priestly line (and
nothing in any text suggests it was), then these passages offer no
support for adding names to the high priestly list.
The situation is more difficult for the period from 410-332 (and
beyond), since there may indeed appear to be too much time for the
one or two known high priests to have ministered. But a closer look at
the evidence indicates that even for this span of time the situation is
not so difficult as it is often represented. The crucial piece of evidence
for those who find a major chronological problem here is Neh. 12.22
which has been quoted above. If this passage reported that Jaddua was
already high priest during the reign of Darius II (thus no later than
404), then it is almost certain that at least one and perhaps more
names have been lost in some way from the list. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see why scholars have derived information of this sort from
Neh. 12.22. It does not date the end of the high priestly list to the time
of Darius the Persian but only a list of priests. And the problem of
what the preposition *?$ before the king's name means remains unsolved. All that Neh. 12.22 relates about the high priests from Eliashib
to Jaddua is that during their times the heads of ancestral levitical
houses were recorded; Darius the Persian is not brought into connection with the high priests who are named at the beginning of the verse.
When Jaddua began his high priestly tenure is never indicated.
1. For the occurrences of Eliashib, see J.M. Ward, 'Eliashib', IDB, II, p. 87 (he
lists five men who have the name in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah); and for
Johanan, see B.T. Dahlberg, 'Johanan', IDB, II, pp. 929-30 (nine individuals are so
named and all except one [in Jeremiah] appear in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah).
Eight men are given the related form 'Jehohanan' and all figure in Chronicles, Ezra,
and Nehemiah (Dahlberg, 'Jehohanan', IDB, II, pp. 810-11).
2. Williamson, E^ra, Nehemiah, pp. 153-54 (cf. p. 365).
81
The only information about the high priests Johanan and Jaddua
apart from their namescomes from extra-biblical sources, especially
Josephus's Antiquities. Recently, two kinds of arguments have been
fashioned to demonstrate that the existence of another high priest
named Johanan is actually attested for the mid-fourth century.
Williamson has argued that a careful reading of one of the extrabiblical sourcesJosephus's story about Johanan and his brother
Jeshua in Ant. 11.7.1 (297-301)shows that its Johanan and the one
in Nehemiah and AP 30 are not the same man and that therefore there
was another Johanan who served as high priest in this period. Others
have maintained that a small silver coin which dates from c. 350 bears
his name. Williamson's case will be treated first, after which the
argument from the coin will be examined.
Perhaps the most significant contribution that Williamson1 makes is
to identify a literary form in Josephus's historiography and to exploit
it for elucidating the present passage. The form consists of a section
which begins with an introduction by Josephus, at the close of which
the result of the action which he is about to describe is specified; then
comes a narrative which is a close paraphrase of a source and finally a
conclusion. The transition between the introduction and narrative is
marked by an expression in which a form of the word amoc is used
(p. 50; examples of varied kinds are studied and listed on pp. 51-54).
All of these elements are present in paragraphs 297-301. The evidence
from the comparative material in Antiquities allows him to conclude
that 'Josephus was drawing on an independent source for his narrative
in Ant. xi. 298-301' (p. 55). There is no direct proof that the source
is historically trustworthy, since apart from Josephus the incident is
unattested; but indirect evidence suggests that it is: the names of
characters are fitting; the priesthood is shown in an unfavorable light
so that it is unlikely to have been invented; the result was sufficiently
noteworthy to be committed to writing; and, as it deals with priests, it
may have found a place in a temple or priestly chronicle (pp. 55-56).
Williamson next marshals arguments against what he takes to be the
common position, namely that the incident belongs in the time of
Nehemiah's Johanan. The reference in AP 30.1 to B^gohi (an Aramaic
form of Bagoses/Bagoas) would seem to clinch* the case for the
1. H.G.M. Williamson, 'The Historical Value of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities
XI.297-301', JTS 28 (1977), pp. 49-67.
82
accepted dating because it makes him governor of Yehud in c. 408.

Williamson sees the following difficulties with that position. First,
though the source itself (in 298-301) does not specify which
Artaxerxes was then king, Josephus refers to Bagoses as 6 aTparriyoi;
tov aA,A,oi> dpTaêpôi). Since this identification comes from
Josephus, the context shows that he is thinking of Artaxerxes II; he is
called 'the other Artaxerxes' to distinguish him from Artaxerxes I
who was mentioned in the historian's paraphrase of Esther in the
preceding paragraphs. Thus it appears that Josephus did not
distinguish Artaxerxes II and III (pp. 57-58). Second, Bagoses is
given the title 6 aipaTTiyoQ by both Josephus and the source, whereas
AP 30.1 calls him the governor of Yehud (-nrr nns). In the LXX,
aTpaTT|y6<; never renders nns. As a consequence, Josephus's Bagoses
and the Bagohi of the Elephantine letter do not appear to be the same
man. '[O]n the other hand we know of a Bagoses who precisely fits the
description as reconstructed from Josephus's source, namely the
Persian general of Artaxerxes III. His role as a military officer fits the
title aTpaiTiyos; of Ant. xi. 300, whilst the fact that he is known to
have been involved in civil administration (cf. Diodorus Siculus
16.1.8) suggests that he could well have imposed a tax on the Jews as
recounted in this narrative.' (p. 58). Also, if, as several scholars now
think, the Bagohi of AP 30 was Jewish (as all other governors of
Yehud at this time seem to have been), then there is yet another reason
for distinguishing the two (pp. 59-60).
The Johanan who is the high priest in this story can be understood
as someone other than the high priest mentioned in Nehemiah 12 and
AP 30.18. Following Mowinckel, Williamson insists that one should
not begin by equating Johanan (Neh. 12.22) with the Jonathan of
Neh. 12.11: 'not only are the names different, but their positions
within the family are different: according to the explicit statements of
Neh. xii. 10f., Jonathan was the grandson of Eliashib; Johanan,
however, is said in v. 23 to be the son of Eliashib, and there are no
valid grounds for taking this statement other than at its face value in
the first instance' (p. 62).! For him the high priestly list is not
1. It is puzzling that Williamson, who in his commentary (Ezra, Nehemiah,
pp. 151-54) defends the view that the Eliashib-J(eh)ohanan of Ezra 10.6;
Neh. 13.4-9 are not high priests, does not associate them with the same names in
Neh. 12.23. They must be the same men as the pair in Ezra 10.6 and thus also not
83
complete. It is not likely that only one high priest ruled between
Joshua (520) and Eliashib (445). The second place where the list is
probably defective is at the point where Jonathan and Jaddua appear.
'Since both Jonathan's father (Joiada) and his uncle (Johanan)1 were
high priests before him, Jonathan is unlikely to have been young when
he assumed the office. Johanan's term of office is fixed in part at 408
BC.. .so that Joiada, who was in the direct line of succession, was
high priest before that.. .To postulate only two generations (Jonathan
and Jaddua) between him (pre 408 BC) and 333 BC would be to
presuppose an abnormal situation' (pp. 62-63). With the increase in
the evidence for papponymy in that time, it may well be that there was
a Johanan in the latter part of the Persian period (pp. 63-64).
Josephus appears to be misleading here because he probably shortened
the Persian age by confusing the second Artaxerxes with the third and
Darius II with Darius III (pp. 64-65).
In point of fact, Williamsom comes to conclusions that resemble
those of Cross, although he does not assume the same measure of
papponymy. His analysis of the form which Ant. 11.7.1 (297-301)
takes is valuable, but his arguments about the identity of the characters
and of the setting of the story suffer from major flaws. Indeed, he
fails to draw the proper conclusions from his own formal analysis.
First, as Williamson recognizes, the source does not identify the
king other than by his name; however, Bagoses is termed in the source
and in Josephus's introduction the aipaiTiyoc; of Artaxerxes.
Williamson takes this word in its military sense and thus concludes
that he was the notorious general of Artaxerxes III. However, it is not
at all clear that the word aipaiTiyoc; ought to be interpreted in that
sense, either in the introduction or in the source. The root idea of the
word is, of course, military, but in ancient Athens it had already
acquired a wider meaning. The reason for the expansion of its
semantic range is probably to be found in the fact that military
commanders were at times involved simultaneously in important
administrative or political work. The word 'became one of the main
of the high priestly line. As a result of failing to make this connection, Williamson, in
a context in which he is much concerned about beginning with assumptions, himself
commences with the assumption that the Eliashib and Johanan of Neh. 12.23 belong
in the high priestly genealogy. What is the evidence for this?
1. Here again Williamson assumes that Eliashib and Johanan in Neh. 12.23 are
high priests.
84
terms for leading provincial or municipal officials...; it was also the

translation of consul or praetor'.1 In the LXX, OTpaTtiyog renders an
identifiable Semitic word 26 or 27 times. Of these, seven are
translations of ito (a military officer), one of po (a title of a Philistine
ruler), ten of po (prefect, ruler), six of its Aramaic cognate po, one
(perhaps two) of |STitfrm (satrap), and one of "pn (king).2 Hence, in a
majority of cases in the LXX19 or 20 of 26 or 27the word
renders a title that has a primarily civil rather than military nature.
There are also other cases in Josephus's writings in which aipamwoq
is used for civil rulers. For example in Ant. 12.3.3 (134; cf. 135) he
relates that the Seleucid monarch Antiochus in, after Jews had joined
with his forces to defeat a Ptolemaic army, 'wrote to his governors3
[TOI<; xe aiparriYoi^ OCUTOU] and friends' on their behalf, announcing
favors that were to be bestowed on them. The historian then cites the
famous letter of Antiochus to Ptolemy, the governor of Coele-Syria
and Phoenicia.4 That is, he writes the letter to a political official (see
also 12.3.4 [147]) where Antiochus writes to Zeuxis 'his governor
[TOY avTov axpccTriyov], and one of his close friends'.5 Now it may
be that Josephus himself thought that the title which he found in his
source pointed to the Persian general of whom he had read, but that
does not entail that the author of the source meant aTpaTT)y6<; to
denote 'military commander'. The word itself does not at all rule out
the possibility that the governor of AP 30.1 is intended.6
1. O. Bauernfeind, 'oxpaxe-ooiiai KT^', TDNT, VII, p. 704.
2. E. Hatch and H. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other
Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (3 vols.;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897; repr.: Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), p. 1295.
3. The Greek text and English translations of Josephus are from H. St
J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren, and L.H. Feldman, (eds.), Josephus (9
vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925-65). In his note to
this word, the translator R. Marcus offers an optional translation: 'Or: "generals'".
4. On this official's position, see Marcus, Josephus,VII, pp. 70-71 n. b.
5. See Marcus, Josephus, VII, p. 77 n.c. Cf. also Ant. 14.10.22 (247) 24 (259
[in these two sections, the term is used for rulers of Pergamum and Sardis]); 20.6.2
(131); War 6.5.3 (294). For similar usages in the NT, see BAGD, p. 778.
6. Note Torrey's comment (Ezra Studies, p. 318): 'Possibly Josephus himself
made this identification [of Bagoas as Artaxerxes Ill's general], though his use of the
term axpaTriyoq is not sufficient evidence of the fact'. It may be added that while
Josephus does imply that Bagoses was a Persian, there is a complete lack of
information about the ethnic origin of the Bagohi who figures in AP 30.1. N. Avigad
85
Second, the likelihood that the governor of the Elephantine letter is

meant increases when one notes what this Bagoses does in the story.
Josephus's account is transparently a local tale in the sense that all of
the characters seem to be in or near Jerusalem; there is no hint that a
great official of the empire is involved. The high priest's brother and
Bagoses were friends (Ant. 11.7.1 [298]), and the two had an
agreement that Jeshua would become high priest. Nothing is reported
concerning what Bagoses did to further this cause, but after Johanan
murdered Jeshua he turned against the Jews and attempted to enter the
temple. The Jews tried to repulse him, and he angrily imposed a
seven-year fine on sacrifices of lambs at the temple. It is not said that a
general had to come to Yehud from elsewhere, nor does one learn
how a man who was supposed to be at the center of power in the
imperial government became the friend of the high priest's brother in
an unimportant town. Bagoses belongs in Jerusalem where he holds a
ruling position, just as the governor of the AP 30.1 did.
Third, the Bagoses of Ant. 11.7.1 (297-301) does not remind one
very much of Artaxerxes Ill's generalat least as he is known from
Diodorus's account. Diodorus mentions him in connection with
Artaxerxes' campaign against Egypt in 344. At that time the monarch
divided his Greek mercenaries into three contingents and appointed
over each of them a Greek commander and a Persian officer. The
third of these groups was led by Mentor, 'and associated with him on
the expedition [auvecTpaTe-ueto] was Bagoas [always spelled
Pocycbaq], whom the king trusted most, a man exceptionally daring
and impatient of propriety; and he had the King's Greeks and an
(Bullae and Seals from a Post-exilic Judean Archive [Qedem, 4; Jerusalem: Institute
of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976], pp. 30-36) has
reconstructed from biblical and extra-biblical data a list of Judaean governors. There
is considerable uncertainty about several aspects of his list, but all of these men have
Jewish names with the possible exception of Bagohi (see p. 35, where he adduces
Ezra 2.14; 8.14; Neh. 7.7, 18 in which a Jewish family with this name is
mentioned). From this preponderance of Jewish names and the Persian practice of
appointing native rulers, some (e.g., B. Porten, Archives From Elephantine: The
Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony [Berkeley: University of California Press,
1968], p. 290) have concluded that Bagohi, too, may have been Jewish. The
conclusion is certainly plausible but hardly demonstrated. It is possible that
circumstances led the Persian authorities to appoint a non-native at this time. For a
defence of this position, see K. Galling, 'Bagoas und Esra', in his Studien zur
Geschichte Israels impersischen Zeitalter (Tubingen: Mohr, 1964), pp. 149-84.
86
ample force of barbarians and not a few ships' (The Library of

History 16.47.4 [see also 16.47.3, where Artazanes is said to be 'the
most faithful of his {the king's} friends after Bagoas']).1 He appears
to have incurred Artaxerxes' wrath when his troops violated a pledge
of safety given by the commander Lacrates to the Greeks who were
besieged in Pelusium; at the least, the king rejected his complaint
about how Lacrates' soldiers had punished his 'barbarians' (16.49.36). With Mentor, Bagoas became the greatest power in the empire.
While Mentor served as commander (f|yeu,cov) 'in the coastal districts
of Asia' (16.50.7), '[a]s for Bagoas, after he had administered all the
King's affairs in the upper satrapies,2 he rose to such power because
of his partnership with Mentor that he was master of the kingdom,
and Artaxerxes did nothing without his advice. And after Artaxerxes'
death he designated in every case the successor to the throne and
enjoyed all the functions of kingship save the title' (16.50.7). Later,
Diodorus records more details of his central role in the intrigues that
surrounded the succession: 'the chiliarch Bagoas, a eunuch in physical
fact but a militant rogue in disposition, killed him [Artaxerxes] by
poison administered by a certain physician and placed upon the throne
the youngest of his sons, Arses' (17.5.3). Bagoas poisoned Arses as
well and replaced him with Darius III (17.5.5) whom he also tried to
poison. Darius, however, outsmarted him and dispatched Bagoas by
giving him a fatal dose of his own medicine (17.5.6).
It should immediately be obvious that this Bagoas differs markedly
from the modest official of Josephus's story. There is no historical
evidence for any contact between Bagoas and the Jews and certainly
not for his friendship with Jeshua and the fine which he levied on
sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple. He has nothing in common with
Josephus's Bagoses except the name (which happens to be spelled
slightly differently in the two sources). There is surely no justification
for Williamson's optimistic claim that 'we know of a Bagoses who
precisely fits the description as reconstructed from Josephus's source,
namely the Persian general of Artaxerxes III' (p. 58). There is a
1. Translations of Diodorus are from C.L. Sherman, Diodorus of Sicily, VII
(LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952); and C. Bradford Welles,
Diodorus of Sicily, VIII (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970).
2. This is the evidence for Bagoas's administrative work to which Williamson
makes reference (p. 58), but as the location of his service shows it had nothing to do
with Yehud.
87
Bagoses 'who precisely fits the description as reconstructed from

Josephus's source', but he is the governor of Yehud who is mentioned
in AP 30.1, not the Persian general. He was in the correct area
something that is not said about the Persian poisonerand had the
same office. It would not be surprising if the local governor had close
relations with the high priest's brother and was opposed to the high
priest himself. The Elephantine literature shows that Bagohi
responded positively to the request for help from Yeb, whereas
Johanan had apparently ignored it. It seems, then, that the high priest
and the governor did not agree on the issue of rebuilding the temple
in Elephantine. Josephus's source, too, pictures them at odds with one
another.
The result is that Williamson's case is unconvincing. This story
provides no support for relating Josephus's account to the time of
Artaxerxes III and for creating a second Johanan. In light of the
existing data, it is more logical to assign the episode to the days of
Artaxerxes II, the biblical high priest Johanan, and the governor
Bagohi. One implication of this dating is that, at least according to
Josephus's source, both Johanan and Bagohi continued in office past
the death of Darius II and into the reign of Artaxerxes II. That is, this
is one more indication that the accession of Jaddua did not occur in the
reign of Darius II.
In concluding this survey of reactions to or refinements of Cross's
work, mention should be made of a coin that Cross and others believe
confirms his thesis to the extent that it demonstrates the existence of
another high priest named Johanan in the mid-fourth century BCE.
After publication of Cross's 1975 essay, L. Mildenberg included in his
survey of Judaean numismatic evidence a small silver coin with an
inscription that he read as nnan rrpirv though he considered the
writing to be careless.1 Later, D. Barag restudied the coin 'and
discovered that left of the owl, from the bottom and working upward,
one can clearly read "Johan[an]", and the word "ha-kohen" (or priest)
1. L. Mildenberg, 'Yehud: A Preliminary Study of the Provincial Coinage of
Judaea', in O. M0rkholm and N.M. Waggoner (eds.), Greek Numismatics and
Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson (Wetteren: NR, 1979),
pp. 183-96. The coin in question is no. 17. See also Y. Meshorer, Ancient Jewish
Coinage. I. Persian Period through Hasmonaeans (Dix Hills, NY: Amphora, 1982),
pp. 13, 16 (no. 11, where he writes that 'the inscription is blundered'), and plate
2.11.
88
appears to the right of the owl from the top downwards'.1 The
inscription does not add the adjective 'man to the noun jron to
produce the full title of the high priest, but Barag thinks that the chief
cultic official must be intended: 'Except for the legend this coin is
exactly similar to one of the types struck by Yehezqiyah the governor.
This demonstrates that Johanan was not merely an ordinary priest but
was the high priest for he maintained a very important positionhis
status being equal to that of the governor nominated by the Persians'.2
He goes on to argue that the mask on the reverse of the coin parallels
that on Yehezqiyah's coins. 'Yehezqiyah also struck coins with a
winged animal and his name (without the title governor) on one side
and on the other side a head in a style which can hardly antedate the
mid-fourth century. This, therefore, seems to be the date of the coins
of Johanan as well'.3 If, then, Johanan was striking coins in the midfourth century, it is unlikely that he was the same Johanan as the one
named in Neh. 12.22 and dated in AP 30 to c. 410 BCE.
Even if one grants that experts have now read the coin's inscription
correctly, the argument for identifying the Johanan of the coin with
Cross's reconstructed Johanan is unconvincing. J. Betlyon has
reinvestigated the date of the coin in question and has argued, on the
basis of parallels from neighboring mints, that it should be assigned to
the years 335-331 BCE.4 If he is correct, then Johanan could hardly be
the high priest whom Cross hypothesizes (though Betlyon thinks he
is), since Jaddua was almost certainly the high priest during this
short period. It is more likely, if the coin can be dated roughly
to these years, that the Johanan who is mentioned on it was Onias I
1. D. Barag, 'Some Notes on a Silver Coin of Johanan the High Priest', BA 48

(1985), p. 167.
2. Barag, 'Some Notes', p. 167.
3. Barag, 'Some Notes', p. 168. For Cross's comments on this coin, see
'Samaria and Jerusalem', in H. Tadmor (ed.), The History of the People of Israel.
The Return from the Babylonian ExileThe Period of the Persian Government
(Hebrew; Jerusalem: 1983), pp. 88-89, especially p. 274 n. 50. He argues that, as
the coins with the Hebrew script are prior to the revolt of c. 350 and that they are
almost certainly anterior to Alexander the Great, this Johanan is probably the
predecessor of Jaddua, Alexander's contemporary.
4. J. Betlyon, 'The Provincial Government of Persian Period Judea and the
Yehud Coins', JBL 105 (1986), pp. 633-42.
89
(= Johanan)1 who, according to Josephus, succeeded Jaddua at some

point after Alexander's arrival (in 332) and before the young king's
death in 323. Consequently, this small silver coin also does not
demonstrate the existence of a second high priest named Johanan in
the mid-fourth century.
4. A Case for Retaining the Present Six-Member List
Though Cross, and more recently Williamson, in their different ways
have revived the older hypothesis that the list of high priests for the
fifth century needs augmenting, their views should be rejected for lack
of compelling evidence. Although Joshua is mentioned in 520 BCE and
not after this, there is now no way of learning how long he held the
high priestly office. Neither the date of his birth nor the year of his
death is ever specified in the sources. It is also not necessary to assume
that he was the eldest son of his father; he is named simply as the son
of Jozadak and may have been his oldest surviving son. This
possibility highlights even more strongly the uncertainty which prevails about the chronology of his life. It is possible, however, that he
continued as high priest into the first years of the fifth century. Joshua
was followed by Joiakim, about whom nothing besides his familial
connection is reported. If Joshua's high priestly tenure extended into
the early fifth century, the term of Joiakim could have reached to
c. 460-450 without any difficulty. The reign of Eliashib included the
year 445 and may have lasted until c. 432, but the latter date is
uncertain. His son Joiada would have served as high priest from
approximately 432 until some time before 410 when his son (?)
Johanan is attested as being in office. The lengths of these men's terms
offer no chronological problems. They neither leave room for short
reigns nor presuppose unusually long ones. The span of time that
would have to be attributed to their high priesthoods causes no special
difficulties and does not require the addition of completely unattested
individuals.
1. The versions of Sir. 50.1 demonstrate the equivalence of the two names:
where the Hebrew text says that Simeon was the son of prr, the Greek text gives the
father's name as 'Oviofi. For the texts, see F. Vattioni, Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico
con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca (Pubblicazioni del Seminario di
Semitistica, Testi 1; Naples: Institute Orientale di Napoli, 1968). On the name, see
also Cross, 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', p. 189, n. 12.
90
There also may not be need to posit a gap in the roster of high
priests for the fourth century. No text reports when Johanan became
high priest. If Eliashib reigned until 432 and after (which may be
what Neh. 13.28 implies), then Joiada would not have been in office
for a very long time even if Johanan did not become high priest until
close to 410. These circumstances leave open the possibility that the
latter was rather young when he assumed the position. If one may
trust Josephus's story about Johanan and his brother Jeshua, then he
continued in office into the reign of Artaxerxes II. But neither
Nehemiah nor Josephus relates how long he served. If he had recently
come to the post in 410, then it is not unlikely that he remained high
priest until c. 370, or perhaps even beyond. There is no evidence
which contradicts such an assumption. Johanan's son Jaddua became
high priest at an unspecified time (nothing requires that the beginning
of his reign be put in the time of Darius II), and, according to
Josephus, he was the high priest who met Alexander the Great in 332.
If one employs the chronology that is being suggested here, he would
have held the office for some thirty-eight years by the time the
Macedonian army reached Jewish territory. Josephus adds that by the
time the age of the Diadochoi began, Jaddua was dead. Even if he
lived until 323 (the latest possibility, if Josephus is accurate), he would
have been high priest for no more than about forty-seven yearsa
very long term, but not as long as that of some biblical kings.
One minor objection to a chronology of this kind has been that
Jaddua, at the time of the great battles between Alexander and Darius
III, had a brother Manasseh who was of marriageable age (he marries
Sanballat's daughter Nikaso when Darius III still controls the area
[between 336 and 332])something that would be unlikely if Jaddua
himself were elderly by then.1 When Manasseh was born is never said,
nor is the phrase 'marriageable age' very specific for a man.
Moreover, it is often overlooked that in the same story, when
Sanballat promised Manasseh a temple, the latter stayed with his
father-in-law, 'believing that he would obtain the high priesthood as
the gift of Darius, for Sanaballetes, as it happened, was now an old
man' (rcpeaputepov eivai [Ant.11.8.2(311)]). If the elderly
Sanballat had a daughter of marriageable age during the reign of
Dariusand the age of the woman would be more important than that
1. E.g. Cross, 'The Papyri and Their Historical Implications', p. 22.
91
of her husband, if, as in this case, children were anticipatedwhy

should the aging Jaddua not have had a brother who met the same
criterion? In point of fact, this objection places much weight on
Josephan details that may not be able to bear it (that is, the marriage
may have occurred before Darius became king); but even the data that
he gives do not refute the claim that Jaddua was an elderly man by the
year 332.
One may conclude, therefore, that, though the list of high priests as
given in Nehemiah and in Antiquities is a short one for a period of
slightly more than 200 years, the six men who are said to have held
office could have served throughout those two centuries. The list itself
presents conditions that would have been conducive to haplography,
not because papponymy was practiced in Joshua's line, but because
several of the names begin with a Yahwistic prefix (Joiakim, Joiada,
Johanan) and others with yod (Joshua, Jaddua). Yet, though omissions
could have been made by homoioarchton, there is no evidence that
they occurred and no convincing reason to posit them. The high
priests who reigned during the Persian period had rather long terms
of office (Joiada may be an exception), but none of them would have
been so long as to become implausible. In other words, it is likely that
the extant list of high priests for the Persian period is complete.
THE DECEPTION OF ISAAC, JACOB'S DREAM AT BETHEL,

AND INCUBATION ON AN ANIMAL SKIN*
Susan Ackerman
There are, in the epic (JE) sources of the Pentateuch, two prose
narratives which describe a patriarch's deathbed blessing. Genesis 27
tells of the deception of Isaac through which Isaac's younger son,
Jacob, acquires his father's blessing; Genesis 48 recounts how Jacob
confers his own blessing on his eleventh son, Joseph, and on Joseph's
two sons, with the younger Ephraim taking precedence over the firstborn Manasseh. As is obvious, these two stories hold in common a
thematic motif: in both, the blessing of a patriarch elevates a younger
son to a position of pre-eminence over the rightfully dominant firstborn. Also in both is an element of deception. Jacob deceives Isaac to
cheat Esau out of the paternal blessing in Genesis 27; in Genesis 48,
Jacob, though blind, is not deceived by Joseph into blessing Manasseh
instead of Joseph's younger son, Ephraim.1
In addition, the two narratives share a common structure. Both
begin with a notice that the patriarch is old and near death (27.1; 48.1;
see also 27.2, 4, 7, 10; 49.28-33; Deut. 33.1; Josh. 23.1). There
follows a summons to the child who is to be blessed: Isaac calls to
Esau, 'My son' (27.1), and Joseph is told of Jacob, 'Your father is ill'
* The initial draft of this paper was written at Stanford University in Summer,
1988, under the aegis of a National Endowment for the Humanities Summer
Seminar, 'Religion and Society in Ancient Greece', directed by Dr. Michael H.
Jameson. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the National Endowment for
the Humanities and Dr. Jameson for their help and support.
1. Further on Jacob as the deceiver who is himself undeceived, see R.S. Hendel,
The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan
and Israel (HSM, 42; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), p. 113.
ACKERMAN The Deception of Isaac
93
(48.1; see also 47.29 and 49.1). The chosen son appears and is
identified. Isaac asks Jacob, who is impersonating Esau, 'Who are you,
my son?' (27.18; see also 27.32), and Jacob similarly asks of Joseph's
sons Ephraim and Manasseh, 'Who are these?' (48.8). Once identified,
those to be blessed approach the patriarch for a kiss (27.26-27;
48.10), and the blessing is pronounced (27.28-29; 48.15-16, 20). The
blessed are then free to withdraw.
It is possible to interpret this shared literary structure as narrative
convention or what Homeric scholars have called 'type-scene'.1 But
while this kind of analysis can be fruitfully applied elsewhere in the
study of biblical narrative and ancient Near Eastern mythology in
general, the term 'type-scene' is not entirely satisfactory in discussing
Genesis 27 and 48. 'Type-scene' implies a literary structure which has
its background in oral composition and epic tradition. While Genesis
27 and 48 are, certainly, in their present form narrative, it appears
their shared structure is less rooted in oral technique and convention
than it is in the language of ritual. This is not to say that Genesis 27
and 48 should be read as libretti from which we can reconstruct a
ritual ceremony of patriarchal blessing.2 The dangers of such an
approach (as exemplified by the 'myth and ritual' school) have long
since been documented.3 Still, I think it is fair to say that elements
which had their original home in ritual and cult create the structural
"underpinning of Genesis 27 and 48. The formal summons to the son to
be blessed, the subsequent identification of that son, the symbolic kiss
exchanged between blesser and blessed, and the formulaic
pronouncement of blessing are all motifs redolent with the language
1. On type-scenes in Homer, see W. Arend, Die typischen Scenen bei Homer
(Problemata, 7; Berlin: Weidmann, 1933); B. Fenik, Typical Battle Scenes in the
Iliad. Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description (Hermes
Einzelschriften, 21; Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1968); most recently, M.W.
Edwards, Homer: Poet of the Iliad (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1987), pp. 11-11, with further bibliography on p. 77.
2. Pace C. Westermann, The Promises to the Fathers. Studies on the Patriarchal
Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 77-78; more recently, Genesis
12-36. A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), p. 435.
3. See the recent comments of Hendel, Epic, pp. 69-71, and the references there.
To these should be added W. Burkert, Homo Necans. The Anthropology of Ancient
Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983),
pp. 29-34.
94
of ceremony and cult. Even the notice that the patriarch is old and ill
functions as prolegomenon to cult, setting the stage for ritual and
providing rationale for its enactment.
What is curious about this analysis is that in Genesis 27 two
elements with cultic resonance remain, unparalleled in Genesis 48. As
long ago as 1889 W. Robertson Smith noted that the meal Jacob serves
Isaac in Gen. 27.25, which consists of the meat of two domestic kids
(v. 9), bread (v. 17), and wine (v. 25), is sacrificial in character.1
H. Gunkel in 1901 also commented on the ritual quality of the meal,2
and R. Hendel, building on the work of Robertson Smith and Gunkel,
has recently confirmed these two scholars' observations. Hendel, in
addition, remarks that v. 16, in which Jacob clothes himself with the
skins of the two kids he has killed for Isaac's repast, is cultic in its
allusion. 3 Here, too, Hendel acknowledges his debt to Robertson
Smith, who first presented evidence for the cultic use of skins in
Genesis 27.4
Yet while Robertson Smith, Gunkel, and Hendel correctly conclude
that Isaac's meal and Jacob's use of skins are ritual in character, none
of these scholars venture a suggestion concerning what specific cult or
ritual might be implied. This silence is understandable. A ritual which
involves wearing the skins of a sacrificed animal and preparing as a
sacrificial meal the meat of that animal is not easily paralleled. The
ritual becomes even harder to parallel once we note that while Isaac
takes meat, the sacrificer does not share in the eating of the sacrifice.
That is, for Jacob the sacrifice is untasted. No similar ritual occurs
anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Robertson Smith advanced some
evidence from elsewhere in the ancient Near East for the ritual use of
1. W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. The
Fundamental Institutions (London: A. & C. Black, 1927), p. 467.
2. H. Gunkel, Genesis ubersetzt und erkldrt (HKAT; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 3rd edn, 1910), p. 309.
3. Hendel, Epic, pp. 83-86. Hendel especially notes in discussing Isaac's meal
that domestic animals are required for Israelite sacrifice (Lev. 1.2). We might
add that kids are a commonly used sacrificial animal (e.g. Judg. 13.15, 19;
1 Sam. 10.3; note also Robertson Smith, Lectures, p. 467) and that offerings of
grain or cakes and libations of wine are expected in conjunction with animal sacrifice
(e.g. 2 Kgs 16.13; Hos. 9.4). (These offerings, of course, can be made even if
there is no ritual slaughter.)
4. Robertson Smith, Lectures, p. 467.
95
skins accompanied by sacrifice,1 but this evidence is late (second and

sixth centuries CE) and does not precisely parallel the ritual I have
described of untasted sacrifice accompanied by the wearing of the
skins of the sacrificed animal. It thus fails to suggest a cultic referent
for Gen. 27.16 and 25. Still, I would maintain that it is possible to
determine the ritual to which vv. 16 and 25 allude. To do so, however, we must look beyond the Semitic realm to the greater world of
the eastern Mediterranean. It is in Greece that we will find evidence
which illuminates the cultic allusions in Genesis 27 to the ritual use of
skins worn in conjunction with untasted sacrifice.
First, however, the Semitic data. Robertson Smith's original
discussion on the cultic use of skins in west Semitic religion began by
examining a sixth-century CE passage in Joannes Lydus (De mensibus
4.65), in which Lydus describes some features of the worship of
Cyprian Aphrodite (west Semitic Astarte). In that cult the worshipers
of the goddess sacrifice to her a sheep, 'while they themselves are
covered with sheepskins'.2 Robertson Smith adduced as his only
Semitic parallel to this Cyprian ritual Lucian's second-century CE
description of the worship of the Syrian goddess at Hierapolis (De dea
Syria 55). There, those who propose to visit the temple of the deity
make a preliminary sacrifice of a sheep at home. The worshipers then
kneel upon the sheep's skin, wrapping the animal's head and feet
around their heads while uttering prayers.
Robertson Smith, to his credit, realized how sparse and how late
these Semitic data for the ritual use of skins were. He thus introduced
into his discussion two texts on the use of sheepskins in Greek ritual.
The first of these is a late fourth or early third-century BCE text from
the hand of Dicaearchus, a pupil of Aristotle (C. Miiller, Fragmenta
Historicorum Graecorum 2.262). According to Dicaearchus, at a
summer festival in Thessaly, worshipers ascended to the temple of
1. Robertson Smith, Lectures, pp. 435-39, 466-69 n. F, 469-79 n. G.
2. Lydus's text reads npopatov Kco5t(p EOKenaaixevov 0i>ve0i)ov ir\
'AcppoSvqi, 'they jointly sacrificed to Aphrodite a sheep covered with a sheepskin'.
Robertson Smith, noting that covering a sheep with a sheepskin is like 'gilding gold'
(Lectures, p. 474), emends eaice7caau.evov to eaKeTcaojievoi. Thus it is the
worshipers who are covered with skins as they sacrifice a sheep (Lectures, p. 474).
This emendation is accepted by Burkert, Homo Necans, p. 115. For alternative
readings, note the references collected by N. Robertson, "The Ritual Background of
the Dying God in Cyprus and Syro-Palestine', HTR 75 (1982), p. 329 n. 51.
96
Zeus Acraeus on Mount Pelion clad in the skins of freshly killed rams.
In a second text, Porphyry, some half a millennium later, reports a
similar custom: Pythagoras, when purified by the priests of Morgus
on Crete, was required to lie beside a body of water with his head
wrapped in the fleece of a black lamb. After these preliminary rites,
Pythagoras descended to the tomb of Zeus clad in black wool (Vita
Pythagorae 17).
Both these Greek texts point to the ritual use of sheepskins in
various cults of Zeus. Indeed, we know from other Greek sources of a
special ritual fleece called the AIOQ Ko>8iov, 'the fleece of Zeus',
which was the skin of a ram sacrificed to Zeus Meilichios or the
related Zeus Ktesios.1 This Aiot; KwSiov played an important role in
Greek cult, even in rituals not specifically associated with Zeus.2 For
example, at the Skirophoria, a festival held in the twelfth month of the
Attic year dedicated primarily to Demeter and Persephone, but also to
Athena and Poseidon, a procession which included the priest of
Poseidon and the priestess of Athena went forth from the Acropolis,
through the city of Athens, and out of the city's gate, heading down
the road to Eleusis as far as Skiron (a distance of some three miles).
Those leading this procession away from Athens carried the Aioc;
Kcp8iov3 Another use of the Aio<; K(p8iov in the Greek cultic calendar
1. On the Aioq Ko>5tov see W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1985), pp. 65, 230, and Homo Necans, p. 235;
A.B. Cook, Zeus. A Study in Ancient Religion, I (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1914), pp. 422-28; S. Eitrem, Opferritus und Voropfer der
Griechen und Romer (Kristiania: Jacob Dybwad, 1915), pp. 370-74; E. Gjerstad,
'Das attische Fest der Skira', Archivfiir Religionswissenschaft 27 (1929), pp. 203208; J. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (London: Merlin,
1961), pp. 23-28; M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, I (Munchen:
Beck, 3rd edn, 1967), pp. 110-13; H.W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians
(London: Thames & Hudson, 1977), pp. 95-96; J. Pley, De lanae in antiquorum
ritibus usu (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 11.2; Giessen:
Topelmann, 1911), pp. 3-24.'
2. Jane Harrison's claim (Prolegomena, pp. 23-27) that the use of the Aioq
KwSiov in cults other than those of Zeus negates the thesis that the Aioq Ko>8iov is
associated with Zeus is rightfully rejected by most commentators. See especially
Cook, Zeus, I, p. 423 n. 2.
3. On the Skirophoria, see A.C. Brumfield, The Attic Festivals of Demeter and
their Relation to the Agricultural Year (New York: Arno, 1981), pp. 156-81;
L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956),
97
is noted by Eustathias, in his twelfth-century CE commentary on the

Odyssey (ad Odysseam 22.481, pp. 1934-1935). There, Eustathias
writes of:
The fleece of an animal that has been sacrificed to Zeus Meilichios in
purifications at the end of the month of Maimakterion. . .when the
castings out of pollution at the triple ways took place.1
As at the Skirophoria, the skin was carried in a procession.2

Eustathias's comments suggest that the purpose of the Aioq KcpSiov
was purificatory. Other ancient sources confirm this. Hesychius, s.v.
Aiog Kcp8iov, writes of the fleece, 'those who were being purified
stood on it with their left foot'.3 Similarly, the Suda, s.v. Aio^
KcpSiov, notes of the skins, 'others use them for purification by
strewing them under the feet of those who are polluted'.4 A.B. Cook
rightly compares to these data the Roman custom that a man who has
unwillingly perpetrated a homicide must stand on a ram.5 Also from
Rome come Ovid's descriptions of the rites practiced by members of
the Luperci priesthood, who during the Lupercalia, 'purify the whole
ground with strips of hide, which are their instruments of cleansing'
(Fasti 2.31-32; see also 5.101-102; Plutarch, Romulus 21.5).6 During
pp. 40-50; Gjerstad, 'Skira', pp. 189-240; Parke, Festivals, pp. 156-69;
E. Simon, Festivals of Attica. An Archaeological Commentary (Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), pp. 22-24.
1. Kco5iov iepeioi) x-oGevToo Aii u.eiXixvcp ev Toiq KaGapuxnc; cpGwovioq
Mcu|iaKi;rtpicovoq urjvoc; (he... KaGapuiov eKôâl eiq iaq Tpi65oi)q
eytvovTo. The translation is that of Harrison, Prolegomena, p. 26.
2. On the Maimakterion, see Deubner, Attische Feste, pp. 157-58; Parke,
Festivals, pp. 95-96; Simon, Festivals, p. 14.
3. oi) oi Ka0oup6|j.evoi earntceaav TO* dpunerccp no5i. The translation is that
of Harrison, Prolegomena,p. 23.
4. aXXov tiveq npbc, Touq KaOapuxnx; {moaTopvuvieq av>ia TOI<; rcoai TWV
evaycov. The translation is that of Harrison, Prolegomena, p. 24. See also
Pausanias, Attica d 18 (H. Erbse, Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika
[Abhandlungen der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin, Philosophischhistorische Klasse 1949, 2; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1950], p. 173).
5. See Cook, Zeus, I, p. 423, who cites as evidence of the Roman custom
Servius, in Vergilii bucolica 4.43; in Vergilii georgica 3.387. Cook also cites Cicero,
Topica 64, apparently in error.
6. secta quia pelle Luperci omne solum lustrant idque piamen habent. The
translation is that of J.G. Frazer, Ovid's Fasti (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1959), p. 59.
98
this purificatory rite, the priests themselves are clad only in skins.1 Of
special interest to biblical scholars is W. Burkert's recent reminder2
that Augustine, writing on the purificatory rite of baptism, describes,
as a part of that ritual, stamping on a goatskin (Sermons 216.10).3
Zeus Meilichios, the god to whom the ram which provided the
Aux; K(p8iov was sacrificed, was associated in Greek religion with
the Lesser Mysteries of Demeter.4 Thus, it is not surprising to find
the Aio<; Ko>8iov used in certain of the rituals of the Eleusinian cult.
For example, the Suda, s.v. Aio<; KcpSiov, notes that the Dadouchos
(the torch-bearers at Eleusis) used the fleece while conducting
rites of purification which took place prior to initiation into the
mysteries. The Suda's description is confirmed by iconographic
representations of the Eleusinian mysteries which show the Ato<;
K(p8iov being used to purify Heracles before he was initiated.
According to Plutarch (Theseus 30.5; cf. 33.1-2), Diodorus Siculus
(Library of History 4.14.3; cf. 4.25.1), and Apollodorus (Library
2.5.12), special purifications were necessary in order to cleanse
Heracles after his slaughter of the Centaurs. The three phases of
this purification ceremony are illustrated on the Lovatelli urn5
1. See the comments of Frazer in his Appendix to Ovid's Fasti, pp. 390, 392; cf.
Fasti 5.101-102; Plutarch, Romulus 21.5.
2. W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1987), p. 102, 167 n. 75.
3. Historians of religion will also appreciate Sir Arthur Evans's account of a
nineteenth-century Turkish shrine whose floor Evans found strewn with the fleeces
of sacrificed rams ('Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and its Mediterranean Relations',
JHS 21 [1901], pp. 200-204, figs. 69-70; pointed out by Cook, Zeus, I, p. 428)
and also W.H.D. Rouse's report of nineteenth-century Moslems at Mytilene who
wrapped themselves in sheepskins during prayer ('Folklore First Fruits from
Lesbos', Folklore. Transactions of the Folk-Lore Society 1 [1896], p. 151; pointed
out by Cook, Zeus, I, p. 428).
4. M.H. Jameson, 'Notes on the Sacrificial Calendar from Erchia', Bulletin de
correspondence hellenique 89 (1965), pp. 159-62.
5. First published by E. Caetani Lovatelli, 'Di un vaso cinerario con
rappresentanze relative ai Misteri de Eleusi', Bullettino della commissione
archaeologica comunale di Roma 7 (1879), pp. 5-18, Pis. 1-5; reprinted in her
Antichi monumenti illustrati (Rome: R. Accad. dei Lincei, 1889), pp. 23-44, Tav. 24. For subsequent photographs and discussion, see Burkert, Homo Necans,
pp. 267-68, Pis. 8-9, and Ancient Mystery Cults, p. 94, figs. 2-4; Cook, Zeus, I,
pp. 425-27; Deubner, Attische Feste, pp. 77-78, pi. 7.2; L. Farnell, The Cults of
the Greek States, III (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), pp. 237-40, pi. 15a;
99
and on the Torre Nova sarcophagus.1

The first scene on both the urn and the sarcophagus shows Heracles
(easily identified by his lion-skin garb) and a priest standing at an altar
offering sacrifice (on the urn a piglet and a libation; on the
sarcophagus a libation only). This part of the purification ceremony is
also known from a third exemplar.2 But more significant for our
purposes is the central scene shown on both the urn and the
sarcophagus, in which Heracles sits, veiled,3 on a stool. The stool is
covered with Heracles' lion skin, but his bare feet rest on a ram's
fleece, as is clearly indicated by the positioning of a ram's head under
Heracles' right foot. Indeed, another representation of the same scene,
a marble relief from Naples,4 shows Heracles sitting on a sheepskin.5
Harrison, Prolegomena, pp. 546-48; K. Kerenyi, Die Mysterien von Eleusis
(Zurich: Rhein-Verlag, 1962), pp. 68-71, pis. 8-11, and Eleusis. Archetypal Image
of Mother and Daughter (Bollingen Series 65.4; New York: Pantheon 1967),
pp. 54-59, pi. 12 A-D; G.E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), pp. 205-207, fig. 83; Nilsson,
Geschichte, pp. 657-59, pi. 43.2; G.E. Rizzo, 'II sarcofago di Torre Nova',
Romische Mitteilungen 25 (1910), pp. 130-37, fig. 9 and pi. 7; P. Roussel,
'L'initiation prealable et le symbole Eleusinien', Bulletin de correspondence
hellenique 54 (1930), pp. 58-65.
1. First published by Rizzo, 'Torre Nova', pp. 89-167, pis. 2-5; for subsequent
photographs and discussion, see Burkert, Homo Necans, pp. 267-68; Cook, Zeus,
I, pp. 425-27; Deubner, Attische Feste, pp. 77-78, pi. 7.1; Kerenyi, Mysterien von
Eleusis, pp. 68-71, pi. t, and Eleusis, p. 54-59, pi. 11; Mylonas, Eleusis, pp. 207208, fig. 84; Roussel, 'L'initiation prealable', pp. 61-65.
2. See Lovatelli, 'Un vaso cinerario', pis. 4-5, no. 9.
3. Veils, as pointed out by Harrison (Prolegomena, pp. 520-22), are typically
worn in initiation ceremonies. In addition to the data collected by Harrison, see
Lovatelli, 'Un vaso cinerario', pis. 3 and 5; note also that the fresco from the Villa of
the Mysteries at Pompeii represents the woman who is being initiated into the
Dionysiac mysteries there as partially veiled (recent discussion and drawings in
Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, pp. 95-96, and fig. 5). Note finally that Farnell,
Cults, III, p. 239 n. a, points out that according to H. Anton (Die Mysterien von
Eleusis [Naumburg: A. Schirmer, 1899], p. 34), veils were worn at early Christian
baptisms in Jerusalem.
4. First published by G. Winckelmann, Monumenti antichi inediti, II (Roma:
C. Mordacchini, 2nd edn, 1821), pi. 104; for subsequent photographs and
discussion, see Cook, Zeus, I, pp. 425-27; Rizzo, Torre Nova', pp. 89-167, pis.
2-5; H. von Rohden and H. Winnefeld, Die antiken Terrakotten 4.1.
Architektonische romische Tonreliefs der Kaiserzeit (Berlin und Stuttgart:
W. Spemann, 1911), p. 8. Two other exemplars also show Heracles sitting on a
100
In all the exemplars a priestess holds near the seated Heracles a

purifying agent: on the Torre Nova sarcophagus and on the marble
relief from Naples a flaming torch (note again the comments of the
Suda, s.v. Ato<; K(p8iov, which associate the AIOQ Ko>8iov with the
torch-bearers at Eleusis); on the Lovatelli urn a ^{KVOV, the
winnowing fan used in agriculture in the threshing of grain.1 The
purifactory power of fire is self-evident. The symbolism of the
Xdcvov is less obvious; still, it has been persuasively argued that the
XIKVOV is an instrument which separates out the evil and leaves the
good in a person.2 The parallel to Mt. 3.11-12 (Lk. 3.16-17) is
striking.3 John the Baptist, speaking of Jesus, says:
I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after
me. . .will baptize you with. .. fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand,
and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary,
but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. (Mt. 3.11-12)
Also striking is the third scene on the urn and the sarcophagus (known
sheepskin. Lovatelli ('Un vaso cinerario') figures a relief (pi. 2) on which a very
small ram's horn under Heracles' right foot indicates that the skin on which he sits is
that of a sheep; also figured by Lovatelli is a panel of an Augustan relief (pi. 1) on
which Heracles seems to sit on a sheepskin (unfortunately, the panel is broken, thus
the identifying ram's foot under Heracles' right foot is missing). For the Augustan
relief, see further von Rohden and Winnefeld, Antiken Terrakotten 4.1, pp. 7-8,
261-62, pi. 46.
5. W. Burkert in fact argues that the stool in all the representations should be
covered with a ram's fleece. He suggests that the lion's skin has secondarily intruded
in the Lovatelli urn and Torre Nova sarcophagus since the actor in the ritual is
Heracles. See Homo Necans, p. 267. Also note the comments of N.J. Richardson,
The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), p. 212.
1. These two purificatory agents are also used in other Greek cults. For example,
Harrison (Prolegomena, p. 532) describes the use of fire and a Xiicvov in a scene of
'marriage, or possibly. . .marriage and initiation ceremonies in one'. Harrison also
comments extensively on the \(KVOV and its use in Dionysiac initiations
(Prolegomena, pp. 520-22). On this see also M.P. Nilsson, Dionysus Liknites
(K. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundents I Lund Arsberrattelse 1951-1952, 1;
Bulletin de la Societe Royale Lettres de Lund 1951-1952, 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1952).
2. See Burkert, Homo Necans, p. 268, and the references there; also Harrison,
Prolegomena, p. 531; Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 206. Cf. Farnell, Cults, III, p. 239
n. b.
3. Pointed out by Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 206; also see Harrison, Prolegomena,
p. 531.
101
again from other exemplars, most notably a Campana relief).1

Demeter is shown sitting on a fleece-covered stool. Here is myth as
ai'iiov: the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (lines 192-201) recounts that
when the goddess came in her wanderings to Eleusis she refused a
chair and instead sat, veiled, on a low stool which was covered with a
shining white fleece.2
W. Burke it has noted that 'there is some interrelation between
Asclepius ritual and the Eleusinian mysteries'.3 Burkert cites as
evidence for this interrelation the facts that, in both cults, piglets are
sacrificed and that in both a drink is partaken of: in the Asclepius cult
the worshipers drink a mixture of wheat, honey, and oil called uyieux,
'health', after the goddess of the same name, which Burkert argues is
'reminiscent of the KDKecbv of Eleusis',4 a drink made of crushed
barley, water, and a kind of mint. Burkert could have added that in
both cults there is the ritual use of animal skins. Initiates at Eleusis,
we have seen, sit or place their feet on the AIOQ Ko>5iov during
preliminary purification rites; worshipers of Asclepius can sleep on
the skin of a sacrificed animal as they incubate in the god's temple in
the hope of receiving a dream.
The primary evidence for the use of animal skins in the cult of
Asclepius is iconographic and has been collected by A. Petropoulou.5
Two fourth-century marble reliefs from the Asclepieum at Athens and
a late fifth-century marble from the Asclepieum in Pireus show
incubation scenes in which the KAivri, the couch on which the incubant
sleeps, is covered with the skin of an animal. This is particularly clear
on the only non-fragmentary exemplar of the three, the relief from
1. First published by von Rohden and Winnefeld, Antiken Terrakotten 4.1,
pp. 7-8, 261, pi. 45; for subsequent photographs and discussion, see Cook, Zeus,
I, p. 425, fig. 307. For other exemplars, see Lovatelli, 'Un vaso cinerario', pi. 1
(a second panel of the Augustan relief discussed above); also pis. 4-5, nos. 6-7.
2. For discussion see Richardson, Hymn to Demeter, pp. 211-13; also Burkert,
Homo Necans, p. 268.
3. Burkert, Greek Religion, p. 268.
4. Burkert, Greek Religion, p. 268.
5. A. Petropoulou, Studies in Greek Cult and Sacrificial Literature (unpublished
PhD diss.; University of Colorado, 1984), pp. 140-45, and 'Pausanias 1.34.5:
Incubation on a Ram-Skin', in La Beotie antique (Lyon-Saint Etienne, 16-20 mai
1983; Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique;
Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1985), pp. 169-75.
102
Pireus.1 In this relief the legs of an animal skin can be seen hanging
off the couch at its two ends. The uneven edge of the skin also falls
over the side of the icXwri and is, like the legs, quite evident on the
relief. A woman sleeps on her left side atop the skin; that this is an
incubation is made clear by the epiphany of Asclepius, accompanied
by an attendant, probably his daughter Hygieia, on the far right side
of the relief.
The less fragmentary of the two reliefs from Athens shows a
similar scene.2 An old man lies on his back on a K^WT). Petropoulou
has convincingly demonstrated that on the KA,WT|, right below the
incubant's shoulder, is a leg of an animal skin. She also plausibly
suggests that the missing left section of the relief contained the
epiphany of Asclepius.3
Even less is preserved of the final Asclepius relief.4 This
fragmentary marble shows only the torso and head of a young man.
He is shown in a half-sitting pose on a KÎVTI, his head and back
supported by pillows. Other bedding on the K^WTJ includes a mattress
covered by a sheet. Covering the sheet is an animal skin, of which one
leg, or perhaps two, hang down over the K^{VT|. We can presume that
the other legs of the skin were shown in the now lost
1. Frequently pictured and discussed; Petropoulou cites U. Hausmann, Kunst und

Heiltum. Untersuchungen zu den griechischen Asklepiosreliefs (Potsdam: Eduard
Stichnote, 1948), pp. 46-48, pi. 1 (with earlier bibliography on p. 166), and
Griechische Weihreliefs (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960), p. 59, fig. 28; E. Mitropoulou,
Attic Votive Reliefs of the 6th and 5th Centuries BC (Athens: Pyli Editions, 1977),
pp. 63-64 n. 126 (with some more recent bibliography). Petropoulou's own
discussion is on p. 140 of Greek Cult, with a photograph on p. 141 (pi. 7);
Petropolou, 'Pausanias 1.34.5', p. 173, with a photograph on p. 172 (pi. 2). See
also C. Kerenyi, Asklepios. Archetypal Image of the Physician's Existence
(Bollingen Series, 65.3; New York: Pantheon, 1959), pi. 18 (p. 35).
2. Published by J. Ziehen, 'Studien zu den Asklepios-reliefs',Athenische
Mitteilungen 17 (1892), pp. 230-31, and fig. 1. For Petropoulou's discussion, see
Greek Cult, pp. 140, 143, with a photograph p. 142 (pi. 8); Petropolou, 'Pausanias
1.34.5', pp. 173, with a photograph on p. 174 (pi. 3).
3. Petropoulou, Greek Cult, p. 143, and 'Pausanias 1.34.5', p. 173.
4. Published by Ziehen, 'Asklepios-reliefs', pp. 231-232, and fig. 2. For
Petropoulou's discussion, see Greek Cult, pp. 143, 145, with a photograph on
p. 144 (pi. 9), and 'Pausanias 1.34.5', pp. 173, 175, with a photograph on p. 174
(pi. 4).
103
portion of the relief and can also suggest that this lost portion
contained the epiphany of the god.
There is no written evidence contemporary with these three reliefs
which describes the use of animal skins in incubation rituals in the cult
of Asclepius. But although some seven hundred years later, the
comments of the church historian Eusebius are not insignificant.
Writing on Isa. 65.4 ('a people. ..who sit in tombs, and spend the
night in secret places'), he remarks (In Isaiam Commentaria 28, 65,
p. 657a):J
Nothing of a sacrilegious nature did the people of Israel refrain
from. . .sitting or dwelling in sepulchres and sleeping in the shrines of
idols, where they were wont to lie on the outspread skins of sacrificial
victims, for the purpose of learning the future through dreams.
The heathens in their delusion celebrate this in the shrine of Asclepius up
to the present day, and [in the shrines] of many others which are nothing
but tombs of dead men.
Among these other shrines to which Eusebius alludes may be the

dream oracle of Amphiaraos at Oropos. At Oropos, as at the cult sites
of Asclepius, both iconographic and textual evidence point to the use
of animal skins during incubation rites. A fragmentary fourth-century
marble relief from the Oropon Amphiaraum shows an incubation
scene in which the KÎVTI on which the incubant sleeps is covered with
an animal skin.2 Pausanias confirms that incubants at Oropos slept on
animal skins (1.34.5):
1. Nihilfuit sacrilegii quod Israel populus praetermitteret, non solum in hortis
immolans, et super lateres thura succendens, sed sedens quoque vel habitans in
sepulcris, et in delubris idolorum dormiens, ubi stratis pellibus hostiarwn incubare
soliti erant, ut somniis futura cognoscerent. quod in fano Aesculapii usque hodie
error celebrat ethnicorum multorumque aliorum, que non sunt aliud, nisi tumuli
mortuorum. The translation is that of E.H. Clift in Asclepius. A Collection and
Interpretation of the Testimonies (2 vols.; ed. E.J. and L. Edelstein; Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1945), p. 143 (T. 294).
2. According to Petropoulou (Greek Cult, p. 154, n. 5; 'Pausanias 1.34.5',
p. 170 n. 10), first published by Hausmann, Weihreliefs, p. 59, fig. 29.
Petropoulou notes that a new fragment has been added by V.C. Petrakos, To Oropos
kai to Hieron tou Amphiaraou (Athens: Vivliotheke tes en Athenais Archailogikes
Hetaireias, 1968), p. 123 n. 21, and pi. 41 beta. Petropoulou's own discussion can
be found in Greek Cult, pp. 138, 140, with a photograph on p. 139 (pi. 6), and
'Pausanias 1.34.5', pp. 170, 173, with a photograph on p. 171 (pi. 1).
104

One who has come to consult Amphiaraos is wont to purify himself. The
mode of purification is to sacrifice to the god, and they sacrifice not only
to him but also to all those whose names are on the altar. And when all
these things have been first done, they sacrifice a ram and, spreading the
skin under them, go to sleep and await enlightenment in a dream.1
There is yet more Greek evidence. It has been suggested that Homer's
description of the Selloi at Dodona, 'who sleep on the ground with
feet unwashed' (Iliad 16.233),2 reflects a ritual of incubation, and
Eustathius in his commentary on the Iliad remarks that the incubating
Selloi slept on animal skins (ad Iliadem 2.233). Modern scholars are
divided in their opinions: E.R. Dodds, for example, seems to suspect
that incubation was practiced at Dodona (although he does not
comment on the skins);3 H.W. Parke demurs.4
A more probable Homeric allusion to incubation on animal skins is
found in the Odyssey, books 19 and 20. In book 19 Odysseus,
disguised as a beggar, is granted a late-night audience with his wife,
Penelope. As their talk grows to a close, Penelope summons her maids
to make a bed for the beggar, 'bedstead and coloured rugs and
coverlets' (19.318).5 Odysseus objects, preferring instead to sleep on
the floor (19.336-348). Book 20 describes the hero's bed (20.1-3):
1. KCU rcpcihov u.ev KaGripaoQcu vouaôuaw ocmq TJ^Qsv "Auxptapdcq)

Xpriaou.evo<;. eati 8e icaGdpaiov ta> Geqi 0teiv, 0x>o\>ai Se mi a\>i& iced Tcaow
oaoiq eailv en! TW (3o)(j.w ia 6v6u.caa. rcpoeetpyaau.evcov 8e TOUTCOV Kpiov
GiSaavxeq KCU TO 5epjj.a i)7toaTpcoa(xu.evoi Ka9et>8ouaw dvajxevovteq
8r|X(flaiv 6ve{paTo<;. The translation is that of W.H.S. Jones, Pausanias.
Description of Greece, I (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964),
p. 187.
2. EeAAoi...dvutT67to8e xaficuetivcu. The translation is that of R. Lattimore,
The Iliad of Homer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), p. 336.
3. E.R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1951), pp. 110-11.
4. H.W. Parke, The Oracles of Zeus(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1967), p. 9 (see also p. 17, n. 25), and Greek Oracles (London: Hutchinson,
1967), pp. 22-23.
5. 8eu.vva icai x^-ctwa*; iced priyea aiyaXoevxa. The translation is that of
R. Fitzgerald, The Odyssey (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1963), p. 363.
105
Outside in the entry way he made his bed,

Raw oxhide spread on level ground, and heaped up
fleeces left from sheep the Achaeans killed.1
That is, Odysseus lay down to sleep on the skins of slaughtered sheep;
then, as Odysseus lay on these sheepskins, the goddess Athena
appeared to him, reassured him concerning her patronage, and
promised him victory over Penelope's suitors the next day. While this
is, surely, not a true incubation (since Athena appears when Odysseus,
tossing restlessly, lies in that period between wakefulness and sleep),
this Homeric episode is still suggestive of ritual incubation on animal
skins.
Less ambiguous is the evidence which reports the practice of
incubation on a sheepskin in Apulia, at the Tipcpoc of the diviner
Calchas and of the son of Asclepius, Podalirius. Lycophron (b. 320
BCE ) in the Alexandra writes of Podalirius's tomb (lines 1050-1051):
Whoso rests on sheepskins on his grave
To him in dreams he truly prophesies.2
The same tradition is recounted, albeit less elegantly, by Strabo, who

writes of Calchas's cenotaph, 'Those who consult the oracle sacrifice
to his shade a black ram and sleep in the hide' (Geography 6.3.9).3
This custom of sacrificing an animal and sleeping on its skin is also
known from Rome. Virgil in the Aeneid (7.81-106) describes the visit
of King Latinus to the oracle of Faunus (Pan). At this oracle the
typical practice seems to be that the priestess of the god, 'as she lies
under the silent night on the outspread fleeces of slaughtered
sheep. ..sees many phantoms. ..hears voices manifold, holds
converse with the gods'.4 But in this episode of the Aeneid, 'Latinus
1. AuTcxp 6 ev 7ipo86|o.cp ei:>vdeTO...Kau. (j.ev aSeyrytov (3oer|v OTOpeo',
auiap vneGe Kcoea rcoM,' oicov, Touq Ipeveaicov 'Axouoi. The translation is that
of Fitzgerald, The Odyssey, p. 375.
2. 8opat<; 8e uriXcov rou.pov eYKoiu.cou.evoK; %pr\OE\. Ka9' vnvov naai
vrniepTri (pcmv. The translation is that of G.W. Mooney, The Alexandra of
Lycophron (New York: Arno, 1979), p. 113. Also see the Scholia on Lycophron,
ad Alexandram, p. 1050.
3. evayiôuai 5'at>Tcp uiXava Kpiov 01 |KxvTei>6u.evoi, eYKoiuxbu.evoi ev t(p
SepuxxTi. The translation is that of H.L. Jones, The Geography of Strabo, III (LCL;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 131.
4. In denying that incubation took place among the Selloi at Dodona (see above),
106
himself, seeking an answer, duly slaughtered a hundred woolly sheep

and lay couched on their hides and outspread fleeces'.1 A similar royal
incubation is described in Ovid's Fasti (4.649-676). King Numa
sacrifices two ewes, and 'the fleeces of both were spread on the hard
ground'. Other acts were also required of Numa before his
incubation. He was to be unshorn, and after his head was sprinkled
with water, he was to wear a wreath of beech leaves. He was forbidden sexual intercourse, nor was he allowed to eat meat. His
clothing for the evening was a rough garment, and he was to wear no
rings upon his fingers. When all these conditions were fulfilled, he lay
down on the fleeces to sleep. The incubation was a success: 'Faunus
was come'; in the king's dream he saw the god set 'his hard hoof on
the sheep's fleeces'.2
It may at first appear incongruous that Numa, who sacrifices two
ewes prior to his incubation at the oracle of Faunus, was forbidden to
eat meat before lying down to sleep. More typical of Greek and
Roman sacrificial ritual is that the sacrificer shares in eating the meat
obtained from the sacrificed animal. But Greek and Roman evidence
makes clear that sacrifices made by worshipers prior to rituals of
incubation must be ayeuatoi, 'untasted'. That is, the sacrificer does
not eat of the sacrifice.3 Strabo describes the importance of fasting at
H.W. Parke argues that classical evidence indicates that it was the inquirer, not a
priest, who incubated (Oracles of Zeus, p. 10; Greek Oracles, p. 23). But the
testimony of Virgil in this passage indicates, pace Parke, that incubation by priests
and priestesses was a viable alternative to incubation by an inquirer; Pausanias
(10.33.11), speaking of the oracle of Dionysos at Amphiacleia, and Strabo
(Geography 14.1.11), speaking of the dream oracle of Pluto and Core at Nysaeans,
also attest to priestly incubation.
1. et caesarum ovium sub nocte silenti pellibus incubuit stratis. .. multa modis
simulacravidet. . .varias audit vocesfruiturque deorum conloquio. . .hie et turn
paten ipse petens responsa Latinus centum lanigeras mactabat rite bidentis, atque
harum effultus tergo stratisque iacebat velleribus. The translation is that of
H.R. Fairclough, Virgil, II (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1960), p. 9.
2. hie geminas rex Numa mactat oves. . .sternitur in duro vellus utrumque
solo. . .Faunus adest, oviumquepremenspede vallera duro. The translation is that
of Frazer, Ovid's Fasti, p. 237.
3. In general on the practice of fasting before an incubation, see L. Deubner, De
incubatione (Capitula duo; Dissertatio inauguralis quam ad summos in philosophia
honores ab amplissimo philosophorum Gissensium ordine; Giessen, 1899), pp. 14-
107
the dream oracle of healing dedicated to Pluto and Core at Nysaeans.

There, the priests, 'bring the sick into the cave and leave them
there. ..without food for many days' (Geography 14.1.44).l More
noteworthy perhaps for this study is Flavius Philostratus's notice that
fasting was required at the oracle of Amphiaraos: 'The priests take a
man who wishes to consult him [the god], and they prevent his eating
for one day and his drinking wine for three' (Life of Apollonius
2.37).2 Yet according to the testimony of Pausanias noted above
(1.34.5), incubants at the Amphiaraum were required to sacrifice a
ram before lying down to sleep on that animal's skin. Philostratus's
testimony demonstrates that this sacrifice must have been untasted.
It is the Greek and Roman ritual of untasted sacrifice followed by
incubation wrapped in the skin of the sacrificed animal which is, I
would suggest, significant for our understanding of Genesis 27. It
seems to me hardly coincidental that the narrative which immediately
follows the story of Jacob's use of skins worn in conjunction with
untasted sacrifice in Genesis 27 is the story of Jacob's incubation
dream at Bethel in Genesis 28.31 submit, therefore, that it is the ritual
17; Dodds, Greeks and the Irrational, p. 110; E.L. Ehrlich, Der Traum im Alien
Testament (BZAW, 73; Berlin: Topelmann, 1953), p. 15 n. 1; Petropoulou, Greek
Cult, p. 72 n. 99, and references there. On fasting at the oracle of Amphiaraos, see
P.R. Arbesmann, Die Fasten bei den Griechen undRomern (Religionsgeschichtliche
Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 21.1; Giessen: Topelmann, 1929), pp. 101-102; on
fasting at the oracle of Trophonius and on this oracle as a site of incubation, see
Deubner, De incubatione, p. 17; M. Hamilton, Incubation, or the Cure of Disease in
Pagan Temples and Christian Churches (St Andrews: W.C. Henderson & Son,
1906), p. 90. Also note Inscriptions Graecae, IV (ed. F. Hiller v. Gaertringen;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2nd edn, 1929), no. 97.2, and Pausanias, 2.11.7, both of which
attest to holocaust offerings (which are by definition untasted sacrifices) at Asclepeia.
But cf. Edelstein and Edelstein (eds.), Asclepius, II, p. 149 n. 15, who insist that
abstinence from wine was not required before incubations of Asclepius.
1. ctyoDov 8e noXXaKiq ei<; TO avipov Kai i8pt>oi)av uivovtaq Ka9' f|aoxvav
eicei, KctGdjcep ev <po)A.ew omcov xcoplq enl nXeiovq fiu.epa<;. The translation is
that of Jones, Geography of Strabo, VI, p. 259.
2. KOCI Xapovieq oi iepeiq. TOV xprjaonevov ohoi) TE eipyovcv uiav f||iepav
mi oivou Tpevq. The translation is that of F.C. Conybeare, Philostratus (LCL;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960), p. 215.
3. It is true that Gen. 27.46-28.9 intrudes between the story of the deception of
Isaac in 27.1-45 and the description of the\dream at Bethel in 28.10-22. But 27.4728.9 is P, and thus not a pan of the epic (JE) tradition. In their earlier form 28.10-22
immediately followed 27.1-45.
108
of incubation described in Gen. 28.10-22 to which the hitherto

unspecified cultic allusions of skins and untasted sacrifice in
Gen. 27.16 and 25 point.
II
The practice of incubation is known throughout the ancient Near East.

In Mesopotamia incubation is attested as far back as the Sumerian
period; the best-known example is the second dream of Gudea.1
Already in a first dream the god Nin-girsu had appeared to Gudea and
told the ruler to rebuild that god's temple. But Nin-girsu's message in
that dream was phrased somewhat enigmatically, and Gudea, unsure
that he had understood, prays and asks the god for clarification.
Ningirsu then appears to Gudea in a second dream to address the
ruler's concerns. A similar incubation is reported some millennium
and a half later in a Neo-Babylonian text. There, King Nabonidus
induces a dream to confirm the interpretation of a dream which he
had previously received.2
Other Mesopotamian texts concerning incubation come from
Assyria, especially from the inscriptions of the last great Assyrian
king, Ashurbanipal. In one of these texts3 the goddess Ishtar appears
in a dream to give a message of comfort and hope to one of
Ashurbanipal's priests, who is presumably sleeping in a cella in her
temple. Ashurbanipal himself induced this dream, for earlier 'in the
1. Gudea Cylinder A; thoroughly discussed in A.L. Oppenheim, The

Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, with a Translation of an Assyrian
Dream-Book (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 46.3;
Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956), pp. 211-12; H. Frankfort,
Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration
of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948, 1978),
pp. 252, 255-58; T. Jacobsen, 'Mesopotamia', in H. Frankfort, et al. (eds.), The
Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man. An Essay in Speculative Thought in the
Ancient Near East (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946), pp. 189-91.
2. Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-dgyptischen Gesellschaft, Berlin (Berlin,
1896-1908; Leipzig, 1909-1944), pp. 1, pi. 76; 6, 1-36. Discussed in Oppenheim,
Dreams, 188, 203; translated on p. 250, no. 13.
3. H. Winckler, Sammlung von Keilschrifttexten (Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1893-95),
K. 3040. Discussed in Oppenheim, Dreams, pp. 188, 190, 200-201; translated on
p. 249, no. 10.
109
same night' Ashurbanipal entered Ishtar's sanctuary to pray and weep

at the feet of her cult statue.
Weeping such as Ashurbanipal's frequently precedes ancient Near
Eastern incubations; indeed A.L. Oppenheim suggests that crying may
be a ritual required of those seeking a dream visitation.1 In addition to
the Ashurbanipal text, Oppenheim cites the Hittite version of the
legend of Naram-Sin.2 In that text Naram-Sin is told by the goddess
Ishtar to use incubation to obtain help and advice from the gods.
Ishtar instructs Naram-Sin to prepare himself for the incubation by
purifying himself and his bed (lines 12-13), by calling out to the gods
(line 13), and by complaining to the goddesses (line 14). Naram-Sin
thus 'purified himself, went to incubate on a pure bed, called out to his
gods, and began to complain to his goddesses' (lines 14-17). The ritual
was a success, and the deities answered.
Other Hittite incubations include the 'Plague Prayers' of King
Mursilis, in which the king, distressed because of the plague which
ravages his country, lists various means by which he might gain
knowledge concerning the will of the gods. He prays:
either. .. let it be found out by an oracle, or let a prophet declare it, or let
all the priests find out by incubation.3
Finally from the Hittite realm, I note a curious ritual designed to heal
male impotence.4 In this ritual a man offers a sacrifice to a goddess
and then lies down to sleep on a bed in front of the sacrificial table.
1. Oppenheim, Dreams, p. 200.
2. Text and commentary in H.G. Giiterbock, 'Die historische Tradition und ihre
literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200', ZA 44 (ns 10;
1938), pp. 49-65; for further discussion, see Oppenheim, Dreams, pp. 188, 200;
Ehrlich, Der Traum, p. 57.
3. The translation is that of A. Goetze in ANET (3rd edn), p. 396, sub 11; note
also pp. 394-95, sub 2; for discussion, see Oppenheim, Dreams, p. 188; Ehrlich,
Der Traum, p. 57; M. Vieyra, 'Les songes et leur interpretation chez les Hittites', in
A.-M. Esnoul, et al. (eds.), Les songes et leur interpretation (Sources orientales, 2;
Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1959), p. 90.
4. Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi (Berlin: Staatliche Museen,
Vorderasiatische Abteilung, 1921-), VII.5.4.1-10. Translated by H.G. Giiterbock in
Oppenheim, Dreams, p. 200; further discussion in Vieyra, 'Songes chez les
Hittites', p. 94. Vieyra also mentions another Hittite text (KUB XII.69.2.4-5)
which, although fragmentary, seems also to refer to some kind of incubation
(Songes, p. 98 n. 13).
110
Upon the bed are spread the clothes which the incubant wore when
offering sacrifice. The man sleeps, and in his dreams the goddess
appears, has intercourse with him, and thus heals his impotence.
From Egypt comes the so-called 'Sphinx Stele', which describes the
dream visitation received by Thut-mose IV as he slept between the
feet of the sacred sphinx.1 While this dream is, unlike the usual
incubation, unsolicited, the location at a sacred site (the sphinx) and
the appearance of a god as the incubant sleeps in the holy place hint, at
least, at incubation in Egypt in the time of the New Kingdom.2
A more complete account of an ancient Egyptian incubation is
Herodotus's report concerning the dream incubation of the otherwise
unknown pharaoh Sethos (2.141).3 This pharaoh, threatened by the
Assyrian invasion led by Sennacherib, retreated into the inner
sanctuary of Ptah's temple, weeping and bewailing his fate. As he
wept, he fell asleep, and in a dream Ptah appeared. Again, we note
that weeping precedes a dream theophany and serves to induce it. In
the dream Ptah reassured the pharaoh of his patronage and support. In
the morning, when Sethos awoke, he marched out to do battle with the
Assyrians.
Sethos's dream as described in Herodotus is highly reminiscent of
the incubation which occurs in the Canaanite legend of King Kirta
(CTA 14.1.26-14.4.153). In that story Kirta, grieving because he has
no heir, enters into his chamber weeping. Yet again crying induces a
dream (CTA 14.1.31-32, 35-37):4
And as he wept he fell asleep,
as he cried, he slumbered
and in his dream El came down,
in his vision the Father of Men.
1. ANET (3rd edn), p. 449.
2. Similarly, 1 Sam. 3.1-18.
3. For possible identifications of the unknown Sethos, see S. West, 'And It Came
to Pass that Pharaoh Dreamed: Notes on Herodotus 2.139, 141', Classical Quarterly
37 (1987), p. 267 n. 25.
4. bm bkyh wySn bdm'h nhnunt. . .wbhlmh il yrd bdhrth ab adm. Note that
J.C. Greenfield ('Some Glosses on the Keret Epic', Eretz Israel 9 [1969], p. 62),
suggests that weeping is not the only pre-incubation rite undertaken by Kirta; he
writes that the verb yqms in line 35 'refers to lying down in a recumbent position to
induce a dream'.
111
El asks the dreaming Kirta why he weeps; upon ascertaining that Kirta
grieves because he has no heir, El gives the king detailed instructions
on how to procure a son. Kirta is to offer to the gods a sacrifice, then
muster his army and go to war. The prize of the battle will be a wife
and eventually an heir for Kirta. Kirta awakens and follows El's
instructions: after he offers sacrifice, he marches to battle and as a
result acquires a wife and heir.
A fuller account of a Canaanite incubation ritual is found in the
legend of Aqhat (CTA 17.1.1-17.2.42). As that story opens, Dan'il,
who will eventually sire Aqhat, the story's hero, is seen offering
sacrifices of food and drink to the gods. Then, immediately after
making these offerings, Dan'il disrobes, ascends (presumably to a
sleeping chamber, typically, in the ancient Near East, located in upper
stories),1 and lies down to spend the night. His intention, surely, is to
vision a deity in his dreams. Although at first unsuccessful, the king
repeats his rituals of supplication for six days, and finally, on the
seventh day, Baal responds. The storm god conveys to the high god,
El, Dan'il's request: Dan'il, it is revealed, is childless, and the purpose
of his incubation is to ask the gods for a son. El grants the request,
and Dan'il awakens.
The king's location during the dream is unspecified in the text, but
it is surely not Dan'il's own bedchamber, for upon awakening the king
arises and returns home to the palace (bt, paralleled by hkl). We can
thus infer that Dan'il was somewhere special for his dream. One is
tempted to locate Dan'il's incubation in a temple, for incubation
dreams, as we have seen, characteristically take place at a sacred site.
At any rate, upon returning home, Dan'il offers sacrifices to the
Kotharot, the birth goddesses, who have arrived at the house. After
1. Biblical data indicate that at least from the Iron Age into the Hellenistic period
bedrooms were typically located in upper stories. Elijah's bedroom at Zarephath
(1 Kgs 17.19) was in an upper chamber (<aliya). At Shumem Elisha had an
apartment with a bed, table, chair, and lamp, called in the text a 'aliyat-qir qetannd, 'a
small roof chamber' (2 Kgs 4.10). Elijah's prophecy to Ahaziah, 'You shall not
come down (Id' tered) from the bed to which you ascended ('dlita)' also suggests a
bedroom in an upper story (2 Kgs 1.4, 6, 16). The 'cool roof chamber' (<aliyat
hamrrfqera) where Ehud meets alone with Eglon is likewise to be understood as the
king of Moab's bedroom (Judg. 3.20). Acts 1.13 and 20.8 record that the apostles'
lodgings as they traveled through Judaea were in upper stories.
112
seven days of such offerings, Dan'il's wife conceives (CTA 17.2.2442).1

In the Bible the most complete account of a dream incubation is in
1 Kgs 3.4-15 (2 Chron. 1.1-13), Solomon's dream at the high place
(bama) at Gibeon. Incubation dreams, we note again, characteristically
take place at a sacred site; indeed, both the Deuteronomist and the
Chronicler take pains to demonstrate the sanctity of the Gibeon bama,
The Deuteronomist calls Gibeon the site of the great bama sanctuary
(habbdmd haggedola); the Chronicler suggests that even though the ark
had been moved to Jerusalem, the tabernacle which housed it in the
desert could still be found at Gibeon. At Gibeon, Solomon offers
sacrifice. This is, to be sure, only implied by the Deuteronomist, who
writes just that Solomon went to Gibeon to sacrifice and that the king's
customary offering at Gibeon was a thousand holocaust offerings. The
Chronicler, however, is explicit: Solomon offered a thousand
holocaust offerings. Sacrifice, as we have seen, is a rite characteristically used to prepare for an incubation. Moreover, pre-incubation
sacrifices are typically untasted, as, by definition, are Solomon's
holocaust offerings. It is thus highly significant that both the
Deuteronomist and the Chronicler, each in the verse that immediately
follows the notice of Solomon's untasted sacrifice, report the
appearance of Yahweh to Solomon in a dream. The Chronicler,
indeed, makes explicit that sacrifice and dream epiphany are causally
linked: at least the notice that the dream came 'in that night' after the
sacrifice implies as much. The ritual of sacrifice, in short, induces the
epiphany of the god. We can also suggest that the sacrifices were
designed to induce the epiphany. Again, the Chronicler makes this
explicit, noting in v. 5 that 'Solomon and the assembly sought (ddras)
Yahweh'. ddras, as has long been recognized, is a termus technicus
used of soliciting cultic oracles.2
As Solomon dreams, Yahweh asks the king what he wishes of God.
Solomon requests wisdom, or literally, an understanding heart (leb
somea'). Yahweh grants this request, and Solomon awakens. The
1. For extensive discussion, see J. Obermann, How Daniel was Blessed with a
Son. An Incubation Scene in Ugaritic (New Haven: American Oriental Society,
1946), especially pp. 7-13, 26-28. Also note Oppenheim, Dreams, p. 188.
2. S. Wagner, 'daraS', in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, HI (ed.
G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 302304.
113
Deuteronomist, as if to stress further the fact that this was an

incubation, states, 'Behold, it was a dream'. Solomon arises, returns to
Jerusalem, and, according to the Deuteronomist, offers a postincubation sacrifice, which consists again of holocaust offerings, but in
addition includes communal sacrifices which are eaten by the king's
servants in feasting.
Another royal incubant in biblical literature is King Saul.
According to 1 Sam. 28.6, Saul, before turning to the medium at
Endor, used other means to seek Yahweh for advice about the
Philistine threat. 'But', the text tells us, 'Yahweh did not answer him
through dreams, or through Urim, or through prophets'. These
dreams through which the king failed to learn the will of Yahweh
must surely be incubations. Indeed, 1 Sam. 28.6 provides a striking
parallel to the Hittite prayer of King Mursilis, in which the king
mentions incubation as one way to discern the will of the gods
concerning the plague which threatened the Hittite land. The other
means of discernment listed in the Hittite prayer are oracles and
prophets; the parallel to Saul's Urim and prophets is again striking.
The triad of oracles, prophets, and dreams is also known in Greek
religion: according to the Iliad (1.62-63), when the camp of the
Achaeans was beset by pestilence, Achilles called for either a prophet,
a priest (that is, an interpreter of omens), or an interpreter of dreams
to determine the will of the gods. A.L. Oppenheim in fact speculates
that in the area of dreams, the Hittites may provide the cultural link
between east and west.1
A third royal incubation is found in the Bible in 2 Sam. 12.15-23.
This narrative is almost never considered among possible incubations
in the Hebrew Bible,2 yet in my opinion is one of the strongest of the
biblical candidates. The text describes how David sought (biqqes) God
in an attempt to save the life of his first child by Bathsheba. The
vocabulary is significant: biqqes, like ddras, is a termus technicus
1. Openheim, Dreams, p. 199.

2. Ignored, for example, by Ehrlich, Der Traum; T.H. McAlpine, Sleep, Divine
and Human, in the OT (JSOTSup, 38; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); R.K. Gnuse,
The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern
Dreams and its Theological Significance (Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
1984).
114
used of soliciting cultic oracles.1 And although the text is not explicit,
it strongly suggests that David sought Yahweh's oracle through an
incubation dream. First, note that David's hoped-for oracle is an
oracle of healing; it is not insignificant that healing oracles are those
most frequently sought through incubation in the ancient world.2
Moreover, there are Mesopotamian, Hittite, and Greek examples of
surrogate incubations, where, as in 2 Sam. 12.15-23, the incubant is
not the person who needs help.3 Two of the Greek surrogate incubations even involve a parent and child, just as in 2 Sam. 12.15-23.4
A second factor which indicates incubation in 2 Sam. 12.15-23 is
that according to v. 16, David fasted before seeking Yahweh; fasting,
as we have seen, is a preparatory step characteristic of incubation
rituals. Moreover, David may have wept in order to induce the oracle
of God. This is at least suggested in v. 21, where David's servants say
of his earlier behavior, 'you fasted and wept' (s.amta wattebk). Again,
note that ritual weeping frequently precedes an incubation. Indeed, as
v. 16 continues we read that David, now prepared by his ritual of
fasting (and weeping?) to seek Yahweh, 'went in' (uba'). Where David
went into is in the text unspecified, but some kind of special (sacred?)
precinct is implied. Incubations, of course, typically occur in a holy
place. Verse 16 concludes, 'and he lay down and spent the night'
(weldn wesdkab). The plain meaning is surely that David slept. Indeed,
he incubated: the verb Iwn used in conjunction or in parallel with
lakab denotes incubation in several Canaanite and biblical texts.
1. S. Wagner, 'biqqesT, in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, II (ed.
G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 23639.
2. Hamilton, Incubation, p. 3.
3. For Mesopotamian and Hittite evidence, see Oppenheim, Dreams, p. 188 (with
references); additionally, for Hittite evidence, Ehrlich, Der Traum, p. 57; for
additional Mesopotamian evidence, McAlpine, Sleep, p. 125. For Greek evidence,
see Inscriptiones Graecae, IV (2nd edn), no. 122, 21, 24; Libanius, De Vita Sua,
p. 143; Marinus, Vita Prodi, p. 29; all conveniently reprinted and translated in
Edelstein and Edelstein (eds.), Asdepius, I, pp. 225-26, 233-34 (T. 423, nos. 21,
24), 257-58 (T. 447), 322-24 (T. 582); see also the Edelsteins's comments on
surrogate incubation in the cult of Asclepius in Asdepius, II, p. 148; finally,
Hamilton, Incubation, p. 59. Also cf. the Greek evidence for surrogate incubation
collected above.
4. Inscriptiones Graecae, IV (2nd edn), no. 122,11. 21, 24 (repr. and trans, in
Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, I, pp. 225-26, 233-34 [T. 423, nos. 21, 24]).
115
In Canaanite literature the word pair Iwn and skb is used twice in
the context of incubation in the story of Dan'il's incubation dream
(CTA 17.1.5-6; 17.1.15-16).1 The root Iwn also occurs in Isa. 65.4,
which Eusebius, as noted above, interprets as an allusion to
incubation, as do most modern commentators. A. Caquot, moreover,
finds the hithpael of Iwn in Ps. 91.1 indicative of an incubation ritual
in which an ill incubant sleeps in the temple in Jerusalem in hopes of
receiving a dream visitation of healing from Yahweh.2 Caquot has in
fact argued that Iwn can have a technical meaning of 'to incubate',
especially in the hithpael.3
The word pair Iwn and skb occurs in one other significant text:
Gen. 28.11. There, the two verbs describe how Jacob lay down to
spend the night at Bethel. I suggest that the use of Iwn and skb in this
context indicates that Gen. 28.10-22 describes yet another biblical
incubation.
There are other elements in the Bethel narrative which imply
incubation. First, note that Jacob's dream does occur at a sacred site.
The text initially describes the locus as hammdqom (Gen. 28.11),
literally 'the place'. But in the Hebrew Bible maqom is often used as a
technical term meaning 'shrine' or 'sanctuary'. The presence of the
definite article in Gen. 28.10 certainly suggests this specialized
meaning. This is confirmed as we read on, since we learn that the
dream took place at the very house of God (bet-'el). Bethel, which
archaeologically dates back to the Middle Bronze Age, was an
important sanctuary for the Israelites even before the formation of the
monarchy (Judg. 20.18, 26; 1 Sam. 7.16) and continued to thrive as a
major cult site of the Northern Kingdom even into the time of Josiah
(2 Kgs 23.15). As a sacred location it was in Israelite tradition second
only to Jerusalem. With its setting in Bethel, Gen. 28.10-22 clearly
conforms to the characteristic criterion that incubation should occur at
a holy place.
Jacob also undertakes certain preparatory steps characteristic of
incubation. I have stated already my belief that the untasted sacrifice
and ritual use of skins in Genesis 27 should be interpreted as pre1. Reading yln for the incomprehensible ynl in CTA 17.1.6.
2. S. Mowinckel has interpreted Pss. 3.6; 4.9; and 17.5 similarly. See
Psalmenstudien, I (Amsterdam: P. Schippers, 1966), pp. 154-57.
3. A. Caquot, 'Le Psaume XCI', Semitica 8 (1958), pp. 25-26.
116
incubation rites. But leaving these aside for the moment, as my thesis
is yet unproven, we still find in Gen. 28.10-22 evidence of a
preparatory ritual: Jacob's sleeping arrangement. In Gen. 28.11 the
patriarch takes a stone, places it under his head, and lies down on the
ground to sleep. The last element is, I suggest, significant. Although
sleeping on the ground is perfectly consistent with Jacob's situation of
being on a journey, it is perhaps not coincidental that lying on the
ground frequently occurs as a part of ancient incubation rituals.
Homer notes as distinctive the fact that the Selloi of Dodona slept on
the ground; we have already discussed the thesis that the Selloi
incubated. Also from Homer comes the incubation-like epiphany of
Athena to Odysseus; recall that it was an important element in that
story that the hero eschewed a bed and slept on the ground.
Lycophron reports that incubants at Podalirius's tomb had to lie on
the tomb of the seer to induce an oracle; presumably this means that
incubants lay on the ground above the grave. Herodotus notes that the
Libyans likewise sought oracles by lying on the ground above their
ancestors' graves (4.172). In Roman literature Kings Latinus and
Numa both lie on the ground to incubate, even though they, as royal
personages, surely could command beds. According to biblical
tradition, King David, whose incubation dream we saw described in
2 Sam. 12.15-23, also shuns a bed in favor of the ground
(2 Sam. 12.16; see also 17, 20). * One is tempted to conclude that the
Israelite incubation ritual, like its Greek and Roman counterparts,
favors sleeping on the ground over sleeping on a bed. One is also
tempted to conclude that Jacob's lying on the ground in Gen. 28.11 is
a preparatory step taken to induce an incubation.
It is, moreover, not only Jacob's pre-dream rituals which are
characteristic of incubation. So, too, are his post-dream actions. Upon
awakening, Jacob gives thanks for God's epiphany by setting up his
stone pillow as a masseba and anointing it. That is, Jacob offers a
libation of oil as a sacrifice. Similarly, according to the
Deuteronomist, Solomon, after his incubation at Gibeon, returned to
Jerusalem and offered up burnt offerings and peace offerings, making
a feast for all his servants (1 Kgs 3.15). Dan'il, too, according to the
legend of Aqhat, returned to the palace after his incubation and
offered food and drink to the Kotharot, the birth goddesses, who had
1. Note again Greenfield's comments concerning Kirta's recumbent position.
117
arrived at the court to oversee the conception of the child promised to

the king in his dream (CTA 17.2.24-38). Also King Kirta, who was,
like Dan'il, promised a child in a dream, offered sacrifice immediately
after awakening (CTA 14.3.154-14.4.171).
Greek incubants, too, made offerings after their dream visitations.
This practice is attested in literary sources and in inscriptions from
the Asclepeia in Erythrae and Epidaurus.1 It is in addition worth
noting that Greek incubants at the various Asclepeia were required to
erect a stone marker describing their cure.2 While these Greek
inscriptions in stone do not exactly parallel Jacob's ma$$eba, they are
still suggestive.3 Even more suggestive is that many of the inscriptions
record the vow of the incubant to return within a year and again make
a sacrificial or votive offering to Asclepius at his shrine.4 Jacob also
1. For inscriptional evidence from Epidaurus, see, for example, Inscriptions
Graecae, IV (2nd edn), no. 121, 4, 8, 10, 15; no. 122, 22, 25; for Erythrae, U. von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and P. Jacobsthal, Nordionische Steine (Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1909), no. 11 (pp. 37-48, especially 40-41). From literary sources note
Aelianus, Fragmenta 101. All repr. and trans, in Edelstein and Edelstein (eds.),
Asclepius,!, pp. 222-26,230-34(T. 423, nos. 4, 8,10,15, 22, 25), 261-62(T. 455),
295 (T. 521). Also note the Edelsteins' comments on thank offerings in Asclepius,
II, pp. 188-89 (with additional references), and Hamilton, Incubation, p. 39. For a
detailed analysis of the Erythrae inscription, see Petropoulou, Greek Cult, pp. 3340, with further bibliography on p. 33.
2. On the custom of setting up a stone marker after incubating, see Pausanias,
2.27.3; 2.36.1; Strabo, Geography 8.5.15; Libanius, Epistulae 695.2; for examples
of the testimonial inscriptions themselves, see Inscriptiones Graecae, IV (2nd edn),
nos. 121-22 (especially 1, 3, 7), 127; Inscriptiones Creticae, I (ed. M. Guarducci;
Rome: La libreria dello Stato, 1935), p. 17, no. 9; repr. and trans, in Edelstein and
Edelstein (eds.), Asclepius, I, pp. 221-37 (T. 423), 238 (T. 424), 239-40 (T. 426).
3. Even more suggestive, perhaps, is Pausanias's report that the great Asclepeia at
Epidaurus was surrounded on all sides by boundary stones, which mark off the
sacred space. The purpose of Jacob's massebd, of course, was to demarcate a sacred
space. See Pausanias 2.27.1.
4. See, for example, Inscriptiones Graecae, IV (2nd edn), no. 121, 1. 5;
Wilamowitz, Nordionische Steine, no. 11; Callimachus, Epigrammate 55;
Artemidorus, Onirocritica 5.9; Libanius, Declamationes 34, Argumentum; 34.35-36;
all repr. and trans, in Edelstein and Edelstein (eds.), Asclepius, I, pp. 222-23, 23031, (T. 423, no. 5), 295 (T. 521), 295-96 (T. 522), 296 (T. 523), 301 (T. 537),
303 (T. 539). Also see a lex sacra from Pergamum: M. Worrle, 'Die Lex Sacra von
der Hallenstrasse (Inv. 1965, 20)', in C. Habicht (ed.), Altertiimer von Pergamon
8.3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969), pp. 167-90, especially lines 31-33 (discussed in
118
makes a vow. In Gen. 28.20-22 he promises that if he is allowed to

return to his home, he will come again to Bethel and give a tenth of
everything he has to God.
Jacob's dream, then, concludes with typical post-incubation rituals.
It has vocabulary characteristic of ancient incubations. It, like the
usual ancient incubation, takes place at a sacred site and involves
specific preparatory steps which result in an epiphany of the god in a
dream. Still, there are scholars who deny that Jacob's dream is an
incubation.1 These scholars find an indication of intentionality lacking
in Gen. 28.10-22. They argue that Jacob did not purposely seek a
dream and that the dream is therefore not an incubation.
It is true that Jacob is not presented in Gen. 28.10-22 as purposely
seeking a dream. But this is understandable if we consider the context
of the Bethel story. The purpose of the narrative as it stands is to
present Jacob as the cult founder of the sanctuary at Bethel, that is, to
demonstrate that Jacob 'discovers' the cult site and sanctifies it (by
anointing a ma$seba). Thus the sources must obscure any elements
which suggest that Jacob acted intentionally. Jacob cannot 'know' that
Bethel is the house of God; he cannot 'knowingly' perform rituals
which might induce a dream. Such would spoil the point of the story.
The current intent of the Bethel narrative insists that anything which
suggests the original cultic context of incubation be concealed. But
surely what underlies the narrative as we have it is an incubation
ritual.
It is this incubation ritual in Gen. 28.10-22 to which, I submit, the
skins and untasted sacrifice of Gen. 27.16 and 25 allude. Sacrifice, we
have now seen repeatedly, is a ritual which precedes incubation
throughout the Mediterranean. Perhaps most significant is a text I
have not yet cited: Gen. 46.1-4, in which Jacob offers sacrifice before
his somewhat truncated incubation dream at Beersheba. Also attested
frequently, particularly in Greek, Roman, and Israelite literature, is
the requirement to fast before incubation; that is, the incubant's
sacrifice must be at least for him untasted, as is Jacob's in Gen. 27.25.
Burkert, Greek Religion, p. 268; Petropoulou, Greek Cult, pp. 44-49). Vows are
also attested in Hittite literature; see Oppenheim, Dreams, p. 193.
1. Among those who deny that Jacob's dream is an incubation are Ehrlich, Der
Traum, pp. 27-32, 55; McAlpine, Sleep, p. 159; Gnuse, Theophany of Samuel,
pp. 38, 67-68; A. Resch, Der Traum im Heilsplan Gottes (Freiburg: Herder, 1964),
pp. 70-74, 114. But see Oppenheim, Dreams, p. 187.
119
Finally, concerning the ritual use of skins, note again the Greek data
cited above, as well as the Hittite text in which the incubant lay down
to sleep on the clothes which had come into contact with his pre-incubation sacrifice. Neither of these rituals are so very different, I would
suggest, from Jacob's clothing himself in the skins of a sacrificial kid.
Again, consider Oppenheim's suggestion that with regard to dreams,
the land of the Hittites may stand as the bridge between Semitic and
Hellenic.
It remains only to discuss why the pre-incubation rituals involving
skins and untasted sacrifice are not in Genesis 28 itself. The answer
lies in a point I made above. At some juncture in its transmission
history, the original cultic context of Gen. 28.10-22 was obscured in
favor of narrative requirements. Once this happened, ritual elements
properly belonging to the incubation rite were freed from their
original construct. In particular, the untasted sacrifice and the skins,
no longer bound by cultic constraints, were able to move elsewhere in
the epic.1 They thus become incorporated, I would suggest, in the
scene antecedent to Gen. 28.10-22, the story of the deception of Isaac
in Genesis 27. Note that these two stories are integrally linked: had
Jacob not been forced to flee for his life at the end of Genesis 27, he
would have never come to Bethel. Genesis 27 and 28 indeed are as
two acts in one play.2 It is thus easy to see how elements from one
story could have been incorporated into the other. Yet at the same
time it is easy to locate seams in Genesis 27, indicating that the
incorporation of the skins and sacrifice into Genesis 27 is imperfect.
Note, for example, that Jacob's use of skins as disguise in v. 16 is
1. One might compare P.M. Cross's analysis of the Yahwistic portion of the
Pentateuch. Cross has argued that 'the Yahwist took up the Epic traditions of the old
league sanctuaries'. But with the rise of the monarchy and the resultant royal cult, the
old league cult 'fell into desuetude'. The epic themes were thus freed from their
original cultic context, which then became obscured as the Yahwist reshaped the epic
to fit new narrative requirements. See Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in
the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1973), p. 261; 'The Epic Traditions of Early Israel: Epic Narrative and the
Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions', in R.E. Friedman (ed.), The Poet and
the Historian. Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (Harvard Semitic
Studies, 26; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), p. 29.
2. Westermann writes, 'The narrative in chapter 27, despite its relative selfsufficiency, is nevertheless a part of a larger narrative whole' (Promises, p. 78).
120
redundant, since Jacob has already 'become' Esau by putting on Esau's

clothes (v. 15). This redundancy, in fact, has led many commentators
to find E elements in a story which is correctly analysed as all J.1 The
imperfect incorporation is also evident in the cultic resonance which
the supposedly narrative elements of skins and untasted sacrifice
retain. Indeed, it is this unaccounted cultic resonance which has led us
so far afield, to Greece and Rome, but ultimately back to Israel and
the incubation ritual described in Gen. 28.10-22.
W. Burkert has in the past decade repeatedly argued that scholars of
Greek religion must look to ancient Near Eastern myths and rituals
for important parallels. Our study suggests that Semitic historians of
religion must also become more aware of Hellenic cults. Only when
both classicists and Semitists develop a more detailed understanding of
the greater religious context of the eastern Mediterranean basin can
we begin to describe fully the religions of the ancient Near Eastern
and Greek worlds.
1. E.g. H. Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis (New York: Schocken Books,

1964), p. 126; G. von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. edn,
1972), p. 276.
THE OATHS OF AMOS 8.14*

Saul M. Olyan
I
For centuries, Amos 8.14 has presented a variety of seemingly

insoluble problems to exegetes. The Massoretic text reads:
hannisba 'im be'asmat $dmeron
we'dmeru
fie >eloheka dan
wehe derek be'er Saba'
e
w napeluwelo'-yaqumu 'od
Those who swear by the transgression/
guilt of Samaria
and say: 'By the life of your god, O Dan',
and 'By the life of the way of Beersheba'.
They will fall and not rise again.1
Although there is little disagreement that wnaplu wlo'-yaqumu 'od

*The most recent thorough revision of this essay was completed in May 1988; in
December 1990, only cosmetic changes were made. As a result, recent literature
could not be incorporated into the notes or discussion. In an earlier and somewhat
different form this piece appeared as chapter one of my doctoral dissertation
'Problems in the History of the Cult and Priesthood in Ancient Israel' (Harvard
University, 1985).
1. On 'asmd, see BDB, 'wrong-doing', 'guiltiness', 'becoming guilty' or
'(bringing) a trespass-offering' (Lev. 5.24). In form this is probably an infinitive
construct of the type yir'd', 'ahabd, which for the most part functions as an action
noun. The verbal reflex, 'to become guilty (through transgression)' is relatively
common. See D. Kellermann's article "asham', in the Theological Dictionary of the
Old Testament, I (ed. G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren; trans. J.T. Willis; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 429-37, esp. p. 437 on 'aSmd . For the translation of
the oath formula 'By the life of X. . . ' see M. Greenberg, 'The Hebrew Oath
Particle Hay/He, JBL 76 (1957), pp. 34-39.
122
is a secondary accretion,1 scholars have contested the interpretation of

'asmat sdmerdn, derek be>er sdba', and even 'eloheka dan. It is the
purpose of this article to analyse this verse in some detail, with
particular attention to the problem of Massoretic derek and its
possible solutions; the history and cultic lore of Dan and Beersheba;
the interpretation of the oaths in their particular setting (Amos 8.1114) and in light of the theme of pilgrimage in the wider context of the
book of Amos.
Many scholars have opted to emend Massoretic derek in Amos 8.14.
Three suggestions stand out as most popular: (1) revocalize MT derek
as *dorekd, 'your (divine) council', 'assembly', or 'circle'; (2) emend
and revocalize MT derek as *dodeka; (3) retain the reading derek. The
first solution requires only the revocalization of the text, but assumes
a second meaning ('council') for the noun dor, 'generation'.2 Most
scholars who opt for the second solution have understood dodeka as
'your beloved', few as 'your kinsman'.3 Though his emendation is
1. This colon has no original connection to the two oaths and their introduction. It
repeats almost word for word a thought found earlier in Amos (5.2): naff Id Id' tosip
qum betulat yisrii'el. It is probable that this final colon in v. 14 was added by a
redactor to give an appropriate conclusion to the section. The mention of betuldt in
v. 13 may have functioned to attract the saying. See the comments of H.W. Wolff
(Joel and Amos [trans. W. Janzen et al.\ Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977],
p. 325), who connects 5.2 to 8.13, 14b. W. Rudolph (Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona
[KAT, 13.2; Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971], p. 269) also sees this connection.
2. For dor as 'council', 'assembly' in Amos 8.14 and elsewhere, see P. Ackroyd,
'The Meaning of Hebrew dor Considered', JSS 13 (1968), p. 4, and n. 1, and
F. Neuberg, 'An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew DOR, JNES 9 (1950), p. 21517. D.N. Freedman and F. Andersen (Hosea [AB, 24; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1980], p. 494) have accepted this emendation for Amos 8.14.
3. Many scholars have accepted the emendation dodeka. They include V. Maag,
Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos (Leiden: Brill, 1951), pp. 56,
139, 140 n. 7; and more recently, A. Weiser, Die Propheten Hosea, Joel, Amos,
Obadja, Jona, Micha (ATD, 24; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974),
pp. 198-99. See also H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1966), pp. 87 n. 4, 97, 264; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1965), p. 293; J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1962), p. 353; G.W. Ahlstrom, Psalm 89. Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des
leidenden Konigs (Lund: Gleerup, 1959), pp. 163-73; W. Zimmerli, Geschichte
und Tradition von Beersheba im Alien Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1932), p. 3 n. 5; E. Sellin, Das Zwolfprophetenbuch(KAT, 12.1;
Leipzig: Deichert, 1929), p. 262. and others. A.S. Kapelrud (Central Ideas in Amos
OLYAN The Oaths of Amos 8.14
123
found in numerous commentaries and histories, nowhere has it been

argued convincingly; in fact, in a number of cases, its interpretation
has been tendentious and rather dubious. The third solution involves
reading with the MT and understanding derek in light of Ugaritic drkt,
'power' or 'dominion',1 or simply as the common word for 'road' or
'way'.2
On text-critical grounds, the reading dodeka is the strongest of the
alternatives, even though it is not reflected directly by the versions.
The LXX and the OL lend some support to the emendation, reading
'your god' (ho theos sou, deus tuus) as in the first colon.3 'Your
(divine) kinsman' (dodeka) could have been taken as 'your god', in
parallel with 'eloheka ('your god') in the first colon. In contrast, the
LXX and OL do not reflect a Hebrew Vorlage which read either derek,
as in the MT, or do^kd. Jerome, typically, corrects back to the MT,
reading via ('way') where the OL read deus tuus. If doi^ka underlies
[Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1961], p. 51), reconstructs ddk on the basis of the LXX
and states 'the god Dod at Beersheba may have been identified with Yahweh'.
S. Mowinckel (He That Cometh [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954], p. 75 n. 45)
argues similarly, noting that dod can mean 'kinsman'.
1. M. Dahood, 'Ugaritic DRKT and Biblical DEREK', TS 15 (1954), pp. 62731; S. Bartina, 'Vivit Potentia Beer-seba! (Amos 8.14)', VD 34 (1956), pp. 202-10;
M. Dahood, 'Ugaritic-Hebrew Lexicography II', Biblica 45 (1964), p. 404;
H. Zirker, 'Derekh = Potentia?', BZ (ns) 2 (1958), pp. 291-94; and M. Dahood,
Psalms 1 (AB, 16; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), p. 2 for discussion of
derek in Ps. 1 (with bibliography). Here, Dahood refers to Amos 8.14 in passing.
See also S. Amsler, E. Jacob, C.A. Keller, Osee, Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Amos (CAT,
lla; Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1965), p. 237; and more recently,
H.M. Barstad, The Religious Polemics of Amos (VTSup, 34; Leiden: Brill, 1984),
pp. 191-98, who argues that derek (meaning 'power') is an epithet of 'the local
Baal' of Beersheba. The word drk occurs in Phoenician with the meaning
'dominion'. On this see P.M. Cross ('A Recently Published Phoenician Inscription
from Byblos', IEJ 29 [1979], pp 40-44), where drk occurs in the plural ('dn mlkm
wdrkm, 'lord of kingdoms and dominions').
2. Most notably Wolff, Joel and Amos, p. 324; Rudolph, Joel-Amos-ObadjaJona, p. 268; and the RSV.
3. LXX: Zei ho theos sou, Dan. . .Zei ho theos sou, Bersabee. OL: Vivit deus
tuus Dan (et) vivit deus tuus Bersabee. The other versions are of little help to the text
critic. The Targum reads qayamd' dehaM dibedan weqayamin nimuse be'er saba'.
nimuse (abs. m. pi. ntmusayyd') appears to be a loan word from Greek (nomos),
with the meaning 'custom', 'behavior', even 'religion'. Hebrew derek lies behind the
Targum reading. The PeSitta reads similarly (' wrh').
124
the LXX-OL, one would expect something like *hoi theoi sou if the
LXX translators understood dor as 'council'. If they understood dor as
'generation,' which seems far more likely, one would expect
something like genea or genesis, words used commonly in the LXX to
translate Hebrew dor. There is no hint in the LXX that ancient
translators ever understood dor as 'council' (divine or otherwise).1
Yet the LXX- OL reading does reflect a singular noun with a second
singular suffix. Understanding drk in Amos 8.14 in light of Ugaritic
drkt seems awkward in light of the LXX-OL, where the -k is taken as a
suffix. Also, to argue in favor of this interpretation, one would have
to assume first that the translators were aware of an epithet drk for
Yahweh or another god, and secondly that they knew of the meaning
'power' or 'dominion' for drk in Hebrew. Neither assumption is
supported by the extant evidence.2 In light of these observations,
dodekd presents the fewest problems. It is a singular noun with aa
second singular suffix, and could underlie the LXX- OL 'your god'. An
alternative explanation is of course possible: that the translators
1. The LXX translators use a number of Greek words meaning 'generation',
'descendants', 'life', 'time period' to translate Hebrew dor. Words used to translate
dor include genea, genesis, ekgonos, teknon, zde, hemera. See E. Hatch and
A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint (2 vols.; Graz: Akademische DruckUniversitats Verlagsanstalt, 1954).
2. Although *darkat- is a goddess epithet in Canaanite religion, there is no
evidence that *dark- was ever understood as an epithet for a god. J.T. Milik
('Nouvelles inscriptions nabateenes', Syria 35 [1958], p. 238 n. 6) relates drk in
Amos 8.14 to Derketo, the goddess of Ascalon (and elsewhere) in the late first
millennium, as does Barstad, Religious Polemics, p. 196. There is no convincing
argument for seeing the goddess Derketo in Amos 8.14. The use of the noun derek
as an epithet for Yahweh is unattested in the Hebrew Bible, though beginning in the
Second Temple period, 'Power' and 'Heaven' are attested as substitutes for the
divine name: haggeburd, mayya /Samayim passim in rabbinic texts; and Mt. 26.64,
'You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power' (5t>vccui<;). Though
it is not attested as a divine epithet, Hebrew derek may sometimes mean 'power',
'dominion', or 'throne' when used as a common noun, as modern scholars have
argued. See further the discussion above.
Interestingly, there is no evidence that the LXX translators were aware of a
meaning 'power' or 'dominion' for derek; I could not find a single instance where
derek was translated with this sense, even in cases where modern scholars have
argued for such a meaning (e.g. Num. 24.17; Hos. 10.13; Pss. 110.7; 138.5).
Given this, it is difficult to imagine the LXX translators rendering a Hebrew Vorlage
with drk as ho theos sou; one would expect ho hodos\
125
simply did not know what to make of their Vorlage,and rendered it

as they rendered the first oath. Yet Jerome's correction back to the MT
(via Bersabee) suggests at least that the earlier OL 'your god' (deus
tuus) somehow departed from the rabbinic Bible of Jerome's day.
The LXX-OL probably reflects an original reading dodeka\ but what
of the textual emendation r to d necessary to read dodekal This implies
that a scribal error occurred, where resh and dalet were confused
sometime in the transmission process of the Vorlage of the MT. Such a
scribal error is easily explained. For a period of several centuries (the
fourth to early second centuries BCE,), dalet and resh were barely
distinguishable from one another.1 Even in the history of paleoHebrew, the two were easily confused. The dalet cross-bar begins to
appear in early second-century semi-formal script and in Hasmonean
formal, while resh begins to reflect a rounded back. This distinction
continues into the common era, so that the second-century minor
prophets' scroll from Murabba'at reads, clearly, drk in Amos 8.14.2
Thus, on the basis of paleographic considerations, a strong case can be
made for the possibility of a scribal error producing drk from *ddk
sometime in the transmission of the Vorlage of the MT, likely before
the second century BCE. Such confusion was exceedingly common, as
numerous examples show.3 An example occurs in the case of the name
j^'uel, in the expression 'elyasap ben i^'uel (Num. 2.14). Elsewhere
in the MT, the same individual is called de'u'el (Num. 1.14; 7.42, 47;
10.20). Throughout the LXX, *re'u'el is present (Ragouel); the name
d^'uel is otherwise unknown and not easily explained. A scribal error
in the Vorlage of the MT and its spread to all occurrences, but for
Num. 2.14, would explain the discrepancy. Once again, the LXX
preserves the original reading. There are numerous other examples of
r/d confusion which occurred in the transmission process of Hebrew
1. P.M. Cross, 'The Development of the Jewish Scripts', in G.E. Wright (ed.),
The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961), pp. 133202, especially the script charts.
2. P. Benoit, J.T. Milik, R. de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabba 'at (DID, 2; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1961), p. 187 and pi. 58.
3. E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem
Biblical Studies, 3; Jerusalem: Simor, 1981), pp. 157-58, 196-97; P. Kyle
McCarter, Textual Criticism, Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 45-46.
126
manuscripts.1 In the case of Amos 8.14, a scribe, with ddk in front of

him and resh difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from dalet,
could have easily seen drk; derek ('way') and dor ('generation') are
very common Hebrew words, where dod is exceedingly rare.2 The
emendation is thus easily justified both on text-critical and
paleographic grounds.3
Apart from considerations of text and paleography, there are a
number of other reasons for favoring *dodeka over the other
1. See Tov, Septuagint, pp. 127, 157-58. Isaiah 23.10: MT 'bry; LXX ergazou
(*'bdy); lQIsaa 'bdy; Isa. 45.2: MT whdrym; LXX: kai ore (*whrrym); lQIsaa
whrrym; Gen. 8.21: MT b'bwr h'dm, 'on account of humanity' is, in the LXX, dia ta
erga, 'because of the works (of men)', so perhaps *b'bwd h'dm. There are many
other examples of this scribal confusion.
2. Ronald Hendel suggested this in conversation.
3. Prosodic considerations add a little weight to the suggested emendation. Verse
14a (hanniSbd'im be'asmat Someron) is a prose rubric, and we'ameru a secondary
gloss. Thus, the two oaths can be isolated and their prosody examined. Revocalized,
they appear as follows:
hay 'ilohekddan
hay *dod-V-kd bi'rsab'
The above vocalization represents an attempt to reconstruct approximately the

vocalization of pre-exilic Hebrew; it is based on considerations of historical grammar
and comparative linguistics; it aids prosodic analysis. The syllable distribution is
affected only in the case oiVer Seba', historically *bi'r Sab', where *bi'r picks up
an extra syllable through Massoretic hypercorrection after quiescence of the aleph
(*bi'r > *be'r > be'er), and *Sab' through the resolution of the consonant cluster by
addition of a secondary patah. Thus, the two oaths reconstructed, with emendation of
drk > *dodeka, form a balanced bicolon with 6:6 syllable count. The emendation
*doreka would yield the same count, and derek (< *dark) would yield 6:4. Each of
the four elements in the first oath has its parallel term in the second: *hay II hay,
*'ilohay- II dod-v-, *-ka II -ka, *dan II bi'r Sab'. The Massoretic reading derek does
not provide such parallelism, nor does the understanding of drk in light of Ugaritic
drkt. The emendation *doreka does provide a parallel -ka. and a collective subject
parallel to the singular >eldheka of the first colon. But as shown, the LXX-OL do not
reflect *dor in their Vorlage, and may reflect dod. On the basis of these
considerations, the emendation *dddeka again stands out as the most appealing
alternative. The parallelism of Dan and Beersheba is what is most significant here,
suggesting the whole land, from the far north to the far south. J.L. Kugel observed
the rareness of the parallellism of all members; the partial correspondence of each
colon in a bicolon (his A and B) is more common (The Idea of Biblical Poetry [New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981]).
127
suggestions and MT derek. Though several scholars have argued for a

second meaning of dor in biblical Hebrew based on Phoenician and
Ugaritic parallels ('assembly' or 'council'), its use in the context of
Amos 8.14 seems unlikely.1 The LXX- OL do not reflect a plural 'your
gods' or a collective singular like 'your council'; they say simply
'your god'. This suggests a singular subject in the Hebrew Vorlage.
The reading derek is weak on several accounts. First, the parallel term
names a deity (the god of Dan), with a second masculine singular
suffix. Something similar is expected for the B term in the next colon,
which derek ('road') does not provide. 'Pilgrimage route', a popular
interpretation of derek in this verse, does not suffice.2 Second, hay
oaths in the Hebrew Bible are always taken by a deity or a powerful
person who is accorded the status of a deity;3 oaths are never taken by
places or objects, though this changes in the Second Temple period.
Evidence is not lacking for oath-taking in the Hebrew Bible; in fact,
over one hundred oaths are preserved. Scholars who see a pilgrimage
context for these oaths are correct. However, the cumulative evidence
does not recommend the retention of MT derek in the oath formula. At
Elephantine, an oath was sworn by the msgd' (the hypostatized
sanctuary, stela or altar?); in the New Testament, oaths were taken by
the Temple. There is no evidence that oaths were taken by pilgrimage
routes until Islamic times.4
1. An example from Ugaritic is the bicolon Idr bn 'il II Imphrt bn 'il (CTA,
32.1.25, 34, etc.); for a Phoenician example, see KAI 26.3.19.
2. For example, Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, p. 268.
3. See M. Pope, 'Oaths', IDS, III, pp. 575-77; Greenberg, 'Hebrew Oath
Particle'; F. Horst, 'Der Eid im Alten Testament', EvT 17 (1957), pp. 366-84.
Oaths are taken by Yahweh (Deut. 6.13; 10.20; Judg. 8.9; 1 Sam. 14.39, 45, etc.);
David the king (1 Sam. 25.26); Pharaoh (Gen. 42.15, 16); Yahweh and David (2
Sam. 15.21); Yahweh and Jonathan (1 Sam. 20.3); Yahweh and Elijah (2 Kgs 2.2,
4, 6, etc.). Also, Yahweh swears on numerous occasions by his own life. The hay
Yahweh oath formula is also attested in the Hebrew epigraphic corpus. See KAI
193.9, 196.12. Oath-taking was related to shrines and pilgrimage as Amos 8.14 and
Hos. 4.15 demonstrate. Vows were also related to pilgrimage (Nah. 2.1: haggi
yehuda haggayik II Salami rfdarayik).
4. For example, swearing by the pilgrimage route to Mecca. On the Elephantine
oath by the msgd', see A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1923), pp. 147-48 (no. 44). The word msgd' is often taken to
mean temple or altar and usually compared to Arabic masjid, 'mosque'. B. Porten
has argued for the meaning 'place of prostration' based on the root meaning of sgd
128
Since a case can be made for the emendation *dodeka in Amos 8.14
based on certain contextual and extra-contextual considerations, it is
profitable to examine the use of the epithet dod elsewhere in the
Hebrew Bible and in other Semitic languages and literatures in order
to determine its proper translation value. With JJ. Stamm,1 I argue
that the divine epithet dod in Israel is best translated 'kinsman'
(probably 'paternal uncle'). The deity who bears this title is Yahweh.
In light of the strong Yahwistic traditions of Dan and Beersheba and
the very common use of kinship epithets for Yahweh, this
understanding of dod is far more easily supported than the alternative
view of scholars such as G.W. Ahlstrb'm, who has argued that dod is
the name in Israel of a vegetation deity like Tammuz, to be translated
'beloved' (Liebling).2
The several occurrences of dod in Israelite personal names indicate
that the epithet refers to Yahweh. Massoretic dodawdhu in 2 Chron.
20.37 is an easily explained error for *dodiyahu, 'Yahweh is my
kinsman', as LXX Dodia makes clear.3 The hypocoristica dodolddday
should be noted as well (1 Chron. 11.12; 2 Sam. 23.9, 24; 1 Chron.
27.4; the LXX of 1 Chron. 27.4 reads Dodia, while the MT reads the
hypocoristicon doday). It is possible that the name dawid is to be
understood in this light.4 Even assuming that dod is an epithet of
(Archives from Elephantine [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968],
pp. 155-56); see Nabatean msgd'. Oath-taking in various Semitic sources is
discussed by J. Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten (Studien zur Geschichte und
Kultur des islamischen Orients, 3; Strasbourg: Triibner, 1914).
1. JJ. Stamm, Beitrdge zur hebrdischen und altorientalischen Namenkunde
(OBO, 30; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), esp. pp. 31-43.
2. Ahlstrom, Psalm 89, pp. 163-73. See also I. Engnell, Studies in Divine
Kingship (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1943), pp. 176-77.
3. The error resulted from the confusion of w and y, a very common occurrence.
See Tov, Septuagint, p. 197 and McCarter, Textual Criticism, p. 47 for examples.
4. See Stamm, Beitrdge, pp. 26-29 for a synopsis of views on the name David,
and more recently, A. Carlson, 'ddvidh', in TDOT, III, pp. 157-59, with extensive
bibliography. Stamm suggests that in light of the comparative evidence, the name
ought to be translated 'kinsman'. M. Noth (Die israelitischen Personennamen im
Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928],
pp. 183 n. 4, 223), interprets ddwid as a form paralleling yedldydh (fromydd, 'to
love', cognate to Arabic wadda}. Thus, he would translate the name 'beloved'.
G.B. Gray (Studies in Hebrew Proper Names [London: A. & C. Black, 1896],
p. 83) argued that daw id originally read dod with the sense of 'paternal uncle'. The
129
Yahweh, as the Israelite names indicate, why translate it as 'kinsman'?

Why not 'beloved'? After all, both meanings are known for the
common noun dod in biblical Hebrew.1 There are convincing reasons
for translating dod as 'kinsman' when it is used as a divine epithet.
Kinship epithets for Yahweh are very common in the Israelite
onomasticon. Examples include 'ab, 'ah, 'dm and dod. The same set of
kin epithets are used (of deities) in personal names elsewhere in the
Semitic world. Particularly instructive is the use of the epithet 'dm
(<*'amm-) 'kinsman' (probably 'paternal uncle'), a term possibly
synonymous with dod.2 An examination of these and other kinship
epithets in Israelite, Amorite, North Arabic and Old South Arabic
names leads to the conclusion that 'kinsman' is the most appropriate
translation of dod when it is used in Semitic personal names as a
divine epithet.3 In fact, in certain pre-Islamic Arabian dialects, dad,
the equivalent of Hebrew dod, means only 'kinsman' and never
'beloved'; it is used as a theophoric element in names analogous to the
use of epithets like 'amm and hdl ('maternal uncle').4
It is widely recognized among scholars that various kinship epithets
were employed for Yahweh in Israel. One of the most important titles
of this type is 'dm. The common noun 'dm means 'people', 'army',
'tribe', (Judg. 5.18; 2 Sam. 19.41), or 'kin group'. It probably means
tradition in Samuel unambiguously ties the name to 'love': 'David' is a 'man after his
(Yahweh's) own heart' (1 Sam. 13.14: biqqeS Yahweh 16 'is kilbdbo).
1. Lev. 10.4; 20.20; 25.49; Amos 6.10; 1 Sam. 14.50 for dod as a common
noun meaning 'kinsman', 'paternal uncle'. The fern, form dodd, 'aunt', is found in
Lev. 18.14; 20.20; Exod. 6.20. See the very thorough and excellent treatment of
dod I dad in Hebrew and other Near Eastern literatures by J. Sanmartin-Ascaso
('dodh', in TDOT, III, pp. 143-56 with extensive bibliography).
2. A thorough and recent study of Hebrew 'dm and its Semitic cognates is
R.M. Good's The Sheep of His Pasture, A Study of the Hebrew Noun 'Am(m) and
its Semitic Cognates (HSM, 29; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). 'Amm and dad
are parallel kinship terms in pre-Islamic north Arabian dialects as well. In Amorite
personal names, the same appears to be true, as I shall argue. For north Arabic, see
Good, The Sheep of His Pasture, pp. 32-34.
3. For Ugaritic, see F. Grondahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit
(Studia Pohl, 1; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), p. 122. Only hypocoristica occur, and they are no help in determining meaning.
4. The element dd (*ddd) occurs in both north and south Arabic dialects in
personal names. In the north Arabic dialect Safaitic, *ddd occurs as a common noun
meaning 'kinsman'. See below for a detailed discussion.
130
'kinsman' as well, as in other languages, but all the extant examples of

this usage in Hebrew are in the plural and therefore somewhat
ambiguous. 1 The following are some examples of 'am used in
personal names as a divine epithet: rehab'dm,2 yarob'am,3 'ammi'el,
'ammisadday, 'amminadab, 'eli'am, 'ammizabad, >ani'am. In the
epigraphic corpus *'adon'am (with parallel *'adonyaw) is found in the
Samaria Ostraca;4 *'amsalom and *yarub'am are attested elsewhere.5
Clearly, in this Israelite context, the divine kinsman is Yahweh.6 In
Amorite of the eighteenth century BCE7 a series of similar 'ammnames are preserved paralleled by dad- names: 'aqbu-dadi II 'aqba'arnmu;* ayya-dadu II ayya-'ammu',9 dddiya II 'ammiya; dadi-yesu' II
1. As Good ('Am(m), p. 50) notes, the use of 'dm for an individual is limited and
idiomatic (he'dsep 'el-'ammayw and hikkdret me'ammdyw). See his discussion
(pp. 50-52, 85-92) where the assumption that the noun means specifically 'paternal
uncle' is criticized.
2. The parallel PN ^habydû) (1 Chron. 23.17; 24.21; 26.25) suggests 'dm of
i^hab'dm is a divine epithet and not the common noun 'people'. See also the
hypocoristica r*hob (2 Sam. 8.3, 12; Neh. 10.12); rahab (Josh. 2.1, 3; 6.17, 23,
25). In Job 11.10, the adjective ^hcba is used to describe God's greatness.
3. A jussive from rwb, a biform of the more common ryb, 'to contend', like
yerubba'al (Judg. 6.32, 'Let Baal contend'). See the K of Prov. 3.30 trwb (Q tryb)
and similar examples. Note the hypocoristica yeribay (1 Chron. 11.46) and ydrib
(1 Chron. 4.24; Ezra 8.16; 10.18), from ryb.
4. *'adon'am: SO 9.2; 10.2; 19.4. *'adonyaw: SO 42.3.
5. *yarub'am: see R. Lawton, 'Israelite Personal Names on Hebrew Inscriptions
Antedating 500 BCE', (PhD diss.; Harvard University, 1977), p. 29 with citations.
* 'amSaldm occurs in the Arad inscriptions (Lawton 'Israelite Personal Names, p. 40).
6. J. Tigay (You Shall Have No Other Gods. Israelite Religion in the Light of
Hebrew Inscriptions [Harvard Semitic Studies, 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986]
demonstrates just how rare are personal names in Israelite sources that contain demonstrably non-Yahwistic theophoric elements. On 'dm specifically, see p. 78 n. 24.
7. The most comprehensive treatments are I.J. Gelb, Computer-Aided Analysis of
Amorite (AS, 21; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) and H. Huffmon,
Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1965). See also M. Noth, 'Mari und Israel: Eine Personennamen Studie', in
Geschichte und Altes Testament (A. Alt zum siebzigsten Geburtstag) (BHT, 16;
Tubingen: Mohr, 1953), pp. 127-52.
8. 'aqba/u: *'qb, 'to watch' or 'to protect'. See Huffmon, Names, pp. 203-4 for
examples, bibliography and discussion.
9. ayya-'abum, ayya-sumu-'abim, ayya-hdlu, ayya-ma-'ilu (AN), ayya-la-sumu
are also attested. Huffmon, Names, pp. 21, 102-104, 161. In Ugaritic, 'ay'ab and
131
'ammi-yesu'1 and so on. The Amorite element 'amm- (orthographic

hamm-) is always distinguished in the Mari texts from dam.2 The
elements 'amm-, dad-,'ab- 'ah-, are never marked with DINGIR, in
contrast to the proper names of certain gods: ddagan, dlM (= addu)?
Other kin names in Amorite use the familiar terms 'ab-, 'ah-, sumu
(= WS *simu/sumu)4 as well as hdl ('maternal uncle').5 The divine
kinsman in question is often El, as the following names suggest: hdlima-'ilu (AN), 'ammu-'ilu (AN), hatni-'ilu (ANI).6 Similar names
occur with other theophoric elements: fammu-ddagan, hdli-daddu (IM).
From these data, one may conclude that kinship epithets for gods were
'ay'ah occur. Compare biblical 'izebel (more properly *'ayzubuH)See Albright,
'Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century
BC', JAOS 74 (1954), pp. 225-26, for a discussion of this common interrogative
name type. The particles la and ma are emphatic.
1. e-Su-uh, *yt', Hebrew ys' 'help'. In Amorite names, yeSu' is a theophoric
element. These names mean 'Yesu' is the kinsman'. (Compare 'ili-yeSu'. Huffmon,
Names, p. 215). The vocalic endings in nominal sentence names are a long-standing
crux. How the i of a name like dddi-yesu' is to be taken is debated. Are the vowels
helpers, pronouns or case endings? Noth ('Mari und Israel', pp. 136-38) argues that
they are helping vowels, and this seems the most likely explanation. For more
discussion and bibliography, see Huffmon, Names, p. 104-17.
2. dam is a divine name, which Gelb argues is most likely derived from *ham-,
'father-in-law' (I.J. Gelb, Glossary of Old Akkadian [Materials for the Assyrian
Dictionary, 3; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957], p. 43 and 'La lingua
degli Amoriti', in Atti della Accademia Nazionale del Lincei, Rendiconti della Classe
de Scienze morali, storiche efilologiche [Series 8, 1958], 13.3.3.8.2.4). dam should
not be confused with 'amm- (orthographic hamm-). In Amorite, they are always
distinguished. Also, 'amm- is never marked with mimation, in contrast to dam. In
Amorite, initial *' is sometimes written h, sometimes not. Huffmon points out that
the Mari scribes utilized this particular convention to distinguish dam from 'amm(Names, p. 166). 'amm- is a divine epithet used of a number of gods.
3. Also dam, drasap. Not all god names are marked with DINGIR.
4. Sumu I samu names are relatively common at Mari. Some attested names are
samu-'ila, samu-ddagan, samu-daddu (IM), sumu-'ila, sumu-'ammu, ayya-la-sumu,
sumu-rapi, sumu-ISDAR.
5. hali-ma-'ilu (AN), hali-daddu (IM), halu-rapi, 'abu-halum, ayya-halu, 'ammuhalum. The word occurs as a common noun in Syriac, Old South Arabic, Arabic and
Akkadian.
6. As pointed out by Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 14. Hatn- is yet another term of
kinship, perhaps 'son-in-law'. See Hebrew hatan. The following names occur at
Mari: hatni-daddu (IM), hatni-'ilu (AN), hatni-ddagan, hatni-samas, hali-hatnu.
132
very common among the Amorites of Mari, but not restricted in usage
to any single deity. Among these epithets was dad, the equivalent of
Hebrew dod. Many of the dad- names are paralleled directly by names
with 'amm-, hdl, 'ab-, 'all- and hatn-, suggesting that dad- should be
taken as 'kinsman' and not 'beloved'. The Amorite evidence nowhere
suggests the existence of a god called dadu; none of the kin epithets
are ever marked with DINGIR, and numerous names combining a
god's name with the epithet dad- occur. In the Hebrew onomasticon,
dod names are paralleled by other kinship names with 'am, 'ah, and
'ah suggesting 'kinsman' as the most appealing translation, as in
Amorite. Israelite names indicate that Yahweh is the divine kinsman.
Nowhere is there evidence that dod is the personal name or epithet of
another deity.
Evidence from the onomasticon of pre-Islamic Arabia helps to
buttress this interpretation of dod. Here, kinship names are also
common, as in Northwest Semitic dialects, but there is less ambiguity:
dad means 'kinsman' (and never 'beloved') in dialects such as Safaitic
where it appears as a common noun as well as a theophoric element in
personal names. The name *dad'il occurs in Safaitic; in Thamudic, the
names *dad'il, *'abdad, and *'amm'il are found. In the South Arabic
dialect Sabean, *dadkarib, *'abkarib, *'ilkarib, *'ammkarib, and
*karib'il all occur. Thus, dad- names in pre-Islamic Arabian dialects
are common and relatively unambiguous: they are names where the
theophoric element expresses kinship, paralleled by other such names,
as observed in Hebrew and Amorite. Once again, the evidence
indicates that dad- is a divine epithet, but not the proper name of a
deity.1 The hypothesis that dod is the name of an Israelite deity other
than Yahweh has been presented in a number of different forms.
H. Ringgren, for example, states that 'Dod may well have been a god
of love and fertility, whose name is found in cuneiform texts as dadi\
and that dodi of Cant. 5.10 may be an allusion to this god. However,
1. Further examples include Minean ddd'ab; Qatabanian and Hadrani ddd'il. See
G.L. Harding, An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and
Inscriptions (Near and Middle Eastern Studies, 8; Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1971), pp. 236-37; A. van den Branden, Les inscriptions thamoude'ennes
(Louvain: Bureaux du Museon, 1950), pp. 519, 525, 540; C. Conti Rossini,
Chrestomathia arabica meridionalis epigraphica (Rome: Istituto per 1'Oriente, 1931),
p. 125; G. Ryckmans, Les noms propres sud-semitiques, I (Bibliotheque du
Museon, 2; Louvain: Bureaux du Museon, 1934), p. 65.
133
Ringgren rejects as doubtful the supposed relationship of dod and the

name dawid, and the assumption that dod was the son of Yahweh, a
dying and rising figure.1 Ringgren translates dod as 'a young god'.2
Others, including I. Engnell and G.W. Ahlstrom, go much further
with this theory, arguing that dod is a dying and rising vegetation
deity, the son of Yahweh.3 This argument is based on the supposed but
unsubstantiated existence of a god dddi in Akkadian texts, and a
number of scholars have opposed this.4 A second foundation for this
argument is the uncertain reading of Mesha 12 (KAI 181) 'ry'l dwdh,
which Ahlstrom argues is 'obviously' to be taken as the name of
another Israelite god, though this is hardly the case.5 Finally, the
1. Ringgren, Israelite Religion, p. 97.
2. Ringgren, Israelite Religion, p. 264.
3. Ahlstrom, Psalm 89, pp. 163-73. Engnell (Studies in Divine Kingship,
pp. 176-77), argued that dod was an appellative or proper name of the vegetation
god 'corporalized in the king', Its use in the Bible is as a title for the king. The title
dod was mediated, according to Engnell, by the supposed Jebusite priesthood of
Jerusalem. The superscription Idwd in the Psalter is understood in light of this
assumption. There are many problems with Engnell's formulation, and these are
shared by Ahlstrom's. There is no evidence for Engnell's god dod, or its presumed
connection with the royal house; in addition, the Jebusite hypothesis must be
rejected. On the problems inherent in the Jebusite hypothesis, see my article 'Zadok's
Origins and the Tribal Politics of David', JBL 101 (1982), pp. 177-93.
4. Sanmartin-Ascaso ('dodh', pp. 143-46), discusses the problems involved in
this hypothesis as does W. Moran in his review of Ahlstrom's Psalm 89 (Biblica 42
[1961], p. 239).
5. Ahlstrom, Psalm 89, p. 164. First, the reading is not certain because it occurs
only once and on the squeeze, not on the preserved part of the stone. Second, the
context is itself obscure. There is no agreement on how to interpret 'the ariel of his/its
dawd (?)' (see KAI, II, p. 175). The ariel is probably a part of an altar. The
presence of a w suggests the vocalization *dawd or *dawld; an internal mater
lectionis w is unlikely in this period, though recent data suggest the sporadic use of
internal matres after about 700 (see Arad 24; 40). The presence of a pronominal
suffix probably eliminates the possibility that dwd could be read as a personal name
of a deity. Personal names in Hebrew are not known to take pronominal suffixes,
and the dialect of the Mesha stone is very close to Hebrew. G.R. Driver ('Reflections
on Recent Articles', JBL 73 [1954], p. 125) argued that names in Hebrew can take
suffixes, because this is posible in other Semitic languages. Similarly, L. Delekat
('Yaho-Yahwae und die alttestamentlichen Gottesnamenkorrecturen', in G. Jeremias
et al. (eds.), Tradition und Glaube. Das fruhe Christentwn in seiner Umwelt.
Festgabefur K.G. Kuhn [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971], pp. 66-67)
134
emendation ddk in Amos 8.14 is cited in support of this hypothesis.

Thus, based on unsubstantiated Akkadian evidence, an ambiguous
reading in Mesha 12 and a tendentious interpretation of an emended
Amos 8.14, Ahlstrom concludes 'wir miissen also mit der Verehrung
einer Gottheit Dwd in Israel rechnen, aber wie allgemein diese
gewesen ist, la'sst sich nicht mit Bestimmtheit sagen'.1 Other scholars,
without much or any argumentation, read dod in Amos 8.14 and
translate it 'beloved' or 'darling' (Liebling, Freund, Geliebter) or
even 'protecting deity' (Schutzgott), assuming the existence of a god
Dod; still others translate it 'beloved' but insist that it is an epithet of
Yahweh.2
The thesis is difficult to accept for a number of reasons. W. Moran,
in his 1961 review of Ahlstrb'm's Psalm 89, pointed out the various
methodological problems in Ahlstrom's treatment.3 Moran argued that
Ahlstrom did not pay sufficient attention to the evidence of Amorite
names and did not take into account the common meaning of dod/dad
in a number of Semitic languages ('kinsman'). Moran and others have
pointed out the difficulties involved in arguing for a god dddi in
cuneiform sources.4 In a name such as dadu-sin, Sin is obviously the
and M. Rose (Jahwe, Zum Streit urn den alttestamentlichen Gottesnamen [Zurich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1978], pp. 28-29) have argued for a Moabite example of a
suffix on a proper name in the case of yhwh in the Mesha stone. That the tetragrammaton is involved here, and not *yahu + suffix, seems relatively sure,
especially in light of the late ninth-century attestation of the full form yhwh at
Kuntillet Ajrud. The argument of Delekat and Rose is based on analogy with dwdh in
line 12, where it is asumed that dwd is a proper name. Against Rose and Delekat, see
J.A. Emerton, 'New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions
from Kuntillet Ajrud', ZAW 94 (1982), p. 14. The word dwd in Mesha 12 is most
likely an epithet of Yahweh.
1. Ahlstrom, Psalm 89, pp. 164-65.
2. See the bibliography in note 3, pp. 122-123.
3. Moran, Biblica 42 (1961), pp. 237-39.
4. The existence of a god dud-ldad- is based on an analysis of the Akkadian
onomasticon, and here caution is necessary, dad means 'beloved' as a common
noun, and can be used in names with a similar meaning. Samsuiluna is called 'the
beloved of Samas and Aya' (da-ti dUTU ti da-a; CT 37, 3, ii, 63). Sumerian ddada/ddu-du came to be identified with Akkadian deities, da-da is identified with
Akkadian Adad, Ninurta, and Etallak; du-du is interpreted as an epithet of Marduk,
the 'leader' of the gods (muttarrti. Hani). See K. Tallqvist, Akkadische Gotterepitheta
(Symbolae osloenses, 7; Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1938), pp. 278, 283,
135
divine name and dddu the epithet. The hypocoristica of Old Assyrian
and Babylonian names with dad- are insufficient evidence on which to
posit the existence of a deity.1 In light of the onomastic evidence from
Mari, later West Semitic and pre-Islamic Arabian sources, the
Akkadian names with the element dad- are best understood similarly:
dad- seems to function as an epithet of deity, and cannot be taken as a
divine proper name.2 Furthermore, arguments that a god Dod was
worshiped in Israel ought to be criticized in light of Israel's own
onomasticon (*dodiyahu, *dodiyah: 'Yahweh is my kinsman'). There
is no evidence whatsoever for a Tammuz-like deity called Dod in
Israel, though weeping for Tammuz himself is mentioned in
Ezek. 8.14. Finally, personal names in biblical or epigraphic Hebrew
are not known to take pronominal suffixes. In Amos 8.14, the
emended text reads dodeka, 'your dod'', Mesha 12 reads something like
*dawduh/-ah(c>), 'his/its dawd'. To argue that these are examples of a
deity's proper name goes beyond all the linguistic evidence; on the
other hand, an epithet like 'kinsman' can take a suffix comfortably. In
the end, one must agree with Stamm's assessment of the evidence:
'nimmt man sie an so ware im iibrigen dod nur als verselbstandigtes
Beiwort eines Gottes und nicht als Eigenname eines solchen
erwiesen.3
421. In personal names, most occurrences of dad-/dud-excludethe god hypothesis,

as Sanmartin-Ascaso has pointed out ('dodh', pp. 145-46). Only where dad-ldud- is
the subject of a nominal sentence is it even possible that it is the name of a deity
(Nuzi dudu-abiiSu; A.A. MacRae, Semitic Personal Names from Nuzi [Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1943], p. 303). Yet far more common are the
hypocoristica from Old Assyrian, Mari, Nuzi, Ugarit, and Amarna, where the god's
name is commonly dropped, leaving only the predicate.
1. See the examples from Old Assyrian in F.J. Stephens, Personal Names from
Cuneiform Inscriptions of Cappadocia (New Haven: Yale University, 1928),
pp. 27, 31-32, 83.
2. In the case ofddduSa,a royal name in OB Esnunna, the possessor is Istar and
the referent the king.
3. 'If one accepts this, then dod would be shown to be established only as an
independent epithet of a god and not as a proper name of such.', Stamm, Beitrdge,
p. 32. Barstad (Religious Polemics, p. 192) objects to the emendation dod, arguing
that no such deity is attested; in addition, he finds the appelative usage problematic.
This he does not clarify, nor does he mention the relevant onomastic data from Israel
(dodiyahu / dodiyah), which establishes dod as an epithet of Yahweh.
136

II
The oaths in Amos 8.14 are taken by the god of Dan and (probably)
the kinsman of Beersheba. The pairing of Dan and Beersheba is
without doubt significant and an examination of the cultic traditions of
Dan and Beersheba helps to illuminate the two oaths. Excavation of
Beersheba in recent years has proved fruitful. Y. Aharoni and others
have brought to light a major fortified town of the period of the
monarchy.1 The mound on which the city was excavated measures
about two-and-a-half acres (ten dunams), and is located to the east of
the present-day town of Beersheba. Evidence of occupation preceding
the walled,2 tenth-century royal city indicates that a village existed on
the site in the eleventh century; settlement there may go back as far as
the thirteenth century.3 A large, horned altar for burnt offerings was
unearthed in a dismantled state in the walls of a storehouse structure.
The altar suggests the existence of the major cult center and pilgrimage shrine which scholars had guessed was there on the basis of
biblical evidence.4 Aharoni argued that the large building (17 x 19 m)
with deep basements near the gate was the temple,5 and that the altar
was dismantled during the reform of Hezekiah, and used as repair for
the storehouse wall. In contrast, Y. Yadin argued that this building
was not a temple; he believed that Beersheba's cult place was probably
an outdoor sanctuary without a building proper.6 In sum, recent
1. Y. Aharoni, 'Beersheba, Tel', in M. Avi-Yonah (ed.), Encyclopedia of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4 vols.; Englewood Cliffs NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1975), I, pp. 160-68; and Beer-sheba. I. Excavations at Tel Beersheba, 1969-71 Seasons (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology; Tel Aviv: Tel
Aviv University, 1973); and 'Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba. Preliminary Report of
the Fifth and Sixth Seasons, 1973-74', Tel Aviv 2 (1975), pp. 146-68; and see the
convenient synopsis in B. Boyd, 'Beersheba', IDBSup, pp. 93-94.
2. Archaeologists unearthed a solid wall (level V) which has been dated to the
tenth century and was used up to the beginning of the ninth. A second, casemate wall
followed (level III) in the ninth century.
3. See Aharoni, 'Beersheba, Tel', p. 162 and 'Preliminary Report', p. 151.
4. Aharoni, 'Preliminary Report', pp. 154-56 and The Horned Altar of Beersheba', BA 37 (1974), pp. 2-6.
5. Aharoni, 'Preliminary Report', pp. 160-63.
6. Y. Yadin ('Beer-sheba: The High Place Destroyed by King Josiah', BASOR
222 (1976), pp. 5-17), argues against Aharoni on this identification. There is,
137
archaeological research has brought to light a large, fortified city of

the monarchic period, preceded by an unwalled settlement which in its
earliest form may date back to the thirteenth century. The royal city
was a major cult center until the time of Hezekiah (c. 715-687), as
biblical evidence had led scholars to believe.
How old is the sanctuary itself? This cannot be answered with any
precision. The JE narrative attributes its foundation to Isaac
(Gen. 26.23-25) and to Abraham (Gen. 21.33),1 and an archaic El
epithet ('el 'olam) is connected by the Yahwist to the sanctuary
(Gen. 21.33).2 These cult traditions must have preceded and probably
according to Yadin, no evidence that Beersheba had an actual temple building,
though there may have been an outdoor sanctuary where the altar was utilized. Yadin
identifies building no. 430 near the city gate as a possible storehouse for the
sanctuary and its personnel.
1. Variant traditions of Beersheba's cult are associated with the patriarchs
(Abraham and Isaac) in J, and this suggests that these traditions must go back to the
oral stage of the epic (that is, pre-united monarchy). It seems very likely that
Beersheba's cult preceded the building of the large, walled city of the tenth century.
On the 'epic', see P.M. Cross, 'The Epic Traditions of Early Israel: Epic Narrative
and the Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions', in R.E. Friedman (ed.), The
Poet and the Historian (Harvard Semitic Studies; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983),
pp. 13-39, esp. p. 20. M. Noth (A History of Pentateuchal Traditions [trans.
B.W. Anderson; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981], pp. 38-41), identified a
Grundlage (his 'G') of J and E. This term does not, however, emphasize sufficiently
the originally oral nature of the material mediated through J and E. I am not
convinced by recent revisionist work on the date of J and the nature of E. For a
review of this scholarship, see D.A. Knight, 'The Pentateuch', in D.A. Knight and
G.M. Tucker (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters (Chico, CA:
Scholars Press/Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 274-75, 279-83.
2. Some have argued that Gen. 21.33 is part of the Elohistic narrative preceding
it. See for example Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, pp. 35 and n. 130,
264, who argues that 'Yahweh' in v. 33 is 'superfluous'. H. Gunkel (Genesis
[HAT, 1.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917], p. 235-36) saw this
passage as part of the cult legend of Beersheba. The site is holy to later Israel 'weil
Abraham doit den Kult gestiftet hat'. The passage is, correctly in my view, attributed
to the Yahwist by Gunkel. C. Westermann (Genesis, II [BKAT, 1.1; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981], p. 424), notes that v. 33 represents a break
with the preceding material, yet he claims that Abraham is in no way portrayed as the
founder of a cult (pp. 427-28); this claim is not convincing. See also E. Speiser,
Genesis (AB, 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), p. 158, who attributes the
verse to J.
138
stimulated the building of the major monarchic-era shrine in

Beersheba; the doublet in the Yahwist's account points to earlier,
premonarchic oral variants concerning the cult's founding. Such
archaic traditions must have led to Beersheba's rise to prominence as a
pilgrimage center in the period of the monarchy. Its importance as a
monarchic pilgrimage shrine cannot be explained only by the presence
of a large cult center; the legend presumably precedes the shrine. At
the same time, the earliest settlement at this site dates from the
thirteenth-twelfth century. It is at this time, when the site was settled
by Israelites, that the patriarchal well and cult traditions probably
came to be associated with Beersheba.1 Beersheba's lasting links with
the north throughout the period of the divided monarchy is an
indicator of its importance in the era of the united monarchy as a cult
center and pilgrimage destination.2 It is evident from epigraphic and
biblical sources that pilgrims from the Kingdom of Israel continued to
come south through Judah, possibly to Sinai-Horeb by way of
Beersheba. The inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud, perhaps a waystation on the road to Sinai-Horeb, suggest the presence of
northerners.3 The Elijah story (1 Kgs 19.8) portrays Beersheba as the
last urban stop on the way to the mountain. This is where Elijah left
his servant before entering the wilderness.
After examining Beersheba's cultic traditions, I turn to those of the
northern royal sanctuary of Dan, since the parallel oath in Amos 8.14
is by the god of Dan. Like Beersheba in the far south, Dan was a
major Yahwistic pilgrimage shrine in the period of the monarchy,
1. G. Anderson, 'Beersheba and the Patriarchs: An Archaeological Contradiction
Reconsidered', (revised seminar paper, Harvard University, 1984), points out that
archaeological evidence can tell us little or nothing about Beersheba's cult before the
Iron II installation unearthed by Aharoni, but admits the possiblity that the cult there
dates back to an earlier time, since this is the usual pattern with sanctuaries (see the
case of Tel Dan). On the well of Beersheba, see Aharoni, 'Nothing Early and
Nothing Late: Rewriting Israel's Conquest', BA 39 (1976), p. 71.
2. See 1 Kgs 19.3; Amos 5.5; 8.14.
3. Here one finds blessings by Yahweh (the one of) Samaria and his/its asherah,
dated on paleographic grounds to c. 800 BCE; names with the divine element yaw, a
North Israelite theophoric form known from the Samaria Ostraca, a corpus nearly
contemporaneous with the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions; and a cursive script
remarkably similar to that of the Samaria Ostraca. See further my Asherah and the
Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS, 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 32-33.
139
with ancient cultic traditions. In Judges 17-18, the founding of the

cult at Dan is traced to the Danite migration in the pre-monarchic
period.1 Excavations at Tel Dan suggest that the Israelite sanctuary is
at least as old as Jeroboam I and perhaps older.2 That Jeroboam's
cultic reform was thoroughly Yahwistic and even conservative is
difficult to dispute. Even the deuteronomistic polemic against
Jeroboam and his reform cannot conceal his real motives: 'You have
gone up to Jerusalem long enough' (1 Kgs 12.28). As a number of
scholars have pointed out, Jeroboam's choice of Dan and Bethel as
royal sanctuaries at either end of his kingdom was an ingenious
attempt to divert pilgrims away from Jerusalem; it also helped to
strengthen his newly established monarchy and assure its political and
cultic autonomy from Jerusalem. Jeroboam chose two old and venerable sanctuaries for his national cult.3 Just as David established a new
royal cult center in his new capital and gave it legitimacy by bringing
the ark of the covenant there, so Jeroboam followed suit; old
traditions were employed in order to achieve legitimacy, but royal
control was established to consolidate power.4 The bull icons which
Jeroboam placed in the sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel served as
pedestals of deity; they were thrones for Yahweh, an alternative and
1. For discussion of Judg. 17-18, see B. Halpern, 'Levitic Participation in the
Reform Cult of Jeroboam I', JBL 95 (1976), pp. 36-37; F. Dumermuth, 'Zur
deuteronomistischen Kulttheologie und ihren Voraussetzungen', ZAW 70 (1958),
pp. 59-98. Verse 31 makes a point of establishing the Danite shrine with its icon in
the time of Shiloh. Verse 30, the genealogy of the Danite priesthood, reads as a post722 gloss on the text, with its doublet in v. 33.
2. A. Biran, 'Tel Dan', BA 37 (1974), pp. 26-51, and 'Dan', IEJ 19 (1969),
pp. 240-41. The Israelite sanctuary is on the northwest corner of the mound. There
are two layers there: a tenth-century layer which was destroyed and a later one built
over it. The second stage of the sanctuary is characterized by header-stretcher
masonry comparable to that of Megiddo and Samaria. An earlier shrine may have
existed on the same locale as the Israelite high place. Judges 17-18 claim that the cult
center at Dan is older than the period of the united monarchy.
3. Many scholars have discussed this. See for example Cross, Canaanite Myth,
pp. 73-75, 197-200; J. Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1976), pp. 217-18; and de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 332-36, 540-43. For
Bethel's ancient cultic traditions, see Gen. 28.
4. As pointed out by Bright, A History of Israel, pp. 217-18; S. Herrmann,
A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975),
pp. 162, 194-95, and others.
140
rival iconography to Jerusalem's cherubim, but also archaic and

venerable, as Judges 17-18 emphasize, and extra-biblical evidence
makes clear.1 As Cross has argued, it would make no sense for
Jeroboam to innovate in his religious reform, considering the
precarious state of his new kingdom.2 Even in the polemic of 1 Kings
12 and Exodus 32,3 the shout hinnehl'elleh >eloheka yisrd'el 'a$er
he'elukd me'eres misrayim is a clear allusion to the saving acts of
Yahweh for Israel, though the verb, through polemical distortion, is
now in the plural. It is not very likely that Jeroboam would credit
some other deity with the fundamental act of Yahweh for Israel.4 I
cannot agree with S. Herrmann who argues that the choice of bulls for
the northern sanctuaries represented a gesture to 'dissident Canaanite
groups'. 5 The bulls must have been old Yahwistic icons. When
1. De Vaux (Ancient Israel, p. 333), points out that the sacred animalin this
case the bullis not the deity per se nor is it usually confused with the deity.
Confusion, nonetheless, is possible because of the close association of god and
symbol. In Canaanite religion, the bull can function as a throne of the storm god, and
as a symbol of his power. In certain contexts, the god can also take the form of his
sacred animal. Cross (Canaanite Myth, pp. 73-75), notes the dual associations of the
bull: on the one hand, it is a Baal symbol; on the other, it is associated with El who is
called 'the bull' in Ugaritic texts (*tpru). The bulls of Jeroboam's cult no doubt stem
from old El iconographic traditions rather than those of Baal. If the worship of Baal
had been instituted by Jeroboam, the Deuteronomists would surely have mentioned
this, as Cross has argued. The identification of El and Yahweh goes back to
Wellhausen. See the detailed case presented by Cross, 'Yahweh and the God of the
Patriarchs', HTR 55 (1962), pp. 225-59.
2. Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 74-75.
3. Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 198-99. See also the treatment of W. Beyerlin,
Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1965), pp. 126-33. G.W. Coates (Rebellion in the Desert [Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1968], pp. 184-91) and Noth (Exodus [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1962], pp. 243-52) attribute Exod. 32 to J; the allusions to Jeroboam's cult
suggest a date in the period of the divided monarchy for the final form of the
narrative.
4. Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 73-75. Cross points out that the cultic cry hinneh
>e
ldhekd yisra'el >aser he'elukd me'eres misrayim 'is a characteristic Yahwistic
confession', which must have been in the singular in its original form.
5. Herrman, A History of Israel, p. 195. What kind of gesture to such
'Canaanites' could this have been? The bull icons stood in Yahwistic sanctuaries.
Further, there is no evidence for the existence of 'dissident Canaanites' (or for
Canaanites as a concrete and distinct group from Israelites) in this period, though
141
evaluating the two oaths in Amos 8.14, the strong and ancient
Yahwistic lore associated with the pilgrimage shrines Dan and
Beersheba must be kept in mind, as well as their position as major
Yahwistic sanctuaries in the monarchic period.1
Ill
After examining the cultic history of Dan and Beersheba, one may
turn to the issue of pilgrimage in the book of Amos. The context of
the two oaths in Amos 8.14 is a section in vv. 11-12 concerning a
famine of the word of Yahweh. In v. 12, Israelites seek the word of
Yahweh all over the land but do not find it: \vena'u miyyam 'ad-yam
umis?apon we'ad-mizrah yesofûlebaqqes 'et-debar-Yahweh welo'
yimâ'u.2 The oaths of v. 14, which suggest pilgrimage to the far
north of Israel and to the deep south of Judah, fit well within the
conceptual framework of vv. 11-12. Verse 13, interrupting vv. 1112, 14, bears all the signs of an accretion.3 With the removal of v. 13,
many scholars still accept A. Alt's hypothesis about the continued existence of such
groups in the period of the divided monarchy ('Der Stadtstaat Samaria', in Kleine
Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III [Munich: Beck, 1953], pp. 258302). The Yahwist's notation in Gen. 12.6 (wehakkena'ant 'az bd'ares) implies that
there was no distinct group called 'Canaanites' in the land in his time (tenth century
BCE, with most scholars). Ibn Ezra noticed the problem this text posed for Mosaic
authorship, and advised silence on the issue, quoting Amos 5.13.
1. It is interesting to note that both Rashi and Qimhi argued that 'eldheka dan
refers to the calf set up by Jeroboam at Dan.
2. This activity is certainly the equivalent of pilgrimage. The four directions in
which the people wander are not entirely clear, due to the ambiguity of miyyam 'ad
yam. The versions are of little help here. The LXX reads mym erroneously as
*mayim, and hence the misinterpretation kai saleuthesontai hydata heds thalasses.
The Targum reads 'from the sea to the west and from the north to the east', taking the
second ym' as 'west'. The first ym' was left because the translators did not know
what to do with it. One would expect 'south' and 'west' in parallel with 'north' and
'east'. Rudolph (Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona,p. 267) argues that the Dead Sea is seen
here as the south border from the perspective of the Northern Kingdom and hence the
colon means 'from the south to the west'. J.L. Mays (Amos [OTL; Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1969], p. 149) claims the expression 'sea to sea' refers to the
Dead and Mediterranean Seas. Perhaps Wolff's suggestion is best: the expression
means 'from the farthest reaches of the earth' (see Joel 2.20; Zech. 14.8; Wolff, Joel
and Amos, p. 330).
3. Verse 13 reads, bayyom hahu' tit'allapnd habbetulot hayydpot vfhabbahurim
142
the text of vv. 11-12, 14 reads as follows:

hinneh ydmim bd'tm
ne'wn'addndy Yhwh
wehi$lahtfrd'db bd'dres
Id'-rd'db lallehem
welo' -sand' lammayim
ki 'im USmoa' 'et dlbr Yhwh1
Behold the days are coming
Says my lord Yahweh
When I will send a famine into the land.
Not a famine of food
Nor thirst for water
But of hearing the words of Yahweh.
wend 'u miyydm 'ad-yam
umissapon we'ad-mizrdh
ye$6ftti FbaqqeS
'et-dfbar Yhwh
welo' ylmsd'u. . . 2 (v. 13 omitted)
hanniSbd 'im bea$mat Sorrfron
we'dmeru?
hi >eldhkd dan
e
w M *dodekd be'er$cba'
They shall wander from sea to sea [?]
From the north to the east.
They shall run to and fro seeking
bassama'. This verse describes a literal thirst (sama')which causes the young men
and women to faint. It was originally independent of vv. 11-12, 14. The
introductory formula bayyom hahu' is one indication of this, and the content (literal
thirst) is another. The material in vv. 11-12 describe a metaphorical famine (a thirst
and hunger for the word of Yahweh). The occurrence of sand' in v. 11 explains the
attraction of v. 13; redactors noticed samd' in both, bringing them together.
1. The parallelism here is not thoroughgoing and often not apparent, with the
exception of the bicolon Id'-ra'ab lallehem II (we)ld'-sand' lammayim. For dibrt
Yhwh, the LXX reads the singular, as do the Vulgate and PeSifta; the plural in the
MT is the result of dittography.
2. Again, it is difficult at times to determine the division of cola, mostly due to a
lack of parallelism. The expression debar Yhwh must do 'double duty' in the last
bicolon, and even with this, it is still awkward.
3. This is clearly secondary and unnecessary following the prose introduction to
the two oaths.
143
The word of Yahweh

But they will not find [it]. ..
[That is,] those who swear by the transgression/
guilt of Samaria,
'By the life of your god, O Dan!'
'And by the life of your kinsman, Beersheba!'
Pilgrimage is a central theme elsewhere in Amos, including pilgrimage specifically to Beersheba. Other passages where pilgrimage is criticized help to illuminate the concerns of 8.14. One such passage is 5.4-5:
dirSuni wihyu
rf'al-tidfSiibet'ell
\^ haggilgal Id' tabo'A
ube'er$eba'ld'ta'abdru
ki haggilgal galdh yigleh
ubet-el yihyeh f'awen.1
Seek me and live!
Do not seek Bethel!
And do not enter Gilgal!
And do not cross to Beersheba!
For Gilgal will surely go into exile
And Bethel will become nothing.
Seeking Yahweh is contrasted with pilgrimage to these old Yahwistic

shrines. Similarly, in 4.4-5, pilgrimage to Bethel and Gilgal is called
transgression:
bo'ubet-'el upiS'u
haggilgal harbu lipSoa'
wehabtu labboqer zibhekem
liSloSetyamim ma'serdtekem
weqatter mehames todd
weqir'u rfdabot haSmt'u
ki ken >ahabtem bene yisra'el
ne'um'adanay Yhwh
Come to Bethel and transgress,
To Gilgal and multiply transgressions
Bring each morning your sacrifices,
Every third day your tithes.
1. Against Wolff (Joel and Amos, pp. 228, 239) and J. Morgenstern ('Amos
Studies IV, HUCA 32 [1961], p. 319), I argue Beersheba is original here. Simply
because it does not appear in 5b (the refrain) is not sufficient reason to delete it; the
refrain repeats only terms a and b.
144

Burn a thanksgiving offering from what is leavened,
And announce free-will offerings! Make them known!
For so you love to do, children of Israel,
Says my lord Yahweh.
Pilgrimage and ythe normal cultic rituals associated with it are called
transgression by Amos. Why is this the case? Amos 5.21-24 seems to
provide the answer:
sane'timd'asti haggekem
welo' 'ariah be'asserdtekem
ki'imta'alu-li'ol6t
wninhotekem
Id' 'erseh
we$elem nfrfekem
Id' 'abbit
haserme'alay hamon sireka
vfzimratrfbalekalo' 'eSmd'
weyiggal kammayim miSpat
usdaqd kenahal 'etdn
I hate, I despise your pilgrimages,
I do not delight in your sacred assemblies.
Though you send up to me burnt offerings,
And cereal offerings,
I will not accept them.
And peace offerings of your fatted animals,
I will not look upon.
Turn aside from me the din of your songs!
The melody of your harps I will not hear!
But let justice roll down as water,
And righteousness as a perennial brook!
The pilgrimage process and its outward acts of piety are rejected by
Yahweh if they are not accompanied by covenant behavior (justice and
righteousness).
In 4.4-5, pious acts related to pilgrimage are called transgression
(ps') and public emphasis on such acts is criticized ('Announce freewill offerings! Make them known!'). This is significant since the
message of Amos focuses on covenant behavior and its abuses: 2.6-8;
3.9-10; 4.1; 5.7, 10-15; 6.4-7, 12; 8.4-9. When taken in the context of
other pilgrimage passages in Amos, the oaths of 8.14 and their
negative evaluation make sense; they are Yahwistic, as are the shrines
Dan and Beersheba, yet the pilgrimages are criticized. Pilgrimage
145
without covenant behavior is derided elsewhere in Amos as

hypocritical Yahwism.1
Oaths are a standard component of the pilgrimage process.2 Hosea
4.15 relates oath-taking directly to pilgrimage:
'im zoneh 'attdyisra'el
'al-ye'Sam-fhtidd
v/'al-tabo'u haggilgal
vf'al-ta^lu bet 'awen
uf'al-ti$$abe'u hay-Yhwh
Though you are a harlot, Israel,
Let Judah not become guilty.
And do not come to Gilgal,
And do not come up to Beth-Awen,
And do not swear, 'By the life of Yahweh. .. '
Here, pilgrimage to Gilgal and Bethel is connected directly to oathtaking in Yahweh's name and criticized. The root "sm is employed
here as it is in the introduction to the oaths in Amos 8.14 (' asmat
sdmeron). The Judahites will become guilty by going on these
pilgrimages and swearing oaths. The two oaths in Amos 8.14 are not
complete; they are clipped, only the introductory formulae of a
typical oath. A common oath-type is one such as David swears in
1 Sam. 20.3: 'By the life of Yahweh and by the life of your soul,
there is but one step between me and death'. Amos 8.14 does not focus
on the content of particular oaths; its only interest is the formula
naming the deity. The oaths are meant to be exemplary of pilgrimage
oath-taking, with the paring of Dan and Beersheba suggesting the
1. Isa. 1.11-17 expresses similar sentiments: covenant behavior must come first.
See Wolff, Joel and Amos, pp. 218-20, for discussion of cult and covenant in Amos
4.4-5 ('What he has in mind here is probably the substitution of cultic offerings for
justice towards the oppressed'). For 5.21-24, see Joel and Amos, pp. 262-64, and
Kapelrud, Central Ideas in Amos, pp. 65-67. Kapelrud's discussion of Amos's
relationship to the cult is instructive (see pp. 68-78). He emphasizes Amos's close
and complex relationship to the cult, and points out that cultic context and
terminology are ever present in his oracles. See more recently, J.L. Crenshaw,
'Amos and the Theophanic Tradition', ZAW 80 (1968), pp. 203-15.
2. See Pope, 'Oaths', pp. 575-76, who discusses the relationship of oaths to
shrines and to the priesthood. The oath was often accompanied by a symbolic action
like the raising of the hand to heaven (Gen. 14.22; Deut. 32.4; Dan. 12.7).
Hos. 4.15 ties oaths and pilgrimage together.
146
whole Israelite community (north and south).1 Yahweh's name is

avoided in both oaths; in fact only epithets are used. The avoidance of
the divine name in the two oath introductions functions to underscore
the point of 8.11-12, 14: Yahweh is inaccessible to these pilgrims.
Were vv. 11-12 and 14 edited together secondarily?2 This is
certainly possible in light of the intrusive v. 13 and secondary v. 14d.
An editor, operating early in the transmission process of the Amos
material (presumably from Amos's 'school'),3 could well have
connected vv. 11-12, 14 because he felt that there was Yahwistic
pilgrimage concern in each. On the other hand, vv. 11-12, 14 may
belong together, having an original connection. This would be even
stronger contextual evidence for the Yahwistic concerns of v. 14.
There is no way in which to determine whether or not the oracle
material under discussion came originally from Amos.4 Even if this
1. The expression 'Dan to Beersheba' is used in the Hebrew Bible rhetorically to
indicate the whole of Israel and Judah: Judg. 20.1; 1 Sam. 3.20; 2 Sam. 3.10;
17.11; 24.2, 15; 1 Kgs 5.5; 1 Chron. 21.2; 2 Chron. 30.5. In the two passages in
Chronicles, the order is reversed.
2. Wolff (Joel and Amos, pp. 324-25) comments on such editorial introductions
as hinnehyamim ba'im ne'um '"dondy Yhwh (v. 11) and bayyom hahu' (v.13). He
argues against the authenticity of these oracles, yet I find his reasoning circular. How
can one know for certain what are the authentic words of Amos, and from there
determine what are not? One can, however, determine secondary editing of separate
traditions, without reference to the issue of authenticity.
3. For discussion of Amos's 'school' see Wolff, Joel and Amos, pp. 108-11.
Wolff is careful to note that 8.14 must be dated before 722 on account of the mention
of pilgrimages to Dan (326). This I shall discuss. He dates 8.11-12 to a later time
(326), on the grounds that the formula used to introduce the oracle (hinneh yamim
bd'im. ..) differs from the formulae of the Amos 'school', but this is hardly a
compelling argument.
4. See my comments in the two preceding notes. I find the arguments of
R.B. Coote (Amos Among the Prophets [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981]),
concerning the identification of original and secondary Amos material unconvincing.
He attributes the cultic-pilgrimage oracles to the Amos 'school' arguing that the
focus of Amos's message is social justice, and the place of concern Samaria (see
pp. 11-45). The B stage (Amos's 'school') material is concerned with (1) Bethel,
(2) the Succoth festival, and (3) the prophet himself. 'Bethel against Jerusalem' is
said to be the background of B. The B writer(s) view(s) Jerusalem as the only
legitimate pilgrimage sanctuary. 'The opposition of Jerusalem and Bethel was a
seventh-century issue, as the Deuteronomistic History makes clear' (pp. 48-52).
This analysis is unconvincing for the following reasons: (1) cultic concern and social
147
material comes from an Amos 'school', it is not much later in date

than the prophet's lifetime.1 The material in v. 14 should probably be
dated between the middle of the eighth century and the time of
Hezekiah (c. 715-687), who may well have dismantled the Beersheba
altar in his reform.2 Presuming that Dan ceased to function as a cult
site after 722,3 this moves the terminus ante quern up several decades.
justice issues cannot be separated in Amos, let alone in such a facile manner. Amos
5.21-24 makes this more than clear. Also, what of 8.10, where pilgrimage is
mentioned in the context of social justice? Coote identifies this passage as original.
(2) Concern for pilgrimage sites (including Gilgal, Dan and Beersheba along with
Bethel) other than Jerusalem is surely more than a seventh-century issue; the rivalry
between Jerusalem and Dan/Bethel must have hailed from the secession itself. It
seems that Amos's concerns about pilgrimage are tied to his concern for covenant
behavior. Centralization of the cult in Jerusalem is never discussed explicitly in
Amos, though it is possible that this is a background issue. Amos 1.2, mentioning
Jerusalem, is probably secondary. See Wolff, Joel and Amos, pp. 115-26; Coote,
Amos Among the Prophets, p. 52; Mays, Amos, p. 21. (3) My arguments for the
dating of 8.14 suggest that the material is pre-722. Coote does not deal with 8.14.
He himself admits the circularity involved in the identification of old Amos material
(p. 15).
1. Amos lived in the period of Jeroboam II (c. 783-48). The deuteronomistic
redactors of the book added the superscription in 1.1 making the date more precise
(Uzziah of Judah, Jeroboam of Israel, and an earthquake are mentioned). Most
scholars date Amos's appearance to c. 760. On the earthquake of c. 760, see
Y. Yadin et al., Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956
(Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1960), pp. 24-26, 36, 37.
2. See p. 136 n. 1 and following on Beersheba's altar and sanctuary. Aharoni
found similar evidence of an abandoned altar at Arad VIII, which he dated to the time
of Hezekiah on the basis of the pottery. See Y. Aharoni, 'Arad: Its Inscriptions and
Temple', BA 31 (1968), p. 26. The sanctuary at Arad appears to have continued to
function through the second half of the seventh century. Based on paleographic
considerations, P.M. Cross dated the two inscribed dishes found by Aharoni at the
foot of the sacrificial altar to the latter half of the seventh century. See the discussion
in 'Two Offering Dishes with Phoenician Inscriptions from the Sanctuary of
'ARAD', BASOR 235 (1979), pp. 75-78.
3. There is some evidence for this: Bethel remains as a functioning cult center after
the Assyrian conquest (2 Kgs 17.28) until the time of Josiah's reform (2 Kgs 23.1520); in contrast, Dan is never mentioned again. Josiah is said to have destroyed
Bethel and the high places, but even here Dan is not mentioned. One would think that
if Dan were still operating, the Deuteronomists might have had something to say
about it in 2 Kgs 23. However, one cannot be certain that Dan ceased to operate after
722, though the evidence suggests it.
148
Verse 14 suggests a pre-722 origin: the cult centers Dan and

Beersheba are still operating; pilgrimages to these sanctuaries are
undertaken; the sense of a community 'Israel' from the far north to
the far south is present. If vv. 11-12 form an original unit with
v. 14, as seems likely, the unit is probably to be dated before 722;
possibly, its provenance is Amos himself, but this can never be
determined with confidence.1
The crux 'asmat sdmeron in the introduction to the oaths remains
unsolved, though a number of suggestions have been proffered.2 Since
the god of Dan is certainly Yahweh, and the kinsman of Beersheba
(with this reconstruction) is to be understood in the same manner, is it
likely or even possible that 'asma should be emended either to *'aserd
or to *'a$ima', as some have suggested?3 Such an emendation would
1. There is no compelling reason to date vv. 11-12 later than v. 14. Against
Wolff (Joel and Amos, pp. 330-31).
2. Qimhi, who (like Rashi) understood the first oath to refer to the calf in Dan,
suggested that 'aSmat sorrfron referred to the calf in Bethel; he reasoned that Sonfrdn
is used because it was the capital of the kingdom and its kings maintained the cult at
Bethel.
3. Maag (Text, p. 55) and Neuberg ('Hebrew DOR', p. 215), argue for the
emendation '"ferd, as does Cross (oral communication, 1984). Asherah and her cult
symbol are neither a concern anywhere else in Amos nor are the two oaths associated
with her. For the emendation 'aSuna', see E. Osty, Amos. Osee (SBJ; Paris: Cerf,
1952); Ringgren, Israelite Religion, p. 264; M. Lubetski, '$M as a Deity', Religion
17 (1987), pp. 1-14, and Barstad, Religious Polemics, pp. 157-81 as well as the
RSV. Ashima is mentioned in 2 Kgs 17.30. Against this emendation see B. Porten,
Archives, pp. 175-76. Others have argued that the 'aSmd refers to the bull icons of
Dan and Bethel (see Sellin, Zwolfprophetenbuch, p. 259 and the previous note on
Qimhi). This interpretation is doubtful, though the mention of Dan in the first oath
lends some support to it. Bethel, however, is not mentioned in the second oath.
Nowhere in Amos is the bull iconography ever a concern as it is in the
Deuteronomistic History, even in passages where Bethel is the subject of criticism.
The versions tend not to lend support to any of these emendations. Only the PeSifta
reads 'idol' (ptkr')\ the LXX reads hilasmou Samareias ('guilt offering of Samaria');
the OLpropitiationem; Vg delicto; Tg hobo.' ('sin', 'guilt'). H.D. Preu0 argues that
8.14 concerns false Yahwism as opposed to worship of other gods. I disagree with
his assertion that the pilgrims involved in the Amos pilgrimage passages seek to place
Yahweh on a level with idol worship. There is no evidence for this (Verspottung
fremder Religionen im Alien Testament [BWANT, 5.12; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1971], pp. 118-119). Wolff (Joel and Amos, p. 332), has identified the localization
of Yahweh in particular cult places as the focus of 8.14, not the worship of other gods.
149
make no sense, since the two oaths are by Yahweh. If, for example,
'aSmd is emended to *'asima', one would expect the oaths to read *he
>a
simd\ ..; likewise if *'aserd is read in the introductory rubric, one
would expect the oaths to read *he 'aserd. ..Other oaths from the
Hebrew Bible illustrate this point. In 1 Sam. 28.10, the following is
stated: wayyissdba1 Id Sa'ul ba-Yhwh le'mor hay-Yhwh..., 'And
Saul swore to her by Yahweh saying, "By the life of Yahweh'". See
similarly 2 Sam. 14.11 and Dan. 12.7. One invokes the deity, and
swears ($>') by (fre)him; one would not swear by (be) Ashima or
Asherah and say 'By the life of your god, O Dan' unless this god of
Dan were Ashima or Asherah. For these reasons, the emendations
'a$ima' and 'aserd are unappealing.
The oaths in Amos 8.14 are critical of pilgrimage, presumably
without covenant behavior. In the introduction to a serious oath, one
expects Yahweh in place of ' asmd: *hannisbd'im ba-Yhwh
sdmerdn.. .Yahweh someron is a title now known from Kuntillet
Ajrud.1 Is the use of 'asmd here a literary device meant to disturb the
hearer/reader who expects the divine name or a familiar epithet in its
place? No one swears by a transgression, and here the crux remains.
Even if this is a dysphemism, it is anomalous and not easily understood. Elsewhere in Amos, these pilgrimages are equated with
transgression (ps'\ because of a lack of covenant behavior. Yahweh's
name, though suggested by the two oaths, is nowhere present in the
passage, and this is probably the main point. Pilgrims may seek
Yahweh from Dan to Beersheba but they will not find him.
1. In a number of blessings, Yahweh $dmeron occurs, as well as Yahweh

hatteman. See further Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, pp. 25-28, 32-33.
THE SPECTRUM OF PRIESTLY IMPURITY*

David P. Wright
But the firm apprehension of conceptions is clearly useless unless we
discriminate and distinguish them so that we can choose what we should
choose and avoid the contrary, and this distinguishing is symbolized by
the parted hoof. For the way of life is twofold, one branch leading to vice,
the other to virtue and we must turn away from the one and never forsake
the other. Therefore all creatures whose hooves are uniform or multiform
are unclean, the one because they signify the idea that good and bad have
one and the same nature,. . .the multiform because they set before our
life many roads, which are rather no roads, to cheat us, for where there is
a multitude to choose from it is not easy to find the best and most serviceable path, (Philo, Spec. Leg., 4.108-09).1
There was, certainly, in the minds of the prophets and Psalmists nothing
to connect the character of sin with that of levitical impurity, except that
the inward effect of the moral and religious contamination of the heart was
illustrated by the outward defilement of the body, and the estrangement
from God and His will by the physical separation from His Sanctuary, the
terms defile, unclean, polluted, uncleanness and filth being applied
figuratively to grave transgressions.2
Searching for a rationale of the priestly impurity laws in the Bible is a

never-ending project because, as in any hermeneutical enterprise, new
generations with new perceptions of the world (including theoretical
perceptions) require new explanations and because there are so many
* This paper was given its final form while on a Fulbright Scholar Award from
the United States-Israel Educational Foundation in Jerusalem, 1989-90. I was
helped in particular by comments and objections from J. Milgrom, I. Knohl, and
D. Patrick, whom I thank.
1. F.H.Colson (trans.), Philo, VIII (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1968).
2. A. Biichler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First
Century (New York: Ktav, 1967 [1928]), p. 237.
WRIGHT The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity
151
different ways to ask the question 'Why?'1 This paper continues the
search for rationales behind these laws by sorting out and classifying
the different kinds of impurity in the priestly legislation as it appears
whole before us in the Pentateuch.2 It proposes and describes, in the
first half, two main categories of impurities: tolerated and prohibited.
The former are those usually called 'ritual' impurities and are the
focus of the priestly (specifically P's) treatment of impurity. The
latter are impurities arising from sinful situations.3 The paper argues
1. One can consider, for example, synchronic or diachronic issues; latent versus
manifest meaning; and sociological, anthropological, political, psychological and
theological approaches and models. In seeking an explanation for the impurity laws
we should not be looking for the rationale, but the many rationales that exist
complementarily.
2. When referring to this entire body of legislation I will use the full adjective
'priestly' (lower case). I will use the sigla P and H when referring to the specific
'Priestly' (upper case) and 'Holiness' subtraditions or sources in the larger priestly
legislation. I agree with the recent work of I. Knohl ("HaShabat vehamo 'adot beToratKehuna uvekhuqe 'Askolat haQedusha', Shenaton 7-8 [1983-84], pp. 109-46;
cf. his doctoral work, 'Tefisat ha'elohut vehapulkhan beTorat Kehuna uve'Askolat
haQedusha [PhD diss.; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1988]) and Jacob Milgrom
(Leviticus, I [AB, 3; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, forthcoming]) that the H material
is later than that of P (see the excurses, 'An Exception', below), that it is much
broader than simply the so-called 'Holiness Code' in Lev. 17-26, and that it has its
own concerns which are not always concordant with P. The spectrum of impurity
drawn by this article is inherent in P (e.g., in Lev. 4-5; 11-16.28; Num. 19
[excluding Lev. 11.43-45; 12.8; 14.34-57; 15.31; 16.2bB; Num. 19.2a, 10b-13,
20-21a, all presumably, though not indisputably, H additions]). H's concerns about
impurity go in slightly different directions than P's, but do not deny the analysis of
impurity offered here; in fact, H makes aspects of this spectrum more explicit.
Though, as Knohl in particular stresses, we must think of H as a tradition rather distinct from P, we cannot forget that H does ultimately base itself on P and assumes
many of its concepts. This article explores some of the common denominators in P's
and H's conceptions of impurity.
3. Some have called the first type 'ritual', 'cultic', or 'levitical' impurities and the
second type 'moral' or 'religious' impurities (cf. Biichler, Studies, pp. 212-69),
though some have shown hesitation, particularly in speaking of biblical law, in using
the distinction of moral versus ritual since the Hebrew Bible does not clearly make
this distinction (cf. B.S. Childs, The Book of Exodus [OTL; Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1974], pp. 396, 477; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book
of Exodus [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967 {1951}], p. 238). These distinctions
may still be helpful in sorting out and looking at evidence when used with caution
(see the use of the terminology in fig. 1), but the problems must not be overlooked.
152
that the two types are systematically interconnected and illustrates this
by formulating a spectrum of graded impurity, ranging from least to
most severe. Realizing that the two kinds of impurity are parts of a
whole system becomes important for understanding the individual
function and character of the different types of impurities. The second
half of the paper discusses how the two types relate to one another and
shows, in particular, how the tolerated impurities may serve as a
means of supporting the larger moral order of society. In regard to
this last point, it should be kept in mind that a lack of evidence makes
explanation difficult. I have therefore used anthropological and
sociological models to 'see behind' the priestly evidence. We should
observe, moreover, that the priestly system of impurity and its larger
system (or systems) of religion are prescriptive rather than descriptive, which means there may be a certain amount of idealization in the
laws. Furthermore, priestly legislation as it stands may not describe a
system of religion that was actually practiced, in and of itself, in
history. It is perhaps to be considered a 'potential' system much like
that of Ezekiel 40-48.
Tolerated Impurities
This discussion about the spectrum of impurity in the priestly writings
has been summarized graphically in fig. 1. Reference to this chart will
aid in following this discussion and will display the graded affinity of
the various sorts of impurity in the priestly legislation. All the
impurities in the priestly writings can be sorted into two main classes:
tolerated and prohibited. Of the two, tolerated impurities are treated
in the most detail and mainly in Leviticus 11-16 and Numbers 19. It
should be noted at the outset that a small number of impurities
A careful examination of all impure situations in the priestly rules shows that even the
'moral' impurities are 'cultic' or 'ritual' in part. As we will see in this study, a sort of
pollution still arises from these conditions, which requires sacrificial rectification.
The term 'levitical' essentially means 'priestly' and hence confuses matters since
'moral' impurity is also a concern of priestly legislation. In other words, the priestly
moral impurity can be called 'levitical'. As for the term 'religious', it implies that the
so-called ritual impurities are not connected with religion, but are, perhaps, to be
described as 'magic' or by some other polemically unuseful term (cf. S.D. Ricks,
'The Magician as Outsider: The Evidence of the Hebrew Bible', in P. Flesher [ed.],
New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism, V [Lanham, MD: University Press of
America, 1990] pp. 125-34).
tolerated*
prohibited
(no distinction between unintentional

and intentional)
unintentional
intentional
no sacrifices
individual ad hoc
sacrifice
individual, sometimes
communal, ad hoc
sacrifice
Day of Atonement
sacrifices
pollution of person
pollution of sanctuary
[outer altar] and
person
[outer altar or shrine];
'ritual' personal pollution
if deriving from tolerated
impurity
[adytum, shrine, outer
altar], sometimes land;
'moral' pollution of
persons'; 'ritual' personal
pollution if from tolerated
impurity
potential removal from

life; restriction from
sanctuary and sacred, and
sometimes from habitation
[if communicable to
profane] if the sin derives
from a tolerated purity
removal from life: karet or

capital penalty; in some
cases exile; restriction
from sanctuary and
sacred, and sometimes
habitation if sin derives
from a permitted impurity
[until the penalty takes
effect]
non
communicable
to profane;
hence,
restriction only
from sanctuary
and sacred
communicable to profane; hence,

restriction from the sanctuary and
other sacred matters and
restriction from or within the
[profane] habitation
*Exception: prohibitions regarding consuming some impure meats and touching the carcass of a camel, hyrax, rabbit, or
pig are included in this category.
Figure 1: The Spectrum of Impurities
154
considered in this class are not actually permitted: eating or touching

some, but not all (see below), impure animal carcasses is prohibited.
These prohibitions are included in the tolerated class because, except
for their prohibited character, they are similar to the other, actually
tolerated impurities, and with them stand in contrast to the class of
prohibited impurity proper. A short excursus ('An Exception') following the discussion of tolerated and prohibited impurities in the first
part of this paper will give detailed reasoning for their inclusion in
this category. In view of this exception the denomination of this class
as 'tolerated' must be understood in a qualified sense.
Tolerated impurities may be sorted out into four classes:1
1.
Death related impurities: the human corpse (Lev. 10.4-5;

21.1-4, 10-12; 22.4-7; Num. 5.2-3; 6.6-12; 9.6-14; 19.1-22;
31.13-24) and animal carcasses (Lev. 5.2; 7.21; 11.1-47;
14.4; 17.15-16; 20.25-27; 22.8; 27.11, 27; Num. 18.15).
2. Sexual impurities: semen (Lev. 15.16-18), menstrual blood
(Lev. 15.19-24; 18.19; 20.18), a lochial discharge after birth
(Lev. 12.1-8), an abnormal genital discharge in a male
(Lev. 15.2-15; 22.4-6; Num. 5.2-3), and an irregular blood
flow in a female (Lev. 15.25-30).
3. Disease related impurities: not only the irregular genital
flows just listed, but also sara'at, so-called 'leprosy',2 which
appears in various forms or degrees: diagnosed or suspected
sara'at, in persons (Lev. 13.1-14.32; 22.4; Num. 5.2-3) or
in cloth or leather and houses (Lev. 13.47-59; 14.33-53).
4. Cultic impurities: hafta't sacrifice carcasses and blood
(Lev. 4.1-5.13; 6.20-23; 10.16-20; 16.11-20, 27-28; etc.),
the scapegoat (Lev. 16.8-10, 21-22, 26), the Red Cow, its
ashes, and the water of purgation made from the ashes
(Num. 19.7, 8, 10, 18, 21), and possibly the birds and blood
used in purification of sara'at impurity (Lev. 14.2-7, 49-53).
1. For details about these impurities see my book, The Disposal of Impurity
Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS,
101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987); 'Clean/Unclean, OT and 'Holiness, OT in the
forthcoming Anchor Bible Dictionary; and my articles in collaboration with
R.N. Jones, 'Discharge' and 'Leprosy' also in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.
2. For a discussion of the history and identification of the disease, see Jones and
Wright, 'Leprosy', ABD.
155
The impurities just enumerated are 'fathers of impurity' (to use the
rabbinic term; m, Kel. 1.1-4; Toh. 1.5). That is, they can generate
other impurity in persons and objects. Those suffering the foregoing
diseases or sexual impurities become impure. Furthermore, the
foregoing 'fathers' and most of those who suffer the sexual or disease
related impurities can pollute other profane (i.e. common, ordinary,
non-holy) objects and persons. This communicable impurity can go on
in some cases for anothereven two more1generations. In addition
to the fathers listed above, the following impurities are communicable: a corpse-contaminated person or object; a person suffering a
menstrual, lochial, or abnormal sexual discharge; a person who has
had intercourse with one of these sexually impure persons; an object
on which any of these sexually impure people (including one who has
had intercourse with the severely sexually impure) have sat or lain; a
person or object suspected or diagnosed as having $ara'at; and a
person in her/his seven day period of purification from $ara'at.
Figured together, all these communicable impurities can produce quite
a large number of impure conditions.2
Gradations of severity exist among the tolerated impurities.3 Two
main subdivisions appear. The first is along the lines of the presence
or lack of sacrificial requirements and corresponding loci of
pollution. Three of the tolerated impuritiesa lochial discharge, an
abnormal sexual discharge, and diagnosed $ara'at in humansare so
potent that they, according to what we learn from a study of the
system of hatta't sacrifices,4 not only bring defilement upon the person
1. For example, a person may become impure by touching a bed or chair upon
which a man sat who had had intercourse with a menstruant. For the deduction of
this chain, see my book, Disposal, pp. 189-92.
2. For detailed description and argumentation, see my book Disposal, pp. 179228.
3. One might make finer distinctions of gradations for these impurities based on
the method of purification (types of ablutions and types of sacrifices brought), the
length of impurity (e.g. one day, seven days, more than seven days), the manner a
given impurity pollutes the profane (by direct contact or being in the same enclosure),
and places to which communicable impurities are restricted. This detailed
examination goes beyond the goals of this paper.
4. For a discussion of the logic and system of hatta't sacrifices as it applies to
these cases and the other cases of the hatta't discussed below, including its use on
the Day of Atonement, see J. Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology
(SJLA, 36; Leiden: Brill, 1984), pp. 67-95. Works since have questioned this
156
suffering the impurity but also, indirectly and aerially from afar,
upon the sanctuary, specifically upon the outer altar. While various
ablutions remove the personal impurity, a hafta't sacrifice purifies the
altar.1 This offering is brought as soon as the impure condition has
been remedied or passed (hence the notation 'ad hoc' in fig. 1). The
other tolerated impurities do not pollute the sanctuary and hence
require no sacrifices. They simply require various ablutions to
remove personal impurity.
The other main subdivision of tolerated impurities is according to
their ability to contaminate other profane persons and objects. This
subdivision does not correspond to the foregoing subdivision based on
sacrifice: fewer impurities require sacrifice than are communicable2
(however, those that require sacrifice are communicable). The
communicability of impurity determines how these impurities are
treated with respect to the Israelites' place of habitation, a profane
area, that surrounds the sanctuary at its center. All impurity is
restricted from what is sacred (the sanctuary and sacred materials that
may be in the habitation, e.g. portions of lesser holy sacrifices taken
understanding of the hatta't , e.g., A. Marx, 'Sacrifice pour les peches ou rite de
passage? quelques reflexions sur la fonction du hatta't', RB 96 (1989), pp. 27-48;
N. Zohar, 'Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of ht't in
the Pentateuch', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 609-18; cf. also J. Gammie, Holiness in
Israel (Overtures to Biblical Theology; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 3741. Marx's proposal is interesting and can produce valuable insights into understanding sacrifice but it, wrongly in my view, separates the different contexts of hatta't
sacrifices too much from one another (especially the cases in Lev. 4 from those in
ch. 16). For the kernel of a refutation of Zohar's proposal, see my 'The Gesture of
Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and Hittite Literature', JAOS 106 (1986),
pp. 433-46.
1. Other, supplemental sacrifices are also brought in these three cases: a male lamb
or a bird for an 'old in addition to the hatta't bird in the case of a lochial discharge
(Lev. 12.6-8); a bird for an 'old in addition to the hatta't bird in the case of abnormal
sexual discharges (15.14-15, 29-30); a male lamb or bird for an 'old , a male lamb
for an 'd$am, and a cereal offering in addition to a female lamb or bird for a hatta't in
the case of sara'at (14.10-20,21-32). The requirement of a hatta't is the focus of our
attention since it is the main expiatory sacrifice. Ezekiel is more strict than priestly
legislation in requiring a corpse-contaminated priest to bring a hatta't (44.27).
2. Offerings are never brought for communicably impure objects; and a corpsecontaminated person, a person suspected of sara 'at, and presumably a person who
has had intercourse with the sexually impure personsall communicably impure
do not offer sacrifices.
157
home by the offerers from the sanctuary), but only communicable

impurity is restricted from the profane sphere in the habitation. Some
laws require the exclusion of this impurity from the area of the
habitation, while others seem to allow some communicable impurities
to remain within the habitation though under restrictions. The
rationale behind this seems to be that were communicable impurity
given free rein in the habitation, which is generally pure, other
impurities would be generated from the communicable impurity and
would threaten the sacred, either the sanctuary or the sacred things
that happened to be present in the habitation.1
With the survey of the range of tolerated impurities now complete,
it seems odd that these conditions would be allowed. There is more
than a slight sense of oxymoron present in the notion of 'permitted
impurity'. Impurity is a negative quality, a threat to what is holy, and
some of these conditions were surely considered quite abominable and
feculent. How can they be licensed? That they are tolerated is not due
to any positive character of the conditions themselves, but to necessity.
Many of the impurities are inescapable conditions, because of nature
or because of the context of Israelite and priestly religion. A law that
prohibited menstruation, the contraction of diseaseor death!
would make no sense. Moreover, priestly religion which commands
being fruitful, multiplying, and filling the earth (e.g. Gen. 1.28)
could not consistently prohibit seminal emissions and childbirth. The
context of Israelite society and living, too, would require others to
come into contact with these impurities to aid those who suffer
defilement and to clean up foulness and put it in its proper place (cf.
Lev. 10.1-7, esp. vv. 4-5). For these reasons these impurities cannot
be prohibited. But this is not all. The priestly rules even go as far as
to demand the generation of impurity in some casesthe cultic
impurities described aboveto eliminate other impurity. Thus,
despite the negative character of these impurities, they must be
allowed.
What further provokes conviction that these impurities are
generally allowed is that only a few conditions connected with
tolerated impurities are prohibited. Priests and Nazirites are
forbidden to become polluted by certain corpses (Lev. 21.2-4, 10-11;
Num. 6.6-8; this is due to the holy character of these persons), and
1. See my book, Disposal,pp. 163-247 for the details of these issues.
158
Israelites are prohibited from touching carcasses of the camel, hyrax,

hare, and pig and from eating the carcasses of impure animals
(Lev. 11.8 and throughout that chapter).1 But observe that these are
limited prohibitions: while a high priest and Nazirite are prohibited
from any corpse contamination and the regular priests from most
corpse contamination, the latter priests may become impure by
corpses of their immediate family members. Israelites, too, may touch
the carcasses of other animals that cause impurity by contact and eat
the carcassescalled impureof pure animals which have died of
natural causes or have been killed by beasts of prey (a priest is
prohibited from eating these particular carcasses; see Lev. 11.39-40
and passim; 17.15-16; 22.8; cf. Ezek. 44.31).2 Hence we see that
priestly law does not hesitate to make prohibitions in some instances,
but the prohibitions are limited. The other impure situations I have
been discussing, by implication, are allowed.
It should be said here that although these impurities are allowed,
they are not necessarily encouraged. The tenor of priestly legislation
indicates that these impurities are to be generated as infrequently as
possible. Thus I use the term 'tolerated' rather than a more neutral
term such as 'permitted'3 to indicate this reservation. Impurity
receives its dynamic definition in relation to the sacred: impurity is a
threat to the holy and contacts between these two spheres bring grave
punishments and effects. The priestly writers would naturally frown
on any unnecessary multiplication of impurity which might increase
the chance of the meeting of these two spheres. But it must be recognized that this implied discouragement is not equivalent to a
prohibition.
Prohibited Impurity
The other type of impurity (on the right side of the scale in fig. 1) is
prohibited impurity. The priestly writings give it less attention and
treat it in a less systematic fashion than tolerated purity, though
1. Another prohibition is not to have intercourse with a menstruant (15.24). Since
karet 'cutting-off (see p. 161 n. 1) is the penalty for this, it is not included in the
tolerated impurities (Lev. 18.19 and its context; 20.18).
2. Again, see below the excursus on the exception of the dietary laws among the
tolerated impurities.
3. I used the term 'permitted' in my article Two Types of Impurity in the Priestly
Writings of the Bible', Koroth 9 (special issue, 1988), pp. 180-93.
159
Leviticus 4 and 16 about the hatta't sacrifice do provide a large

window through which important features of the system may be
viewed. Prohibited impurity arises out of the mismanagement of
tolerated impurities or out of other moral and religious offenses. The
class can be divided into two subcategories depending on the presence
or lack of intention involved in the illicit act or situation. The issues
of sacrifice, personal and sanctuary pollution, and social restriction
issues we encountered in examining tolerated impuritiesare also
active in the cases of prohibited impurity. They will help us perceive
the difference in strength between prohibited impurities and will
reveal the essential connection of prohibited impurity to tolerated
impurity. The following examination of the clearest examples of
prohibitied impurity will show how these issues operate.1
Unintentional Prohibited Impurities
(1) Those who become defiled by impure objects, impure animal
carcasses, or by human impurities (apparently including a corpse),
and realize their impurity only after the period for purification has
passed, need to bring a hattat sacrifice (Lev. 5.2-3; cf. vv. 1-13; see
p. 165 n. 2). The warnings in Num. 19.13, 20 not to put off purification from corpse contamination and the warning in Lev. 17.16
about 'bearing (the consequence of) one's transgression' if one does
not purify from carrion contamination (v. 16; Lev. 11.39-40),
indicate further that delay from purification is prohibited. The types
of impurities explicit or implicit in Lev. 5.2-3 are tolerated
impurities which normally do not demand sacrifice. Inadvertently
delaying purification from these is forbidden and increases the
severity of the impurity's effect: it now affects not only the person,
but the sanctuary as well and sacrifice is needed. (2) A Nazirite is
prohibited from becoming corpse-contaminated (Num. 6.6-7). Should
this occur accidentally (bepeta' pit'om, v. 9; literally 'suddenly'), the
person must bring a hattat, an 'old, and an 'asam (vv. 10-12).2 Rules
1. The laws of homicide speak of pollution (Num. 35.33-35), but I have left this
out of consideration for reasons listed in my article Two Types', pp. 187-88.
Milgrom distinguishes between homicide, a case to be adjudicated by courts, and
purely religious or ethical commandments not subject to court judgment which are the
subject of the inadvertent sin and hatta't pericope in Lev. 4 (Leviticus, I, on
Lev. 4.2 the term 'commandments').
2. On the reason for the Nazirite's 'aSam, see J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience
160
of bodily purification from corpse contamination in Numbers 19

presumably also apply.1 (3) General inadvertent sins pollute the
sanctuary and require a hattat sacrifice (Lev. 4.1-5; Num. 15.22-29;
see p. 155 n. 4). The pollution occurs at two loci: if the sinner is an
individual or a community leader, the outer altar is polluted. If the
sinner is the high priest or the congregation, the shrine (the room of
the tent structure with the incense altar) is polluted. In these cases,
offenders do not contract bodily impurity and hence no personal
ablutions are necessary. To be included here is impurity arising from
certain deliberate sins of which a person has repented. J. Milgrom has
argued that repentance converts these particular intentional sins to the
equivalent of inadvertent ones.2 In some of these cases, a hattat is
required after repentance, in other cases, an 'dsam (Lev. 5.1, 5-13;
Num. 5.6-8).3
(SJLA, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 66-70. The reason for the 'old sems to be that it
complements the hatta't since both are birds. When a hatta't is reduced from a
quadruped to a bird, two birds are required, one for a hatta't and one for an 'old
(Lev. 5.7-10). 'Since the meat of the purification offering belongs to the officiating
priest. .. there is very little that remains for God (i.e., the altar). Hence, a burnt
offering is added so there is a respectable sacrifice on the altar' (Milgrom, Leviticus,
I, on Lev. 5.7).
1. Priests and high priests when inadvertently polluted by corpses from wich they
are restricted (Lev. 21.1-4, 10-11; cf. 10.1-7) may have been required to bring a
hatta't sacrifice, but priestly regulation is silent on the matter. Recall that Ezekiel
requires a corpse-contaminated priest to bring a hatta't (44.25-27). How the feature
of intention figures here, however, is not clear.
2. Milgrom, Cult, pp. 108-21.
3. It is not clear if these passages in Leviticus and Numbers imply that repentance
and sacrificial reparation is available for all intentional sins or just those listed.
Milgrom has recently indicated to me that only those listed are involved:
'Num. 15.30-31 implies that there is no remedy for the perpetration of yadramd
[deliberate, 'high handed' sin]. Lev. 5.20-26 (Num. 5.6-8) seems to be limited
only to repented crimes against man. One would expect confession to be mandated
for sins against God' if repentance were possible for such (letter to author, 1989).
One can further note that stories such as those in Lev. 10.1-3; 24.10-23 and
Num. 15.32-36 read as if repentance for deliberate affronts against God was not
possible in the priestly conception. Cf. B. Levine's similar judgment in his Leviticus
(The IPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia; Jewish Publication Society, 1989),
pp. 3, 18, 26, 27, 203 n. 9.
161
Intentional Prohibited Impurities

(1) While Lev. 5.2-3 prescribed rules for the inadvertent delay of
purification, Num. 19 warns those who would willfully (as the
context indicates) delay purifying from corpse pollution. Premeditated
delay of purification pollutes the sanctuary and brings the penalty of
karet 'cutting-off, i.e. early death of the wrong-doer or extinction of
his progeny (vv. 13, 20).* Since corpse contamination does not
normally pollute the sanctuary, one might think the sanctuary
pollution here is on a par with the sanctuary pollution that is caused
by inadvertently delayed non-sacrificial impurities according to the
implications of Lev. 5.2-3that is, that the outer altar of the
sanctuary is what is polluted. But the rhetoric of Num. 19.13, 20 is
much stronger than that in Lev. 5.2-3 and hints that a greater
pollution occurs. As will become clear when I look at general
intentional sins, it is the adytum (the most holy place) that is being
polluted, and not just the outer altar.2 Since this is a purposed sin, a
personal offering is not offered to rectify the sanctuary's impurity.
The sanctuary impurity is remedied by the community's hatta't
sacrifice in the Day of Atonement ceremony (cf. Leviticus 16). Since
corpse contamination is a bodily impurity, any restrictions on contact
with the sacred and profane would need to be observedto the extent
that society can impose them on a rebel. The same concerns about
delaying purification are implicit in Lev. 17.15-16. These verses say
that one is to purify after carrion contamination. If one does notand
the implication here is that these verses have to do with intentional
delay of purificationthe person 'bears (the consequence of) his
1. karet is the penalty imposed by deity for offenses against deity. D.J. Wold,
'The Meaning of the Biblical Penalty Kareth1 (Phd diss.; University of California,
Berkeley, 1978); 'The Kareth Penalty in P: Rationale and Cases', Society of Biblical
Literature 1979 Seminar Papers, I (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press), pp. 1-45. Other
recent discussions with similar judgments include Baruch Schwartz, Shelosha
peraqim miSefer haQedusha: mekhqar sifruti 'al Vayiqra' 17-19 (PhD diss.; Hebrew
University, 1987), pp. 28-29 (with Engl. summary p. iv); Levine, Leviticus,
pp. 241-42. Milgrom (Leviticus, I, on Lev. 7.20 and comment D to Lev. 7) adds
that the karet penalty may also mean that the offender 'will be denied life in the
hereafter'.
2. The outer altar presumably still suffers pollution following the dynamics of
impurity indicated by Lev. 5.2-3.
162
transgression', apparently referring to the karet penalty.1 (2) Sacrifice

to 'Molech'2 defiles the sanctuary (Lev. 20.2-5). The offender is to be
stoned and God imposes the karet penalty, meaning his family suffers
extinction.3 Rectification of the impurity on the sanctuary would again
presumably be through the Day of Atonement sacrifices. No bodily
pollution derives from the act of sacrifice itself, so restrictions for
such would not apply. (There may be corpse pollution, but that is not
due to the moral offensiveness of the affair). (3) Purposefully
polluting sacred items, such as touching or eating sacrifices while
impure, brings the penalty of karet (Lev. 7.19-21; 22.3-7; cf. Num.
18.11, 13; Lev. 12.4). Nothing is said about pollution of the
sanctuary, though it would be implied by the rules concerning the Day
of Atonement ritual (see below). (4) Sexual sins (Lev. 18.6-23; cf.
20.18) pollute the land and the persons involved. Offenders suffer
exile from the land (18.25, 28) and karet (v. 29; 20.18). From the
case of general sins, one can argue that the sanctuary is polluted too
and would be purified by offerings on the Day of Atonement. The
denomination of the people as impure in these verses is a moral
reproach rather than a technical description of their ritual condition
(hence the qualified use of 'moral' and 'ritual' in fig. 1); there is no
thought that ablutions could rectify this impurity as in the case of
tolerated impurities. The foregoing verses belong to H. P also uses
'impure' as a moral description of adultery in Num. 5.13, 14, 19, 20,
27, 28, 29. Here the punishment for a suspected adulteress is,
apparently, a distended uterus making the woman incapable of having
chldren, a punishment that echoes notions of barrenness which are
involved in karet punishments (cf. Lev. 20.20, 21 ).4 As we see here,
1. See Baruch Schwartz's essay in this volume on the karet penalty in Lev. 17.
2. On 'Molech', see recently, S. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult ofYahweh in Israel
(SBLMS, 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 11-13; Levine, Leviticus,
pp. 258-60.
3. Milgrom (private communication). This turns out to be a punishment measurefor-measure: the offender put his child to death, so God will put all his posterity to
death. For another way of looking at this dual penalty with the 'Molech' worshiper,
see J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, I (University of California
Publications, Near Eastern Studies; Berkeley: University of Californa Press, 1970),
p. 58.
4. Most recently, see J. Milgrom, Numbers (The JPS Torah Commentary;
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), pp. 37-43, 302-04, 348-54, esp.
163
both P and H use 'impure' as a moral metaphor with reference to

sexual sins, but H uses it for many sexual sins, not just adultery, and
also uses it of necromancy in Lev. 19.31. This may indicate that H has
enlarged on the metaphoric use of the terminology and that the school
might have been willing to designate all breaches of morality as
fame'. 1 Restrictions pertaining to bodily impurity arising from sexual
relationships would need to be enforced in these cases. (5) A few of
the above cases suggest that general willful sins are a source of
pollution. This is brought out clearly by the prescriptions of the Day
of Atonement ceremony. Blood from hafta't sacrifices is brought into
the adytum. Leviticus 16.16 says that this purifies the room mittum'ot
bene yisrd'el umippis"ehem 'from the impurities of the Israelites and
their rebellious deeds'. This shows that the impurity generated by
deliberate misdeeds has penetrated to the innermost part of the
sanctuary. The penalty for willful offenders is karet (Num. 15.30-31).
Regulations regarding bodily impurity in this case do not apply unless
the sin has to do with bodily impurities.
The general features of unintentional prohibitied impurities are,
then, the pollution of the sanctuary (outer altar or shrine) and the
consequent requirement of sacrifices (always a hatta't except in the
case of some sins that have been repented of which require an 'asam).
Since a sin has been committed, there is the potential for divine
punishment (karet). But inadvertencywhich implies a repentant
spiritdefers such a penalty, and allows reparation. When inadvertent
sins involve bodily pollution arising from tolerated impurities, corresponding purification and restriction requirements are to be followed.
With intentional prohibitied impurities pollution increases and the
evil-doer's life is forfeit. Not just the outer altar or the shrine is
polluted, but the heart of the sanctuary as well, the most sacred room.
Purification comes through the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement.
The seriousness of the sin means that the person's very being, not just
his or her body, is polluted, according to the metaphorization of H.
The reprobate is liable to the divinely imposed penalty of karet and
additionally in the case of Molech worship, capital punishment. Upon
considering this serious category of impurity, the less serious elements
303 n. 64 and 349-50.
1. Milgrom (Leviticus, I, introduction) notes that H also uses thr in a sense of
moral wholeness (Lev. 16.30) in distinction to P, which uses nslh.
164
of bodily pollution that might exist in some cases seem to fall by the
way. But we can surmise that if such pollution exists, society would
have an interest in controlling the polluted person's interactions.
Conclusion
At this point, the nature of the relationship of all the impurities,
tolerated and prohibited, becomes clear. The connection between the
two classes is not just through a metaphoric application of language
originally used for tolerated impurities to prohibited impurities. The
priestly writings connect the two not just terminologically but also
phenomenologically: the two share loci of pollution (the sanctuary)
and similar ways of removing that pollution (mainly hafta'tsacrifices).
This main phenomenological association is complemented by parallels
in rules of restriction and exclusion. But while these features couple
the two main classes of impurity, they, with the issue of intention for
prohibited impurity, also lead to establishing subdivisions of varying
seriousness or intensity within each class. The result of these linkings
and subdivisions is a scaled spectrum of impurity manifesting several
degrees of pollution (cf. again, fig. 1). As regards sacrifices, I begin
(on the left in fig. 1) with impurities that require no sacrifices, then
move (to the right) to those that require individual sacrifices, then to
those that require individual and in a few cases communal ad hoc
sacrifices, then to those that require Day of Atonement sacrifices. This
corresponds with a gradation in the locus of pollution: person, the
outer altar and person, the outer altar (sometimes the shrine) and in
some cases the person, and then the adytum (and sometimes the
person). With these gradations is a gradation in the restriction or
exclusion of the impurity: exclusion only from the sacred, then
exclusion from the sacred and profane habitation, then penalties that
permanently 'exclude' one from earthly society.1 Notably, the
1. One of the problems in understanding the gradations of restriction and
exclusion is the lack of information about sacral and social access of sinners. Since
sin in many cases does not involve bodily impurity, sinners might not necessarily be
excluded from the sacred and society. But it seems illogical to think that, for
example, an idolater would be granted access to the sanctuary while one simply
defiled by touching a dead rat is not. Perhaps the 'moral' designation of a sinner as
impure was the means of indicating that sinners were excluded. Perhaps for the
priestly writers it went without saying that such serious sinners were excluded from
the sacred. On moral qualifications for temple worship outside the priestly writings,
165
distinction between tolerated sacrificial impurities and prohibited

unintentional impurities is very thin in certain respects. Simple
inadvertent delay of impurity puts one over the line from tolerated to
prohibited impurity, and both categories require sacrifices for purification of the sanctuary. Clearly, all the defilement-creating conditions
in the priestly legislation are of the same conceptual family and
system.
An Exception
As with almost any attempt to find order in seeming confusion, an
exceptionperhaps only apparentto my classification exists (cf. also
note 19): the prohibitions against eating and touching certain animals
(cf. Lev. 11.4-8, 10-12, 13-20, 23, 41-45; 22.8).1 Though they are
prohibited, I put these impurities on the side of the tolerated impurities for four reasons.
First of all, except for being prohibited, they do not share the
character of other prohibited impurities. Nowhere is it said in the
many and sometimes detailed passages giving dietary and carcass rules
that transgression of the restrictions pollutes the sanctuary and
requires a hatta't sacrifice or brings the penalty of karet.2 Rather, the
see Pss. 15; 24.3-6; cf. Jer. 7.8-11. Cf. Buchler, Studies, p. 235 and compare
J. Milgrom, 'Sancta Contagion and Altar/City Asylum' (VTSup, 32; Leiden: Brill,
1981), pp. 278-310, esp. p. 301; cf. also J. Levenson, 'The Jerusalem Temple in
Devotional and Visionary Experience', in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible to the
Middle Ages, I (World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest,
13; ed. A. Green; New York: Crossroad, 1986), pp. 39-43, 54; Gammie, Holiness,
pp. 50-51, 81, 132-33.
1. See above, the end of the section on tolerated impurities.
2. Levine, Leviticus, pp. 64, 65, recognizing that purification requirements or
punishments are not explicitly mentioned for persons when they contact impure
animals in various ways, except for the mention of laundering clothes in the case of
intensive contact (i.e. carrying, and in one case eating; Lev. 11.24-28, 31, 39-40),
says that a hatta't, following the law in Lev. 5.2, was to be brought for eating
forbidden foods and contact with (apparently including touching and carrying as well
as eating) the carcasses listed in Lev. 11.39-40. By this he implies that all cases of
touching impure animals described in Lev. 11 require this. Though this suggestion
solves an apparent difficulty in the lack of clear purification prescriptions in the
chapter and though in many cases of contact there is a breach of prohibitions (I do
not agree with Levine that there is a broad prohibition against touching all impure
animals or that eating the animals in Lev. 11.39-40 is prohibited; see below in this
166
pollution effect and any accompanying consequences are, by all

appearances, no greater than those found with tolerated, nonsacrificial
impurities (Lev. 11.39-40; 17.15-16; cf. 11.24-38), the least severe of
the impurities.
Secondly, the fact of the matter is that not all animal carcass
impurities are prohibited. Only eating animals that are characteristically or 'ontologically' impure and touching the four quadrupeds
specifically mentioned in Lev. 11.4-8 are prohibited. Eating and
touching pure animals dying of natural causes or killed by beasts of
prey1 and touching other impure carcasses are acts never prohibited
and hence presumably tolerated. Thus the animal impurities to a large
excursus), it cannot be accepted. Lev. 5.2 (and v. 3), as we have seen earlier, only
covers the case of impurity which was contracted with knowledge but was later
forgotten (wene'lam) and was remembered after the period for purification had
passed. This seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of vfne'lam. Moreover a
concern about delaying purification from impurity from animal sources is not
otherwise unknown in the general priestly literature (Lev. 17.16; cf. Num. 19.13,
20). Hence, the sacrificial requirement in Lev. 5.2 does not appear to apply to cases
of animal meat contamination where people would perform ablutions within the
proper time period, contra Levine's suggestion. Elsewhere I have argued that the
animal impurities, when properly handled, require only simple ablutions of bathing
and, in some cases, laundering (Disposal, pp. 185-86 nn. 38, 39; 200-206).
As for a possible kdret penalty, priestly legislation prescribes such for other
dietary transgressions such as eating blood or visceral fat (Lev. 7.24-27; 17.10, 14;
cf. Gen. 9.4; Lev. 3.16-17) or eating the meat of a well-being offering on the third
day (Lev. 19.7), but it does not appear for breach of the animal meat prohibitions. In
dietary matters, kdret is for wrongs related to sacrifice. Since the rules surrounding
impure animals are not concerned with sacrifice, the same penalty may not apply.
Furthermore, the laws about impure animals seem to have a secondary and
supporting significance in the legislation (see below). Lev. 20, for example, appears
to distinguish between the serious breaches that would lead to being 'vomitted from
the land' and other life forfeiting penalties on the one hand (vv. 1-24, 27), and the
rules of dietary propriety on the other (vv. 25-26) for which no penalties are
mentioned. Hence, I hesitate to subsume breach of the dietary laws under the general
rule about kdret in Num. 15.30-31.
1. These prohibitions apply to lay persons. In contrast to the priestly writings,
Exod. 22.30 prohibits lay people from eating animals killed by other animals(frefS)
and Deut. 17.21 prohibits lay people from eating animals that die of themselves or
are killed by other animals (this seems to be the scope of rfbeld there). The dead
animals referred to in these passages are, implicitly, pure animals. Recall from the
discussion of tolerated impurities above that the priestly law does have a prohibition
against eating these carcasses in Lev. 22.8, but this only applies to priests.
167
extent fit under the tolerated category.1

Thirdly, the prohibitions of eating impure animals and touching the
carcasses of the four quadrupeds of Lev. 11.4-8 appear to be special
cases of the animal carcass laws. They mainly involve eating, a type of
contact not considered (or possible) with other, non-animal, tolerated
impurities.2 The reason for the prohibition of this form of pollution
lies mainly, it seems, in the symbolic character of the diet, which
seeks to reflect the holinessi.e. the singularity and chosennessof
the people vis-a-vis other nations (an emphasis, though not an
innovation, of the 'Holiness' writers in the priestly tradition: Lev.
11.44-45; 20.25-27; cf. 22.8; see below). While other impurities must
be rectified for Israelites to make contact with what is holy, purity in
those cases is not given a holiness rationale as in the case of dietary
prohibitions.3 Thus the prohibitions of eating impure animalsand
perhaps the prohibition against touching the four quadrupeds in
Lev. 11.4-8 is a 'fence' of sorts (cf. Gen. 2.17; 3.3) to insure observance in marginal cases (i.e. cases with one but not both of the pureanimal criteria, cud chewing and cloven hooves)are generated by
concerns other than the immediate system of impurity reflected in the
spectrum described in this paper.
Finally, in refinement of the above point, the priestly dietary
prohibitions appear to derive from pre-priestly prohibitions which
were originally not part of a 'system' of impurity such as we find now
in Leviticus 11 but existed independently with the purpose of
reflecting the holiness of the people. This orientation of dietary rules
is found in the early regulation Exod. 22.30, which, amid a variety of
1. I am assuming here that eating all characteristically impure animals brings
impurity. In an incisive Hebrew University Bible Department lecture in 1990,
J. Milgrom argued that the prohibited fish and fowl in Lev. 11.9-23 and the small
land animals other than the eight in vv. 29-30 (cf. vv. 41-42) do not pollute by
eating (nor by touching). If he is right, since there is no impurity involved, these
cases would not constitute an exception to the spectrum. As this excursus implies, I
believe that eating these animals do pollute by ingestion. Milgrom's moderation in
this point was balanced by a judgment that the impurity-generating contacts in
vv. 24-40 are prohibited. If this is the case, this would add other cases of prohibited
impurities than those I admit in this excursus.
2. Lev. 14.47 mentions eating, but it is eating in a diseased house, not eating the
impurity.
3. For an exception with priests in regard to corpses, see Lev. 21.1-4, 10-11.
168
laws, juxtaposes a call to holiness with a prohibition to avoid terepa

(again, meat of a presumably clean animal killed by beasts). A law of
a comparable nature is also found in Leviticus 11 when that chapter is
critically analysed. This chapter appears to have three sections
stemming from different periods and authors or editors, each
successive block coming as a response to the previous block or blocks
(I leave introductory and concluding formulae out of consideration
here): (a) vv. 2b-23 (early P); (b) vv. 24-40 (later P); and (c)
vv. 41-45 (H).1 The last two sections reflect the more familiar
priestly concerns about pollution effect and purification, but the first,
in contrast, is concerned with giving prohibitions mainly against
eating certain animals.2 Having this particular focus the early P
formulation in 11.2b-23 is more in line with Exod. 22.30. Similar
concerns are found in Deut. 14.3-21, a passage which reflects early
dietary law. It is an amalgamating passage, apparently dependent on a
version of the rules of the early P block in Leviticvus 11 for its
vv. 3-20 and on laws such as those in Exod. 22.30 and Exod. 23.19
(cf. Exod. 34.26) for its v. 21.3 Deuteronomy's law, similar to the
1. Here I go against the, perhaps better, judgment of J. Milgrom (Leviticus, I, on
ch. 11), who separates the chapter into these basic units as well, but argues that
vv. 41-42 belong to the first block, vv. 2b-23. He also sees vv. 39-40 as an
addition see note 3 below. Verses 41-42 are not found nor summarized in the parallel
in Deut. 14.3-21 which suggests to me that they were not part of Lev. 11.2b-23.
That is to say, Lev. 11.2b-23 appears to be the only element of Lev. 11 known to
the writer of Deut. 14.3-21 (see below in this excursus). Moreover, the certain H
element in Lev. 11.43-45 is oddly limited to small land animals (one might have
expected a more inclusive statement such as in 20.25-26). If it were compositionally
connected with w. 41-42 it would make better sense; i.e. the H editor/author saw an
omission of a prohibition about eating small land animals in vv. 2b-40 and added
vv. 41-42, imitating the style in vv. 2b-23, and with it a rationale in vv. 43-45 that
is limited to the type of animal in w. 41-42.
2. For a more detailed discussion of the evidence of this critical judgement, see
my book, Disposal, pp. 200-206, and my article, 'Clean/Unclean'. It should be
noted that in this first block, though vv. 4-8 speak of impurity and v. 8 gives a prohibition of touching, it is far from discussing impurity in the way that w. 24-40 do.
3. On the relation of Deut. 14.21 to Exod. 22.30, see Schwartz, Shelosha
peraqim, pp. 53-54. This is a valuable compact discussion which bears on many of
the issues presented here. My main disagreement would be that Lev. 11.11 (and
other commands with the verb sqs in vv. 9-23, 41-45, and one could add, the
command in these last verses not to become impure or pollute one's nepeS, which
seems to refer to the 'throat' and hence refer to eating, not to other forms of contact;
169
early legislation upon which it is dependent, expresses a concern for

prohibiting certain animals and the holiness that results through
obedience rather than with effects of impurity (note Deut. 14.21; cf.
v. 2).1 In sum, all these passagesExod. 22.30; Lev. 11.2b-23;
Deut. 14.3-14indicate that at an early point in Israel's history,
before priestly legislation was fully formulated, dietary rules existed
rather independently of other purity customs and rules and had the
goal of symbolizing the holiness of the people. The prohibitions were
due to this special symbolic purpose of the laws. Such rules and
prohibitions were taken up by the priestly legislators and eventually
assimilated into their developing system of impurity. It is this
assimilation of traditional dietary rules that has left us with an irregularity among the tolerated impurities. Description of the main
categories of impurity as tolerated and prohibited is still useful despite
the anomaly of the animal-carcass prohibitions. The character and
historical development of these prohibitions suggest that they be
considered, to put it graphically, as a vertical element protruding
from an otherwise smooth and systematic horizontal continuum.
cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, I, on the verses for this point) does not indicate a prohibition
of contact, only a prohibition of eating.
Milgrom (Leviticus, I, comments A and B on ch. 11) argues that Deut. 14.321 depends on all of Lev. 11.1-47 but that has Deuteronomy omitted discussion of
certain subjects because of its particular interests. He sees Deut. 14.21a about nebeld
as deriving from Lev. 11.39-40, the latest addition to Lev. 11 in his view. Actually,
Deut. 14.21a and Lev. 11.39-40 are quite dissimilar while Deut. 14.21a and
Exod. 22.30 are similar in several points: a prohibition of eating, disposal of the
carcass, and a holiness rationale. This indicates that D at this point is dependent on
the Exodus law rather than that in Leviticus. D's use of nebeld can be seen as an
interpretation of frepa in the Exodus passage. This is in line with D's tendency to
interpret other legal materials from Exodus. Deut. 14.21b also shows other
borrowing from laws in Exodus, as already indicated above.
1. Deut. 14.10,19 call unacceptable fish and fowl 'unclean' (tame; cf. the reverse
tahor in vv. 11, 20) rather than 'abomination' (Seqes; and verb Siqqes 'hold in
abomination') as does early P (cf. Lev. 11.10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 23, cf. 41, 42, 43).
Deuteronomy apparently reserves the root Sqs for idols (7.26; 29.16; though it uses
t'b/to'ebd for idols and impure animals: 7.26; 14.3). tame in Deut. 14 represents a
blurring of distinction between tame' and Seqes in early P where the former term
indicated pollutability by touch, and the latter pollutability by eating alone.
170

Implications and Observations
With the structure of the spectrum of impurity established, I now turn

to examining its significance. This section will deal mainly with cultural and socio-anthropological, and sometimes psychological, observations and conjectures about the interrelationship of the parts of the
spectrum. All these observations are more appositional and independent than logico-sequential in their relationship to one another. They
nevertheless work together to demonstrate a unified point: that the
whole purity system including tolerated impurities has a moral basis and
rationale. The system supports and sustains the moral order of society.
I turn first to Mary Douglas's syntagmatic structural analysis of
(her own) middle-class English system of meals.1 In brief, by sorting
out the food elements in all meals and then finding and correlating
common elements in different types of meals she shows how the
system of meals encodes or displays social concerns and meaning.
Common elements appear in all meal situations; in meal situations
of greater social import and intimacy (e.g., Sunday or Christmas
dinners), however, the elements appear in greater concentration.
Meals can thus be arranged on a scale from less to more important
and complex. By the similarity in elements, 'the smallest, meanest
meal metonymically figures the structure of the grandest, and each
unity of the grand meal figures again the whole mealor the meanest
meal'.2 Thus,
the meaning of a meal is found in a system of repeated analogies. Each
meal carries something of the meaning of the other meals; each meal is a
structured social event which structures others in its own image. The
upper limit of its meaning is set by the range incorporated in the most
important member of its series. . .There is no single point in the rank
scale [of meals], high or low, which provides the basic meaning or real
meaning. Each exemplar has the meaning of its structure realized in the
example at other levels.3
If a Christmas meal is the 'upper limit' in meal situations, one can go

beyond meal situations proper to include simple drinks as the lower
1. M. Douglas, 'Deciphering a Meal', in her collected essays Implicit Meanings
(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), pp. 249-75.
2. Douglas, Meanings, p. 257.
3. Douglas, Meanings, p. 260.
171
limit. The more complex the meal, the more intimate the participants.
'Drinks are for strangers, acquaintances, workmen and family. Meals
are for family, close friends, honored guests'.1 Thus part of the
encoded social meaning in meals has to do with signalling distance or
intimacy between participants.
Leaving aside a complex syntagmatic analysis such as Douglas
experiments with in her paper,2 we can think intuitively about this
approach, as she finally does, and use it for finding meaning in the
spectrum of impurity. We have already seen how the different
individual impure conditions are connected on a graded scale to the
others by common elements. The structural approach Douglas
employs would lead to the recognition that any individual impure
condition has its meaning in connection with the other conditions and
that any one condition implies the other conditions in the system.
Following Douglas and other anthropologists in the assumption that
such systems are not just practical affairs (e.g. just for getting
nourishment from meals) but are symbolic of social concerns, we can
begin to see some of the significance of the priestly writings' impurity
system figured in the spectrum, particularly in terms of providing
social governance.3
While all impurity is seen as dangerous to some degree, clearly
those impurities at the prohibited end of the spectrum, particularly
intentional prohibited impurities, are the most detrimental to society.
They arise out of sinful conditions, many of which threaten the
foundations of the group, often in a very direct, and hence nonsymbolic way: for example, children are killed in idolatrous sacrifice,
and marriage and family patterns are upset by illicit sexual relations.
On the other end of the spectrum are impurities that are much less
dangerous and not prohibited. Their threat to and disturbance of the
social order are minimal or negligible. In fact, as we have seen, the
conditions that cause this impurity are often beneficial to society.
Further, while I would not want to discount the reality and
concreteness of these impurities for the ancient Israelites (or, more
1. Douglas, Meanings,p. 256.
2. Douglas, Meanings, pp. 251-53.
3. As will become clear in the following, the impurity system is a symbolic
system. For the functions of symbols, including that of social control, cf. R. Firth,
Symbols: Public and Private (Symbol, Myth and Ritual Series; Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1973), pp. 76-91 and more generally pp. 15-240.
172
specifically, the priestly legislators),1 they are of a more abstract and

symbolic character than prohibited impurities. From the qualitative
difference between the two impurities and in terms of the structural
interrelationship suggested by Douglas's study, it may be averred that
one of the functions of tolerated impurities is to help prevent the
socially detrimental breach of rules that would cause prohibited
impurity. In other words, experiencing the lesser impurities would
signal the potential for prohibited impure conditions and thus steer
one away from them.
Looking at tolerated impurities this way modifies our perception of
the spectrum somewhat vis-a-vis that implied for meals in Douglas's
study. The impurity spectrum takes on the split appearance of an
object and its mirrored twin. That is, unlike Douglas's smooth tacit
spectrum consisting of several individual units (e.g., drinks versus
everyday meals of varying complexity versus Sunday dinners versus
holiday dinners, and finer distinctions in between), the spectrum of
impurity has, despite the relationship of the smallest units which imply
a more or less even continuum, a clear bipolarity between tolerated
and prohibited impurities. The less severe class separates itself from
the serious class and thus begins to reflect it. For example, the
relatively minor pollution of the sanctuary by tolerated impurities,
which requires sacrifice, mirrors the serious sanctuary pollution by
the prohibited, especially the intentional, impurities that requires Day
of Atonement sacrifices. The exclusion rules on the tolerated side,
moreover, echo the severe life-threatening judgments on the
prohibited side. This last interpretation may sound a bit artificial
even midrashicbut it is not necessarily so. Impurity, even the
simplest, is antisocial. Severe tolerated impurities must be restricted,
excluded, or eliminated from the Israelites' habitation. With them
there is thus a degree of social distintegration. This small measure of
disintegration reflects the gravely fragmenting character of sinful
behavior and impurity, where the sin disturbs the social equilibrium
and where the offender yields his or her right to community life.
When tolerated impurity is understood as the symbolic counterpart
of prohibited impurity, being in a state of tolerated impurity can be
1. While, as this paper argues, tolerated impurity is a reflection of the more
serious, it is conceived of as a reality itself. On the concreteness of tolerated
impurities, see my article Two Types', pp. 190-92.
173
understood as a form of ritualistic behavior. This ritual behavior,

however, is somewhat different from other forms of ritual activity.
Ritual is usually thought of as prescribed performances set for certain
times or circumstances (though this is a narrow way of looking at or
defining ritual). But becoming impure through tolerated impurities,
while it is not forbidden, is not prescribed for any occasion, except
for the corrective and auxiliary cultic impurities. It is true that after
one becomes impure certain prescriptions are to be followed, but
there is no prescribed primary occasion for acquiring impurity in the
first place. The question then arises how tolerated impurity can be an
effective symbol if there is no requirement to experience it. This
problem becomes chimerical once it is recalled that the situations
which generate these impurities are natural processes which no one
can escape. To be human means one will have ample opportunity for
these lesser impurities. One will encounter several opportunities for
contamination every day and actual experiences of impurity will be
numerous.1 There is no need, therefore, for prescribed impurity.
Tolerated impurities reveal their ritual mien in other respects. Like
many (but again, not all) ritual performances, they involve a process
and, more particularly, one which first creates conflict or anxiety and
then resolves it.2 That is, acquiring one of these impurities is not a
punctual or static matter, but one involving a linear progression
through time: first contracting impurity, then being impure for a
period of time, then purifying. And this process is one of movement
into a threatening and restricted statea liminal statewith
consequent movement therefrom.3 The serial character of tolerated
1. The ingestion of impure meats, an exceptional prohibited impurity, is not being
considered just here. The rules about this do function, however, in a way similar to
the rules concerning tolerated impurities. At every meal, the Israelite needs to
consider matters of impurity, and this would recall, implicitly or explicitly, the other
conditions of impurity.
2. Cf. W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1985), pp. 54-55; V. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure
(Symbol, Myth and Ritual Series; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969),
p. 10 and passim.
3. The experience of impurity is a type of rite de passage with stages of
separation, marginality (or liminality), and reintegration (or reaggregation). The
process of impurity, like other rites de passage, is status determining. It differs from
other transition rites (e.g. circumcision, marriage) in its frequency and repetitive (or
redundant) character and its social trajectory. Some transition rites, despite the stages
174
impurity augments our understanding about how it relates symbolically to prohibited, particularly intentional prohibited, impurities.
Upon contracting tolerated impurity, one becomes detached from
society to some degree. One cannot participate in the cult at the
sanctuary, and with impurities communicable to the profane one is
restricted in or excluded from the Israelite habitation around the
sanctuary. But with rectification of the tolerated impure condition and
purification, one is reintegrated into society and has access again to
both the habitation and sanctuary. With prohibited intentional impurities there are also restrictions and exclusion penalties. What is
unique is that prescriptions concerning these latter impurities do not
openly offer ways for the offender to be reintegrated into the
community. While repentance is possible in some cases and would
reduce the effect of one's sin to a prohibited unintentional impurity
(see above), it is generally left out of the picture. The rules seem to
leave one in perpetual liminality.1 Thus a contrast between the two
types of impurities appears: social and religious re integration is
possible with the lesser type, while such is considered unlikelyat
least more difficultwith the serious type. In terms of the
interrelationship of meaning on the spectrum, suffering a tolerated
impurity with consequent purification and reintegration would
contrastively imply the difficulty of reintegration with a prohibited
intentional impurity. Put differently, the process of contraction and
purification of tolerated impurities is mimetic: one is acting out the
more detrimental side of human behavior. But the tolerated
of separation and liminality, propel a person along, vertically, to a new status which
is generally secure. Experiences of impurity and purification, in contrast, occur many
times and, horizontally, remove one from a particular status and then restore that
same status. See A. van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1960 [1908]); Turner, Process, pp. 94-203; Douglas, Meanings,
pp. 55-56; E. Leach, Culture and Communication: The Logic by which Symbols are
Connected (Themes in the Social Sciences; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1976), pp. 77-79; R. Wuthnow, Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural
Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), pp. 112-14. See Marx,
'Sacrifice pour les pe"ches', for an argument about the hatta't and 'old sacrifices as
being part of rites de passage (see p. 149 n. 4, above).
1. This liminality has a psychological component, as Schwartz (Shelosha
peraqim, pp. 17-19) has noted. Since death from the karet penalty would not
necessarily occur immediately, the culprit as a believer in the system would live with
the threat of an early death hanging over his head.
175
impurities, since one can recover from them, serve as an inoculation

against the higher evils.
The symbolic interplay between the two sorts of impurity and how
the lesser type functions to control the latter can be further elucidated
by Clifford Geertz's cultural-functional definition of religion. Since
the impurity system is a part of the entire religious system, what
Geertz says about religion can apply, in a large degree, to impurity.
He defines a religion as
a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and
long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of
a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an
aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.1
A religion produces intensive feelings, beliefs, and behaviors in

people which, presumably, support the moral order. It does this,
circularly, by creating a world-view (which includes the moral order)
in which the desired feelings, beliefs, and behaviors make sense.2 The
term 'religion' may be replaced in this definition with the 'priestly
system of impurity' to discover how the latter may be defined
functionally. This definition can be applied to the system of impurity
in various ways. I restrict myself to the spectrum to examine for the
moment how the system of tolerated impurities may establish powerful and enduring moods and motivations supportive of the moral
order by generating a world-view in which those attitudes are sensible
and plausible. In the discussion to this point, tolerated impurities have
been looked at as passive reflections of prohibited impurities. Now
they will be thought of as active generators of conceptions about
prohibited impurities and the offenses that cause them.
1. C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973),
p. 90 (his enumeration of the parts of the definition is omitted here). Religious ideas
or a religious sytem are forms of knowledge, largely socially and culturally
determined, which in turn largely determine further what is known and perceived (cf.
generally and with proper caution the older but classic statement of K. Mannheim,
Ideology and Utopia [expanded Engl. ed., San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1936]; L. Wirth's preface to the edition is helpful; more recently, cf. P. Berger and
T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality [London: Penguin Books, 1967]).
2. Religious world-views succeed to the extent that they can be perceived as
objective realities and reduce or eliminate competing systems. Cf. P. Berger, The
Heretical Imperative: Contemporary Possibilities of Religious Affirmation (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), pp. 1-29.
176
The lesser system inculcates intense moods and motivations that

uphold morality by various means. It creates for the society's
members a ubiquitous and perpetual experience of purity and
impurity. As noted above, one would encounter several opportunities
for contamination every day and occasions of impurity would be
numerous. As opposed to some other ritual situations which occur
only once in a person's life or which occur at set times with periods of
non-ritual activity in between, one would never be released from
obligations in regard to purity. The forced constant attention to this
pair of states and movements into and out of impurity could
consequently lead to particular ways of understanding all phenomena,
including acts, that would harm society and its morality. Members of
society might tend to categorize actions by one of the two states. Even
when the system has not specifically labeled the nature of an act, the
structure of thought could lead to classification.
The constancy of occasions for impurity and purification from it
could develop, furthermore, a conception of cause and effect. This
conception could lead to the conviction that punishments following
violation of prohibitions are inevitable. The negative consequences of
tolerated impurity could also lead to the development of a negative
conception of prohibited impurity. The real social consequences of
lesser impurities might develop an aversion toward prohibited
impurities.
This loathing of serious impurity could be further charged by the
incorporation of impurities to which there is a predisposed or popular
repugnance into the system of tolerated impurity. Though definite
historical evidence is lacking, many of the impurities in priestly
legislation are found elsewhere in the ancient Near East before the
Israelite period, which suggests that the levitical legislators have
systematized popular attitudes and customs,1 and the Bible itself
contains hints that before the priestly writers formulated their system
there existed popular horror toward some of the impurities.2 These
1. Cf. J. C. Moyer, 'The Concept of Ritual Impurity Among the Hittites', (PhD
diss.; Brandeis University, 1969); O.R. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion
(Oxford: British Academy, 1977), pp. 25-63; my book, Disposal, passim; Milgrom,
Leviticus, I, comment A on Lev. 12 and comment A on Lev. 15.
2. On scale-disease, cf. Num. 12.10-15; 2 Sam. 3.29; 2 Kgs 7.3-10; 15.5 =
2 Chron. 26.16-21; menstruation, cf. Isa. 30.22; Ezek. 7.19-20; 36.17; cf.
Gen. 31.35; abnormal sexual discharges, cf. 2 Sam. 3.29. On pre-existing popular
111
traditional aversions toward tolerated impurities could produce

abhorrence toward the prohibited impurities.
A basis and power for the transference of negative feelings might
also exist within the priestly system itself. Some scholars have argued,
and this argument has found new supporters recently, that a basic
rationale of tolerated impurities is a connection with death.1 In
addition to death-associated impurities which would clearly fit this
rationale, scale-disease seemed to have been considered related to
death (cf. Num. 12.12) and the sexual impurities would be so
connected because of the loss of blood and other life fluids. If the
tolerated impurites were imbued with this basic conception, the fear
and antipathy toward death might inform attitudes toward the prohibited impurities.
In conclusion to these considerations based on Geertz's definition of
religion, the tolerated impurities, as part of a spectrum with prohibited impurities, could have created an 'aura of factuality' around
prohibited impurities by symbolically intimating or teaching that the
serious impurities are to be loathed and that their consequences are
certain. This in turn would have led to limiting breach of rules that
caused these impurities and to the maintenance of morality.
The moral order is also sustained by an individual's participation in
ritual which creates a bond with society and expresses solidarity with
the community.2 The opposite is true: a lack of full participation or
aversions, see my 'Observations on the Ethical Foundations of the Biblical Dietary
Laws: A Reponse to Jacob Milgrom', in E. Firmage, J. Welch and B. Weiss (eds.),
Religion and Law: Biblical, Jewish, and Islamic Perspectives (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 193-98.
1. See mainly J. Milgrom, Leviticus, I, comment B on Lev. 11, comment B on
Lev. 13, and comment G on Lev. 15; 'Ethics and Ritual: The Foundation of the
Biblical Dietary Laws', in Firmage, et al. (eds.), Religion and Law, pp. 152-92;
G. Wenham, 'Why Does Sexual Intercourse Defile? (Lev. 15.18)', ZAW 95
(1983), pp. 432-34. See also W. Kornfeld, 'Reine und unreine Tiere im Alten
Testament', Kairos 1 (1965), pp. 134-47; W. Paschen, Rein und Unrein:
Untersuchung zur biblischen Wortgeschichte (SANT, 24; Miinchen: Kosel, 1970),
pp. 55-64; E. Feldman, Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as
Theology (New York: Ktav and Yeshiva University, 1977), pp. 35-41. For a
comparative perspective on this idea, cf. A. S. Meigs, 'A Papuan Perspective on
Pollution', Man 13 (1978), pp. 304-38.
2. Cf. Wuthnow, Meaning, p. 123: Through ritual the actors' roles and
obligations in each setting are dramatized to their confederates. This is why we feel
178
participation with lack of proper intent or cynicism weakens

solidarity. These points would hold true with the priestly system of
tolerated impurities. But before we can go too far, a question arises:
just where in the situation of impurity does this bond-building
participation lie? Contracting lesser impurity, if not prohibited, is still
a negative occurrence; certain social penalties result. Would not these
impurities therefore lead to a weakening of community strength?
Perhaps, especially if one constantly and spitefully contracted
impurity. But, as has been noted, impure conditions are so numerous
and natural that such debility is taken for granted and made part of the
system. The priestly legislation, moreover, never shows any concern
about a person's intention in contracting impurity. What is important
for priestly legislation and what communicates solidarity is observing
restrictions while polluted and then finally purifying oneself. To
violate restrictions during impurity or delay purification intentionally
would mark one as a social rebel and traitor.
Consideration of the spectrum of impurity can lend precision to the
foregoing point in several respects. First, non-compliance with the
rules of lesser impurities could suggest to the group that the individual
is not willing to support it and that he might intentionally commit acts
that cause prohibited impurity, which are directly detrimental to
society. That is to say, the person would have broken through the
fence controlling the more grievous acts and might now choose to
commit them. Secondly, the system of impurity promotes the
pollution of an intentional mishandler or delayer of impurity to the
category of prohibited impurity. Thus, he is taxonomically (and not
merely by the subjective estimation of the community) transposed,
receiving a new classification that concretely defines his relation to
society. Thirdly, the category of unintentional prohibited impurity
gains significance as an intermediate category, specifically as regards
inadvertently delaying purification. In the cases of people deliberately
delaying purification or following through properly with purification,
their relationship to society is clear. But when someone inadvertently
compelled to participate in ritual. Voting constitutes an act of affirming our sense of
duty and participation in civil society. Going to church bears witness to our faith. In
ritual a bond is established between the person and the moral community on which he
or she depends. It is in this sense that ritual reinforces the moral order'. Cf. p. 140.
See also M. Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (New York:
Pantheon, 2nd edn, 1982), pp. 38-42.
179
forgets to purify, their position is not clear. The prescriptions add

clarification to this indeterminacy by putting them in an intermediate
category with additional obligations but without the harshest penalties.
Fulfillment of these obligations allows the person to be consequently
reclassified as at one with the community.
Another way the spectrum of impurity operates is hinted at through
Robert Wuthnow's conclusion that the meaning of a ritual is
influenced by external social or cultural concerns, and that as the
external concerns vary in significance for the community, their ability
to generate meaning in the ritual situation varies. Specifically, 'strains
in the moral order contribute to the meaningfulness of those rituals
and symbols that directly and vividly dramatize moral decay itself'.1
His main examples of this are the responses given to the nine-and-ahalf hour television series Holocaust, broadcast in 1978 in the United
States, the viewing of which, because of the symbolic significance it
had for viewers, is to be included under the category of ritual. The
meaning that viewers saw in the series derived partly from the social
and political strains they perceived at the time of viewing. They saw
their own problems and their present government's and society's
potential for evil symbolized in the historical events portrayed in the
series. To put Wuthnow's observation in a diachronic perspective, one
might say that, as decay or strains develop in the moral order external
to a ritual experience that dramatizes moral decay or strain in some
way, that ritual will grow in significance and come to reflect this
decay and these strains. This can be applied to the spectrum. If we
assume the priestly writings' rules to be operative as a system in a
community, it may be that at times of relative social wholeness and
cultural consistency the significance of the tolerated impurities as
symbols of the prohibited impurities might be somewhat latent. But
were there to be an increase of moral decay, including an increase of
intentional breach of prohibitions, the lesser impurities would gain
greater significance as reflections of the more serious state of communal affairs. As the society showed greater dysfunction and disintegration, the tolerated impurities could, by their added significance act,
like a Chinese finger-puzzle, to hold the centrifugal forces in by more
clearly figuring of the danger all impure situations and thus restricting
prohibited behavior. In fact, we might go further and propose that
1. Wuthnow, Meaning, p. 131.
180
developing situations of tension may require a revision of ritual to

symbolically reflect the moral strains so as to keep society in order.1
This can start us thinking about the social contexts for the formulation
of the first P traditions, the updating of this core by later P tradents,
and then the later editing and revision of the Holiness school.2
Conclusion
I have explored how different types of pollutions, tolerated and
prohibited, are conceptually connected and how they may or could
have operated to accomplish the priestly religion's purposes of
maintaining moral and social stability and order. That the two sorts of
impurity are related to one another systematically and conceptually is
certain. What this interrelationship means or how it functions is, on
the other hand, more difficult to ascertain. Lack of evidence has
forced conjecture via hints from some anthropological and sociological studies of ritual and religion. Whether the conjectures here
based on these studies are completely tenable or not, it would seem
that the mere systematic association of the different types of impurity
at least indicates that the lesser impurities do not exist for themselves
but are associated with the larger moral concerns of society that lie
behind prohibited impurity. Hence, the priestly writings are not
interested in tolerated impurities qua tolerated impurities. As they
focus on these lesser impurities, this Pentateuchal tradition really has
the larger moral issues and goals of religion as a major concern.
Finally, as an aside, the conclusion that the laws of tolerated impurity function as stays to the moral order is reminiscent of interpretations of the impurity laws prevalent in Hellenistic Judaism. Philo and
others argued that these laws, or aspects of them, symbolically taught
1. We should not assume that ritual, and in particular the purity laws, always lead
(or led) to social integration and solidarity. They may lead to reformulation or
regrouping through disintegration. The tolerated impurity rules might lead to dividing
a community into two groups: adherents and non-adherents, orthodox and
unorthodox, etc. By doing this it may lead to greater non-conformity on the part of
the non-adherents and to the eventual division of the two into distinct groups. A
revision of ritual, too, might encourage division in a community. Cultural and social
mismatching may also render ritual ineffective and unperformable (cf. Geertz,
Cultures, pp. 142-69).
2. Cf. Knohl, 'Tefisat 'elohuf, pp. 172-93; Milgrom, Leviticus, I, introduction.
181
proper behavior and upheld morality.1 The symbolic approach used in

this paper is, to be sure, not the same as that which these early
thinkers employed. They used a midrashic elemental and concrete
symbolic approach, while this study used an anthropological systemic
and functional symbolic approach. That is, they viewed concrete
objective phenomena in conditions of purity or impurity (e.g. a cow's
hoof) as directly reflecting and teaching moral concerns and lessons,
while this study has looked at the whole sytem of tolerated impurities
and how it structurally reflects prohibited impurity and, hence,
sustains the moral order. But the way we have phrased some of the
conclusions here has, admittedly, not been much different than what
the ancients have said, especially in saying that tolerated impurities
dramatize or imitate prohibited impurities. This does not validate the
old exegetes' particular method of interpretation and particular
interpretive statements, but it does indicate that some of the general
conclusions and tendencies in their interpretations should not be
dismissed as entirely out of line with what may be the actual significance and function of the purity rules.
1. See the citation from Philo at the beginning of the paper. Also the Letter of
Aristeas, pp. 142-61.
THE COMPOSITION OF LEVITICUS, CHAPTER 11

Jacob Milgrom
Leviticus 11 exhibits the following sequence of animal categories:
quadrupeds (vv. 2-8), fish (vv. 9-12), birds (vv. 13-19), flying
insects (vv. 20-23), quadrupeds (vv. 24-28), land swarmers (vv. 2938), quadrupeds (vv. 39-40), land swarmers (vv. 41-45), all animals
(vv. 46-47). The offending category here is the quadrupeds. Had they
been grouped together, then each category would have been a discrete
unit: quadrupeds (vv. 2-8, 24-28, 39-40), fish (vv. 9-12), birds
(vv. 13-19), flying insects (vv. 20-23), land swarmers (vv. 29-38,
41-45), all animals (vv. 46-47). However, there is logic to the MT if
subject matter is taken into consideration: whereas vv. 2-23, 41-45
define or declare which animals are impure, vv. 29-40 ordain
purification procedures in case of defilement. Thus, the ordering of
ch. 11, taking into account both subject and content, actually looks
like this:
Impure Animals
Purification Procedures
quadrupeds (vv. 2-8)

fish (vv. 9-12)
birds (vv. 13-19)
flying insects (vv. 20-23)
forbidden quadrupeds (vv. 24-28)
eight land swarmers (vv. 29-38)
permitted quadrupeds (vv. 39-40)
land swarmers (vv. 41-45)
Clearly, the repeated animal categories comprise a unified block

(vv. 24-40) and are informed by a different subject matter
purification. Moreover, once they are excised from the chapter, an
orderly sequence of animal categories is revealed: quadrupeds (vv. 28), fish (vv. 9-12), birds (vv. 13-19), flying insects (vv. 20-23), and
MILGROM The Composition of Leviticus 11
183
land swarmers (vv. 41-45). Thus, a traditionalist like Hoffmann1 is

forced to admit that the passage on land swarmers (vv. 41-45) should
logically belong after flying insects (vv. 20-23). The block on purification (vv. 24-40) also manifests inconcinnity, and Ramban2 cannot
but question why its two sections on quadrupeds (vv. 24-28, 39-40)
were not grouped together. Thus, a priori, the conclusion can be
drawn, however tentatively, that the purification block (vv. 24-40)
constitutes a later insertion into the chapter. Furthermore, since its
two passages on quadrupeds are not contiguous, the second one
(vv. 39-40) may itself be a later supplement to the block.
One might be tempted to justify the order in the MT on the
following grounds: just as birds (vv. 13-19) and flying insects
(vv. 20-23) are grouped together because they are winged creatures,
so are quadrupeds (vv. 24-28) and swarmers (vv. 29-38), because
they are land animals. However, this reasoning only adds fuel to the
insertion hypothesis. Precisely because the author of vv. 24-38 found
this sequence in the existing text (vv. 13-23), he gave a similar form
to his own material before he inserted it. Besides, this observation
only underscores why vv. 39-40 must have been added subsequently
to the purification block: they fit into no sequence, either in the block
or in the rest of the chapter.
Bible scholars have long been aware of the disorder present in
Leviticus 11. Wellhausen3 deduces that vv. 24-40 were a later insert
on the grounds that this block dealt with impure animals that were
tame' and not seqes, the term used in the rest of the chapter. He was
rebutted by Eerdmans,4 who pointed out that the four named
quadrupeds (vv. 4-8), belonging to the main part of the chapter, are
also called \arne'. However, it turns out that Wellhausen was correct
even if he gave the wrong reason. The block, vv. 24-40, is an insert
because it deals with a different topic, purification from defilement by
1. D.Z. Hoffmann, The Book of Leviticus, I (Hebr.; trans. Z. Har-Shefer and

A. Liebermann [Das Buch Leviticus]; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1953),
pp. 224-25.
2. Moses ben Nachman (Ramban or Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah, II
(Hebr.; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1960), pp. 59-60.
3. J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher
des Alien Testaments (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963 [repr. 4th edn, 1899]), p. 148.
4. B.D. Eerdmans, Das Buch Leviticus (Giessen: Toppelmann, 1912), p. 60.
184
contact, and because it interrupts the sequence of prohibited animal

foods (vv. 2-23, 41-42).
The demonstration that vv. 24-40 are an insert must begin with a
glance at the comparable inventory of forbidden animals in
Deuteronomy 14. It suffices here solely to note that its sequence of
animal categories is precisely the same: quadrupeds (vv. 4-8), fish
(vv. 9-10), birds (vv. 11-18), flying insects (vv. 19-20), and
carcasses of pure animals (v. 21). A word of explanation on the last
two categories is needed. The flying insects, 'dpin distinction to
sippor, 'birds'are neatly encapsulated into two verses: the first rules
out impure kinds (v. 19; cf. Lev. 11.20, 23) and the second permits
pure kinds (v. 20; cf. Lev. 11.21-22). The verse on carcasses (v. 21)
begins with the proscription lo' to'kflu kol-nebeld, 'do not eat any
carcass'. The wording is significant: 'any carcass' must include the
carcasses of pure animals. It is thus a reference to Lev. 11.39-40
which, as will be demonstrated below, belongs to the last stages in the
composition of Leviticus 11. D eliminated two subjects, defilement by
contact and the purification process, and focused solely on the subject
of diet. D also found it unnecessary to include the section on land
swarmers. Otherwise, D has the entire inventory of Leviticus 11 and
in the same order.1 Thus, since D probably had the final form of
Leviticus 11 to draw from, it cannot serve as a means of penetrating
into the earlier stages in the formation of Leviticus 11.
Let us now concentrate on the intrusive block, vv. 24-40. As
indicated above, it is composed of two units, vv. 24-38 and 39-40.
The first, vv. 24-38, can be shown to be an insert for the following
reasons:
1.
2.
In the passage on impure quadrupeds (vv. 24-28), behema is

contrasted with fyayyd, 'wild quadrupeds', implying that
behema can only mean 'domesticated quadrupeds'. However,
this usage stands in opposition to its function in v. 2, where
it embraces all quadrupeds, wild species as well (e.g. the rock
badger, v. 5). Different terminology implies different
sources.
Verses 29-38 exhibit their intrusive character by limiting
defilement to contact. The omission of defilement by eating,
1. Details in J. Milgrom, Leviticus, I (AB, 3a; New York: Doubleday, 1991),

chapter 11, comment B.
MILGROM The Composition of Leviticus 11
3.
185
however, was no accident; it is discussed further on in

vv. 41-42. Thus, the fact that the author of vv. 29-38 took
into consideration a subsequent passage (vv. 41-42) can only
mean that the latter stood before him and, hence, his own
passage is a later insertion.
The most decisive reason, already mentioned, is that the
entire block on purification (vv. 24-40) sticks out like a sore
thumb from the midst of organically related material, i.e.
laws dealing solely with diet.
Thus, the conclusion is ineluctable that vv. 24-38 (and its supplement,
vv. 39-40; see below) comprise a subsequent layer to the diet laws
represented in vv. 1-23, 41-42, 46. To which source can they be
ascribed? Their terminology and content leave no room for doubt.
Their concern with contact impurity and its purification are of a piece
with the theme and vocabulary of the subsequent chapters (12-15)
especially chs. 12 and 15. However, chs. 11-15 comprise a block of
material which was inserted between chs. 10-16. Hence, the
conclusion suggests itself, however tentatively, that whoever composed chs. 12-15 linked them to 11.1-23, 41-42, 46, by inserting
vv. 24-38, thereby presenting a fuller spectrum of communicable
impurity not just by humans (chs. 12-15) but also by animals (ch. 11).
Of course, the tableau of communicable impurity is incomplete. The
list of purification procedures for impurity transmitted by animal
carcasses should be supplemented by a similar tabulation for
communicable impurity stemming from human corpses. However,
chs. 12-15 deal solely with the impure fluxes and skin eruptions of
live persons, not dead ones. The answer has already been suggested1
that the original severity of corpse contamination was subsequently
attenuated as a result of a long battle with the pagan notion that contact with the dead meant exposure to malevolent, demonic forces. And
for this reason a later version of corpse contamination, its potency
reduced and adapted to settled life in Canaan, was incorporated into
Scripturenot in the book of Leviticus but in the book of Numbers
(ch. 19).
The basis for regarding vv. 39-40 as an appendix to the purification
block is the cumulative evidence that, originally, the carcass of a pure
1. Cf. J. Milgrom, 'The Paradox of the Red Cow (NumXIX)', VT 31 (1981),
pp. 62-72.
186
animal did not carry impurity by contact:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Lev. 5.2 deals with impurity arising from contact beniblat

hayya fme'a'd r/niblatbehema teme'a'd tfniblat seres (ame'
'with the carcass of an impure wild quadruped or the carcass
of an impure domesticated quadruped or the carcass of an
impure swarming creature'. Thus, this verse implies, by
omission, that the carcasses of pure wild quadrupeds
(e.g. 17.13-14; Deut. 14.5), pure domesticated quadrupeds
(e.g. Deut. 14.4) and pure swarming creatures (e.g. 11.2122) do not defile by touch.
The same conclusion must be derived from Lev. 7.21,
dealing with one who 'touches anything impure, be it any
human impurity or an impure quadruped or an impure
detestable creature'. Once again, pure quadrupeds are
omitted from this list, the implication being that their
carcasses do not defile by touch.
If the suet from the carcass of a pure quadruped may be
utilized in man's service (7.24), clearly it does not defile.
The only creatures in ch. 11 whose carcasses expressly defile
by touch are the impure quadrupeds (vv. 4-8, 24-28), the
eight named reptiles (vv. 29-38), and the pure quadrupeds
(vv. 39-40). But the first two categories are distinguishable
by being called fame', whereas all others in the chapter are
referred to as seqes, the latter term implying that only their
ingestion is defiling but not their touch. However, the
pericope on pure quadrupeds that defile by touch (vv. 39-40)
does not contain the adjective tame' and, moreover, is out of
place (belonging logically after v. 28 instead of interrupting
the section on the seres, 29-38, 41-42).
Impurity is contracted by a priest if he touches bekol-sere$
>a
ser yi(ma'-lo, 'any swarming creature by which he is made
impure' (22.5). Since there are swarming creatures whose
touch does not defile (all but the eight reptiles, 11.29-30), it
stands to reason that a similar distinction exists among the
other animal species, i.e., that some of their carcasses do not
defile by touch. Moreover, since the priest is only forbidden
to eat of a carcass (22.8) it can be deduced that touching it is
not forbidden. Otherwise, the prohibition would have been
MlLGROM The Composition of Leviticus 11
187
against touching, and eating would have been deduced a

fortiori.
As shown (above), the original kernel of this chapter dealt solely
with an enumeration of the prohibited animals as food (quadrupeds,
vv. 1-8; fish, vv. 9-12; birds, vv. 13-23, and reptiles, vv. 41-43) and
the section on purification procedures imposed for handling the
carcasses of impure quadrupeds and eight reptiles (vv. 24-38) was a
later insertion. Thus, vv. 39-40, which prescribe purificatory
remedies for such impurity, must reflect a subsequent development.
In addition, this passage shares with the preceding verses on
purification (vv. 24-38) their intrusive character within the
homogeneous diet laws (vv. 2-23, 41-42). However, it clearly is an
appendix to the purification block (vv. 24-38), since it logically
belongs with the other quadrupeds (vv. 24-28). Its placement at the
end, after the long section on land swarmers (vv. 29-38), betrays its
supplemental nature. Also, another indication of its discreteness is that
it alone prescribes purification for eating a carcass as well as handling
it. It was clearly composed by a P tradent, since its vocabulary, tame',
'be defiled (by touch)', and >aser-hi' Idkem le'okld, 'that you may eat',
corresponds with P usage (see below). It could not have been authored
by H, which holds that a priest is only forbidden to eat of a pure
animal carcass (22.8) but he is not forbidden to touch it. Otherwise,
the prohibition enjoined upon the priest to refrain from touching the
carcass of (any of the eight, 11.29-31) swarming things (22.5) would
have also included the wording bekol-behemd >aser-hi' le'okld 'any
edible quadruped' (as in 11.39). And if contact with a carcass is not
forbidden to a priest, all the more so to a lay person. Hence, vv. 3940, which forbid the touching of a pure carcass, must be later than the
two priestly strata, described above, as well as H.
In addition to the intrusive purification block (vv. 24-40), this
chapter contains an appendix (vv. 43-45) which also betrays signs of
supplementation. Suspicion rests on the altered use of the verb siqqes;
throughout the chapter it denotes 'abominate', but here it means
'defile'. 1 The verb timme' also exhibits a change in meaning; it
continues to mean 'defile', but whereas in the rest of the chapter it
connotes defilement by contact, here it is limited to defilement by
1. J. Milgrom, Leviticus, I, on 11.43a.
188
ingestion, 1 a characteristic of H (20.25bp). Furthermore, the

expression siqqes 'et-hannepes, 'defile the throat', is not a P idiom but
is attested in H (20.25). This dependency on H is strongly
corroborated by the imperative to Israel to make itself holy (v. 44),
which is the most distinctive characteristic of the Holiness source (and
hence its name) but which stands in flat contradiction to the opposing
doctrine of P, that holiness of persons is reserved exclusively for
priests and Nazirites. Even the Levites, the life-long servants of the
Tabernacle, are scrupulously denied by P the attribute of holiness.2
Finally, this passage's dependence on H is evidenced by the fact that
the call to holiness serves as a specific rationale for the diet laws both
here (v. 44ap) and in H (20.26a).
The chapter's subscript (vv. 46-47) is composed of two parts. The
first (v. 46) sums up the animal categories but says nothing of
purification. It probably was the work of P, and serves as a balance to
the introduction (vv. l-2a). The second subscript is probably the
work of P2, who had to make sure that the resumptive subscript would
also summarize the two polarities, edible/inedible, and the one he
introduced, impure/pure, corresponding respectively to the laws of
defilement by ingestion and contact. To be sure, it cannot be the work
of H. It is punctilious in preserving the use of fame' for defilement by
contact, in concert with the rest of P. Moreover, its use of the polaric
term tahor for carcasses whose contact does not defile (see also
vv. 32, 36, 37) clashes with its use in H, where it designates edible
animals (20.25a). P, on the other hand, refers to the latter as
'animal(s) that may be eaten' (v. 39; cf. v 34).
The implications of this analysis for the development of ch. 11 are
as follows: first, P experiences inner growth; the dietary prohibitions
(vv. 2-23, 41-42) are supplemented by a block dealing with
purification procedures for handling carcasses of impure animals
(vv. 24-38). That it is the work of a P tradent is assured by the
continued use of tame' to designate defilement by contact in distinction
from seqe$, the term reserved for defilement by ingestion. It can be
shown that chs. 9-10 also exhibit P accretions.3 Thus, the possibility
1. Milgrom, Leviticus, I, on 11.43b.
2. Cf. J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1970), p. 29 n. 103.
3. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, I, on 9.21 and 10.15.
MlLGROM The Composition of Leviticus 11
189
exists that Pj and P2 discerned there continue their course in this chapter as well. If this holds true, then P2 here, as in the prior chapters, is
a redaction and not a source, i.e., the author of vv. 24-38 also
inserted them. Theoretically, he might also have inserted the supplements, vv. 39-40, 43-45 and 47. However, the first of these passages
(vv. 39-40) must be ruled out because of its position as an appendix,
as indicated above. The second passage (vv. 43-45) is automatically
eliminated by its content and vocabulary, which place it in the sphere
of H. The third supplement (v. 47), howeverclearly the work of the
P school (see above)remains a possibility.
Since it neatly encapsulates the animals which defile either by
contact or ingestion, the likelihood is that its author is indeed P2, the
one who inserted vv. 24-28, thereby providing a fitting summary for
the augmented chapter. By the process of elimination vv. 39-40 must,
therefore, be attributed to a later interpolator. Indeed, since the
doctrine expressed in vv. 39-40 is alien to Pp P2, and H, it follows
that these verses comprise the last stage in the composition of
Leviticus 11, a deduction which has significant implications for the
redaction of the book of Leviticus.1
What of the remaining passage, vv. 43-45? Clearly, as the product
of H, it is alien to the chapter. Moreover, it is found at the end of the
chapter and is neither adumbrated in the resumptive subscripts
(vv. 46-47) nor is it in harmony with them. As indicated above, the
verbs siqqe and timmeclash with their usage in the rest of the
chapter and, more significantly, they clash with the second subscript
(v. 47) in the usage of tame'. The question must be asked: why did the
H redactor find it necessary to supplement the dietary code? His
leitmotif 'holiness' provides the answer. The Priestly school, as
evidenced by this chapter, is concerned with Israel's ritual purity, but
only in regard to the sanctuary and its sancta. For H, this is not
enough. Israel has to strive for holiness, a higher rung on the ladder
of virtue (cf. m. Sot. 9.15). Holiness implies moral as well as ritual
perfection; it is imitatio dei (19.2).
Thus, the conclusion is inescapable that the insertion of vv. 43-45
took place after the P material was in place. The implications are
mind-boggling. Rather than assuming, with the scholarly consensus,
that H is prior to and assimilated into P, Leviticus 11 indicates that the
1. Ibid., Introduction.
190
reverse may be true: H is the redactor of P, not just of earlier Pj, but
also of subsequent P2. This conclusion will be supported by the
cumulative evidence that H passages frequently occur outside its own
block (chs. 17-26), where they appear, as here, as inserts that
supplement and even interrupt the flow of the text (e.g. the Sabbath,
Exod. 31.12-17; 35.1-3; the tassels, Num. 15.37-41; the laws
concerning the ger, Exod. 12.47-49; Lev. 16.29-34; Num. 9.14;
15.13-16, 22-31; 19.10b; 35.15).1 The question, however, remains: Is
H the last stratum of this chapter, or, perhaps, is P3 (vv. 39-40) still
later? This question is not without significance. If the latter alternative
proves correct, then H is not the final hand in this chapter and,
presumably, in Leviticus; a P tradent subsequent to the H redaction
then updated the material. Or if it turns out that P3 was already in
place before H inserted his interpolation, then the possibility clearly
exists that H is the redactor of all of P and, perhaps, of the entire
Torah.2
These findings are summarized in the table which appears on the
following page.
1. Cf. I. Knohl The Conception of God and Cult in the Priestly Torah and in the
Holiness School' (Diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1988 [Hebrew]).
2. The investigation of this question is reserved for the Introduction to the
Holiness Source, AB 3b.
The Composition of Leviticus 11

Verses
Stage I: Diet Rules (Pj)
l-2a
Introduction
2b-8
Forbidden quadrupeds
9-12
Fish
13-19
Birds
20-23
Flying insects
Stage II: Purification (P2)
24-28
Forbidden quadrupeds
29-38
Eight land swarmers
Stage III: H. Redaction
39-40
41-42
Permitted quadrupeds
Land swarmers
Call to holiness
43-45
46
47
Stage IV: Interpolation (P3)
Subscript
Subscript
THE SIN OFFERING LAW IN THE 'HOLINESS SCHOOL'

(NUMBERS 15.22-31)
Israel Knohl
I
The sin offering law in Num. 15.22-31 is one of the more difficult
topics in biblical law. In his last article, A. Toeg proposed a comprehensive and original solution to the questions posed by this law.1 Toeg
defines the underlying difficulties of this text as follows:
The main exegetic problem of this text lies in its unique and unusual
nature which is very apparent if we compare it with the corresponding
section in Leviticus 4. . .Taking account of parallel laws in the Torah,
there are three surprising issues here:
A. The obligation to bring a bull for a burnt offering and a goat for a sin
offering for a transgression by error of the congregation (v. 24), versus a
bull for a sin offering in the analogous case in Lev. 4.14.
B. The priority of the burnt offering to the sin offering for a transgression
by error of the congregation (v. 24) is surprising in view of the fact that
with all other sacrifices offered for a transgression or uncleanness, the
burnt offering, if not completely excluded, is generally secondary to the
sin offering in the order in which it is mentioned and sacrificed.
C. The 'cutting off punishment for all willful sinners (v. 30-31) versus
limiting this punishment to specific transgressions. . .which are mostly
strict cultic prohibitions ('A Halachic Midrash', pp. 1-2).
Toeg then reviews the various attempts in rabbinic literature and in
rabbinic and Karaite exegesis to resolve the contradiction between
Numbers 15 and its corresponding text in Leviticus 4, by presenting
them as dealing with two different cases. Due to the difficulties arising
from these interpretations, Toeg arrives at the following conclusion:
There appears to be no escape from the conclusion of modern
1. A. Toeg, 'A Halachic Midrash in Numbers 15.22-31', Tarbiz 43 (1973-4),
p. 1-20, and see review of previous research, pp. 4-7.
KNOHL The Sin Offering Law in the 'Holiness School'
193
commentators that Numbers 15 is dealing with a transgression by error of

the congregation in general and with an individual error in general, as
does Leviticus 4, in spite of slight differences in phrasing. Since these
texts are dealing with identical cases, they therefore clearly contradict each
other. The question is whether it is possible to find a relationship between
them ('A Halachic Midrash', pp. 4-5).
The generally accepted principle of modern exegesis that the more
complex law is a later law is based on an unproven supposition.
Moreover, the application of this principle here is a two-edged sword
since each of the two passages is more complex than the other in terms of
the differences between them. . .It is therefore clear that a simplistic
application of the above principle does not help our understanding of the
relationship between the two texts. On the other hand, there are two
matters of special significance here. One is that in Numbers 15 the bull
burnt offering precedes the goat sin offering, contrary to the usual order in
similar cases. The second is, that since a goat is used as a sin offering for
the nation in the Days of Consecreation (Lev. 9.3) and goats are used as
sin offerings for the nation on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 17.5), then
Lev. 4.14 is exceptional in requiring a bull sin offering for a
transgression by error of the congregation ('A Halachic Midrash', p. 5).
Later on Toeg proves, based on a detailed literary analysis, that the

author of the passage in Numbers 15 was familiar with the corresponding law in Leviticus 4 and wished to revise and rephrase it. Toeg
defines this revision as 'A Halachic Midrash'. He is of the opinion that
the author of the Numbers passage understood the language of
Lev. 4.14, 'the congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin
offering' as a shortened formulation which can be cut and explained as
follows: 'a bull of the herd'for a burnt offering, and a goat'as a
sin offering'. Application of this Midrash, makes the text in Leviticus
conform to the widespread custom of atoning for the nation with a
goat sin offering, as in the Days of Consecration and Day of
Atonement ceremonies. Thus the anomaly of the bull burnt offering
appearing prior to the goat sin offering in v. 24 is understood, since
this bull is none other than the transformation of the bull sin offering
mentioned in Lev. 4.24. Toeg brings an example of this exegetic
technique from an elaboration in the Samaritan version of Exod. 22.4
(this elaboration also appears in the Septuagint, and it is also partially
documented in a section from cave 4 at Qumran).1 Another example is
1. See A. Toeg, 'Exodus 22.4: The Text and the Law in Light of the Ancient
Sources', Tarbiz 39 (1970), pp. 229-30; Addenda to Tarbiz 39, pp. 223-31, 419.
194
the formula 'a word is missing and it should read thus' which is used
in the Babylonian Talmud as a basis for exegetic interpolations which
elaborate on the wording of the Mishnah.1
Toeg's original explanation has recently been adopted by
M. Fishbane,2 but I believe that it requires further study. Let us
examine it in light of the examples of the exegetic interpolation technique which Toeg presents. These examples present different ways of
creating a literary association between the basic text and the exegetic
elaboration. On the one hand, we have the case of Exod. 22.4 in
which the elaboration is inserted into the original text, and on the
other hand there are the examples from the Talmud in which the
Mishnah version of the canon is preserved in its original, but with the
exegetical note at the side 'a word is missing and it should read thus'
suggesting an alternative, elaborated version.
This subject matter appears to be similar to the examples from the
Talmud, rather than to the text in Exodus, in that no elaboration is
inserted in the Leviticus 4 version, but alongside the original version
of the canon, which was preserved in its original form, Numbers 15
offers an alternative, elaborated version. But the similarity is not
perfect, because the Babylonian sage refers directly to the Mishnah
text and proclaims 'a word is missing and it should read thus',
whereas the biblical author can only hint to the reader at his intention
to correct and interpret the earlier version. Based on Toeg, we would
therefore expect that the later author who formulated the law in
Numbers 15 would have made every effort to preserve the affinity
with and similarity to the textual framework of Leviticus 4, so that the
reader can clearly understand that it is the author's intention to
correct and interpret this difficult text. Thus, in order to make the
bull sin offering (Lev. 4.14) compatible with the halachic norm of the
Days of Consecration and the Day of Atonement ritualsthe goat sin
offeringit would have been sufficient to add few words to the
written Leviticus text. Instead of 'the congregation shall offer a bull
of the herd as a sin offering' it should read 'the congregation shall
offer a bull of the herd as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin
offering'. A small correction of this type would create the required
1. Toeg, 'A Halachic Midrash', pp. 8-9.
2. M. Fishbane, Biblical interpretation in Ancient Israel, (Oxford 1985), pp. 22324.
195
halachic compatibility while preserving a marked affinity with the

original Leviticus 4 text.
However, the textual reality is completely different. The language
of the text in Numbers 15 deviates completely from the language in
Leviticus 4. Instead of 'the congregation shall offer' in Leviticus 4, we
find in Numbers 15 'the whole congregation shall present'. In addition, the words 'of pleasing odor to the Lord with its proper meal
offering and libation', are completely unnecessary according to Toeg's
explanation. These changes and additions blur the linguistic connection
between the two texts and make it difficult to claim that this is exegetic
interpolation. This is no exegetic insertion but rather a revised and
renewed version with only a weak affinity to the original text!
Ill
Since I have rejected the theory that the Numbers 15 text is an
exegetic elaboration of the Leviticus 4 text which would resolve the
difficulty of the bull burnt offering preceding the goat sin offering, I
wish to propose an alternative explanation. In order to do so, I must
first examine the various Priestly writings which deal with atonement
of the congregation, and classify them according to their chronological order and literary characteristics.
As mentioned previously, the text in Lev. 9.3 referring to the
eighth Day of Consecration instructs: 'And speak to the Israelites,
saying: Take a he-goat for a sin offering; a calf and a lamb, yearlings
without blemish, for a burnt offering'. In the annual Day of Atonement ceremony it states, 'And from the Israelite community he shall
take two he-goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering'
(Lev. 16.5). Both texts have in common the combination of a goat for
a sin offering and a bull for a burnt offering for the atonement of the
people.1 In contrast, in the Lev. 4.14 text a transgression by error of
the congregation is atoned for with a bull of the herd as a sin offering.
There is a criterion which we can use to help us establish that this is a
later text than the two previously mentioned texts. This criterion is the
references to the incense altar.
1. For the basis of atoning with this type of burnt offering see Lev. 9.7 and
16.24.
196
Wellhausen, Kuenen and many other scholars1 have noted the

unusual placement of the instruction for building the altar of gold in
Exodus 30, which appears after the conclusion of all of the
instructions for building the Tabernacle and its vessels. They
concluded that this is a relatively later instruction and that the earlier
stratum of the Priestly Torah (P) knows of only one altar, the altar of
burnt offering. Indeed, an examination of the material confirms this
theory. For example, the Day of Atonement passage in Leviticus 16
repeatedly uses the non-specific term 'the altar''he shall go out to
the altar that is before the Lord and purge it' (Lev. 16.18), 'when he
has finished purging the Shrine, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar'
(Lev. 16.20). The passages are clearly referring, both linguistically
and contextually, to the altar of burnt offering, as Ibn Ezra argues in
his commentary.2 It would seem that the author is completely unaware
of the existence of another altar and therefore used the non-specific
term 'the altar'.3 This distinction also applies to the text of the eighth
Day of Consecration in Leviticus 9, where the non-specific phrase 'the
altar' is also used, referring to the altar of burnt offering (Lev. 9.7-10,
17-18, 20, 24). In contrast, the sin offering text in Leviticus 4 is familiar with two altars and therefore carefully distinguishes between them:
the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of aromatic
incense which is in the Tent of Meeting before the Lord, and all the rest of
the bull's blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering,
which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (Lev. 4.7).
And again in v. 18:

1. See the reference list cited by M. Haran, 'The Censer Incense and Tamid
Incense', Tarbiz 26 (1957), p. 118 n. 5.
2. Which is contrary to Rabbinic interpretation which states: 'And he shall go out
to the altar that is before the Lordthis is the altar of gold' (m. Yarn. 5.5).
3. Verses 17 and 20 state that the Priest atones for the tent of meeting, but there is
no explanation of how he conducts the atonement. In any event, it is incorrect to
claim that the text is hinting at atonement for the incense altar as in Exod. 30.10. If
this were so why wasn't this altar mentioned explicitly? Furthermore, the verse in
Exod. 30.10 is a kind of supplement to the annual Day of Atonement ceremony
described in Lev. 16. After the new instruction regarding building the altar of
incense was given (Exod. 30.1-9), v. 10 was added to it in order to include the new
altar with the atonement vessels 'once a year'. See A. Kuenen, The Origin and
Composition of the Hexateuch (trans. P.H. Wicksteed; London: Macmillan, 1886),
p. 87 n. 23.
197
Some of the blood he shall put on the horns of the altar which is before
the Lord, in the Tent of Meeting, and all the rest of the blood he shall pour
out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the
Tent of Meeting.
Thus we see that the Days of Consecreation and Day of Atonement

texts (Leviticus 9 and 16), where atonement is with a goat sin offering
and a bull burnt offering, belong to an early stratum of the Priestly
Torah, whereas Leviticus 4, where atonement for the congregation is
with a bull for a sin offering, belongs to a later stratum. As previously mentioned, I have accepted Toeg's view that the Numbers 15
sin offering text is familiar with the corresponding text in Leviticus 4
and simply revises it. It follows that the text in Numbers 15 is the
latest of all sources dealing with atonement of the nation. And it is
indeed precisely this section which goes back and adopts the early
custom of atonement of the congregation with a goat sin offering and
a bull burnt offering, as in Leviticus 9 and 16, but it gives unusual
priority to the burnt offering over the sin offering. I believe that the
key to understanding this phenomenon lies in the realisation that in
contrast to the sin offering laws in Leviticus 4, 9, 16 which originate
in the Priestly Torah (P), the sin offering laws in Numbers 15 have
their origin in the Holiness School (H).1
In attributing this text to the Holiness School, I am following
Wellhausen and Kuenen2 who pointed out the remarkable affinity
between Numbers 15 and the Holiness Code. From among the various
proofs with which these scholars support their claims, I wish to note
the similarity between the story of the man gathering sticks in
Numbers 15 and the man who cursed in Leviticus 24, as well as the
passage regarding rcrx which concludes Numbers 15 which is studded
with terms characteristic of the Holiness School, e.g. 'to be holy to
your God', 'I, the Lord your God'. The scholars point out the
exhortatory tone of vv. 30-31 which is also reminiscent of the
Holiness School style. The rro formulation appearing in this passage
1. For the school which is termed H, see the material in my dissertation, 'The
Concept of God and Cult in the "Priestly Torah" and the "Holiness Schol'" (PhD
Diss.; Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 89-90, 146-71.
2. See: J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuch und der historichen
Biicher des Alien Testaments (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1889), p. 175; Kuenen, Origin
and Composition, p. 96 n. 38.
198
also indicates that the passage has its origin in this school.1
Ill
Having classified the texts by chronological order and the various

schools, I can now attempt an explanation of the subject matter in its
entirety. It would seem that the changing of one sacrificial animal for
another, in atoning for a transgression by error of the congregation,
is indicative of the profound disagreement in the understanding of the
essence of the atonement ritual and methods. In non-Priestly biblical
sources, the foremost atonement and appeasement sacrifice is the burnt
offering. Thus, for example, Samuel sacrifices a sucking lamb as a
whole burnt offering before crying out to God during the fast at
Mitzpah on the eve of the war with the Philistines (1 Sam. 7.9). We
read of Job's custom,
When a round of feast days was over, Job would send word to them to
sanctify themselves, and, rising early in the morning, and he would make
burnt offerings, one for each of them; for Job thought 'Perhaps my
children have sinned, and blasphemed God in their thoughts'. This is
what Job always used to do (Job 1.5).
The appeasement quality of the burnt offering lies in its being burnt
completely, thus imparting a splendid aroma which has the power to
appease and assuage the anger of the Lord as portrayed in the story of
1. There are two 'cutting off formulations here. The first, 'that person shall be
cut off from among his people' is followed by, 'that person shall be cut offhe
bears his guilt'. The second formulation is unique, but the first is similar to rro
formulations with which we are familiar. Careful study reveals that this formulation
departs from the style of the Priestly Torah and instead is similar to that of the
'Holiness School'. The Priestly Torah 'cutting off formulation is 'shall be cut off
from his people' (Exod. 30.33, 38; Lev. 7.20-21), whereas here the text states,
'that person shall be cut off from among his people'. The use of the term 'from
among' in 'cutting off expressions is very widespread in the Holiness School (see
Lev. 17.4, 10; 18.29; 20.5, 18; cf. also 23.30). The usage 'from among' in 'cutting
off formulations appears, in addition to the Holiness Code, only in the expression
'that person shall be cut off from among his kin' in Exod. 31.14. Scholars agree that
the Sabbath laws of Exod. 31.12-17 originate in the Holiness School (see
M. Haran, 'The Holiness Code', in EM, V, p. 1095). Thus, the usage of 'from
among' in the 'cutting off formulation is unique to the Holiness School and its appearance in Num. 25 is proof of its originating in that school. For additional evidence of
the origin of the sin offering law in the Holiness School see below, p. 201 n. 1.
199
the flood, 'Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and taking of every
clean animal and of every bird, he offered burnt offerings on the
altar' (Gen. 8.20). The image of God receiving pleasure from the
sweet aroma and his anger subsiding as a result has a strong tinge of
anthropomorphism. These sources, however, find nothing wrong with
such images (see also 1 Sam. 26.19).
The approach of the Priestly Torah is different. The Priestly Torah
inherited the ancient ritual forms with their anthropomorphic images,
but made a concerted effort to refine them. The aroma of the
sacrifices is a common motif of this school, however it refrains from
attributing the smelling action directly to God and phrases it
indirectly, 'an offering by fire, of pleasing odour to the Lord'.1
Moreover, an examination of the usage of the expression 'pleasing
odour to the Lord' in the Priestly Torah, is instructive. This expression is widely used in relation to burnt offerings and peace offerings,
but is almost entirely lacking in the atonement sacrifice laws for the
guilt offering and the sin offering.2 The same is true for the meal
offering laws. The combination 'pleasing odour to the Lord' appears
several times in the context of the meal offering sacrifice containing
frankincense, however the Priestly Torah specifically instructs that no
frankincense be put on the meal offering of the sinner and the
adulteress, and the sacrifice is not described as 'a pleasing odour' (see
Lev. 5.11-12; Num. 5.15, 26). The underlying reason for this seems
to be the Priestly Torah's reservations regarding the clearly
anthropomorphic and anthropopathic nature of the atonement
procedure as described in non-Priestly sources. As a result, this school
avoided the usage of 'a pleasing odour' precisely in the case of the
Atonement sacrifices and the meal offerings of sinners, so as not to
give the impression that forgiveness and atonement are achieved by
placating God with pleasant aromas. For this same reason, the Priestly
Torah changes the status of the burnt offering as the main Atonement
sacrifice and replaces it with the sin offering, only a small part of
which is burnt on the altar. The central feature of the act of atonement
no longer revolves around burning meat for a pleasing odour to the
Lord, but with various blood sprinkling ceremonies. The ritual of
1. See Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 121-22.
2. This expression is completely absent in the laws of the guilt offering and
appears once in relation to the sin offering (Lev. 4.31).
200
purification by blood is clearly of an impersonal nature. Sprinkling

the blood on the altar was not intended to appease God but to remove
and cleanse the impurity which was created as a result of the act of
sinning.1
This approach of the Priestly Torah is also portrayed in the various
atonement customs. During its early stage, as in the description of the
eighth Day of Consecration in Leviticus 8 and in the annual Day of
Atonement ceremony in Leviticus 16, the burnt offering is still in
evidence, but it no longer has central status and priority is given to the
sin offering which appears first. In the detailed description of the
sacrificing ceremonies, sprinkling of the blood is the main ritual.2
Rejection of the burnt offering culminates in Leviticus 4, which
belongs to a later stratum of the Priestly Torah. Here the burnt offering has completely disappeared, and atonement is with a bull sin
offering only.3
The rise of the Holiness School, which in my opinion is a later
school than that of the Priestly Torah,4 constitutes a major turning
point in Priestly thinking. The Priestly Torah wished to completely
separate Priestly ritual and popular cultic practices with their anthropomorphic expressions.5 The Holiness School, on the other hand,
accepts popular cultic tradition, attaches importance to it and strives to
blend this tradition with Priestly ritual practices.6 This approach can
be seen in the sin offering passage in Numbers 15, which was
formulated in this school.
The popular custom of atonement by means of the aroma of the
burnt offering again achieves centrality. The burnt offering is
mentioned first and with great elaboration, with the meal offering and
libation added to it, 'the whole congregation shall present one bull of
the herd as a burnt offering, of pleasing odour to the Lord, with its
proper meal offering and libation' (Num. 15.24). The goat sin
1. See Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 123-24.
2. See Lev. 9.8-9 and 16.14-19.
3. A remnant of the ancient atonement custom was preserved in the burning of the
fat of the sin offering upon the altar and referring to it as 'a pleasing odour to the
Lord' (Lev. 4.31).
4. See Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 4, 89, 113.
5. Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 141-42; and I. Knohl, 'The Priestly Torah Versus
the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals', HUCA 58 (1987), pp. 102-103.
6. Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 38-39, 168-69.
201
offering, of Priestly origin, is mentioned afterwards, and only briefly.

In v. 25 as well, the burnt offering precedes the sin offering:
The priest shall make expiation for the whole Israelite congregation and
they shall be forgiven; for it was an error, and for their error they have
brought their offering, an offering by fire to the Lord, and their sin
offering before the Lord.
The precise language describing and characterising the sacrifices is

most instructive. The burnt offering is described as ntfR, i.e. a gift
presented directly to God,1 whereas the text uses the impersonal,
indirect formulation 'before the Lord' for the sin offering, which is
common for the sacrifice laws in the Priestly Torah,2 from which the
sin offering ritual derives. In this manner the Holiness School
integrated both Priestly and popular cultic tradition into one fabric.3
1. Regarding the nttfK as a present, gift, see: I.C. Greenfield, 'Un rite religieux
arameen et ses paralleles', RB 80 (1973), pp. 46-52. The text, 'they have brought
their offering, an offering by fire to the Lord', strengthens my hypothesis regarding
its origin in the Holiness School. As I have explained elsewhere, the Priestly Torah
refrains from using such verbs as 'bring' Ran and 'give' ]ra with regard to the
'offering by fire', apparently in order to obscure the comparison of offering a
sacrifice with giving a present to God (see Knohl, 'God and Cult', pp. 236-37, n.
32). In contrast, the Holiness School is not afraid of such comparisons, and we
therefore find the following combinations in its laws: 'you shall not put. . .as
offering by fire' Conn vh ntfRl) (Lev. 22.22), 'your gifts. . .that you give to the
Lord' (Lev. 23.38). Against this background, we can understand the usage of 'they
have brought. .. an offering by fire' in Num. 15. Since this text was formulated in
the Holiness School, which does not adhere strictly to the precise phrasing and
terminology of the Priestly Torah, it explains the absence of the expressions, 'and he
realizes his guilt', 'and they realize their guilt', which are commonly used in the sin
offering and guilt offering laws of the Priestly Torah (Lev. 4-5).
2. Regarding the usage of the expression 'before the Lord', to obscure the
personal image of God in the Priestly Torah, see Knohl, 'God and Cult', p. 116 and
n. 5. The combination 'before the Lord' appears below in relation to the sin offering
of an individual as well (Num. 15.28). An individual cannot be commanded to bring
both a burnt offering and a sin offering because of material loss. Therefore, the
obligation to bring a goat for a sin offering is established here, as is the case in
Lev. 4.28.
3. Rendtorff and Milgrom have noted the connection between the bull burnt
offering in Num. 15.24 and the popular custom documented in non-Priestly sources
(see: R. Rendtorf, Studien zum Geschichte des Opfers in Alien Israel [NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967], pp. 22-23, 82-83; J. Milgrom, 'The Two
Pericopes on the Purification Offering', in The Word of The Lord Shall Go Forth
202

IV
Now that I have explained the basis for the halachic difference
between Leviticus 4 and Numbers 15 and the surprising priority of
the burnt offering over the sin offering, I would like to discuss the
other unusual phenomenon appearing here, i.e. the rro punishment
for all willful sinners. In his discussion of this subject, Toeg writes:
Leviticus 19 provides a possible ideological foundation for this extreme
approach. In this chapter, the identical explanatory statement 'I the
Lord/your God' is used repeatedly for laws regarding different subjects
and with differing formulations. .. Only an approach of this kind, which
views each and every law as an equal expression of God's will can bring
about the realization that willful transgression of any law constitutes total
rebellion against God. For if the only reason for the commandments is the
expression of God's will, then there is no point in differentiating between
severe and light commandments. The basic sin is thus the sin of 'hubris',
insolence against heaven.1
Toeg's ideas fall into line with my conclusion that the material under
discussion can be ascribed to the Holiness School, since Leviticus 19 is
known to be a central chapter in the writings of this school.
In my opinion, one theme connects the new halachic interpretations
of this law, and this theme is also expressed in its style. Several
scholars have already pointed out that in contrast to the completely
impersonal wording of the laws in Leviticus 4, the mode of address in
Numbers 15 is in the second person, both at the beginning of the
section (vv. 22-23) and also at its conclusion, with the errant sinner
(v. 29). This stylistic difference expresses the ideological difference.
Leviticus 4 is written from the viewpoint of the Priestly Torah which
endeavours to emphasise the impersonal dimension and rejects
Essays in Honor of D.N. Freedman [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983],
pp. 211-15). However I do not concur with the explanation which they offer, that
the early version of the Num. 15 law contained instructions regarding the sacrificing
of a bull burnt offering, and only at a later date was the goat sin offering added in
order to make it correspond with the Priestly laws. The flowing and uniform style of
the passage and the fine linguistic distinctions in the description of the different
sacrifices are proof, in my opinion, that we are dealing with a single literary unit
drawn from both popular cultic tradition and Priestly ritual tradition, which are
harmoniously blended together.
1. See Toeg, 'A Halachic Midrash', p. 18.
203
personal and anthropomorphic expressions of the relationship between

God and man. Therefore, sinning and atonement are not viewed as
part of an interpersonal relationship, but rather, sin is a force which
creates an impure state, which must be neutralised by cleansing
ceremonies. The Holiness School, on the other hand, endeavours to
emphasise the direct, personal connection between God and Israel (see
the expressions which are commonly used by this school 'I the
Lord/your God') and does not shun the use of expressions with an
anthropomorphic tone.1 Based on this approach, the Holiness School
formulated a new version of the sin offering law. It stressed the
interpersonal and anthropomorphic aspect of the atonement ritual,
whose essence, in its view, is bringing an ntfK, a gift, 'a pleasing odour
to the Lord'. It similarly emphasized the personal aspect in the willful
transgression. The main issue is not that willful transgression creates
impurity, but rather that it indicates rebellion against a commanding
God whose reason for giving the law is 'I, the Lord'. This view is
expressed in the passage 'But the person, be he citizen or stranger,
who acts defiantly reviles the Lord; that person shall be cut off from
among his people. Because he has spurned the word of the Lord, and
violated His commandment, that person shall be cut offhe bears his
guilt' (Num. 15.30-31). The positive element in the personal relationship between the commanding God and the commanded Israelites is
emphasized in the passage regarding niris which concludes the chapter.
In this passage, which carries the clear imprint of the Holiness School
we read,
Thus you shall be reminded to observe all My commandments, and to be
holy to your God. I the Lord am your God, who brought you out of the
land of Egypt, to be your God: I, the Lord your God (Num. 15.40-41).
1. Regarding anthropomorphic expressions of the Holiness School, see Knohl,

'God and Cult', pp. 148-49. The language 'and I will not savor your pleasing
odours' (Lev. 26.31), is instructive because it offers the image of refraining from
savouring the pleasing odour as an expression of God's anger.
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
HEBREW SCRIPTURES
Genesis
1.28
2.17
3.3
4.10
8.20
8.21
9.4
11.19
12.6
14.22
16.14
17.14
21.31
21.33
26.23-25
27
27.1-45
27.1
27.2
27.4
27.7
27.9
27.15
27.16
27.17
27.18
27.25
27.26-27
27.28-29
27.32
27.46-28.9
28
157
167
167
62
199
126
43, 65, 166
45
141
145
45
40
45
137
137
92-95, 107,
115, 119
107
92
92
92
92
94
120
94, 95, 108,
119
94
93
94, 95, 108
93
93
93
107
107, 119,
28.10-22
28.10
28.11
28.20-22
31.27
31.35
32.20
42.15
42.16
47.29
48
48.1
48.8
48.10
48.15-16
48.20
49.1
49.28-33
Exodus
6.20
12.4
12.16
15
19.6
20.11
22.2
22.4
22.30
23.19
29.12
139
107, 108,
115, 116,
119, 120
115
115, 116
19
16
176
52,53
127
127
93
92-94
92,93
93
93
93
93
93
92
129
41
41
21
64
45,46
167
193, 194
64, 166,
168, 169
168
50
29.33
30
30.1-9
30.10
30.12-16
30.12
30.13
30.15
30.16
30.33
30.38
31.12-17
31.14-15
32
31.14
34.26
35.13
Leviticus
1.2
1.4
3
3.16-17
3.17
4-5
4
4.1-5.13
4.1-5
4.2
4.7
4.14
4.18
4.24
47
196
196
53, 196
52
57
57
55
55
198
198
190, 198
58
140
198
168
190
94
53, 54, 61
46,66
166
43, 44, 61
151,201
9, 53, 156,
159, 192-97,
200, 202
154
160
159
196
192-95
196
193
Index of References
4.28
4.31
5.1-13
5.1
5.2ff.
5.2
5.2-3
5.3
5.5-13
5.7-10
5.7
5.20-26
5.11-12
5.24
6.20-23
6.23
7
7.19-20
7.20-21
7.20
7.21
7.24-27
7.24
7.25
7.26-27
7.26
7.27
8
8.15
9-10
9
9.3
9.7-10
9.8-9
9.7
9.9
9.17-18
9.20
9.21
9.24
10-16
10.1-7
10.1-3
10.4-5
10.4
10.15
10.16-20
201
199, 200
159
160
64
154, 165,
166, 186
159, 161
166
160
160
160
160
199
121
154
47
46,66
162
198
41
41, 154, 186
166
64, 186
41
44,61
41,43, 169
41,43
200
50
188
196, 197
193, 195
196
200
195
50
196
196
188
196
185
157, 160
160
154, 157
129
188
154
11-16
11-16.28
11-15
11
11.1-47
11.1-23
11.1-8
ll.l-2a
11.2-23
11.2-8
11.2
11.26-40
11.26-33
11.26-8
11.4-8
11.5
11.8
11.9-23
11.9-12
11.10
11.11
11.12
11.13-23
11.13-20
11.13-19
11.13
11.18
11.20-23
11.20
11.21-22
11.23
11.24-40
11.24-38
11.24-28
152
151
185
9, 64, 165,
168, 169,
177, 182-86,
188, 189,
191
154, 169
185
187
188, 191
182, 184,
187, 188
182
184
168
168, 169
191
165, 168,
183, 186
184
64, 168
167, 168
182, 187,
191
169
64, 168,
169
169
183, 187
165
182, 183,
191
169
158
182, 183,
191
169, 184
184, 186
165, 169,
184
167, 168,
182-85, 187
185, 187-89
165, 182-84,
186, 187,
191
205
11.24
11.27
11.28
11.29-40
11.29-38
11.29-31
11.29-30
11. 3 Iff.
11.31
11.32
11.34
11.36
11.37
11.39-40
11.39
11.41-45
11.41-43
11.41-42
11.14
11.42
11.43-45
11.43
11.43a
11.43b
11.44-45
11.44
11.44aa
11.46-47
11.46
11.47
12-15
12
12.1-8
12.4
12.6-8
12.8
13-14
13
64
64
186
182
182, 187,
191
187
167, 186
64
165
188
188
188
188
64, 158,
159, 165,
166, 168,
169, 182-87,
189-91
187, 188
165, 168,
182, 183
187
167, 168,
184-88, 191
169
169
151, 168,
187, 189
169
187
188
167
188
188
182, 188,
189
185, 188,
191
189, 191
53, 185
176, 185
154
162
156
151
26
177
206
13.1-14.32
13.45-46
13.47-59
14.2-7
14.3
14.8-9
14.10-20
14.14
14.20
14.21-32
14.33-53
14.34-57
14.47
14.49-53
15
15.2-15
15.14-15
15.16-18
15.19-24
15.24
15.25-30
15.29-30
15.31
16
16.2bp
16.5
16.8-10
16.8
16.11-20
16.14-19
16.16
16.17
16.18-19
16.18
16.20
16.21-22
16.24
16.26
16.27-28
16.27
16.29-34
16.29
16.20
16.31
17-26

154
26
154
154
169
26
156
154
53
156
154
151
167
154
176, 177,
185
154
156
154
154
158
154
156
151
156, 159,
161, 196,
200
151
195
154
59
154
53,200
163
47, 196
50
50, 196
196
154
195
154
154
190
190
41
163
41
151, 190
17
17.2
17.3-9
17.3-7
17.4
17.5-7
17.5
17.8-12
17.8-9
17.10-12
17.10
17.10ba
17.11
17.1 lao
n.mp
17.11b
17.12
17.12ap
17.13-16
17.13-14
17.13
17.13b
17.13ba
17.13bp
17.14
17.14aa
17.14ap
17.14b
17.14ba
17.14bp
17.15-16
17.16
18.6-23
18.14
18.19
18.25
9, 35, 36,
39, 60, 65,
162
38
38
37,65
58, 198
45
193
37
65
39, 42-44,
65
43, 45, 46,
62, 63, 166,
198
41
45, 46, 55,
59, 62, 63,
65
46
46
46,56
41,43-46,
61,63
41
37
39,61, 186
44, 61, 62,
63,65
38
61
61
43, 45, 65,
166
62,63
41
62-63
62
38,40
40, 64, 65,
154, 158,
161, 166
159, 166
162
129
154, 158
162
18.28
18.29
19
19.2
19.7
19.26
19.31
20
20.1-24
20.2-5
20.2
20.3
20.6
20.9
20.10
20.18
20.20
20.21
20.25-27
20.25-26
20.25
20.25a
20.25bp
20.26a
20.27
21.1-4
21.2-4
21.10-12
21.10-11
22.3-7
22.4-7
22.4-6
22.4
22.5
22.8
22.22
23.37
23.29
23.20
23.28
24
24.10-33
24.16
162
162, 198
202
189
166
43
163
166
166
162
58
40
40
58
57
154, 158,
162, 198
129, 162
162
154, 167
166, 168
188
188
188
188
166
154, 160,
167
157
154
157, 160,
167
162
154
154
154
186, 187
64, 154,
158, 165-67,
186, 187
201
41
41
40, 198
201
197
160
58
207
Index of References
24.18
25.49
26.17
26.31
27.11
27.27
56
129
40
203
154
154
15.28
15.29
15.30-31
55, 201
160
190
203
54
162
162
151, 152,
160, 161,
2.14
125
3.10
3.38
5.2-3
5.6-8
58
58
154
160
15.32-36
15.37-41
15.40-41
17.11
18.11
18.13
18.15
18.23-24
18.23
18.24
5.8
47
19
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.19
5.20
5.21-27
5.26
5.27
5.28
5.29
6.6-12
6.6-8
6.6-7
162
162
199
Numbers
1.14
1.51
6.9
6.10-12
7.42
7.47
8.19
9.6-14
9.14
10.20
12.10-15
12.12
15
15.13-16
15.22-31
15.22-29
15.22-23
15.24
15.25
125
58
162
162
57
199
162
162
162
154
157
159
159
159
125
125
52
154
190
125
176
26, 177
192-95, 197,
200-202
190
9, 190, 192
160
202
192, 193,
200, 201
201
19.1-22
19.2a
19.7
19.8
19.10
19.105-13
19.10b
19.13
202
160, 163,
166, 192,
197, 203
154
46
48
45,46
185
154
151
154
154
154
151
190
159, 161,
Deuteronomy
5.9
5.15
6.13
10.20
12.11-12
12.16
12.23
12.24
12.25
14
14.2
14.3-21
14.3-20
14.3-14
14.4-8
14.4
14.5
14.9-10
14.10
14.11-18
14.11
14.19-20
14.19
14.20
14.21
166
19.18
19.20-21a
19.20
19.21
21.13
23.24
24.17
25
25.13
30.14
31.13-24
31.50
32.33
35.15
35.31-34
35.31-33
35.31-32
35.31
35.33-35
35.33
154
151
159, 161,
166
154
19
44
124
198
52
41
154
55
48
190
58
53,56
56
52
159
47, 48, 56
14.21a
14.21b
15.8
15.11
15.15
15.23
16.24
17.21
19.6-7
19.21
21.8
21.15-17
24.16
24.18
24.22
28.47
32.4
32.42
33.1
58
45,46
127
127
22
43
43,49
43
43
169, 184
64
168, 169
168
169
184
186
186
184
169
184
169
184
169, 184
169, 184
64, 168,
169, 184
169
169
46
45,46
45,46
43
61
166
45
47
53
58
58
45,46
45,46
24
145
43
92
208
Joshua
2.1
2.3
130
130
6.17
6.23
6.25
23.1
130
130
130
92
Judges
3.20
5.18
6.32
111
21
129
130
8.9
127
11.30-31
13.15
13.19
17-18
18.30
18.31
20.1
20.18
20.26
19
94
I Samuel
1.11
3.1-18
3.14
3.20
7.9
7.16
10.3
14.32-34
14.39
14.45
14.50
18.6
20.3
25.26
26.19
28.6
28.10
2 Samuel
3.10
3.29
6.12
8.3
94
139, 140
139
139
146
115
115
19
no
47
146
198
115
94
43
127
127
129
16
127, 145
127
199
113
149
146
176
16
130
8.12
12.11
12.15-23
12.16-23
12.16
12.17
12.20
12.21
14.11
15.21
17.11
19.41
21.3
23.9
23.17
23.24
24.2
24.15
1 Kings
1.39
1.40
1.45
3.4-15
3.15
5.5
12
12.28
17.19
19.3
19.8
130
24
113, 114,
116
28
114, 116
116
116
114
149
127
146
129
52
128
44
128
146
146
1.16
2.2
2.4
2.6
4.10
7.3-10
15.5
16.13
17.28
17.30
23
23.15-20
/ Chronicles
4.10
4.24
11.12
11.19
11.46
16
16
17
112
116
146
140
139
111
138
138
111
111
111
127
127
127
111
176
176
94
147
148
147
147
115
24.21
26.25
27.4
19
130
128
44
130
146
130
130
130
128
2 Chronicles
1.1-13
112
21.2
23.17
1.5
20.27
20.37
23.18
26
2 Kings
1.4
1.6
23.15
26.16-21
30.5
112
16
128
16
26
176
146
Ezra
2.2
2.14
3.2
3.7-13
3.12
4.24-5.2
8.14
8.16
10.6
70
85
70
70
16
70
85
130
69, 73, 75,
77, 79, 80,
10.18
82
130
Nehemiah
3.1-20
73
3.1
3.20-21
3.37
7.7
7.18
10.12
12
68,69
68,69
54,55
85
85
130
67, 69, 71,
Index of References
12.6-7
12.8-9
12.10-11
12.10
12.11
12.22
12.23
12,27
12.35
12.43
13.4-9
13.4-5
13.4
13.6
13.28
72, 75, 7779

68
68
68, 69, 76
68, 76, 78,
82
69,82
68, 69, 71,
76, 80, 82,
88
69, 73, 77,
79, 82, 83
17
69
17
69,82
77
80
77
69, 70, 77,
78,90
Esther
4.1-2
31
Job
1.5
11.10
22.27
198
130
19
Psalms
1
3.1
3.6
4.9
5.12-13
5.12
9.2-3
9.12
9. 14-15
15
16
16.9
17.5
22.4-6
22.23
123
24
115
115
30
22
19, 22, 27,
30
19
26
165
20
28
115
21
21
22.26
23
23.4
23.5
24.3-6
27.6
30
30.12-13
31.7
32.1
32.11
33.21
34.2-4
34.3
35.27-28
35.27
40.17
48.12
50.13
54.6
54.8
56-60
57.1
58.1
59.1
61.6
64.11
66.13-17
66.13-15
69.11-12
69.33
70.5
71.20
71.22-23
75.1
86.13
91.1
92.2-5
92.5
92.14
96.11
97.1
97.8
97.11
100.2
104.31
106.5
107.4-32
19
28
28
28
165
18
29
22
22
55
22,30
22
30
22
30
22
22
22
44
18
18
20
20
20
20
19
22,30
18
18
30
22
22
26
22,27
20
26,33
115
22
19
19
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
18
209
107.9
107.21-22
109.24
109.28-30
110.7
138.5
116.7
126.23
137
137.3
141.1
141.2
149.2
41
18,19
30
30
124
124
18
22
23
16,22
18
15, 18
22
Proverbs
3.30
16.14
16.6
130
52
47
Cant.
5.10
132
Isaiah
1.11-17
1.11
6.1-8
6.1
6.3
6.4
7.14
9.2
16.10
22.13
23.10
24.11
27.9
30.22
34.7
38.9
45.2
47.11
49.26
55
55.12
58.3-5
58.3
58.10-11
62.2-3
145
44
27,28
26
21
31
48
16
16
16
126
16
47
176
44
20
126
52
44
27
16
30
41
41
30
210
65.4
103, 115
Jeremiah
7.8-11
7.34
16.9
16.18
18.23
25.10
33.11
46.10
48.33
165
16
16
65
52,54
16
16
43
16
Ezekiel
4.14
7.19-20
8.14
14
14.8
14.9
18.4
18.6
18.11
18.15
24.7-8
33.25
36.17
39.17-19
40-48
44.7
44.15
44.25-27
44.27
44.31
160
156
65, 158
Daniel
12.7
145, 149
Hosea
4.15
9.4
10.13
127, 145
94
124
8.14
8.14b
Nahum
2.1
127
Haggai
1.1
1.12
1.14-15
2.1-4
70
70
70
70
Zechariah
1.7
3
14.8
70
70
141
8.11
8.12
8.13
8.14
Joel
2.20
64
176
135
39
40
40
49
43
43
43
62
43
176
44
152
49
49
144
129
144
23, 147
122
141, 142,
146, 147
142, 146
141
122, 141,
142, 146
9, 121-28,
134-36, 138,
141-49
126
122, 146
6.4-7
6.10
6.12
8.10
8.11-14
8.11-12
Amos
1.1
1.2
2.6-8
3.9-10
4.1
4.4-5
4.5b
5.2
5.4-5
5.5
5.7
5.10-15
5.13
5.21-24
141
147
147
144
144
144
143-45
143
122
143
138
144
144
141
144, 145,
147
JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN SOURCES
Apocrypha
1 Esdras
9.1
79
Ecclesiasticus
50.1
89
Pseudepigrapha
Sibylline Oracles
9.2
130
10.2
130
19.4
130
42.3
130
New Testament
Matthew
3.11-12
100
26.64
124
Luke
3.16-17
100
Acts
1.13
20.18
111
111
Hellenistic Jewish Writers

Josephus
Ant.
11.5.1
68
11.5.5
68
11.5.5
68
11.5.5
68
11.7.1-8.7
78
11.7.1
68, 70, 73,
81, 83, 85
11.7.1
68
11.7.1
85
11.7.2-8.7
68,73
11.8.2
90
Index of References
11.8.7
11.8.7
12.2.5
12.3.3
12.3.3
12.3.4
12.4.1
14.10.22
14.10.24
20.6.2
70
73
79
84
84
84
79
84
84
84
Kel.
1.1-4
Mak.
3.15
155
44
Par.
4.3
44
Sot.
9.15
189
Yom.
5.5
196
Suk.
5.1
24
To/i. 1.5
155
211
Midrashim
Exod. R.
1.34
26
Num. R.
12.3
57
Christian Authors
Augustine
Sermons
216.10
98
War
6.5.3
Philo
Spec. Leg.
4.108-109
84
150
Mishnah
'Arak.
2.4
23
Ber.
1.1
Babylonian Talmud
'Arak.
lla
23
15
Ber.
7b
Eusebus
Inlsaiam
Commentari
28
65
103
103
Eustathius
adlliadem
2.233
104
ad Odysseam
22.481
1934-35
97
24
CLASSICAL SOURCES
Aelianus
Fragments
101
Appollodorus
Library
2.5.12
98
Diodorus Siculus
Library of History
4.14.3
98
4.25.1
98
16.1.8
82
16.47.3
86
16.47.4
86
16.49.3-6
86
16.50.7
86
86
17.5.5
17.5.6
86
Callimachus
Epigrammate
55
117
Ravius Philostratus
Life ofApollonius
2.37
107
Dicaearchus
2.262
95
Artemidorus
Onirocritica
5.9
117
117
Herodotus
2.141
4.172
110
116
Homer
Hymn to Demeter
192-201
101
Illiad
1.62-63
16.233
113
104
Odyssey
19.318
19.336-348
20.1-3
104
104
104
Joannes Lydus
De mensibus
4.65
95
212
Libanius
Argumentum
34.35-36
117
Declamationes
117
34
Epistulae
695.2
Lucian
De dea Syria
55
Lycophron
Alexandra
1050-51
Ovid
Fasti
2.31-32
4.649-76
5.101-102
95
Pausanius
1.34.5
2.11.7
2.27.1
2.27.3
2.36.1
10.33.11
105
Plutarch
Romulus
21.5
117
97
106
97-98
Theseus
30.5
33.1-2
98
98
Porphyry
Vita Pythagorae
17
96
103, 107
107
117
117
117
106
Strabo
Geography
6.3.9
8.5.15
14.1.11
14.1.44
105
117
106
107
Virgil
Aeneid
7.81-106
105
110
110
193.9
196.12
127
127
112
KUB
XII.69.2.4-5
109
Other Sources
Hittite Legend
12-13
13
14-17
14
ofNaram-Sin
109
109
109
109
97-98
INSCRIPTIONS AND PAPYRI
Published Collections
AP
11.17-18
68
11.17.19
68
11.409
68
69,72
30-31
30
78, 79, 81,
82,88
30.1
81, 82, 84,

85,87
30.4-12
30.18-31.17
30.18
70
68,74
82
14.1.35-37
14.1.35
14.3.154
-14.4.171
17.1.1
-17.2.42
17.1.5-6
17.1.6
17.1.15-16
17.2.24-42
17.2.24-28
32.1.25
32.1.34
110
KAI
26.3.19
181
CTA
14.1.26
-14.4.153
111
115
115
115
112
117
127
127
127
133-35
Khirbat el-Q6m
(cave
inscription) 32
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abrabanel, don I. 36, 49, 63
Ackerman, S. 9
Ackroyd, P. 122
Aharoni, Y. 136, 138, 147
Ahlstrom, G.W. 122, 128, 133, 134
Albright, W.F. 71, 72, 131
Alt, A. 141
Amsler, S. 123
Anderson, F. 122
Anderson, G.A. 8, 9, 25, 138
Anton, H. 99
Arbersmann, P.R. 107
Arend, W. 93
Avigad, N. 84
Baentsch, B. 36, 47
Barrag, D. 87, 88
Barstad, H.M. 123, 124, 135, 148
Barth, C. 27, 32
Bartina, S. 123
Bauernfeind, D. 84
Baumgartner, W. 41
Begrich, J. 19, 21
Ben-Hayyim, Z. 54
Benoit, P. 125
ben-Shammai, M.H. 52, 57
Berger, P. 175
Bertholet, A. 36, 37, 47, 63
Betlyon, J. 88
Beyerlin, W. 140
Biran, A. 139
Blenkinsopp, J. 68, 69, 71, 72
Boyd, B. 136
Bradford Welles, C. 86
Branden, A.van den 132
Brichto, H.C. 36, 37, 43, 47, 49, 51,
52, 54, 58, 61, 63
Briggs, C.A. 41
Bright, J. 139
Brown, F. 41, 50, 121
Brownlee, W.H. 40
Brumfield, A.C. 96
Buchler, A. 150, 151, 165
Burkett, W. 93, 95, 96, 98-101, 118,
120, 173
Caquot, A. 115
Carlson, A. 128
Cassuto, U. 151
Chapman, A.T. 36, 43
Childs, B.S. 151
Cholewinski, A. 36, 39
Clifford, R. 27
Clift, E.H. 103
Coates, G.W. 140
Colson, F.H. 150
Conti Rossini, C. 132
Conybeave, F.C. 107
Cook, A.B. 96-99, 101
Coote, R.B. 146, 147
Cowley, A.E. 68, 70, 71, 76, 79, 81,
82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 127
Crenshaw, J.L. 145
Cross, P.M. 9, 67, 71-79, 83, 87-90,
119, 123, 125, 131, 137, 139, 140,
147, 148
Criisemann, F. 18, 21
Dahlberg, B.T. 80
Dahood, M. 123
Dewar, L. 57
Delekat, L. 133, 134
Deubner, L. 96-99, 106, 107
Dillmann, A. 36-38, 62
214
Dodd, C.H. 51, 53

Dodds, E.R. 104, 107
Donner, H. 127, 133
Douglas, M. 170-72, 174, 178
Driver, G.R. 133
Driver, S.R. 54
Dumermuth, F. 139
Edwards, M.W. 93
Eerdmans, B.D. 183
Ehrlich, A. 36, 45, 47, 62, 63
Ehrlich, E.L. 107, 109, 113, 114,
118
Eitrem, S. 96
Elliger, K. 36, 39, 40, 43, 47, 48,
51,61,63
Emerton, J.A. 134
Engnell, I. 128, 133
Erbse, H. 97
Evans, A. 98
Fairclough, H.R. 106
Farnell, L. 98-100
Feldman, E. 31, 177
Fenik, B. 93
Feucht, C. 36
Firth, R. 171
Fishbane, M. 194
Fitzgerald, R. 104, 105
Frankfort, H. 108
Frazer, J.G. 97, 98, 106
Freedman, D.N. 122
Fiiglister, N. 36, 47-49, 51, 52, 5457,60
Galling, K. 85
Gammie, J. 156, 165
Garnet, P. 52-54, 57, 60
Geertz, C. 175, 177, 180
Gelb, I.J. 130, 131
Gemser, B. 45
Gennep, A.van 174
Gerleman, G. 52
Ginsberg, H.L. 19, 20, 32
Ginzburg, C.D. 36, 38, 40
Gjerstad, E. 96, 97
Gnuse, R.K. 113, 118
Goetze, A. 109
Good, R.M. 129, 130

Gorman, F.H., Jr. 65, 66
Gray, G.B. 51, 54, 60, 61, 128
Greenberg, M. 17, 39, 57, 121, 127
Greenfield, I.C. 201
Greenfield, J. 20
Greenfield, J.C. 110, 116
GrCndahl, F. 129
Gruber, M. 53
Gunkel, H. 19, 21, 40, 94, 120, 137
Gurney, O.R. 176
Guterbock, H.G. 109
Halpern, B. 139
Hamilton, M. 107, 114, 117
Haran, M. 196, 198
Harding, G.L. 132
Harrison, J. 96, 97, 99, 100
Hatch, E. & A. Redpath 84, 124
Hausmann, U. 102, 103
Hendel, R.S. 92-94
Henton Davies, G. 60
Herdner, A. 110, 111, 115, 117, 127
Herrmann, J. 51, 53, 59, 60
Hermann, S. 139, 140
Hoffmann, D.Z. 36, 38, 43, 49, 63,
183
Horst, F. 127
Huffman, H. 130, 131
Humbert, P. 16, 17, 22
Ibn Ezra 36, 38, 47, 57, 62, 141, 196
Jacobsen, T. 108
Jacobsthal, P. 117
Jameson, M.H. 98
Janowski, B. 52, 54
Jirku, A. 37
Jones, H.L. 105, 107
Jones, R.N. 154
Jones, W.H.S. 104
Kaiser, O. 32
Kalisch, M.M. 36, 43, 47, 49, 51,
54, 57, 62
Kapelrud, A.S. 122, 145
Kedar-Kopstein, B. 44, 56
Kellermann, D. 121
Index of Authors
Kere"nyi, C. 102
KenJnyi, K. 99
Kilian, R. 36, 39, 40
Kiuchi, N. 52
Knight, D.A. 137
Knohl, I. 9, 60, 151, 180, 190, 197,
199-201,203
Koch, K. 18
Koehler, L. 41
Kogut, S. 48
Komfield, W. 36, 37, 54, 177
Kuenen, A. 196, 197
Kugel, J. 17, 18, 23, 31
Kugel, J.L. 126
Lang, B. 48, 52, 54
Lattimore, R. 104
Lawton, R. 130
Leach, E. 174
Lemaire, A. 32
Lenowitz, H. 16
Levenson, J. 21, 28, 165
Levine, B. 36, 47, 48, 52, 53-58, 60,
160-62, 165, 166
Licht, J. 41 ,52, 57
Lindblom, J. 122
Lipinski, E. 30
Liver, J. 77
Lohfink, N. 30
Lovatelli, A.C. 98-101
Lubetski, M. 148
Luckmann, T. 175
Luzzatto, S.D. 36, 43, 49, 62
Lyonnet, S. 49, 52, 57, 60
Maag, V. 122, 148
Maass, F. 52
McAlpine, T.H. 113, 114, 118
McCarter, P.K. 125, 128
McCarthy, D.J. 56
McNeile, A.H. 45
MacRae, A.A. 135
Mannheim, K. 175
Marcus, R. 84
Marx, A. 156, 174
Mays, J.L. 141, 147
Meigs, A.S. 177
Melamed, E.Z. 52, 54
215
Mendelssohn 39, 48, 63

Meshorer, Y. 87
Metzinger, A. 51, 57
Michaelis, J.D. 20
Mildenberg, L. 87
Milgrom, J. 9, 36, 43, 47, 49-52, 5456, 58-60, 62, 151, 155, 159-63,
165, 167-69, 176, 177, 180, 184,
185, 187-89, 201
Milik, J.T. 124
Miller, P. 20, 32
Mitropoulou, E. 102
Mooney, G.W. 105
Mor, M. 71, 76-79
Moran, W. 133, 134
Morgenstern, J. 143
Morris, L. 49, 51, 53, 54, 57
Mowinckel, S. 71, 82, 115, 123
Moyer, J.C. 176
Miiller, C. 95
Muroaka, T. 37
Myers, J. 71
Mylonas, G.E. 99, 100
Nahmanides 36, 49, 63, 183
Neuberg, F. 122, 148
Nilsson, M. 96, 99
Nilsson, M.P. 100
Nims, C.F. 44
Noth, M. 36, 37, 128, 130, 131,
137,140
Obermann, J. 112
Olyan, S.M. 9, 121, 133, 138, 149,
162
Oppenheim, A.L. 108, 109, 112-14,
118,119
Osty, E. 148
Paran, M. 37, 45, 46
Parke, H.W. 96, 97, 104, 106
Paschen, W. 177
Pedersen, J. 128
Petrakus, V.C. 103
Petropoulou, A. 101-103, 107, 117,
118
Phillips, A. 40
Pley, J. 96
216
Pope, M. 127, 145

Porten, B. 85, 127, 148
Porter, J.R. 75
PreuB, H.D. 148
Pritchard, J.B. 110
Qimhi 141, 148
Rad, G. von 120

Rashi 36, 57, 141, 148
Redpath, H.A. 84, 124
Rendtorff, R. 48, 52, 60, 201
Resch, A. 118
Reventlow, H.G. 36, 37, 39, 40
Richardson, N.J. 100, 101
Ricks, S.D. 152
Ringgren, H. 57, 122, 132, 133, 148
Rizzo, G.E. 99
Robertson, N. 95
Rof<, A. 58
Rohden, H. von 99-101
Rose, M. 134
ROllig, W. 127, 133
Rouse, W.H.D. 98
Roussel, P. 99
Rowley, H.H. 69
Riicker, H. 45, 60
Rudolph, W. 69, 71, 72, 122, 123,
127, 141
Ruprecht, E. 16
Ryckmans, G. 132
Sabourin, L. 36, 41, 43, 47, 49, 52,
57,60
Sanmartin-Ascaso, J. 129, 133, 135
Schenker, A. 52, 53
Schwartz, B.J. 9, 34, 38, 41, 45, 47,
65, 161, 162, 168,174
Sellin, E. 122
Sherman, C.L. 86
Simon, E. 97
Smith, W.R. 7, 8, 57, 94, 95
Sonsino, R. 37, 45
Speiser, E. 137
Stamm, J.J. 128, 135
Steiner, R.C. 44
Steiner, R.C. 44
Steinmuller, J.E. 51, 57, 60

Stephens, F.J. 135
Streane, A.W. 36
Tadmor, H. 77
TallQvist, K. 134
Tigay, J. 130
Toeg, A. 192-95, 197, 202
Tomp, N.J. 30
Torrey, C.C. 69, 71, 72, 84
Tov, E. 125, 126, 128
Turner, V. 173, 174
VanderKam, J.C. 9
Vattioni, F. 89
Vaux, R. de 50-52, 60, 122, 139,
140
Vieyra, M. 109
Wagner, S. 112, 114
Ward, J.M. 80
Weinfeld, M. 64
Weiser, A. 122
Wellhausen, J. 7, 8, 140, 183, 196,
197
Wenham, G. 36, 37, 54, 64, 177
Wessely [Wiesel], N.H. 36, 38, 39,
48
West, S. 110
Westermann, C. 16-18, 21, 22, 93,
119, 137
Widengren, G. 75-79
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U.
von 117
Williamson, H.G.M. 67, 69, 71, 72,
75, 80-83, 86, 87, 89
Winckelmann, G. 99
Winckler, H. 108
Winnefeld, H. 99-101
Wirth, L. 175
Wold, D.J. 38, 39, 49, 58, 161
Wolff, H.W. 122, 123, 141, 143,
145-48
WOrrle, M. 117
Wright, D.P. 8, 52, 154-59, 166,
168, 172, 176
Wuthnow, R. 174, 177, 179
Index of Authors
Yadin, Y. 136, 137, 147
Young, N.H. 52, 53
Ziehen, J. 102
Zimmerli, W. 37, 39, 40, 122

Zirker, H. 123
Zohar, N. 55, 59, 156
217
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Supplement Series
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
THE ESTHER SCROLL: THE STORY OF THE STORY

D.J.A. Clines
IN THE SHELTER OF ELYON:
ESSAYS IN HONOR OF G.W. AHLSTROM
Edited by W.B. Barrick & J.R. Spencer
THE PROPHETIC PERSONA:
JEREMIAH AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE SELF

T. Polk
LAW AND THEOLOGY IN DEUTERONOMY
J.G. McConville
THE TEMPLE SCROLL:
AN INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY
J. Maier
SAGA, LEGEND, TALE, NOVELLA, FABLE:
NARRATIVE FORMS IN OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE
Edited by G.W. Coats
THE SONG OF FOURTEEN SONGS
M.D. Goulder
UNDERSTANDING THE WORD:
ESSAYS IN HONOR OF BERNHARD w. ANDERSON

Edited by J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad & B.C. Ollenburger
38
SLEEP, DIVINE AND HUMAN, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

T.H. McAlpine
39
THE SENSE OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE. II:

STRUCTURAL ANALYSES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
D. Jobling
40
DIRECTIONS IN BIBLICAL HEBREW POETRY

Edited by E.R. Follis
41
ZION, THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING:

A THEOLOGICAL SYMBOL OF THE JERUSALEM CULT
B.C. Ollenburger
42
A WORD IN SEASON: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF WILLIAM MCKANE
43
Edited by J.D. Martin & P.R. Davies

THE CULT OF MOLEK: A REASSESSMENT
G.C. Heider
44
THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE PSALMS

S.J.L. Croft
45
THE CONFESSIONS OF JEREMIAH IN CONTEXT:

SCENES OF PROPHETIC DRAMA
A.R. Diamond
46
47
48
THE BOOK OF JUDGES: AN INTEGRATED READING

B.C. Webb
THE GREEK TEXT OF JEREMIAH:
A REVISED HYPOTHESIS
S. Soderlund
TEXT AND CONTEXT:
OLD TESTAMENT AND SEMITIC STUDIES FOR F.C. FENSHAM

Edited by W. Claassen
49
THEOPHORIC PERSONAL NAMES IN ANCIENT HEBREW

J.D. Fowler
50
THE CHRONICLER 's HISTORY

M. Noth
DIVINE INITIATIVE AND HUMAN RESPONSE IN EZEKIEL
P.Joyce
THE CONFLICT OF FAITH AND EXPERIENCE IN THE PSALMS :
A FORM-CRITICAL AND THEOLOGICAL STUDY
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
C.C. Broyles
THE MAKING OF THE PENTATEUCH:
A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY
R.N. Whybray
FROM REPENTANCE TO REDEMPTION:
JEREMIAH'S THOUGHT IN TRANSITION
J. Unterman
THE ORIGIN TRADITION OF ANCIENT ISRAEL:
THE LITERARY FORMATION OF GENESIS AND EXODUS 1-23
T.L. Thompson
THE PURIFICATION OFFERING IN THE PRIESTLY LITERATURE:
ITS MEANING AND FUNCTION
N. Kiuchi
MOSES : HEROIC MAN, MAN OF GOD
G.W. Coats
THE LISTENING HEART: ESSAYS IN WISDOM AND THE PSALMS
IN HONOR OF ROLAND E. MURPHY, O. CARM.
Edited by K.G. Hoglund
CREATIVE BIBLICAL EXEGESIS:
CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH HERMENEUTICS THROUGH THE CENTURIES
B. Uffenheimer & H.G. Reventlow
HER PRICE is BEYOND RUBIES:
THE JEWISH WOMAN IN GRAECO-ROMAN PALESTINE
L.J. Archer
61
FROM CHAOS TO RESTORATION:

AN INTEGRATIVE READING OF ISAIAH 24-27
D.G. Johnson
62
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND FOLKLORE STUDY

P.G. Kirkpatrick
63
64
65
66
SHILOH: A BIBLICAL CITY IN TRADITION AND HISTORY

D.G. Schley
To SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE:
ISAIAH 6.9-10 IN EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION
C.A. Evans
THERE IS HOPE FOR A TREE:
THE TREE AS METAPHOR IN ISAIAH
K. Nielsen
SECRETS OF THE TIMES :
MYTH AND HISTORY IN BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY

67
J. Hughes
ASCRIBE TO THE LORD:
68
BIBLICAL AND OTHER ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF PETER C. CRAIGIE

Edited by L. Eslinger & G. Taylor
THE TRIUMPH OF IRONY IN THE BOOK OF JUDGES
L.R. Klein
69
70
71
73
ZEPHANIAH, A PROPHETIC DRAMA

P.R. HOUSE
NARRATIVE ART IN THE BIBLE
S. Bar-Efrat
QOHELET AND HIS CONTRADICTIONS
M.V. Fox
DAVID'S SOCIAL DRAMA:
A HOLOGRAM OF THE EARLY IRON AGE

74
75
76
77
78
J.W. Flanagan
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF BIBLICAL AND CANAANITE POETRY
Edited by W. van der Meet & J.C. de Moor
PAVID IN LOVE AND WAR:
THE PURSUIT OF POWER IN 2 SAMUEL 10-12
R.C. Bailey
GOD IS KING:
UNDERSTANDING AN ISRAELITE METAPHOR
M. Brettler
EDOM AND THE EDOMITES
J.R. Bartlett
SWALLOWING THE SCROLL:
TEXTUALITY AND THE DYNAMICS OF DISCOURSE IN EZEKIEL'S
PROPHECY
E.F. Davies
79
GIBEAH: THE SEARCH FOR A BIBLICAL CITY

P.M. Arnold
80
THE NATHAN NARRATIVES

G.H. Jones
81
82
ANTI-COVENANT:
COUNTER-READING WOMEN'S LIVES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
Edited by M.Bal
RHETORIC AND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
83
D. Patrick & A. Scult

THE EARTH AND THE WATERS IN GENESIS 1 AND 2
84
D.T. Tsumura
INTO THE HANDS OF THE LIVING GOD
L. Eslinger
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
FROM CARMEL TO HOREB: ELIJAH IN CRISIS

A.J. Hauser & R. Gregory
THE SYNTAX OF THE VERB IN CLASSICAL HEBREW PROSE
A. Niccacci
THE BIBLE IN THREE DIMENSIONS
Edited by D.J.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl & S.E. Porter
THE PERSUASIVE APPEAL OF THE CHRONICLER:
A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS
R.K. Duke
THE PROBLEM OF THE PROCES s OF TRANSMISSION
IN THE PENTATEUCH
R. Rendtorff
BIBLICAL HEBREW IN TRANSITION.THE LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL
M.F. Rooker
THE IDEOLOGY OF RITUAL:
SPACE, TIME, AND STATUS IN THE PRIESTLY THEOLOGY
F.H. Gorman
ON HUMOUR AND THE COMIC IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
Edited by Y.T. Radday & A. Brenner
JOSHUA 24 AS POETIC NARRATIVE
W.T. Koopmans
WHAT DOES EVE DO TO HELP? AND OTHER READERLY QUESTIONS
TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
95
D.J.A. Clines
GOD S AVES : LESSONS FROM THE ELISHA STORIES
96
R.D. Moore
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF PLOT IN GENESIS
97
98
99
L.A. Turner
THE UNITY OF THE TWELVE
P.R. House
ANCIENT CONQUEST ACCOUNTS : A STUDY IN ANCIENT NEAR

EASTERN AND BIBLICAL HISTORY WRITING
K. Lawson Younger, Jr
WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS
R.N. Whybray
100
A TRIBUTE TO GEZA VERMES. ESSAYS ON JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN

LITERATURE AND HISTORY
Edited by P.R. Davies & R.T. White
101
102
10 3
THE CHRONICLER IN HIS AGE

P.R. Ackroyd
THE PRAYERS OF DAVID (PSALMS 51-72)
M.D. Goulder
THE SOCIOLOGY OF POTTERY IN ANCIENT PALESTINE:
THE CERAMIC INDUSTRY AND THE DIFFUSION OF CERAMIC STYLE
IN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES
Bryant G. Wood
104
PSALM-STRUCTURES:
105
A STUDY OF PSALMS WITH REFRAINS

Paul R. Raabe
ESTABLISHING JUSTICE
Pietro Bovati
GRADATED HOLINESS
106
Philip Jenson
107
108
109
110
112
113
114
THE ALIEN IN THE PENTATEUCH

Christiana van Houten
THE FORGING OF ISRAEL:
IRON TECHNOLOGY, SYMBOLISM AND TRADITION IN
ANCIENT SOCIETY
Paula McNutt
SCRIBES AND SCHOOLS IN MONARCHIC JUDAH
David Jamieson-Drake
THE CANAANITES AND THEIR LAND:
THE TRADITION OF THE CANAANITES
Niels Peter Lemche
WISDOM IN REVOLT:
METAPHORICAL THEOLOGY IN THE BOOK OF JOB
Leo G. Perdue
PROPERTY AND THE FAMILY IN BIBLICAL LAW
Raymond Westbrook
A TRADITIONAL QUEST:
ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF LOUIS JACOBS
Edited by Dan Cohn-Sherbok
115
I HAVE BUILT You AN EXALTED HOUSE:

TEMPLE BUILDING IN THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF MESOPOTAMIAN
AND NORTH-WEST SEMITIC WRITINGS
Victor Hurowitz
116
NARRATIVE AND NOVELLA IN SAMUEL:

STUDIES BY HUGO GRESSMANN AND OTHER SCHOLARS 1906-1923
Edited by David M. Gunn
117
SECOND TEMPLE STUDIES

Edited by P.R. Davies
118
SEEING AND HEARING GOD IN THE PSALMS :

PROPHETIC LITURGY FROM THE SECOND TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM
R.J. Tournay
TELLING QUEEN MICHAL'S STORY:
119
AN EXPERIMENT IN COMPARATIVE INTERPRETATION

Edited by David J.A. Clines & Tamara C. Eskenazi
120
121
122
123
124
125
THE REFORMING KINGS :

CULT AND SOCIETY IN RRST TEMPLE JUDAH
Richard H. Lowery
KING SAUL IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF JUDAH
Diana Vikander Edelman
IMAGES OF EMPIRE
Edited by Loveday Alexander
THE FABRIC OF HISTORY:

TEXT, ARTIFACT AND ISRAEL'S PAST
Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman
LAW AND IDEOLOGY IN MONARCHIC ISRAEL
Edited by Baruch Halpem and Deborah W. Hobson
PRIESTHOOD AND CULT IN ANCIENT ISRAEL
Edited by Gary A Anderson and Saul M. Olyan

Gary A. Anderson, Saul M. Olyan Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel JSOT Supplement Series 1991 PDF

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

Gary A. Anderson, Saul M. Olyan Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel JSOT Supplement Series 1991 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OFTHE OLD TESTAMENT

This page intentionally left blank

Priesthood and Cult

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Copyright 1991 Sheffield Academic Press

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

reconstruction of the development of Israelite cultic life enabled him

W. Gesenius, E. Kautsch and A.E. Cowley, Hebrew

International Critical Commentary

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

This page intentionally left blank

THE PRAISE OF GOD AS A Cuunc EVENT

It is a truism in most handbooks about ritual and cultic life in the

This text is often mentioned as an indicator of how prayer had

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event

uproar (1 Kgs 1.45). In Neh. 12.43 it is stated that 'the rejoicing in

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

from the oft-cited Psalms which correlate in a direct fashion the

ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event

In the Bir-Hadad inscriptions, the statue itself represents Bir-Hadad's

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

occasions. Indeed, the best way to characterize descriptive praise is to

The identification of cultic praise as a joyous act is not made lightly.

ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event

The vowed, public character of this experience of joy explains why

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

In the consequent discussion of this contradiction the question is

This midrash not only recognizes the inappropriateness of a song in a

ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event

Having established the cultic role of praise in the Psalter it is time to

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

by scholars. This identification is possible in Israelite religion because

Upon deliverance the psalmist often goes straight to the temple to

ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event

fulfill a vow of sacrifice or of praise. Joyous, public proclamation of

It is tempting to dismiss these descriptions of descent as poetic trope

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event

The psalms of lament are often allusive in regard to the ritual

I shall extoll you O LORD for you drew me up,

This act of praise recounts the deliverance as God's raising the

But then I said, during my prosperity, 'I will never be moved.'

1. Perhaps there is a parallel to Daniel's vision of deliverance. His deliverance

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

'What gain is there should I descend silently1 to the pit?

You turned my mourning into dancing,

The experience of deliverance in this psalm is not characterized by a

ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event

Kugel's analysis can also shed light on the lamentation sequence. If

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

ANDERSON The Praise of God as a Cultic Event

THE PROHIBITIONS CONCERNING THE 'EATING' OF BLOOD

Today it is generally acknowledged that the prose, poems, prophecies

SCHWARTZ Prohibitions Concerning the 'Eating' of Blood

terminology with semantic power far exceeding the strict demand of

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel

We begin with the positioning of the blood prohibitions within the

SCHWARTZ Prohibitions Concerning the 'Eating' of Blood