The Festival of Weeks and Sinai

THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS AND SINAI A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Par...

Author: Sejin Park

50 downloads 839 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS AND SINAI

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

by

Sejin Park, B.A., M.A.

______________________________ James C. VanderKam, Director

Graduate Program in Theology Notre Dame, Indiana April 2006

UMI Number: 3406895

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3406895 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

© Copyright by SEJIN PARK 2006 All rights reserved

THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS AND SINAI

Abstract by Sejin Park Of the three main festivals in the Hebrew Bible, only the Festival of Weeks, or Pentecost, is not explicitly associated with an historical event. However, by the rabbinic period, the rabbis commonly associate the Festival of Weeks with the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai. This study attempts to trace the development of the association between the events at Sinai and the Festival of Weeks. The Festival of Weeks was originally a harvest festival that eventually acquired a religious significance. In the Hebrew Bible, the precise date of the Festival of Weeks is indeterminable, but it did occur sometime during the third month. There are already indications that the Festival of Weeks was associated with covenant renewal (2 Chr 15:10), but this association is at best muted. It is only with the book of Jubilees that there is an explicit connection between the Festival of Weeks and covenant renewal. In this book, the Festival of Weeks is dated to the fifteenth day of the third month. The most notable feature of Jubilees’ covenant theology is that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants are depicted as renewals of the original covenant with Noah. With the publication of virtually the entire Qumran corpus, it is now clear that the Qumran covenanters, for whom the book of Jubilees was highly revered, also celebrated the Festival of Weeks as the day of covenant renewal on the fifteenth day of the third month. Finally, the account of Pentecost in Acts 2 shows numerous allusions to Moses

Sejin Park

and the Israelites at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Moreover, this fits in with Luke’s portrait of Jesus as the prophet like Moses and the Isaianic New Exodus theme that permeates the two volume work. By means of these allusions, Luke depicts Jesus’ giving of the Spirit to his followers as the inauguration of a new community, marked not by the Law, but by the Spirit.

for my parents

ii

CONTENTS

TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………..

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………………………………

v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………

1

CHAPTER 2: THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM ……………………………………………………..

9

CHAPTER 3: SINAI TRADITIONS AND THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE …………………………………………………………………….

54

CHAPTER 4: THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS AND COVENANT RENEWAL IN JUBILEES ……………………………………………………………………………

91

CHAPTER 5: THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS AND COVENANT RENEWAL IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS ………………………………………………………..

147

CHAPTER 6: PENTECOST AND SINAI IN LUKE-ACTS………………………..

200

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………

267

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………

270

iii

TABLES

1.

COMPARISON OF FESTIVAL PASSAGES IN EXODUS AND DEUTERONOMY…………………………………………………………………

16

COMPARISON OF DEUTERONOMIC AND PRIESTLY FESTIVAL CALENDARS……………………………………………………………………..

31

3.

APPELLATIONS FOR THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS…………………………

41

4.

COMPARISON OF PRIESTLY SACRIFICES…………………………………

45

5.

CHRONOLOGICAL NOTICES IN EXODUS AND NUMBERS………………..

62

6.

CHRONOLOGY OF MOSES AND THE ISRAELITES AT SINAI……………..

64

7.

THE JUBILEAN CALENDAR……………………………………………………

67

8.

FESTIVALS IN CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH……………………………

80

9.

HISTORICIZATION OF THE THREE MAIN FESTIVALS…………………….

81

10. CHRONOLOGY OF THE FLOOD……………………………………………….

109

2.

11. GENEALOGY FROM ADAM TO JOSEPH IN VARIOUS SOURCES………… 125 12. NAMING OF JACOB’S CHILDREN…………………………………………….

141

13. PRIESTLY WATCHES OF 1 CHRONICLES 24:7–19…………………………..

164

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the faculty, staff, and students of the University of Notre Dame theology department. In particular, I would like to single out the following faculty members who generously gave of their time to serve on my dissertation committee: Eugene Ulrich, John Meier, and Hugh Page. Their encouragement has been much appreciated and the questions they raised during the defence have improved the final product. Above all, however, I would like to thank my dissertation advisor James VanderKam, whose guidance and support was crucial in this endeavor. My debt to his scholarship is abundantly evident in the footnotes of this dissertation.

v

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1. Thesis Statement Many, if not most Second Temple Jews viewed the events at Mt. Sinai to be the key moment in all of Israelite and (later) Jewish history. They devoted much exegetical attention to Exodus 19–34 in order to understand and explicate the full significance of the events that took place there. The account in Exodus does not date the events at Sinai, though based on Exod 12:2–6 and especially 19:1, one can surmise that it occurred sometime during the third month. Similarly, the Feast of Weeks is only vaguely dated to sometime in the third month based on Lev 23:15–16 and Deut 16:9–10. It was only natural, then, that these two events eventually came to be associated. In time, many Jews and even some Christians came to identify the Festival of Weeks with the events at Sinai and covenant renewal. This study will survey and discuss the relevant Jewish and Christian literature up to approximately the end of the first century C.E. (with some consideration of rabbinic literature after that date) in order to examine how various authors and communities read and understood the connection between the Festival of Weeks on the one hand, and the Sinai event and covenant renewal on the other. 2. Status Quaestionis There have been several article-length treatments of the association of the Festival of Weeks and the Sinai tradition, but to the best of my knowledge, there have not been

1

any monograph-length studies devoted entirely to this subject. A topic as important as this deserves an extended analysis and this study aims to fill this gap in scholarship. To attempt to discuss all the relevant literature would be impossible. The following review of scholarship discusses some recent secondary works that treat the issue of the association of the events at Sinai and the Festival of Weeks. The works discussed below have been chosen because they are significant studies and/or representative of the scholarly discussion on this topic. In an important study, Annie Jaubert was able to show that the dates in the priestly writings of the Hebrew Bible presuppose the 364-day calendar attested in 1 Enoch, Jubilees and the Dead Sea Scrolls.1 First, she showed that if the Feast of Weeks was to be celebrated on the fifteenth day of the third month (Jub. 15:1; 16:13; cf. 44:1–5), and if it were to take place 49 days after the waving of the rm,[o (Lev 23:15–16; Deut 16:9–10), then the 25th day of the first month must be a Sabbath. This happens only if I/1 is a Wednesday. She verified this by examining the days on which patriarchs began and ended their journeys in Jubilees. She was able to show that the meticulous author of Jubilees does not have any patriarch travel on the Sabbath, assuming that I/1 is a Wednesday. Next, she extended her analysis to the priestly writings of the Hebrew Bible, showing that they too presupposed the calendar of Jubilees by showing that the patriarchs did not travel on the Sabbath. While not all of her ideas have won general acceptance, her argument that I/1 is a Wednesday in the 364-day calendar, her dating of the Feast of Weeks, and her theory that the 364-day calendar is presupposed by the priestly writings

1 Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper (Staten Island, N.Y.: Alba House, 1965), 15–52. The relevant sections of Jaubert’s book are a revision of two earlier articles: idem, “Le calendrier des Jubilés et de la secte de Qumrân: Ses origines bibliques,” VT 3 (1953): 250–64; idem, “Le calendrier des Jubilés et les jours liturgiques de la semaine,” VT 7 (1957) 35–61.

2

of the Hebrew Bible has won acceptance by many scholars, although there are some notable dissenters.2 Georg Kretschmar, noting that early eastern Christian sources reflect a correlation of the Ascension of Christ and Pentecost—i.e., it was celebrated on the same day by some Christians (the 50th day after Easter)—and noting the parallels between Moses’ ascent of Mt. Sinai and Jesus’ Ascension as depicted in various New Testament texts (Acts 2:33–35; John 20:22–23; Eph 4:7–12)—argued that this must reflect the fact that there was an early association between the Feast of Weeks and the events at Sinai among early Jewish interpreters.3 This connection eventually yielded to the Lukan chronology which separated the Ascension and the day of Pentecost. Kretschmar’s thesis about an early Jewish association between the Feast of Weeks and the Sinai experience has proved to be influential, and many other studies have more or less followed this line of argument.4 Rather than survey them all, I will here discuss only two of the more prominent studies. In a monograph-length study of the targums to Exodus 19–20 against the background of early Jewish and Rabbinic literature, Jean Potin

2

Cf. the reassessment of Jaubert’s hypothesis in the light of subsequent studies by J. C. VanderKam: “The Origin, Character, and Early History of the 364-Day Calendar: A Reassessment of Jaubert’s Hypotheses,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSPSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 81–104. 3

Kretschmar, “Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten,” ZKG 66 (1954–1955): 209–53.

4

R. Le Déaut, “Pentecôte et tradition juive,” Spiritus 7 (1961): 127–44; B. Noack, “The Day of Pentecost in Jubilees, Qumran, and Acts,” ASTI 1 (1962): 73–95; M. Gourgues, “Lecture christologique du Psaume CX et fête de la Pentecôte,” RB 83 (1976): 5–24; M. Delcor, “Das Bundesfest in Qumran und das Pfingsfest,” in Religion d’Israel et Proche Orient Ancien (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 281–97; M. Weinfeld, “Pentecost as Festival of the Giving of the Law,” Immanuel 8 (1978): 7–18; J. Dupont, “The First Christian Pentecost,” The Salvation of the Gentiles (Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist, 1979), 35–59; J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” TS 45 (1984): 432–38; S. J. Pfann, “The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony and the Baptism of Repentance” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D. W. Parry and E. C. Ulrich; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 342–45; cf. O. Betz, “The Eschatological Interpretation of the Sinai-Tradition in Qumran and in the New Testament,” RevQ 6 (1967): 89–107.

3

argues that Pentecost was already known as the “Festival of the Covenant” by the beginning of the first century B.C.5 James VanderKam, in the first of two complementary studies, surveys the pertinent texts in the Hebrew Bible, Jubilees, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, and Rabbinic and early Christian literature in order to show that the Feast of Weeks and the Sinai Event were associated in early Judaism.6 He then turns to the account in Acts 2 of the sending of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost and the surrounding context (the Ascension in particular) and argues that this association serves as the background to this text. In the second study, VanderKam argues that the Qumran community, by and large following the understanding of the Sinai events as found in the book of Jubilees, celebrated an annual covenant renewal ceremony which coincided with the Feast of Weeks, observed on III/15 as Jubilees stipulates.7 VanderKam points to 1QS 1:16–3:12 as a model of how the annual covenant renewal ceremony was observed. Some scholars take a different stand on the particular issue of the background of Acts 2. For instance, in his article “penthkosthv” in the TDNT, E. Lohse argues that it was only with the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 that the Feast of Pentecost was commonly associated with the Covenant on Mt. Sinai.8 Lohse acknowledges that the book of Jubilees makes the connection already in the 2nd century B.C., but he argues that this understanding only exerted a significant influence on Judaism after A.D. 70, based on

5 Potin, La Fête juive de la Pentecôte: Étude des textes liturgiques (2 vols; LD 65a and 65b; Paris: Cerf, 1971), 1.301. 6 VanderKam, “The Festival of Weeks and the Story of Pentecost in Acts 2,” in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New (Ed. C. A. Evans; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 185–205. 7 VanderKam, “Sinai Revisited,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Ed. M. Henze; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 49–51. 8

Lohse, “penthkosthv,” TDNT 6.44–53, esp. 48–49.

4

the fact that Philo and Josephus are not aware of this interpretation. Based on this, Lohse argues that Acts 2 bears no relation to the Sinai tradition.9 Similarly, I. H. Marshall argues that the association of the Feast of Weeks with covenant renewal and the giving of the Law was made only among certain (i.e., sectarian) Jews and had not yet become the “official” view of Judaism (cf. the lack of evidence in Philo and Josephus).10 Marshall denies any link between the account of Acts 2 and the Sinai tradition, arguing that the basic point for Luke is that the story of Pentecost represents the fulfillment of the prophecy after Jesus’ resurrection, that the disciples would receive power when the Spirit came upon them and would be witnesses to all mankind.11 R. F. O’Toole takes a different tack.12 He argues that Luke’s Pentecost account betrays no certain references to the Sinai Covenant or the law of Moses.13 Rather, he sees in the Pentecost speech, a focus not on the covenant made to Moses at Sinai, but on the promises made to David, especially as recorded in 2 Sam 7:12–16 (cf. Acts 2:30).14 He discerns confirmation of his thesis in Luke’s presentation of Moses, Abraham, and David: in Luke’s theology it is David who is the primary recipient of God’s promise, not Moses or Abraham. These scholars make some good points. It is certainly true that there is little in the way of covenant typology in Luke’s account.15 However, this is expecting more of the 9

Lohse, “penthkosthv,” 49.

10

Marshall, “The Significance of Pentecost,” SJT 30 (1977): 349.

11

Marshall, “The Significance of Pentecost,” 365–67.

12

O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” JBL 102 (1983): 245–58.

13

O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” 245, 246, 257.

14

O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” 250.

15

Marshall, “The Significance of Pentecost,” 365–66.

5

text than is necessary. It may be that Luke’s point is simply comparative: just as the giving of the law was a momentous event in the life of the Israelite/Jewish nation, so also, the sending of the Spirit is a momentous event in the life of the fledgling Church. To state it differently, the contrast need not be between old covenant and new as Marshall asserts one might expect if the Sinai event was lying behind Luke’s account of Pentecost.16 Rather, the contrast may specifically be between Law and Spirit (cf. Rom 8). Moreover, there are some clear literary and verbal allusions to the Sinai event in Luke’s account.17 3. Methodology This study will be historical, literary, and theological in nature. Standard historical-critical tools will be applied where appropriate. Careful attention to the literary aspects of Second Temple interpretation of biblical texts will be a key aspect of this study. I am particularly interested in the particular and detailed exegetical moves that readers made in associating Sinai and the Festival of Weeks. Finally, in a study involving subjects such as the religious calendar, law, covenant, and spirit, theological discussion is, of course, unavoidable. In some important respects, the methodology used in this study will closely follow the type of reading that James Kugel has demonstrated in several recent writings.18 It involves a very careful reading of how various early Jewish interpreters read the texts in question. One of Kugel’s main observations is that ancient readers read very carefully. Most of the time, their exegesis, while appearing to be without textual support on a superficial reading, proves upon closer inspection, to have some textual warrant, 16

Marshall, “The Significance of Pentecost,” 365–66.

17 VanderKam, “The Festival of Weeks and the Story of Pentecost in Acts 2,” 195–203; Dupont, “The First Christian Pentecost,” 35–59. 18

See especially the following: J. L. Kugel and R. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990; 2d ed., Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994); idem, The Bible As It Was (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997); idem, Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998).

6

superficial reading, proves upon closer inspection, to have some textual warrant, however slight or forced. Kugel’s observation that ancient readers read texts under the assumption that they were esoteric and spoke to the contemporary situation sheds light on this phenomenon. Because many ancient readers took scripture to be fundamentally cryptic, it was necessary to “read between the lines.” Ancient readers almost invariably searched out the text for some detail, often seemingly insignificant, upon which to justify their interpretation.19 This study, following Kugel, will try to explicate how these ancient readers arrived at or justified their particular interpretations. In many ways, the methodology of this study will also be similar to what James Sanders calls “comparative midrash.” This involves placing related texts (such as those linked by interpretation of a common biblical text or tradition) in a continuum from the earliest biblical writings to the rabbinic literature.20 The various interpretations of the biblical text by the assorted writings are compared and contrasted. As the structure and outline of this study indicates (see below), this approach will serve as the general organizing principle of this study. 4. Structure This study will proceed by addressing texts in a roughly chronological order. In addition to an introduction and conclusion, chapters will be devoted to the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Jubilees, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the New Testament. There will be two

19

Kugel, The Bible As It Was, 1–36. Kugel makes the rather big claim that “there existed well before the common era a substantial body of standard explanations of various problems and peculiarities in the biblical text. These explanations were apparently not gathered and passed down in written form, since no such document has survived or is even alluded to. Instead, they were passed on orally....” (Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 266). Kugel therefore seems to assume that all readers read in this esoteric manner (cf. The Bible As It Was, 2–17). I do not. However, it is clear that some did, and insofar as some readers read this way, it is appropriate to use Kugel’s methodology. 20 J. A. Sanders, From Sacred Story to Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 20. See also his earlier works: Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), and Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).

7

chapters on the Hebrew Bible, one each on (1) the Festival of Weeks and (2) Sinai and Covenant Renewal. The chapters on the Hebrew Bible will consist mainly of interpretation of the relevant texts, including a discussion of historical-critical issues and a discussion of the textual-critical sources (Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls biblical texts, Samaritan Pentateuch, and any other relevant texts) at the appropriate spots. Included in the first of these chapters will be a discussion of the textual evidence concerning the Festival of Weeks in the Second Temple literature. The chapters devoted to the book of Jubilees, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the New Testament will each begin with a brief introduction discussing preliminary matters such as author(s), date, and situation of the writing(s). These chapters will focus on the identification of the Festival of Weeks as the occasion for covenant renewal in these texts. Each chapter will close with a brief conclusion summarizing the significant points. Discussion of the rabbinic literature (which will be incorporated into the chapter on the New Testament) will have to be selective. Rabbinic texts that contain interpretations which can be shown to have some probability of being early and/or having some parallel with earlier texts will be chosen to illustrate how the Festival of Weeks and the Sinai traditions were associated.

8

CHAPTER 2 THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

1. Introduction The Festival of Weeks was the second of the three great festivals on the Israelite calendar.21 Harvest festivals such as the Festival of Weeks were ubiquitous in the ancient world.22 The completion of harvest was a natural opportunity for celebration since it signified divine blessing and material abundance, and was a natural point in the agricultural cycle to take a break from work. In the Hebrew Bible, the Festival of Weeks is referred to in lists of cultic festivals (Exod 23:16; 34:22; Lev 23:15–21; Num 28:26–

21

On festivals in early Israel, see J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1983 [1883]), 83–120; J. Morgenstern, “The Three Calendars of Ancient Israel,” HUCA 1 (1924): 13–78; 3 (1926): 77–107; 10 (1935): 1–148; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. J. McHugh; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961 [1958, 1960]), 468–74, 484–506; H. J. Kraus, Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament (Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1965); H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966); M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985 [1978]). On the Festival of Weeks in particular, see E. Lohse, “penthkosthv,” TDNT 6:44–53; M. J. Olson “Pentecost,” ABD 5:222–23; J. C. VanderKam, “Weeks, Festival of,” ABD 6:895–97; H. L. Bosman, “t/[buv; gjæ,” NIDOTTE 4:24–26; M. S. Smith, with contributions by E. M. Bloch-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTSup 239; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 62–65. 22

On festivals in the ancient near east, see Kraus, Worship in Israel, 36–43; M. E. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1993).

9

31; Deut 16:9–12; 2 Chr 8:13). Moreover, it is peculiar among holidays in the Hebrew Bible in that it is never assigned a precise date.23 2. The Festival of Weeks in the Hebrew Bible 2.1. Epic Sources The festival calendars found in the epic sources (Exod 23:14–19 and 34:18–26) exhibit many similarities. There appears to be some literary dependence (perhaps a common original source), given its often close phraseology and similar structure.24 Exodus 34:18–26 is quite a bit longer than its counterpart and contains elements that are late as compared to its parallel text (cf. Exod 34:24, 25). Exodus 23:14–19 .hn:VB; ' yli gjoT; µyligr… ] vløv;

14

lk'aTo µymiy: t['b]vi rmov]Ti t/XM'h' gj'Ata, 15 /bAyKi bybiah; ; vd,jo d[e/ml] ÚtiyWIxi rv,a}K' t/Xm' .µyIrx; M] mi i t;ax;y:

Exodus 34:18–26 t/Xm' lk'aTo µymiy: t['b]vi rmov]Ti t/XM'h' gj'Ata, 18 vd,jBo ] yKi bybiah; ; vd,jo d[e/ml] ÚtiyWIxi rv,a} .µyIrx; M] mi i t;ax;y: bybiah; ; r/v rf,P, rk;Z…Ti Ún“qm] Ai lk;w“ yli µj,r, rf,PA, lK; 19 hD,p]ti aløAµaiw“ hc,b] hD,p]Ti r/mj} rf,pW, 20 .hc,w: hD,p]Ti Úyn
.µq;yre yn"p; War;yAE aløw“

.µq;yre yn"p; War;yAE aløw“ vyrijB; , tBov]Ti y[iybiVh] ' µ/Yb'W dbo[}T' µymiy: tv,ve 21 .tBov]Ti ryxiQb; W'

hd,CB; ' [r'z“Ti rv,a} Úyc,[m} ' yreWKBi ryxiQh; ' gj'w“

16

µyFiji ryxiq] yreWKBi Úl] hc,[}T' t[obuv; gj'w“

Úyc,[m} 'Ata, ÚP]sa] B; ] hn:Vh; ' taxeB] πsiah; ; gj'w“ .hd,Ch; A' ˜mi

.hn:Vh; ' tp'WqT] πysiah; ; gj'w“

ynEPA] la, Úr]Wkz“AlK; ha,ry; E hn:VB; ' µymi[P; ] vløv; 17 .hw:hy“ ˜doah; ;

ynEPA] ta, Úr]Wkz“AlK; ha,ry; E hn:VB; ' µymi[P; ] vløv; 23 .laer;cy] I yhelaø ‘ hw:hy“ ˜doah; ; Úl,WbG“Ata, yTibj] r' h] wi “ Úyn
23 The festival of Unleavened Bread was celebrated on 1/15–21 (Lev 23:6–8), while the festival of Booths was celebrated on 7/15–22 (Lev 23:39). 24

22

Kraus, Worship in Israel, 29–30.

10

24

Ata, t/ar;le Út]lø[B} ' Úx]ra] A' ta, vyai dmojy] A" aløw“ .hn:VB; ' µymi[P; ] vløv; Úyh,laø ‘ hw:hy“ ynEP] yjibz] AI µD' ≈mejA; l[' jB'z“tAi alø

18

yjibz] AI µD' ≈mejA; l[' fj'v]tiAalø

.rq,BAo d[' yGIj' Abl,je ˜yliyA: aløw“ Úyh,laø ‘ hw:hy“ tyBe aybiT; Út]md; a] ' yreWKBi tyviare

19

25

.js'Ph; ' gj' jb'z≤ rq,Blo ' ˜yliyA: aløw“ Úyh,laø ‘ hw:hy“ tyBe aybiT; Út]md; a] ' yreWKBi tyviare

./Mai blejB} ' ydiG“ lVeb'tA] alø

26

./Mai blejB} ' ydiG“ lVeb'tA] alø

14

Three times a year you shall celebrate a feast to Me. 15

You shall observe the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, just as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt.

18

You shall observe the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in the month of Abib you came out of Egypt. 19 The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, and all your male livestock, the first offspring of the cattle and sheep. 20 And you shall redeem with a sheep the first-born of a donkey, and if you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck. You shall redeem all the first-born of your sons.

And they shall not appear before me empty-handed.

And they shall not appear before me empty-handed. 21

You shall work six days, but on the seventh day you shall rest. During plowing and harvest you shall rest. 16

and the Festival of the Harvest of the 22 And you shall make for yourself the first-fruits of your labors which you Festival of Weeks; the first-fruits of the sow in the field; wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the end of the year when you gather your labors from the field.

and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.

17

23

Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord YHWH.

Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord YHWH, the God of Israel. 24

11

For I will drive out nations from

before you and enlarge your territory, and no man shall covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before YHWH your God. 18

You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread,

25

You shall not slaughter the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread

and the fat of my feast is not to remain until morning.

and the sacrifice of the Festival of the Passover is not to remain until morning.

19

You shall bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of YHWH your God.

26

You shall bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of YHWH your God.

You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

2.1.1. Exodus 23:16a. Some scholars assign the “Book of the Covenant” (Exod 20:21–23:19) to the E source, while others argue that it was originally an independent source, but most scholars agree that it contains the earliest extant compilation of Israelite laws.25 It derives its name from Exod 24:4, 7 (tyriBh] ' rp,s)e .26 In the passage under 25

Cf. M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Translated by B. W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972 [1948]), 36, n. 139; Childs, Exodus, 452; J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 197–200. E still has its defenders as an originally independent narrative, but the trend in scholarship lately is to view it as a stage on the way to J or as additions to J (however, see the discussion and defense of the traditional position found in R. E. Friedman, “The Recession of Biblical Source Criticism,” in The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures [ed. by R. E. Friedman, and H. G. M. Williamson; SBL Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987], 81–101). On the delimitation of the Book of the Covenant (Exod 20:21– 23:19), see J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, 169, 189, 197. Blenkinsopp assigns Exod 23:20–33 to D as a sequel to the Covenant Code, and identifies Exod 20:21–22 as a D introduction to the Law Book. On the Book of the Covenant as an independent source, see Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 36, n. 139; Childs, Exodus, 452. 26

On the Book of the Covenant in general, see in addition: S. M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law (VTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1970); D. Patrick, “The Covenant Code Source,” VT 27 (1977): 145–57; J. Van Seters, “Cultic Laws in the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:22–23:33) and their Relationship to Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation (ed. M. Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 319–45. On the composition of Exodus 19–24 since Noth, see in addition, R W. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 (JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983); J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994); Thomas B. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology, and Canon in Exodus 19–24 (SBLMS 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 183–228; idem, “Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative,” in A Biblical Itinerary:

12

consideration here (23:14–17), aside from mentioning the three major festivals, very few details are given. The order of the festivals—Unleavened Bread, Weeks, Ingathering—is common to all the calendars in the Hebrew Bible and follows the agricultural year. In 23:16a the festival in question is referred to as “the festival of the harvest”: hd,CB; ' [r'z“Ti rv,a} Úyc,[m} ' yreWKBi ryxiQh; ' gj'w“ And the festival of the harvest of the first-fruits of your labor which you sow in the field.27 This festival, along with the Festival of Booths, is not given a date in this text. The Festival of Unleavened Bread is given a general date in the month of Abib (Exod 23:15), which is the first month according to the new calendar instituted when the Israelites left Egypt (Exod 12:2; 13:4). The lack of a specific date for the final two festivals is likely due to the fact that given the variability of climate, the harvest times would vary depending on the climate for that particular year and locality.28 Thus the date of the Festival of Weeks would necessarily have to be left open since it would be celebrated at different times from year to year and place to place. In the exilic and post-exilic period, however, there is an attempt made to fix the dates of all of the festivals (Leviticus 23; Numbers 28–29). It appears that Exod 23:18–19 is meant to provide some specific prescriptions regarding these festivals. In the case of v.19a, it seems possible that this prescription is specifically or especially linked to the Festival of Unleavened Bread:

In Search of Method, Form and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (ed. Eugene E. Carpenter; JSOTSup 240; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 109–25; T. D. Alexander, “The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus 19:1–24:11,” VT 49 (1999): 2–20. 27 All translations of the Hebrew Bible are my own unless otherwise stated. I have consulted the NASB and ESV. 28

The vagueness of the date for the Festival of Unleavened Bread (where only the month is mentioned in this text) also likely points to a period when the appointed time for this festival was variable depending on climate and location. As time passed, however, this festival became rooted to a specific historical event (the Exodus) and the Passover (cf. Deut 16:1–7; Ezek 45:21; Ezra 6:20–22; 2 Chr 30:2, 5, 13, 15; 35:17 where Passover and Unleavened Bread are combined).

13

Úyh,laø ‘ hw:hy“ tyBe aybiT; Út]md; a] ' yreWKBi tyviare You shall bring the best of the first-fruits of your soil to the house of YHWH your God. The word µyriWKBi (“first-fruits”) which is also used to describe the Festival of Weeks suggests this connection. This term may, in fact, have been the reason why this law has found its place here in the text (cf. v. 15 and 18). However, since all three festivals are linked in some way to an agricultural crop, it could just as easily apply to any of them as well, especially since it refers generically to “first-fruits” and does not specify a particular crop—i.e., wheat. 2.1.2. Exodus 34:22a. Exodus 34 has been a notoriously difficult passage to interpret because of its murky relationship to chapters 19–24. In Exodus 34, God replaces the two broken tablets (Exod 32:19; cf. 24:12; 31:18; 32:15–16) with new ones (Exod 34:1, 4, 28). In Exod 34:28 we are told that God wrote the Ten Commandments on the tablets. The problem is, Exod 34:11–26 does not contain the same commandments that are found in Exod 20:1–17.29 According to Wellhausen’s classic theory, although Exod 34:11–26 has been altered by a redactor to make it look like a covenant renewal, it is really the J counterpart (i.e., “cultic Decalogue”) to E’s “ethical Decalogue.”30 J’s Decalogue, being the more primitive version, is older than E’s Decalogue. It has become apparent in recent years, that Wellhausen’s thesis is in need of some considerable refinement. One of the main problems is that Exod 34:11–26 does not contain a “Decalogue” at all. There appear to be at least eleven commandments, and possibly more

29

This was noticed as early as 1773 by Goethe (Zwo wichtige bisher unerörterte Fragen; cited by Childs, Exodus, 604). On Exodus 34:11–26, see R. H. Pfeiffer, “The Oldest Decalogue,” JBL 43 (1924): 294–310; Morgenstern, “The Oldest Document of the Hexateuch,” HUCA 4 (1927): 1–138; H. Kosmala, “The So-Called Ritual Decalogue,” ASTI 1 (1962): 31–61; D. R. Davis, “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32–34,” WTJ 44 (1982): 71–87; Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 95–101, 157–61; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 192–94; Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 319–60. 30

Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (3d ed.; Skizzen und Arbeiten 2; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1899), 329–31.

14

depending on how the stipulations are divided up. Attempts to perform textual surgery on the statutes in order to come up with a “Decalogue” appear forced and artificial.31 The most one can conclude is that various laws, at least some of which are based on the Book of the Covenant (e.g., the cultic calendar), have been gathered together in Exodus 34. Like its parallel in Exod 23:16a, very few particular details are given about the festival itself. However, it is identified by its more well known name, the Festival of Weeks, and the occasion for the festival is also more precisely identified—i.e., the wheat harvest: µyFiji ryxiq] yreWKBi Úl] hc,[}T' t[obuv; gj'w“ And you shall make for yourself the Festival of Weeks; the first-fruits of the wheat harvest.32 The phrase t[obuv; gjæ (“festival of weeks”) presupposes the formula for determining the date of the festival such as is explained in Deut 16:9–10. It therefore appears likely that this passage has at the very least had some Deuteronomistic editing, as is evidenced in other passages in Exod 34:11–26.33 Paralleling Exod 23:14–17, this festival, along with 31 Kraus, Worship in Israel, 29. Consider for example, Noth (Exodus, 262–63), who presupposes that the original must have included ten commandments, and then proposes various theories about what the conjectured original must have looked like. 32 © reads moi where Â and „ read Úl]. The text probably reflects Exod 23:14 where it is explicitly stated that the festivals are to be celebrated for God (eJortavsatev moi [“you shall celebrate a festival for me”]). 33 Several scholars have argued in recent years that Exodus 34 shows evidence of Deuteronomic redaction and composition. Noth (Exodus, 261–62, 264) identifies vv. 11b–13, 14b–16, and 24 as containing later additions to the J narrative in the Deuteronomistic style and seems to suggest that this phrase is due to Deuteronomic editing (“the new expression ‘Feast of weeks’, which is certainly more recent and which became current usage at a later period, makes an appearance [for an explanation cf. Deut 16:9]...”). Other scholars see D permeating the whole of the passage: Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen: Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), 203–32; H. H. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1976), 112–14; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 191–94. Van Seters (The Life of Moses, 468) argues that J postdates D and while heavily influenced by Deuteronomic theology, nevertheless made some important modifications to D theology especially with respect to the Deuteronomist’s restrictive nationalism. Van Seters identifies 34:11–26 as J but sees little distinction between J and D. Alternatively, it is possible that this text merely presupposes a formula such as is found in Deut 16:9–10 but has not elaborated it on the assumption that it is well known. In this case, the appellation would not be a case of Deuteronomic editing. It is difficult to decide between the two, but given the evidence of a Deuteronomic hand in the near context, it appears that this is the more likely of the possibilities.

15

the Festival of Booths, is not given a date, whereas the Festival of Unleavened Bread is given an unspecified date in the month of Abib (Exod 34:18). 2.2. Deuteronomic Sources 2.2.1. Deuteronomy 16:9–12. The festival calendar found in Deut 16:1–17 exhibits little literary dependence on either Exod 23:14–17 or 34:18–24. However, while Deut 16:1–17 is greatly expanded as compared to its counterparts in Exodus, there are some broad structural similarities which at the same time highlight a major change, as the chart below demonstrates: TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF FESTIVAL PASSAGES IN EXODUS AND DEUTERONOMY ========================================================= Exod 23:14– Exod 34:18–24 Deut 16:1–17 17 “Three times...” v. 14 Passover (cf. v. 25b; cf. 23:18b) vv. 1–8 Unleavened v. 15 vv. 18–21 Bread Weeks v. 16a v. 22a vv. 9–12 Booths v. 16b v. 22b vv. 13–15 “Three times...” v. 17 vv. 23–24 vv. 16–17 ————————————————————————————————

16

The Deuteronomistic program of centralization of worship makes its mark on this calendar (Deut 16:2, 6–7, 11, 15, 16; cf. v. 5). Passover, originally a celebration in the home (cf. Exod 12:1–20 [P]; 21–23, 27b [J]), and then at the local sanctuary (Exod 23:14, 17; 34:23–24), is now a required pilgrimage to a central sanctuary (Deut 16:2, 6–7; cf. v. 5) and is linked inextricably with the Festival of Unleavened Bread.34 In fact, the Festival of Unleavened Bread is not explicitly mentioned; there are now just allusions to it here and there (Deut 16:3–4, 8). Deut 16:9 provides key information on how the Festival of Weeks got its name and also somewhat illuminates the date on which it is to be celebrated: .t/[buv; h[;b]vi rPosl] i ljeT; hm;QB; ' vmerj] , ljehm; e Jl;ArP;s]Ti t[obuv; h[;b]vi You shall count for yourself seven weeks; you shall begin to count seven weeks when you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain. The date of the festival was calculated by counting seven weeks from the beginning of the barley harvest, which was originally marked by the Festival of Unleavened Bread.35 It is tempting to read Deut 16:9–10 in light of Lev 23:15–16 in accordance with the old Augustinian practice of reading what is obscure in light of what is clear. However, it is by no means obvious that the two formulas are actually compatible. The beginning points for the calculation are slightly different: in Deuteronomy it begins with the cutting of the standing grain (i.e., the beginning of barley harvest) whereas in Leviticus it begins with the waving of the sheaf. Neither is it clear that the beginning of the barley harvest would necessarily have started on “the morrow of the sabbath,” the day when the waving of the sheaf is to occur. Moreover, the count in Leviticus is seven complete sabbaths which is

34 That these festivals were originally celebrated at a local sanctuary is indicated by Judg 21:19 which makes note of a yearly pilgrimage festival at Shiloh. 35 Originally, this feast was not celebrated on the day following the Passover, but on a “morrow after the Sabbath” (cf. Lev 23:15). Because the barley harvest was approximately the same date as the traditional date of the Exodus, it was “historicized”; i.e., the Festival of Unleavened Bread became associated with a significant event in Israel’s past (Exod 12:29–34, 37–39; cf. 12:15–20; 23:15; 34:18; Deut 16:3).

17

equated to 50 days (cf. Lev 25:8 where seven sabbaths of years is described as 49 years and the Jubilee is held on the fiftieth year [v. 10]) as opposed to seven weeks in Deuteronomy (i.e., it is not exactly clear whether 49 or 50 days is meant). This change in the formula likely reflects a standardization and ritualization of the beginning of the barley harvest (cf. the exact dates given for the rest of the events on the festival calendar in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28–29). Originally, it is likely that the Festival of Unleavened Bread (when it was still linked to the barley harvest) was celebrated whenever the barley was ripe. The very fact that the Festival of Weeks is determined by a formula points to this. A formula of the kind here described is necessary only if (at least originally) the beginning point (i.e., the barley harvest) had a floating date. Otherwise, giving the Festival of Weeks a precise date on the calendar would be far more natural. This thesis appears to gain support from the fact that the Festival of Booths is similarly not given a firm date but is to be held “when you have gathered from your threshing floor and your wine press” (Deut 16:13). At the point in time in which Deut 16:9–10 was composed, however, the Festival of Weeks must have been held on the same day for all of Judah. We can be certain of this because of the program of cultic centralization that the Deuteronomists undertook, which required a national pilgrimage to the Temple (cf. Deut 16:11). Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that the festival had a fixed date every year. Rather, it may be that the date floated from year to year, but was held on the same day, in any given year, for all of Judah. Given the fact that variations in climate and geography lead to different harvest times for different areas, a question arises: which region’s harvest served as the starting point for the calculation of the Festival of Weeks? The most likely answer is Jerusalem or the area immediately surrounding the city. Because it was celebrated so close to Passover, the Festival of Unleavened Bread became associated with Passover and the Exodus. It was thereby “historicized” and eventually given a precise date (cf. Exod 12:29–34, 37–39 [J]; 12:15–20 [P]; 23:15; 18

34:18). This process can even be discerned in the cultic calendars thus far discussed. The festival calendars of Exod 23:14–17 and 34:18–24 do not mention Passover, though the exodus from Egypt is mentioned as the reason for the festival. The general directives found in Exod 23:18–19 and paralleled in Exod 34:25–26 are rather interesting in this respect. In Exod 23:18 there are two general proscriptions related to sacrifice: .rq,BAo d[' yGIjA' bl,je ˜yliyA: aløw“ yjibz] AI µD' ≈mejA; l[' jB'z“tAi al You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread, and the fat of my feast is not to remain until morning. (Exod 23:18) In the parallel passage in Exod 34:25, however, the phrase yGijAæ bl,je (“fat of my festival”) is replaced with the phrase jsæPh ; æ gjæ jbæz, (“sacrifice of the Festival of Passover”): .js'Ph; ' gj' jb'z≤ rq,Blo ' ˜yliyA: aløw“ yjibz] AI µD' ≈mejA; l[' fj'v]tAi alø You shall not slaughter the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread, and the sacrifice of the Festival of Passover is not to remain until morning. (Exod 34:25) Exod 23:18 appears to contain a couple of general injunctions relating to sacrifice. In Exod 34:25, however, a link between the Festival of Unleavened Bread and Passover is suggested by a slight change of phrase. Moreover, the verb jbz (“offer”) in Exod 23:18 is changed in Exod 34:25 to fjv (“slaughter”) to make clear that the person who makes the offering is only to slaughter the animal (cf. Exod 12:6, 21; Lev 1:5; 2 Chr 35:11), not actually to lay it on the altar, which was allowed only to priests. The Festival of Unleavened Bread is thus linked to the Passover and Exodus. In a similar way, the Festival of Booths is linked to the wilderness wanderings (Lev 23:43), but the Festival of Weeks has no link to a key event in Israel’s past. This may have been a contributing factor in the decline of this festival’s importance. The Festival of Booths was the most popular of the three main festivals, followed by the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Jacob Milgrom has argued that the Festival of Unleavened Bread has nothing to do with the first-fruits (of barley).36 He points to Lev 23:14—which prohibits the 36 J. Milgrom, Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (3 vols.; AB 3, 3A, 3B; New York: Doubleday, 1991, 2000, 2001), 3:1989.

19

worshipper from eating bread, parched grain, or newly ripe grain until the grain offering is brought to YHWH—as proof that the unleavened bread eaten with the paschal sacrifice (Exod 12:8) and the following day is made from the old grain, not the new barley.37 This would appear to imply that the Festival of Unleavened Bread was not the occasion for celebrating the barley harvest—at least by the time of P. Milgrom appears to have a point. There is nothing in the biblical text which specifically demands that the Festival of Unleavened Bread be connected to the firstfruits of barley, at least by the historical stages represented in the extant texts.38 First of all, in general, barley does not ripen by the Festival of Unleavened Bread. In fact, only in the most favorable climates does it ripen by mid-April.39 Moreover, taking Deut 16:9–10 by itself, there is no indication that the barley harvest (and therefore the seven week count) necessarily began during or immediately following the Festival of Unleavened Bread. This is not to deny that originally, the Festival of Unleavened Bread had something to do with the first-fruits of barley, but simply to observe that by the time this particular calendar was written (i.e., Deuteronomy 16), the Festival of Unleavened Bread had become associated more with the Passover and the Exodus, and the link to the barley harvest was consequently becoming less important. It is for this reason that Deut 16:9 can start the seven week count from the beginning of barley harvest, which from D’s perspective began whenever the harvest was ripe. With the Festival of Unleavened Bread receiving a fixed date and becoming increasingly associated with Exodus and not barley, and furthermore, with the beginning of barley harvest being variable from year to year, a

37

Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:1989.

38

This even applies to the Festival of Unleavened Bread as described in Exod 23:15 and 34:18 which already explicitly connect the festival with the exodus from Egypt. However, at this stage, one may conjecture that the connection to the barley harvest was still somewhat alive. 39

Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:1983.

20

disjunction between the Festival of Unleavened Bread and the actual beginning of barley harvest was only natural, and indeed, inevitable. Compare this with P’s fixed date for the waving of the rm,[o (“sheaf”) “from the morrow of the sabbath” (tB;Vh æ æ træjM’ m; ;i Lev 23:11, 15–16).40 In this instance, it is rather striking that this ceremony (Lev 23:9–14) is discussed separately from the Passover and Festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:5–8) which implies that by this time at least, the link between the barley harvest and the Festival of Unleavened Bread was lost, as Milgrom argues.41 In fact, Lev 23:9, which clearly functions as a separator, contains an introductory formula: rmoaLe hv,mAo la, hw:hy“ rBedy' w“ " (“And YHWH spoke to Moses, saying”).42 Whatever date the troublesome phrase tB;Vh æ æ træjM’ m; i points to, it likely reflects the desire to standardize the date of this rite and the Festival of Weeks which is dependent on it. Deut 16:10–12 provides some general information about the occasion and nature of the festival: T;jm] 'cw; “ 11 .Úyh,laø ‘ hw:hy“ Úk]rb, y; “ rv,a}K' ˜TeTi rv,a} Úd]y: tb'd]nI tS'mi Úyh,laø ‘ hw:hyl' t/[buv; gj' t;yci[w; “ 10 hn:ml; a] h' w; “ µ/tY:hw' “ rG´hw' “ Úyr,[;vB] i rv,a} ywILhe w' “ Út,ma; w} " ÚD]b][w' “ ÚT,bWi Ún“bWi hT;a' Úyh,laø ‘ hw:hy“ ynEp]li µyIrx; m] Bi ] t;yyIh; db,[A, yKi T;r]kz' w… “ 12 .µv; /mv] ˜Kevl' ] Úyh,laø ‘ hw:hy“ rj'by] I rv,a} µ/qM;B' ÚB,rq] Bi ] rv,a} .hL,ahe ; µyQijhu A' ta, t;yci[w; “ T;rm] 'vw; “ 10

And you shall make the Festival of Weeks for YHWH your God with the tribute of a free will offering of your hands which you shall give just as YHWH your God blesses you. 11 And you shall rejoice before YHWH your God, you and your son and your daughter and your male servant and your female servant and the Levite who is in your gates, and the stranger and the orphan and the widow who is among you in the place where YHWH your God has chosen to establish his name. 12 And you shall remember that you were servants in Egypt and you shall carefully observe these statutes.

40

See further below.

41

Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:1989.

42

Cf. E. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 343–44.

21

Each of the three times that Israelites are to appear before YHWH (Deut 16:16a; cf. Exod 23:17; 34:23–24), they are not to appear before him empty-handed (Deut 16:16b; cf. Exod 23:15b; 34:20d). This text provides a rationale for the offering: they are to bring a free will tribute as a response to the blessings which YHWH bestows upon them (Deut 16:10).43 It is implied that this offering was to consist of whatever the farmer could afford as a result of the harvest. As elsewhere in Deuteronomy, the people are reminded of their experience of slavery in Egypt to motivate them to include all Israelites—including and especially the disadvantaged among them (slave, stranger, orphan, widow)—in the celebration of the festival (Deut 16:11–12; cf. 5:12–15; 15:12–17).44 2.2.2. Jeremiah 5:24. Jeremiah 5:24 appears to contain an allusion to the Festival of Weeks in an oracle of judgment against Israel where YHWH indicts Israel for forsaking him in favor of foreign gods: ryxiq; t/Qju t/[buv] /T[iB] v/ql]mW' hr,/y µv,G≤ ˜teNhú ' Wnyhelaø ‘ hw:hy“Ata, an: ar;ynI µb;bl; b] i Wrm]aA; aløw“ 24 .Wnl;Arm;vy] I And they do not say in their heart, “Let us fear YHWH our God the one who gives rain, both the early rain (autumn) and the latter rain (spring), in its season, who keeps for us the appointed weeks of the harvest.” The rather strange phrase ryxiq; t/Qju (lit. “statutes of harvest”) indicates a set pattern or order to the harvest (cf. Jer 31:35; 33:25; cf. Job 38:33), which is what the seven week formula for the dating of the Festival of Weeks also implies (cf. t/[buv] or “weeks”).45 In

43 The Â reads ˚krby whereas „ reads ˚krb and © reads hujlovghsevn. The „ and © readings indicate more precisely that the blessing for which they are thankful lies in the past, implying that the offering comes at the end of the wheat harvest, not the beginning. 44

It is unlikely that the prescription to remember their slavery in Egypt is supposed to serve as the associated event for the Festival of Weeks in the same way as the Exodus from Egypt is associated with the Festival of Unleavened Bread or the wilderness wanderings is associated with the Festival of Booths. It appears to serve as the moral reasoning for including all Israelites in the celebration; i.e., slaves, orphans, widows, and strangers are to be included in the Israelites’ celebrations because all Israelites were once slaves in Egypt. Cf. Kraus, Worship in Israel, 57. 45

W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 193, 197.

22

Ancient Near Eastern mythology, the Baals sent rain to guarantee the fertility of the land, but here YHWH is the one who is said to send the rain and is thus the one to be feared. Worship of the Baals, designed to produce a bountiful harvest, has backfired and produced an evil result (Jer 5:25).46 2.2.3. Did Shavuot Mark the Beginning or the End of Wheat Harvest? The Gezer Calendar gives us an example of a harvest calendar of pre-exilic Israel. It has been dated on paleographical grounds to the second half of the tenth century B.C.47 It was found at Tell el-Jazari (ancient Gezer, about 19 miles NW of Jerusalem) by R. Macalister in 1908, and is approximately 4.5 inches long by 3 inches wide. It appears to be a student exercise which describes the harvest season in Gezer:48 His two months are (olive) harvest, His two months are planting (grain), His two months are late planting; His month is hoeing up of flax, His month is harvest of barley, His month is harvest and feasting;49 His two months are vine-tending, His month is summer fruit.50 Because the barley harvest occurs in the first month in the biblical festival calendar, the fact that in the Gezer Calendar the barley harvest occurs in the eighth month indicates

46 R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 188; cf. Kraus (Worship in Israel, 57–58) who suggests that the Festival of Weeks, since it was rooted entirely in agrarian rites, provided an entry for Canaanite fertility customs. 47

W. F. Albright, “The Gezer Calendar,” BASOR 82 (1943): 18.

48

Albright, “The Gezer Calendar,” 21.

49 The verb here is wgl and the meaning is uncertain. Albright (“The Gezer Calendar,” 25) reads it as related to the verb gyl. He cites Isa 9:2 which describes rejoicing at the birth and reign of the Prince of Peace in terms of the joy after harvest, using the verb jmc and the noun hj;m]ci in a parallel line to lyg. 50

“The Gezer Calendar,” translated by W. F. Albright (ANET, 320).

23

that this calendar had its starting point in the early autumn.51 According to this calendar, the barley and wheat harvest took two months. Since the seven week count of Deut 16:9 begins with the beginning of the barley harvest, these two calendars are roughly compatible.52 This would imply that the Festival of Weeks marks the end of the wheat harvest.53 This appears to be consistent with the story of Ruth which depicts one continuous season of harvest from the beginning of the barley harvest to the end of the wheat harvest (Ruth 1:22; 2:23). Jacob Milgrom however, argues that the Festival of Weeks marks the beginning, not the end of the wheat harvest. He notes the following points: (1) The Gezer Calendar only holds true for the Gezer region (located in the southern Shephelah) where grain could ripen early; other regions had different harvest times as the rabbinic literature attests; (2) the Festival of Weeks is consistently associated with the first-fruits, not the end of harvest; (3) it appears that the priestly texts cancelled the pilgrimage (see further below); however, if the farmer was finished with the harvest, Milgrom asks, why would he not be free to celebrate at the sanctuary?54 While his points are well taken, none of them is definitive or compelling. First, according to Oded Borowski, the harvest time for wheat as stated in the Gezer Calendar

51

The evidence from the Hebrew Bible is rather mixed. Clearly some texts from the late pre-exilic to post-exilic periods presume the beginning of the year in spring (e.g., Exod 24 12:2; Lev 23:5; Num 28:16). However, complicating matters are hints here and there that there was an autumnal new year (cf. Lev 23:24; Num 29:1). In Exod 23:16 the phrase hn:Vh ; ' taxeB] (“at the end of the year”) and in 34:22 the phrase hn:Vh; ' tp'WqT] (“the turn of the year”) describes the time of year when the Festival of Booths is to occur (7/15–22) and signifies an important point in the year, perhaps presuming that the year began in the autumn according to these texts. However, as VanderKam notes (p. 817), we are here dealing with an agricultural cycle which would naturally end with the fall harvest anyways. 52 J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 156. 53 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 83–92; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 156; Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 295; B. Levine, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 265. 54

Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:1991–92.

24

lines up with modern agricultural practices in Israel.55 Furthermore, while some areas would likely have either an earlier or later wheat harvest depending on elevation and climate, the same would also hold true for the barley harvest, meaning that the same relative harvest window of approximately two months or seven weeks would basically hold true regardless of elevation or climate; i.e., barley would ripen approximately a month before wheat whether in the lowlands or highlands.56 Milgrom therefore dismisses the Gezer Calendar too easily. It is true that this calendar would not necessarily apply to other regions of the country. However, if the formula as described in Deut 16:9–10 and Lev 23:15–16 was not originally anchored to a specific date, but was a floating date (as Milgrom himself argues), then a harvest that ends late, likely started late, and the harvest time itself would likely remain about the same length of time—i.e., seven weeks or 2 months.57 Thus, whether the highlands (where the harvest would start and end late) or lowlands (where the harvest would start early and end early), the overall length of time between the start of barley harvest and the end of wheat harvest would likely be similar. However, because this would result in different end points, depending on one’s location and climate, once the Festival of Weeks is appointed a fixed date, some farmers would find that it starts too early for the wheat harvest. In some cases, it may even be that the wheat harvest has not even started, much less finished. However, that is a problem to

55

O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 36–38, 88. Cf. D. C. Hopkins (The Highlands of Canaan: Agricultural Life in the Early Iron Age [SWBA 3; Sheffield: Almond, 1985], 224) who notes that barley ripens approximately a month before wheat. He also notes that barley and wheat would have to be harvested together and would have been planted (e.g., staggered sowing) so that as soon as barley harvest ended, wheat harvesting could begin, in order to maximize the yield (Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 224–225). Hopkins further argues (pp. 99–108) that “the climate of Highland Canaan in the early Iron Age was not changed from that of today, but only varied around a mean closely resembling present conditions…. This conclusion grants a considerable measure of authority to observations that have been made on the basis of contemporary data about the climate of the Highlands and its implications for the conduct of agriculture” (p. 107). 56

Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 224.

57

Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:2059.

25

be assigned to the fact that an originally free floating festival has been appointed a set time based on a formula that was originally designed to be flexible enough to be applied to any climate or region in Israel and give various communities a standard by which they could set their festivals for their own local community at the local sanctuary and provide some semblance of uniformity throughout Israel (i.e., the same number of days separated the two festivals). The problem arises when worship is centralized and pilgrimages to a central sanctuary are required. This means that a set date must be appointed for the festivals. Unfortunately, the variation in climate and elevation throughout Israel is not conducive to such a rigid structure. Milgrom also cites various examples from the rabbinic literature indicating the variability of the harvest season, but this evidence produces mixed results.58 As Milgrom observes, Ruth Rabbah 5:11 does appear to bolster his argument: R. Samuel b. Nah≥man said: From the beginning of the barley harvest until the end of the wheat harvest is three months.59 However, it is possible that the rabbi’s chronology is motivated by other factors. The complete context of this remark is pertinent (Ruth Rabbah 5:11): yadwb ywl rb ˜ynj ybr rma ò˜yqbdt yl rva µyr[nh µ[ yla rma yk µg hybawmh twr rmatwò qbdtwò òyl rva µyr[nh µ[ò hrma ayhw òytr[n µ[ ˜yqbdt hkwò rma awh wz ayh hybawm hvlv µyfjh ryxq twlk d[ µyrw[c ryxq tljtm ˜mjn rb lawmv ybr rma òz[b twr[nb z[b alh ht[wò òjwnm ˚l vqba alh ytb htwmj ym[n hl rmatw htwmj ta bvtwò µyvdj òwnt[dm “And Ruth the Moabitess said, ‘Also, he said to me, You shall keep close to my male servants [until they have completed all my harvest]’.” (2:21) Rabbi H≥anin ben Levi said, “In truth, she was a Moabitess for he said, ‘and now you shall keep close to my female servants,’ (2:8) and she said, ‘with my male servants.’ “And she kept close to the female servants of Boaz.” (2:23) Rabbi Samuel b. Nah≥man said, “From the beginning of the barley harvest until the end of the wheat harvest is three months.” “And she dwelt with her mother-in-law and Naomi her mother-

58

Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:1991.

59

Translation by H. Freedman and M. Simon, Midrash Rabbah (11 vols.; London: Soncino, 1961),

8.69.

26

in-law said to her, ‘My daughter, shall I not seek rest for you’ ‘And now is there not Boaz our kinsman?’ (2:23–3:2). In Ruth 2:8, Boaz had said to Ruth to stay yt;ro[}nA" µ[i (“with my female servants”). However, in 2:21, in Ruth’s report of Boaz’s statement, she says that Boaz told her to stay yliArv,a} µyri[;Nh“ A' µ[i (“with my male servants”). The discrepancy leads R. H≥anin b. Levi to imply that Ruth had impure thoughts (cf. Gen 19:30–38). R. Samuel b. Nah≥man may have reported the length of the barley and wheat harvest as three months because this is roughly the length of time required to make sure Ruth was not pregnant (cf. Gen 38:24 where Tamar begins to show after three months and is therefore accused of playing the harlot).60 In addition, it should be noted that this evidence comes far after the fact, when the memory of the original free-floating date of the festival had likely long since been lost.61 It is true that t. Menah≥. 10:33 sanctions the use of old wheat for the first-fruits if new wheat is not available, but this only need imply that in some highland areas, in some a-typical years when the climate was cooler and drier than normal, the wheat harvest could be late in coming. At any rate, this text seems to envision an uncharacteristic occurrence. Furthermore, Milgrom draws a stronger inference from t. Suk. 3:18 than is warranted: ˚yl[ ˚rbttç ydk È˜yrw[ç qrp awhç jspb µyrw[ç rmw[ abh hrwt hrma abyq[ òr òma ˚wsyn aybh È˜lya twryp ˚yl[ wkrbtyç ydk È˜lya qrp whç trx[b µymj µyrwkb aybh Èhawbt

60 Freedman and Simon (Midrash Rabbah, 69, n.4) suggest that the concern is with Ruth being pregnant by her former husband, but given the context, this seems unlikely. The concern seems to be rather that Ruth has been impregnated by one of the male servants (she does, after all, end up seducing Boaz in 3:6–14). Ruth 1:22 indicates that Naomi and Ruth arrived in Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest, and 2:23 indicates that Ruth gleaned with Boaz’ maids until the end of the barley and wheat harvests. Since Ruth’s verbal slip happened on the first day, and furthermore, since we are told that she stayed by Boaz’ maids the rest of the harvest, the only possible moment she was in moral jeopardy was the first day. Thus the necessity of showing that Ruth was not pregnant would be satisfied by indicating that the harvest season was three months. 61 Hermann L. Strack and Günter Stemberger (Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash [trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl; 2d printing; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 317) dates it to A.D. 500 in Palestine, though it undoubtedly contains earlier material.

27

µymçg ym ˚yl[ wkrbtyç ydk gjb µymh Rabbi ‘Aqiba said, “The Torah says to bring the ‘omer of barley on Passover because it is the season of barley, so that it will be a blessing upon you when you bring it; to bring the first-fruits of wheat on Pentecost because it is the season of trees, so that fruit trees will be a blessing upon you; to bring the water libation on the Festival [of Tabernacles] so that rain will be a blessing upon you.62 He argues from this text that “the ‘o\mer of barley and the first-fruits of wheat are to be brought at the beginning of their respective harvests [italics his].”63 However, Milgrom misinterprets this text which explains that the faithful observance of each festival ensures blessing on the following harvest. Thus, the ‘o\mer of barley ensures a good grain harvest, including both barley and wheat. We know that this is so because the first-fruits of wheat on Pentecost ensures a good fruit—not wheat—harvest. This implies that the wheat harvest is already past, since the first-fruits of the wheat harvest does not ensure the blessing of the wheat harvest, but on the next item that is harvested according to the agricultural calendar; i.e., fruit. Milgrom also cites m. H≥al 4:10 and m. Bik. 1:3 which indicate that in some very warm areas wheat might ripen before the festival.64 He infers from this that most wheat ripened after the festival. However, this inference is not warranted. These texts merely state that the first-fruits may not be brought before Pentecost. At any rate, given the fact that the timing of the festival changed over the years (from an original variable festival whose timing was based on climate factors to a fixed festival) and the fact that these rabbinic texts were written so long after the fact, one cannot put too much weight on any of these texts.

62

All Hebrew citations from the Tosefta will be taken from Saul Lieberman (The Tosefta [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955–88) where possible. 63

Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:1991.

64

Both of these texts refer to Mt. Zeboim (µy[wbx rh).

28

While the Festival of Weeks celebrates the first-fruits of the harvest, there is no reason to suppose that the first-fruits could not be offered until after the harvest was completed.65 In fact, it would be odd for farmers to interrupt the harvest to celebrate the Festival of Weeks and then return to harvesting afterwards. Milgrom, drawing on the experience of one of his students (D. Stewart) who is a farmer, notes that there is a natural break between the final stages of ripeness: “fully ripe” and “dead ripe”, which would be a natural moment to take a pilgrimage to a nearby sanctuary.66 On the other hand, Hopkins argues that the ancient Israelites (who did not have access to modern technology and therefore had different agricultural processes to compensate) would have staggered their sowing in terms of time and location (e.g., valleys and hillsides) in order to spread “the maturation of the crops across a temporal window.”67 Since grains need to be harvested at precisely the right moment (the temporal window is about 3 weeks), it was important to make sure various stands ripened at different times so that they would not all have to be harvested at once. This practice would spread the work out rather evenly, and in effect would blend the end of the barley harvest with the beginning of the wheat harvest.68 If Hopkins is right, and his thesis seems eminently reasonable given the circumstances of the early Israelites, one might legitimately wonder whether such a natural break as Milgrom describes (no doubt made possible today by the existence of modern machinery) existed at all in ancient Israel.69 One would tend to think not.

65

As noted above, m. H≥al 4:10 and m. Bik. 1:3 state that the first-fruits were not to be brought to the sanctuary until the Festival of Weeks. 66

Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:1996.

67

Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 224.

68

Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 224.

69

Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 224.

29

The purpose of the first-fruits offering may have been thanksgiving for a wheat harvest already gathered (cf. the note of joy in Deut 16:10–11), rather than hope for a bountiful harvest that still lay in the uncertain future. Furthermore, while it does appear that the priestly writers may have cancelled the pilgrimage requirement for the Festival of Weeks at one point, Milgrom’s inference that the only logical reason for this could be that the farmer still had to harvest the wheat is not convincing (though in at least some cases this would undoubtedly be true). There are several reasons why a pilgrimage may have been cancelled. For one thing, the end of the wheat harvest did not mean the end of work. There are several steps involved in harvesting, as Hopkins enumerates: (1) the harvest proper—reaping or picking; (2) collecting the harvested stalks; (3) transporting the harvest to the threshing floor; (4) drying the harvest; (5) threshing to disarticulate the spikelets and remove the hulls (glumes); (6) winnowing and sieving to separate the grain from the chaff and to clean the grain; (7) measuring and storing.70 Clearly, much work remained even after the harvest proper. Moreover, it may have simply been a matter of convenience, especially in view of the fact that the centralization of worship meant that many Israelites had to travel long distances to the sanctuary.71 In addition, there is also the probability that due to the differing climatic conditions in various regions, wheat harvest season would be extended beyond the Festival of Weeks for some farmers, and thus a pilgrimage would represent a hardship for some. In Exod 34:22, the © reads ajrchvn for yreWKBi which is unique and would imply that the Festival of Weeks was celebrated at the beginning of wheat harvest.72 However, it is not hard to see how ajrchv might be taken to denote “first.” Moreover, there appears to be at least a partial precedent in Jeremiah 2:3 where the © reads ajrch; for Â tyviare which

70

Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 225.

71 One must keep in mind that there was a required pilgrimage less than two months prior at the Festival of Unleavened Bread. 72

J. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 566.

30

often essentially has the same meaning as µyriWKBi as it does in this particular context (cf. Lev 2:12; Num 18:12; Deut 18:4; 26:2, 10, etc.). Furthermore, there is too much evidence to the contrary to take the © seriously as an indication that the Festival of Weeks marked the beginning of the wheat harvest. 2.3. Priestly Sources A comparison of the Priestly calendars with the Deuteronomic calendar shows that the Priestly calendars have been greatly expanded by the inclusion of a number of religious occasions that do not involve a pilgrimage.

TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF DEUTERONOMIC AND PRIESTLY FESTIVAL CALENDARS ========================================================= Deut 16:1– Leviticus 23 Numbers 28–29 17 [H] [P] Introductory Formula 23:1–2 28:1 General Instructions on 28:2–8 Offerings Sabbath 23:3 28:9–10 Introductory formula for 23:4 Festivals New Moon 28:11–15 Passover (1/14) 16:1–2, 5–7 23:5 28:16 Unleavened Bread (1/15–21) 16:3–4, 8 23:6–8 28:17–25 Barley Offering (1/?) [16:9] 23:9–14 Festival of Weeks (3/?) 16:9–12 23:15–21 28:26–31 Instructions on Reaping 23:22 Blowing of Trumpets (7/1) 23:23–25 29:1–6 Day of Atonement (7/10) 23:26–32 29:7–11 Festival of Booths (7/15–22) 16:13–15 23:33–36 29:12–38 Summary 16:16–17 23:37–38 29:39 Addendum to Booths 23:39–43 Concluding Formula 23:44 29:40 ————————————————————————————————

31

In Leviticus 23, the Barley and Wheat offerings are the only occasions for which a detailed list of sacrifices is provided. There is no parallel to the barley offering of Lev 23:9–14 in Numbers 28–29, though there is a rough parallel in Deut 26:1–11 (which likely refers to barley since it was the first of the grains to ripen). Moreover, a close comparison of the stipulations regarding the Festival of Weeks in the Priestly calendars shows a number of minor inconsistencies.73 Leviticus 23:15–21 µk,ay} bih} µ/Ymi tB;Vh' ' tr'jM’ m; i µk,l; µT,rp] s' W] 15 .hn:yy
Numbers 28:26–31

hv;dj; } hj;nm“ i µk,by] riqh] B' ] µyriWKBih' µ/yb]W 26 AlK; µk,l; hy
hp;WnT] µyriWKBih' µj,l, l[' µt;ao ˜heKho ' πynIhwe “ 20 hw:hyl' Wyh]yI vd,qo µycib;K] ynEvA] l[' hw:hy“ ynEpl] i vd,qAo ar;qm] i hZ≤h' µ/Yh' µx,[B, ] µt,ar;qW] 21 .˜heKlo ' tQ'ju Wc[}t' alø hd;bo[} tk,al,mA] lK; µk,l; hy
“‘And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day you brought in the sheaf of the wave-offering; there shall be seven complete sabbaths. 16 You shall count fifty days until the morrow of the seventh sabbath; then you shall present a new grain offering to YHWH. 17 You shall bring from your dwelling places two loaves of bread for a wave offering, made of

73

On which, see further below.

32

26

“‘And on the day of first-fruits, when you present a new grain offering to YHWH in your weeks; it shall be for you a holy convocation. 27 And you shall present a burnt offering as a

two-tenths of an ephah; they shall be of a fine flour, baked with leaven as firstfruits to YHWH. 18 And with the bread, you shall present seven male one year old lambs without defect, and a bull from the herd, and two rams; they shall be a burnt offering to YHWH, with their grain offering and their libations, by fire of a soothing aroma to YHWH. 19 And you shall offer one male goat for a sin offering and two male one year old lambs for a sacrifice of peace offerings.

soothing aroma to YHWH, two bulls from the herd, one ram, seven male one year old lambs, 28 and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil, three-tenths of an ephah for each bull, two-tenths for each ram, 29 one-tenth for each of the seven lambs, 30 one male goat to make atonement for you. 31 Besides the perpetual burnt offering and its grain offering, you shall make their libations and they shall be without defect.’”

20

And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first-fruits for a wave offering before YHWH with two lambs; they shall be holy to YHWH for the priest. 21 On this very day you shall make a proclamation as well; it shall be a holy convocation for you. You shall not do any laborious work. It is to be a perpetual statute in all your dwelling places throughout your generations.’” 2.3.1. Leviticus 23:9–22 [H]. The Holiness Code (Lev 17–26) is generally thought to be a distinct corpus of ritual law (assigned the sigla H) originally dating from the late pre-exilic or exilic period, incorporated into the P source by a redactor (PH).74 It

74 E.g., Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 9. There is a significant minority of scholars who argue that P is essentially a pre-exilic work and either predates or is concurrent with Deuteronomy: Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel from its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (abr. and trans. by M. Greenberg; New York: Schocken, 1960), 175–200; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 178–89; Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 5–9; idem, “Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source,” JBL 100 (1981): 321–33; Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:3– 13; I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). There is no reason to doubt that some of the priestly material drew on pre-exilic traditions; in fact, it would be strange if this did not happen. However, as E. Nicholson notes (The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen [Oxford: Clarendon, 1998], 219), the problem is that “there is no evidence to suggest that the theocratic and hierocratic understanding of Israel as the ‘congregation of Yahweh with the distinctive sacral and cultic institutions so characteristic of P was known in the pre-exilic period.” F. M. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973], 293–325) argues that P was a late exilic work, roughly coeval with Ezekiel’s vision of chapters 40–48, and that it never existed independently as a narrative document. Rather the Priestly work framed and systematized JE with Priestly material, and at certain points greatly supplemented JE. In short, Cross argues that P was a redactional layer rather than an independent narrative source. However, the older view, that P is both a source and a redactional layer appears to make better sense of the evidence. As sparse as the narrative gets in places, P does have a coherent and more or less complete (often a merely genealogically oriented) narrative. Knohl (Sanctuary of Silence, 6; followed in general by Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:13–35) argues that H extends beyond Leviticus

33

gets its name from the frequent calls to imitate the holiness of YHWH: “You shall be holy for I YHWH your God am holy (Lev 19:2). Leviticus 23 is often considered a composite, containing several secondary additions. At the very least, vv. 2abb, 3, 22, and 39–43 appear to be literary additions.75 To these we may probably add vv. 9–21 (cf. Ezek 45:21–25 which omits the Festival of Weeks from its calendar).76 It begins with its own introductory formula at v. 9, even though the first-fruits of barley are most likely offered either during or immediately following the Festival of Unleavened Bread (vv. 5–8). Another introductory formula at v. 23 sets off the rest of the festival calendar from this section. Moreover, the first-fruits of barley and wheat are the only festivals in Leviticus

17–26 and that there are two separate Priestly sources, P and H which are the work of two priestly schools. The Holiness School post-dates the Priestly School (both of which originated in the pre-exilic period) and was responsible for editing the Priestly Torah and blending it with the non-Priestly sources. Knohl dates the rise of the Holiness School to the reign of Hezekiah and the Priestly Torah would then pre-date his reign (pp. 209–212). However, this runs into the problem that there is little evidence in pre-exilic texts for the rituals prescribed in P and H. Knohl argues, however, that this can be explained by the fact that “in Israel before the Babylonian exile—as in other countries of the ancient East—the priests constituted a closed, isolated social elite and that their work was essentially esoteric” (pp. 4–5; cf. p. 203). The esoteric nature of P thereby explains why it left no impression on popular life of the First Temple period. This is not implausible on its face. There is no reason to suppose that the priests would necessarily share their ritual practices with others. On the other hand, there is no evidence for this either. Blenkinsopp (Pentateuch, 224) notes the lack of unity of H and argues that the various sections which make up H (17–18; 19–20; 21–22; 23–25; 26) were never linked together in this fashion before the editor of P put them together. Blenkinsopp sees traces of both D and P in the tone and language of the homiletic conclusions to the five sections (18:24–30; 20:22–26; 22:31–33; 25:18–24; 26:3–45) indicating a very late date for the redaction of this part of the Sinai pericope. 75 M. Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 166–68. Noth sees literary additions only in these three places. He sees the whole as essentially a literary unity aside from these three additions. He attributes the apparent disunity of the rest of the passage to its literary pre-history; i.e., the history of the development of the festival traditions in both its pre-historical and historical (i.e., Exod 23:14–17; 34:18–24; Deut 16:1–17) stages. 76

Cf. J. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1992), 372–74. Knohl (Sanctuary of Silence, 23–27) argues that in Leviticus 23, H took an original P festival calendar and replaced the first-fruits section (vv. 9–22) with H’s own version. Noth (Leviticus, 167), on the other hand, believes that in a pre-literary stage, the festival calendar of Israel did not include the Festival of Weeks. He cites Ezek 45:21–25 as proof, though he does not see any direct connection due to the disparity in details. Rather, he sees a common cultic tradition, which H has taken and tried to harmonize with the three feast tradition found in Deut 16:1– 17. This attempt to harmonize two disparate traditions has led to the rather “peculiar features” of this festival calendar. In short, Noth also views vv. 9–21 as an addition of sorts, only he would place this addition at the pre-literary stage. Milgrom (Leviticus, 3:2054–55), on the other hand, argues that substantial portions of vv. 9–21 (along with portions of vv. 39–40) form the original core (Pre-H1 [pre-Hezekian stratum]) around which the rest of the calendar developed.

34

23 for which the specific offerings are described in great detail (cf. Lev 23:37–38; Num 28–29) distinguishing these festivals from the rest. This chapter gives firm dates for almost all of the various festivals and holidays. In this respect, there appears to be a definite move to give all of the festivals and religious occasions a fixed date on the calendar. According to Leviticus 23, the Passover is held on 1/14 (23:5), the Festival of Unleavened Bread from 1/15–21 (23:6–8), the Day of Atonement on 7/10 (23:27), and the Festival of Booths on 7/15–22 (23:33–36).77 Unfortunately, because of the difficulties concerning the dating of the waving of the sheaf, the date for the Festival of Weeks is not very clear (Lev 23:15–16a): .hn:yy
15 16

15

“And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day you brought in the sheaf of the wave-offering; there shall be seven complete sabbaths. 16a You shall count fifty days until the morrow of the seventh sabbath.” The formula is similar to that found in Deut 16:9 but not identical (as noted above). This shift indicates at the very least, that there is a move to stabilize the day of the week from which the calculation of the date of the Festival of Weeks begins. According to the formula in Deuteronomy the count would start from the beginning of the barley harvest which at least theoretically could begin on any day of the week. By changing the starting point of the count, from the beginning of the barley harvest to the waving of the sheaf (which can be done at any pre-determined point after the actual harvest has begun), the date of the Festival of Weeks can be somewhat stabilized. Given the fact that the other festivals are assigned exact dates on the calendar, and even though a precise date (i.e., a numbered month and day as the rest of the festivals in this calendar) is not given for the waving of the sheaf or the Festival of Weeks, it appears

77 Gerstenberger (Leviticus, 343) notes that according to the lunar calendar, the middle of the month would be the day of the full moon. In this connection, it seems hardly coincidental that the Festival of Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Booths both begin on the fifteenth day of their respective months.

35

that this calendar implies a specific date for these occasions as well. This is further supported by the fact that “sabbath” in the phrase “the morrow of the sabbath” has a definite article, which would indicate that a specific sabbath is in mind (cf. v. 14: hzh µyyh µx[ d[ also implies it).78 If so, it would be the first real indication that the Festival of Weeks was celebrated on a firm, unchanging date on the calendar. The stipulations regarding the first-fruits of barley in Leviticus 23 appear to have only a loose connection (at least literarily) with the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The new introductory formula at v. 9 indicates that the first-fruits of barley is bound more closely to the first-fruits of wheat (cf. no introductory formula at v.15): rv,a} ≈r,ah; A; la, WabotA; yKi µh,lae } T;rm] a' w; “ laer;cy] I ynEBA] la, rBeD' 10 .rmoaLe hv,mAo la, hw:hy“ rBedy' w“ " 9 Ata, πynIhwe “ 11 .˜heKho A' la, µk,ry] xiq] tyviare rm,[Ao ta, µt,abehw} " Hr;yxiqA] ta, µT,rx] q' W] µk,l; ˜tenú ynIa} cb,K, rm,[ho A; ta, µk,py] nIh} µ/yB] µt,yci[w} " 12 .˜heKho ' WNp,ynIy“ tB;Vh' ' tr'jM’ m; i µk,nx“ ro l] i hw:hy“ ynEpl] i rm,[ho ; j'jyo nI j'yre hw:hyl' hV,ai ˜m,Vb, ' hl;WlB] tl,só µynIroc][, ynEv] /tj;nm“ Wi 13 .hw:hyl' hl;[lo ] /tn:vA] ˜B, µymiT; µk,ay} bih} d[' hZ≤h' µ/Yh' µx,[A, d[' Wlk]ato alø lm,r]kw' “ yliqw; “ µj,lw, “ 14 .˜yhih' t[iybir] ˜yIy" hKos]nwI “ .µk,ytebovm] o lkoB] µk,yterdo lo ] µl;/[ tQ'ju µk,yhelaø ‘ ˜B'rq] A; ta, 9

And YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them, ‘You shall enter the land which I am giving to you and you shall harvest its harvest, and you shall bring in the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest to the priest. 11 And he shall wave the sheaf before YHWH for your favor; on the morrow of the sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12 And on the day you wave the sheaf, you shall prepare a male one year old lamb without defect as a burnt offering to YHWH. 13 And its grain offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a fire offering to the LORD as a soothing aroma, with its libation, a fourth of a hin of wine. 14 And bread and parched grain and fresh ripe grain you shall not eat until this very day, until you have brought the offering of your God. It is to be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.’” As noted above, crucial for determining the date of the Festival of Weeks (cf. vv. 15–16) is the date on which the sheaf is waved (vv. 11; cf. v. 15). Unfortunately, the meaning of the key phrase tB;Vh æ æ træjM’ m; i (“the morrow of the sabbath”) is uncertain.79 This is because 78 One hesitates to put too much weight on this one fact alone, but in combination with the clear tendency to give precise dates to other festal occasions in Leviticus 23, it appears to be a safe conclusion. 79 It may be that this phrase is a secondary addition as E. S. Gerstenberger (Leviticus, 343–44) and Milgrom (Leviticus, 3:2059) argue.

36

of the uncertainty over what “sabbath” refers to, since the word can refer to either the weekly sabbath or any festival day on which rest was prescribed. In Lev 23:2–3, the sabbath is described as a holy convocation (vd,qAo ar;qm ] )i . Aside from the weekly sabbath, there are seven holy convocations throughout the year (Lev 23:7, 8, 21, 25, 28, 35, 36). Two of them fall on the first and last days of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Altogether, therefore, there appear to be five main possibilities with respect to what “the sabbath” refers:80 (1) the first day of the festival, which is a day of rest and a holy convocation (v. 7; cf. © on Lev 23:11; Philo, Spec. 2.162; Josephus, Ant. 3.250; the Rabbis [b. Menah≥. 65a–b]); (2) the weekly sabbath that falls during the festival (cf. the Boethusians [b. Menah≥. 65a–b]); (3) the last day of the festival, which is also a day of rest and a holy convocation (v. 8); (4) the weekly sabbath that falls after the festival (cf. Jub. 16:13 [cf. 44:1–5]; 4Q320 4 III 1–5); (5) the first weekly sabbath following the beginning of the harvest.81 The last possibility appears to be unlikely (though it cannot be entirely ruled out)

æ æ) which implies a definite date. Presumably, due to the definite article on “sabbath” (tB;Vh the original audience would have known exactly which day “sabbath” refers to in this context. In the course of time, however, the original meaning has been lost. It seems unrecoverable at this point as the disagreement evident in the subsequent Second Temple and rabbinic periods highlights. However, given the fact that the last day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:8) is the last date mentioned in the text that has a likely chance of being the antecedent of “the morrow of the sabbath,” it appears to be the most likely candidate.82

80

Adapted from Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:2057.

81 © reads th`/ ejpauvrion th`~ prwvth~ (“the morrow of the first day”) which can only refer to the first day of the festival (cf. the use of prw`to~ in v. 7). 82

See Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 344.

37

Unlike the rest of the festivals listed in Leviticus 23, we get here a rather detailed description of the appropriate sacrifices for this day. Nevertheless, this is certainly not entirely unexpected in a Priestly text: tl,só µynIroc][, ynEv] µyIT'v] hp;WnT] µj,l, WÅybiT; µk,ytebov/] Mmi 17 .hw:hyl' hv;dj; } hj;nm“ i µT,br] q' h] wi “ 16 hn:v; ynEB] µmiymiT] µycib;K] t['b]vi µj,Lh, A' l[' µT,br] q' h] wi “ 18 .hw:hyl' µyriWKBi hn:yp,a;Te ≈mej; hn:yy
“Then you shall present a new grain offering to YHWH. 17 You shall bring from your dwelling places two loaves of bread for a wave offering, made of two-tenths of an ephah; they shall be of a fine flour, baked with leaven as first-fruits to YHWH. 18 And with the bread, you shall present seven male one year old lambs without defect, and a bull from the herd, and two rams; they shall be a burnt offering to YHWH, with their grain offering and their libations, a fire offering, a soothing aroma to YHWH. 19 And you shall offer one male goat for a sin offering and two male one year old lambs for a sacrifice of peace offerings. 20 And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first-fruits for a wave offering before YHWH with two lambs; they shall be holy to YHWH for the priest. 21 On this very day you shall make a proclamation as well; it shall be a holy convocation for you. You shall not do any laborious work. It is to be a perpetual statute in all your dwelling places throughout your generations.” Aside from the regular offerings (burnt, grain, and libations; cf. Num 28:27–31), the distinctive offering stipulated here is the two loaves of bread for a wave offering, made of two-tenths of an ephah, made of fine flour and baked with leaven and offered as firstfruits to God (vv. 17, 20). This offering, along with the two lambs, appears to be for the

o æ (“for priests own use, rather than burned on the altar. This is indicated by the phrase ˜heKl the priest”) at the end of Lev 23:20 and by Lev 2:11–16, which offers some more detailed stipulations regarding grain and first-fruit offerings. Lev 2:11–12 stipulates that the grain offering may not be made with leaven: hV,ai WNM,mi Wryfiq]tA' alø vb'D]Alk;w“ raocA] lk; yKi ≈mej; hc,[;te alø hw:hyl' Wbyriq]T' rv,a} hj;nM“ hi A' lK; 11 .j'jyo nI j'yrel] Wl[}yA" alø j'Bze M“ hi A' la,w“ hw:hyl' µt;ao Wbyriq]T' tyviare ˜B'rq] ; 12 .hw:hyl' 11

“Any grain offering which you present to YHWH shall not be made with leaven, for you shall not burn any leaven or any honey to YHWH. 12 You shall present them to YHWH as an offering of first-fruits, but they shall not ascend for a soothing aroma on the altar.” 38

Since the first-fruits offering is made with leaven (Lev 23:17) and therefore was not eligible to be sacrificed on the altar, it was evidently an offering of first-fruits that went directly to the priest for his own use, after a token offering of some of the grain was sacrificed on the altar (cf. Num 18:12–13):83 T;t'nw: “ 15 .Úyr,WKBi tj'nm“ i tae byriq]T' lm,r]K' cr,G≤ vaeB; yWlq; bybia; hw:hyl' µyriWKBi tj'nm“ i byriq]TA' µaiw“ 14 AlK; l[' Hn:m]Vm' Wi Hc;rG] mI i Ht;r;K;za“ A' ta, ˜heKho ' ryfiqh] wi “ 16 .awhi hj;nm“ i hn:blo ] h;yl,[; T;m]cw' “ ˜m,v, h;yl,[; .hw:hyl' hV,ai Ht;nb: lo ] 14

“And if you present a grain offering of first-fruits to YHWH, you shall present ears of grain, parched in the fire, grits of fresh ripe grain as a grain offering of your first-fruits. 15 And you shall put oil on it and set incense on it; it is a grain offering. 16 And the priest shall burn as its memorial portion, some of its grits and some of its oil with all its incense to YHWH” (Lev 2:14–16). Verse 16 recalls Lev 2:2–3, 9–10 which explicitly state that Aaron and his sons are to receive the remainder of the grain offering. Lev 23:22 appears to be a secondary addition on the model of Lev 19:9–10 of which it is a close parallel:

Lev 23:22 ta'P] hL,k'tA] alø µk,xr] a] ' ryxiqA] ta, µk,rx] q] bu W] 22 fQel't] alø Úr]yxiq] fq,lw, “ Úr,xq] Bu ] Úd]c;

Lev 19:9–10 ta'P] hL,k't] alø µk,xr] a] ' ryxiqA] ta, µk,rx] q] bu W] 9 .fQel't] alø Úr]yxiq] fq,lw, “ rxoql] i Úd]c; fQel't] alø Úm]r]K' fr,pW, lle/[t] alø Úm]r]kw' “

.µk,yhelaø ‘ hw:hy“ ynIa} µt;ao bzú[}T' rG´lw' “ ynI[l; , 22

“And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not completely harvest to the edges of your field, and you shall not glean the gleanings of your harvest;

10

.µk,yhelaø ‘ hw:hy“ ynIa} µt;ao bzú[}T' rG´lw' “ ynI[l; , 9

“And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not completely harvest to the edges of your field, and you shall not glean the gleanings of your harvest; 10 and you shall not glean your vineyard, and you shall not glean the fallen grapes of your vineyard;

83

Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:1985; cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.250–51.

39

you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am YHWH your God.”

you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am YHWH your God.”

The chief difference is that the stipulation is extended to vineyards in Lev 19:10, whereas in Lev 23:22 this is unnecessary since the immediate context concerns the barley and wheat harvests, not the fruit harvest.84 This concern for the poor and the stranger is echoed in Deut 16:11–12 with its stipulation to include the marginalized people in society in their celebration. Here, however, the concern is more fundamental: the poor and the stranger are among the neediest when it comes to food and the scraps of the harvest are to be left for them to live on. 2.3.2. Numbers 28:26–31 [P]. The commissioning of Joshua in Num 27:12–23 is typically thought to have immediately preceded the account of Moses’ death in the original P narrative (now preserved in Deut 34:1aa, 5b, 7–9; cf. Deut 32:48–52). The two accounts have been separated in our present text by the inclusion of the Deuteronomic law and other supplementary material. If this theory is correct, then Numbers 28–36 must have been added at a very late stage in the formation of our present Pentateuch.85 On a cursory glance this text might appear to present nothing new in comparison to the other texts: tk,al,mA] lK; µk,l; hy
And on the day of first-fruits, when you present a new grain offering to YHWH in your weeks; it shall be for you a holy convocation. You are to do no laborious work. 27 And you shall present a burnt offering for a soothing aroma to YHWH, two bulls from the herd, one ram, seven male lambs one year old, 28 and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil, three-tenths for the one bull, two-tenths for the one ram, 29 one-tenth for each of the seven lambs, 30 one male goat to

84 The only other difference between the texts is Úr,x]qB u ] (23:22) and rxoql] i (19:9). „ reads rxql in 23:22, apparently in harmonization with Lev 19:9. 85

E.g., see Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 18, n. 61; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 167, 229–32.

40

make atonement for you. 31 Besides the perpetual burnt offering and its grain offering, you shall make their libations and they shall be without defect. However, there are a few differences both between the priestly texts taken together and the other texts, and between the priestly texts themselves. Chief among the differences between the priestly texts and the others, are the different ways of identifying the festival, as the following chart shows. TABLE 3 APPELLATIONS FOR THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS ========================================================= Text Appellations Úyc,[m} ' yreWKBi ryxiQh; ' gj' festival of harvest of the first-fruits of Exod 23:15 your labor µyFi j i ryxi q ] yre W KBi ≥ ≥ ≥ t[o b v u ; gj' Exod festival of weeks… first-fruits of the 34:22 wheat harvest t/[buv; gj' ≥≥≥ t[obuv; h[;b]vi Deut seven weeks… festival of weeks 16:9, 10 ≥ ≥ ≥ tmoymiT] t/tB;v' [b'v, seven complete weeks… until the Lev y bi V h ] ' tB; V h ' ' tr' j M ’ m ; i d[' t[i morrow of the seventh sabbath you 23:15– µ/y µyVimji } WrP]s]Ti 16, shall count fifty days µyriWKBi 17, 20 first fruits µk, y te [ b o v u B ; ] ≥ ≥ ≥ µyri W KBi h ' µ/yb] Num on the day of first-fruits… in your 28:26 weeks ————————————————————————————————

41

It is important to note that the Priestly texts never call the Festival of Weeks a gj' (“festival”), whereas the passages from Exodus and Deuteronomy do. In fact, Num 28:26 appears to deliberately avoid using gj' in favor of µ/y (“day”). This is likely related to the fact that a gjæ strongly implies a pilgrimage.86 It is striking that in both H (i.e., Lev 23) and the addition to P (i.e., Num 28), the term gj' is used with reference to the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:6; Num 28:17) and the Festival of Booths (Lev 23:34; Num 29:12) but not with the Festival of Weeks (Lev 23:15–22; Num 28:26–31). It appears that the Festival of Weeks, while originally celebrated as a pilgrimage to a central sanctuary (pre-exilic), was no longer viewed as such by the Priestly writers. The key text is Lev 23:21b: .µk,yterdo lo ] µk,ytebov/] mAlk;B] µl;/[ tQ'ju It is to be an eternal statute in all your settlements throughout your generations. The clear implication is that the day of the wheat offering was not a pilgrimmage. At least according to this particular text, it appears that the people were to stay at home while the priests at the sanctuary made the obligatory offerings.87 This likely reflects a couple of factors: (1) the Festival of Weeks was regarded as less important than the other two festivals, (the Festival of Booths being held in highest esteem and the Festival of Weeks being viewed as simply an extension of the festival season begun at Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread) which were both linked to significant historical events

86

Whatever its etymological history is, whether it is related to the noun h≥ug[ (“circle”) or the Aramaic root h≥ng (agnj) or some other unknown root (Haran [Temples and Temple Service, 289] argues, citing the judgment of Nöldeke, that the only certain meaning that “can be extracted from the word gj in the Semitic languages is that of ‘festal, joyful gathering’,” which includes the “connotation of making a pilgrimage), a quick perusal of the standard dictionaries shows that the idea of a pilgrimage to the Temple is central to the meaning of the term (H. L. Bosman, “gjæ” NIDOTTE 2:20–21; B. Kedar-Kopfstein and G. J. Botterweck, “gjæ, ggj,” TDOT 4:201–13). Haran (p. 291) also notes that this term is only used in relation to the three main festivals. 87 Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 297; Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:2009. As Haran notes, this would imply that Ezekiel is posterior to P. If Ezekiel were anterior to P, it would be difficult to explain why P reinstates the Festival of Weeks as a first-fruits festival.

42

(the Festival of Unleavened Bread with the Exodus and the Festival of Booths with the wilderness experience), and (2) it may have been considered too inconvenient and impractical (considering it was only a one day holiday) to expect the Israelites to make a pilgrimmage to the sanctuary (which by the time of the Priestly texts was at least theoretically the Temple in Jerusalem), given the fact that the Festival of Weeks is celebrated relatively close to the Festival of Unleavened Bread (less than two months after the completion of this festival) and the likelihood that some of the farmers would still have some harvesting and related chores to complete.88 With the Festival of Weeks ceasing to be a pilgrimmage festival, the required pilgrimmages were separated by a much more reasonable and manageable six months.89 This may help explain a curious omission in Ezek 45:18–25. In this text, the Passover/Festival of Unleavened Bread (45:21–24) and the Festival of Booths (45:25) are mentioned, but the Festival of Weeks is not. It is possible that the Festival of Weeks is not mentioned because by this time it had lost much of its prestige and may have been largely celebrated in the settlements rather than at the central sanctuary, while Ezekiel is exclusively concerned with Temple celebrations.90 As a Priestly text, one might have expected Ezekiel to include a list of all the festivals and appointed times as we find in

88 On a related note, it appears likely that the Festival of Unleavened Bread required only a one day pilgrimage originally. Exodus 12:14, 17; Lev 23:6; Num 28:17; Deut 16:6–8 all state or imply that a pilgrimage or gjæ was required on the first day whereas Exod 13:6 requires a gjæ on the seventh day. Since Exod 13:6 is the earliest text, it appears likely that this was indeed the day that a pilgrimage was originally required. Passover was originally separate from the Festival of Unleavened Bread and observed at home, and did not require a pilgrimage (Exod 12:1–13; cf. Deut 16:5). The first few days of the festival merely required that unleavened bread be eaten at home (implied by the fact that leaven was to be completely absent from the home and that work [e.g., harvesting] was permitted on days other than the first and the seventh day of the festival). The shift to the first day happened as a result of the centralization of worship and the consequent requirement to celebrate Passover at the central sanctuary, and the fusion of Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Thus the pilgrimage was required for 1/14–15 rather than 1/21. Later texts (Ezek 45:21; Ezra 6:22; 2 Chr 30:13, 21; 35:17) required a pilgrimage for the entire duration of the feast. Cf. Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 296–97; Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:1975–76. 89 Even then it is impossible that all or even most Israelites made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for these festivals every year (on this, see Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 294). 90

Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 297.

43

Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28–29. However, most of the appointed festivals and holy days mentioned in these other Priestly texts are missing in Ezekiel; the only two mentioned (i.e., the Festivals of Unleavened Bread and Booths) are those that involved pilgrimmages and lasted seven days.91 Later editors of the Â evidently were concerned about the fact that the Festival of Weeks was missing from this list and found a way to suggest its presence in the list in an ingenious way. Ezek 45:21 reads: .lkeay; E t/Xm' µymiy: t/[buv] gj; js'Ph; ' µk,l; hy
91 Ezek 46:1–15 mentions sabbaths, new moons, and festivals generically but this is in regard to the functioning of the gates during these festivals, not with respect to the festivals in and of themselves as in Ezek 45:21–25. Even the purification of the altar conforms to this seven day pattern: Ezek 45:18–20 describes a ritual for the purification of the altar on 1/1 and 1/7, but according to Ezek 43:18–27, this ritual was to be carried out each day for seven days. Kraus suggests another reason for Ezekiel’s omission: i.e., that the Festival of Weeks, which he argues was adopted from the native Canaanite population, “always provided entry for alien Canaanite fertility customs which threatened to undermine and destroy the worship of Israel which was offered hwhyl” (Worship in Israel, 57–58); cf. also N. H. Snaith (The Jewish New Year Festival: Its Origins and Development [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1947], 155) who argues that this festival may have been increasingly associated with the sun (cf. Ezek 8:14–18). 92

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 481, 483–84.

44

TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF PRIESTLY SACRIFICES ========================================================= Leviticus 23:15–22 Numbers 28:26–31 Wave Offering: 2 loaves of bread, made of 2/10 (ephah), with fine flour and baked with leaven as first-fruits to the YHWH (v. 17, 20) Grain Offering: Grain Offering: fine flour mixed with oil 3/10 (ephah) for each bull 2/10 for the ram 1/10 each for the 7 lambs (vv. 28–29) Burnt Offering with Grain Offering and Burnt Offerings (v. 27) without defect Libations: (v. 31) and Grain Offerings (cf. vv. 28–29) and Libations (v. 31): 7 one year old male lambs without 7 one year old male lambs defect 2 bulls from the herd 1 bull from the herd 2 rams (v. 18) 1 ram (v. 27) Sin Offering: Atonement: 1 male goat (v. 19) 1 male goat (v. 30) Sacrifice of Peace Offerings: 2 one year old male lambs (v. 19, 20) ———————————————————————————————— Mention of the wave offering and the peace offering is omitted in Num 28:26–31. Conversely, in Num 28:28–29, the description of the grain offering is greatly expanded as compared to the bare mention of it in Lev 23:18. Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between the two descriptions of the burnt offerings: in Lev 23:18, it is one bull and two rams, whereas in Num 28:27, it is two bulls and one ram. The relationship between the two texts is unclear. In general, Numbers 28–29 lists in detail the appropriate sacrifices for the various religious occasions, whereas Leviticus 23 does not. In the case of the Festival of Weeks, the two lists of sacrifices are in some ways complementary but in at least one case contradictory. 2.3.3. 2 Chronicles 8:12–16. In the Deuteronomistic History, following the completion of the temple (1 Kgs 7:51; cf. 2 Chr 5:1) and the dedicatory ceremony (1 45

Kings 8; cf. 2 Chronicles 6–7), there is a summary statement about the activities of Solomon in which it is stated that he offered burnt offerings and peace offerings three times a year on the altar he built for YHWH (1 Kgs 9:25; 1 Chr 23:31; 2 Chr 2:3).93 Second Chronicles, following this general narrative thread, expands on 1 Kgs 9:25 in 2 Chr 8:12–16. The following table attempts to highlight the similarities and differences in the text: 1 Kings 9:25 2 Chronicles 8:12–16 hw:hy“ jB'zm“ i l[' hw:hyl' t/l[o hmoløv] hl;[h‘ , za; 12 t/l[o hn:VB; ' µymi[P; ] vløv; hmoløv] hl;[h‘ w, “ hw:hyl'' hn:B; rv,a} j'Bze M“ hi Al[' µymil;vW] .µl;Wah; ynEpli]li hn:B; rv,a} hw:hy“ ynEpl] i rv,a} /Tai ryfeqh] w' “ hv,mo tw"xm] iK] t/l[}hl' ] µ/yB] µ/yArb'db] Wi 13 t/d[}/Ml'w“ µyvidj; l’ w, “ t/tB;Vl' ' hn:VB; ' µymi[P; ] vløv;] hn:VB; ' µymi[P; ] v/lv; .t/KSuh' gj'bW] t/[buVh; ' gj'bW] t/XM'h' gj'B] t/ql]jm] A' ta, wybiaA; dywID; fP'vm] iK] dme[Y} w" " 14 µt;/rm]vm] Ai l[' µYIwlI h] w' “ µt;db; o[A} l[' µynIh}Kho ' /m/yB] µ/yArb'dl] i µynIh}Kho ' dg≤n< trevl; W] lLehl' ] tw"xm] i ˜ke yKi r['vw; : r['vl' ] µt;/ql]jm] B' ] µyri[/} Vh'w“ Jl,Mh, ' tw"xm] i Wrs; aløw“ 15 .µyhilaø h‘ A; vyai dywID; .t/rx;alo w; “ rb;DA; lk;l] µYIwlI h] w' “ µynIh}Kho A' l[' ds'Wm µ/Yh'Ad[' hmoløv] tk,al,mA] lK; ˜KoTwi " 16 /tloKA] d['w“ hw:hy“AtyBe .tyI tyIBh; A' ta, µL'vwi “ .hw:hy“ tyBe µlev; And Solomon offered three times 12 Then Solomon offered burnt offerings to a year burnt offerings and peace YHWH upon the altar of YHWH which he offerings upon the altar which he had built before the porch; had built for YHWH and burnt incense with them which was 13 before YHWH and in accordance with the daily rule, offered up according to the commandment of Moses, for the sabbaths, the new moons, [cf. “three times a year” above] and the assemblies held three times a year—the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Weeks, and the Festival of Booths. 14

And according to the ordinance of his father David, he appointed the divisions of the priests for their service, and the Levites

93

Cf. 2 Chr 31:3 (Hezekiah).

46

and he completed the house.

for their duties of praise and ministering before the priests according to the daily rule, and the gatekeepers in their divisions at each gate; for thus had David the man of God commanded. 15 And they did not depart from the commandment of the king concerning the priests and Levites in any thing nor concerning the storehouses. 16 All the work of Solomon was carried out from the day of the foundation of the house of the LORD, and until it was finished; the house of the LORD was completed.94

Obviously, the version in 2 Chr 8:12–16 is much longer than its parallel in 1 Kgs 9:25. Where 1 Kings 9:25 mentions “three times a year” (hn:VB; ' µymi[P; ] vløv); , the Chronicler makes explicit exactly what these three occasions were: the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Weeks and the Festival of Booths. In this, he is quoting Deut 16:16 precisely. This mixture of Priestly and Deuteronomistic terminology focusing on the sacrificial cult probably reflects the actual situation of the Second Temple.95 3. The Festival of Weeks in Second Temple Judaism There are numerous general references in the Apocrypha to all the festivals celebrated in the Second Temple period.96 Aside from these however, there are only two specific references to the Festival of Weeks in the Apocrypha. In Tobit 1:5–8, the hero of the story, Tobit, establishes the fact of his piety by recounting how he always went up to Jerusalem to celebrate the mandated festivals, when the rest of his kin from the tribe of Naphtali sacrificed to the calf that Jeroboam of Israel set up (cf. 1 Kgs 12:28, 30; Hos

94

The terms in common are given in bold characters for Hebrew and italics for English. The matches are not always exact; often Chronicles uses a different form of the word or uses it in a slightly different way or context. 95

S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1993), 627–28. Cf. Ezra 3:5 (//1 Esdras 5:52; cf. Neh 10:34) where the exiles are said to have re-instituted the festival calendar even before the Temple has been rebuilt. 96

Cf. Tob 1:6; 2:6; Add Esth 16:22; Jdt 8:6; 10:2; Sir 33:8; 43:7; 47:10; Bar 1:14; 1 Macc 1:39, 45; 10:34; 12:11; 2 Macc 6:6; 1 Esd 5:52; 2 Esd 1:31.

47

13:2). It is no surprise then, that in Tob 2:1–10, Tobit celebrates the Festival of Weeks, shortly after which he is blinded by sparrow droppings after he had buried a body he found (Tobit piously waits until the festival is over before burying the body [Tob 2:7]) while searching for poor people to share in the festival with him (cf. Deut 16:11–12).97 According to 2 Maccabees, in stark opposition to the suppression of Jewish practices (including celebrating the appointed festivals) mandated by Antiochus (2 Macc 6:6)—at which point the Jews were, in fact, required to celebrate the festival of Dionysus (2 Macc 6:7–8)—Judas and his army take time out from their battle campaign in the areas east of the Jordan to celebrate the Festival of Weeks in Jerusalem (2 Macc 12:31–32). This appears to be at odds with the fact that the Priestly texts do not require a pilgrimage on the Festival of Weeks.98 It appears that at this time the Priestly texts were interpreted to require a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Festival of Weeks. At some point, then, the Festival of Weeks was understood as a pilgrimage festival once again, perhaps occasioned by the success of the Maccabean revolt and the rededication of the Temple at that time. There are several references to the Festival of Weeks in Philo, according to whom, the waving of the sheaf occurred on the second day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Spec. 2.162). Philo is apparently following the © on Lev 23:11, which reads: kai; ajnoivsei to; dravgma e[nanti kurivou dekto;n uJmi`n, th`/ ejpauvrion th`~ prwvth~ ajnoiv sei aujto; oJ iJereuv~ (“and he shall raise the sheaf in the presence of the Lord for you [to be] acceptable; on the morrow of the first [day] the priest shall raise it”). Philo’s own

97 On the complex textual history of Tobit, see J. Fitzmyer, “Tobit,” in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (ed. M. Broshi, et al.; DJD XIX; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 1–76; V. T. M. Skemp, The Vulgate of Tobit Compared with Other Ancient Witnesses (SBLDS 180; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000). In general, the evidence from Qumran is in agreement with the longer recension found in Sinaiticus. While there are some different readings among the various texts for Tob 2:1, none adds any significant information with respect to the Festival of Weeks. 98

Tobit celebrates the Festival of Weeks at home because he is in exile in Nineveh (Tob 1:2, 10, 22).

48

formulation employs the same word: hJ meta; th;n prwvthn eujqu;~ hJmevran (“immediately after the first day”). The © reads th`~ prwvth~ (“the first”) instead of the Â tB;Vh æ æ (“the sabbath”). This appears to be an elliptical way of indicating that the waving of the sheaf occurs on the morrow of the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (cf. Lev 23:6– 7).99 Philo derives particular significance from the formula (seven sevens, fifty days) for determining the date of the festival (Spec. 2.176–78; cf. Decal. 160). Philo notes that fifty is reckoned “by counting seven sevens, which are then crowned with the sacred number by the monad, which is an incorporeal image of God, Whom it resembles because it also stands alone (Spec. 2.176).”100 The excellence of the number fifty is also confirmed by the fact that it is the sum of the squares of the primary right angle triangle (i.e., 52 + 42 + 32 = 50 [Spec. 2.177; cf. Contempl. 65]). In Spec. 1.183, Philo comments that by the time of the Festival of Weeks—which he says was universally observed and a time for thanksgiving (Somn. 2.75–77; Spec. 1.183–184; 2.185–187)—the wheat crop in the lowlands had ripened and was being harvested. This would support the idea that the Festival of Weeks was celebrated at the end of harvest. Finally, it should be noted that Philo follows the sacrifices as they are listed in Num 28:27 (i.e., two bulls, one ram, seven lambs [Spec. 1.184]), not Lev 23:18 (one bull, two rams, seven lambs).

99

Note that the © on Lev 23:7 reads: kai; hJ hJmevra hJ prwvth klhth; aJgiva e[stai uJmi`n... (“and the first day is a holy convocation for you. . .”). J. Wevers’ explanation (Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997]) is rather improbable. He suggests that “[s]ince the Sabbath is the last day of the week the morning of the first day would be the ‘tomorrow of the Sabbath,’ [sic] Possibly this odd way of putting it simply betrays his love for variation” (p. 370). Aside from the question of how literally © translators did or did not translate the text before them, the problem is that even if the phrase refers to the days of the week and not the days of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (as Wevers’ assumes), logically speaking, “the morrow of the first” is the second day of the week (i.e., Monday), whereas, “the morrow of the Sabbath” would naturally refer to the first day of the week (i.e., Sunday). 100

Translation is that of F. H. Colson, Philo (LCL 7; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,

1937).

49

There are many references to the Festival of Weeks (consistently called Pentecost) in Josephus. Like Philo and the ©, Josephus provides evidence that the seven week count to determine the date of Pentecost began on the second day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread or 1/16 (Ant. 3.250–52; cf. J.W. 2.42).101 He writes: On the second day of unleavened bread, that is to say the sixteenth, our people partake of the crops which they have reaped. . . they offer to Him the first-fruits of the barley. . . . When the seventh week following this sacrifice has elapsed—these are the forty-nine days of the (so-called) “Weeks”—on the fiftieth day, which the Hebrews call Asartha, the word denoting “fiftieth,” they present to God a loaf of two assarôns of flour of wheat made with leaven and, as sacrifice, two lambs (Ant. 3.250, 252).102 Josephus’ use of the term Asartha (ajsarqav) recalls the rabbinic term trx[ which became the common way of naming the Festival of Weeks in rabbinic literature. It means “assembly” but is also related to a verb (rx[) that means “to close up” or “to detain”. It is in this sense that the term is typically used of the Festival of Weeks in rabbinic literature; i.e., it is the concluding festival of the season which began with the Passover and Festival of Unleavened Bread.103 Josephus provides a few details regarding the offerings and sacrifices related to Pentecost that differ in a couple of respects with the biblical accounts: (1) In Josephus’ account, one loaf of two assarôns of flour are presented to God (Ant. 3.252), whereas in Lev 23:17, it is two loaves; (2) Josephus says that the whole burnt offerings consist of three calves, two rams, fourteen lambs, and two kids in atonement for sins (Ant. 3.253); but this appears to combine the sacrifices of Lev 23:18–19 and Num 28:27, 30, with the exception that Leviticus names two rams and Numbers one ram, making three rams total.

101

Probably like Philo, Josephus is here simply following the plain reading of the ©.

102

All translations of Josephus are from H. St. J. Thackeray, et al., Josephus (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1930–1965). 103 See M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica Press, 1971), 1103–1104. This understanding of the term is consistent with the hypothesis that the Festival of Weeks marked the end of the spring harvest season.

50

In Ant. 13.251–52, Josephus relates a specific occasion during the reign of John Hyrcanus when “the festival of Pentecost had come round, following the Sabbath” (Ant. 13.252). It is unfortunate that there is no indication by Josephus whether Pentecost was regularly celebrated on a Sunday (cf. Jubilees, Dead Sea Scrolls) or whether it just happened to fall on Sunday in this particular year. Also in this text, Josephus informs his readers that warfare was unlawful during Pentecost. However, it is clear from elsewhere in Josephus that since it was a pilgrimage festival where large numbers of people would congregate at Jerusalem (Ant. 14.337–38; 17.254; J.W. 1.229, 253; 2.42), it often became an occasion for wars and tumults (Ant. 14.337–341; 17.254–64; J.W. 1.229–30, 253; 2.42–44). In J.W. 6.288–309, Josephus—in recounting a series of portents and warnings that God had sent Israel concerning the coming desolation (i.e., destruction of the Second Temple)—tells of a time during Pentecost when the priests, on entering the inner court of the Temple at night to prepare for the large number of sacrifices the next day, heard a commotion and din and then a voice, like that of a multitude saying “We are departing hence” (J.W. 6.299–300). 4. Summary and Conclusion: The Historical Development of the Festival of Weeks There are three historical stages in the development of the Festival of Weeks as found in the Hebrew Bible, corresponding to the three groups of texts (Epic, Deuteronomic, and Priestly), plus the Festival as it was celebrated in the Second Temple period: (a) In the first stage, represented by Exod 23:16 and 34:22, the three main festivals originally had free-floating dates depending on the agricultural calendar and required a pilgrimage to the local sanctuary. The Festival of Unleavened Bread coincided with the beginning of the barley harvest, while the Festival of Weeks roughly coincided

51

with the end of the wheat harvest. These dates could vary from region to region, and year to year, depending on the climate. (b) In the second stage, represented by Deut 16:9–12, the Festival of Unleavened Bread was increasingly being tied to Passover. This resulted in the loosening of its ties to the barley harvest because the beginning of barley harvest no longer coincided with the Festival of Unleavened Bread. In fact, in most areas, the barley harvest would not begin for at least a couple of weeks after the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The Festival of Weeks remained a free floating festival celebrated seven weeks after the beginning of barley harvest, as did the Festival of Booths. This was necessary since both festivals essentially celebrated the end of the grain (Weeks) and fruit harvests (Booths). The three main festivals now required a pilgrimage to the central sanctuary which meant that the Festival of Weeks, though it still had a free-floating date, had to be celebrated on the same day each year. In short, the date could vary from year to year, but not region to region in any given year. (c) In the third stage, represented by Lev 23:15–21 and Num 28:26–31, the Festival of Weeks received a fixed date on the calendar; i.e., seven weeks after the wave offering.104 Since this means that the festival would now occur sometime during the harvest season, and because for some, the central sanctuary was very far away, a pilgrimage to the Temple was unpractical and this requirement was dropped. In part, at least, the pilgrimage requirement was probably dropped to make a virtue out of necessity: more than likely, the Temple was getting few farmers to make the pilgrimage since most would still be hard at work with the harvesting, threshing, storing, and other chores associated with the harvest and its immediate aftermath. As one might expect in a Priestly source, the emphasis on ritual sacrifice is now much more emphatic.

104

As subsequent controversies show, however, the precise date was still not very clear. See discussion in chapter 3.

52

In the Second Temple period, the Festival of Weeks, along with the other festivals, became an important symbol in the context of the Hellenistic threat. In both Tobit and 2 Maccabees, celebration of the Festival of Weeks is a sign of faithful observance in the face of the threat of assimilation. By this time, the festival is once again a pilgrimage festival, and its date becomes clearer. From the evidence of the © (on Lev 23:11), Philo, and Josephus, it appears that the second day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread was reckoned “the morrow of the sabbath,” meaning that the Festival of Weeks was celebrated fifty days after the sixteenth day of the first month.

53

CHAPTER 3 SINAI TRADITIONS AND THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

1. Introduction: Covenant and Torah in the Hebrew Bible There are three main elements that constitute the Sinai event: the theophany (Exod 19:16–20:21), the establishment of a covenant between YHWH and his new nation Israel (Exod 19:3b–8; 24:1–8), and the giving of the law (Exod 20:1–17; 20:22–23:33). Each theme will be briefly introduced in turn.105 1.1. Mount Sinai/Horeb and Theophany Perhaps it is because of their proximity to the heavens that mountains have often been considered by peoples of many different times and places to be sacred space.106 Mount Sinai is one of two mountains with which Israel’s religious identity is especially bound.107 Whereas Mt. Zion has the distinction of marking the place where God

105

Despite dividing the topics into three distinct discussions, the three are of course, intimately related. The covenant is central. The theophany happens in order to make the establishment of the covenant possible. The giving of the law outlines the responsibilities of the Israelites in upholding their part of the covenant. 106

On mountains in the ANE and the implications for Israelite religion, see R. J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge: Harvard, 1972). On a comparison of mounts Sinai and Olympus and their respective roles in their civilizations (along with much other comparative material), see J. P. Schultz, and L. Spatz. Sinai and Olympus: A Comparative Study (Lanham: University Press of America, 1995). 107 The other, of course, is Mt. Zion. For an interesting and insightful study on the role of both in Israel’s religious history, see J. D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985).

54

maintained his presence among the Israelites in the land that he gave to his people, Mt. Sinai is the place where Israel was originally constituted as a nation. Mountains are often the locus of contact with the divine. The Sinai theophany is the most significant of all the various theophanies recorded in the Hebrew Bible.108 It is exceedingly strange for such an important event to happen on a non-descript mountain in the middle of nowhere.109 Nevertheless, its importance for Israel’s subsequent history is undeniable, something which is confirmed by the fact that the Sinai theophany echoes throughout the Hebrew Bible (and beyond).110 1.2. Covenant The covenant between YHWH and Israel is a bilateral relationship that establishes Israel as YHWH’s special people with whom he has a unique bond. It is the central and unifying element of the three; the raison d’être for the other two elements. It signifies the moment when Israel formally became a nation under YHWH.111 What is a covenant?112 Mendenhall and Herion define it as follows: “A ‘covenant’ is an agreement enacted between two parties in which one or both make promises under

108 On theophanies in the Hebrew Bible, see J. Jeremias, Theophanie (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965); J. K. Kuntz, The Self-Revelation of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967); T. W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1977); Jeffrey J. Niehaus, God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); Martin R. Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19–40 (JSOTSup 323; Sheffield: SAP, 2001), esp. 97–155. 109

Not just once, but twice (cf. Exodus 3–4). For comments on this, see Levenson, Sinai and Zion,

19–23. 110

For a discussion of how the Sinai theophany is alluded to in various texts throughout the Hebrew bible, see Niehaus, God at Sinai, 230–332. 111 B. M. Levinson, “The Sinai Covenant: The Argument of Revelation,” in The Jewish Political Tradition: Authority (ed. Michael Walzer et al.; 4 projected volumes; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000), 23–27. 112 On the subject of covenant, in addition to the literature cited in this section, see further: W. Beyerlin, Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965); D. R. Hillers, Covenant (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969); Levenson, Sinai and Zion; D. J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions (Atlanta: John Knox, 1972); E. W. Nicholson, God and His

55

oath to perform or refrain from certain actions stipulated in advance.”113 George Mendenhall and Klaus Baltzer were two of the earliest scholars to draw attention to the similarity in structure of Late Bronze ANE treaties (1500–1200 BCE) with covenants found in the Hebrew Bible.114 Mendenhall identified the following elements of the covenant formulary: (1) preamble (2) historical prologue (3) stipulations (4) deposition and regular re-reading (5) divine witnesses (6) curses and blessings115 More recently, Iron Age Assyrian vassal treaties of Esarhaddon have been discovered (in 1956) that may also parallel covenants in the Hebrew Bible: (1) preamble (2) designation of Assyrian ruler or successor to whom loyalty is due (3) divine witnesses (4) stipulations (5) curses for non-compliance116 People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986); Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament; Rolf Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (trans. Margaret Kohl; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998). 113

G. E. Mendenhall and G. A. Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1:1179.

114

Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Presbyterian Board of Colportage, 1955); K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (trans. D. E. Green; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971 [1964]). Mendenhall based his work on the earlier study by V. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsverträge (Leipzig, 1931). 115 Mendenhall, “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law,” BA 17 (1954): 26–46; idem, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954): 50–76. For an example of how the Hittite treaty form can illuminate biblical covenants, compare with Joshua 24 (cf. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 32–36). Baltzer’s list is almost identical (The Covenant Formulary, 10), and identifies the following elements: (1) preamble; (2) antecedent history; (3) statement of substance concerning the future relationship; (4) specific stipulations; (5) invocation of the gods as witnesses; (6) curses and blessings. 116

Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” 1182; cf. A. Grayson, “Akkadian Treaties of the Seventh Century B.C.,” JCS 39 (1987): 127–60; S. Parpola, “Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh,” JCS 39 (1987): 161–89. Many scholars have questioned the early dating that the Hittite treaty analogy implies based on various grounds. Usually at least part of the reason is the view that Deuteronomy in particular must be a 7th century BCE product. See: Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 21; McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, 69–71.

56

These literary forms were not rigidly adhered to. Elements were dropped and rearranged. When applied to the narrative of the Sinai covenant (focusing in this case on Exod 19:3b– 8), some of these elements are present: in particular, the historical prologue (v. 4), (general) stipulation (v. 5), and blessing (v. 6).117 Covenant renewal ceremonies celebrated throughout Israel’s history, reflected the need periodically to remind people of the covenant and its obligations.118 Psalm 81 appears to reflect a regular liturgical celebration of covenant renewal (possibly associated with the Festival of Booths).119 In Deut 5:1–4, Moses tries to impress upon the people of Israel the ever-present significance of the covenant at Sinai: 1

And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the rules that I speak in your hearing today, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 Not with our fathers did YHWH our God make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. 4 YHWH spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire.120 This statement comes forty years after the Sinai event. Jon Levenson, citing this text, comments: The concern in this passage is that Israel may come to think of themselves as obliged in a distant way by the covenant of Sinai/Horeb, but not as direct partners in it.... The goal of this speech, as of the covenant renewal ceremony in which it

117 Cf. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 30–32. Levenson comments that this text (Exod 19:3b–8) is not a text of a covenant but “a proclamation to the people announced through a prophet” (p. 30). Once one makes allowances for the context, however, the existence of these elements are difficult to deny. In this connection, he also notes that a summoning of divine witnesses would be inappropriate in this context given the nature of Israelite religion. Note that the presence of a historical prologue is typical of Hittite treaties but not Assyrian treaties (cf. Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy,” ABD 2:170; Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” 1:1182–83). Mendenhall and Herion’s (“Covenant,” ABD 2:1183–85) list of elements of a Hittite vassal treaty (apparently representing a revision from Mendenhall’s earlier work) is slightly longer and they find more parallels in the Sinai covenant. They focus on the entire text, whereas Levenson’s discussion focuses on a small piece. 118

On covenant renewal in the Hebrew Bible, see the convenient survey by Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 39–88. 119

On this text, see further below.

120

This is the ESV, slightly altered.

57

probably originated, is to induce Israel to step into the position of the generation of Sinai, in other words, to actualize the past so that this new generation will become the Israel of the classic covenant relationship (cf. Deut 30:19–20). Thus, life in covenant is not something merely granted, but something won anew, rekindled and reconsecrated in the heart of each Israelite in every generation.121 Covenant renewal was an important concept throughout the Hebrew Bible and the Second Temple era. Subsequent chapters will deal with those aspects of covenant renewal found in Second Temple literature that are related to the Festival of Weeks. Most of these covenant renewal ceremonies (in the Hebrew Bible) do not show any evidence with respect to specific dates or time of year. King Hezekiah renews the covenant in the first month of his first regnal year (2 Chr 29:3–11). This leads to the exceptional situation where Passover is celebrated a month later, on II/14 (2 Chr 30:2; cf. Num 9:9–11). King Josiah discovers the book of the Covenant just before Passover (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21) and the covenant renewal appears to take place just before this (2 Kgs 23:2– 3). The other covenant renewals that are celebrated in proximity to either the Festival of Weeks or Festival of Booths will be systematically treated below in order to determine whether they were regularly associated with any particular holy day. 1.3. Giving of the Law On the analogy of the ANE vassal treaties, the Sinai covenant is accompanied by stipulations. These stipulations, to begin with at least, are represented by the Decalogue (Exod 20:1–17).122 Of course, this original set of prescriptions is greatly expanded immediately with the “Book of the Covenant” (Exod 20:21–23:19) and later by large

121

Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 81.

122

Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” 1183–84. On the Decalogue, see the following: J. J. Stamm and M. E. Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research (SBT 2:2; Naperville: Allenson, 1967); Ben Zion Segal and Gershon Levi, eds., The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990 [1985]); Sigmund Mowinckel, Le Décalogue (Boulevard Saint-Germain: Librairie Félix Alcan, 1927).

58

chunks of legal material throughout the rest of the Pentateuch.123 The law is then that part of the covenant which outlines the responsibilities of the Israelites with respect to upholding their end of the treaty.124 The development that is clearly evident in the history of the law in the Hebrew Bible arises from the changing circumstances of the Israelites themselves as they moved from a loose organization of tribes to a centralized monarchy to a people in exile to a people newly returned from exile—and all the numerous cultural shifts (political, economic, social, religious, etc.) before, during, and after these stages in Israel’s history. The early law codes (e.g., “Book of the Covenant”) were modified and supplemented by deuteronomic and priestly versions and/or redactions—(likely) among others— addressing different needs and concerns as the situation of the Israelites/Jews changed.125 2. The Sinai Event Associated with the Festival of Weeks There are two commonly cited texts supporting the idea that the Sinai event and the Festival of Weeks were linked together by at least the early post-exilic era: Exod 19:1

123

For scholarship on the “Book of the Covenant,” see: H. J. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East (trans. J. Moiser; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980); J. W. Marshall, Israel and the Book of the Covenant (SBLDS 140; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); J. Morgenstern, “The Book of the Covenant,” HUCA 5 (1928): 1–151; 7 (1930): 19–258; 8–9 (1931–32): 1– 150; 33 (1962): 59–105; Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant; J. M. Sprinkle, “The Book of the Covenant”: A Literary Approach (JSOTSup 174; Sheffield: SAP, 1994). 124

On the subject of law, the secondary literature is endless, but for a sampling, see: D. Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985); A. Alt, “The Origins of Israelite Law,” in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (trans. R. A. Wilson; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 79–132; Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant; Martin Noth, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966). 125

On inner biblical legal exegesis, see esp. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 91–277. On the deuteronomic legal tradition, see: Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School; B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997); E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967). On the priestly legal tradition, see: Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence; Haran, Temples and Temple Service.

59

and 2 Chr 15:10–15.126 In addition, it has been argued that the Festival of Weeks forms the liturgical background of Daniel 10–12. Each of these texts will be treated in turn. 2.1. The Geographical and Chronological Markers in the Sinai Narrative The Sinai event is central to the Pentateuch.127 The narrative tempo of the Pentateuch, particularly regarding the Sinai narrative, is one of its many noteworthy features.128 The Sinai narrative (Exod 19:1–Num 10:28) represents not even one whole year (3/1 [Exod 19:1] to 2/20 of the next year [Num 10:11]) out of the 2,706 years from creation to the death of Moses, yet the Israelite encampment before Sinai takes up about a

126

See, for example: R. Le Deaut, “Pentecote et Tradition Juive,” Spiritus 7 (1961): 135; Kraus, Worship in Israel, 56; M. Weinfeld, “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue and Its Place in Jewish Tradition,” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition (ed. B.-Z. Segal and G. Levi; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990 [1985]), 34–38; S. J. De Vries, “Festival Ideology in Chronicles,” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. H. T. C. Sun and K. L. Eades, with J. M. Robinson and Garth I. Moller; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 108–109; M. S. Smith, “Matters of Space and Time in Exodus and Numbers,” in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (ed. C. Seitz and K. Greene-McCreight; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 191–92. 127

On Pentateuchal criticism, see the classic formulations by Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs; Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions; G. von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966 [1938]), 1–78. See also the excellent survey of the secondary literature by E. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century, and an insightful survey of the content of the Pentateuch by Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch. For alternative views from the standard model of Pentateuchal criticism, see E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990); R. Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990 [1977]); M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke (ATANT 67; Zurich, 1981); H. H. Schmid, “In Search of New Approaches in Pentateuchal Research,” JSOT 3 (1977): 33–42; idem, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zurich, 1976); J. Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992); Van Seters, The Life of Moses; R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOTMS 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). On historical critical issues related to Exodus 19–24, the secondary literature is massive. For a sampling of recent treatments of the topic, see (aside from the standard commentaries) Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, 183–228; Blenkinsopp, “Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 19– 34),” in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form, and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (ed. E. E. Carpenter; JSOTSup 240; Sheffield: SAP, 1997), 109–25; T. B. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24 (SBLMS 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 245–360; T. D. Alexander, “The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus xix 1–xxiv 11,” VT 49 (1999): 2–20; B. J. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael V. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 103–34; B. Renaud, La Théophanie du Sinaï: Ex. 19–24 (CahRB 30; Paris: Gabalda, 1991). 128

Blenkinsopp, “Structure and Meaning,” 109.

60

third of the Pentateuchal narrative.129 Moreover, not only does it represent a third of the narrative of the Pentateuch, it also occupies the middle third of the Pentateuch.130 The itinerary notices are clustered in two groups, both before (Exod 12:37; 13:20; 14:1–2; 15:22; 16:1; 17:1) and after the Sinai event (Num 10:12; 20:1, 22; 21:10–11; 22:1) and show the progression of the Israelites from Egypt to Sinai and then from Sinai to the plains of Moab.131 The temporal markers in Exodus also highlight the importance of the Sinai event. Their stay at the foot of the mountain represents almost a full year. In Exod 19:1–2a (P), there is a highly significant chronological and geographical marker: µydiypirm] e W[s]YwI " 2 .yn:ysi rB'dm] i WaB; hZ≤h' µ/YB' µyIrx; m] i ≈r,am, e laer;cy] AI ynEB] taxel] yviyliVh] ' vd,jBo ' 1 rB;dM] Bi ' Wnj}Yw" " yn"ysi rB'dm] i WaboYw: " 1

In the third month after the sons of Israel left the land of Egypt—on that very day—they came to the wilderness of Sinai. 2a And they set out from Rephidim and they came to the wilderness of Sinai and they encamped in the wilderness. The exact day of the month for the giving of the Law (Exod 19:16–23:33) and the covenant ceremony (Exod 24:3–8) is not specified, which presents a problem for those who see in this chronological notice an indication that the (priestly) editor intended a specific connection between the Sinai event and the Festival of Weeks.132 In particular,

129

Blenkinsopp, “Structure and Meaning,” 109. Blenkinsopp estimates the length of the stopover at Sinai as “considerably more than a fifth of the total length of the Pentateuch (Exod 19:1–Num 10:28).” However, if one counts the pages of text in the BHS, it becomes apparent that Sinai occupies almost a third of the Pentateuch’s total narrative (114 pages of BHS text out of 353 pages total). 130 There are 117 pages of BHS text before Exodus 19 and 121 pages of BHS text after Numbers 10 to the end of the Pentateuch. 131

Smith, “Matters of Space and Time,” 186–88.

132 Weinfeld, “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue,” 34–37; R. S. Hendel, “Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The Ritual Symbolism of Exodus 24,3–8,” ZAW 101 (1989): 373; Smith, “Matters of Space and Time,” 191–92. Gerhard von Rad (“The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” 34–35) briefly considered, but ultimately rejected the theory (based on the Priestly notice in Exod 19:1) that the Festival of Weeks was the earliest cultic setting for the Sinai tradition, in favor of the Festival of Booths (based on Deut 31:10–11). This does not, of course, preclude the possibility that different people or groups at different points in Israel’s history had differing conceptions of what the proper setting for the Sinai event was.

61

TABLE 5 CHRONOLOGICAL NOTICES IN EXODUS AND NUMBERS ========================================================= Passage Date Event Exod 19:1 Year 1, III/1 Arrival at Sinai Exod 40:17 Year 2, I/1 Tabernacle set up Num 1:1 Year 2, II/1 Census Num 7:1 Year 2, I/1 Tabernacle consecrated Num 9:1, 3–5, 11 Year 2, I/1, I/14, II/14 Passover Num 10:11–12 Year 2, II/20 Departure from Sinai ———————————————————————————————— NOTE: Smith, “Matters of Space and Time,” 188–98.

since the priestly writer appears to have attempted to pin down a specific date for the Festival of Weeks (cf. Lev 23:15–16), it seems strange that he was not more specific concerning the chronology of the Sinai event if he did indeed intend to link it to the Festival of Weeks.133 Several possibilities suggest themselves as to why no specific date is mentioned: (1) the editor may have assumed a lunar calendar which means that the Festival of Weeks could fall on any one of three separate days in the month of Sivan (i.e., 5–7); (2) there may not have been agreement among advocates of the 364-day calendar on the beginning date for the countdown to the Festival of Weeks, and therefore to the specific date of the festival;134 (3) the specific day may have simply fallen out accidentally in the course of copying;135 (4) Of course, the priestly editor may simply not have intended to specifically connect the Sinai event with the Festival of Weeks.136

133 This is in contrast to the earlier sources (see discussion in chapter 2). Even the deuteronomist (Deut 16:9–10) does not specify a particular start date for the seven week count. 134

On the varying possibilities for the starting point of this count, see chapter 2.

135

Since being non-specific about dates concerning happenings in the third month and the Festival of Weeks in particular seems to be characteristic of the Hebrew Bible, the non-specificity of Exod 19:1 is not

62

In 2 Chr 15:10–15, there is a similar vagueness about the specific date of King Asa’s covenant renewal. In this case, there can be no real doubt that some link to the Festival of Weeks is intended.137 It is thus not unlikely that some link to the Festival of Weeks was intended by the chronological notice in Exod 19:1 (i.e., both are priestly). The most probable explanation is that there was some disagreement over the specific date for the beginning of the count to the Festival of Weeks. There is certainly plenty of evidence in the Second Temple period and beyond for precisely this type of dispute.138 Vagueness over the specific date preserved all the possible dates advocated by the various factions. The only other serious possibility is that the lunar calendar is presupposed. This is quite possible, but Jaubert’s thesis (discussed below) that the priestly writers assumed the solar calendar appears to be solid and explains the evidence of the priestly strand of the Hebrew Bible quite well. The events at the foot of the mountain deserve some comment. Moses goes up and down the mountain quite a number of times as he mediates between God and the Israelites:

surprising and hence the argument that it accidentally dropped out is thus unlikely (though it cannot be ruled out). 136 The first three possibilities are adapted from the arguments of James C. VanderKam (“The Origin, Character, and Early History of the 364-Day Calendar: A Reassessment of Jaubert’s Hypothesis,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature [JSPSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000], 89–89). 137

See the next section below.

138

See the discussion in chapter 2 on this issue.

63

TABLE 6 CHRONOLOGY OF MOSES AND THE ISRAELITES AT SINAI ========================================================= Chronology Top of the Mt. Mid-way Foot of the Mt. III/1 19:1–2 Day 1 19:3–6 19:7–8a 19:8b–13 19:14–15 Day 3 19:16–20a 19:20b–24 19:25–24:3 20:21–24:2 24:3 Day 4 24:4–8 24:9–14 [6 days] 24:15–17 [40 days] 24:18–32:6 Day 51 32:7–14 32:15–18 32:19–29 Day 52 32:30 32:31–35 33:1–34:3 Day 53 34:4 [40 days] 34:5–28 34:29ff. ———————————————————————————————— NOTE: D. C. Arichea, “The Ups and Downs of Moses: Locating Moses in Exodus 19–33,” BT 40 (1989): 244–46.

However, this does not give a true picture of the complexity of what happens at Sinai. There are a number of peculiarities in this passage (here focusing only on Exodus 19–24): (1) On both days one and three, Moses goes up and down the mountain two times; (2) On day three, Moses is told to go back down to repeat an instruction already given earlier (Exod 19:20–23; cf. 19:12–13); moreover, while this instruction is designed to keep the people away from the mountain, in Exod 20:18–21, it is discovered that the problem is not keeping people away from the mountain, but keeping them from fleeing it;

64

(3) In Exod 19:24, Moses is told to come back up the mountain with Aaron, but in Exod 20:21, Moses returns alone, although he does return with Aaron later (Exod 24:9).139 Given this situation, tracing the chronology of Exodus 19–24 is a near hopeless task. However, at least two things regarding the chronology can be known with certainty: (1) The Israelites arrived in the wilderness of Sinai on III/1 (Exod 19:1), and (2) at least four days elapse between the arrival of the Israelites at Sinai and Moses’ ascension of Mt. Sinai to receive the two tablets of the testimony (tdu[he ; tjolu ynev;] 31:18).140 Unfortunately, there is no indication in the text concerning when the four day count begins. This of course leaves enough ambiguity to satisfy either the rabbinic dating of the Festival of Weeks to Sivan 5–7, or the Jubilean dating of III/15.141 2.1.1. The Priestly Solar Calendar. Annie Jaubert has argued that the calendar of the Pentateuch, in particular that of the Priestly Code, corresponds to the 364-day solar calendar found in the book of Jubilees.142 Since the 364-day solar calendar is exactly divisible by seven into 52 weeks, every date of the year would fall on the same weekday. From the book of Jubilees Jaubert determined that I/1 (month/day) had to be Wednesday.

139

For even more difficulties, see Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, 183; Sprinkle, “The Book of the Covenant,” 18–19. Sprinkle makes an interesting argument defending the literary integrity of this text, suggesting that the Hebrew Bible employs a technique whereby the text tells a story once and then retells it from a slightly different perspective (19:16–25//20:1–23:33//24:1–3a), expanding details and carrying the narrative forward in some respects. One wonders, however, if all the difficulties are truly resolved in this manner (though certainly, whoever the final redactor was, must have thought that the text made sense as it stands). 140

Jaubert’s (“Jésus et le Calendrier de Qumrân,” NTS 7 [1960–1961]: 2) analysis of the chronology of Exodus 19–24 indicates a span of five days (Wednesday [III/11] to Monday [III/16]), however, she mistakenly adds an extra day of preparation (Exod 19:10–14). 141 Because of the vagaries of the lunar calendar, the Festival of Weeks could fall on any one of three days in the third month (Sivan) for the rabbis. 142 Annie Jaubert, “Le calendrier des Jubilés et de la secte de Qumrân,” 250–64; idem, “Le calendrier des Jubilés et les jours liturgiques de la semaine,” 35–61; idem, The Date of the Last Supper. For a good summary of Jaubert’s hypothesis and detailed engagement with subsequent scholarly work, see J. C. VanderKam, “The Origin, Character, and Early History of the 364-Day Calendar,” 81–104.

65

She arrived at this conclusion through the following reasoning.143 In Jub. 15:1 and 16:13, the Festival of Weeks is celebrated in the middle of the third month. The middle of the month is the 15th day, according to Jub. 44:1–5. Since the Festival of Weeks is supposed to take place 49 days after the waving of the rm,[o (Lev. 23:15–16 and Deut 16:9–10), I/25 must be a sabbath. Working back from this assumption, she determined that I/1 must be a Wednesday. Since the sun, moon, and stars are created on the fourth day of the week (i.e., Wednesday), this all fits together quite neatly.144 She then confirmed this hypothesis by determining whether the patriarchs were ever depicted as traveling on the sabbath.145 She made a detailed listing of the various passages in the book of Jubilees where dates when patriarchs traveled were either explicit or could be inferred. She found that there was only one day of the week when no patriarch traveled, and logically concluded that this must be the sabbath (Jub. 50:12 prohibits travel on the sabbath). This only worked when I/1 was a Wednesday. Jaubert’s careful examination of the book of Jubilees, then, results in the following calendrical schema:

143

Jaubert, “Le calendrier des Jubilés et de la secte de Qumrân,” 251–52.

144

Jaubert begins from the suggestion of D. Barthélemy (“Notes en marge de publications récentes sur les manuscrits de Qumrân,” RB 59 [1952]: 199–203) that the year began on Wednesday because the sun, moon, and stars (i.e., the basis of any calendar) were created on the fourth day. 145

Jaubert, “Le calendrier des Jubilés et de la secte de Qumrân,” 252–53.

66

TABLE 7 THE JUBILEAN CALENDAR ========================================================= 4 5 6 7 1 2 3

Weekday Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

IV 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

VII 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

X II 22 29 23 30 24 1 25 2 26 3 27 4 28 5

V 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

VIII 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

XI 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30

III VI 4 5 6 7 1 8 2 9 3 10

IX 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

XII 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

———————————————————————————————— NOTE: Jaubert, “Le calendrier des Jubilés,” 253.

Jaubert then investigated the possibility that this calendar predated the book of Jubilees. Noting that the priestly source dates events with numbered months and days rather than named months (as can be found in some other biblical passages and later in rabbinic texts), she studied the travel dates in the hexateuch presupposing the 364-day solar calendar of the book of Jubilees. She discovered that no patriarch ever travels on the sabbath. This also held true for other books that use numbered months and days like Ezekiel, Haggai, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.146 Jaubert’s thesis raises a corollary suggestion that Jubilees’ scheme of assigning the Festival of Weeks to III/15 may also be supported by the Hebrew Bible. While there is a tantalizing chronological notice in 2 Chr 15:10 involving month (3rd) and regnal year (15th), there is no solid indication that the Hebrew Bible ever definitively dates the Festival of Weeks to III/15.147

146

Her thesis is still quite controversial, but calendar matters in the Hebrew Bible being what they are, this is hardly surprising. See the review of Jaubert’s thesis by VanderKam (“The 364-day Calendar,” 81– 104) for a review of the literature and a defense of her thesis that the 364-day calendar was used in the Priestly portions of the Hebrew Bible. 147

On this, see further below on 2 Chronicles 15.

67

Jaubert’s thesis has greater repercussions for the history of Judaism. If Jaubert is correct, it appears that calendrical systems probably changed more than once over the history of Israel and Judaism up to the rabbinic era.148 Given the tumultuous nature of Judaism, with its competing sects and religious practices, it appears that calendrical differences may have played a large part in the disagreements among Jews.149 Certainly a difference over the calendar would represent a serious rupture within any community that places such importance on holy days.150 If different Jews celebrate important religious festivals on different days due to differing understandings of when such a festival is to be held, then there is a potential for discord. It is probable that this was one of the foundational disputes that led the Qumran community to make a decisive break with the Temple leadership during the Maccabean era.151 Specifically, it appears likely that the solar calendar established early in the Second Temple era as represented by the Priestly tradition, was replaced by a lunisolar calendar by the Seleucid administration and later kept by the Maccabeans.152 Since the Essenes were traditionalists and insisted on adhering to the “traditional” solar calendar (which ironically was likely an innovation introduced during an earlier period), they split with the Jerusalem priesthood.

148

It appears likely that at varying times in Israel’s and Judaea’s histories, they had lunar and solar calendrical systems, including periods when they utilized both (i.e., cultic solar calendar coupled with a secular lunar calendar). 149

This is indeed the thesis of VanderKam, “2 Maccabees 6, 7A and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 105–27. 150

E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE (Philadelphia: TPI, 1992), 352, 360–

151

VanderKam, “2 Maccabees 6, 7A,” 121–27

152

VanderKam, “2 Maccabees 6, 7A,” 121–27.

63.

68

2.2. King Asa’s Covenant Renewal Ceremony: 2 Chronicles 15:9–15 Aside from the chronological note in Exod 19:1, the only other text that suggests a connection between covenant and the Festival of Weeks is 2 Chronicles 15:8–15 hd;Why“ ≈r,aA, lK;mi µyxiWQVih' rbe[Y} w" " qZæj'th] i aybiNh: ' dde[o ha;WbN“h'w“ hL,ahe ; µyribD; h] ' as;a; ['mov]kwi “ 8 ≈BoqY] wI " 9 .hw:hy“ µl;Wa ynEpl] i rv,a} hw:hy“ jB'zm“ Ai ta, vDejy' w“ " µyIrp; a] , rh'me dk'l; rv,a} µyri[h; A, ˜miW ˜miy:nb“ Wi brol; laer;cY] mI i wyl;[; Wlp]nA: yKi ˜/[m]Vmi Wi hV,nm" W] µyIrp' a] m, e µh,M;[i µyriGh: w' “ ˜miy:nb“ Wi hd;Why“AlK;Ata, .as;a; tWkl]ml' ] hrec][A, vmej} tn"v]li yviyliVh] ' vd,jBo ' µl'ivW; ry“ Wxb]QY; wI " 10 ./M[i wyh;laø ‘ hw:hy“AyKi µt;aro B] i tyriBb] ' WaboYw: " 12 .µypila; } t['b]vi ˜axow“ twaome [b'v] rq;B; Waybihe ll;Vh; A' ˜mi aWhh' µ/YB' hw:hyl' WjB]zY“ wI " 11 Ayhelaø ‘ hw:hyl' vrody] IAalø rv,a} lkow“ 13 .µv;p]nA" lk;bW] µb;bl; A] lk;B] µh,ytewboa} yhelaø ‘ hw:hy“Ata, vwrod]li h[;Wrt]bWi l/dG: lwqoB] hw:hyl' W[b]VY; wI " 14 .hV;aAi d['w“ vyaimle ] l/dG:Ad['w“ ˜foqA; ˜mil] tm;Wy laer;cy] I µn:/xr]Alk;bW] W[B;v]nI µb;bl; A] lk;b] yKi h[;WbV]hA' l[' hd;Why“Alk; Wjm]cY] wI " 15 .t/rp;wvobW] t/rx]xjo b} W' .bybiSm; i µh,l; hw:hy“ jn"Yw: " µh,l; axeMY; wI " WhvuqB] i 8

And when Asa heard these words and the prophecy which [Azariah the son of]153 Oded the prophet spoke, he took courage and removed the abominable idols from all the land of Judah and Benjamin and from the cities which he had captured in the hill country of Ephraim. He then restored the altar of YHWH which was in front of the porch of YHWH. 9 And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin and those from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon who resided with them, for many fell away to him from Israel when they saw that YHWH his God was with him. 10 And they assembled at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa’s reign. 11 And they sacrificed to YHWH that day from the spoil they brought, 700 oxen and 7,000 sheep. 12 And they entered into the covenant to seek YHWH the God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 and all who did not seek YHWH the God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 14 And they swore an oath to YHWH with a loud voice and with shouting and with trumpets and with horns. 15 And all Judah rejoiced concerning the oath, for with all their heart they had sworn, and with all their goodwill they had sought him, and he was found by them. And YHWH gave them rest on every side. Like the chronological notice in Exod 19:1 which specifies the month but not the date, Asa’s covenant renewal is held in the third month but the exact date is not given.154 However, in this case, there can be little doubt that the Festival of Weeks is implied. In vv. 14–15 there is a pun based on the similarity between the word for “seven”

153

Cf. 2 Chr 15:1.

154 In light of the fact that the book of Jubilees assigns the fifteenth day of the third month as the Festival of Jubilees, it is at least interesting to note that the fifteenth is mentioned in connection with Asa’s covenant renewal, even though it refers to the regnal year, rather than the date (James C. VanderKam, “The Festival of Weeks and the Story of Pentecost in Acts 2,” 187–88).

69

([b'v,, h[;b]v)i , “week, weeks” (['Wbv;, t/[buv); , and [bv (“to swear”), which is found three times in these verses.155 It may be that the name of the Festival was seen to derive not from “week” (['Wbv;) or “weeks” (t/[Wbv;) but “oath” (h[;Wbv]) or “oaths” (t/[Wbv]).156 An unpointed text (tw[bç gj) would be ambiguous, allowing for either reading, depending on how it is vocalized (Exod 34:22; Deut 16:10). One could easily see how a connection could be made between a “Festival of Oaths” and covenant renewal. Indeed, oaths were a crucial part of the covenant (cf. Exod 19:8; 24:3). 2.3. Daniel Jan van Goudoever argues that the liturgical background of Daniel 10–12 is the counting of the seven weeks to the Festival of Weeks and that the 1335 days of Dan 12:12 relates to this countdown.157 His suggestion is based on the idea that the book of Daniel uses the same 364-day solar calendar that is found in the book of Jubilees. One of the keys to his argument is the date of Daniel’s vision in Daniel 10–12. He notes that based on the Jubilees calendar, I/24 (Dan 10:4) falls on the Friday before the Sunday when the counting to the Festival of Weeks begins. In order to make his case that the vision of Daniel 10–12 has this seven week period leading to the Festival of Weeks as its background, he attempts to argue that the contents of the vision narrated in chapter 11–12 take place on I/26. However, his argument that Dan 10:19 refers to the Sabbath (I/25; i.e., the day before the counting begins) is problematic since there is no indication

155

Eduard Lohse, “penthkosthv,” TDNT 6:48; S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 724–25; De Vries, “Festival Ideology in Chronicles,” 109. On the difference between oaths and vows see, T. W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 147; Sheffield: SAP, 1992), 15–16. 156

Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 725 cites Jubilees 6:11,17 (cf. Gen 9:9–16) as evidence for the connection between oath and the Festival of Weeks. 157 J. van Goudoever, “Time Indications in Daniel that Reflect the Usage of the Ancient Theoretical So-called Zadokite Calendar,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed., Adam S. van der Woude; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 533–38.

70

in the text that a day has lapsed between vv. 17 and 18.158 Nor does Dan 10:21 indicate any further date shift to I/26 (Sunday).159 Even more problematic is van Goudoever’s contention that the 1335 days of Dan 12:12 relates to the Festival of Weeks. He argues that the 1290 days mentioned in Daniel 12:11 are a reference to the calendar speculation found at the end of Daniel 9.160 This is certainly plausible. However, based on the assumption that Daniel agrees with the author of Jubilees that the Festival of Weeks is held on III/15, he argues that 1335 refers to 1260 days—or, three and a half years (undeniably an important concept in Daniel)—plus 75 days.161 If one is to begin the count of the 75 days from I/1 (which he argues is the date on which Daniel began his fast), 75 days later is III/15, the Festival of Weeks.162 This would cohere with the fact that “this apocalypse describes the struggle of the end-time in terms of a war against the ‘holy covenant’, because the Feast of Weeks is the festival of Covenant par excellence.”163 Van Goudoever’s hypothesis is not without its problems, however. First, it is not at all clear that Daniel begins his fast on I/1. Daniel receives his vision on I/24 (Dan 10:4) which is three weeks (Dan 10:2–3) or 21 days (Dan 10:13) after his period of mourning or fasting. The numbers simply do not add up to I/1 as the beginning of the fasting period. In order to arrive at this number, van Goudoever argues that the Sabbaths should be excluded.164 This seems rather forced. Second, in order to make the numbers work, he 158

Van Goudoever, “Time Indications,” 536.

159

Van Goudoever, “Time Indications,” 536.

160

Van Goudoever, “Time Indications, 538.

161

Van Goudoever, “Time Indications,” 537, 538.

162

Van Goudoever, “Time Indications,” 535.

163

Van Goudoever, “Time Indications,” 538. He cites Daniel 11:28, 30, 32 in support.

164

Van Goudoever, “Time Indications,” 535.

71

has to switch calendars. The only way 1260 days can equal three and a half years is if van Goudoever abandons the 364-day calendar (364 times 3.5 equals 1274, not 1260; 1260 equals 180 weeks or 3 years and 24 weeks) and uses the luni-solar calendar of either 354 days (with intercalation allowed for) or a different solar calendar of 360 days (with no intercalation). It appears that van Goudoever assumes the latter, but he fails to explain how this all works.165 Gabriele Boccaccini has a more consistent explanation, arguing that Daniel used a sabbatical calendar of 360 days plus four intercalary times (i.e., the equinoxes and solstices).166 He appeals to 1 Enoch which provides some evidence of the use of a 360day calendar among the author’s contemporaries as the basis of the longer 364-day solar calendar (1 Enoch 74:10–11; 75:1–2).167 The author of the Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 72–82) was concerned with those who failed to include the four intercalary days in the solar year, not those who used the lunar calendar.168 Apparently, some of the author’s contemporaries were not counting the extra four days of the equinoxes and solstices as “days”.169 If one compares this with the book of Revelation, which in working from the text of Daniel, mentions various ways of expressing a three and a half year time period:

165

Van Goudoever, “Time Indications,” 538. According to J. Finegan (Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964], 23–24, 68), one of the Egyptian calendars (they used three different systems at varying times) had a year of 360 days (12 months of 30 days each) as did the Macedonian calendar used in Arabia. J. J. Collins (A Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 400–401) argues that while the method of calculation is uncertain, the two different numbers are readily explained by the necessity of revising the original prediction (1290 to 1335 days) when the prophecy did not come true on the basis of the original calculation. 166

G. Boccaccini, “The Solar Calendars of Daniel and Enoch,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; VTSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2.311–28. 167

Boccaccini, “Solar Calendars,” 313–20.

168 VanderKam, “2 Maccabees 6:7a and Calendrical Change,” 110; cf. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London: Routledge, 1998), 25–26. 169

Boccaccini, “Solar Calendars,” 315–316.

72

“42 months” (Rev 11:2; 13:5), “1,260 days” (11:3; 12:6), and “a time, two times, and a half time” (12:14), it is clear that for at least one author, 1260 days implied a year of 360 days.170 Boccaccini concludes that “Daniel knew a 360+4 day sabbatical calendar made up of 12 months of 30 days each, plus four intercalary times (i.e., the equinoxes and solstices) that were added between seasons but not counted in the reckoning of the days of the year.”171 Daniel’s calculation must have begun on the fall equinox of 167 BCE, which marked the mid-point of the last week of years and the beginning of Antiochus’ persecution.172 Adding 1335 days (Dan 12:12) from this point one does indeed arrive at III/15 of 163 BCE.173 It is indeed an attractive hypothesis, but one that must remain in the realm of speculation at this point.174 3. The Sinai Event Associated with the Festival of Booths Scholars have often associated covenant renewal with the Festival of Booths. The reports concerning Solomon and Jeroboam’s religious program confirm that the Festival of Booths was the principal annual pilgrimage. There are two main theories regarding the character and makeup of this festival. They are typically associated with the labels: (1) the “enthronement festival,” and (2) the “covenant renewal festival.” There are variations within each of these main theories, but the main elements are sufficiently similar that the

170 On this, see the comments of D. E. Aune, Revelation (WBC; 3 vols.; Dallas: Word, 1997, 1998), 2.608–611, 691. 171

Boccaccini, “The Solar Calendars,” 325–26.

172

Boccaccini, “The Solar Calendars,” 323.

173

Boccaccini, “The Solar Calendars,” 323.

174

For one thing, the whole scheme assumes that the beginning of the reckoning of the weeks of years is I/1, something that might plausibly be assumed but not explicit in the text.

73

bulk of the scholarly discussion can be classified into one or the other of these main theories. (1) Sigmund Mowinckel theorized that the Israelites celebrated a New Year’s day festival in the autumn (7/1–21), the occasion of which was the enthronement of YHWH.175 He suggested that this festival borrowed from the Babylonian Akitu festival (New Year) and the Canaanite harvest festival.176 The separate holidays represented by the Festival of Trumpet Blasts (7/1), Day of Atonement (7/10), and Festival of Booths (7/15–22) were all celebrated together at one time in Israel’s history. At the heart of this festival was a procession involving the ark of the covenant to dramatize the enthronement of YHWH. The King, as the leader of the procession, was YHWH’s representative on earth. Furthermore, in addition to many other rites and observances, he argued that at this great autumn festival, the Israelites observed a covenant renewal rite at the Temple in Jerusalem.177 The evidence that Mowinckel accumulated to prove his thesis was largely implicit. Based on form-critical study of the Psalms and other biblical passages, he identified certain texts as related to various aspects of the festival.178

175

S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; 2 vols. in 1; The Biblical Seminar 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992; repr. of Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 106–92. 176

Mowinckel (Psalms, 1:30–36) theorized that the Israelites changed the content and spirit of the festival and made it uniquely their own (1:136). On the Akitu festival, see T. S. Frymer-Kensky, “The Tribulations of Marduk: The So-called ‘Marduk Ordeal Text,” JAOS 103 (1983): 131–41; K. van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991); Jacob Klein, “Akitu,” ABD 1:138–40; M. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda: CDL, 1993); A. P. Petersen, The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit? (JSOTSup 259; Copenhagen International Seminar 5; Sheffield: SAP, 1998). 177

See especially, S. Mowinckel, Le décalogue (Paris: Alcan, 1927), 121–29.

178 H. Gunkel and J. Begrich (Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel [trans. J. D. Nogalski; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998]) criticize Mowinckel for not being rigorous enough in his selection of which psalms belonged to the festival. For a recent critique of Mowinckel’s theory, see Petersen, The Royal God.

74

(2) Likewise, Gerhard von Rad discounted the possibility that a covenant festival was associated with the Festival of Weeks largely based on Deut 31:10–11 and Nehemiah 8, which associate covenant renewal with the Festival of Booths.179 Against Mowinckel, however, von Rad argues that this covenant festival was associated with Shechem (cf. Deut 11:26–32; 27–28; Josh 8:30–35; 24), not Jerusalem.180 Artur Weiser, who similarly dates this covenant ceremony to the New Year’s festival in the autumn, notes that the agriculturally based cultus of the harvest festivals plays a remarkably small role in the Psalms (cf. Pss. 65, 67, 85, 126) and argues that it is therefore illegitimate, as Gunkel does, to start from these agricultural festivals as their true Sitz im Leben.181 Rather, Weiser argues, the starting point should be the situation which prevails in the Psalms, namely the YHWH tradition, which had its Sitz im Leben in the covenant festival celebrated by the tribal confederacy of Israel.182 Despite disagreements over specifics, all of these scholars note that there is a strong link between covenant renewal and the Festival of Booths. This is likely influenced by the fact that the Festival of Booths was traditionally the most popular and thus the most important of the three great festivals. There are three groups of texts on which this link is typically based: Deut 31:10–11, Neh 7:72b–8:18, and Psalms 50 and 81. Each of these will be treated in turn.

179

Von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” 33–40.

180

Von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” 36–40.

181

A. Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1962 [1959]), 27.

182

Weiser, Psalms, 27.

75

3.1. Deut 31:9–13 Deuteronomy 31:10–13 assigns the Festival of Booths as the date of the septennial haqhel ceremony when the whole nation gathers to hear a communal reading of the Torah: AlK;Ala,w“ hw:hy“ tyriB] ˜/ra}Ata, µyaic]Nhú ' ywIle ynEB] µynIh}Kho 'Ala, Hn:TY] wI " taZúh' hr;/Th'Ata, hv,mo bTok]YwI " 9 .t/KSuh' gj'B] hF;miVh] ' tn"v] d[emBo ] µynIv; [b'v, ≈Qemi rmoale µt;wao hv,mo wx'yw“ " 10 .laer;cy] I ynEqz] I dg≤n< taZúh' hr;/Th'Ata, ar;q]Ti rj;by] I rv,a} µ/qM;B' Úyh,laø ‘ hw:hy“ ynEPA] ta, t/ar;le laer;cy] AI lk; a/bB] 11 W[m]vy] I ˜['ml' ] Úyr,[;vB] i rv,a} Úr]gw´ “ πF'hw' “ µyviNh: w' “ µyvina: h} ; µ[;hA; ta, lheqh] ' 12 .µh,ynEza“ B; ] laer;cy] IAlK; rv,a} µh,ynEbW] 13 taZúh' hr;/Th' yrebD] Ai lK;Ata, t/c[}l' Wrm]vw; “ µk,yhelaø ‘ hw:hy“Ata, War]yw: “ Wdm]ly] I ˜['ml' W] µT,a' rv,a} hm;da; h} A; l[' µyYIj' µT,a' rv,a} µymiYh: A' lK; µk,yhelaø ‘ hw:hy“Ata, ha;ry] lI ] Wdm]lw; “ W[m]vy] I W[d]yA: alø .HT;vr] li ] hM;v; ˜DerY] h" A' ta, µyrib][o 9

And Moses wrote this torah and he gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi who carried the ark of the covenant of YHWH, and to all the elders of Israel. 10 And Moses commanded them saying, “At the end of seven years, at the appointed time of the year of the remission of debts, at the Festival of Booths, 11 when all Israel comes to appear before YHWH your God in the place which he will choose, you shall read this torah in front of all Israel in their hearing. 12 Assemble the people, the men and the women, and the children, and your stranger who is in your gates, so that they will hear and so that they will learn and fear YHWH your God and carefully observe all the words of this torah. 13 And their children who have not known will hear and learn to fear YHWH your God all the days which you live upon the land which you are crossing the Jordan to possess. (Deut 31:9–13) This indicates that the Festival of Booths was the principal festival and required a pilgrimmage to the central sanctuary. Because of the requirement to read the Torah publicly every seven years at the Festival of Booths, some scholars have suggested that this festival was associated with covenant renewal.183 Certainly, from the surrounding context, this is a logical inference. A covenant ceremony (Moab; Deuteronomy 29) and prescriptions concerning a restoration of an interior covenant (i.e., written on the heart) after exile (Deuteronomy 30) immediately precede this injunction. However, it should be noted that there is no explicit

183

Alt, “The Origins of Israelite Law,” 126–27; von Rad “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” 35.

76

prescription in this text for a covenant renewal to be held along with the reading of the Torah at the Festival of Booths.184 In Deut 17:18–20 there is a similar injunction to “write” (btk) and “read” (arq), only in this case, it is not the public that is explicitly in view, but the king.185 Given the similarity between these two injunctions, however, there is certainly a close relationship between the texts. >µYIwlI h] ' µynIh}Kho ' ynEpL] mi i rp,sAe l[' taZúh' hr;/Th' hnEvm] Ai ta, /l bt'kw; “ /Tk]lm' m] ' aSeKi l[' /Tb]vik] hy:hw; “ 18 yrebD] Ai lK;Ata, rmovl] i wyh;laø ‘ hw:hy“Ata, ha;ry] lI ] dm'ly] I ˜['ml' ] wyY:j' ymeyA“ lK; /b ar;qw; “ /M[i ht;yh“ w; “ 19 ˜ymiy: hw:xM] hi A' ˜mi rWs yTilb] li W] wyj;am, e /bb;lA] µWr yTilb] li ] 20 .µt;co[l} ' hL,ahe ; µyQijhu A' ta,w“ taZúh' hr;/Th' s .laer;cy] I br,qB, ] wyn:bW; aWh /Tk]lm' m] A' l[' µymiy: Jyriay} " ˜['ml' ] lwamocW] 18

“And it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this torah on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the YHWH his God, by carefully observing all the words of this torah and these statutes, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left; in order that he and his sons may have length of days in his kingdom in the midst of Israel.” This particular stipulation envisions a future time when the Israelites have completed the conquest of the promised land and will desire to set a king over themselves (Deut 17:14). When this happens, the king—who is to be an Israelite—is prohibited from increasing horses, wives, and money. The reason for this is that power, lust, and greed (which corresponds to horses, wives, and money) have a tendency to divert a king’s attention from what is truly important: fidelity to God.186 To ensure the king’s fidelity to God, then, the king is to write a copy of the Torah and read it all the days of his life.187 The king, it seems, serves as a model Israelite who is

184

Weinfeld, “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue,” 27.

185 The rabbis called this “the paragraph of the King” (m. Sot. 7:2,8) and it was to be read every seventh year at the Festival of Booths, explicitly alluding to Deut 31:10. 186

Cf. 1 Kgs 10:1–11:13 where Solomon’s heart turns from God because of horses, wives, and money.

187

J.-P. Sonnet (The Book Within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy [Biblical Interpretation Series 14; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 73) notes that like many royal figures in the ancient Near East, the Israelite king is

77

depicted as reading the Torah all the days of his life. The typical Israelite (who is clearly in mind in Deut 31:9–13), who cannot be expected to live up to this lofty standard (for one thing, an ordinary Israelite would hardly have the leisure time to read the Torah daily, much less ability to read or even financial wherewithal of owning a copy of the Torah), is nevertheless expected to listen to the Torah being read out loud every seven years at the Festival of Booths. After all, if one is to be faithful to the covenant, one must be continually reminded of just exactly what this entails. 3.2. Nehemiah 8 Nehemiah 7:72b–10:40 is the crux and climax of the entire Ezra-Nehemiah narrative.188 This is signaled by the fact that, for the first time, the two main figures are mentioned together in this section (Neh 8:9). The narrative of the covenant renewal represents the defining moment in the post-exilic community.189 The reading of the law in Neh 7:72b–8:18 is decisively influenced by Deut 31:9– 13.190 In Deut 31:11, YHWH commands the Israelites to read the Torah during the Festival of Booths. Having completed the wall of Jerusalem on the 25th of Elul (Neh

associated with writing, but unlike other kings in the ancient Near East, the act of writing in the case of the Israelite king does not come at his initiative, but as a stipulation enjoined upon the him by God. See also his discussion of the association of writing with kings of the ancient Near East on pp. 72–73. 188 M. W. Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (7:72b–10:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study (SBLDS 164; Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 1, 67. As Duggan notes, the concluding section of Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 12:44–13:31) simply implements the covenant stipulations enumerated in Neh 10:1–40. J. Blenkinsopp (Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988], 281) identifies 7:5b–10:40 as the unit, which he views as an insertion. Within this unit, Blenkinsopp also discerns evidence of redaction (pp. 284–86). On the delimitation of this section, see the arguments of Duggan (Covenant Renewal, 68–73). J. C. VanderKam (“Ezra-Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature [JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000], 60–80), following Japhet among others, argues that Ezra and Nehemiah should be considered as separate works. In this study, a synchronic approach will be adopted, which should not be taken to mean that the merits of these diachronic arguments are being denied. 189

Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 67. On the possibility that the Pentateuch was authorized by and formed under the influence of the Persian empire, see the collection of essays edited by J. W. Watts, Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (SBLSS 17; Atlanta: SBL, 2001). 190

Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 98.

78

6:15), Ezra reads from the Torah during the length of the Festival of Booths to the first returned exiles gathered together to celebrate the feast (Neh 8:18).191 As Blenkinsopp notes, liturgical occasions such as these are important in the structure of the history as a whole. Despite the celebration of the Festival of Booths recorded in 2 Chr 5–7 and Ezra 3:1–4, it is only during the celebration recorded in Neh 8:13–18 that the leaders of Israel discover that the Israelites are supposed to live in booths during this festival. This prescription is based on some version of Lev 23:39–43 [H]: t['b]vi hw:hy“Agj'Ata, WGjoT; ≈r,ah; ; ta'WbT]Ata, µk,Ps] a] B; ] y[iybiVh] ' vd,jlo ' µ/y rc;[; hV;mji B} ' Ja' 39 rd;h; ≈[e yriP] ˜/varih; µ/YB' µk,l; µT,jq] l' W] 40 .˜/tB;v' ynIymiVh] ' µ/Yb'W ˜/tB;v' ˜/varih; µ/YB' µymiy: .µymiy: t['b]vi µk,yhelaø ‘ hw:hy“ ynEp]li µT,jm] 'cW] lj'nA: yber][w' “ tbo[;A≈[e πn"[w} " µyrim;T] tPoK' ./tao WGjoT; y[iybiVh] ' vd,jBo ' µk,yterdo lo ] µl;/[ tQ'ju hn:VB; ' µymiy: t['b]vi hw:hyl' gj' /tao µt,GjO w' “ 41 t/KSub' yKi µk,yterdo o W[d]yE ˜['ml' ] 43 .tKoSBu ' Wbv]yE laer;cy] BI ] jr;za“ h, A; lK; µymiy: t['b]vi Wbv]Te tKoSBu ' 42 .µk,yhelaø ‘ hw:hy“ ynIa} µyIrx; m] i ≈r,am, e µt;/a yaiyxi/hB] laer;cy] I ynEBA] ta, yTib]v/' h 39

On the fifteenth day of seventh month, when you have gathered the crops of the land, you shall celebrate the festival of YHWH seven days with a rest on the first day and a rest on the eighth day. 40 And you shall take for yourselves on the first day, fruit of beautiful trees, palm leaves, and branches of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before YHWH your God for seven days. 41 And you shall celebrate it as a festival for YHWH seven days in the year. It is a perpetual statute for your generations. In the seventh month you shall celebrate it. 42 In booths you shall dwell seven days. All the native Israelites shall dwell in booths 43 so that your generations may know that I caused the sons of Israel— when I brought them out of the land of Egypt—to dwell in booths. I am YHWH your God. If the injunction is compared with what Ezra and the leaders of Israel actually have the Israelites carry out, there are some discrepancies.

191

There is some ambiguity concerning dates in Nehemiah 8. The discovery in the Torah concerning the Festival of Booths took place on VII/2. The next date identified in the text is VII/24, where the Israelites gather to confess their sins (Neh 9:1). Sometime between these dates, the Israelites take eight days to celebrate the Festival of Booths, but nowhere is the precise date given. Compare this with the fact that the earlier sources similarly do not identify a precise dating for this festival (Exod 23:16; 34:22; Deut 16:13–15; cf. Lev 23:34, 39; Num 29:12). Also, the Day of Atonement which—according to the Priestly tradition—is supposed to be observed on VII/10 (Lev 16:29; 23:26–32; Num 29:7–11), is not mentioned at all for this period, which is a bit curious given the fact that in Nehemiah 9 the Israelites make confession for their sins (on VII/24).

79

TABLE 8 FESTIVALS IN CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH ========================================================= Occasion Festival Passage Dedication of the First Temple Booths 2 Chr 5–7 Completion of Hezekiah’s reforms Passover 2 Chr 30 Completion of Josiah’s reforms Passover 2 Chr 35:1–19 Conclusion of the first return Booths Ezra 3:1–4 Completion of the Second Temple Passover Ezra 6:19–22 Completion of Ezra’s reforms Booths Neh 8:13–18 ———————————————————————————————— NOTE: Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 290.

˜m,v, ≈[eAyle[w} " tyIzAæ yle[} Waybihw; “ rh;h; Wax] rmoale µl'ivW; rybiW µh,yre[A; lk;B] l/q Wrybi[y} w" “ W[ymivy] " rv,aw} " .bWtK;K' tKosu tco[l} ' tbo[; ≈[e yle[w} " µyrim;t] yle[w} " sd'h} yle[w} " And they announced and sent a proclamation to all the cities and Jerusalem, saying, “Go out to the mountains and bring boughs of olive trees and boughs of oil trees and boughs of myrtle trees and boughs of palm trees and boughs of leafy trees to make booths, as it is written.” There are two major discrepancies:192 (1) Leviticus 23 appears to describe two separate rituals that Nehemiah 8 combines, namely, the collection of branches and leaves, and the dwelling in booths. In Nehemiah 8, it is clear that the branches are collected in order to make the booths. This is not what Lev 23:40 prescribes.193 (2) The list of plants and the specific parts of the various plants do not match in more than half of the details. It appears likely that while the post-exilic community was generally familiar with the main elements of the legislation as reflected in Lev 23:39–43, it was using a slightly

192

J. L. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (BJS 302; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 36. 193 Since one of the things that Lev 23:40 requires an Israelite to collect is “fruit” (yriP)] , it seems unlikely that Lev 23:40 has in mind that these materials are to be used to build the booths described in Lev 23:42–43. See J. R. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work (BJS 196; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 100–104.

80

different version of the Pentateuch.194 The discrepancies can then be attributed to divergent sources or textual traditions.195 Lev 23:42–43 identifies the origins of the sukkah as a remembrance of the time when the Israelites lived in booths during the wilderness period in the desert (cf. Hos 12:9).196 Historically, however, the sukkah probably originated from the booths built in the fields throughout the harvest and gathering season.197 That the sukkah is a relatively recent innovation appears confirmed by the fact that the author of Nehemiah states that this ritual had not been observed since the days of Joshua (Neh 8:17).198 At any rate, Lev 23:42–43 represents a historicizing trend that can also be seen with respect to Passover/Unleavened Bread. TABLE 9 HISTORICIZATION OF THE THREE MAIN FESTIVALS ========================================================= Festival Event Passage Exodus 12 Passover/Unleavened Bread Exodus Weeks (Sinai?) (Exod 19:1) Booths Wilderness Lev 23:42–43 ————————————————————————————————

194

Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work, 103–104.

195

Rubenstein (History of Sukkot, 36–37). He notes that this is likely a variant of H since only the Holiness Code “mentions the obligation to dwell in sukkot, to collect species of plants, and to assemble on the eighth day (p. 36).” 196

Alternatively, it is possible that it is a reference to the fact that the Israelites’ first stop on their exodus from Egypt was Sukkoth (t/Ksu). 197 Rubenstein, History of Sukkot, 25–27. An alternative theory is that the sukkah originated from the necessity of temporary shelters as pilgrims made their way to the central sanctuary. The main problem with this interpretation is that there were three main pilgrimage festivals but only the autumn festival was associated with sukkah. 198

The mention of Joshua is surely meant to draw a comparison with Ezra. Both were leaders of Israel who were responsible for leading their people back to the promised land.

81

There is no such historical tie in evidence in the earlier sources regarding the Festival of Booths (Exod 23:16; 34:22; Deut 16:13–15), which contrasts with the Festival of Unleavened Bread, which appears to have been associated with the Exodus from early on (Exod 23:15; 34:18; Deut 16:1–3). For Ezra 3:1–4 and Neh 8:13–18, the importance of the Festival of Booths is associated with the fact that it is the specified time for the (septennial) reading of the Torah.199 The importance of the Torah is demonstrated in Neh 8:1–8 where Ezra’s reading of the Torah is accompanied by translators/interpreters who translated/explicated the meaning of the Torah to the people so that they could understand what was being read out loud.200 It should be noted that nowhere is covenant renewal specifically associated with the Festival of Booths in Nehemiah 8. The covenant renewal proper does not occur until VII/24 (Neh 10:1–40; cf. 9:1) even though the events of Neh 7:72b–10:40—culminating in covenant renewal in Neh 10:1–40—are certainly related.201 3.3. Psalms 50 and 81 Recently, Moshe Weinfeld has argued that Psalms 50 and 81 reflect the ceremonies which recall the memory of Sinai, the Covenant, and the giving of the Torah at the Festival of Weeks.202 In this, he builds on the work of Mowinckel who studied

199

Rubenstein, History of Sukkot, 44.

200

On the importance of Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah and its further implications for the post-exilic period and beyond, see S. Japhet, “Law and ‘The Law’ in Ezra-Nehemiah,” in The Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (ed. D. Asaf; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), 99–115; H. Najman, “Torah of Moses: Pseudonymous Attribution in Second Temple Writings,” in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 7 (2000): 202–16; Blenkinsopp, “Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second Temple History,” in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (ed. E. P. Sanders, Albert I. Baumgarten, and Alan Mendelson; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 2:1–26, 299–309. 201

Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 235–89.

202

Weinfeld, “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue,” 21–44.

82

Psalms 50 and 81 and concluded that assemblies in ancient Israel were held to re-enact and celebrate the revelation at Mount Sinai.203 However, where Mowinckel associated this celebration with the Festival of Booths, Weinfeld argues that it should be associated with the Festival of Weeks. To be sure, both of these Psalms do contain language that recalls the revelation at Sinai.204 Psalm 50:7 (“I am God, your God”) and 81:10–11 (“I am the LORD your God,” prohibition against worshipping foreign gods) contain allusions to the first of the Ten Commandments. Psalm 50:5, 16 contain explicit references to the covenant, and Psalm 50:18–20 contains references to theft, adultery, and false witness. The lawsuit motif evident in these Psalms (50:4–7; 81:9) also indicates a covenantal background. In addition, Psalm 50:5 refers to a covenant sacrifice (cf. 50:7–15, 23), whereas Psalm 81:2– 6 refers to a festival of some sort. However, contra Weinfeld, there is nothing specific in these psalms to link them to the Festival of Weeks.205 Weinfeld argues that hs,Ke in 81:4— which he takes to refer to the “full moon”—is an indication that these psalms are linked to the Festival of Weeks.206 He cites the book of Jubilees as evidence that this festival was observed on the 15th of the month.207 This is slim evidence, however, since the book of Jubilees was composed no 203

Mowinckel, Le décalogue, 121–29.

204

Mowinckel, Le décalogue, 125–26; Weinfeld, “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue,” 21–22. Weinfeld notes that the thrust of these psalms is not celebration of covenant renewal but reproof for having failed to live up to the stipulations of the covenant (pp. 22–23). 205

There is a reference to wheat (hF;j)i in Psalm 81:17, but this is meager evidence.

206

The © has ejn eujshvmw/ for hs,KeB,' which, according to LSJ (p. 732), refers to “of good signs or omens, easily known by signs.” It is the only time this word appears in the © (though Theodotion and other unknown sources use the same word in Prov 7:20). In Prov 7:20, the © employs the construction di∆ hJmerw`n pollw`n for as,Khe ' µ/yl]. It seems that the © translators did not know what to make of hs,K.e 207

Weinfeld, “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue,” 27. He also cites Jaubert’s study indicating that the calendar of the priestly source corresponds to the solar calendar of Jubilees. However, this does not necessarily imply that both agreed that the Festival of Weeks fell on III/15. Because of the peculiar phrasing of the counting formula, any one of four separate days is possible according to the priestly scheme, even assuming the solar calendar.

83

earlier than about the middle of the second century B.C. There is no hard evidence in the Hebrew Bible itself that the Festival of Weeks was celebrated on the 15th of the third month (but see comments on 2 Chr 15:10 above), while on the other hand, it is known for certain that the other two main festivals began on the 15th of their respective months.208 Furthermore, there are indications within Psalm 81 that the Festival of Booths may be the proper setting for at least this particular psalm: .WnG´j' µ/yl] hs,KBe ' rp;/v vd,jbo ' W[q]Ti 4 The meaning of the two terms hs,Ke and vd,jo determines to a large extent the setting and historical context of this psalm. As one might suspect, the interpretation of both terms is disputed. There are basically five main positions: (1) Graetz argues that since hs,Ke (“full moon”) follows the first term vd,j,o this latter term cannot refer to the “new moon” since this would not make any sense. Therefore, he argues that the phrase vd,jbo ' must mean something like “in this month.” Thus, the second line further specifies the general time reference in the first line.209 This is certainly a plausible interpretation but since the context describes the blast of a trumpet, it would appear that a specific time reference is called for, at least with respect to a specific month, if not a specific time during the month. (2) Other scholars attempt to explain the text by suggesting alternative readings of the text. Cheyne reads vd,qo for vd,jo and translates the phrase “in the sanctuary.” This would resolve the seeming reference to two different time periods and resolve it in favor of the full moon.210 Herkenne, on the other hand, reads vd,jo as “month” and instead of hs,Ke he reads hK;su (“booth”). Thus the lines would refer to the setting up of the tents on the

208

Festival of Unleavened Bread (I/15–21) and Festival of Booths (VII/15–22).

209

H. H. Graetz, Kritischer Commentar zu den Psalmen nebst Text und Uebersetung (vol. 2; Breslau: Schottlaender, 1882–1883), 475–76. 210

T. K. Cheyne, The Book of Psalms (vol. 2; London, 1904), 34–35; cf. H. Schmidt, Die Psalmen (Tübingen: Mohr, 1934), 154.

84

Festival of Booths (cf. Gen 31:25): “Schlagt auf im Monat des Hornes, die Hütte für den Tag unsers Festes.”211 These are quite plausible theories. But conjectural emendations should really only be seriously entertained in the absence of other reasonable alternatives. (3) Freehof attempts to breathe new life into the traditional rabbinic position.212 He argues that both terms are different ways of referring to the same thing: the new moon. He notes that rabbinic texts derive the rare term hs,Ke from the root hsk (“to cover, conceal”).213 The term would thus refer to the “dark of the moon,” a synonym for the new moon.214 Freehof’s solution is attractive for the simple reason that if his linguistic argument holds, it makes relatively good sense of the text as is.215 Certainly his argument that hs,Ke derives from hsk seems logical. However, linguistic parallels from Ugaritic, Phoenician, Syriac, and Arabic, ultimately deriving from the Akkadian word kuse\’u which refers to the headdress of the moon-god at the time of the full moon, is strong contrary evidence against Freehof’s thesis.216 Furthermore, the typical date for a gj' was the fifteenth (cf. Festival of Unleavened Bread and Booths) or the day of the full moon. Furthermore, in Job 26:9, it has been conjectured that hSeki (“throne”) should really be pointed hs,Ke (“full moon”).

211

Italics original. H. Herkenne, Das Buch der Psalmen (Bonn: Hanstein, 1936), 277.

212

b. Rosh HaShanah 8a-b, Leviticus Rabbah 29:6.

213 Cf. the evidence that Snaith (The Jewish New Year Festival, 100–102) gathers. He shows that the rabbinic evidence is mixed. 214

Freehof, “Sound the Shofar,” 225–28.

215

Freehof’s (“Sound of the Shofar,” 225–28) thesis that the Shofar was blown on the day of the new moon in order to let people know the correct date of the festival (by announcing the date of the new moon) seems to be supported by the © (evidence he fails to cite) which reads eu[shmo~ (“good sign”) instead of hs,K.e Freehof argues that this is indicated by the l instead of the expected b before µwy in Psa 81:4 (cf. vd,jbo )' and cites m. Roš Haš. 1:3 which relates how at certain months messengers went forth to tell people what day the new moon was so that they would know when the festivals began. 216

See HALOT Study Edition, 1:487.

85

/nn:[} wyl;[; zverP] ' hSekAi ynEP] zjeam' ] He covers the face of the throne/full moon, he spreads over it his cloud. This would certainly make better sense of the verse than “throne”.217 If so, the context makes clear that this would have to refer to the “full moon” rather than the “new moon” since the point in this text is that the moon (otherwise visible) is obscured by clouds.218 (4) Snaith begins by arguing that vd,jo means “new-month day” and that this originally (pre-exilic) meant the day of the full moon, but after the exile, it designated the day of the new moon.219 The original Hebrew term for “month” was jr'y< which later gave way to vd,j.o The closely related term j"rye : means “moon,” which indicates that the month may have indeed originally begun on the full moon.220 On this basis, Snaith suggests that this couplet is a survival from pre-exilic days and that since vd,jo means “new month day” (originally referring to the full moon in the pre-exilic period), it is synonymous to hs,K— e both meaning “the day of the full moon” (i.e., the fifteenth).221 However, Snaith’s theory rests on the assumption that the meaning of vd,jo (lit. “new”) was originally developed on the basis of the idea of the renewal of the month rather than the renewal of the moon.222 This seems rather unlikely given the fact that in the post-exilic period at least, vd,jo is clearly linked to the day of the new moon. It seems much more likely that the meaning of

217

The ©, it should be noted, translates this term with the word for throne: qrovno~.

218

Mowinckel, Psalms, 2:235.

219

Snaith, Jewish New Year, 96–103; cf. also Caquot, “Remarques sur la fête de la ‘néoménie’ dans l’ancien Israël” RHR 68 (1960): 1–18; H. Cazelles, “Sur les origines du calendrier des Jubilés,” Biblica 43 (1962): 205–206. 220

Cf. Mowinckel, Psalms, 2.235–236.

221 Snaith, Jewish New Year, 102. He notes that the most natural interpretation of this couplet is that the psalmist is referring to the same single day. The surrounding couplets are all synthetic couplets and furthermore, if the verse was a climbing parallelism, one would expect a copula, but the two phrases are in apposition (p. 99). 222

Snaith, Jewish New Year, 96–97; cf. Mowinckel, Psalms, 2:236.

86

vd,jo originally developed based on the idea of the renewal of the moon, and that secondarily, this was linked to the more artificial concept of the month.223 (5) The most common interpretation of this word pair is to take vd,jo as “new moon” and hs,Ke as “full moon.”224 The mention of a new moon and a full moon implies a fourteen day interval and can only refer to the autumn holiday season which begins on a new moon (7/1; cf. Lev 23:24; Num 29:1), runs through the Day of Atonement (7/10) and the Festival of Booths, which commences at the full moon (7/15; cf. Lev 23:34; Num 29:12).225 The rp;/v is associated with two predominant emotions: alarm and joy. The rp;/v signals alarm in the context of battle or imminent attack, which is the most common context. It is also associated with the Sinai event (Exod 19:16, 19; 20:18) where the very loud trumpet blast is associated with the fear and trembling on the part of the people. On the other hand, the rp;/v is also associated with various religiously significant events and signals the joy that the people of God are to feel at these occasions. The rp;/v is associated with the Day of Atonement in the year of Jubilee (Lev 25:9) and the Festival of Weeks (2 Chr 15:14) and also plays a role in the procession of the ark that David leads (2 Sam 6:15//1 Chr 15:28) as well as various other anonymous cultic contexts (Pss. 47:6; 98:6; 150:3).226 The note of joy is often explicit in these psalms (2 Chr 15:15; 1 Chr 15:29; Pss

223

Mowinckel, Psalms, 2:236.

224 F. Baethgen, Die Psalmen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904), 254; Mowinckel, Psalms, 1:124; B. Duhm, Die Psalmen (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1922), 314; A. Lemaire, “Le sabbat à l’époque royale israélite,” RB 80 (1973): 171–72. 225 Cf. H.-J. Kraus, Psalms: A Commentary (trans. H. C. Oswald; 2 vols; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988–1989 [1961/1978]), 148; C. C. Broyles, Psalms (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), 333. 226

According to Lev 23:24 and Num 29:1, the new moon festival on 7/1 is to be accompanied by a h[;WrT] which can refer to a joyous shout or a signal given by a wind instrument. This term is sometimes found together with rp;/v in a cultic context (Lev 25:9; 2 Sam 6:15; Psalm 47:6; 1 Chr 15:28; 2 Chr 15:14). The Day of Atonement (7/10; Lev 25:9) and the Festival of Weeks (3/?; 2 Chr 15:14) are two specific occasions on the cultic calendar in which these terms are found together. It is also often found in a war context (Josh 6:5,20; Jer 4:19; Amos 2:2; Zeph 1:16; Job 39:25).

87

47:2; 98:6) and the remaining texts strongly imply a joyous occasion (2 Sam 6:12–23; Psalm 150). The Festival of Booths is to be a joyous occasion (Deut 16:14–15) and in Ps 81:2–3, the note of joy is unmistakable. The festival in question, then, is more likely to be the Festival of Booths, the most important of the festivals. This fits with the evidence that has been gleaned from Deut 31:9–13 and Nehemiah 8. At the same time, given the ambiguity of the evidence, it would be foolish to establish any conclusions on such a slender and disputed basis. The point is, however, it is at the very least questionable for Weinfeld to assign Psalm 81 (and probably Psalm 50 as well) to a context during the Festival of Weeks. It must be admitted that one could make at least an equally (if not more) plausible argument for the Festival of Booths. 4. Conclusion There is a definite historicizing trend for the main festivals. From early on, the Passover/Festival of Unleavened Bread was associated with the Exodus event. Sometime during or shortly after the exile, the Festival of Booths was increasingly associated with the wilderness wanderings. The Festival of Weeks is therefore unique in not being explicitly associated with any historic event. While there are some indications that the Festival of Booths was associated with Sinai, this is limited to the reading of the Torah, with no explicit link to covenant renewal anywhere in evidence.227 Moreover, the reason for choosing the Festival of Booths for the reading of the Torah need not have anything to do with the desire to link the Festival of Booths to the Sinai event (in terms of historicizing it as a commemoration to this central event). As the largest and most important festival, it naturally attracted the largest number of pilgrims, and if the idea of

227

Even Psalm 81 is a psalm of reproof more than a psalm celebrating a covenant renewal (cf. Weinfeld, “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue,” 22–23).

88

reading out the law is to instruct the greatest number of Israelites in the Torah, what better time to do it than during the feast that attracts the most Israelites? On the other hand, there are already indications in two key texts that make it unsurprising that later tradition associated the Sinai event with the Festival of Weeks— especially considering the fact that the other two main festivals are already associated with other historical events. First, Exod 19:1 dates the arrival of the Israelites to Sinai on III/1. While the specifics are unclear, the only possible festival that would be chronologically appropriate—assuming that one wanted to link a significant event to a particular festival to commemorate it—is the Festival of Weeks. Second, in 2 Chronicles 15, King Asa celebrates a festival where oaths are prominent and the people enter into a covenant with YHWH (2 Chr 15:10–15). Given the fact that covenants were typically confirmed by an oath (Gen 21:22–33; Deut 29:9–14; Josh 9:15–20; 2 King 11:4; Ezek 16:8), and that the terms “weeks” and “seven” (['Wbv;; pl. t/[Wbv;) are similar (identical in the consonants) to the term “oath” (h[;Wbv], h[;buv;] pl. t/[buv)] , a link between the Sinai event—which has as its center the covenant between God and the newly constituted nation of Israel—is natural. It is important to note, however, that while a trend towards associating the Sinai event with the Festival of Weeks is readily discernible in some key texts (particularly in the priestly tradition), the Sinai event was not definitively tied to any specific date—at least taking the evidence from the Hebrew Bible as a whole. It seems that covenant renewals were apt to be held at any time.228 They were typically occasioned by the realization on the part of the king that the children of Israel had failed to uphold the law and covenant (e.g., Exodus 34; 2 Kings 22–23; Nehemiah 9–10; Psalms 50 and 81) and that repentance and return to the covenant were therefore essential. In other words,

228

Cf. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 60–62.

89

covenant renewals appear to have been ad hoc and not regularly tied to any particular festival or date.

90

CHAPTER 4 THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS AND COVENANT RENEWAL IN JUBILEES

1. Introduction The book of Jubilees is a retelling of Genesis and the first half of Exodus by way of addition, omission, and modification of the biblical text.229 However, it is evident that the author has an intimate knowledge of the whole Hebrew Bible since he incorporates texts from other parts of the scriptures into his retelling of Genesis-Exodus. Throughout the book, the author’s attention to detail is unmistakable.230 The smallest, seemingly

229

On biblical interpretation in Jubilees, see J. C. VanderKam, “Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 276–78, 297–304. The entire text of Jubilees is extant only in Ethiopic, though portions of the text are preserved in Greek, Syriac, Latin, and now—thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls—also in Hebrew. According to VanderKam, the original Hebrew Text was originally translated into Greek and possibly Syriac, and then from Greek into Latin and Ethiopic. Though this makes the Ethiopic text a translation of a translation, a close comparison of the extant Hebrew fragments shows that for the most part it is a faithful translation. For a full discussion see VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 1–95; idem, The Book of Jubilees (2 vols.; CSCO 510–511; Scriptores aethiopici 87–88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 1.ix–xvi, 2.vi–xxxi. For a useful summary, see idem, The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 13–17. The text (cited as vol. 1) and translation (cited as vol. 2) of the Ethiopic text—along with the versional evidence—used in this study will be that of VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (1989), 2 vols. All citations will be checked against the extant Hebrew text of Jubilees found at Qumran. Most of the Hebrew texts and translations cited in this study can be found in the DJD series: VanderKam, “Jubilees,” in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part I (ed. H. Attridge, et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 1–185. 230

VanderKam, “Jubilees’ Exegetical Creation of Levi the Priest,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSPSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 545.

91

insignificant detail of the Hebrew text can serve as the springboard for a novel reworking or understanding of a story.231 The book of Jubilees claims to be divine revelation. It suffices to point to Jub 1:27 where God tells the angel of the presence to dictate to Moses what turns out to be the contents of the book of Jubilees itself. Hindy Najman notes four modes of selfauthorization evident in Jubilees: Jubilees repeatedly claims that it reproduces material that had been written long before on the “heavenly tablets,” a great corpus of divine teachings kept in heaven. The entire content of the book of Jubilees was dictated by the angel of the presence at God’s own command. Hence, it is itself the product of divine revelation. Jubilees was dictated to Moses, the same Moses to whom the Torah had been given on Mount Sinai. Thus, the book of Jubilees is the co-equal accompaniment of the Torah; both were transmitted by the same true prophet. Jubilees claims that its teachings are the true interpretation of the Torah. Thus, its teachings also derive their authority from that of the Torah; that its interpretations match the Torah’s words and resolve all interpretive problems further substantiates its veracity.232 Najman concludes that Jubilees’ claim to authority is intimately bound up with the already authoritative sacred writings of Moses.233 An important issue concerns the relationship between Jubilees and GenesisExodus. In particular, whether the book of Jubilees was meant to be read alongside or

231 For an excellent example, see the discussion of VanderKam, “Jubilees’ Exegetical Creation of Levi the Priest,” 545–61. In fact, his use of the Hebrew text is often so precise that the text of Jubilees is a valuable witness to the text of the Pentateuch (VanderKam, “Jubilees and Hebrew Texts of GenesisExodus,” in From Revelation to Canon, 448–61). 232 H. Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and Its Authority Conferring Strategies,” JSJ 30 (1999): 380. See also, F. García Martínez, “The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (eds. M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), and J. C. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSPSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 24–26. 233

Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 381.

92

instead of Genesis-Exodus. In general, it is hard to believe that the author of Jubilees intended his work to replace Genesis-Exodus for two main reasons: (1) The most likely scenario (though we cannot state this with absolute certainty) is that Genesis and Exodus were already well established as authoritative books within Judaism generally. Certainly the sheer number of copies found among the Dead Sea scrolls indicates that the Qumran community considered Genesis and Exodus to be authoritative writings. The fact that this particular community viewed both Genesis-Exodus and Jubilees as authoritative indicates that they were read alongside of each other in this community at least, even if the actual author of Jubilees may have intended otherwise.234 (2) There are some indications in Jubilees itself that presuppose Genesis and Exodus. Ben Zion Wacholder argues that there is a distinction evident in Jubilees 1 between the Torah-Commandment (“the law and the commandment”) and the TorahAdmonition (“the law and the testimony”).235 He argues that this understanding is based on Jubilees’ exegesis of Exodus 24 and Deuteronomy 31, which imply that there were two Torahs (esp. Deut 31:9, 24–26).236 According to Wacholder, the former (TorahCommandment) refers to the Mosaic Torah as contained in the Pentateuch while the latter (Torah-Admonition) refers to the book of Jubilees.237 Furthermore, the angel of the presence alludes to material in the Pentateuch with respect to the Festival of Weeks (Jub. 6:22; cf. Lev. 23:15–21; Num 28:26–31) and the rape of Dinah (Jub. 30:12; cf. Genesis 34).238 In these instances, the book of Jubilees 234

See the comments in Chapter 5 on the authoritative status of Jubilees at Qumran.

235

B. Z. Wacholder, “Jubilees as the Super Canon: Torah-Admonition versus Torah-Commandment,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (eds. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 195–96, 202–11. 236

Wacholder, “Jubilees as the Super Canon,” 196, 204–205.

237

Wacholder, “Jubilees as the Super Canon,” 196.

238

VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 137.

93

explicitly alludes to the Pentateuch in order to fill in the details, so to speak, and therefore strongly implies that Jubilees is meant to be read alongside, not instead of, GenesisExodus. A related issue is whether Jubilees considered itself to be superior, inferior, or on par with Genesis-Exodus as far as authoritative status is concerned. Wacholder argues that the reconstructed Hebrew original indicates that Jubilees considered itself to be a superior revelation to the Pentateuch.239 Najman argues that Jubilees derives its authority from the Pentateuch and that its interpretations clarify and resolve all interpretive problems, implying that Jubilees’ status is at most co-equal to that of the Pentateuch (i.e., has a supplementary or complementary role).240 She contends that Jubilees “‘rewrite[s] the Bible’… in order to appropriate the authority of Mosaic Torah for its preferred calendar and practices.”241 This is a difficult issue to resolve. It is most probable that at this point in Jewish history, the authority of Genesis-Exodus could not be seriously challenged.242 However, even if Jubilees does not claim superior status, by presenting itself as the authoritative lens through which Genesis-Exodus had to be interpreted (that is, if one was interested in the putative real meaning of the text), the author of Jubilees was de facto (perhaps

239 Wacholder (“Jubilees as the Super Canon,” 196, 205–207) argues that Genesis-Exodus (“TorahCommandment”) was the public, exoteric copy, while Jubilees (“Torah-Admonition”) was the hidden, esoteric copy (compare Deut 31:9, 25–26 and Jub. 1:7–16; cf. CD 5:1–5). This implies, then, that Jubilees is a superior, fuller revelation that supercedes the previously revealed Genesis-Exodus. Cf. 4 Ezra 14:1–8, 37–48 (approx. A.D. 100) and context. 240

Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 380, 406–409.

241

Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 409.

242 This is not to imply that they were in any sense “canonical”—an anachronistic term (cf. E. C. Ulrich, “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 51–61). However, they do seem to have enjoyed a widespread level of authority. As Qumran shows us, however, the text was pluriform, as, for example, in the case of Exodus (cf. Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible [Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 17–33, esp. 31–33).

94

covertly), usurping the authority of Genesis-Exodus for his own agenda, as Najman intimates. 2. The Impact of Hellenism on Second Temple Judaism Like other literary works in the Jewish tradition, the author is anonymous.243 All that can safely be surmised about him from the work he left behind is that he was a welleducated Palestinian Jew, probably from the priestly class.244 The most plausible date for the composition of the book of Jubilees is sometime in the decade 160–150 B.C.245 Whoever the author of the book of Jubilees was, it is clear that he was writing in a time of considerable religio-political ferment. Hellenism, beginning in the late fourth century B.C., had—by the time the author of Jubilees took up his pen in the middle of the second century B.C.—a deep, pervasive influence on Jewish life.246 This was particularly true in the Jewish Diaspora, but also within Palestine itself.247

243

VanderKam argues that the text as we have it is substantially unified; cf. “The Putative Author of the Book of Jubilees,” in From Revelation to Canon, 439–47; idem, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 17–18. See also his “Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees” in From Revelation to Canon, 532–40. 244

For further discussion, see VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 141–43.

245

This is the date argued for by VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees, 207–85; cf. also the overall argument of his article: “2 Maccabees 6, 7a and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem,” 105–27, especially p. 126; also, see the useful summary of this argument in The Book of Jubilees (2001), 17–21. To summarize VanderKam’s argument: the terminus ad quem for the date of composition is 100 B.C. This is fairly certain because of the paleographical date of 4Q216 which was copied ca. 125–100 B.C. and possibly earlier (that is, if one accepts the legitimacy of such a method of dating). If the book of Jubilees was in fact an authoritative book revered by the Qumran community, it likely pre-dates the schism that led to the founding of the Dead Sea sect, since there is no hint in the book that the author had separated from the wider Jewish community as certain Dead Sea Scrolls do. If so, then the terminus ad quem is earlier, depending on whether Jonathan (152–142 B.C.) or Simon (142–134 B.C.) is to be identified as the Wicked Priest of the Pesher Habakkuk. The terminus a quo is ca. 175 B.C. since there appears to be covert references to the circumstances that led to the Maccabean revolt. Furthermore, if Jubilees contains allusions to the Maccabean revolt and the compositions of Enoch (compare Jub. 4:19 and 1 Enoch 83–90; cf. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies, 217–54), then the terminus a quo is even later (ca. 161–160). 246

Studies on the impact of Hellenism on Judaism in the Diaspora and in Palestine are legion, but these are some of the more significant monographs and collections of studies: M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. J. Bowden; 2 vols. in one; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974 [1973]); idem, The “Hellenization” of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (in collaboration with C. Markschies; trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989); J. J. Collins and G. E. Sterling, eds., Hellenism in the Land

95

1 Macc 1:11–15 highlights the attempt on the part of some Palestinian Jews to assimilate to Greek culture during the reign of Antiochus IV: 11

E j n tai`" hJmevrai" ejkeivnai" ejxh`lqon ejx Israhl uiJoi; paravnomoi kai; ajnevpeisan pollou;" levgonte" Poreuqw`men kai; diaqwvmeqa diaqhvkhn meta; tw`n ejqnw`n tw`n kuvklw/ hJmw`n, o{ti ajf∆ h|" ejcwrivsqhmen ajp∆ aujtw`n, eu|ren hJma`" kaka; pollav 12 kai; hjgaquvnqh oJ lovgo" ejn ojfqalmoi`" aujtw`n, 13 kai; proequmhvqhsavn tine" ajpo; tou` laou` kai; ejporeuvqhsan pro;" to;n basileva, kai; e[dwken aujtoi`" ejxousivan poih`sai ta; dikaiwvmata tw`n ejqnw`n. 14 kai; wjk/ odovmhsan gumnavsion ejnIerosoluvmoi" kata; ta; novmima tw`n ejqnw`n 15 kai; ejpoivhsan eJautoi`" ajkrobustiva" kai; ajpevsthsan ajpo; diaqhvkh" aJgiva" kai; ejzeugivsqhsan toi`" e[qnesin kai; ejpravqhsan tou` poih`sai to; ponhrovn. 11

In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, “Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us.” 12 This proposal pleased them, 13 and some of the people eagerly went to the king, who authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. 14 So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, 15 and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.248 While the description is rather short, the basic outline of what was happening in this period can be reconstructed with relative certainty. Certain Jews pointed to a pristine past when there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile. The subsequent disasters that have befallen the Jews are the result of this separation. As VanderKam puts it: Among enlightened Hellenistic thinkers barbarians were criticized for driving foreigners away (Eratosthenes); the one god had made all for a common life with all others. Hence isolation was the root of the problem. The Torah came from a of Israel (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 13; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001); V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (trans. S. Applebaum; New York: Atheneum, 1959); E. Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt (trans. H. R. Moehring; SJLA 32; Leiden: Brill, 1979 [1937]); idem, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988); J. J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997); idem, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (Biblical Resource Series; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, Mich.: Dove Booksellers, 2000); J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996); A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). 247

See especially the works of Hengel cited above. Also see his essay: “Judaism and Hellenism Revisited,” in Hellenism in the Land of Israel (ed. J. J. Collins and G. E. Sterling; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 13; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001), 6–37. 248

NRSV translation.

96

mere man Moses who claimed, like other lawgivers, to be inspired. Either Moses wrote the exclusive laws after the embittering Egyptian expulsion (Hecateus of Abdera according to Diodorus) or, on another view, the separatist legislation was post-mosaic (so Strabo).249 The proposed solution then was to reintegrate into Greek society by following their customs and ways. A crucial first step was to abandon the distinguishing characteristics of Judaism like circumcision and the covenant.250 The book of Jubilees appears to be addressing a Judaism that feels itself threatened by the inroads of Hellenism of the type cited in 1 Macc 1:11–15.251 While the Maccabean revolt was a violent reaction of the conservative wing of Judaean society at the attempts to hellenize Jewish culture by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV—perhaps incited by certain thoroughly hellenized Jewish elites—it was unable to eradicate the threat since it was more than a simple matter of physical warfare: it was a battle of ideas.252 In attempting to oppose this radical hellenizing effort, the author of Jubilees turns to a close reading of the book of Genesis and the first part of Exodus to show that the hellenizers had it exactly backwards. The hellenizers were in essence arguing that the covenant represented separatist legislation that divided the Jews from the rest of

249 VanderKam, “The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, 21. For examples of Greek and Roman legislators who were thought to be inspired, see: Plato(?), Minos 319c–320b (Minos); Livy 1.19 (Numa); Plutarch, Lycurgus 5; Solon 14. The conversation in Plato’s Laws proceeds on the assumption that the legislators of Greek antiquity (in this case, Solon, Minos, and Lycurgus) may have been neither so inspired nor so wise, and they end up drawing up legislation that they will attribute to the gods—thus, employing Plato’s “noble lie” (cf. 624a; 634d–635b; 853b–d; cf. Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy 1.9, 11 who carefully implies that Moses falsely attributes his Laws to God on the analogy of great Greek and Roman legislators like Numa, Solon, and Lycurgus). 250 Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees, 83–88; cf. J. C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS 18; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987), 236–38; VanderKam, “The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees,” 19–22. 251 See: VanderKam, “The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees,” 16–22; cf. VanderKam, “2 Maccabees 6, 7a and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem,” 115–27. 252

Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees; cf. Hengel, “Judaism and Hellenism Revisited,” 17.

97

humanity. In actual fact, however, according to the author of Jubilees, it was the covenant of the Jews that was originally universal and it was the other nations (Greeks included) who in effect separated themselves from the Jews by neglecting and/or rejecting it.253 3. Jubilees 1: Moses on Sinai The first chapter of Jubilees is the key to the interpretation of the whole book, since it sets the context for what follows and shapes how the reader is to understand the main body of the work. As noted above, Jubilees consists of a retelling of Genesis and parts of the first half of Exodus. However, the scriptural text does not reveal how it is that creation and the stories concerning the various patriarchs were recorded. The first chapter of Jubilees fills this lacuna: the pre-history of the world up to the Exodus is revealed to Moses by God (Jub. 1:27; 2:1) when he ascends Mt. Sinai after the ratification of the Covenant with the nation of Israel (Jub. prologue and 1:1–4). Here it is discovered that chapters 2–50 of Jubilees are an earthly copy of the heavenly tablets, dictated to Moses by the angel of the presence (Jub. 1:27–2:1). Since the end of Jubilees brings the narrative back to Mt. Sinai (cf. Jub. 50:2), the events at Mt. Sinai form an envelope structure around the main narrative, pointing to the centrality of the Sinai experience for this book.254 This introduction to the work serves to highlight the importance of covenant as a concept in Jubilees and to undergird the authority for the book and establish it as a reliable and trustworthy account.255 253 On this whole issue, see the penetrating analysis of Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History: A Cogent Examination of One of the Most Significant Issues in Modern Political and Social Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 81–164. 254 As VanderKam (“Covenant and Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees 6,” 93) notes, Moses and his situation are also repeatedly referenced directly throughout the narrative: 2:1, 26; 6:13, 19, 20, 22, 32, 38; 15:28, 33; 23:32; 28:7; 30:11, 12, 17, 21; 41:26; 49:15, 22; 50:1, 2, 13. 255 For a nuanced discussion of the strategies that the author of Jubilees uses to obtain authority for his work and some of the resulting implications, see Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 379–410 (briefly discussed above). On how the authority of Jubilees is bound up with the heavenly tablets, cf. García Martínez, “The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, 243– 60.

98

One of the dominant themes in the first chapter is the issue of fidelity to the covenant, or to be precise, lack thereof. In God’s conversation with Moses, God foretells a time when the Israelites will forsake the covenant and its obligations and follow the gods of the nations (Jub. 1:7–12). In response, God will send them into exile and disperse them throughout the nations (Jub. 1:13–14). But, God promises, this is not the end of Israel, for he will gather his people from all the nations: 15

“After this they will return to me from among the nations with all their minds, all their souls, and all their strength. Then I will gather them from among all the nations, and they will search for me so that I may be found by them when they have searched for me with all their minds and with all their souls. I will rightly disclose to them abundant peace. 16 I will transform them into a righteous plant with all my mind and with all my soul. They will become a blessing, not a curse; they will become the head, not the tail. 17 I will build my temple among them and will live with them; I will become their God and they will become my true and righteous people. 18 I will neither abandon them nor become alienated from them, for I am the Lord their God.” (Jub. 1:15–18)256 This, however, does not appear to describe the situation as it existed either before or during the lifetime of the author of Jubilees himself.257 God had not yet gathered all his people from among the nations by the middle of the 2nd century B.C. and obviously, abundant peace, blessing, and righteousness were still works in progress at the time. At any rate, the author of Jubilees places his own work during the period of exile: ?wnpw8¿ 3 ?la hdw[t¿h htn[w twqwxó?m lkm µw[yçwy al rça µy¿r‚ja‚ µóyhú la rja 4 ?rja wk¿ly_w_ ˚‚wx?a rça lk ta ytwxm lk ta wjkçy y¿k9 tazúh hdw[thó 5 ?πgnl µhl wyhyw µhyhl¿a‚ ta wdwb[yw µ?tprj rjaw µtm¿ló?k rja¿w µyw_?gh¿ 6 ?yk bywa dyb¿ wlpnw wdkly µ‚?ybr wdbaw10 çqwm¿l‚w_ ?yn[¿lw rwúxlw 7 ?yçdq taw ytwtbç taw ¿ytyrb y?d[wm taw ytwxm ¿t‚aw ytwqj ?ta wbz[¿ 8 ?˚wtb yl ytçdqh rça y¿ç‚dqó m‚? taw ynkçm taw µkw¿t‚b yl wçydqh róça 9 ˜kçyw ¿w_yl‚[?‚ ymç t¿a‚ µyçl ≈rah 10 (3) [8 and will turn]

256

A small portion of Jub. 1:15 is preserved in 4Q216 II, 17. It does not differ from the Ethiopic.

257

Cf. VanderKam, “Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perceptions (ed. James M. Scott; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 104.

99

(4) after othe[r] gods [who will not save them from any dis]tresses. And the [testimony] will respond [to] (5) this testimony. 9 F[or they will forget all my commandments—everything that I] command you—and will fol[low] (6) [the na]tions, [their impu]ri[ties, and] their [shame]. They will serve [their] g[ods and they will become for them an obstacle,] (7) distress, [affliction,] and a [trap. 10 Man]y [will be destroyed.] They will be captured and will fall [into the hand of the enemy because] (8) [they have abandoned] my statutes, [my commandments, the festival]s of my covenant, [my sabbaths, my holy things] (9) which they have hallowed for me am[ong them, my tabernacle, and my] temple [which I sanctified for myself in the middle of] (10) the land to set [my name] on it [so that it would live (there). (4Q216 II, 3–10 = Jub. 1:8–10)258 8

they will turn to foreign gods—to ones which will not save them from any of their afflictions. Then this testimony will serve as evidence. 9 For they will forget all my commandments—everything that I command them—and will follow the nations, their impurities, and their shame. They will serve their gods, and (this) will prove an obstacle for them—an affliction, a pain, and a trap. 10 Many will be destroyed. They will be captured and will fall into the enemy’s control because they abandoned my statutes, my commandments, my covenantal festivals, my sabbaths, my holy things which I have hallowed for myself among them, my tabernacle, and my temple which I sanctified for myself in the middle of the land so that I could set my name on it and that it could live (there). (Jub. 1:8–10 [Ethiopic]; italics added) “Testimony” is a key word in Jubilees and probably refers to the book of Jubilees itself, or at least the heavenly tablets, of which Jubilees is purportedly a copy.259 If so, then clearly the author of Jubilees intends his book to serve as an exhortation to his fellow Jews to recommit to their ancestral covenant with the one true God of Israel. Again, this was deemed necessary by the author of Jubilees in light of the assimilationist tendencies found among many Jews of his time.

258

Harold Attridge, et al., Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part I (DJD XIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 8–9. Whenever possible, the extant Qumran textual evidence will be presented, unless so little of it remains that it is pointless. 259

Cf. Wacholder, “Jubilees as the Super Canon,” 202–207; VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 26, 91–93.

100

The book of Jubilees, beginning and ending as it does with an allusion to the Sinai event, is intended implicitly to bear a hortatory message of hope for the author’s contemporary readers: that God has been faithful to his people in the past and will continue to be faithful and restore his people if only they will return to the covenant that was established all those years ago in the time of Noah (Jubilees 6) of which the Mosaic covenant and accompanying legislation (especially as revealed in Jubilees’ version) are a renewal. One of the most significant ways that Jubilees’ sounds this note of hope is by way of its chronological system. The book of Jubilees employs a system of numbering based on years, weeks of years, and the jubilee (a week of weeks of years, if you will). Sabbath and jubilee are thus important concepts in the book of Jubilees.260 The jubilee legislation in Leviticus 25 forms the backdrop to this chronological system.261 In Leviticus 25, two things happen during the jubilee year (50th year): freeing of Israelite slaves and returning of ancestral property. Not coincidentally, the Exodus from Egypt occurs during the 50th jubilee period in Jubilees’ chronology (1 week and 2 years of the 50th jubilee, to be exact; cf. Jub. 50:4). Furthermore, the entry into the promised land occurs during the last year of the 50th jubilee (last year of the 50th jubilee; cf. Jub. 50:4). In other words, according to Jubilees’ chronology, during the jubilee of jubilees (i.e., the fiftieth jubilee), what happens to the individual Hebrew in Leviticus 24

260

L. Doering (“The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, 179) notes that the issue of the Sabbath frames the main body of Jubilees (2:17–33 and 50:6–13). VanderKam (“Genesis 1 in Jubilees 2,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature [JSJSup 62; Brill: Leiden, 2000], 519–21) argues that the emphasis on Sabbath in the book of Jubilees is designed to counter the inroads of Hellenism (which was universalist) by underscoring the importance of the particularity of the Jewish faith vis-à-vis Sabbath (as well as other particular practices such as circumcision and festivals). 261 See the discussion of J. C. VanderKam, “Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSJSup 62; Brill: Leiden, 2000), 522–44 for more details.

101

is now applied to the entire nation: the Israelites are freed from slavery in Egypt and reacquire their ancestral property.262 The message behind this chronological system appears clear: divine providence is operational in human history. The Sabbath structure (a jubilee being a Sabbath of Sabbaths, so to speak) apparent from the very beginning in the week of creation (Jubilees 2) is a pattern that can be seen throughout Israel’s history up to the exodus from Egypt, the Mosaic legislation, and the repossession of the ancestral territory.263 The chronological scheme in Jubilees encompasses 50 jubilees, but it appears that the book of Jubilees envisions a continuation of the jubilee scheme, presumably up to the present (from the author of Jubilees’ perspective) and beyond: 4

For this reason I have arranged for you the weeks of years and the jubilees—49 jubilees from the time of Adam until today, and one week and two years. It is still 40 years off (for learning the Lord’s commandments) until the time when he leads (them) across to the land of Canaan, after they have crossed the Jordan to the west of it. 5 The jubilees will pass by until Israel is pure of every sexual evil, impurity, contamination, sin, and error. Then they will live confidently in the entire land. They will no longer have any satan or any evil person. The land will be pure from that time until eternity. (Jub. 50:4–5; italics added) VanderKam notes that the Apocalypse of Weeks, which has some similarities to Jubilees’ system, places the reception of the Mosaic legislation in the middle of its historical scheme (i.e., the fourth week of seven).264 262

This is no doubt why there is such an emphasis on the inviolable boundaries established when Noah apportioned the earth for his three sons (Jub. 9:14–15). Shem receives the middle of the earth as his portion (Jub. 8:12–21) which he then divides among his sons (9:2–6). Canaan, it should be pointed out, receives as his portion of land, the territory furthest to the west; apparently the north-westernmost portion of Africa (Jub. 9:1). Canaan’s appropriation of territory apportioned to Shem and his sons (Jub. 10:28–34) is thus a gross violation of the oath they took in Jub. 9:14–15. Concerning the importance of geography in Jubilees, see VanderKam, “Putting Them in Their Place: Geography as an Evaluative Tool,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature [JSJSup 62; Brill: Leiden, 2000], 476–99; J. M. Scott, “The Division of the Earthy in Jubilees 8:11–9:15 and Early Christian Chronography,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, 295–324; idem, Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees (SNTSMS 113; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 23–43; B. Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1994), 25–54. 263

On this, see further: VanderKam, “Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees,” 540–44.

264

VanderKam, “Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees,” 544.

102

VanderKam plausibly speculates that the author of Jubilees intended his readers to understand that this jubilee structure gives order and meaning to history and is an indication of God’s ultimate faithfulness to his people.265 If one compares this to Jub. 1:8 where the author of Jubilees indicates that this testimony (i.e., the book of Jubilees itself) will serve as a witness to the future (from the perspective of Moses) apostasy and resulting exile of Israel, it is clear that the author has the present situation of the Jewish people firmly in mind. This chronological system also encompasses covenant renewal. In Jubilees, the Festival of Weeks, which embodies the number 49, becomes the date on which all the covenants are made, including the one at Sinai. This consistent pattern is evident right from the beginning of the book of Jubilees: ?larçy y¿n_b taxl? hnwçarh hnçb yhyw 1.1 ?l¿a hwhy rbd hz_?h çdwjl rç[ hççb yçy¿]lçh ç‚?dwjb µyrxm ˜m¿ ?h¿rwth ˜bah‚? twjwl ynç ta ˚l ˜taw h¿r‚hhó? yla hl[ rmal hçwm¿ µtw¿r‚w?ú hl ytbtk rça hwxmhw¿

4 5 6 7

(4) [1 During the first year] of the Isra[elites’] exodus (5) [from Egypt, in] the thi[rd mon]th [—on the sixteenth of] this [month—] the Lord said t[o] (6) [Moses: ‘Come up to me to] the mountain. [I will give you] the [two] stone [tablets]—the la[w] (7) [and the commandment which I have written to t]ea[ch them.’] (4Q216 I, 4–7 = Jub. 1:1)266 During the first year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, in the third month—on the sixteenth of the month—the Lord said to Moses: “Come up to me on the mountain. I will give you the two stone tablets of the law and the commandments which I have written so that you may teach them.” (Jub. 1:1 [Ethiopic]; italics added) This passage alludes to and combines both Exod 19:1 and 24:12: .yn:ysi rB'dm] i WaB; hZ≤h' µ/YB' µyIrx; m] i ≈r,am, e laer;cy] IAynEB] taxel] yviyliVh] ' vd,jBo ' 1

265

VanderKam, “Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees,” 544.

266

Attridge, et al., Qumran Cave 4, VIII (DJD XIII), 6–7.

103

In the third month after the children of Israel had gone out from the land of Egypt, on that day they entered the wilderness of Sinai. (Exod 19:1; italics added) rv,a} hw:xM] hi w' “ hr;/Th'w“ ˜b,ah, ; tjolAu ta, Úl] hn:Ta] w, “ µv;AhyEhw] < hr;h;h; yl'ae hle[} hv,mAo la, hw:hy“ rm,aYúw" 12 .µt;r/o hl] yTib]t'K; And the Lord said to Moses: “Come up to me on the mountain and stay there and I will give to you tablets of stone with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction. (Exod 24:12) The revelation that Moses receives from God upon ascending Mt. Sinai begins on III/16, according to Jubilees. This means that the covenant agreement described in Exod 24:1– 4a must have occurred on III/15.267 Not coincidentally, this is also the date that the book of Jubilees later assigns the Festival of Weeks, the most important festival of the year for the author. The author of Jubilees derives his date for the covenant ceremony at Mt. Sinai from some indications in the text of Exodus itself. Exod 19:1 indicates that the Israelites entered the wilderness of Sinai sometime in the third month, though the exact date is not specified.268 There are no other explicit indications of date in Exodus 19–24, although there are the generic indications of one day ending and another beginning at various junctures (e.g., Exod 19:10–11, 16, 24:4). These indicate a time period of at least four days spent at the foot of Mt. Sinai before Moses ascends the mountain to receive the tablets from YHWH. It is common to take the time reference in Exod 19:1 to refer to the first of the month, but this is by no means certain.269 The uncertainty stems from the fact that vd,jo 267

This means that the covenant ceremony described in Exod 24:4b–8 occurs on III/16.

268

VanderKam (“Studies on the Prologue and Jubilees 1,” in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. [Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 2000], 275–276) discusses some attempts by ancient exegetical sources (esp. rabbinic) to pin down the date references in Exodus 19 and 24. 269

See, for instance, M. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (trans. J. S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962 [1959]), 155; cf. © on Exod 19:1: Tou` de; mhno;" tou` trivtou... th`/ hJmevra/ tauvth/( “And on the third month... on that day”). John W. Wevers notes that this indicates that the © translator took Exodus to mean that the first day of the month was meant (Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990], 292).

104

can refer to either “month” or “new moon”. If the former is the intended meaning, then the specific date is indeterminate. VanderKam notes that the Priestly writer elsewhere is far more specific when he wants to be.270 He cites Exod 16:1, but more instructive examples, involving the first of a month as in Exod 19:1, include the following: vd,jlo ' dj;aB, ] yriyciy[}B; (Gen 8:5) vd,jlo ' dj;aB, ] ˜/variB; (Gen 8:13) vd,jlo ' dj;aB, ] tyniVhe ' hn;VB; ' ˜/viarih; vd,jBo ' ( Exod 40:17:)271 When the first of a month is indicated, the common practice of the Priestly writer is to explicitly indicate it by means of the term dj;aB, ] (“on the first”).272 On the other hand, Lev 23:41, which concerns the Festival of Booths and is celebrated for seven days beginning on the fifteenth day of the month and therefore certainly does not refer to the first of the month, has a similar construction to Exod 19:1: y[iybiVh] ' vd,jBo ' (Lev 23:41:) yviyliVh] ' vd,jBo ' ( Exod 19:1:) This leaves open the possibility that a specific date was dropped from the text to allow ancient exegetes to connect the covenant at Sinai with the Festival of Weeks, which occurs later on in the month.273 While this remains a possibility, it not only remains speculative, but one wonders why someone did not just put a more specific date in its place (e.g., three days before the putative date of the Festival of Weeks), or make a connection to the Festival of Weeks more explicit in some other way. At any rate, the

270

VanderKam, “Studies on the Prologue and Jubilees 1,” 275.

271

See similarly Lev 23:24; Num 1:18; 29:1; 33:38.

272 See the comments of B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster, 1974), 342. 273

Childs (The Book of Exodus, 342) cites Bäntsch and others as holding to this view.

105

qualifying phrase hZ
274

Cf. VanderKam, “Studies on the Prologue and Jubilees 1,” 276–79.

275

VanderKam, “Studies on the Prologue and Jubilees 1,” 277.

276

VanderKam, “Studies on the Prologue and Jubilees 1,” 277–78.

277

VanderKam, “Studies on the Prologue and Jubilees 1,” 277–78.

106

Israelites entered the wilderness of Sinai on III/12.278 The extra day (i.e., III/12 to III/13) would be required to rest after the journey related in Exod 19:1, before the events of Exod 19:2–25 occur.279 In other words, whereas the book of Exodus probably has the Israelites enter the wilderness of Sinai on III/1, the author of Jubilees has them arrive on III/12. Of course, there is no explicit indication in Jubilees that any of this was in the author’s mind as he calculated the date of Moses’ ascent of Mt. Sinai, but it very well may be the basis on which the author came up with the date of III/16 in Jub. 1:1. After all, gematria of this kind is hardly surprising for an author that arranges his chronology based on a Sabbath and jubilee system and, for instance, makes a connection between the 22 kinds of works during the creation week and the 22 leaders from Adam until Jacob (Jub. 2:23).280 4. Covenant in Jubilees 6 4.1. Introduction Covenant is central to the book of Jubilees.281 As stated above, many Hellenistic Jews proposed reintegration with Greek customs, arguing that at one point in time, all human beings were unified and that the Mosaic covenant and accompanying legislation represented the splitting off of the Jewish nation from this originally unified and

278

VanderKam, “Studies on the Prologue and Jubilees 1,” 277–78.

279

VanderKam (“Studies on the Prologue and Jubilees 1,” 277) cites b. Shabbat 86b–87a which allows for rest on the day of the people’s arrival at Sinai because they would be exhausted after all the traveling depicted in the previous chapters in Exodus. 280 VanderKam (“Studies on the Prologue and Jubilees 1,” 278) cites the examples of gematria that S. J. Lieberman mentions (“A Mesopotamian Background for the So-Called Aggadic ‘Measures’ of Biblical Hermeneutics?” HUCA 58 (1987): 157–225), in addition to citing a couple of his own from the Hebrew Bible. 281

Cf. A. Jaubert, La Notion d’Alliance dans le Judaïsme aux abords de l’Ère chrétienne (Patristica Sorbonensia 6; Paris: Seuil, 1963), 95–115.

107

harmonious whole. The author of Jubilees turns the tables on the hellenizers, arguing that in fact it is the covenant that the Jews adhere to that was originally the universal basis for a common humanity. Of course, the problem for the author of Jubilees is that, it could be argued based on the Jews’ own religious writings (above all, the book of Exodus), that a particular people (Israel) at a particular time (founding of the nation) and place (Mt. Sinai) made a covenant with God—not all of humankind at the beginning of human history. In addressing this issue, the author of Jubilees turns to Genesis, and in particular, the story of Noah. 4.2. The Chronology of the Flood The story of Noah is significant because it represents a new beginning. The flood is a return to the pre-creation chaos that characterized the earth in Gen 1:2. With the population of the earth reduced to one family of eight people, Noah represents a new Adam, so to speak. As such, the covenant God makes with Noah in Genesis 9 is a universal one, binding on all mankind. There are several reasons why the author of Jubilees would associate the Noachic covenant with the Festival of Weeks. First, the dates indicated in the biblical text itself favor such an identification. The flood narrative is perhaps the most chronologically specific event in the Hebrew Bible. For the author of Jubilees, the flood took up the space of a single, whole year.282

282 For a discussion of the wider chronology of the flood narrative in the book of Jubilees, including a comparison with the biblical text, see VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 96–97; idem, “Covenant and Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees 6,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 94–101; J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, “The Interpretation of the Flood Story in the Book of Jubilees,” in Interpretations of the Flood [ed. Florentino García Martinez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen; Leiden: Brill, 1998], 68–78.

108

TABLE 10 CHRONOLOGY OF THE FLOOD ========================================================= Â © 4Q252 Jubilees Begins II/17 II/27 II/17 II/17 Ark on mountain VII/17 VII/27 (VII/17?) VII/17 Great deep closed IV/1 III/26 VII/1 VII/14 Earth’s deep opened Mountains visible X/1 XI/1 X/1 X/1 Waters dry I/1 I/1 I/1 I/1 Earth dry II/27 II/27 II/17 II/17 Exit ark II/27 II/27 II/27 and III/1 II/17 ———————————————————————————————— NOTE: Most of the data in this table was adapted from VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 96.

Since according to the biblical text, the Noachic covenant took place sometime after II/27, it was natural for the author of Jubilees to link it with the Festival of Weeks, which—from the evidence available in the Hebrew Bible itself—is to be celebrated sometime in the first half of the third month, which is at most within a few weeks of II/27.283 Uniquely to the book of Jubilees, the author distinguishes between the drying of the earth and the exit from the ark, which also takes place in two stages.284 The first involves the animals in the ark which leave on II/27 (Jub. 5:32; cf. Gen 8:14, 19) and the second involves Noah and his family who do not leave until III/1 (Jub. 6:1; cf. Gen 8:14,

283 Note, however, that there is no specific date in the third month given for the Noachic covenant in Jubilees 6 itself. It must be inferred from the fact that the Festival of Weeks is said to have been celebrated in the middle of the third month later on in the text (e.g., Jub. 14:10). 284

The Â has the flood last one year and ten days (II/17 to II/27; an inclusive count would imply eleven days, but then this method would also have to apply to the © as well) whereas according to the ©, the flood lasted exactly one year (II/27 to II/27). Jubilees thus agrees with the © on the length of the flood (one year), but agrees with the Â on the date of the beginning of the flood (II/17). On the possibility that scribal lapses contributed to the difference in dates, see R. S. Hendel, “4Q252 and the Flood Chronology of Genesis 7–8: A Text-Critical Solution,” DSD 2 (1995): 76–79; cf. van Ruiten, “The Flood Story in the Book of Jubilees,” 69–72.

109

18).285 The reason for this twofold exit from the ark is clear: Jubilees wants to date the covenant to the third month. By having Noah and his family wait an extra four days in the ark, the author makes clear that the covenant takes place in the third month. In this respect, it is important to note that Jub. 6:1 recalls Exod 19:1, where the Israelites approach Mt. Sinai on III/1. The flood narrative also contains some suggestive verbal associations with the Festival of Weeks that might suggest a link with the Noachic covenant. The Hebrew word for the name of the festival t/[buv; from the root [bv, is similar to other words that are either found or strongly implied in the context of the flood and its aftermath (Gen 6:9–9:19). The number “seven” ([b'v), appears—in various combinations (i.e., seven, seventeen, twenty-seven)—numerous times in the flood narrative, with respect to the number of certain types of animals that Noah took on board (Gen 7:2 [2x], 3 [2x]) and dates of the key events associated with the flood (Gen 7:4, 10, 11; 8:4, 10, 12, 14; cf. the ordinal in Gen 8:4). This is significant because, of course, the Festival of Weeks is really the festival of seven weeks, or (to be literal) seven sevens. The Hebrew word for “oath” (h[;Wbv]) is also very similar to “week, weeks” (['Wbv;,, t/[buv); . Although the word for oath is not present in the biblical account of the covenant between God and Noah in the aftermath of the flood, the book of Jubilees supplies it since an oath typically accompanies a covenant.286 The author of Jubilees had ample precedent for such an assumption within the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, elsewhere in the book of Genesis itself, Abraham’s covenant with Abimelech (Gen 21:21–34), Isaac’s covenant with Abimelech (Gen 26:26–33), and Laban’s covenant with Jacob (Gen 31:43–

A few Greek mss. add ejn mia`/ tou` mhno;~ tou` trivtou at the end of Gen 8:19 (17´mg-58-72), leaving open the possibility that the author of Jubilees was relying on a certain textual tradition for this twofold exit. 285

286

As it does in Ancient Near Eastern treaties: cf. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 16.

110

54) all involve the swearing of an oath.287 In 2 Chr 15:10–15, King Asa makes a covenant with the people of Judah in the third month.288 This text emphasizes the oaths associated with the covenant in a way that is suggestive given the similarity of the word for “oath” with “weeks” and the fact that this covenant is made in the third month. Isa 54:9–10, which recalls the Noachic covenant, states explicitly that God swore an oath to Noah that he would never send another flood: .JB;Ar[;Gm“ Wi JyIl'[; πxoQm] i yTi[B] 'v]nI ˜Ke ≈r,ah; A; l[' d/[ j'nAú yme rbo[m} e yTi[B] 'v]nI rv,a} yli tazú j'nú yme yKi 9 Jmejr} m' ] rm'a; fWmt; alø ymi/lv] tyribW] vWmy:Aalø JTeami e yDisj] w' “ hn:fW, mT] t/[b;Gh“ w' “ WvWmy: µyrihh; , yKi 10 .hw:hy“ 9

“For this is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you. 10 For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,” says YHWH, who has compassion on you. (Italics added).289 Thus, in making explicit mention of an oath in association with the Noachic covenant, the author of Jubilees rectifies a deficiency—or so he may have seen it—in the biblical text, since nowhere is there an explicit indication that Noah accepted the terms of the covenant, though it is probably implied in Gen 9:11–15.290

287

The first two instances take place at Beersheba ([b'v, raeB)] , the “seven wells” whose etymology is directly linked to oaths in Gen 21:31. The latter two instances are recounted in Jub. 24:8–27 and 29:5–8. 288 Cf. Targum of Chronicles on this passage, which makes explicit the link with the Festival of Weeks. See also the discussion in Chapter 3. 289 VanderKam (“Covenant and Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees 6,” 96–98) discusses most of these examples along with several others where oaths are linked to covenants. 290

VanderKam, “Covenant and Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees 6,” 96.

111

4.3. The Noachic Covenant (Jubilees 6) When Noah emerges from the ark on III/1, he makes atonement for the earth by offering sacrifices on an altar (Jub. 6:1–3) and, in response, God promises never to destroy the earth by means of flood waters.291 Reflecting the fact that it is a new start, there is the command to be fruitful and multiply (Jub. 6:5–6). Noah is commanded not to eat the blood of living beings and not shed the blood of another human being (Jub. 6:7– 14). This represents the stipulations of the covenant that God makes with Noah (Jub. 6:10–11).292 The rainbow becomes the sign of God’s eternal covenant with humankind that he would never again flood the earth. 15

He gave Noah and his sons a sign that there would not again be a flood on the earth. 16 He put his bow in the clouds as a sign of the eternal covenant that there would not henceforth be flood waters on the earth for the purpose of destroying it throughout all the days of the earth. (Jub. 6:15–16) It is for this reason, then, that the Festival of Weeks is to be celebrated: 17

For this reason it has been ordained and written on the heavenly tablets that they should celebrate the festival of weeks during this month—once a year—to renew the covenant each and every year. 18 This entire festival had been celebrated in heaven from the time of creation until the lifetime of Noah—for 26 jubilees and five weeks of years [= 1309 years]. Then Noah and his sons kept it for seven jubilees and one week of years until Noah’s death [= 350 years]. From the day of Noah’s death his sons corrupted (it) until Abraham’s lifetime and were eating blood. 19 Abraham alone kept (it), and his sons Isaac and Jacob kept it until your lifetime. During your lifetime the Israelites had forgotten (it) until I renewed (it) for them at this mountain. (Jub. 6:17–19; italics added)

291

The beginning of Jub. 6:2 has “he appeared on” („]oX„¢), but 1QapGen 10:13 (trpk alwk a[ra lwkl: “I atoned for all the whole earth”) reflects the less well attested, but similar word “he atoned for” („]o]S¢), used later in the same verse. See the discussion in VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (1989), 2:36. 292

As VanderKam (“Covenant and Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees 6,” 95) notes, in Genesis, the covenant is not established immediately after the sacrifice as in Jubilees (cf. Gen 8:21 and 9:11).

112

While the entire book of Jubilees is a copy of parts of the heavenly tablets, the angel of the presence explicitly mentions that something is written on the heavenly tablets only when it represents crucial information, especially an important decree. In the Hebrew Bible, this festival is not celebrated until the time of Moses (cf. Exod 23:16; 34:22; Lev 23:15–21; Num 28:26–31; Deut 16:9–12). However, in the book of Jubilees, this festival is celebrated in the time of Noah. In fact, while Noah is thus the first to celebrate the Festival of Weeks on earth, the angel of the presence informs us that it has been celebrated by the angels in heaven since the time of creation (Jub. 6:17–19). The creation of the sun on the fourth day establishes the basis for the reckoning of the calendar and its various holy days, including the Festival of Weeks: 7 ?µyçdj¿l‚w_ twútbó ?‚ ç¿l‚w_ ?µy¿m‚yl ?≈rah l[¿ lw_?dg twal çmçh ˜tyw9 ?µynçh twpw¿qt lklw µyl?bwylw µynçh tw[wbçlw µynçlw µyd[wmlw¿ 8 (7) [9 He appointed the sun as a gre]at [sign above the earth] for day[s], for [sa]bbaths, for [months,] (8) [for festivals, for years, for the weeks of years, for jubi]lees, and for all the cy[cles of the years.] (4Q216 VI, 7–8 = Jub. 2:9)293 The Lord appointed the sun as a great sign above the earth for days, sabbaths, months, festivals, years, sabbaths of years, jubilees, and all times of the years. (Jub. 2:9 [Ethiopic]) With the creation of the sun, then, this crucial festival was celebrated from the very beginning in accordance with its fixed patterns. This festival has a twofold character as outlined in the Hebrew Bible and explicated more fully in the book of Jubilees: 20

Now you command the Israelites to keep this festival during all their generations as a commandment for them: one day in the year, during this month, they are to celebrate the festival 21 because it is the festival of weeks and it is the festival of firstfruits. This festival is twofold and of two kinds. Celebrate it as it is written and inscribed regarding it. 22 For I have written (this) in the book of the first law in which I wrote for you that you should celebrate it at each of its times

293

Attridge, et al., Qumran Cave 4, VIII (DJD XIII), 16–17. Note that in line 8, there is enough space for another word or two somewhere between “sabbaths” (twtbç) and “jubilees” (µylbwy).

113

one day in a year. I have told you about its sacrifice so that the Israelites may continue to remember and celebrate it throughout their generations during this month—one day each year. (Jub. 6:20–22) Here, the angel of the presence appeals to the first law which refers to this festival in various terms, most notably the Festival of Weeks and the Festival of Firstfruits (cf. Exod 23:16, 34:22; Lev 23:15–22; Num 28:26–31; Deut 16:9–12). For the author of Jubilees, the “Festival of Weeks” refers specifically to the fact that the date is determined by counting seven weeks from the morrow of the Sabbath after Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread (i.e., I/26). More importantly, however, it signifies the occasion of covenant renewal, probably due to the linguistic similarity between “weeks” and “oaths”. The designation “Festival of Firstfruits”, on the other hand, is a recognition that it celebrates the beginning of the wheat harvest (Jub 15:1; cf. Exod 23:16; 34:22; Lev 23:16). 4.4. The Date of the Festival of Weeks While no specific date in the third month is given in Jubilees 6 for the celebration of the Festival of Weeks, the date of the Festival of Weeks in the book of Jubilees is certainly III/15. However, this can only be inferred from various places later in the text that mention the Festival of Weeks: After these things—in the fourth year of this week [1964], on the first of the third month—the word of the Lord came to Abram in a dream.... He got all of these in the middle of the month.... During this night we concluded a covenant with Abram like the covenant which we concluded during this month with Noah. Abram renewed the festival and the ordinance for himself forever. (Jub. 14:1, 10, 20) During the fifth year of the fourth week of this jubilee—in the third month, in the middle of the month—Abram celebrated the festival of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest. (Jub. 15:1) She [Sarah] became pregnant and gave birth to a son in the third month; in the middle of the month, on the day that the Lord had told Abraham—on the festival of the firstfruits of the harvest—Isaac was born. (Jub. 16:13)

114

From these instances it is clear that the Festival of Weeks is celebrated on the middle day of the third month. Since the third month has 31 days, one might conclude that the Festival of Weeks is held on III/16. However, an analysis of Jub. 44:1–5 indicates this is not the case: 1

Israel set out from Hebron, from his house, on the first of the third month. He went by way of the well of the oath and offered a sacrifice to the God of his father Isaac on the seventh of this month. 2 When Jacob remembered the dream that he had seen in Bethel, he was afraid to go down to Egypt. 3 But as he was thinking about sending word to Joseph that he should come to him and that he would not go down, he remained there for seven days on the chance that he would see a vision (about) whether he should remain or go down. 4 He celebrated the harvest festival—the firstfruits of grain—with old grain because in all the land of Canaan there was not even a handful of seed in the land since the famine affected all the animals, the cattle, the birds, and mankind as well. 5 On the sixteenth the Lord appeared to him and said to him: “Jacob, Jacob”. He said: “Yes”? (italics added) Since the sixteenth is the day after the festival, the festival must have been held on the fifteenth of the third month.294 This also conforms with the hypothesis that Jubilees took Lev 23:15 to refer to the first sabbath day after the completion of Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread (i.e., after I/14–21): .hn:yy
“And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day you brought in the sheaf of the wave-offering; there shall be seven complete sabbaths. 16 You shall count fifty days until the morrow of the seventh sabbath; then you shall present a new grain offering to YHWH.” (Lev 23:15–16) Fifty days from the morrow of the seventh Sabbath puts the beginning point of the count on I/25 (Sabbath). The corollary is that as far as Jubilees’ calendar is concerned, the Festival of Weeks must be III/15 (Sunday), not III/16 (a Monday), since the count

294 Cf. Jub. 29:7: “On the fifteenth of those days [i.e., third month; cf. Jub. 29:5–6] Jacob prepared a banquet for Laban and all who had come with him.” There is no indication that the Festival of Weeks is meant here but the context is the covenant that Laban and Jacob make.

115

explicitly culminates on the morrow of the Sabbath (i.e., Sunday).295 The problem is, how can this be characterized as the “middle of the month”? It could simply be an error, but there could be an explanation based on information from the Astronomical Book of 1 Enoch (72–82).296 4.5. Jubilees and the Astronomical Book The Astronomical Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 72–82) contains the first indisputably clear reference to a 364-day solar calendar. The author of Jubilees likely alludes to this book in his paragraph concerning the birth and life of Enoch: ?ynb¿ w_[dó y‚ _ ˜_?[ml hmhyçdwj qwjk µymçh twtwa rpsb bwtkyw¿ 1 ?h¿awh ˜wç?ayr18 hmhyçdwj lwkl twqwjk µynçj twpwqt µda¿ 2 ?µylbwy¿h? tw[wbç ≈rah twrwdb µda ynbb d[yw hdw[t btk¿ 3 (1) [And he wrote down in a book the signs of the sky, according to the order of their months, so tha]t [the sons of men] would know (2) [the cycles of the years, according to the orders of all their months.] 18 He was the [fir]st (3) [to write a testimony, and he testified to the sons of men in the generations of the earth. The weeks of] the [jubilees] (11Q12 4, 1–3 = Jub. 4:17–18)297 17

He [Enoch] was the first of mankind who were born on the earth who learned (the art of) writing, instruction, and wisdom and who wrote down in a book the signs of the sky in accord with the fixed pattern of their months so that mankind would know the seasons of the years according to the fixed patterns of each of their months. 18 He was the first to write a testimony. He testified to mankind in the generations of the earth: The weeks of the jubilees he related, and made known the days of the years; the months he arranged, and related the Sabbaths of the years, as we had told him.... 21 He was, moreover, with God’s angels for six jubilees of years. They showed him everything on earth and in the heavens—the dominion of the sun—and he wrote down everything. (Jub. 4:17–18, 21 [Ethiopic]; italics added)298

295

See discussion of this issue in Chapter 2.

296 VanderKam (“Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees,” 532–40) has an extensive discussion of mistakes in the chronology of the Abrahamic narrative. 297

F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11 (11Q2–18, 11Q20–30) (DJD XXIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 213. 298

VanderKam (Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition [CBQMS 16; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984], 79–88; cf. Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 17)

116

In the Astronomical Book, the author synchronizes the lunar and solar calendars. However, while the solar calendar of 364 days is the basis of the solar calendar in the Astronomical Book, the four extra days at the ends of the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth months are in some sense viewed as supplementary.299 This is clear from 1 En. 74:10–11: If five years are combined the sun gains thirty extra days; consequently one of those five years gains, and when it is completed, it turns out to be three hundred sixty-four days. The gain of the sun and of the stars turns out to be six days; in five years, six days every year add up to thirty days; and the moon falls behind the sun and the stars for thirty days. (1 En. 74:10–11)300 In other words, the lunar calendar of 354 days is exceeded by the solar calendar by 6 days. This means that the author is working with a base solar calendar of 360 days or twelve months of 30 days each. This appears to have been borrowed from the Babylonian schematic calendar that is identical in assigning twelve months of 30 days each.301 That the four extra days are in some sense supplementary is confirmed by 1 En. 75:1–2: The leaders of the chiefs of the thousands, which are appointed over the whole creation and upon all the stars, are counted together with the four (leaders of the seasons); they do not leave from the fixed stations according to the reckoning of the year; and they render service on the four days which are not counted in the reckoning of the year. On this account, people err in them, for those luminaries scrupulously render service to the fixed positions in the cosmos—one in the first gate of heaven, one in the third, one in the fourth, one in the fifth, and one in the sixth. In this manner the year is completed scrupulously in three hundred sixtyfour fixed stations of the cosmos. (1 En. 75:1–2; italics added)

concludes that the terminus ad quem for the Astronomical Book is approximately 200 B.C. while the terminus a quo is indeterminate. In his words: “a third-century date for the AB is almost assured, while a more ancient one is not impossible” (p. 88). The author of Jubilees, therefore, writing sometime in the middle of the second century B.C. could have had access to this book. 299

VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 23–24.

300

Translation: E. Isaac, “The Book of Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (ed. James H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 1:5– 90. 301

VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 97; cf. Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 32 who notes that this calendar was less common in Babylon than the strictly lunar calendar of 354 days. VanderKam (p. 97) notes that the Egyptian solar calendar had 360 days to which five extra days were appended at the end of the year. This is similar to the Astronomical Book but importantly, the Astronomical Book disperses four extra days throughout the year.

117

The Astronomical Book thus indicates that these four extra days had a special status and at least at one point were not reckoned in the months. However, there are also contrary indications that there were both 30 and 31-day months (cf. 1 Enoch 72:2–37; cf. 75:2; 82:4–6). It appears that the author of the Astronomical Book originally assumed a 360day calendar with four supplementary days. Although the author of Jubilees views the Enochic literature as authoritative in some sense, his conception of the calendar is different. The author of the Astronomical Book does not appear to judge between the solar and lunar calendars, as the author of Jubilees does. Also, for the author of Jubilees, there is no explicit indication that the four extra days are supplementary. In other words, there is no indication of a 360-day base calendar with four extra days dispersed throughout the year; the solar calendar of Jubilees is emphatically a 364-day calendar, period. These features are clear in the following passage: 32

Now you command the Israelites to keep the years in this number—364 days. Then the year will be complete and it will not disturb its time from its days or from its festivals because everything will happen in harmony with their testimony. They will neither omit a day nor disturb a festival. 33 If they transgress and do not celebrate them in accord with his command, then all of them will disturb their times. The years will be moved from this; they will disturb the times and the years will be moved. They will transgress their prescribed pattern. 34 All the Israelites will forget and will not find the way of the years. They will forget the first of the month, the season, and the Sabbath; they will err with respect to the entire prescribed pattern of the years. 35 For I know and from now on will inform you— not from my own mind because this is the way the book is written in front of me, and the divisions of times are ordained on the heavenly tablets, lest they forget the covenantal festivals and walk in the festivals of the nations, after their error and after their ignorance. 36 There will be people who carefully observe the moon with lunar observations because it is corrupt (with respect to) the seasons and is early from year to year by ten days. 37 Therefore years will come about for them when they will disturb (the year) and make a day of testimony something worthless and a profane day a festival. Everyone will join together both holy days with the profane and the profane day with the holy day, for they will err regarding the months, the Sabbaths, the festivals, and the jubilee. 38 For this reason I am commanding you and testifying to you so that you may testify to them because after your death your children will disturb (it) so that they do not make the year (consist of) 364 days only. Therefore, they will err regarding the first of the month, the season, the Sabbath, and the festivals. They will eat all the blood with all (kinds of) meat. (Jub. 6:32–38) 118

The author of Jubilees, then, is intent on a 364-day calendar since it perfectly divides into 52 weeks, which means that each day of every year will fall on the same day of the week. Thus, a festival such as the Festival of Weeks will always fall on a Sunday (III/15), and not float among the days of the week from year to year. The author of Jubilees, in assigning the fifteenth as the middle of the third month apparently thinks in terms of a uniform 30-day month throughout the year.302 Therefore, in arguing for a 364-day calendar, he still, from time to time, shows that he is dependent on the Astronomical Books’ idea of a calendar of twelve 30-day months plus 4 extra intercalary days distributed throughout the year.303 That this is so, is indicated in another peculiar “error” the author makes in Jub. 5:27: The waters remained standing on the surface of the earth for five months—150 days. The problem is, if months of 30 and 31 days are assumed, depending on when the count started and ended, five months would be 151 or 152 days, since the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth months are 31 days each. The five-month period mentioned in Jub. 5:27 is no doubt linked to the span of time between the beginning of the flood and the resting of the Ark on the mountain (cf. Jub. 5:25–28; cf. the five month span for these events in both the Â and ©). If so, then the five months in this context would be 152 days, not 150 days, since the extra days on the end of the third month and sixth month would have to be included. The author of Jubilees, however, appears to be thinking in terms of a solar calendar of 12 months of 30 days each in this case as well. It appears, then, that the author of Jubilees has adopted the calendrical system of the Astronomical Book.

302 To be technical, there is of course no middle day in an even-numbered month. The fifteenth would be the middle day of a 29-day month, not a 30-day month. 303

Cf. van Ruiten (“The Interpretation of the Flood Story,” 77).

119

4.6. The Festival of Weeks among the Other Festivals in Jubilees The Festival of Weeks is the only major festival in the Hebrew Bible that is not associated with a historical event. The Festival of Unleavened Bread was early on associated with the Passover and thus the Exodus from Egypt. The Festival of Booths, was eventually associated with the wilderness period of Israel’s wanderings. The Festival of Weeks, coming as it does between these two festivals on the sacred calendar, fit perfectly, chronologically speaking, with the Sinai Event; that is, just as the Festival of Weeks comes between the Festival of Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Booths, so also, the Sinai event comes between the Exodus from Egypt and the wilderness wanderings. Thus it is not surprising that the author of Jubilees makes this connection. But, for the author of Jubilees, each of these festivals is associated with a historical event in the patriarchal period, long before the traditional associations alluded to in the Hebrew Bible. This is because it is important to him to establish that these festivals belonged to ancient antiquity, and is associated with his desire to establish the idea that some parts of the Torah were already enshrined in the patriarchal period.304 Thus, the Festival of Booths becomes associated with the joyful celebration of Abraham at the news that Isaac, the promised son of the covenant has been conceived (Jub. 16:20–31).305 The Festival of Unleavened Bread, on the other hand, becomes associated with the aborted sacrifice of Isaac (Jub. 18:17–19). Towards the end of Jubilees, the angel of the presence admonishes the readers to celebrate the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread together. Since the Passover is celebrated to commemorate the saving of the firstborn children of Israel, it is surely not coincidental

304

See the discussion of VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 100–109, for a general overview of some of the Mosaic legislation that is inserted into the patriarchal period. For more detailed discussion of some of the sexual legislation in Jubilees, see G. A. Anderson, “The Status of the Torah Before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees,” DSD 1 (1994): 19–29. 305

As noted in Chapter 2, joy is a noted feature of this festival (Deut 16:13–15).

120

that the author of Jubilees links the Festival of Unleavened Bread with the saving of Abraham’s son Isaac, though admittedly, Isaac is not his firstborn. This is confirmed when one notes that Isaac is saved from Mastema (Jub. 17:15–18:13) just as Israel is saved from the Mastema during the Exodus (Jub. 48:12–19; 49:2). Nonetheless, the Festival of Weeks is the pre-eminent festival in Jubilees. This is indicated by the prominence accorded the Festival of Weeks in several ways. It is certainly mentioned much more often than the other festivals.306 Furthermore, this festival is associated with the Noachic Covenant, and therefore is chronologically prior to the other two festivals which are only first celebrated in the Abrahamic period. In point of fact, of all the festivals, it is the only one that is said by the angel of the presence to have been celebrated in heaven since creation.307 There is no comparable account of the angels celebrating the other festivals in heaven since creation. The reason for the pre-eminence of the Festival of Weeks becomes clear from the body of the work itself. The covenant is the over-arching theme of the book, as evidenced by Jubilees 1 which situates the body of the work as the dictation of Moses on Mt. Sinai, writing down the words of the angel of the presence at the command of God. Throughout the work, the covenant, and its corresponding stipulations are clearly the overwhelming concern of the author. He tries to show—contrary to the assertions of the Hellenists that the Mosaic covenant was late and represented a separation of the Jews from the rest of humanity— that the Mosaic covenant is simply a renewal of a much earlier covenant, one that was originally established in Noah’s time. Since Noah is the father of all subsequent

306 The Festival of Weeks: 6:17–22; 14:10, 20; 15:1–2; 16:13; 22:1–5; 29:5–8; 44:1–5; cf. 1:1; compare with the Festival of Unleavened Bread: 18:17–19; 48:15–49:23; or the Festival of Booths: 16:16, 20–31; 32:1–29; cf. 7:1. 307 Thus, not unlike the Sabbath which is also said to have been celebrated since creation; cf. Jub. 2:18: “He [i.e., God] told us—all the angels of the presence and all the angels of holiness (these two great kinds)—to keep sabbath with him in heaven and on earth.” 4Q216 VII, 8–9 lacks the adjective “great.”

121

humanity, the covenant of the Jews can be said to be the original basis of piety, justice, and customs. Thus it is the Hellenists who are mistaken in assuming that it is Greek customs and practices that are the original and universally valid way of life. The author of Jubilees attempts to show that it is in fact the Gentiles that have separated themselves from the true way of life, represented by the Noachic covenant and especially as embodied in its fullest expression in the Mosaic covenant, not the Jews. It is in this context that the author of Jubilees tries to show that certain aspects of the Mosaic covenant and legislation were already known in the patriarchal period, beginning with the original covenant with Noah. It is crucial to the author of Jubilees to show that the Mosaic covenant was the capstone of a process that had a long prehistory, in order to demonstrate that the Mosaic covenant was not unique in the sense that it was a new beginning, or some kind of decisive break with the past. Many of the most crucial aspects of the Mosaic legislation was already revealed in the patriarchal period. In fact, the Mosaic covenant, according to Jubilees, simply represents the natural progression of the revelation of God’s will which was already revealed in part to such noteworthy heroes from Israel’s past, such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 5. Covenant Renewal and the Festival of Weeks in Jubilees All subsequent covenants in Jubilees are covenant renewals of this original covenant with Noah. In this, the author of Jubilees is taking the implications of Gen 9:16 very seriously: rv,a} rc;BA; lk;B] hY:j' vp,n
308

VanderKam, “Covenant and Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees 6,” 98.

122

author of Jubilees, there is only one covenant, not several (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, etc.). This is made explicit with respect to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and probably intimated with respect to the Davidic covenant. 5.1. The Covenant of the Pieces (Jub. 14:1–20) As Jub. 6:17–19 indicates, Abram is the first to celebrate the Festival of Weeks in a long time. In Jub. 14:1–20 (cf. Gen 15:1–21), the angel of the presence makes explicit the fact that the Abramic covenant is a renewal of the Noachic covenant: 1

After these things—in the fourth year of this week [1964], on the first of the third month—the word of the Lord came to Abram in a dream.... 10 He got all of these in the middle of the month. He was living at the oak of Mamre which is near Hebron.... 18 On that day the Lord concluded a covenant with Abram with these words: “To your descendants I will give this land from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the Euphrates River: the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Phakorites, the Hivites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites’.... 20 During this night we concluded a covenant with Abram like the covenant which we concluded during this month with Noah. Abram renewed the festival and the ordinance for himself forever. (Jub. 14:1, 10, 18, 20; italics added) This festival, which was the occasion for the covenant renewal, is said to have taken place on the middle of the third month, the Festival of Weeks. This is the first time that a more or less specific date in the third month is identified for this crucial festival—in Jub. 6:17–22 only an unidentified date in the third month is specified as the time for the Festival of Weeks.309 Abram’s renewal of the covenant and the festival is the first since Noah’s time (cf. Jub. 6:17–19). Although, all covenants are fundamentally speaking part of the same everlasting covenant, stipulations and promises are often appended to the covenant. During this covenant renewal, for instance, God adds the promise of a son (Jub. 14:1–7), and prophesies to Abram that his descendants will be enslaved in a foreign land (Jub.

309 According to Jubilees, the word of the Lord came to Abram on III/1 (14:1), but the ceremony did not take place until the middle of the third month (14:10). Presumably, this was so that Abram had time to obtain the sacrificial animals God orders him to gather in 14:9.

123

14:13–16), but promises that he will redeem them and give them the land of Canaan (Jub. 14:18). Abram’s renewal of the covenant is apparently related to his study of the books that were handed down from his forefathers: 25

Then the Lord God said to me: “Open his mouth and his ears to hear and speak with his tongue in the revealed language”. For from the day of the collapse it had disappeared from the mouth(s) of all mankind. 26 I opened his mouth, ears, and lips and began to speak Hebrew with him—in the language of the creation. 27 He took his fathers’ books (they were written in Hebrew) and copied them. From that time he began to studt (sic) them, while I was telling him everything that he was unable (to understand). He studied them throughout the six rainy months. (Jub. 12:25–27) Since the plural is used here (’abawihu; “his fathers”), the books Abram took up and studied not only originated from Terah alone, but his ancestors.310 The ancestors of Abram who are explicitly or implicitly said to be able to write are: Enoch (Jub. 4:17–23), Noah (Jub. 8:11–12; 10:13), Shem (Jub. 10:13), Arpachshad (Jub. 8:2), Kainan (Jub. 8:2–4), and Terah (Jub. 11:16). The following chart lays out the chronological information:

310

The singular (’abuhu; “his father”) is attested once (ms. 12; cf. ’afuhu; “his mouth” in ms. 38). The text is not extant in any other language, including Hebrew.

124

TABLE 11 GENEALOGY FROM ADAM TO JOSEPH IN VARIOUS SOURCES ========================================================= „ Â © Jubilees Adam Seth Enosh Kenan Mehalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah Shem

Lifespan A.M. Lifespan A.M. Lifespan A.M. Lifespan A.M. Lifespan A.M. Lifespan A.M. Lifespan A.M. Lifespan A.M. Lifespan A.M. Lifespan A.M.

Lifespan A.M. Flood Begins Arpachshad Lifespan A.M. Kainan Lifespan A.M. Shelah Lifespan A.M. Eber Lifespan A.M. Peleg Lifespan A.M. Ragew Lifespan A.M. Serug Lifespan A.M.

930 1–930 912 130–1042 905 235–1140 910 325–1235 895 395–1290 962 460–1422 365 622–987 969 687–1656 777 874–1651 950 1056–2006

930 1–930 912 130–1042 905 235–1140 910 325–1235 895 395–1290 847 460–1307 365 522–887 720 587–1307 653 654–1307 950 707–1657

600 1556–2156 1656 438 1656–2094311

600 1207–1807 1307 438 1307–1745

433 1691–2124 464 1721–2185 239 1755–1994 239 1785–2024 230 1817–2047

433 1442–1875 404 1572–1976 239 1706–1945 239 1836–2075 230 1968–2198

930 1–930 912 230–1142 905 435–1340 910 625–1535 895 795–1690 962 960–1922 365 1122–1487 969 1287–2256 753 1454–2207 950 1642–2592

930 1–930 130– 228– 325– 395– 461– 522– 587–

950 701–707– 1651–1657 600 (600?) 2142–2742 1207–(1807?) 2242 1308 565 2242–2807 1310– 460 2377–2837 1375– 460 2507–2967 1432– 504 2637–3141 1503– 339 2771–3110 1567– 339 2901–3240 1579– 330 3033–3363 1687–

311 Gen 11:10 says that Shem fathered Arpachshad at the age of 100, two years after the flood. However, since Noah fathered Shem at the age of 500 (Gen 5:32) and the flood occurred when Noah was 600, we would expect Shem to be 100 at the time of the flood and 102 when he fathered Arpachshad. This introduces a discrepancy of 2 years into the chronology from Shem on.

125

TABLE 11 Continued –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– „ Â © Jubilees Nahor

Lifespan A.M. Terah Lifespan A.M. Abraham Lifespan A.M. Isaac Lifespan A.M. Jacob Lifespan A.M. Joseph Lifespan A.M.

148 1847–1995 205 1876–2081 175 1946–2121 180 2046–2226 147 2106–2253 110

148 2098–2246 145 2177–2322 175 2247–2422 180 2347–2527 147 2407–2654

208 3163–3371 205 3242–3447 175 3312–3487 180 3412–3592 147 3472–3619 110

1744– 1806– 175 1876–2060 180 1988–[2162] 147 2046–2188 110 2134–2242

————————————————————————————————–– NOTE: Adapted with information gleaned from: Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 72; VanderKam, “Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees,” 529–31; Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 262–65. It is evident that the book of Jubilees follows most closely the chronology of „, at least until the flood, after which, the Jubilees chronology greatly diverges from the „. According to Jub. 23:9, the lifetimes of the patriarchs after the flood decreased drastically, with the exception of Abraham who lived to the age of 175, clearly implying that the patriarchs after the flood lived much shorter lives than even Abraham. A quick comparison of the respective chronologies confirms this. For instance, in „, Shelah has Eber at the age of 130, whereas in Jubilees, it is 71; in „, Eber has Peleg at the age of 134, whereas in Jubilees, it is 64; in „, Peleg has Reu (or Ragew as Jubilees has it; cf. ÔRagauv) at the age of 130, whereas in Jubilees, it is 12(!), and so on. This also enables the author of Jubilees to place the Exodus and Conquest in the 50th Jubilee, or the Jubilee of Jubilees. The chronological data is not coherent in Jubilees’ account of the patriarchs beginning with Abraham. See VanderKam, “Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees,” 532–40. He shows that these chronological errors are simply the not surprising by-product of a complicated system, not the result of a complicated textual history that involves multiple editions.

Enoch is the first person to learn the art of writing and writes the first books (Jub. 4:18, 19, 21–22, 23).312 Since all of the patriarchs from Adam to Noah are alive and in human society at the same time from the birth of Noah (A.M. 701–707) to the disappearance of Enoch (presumably A.M. 887), Enoch had ample opportunity to hand his books over to Noah. Although we are not explicitly told this, in Jub. 4:19, the angel of

312 On Enochic texts alluded to in Jubilees, see VanderKam, “Enochic Traditions in Jubilees and Other Second-Century Sources,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 309–26.

126

the presence says that “He [Enoch] wrote a testimony for himself and placed it upon the earth against all mankind and for their history (italics added),” intimating that his posterity did have access to these books (cf. 1 En. 81:6; 82:1–3; 91:1; 92:1; 93:1–2).313 While writing is not specifically mentioned, in Jub. 7:38–39, Noah tells his sons that Enoch gave certain commands (concerning planting and harvesting; cf. Jub. 7:34–37) which he gave to his son Methuselah, who in turn gave them to his son Lamech, who in turn gave them to Noah himself. When combined with the fact that in Jub 21:10 Abraham informs Isaac that he has the writings of Enoch and Noah, it seems logical that Enoch’s books were passed down from father to son, from at least Enoch to Shem and then down to Abraham.314 It appears likely that this was the ideal; i.e., for the tradition, especially as transmitted in books, to be passed down from father to son.315 The fact that Noah gave his books to Shem, and the fact that Terah possessed the books at all certainly supports this idea (Jub. 12:27). Moreover the angel of the presence tells Moses that Arpachshad, 313 Cf. 2 Enoch 68:1–3 [J recension], where Enoch is born and taken up to heaven on III/6, the date of the Festival of Weeks according to the rabbinic reckoning (probably indicating a very late date for this section at least): “Enoch was born on the 6th day of Tsivan, and he lived for 365 years. [And] he was taken up to heaven Nitsan, on the 1st day. And he remained in heaven for 60 days, writing down all [those] notes about all the creatures which the LORD had created. And he wrote 366 books and he handed them over to his sons. And he remained on the earth for 30 days, talking with them. And then he was taken up to heaven again in the month of Tsivan [on the 6th day], on the very same 6th day on which he was even born, and at the very same hour.” (Francis I. Andersen, “2 [Slavonic Apocalypse of] Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [ed. James H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983], 1:196.) The rest of the chapter relates how—upon Enoch’s ascension into heaven—Methusalam, his brothers, and Enoch’s sons organized a great festival for all the people held for three days. It should be noted however, that the context does not allude to the Festival of Weeks. See the discussion by J. van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars (2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 112–15. 314

Given Kainan’s sin concerning the writings of the Watchers (Jub. 8:2–4), it appears likely that at least Kainan was skipped. On the other hand, the angel of the presence does say that Kainan kept his sin hidden (Jub. 8:4). 315 Subsequent history appears to bear this out. In Jub. 39:6 (Potiphar’s wife), the angel of the presence recounts Joseph’s remembrance of Jacob reading from the words of Abraham concerning adultery. Thus, the writings of Abraham apparently found their way into Jacob’s hands. Whether they passed through the hands of Isaac is not known, but Jacob is depicted as being very close to Abraham, and in fact dies in his embrace (Jub. 22:26–23:3). Jacob, in turn, passes it on to his son Levi (45:16). These ancient writings are thus preserved in the priestly line from ancient times and are of course highly significant vis-à-vis Jubilees’ claim of authority.

127

idea (Jub. 12:27). Moreover the angel of the presence tells Moses that Arpachshad, Kainan, and Terah knew the art of writing.316 Since the lives of Shem and Terah overlap (albeit by just one year), it is just possible that the books were passed down from Shem to Terah directly.317 Enoch’s books contained knowledge related to the calendar, chronology, history, and knowledge of the Watchers (Jub. 4:17–26), and one of Noah’s books contained knowledge of medicines (Jub. 10:13), but it is his division of the earth among his sons (Jub. 8:11–12), which he wrote down, that is of particular interest here. For after studying the books of his forefathers (Jub. 12:27), Abram decides to go visit Canaan to see it and return to Terah (12:28–13:1). Why would he do this? The most plausible explanation is that he has just studied Noah’s books and discovered that the portion which was to have fallen to Shem (Jub. 8:12–21), and his son Arpachshad in particular (Jub. 9:4, 13)—i.e., the land of Lebanon—was not possessed by its proper heir, that is, the progeny of Arpachshad, from whom Abram is directly descended (see chart above).

316

Though, as mentioned above, Kainan perverts its use, following the teaching of the Watchers (8:2–

4). 317

This would be consistent with what appears to be the common practice, as envisioned by the author of Jubilees: i.e., for the patriarch to wait until near his death before passing on his books. If so, then since Noah lived past the birth of Ragew (his great-great-great-great-great-grandson) and since Shem was alive until the birth of Terah, it is possible. All of this assumes, of course, that Jubilees agrees with the textual tradition that Shem lived to the age of 600—which is nowhere made explicit in the text. Since he was born before the flood, the age limit of 120 years (Jub. 5:8) probably was understood not to apply to him (as, e.g., for Noah who lived 950 years [Jub. 10:15]). At Abraham’s death, we receive the notice that he had lived for three jubilees and four weeks of years (175 years) which was longer than his immediate ancestors (perhaps even including all his post-diluvian ancestors) because he was perfect (Jub. 23:8, 10). Cf. Jub. 23:9 which states that after the flood, the lives of the patriarchs decreased: “For the times of the ancients were 19 jubilees for their lifetimes. After the flood they started to decrease from 19 jubilees, to be fewer with respect to jubilees, to age quickly, and to have their times be completed in view of the numerous difficulties and through the wickedness of their ways—with the exception of Abraham.” The angel of the presence notes, however, that even Abraham did not complete four jubilees (Jub. 23:10) and that human beings from Abraham’s time would die before they complete two jubilees (Jub. 23:11–14). It is doubtful, however, that this is meant to apply to Shem since he was born before the flood. This means that Noah and Shem likely outlived most of their progeny for several generations. Note also that Kainan used his knowledge of the art of writing in order to sin (Jub. 8:2–4), an indication that he was not fit to be given the books. Terah, while outwardly an idolater, is secretly a monotheist (Jub. 12:1–8).

128

This is because, according to Jub. 10:29–34, Canaan usurped Shem’s and his sons land. Canaan settled in Lebanon, which is why the name of the land was changed to Canaan (Jub. 10:34). Abram, upon completion of his studies of these ancient books, departs for Canaan (Jub. 12:28; 13:1). After a series of adventures, the Lord appears to Abram in a dream (III/1) and promises descendants and possession of the land of Canaan (Jub. 14:1–9). In the middle of the third month, the Lord makes a covenant with Abram (Jub. 14:10–20) that is explicitly compared to the covenant Noah made with God upon leaving the ark (Jub. 14:20). Certainly, this is related to Abram’s study of Noah’s books, which set these events in motion. It is thus not surprising that, having studied the books of his forefathers and thus fully aware that the Festival of Weeks is the occasion for the renewal of the covenant, Abram seizes the opportunity to renew this observance (Jub. 14:10). It seems likely that the confusion of languages in the aftermath of the Tower of Babel had something to do with the cessation of observance of the Noachic covenant. In Jub. 6:18–19, the angel of the presence tells Moses that there was a lapse in observance between the death of Noah and Abraham’s time: 18

This entire festival had been celebrated in heaven from the time of creation until the lifetime of Noah—for 26 jubilees and five weeks of years [= 1309 years]. Then Noah and his sons kept it for seven jubilees and one week of years until Noah’s death [= 350 years]. From the day of Noah’s death his sons corrupted (it) until Abraham’s lifetime and were eating blood. 19 Abraham alone kept (it), and his sons Isaac and Jacob kept it until your lifetime. During your lifetime the Israelites had forgotten (it) until I renewed (it) for them at this mountain. (Jub. 6:18–19) It is not coincidental, therefore, that the Tower of Babel episode (Jub. 10:18–26) is recounted immediately after the report of Noah’s death (Jub. 10:15–17). In fact, a close examination of Jub. 12:25 and 10:26 shows that there is a clear link: The Lord sent a wind at the tower and tipped it to the ground. It is now between Asshur and Babylon, in the land of Shinar. He named it the Collapse [deqat]. (Jub. 10:26; italics added)

129

Then the Lord God said to me: “Open his mouth and his ears to hear and speak with his tongue in the revealed language”. For from the day of the collapse [deqat] it had disappeared from the mouth(s) of all mankind. (Jub. 12:25; italics added) With the death of Noah and the inaccessibility of Noah’s books due to the confusion of languages upon the collapse of the tower of Babel, Noah’s descendants forgot or otherwise neglected to celebrate the Festival of Weeks, along with the other holy days.318 It was not until Abram was miraculously taught the Hebrew language (Jub. 12:25–27) that Abram could read his ancestor’s books and not coincidentally, renew celebration of the covenant and the rest of the festivals and holy days. Thus, the promise of descendants and land make perfect sense in this context: it represents God’s belated decision to right the wrong committed by Canaan in response to Abram’s faithfulness in reading his ancestor’s books and discovering the injustice and his faithfulness in giving a tithe of firstfruits to Melchizedek upon defeating Chedorlaomer (Jub. 13:25).319 5.2. The Covenant of Circumcision (Jub. 15:1–22) In Jub. 15:1–22 (cf. Gen 17:1–22), Abram celebrates the Festival of Firstfruits in the middle of the third month: 1

During the fifth year of the fourth week of this jubilee [1986]—in the third month, in the middle of the month—Abram celebrated the festival of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest.

318 There is a chronological peculiarity here, stemming from the biblical text itself. According to Jub. 10:18–20, the building of the tower started sometime during 1590–1596 A.M. and lasted 43 years (i.e., until 1633–1639). Yet, Noah’s lifespan is explicitly said to be 950 years. Since he was born in 701–707 A.M. (Jub. 4:28), this means that Noah lived until 1651–1657 A.M. (cf. Adam’s death in 930 A.M. which is correctly placed, chronologically speaking in Jub. 4:29–30 and context, or Abraham’s death reported in Jub. 22:1). Thus, Noah’s death is reported in Jubilees before the Tower of Babel, even though chronologically speaking, Noah’s death came afterwards. It seems rather peculiar that Noah would have allowed something as disastrous as the building of the Tower of Babel if he had been alive at the time (cf. the Â where Noah is alive in Terah’s time, thus during the Tower of Babel incident). 319

One of the two-fold purposes of the Festival of Weeks is the celebration of the harvest and the giving of the firstfruits to the Lord (Jub. 6:21; 15:1–2; 16:13; 22:1; 44:4; cf. 7:34–36)

130

As stipulated in the biblical text, Abram offers a sacrifice. However, in this case, the sacrifice does not match up with the specific requirements of either Lev 23:15–21 or Num 28:26–31. In Jubilees, Abram offers a bull, a ram, and a sheep, along with the cereal offerings and the libations, all offered with frankincense (Jub. 15:2). On the other hand, Leviticus stipulates seven one-year-old male lambs, a bull, and two rams, along with the grain offerings and libations (Lev 23:18) and Numbers stipulates two bulls, one ram, and seven one-year-old male lambs, along with the grain offerings (Num 28:27). Both biblical texts also call for a male goat for a sin offering. Leviticus adds two male lambs for peace offerings (Lev 23:19). This discrepancy—already reflected in the differences between Lev 23:15–21 and Num 28:26–31—probably reflect the fact that priestly rites differed according to time and place.320 In Jub. 15:3–10, God promises to make Abraham (his name is changed in Jub. 15:7 [cf. Gen 17:5]) the father of many nations and possession of the land of Canaan to his descendants. In Jub. 15:11–14, a new stipulation is demanded of Abraham: he is commanded to circumcise all the males of his family as a sign of the covenant, with severe punishment prescribed for failure to observe this practice. For the promise of many descendants to be fulfilled, Abraham needs a son, and Ishmael will not do. Accordingly, God announces that Sarai—whose name is changed to Sarah—will have a son, who will be named Isaac (Jub. 15:15–21, which parallels rather closely Gen 17:15–21). Isaac, who is the promised child of the covenant, will not coincidentally be born on the same day (cf. Jub. 16:11–14). 5.3. The Birth of Isaac (Jub. 16:13) In Jub. 16:13, the Lord’s promise is fulfilled and the promised son of the covenant—Isaac—is born (cf. Gen 21:1–7):

320

This assumes of course, that errors have not crept into the text of Jubilees due either to the author or to its subsequent transmission.

131

11

In the middle of the fifth month he migrated from there and settled at the well of the oath. 12 In the middle of the sixth month the Lord visited Sarah and did for her as he had said. 13 She [Sarah] became pregnant and gave birth to a son in the third month; in the middle of the month, on the day that the Lord had told Abraham—on the festival of the firstfruits of the harvest—Isaac was born. 14 Abraham circumcised him when he was eight days old. He was the first to be circumcised according to the covenant which was ordained forever. (Jub. 16:11– 14) Shortly after Abraham’s renewal of the covenant during the Festival of Weeks (Jubilees 14–15), Abraham moves to the Oath Well near Beersheba (Oath Well [•seo KGE]: 16:11; cf. 16:15, 20; 18:17; Beersheba [kòX\kò]: Jub. 18:17). This can hardly be coincidental, since the biblical text does not record Abraham moving to Beersheba until after the aborted sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:19). Isaac, as the promised son of the covenant, is born at the Oath Well (Jub. 16:11, 15, 20), lives much of his life there (cf. Jub. 29:17–19), and even though he does make a few journeys (e.g., Jub. 22:1–2; 23:7)— including an extended stay in Philistia (e.g., Jub. 24:8, 12), he typically returns to the Oath Well (e.g., Jub. 18:17; 24:21, 26). In the end, he finally moves away to Abraham’s tower (Jub. 29:17–19) to avoid Esau because he married Ishmael’s daughter Mahalath (Jub. 29:17–19), but much of his possessions remain at the Oath Well to the end of his days (Jub. 36:12; cf. 37:1). It is fitting then that Isaac, who represents the firstfruits of the promises associated with God’s covenant with Abraham, should be born and live much of his life in Beersheba, at the Oath Well. The Ethiopic distinction between the Oath Well and Beersheba probably reflects a subtle but important change from the original Hebrew text.321 Beersheba ([b'v, raeB)] and Oath Well (h[;Wbv] raeB)] look very similar in Hebrew, especially without vocalization (vocalization was a much later rabbinic innovation). [b'v, raeB] literally means “seven

321

There is unfortunately no extant Hebrew text of Jubilees containing any mention of Beersheba or the Oath Well.

132

wells” while h[;Wbv] raeB] literally means “oath well”.322 The author of Jubilees evidently introduced a distinction between the two that does not explicitly appear in the biblical text. But this distinction merely reflects an ambiguity about the meaning of Beersheba that is found in the biblical text itself. The author of Jubilees therefore is merely exploiting it. In Gen 21:30, Abraham says to Abimelech in making a covenant with him concerning a dispute over some wells: .taZúh' raeBh] A' ta, yTirp] j' ; yKi hd;[le ] yLiAhy
322 Cf. VanderKam (The Book of Jubilees [1989], 96) who notes that Cedrenus, a Greek historian preserves the same interpretation of Beersheba: to; frevar... tou` oJrkou` (= h[wbç rab). Endres (Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees, 40) is therefore probably incorrect when he asserts that “Well of the Oath” is a translation of Beersheba.

133

Here there appears to be a distinction between the two terms. If the author of Jubilees intended Beersheba and the Oath Well to really be synonymous, then the repetition would appear to be superfluous. However, if the Oath Well is a particular well in Beersheba, then the use of the two terms does not represent a superfluous repetition. In Jubilees, Abraham moves to the Oath Well almost immediately after the two covenant passages in Jubilees 14 and 15 (Jub. 16:11). Henceforward, Abraham is depicted as living continuously at the Oath Well from A.M. 1987—aside from a brief trip to Mount Zion where Abraham is almost required to sacrifice his son Isaac—until A.M. 2010 when he moves to Hebron where first his wife, and then he himself dies (Jub. 18:17; 19:1; 22:1; 23:1).323 This represents a departure from the biblical text, where Abraham moves to Beersheba immediately after the aborted sacrifice of Isaac. In Jubilees, however, this is depicted as a return to Beersheba, whereas in the biblical text this is depicted as Abraham’s initial sojourn there. By this subtle change, the author of Jubilees indicates that almost from the moment that God twice makes a covenant with Abraham during the Festival of Weeks (Jubilees 14 and 15), Abraham goes to live at the Oath Well. The purpose behind this change is so that Isaac is born at the Oath Well in fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham as part of his covenant in Jubilees 14 and 15. As noted above, in Hebrew, the words for “weeks” (t/[buv); and “oath” (h[;Wbv]) are quite similar, and aside from vocalization, the plural for oath (t/[buv]) is identical with the plural for week. Based on this similarity, Zeitlin argues that “the name Shabuot in the Book of Jubilees has not the connotation of ‘weeks,’ but means ‘oaths,’ referring to the oaths of the covenants which God made with Noah and Abraham.”324 He notes that this festival, though it is referred to as the Festival of First Fruits (Jub. 6:21) is never connected to the

323

This parallels Isaac to a certain extent, since he also moves from the Oath Well to Abraham’s tower in Hebron towards the end of his life. 324

Italics in original. S. Zeitlin (“The Book of Jubilees: Its Character and Its Significance,” JQR 30 (1939): 5–7. Cf. also A. Jaubert, La Notion d’Alliance, 104–105.

134

Waving of the Sheaf, and there is no mention of the counting of weeks or days. Rather, it is associated with the covenant of Noah, which was the occasion for its insitution as a feast in the first place. Zeitlin speculates that the mix up may have happened when the Greek translator of the original Hebrew work of Jubilees mistook one word for the other. At any rate, the Festival of Weeks, depending on vocalization, can be read as the Festival of Oaths in Hebrew. What better place is there to celebrate the Festival of Oaths than at the Oath Well? In addition to this association with Beersheba and the Oath Well, there are a couple of reasons why the author of Jubilees would associate the birth of Isaac with the Festival of Weeks. As VanderKam shows, there is some terminology in Genesis that may have triggered this association, specifically the promise that Abraham’s son would be born at this “season” (d[wm; Gen 17:21; 18:14; 21:2) and the prophecy that this miraculous birth would occur “in due season” or literally “at a living time”, i.e., when things start to grow (hyj t[k; 18:10, 14).325 The term d[wm in this context means “specific time” but it is also commonly used to refer to special days, like festivals, and in the Pentateuch the Festival of Weeks is considered one of the µyd[wm (Lev 23:2, 37; Num 29:39).326 The author of Jubilees decided that Isaac was born on the Festival of Weeks because it was a harvest festival celebrated in the spring, the season of living things (cf. hyj t[k).327 In Jub. 17:1, Abraham has a feast when Isaac is weaned at the age of two (cf. Gen 21:8):

325 VanderKam, “The Festival of Weeks and the Story of Pentecost in Acts 2,” 191; cf. VanderKam, “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll. Manchester, December 1987 (ed. George J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: SAP, 1989), 220. 326

VanderKam, “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” 220.

327

VanderKam, “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” 220.

135

In the first year of the fifth week [1989], in this jubilee, Isaac was weaned. Abraham gave a large banquet [´›†] in the third month, on the day when his son Isaac was weaned.328 The Ethiopic term for feast or banquet (´›†) is not the same as the one used for festival (k–F; e.g., k–F s[êl–ó, the Festival of Weeks), but the association is likely intended, since the one would naturally occur during the other. While Jubilees is not specific about which day in the third month this celebration occurred, a banquet strongly hints at the Festival of Weeks. God renews the original Noachic covenant with Abraham. The Noachic covenant did not originally include any mention of land or progeny (cf. Jubilees 6), since as a new Adam, Noah was the father of all mankind, and the entire earth was his. However, once Noah has divided up the earth among his sons, recording this for posterity’s sake (Jub. 8:11–12), God decides to honor this agreement, as all of Noah’s sons and grandsons swore an oath to honor the allotted shares of the others: 14

In this way Naoh’s [sic] sons divided (the earth) for their sons in front of their father Noah. He made (them) swear by oath to curse each and every one who wanted to occupy the share which did not emerge by his lot. 15 All of them said: ‘So be it’! So be it for them and their children until eternity during their generations until the day of judgment on which the Lord God will punish them with the sword and fire because of all the evil impurity of their errors by which they have filled the earth with wickedness, impurity, fornication, and sin. (Jub. 9:14–15; italics added) Since an oath involving the Lord was invoked, Canaan’s usurpation of Arpachshad’s portion must be remedied. Abraham, as the heir to Arpachshad’s portion, and the patriarch who reads Noah’s books, realizes what has happened, and makes a trip to Canaan. In response, the Lord renews the original Noachic covenant with Abraham, this time, incorporating the division of the earth instituted by Noah and sealed by the oaths of his sons and grandsons. Since the Festival of Weeks is also the Festival of Oaths, for the author of Jubilees, this connection is completely natural and not surprising.

328

Cf. Isaac’s birth two years previously in Jub. 16:13 (cf. 15:1, 21).

136

5.4. The Death of Abraham (Jubilees 22–23) In Jubilees 22, Abraham celebrates the Festival of Weeks with his family on the last full day of his life. His two sons, Ishmael and Isaac arrive, along with Rebecca and Jacob. It is fitting that on the day of his death, both of his sons, Isaac and Ishmael, also celebrate this important festival since the promises associated with the covenant are bound up with his progeny, especially Isaac.329 Jacob’s special position is highlighted by the fact that it is Jacob who brings Isaac’s and Rebecca’s presents to Abraham. His last words are spoken to Jacob. Abraham blesses Jacob, and prays that God’s promises to Abraham be transferred to Jacob and that God renew his covenant with him (Jub. 22:10– 15). Abraham also warns Jacob to avoid the practices of the nations (Jub. 22:16–19) and to avoid intermarrying with Canaan’s daughters (Jub. 22:20–22). Abraham also bequeaths his house to Jacob and his descendants (Jub. 22:24). Sometime during that night, Abraham dies (Jub. 23:1; cf. Gen 25:1–18) in his sleep, in the embrace of his favorite grandson Jacob (Jub. 22:25–23:3; cf. 19:15). 5.5. Jacob and his Journey to Egypt (Jub. 44:1–10) In Jub. 44:1–10, Jacob celebrates the Festival of Weeks before going down to Egypt (cf. Gen 46:1–4). While the biblical text does not specify which day this is, the author of Jubilees saw some things in the text of Genesis that might indicate such a date. First of all, the reason for Jacob stopping was because Joseph had sent for Jacob and his family to stay in Egypt where there was plenty of food (Gen 45:26–28). According to the biblical text, Jacob stops at Beersheba, which is near the southern border of Canaan, at the edge of the desert, and offers sacrifices to God (Gen 46:1–4). Jacob has already decided to visit Joseph (Gen 45:28), but perhaps remembering the encounter of Abraham

329 Cf. Jub. 15:20 where God promises to Abraham to bless Ishmael as well in response to Abraham’s request that Ishmael find favor in the eyes of the Lord, though the Abrahamic promises will be fulfilled through Isaac.

137

in Egypt (cf. Gen 12:10–20) and God’s warning to Isaac not to enter Egypt when a famine struck (Gen 26:2–5), Jacob has second thoughts. Moreover, there appears to be a reluctance on the part of the patriarchs to leave the promised land after the covenant in Genesis 15, in which God promises that Abraham will possess the land of Canaan (cf. Gen 24:1–8). Nevertheless, God reassures Jacob and he proceeds to Egypt (Gen 45:5). Jubilees more or less follows the biblical text, except that in Jubilees, Jacob is seen to be far more hesitant about going down to Egypt. The reason for this is apparent from God’s instructions to Isaac in Jub. 24:9–11: 9

The Lord appeared to him and told him: ‘Do not go down to Egypt. Stay in the land that I will tell you. Live as a foreigner in that land. I will be with you and bless you, 10 because I will give this entire land to you and your descendants. I will carry out the terms of my oath which I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars of the sky. I will give this entire land to your descendants. 11 All the peoples of the earth will be blessed through your descendants because of the fact that your father obeyed me and kept my obligations, commands, laws, statutes, and covenant. Now obey me and live in this land’. (italics added) The first portion of God’s speech to Isaac as recorded in Jubilees is more or less faithful to the biblical text, but the author makes an addition to the text at the very end that contextualizes God’s warning as being based on the covenant stipulations.330 Isaac is to live in the promised land in keeping with the covenant promise concerning the possession of the land of Canaan and the promise of numerous descendants. Jacob’s second thoughts are occasioned by his remembrance of the dream he had seen at Bethel: 1

Israel set out from Hebron, from his house, on the first of the third month. He went by way of the well of the oath and offered a sacrifice to the God of his father Isaac on the seventh of this month. 2 When Jacob remembered the dream that he had seen in Bethel, he was afraid to go down to Egypt. (Jub. 44:1–2) According to Gen 46:1, Israel stopped at Beersheba. The angel of the presence further specifies that Israel stopped at the Oath Well. Given the associations with the covenantal

330

Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees, 66.

138

promises concerning land and progeny, this is hardly surprising. Jacob’s hesitation occasioned by his dream at Bethel reinforces this. It was at Bethel that God appeared to Jacob to confirm these covenantal promises: 22

He spoke with Jacob and said: ‘I am the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you are sleeping I will give to you and your descendants after you. 23 Your descendants will be like the sands of the earth. You will become numerous toward the west, the east, the north, and the south. All the families of the nations will be blessed through you and your descendants. 24 As for me, I will be with you. I will guard you wherever you go. I will bring you back safely to this land because I will not abandon you until I have done everything that I have said to you’. (Jub. 27:22–24; italics added) As in Jub. 44:1–4, Jacob is about to leave the land of Canaan to go live with Laban in the east.331 In the former instance, God gave his blessing to Jacob as he left the promised land. Jacob awaits at the Oath Well for a similar blessing, since he is once again about to leave the promised land, this time for Egypt. In response, Jacob names the place Bethel (previously Luz), the house of God (cf. Jub. 31:1–3; 31:26–30; 32:1–9). Since it is the covenantal promises that are at stake here, and since he arrived at the Oath [h[wbv] Well on the seventh [h[bv] day of the third month, he tarries there seven [h[bv] days to celebrate the harvest festival, the Festival of Firstfruits; in other words, the Festival of Weeks, the covenant festival: 3

But as he was thinking about sending word to Joseph that he should come to him and that he would not go down, he remained there for seven days on the chance that he would see a vision (about) whether he should remain or go down. 4 He celebrated the harvest festival—the firstfruits of grain—with old grain because in all the land of Canaan there was not even a handful of seed in the land since the famine affected all the animals, the cattle, the birds, and mankind as well. 5 On the sixteenth the Lord appeared to him and said to him: “Jacob, Jacob”. He said: “Yes?” He said to him: “I am the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham and Isaac. Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt because I will make you into a great nation there. (Jub. 44:3–5)

331 In this case, while Bethel is on the eastern side of Canaan, it is not the easternmost city, but the suggestive name no doubt plays a large part in the reason for Jacob receiving the dream there, as opposed to say, Jericho or Gilgal, which are both further to the east.

139

Reassured by God’s response, Jacob goes to Egypt, secure in the knowledge that the covenantal promises are not jeopardized by this act. 6. Festival of Weeks as the Occasion for Other Special Incidents Covenant renewals between God and the patriarchs are not the only special events that occur on the Festival of Weeks. 6.1. The Birth of Judah (Jub. 28:15) In Jub. 28:15, Leah’s fourth son Judah is named on the Festival of Weeks (cf. Gen 29:35): 15

He went in yet another time to her and she gave birth to a fourth son. He named him Judah on the fifteenth of the third month during the first year of the fourth week [2129]. More than likely, this anticipates the Davidic covenant. The angel of the presence, in recounting the birth of each of Jacob’s children, gives the precise dates for the naming of each child, presumably the same as the birth date, details which are not present in the biblical text. Of all of Jacob’s children, only three are born on significant dates (*). Levi (3rd son) is born on the New Year’s day memorial festival (I/1), Judah (4th son) is born on the Festival of Weeks (III/15), and Joseph (11th son) is born on a memorial festival (IV/1). Since Isaac, the promised son of the covenant as it was renewed with Abraham, was born on a significant date (III/15) that was tied to his significance, one might expect that these birthdays are also significant in some way. These three sons have a prominent place in the book of Jubilees, particularly Levi and Judah (cf. Jub. 31:5–23; 34:3).332 Joseph is the one who will save Israel from famine, and Levi and Judah are the tribes from whom the

332 On Levi in Jubilees, see VanderKam, “Jubilees’ Exegetical Creation of Levi the Priest,” 545–61; idem, “Isaac’s Blessing of Levi and His Descendants in Jubilees 31,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D. W. Parry and E. C. Ulrich; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 497–519.

140

TABLE 12 NAMING OF JACOB’S CHILDREN ========================================================== Jacob’s Sons Mother A.M. Date Weekday Jubilees Reuben Leah 2122 IX/14 Saturday 28:11 Simeon Leah 2124 X/21 Tuesday 28:13 Levi Leah 2127 I/1* Wednesday 28:14 Judah Leah 2129 III/15* Sunday 28:15 Dan Bilhah 2127 VI/9 Monday 28:18 Naphtali Bilhah 2130 VII/5 Sunday 28:19 Gad Zilpah 2131 VIII/12 Tuesday 28:20 Asher Zilpah 2133 XI/2 Saturday 28:21 Issachar Leah 2132 V/4 Monday 28:22 2134 VII/7 Tuesday 28:23 Zebulun and Dinah Leah Joseph Rachel 2134 IV/1* Wednesday 28:24 Benjamin Rachel 2143 VIII/11 Monday 32:33 ——————————————————————————————————————— NOTE: Cf. Gen 29:31–30:24. As VanderKam (The Book of Jubilees [1989]) notes, there are several problems with the dating of the years in these passages.

priestly class and the royal line, respectively, come. Judah takes on a prominent role as befits the fact that the future monarchs of Israel will be chosen from among his descendants. Isaac’s blessings on Jacob’s sons Levi and Judah highlight the importance of these two sons. Levi’s preeminence over Judah (Jub. 31:12–13)—and thereby the priests over the monarchs—is indicated by the fact that Levi is blessed first (right hand), and Judah second (left hand).333 Key themes associated with the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:5–17) are found already in the patriarchal period in connection with Judah himself: 18

May the Lord give you the power and strength to trample on all who hate you. Be a prince—you and one of your sons—for Jacob’s sons. May your name and the name of your sons be one that goes and travels around in the entire earth and the regions. Then the nations will be frightened before you;

333 VanderKam (The Book of Jubilees [2001], 64) expresses surprise that the dates of Levi’s and Judah’s birth are not reversed, given the importance of Levi (cf. Jubilees 30–32). Perhaps the author’s wish to foreshadow the Davidic covenant explains this peculiarity.

141

all the nations will be disturbed; all peoples will be disturbed. 19 May Jacob’s help be in you; May Israel’s safety be found in you. 20 At the time when you sit on the honorable throne that is rightly yours, there will be great peace for all the descendants of the beloved’s sons. The one who blesses you will be blessed, and all who hate and trouble you, and those, too, who curse you will be uprooted and destroyed from the earth and are to be cursed. (Jub. 31:18–20; italics added) Certain themes such as the ability to defeat enemies, rest or peace from war with their enemies, and a great name are also found in 2 Samuel 7. In addition, the idea that one of Judah’s sons will be the future king is explicitly mentioned in this text (cf. italicized portions). In keeping with the royal motif, the military aspect of rule is especially prominent with respect to Judah in the book of Jubilees. This likely reflects contemporary concerns, given the uncertain situation prevailing in Judaea in the middle of the second century B.C.334

Judah is one of the three sons (in addition to Levi and Joseph) who accompany

Jacob as he rescues his other sons from the Amorite Kings who raided and plundered their herds (Jub. 34:1–9). It is at Judah’s insistence that his father Jacob shoots Esau with an arrow (Jub. 38:1). In the ensuing battle, it is Judah, who takes the lead militarily, by leading the forces out in front (Jub. 38:5), flanked by Levi and Simeon (Jub. 38:6, 8)— who had distinguished themselves militarily in Shechem (Jub. 30:4). When Israel arrives at Egypt to visit Joseph, Israel sends Judah to Joseph first to check out the land of Goshen (Jub. 44:9–10). The author of Jubilees has clearly drawn on Gen 49:8–12, which foreshadows the future Davidic covenant and employs some of the themes found in Jubilees in connection with Judah, such as defeat of enemies:

334

Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees, 161.

142

ynIB] πr,Fm, i hd;Why“ hyEra] ' rWG 9 .Úybia; ynEB] Úl] WWj}T'vy] I Úyb,ya“ o πr,[Bo ] Úd]y: Úyj,a' ÚWd/y hT;a' hd;Why“ 8 AyKi d[' wyl;gr“ ' ˜yBemi qqejmo W] hd;Whymi fb,ve rWsy:Aalø 10 .WNm,yqiy“ ymi aybil;kW] hyEra] 'K] ≈b'r; [r'K; t;yli[; µybin:[A} µd'bW] /vbul] ˜yIYB" ' sBeKi /ntoa} ynIB] hq;reClo w' “ /ry[i ˜p,Gl≤ ' yrisa] o 11 .µyMi[' th'Qy] I /lw“ /lyvi aboy: .bl;jm; e µyIN"vAi ˜b,lW] ˜yIYm: i µyIny" [e yliylikj] ' 12 ./tWs 8

Judah, your brothers shall praise you; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father’s sons shall bow down to you. 9 Judah is a lion’s whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He couches, he lies down as a lion, And as a lion, who dares rouse him up? 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. 11 He ties his foal to the vine, And his donkeys colt to the choice vine; He washes his garments in wine, And his robes in the blood of grapes. 12 His eyes are dull from wine, And his teeth white from milk.335

The author of Jubilees has clearly expanded on the role of Judah to provide the grounds for the royal line coming from among his descendants.336 6.2. Jacob and Laban’s Covenant (Jub. 29:5–8) When Jacob flees Laban, he arrives in Gilead on I/21 and Laban follows him there on III/13: During the seventh year of the fourth week [2135] Jacob returned to Gilead on the twenty-first day of the first month. Laban pusued [sic] him and found Jacob on the mountain of Gilead on the thirteenth (day) in the third month. (Jub. 29:5)337

335

NASB (1995).

336 Admittedly, the permanence of rule is nowhere mentioned in Jubilees, but the author—who has the benefit of hindsight—has (likely) tactfully omitted mention of it in light of subsequent history. 337

VanderKam (The Book of Jubilees [2001], 65) argues that this must be a mistake since I/21 is the last day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread on which no work (like traveling) is supposed to be done. Moreover, Laban does not follow him there until more than seven weeks later on III/13. Since chronological errors are known to have crept into the text (either by the author himself or subsequent copiers), this appears to be a reasonable speculation. VanderKam suggests Jacob’s arrival as being III/10, or three days before Laban arrives—three days being the stated distance between Jacob and Laban before Jacob took off (Jub. 29:1).

143

In Jub. 29:7 (cf. Gen 31:43–54), after re-establishing peace between themselves, Jacob and Laban ratify a covenant, to mark the peace between them: 7

On the fifteenth of those days Jacob prepared a banquet for Laban and all who had come with him. That day Jacob swore to Laban and Laban to Jacob that neither would commit an offense against the other on the mountain of Gilead with bad intentions. There are no explicit indications of the precise date in the biblical text, but there are some key words and concepts that the author of Jubilees likely found suggestive of a date on the Festival of Weeks. First of all, any covenant (cf. Gen 31:44), involving oaths as they typically do, is more than likely to be associated with the Festival of Weeks. In Gen 31:53, the verb [bv (“to swear”) is used and since the Festival of Weeks is tw[bv gj, which, can be read as the Festival of Oaths with just a slightly different vocalization. Moreover, Jaubert suggests that in the eyes of the author, the Festival of Oaths, which embodies a vertical relationship between God and human beings, also contains within it the implication of a horizontal relationship or commitment between human beings.338 She cites the fact that covenants between human beings are found in two key moments in Jubilees: the covenant between Noah’s sons to divide the earth (Jub. 9:14–15), and Esau’s oath to his mother that he will seek Jacob’s welfare (Jub. 35:24; cf. Isaac’s insistence that his sons treat each other well in Jub. 36:7–9).339 It is the abrogation of these oaths by Canaan (Jub. 10:29–32) and Esau (Jub. 37:9–23) respectively that condemns them, especially in light of the fact that they break the bonds of brotherhood.340 Those who honor the commitment to God that the Festival of Weeks represents, are also expected to honor a commitment to one’s fellow human beings, since they are, after all, all descendants of

338

Jaubert, La Notion d’Alliance, 108–10.

339

These are not explicitly associated with the Festival of Weeks.

340

Jaubert, La Notion d’Alliance, 110–11. She notes the contrast with the unity and harmony of the brothers in Egypt with Joseph (Jub. 45:5; 46:1–2).

144

Noah, and thus one big family.341 The covenant between Jacob and Laban, then, since it is fulfilled (in contrast to those of Noah’s and Isaac’s sons), is depicted as taking place on the Festival of Weeks. Second, throughout this passage and its immediate relevant context, the number “seven” comes up repeatedly. The dispute which eventually necessitated the ratification of a covenant was occasioned by Jacob’s marriage to Laban’s daughters, Leah and Rachel, and more particularly Laban’s underhanded dealing with Jacob (Gen 29:1–30), which in turn, eventually lead to Jacob dealing underhandedly with Laban as it concerned his flocks. The agreed upon length of service was seven years for Rachel, but Jacob was tricked into serving another seven years for Leah as well (Gen 29:18, 20, 27, 30). The bridal week for both Rachel and Leah (Gen 29:27, 28) and the seven days Laban spends chasing Jacob are also suggestive of connections with the Festival of Weeks (Gen 31:23). The fact that Laban and Jacob are said to have sat down and broken bread (Gen 31:54) may have suggested to the author of Jubilees that they must have had a feast, and thus the occasion was a festival. 7. Conclusion In the Hebrew Bible, the evidence for the Festival of Weeks as the occasion for covenant renewal is mixed. However, there are certain aspects of the biblical text that were ripe for such an interpretation. The author of Jubilees exploits these possibilities in linking the covenant with the Festival of Weeks. Chief among these texts is Exod 19:1 which indicates that the Israelites entered the wilderness of Sinai on the third new moon after the exodus from Egypt. Since the Festival of Weeks is the only major holy day in the third month, the author of Jubilees naturally associated the Sinai event with the Festival of Weeks, which he identifies as the fifteenth day of the third month. Moreover,

341

Jaubert (La Notion d’Alliance, 112–13) notes that the idea that the Israelites are brothers has biblical origins.

145

the play on words based on the similarity of the Hebrew words for “oaths” and “weeks”, that Jubilees exploits can already be seen in 2 Chr 15:9–15. This is most apparent in Jubilees in its distinction between Seven Wells (Beer-Sheba) and the Oath Well. Therefore, sometime in the middle of the second century B.C., this link was made.342

342

Although the Hebrew texts of Jubilees from Qumran are too fragmentary to establish with certainty that the original version of Jubilees contained this link, it is pervasive throughout the book, making it unlikely that it was a later addition. Moreover, as will be seen in the next chapter, the evidence from Qumran establishes that this link was made at this time. Since Jubilees was an authoritative book at Qumran, it is likely that the covenanters got the idea that the Festival of Weeks was the occasion for covenant renewal from the book of Jubilees itself.

146

CHAPTER 5 THE FESTIVAL OF WEEKS AND COVENANT RENEWAL IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

1. Introduction Central to the theology of the Qumran community was the idea of covenant. The Yahad saw themselves as uniquely in possession of the correct interpretation of the Torah, and thus as uniquely faithful to it. They took their commitment to the covenant with the utmost seriousness, incorporating severe penalties for violation of the Torah’s precepts and expelling those members who continually disobeyed the law or were unwilling to accept the judgment of the community. This much is evident through their key programmatic writings, such as the Community Rule and the Damascus Document. Almost from the beginning of Scrolls research, scholars have suspected that the Qumran community held an annual covenant renewal ceremony during the Festival of Weeks.343 In the last decade and a half, the remainder of the Dead Sea Scrolls have finally been published in the official DJD edition and/or the other major scholarly editions of various works, so we are now in a position to analyze the extant texts to see if this theory has a sound basis. Following is a survey of the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls with respect to the Festival of Weeks and its possible connection to covenant renewal.

343

Cf. J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (Trans. J. Strugnell; SBT 26; London: SCM Press, 1959 [1957]), 117–18.

147

2. Festival of Weeks and the First-fruit Festivals 2.1. The Temple Scroll and Related Texts At Qumran, the Festival of Weeks was apparently seen as one of a larger group of first-fruits festivals. According to the Temple Scroll, there are four first-fruits festivals: barley, wheat, new wine and oil.344 The author of the Temple Scroll slightly restates the formula used to derive the date of the Festival of First Fruits in Lev 23:15–16: 15

.hn:yy
16

15

And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day you brought in the sheaf of the wave-offering; there shall be seven complete Sabbaths. 16 You shall count fifty days until the morrow of the seventh Sabbath; then you shall present a new grain offering to YHWH. (Lev 23:15–16) htrpsw rmw[h ta hmkaybhó µwym twmymt twtóbóçó [‚b‚ç‚ ?hmkl¿ wrwpst ty[ybçh tbçh trjwmm d[ wrwp?st hpwnth¿ µwy ?µyçmj¿

10 11 12 13

10. And you shall count 11. seven(?) full Sabbaths from the day that you brought the sheaf 12. [of the wave offering; you shall c]ount to the morrow after the seventh Sabbath, counting 13. [fifty] days; (11QT XVIII, 10–13)345 The count is to begin on the day of the sheaf offering (Sunday, I/26 in the reckoning of the sect) and take up “seven full Sabbaths.” Though the term µyçmj (“fifty”) days is not

344

The question of the extent to which the Temple Scroll is a “sectarian” document is a vexed one. On the one hand, it appears to lack the specific features of a sectarian document, which has led most scholars to conclude it is either a text composed before the Qumran community was formed or composed outside the community sometime after it was formed and brought into it. On the other hand, if the Qumran community preserved it and, as is most likely, copied it, the text itself must have been well received at Qumran. Whether it achieved the exalted status of a text such as Jubilees (to which it is often linked) is doubtful, however, since there are far fewer copies of the Temple Scroll preserved (only three or four), and there is no undisputed instance of another Qumran text citing the Temple Scroll as an authoritative text. 345

Text and translation of the Temple Scroll will be taken from Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols. and supp.; rev. ed.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983). The translation may be altered slightly without comment. For more on the festivals of First Fruits in the Temple Scroll, see: Yadin, Temple Scroll 1.99–122; D. D. Swanson, The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT (STDJ XIV; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 17–116. There is also a short but useful summary in S. W. Crawford, The Temple Scroll and Related Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 2; Sheffield: SAP, 2000), 49–57.

148

preserved, the parallel formulation µwy µyçmj wrwpst is found also in 11QT XIX, 13 and XXI, 14, albeit in relation to the festivals of wine and oil respectively. Nevertheless these festivals are patterned after the formula from Lev 23:15–16 to derive the dates of these festivals. The fifty days therefore necessitates the inclusive counting of these seven weeks. This formula is also used to calculate the dates of the other festivals, insuring that each festival takes place exactly seven weeks apart.346 This means that the first-fruits festivals of wheat and wine are counted twice, once for determining the date of its own festival (for which it is the last day, to make fifty), and a second time to determine the date of the next festival (for which it becomes the first day).347 Thus the formula for determining the date of the wine festival begins from the date of the first fruits of wheat: ?h¿w_hyl hçdj hjnmh ta hmkaybh µwym hmkló hómót?ó rpsw¿ 11 twmymt twtbç [bç tw[wbç h[bç µyrwkbhó µjóló ?ta¿ 12 µwy µyçmj wrwpst ty[ybçh tbçh trjwmm d?[ hnyyht¿ 13 11. [And] you shall [count] from the day that you brought the new cereal offering to the Lo[rd,] 12. [th]e bread of new fruits, seven weeks; seven full Sabbaths 13. [there shall be un]til you count fifty days to the morrow of the seventh Sabbath. (11QT XIX, 11–13) From 4Q394 1–2, it is clear that the third day of the fifth month is the Festival of Wine. This matches exactly the date arrived at by means of the formula in the Temple Scroll. Similarly, the formula for determining the date of the oil festival begins from the date of the first fruits of wine: h[çt µym[p ñ15Ñ [bç tw[bç h[bç hzh µówym h?mkl¿ h?mt¿rpóswó 12ó tbçh trjwmm d[ hnyyht twmymt twtbç [óbóçó µwy µyó[b‚raw 13 µwy µyçmj wrwpst ñ16Ñ ty[ybóçh 14

346

For more information on these new festivals, see Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:108–14.

347

Cf. Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:104.

149

12. And [you sha]ll count from that day on seven weeks, seven (l. 15) times, nine 13. and forty days, seven full Sabbaths there shall be, until the morrow of the seventh 14. Sabbath (l. 16) you shall count fifty days. (11QT XXI, 12–14) This last text makes explicit what was implicit before so as to leave no room for error or misunderstanding. The count includes seven full Sabbaths, which in context can only be Sunday to Saturday; i.e., seven times seven making forty-nine. The morrow of the seventh Sabbath makes it fifty days.348 According to the formula, the Festival of Oil would take place on the 22nd of the sixth month.349 That the Qumran community—if not the author of the Temple Scroll himself—understood this formula in terms of the solar calendar is clear from a fragment of a calendrical text incorrectly published as a part of 4QMMT (4Q394 1–2).350 In this text (cf. 4Q394 1–2 V, 3–6) the Festival of New Oil is dated to the 22nd day of the sixth month.351 The upshot of this is that the Festival of Weeks, according to the Temple Scroll (especially when compared against 4Q394 1–2) is

348

Cf. the description of the Therapeutae in Philo, On the Contemplative Life. This is a group of men and women who live near the Mareotic Lake and have a way of life that is, in many ways, similar to the Essenes. Philo describes in great detail a festival that takes place at the end of seven weeks which apparently occurred on a regular basis (Contempl. 65), in explicit comparison to Plato’s Symposium and Xenophon’s dialogue of the same name (Contempl. 57–63). 349 As Beckwith argues (“The Temple Scroll and its Calendar: Their Character and Purpose,” RevQ 18 [1997]: 17–19), the festival calendar of the Temple Scroll assumes a solar calendar. The six days of the Wood Offering come sometime between the New Oil and the Memorial of Trumpets (VII/1). However, if the lunar calendar were the basis for reckoning, the New Oil could fall as late as VI/27, not leaving enough time for the six days of the Wood Offering before the Memorial of Trumpets (VII/1). This is because the Sheaf could fall no earlier than I/22 and could fall as late as I/28 (because the Festival of Barley began on I/15). This assumes, of course, that tbç means “Saturday” as Yadin argues (Temple Scroll, 103–105, 116– 22) and did not refer to any day on which there was no work (e.g., the first and seventh days of the Festival of Unleavened Bread) as the rabbis took it to mean. That Yadin is correct would appear to be confirmed by 4Q327. 350

See the official re-edition: S. Talmon, “394 1–2. 4QCalendrical Document D (Re-edition),” Qumran Cave 4, XVI: Calendrical Texts (ed. S. Talmon, J. Ben-Dov, and U. Glessmer; DJD XXI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001) 157–66. 351

The sixth month must be inferred but seems clear from the extant context, besides which, the Festival of New Oil must occur sometime in the sixth month no matter which calendrical system is used.

150

celebrated on III/15, exactly the same date that the book of Jubilees identifies.352 Unlike in Jubilees however, there is no indication in the extant portions of the Temple Scroll that the Festival of Weeks is related to covenant renewal.353 2.2. The Therapeutae The Qumran practice of several first-fruits festivals separated by fifty days is somewhat parallel to the practice of the Therapeutae as depicted by Philo in The Contemplative Life: Ou|toi to; me;n prw`ton ajqroivzontai di∆ eJpta; eJbdomavdwn, ouj movnon th;n aJplh`n eJbdomavda ajlla; kai; th;n duvnamin teqhpovte": aJgnh;n ga;r kai; ajeipavrqenon aujth;n i[sasin. e[sti de; proevorto" megivsth" eJorth`~, h}n penthkonta;" e[lacen, aJgiwvtato" kai; fusikwvtato" ajriqmw'n, ejk th'" tou' ojrqogwnivou trigwvnou dunavmew", o{per ejsti;n ajrch; th'" tw'n o{lwn genevsew", sustaqeiv".354 First, these meet together every seven weeks, out of reverence not only for the simple seven, but its power as well. For they recognize its chastity and eternal virginity. This is the eve-celebration of the greatest festival, which fifty takes for itself, as being the most holy and natural of numbers, being composed out of the power of the right-angled triangle, which is the source of the creation of the universe. (Contempl. 65)355

352 Despite the fact that it is an attractive hypothesis, B. Z. Wacholder’s suggestion (“The Relationship between 11QTorah [The Temple Scroll] and the Book of Jubilees: One Single or Two Independent Compositions?” in SBLSP XX [1985]: 205–16) that the book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll (in that order) are two parts of one composition is untenable. This is not to say that the two writings are unconnected at all; it is probable that the two writings were from people who had a similar outlook on a great many key issues. On some key differences between the works, see VanderKam, “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” 236. 353 T. Elgvin (“The Qumran Covenant Festival and the Temple Scroll,” JJS 36 [1985]: 103–106) attributes this to the fact that the Temple Scroll was written well before 1QS or CD, in fact, predates the Essene exodus from Jerusalem. It is this exodus from Jerusalem that provides the background for the new covenant in the land of Damascus, which he thinks refers to their exile at Qumran. 354 Text is from G. Vermes and M. D. Goodman, The Essenes: According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: SAP, 1989). The translation is based on Vermes and Goodman’s with some modifications.

For the translation, “every seven weeks”, see J. M. Baumgarten, “4QHalakaha 5, The Law of Hadash, and the Pentecontad Calendar,” in Studies in Qumran Law (SJLA 24; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 135. At any rate, in the absence of a definite starting point for the count, the natural meaning of the phrase in context, is that the Therapeutae met on a regular basis, every seven weeks. 355

151

The Therapeutae appear to be closely related to the Essenes (cf. Contempl. 1).356 They apparently lived in Egypt (Contempl. 21–23) and established a communal living arrangement (Contempl. 32, 36). These men and women remained celibate (Contempl. 2, 68) and dedicated their lives to becoming “disciples of Moses” (Contempl. 63). Philo describes the feast held every seven weeks at some length (Contempl. 66– 89). The members, wearing white garments (Contempl. 66) lie down on couches around a table, the men on the right side, the women on the left (Contempl. 69), organized by seniority, not in terms of physical age, but in spiritual maturity (Contempl. 67).357 The president then gives a homily which appears to consist of an interpretation of scripture, which consists of unfolding the meaning hidden in allegories (Contempl. 75–78). Then each individual sings a hymn to God one after the other (Contempl. 80; cf. 1QSa II, 17– 21), after which a simple meal is eaten (Contempl. 81–82). After the feast, there is an all-night festival consisting of two choruses, formed of the men and the women, singing and dancing praises to God (Contempl. 83–87) commemorating the miracle at the Red Sea (Contempl. 85–87). The two choirs parallel the fact that Moses and Miriam each sang a song to commemorate this event (cf. Exod 15:1–18, 20–21).358 At sunrise, they raise their hands to heaven and pray (Contempl. 89). In so doing, they believe that they are citizens of heaven (Contempl. 90). The model for this regularly held feast is the Festival of Weeks which Philo says is their greatest festival (megivsth" eJorth'"; Contempl. 65). This is consistent with the Jubilees tradition which elevated the Festival of Weeks as the occasion for covenant

356 On the many similarities, along with some differences, between the Essenes and the Therapeutae, see the catalogue compiled by Vermes and Goodman, The Essenes, 16. 357

The analogy to a Greek symposium is obvious. Cf. the lengthy comparison to Plato’s and Xenophon’s Symposium in Contempl. 41–62. Compare 4QRPc 6a ii and 6c which contains the largest preserved expansion of 4QRP and probably represents an expanded version of the Song of Miriam. 358

152

renewal. Since Qumran also appears to have celebrated a covenant renewal festival modelled on the Jubilean paradigm, the suggestion that the Therapeutae are an Egyptian off-shoot of the Essenes seems to have a solid foundation.359 In this respect, Vermes and Goodman note the fact that the Therapeutae advocate gesticulating with the right hand (Contempl. 77), while the Qumran community prohibits use of the left hand for the same purpose (1QS VII, 15).360 Furthermore, the fact that the Qumran community celebrated a number of festivals separated by seven weeks (11QT XVIII–XXII), is paralleled somewhat by the practice of the Therapeutae as Philo describes it (Contempl. 65). The difference is that the Therapeutae appear to have celebrated this festival every seven weeks, or 7 or 8 times a year, whereas the Qumran community had only the four first-fruits festivals (barley, wheat, new wine, oil). Baumgarten suggests that the difference may be attributed to the fact that the Qumran community, being more active (Philo’s attribution), was more directly impacted by the agricultural seasons, whereas the Therapeutae, since they were more contemplative (according to Philo), were no longer directly related to the agricultural season and therefore the festivals could be extended beyond the harvest seasons.361 3. Calendars and the Date of the Festival of Weeks in the DSS 3.1. Calendars at Qumran: General Considerations Among the scrolls found at Qumran, fragments of at least eighteen calendrical works were discovered.362 This is in addition to the various chronological indications

359

Baumgarten, “4QHalakaha 5,” 137; Vermes and Goodman, The Essenes, 17.

360

Vermes and Goodman, The Essenes, 17.

361

Baumgarten, “4QHalakaha 5,” 138.

362

4Q317–330. 4Q321 is actually two texts, while 4Q324 is actually four texts. 4Q337, 4Q561, 6Q17 are also possibly calendrical documents, though they are too fragmentary to make a firm judgment. It

153

preserved in the “foundation documents” (1QS, CD, 1QpHab, 1QHa, 11QPsa, and 11QT), prayers (1Q34bis, 4Q408–409, 4Q507–509), and prayer collections (e.g., Shirot ‘Olat HaShabbat, 4Q503).363 This preoccupation with matters pertaining to time points to the belief among the Qumran community that all events were under divine control and that this control was reflected in the movement of the heavenly bodies, especially the sun and moon.364 The book of Jubilees was a very important book for the Qumran community. This is indicated by the fact that there are a large number of copies of the book extant among the Dead Sea Scrolls (at least 14, possibly 15 copies).365 Of the biblical books at Qumran, only the Psalms (37 copies), Deuteronomy (30 copies), Isaiah (21 copies), Genesis (20 copies), and Exodus (17 copies) outnumber the Jubilees manuscripts.366 There are also a number of texts similar to Jubilees in content (e.g., 4QPseudo-Jubileesa,b,c), further indicating its popularity at Qumran.367 In addition, there is the fact that some Dead Sea should be noted that these documents are not calendrical in the modern sense of the term (i.e., a complete list of all the days, weeks, and months of the year) but only in the sense that they (typically) list holy days. 363

S. Talmon, J. Ben-Dov, U. Glessmer, Qumran Cave 4, XVI: Calendar Texts (DJD XXI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 1. 364 Studies on the calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls are numerous. The following are a couple of good surveys of the issues and recent scholarship: J. C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (The Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls; London: Routledge, 1998); U. Glessmer, “Calendars in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint & J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2.213–78. 365

VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 16; see also, idem, “The Jubilees Fragments from Qumran Cave 4,” in Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21, March 1991 (eds., J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ XI, 2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2:635–48; C. Hempel, “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (ed., Timothy H. Lim; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), 187–88. 366 Only copies found in the 11 caves near Qumran are included in these counts. 1 Enoch (12 copies) also seems to have been considered authoritative (compare Jude 14–15 and 1 Enoch 1:9; cf. Barnabas 16:5) at Qumran. It is thus not surprising that Martin Abegg, Jr., P. Flint, and E. Ulrich (eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999], 196–98) include the book of Jubilees in their Dead Sea Scrolls “canon” (though they do not actually translate the book). 367

Hempel, “The Place of the Book of Jubilees,” 191–93.

154

Scrolls cite Jubilees as an authority (4Q228 1 I, 1, 9; CD XVI, 2–4; X, 7–10 [cf. Jub. 23:11]).368 When Jubilees’ popularity at Qumran is combined with the fact that Jubilees claimed for itself authoritative status, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Qumran community accorded this book “canonical” status.369 Given this fact, one might expect that the Qumran community unequivocally accepted the 364-day solar calendar for which Jubilees strenuously argues. Indeed, the Jubilean solar calendar is reflected in many Qumran texts, including CD XVI, 2–4, the Temple Scroll, and 4Q252. It appears at first blush that the 364-day solar calendar as found in Jubilees was in some sense “normative” at Qumran. If such is the case, it would be safe to assume that calendrical considerations were at least partly to blame for the Qumran community’s break with the Temple authorities during the Hasmonaean period, as some scholars have argued.370 As Talmon points out, a group that disagrees with the

368 4Q228 f1 i 9 probably contains a reference to the Hebrew title of Jubilees preceded by a formula typically used to cite scriptural quotations and allusions. Cf. Hempel, “The Place of the Book of Jubilees,” 191–92. 369 The quotations around “canonical” merely allude to the problematic and anachronistic problem of canon in the Second Temple period. See the cogent observations of E. Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran,” 17–33, esp. 17 and 31–33. 370

See S. Talmon, “The Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judaean Desert,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds., C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; Scripta Hierosolymitana 4; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958), 162–99; idem, “Calendar Controversy in Ancient Judaism: The Case of the ‘Community of the Renewed Covenant,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (eds., D. W. Parry & E. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 379– 95; VanderKam, “2 Maccabees 6, 7A and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem,” 390–411; idem, “Calendrical Texts and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scroll Community,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (eds., M. O. Wise; et al.; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722; New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), 371–88. The issue of the history of the Qumran community is a complex one. The identification of the Qumran community as Essene was the dominant view from an early period, and though it has been challenged in recent years, it still has the most evidence. For a convenient collection of the primary texts bearing on the issue, see G. Vermes and M. D. Goodman, The Essenes; T. S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). The Sadducean identification has been recently argued by L. Schiffman, “The New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect,” BA 53 (1990): 64–73; “The Sadducean Origins of the Dead Sea Scroll Sect,” in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (Ed. H. Shanks; London: SPCK, 1993), 35–49. This does not seem a plausible identification due to the differences in theology between the Sadducees and the content of the scrolls. For a recent overview of the issues of identity and history, including a summary of the arguments in favor of an Essene identification, see J. C. VanderKam, “Identity and History of the Community,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (Ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2.487–523; H. Stegemann, “The Qumran Essenes—Local Members

155

wider community over the observance of holy days will inevitably lead to a parting of the ways unless the disagreement is resolved.371 However, while the 364-day solar calendar makes for a nice neat arrangement—at least mathematically—it has the serious problem of coming up about 1 ¼ days short of the true solar year of approximately 365 ¼ days.372 Over the long haul, then, the seasons of the year will be disturbed, defeating the very purpose for which Jubilees’ system is designed (cf., e.g., Jub. 6:33).373 After only 73 years, the seasons will have rotated one

of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991 (Ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11.1; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 83–166. The issue of the identification of the community and its connection to the site at Qumran, is dependent, to a large degree, on the archaeological evidence. For a survey of the archaeological work done at Qumran, see J. VanderKam and P. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 34–54. Our understanding of the site still depends to a large extent on the work of R. de Vaux (The Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973]). More than anyone else, he is responsible for creating the consensus theory that the inhabitants of Qumran were Essenes, and that they were responsible for the library found in the nearby caves. This reigning theory has since been challenged, though not dethroned. See, e.g., L. Cansdale, Qumran and the Essenes: A Re-Evaluation of the Evidence (Tübingen: Mohr, 1997), 81–190; Y. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004). Hirschfeld challenges each of the major aspects of de Vaux’s theory: he does not think that the inhabitants of the site were Essenes, that the site was, in fact, a fort established by the Hasmonaean dynasty, which was later rebuilt into a fortified manor by Herod and inhabited by one of the Herodian aristocracy. He further believes that the scrolls were deposited in the caves for safe keeping by Sadducean priests in the wake of the revolt. De Vaux’s theory, with a few modifications, has recently been defended by J. Magness (The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls [Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002]). 371

Talmon, “Calendar Controversy in Ancient Judaism,” 381. One of the examples Talmon cites is the calendar reform instituted by Jeroboam I (1 Kgs 12:25–33). Of course, in this case, the calendar reform came about as a result of political separation, not vice versa, but the fact that Jeroboam I believed that a change in the calendar would serve to separate the Israelites from Judah more effectively highlights the significance of celebrating holy days together as a community. 372

To be more precise, the length of a solar year is 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes.

373

At least some of the ancients would have been aware that a 364-day solar calendar would come up short by 1 ¼ days. In Babylon, a system of intercalation whereby seven months were gradually intercalated (one month every two or three years) throughout a nineteen month period was introduced by at least the fifth century B.C., demonstrating their knowledge of a roughly 365 ¼ day solar year (Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 16–17, 26–27, 31–32). However, R. T. Beckwith (Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental and Patristic Studies [AGJU XXXIII; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 133– 36) notes that an accurate solar year was not universally accepted until a late period (he cites the example of the Roman Republic), demonstrating that some peoples were known to stick stubbornly to calendars that did not measure up to empirical knowledge of astronomical phenomena, but ones that probably had some practical value, nevertheless.

156

quarter of a year out of place. This means that the scheme as it stands in the book of Jubilees does not appear to be practical, and some form of intercalation is necessary, something that is not in evidence in the book of Jubilees as we have it.374 Furthermore, the situation is complicated by the fact that there is evidence of a luni-solar calendar at Qumran, roughly in line with the teaching found in 1 Enoch 72–82 (Astronomical Book) which attempts to synchronize the lunar and solar calendar.375 The luni-solar calendar at Qumran appears to operate on a three-year cycle with a regular system of intercalation to bring it into line with the solar year. Since the lunar month is approximately 29 ½ days, the months alternated between twenty-nine and thirty days throughout the year, making for a 354 day lunar year.376 It therefore came up ten days short of the solar year of 364 days. The devised solution was to add a thirty-day month every three years to bring it into line with the solar year.377 Since this results in the same problem associated with the solar calendar of 364 days, some further adjustments would be required to keep it consistent with astronomical phenomena.378 Some scholars therefore suggest that both calendars found at Qumran remained a theoretical ideal that was never actually practiced by the covenanters and that it was the

374

For a good survey of the issue, see Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, 125–40.

375 1 Enoch is also well represented at Qumran, twelve copies having been found there (11 in cave 4 and 1 in cave 7), four of which preserve approximately 30% of the material corresponding to the Astronomical Book (4QEnastra ar, 4QEnastrb ar, 4QEnastrc ar, 4QEnastrd ar) according to J. T. Milik (The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1976], 5). The first two texts also contain material not extant in the Ethiopic translation, indicating that the translation may have been abbreviated, likely due to the extremely tedious nature of the material. For a short lucid discussion of this text as it relates to calendars, see VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 17–27. In Jubilees 6:36– 37, the angel of the presence notes that the moon disturbs the times. Clearly Jubilees is hostile to including the moon in any type of calendrical scheme. 376

The lunar month is 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes.

377

4Q320 1 I–III.

378

For a good survey of the various suggestions regarding intercalation, see Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, 126–33.

157

lunar calendar that was in use elsewhere in Judaism that was adopted for practical everyday use.379 There is no direct evidence that the lunar calendar was in use at Qumran.380 However, this calendar, which was based on empirical observation of the new moon, was modeled on the Babylonian lunar calendar that was used throughout the Near East from the time of the Seleucid empire until Roman times. As such, one can safely assume that the Qumran community was at least aware of the calendar. Indeed, if it were not for the evidence of a solar calendar at Qumran, it would have been taken for granted that this was the calendar in use there.381 Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that the 364-day solar calendar was in use at Qumran. First, there is the possibility that the Qumran community intercalated their calendar in some fashion in order to bring it into line with the true solar year. Recently, Uwe Glessmer and Matthias Albani (re-)discovered a small limestone disk in the Rockefeller museum which they argue is an astronomical measuring instrument.382 The significance of this instrument (for the purposes of this discussion) is that it is evidence that the Qumran community had a method of determining cardinal dates of the

379 See, e.g., J. M. Baumgarten, “4Q503 (Daily Prayers) and the Lunar Calendar,” RevQ 12 (1986): 399–407; Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 42; Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 304; S. Stern, “Qumran Calendars: Theory and Practice,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context (ed. T. H. Lim; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), 179–86. 380 M. Baillet (ed., Qumrân Grotte 4, III [DJD VII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982], 105–36) and Baumgarten (“4Q503 [Daily Prayers] and the Lunar Calendar,” 399–407) suggest that 4Q503 assumes a lunar calendar. This is based on the references to light and dark parts of the moon which is understood to refer to the phases of the moon like those described in 1 Enoch 73, 78–79. However, as D. Falk (Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls [STDJ XXVII; Leiden: Brill, 1998], 22) notes that the moon was not completely ignored in a 364-day solar calendar as the Astronomical Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 72–82) itself proves as do Qumran texts such as 4Q320 and 4Q321. 381

Stern, “Qumran Calendars: Theory and Practice,” 185–186.

382

U. Glessmer and M. Albani, “An Astronomical Measuring Instrument from Qumran,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (STDJ XXX; ed. D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 407–42. This is an overview of a longer French article: M. Albani and U. Glessmer, “Un instrument de mesurage astronomique de Qumran,” RB 104 (1997): 88–115. This item was originally discovered at Qumran by Father Roland de Vaux. A small [ discovered on the disk proves that it does not come from the non-Jewish occupation period.

158

year (i.e., the solstices and equinoxes) and thus the ability to deal with the discrepancy— based on empirical observation—between the 364-day solar calendar of the Enoch and Jubilee tradition and the actual 365 ¼-day solar year.383 Furthermore, the recent publication of 4Q319—designated ’otot for the repetitive use of the word “signs” throughout the text (cf. Gen 1:14)—may give some indication that the Qumran community did use intercalation.384 Uwe Glessmer argued that 4Q319 contains a system for intercalation of the 364-day calendar with the true solar year of 365 ¼ days.385 His complex proposal involved the insertion of a week every Sabbath year, with a further insertion of an extra week in the years of the “signs” in the periods with no “release” (hfmv).386 Unfortunately, full publication of the text subsequently showed that the original editor, Milik, was correct in regarding the units of time as years, not Sabbath years, as Glessmer’s thesis required. Nevertheless, as VanderKam argues, it is possible that 4Q319 contains the intervals at which periods of time (most likely weeks) were intercalated in order to adjust the 364-day calendar to astronomical reality.387 Second, there is always the possibility that the Qumran community used the 364day calendar, as it was, flaws and all.388 Beckwith cites several examples of inaccurate calendars that were nevertheless in use by both contemporary peoples (the Roman

383

Glessmer and Albani, “An Astronomical Measuring Instrument from Qumran,” 442.

384

Over the years, numerous suggestions have been made, typically involving the intercalation of a week or weeks after a varying number of years. See the succinct summary of various positions in VanderKam, “The Origin, Character, and Early History of the 364-Day Calendar, 99, n. 57. 385

Glessmer, “Der 364-Tage-Kalender und die Sabbatstruktur seiner Schaltungen in ihrer Bedeutung für den Kult,” in Ernten, was man sät. Festschrift K. Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (ed. D. R. Daniels et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991), 379–98. 386

This has the advantage of not disturbing the priestly courses, as the periodic addition of a month of 30 days would in the lunar calendar. 387

VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 83–84.

388

Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, 133–40.

159

Republic and Egypt until late in the first century B.C.) and even later times (i.e., Mohammed in the seventh century A.D.).389 He thus argues that the Qumran community could easily have existed with a faulty solar calendar, despite the fact that it lasted for approximately two centuries. To the objection that the solar calendar would have been impractical in view of the fact that the festivals had a cultic purpose tied to the agricultural season (e.g., the waving of the Sheaf at the beginning of the barley harvest and the Festival of Weeks as the festival celebrating the first fruits of the wheat harvest), Beckwith argues that due to the alienation of the Qumran community from the Jerusalem priesthood the Qumranites would more than likely not have bothered with the sacrifices and rituals associated with the various festivals since they were specifically tied to the Temple.390 Thus the fact that the harvest came later and later in the year would not have posed a problem for the Qumran community.391 Beckwith argues based on texts such as 1 Enoch 74:12 and Jubilees 6:30–32— which are adamant about the fact that the solar year has 364 days exactly—that the men of Qumran would have rejected any need for intercalation since their calendar was a matter of revealed interpretation of Scripture.392 He notes that texts such as 1 Enoch 80:2–8 (Astronomical Book) and 1 Enoch 18:13–15 (Book of Watchers) indicate the late arrival of the heavenly bodies and the seasons.393 This indicates that the calendar’s

389

Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, 134.

390

Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, 137–39.

391 This argument also does not sufficiently appreciate the extent to which the lunar calendar also does not accord with astronomical reality for much of its cycle. While the lunar calendar is corrected every two or three years, it is nevertheless true that for the last half of the cycle, the lunar calendar is off by as much as a whole month. 392

Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, 136.

393

Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, 139–40.

160

divergence from reality was more than likely due to an absence of intercalation, though the possibility that an imperfect system of intercalation was implemented cannot be ruled out. Most significant for our purposes, however, is the fact that in these 1 Enoch texts a theological rationale is provided for the fact that the calendar did not match astronomical phenomena: i.e., it is because of sinners and wicked angels that the heavenly bodies have gone wrong. In other words, it is not the calendar that is to blame, but creation itself has been corrupted. Thus the calendar ought to continue to be observed. It is certainly possible that such a rationale would have appealed to the Qumran community as a means of explaining why the seasons were going awry. 3.2. The Date of the Festival of Weeks at Qumran Because of the uncertainty arising from the ambiguous nature of the instructions for dating the Festival of Weeks in Lev 23:15–16 and Deut 16:9–10, various computations were possible.394 Later Jewish tradition, for instance, assigned the Waving of the Sheaf to I/16, arriving at a date of III/6 as the date of the Festival of Weeks.395 The Qumran community, however, considered III/15 as the date of the Festival of Weeks. This is clear from the following evidence. 3.2.1. 4Q325 1, 2–3; 4Q326. 4Q325 is a fairly well-preserved, quite legible fragment, which indicates, with a fair amount of certainty, that the Waving of the Sheaf occurred on I/26.396 If so, then the Festival of Weeks must have been celebrated on III/15 at Qumran: 394

See the discussion in chapter 2.

395

Due to the varying lengths of the lunar month (which was either 29 or 30 days), the date could actually vary by a day on either side, since the first and second months could vary in length: i.e., the Festival of Weeks could also fall on III/5 or III/7. 396

According to paleographical analysis (Talmon, with the help of Ben-Dov, “4QCalendrical Document/Mishmarot D,” in Qumran Cave 4, XVI: Calendrical Texts, 125) the text is written in an early formal Herodian script, indicating a date at the end of the last century B.C.

161

byrywy l¿[ó tbç wb rç[ hnwmçb yç‚?ylç µwy jsph¿ ¿wl[w hy[dy l[ tbç wb hçmjw µyrç[b br[bó? ¿ yn¿ç‚?h çdwjh çwr tbç rja wb hççw µyrç[b µyrw[ç d‚?[wm hy[d‚y_ l[ ?tbçb hççb¿

1 2 3 4

1. [… the Passah on the thi]rd [day] (of the week); on the eighteenth in it (the first month) Sabbath (on which) ent[ers Joiarib 2. ]in the evening. On the twenty-fifth in it Sabbath (on which) enters Jeda‘iah and enter[ 3. [the festiv]al of (First) Grain (falls) on the twenty-sixth in it after the Sabbath; the beginning of the second mon[th 4. [(falls) on the sixth (day) (of the week in which)] entered Jeda‘iah….397 This text lists the Sabbaths, beginnings of the months, and festivals and coordinates them with the priestly courses as found in 1 Chr 24:7–19. This text is in line with 4Q320 4 III, 3 (discussed below) which has the Waving of the Sheaf on the first day of Jeda‘iah’s watch.398 Although the formulation µyrw[ç d‚?[wm (“festival of barley”) is not found in the Hebrew Bible, it is not an inappropriate formulation, since the Waving of the Sheaf signaled the beginning of the barley harvest.399 While the phrase is not complete, it can be reconstructed with a large degree of certainty from a comparison with 4Q326, which a close look at its wider context shows is roughly parallel to 4Q325:400 ?µyawlmh d[wm wb ynymçb tbç wb y¿[óybrb djab ?wb ÷÷÷÷÷√b yçylç µwy jsph wb ÷÷÷÷√b t¿bóçó wb ÷√ab ?wb ÷÷÷÷÷õb tbç wb ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷√b y¿[‚ybr µwy twxmh gúj ?˜wçarh çdjh tbçh rja µyrw[¿çó d[wm wb ÷÷÷÷÷÷õb tbç

1 2 3 4

397

All quotations and discussions of the text and translation of 4Q325 is from the official DJD edition: S. Talmon et al, eds., Qumran Cave 4, XVI: Calendrical Texts, 123–31. 398 Priests entered service on the Sabbath and left on the Sabbath. The first full day of their service was thus the day after the Sabbath or Sunday. 399

Cf. also 4Q326 4.

400

One of the distinguishing features appears to be that 4Q326 does not synchronize the dates with the Priestly watches (as 4Q325 appears to do), meaning that this roster of holy days is applicable to any year.

162

?÷÷÷÷÷÷√b tbç awb y[yçtb tbç ¿aówbú ynçb vac √õw_?b¿ 5401 1. In the first (month) on the four[th (day) in it Sabbath, on the eighth in it the Feast of (the Priests’) Investiture], 2. on the eleventh in it Sabba[th, on the 14th in it the Passah on the third day (of the week), on the 15th in it] 3. the Feast of Unleavened Bread on the four[th day (of the week), on the 18th in it Sabbath, on the 25th in it] 4. Sabbath, on the 26th in it the Feast of (the First) G[rain after the Sabbath; the first month] 5. in [it] 30 (days) vac, on the second (day) in it (the second month) Sabbath, on the ninth (day) in it Sabbath, on the sixteenth (day)]402 Given the mention of the 26th day (cf. line 4) of the first month (cf. line 1), it is highly likely that the same festival is being referred to in both cases (cf. 4Q325 1, 3).403 Elsewhere at Qumran, this holiday is called rmw[h πnh (4Q320 4 III, 3, 13; 4 IV, 8; 4 V, 2, 11; 4 VI, 7; 4Q321 V, 4, 9; VI, 7; 4Q513 3–4, 2; 11Q19 XI, 10) or rmw[h tpynh µwy (11Q19 XVIII, 10) which means “(the day of) the waving of the sheaf” and the specific details of the festival are consistent with what is known of the festival from Num 28:26–31 (Cf.: hpwnth rm[ ta µkaybh µwym [Lev 23:15]). 3.2.2. 4Q320 4 III, 3–5. That the Qumran covenanters viewed the date of the Festival of Weeks as falling on III/15 receives further confirmation from 4Q320.404 This

401

The various strange sigla represent various strokes that indicate numerical value: ÷ = 1; √ = 10; õ = 20. Because the spacing for these sigla are proportionally wider, it was not possible to line up the Hebrew text to approximate the original spacing. 402

All quotations and discussions of the text and translation of 4Q326 is from the official DJD edition: S. Talmon et al, eds., Qumran Cave 4, XVI: Calendrical Texts, 133–38. 403 According to Talmon (“4QCalendrical Document/Mishmarot C,” in Qumran Cave 4, XVI: Calendrical Texts, 134), the text is written in a late Hasmonaean or early Herodian book hand, indicating a date in the early or middle part of the last century B.C. 404 Talmon (“4QCalendrical Document/Mishmarot A,” in Qumran Cave 4, XVI: Calendrical Texts, 41–42) notes that the text is written in a typical Hasmonaean script, thus indicating a date of around 125– 100 B.C.

163

text contains a roster of annual festivals in a 364-day calendar synchronized with the priestly courses of 1 Chr 24:7–19:405 hyd[wm hnwçyrh hnçh hyzw[m ynb tbçób ÷÷÷b ?rm[¿h πnh ?hy¿[‚dyó ?‚ b¿ ÷‚bó ?ynçh ¿j‚sph µyr[çb ÷÷÷÷÷b µy[wbçh gj [wçyb ÷b

jósph

1 2 3 4 5

1. the first year its festivals 2. on the 3rd (day) in the week of the sons of Ma‘oziah (falls) the Passah 3. on the 1st (day) [in ]Jeda[‘iah] (falls) the Waving of the[ Omer] 4. on the 5th (day) in Se‘orim (falls) the [Second] Passah 5. on the 1st (day) in Jeshu‘a (falls) the Festival of Weeks406 According to 1 Chr 24:7–19, this is the order of the priestly watches: TABLE 13 PRIESTLY WATCHES OF 1 CHRONICLES 24:7–19 ========================================================= 1 Jehoiarib 13 Huppah 2 Jedaiah 14 Jeshebeab 3 Harim 15 Bilgah 4 Seorim 16 Immer 5 Malchijah 17 Hezir 6 Mijamin 18 Happizzez 7 Hakkoz 19 Pethahiah 8 Abijah 20 Jehezkel 9 Jeshua 21 Jachin 22 Gamul 10 Shecaniah 11 Eliashib 23 Delaiah 12 Jakim 24 Maaziah ————————————————————————————————

405 Some festivals are missing from this list. Most notably, the Festival of Unleavened Bread (I/15– 21), but also the special Qumran festivals of First Oil, First Wine, Wood Offerings, and Consecration of the Priests. 406 Text and translation of all calendrical texts is from the DJD series. The calendrical texts, including 4Q320, can be found in the following volume: S. Talmon, J. Ben-Dov, U. Glessmer, Qumran Cave 4, XVI: Calendrical Texts.

164

The italicized names in 1 Chr 24:7–19 correspond to those mentioned in 4Q320 4 III, 2– 5. When the data from these texts are correlated, they indicate that the Festival of Weeks falls on III/15 and that the Waving of the Sheaf falls on I/26.407 The Passover (I/14) falls on the third day of the watch of Ma‘oziah’s sons. Since the Waving of the Sheaf falls on the first day of Jedaiah’s watch, this must be I/26 because 12 days intervene between these two dates—i.e., the last four days of Ma‘oziah’s watch + the seven days of Jehoiarib watch + the first day of Jedaiah’s watch. Since exactly seven weeks intervene between the first day of Jedaiah’s watch and the first day of Jeshua’s watch, the Festival of Weeks must fall on III/15—i.e., four days from I/26–30 + thirty days in the second month + fifteen days to the middle of the third month.408 This basic datum—i.e., 12 days between Pesah≥ and the Waving of the Sheaf, and exactly seven weeks between the Waving of the Sheaf and the Festival of Weeks—is consistently replicated in the second year (4Q320 4 III, 11–4 IV, 1), the third year (4Q320 4 IV, 6– 10), the fourth year (4Q320 4 IV, 14–4 V, 4), the fifth year (4Q320 4 V, 9–13), and the sixth year of the cycle (4Q320 4 VI, 5–9).409 4. The Festival of Weeks and Covenant Renewal in the DSS There is certainly solid evidence that the Festival of Weeks was celebrated on the fifteenth day of the third month at Qumran. This is not surprising, since the book of Jubilees, which apparently had something like “canonical” status at Qumran, identified this as the date of the Festival of Weeks. However, whether the Qumran community

407 The data found here in 4Q320 4 III, 1–5 are largely paralleled in 4Q321 IV, 9–V, 1, except that the particular day of the various watches on which the holiday falls is not specified. Cf. also 4Q319 11 which is heavily reconstructed but appears to be a parallel to 4Q320 4 III. 408

Cf. J. C. VanderKam, “The Festival of Weeks and the Story of Pentecost in Acts 2,” 192.

409

Again, this is largely paralleled in 4Q321 IV–VII.

165

celebrated the Festival of Weeks as a covenant renewal festival is a more difficult question to settle definitively. A perusal of the evidence follows. 4.1. The Damascus Document 4.1.1. Introduction. The reception history of the Damascus Document (CD) is rather unusual and therefore poses some difficult problems.410 In 1896, Solomon Schechter found two copies of the Damascus Document (which he entitled Fragments of a Zadokite Work) in a genizah in Cairo. In the 1950s, fragments of what was clearly the same work were discovered at Qumran. A total of at least ten copies have been found.411 Certain similarities, along with some key differences (especially with respect to the differences in communal lifestyle that the two documents presuppose—i.e., celibate [Community Rule] vs. more conventional [Damascus Document]) relative to Qumran sectarian texts like 1QS were immediately apparent.412 Coupled with the fact that there

410

The Damascus Document has been the subject of much scholarly attention. Some of the recent studies include, C. Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction (STDJ XXIX; Leiden: Brill, 1998); idem, The Damascus Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1; Sheffield: SAP, 2000); M. L. Grossman, Reading for History in the Damascus Document: A Methodological Study (STDJ XLV; Leiden: Brill, 2002); J. G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20 (BZAW 228; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995); M. A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 13–76; P. R. Davies, The Damascus Document: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” (JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982). 411 For a fuller description of the details surrounding the discovery of the Damascus Document, see P. Kahle, The Cairo Genizah (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959). 412

For instance, women are clearly envisioned in the Damascus Document (CD XI, 12; XII, 10; XIV, 15, etc.), which is reflected in the many issues dealing with women that are covered in the Damascus Document, such as sex, marriage, menstruation, and childbirth. In contrast, the Community Rule appears to be directed exclusively towards men, not women (which agrees with the testimonies of Pliny the Elder, Natural History 5.73 and Josephus, War 2.120–21; Ant. 18.21), though one should note that 1QSa, which was found on the same scroll as 1QS, does mention women (1QSa I, 4, 9–11). In addition, there is no counterpart to the Damascus Document’s long historical section in the Community Rule, nor is there anything like the two spirits doctrine of the Community Rule in the Damascus Document. Moreover, the probation period for a novice is at least two years (probably longer) in the Community Rule (1QS VI, 17, 21) whereas it is only one year in the Damascus Document (CD XV, 14–15). Further differences include the different roles assigned functionaries such as the Examiner and the Many in the two works, the absence of the paqid (“Overseer”) in CD. There is also a much more pronounced use of the term yahad in the Community Rule than in the Damascus Document, where the more common term is mahaneh (“camp”; cf. the War Scroll).

166

are so many copies found at Qumran, it is clear that this text was a revered one for the community on the shores of the Dead Sea. Unfortunately, the fullest copies of the text that we have are the ones found in the Cairo genizah. They are dated to the tenth (ms. A) and twelfth centuries A.D (ms. B), leaving the question of their reliability up in the air. Fortunately, however, it appears, from a close comparison of the extant remains of CD (ms. A) with its cave 4 copies, that the copies from the Cairo genizah are more or less reliable.413 Nevertheless, a comparison of genizah copy A with the cave 4 copies indicates that copy A of CD omits significant portions from the Damascus Document from cave 4 and that columns 15–16 belong before column 9. Thus, the genizah copies must be used with caution, since it is clear that the genizah copies have undergone at least some modification (i.e., through rearrangement and omission or abbreviation whether accidental or intentional) throughout the many centuries between its origin at Qumran and its deposit in the Cairo genizah.414 Schechter suggested prior to the discovery of the Qumran fragments that CD was actually comprised of extracts from a larger work, a hypothesis which is remarkably in keeping with the evidence discovered from Qumran.415 4.1.2. Covenant in the Damascus Document. Covenant is a crucial concept in the Damascus Document. There are some 44 references to the covenant in the extant versions excluding overlapping references.416 Given the importance of the book of

413 Unfortunately, the reliability of ms. B is difficult to assess due to the fact that very little overlap with the Qumran copies has been found (two small fragments of column XX). 414 The possibility that it represents an earlier shorter version from that represented by the cave 4 fragments cannot be ruled out either, since different versions (both shorter and longer) have been found of Serekh ha-Yahad. 415 Schechter, Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), x. Note the title of his work, reflecting this belief. 416

This is according to Hempel, The Damascus Texts, 79.

167

Jubilees at Qumran, one might think that the various covenants in the Hebrew Bible (starting with Noah) are all seen fundamentally as one covenant, renewed at various times (i.e., Abraham, Moses, David) throughout Israel’s history, like they are in Jubilees. However, the Noachic covenant does not appear to have the same fundamental significance in the Qumran scrolls as it does in Jubilees. Rather, the Mosaic covenant is uppermost in mind, the stipulations of which spelled out in great detail the conditions for faithful observance of the covenant. This covenant, as we learn from the Hebrew Bible, was renewed from time to time throughout Israel’s history. For instance, the covenant ceremony conducted by Joshua (Josh 8:30–35) was the covenant renewal which was commanded by Moses and the elders of Israel (Deut 27:1–8).417 In the Hebrew Bible, covenant renewals typically took place after the breaking of the covenant, something that happened so frequently that some prophets looked forward to a time when a “new covenant” (Jer 31:30–33; Ezek 36:24–28; 37:23–28) would be cut which would be eternal (in the sense of unbroken) due to a change in disposition that God would effect in the hearts of his people.418 The Qumran community saw themselves as living under this “new covenant.” The Qumran community, therefore, saw itself as the heirs of pre-exilic Israel which renewed the covenant mediated by Moses on Mt. Sinai. They saw themselves as a faithful remnant of this covenant community: 10

… The first ones who entered the covenant became guilty through it; and they were given up 11 to the sword, having departed from God’s covenant and chosen their (own) will, straying after the wantonness 12 of their heart, each doing his

417

Other examples are the reforms of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:1–3//2 Chr 34:30–33), King Asa (2 Chr 15:14– 15) and Nehemiah (Nehemiah 8–10). The book of Deuteronomy could also be understood as a renewal of the covenant at Sinai, despite a passage like Deut 29:1 (consider, e.g., Deut 4:9–24). 418

Cf. A. Jaubert, La notion d’alliance, 215–16.

168

(own) will. But out of those who held fast to God’s ordinances, 13 who remained of them, God established his covenant with Israel forever… (CD III, 10–13)419 16

So is also the judgment for the penitents of Israel, who departed from the way of the people: by God’s love for 17 the first ones, who witnessed after him, he loved those who came after them. For theirs 18 (is) the covenant (with) the fathers…. (CD VIII, 16–18) These texts reflect the self-understanding of the covenant community as a much smaller remnant than the original covenant community, which committed the sin of apostasy. The theme of apostasy is very apparent in the Damascus Document: 2

And now hearken to me, all who enter the covenant, and I will reveal to your ear the ways of 3 the evil ones. (CD II, 2–3)

25

… But all who entered the covenant who have broken through the border of the Torah, when the glory of God appears to Israel they will be cut off from the midst of the camp, and along with them all the wicked ones of Judah, in the days when it is purged…. (CD XX, 25–27)

5

… And those who enter the covenant for all of Israel as an eternal statute shall have their sons, who have reached (the age) 6 for passing among those that are mustered, take the oath of the covenant…. (CD XV, 5–6) The apostates are in contrast with those faithful members of the community who are often mentioned in direct connection to the covenant as in the above set of texts. That this covenant is seen as being in continuity with the first is also clear: 7

… And all those who come after them 8 to do according to the precise meaning of the Torah which was taught to the first ones until the completion of 9 the time of these years—just as the covenant which God established with the first ones to atone 10 for their iniquities, so, too, will God atone for them…. (CD IV, 7–10) 2

… And God recalled the covenant with the first ones, and he raised up from Aaron men of discernment and from Israel 3 wise men; and he allowed them to hear. (CD VI, 2–3)420 Nevertheless, CD speaks of a “new covenant” in the land of Damascus:

419

Text and translations of CD are taken from J. H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr, 1995), 4–57. 420

Cf. also CD III, 10–13 cited above.

169

19

… as it was found by those who entered into the new covenant (hçdjh tyrbh) in the land of Damascus (CD VI, 19)

21

… All the men who entered the new covenant (hçdjh tyrbb) in the land of Damascus… (CD VIII, 21) 12

the covenant and the oath which they had taken in the land of Damascus; that is, the new covenant (hçdjh tyrb). (CD XX, 12)421 This is a concept based on Jer 31:31–34 and Amos 5:25–27: 31

“Behold the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (hvdj tyrb hdwhy tyb taw larcy tyb ta ytrkw), 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares YHWH. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares YHWH: I will put my law within them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know YHWH,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares YHWH. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jer 31:31–34) 25

“Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 26 You shall take up Sikkuth your king, and Kiyyun your star-god—Your images that you made for yourselves, 27 and I will send you into exile beyond Damascus (qcmdl halhm µkta ytylghw),” says YHWH, whose name is the God of hosts. (Amos 5:25–27) While evidence for the concept of a “new covenant” is scarce elsewhere in the scrolls (there are no parallel references to it in the specifically Qumran copies of the Damascus Document), there is probably a reference to it in 1QpHab II, 3 (hçdjh ?tyrbb), though without mention of Damascus.422

421 Damascus is referred to in CD VI, 5, 19; VII, 15, 19 (par. 266 3 III, 20); VIII, 21; XIX, 34; XX, 12. The issue of whether the Damascus Document reflects a literal or symbolic interpretation of exile in Damascus, and if symbolic whether it refers to Qumran or Babylon is a vexing one. On the whole, it seems best to take the reference as a cipher referring to the place of exile of the community. This should therefore be probably understood as referring to Qumran itself (so Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran [3rd ed.; Sheffield: SAP, 1995], 71–73; Knibb, The Qumran Community, 62) though a reference to Babylon is also a strong possibility (cf. Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 122–23), in which case this would reflect the belief that the covenant community’s origins lay in the exilic period. For a survey of the various proposals regarding the history of the community as reflected in the Damascus Document, see Hempel, The Damascus Texts, 54–65. 422

Cf. 1QSb III, 26 (çd?jy µlw[¿t‚nwhk tyrbw) V, 21 (wl çd‚jy dj‚yh_ ‚ t‚yrbw); cf. also 1Q34bis 3 II, 6 (which is probably sectarian). Given the paucity of evidence for this terminology at Qumran, Hempel in criticizing

170

At any rate, the community clearly saw itself in continuity with the covenant community of the pre-exilic period (cf. CD II, 14–IV, 12). The covenant was the same eternal covenant. Precisely because the covenant is depicted as “eternal” (cf. CD III, 13) it does not make sense to suppose that the “new covenant” was wholly new.423 Nevertheless, it signals that some kind of new beginning (even with an acknowledgement of a strong sense of continuity with the past) has occurred with the founding of the Qumran community, which is why the “(re)new(ed) covenant” in the land of Damascus (CD VI, 19; VII, 21; XX, 12) appears to be a key event in the history of the community.424 This new beginning signals the hope of the Qumran community that the eschatological covenant spoken of by Jeremiah and Ezekiel was not just wishful thinking, but a reality that could be and was manifested in their community.425 In particular, God has taken the covenant that was broken by Israel and remade it with a small remnant, manifested in the Qumran community, which has renewed its observance.426 At Qumran, this was considered possible based, at least in part, on the fact that the correct interpretation of Mosaic torah was specially revealed to them: (as “somewhat imprecise”) Talmon for speaking of “the yahad’s renewed covenant” appears to have a point (Hempel, The Damascus Texts, 80; cf., Talmon, “Qumran Studies: Past, Present, and Future,” JQR 85 (1994): 22). 423

An idea which is entertained by A. Deasley (The Shape of Qumran Theology [Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000], 144–47). He eventually settles for the idea that while there is some continuity with the past, there is a sense of a new beginning in the community’s terminology. Cf. A. Jaubert (La notion d’alliance, 219–22) who sees more continuity with the past covenant than Deasley does, but nevertheless argues that these are two phases in the history of the covenant (p. 222). 424 4Q266 3 III, 20 mentions Damascus, though not in parallel to any of the references connected to the “new covenant.” 425

Cf. B. Nitzan, “The Concept of the Covenant in Qumran Literature,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–31 January, 1999 (Ed. D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick, & D. R. Schwartz; STDJ XXXVII; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 93–98. 426 E. J. Christiansen, “The Consciousness of Belonging to God’s Covenant and What it Entails According to the Damascus Document and the Community Rule,” in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments (Ed. F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson; JSOTSup 290; Sheffield: SAP, 1998), 71–85.

171

12

… But out of those who held fast to God’s ordinances, 13 who remained of them, God established his covenant with Israel forever, revealing 14 to them hidden things in which all Israel had strayed: his holy sabbaths, the glorious appointed times, 15 his righteous testimonies, his true ways, and the desires of his will, which a person shall 16 do and live by them…. (CD III, 12b–16a; 1QS V, 8– 9) At Qumran, proper observance of the Mosaic torah was not possible without the correct, divinely revealed interpretation, uniquely available to the community.427 4.1.3. Damascus Document as Covenant Formulary. Given the community’s emphasis on observance of the covenant and its pre-occupation with the possibility of apostasy, it would not be surprising if the community held an annual covenant renewal ceremony (or ceremonies) where members could renew their commitment to the covenant and unfaithful members could be kicked out (cf. 1QS II, 19). In CD XV, 5– XVI, 6 (supplemented by 4QDa which supplies some of the missing text at the bottom of column XV of CD), there is a ceremony describing the initiation of new members: 5

… And those who enter the covenant for all of Israel as an eternal statute shall have their sons, who have reached (the age) 6 for passing among those that are mustered, take the oath of the covenant. Similar (is) 7 the precept during the entire time of evil for everyone who repents from his corrupt way. On the day that he speaks 8 with the Examiner for the Many, they shall muster him with the oath of the covenant which Moses made 9 with Israel, the cove[na]nt to re[turn t]o the Torah of Moses with all (his) heart [and with all] 10 (his) soul, to that which is found to be done during the en[tire tim]e of [evi]l. Let no one make 11 the precepts known to him until he stands before the Examiner […] m , (lest) he prove to be a fool when he questions him. 12 But when he takes upon himself to return to the Torah of Moses with all (his) heart and all (his) soul, 13 they are free of his blame if he should transgress. Should he err in any matter of the Torah revealed to the multitude of 14 the camp, the Examiner shall ma[ke it known] to him and enjoin it upon him, and te[ac]h (him) 15 for (a minimum of) one complete year. According

427

As S. Japhet (“Law and ‘the Law’ in Ezra-Nehemiah,” 99–115) points out with respect to EzraNehemiah, there is a significant tension contained within the idea of a divine law revealed in a written text. On the one hand, the divinely revealed written law is eternal and unchanging, but on the other hand human conditions and situations are constantly changing, requiring law with a degree of flexibility and adaptability. The solution in Ezra-Nehemiah was to gloss over the distinction between what a text literally said and what a text was thought to mean, which often diverged from what the text literally said. Every legal decision was described as being in accordance with the Torah, regardless of whether the decision actually, literally accorded with a written law. In the Qumran community, interpretation is now explicitly distinguished from the literal meaning and given special status, but the phenomenon reflects the same fundamental tension as that found in Ezra-Nehemiah.

172

to his knowledge (….) (Anyone) being a demented fool, any simple-minded or er[ra]nt man, 16 and one with dimmed eyes who can[not (see) … and (any) y]oung b[o]y—none (of these) 17 shall come a m[an…]… (CD XV, 5b–17) 7

… Neither shall any simple minded or errant man, nor one with dimmed eyes who cannot see, 8 [nor] a limping or lame or deaf person, nor a young boy, none 9 of these shall [come] into the congregation, for the hol[y] angels [are in their midst.] 10 […] (4QDa 8 I, 7–10)428 1

with you a covenant and with all Israel. Therefore a man shall take upon himself (an oath) to return to 2 the Torah of Moses, for in it everything is specified. And the explication of their times, when 3 Israel was blind to all these; behold, it is specified in the Book of the Divisions of the Times 4 in their Jubilees and in their Weeks (µhytw[wbçbw µhylóbówyl µyt[h twqljm rps). And on the day when a man takes upon himself (an oath) to return 5 to the Torah of Moses, the angel Mastema shall turn aside from after him, if he fufills his words. 6 Therefore, Abraham was circumcised on the day of his knowing…. (CD XVI, 1–6a)429 In this respect, it should be noted that there are several references to “entering the covenant” found at various points throughout the Damascus Document (CD II, 2; VI, 11– 12, 19; VIII, 21; XIX, 33–34; IX, 2; XIII, 14).430 After the introductory exhortation to remain faithful to the Mosaic covenant (CD I, 1–II, 1), there is a hortatory call to those who enter the covenant (CD II, 2) to avoid the apostasy of their forefathers. The Damascus Document is thus addressed to people who are described as those who have entered the covenant. Much of the document is a description of the things to avoid doing in order to stay within the boundaries of the covenant (cf. “the Laws” which take up the last half of the document).

428

All transcriptions and translations of cave four copies of the Damascus Document are taken from Joseph M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4, XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD XVIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). See 4Q266 11 and 4Q270 7 ii cited below, where the parallels are underlined as found in Baumgarten’s transcription. 429

Cf. 4QDa 8 I; 4QDc 6 I–II; 4QDf 4 II.

430 Cf. also III, 10; VIII, 1–2; XIX, 13–14, 16; XX, 25 where those who have entered the covenant and have committed apostasy are condemned (both the pre-exilic Israelites and the contemporary apostates in the community).

173

Given this, Knibb’s suggestion that the Damascus Document was recited at the annual covenant renewal ceremony has much to commend it.431 K. Baltzer had noted that the Damascus Document contains many features of a covenant formulary.432 He identified four main sections: Dogmatic Section (Antecedent History) Ethical Section Blessings and Curses Corpus of Legal Stipulations

I–VI, 11 VI, 11–VII, 4 VII, 4– IX, 1–XVI, 20

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the covenant formulary analogy makes good sense of the historical overview in the first part of the Damascus Document and explains quite well how it fits with the legal sections. While it is true that, as Davies notes, the blessings and curses precede the laws (typically it is reversed), this is not a decisive objection, since the end of the Damascus Document contains an excommunication ritual complete with a curse formula.433 P. R. Davies presents his own analysis, limiting it to the Admonition alone, and seeing it as a covenant formulary in its own right: I, 1–IV, 12a IV, 12b–VII, 9

VII, 5–VIII, 19 XIX, 33–XX, 34

History of the community Legal section, beginning with an introductory section demonstrating that those outside the community do not have the law and concluding with a brief formula of promise and warning Warnings (secondary expansion), reinforcing the claims of the community against the contemporary Jewish religious authorities. Supplement to original Admonition, betraying presence of new group (i.e., Qumran settlers).434

431

Knibb, The Qumran Community, 14.

432

Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 112–22.

433

Davies, The Damascus Document, 52; cf. Falk Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 226.

434

Davies, The Damascus Document, 52–53. Rather than reproduce Davies’ exact wording I have attempted briefly to summarize their content.

174

The problem with his analysis, of course, is that it entirely ignores the legal section, in the name of trying to line up the structure of the Damascus Document with the typical covenant formulary.435 The legal section, in his view, is found within the Admonition itself in VI, 11–VII, 9 (i.e., preceding the warnings as in a typical covenant formulary).436 Knibb’s thesis, though it cannot be proven, is therefore certainly plausible. However, as both Falk and Davies have noted in different ways, the Damascus Document does not appear to be liturgical so much as it is descriptive.437 This might indicate that the Damascus Document subconsciously reflects the organization of the liturgy of a covenant renewal ceremony as opposed to having been actually read during one.438 Whatever the case may be, something like this document would certainly not be out of place if read at a covenant renewal ritual.439 Although it is not certain, the initial induction ceremony appears to have been held on an ad hoc basis, whenever a new candidate presented himself to the Examiner (rqbmh; CD XV, 11), the candidate was then on probation for one year (CD XV, 15). It does not seem practical for the community to require a prospective member to wait several months for him to join. This does not, however, preclude the possibility that the official induction (i.e., after the probation period officially ended) itself took place during the Festival of Weeks, since the probation period could perhaps last more than a year

435

Cf. Hempel’s (The Damascus Texts, 81) criticism along these lines.

436

Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 52.

437

Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 226; Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 53.

438

Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 53.

439

On the liturgical aspects of the Damascus Document, see Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 226–35.

175

(i.e., from the time of first initiation till the time of full acceptance into the community).440 In any case, the new initiate, along with the other members of the community, would presumably renew the covenant on an annual basis (cf. 1QS II, 19) at the Festival of Weeks. An oblique indication that the Festival of Weeks is the occasion for covenant renewal in the Damascus Document is found in the reference to the book of Jubilees in CD XVI, 2b–6a.441 Admittedly, it is in reference to a record of the apostasy of the former covenant community of the pre-exilic era. However, it is mentioned in connection with covenant, and it does indicate that the book of Jubilees was authoritative for the author of the Damascus Document and the Qumran community as a whole. Moreover, since the book of Jubilees prescribes covenant renewal on the Festival of Weeks, this is at least suggestive. 4.1.4. Expulsion Ceremony in the Third Month. Indeed, in the cave four copies of the Damascus Document, there is a description of a meeting in the third month.442 There are two parallel extant copies of this portion of text:

440 Cf. CD XV, 15: hómym‚t‚ h‚n‚çó dó[ó (“for one complete year”), which leaves room for the idea that the probation period could last more than a year (i.e., the probation lasted one complete year between covenant festivals). 441 It is generally assumed that this is a gloss or interpolation (cf., for example, Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document, 89), but it is now known that it is an ancient gloss due to the parallels found in (4QDe 6 II, 17; 4QDf 4 II, 5). Furthermore, it appears (the extant text is fragmentary) that another text from Qumran cites Jubilees as an authoritative text, namely 4Q228 1 I, 2, 9 (cf. J. C. VanderKam and J. T. Milik, “4QText with a Citation of Jubilees,” in Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD XIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 178–83. 442

It is likely that that CD XIV, 3–6 preserves the rules for the mustering of this meeting in the third month: “The rule for the settlement of all the camps: They shall all be mustered by their names; the priests first, the Levites second, the sons of Israel third, and the proselyte(s) fourth. And they shall be inscribed by their names, one after the other, the priests first, the Levites second, the sons of Israel third, and the proselyte(s) fourth. Thus shall they sit and thus shall they inquire about any (matter).” The text goes on to delineate the qualifications of the presiding priest (lines 6–8) and the Examiner (rqbmh; lines 8–12), after which the text outlines a penal code of uncertain length. Since the instruction for expelling those who fail to accept the judgment of the community appears to come right after this penal code, it is a reasonable assumption that the description in CD XIV, 3–6 describes the rules for the meeting described at the end of the text.

176

˜ymy hfwnh ta wrraw yçylçh çdwjb wlhqy twnjómhó ó ?ybçwy¿ ≈q lwkb wç[y rça µyfpçmh çwrp hózhú w hrówút?‚ h ˜m lwamçw¿ lwkl µhy[smw ˜wrjh yxq l?wkb¿ wdy_?qpy rça ta hdwqph¿ h‚rwó úthó ó ?ç¿r‚d?ó m¿ l‚?[ ¿l?wkh hnh µhyr[ bçwy lwkw µhynjm bçwy¿ ? ˜wrjah¿

17 18 19 20 21

17. [the inhabitants of] the camps shall congregate in the third month and curse those who turn right 18. [or left from the ]Law. This is the elaboration of the laws to be followed during the entire period 19. [of visitation, that which will be vis]ited [during al]l the periods of wrath and their journeys, for all 20. [who dwell in their camps and all who dwell in their towns. Behold, it is a]ll [in accor]dance with the 21. [final in]terpreta[tion] of the Law. (4QDa = 4Q266 11, 17–21) vacat ? ¿ ?ta wr¿r‚aw yçylçh çdj‚?b wlhqy twnjmh ybçwy lkw¿ ?r¿çóa µyf‚p‚çmó h çwrp hz vac ?hrwth ˜m lamçw ˜ymy hfwnh¿ ˜wrjh yxq lkb wdyq‚?py¿ r‚ça t‚?a hdwqph¿ ≈‚q‚ ?lkb wç[y¿ ?bwt¿k‚ lwkh hnh µh?yr[ bç¿yú lkw µhyn‚j?‚ m¿ b‚çy lkló ?µhy[¿smw vacat ˜wrjah hórw‚ _t?‚ h¿ ç‚rdm l[

10 11 12 13 14 15

1–10. [ ] 11. [All the inhabitants of the camps shall congregate in the] third month and cur[se him] 12. [who turns right or left from the Law.] vac This is the elaboration of the laws 13. [to be followed during the entire] period of [visitation,] that will be [vis]ited during all the periods of wrath 14. and [their] jour[neys,] for all who dwell in their [c]amps and all who [dwell in their] towns. Behold it is all w[ritten (?)] 15. in accordance with the final interpretation of [the] Law. vacat (4QDe = 4Q270 7 II, 11–15) This portion of text comes at the very end of the work.443 Aside from a few minor variations, the two parallel texts appear to be essentially the same. The preceding text indicates that the context is that of the expulsion of those who are unfaithful to the covenant: 15

vacat And these are the l]aws by which all who are disciplined [shall be ruled.] Any man who 16 [is disciplined (?)] shall come and make it known to the priest appoin[ted over the Many and acc]ept his judgment [wil]lingly, in accordance with what 17 [He sa]id through Moses concerning the soul that sin[s unwittingly,

443

4QDa 11 and 4QDe 7 II preserve a blank column to the left of the extant column in question.

177

that he shall bring] his sin offering and [his guilt-offering. And con]cerning 18 Israel it is written, “I shall get me to the end of the hea[vens and will not smell the savour] of your sweet odours”. And else[where it is written,] 19 “Rend your hearts, not your garments”. And it is writ[ten, “To return to God with weeping and fasting”.] And whoever re[jects] 20 these [laws,] which are in accord with the statutes fou[nd in the Law of Moses, shall not be reckoned among the s]ons of [His] truth, [for his soul has despised] 21 the chastisements of righteousness. vacat And being in [rebellion] (4QDe 7 I, 15–21). The remainder of the context is extant in 4QDa 11, 5–16. Note the overlap between the last few lines of 4QDe 7 I and the first few lines of 4QDa 11 (only two lines of which is presented in the translation here): 5

… And anyone who rejects 6 these regulations, (which are) in accordance with all the statutes found in the law of Moses, shall not be reckoned 7 among all the sons of his truth; for his soul has despised righteous instruction. Being in rebellion let him be expelled from the presence of 8 the Many. The priest appointed [ov]er the Many shall declare, 9 saying: Blessed are you, Almighty God, in your hand is everything, and who makes everything. You established 10 [pe]oples in accordance with their families and tongues for their nations, but made them go astray in a 11 trackless void. But our ancestors you did choose and to their descendants you gave your truthful statutes 12 and your holy laws, which if a man does them, he shall live. You have set boundaries 13 for us and cursed those who transgress them, for we are the people of your redemption and the sheep of your pasture. 14 You cursed their transgressors but preserved us. (Thereupon) the one being expelled shall depart. Anyone 15 who eats from that which belongs to him, or who inquires about his welfare, or derives benefit from him 16 shall have his action inscribed by the Overseer permanently, and his judgment will be complete. (4QDa 11, 5–16).444 At this annual ceremony, those who do not willingly accept the judgment associated with the breaking of one of the preceding stipulations are expelled. The key issue was one of authority, or rather, when a member challenged the authority of the community’s laws.445

444 Compare the composite text of the final section of the Damascus Document that Hempel (The Laws of the Damascus Document, 175–77) has transcribed and translated. 445

C. Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document, 180.

178

An unwillingness to accept judgment is viewed as rebellion, and thus intentional sin.446 The fear that such a person would corrupt the community is evident from the amount of text dealing with the theme of apostasy.447 An apostate is to be expelled from the community, with the curses associated with failure to observe the covenant pronounced on him (cf. CD VII, 9–VIII, 21). This was to take place during an assembly which was to meet in the third month, presumably on an annual basis. Unfortunately, the precise day is not specified, neither is the Festival of Weeks mentioned. However, since there is only one festival day in the third month, i.e., the Festival of Weeks, it seems reasonable to suppose that this is the occasion for the assembly, and since it concerns those who have deliberately violated the covenant, it also seems reasonable to suppose that this meeting had something to do with covenant renewal, which might naturally include an expulsion of those who either refuse to or are unworthy of renewing it.448 J. T. Milik commented that there were certain similarities in language between the expulsion ceremony described in the concluding section of the Damascus Document and the description of those who refuse to enter the covenant (i.e., one who is unable to repent) in 1QS II, 25–III, 6. For instance:

446 For a discussion of the distinction between intentional and unintentional sin in the Damascus Document, see Gary A. Anderson, “The Status of the Torah before Sinai, 15–19. The article deals with how Jubilees and the Damascus Document dealt with the issue of Torah before Sinai. Since the patriarchs were largely unaware of Torah, they could not be justly punished (at least harshly). The Damascus Document, for instance, explains that the sons of Jacob were punished lightly due to the fact that their errors were unintentional (CD III, 4–5). Anderson then illustrates by way of Jubilees’ discussion of the sin of Reuben with Bilhah and Judah with Tamar, how this book also observes the same distinction (pp. 19–29). 447

Cf. the long recitation of the history of apostasy in the pre-exilic period of Israel’s history in CD II, 14–III, 12 (cf. also IV, 12–VI, 1; VII, 9–VIII, 21; XII, 2–6), headed by an exhortation against rebelling against God. See also, 1QpHab V, 8–11; 1QHa II, 34–36; IV, 7, 9–12, 16–18; 1QM XIV, 10. Cf. Nitzan, “The Concept of the Covenant,” 96–98. 448 Several scholars have previously suggested this: J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery, 116–18; A. Jaubert, La notion d’alliance, 211–27; M. Knibb, The Qumran Community, 14. Knibb argues that the document was intended to be used at the annual ceremony and that it involved admission into the community as well as expulsion from it (cf. CD II, 2).

179

hlah µyfpçmb sawmh lwkw (4QDa 11, 5–6) l?a tyrbb¿ awbl sawmh lwkw (1QS II, 25–26)449 hrówút?‚ h ˜m lwamçw¿ ˜ymy hfwnh ta wrraw (4QDa 11, 17–18) lwamçw ˜ymy rwsl awlw (1QS III, 10) He speculated that both texts belong to an annual covenant renewal ceremony, described in some detail in 1QS I, 16–III, 12 (see below).450 Falk identifies several aspects of this expulsion ritual which are similar to the cursing of the apostate in the first couple of columns of the Community Rule: (1) the priest curses the apostate first in both cases (1QS II, 11–18; 4QDa 11, 8–16); (2) the descriptions of the apostates are very similar: qdxh yrwsyb wçpn hl[g yk (4QDa 11, 7) qdx yfpçm t[d yrwsyb wçpn hl[g ayk (1QS II, 26–III, 1)451 (3) in order to be forgiven, the apostate had humbly to accept the discipline of the community (1QS III, 4–12; 4QDa 11, 1–5); (4) both impose a ban on eating with or otherwise associating with the apostate (1QS V, 14–20; VII, 24–25; VIII, 23; 4QDa 11, 14–15).452 He concludes that “the ritual detailed at the end of the Damascus Document provides a prayer of banishment for the apostate alluded to in 1QS II, 11–18.”453

449

J. T. Milik, “Milkî-s≥edeq et Milkî-reša‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 [1972],

136. 450 This suggestion by Milik is endorsed by many. See, Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document, 184; Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 233–34; VanderKam, “Sinai Revisited,” 49. P. Wernberg-Møller (The Manual of Discipline [STDJ 1; Leiden: Brill, 1957], 14) suggested the Day of Atonement (VII/10) as the date for the annual covenant renewal ceremony, but this seems less and less likely given the weight of evidence now uncovered in favor of the Festival of Weeks. 451

Cf. Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document, 184.

452

Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 233–34.

453

Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 234.

180

Falk also notes that the confessional prayer of the covenant faithful at the end of the Admonition (CD XX, 27–30) is strikingly similar to the prayer of confession in the Community Rule: But all who entered the covenant who have broken through the border of the Torah, when the glory of God appears to Israel they will be cut off from the midst of the camp, and along with them all the wicked ones of Judah, in the days when it is purged. But all those who hold firmly to these precepts, to go out and go in according to the Torah, and listen to the voice of the Teacher and confess before God, (saying,):

wúnú[óçró ó wnúaf‚ ?‚ j¿ wnyútwó b_ a‚ ó µógú w_nj_ ‚na_ ‚ µ‚g‚ t‚yr_ b‚ h‚ yqjb yrq wúnútókló bú ó wnb ˚yfpçm tmóawó ú ?q¿d‚x‚

We have [sin]ned, we have acted impiously, we and our fathers by walking contrarily in the statutes of the covenant. Righteous454 and true are your judgements against us. (CD XX, 27–30)455

Then the Levites shall enumerate the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their guilty transgressions and their sins during the dominion of Belial. [And al]l those who cross over into the covenant shall confess after them (by) saying:

w_n_[‚ç?‚ p¿ wnyw[n wn[çrh wnaó?fj¿ wnynplm wnytwúb?‚ aw¿ wna ? ¿ wntklñh‚Ñb wfpçm?w larçy ¿l‚?a¿ qdxw tma ?wn¿y_twbabw wnb

We have perverted ourselves, we have rebel[led], we [have sin]ned, we have acted impiously, we [and] our [fath]ers before us, by our walking […] True and righte[ous] is the [Go]d of [Israel and] his judgment against us and [our] fathers. (1QS I, 24–26)456

454 While qdx is not in the transcription in Charlesworth (Dead Sea Scrolls: Damascus Document, 36– 37), a close examination of the photographs indicates that there is another word at the end of line 29 of column XX. 455 The translation has been slightly modified from that in Charlesworth (The Dead Sea Scrolls: Damascus Document, 36–37) in the interests of consistency with the passage from 1QS. 456

All texts and translations of 1QS are from J. H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (PTSDSSP; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994). The formatting is adapted (with minor variations) from Falk (Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 227) in order to make the parallels more apparent.

181

This confession demonstrates the kind of humble acceptance of judgment that the community was looking for in response to those who failed to adhere to the stipulations of the covenant.457 Its tie to the excommunication ritual is therefore clear. Moreover, since the excommunication ritual probably occurred during the Festival of Weeks, this parallel bolsters the suggestion by those scholars that see a connection between the covenant renewal ritual described in 1QS I, 16–III, 12 and the Festival of Weeks.458 It is unlikely that violators of the covenant stipulations were punished only once a year.459 However, severe cases requiring permanent expulsion were probably reserved for such an annual ceremony, since such an occasion could serve the important function of reminding the community itself of the importance of remaining faithful to the covenant and the severe consequences that would befall anyone who deliberately rebelled against the judgment of the community.460 4.2. Serekh ha-Yahad 4.2.1. Introduction. This document, entitled djyh ˚rs rps or “the Book of the Rule of the Community,” is a foundational text for the sect.461 The numerous copies of

457

4Q477 records an example of members of the community who were expelled. In this text, a list of three offenses is given in each case. A third offense was considered final (cf., e.g., CD IX, 16–20). 458 In the context of the Community Rule, this confessional prayer is recited by those who renew the covenant on an annual basis (1QS I, 16; II, 19). 459

Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document, 180.

460

Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document, 180.

461

1QS used to be referred to as the Manual of Discipline. The script has been dated on paleographical grounds to approximately 100–75 B.C. All references (including text and translation) to 1QS are to the edition of E. Qimron and J. H. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community (1QS),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 1. Rule of the Community and Related Documents, 1–51. All references (including text and translation) to the copies of the cave four and five copies of the Serekh ha-Yah≥ad are taken from the edition of P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes (Qumran Cave 4, XIX: Serekh ha-Yah≥ad and Two Related Texts (DJD XXVI; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). All references (including text and translations) to 1QSa and 1QSb are to the edition of Charlesworth and L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Rule of the Congregation (1QSa),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 1. Rule of the Community and Related Documents, 108–17, and idem,

182

this text attest to this fact. There are twelve confirmed copies of this text at Qumran, ten from cave four, and one each from caves one and five.462 This makes it the best attested of the clearly sectarian works at Qumran.463 Its importance to the sect over a long period of time is demonstrated by the fact that the document underwent an extensive process of development during the history of the Dead Sea sect.464 1QS, the best preserved of the various copies, represents a relatively late stage in this literary process.465 The fact that the Serekh ha-Yahad was of central importance to the community as a kind of charter or constitution, combined with the fact that it was found largely intact (aside from a number of small patches), has made this text key for our understanding of the community’s view of itself and its purpose. This document presents an idealized portrait of the Dead Sea sect’s self-understanding as seen in its raison d’être, communal organization, religious beliefs, liturgy, rituals, and laws. 4.2.2. Covenant in the Community Rule. Even a cursory reading of the text readily indicates the centrality of the covenant to the self-understanding of the sect. The term tyrb (“covenant”) occurs 32 times in 1QS (plus four times in 1QSa and seven times “Blessings (1QSb),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 1. Rule of the Community and Related Documents, 119–31. It is possible that there are actually thirteen copies from Qumran, depending on whether 4QSb frg. 1 represents an eleventh copy of the Rule from cave 4. See the discussion in the official edition: P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4, XIX, 47–49 (cf. p. 1, n.1). 462

463

Compare with the Damascus Document (10 copies), the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (9 copies), the War Scroll (7 copies), and 4QMMT (6 copies). 464 See the discussion of Alexander and Vermes (Qumran Cave 4, XIX, 9–12), and S. Metso (Textual Development, 69–149). 465

See the argument developed by Metso (Textual Development, 69–149, esp. the useful chart on p. 147). To briefly summarize her findings: Metso argues that Serekh ha-Yah≥ad originally consisted of a shortened version of 1QS V–IX minus VIII, 15b–IX, 11. From this original, two textual traditions emerged, A (represented by 4QSe) and B (represented by 4QSb,d). They were eventually combined in tradition C (represented by 1QS). A later redactional stage can be seen in the corrections and additions made by a second copyist in 1QS VII–VIII. The rest of this section will focus mainly on 1QS since it is the most complete copy and even if it represents a relatively late stage in the development of the text, it is sufficiently early (100–75 B.C.) that this form of the text (or a later one) would have been followed by the community for most of its history.

183

in 1QSb).466 When one considers that 1QS consists of eleven columns, and that only columns VII, IX, and XI fail to contain any occurrences of the term tyrb, it becomes clear that covenant is not only a key concept in this text, but it is a pervasive concern.467 Moreover, when one peruses the other non-biblical literature at Qumran that is clearly sectarian, one often finds a similarly heavy concentration of the term tyrb: CD (42 times), 1QM (13 times), and 1QHa (26 times). The way tyrb is used also indicates the centrality of the concept of covenant. The covenant is something which the members of the community (djyh) enter into (awb) and/or cross over to (rwb[).468 The members of the community are sometimes referred to as “the multitude of the men of their covenant” (µtyrb yçna bwr).469 The covenant is also referred to as “the covenant of the everlasting community (:µymlw[ djy tyrb) or simply “the covenant of the community” (djyh tyrb).470 The occurrences of the term tyrb cluster in columns I (5 times), II (5 times), and V (12 times). According to Metso’s theory of the development of the Rule, a shorter version of column V was the original starting point. Later, columns I–IV were added, making columns I–II the new beginning point.471 It is thus apparent that in both versions,

466

These two fragmentary texts were appended to the end of 1QS and should probably thus be read together, especially since they are not unrelated in terms of subject. While there are many copies of 1QS, there is only one fragmentary copy of 1QSa and 1QSb, unless S. J. Pfann (Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 [DJD XXXVI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000], 515–16) is correct about the 8 or 9 mss. he distinguishes among several fragments of 4Q249. All word statistics from the Dead Sea Scrolls, unless otherwise stated, are taken from M. Abegg, Jr., The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance: The NonBiblical Texts from Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 467

“Covenant” is similarly widely distributed in 1QSa (four times in one out of two columns) and 1QSb (seven times in four out of five columns). 468

1QS I, 16, 18, 20, 24; II, 10, 12, 18; V, 8, 20; VI, 15; X, 10.

469

1QS V, 9; VI, 19; cf. VIII, 16.

470

1QS III, 11; VIII, 16.

471

Metso, Textual Development, 107–108.

184

this text began with a section elaborating the central role of the covenant in the community. According to the form of the text contained in 1QS, the text begins with a long explanation of the purpose of the community (1QS I, 1–15): 1

To the […] é≥ ym for his life [the Book of the Rul]e of the Community. In order to seek 2 God with [all the heart and soul] doing what is good and right before him, as 3 he commanded through Moses and through all his servants the prophets, and in order to love all 4 that he has chosen, and to hate all that he has rejected, keeping away from all evil 5 and adhering to all good works, and in order to perform truth and righteousness and justice 6 upon the earth; to walk no longer with the stubbornness of a guilty heart, and (no longer with) lustful eyes 7 doing all evil; in order to receive all those who devote themselves to do the statutes of God 8 into the covenant of mercy, to be joined to the Council of God, to walk perfectly before him (according to) all 9 revealed (laws) at their appointed times, and in order to love all the Sons of Light each 10 according to his lot in the Council of God, and to hate all the Sons of Darkness each according to his guilt 11 at the vengeance of God; all those devoting themselves to his truth bringing all their knowledge, and their strength, 12 and their property into the Community of God in order to strengthen their knowledge by the truth of God’s statutes, and discipline their strength 13 according to the perfection of his ways, and all their property according to his righteous counsel, and in order not to deviate from any single one 14 of all the commands of God in their times, and in order that they not be early (in) their times, nor late 15 from all their seasons, and in order not to turn aside from his true statutes (by) walking either (to) the right or (to) the left… Covenant faithfulness is clearly the dominant theme here. This theme is also found in column V which was the original beginning of the work. Following this introduction, there is a description of the ritual that marks the entry of the members into the Covenant (1QS I, 16–II, 25). The priests and levites officiate over this ceremony, leading the community in a liturgical service, with the priests exalting the God of salvation and the initiates responding with a double “amen” (1QS I, 18–20). Then the priests recount the righteousness of God and his mercy (1QS I, 21–22) followed by the Levites who enumerate the sins and guilt of the children of Israel (1QS I, 22–23), to which the community is to respond with a communal confession (1QS I, 24– II, 1). The priests then bless the men of God’s lot (1QS II, 1–4), and then the Levites curse all the men of Belial’s lot (1QS II, 4–9) to which the members respond with a

185

double “amen” (1QS II, 10). The priests and levites then jointly curse backsliders who put a stumbling block before other members and falsely bless themselves with the words of the covenant (1QS II, 11–17) to which the members again respond with a double “amen (1QS II, 18). Then follows a description of the order in which the members will enter the covenant: Priests, Levites, and then the people (1QS II, 19–22). This was a yearly ritual. This is clear from 1QS II, 19–23, which indicates that all the members of the community “entered” the covenant every year: 19

Thus they shall do year after year, all the days of the reign of Belial. The priests shall cross over 20 first into the order, according to their spirits, one after the other. Then the Levites shall cross over after them, 21 then all the people shall cross over thirdly into the order, one after the other, by thousands, hundreds, 22 fifties, and tens, so that every single Israelite may know his standing place in the Community of God 23 for an eternal coucil…. Since line 19 is preceded by a paragraph marking, the description of the priests, Levites, and people crossing over is clearly a yearly occurrence. This is probably to be connected to the prescription in column 5 “to examine their spirit and their works year after year” (1QS V, 24), given the fact that the context in column V is again that of entering the covenant and fidelity to the covenant.472 4.2.3. The Yahad as Patterned after Israel at Sinai. The theme of covenant is bound up with that of exile.473 The exile had a profound effect on the theology of the Qumran community. The exile came about as a result of Israel’s unfaithfulness to the covenant (cf. CD I, 3–4; VII, 9–15). Sometime afterwards, God raised up for the faithful remnant the Teacher of Righteousness to guide them (CD I, 4–11). The Qumran community, however, became ostracized from the rest of Israel by an event, the specifics

472 If 1QSb (Blessings), which was found on the same scroll as 1QS and 1QSa, is not just a text intended solely to be applied during the Messianic Age, but also to be celebrated in the present as a kind of participation in future blessings, then there is further evidence that this covenant ceremony was renewed annually in III, 26 and V, 21. 473

See the overview by M. G. Abegg, Jr., “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (Ed. J. M. Scott; JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 118–25.

186

of which are not clear, instigated by the Wicked Priest (cf. 1QpHab XI, 2–8).474 The community’s self-understanding involved the recognition that they were still in exile, but that this was in accordance with God’s plan in that they had a mission: 8b

vacat (They shall be) a most holy dwelling 9 for Aaron, with all-encompassing knowledge of the covenant of judgment, offering up a sweet odor. (They shall be) a house of perfection and truth in Israel 10 to uphold the covenant of eternal statutes. They will be accepted to atone for the land and to decide judgment over wickedness; and there will be no more iniquity. When these are established in the principles of the Community for two years among the perfect of the Way 11 they shall be set apart (as) holy in the midst of the Council of the men of the Community. Everything which has been concealed from Israel and is found by somebody 12 who studies—he shall not conceal it from these out of fear of a backsliding spirit. When these become the Community in Israel 13 they shall separate themselves from the session of the men of deceit in order to depart into the wilderness to prepare there the Way of the Lord (?); 14 as it is written: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the lord, make level in the desert a highway for our God.” 15 This (alludes to) the study of the Torah wh[ic]h he commanded through Moses to do, according to everything which has been revealed (from) time to time, 16 and according to that which the prophets have revealed by his Holy Spirit. (1QS VII, 8b–16a; italics added) 17b

One must argue with true knowledge and righteous judgment (only with) the chosen of 18 the Way, each according to his spirit and according to the norm of the Endtime. He shall guide them with knowledge, and instruct them in the mysteries of wonder and truth in the midst of 19 the men of the Community, so that they may walk perfectly each one with his fellow in everything which has been revealed to them. That is the time to prepare the way 20 to the wilderness. He shall instruct them (in) all that is found to be performed in this time. (1QS IX, 17–20; italics added). The quoted passage is from Isaiah 40:3, which alludes to the return from Babylonian exile. The Qumran community’s return from exile would not be accomplished until the eschaton (1QM I, 2–3), but in the meantime, preparation for the return involved study of the Torah. The path back from exile, then, ultimately went through Sinai. The fact that the wilderness is mentioned in connection with covenant and the study of Torah, indicates that the community may have patterned itself after the covenant community in the wilderness before Mt. Sinai when the Mosaic law was first given. J.

474

Cf. 1QH XII, 8–9; 4Q177 5–6, 7–10.

187

VanderKam has marshalled several parallels between the original community at the foot of Mt. Sinai and the self-understanding of the Qumran community that indicates this.475 In addition to the fact that the Qumranites appear to have celebrated an annual covenant renewal ceremony at the Festival of Weeks based on Exod 19:1, he notes the following points of contact: (1) The term djy which the community employs to refer to itself has a possible origin in Exod 19:8: “All the people answered together (wdjy) and said, ‘All that the LORD has spoken we will do.’”476 (2) Though the nation of Israel is depicted as quarrelsome and contentious in the surrounding narrative, at this precise point (i.e., Exod 19:8; cf. 24:3, 7) the Israelites are depicted as following God’s will; in fact, they affirm their intention to follow God’s will even before he makes it known (Exodus 20–23). This led many ancient commentators to conclude that the Israelites at the foot of Mt. Sinai were an ideal society.477 (3) The Community Rule uses language recalling that used for Israel at Mt. Sinai, including “freely devoted themselves” (root bdn; Exod 25:2; 35:20–21; cf. 1QS I, 7, 11; V, 1, 6, 8, 10, 21, 22; VI, 13; IX, 5) and the organization of people into groups of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, an organizational pattern that strongly recalls the Israelite organizational pattern established shortly before their entrance into the wilderness of Sinai (Exod 18:21, 25; Deut 1:15; cf. 1QS II, 21–22).478

475

J. C. VanderKam, “Sinai Revisited,” 48–59.

476 This term occurs 96 times in the Hebrew Bible, but VanderKam (“Sinai Revisited,” 52) suggests that this was the specific impetus for using the term in relation to the sect. 477 See VanderKam (“Sinai Revisited,” 53–54) for a review of the rabbinic exegesis associated with this theme. 478

On bdn in the Community Rule, see C. M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (STDJ XL; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 137–41.

188

(4) The widely attested practice of the Qumranites with respect to the communal sharing of goods appears to have had some impetus from the Israelites’ Sinai experience. VanderKam argues that 1QS I, 11–12 is “strongly reminiscent” of Deut 6:5 where “heart”, “soul”, and “might” are paralleled by “knowledge”, “powers”, and “possessions” in 1QS.479 Since the heart was the seat of the intellect and/or will, a correlation between “heart” and “knowledge” is certainly not farfetched. The correlation of “might” and “possessions” is likewise a well attested one in Jewish literature.480 (5) The Community Rule does not contain legislation for women, which might reflect the fact that the words of God first addressed to Moses are: “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the sons of Israel…” (Exod 19:3). Futhermore, in Exod 19:15 the people of Israel are told not to go near a woman, which may have been the impetus for the Qumran community to remain celibate.481 Finally, the theme of the djy as a sanctuary in the wilderness recalls the experience of the Israelites at the foot of Mt. Sinai, where they were commanded to build a Tabernacle (Exodus 26; cf. 35:30–36:38) from the freewill offerings (bdn, hmwrt) of the people (Exodus 25:1–9; 35:4–29).482 This theme is only inferred from the Community Rule, but may have a solid basis. In the last sections of the Community Rule, the reference to the way in the wilderness (VIII, 13–14; IX 19–20) and Torah study suggests this (see

479

“Sinai Revisited,” 57.

480 VanderKam (“Sinai Revisited,” 57) cites tg. Ps.–J. on Deut 6:5 where “might” is translated with ˜wmm (cf. m. Ber. 9:5). 481

VanderKam (“Sinai Revisited,” 58–59) summons much rabbinic evidence (tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 19:3; Mekhilta, Bahodesh 2:1; Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 321) which makes explicit the different treatment of women and men at Sinai. J. Zias (“The Cemeteries of Qumran and Celibacy: Confusion Laid to Rest?” DSD 7 [2000]: 220–53) has recently identified the remains of women in the graves adjacent to the Qumran ruins as belonging to much more recent Bedouin women, not ancient Qumranites. Thus, one of the main arguments against the celibacy thesis—a hotly contested idea—has no basis. 482

This paragraph is largely dependent on the excellent analysis of C. M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 139–41.

189

comments above).483 Torah study and its interpretation are frequently referred to as an atoning sacrifice in 1QS, a sacrifice which transforms the community into Israel’s Temple (VIII, 1–11; cf. V, 1–7).484 There is also a confluence of terminology between Exod 36:2–3 and 1QS VI, 18–20. Terms for approaching (brq) and the work (hkalmh) that is freely offered, as well as the idea that one is bringing one’s offering are common to both these passages.485 The term hd[, used only in 1QS V, 20 (but used several times in 1QSa which was written on the same scroll and appears to be used in a similar manner as djy), is found throughout the Sinai narrative in the Hebrew Bible.486 In sum, the Community Rule appears to depict the Qumran community as patterned after the Israelites at the foot of Mt. Sinai receiving the Torah. The annual celebration of covenant renewal fits in nicely with this theme, and coheres with a similar emphasis on covenant found in the Damascus Document.

There is a possible reference to çdqm (“sanctuary”) in 4QSe III, 1. Qimron and Charlesworth (The Dead Sea Scrolls: Rule of the Community and Related Documents, 87) read it çd‚qm‚, but Alexander and Vermes (DJD XXVI, 144–45) read it as çdql‚ (which they nevertheless translate as “sanctuary”). 483

484 Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 139–40. Cf. the fact that the Qumran community viewed prayers as a form of sacrifice in replacement of (or as a token of) the Temple cult from which they seceded. On this, see, S. Talmon, “The Emergence of Institutionalized Prayer in Israel in Light of the Qumran Literature,” in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 200–43. D. Falk (“Qumran Prayer Texts and the Temple,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998: Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet [Ed. D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez; E. M. Schuller; STDJ XXXV; Leiden: Brill, 2000], 106–26) challenges Talmon’s hypothesis, arguing that the idea that institutionalized prayer arose as a replacement for sacrifice is not proven, and that there is evidence that points in the opposite direction. He suggests that prayer and sacrifice would naturally go together at the Temple and that rather than viewing prayer as a substitute for sacrifice, it should be viewed as a token of the Temple service (i.e., since the sacrifice which would accompany prayer was not possible for the djy, the prayer itself was offered by itself). For our purposes, the distinction does not make much difference. 485

Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 140.

486

E.g., Exod 34:31; 35:1, 4, 20; Num 1:2 et passim. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 139.

190

4.3. 4QCommunal Ceremony (4Q275) Unfortunately, there is no specific indication within 1QS of the time of year that this covenant ceremony was held. However, as argued above, given the popularity of Jubilees at Qumran and the evidence from elsewhere in the scrolls, the Festival of Weeks has to be considered at least a strong possibility. While there is no indication of time of year within 1QS itself, there is a possible indication in a text—i.e., 4QCommunal Ceremony (4Q275)—that thematically at least, has some similarities to 1QS.487 This document, which is unfortunately very fragmentary, contains indications that it may have had something to do with the covenant renewal ceremony that was celebrated annually, as described in 1QS I–II.488 In the first fragment, there is a reference to the third month: top margin ¿h‚ ylybç t‚a µykó?lwh ¿µçh yayrq ló?arçy yryjb y¿ç‚ylçh çdwjb ? ¿ rmaw hn[w t‚o? ≈¿r‚ab µywgw µóym_ ‚[?‚ ¿oyú µhl t‚?tl

? ? ? ? ? ?

1. [ wal]king the paths of [ ] 2. [ the chosen ones of Israe]l, the called ones of name [ 3. [ ] in the thir[d] month [ ] 4. [ ]ºt and he shall answer and say [ ] 5. [ ]peoples and nations in the lan[d ] 6. [ to gi]ve to them yº[ ] (4Q275 1, 1–6)489

¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿

1 2 3 4 5 6

]

487

This is the judgment of the official editors, Alexander and Vermes (Qumran Cave 4, XIX, 210–11), who published this text with the cave four fragments of the Community Rule. 488

Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4, XIX, 210–11. As the editors note, there is little in the text to support the idea behind the older classification of the document as “Tohorot Ba” (cf. Milik, “Milkî-sedeq et Milkî-reša‘, 129). It should be noted, that Milik nevertheless clearly saw that 4Q275 was connected topically to the Serekh ha-Yahad. 489

Text and translation of 4Q275 is taken from Philip S. Alexander and Geza Vermes, Qumran Cave 4, XIX, 209–16.

191

Although the second ç is an uncertain reading (the right vertical stroke is barely visible), there is little doubt that the third month is indicated since an ordinal number seems to be called for after çdwjb. Unfortunately, there is no specific day mentioned, but if this text is associated with covenant renewal, and if one considers the fact that the only significant holy day within the third month is the Festival of Weeks, this would appear to be the most logical reference here. But does this text refer to the covenant renewal ceremony? While the extant textual evidence is far from conclusive, there are some good reasons for thinking so. In the third fragment, there appears to be a description of a gathering of the community with its leaders, perhaps along the lines of that described in 1QS I–II: ? ? ?˜yal

¿d[ wm[ µynqzhw ¿ çwjyb wl[y ¿h‚y rqbmhw

1 2 3

1. and the elders with him until [ ] 2. they shall enter by genealogy [ ] 3. and the Guardian shall [ without] In 1QS VI, there is a more detailed indication of the seating arrangements during a meeting of the Many and the procedure by which new members are admitted, which gives a role to the elders and the rqbm (1QS VI, 8, 12, 20). That this text contained liturgical elements consistent with a covenant renewal ceremony is fairly certain. Covenantal blessings and curses were an important part of the annual covenant renewal ceremony, as we have seen (cf. 1QS II, 4–9). In 4Q275 1, 4 there is the liturgical formula rmaw hn[w which is typically followed by a blessing, curse, “amen”, or some other kind of prayer.490 There is a parallel in 1QS II, 5, where the plural is used, to preface a curse: wrmaw wn[w (“and they shall answer and say”). The DJD editors conjecture that the formula in 4Q275 also prefaced a curse, in this case against the nations, because of the mention of “nations” (µywg) in line 5 (also possibly “peoples”

490

See for example, 1QM XV, 7; XVI, 15.

192

though the reading is uncertain: µóym_ ‚[)‚ . Fragment 3 appears to contain a curse as well. Though the term is only partially preserved (r¿w_ra), the phrase “when he visits des[truction” (h¿lk wdqpbó) in line 6 and even the phrase “from His inheritance for e[ver” (µlw][l wtljnm) in line 5 appear to fit the context of a curse. Finally, in fragment 2 of 4Q275, there is a possible reference to the Festival of Weeks: y[ybçh¿ [wbçh d[ wrsythw fóp?‚ çm ˜man ¿l‚a‚ awh yk µtljnb wçór?‚ yw

? ?

¿1 ¿2

1 [ judge]ment, and they shall discipline themselves until the [seventh] week [ ] 2 [ and they shall pos]sess their inheritance, for He is a [faithful] God [ ] The editors argue that following the phrase [wbçh d[ one would expect an ordinal number or an adjective, and suggest the number seven (y[ybçh), on the assumption that 4Q275 was connected to the annual covenant renewal ceremony at Qumran.491 If this is indeed the case, this would indicate, as they suggest, that the seven weeks leading up to the Festival of Weeks were used as a period of self-reflection and discipline.492 The evidence is sketchy and inconclusive, but nevertheless highly suggestive. The editors’ suggestion that 4Q275 is best understood in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony held in the third month is the theory that best fits the evidence we have. If so, this is a further indication that the Qumranites celebrated an annual covenant renewal ceremony in connection with the Festival of Weeks. 5. Liturgical Texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls E. G. Chazon estimates that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain more than two hundred prayer texts formerly unknown to us.493 The Community Rule describes several instances

491

Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4, XIX, 214.

492

Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4, XIX, 214.

493

Chazon, “The Function of the Qumran Prayer Texts: An Analysis of the Daily Prayers (4Q503),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–

193

of prayers used during the covenant renewal ceremony (1QS I, 18–II, 18), but these are most likely descriptions of the prayers recited, not the actual, detailed prayers themselves.494 The following prayer texts from Qumran were likely associated with covenant renewal, and may have been used during the ceremony described in 1QS I– II:495

(1) 4QBerakhot (4Q280, 4Q286–290):496 While the work is entitled “blessings”,

curses are just as prominent in the work. This is a sectarian liturgy for the ritual associated with the annual celebration of covenant renewal.497 It shares much of the language with the description of the ritual in 1QS I–II, but is much expanded in comparison. In 1QS II, 4–18, the curses on the men of Belial’s lot are pronounced by the Levites while the people respond with the double amen. The focus in Berakhot is the opposition between God and Belial or Melchiresha. The laws of the covenant figure prominently in this work (4Q286 13–14 + 20 + 4Q288 1; 4Q286 15, 1–4; 4Q287 8, 1–2; 9, 1–2; 4Q288 1, 1–3; 4Q280 3, 1–2) as do curses on Belial and his followers (4Q286 7 II, 1–13; 4Q289 1, 1–7; 4Q290 1, 1–3; 4Q280 1, 1–3; 2, 1–7). Since God and the head of the evil angels are addressed directly and since the sections end in a double “amen”, the 25, 1997 (Ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 217. 494

On these prayers, see Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 219–25. He shows that the Damascus Document contains an alternative version of the confession of sin (CD XX, 27–30; cf. 1QS I, 24–26; see discussion above). 495

There are too many for us to discuss in any detail. Here they will simply be listed with a few summary comments attached. 496 4Q280 is grouped here with the others despite the fact that there is some question whether it actually is an edition of Berakhot. Milik (“Milkî-s≥edeq et Milkî-reša‘,” 115, 126–30) originally identified it as 4QPurifications, “The Purity Rule,” but its similarity in content to Berakhot has since been recognized. At any rate, it is clearly sectarian and related to the liturgy for the renewal of the covenant, just like Berakhot. 497

Official DJD edition: B. Nitzan, “Berakhot,” in Qumran Cave 4, VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (Ed. E. Eshel, et al.; DJD XI; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 1–74; See, idem, “4QBerakhot (4Q286– 290): A Preliminary Report,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris, 1992 (Ed. G. J. Brooke with F. García Martínez; STDJ XV; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 53–71; idem, “4QBerakhota–e (4Q286–290): A Covenantal Ceremony in the Light of Related Texts,” RevQ 16 (1995): 487–506.

194

compositions were clearly meant for communal recital, which is consistent with 1QS I–II. Though curses on Belial and his followers are extant, there are no corresponding blessings on the community extant (though God is blessed in many passages), but this is likely just accidental (though we cannot be sure).498 The covenantal blessings and curses (e.g., Deut 27:12–26) appear to provide the best background for understanding this liturgical work. (2) Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–407, 11Q17, Mas1K):499 This is a collection of thirteen songs meant to be sung on the first thirteen sabbaths of the year. There is no trace of any songs for the rest of the year.500 This was an important text at Qumran, evidenced by the fact that nine copies of the text were found there (eight copies from cave 4 and one from cave 11).501 It describes the Sabbath liturgy of the angelic priests in the celestial Temple. The Qumran community believed that it joined in angelic worship in one united congregation in the heavenly throne room.502 The text’s

498

E.g., 4Q286 3, 1–8; 5, 1–13, etc.

499 Official DJD edition: C. Newsom, “Shirot ‘Olat Hashabbat,” in Qumran Cave 4, VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (Ed. E. Eshel, et al.; DJD XI; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 173–401. Cf. also, C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). 500 As Newsom (The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Volume 4B: Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice [PTSDSSP; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999], 4) notes, some of the themes evidenced in the work are specific to the first quarter of the year (e.g., first song and consecration of the angelic priesthood; twelfth song and merkabah right after the Festival of Weeks). Cf. however, 11QPsa XXVII, 7 which states that David wrote 364 songs for the daily offering, 52 songs for the Sabbath offering, and 30 songs for the new moons and festivals. 501

In addition, one copy was found at Masada. Newsom (“‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters [Ed. W. H. Propp, et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 182–85) has argued that the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are not sectarian compositions. For a counter-position, see Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 126–30. Whatever the case, it is clear that this text was treasured by the community. 502 Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice shares this theme of liturgical communion with the angels with other texts at Qumran, including Hodayot, 4QDaily Prayers and 4QBerakhot. Similarities to the book of Revelation, Gnostic literature, and Hekhalot literature have long been recognized. On angelic worship at Qumran, see C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ XLII; Leiden: Brill, 2002); E. G. Chazon, “Liturgical Communion with the Angels at Qumran,” in Sapiential, Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran (Ed. D. K. Falk et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 95–105; idem, “Human and Angelic Prayer in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth International

195

preoccupation with the angelic priesthood has prompted speculation that for the Qumran community, the worship associated with the angelic priesthood vindicated them in the face of their exclusion from the Jerusalem Temple cult.503 One reason why the composition may cover only the first quarter of the year is the possibility that the work builds to a climax in association with the sect’s annual covenant renewal.504 D. Halperin notes that the © of Ezek 43:2 shows influence of exegesis on Ezek 1:24 and Ps 68:18, which relates the revelation on Sinai (mentioning chariots of God), and notes that the synagogue reading for the Festival of Weeks included both these texts (Ezekiel 1 and Psalm 68:18–19, in addition to Exodus 19).505 Furthermore, both these texts influenced Songs XI and XII, which were sung on III/14 and III/21 respectively; i.e., both before and after the Festival of Weeks (III/15).506 (3) Festival Prayers (1Q34 + 1Q34bis, 4Q507, 4Q508, 4Q509 + 4Q505):507 This collection of festival prayers, preserved in very poor condition, contains prayers which were meant to be recited on the Day of Atonement, the monthly New Moon celebration, the Festival of Weeks, and probably also the fall New Year and Passover. It is likely that Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January, 2000 (Ed. E. G. Chazon; STDJ XLVIII; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 35–47; M. Weinfeld, “The Angelic Song over the Luminaries in the Qumran texts,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by the Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1989–1990 (Ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; STDJ XVI; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 131–57. 503 If so, this gives some support to the idea of Talmon and others that prayer replaced (in some sense) sacrifice. Cf. 1QS VII, 4–10 where atonement is effected not through the sacrificial cult of the Temple, but through prayer, praise and obedience to the Torah. 504 Cf. J. R. Davila, Liturgical Works (Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 90. 505

D. J. Halperin, “Merkabah Midrash in the Septuagint,” JBL 101 (1982): 351–63; idem, The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 57–59, 119– 20, 146–49, 316–17, 355. The identification of Psalm 68:18–19 as a lectionary reading for Shavuot is problematic. See the discussion in chapter 6 below. 506

C. Newsom, “Merkabah Exegesis in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot,” JJS 38 (1987): 11–30.

507

Official DJD edition: M. Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4, III (4Q482–520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982). See, D. K. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 155–87.

196

the whole annual festival cycle was addressed more or less in chronological order, though there appear to have been a few displacements. In 4Q508 3, 2 there is a possible reference to the establishment of the Noachic covenant. In 4Q509 131–132 II, 5–20 there is apparently a prayer associated with the Festival of Firstfruits akin to that described in the Temple Scroll (cf. Jub. 22:1; 11Q19 XI, 11; XVIII, 14; XIX, 5–6, 9, 12; XLIII, 3, 6–7).508 In 1Q34 + 1Q34bis 3 II, 1–8 (cf. 4Q509 97–98 I, 2–9) there is a possible prayer connected to the Festival of Weeks. In line 6, there is a reference to the fact that God has remembered the covenant (˚tyrb trkz yk).509 (4) 4QCommunal Confession (4Q393):510 Though there is no specific indication, it is possible that this communal confession was recited during the annual covenant renewal ceremony since in 1QS 1:24–26 there is a communal confession.511 6. Conclusion The evidence from Qumran falls short of absolute proof of a connection between the Festival of Weeks and covenant renewal. However, a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence can be marshalled to show that, in all probability, the Yahad did in fact celebrate an annual covenant renewal ceremony on the Festival of Weeks. First, it is abundantly clear from the Temple Scroll and the calendrical works that the Festival of Weeks was celebrated at Qumran on III/15 in keeping with the dating of

508

Cf. also 4Q508 13, 1–3 which contains a reference to new wine and oil and possibly grain.

509 Baillet (DJD 7, 185) suggests that this is the Day of Atonement, since he believes that it is a continuation of the prayer in the previous section (cf. 1Q34 + 1Q34bis 3 I; 4Q508 1, 1–3) which he takes to be the Day of Atonement. However, the last extant lines in 1Q34 +1Q34bis 3 I appears to contain a concluding benediction (cf. f1 + 2, 4–6) which means that the relevant section (f3 II) is not associated with the Day of Atonement at all. This would suggest a setting in the Festival of Booths which follows the Day of Atonement in the festival calendar but the possibility of displacement makes it uncertain. 510

Official DJD edition: D. K. Falk, “4QCommunal Confession,” in Qumran Cave 4, XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (Ed., E. Chazon, et al.; DJD XXIX; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999). 45–61; See, D. Falk, “4Q393: A Communal Confession,” JJS 45 (1994): 184–207. 511

Cf. Falk, “4Q393: A Communal Confession,” 204–207.

197

the book of Jubilees, with which it shared the solar calendar. Since this book is amply attested at Qumran, as well as cited as an authoritative book, it is clear that this book was revered by the covenanters. Furthermore, since Jubilees advocates covenant renewal on the Festival of Weeks, one might expect that the Qumran community followed suit. This is indeed, likely the case. The Damascus Document is likely best understood as a covenant formulary, which concludes with the mention of a ceremony in the third month, where apostates were expelled from the community for breach of the covenant. Such a ceremony is likely associated with covenant renewal on its face. Moreover, the Community Rule describes a covenant ceremony in 1QS I–II, during which the community reaffirmed its commitment to the covenant. This ceremony consisted of liturgical pieces containing praise, blessing and cursing, and confession of sins, some of which are probably preserved in fragmentary form in works such as 4QBerakhot and Festival Prayers, as well as perhaps, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and 4QCommunal Confession. The Qumran community believed that it alone was truly faithful to the covenant ratified at Sinai. The law revealed at that time needed the special interpretation only the community had access to in order for its members to observe the Torah correctly. The community, therefore, constituted the small faithful remnant that would experience God’s eschatological salvation which was at hand. This was a time of testing and trial, when the forces of Belial would attack the righteous. Apostasy was always a concern and was dealt with severely. In faithful preparation for the last days, the community spent its time in study of the Torah, in imitation of the original Israelite community which was gathered at the foot of Mt. Sinai to ratify the covenant and receive the law. The worship of the community was believed to give the worshipper virtual access to the heavenly worship of the angelic priests in the celestial throne room. This reflected the belief that their community could

198

proleptically experience the future as present; thus, experiencing heaven on earth, which explains why they believed angels to be in their midst (cf. 1QSa II, 9). All of this depended on faithful observance of the covenant. Thus, it is not overstatement to suggest that the covenant renewal ceremony was the central event on the Qumranic religious calendar. Certainly the pride of place it is given (i.e., at the beginning in cols. I–III) in one of their (if not the) foundation documents, the Community Rule, suggests this. In fact, the original beginning in col. V also outlines the importance of covenant, complete with instructions for the ceremony for entering the covenant and an admonition to meet on an annual basis to examine each member vis-à-vis his faithfulness to the covenant. 4QCommunal Ceremony, a document similar to the Community Rule, identifies a meeting in the third month and possibly contains a reference to the Festival of Weeks. The Damascus Document, which seems to reflect a different type of community from that in the Community Rule, nevertheless exhibits some points of similarity with 1QS I–III. Furthermore, the Damascus Document is in form a covenant formulary and according to the concluding section of this work, the expulsion ceremony was held in the third month. All of this evidence taken together strongly suggests that the Qumran community held an annual ceremony on the Festival of Weeks where they renewed their commitment to the Covenant mediated by Moses at Sinai, and expelled those members who failed in some way to live according to its stipulations as revealed by God at that time and interpreted within the community.

199

CHAPTER 6 PENTECOST AND SINAI IN LUKE-ACTS

1. Introduction The Festival of Weeks or Pentecost appears at a critical point in the Luke-Acts narrative. In Luke’s narrative, the Ascension is closely associated with Pentecost, since the promise of the Holy Spirit is given just before Christ’s ascent (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4– 5, 8).512 Since the Ascension-Pentecost narrative in Luke-Acts straddles the end of the gospel of Luke (Luke 24:50–53) and the beginning of the book of Acts (Acts 1:1–11; 2:1–4), these events form the center of Luke’s two-part work.513 A comparison with the Johannine gift of the Spirit shows that it occurs on the same day as the resurrection (John 20:19–23), a stark contrast to the timing of the pouring out of the Spirit in Luke-Acts.514 It will be argued here that the Ascension and Pentecost narrative draws on the Sinai

512

Luke-Acts is an anonymous work, but has traditionally been identified as Luke. More out of convenience than out of conviction, the author will be referred to as Luke. The author’s ethnicity is a more important issue, and while it is difficult to determine, it is more likely that he was a Jew than a Gentile because of his thorough knowledge of the Old Testament (LXX). Cf. G. E. Sterling (Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography [NovTSup LXIV; Leiden: Brill, 1992], 327–28) who identifies the author as either a longstanding God-fearer or Hellenistic Jew for precisely this reason. Luke-Acts can be dated to approximately 80–90 A.D (cf. Sterling, Historiography, 329–30). 513

Note that the Sinai narrative taken as a whole (Exodus 19–Numbers 10) is also centrally located in the Pentateuch. 514 On the Johannine gift of the Spirit, see G. M. Burge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987); T. R. Hatina, “John 20.22 in Its Eschatological Context: Promise or Fulfillment?” Biblica 74 (1993): 196–219.

200

event, and consciously draws a parallel between Moses’ ascent of Mt. Sinai during the third month (the month of the Festival of Weeks) and return with the Law, on the one hand, and Jesus ascension from Mt. Olivet and sending of the Spirit during Pentecost at Jerusalem, on the other.515 2. The Restoration of the People of God 2.1. The Isaianic New Exodus in Luke-Acts Before turning to the Pentecost narrative and analyzing it in some detail, it is important to discuss Moses/Sinai allusions in the context of the entire two-part work. Moses and Sinai motifs appear throughout the Luke-Acts narrative.516 Much of the Moses-typology in Luke-Acts is part of Luke’s Isaianic New Exodus theme. This refers to the fact that the foundation story of ancient Israel (Exodus, Sinai, Wilderness wandering, and Promised Land) is transformed in Isaiah 40–55 to a future hope for the

515 Several scholars have argued for such a background to the Pentecost narrative: J. C. VanderKam, “The Festival of Weeks and the Story of Pentecost in Acts 2,” 185–205; B. Noack, “The Day of Pentecost,” 73–95; Fitzmyer, “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” 409–40; R. Neudecker, “‘Das ganze Volk sah die Stimmen…’: Haggadische Auslegung und Pfingstbericht,” Biblica 78 (1997): 329–49; M. Weinfeld, “Pentecost as Festival of the Giving of the Law,” 7–18; Kretschmar, “Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten,” 209–53; Le Deaut, “Pentecote et Tradition Juive,” 127–44; Dupont, “The First Christian Pentecost,” 35–59; J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in relation to Pentecostalism today (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 38–54; M. Wenk, Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke–Acts (JPTSup 19; Sheffield: SAP, 2000), 232–73; W. H. Harris, The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4:7–11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery (Biblical Studies Library; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 143–70. Scholars who have taken an opposing position are the following: I. H. Marshall, “The Significance of Pentecost,” 347–69; O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” 245–58; F. F. Bruce, “The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles,” Interpretation 27 (1973): 166–83; R. P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (JPTSup 6; Sheffield: SAP, 1994), 173–201; D. L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (JSNTSup 12; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 155–87. 516 See the discussion of Mosaic themes in Luke in the following works: E. L. Allen, “Jesus and Moses in the New Testament,” ExpTim 67 (1956): 104–106; P. S. Minear, To Heal and to Reveal: The Prophetic Vocation according to Luke (New York: Seabury, 1976), 102–21; D. P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 46–79; R. J. Dillon, From Eyewitnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24 (AnBib 82; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978); R. F. Zehnle, Peter’s Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter’s Speeches of Acts 2 and 3 (SBLMS 15; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 47–52, 75–89.

201

exiles in Babylon.517 Isaiah 40 opens with a message of comfort and salvation to the exiles in images and terminology reminiscent of the Exodus from Egypt (40:1–11).518 The Exodus metaphor is particularly apt because it too involved the salvation of the nation. The New Exodus is a theme that is found in numerous individual passages throughout these chapters.519 Just as in the original Exodus, Yahweh will lead his people forth (Isa 42:16; 48:20; 49:9–10; 52:12) and again, as in the original Exodus, Yahweh will defeat the horse and chariot at the sea in his role as mighty warrior (Isa 40:10; 42:13; 43:16–17; 51:9–10; 52:10; cf. Exod 14:25, 28; 15:3). Furthermore, just as Yahweh led Israel through the sea, Yahweh will lead his people through the waters (43:1–2; 51:10). Finally, as in the original wilderness wandering, Yahweh will provide food and water in the wilderness (Isa 41:17–20; 43:19–21; 48:21; 49:9–10).520 In many ways, according to Isaiah, this salvation will be even more glorious than the first. The exiles will go forth not in haste, harried by its foes, as in the original Exodus, but at leisure and in peace (Isa 52:12; 55:12; Deut 16:3; Exod 12:11). The nation will be rebuilt (49:8, 17–21; 54:11–14), her enemies destroyed (41:11–12; 49:26; 54:15– 17) and the nations will do homage (45:14; 49:7, 22–23). Also, Jerusalem and the Temple will be rebuilt to surpass even its former glory (44:28; 49:16–17; 54:11–12).

517 Since Luke would not have understood the modern historical-critical division of Isaiah into First, Second and Third Isaiah, this terminology will be avoided in the following discussion. 518

Cf. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 37–69.

519 On the New Exodus motif in Isaiah 40–55, see: B. W. Anderson, “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson; New York: Harper, 1962), 177–95; C. Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970), 59–98; R. E. Watts, “Consolation or Confrontation? Isaiah 40– 55 and the Delay of the New Exodus,” TynB 41 (1990): 31–59; Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, 285–97. 520

For more examples, see the discussion of Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, 286–87.

202

The Isaianic New Exodus theme accounts for Luke’s presentation of Jesus as the prophet like Moses (cf. Acts 3:22–23).521 However, it is often disputed how significant this motif is in Luke-Acts.522 It is often argued that the primary image for Lukan Christology is the Davidic Messiah, rather than the eschatological prophet like Moses.523 While this may be true in certain respects, these scholars go too far in minimizing Mosestypology in Luke-Acts (and correspondingly overemphasizing Davidic themes), especially when they deny the presence altogether of Moses/Sinai allusions in various key texts, including the Pentecost account in Acts 2.524 The Isaianic New Exodus theme, however, fuses Mosaic and Davidic traditions, and enables Luke to present Jesus as the Davidic Messiah who is also the prophet like Moses.525 While Isaiah does not specifically identify the Davidic Messiah as the one who will actually lead the New Exodus, the restoration of the people of God in their ancestral home is accompanied by an expectation that the Davidic monarchy will be re-established in Jerusalem. Pao discerns six key themes of the Isaianic New Exodus program as it relates to the restoration of Israel which have counterparts in the gospel of Luke and especially the

521

For Luke’s presentation of Jesus as a prophet, see Luke 4:16–30; 7:16; 9:7–9, 18–19; 13:31–35; 24:19; Acts 3:22–24; 7:37. 522

See Menzies, Empowered for Witness; Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern; O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost”; cf. also I. H. Marshall, “The Significance of Pentecost,” 347–69. Strauss (The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology [JSNTSup 110; Sheffield: SAP, 1995]) has a tendency to overemphasize the Davidic over against the Mosaic. 523

See especially Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern; Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts. 524

O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost”; Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, 145–47; Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 189–201; Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern, 156–87. 525

Turner, Power From on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: SAP, 1996), 289.

203

book of Acts.526 While the anticipation of many of these elements is found in the gospel, it is not until the book of Acts that the restoration of the people of God becomes a reality.527 (1) The Reconstitution of Israel: In Isaiah, a concern for the twelve tribes of Israel (Isa 49:5–6) and the re-unification of the divided kingdom (Isa 11:13; cf. 7:1–9, 17; 9:9) is the manifestation of related expectations regarding the reconstitution of the nation of Israel. An allusion to the reconstition of the twelve tribes of Israel can be found in the passage concerning the election of Mattathias in Acts 1:12–26. Since the death of Judas reduces the number of apostles to eleven, Mattathias is elected to bring the number back up to twelve, a highly symbolic number. That the number twelve is the focus of the passage is clear (cf. Acts 1:26) and a comparison with Luke 22:28–30 (cf. Matt 19:28) shows that the Twelve apostles are linked to the twelve tribes of Israel:528 28

“You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.529 The selection of Mattathias in Acts 1:12–26 therefore signals the beginning of the restoration of the people of God, manifested as the Davidic kingdom, to be decisively

526 D. W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 111–46. He builds on the work of R. E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000) and Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, but refines and adapts the idea to the book of Acts. 527

Pao (Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus) is very detailed with respect to Luke-Acts as a whole. Here, special attention will be made to any correspondences that involves the Ascension and Pentecost narratives in particular. 528

Cf. Luke 22:3 where Judas’ identity as one of the twelve is highlighted (cf. Acts 1:17).

529 Also compare the selection of the disciples in Luke 6:12–16 and Acts 1:15–26; Cf. Acts 26:7. All translations of the NT are taken from the English Standard Version unless otherwise stated. Occasionally the translations are slightly altered in the interests of greater literalness.

204

effected (though not fully completed) by the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Moreover, just as in Isaiah the restoration of the people of God implies the reunification of the divided kingdom, this same theme is found in Acts, specifically the programmatic statement in Acts 1:8: But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth. Here three stages or categories are delineated: a city, two provinces, and the ends of the earth. The middle two terms referring to the two provinces, Judea and Samaria, occurs only in Luke in the New Testament (Acts 1:8; 8:1; cf. 9:31). In Acts 8 when Philip evangelizes Samaria and they accept the gospel, word reaches the apostles in Jerusalem (who represent the people of God), and they affirm Samaria’s inclusion in the restored Israel by sending an official delegation.530 The reception of the Holy Spirit further confirms that the divided kingdom is restored by the inclusion of the Samaritans. (2) The Ingathering of the Exiles: Various passages in Isaiah express a concern for the exiles and explicitly state that they will be gathered from the ends of the earth (Isa 41:8; 43:5–7; 49:18; 51:9–11; 52:11; 54:7; cf. 40:11). The return of the exiles is closely linked to imagery of “the Way” (˚rd; Isa 40:3–5; 35:8–10) and to an emphasis on the return to the land (Isa 49:8; 57:13). In Acts, the ingathering of the exiles is depicted on the day of Pentecost when Jews from all over the world are gathered at Jerusalem (Acts 2:5).531 530 J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1972, 127. On the Samaritans in Luke, see Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel (JSNTSup 119; Sheffield: SAP, 1995), 72–106. 531 On the idea that the Jews of the Second Temple period believed that the exile was a continuing phenomenon, see the collection of essays in J. M. Scott, ed., Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), and idem, Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001); cf. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992), 268–69; C. A. Evans, “Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 77–100.

205

(3) The Community of the Spirit: In Isaiah, the Spirit who is normally promised to specific individuals assigned to carry out various tasks (Isa 11:1–3; 42:1; 62:1–2) is also promised to the entire community upon the reconstitution of the nation (Isa 44:1–4; 32:14–17). This finds its counterpart in Luke-Acts at Jesus’ baptism, where the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus (Luke 3:21–22; cf. 4:16–30) on the heels of the declaration of John the Baptist that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16). In Acts 1:4–5 (cf. Luke 24:49) Jesus cites John the Baptist and promises the power of the Holy Spirit to his followers (cf. Acts 1:8). This is fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit is transferred to the believers in the upper room. Given the passage’s allusions to the Sinai event, the restoration of the people of God, encompassing the ingathering of the exiles, is strongly implied. (4) The Rebuilding of the Davidic Kingdom: A Davidic figure is expected to play a prominent role in the formation of the restored Israel (Isa 9:6–7; 11:1; 16:4–5; 55:1–5). While Moses and the Exodus tradition is evoked to depict the deliverance of Israel, the Davidic figure is evoked in anticipation of the glorious reign of the restored kingdom. This has many obvious points of contact in the Lukan presentation of Jesus and the Kingdom he inaugurates.532 (5) Repentance and the Turn to the Lord: In Isaiah, the scattering of the people of God comes about as a result of their sins (Isa 42:22–43:1; 50:1), and thus there is a call to repentance (Isa 44:21–22; 43:24–25; 55:6–7; 59:1–21; 63:7–64:12). In Luke-Acts, repentance is often linked to restoration. In Luke 24:47, there is a programmatic statement that repentance should be preached to all nations, a command that comes just before the promise of the Spirit (Luke 24:47–49; cf. Acts 1:8). Furthermore, at the end of

532

Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 117, n.17. On Luke’s presentation of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, see Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern; Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts.

206

Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost, there is a call to repentance with an accompanying promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). (6) The Inclusion of the Outcasts: In Isaiah there is a concern for the outcasts of Israel and a universalistic focus on the nations (2:2–3; 11:12; 42:10–12; 49:6; 51:4–5; 55:5; 56:1–8; 66:18; cf. Deut 23:1–9). A message of salvation will be offered to them and those who accept will be gathered and incorporated into the reconstituted nation of Israel to give glory to God. The theme of the outcast or the marginalized is widespread in Luke-Acts, as has been noticed for some time, as is the theme of the mission to the Gentiles.533 To single out just one episode, however, Pao notes that Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26–40 (where it is the fact that he is a eunuch is foremost in the narrative, not his ethnic identity), appears strange at first, but upon closer scrutiny it makes perfect sense in light of the Isaianic New Exodus program, for in Isa 56:3–5, a eunuch is mentioned along with foreigners, in connection with the restoration of Israel (cf. Isa 56:8). Since Isa 53:7 is cited in Acts 8:32–33, the Isaianic theme of the New Exodus appears to be clearly in mind here.534

533 On the outcast, see, for instance: L. T. Johnson, Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1981); J. O. York, The Last Shall Be First: The Rhetoric of Reversal in Luke (JSNTSup 46; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991); S. J. Roth, The Blind, the Lame, and the Poor: Character Types in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: SAP, 1997). For a survey of the literature on the mission to the Gentiles, see: F. Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Thirty-Three Years of Research (1950–1983) (trans. K. McKinney; PTMS 12; Allison Park, Penn.: Pickwick, 1987), 323–43. 534 Turner (Power from on High, 247) provides the following somewhat different, though complementary summary of New Exodus themes in Isaiah: (1) God calls for a “way” to be prepared in the wilderness for his saving activity (40:3–5; 43:19); (2) He will come as the mighty divine warrior to defeat Israel’s oppressors and release the oppressed (40:10–11; 42:13; 51:9–16; 49:9, 24–25); (3) The Lord will lead out a procession of captives along the “way” (40:11; 43:1–3; 52:11–12); (4) God will sustain them in the wilderness more completely than in the original Exodus, providing food and water (41:17–20; 43:19– 21; 49:9–10); (5) God will pour out his Spirit to restore and refresh his people (44:3) and he will teach them and lead them in “the way” (54:13; 48:17); (6) the ultimate goal of the New Exodus is God’s enthronement in a restored Zion/Jerusalem (44:26; 45:13; 54:11–12), and this good news becomes an occasion for celebration (40:1, 9–10; 52:1–10; cf. 43:19; 49:10–11; 55:12–13); (7) this New Exodus will be accomplished at least in part through this enigmatic servant, which has kingly, prophetic and “Israel” characteristics. Many of these elements will find resonance with various aspects of the discussion presented in this section and the next.

207

2.2. A Survey of Moses-Typology in Luke-Acts In connection to the Isaianic New Exodus theme, Luke incorporates many references and allusions to Moses throughout his two-part work. Here only a brief survey of the major themes, references, and allusions is possible. (1) Abrahamic Covenant: The term for “covenant” (diaqhvkh) occurs a handful of times in Luke-Acts, but never explicitly in connection with the Mosaic covenant (though, cf. Luke 22:20). Instead, three of the four occurrences specifically identify the Abrahamic covenant (Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; 7:8). This is also true when related terminology alluding to the covenant in some way is considered: klhronomiva (“inheritance”; Acts 7:5), ejpaggeliva (“promise”; Acts 7:17; cf. 26:6), ejpaggevllomai (“to promise”; 7:5), oJmologevw (“confess”, “promise”; Acts 7:17), and o{rko" (“oath”; Luke 1:73), o[mnuvw (“swear”, “promise”; Luke 1:73) all refer in one way or another to the Abrahamic covenant.535 The only exceptions (ejpaggeliva [Acts 13:23], o{rko" [Acts 2:30], ojmnuvw [Acts 2:30]) refer to the Davidic covenant.536 The Mosaic covenant, outside of the oblique reference in Luke 22:20, does not appear to be mentioned or referred to at all in Luke-Acts.537 However, this is mitigated by the fact that Luke associates the Law with Moses.538 Furthermore, as some scholars have noted, the Mosaic covenant is folded into the Abrahamic covenant, since for Luke, the

535 Sometimes only generally of a promise made to the “fathers”, but clearly with the original patriarch, Abraham, in mind. 536

The term kataklhronomevw (“gave to as inheritance”) found in Acts 13:19 is best seen as a reference to the Abrahamic covenant, even though it is found in the context of the conquest, because it is a reference to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises. 537

Cf. the critique of Marshall (“The Significance of Pentecost,” 365–66) who brings up precisely this

point. 538 Generally speaking, Luke sees Moses as the equivalent of the law or its source Luke 2:22; 5:14; 16:29, 31; 20:28, 37; 24:27, 44; Acts 6:11, 14; 13:38; 15:1, 5, 21; 21:21; 26:22; 28:23. On Luke and the law, see: S. G. Wilson, Luke and the Law.

208

Abrahamic covenant is more fundamental than the Mosaic.539 This can be seen in a review of the occurrences of covenant terminology in Luke-Acts. For Luke, Abraham is the primary recipient of God’s promise to the fathers.540 As Stephen’s survey of biblical history shows, however, the fulfillment of the promise was made possible by the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt in Moses’ time: 5

Yet he gave him no inheritance (klhronomivan) in it, not even a foot’s length, but promised (ejphggeivlato) to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him, though he had no child…. 8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision (diaqhvkhn peritomh'"). And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs…. 17 But as the time of the promise (oJ crovno" th'" ejpaggeliva") drew near, which God had granted to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt… (Acts 7:5, 8, 17; cf. vv. 18–44)541 Here the Exodus, Sinai and the possession of the land represent the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham.542 This can also be seen through the combination of Exodus-typology with the Abrahamic covenant in Zechariah’s speech in the Infancy Narrative of Luke’s gospel: 71

that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant (diaqhvkh" aJgiva" aujtou'), 73 the oath that he swore (o{rkon o}n w[mosen) to our father Abraham, to grant us 74 that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, 75 in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. (Luke 1:71–75) 72

539

R. L. Brawley, “Abrahamic Covenant Traditions and the Characterization of God in Luke-Acts,” in The Unity of Luke-Acts (ed. J. Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 125; L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991), 46. Johnson compares this to Paul in Gal 3:6–18 (cf. N. A. Dahl, “The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 142. 540

On pathvr (“fathers”) as a reference to the patriarchs, of whom Abraham is the head, see Luke 1:55, 72, 73; 3:8; 16:24, 27 [2x], 30; Acts 3:13, 25; 5:30; 7:2 [2x], 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 32, 38, 39, 44, 45 [2x] 51, 52; 13:17, 32, 36; 15:10; 22:14; 26:6; 28:25. 541

Various texts in Deuteronomy already link the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant: Deut 1:8, 10–11; 4:31; 15:4. 542

It should be noted that the restoration of the kingdom under a Davidic Messiah represents the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise (cf. Luke 1:67–79; Acts 7).

209

The reason why the Abrahamic covenant is more fundamental than the Mosaic covenant for Luke, can be found in Peter’s sermon in Solomon’s Portico: 25

You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant (th'" diaqhvkh") that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, “And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Acts 3:25)543 Luke emphasizes the Abrahamic covenant because it implies that its blessings were always meant to be extended beyond Israel to “all the families of the earth” or, as Luke takes it, the Gentiles. This fits into Luke’s theology much better than an emphasis on the Mosaic covenant would, since it leaves little room for the inclusion of the Gentiles. Still, on the day of Pentecost, it is still largely the Mosaic covenant that is in mind (note that Abraham is not alluded to in Peter’s speech), since it is a gathering of Jews, not Gentiles, at that point in the narrative (Acts 2:5–11), and for Luke, Jews are to faithfully observe the Mosaic Law in keeping with the covenant enacted at Sinai.544 (2) The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus (Luke 3:16–17, 21–22; 4:1–13): The Isaianic New Exodus motif also emerges in these two pericopes. Jesus’ baptism, while it definitely alludes to the anointing of the Davidic Messiah (Psa 2:7), also evokes the Isaianic “servant of the Lord” (Isa 42:1–4).545 This Isaianic servant includes elements suggestive of a prophet like Moses, a king like David and the nation of Israel. In terms of its evocation of Moses, the Isaianic servant shares the following traits: (i) Moses is regularly called God’s servant (Deut 34:5; Josh 1:1); (ii) the servant, like Moses, is a prophet who is chosen from birth (Isa 49:1, 5; cf. Exod 1–2); (iii) both are described as God’s “elect one” (Isa 42:1; Psa 106:23); (iv) both have the Spirit (Isa 42:1; Num 11:17); (v) both bring Law (Isa 42:4) and teaches the words of God (Isa 50:4); (vi) both are

543

Note that again, Moses-typology can be found in the immediate context (Acts 3:22).

544 Cf. Paul in Acts, who is depicted by Luke as a faithful and law-abiding Jew (Acts 16:1–3; 18:18; 22:3–4, 12–16, 17, 21; 23:1–5; 26:4–5). 545

Matt 12:18 preserves a version of Isa 42:1 which is quite close to that found in Luke 3:22.

210

notable for their meekness (Isa 42:2–3; 50:5–6; 53:3–4; Num 12:3); (vii) both suffer for others (Isa 53:4–12; Exod 17:4; 32:30–34; Num 11–14; Deut 1:37–40; 3:26; 4:21–22); (viii) both act as mediator (Isa 53:12; Exod 19–20, 24); (ix) finally, both restores the people, returning them from exile (Isa 42:7; 49:6).546 The Temptation narrative evokes Israel’s experience in the wilderness, with the caveat that it represents a complete reversal of type. Just as Israel is God’s son (Exod 4:22–23), Jesus is God’s son. The forty days Jesus spends in the wilderness are representative of the forty years spent by Israel in the wilderness. Moreover, each of the three biblical passages Jesus cites (Deut 8:3; 6:13, 16) are all linked to Israel’s failures in the wilderness, which Jesus overcomes. In Deut 8:2–3, Moses reminds the Israelites that it was God who tested the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years, through hunger (Deut 8:3), by the command to worship God alone (Deut 6:13–15), and the test at Meribah (Deut 6:16; Exod 17:1–7).547 Thus, the Temptation narrative, depicts Jesus beginning to turn back the forces of darkness, preparing the way for the liberation of his people. (3) Sermon at Nazareth (Luke 4:16–30): This programmatic episode marks the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and sets its overarching theme, by clarifying the meaning of Jesus’ baptismal reception of the Spirit (cf. Luke 3:21–22; cf. vv. 16–17; Acts 1:4–5, 8). Whereas the Baptism narrative works off of the base of Mark’s text and the Temptation narrative uses Q as the base text, this pericope is largely Lukan, even if, as many scholars suspect, that Luke has used some traditional material.548 Moreover, Luke moves the

546

This list is heavily dependent on D. C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), 68–71. 547 Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, 215–16; B. Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son (Lund: Gleerup, 1966); C. A. Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 80–97; J. B. Gibson, The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995), 85–87. 548

M. Dibelius (From Tradition to Gospel [New York: Scribner, 1965], 110) and R. Bultmann (The History of the Synoptic Tradition [trans. J. Marsh; New York: Harper & Row, 1963], 31–32, 386–87)

211

parallel Markan episode from the middle of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (Mark 6:1–6; cf. Matt 13:52–58) to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, thereby highlighting the importance of this pericope for a proper understanding of the overall thrust of Jesus’ ministry. The citation of Isa 61:1–2 in Luke 4:18–21 is the centerpiece of an obvious chiastic structure: Jesus stands up and then sits down (Luke 4:16, 20), is given and then gives the book (Luke 4:17, 20), and opens and then closes the book (Luke 4:17, 20). The quote of Isa 61:1–2 (along with Isa 58:6) appears as follows: 18

pneu`ma kurivou ejp∆ ejme; ou| ei{neken e[crisen me eujaggelivsasqai ptwcoi`", ajpevstalken me, khruvxai aijcmalwvtoi" a[fesin kai; tufloi`" ajnavbleyin, [ajpostei`lai teqrausmevnou" ejn ajfevsei,] 19khruvxai ejniauto;nkurivou dektovn.549 18

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.” (Luke 4:18–19)

1

Pneu`ma kurivou ejp∆ ejmev, ou| ei{neken e[crisevn me, eujaggelivsasqai ptwcoi`" ajpevstalkevn me, [ijas v asqai tou;" suntetrimmevnou" th`/ kardiva,/ ] khruvxai aijcmalwvtoi" a[fesin kai; tufloi`" ajnavbleyin, 2kalevsai ejniauto;n kurivou dekto;n (© Isa 61:1–2)550 This pericope begins Jesus’ ministry with the theme of rejection of the prophet by the people of God (the Jews).551 Since in Acts 3:22–23, Luke specifically identifies Jesus as identified Mark 6:1–6 as the basic source. However, the reference to Elijah and Elisha, and other elements, suggests a non-Markan source. Others suggest some influence from Q (C. M. Tuckett, “Luke 4,16–30, Isaiah and Q, in The Sayings of Jesus [ed. J. Delobel; BETL 59; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982], 347–48), while others suggest other traditional sources (B. D. Chilton, “Announcement in Nazara,” in Gospel Perspectives II [Ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981], 164; Turner, Power from on High, 219). See the discussion of the literature in C. J. Schreck, “The Nazareth Pericope: Luke 4:16–30 in Recent Study,” in The Gospel of Luke (ed. F. Neirynck; BETL 32; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 403–27. 549

The portion in square brackets is added from Isa 58:6 and the underlined portion represents a change from the © Isa 61:2, probably because of the appearance of the term a[fesi" (“liberty”) in both texts. The Greek text of the NT is taken from the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. 550

The portion in square brackets (“to heal the broken-hearted”) is omitted from the Lukan form of the

citation. 551 Cf. Luke 7:16, 39; 13:33–34; 16:31; Acts 7:52. Luke’s presentation of Jesus as prophet has been discussed so often that it need not be repeated here. See the following for a good summary: P. S. Minear, To Heal and To Reveal, 102–21; D. P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet, 47–52, 260–85.

212

the “prophet like Moses” (cf. Luke 7:16, 22; Acts 7:37), the Isaianic servant clearly involves a Moses-typology in Luke’s conception, and this Christological aspect dominates this pericope.552 Later, in Stephen’s speech, Moses becomes the paradigmatic rejected prophet (Acts 7:35, 39, 52) and it is this image (Jesus as the messianic prophet like Moses) that dominates the rest of Luke-Acts.553 This citation identifies the true significance of Jesus’ baptism as the Spirit-endowed Isaianic servant (Luke 3:21–22). Language involving the proclamation of release to the captives and liberty for the oppressed clearly evokes Exodus traditions.554 The reason for the rejection by the people of God is explained by the quoting of the proverb in Luke 4:23 and the citing of the examples of Elijah and Elisha in Luke 4:25–27, where Jew and Gentile is clearly being contrasted (cf. the reaction of the Jews in Luke 4:28–29). It is Jesus’ rejection by the people of God (i.e., the Jews; cf. Acts 7:35, 39, 52) that leads to the Gentile mission (which was nevertheless already implied in the Abrahamic promises), and the eventual inclusion of them into the people of God. This is not accomplished until Acts, as symbolized by Peter’s speech in Cornelius’ house: 34

A j noivxa" de; Pevtro" to; stovma ei\pen: ejp∆ ajlhqeiva" katalambavnomai o{ti oujk e[stin proswpolhvmpth" oJ qeov", 35ajll∆ ejn panti; e[qnei oJ fobouvmeno" aujto;n kai; ejrgazovmeno"dikaiosuvnhn dekto;" aujtw`/ ejstin. 36 to;n lovgon ªo}nº ajpevsteilen toi`" uiJoi`" Ij srah;l eujaggelizovmeno" eijrhvnhndia; Ij hsou` Cristou`, ou|to" ejstin pavntwn kuvrio", 37uJmei`" oi[date to; genovmenon rJhm ` a kaq∆ o{lh" th`" Ij oudaiva", ajrxavmeno" ajpo; th`" Galilaiva"meta; to;

552

The examples of Elijah and Elisha also play into this, since they can be understood as prophets like

Moses. 553

Bock (Proclamation From Prophecy and Pattern, 109–11) and Strauss (The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, 226–60) emphasize the kingly motifs in the Isaiah citation, but they seem to be decidedly in the background. It should be noted in this connection that Luke identifies Moses as a ruler (a[rcwn) and judge (lutrwthv") in Acts 7:36–37, just as David is also identified as a prophet (Acts 2:30). There is no feature of the Isaiah citation that cannot be explained by reference to Moses. However, since the Isaianic servant does include Davidic elements, such an understanding should not be completely excluded either (cf. the more apparent Davidic elements in the baptismal narrative, which Isa 61:1–2 is meant to explicate). 554 Jubilee traditions are certainly also in the background, but the motive given for the Jubilee practice itself invokes the Exodus in that the Israelites are God’s servants for he brought them out of Egypt (cf. Lev 25:55).

213

bavptisma o} ejkhvruxen Ij wavnnh", 38 Ij hsou`n to;n ajpo; Nazarevq, wJ" e[crisen aujto;n oJ qeo;" pneuvmati aJgivw/ kai; dunavmei, o}" dih`lqen eujergetw`n kai; ijwm v eno" pavnta"tou;" katadunasteuomevnou" uJpo; tou` diabovlou, o{ti oJ qeo;" h\n met∆ aujtou`. 34

So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), 37 you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. (Acts 10:34–38) Peter consciously expands the definition of the people of God to include the Gentiles in language that strongly recalls elements of the citation of Isa 61:1.555 The restoration of Israel will involve the inclusion of all who “fear him” and “does what is right”, regardless of ethnic designation, in the face of opposition by those who were traditionally identified as the people of God. Moreover, just as Jesus was endowed with the Spirit, so the Spirit also marks the redefined people of God, replacing the law as identity marker (Acts 10:44–48; cf. 13:38–39; 15:1–29). (4) The Transfiguration and the Travel Narrative (Luke 9:28–36; 9:51–19:44):556 The Transfiguration narrative evokes Moses-Exodus traditions in many ways.557 The altered appearance of his face, the cloud, the voice, and the response of terror (Luke 9:29,

555 The only mention of Nazareth in Acts occurs in this text, and there are no occurrences of Nazareth between Luke 4:16 and Acts 10:38. The term dektov" occurs only in these two pericopes. Both passages depict Jesus’ rejection. Note that the Gentile mission typically begins in the synagogue, and that the Spirit plays an important role. The description of Jesus’ empowerment by the Spirit in Luke 4:14 and 18a is very close to the wording found in Acts 10:38. There are also a number of linguistic parallels between Luke 4:18 and Acts 10:36. 556

Compare the travel narratives in Acts 8:4–40 (Philip); 9:32–11:18 (Peter); 12:25–28:16 (Paul).

557 F. Neirynck (“Minor Agreements: Matthew-Luke in the Transfiguration Story,” in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker: Festschrift Josef Schmid [Freiburg: Herder, 1973], 253–66) shows that most likely Luke has rewritten Mark (Mark 9:2–8). As the title of his article indicates, the Lukan version shows some minor agreements with the Matthean version (Matt 17:1–8).

214

34–35), all recall the experience at Sinai.558 Moreover, Peter’s suggestion to make booths (Luke 9:33) is an allusion to the Festival of Booths which recalls Israel’s time in the wilderness (Lev 23:43). Luke, like Matthew, reverses the order of the names so that Moses comes before Elijah (Luke 9:30), perhaps to just get the chronological sequence correct, but perhaps also because Moses is the more prominent image that Luke wishes to associate with Jesus. Besides which, the image of Elijah (Luke 4:26; 7:16) and the prophet of old who has been raised up (Luke 9:8, 19) recalls the Deuteronomic prophet like Moses whom God will raise up referred to in Deut 18:15–18 and 34:10. Furthermore, Elijah is a mirror image of Moses in ways that find resonance in Luke. For instance, both experienced the present of God on Mt. Horeb (Deut 1:6; 1 Kgs 19:8) and each anointed a successor (Deut 34:9 [Joshua]; 1 Kgs 19:16–19; 2 Kgs 2:9–15 [Elisha]). At any rate, God’s announcement that Jesus is “the chosen one” (oJ ejklelegmevno") recalls the description of the Isaianic servant as the chosen one (ejclevgw: Isa 41:9; 43:10; 44:1) and the closing admonition to “listen to him” (aujtou' ajkouvete) is an allusion to © Deut 18:15, which is explicitly applied to Jesus by Peter in Acts 3:22. The topic of conversation between Jesus, Moses and Elijah is supplied only by Luke: e[legon th;n e[xodon aujtou', h}n h[mellen plhrou'n ejn ∆Ihrousalhvm. He spoke of his exodus, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. (Luke 9:31) The Transfiguration launches Jesus on his journey to Jerusalem, covered in the so-called Travel Narrative (Luke 9:51–19:44; inspired by Mark 10:1–52), which, some have

558

Face (Exod 34:29–35); cloud (19:9, 16; 24:15–18); voice (19:16–24; 24:12–18); terror (Exod 19:16; 20:18–19).

215

argued, is one long prolonged Deuteronomic Moses typology.559 At 9:51, Jesus sets his face to go to Jerusalem (the section ends in 19:44 since Jesus is in the Temple in 19:45), when the days drew near for him to be “taken up” (ajnalhvmyew"). Ultimately, this is probably a reference to his ascension (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11), of which the Transfiguration may be a kind of preview.560 During this extended journey narrative, the reader is informed numerous times that Jesus is “on the way” (9:52, 56, 57; 10:38; 13:33) and in particular “on the way to Jerusalem” (9:53; 10:1; 13:22, 31; 14:25; 17:11; 18:31, 35; 19:1, 11, 28).561 In these chapters, Luke’s presentation of Jesus as a prophet is dominant, and the Exodus-typology is clear. Though Jesus does perform miracles (11:14; 13:10–13; 14:1–6; 17:11–19; 18:35–43), the whole section is dominated by the sayings of Jesus, which are addressed to his disciples (instruction on discipleship), the crowd (admonitions and call to conversion), and his opponents, the Pharisees and teachers of the law (parables of rejection). Evans argued that the material in Luke 10:1–18:14 more or less parallels the material, passage by passage, in Deuteronomy 1–26.562 While the parallels are not always

559

See the survey of scholarly interpretations provided by J. L. Resseguie, “Interpretation of Luke’s Central Section (Luke 9:51–19:44) Since 1856,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 5/12 (1975): 3–36. Meriting special mention is the work of C. F. Evans, “The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel,” in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (ed. D. E. Nineham; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), 37–53. For a critique of Evans’ thesis, see: C. L. Blomberg, “Midrash, Chiasmus, and the Outline of Luke’s Central Section,” in Gospel Perspectives III (ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 221–28. Others have presented their own revised versions: J. Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel: A Study in Early Christian Historiography (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976), 138–64; M. Goulder, The Evangelist’s Calendar (London: SPCK, 1979); Moessner, Lord of the Banquet; W. M. Swartley, Israel’s Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 126–45. See also the recent discussion in E. J. Woods, The “Finger of God” and Pneumatology in Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 205; Sheffield: SAP, 2001), 16–60. 560

The Transfiguration also recalls the resurrection appearances of Jesus in Luke 24.

561 At this point in the narrative (Luke 9:51) Luke stops following Mark as his base text and uses Q or L until Luke 18:15 where he again takes up Mark. 562

Evans, “The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel,” 37–53.

216

convincing, it is clear that there are many correspondences.563 Moessner takes a different approach and suggests that Luke 9 is a preview of the central section in that Luke presents a Jesus that parallels the Deuteronomic Moses as one who mediates God’s voice at Mt. Sinai. A stubborn Israel nevertheless rejects him during the journey through the wilderness towards the promised land and the prophet’s death enables the people who obeyed him to enter the promised land.564 This pattern can be divided up into four main themes: (A) The present generation is an evil, crooked one and as such demonstrates solidarity with their “fathers”;565 (B) God has sent Jesus as a prophet to Israel, like all the prophets before him;566 (C) Nevertheless, this generation rejected Jesus the prophet, even killing him out of their stiff-necked resistance;567 (D) Therefore God will “rain” destruction upon Israel as in 722 and 587 B.C. because they did not hearken to him.568 Moessner argues on the basis of these parallels that Jesus is the prophet like Moses who will lead his people out in a New Exodus from the mountain to Jerusalem, where the restored people of God will worship, eat and rejoice. The rejection of the prophet’s message by the stubborn and rebellious, however, will ensure the prophet’s death, which will lead the way to salvation.

563

See the critiques cited above. For handy comparison, see the chart in Swartley, Israel’s Scripture Traditions, 151–53, which is an adaptation of Evan’s parallels with some of his own thrown in. 564

Moessner is justly criticized for the idea that Moses dies for the sins of the people (cf. Deut 32:48– 51 where Moses himself is blamed for his death). However, the fact remains that Moses does die just outside of the promised land, and part of the blame must rest on the stubbornness of the people (after all, Moses’ sin comes about out of frustration at the people’s grumbling). 565

Luke 11:14–54; 17:20–37; 7:18–50; 12:54–13:9. These thematic headings are taken verbatim from Moessner’s rather detailed table of contents (pp. viii–ix). 566

Luke 9:51–19:44.

567

Luke 9:51–58; 10:3, 10–11, 13, 16, 25; 11:14–26, 29–32, 47–54; 12:49–50, 54–56; 13:1–9, 14–17, 25–34; 14:1, 24; 15:1–2; 16:14–16, 27–31; 17:25–30; 18:8, 31–34; 19:7, 14, 39–44. 568

Luke 11:31–32, 50–51; 12:57–59; 13:24–30, 35; 14:24; 17:26–30; 19:27, 41–44. Moessner (Lord of the Banquet, 82–257) provides an extensive analysis of the Central Section according to this pattern.

217

Rather than a simple Deuteronomic Moses-typology, however, it seems more likely that Luke has at least filtered some of the typology through the Isaianic New Exodus.569 First, Luke’s Christology involves a fusion of Davidic, Mosaic and Servant of the Lord elements, (as well as others, like Elijah), which fits the Isaianic New Exodus pattern better than a simple Deuteronomic Moses motif. Second, the goal towards which the New Exodus theme aims is Jerusalem which recalls the Isaianic New Exodus motif more specifically than the Deuteronomic Moses motif. (5) The Last Supper (Luke 22:14–23): During the Last Supper, Jesus describes the cup in very suggestive language: tou'to to; pothvrion hJ kainh; diaqhvkh ejn tw'/ ai{mativ mou to; uJpe;r uJmw'n ejkcunnovmenon. “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:20) The phrase “new covenant” is not paralleled in the other gospel accounts, but a very similar formulation, including the phrase “new covenant” is found in 1 Cor 11:25: tou`to to; pothvrion hJ kainh; diaqhvkh ejsti;n ejn tw`/ ejmw`/ ai{mati: tou`to poiei`te, oJsavki" eja;n pivnhte, eij" th;n ejmh;n ajnavmnhsin. “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor 11:25) While it is possible that Luke is simply handing on tradition (as is sometimes suggested), given that Luke can be demonstrated to be extensively using Moses/Exodus-typology through his evocation of the Isaianic New Exodus theme, it is at least arguable that Luke purposely chose this formulation because it fits into his theology.570 After all, Luke had a choice of formulations at his disposal, and specifically chose this one.

569

Moessner, Lord of the Banquet, 260–85. By “New Exodus” Moessner himself does not mean the Isaianic New Exodus, but a Exodus-Deuteronomy typology that becomes “new” since it is now Jesus who will replicate this journey. 570

Contra O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” 250.

218

(6) Stephen’s Speech (7:1–53): The largest section of Stephen’s speech is dedicated to Moses (7:17–44), not surprisingly, since Stephen’s speech is occasioned by the charge that he spoke against Moses and God (Acts 6:11). More specifically, the charge was that he spoke against the Temple and the Law, stating that Jesus would destroy the Temple and change the customs handed down by Moses (Acts 6:13–14). Stephen’s response is to flip the charge on its head. In effect, Stephen charges that it is not he who has spoken against the temple and the law, but rather his opponents. Just as Moses’ fellow Israelites rejected him, so also have the descendants of these same Israelites rejected Jesus, the prophet like Moses (cf. Acts 7:37, 51–53). Stephen’s retelling of the biblical story, including Moses’, differs in numerous details from the story presented in the Pentateuch.571 Luke has reshaped the material to highlight the fact that Jesus is the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22–23; 7:37). The parallels are clear.572 Both were born at the time when the Abrahamic promises were about to be fulfilled (Acts 7:17; cf. Luke 1:55, 72–73). Both were mighty in word and deed (Acts 7:22; cf. Luke 24:19). Both visited the sons of Israel in order to deliver his oppressed brothers (Acts 7:23; cf. Luke 1:68; 7:16), and bring peace (Luke 1:79). Just as Moses was rejected by his people and went away for awhile, so also was Jesus, as symbolized by his death (Acts 7:27–28, 35, 39–41; Luke 23:44–49). While separated from their followers, both encounter God at a mountain and are empowered with a new commission (Acts 7:30–34; cf. Luke 24:44–53; Acts 1:1–11). Upon his return, Moses performed miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt and in the wilderness (Acts 7:36). Jesus, on the other hand, poured out the Spirit (Acts 2:1–4) which enabled his followers to perform miraculous

571 For a sample of the differences with an analysis of the interpretive tradition upon which Stephen’s speech is based, see J. L. Kugel, “Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7) in Its Exegetical Context,” in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 206–18 (which only covers the first 22 verses). 572

This list of correspondences is heavily dependent on L. T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina 5; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), 136–37.

219

signs and wonders (Acts 2:43; 4:16, 30; 5:12; 6:8; 8:6, 13; 14:3; 15:12 [just as Jesus himself did; cf. Acts 2:22]), and which inspired speech (Acts 2:4; cf. 7:38 “living oracles”). Finally, both were ultimately rejected (Acts 7:41–43).573 Stephen’s speech, coming as it does at the end of the Jerusalem narrative, provides a hermeneutical key to understanding all that has transpired with Jesus and the apostles to this point. The people have been offered salvation once again, but while many accepted (Acts 2:42–47), many, including the Jewish leaders who have arrested Stephen, have rejected it (Acts 4–6), just as their ancestors rejected Moses. Thus a Jesus-as-Mosaic-prophet typology thoroughly saturates this section of Stephen’s speech. (7) “The Way” Terminology in Luke-Acts:574 Use of this term is found exclusively in contexts where the identity of the Christians becomes the issue in some sort of conflict.575 As Pao argues, this term is best understood against the background of the Isaianic New Exodus motif. In Isaiah 40–55, ˚rd (“way”) is a term that evokes the Exodus tradition (including the wilderness wandering) and signifies a new act of salvation that God is about to accomplish.576 Luke 3:4–6 cites Isaiah 40:3–5, which introduces this terminology, and this becomes an identity marker which links the early Christian community to the ancient tradition of the formation of the nation of Israel during the Exodus.577 As such, this foundation story of the Israelite nation is signified in

573

Note that idolatry becomes an important theme in Acts: 8:9–13; 12:20–23; 14:11–17; 17:24–31; 19:25–27. 574

As a reference to the early Christian movement, it appears in Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22. It is unique in early Christian literature (aside from writings dependent on Acts). 575

Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 61.

576

Cf. the discussion of the Travel Narrative above.

577 In the Qumran community, to belong to “the Way” is to study the Law (cf. 1QS VIII, 13–16; IX, 16–21). It is nevertheless, used as an identity marker in an analogous way to the early Christian community as depicted in Acts.

220

this term and becomes a way for the early Christian community to define itself as the people of God.578 As these parallels suggest, the Moses-Exodus typology as filtered through Isaiah, is widespread and deeply significant for Luke’s theology.579 As will be shown, the Pentecost account in Acts 2 consciously evokes Moses-Sinai parallels which would imply that Luke was aware of the idea that the Festival of Weeks was associated with the Sinai event in some way, as in the book of Jubilees and the Qumran Scrolls. As this survey of the Moses-Exodus typology in Luke-Acts shows, this fits in perfectly with Luke’s theology. 3. A New Covenant at Pentecost? Acts 2 contains the account of the first Christian Pentecost. While Moses and Sinai are not directly referred to in this account, it is apparent that Sinai is being alluded to in many different ways.580 3.1. Sinai and Pentecost Associations in Second Temple Judaism To begin with, the fact that Luke says the Spirit descended on Pentecost may have triggered associations with Sinai in and of itself.581 Certainly some Jews had long made

578

See Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 45–68.

579 The discussion to this point only scratches the surface. For a much fuller discussion, see the monographs by Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus; Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel; Turner, Power from on High, 213–427; Wenk, Community-Forming Power, 213–58; Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, 261–336. 580

Bock (Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern, 182–83) makes much of the fact that Moses or the Law are not mentioned at all, claiming it to be “a fatal omission”. As the discussion below demonstrates, this is far from being the case. 581 The use of the phrase ejn tw'/ sumplhrou'sqai th;n hJmevran th'" pentekosth'" (“when the day of Pentecost was fully come”) is rather unusual. The word sumplhrovw means “fill up, fulfill, approach, come” and occurs only three times in the NT (Luke 8:23; 9;51 and Acts 2:1). Normally, when used figuratively in terms of time, it suggests the end of an interval. In the case of Acts 2:1, the end of the day of Pentecost cannot be meant, since Acts 2:15 indicates that it is still morning. Rather, it suggests the arrival of an expected day, which is the way it is also used in Luke 9:51 (in fact, the identical construction: ejn tw'/ sumplhrou'sqai) in a very programmatic context, where Jesus sets his face towards Jerusalem.

221

an association between the Sinai event and the Festival of Weeks. While there are some texts in the Hebrew Bible that might suggest such a link (Exod 19:1; 2 Chr 15:10), it must be admitted that there are also contrary indications (Deut 31:10; Nehemiah 8) that suggest covenant renewal occurred during the Festival of Booths every seven years.582 Nevertheless, already in the Hebrew Bible, the festivals were being associated with historical events; the Festival of Unleavened Bread with the Exodus (Exodus 12–13) and the Festival of Booths with the wilderness wanderings (Lev 23:42–43). Since the Sinai event came chronologically between these historical events and the Festival of Weeks comes between the Festivals of Unleavened Bread (I/15–21) and Booths (VII/15– 21) on the calendar, one might say that such an association was begging to be made, especially when one considers that according to Exod 19:1, the Israelites approached Sinai in the third month. Be that as it may, as shown in previous chapters, certain Jews of the Maccabaean period (probably by the middle of the second century B.C.) definitely did make a connection between the Festival of Weeks and covenant renewal—specifically, the author of the book of Jubilees and the Qumran Community.583 The issue is, how widespread was this idea throughout Second Temple Judaism?584 Outside of the Qumran sect, did Jews of the later Second Temple period VanderKam (“The Festival of Weeks,” 198) notes that the rabbis commonly designated the Festival of Weeks by the Hebrew word trx[. Since the verb form means “close” when used in conjunction with time, the use of this term to refer to the Festival of Weeks identifies this day as the close of the season that began with Passover (cf. the rabbinic designation of the Festival of Weeks as jsp lç trx[). Already late in the first century A.D., Josephus refers to the Festival of Weeks as ajsarqav. Thus, this term was applied to the Feast of Pentecost by the time the book of Acts was written and while Luke did not use the same term, VanderKam notes that it was a natural term for him to use. 582 See chapters 2 and 3. The vagueness of the reference in 2 Chr 15:10 may be occasioned by the fact that at that time, the date of the Festival of Weeks was indeterminate, perhaps due to differing harvest times. Compare the rabbis, who dated the Shavuot to III/6 give or take a day due to the variable length of the lunar month (i.e., either 29 or 30 days). 583

See chapters 4 and 5 respectively.

584

J. van Goudoever (Biblical Calendars, 95–123) analyses calendar references in IV Ezra, 2 Enoch, and Pseudo-Philo and suggests that these texts show evidence of the Festival of Weeks being connected to the Mosaic covenant in some way. Unfortunately, his arguments are far from convincing. There is no certain allusion to the Festival of Weeks in any of the contexts he cites. Goudoever therefore appeals to Jubilees and the Qumran Scrolls as evidence that the covenant was renewed at the Festival of Weeks.

222

commonly make an association between the Festival of Weeks/Pentecost and covenant renewal?585 The Qumran community more than likely derived this association from its reading of the book of Jubilees, but how widely was Jubilees read? A reading of Philo and Josephus determines that these particular Jews, at least, were unaware of an association between Pentecost and covenant renewal.586 This leads some scholars to argue that this association was more or less limited to a few sectarian Jews and was not widespread at all.587

While this does provide precedent, the fact of the matter is that there is no independent verification that the authors in question ever made the same connection. Since the Mosaic covenant was such a central event (not to mention that Ezra is depicted as a second Moses in IV Ezra), an allusion to the Sinai event by dating crucial events in the respective books to the third month, is hardly surprising. To take his most promising instance as a representative example, he points to the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo which makes III/16 the occasion of a covenant ceremony in connection with Joshua (L.A.B. 23:2; cf. Joshua 24). Van Goudoever (pp. 116–18) argues that since L.A.B. was recreating the covenant of Sinai, he followed Jubilees in dating the Sinai covenant to III/15. In this passage, Joshua renews the Mosaic covenant (cf. L.A.B. 23:14). However, not only do the dates not match (III/15 in Jubilees and III/16 in L.A.B.), but in Biblical Antiquities, Joshua’s covenant renewal actually takes place on the next day (i.e., III/17; which even defeats a parallel with Jubilees 1:1, which identifies III/16 as the day Moses ascended Sinai). Moreover, in L.A.B. 13:5, the Festival of Weeks is referred to simply as a harvest festival, nothing more. See the discussion of H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation (2 vols.; AGJU 31; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 2.711. 585

On the character of the Qumran Library, see the articles by D. Dimant (“The Library of Qumran: Its Content and Character,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 [ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000], 170–76; idem, “The Scrolls and the Study of Early Judaism,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings [ed. R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999], 43–59; idem, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 [ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; Leiden: Brill, 1995], 23–36). She shows that to a large extent, the picture of the Qumran sect as “a solitary and ascetic community, leading a secluded life in an isolated site… existing at the fringes of Judaism,” while containing elements of the truth, give a skewed picture of the group. She notes that a third of the Qumran Library is composed of non-sectarian works (or at least there is no decisive evidence [peculiar terminology or organizational patterns reflecting the community] that these works are sectarian) and that they probably had much in common with the more general Jewish literature of the time. She argues that the Qumranic community “belonged to a central movement in contemporary Judaism, and probably played a major role in its cultural, religious, and political life” (“The Scrolls and the Study of Early Judaism,” 44–47). 586 Philo identifies the Feast of Trumpets (VII/1) as the day commemorating the giving of the Law on Sinai (Spec. Leg. 2.188–89). 587

See Marshall, “The Significance of Pentecost,” 349; Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 191–93.

223

Menzies is one of the most forceful in arguing against the idea that the mere mention of “th;n hJmevran th'" penthkosth'" (Acts 2:1) would have evoked images of Moses, Sinai or the covenant renewal ceremony in the minds of Luke’s readers.”588 First, he notes that the rabbinic literature, where the Festival of Weeks is the day commemorating the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai, cannot be used to determine first century practice since it is late. He speculates that the transformation of the Festival of Weeks from a harvest festival to a festival commemorating the law was given impetus by the destruction of the Temple, since without it, the sacrifices that were central to the festival could no longer be carried out. Because the rabbis emphasized the law, it was only natural that the rabbis associated this festival with the giving of the law at Sinai. In attempting to determine how early a connection between Sinai and the Festival of Weeks arises, he addresses the evidence of Jubilees and the Qumran Scrolls by minimizing their significance. For instance, he argues that in the book of Jubilees, while the festival was important in terms of the renewal of the covenant, the “connections between the feast and the giving of the law at Sinai are minor,” citing Jub. 1:1 and 6:19.589 However, this represents a superficial reading of Jubilees since covenant and law is intimately connected and a major theme that undergirds the whole work, even if it is not always immediately and obviously evident. In Jubilees, this manifests itself, for instance, in the fact that law is inserted into the narrative at various points.590 Indeed, the one covenant, originating with Noah and renewed by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, accumulates an increasingly large body of stipulations.591 This only re-inforces in a

588

Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 193.

589

Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 191.

590

For an excellent discussion with examples, see: G. Anderson, “The Status of the Torah Before Sinai, 1–29. For a good summary, see: J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: SAP, 2001), 100–109. 591

A reading of Jubilees 6 indicates that the author’s position that the Festival of Weeks was the day commemorating the covenant was a minority position, since the author has the Angel of the Presence warn

224

unique way the obvious of course: it is impossible to think of covenant without law and vice versa, since the law represents the stipulations which are the heart of the covenant itself.592 As for Menzies evaluation of the evidence from the Qumran Scrolls, he wrote his book before the evidence from Qumran was widely available. Thus his argument that the Qumran community’s probable adoption of the solar calendar of Jubilees has not been substantiated by evidence from the scrolls, can be set aside.593 However, he argues that even if the Qumranites did celebrate the Festival of Weeks as a day for covenant renewal, their observance of the Festival of Weeks was not indicative of general practice in firstcentury Judaism. He cites the fact that the Temple Scroll has three different feasts of First-fruits (New Wheat, New Wine, and Oil) that are unique to the Qumran Scrolls. Aside from the issue of the ultimate original of the Temple Scroll, Menzies again draws too neat a distinction between the covenant and the giving of the law. Fact is, Jubilees and the Qumran Scrolls show clear evidence of a connection between the Festival of Weeks and the Sinai event. Moreover, since the book of Jubilees is not a sectarian document, the Qumran Scrolls establish that at least some Jews of the Second Temple period were reading this book.594 By the time Acts was written, some two hundred years later, there is every possibility that Jubilees had a wider readership. Besides which, since

Moses that the Israelites forgot the covenant festival in the past and will in the future as well. However, since Jubilees is the earliest extant text to definitively make this connection, this is not entirely surprising. There is probably at least a two century gap between Jubilees (probably the middle of the second century B.C.) and Luke-Acts (approximately the last quarter of the first century A.D.), leaving plenty of time for this tradition to spread. 592

This is why many scholars (e.g., Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 48–49; M. Turner, Power from on High, 280–82) are not always careful in distinguishing between covenant and the giving of the law. 593

See the discussion in chapter 5.

594 Cf. the comments of C. Hempel (“The Place of the Book of Jubilees,” 193–96) who says that “there is no reason to believe that Jubilees is a sectarian text,” even while acknowledging that it was a “literary pillar of the library” (p. 195). Moreover, she states that “the Book of Jubilees was almost certainly cherished beyond the confines of the Qumran library” (p. 193).

225

the connections between Pentecost and Sinai have so much material to work with in the Hebrew Bible itself, there is no reason to think that other Jews could not independently have made the connection as well. This can be seen by the example of the rabbis. As noted above, for the rabbis, Pentecost is seen as the day when the Torah was given at Sinai (b. Pesahim 68b).595 While this does represent a different theological emphasis than that provided by Jubilees and the Qumran Scrolls, they certainly have in common a more general link between Sinai and Pentecost. Without arguing, as some do, that this rabbinic tradition is very early and provides direct evidence that this association was prevalent in the first century A.D., this does raise the question of where this tradition of associating Sinai with Pentecost came from, assuming that it did not just appear out of thin air.596 Presumably, the link between Pentecost and the Sinai event was widespread enough that it later became the dominant rabbinic belief; that is, it was apparently not limited to the Qumran sectarians since that particular sect was destroyed by the Romans.

595

For a list of rabbinic parallels to Acts 2, including many that make a connection between the giving of the law and Pentecost, see H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (4 vols.; Munich: Becksche, 1922–1928), 597–620. None of these parallels bear a genetic relationship to the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2. 596

It is possible that some of the rabbinic traditions stem from very early sources, but this cannot be decisively proven. The lectionary evidence which is sometimes cited (e.g., by Caird, “The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4, 7–11,” Studia evangelica 2 [1964]: 539–41; J. C. Kirby, Ephesians, Baptism, and Pentecost [Montreal: McGill University Press, 1968], 97–121; A. Guilding, “Some Obscured Rubrics and Lectionary Allusions in the Psalter,” JTS 3 [n.s. 1952], 41–55; idem, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship [Oxford: Clarendon, 1960], 220–28; H. St. J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship [London: Oxford University Press, 1921], 40–60), cannot be dated to the first century with any kind of certainty. Moreover, as VanderKam (“Covenant and Pentecost,” CTJ 37 [2002]: 252) notes, the texts cited or alluded to in Acts 2 (i.e., Joel 2:28–32 [3:1–5]; Psa 16:8–11 [15:8–11]; Psa 68:19; Psa 110:1 [109:1]) are not those identified in the rabbinic literature as the texts read in association with Pentecost (even though this is often claimed for Psalm 68 and 110, based on what looks like no more than tenuous links in rabbinic texts and conjectural reconstructions built upon them): m. Meg. 3:5 (Deut 16:9–12); b. Meg. 31a (Deut 16:9; Exod 19; Hab 3; Ezek 1); t. Meg. 4:5 and j. Meg. 3:74b (Exod 19–20). In addition, tractate Soferim identifies Psalm 29. On the lectionary cycle, see: J. Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue: A Study in the Cycles of the Readings from Torah and Prophets, as Well as from Psalms, and in the Structure of the Midrashic Homilies (New York: Ktav, 1971), 453–55. On the Festival of Weeks in the targums, see: J. Potin, La fête juive de la Pentecôte: Études des textes liturgiques (2 vols.; LD 65, 65a; Paris: Cerf, 1971). Harris (The Descent of Christ, 143–70) also provides a useful survey of the rabbinic evidence.

226

Indeed, the book of Jubilees—which as far as we know makes the first direct link between the Sinai event and the Festival of Weeks—was read and preserved by Christians by at least the early post-New Testament era, proving that Jubilees had gained a readership beyond the Qumranites.597 Moreover, since the theological emphasis differs (giving of the law in the Rabbinic Literature vs. covenant renewal in Jubilees), the rabbis may have come to this connection independently of the book of Jubilees.598 If the rabbis (sometime after the destruction of the Temple) and the author of Jubilees (mid-second century B.C.) did arrive at this association independently, why not others, especially since such a connection is already hinted at in 2 Chr 15:10 (based on Exod 19:1)? This opens up the possibility that Luke consciously evoked associations in his narrative account of Pentecost that were already current among his contemporaries.599 3.2. Allusions to Moses/Sinai in the Ascension Narrative The Ascension (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11) is linked to the Feast of Pentecost since it is immediately before the Ascension that Jesus tells the disciples to expect the outpouring of the Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 8).600 There are several aspects of the Ascension and the intervening narrative that suggest a Sinai background. Of course, the

597

Hippolytus (170–236) and Epiphanius (315–403) are two early Christians who use substantial portions of the book of Jubilees. Scott (Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity, 97–134) argues that the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71 (100–115 A.D.) and Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum (approx. 180–192 A.D.) also used Jubilees as a source. 598

As VanderKam (The Book of Jubilees, 147–48) notes, rabbinic evidence of direct dependence on the book of Jubilees is very late, in contrast to Christian works, where the evidence is quite early (though Jubilees never gained a widespread influence). 599

Scott (Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity, 44–96) argues that Luke-Acts shows dependence on Jubilees’ table of nations tradition. Cf. Acts 1:8 (Jub. 8:12); Acts 2:2 (Jub. 10:26); Acts 2:9–11 (Jub. 8–9); Acts 15:20, 29 (Jub. 7:20). 600

It is probably in this sense that the verb sumplhrovw is employed in Acts 2:1.

227

ascent of Jesus and the descent of the Spirit suggests a general parallel with Moses’ ascent and descent of Mt. Sinai. Several aspects of this narrative serve to confirm this.601 (1) The forty day span during which Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances took place recall three forty day spans in Moses’ life: two forty-day stays on Mt. Sinai (Exod 24:18; 34:28; Deut 9:9, 11, 18, 25), and the forty days the twelve spies spent in the promised land (Num 13:25; 14:34).602 (2) In Luke 24:50, the author uses the phrase ejxhvgagen de; aujtou" (“he led them out”). The verb is the same as that used in the © to describe Yahweh leading the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage (Exod 3:10; 6:6–8; Lev 19:36), an event which immediately precedes Israel’s sojourn at Mt. Sinai.603 (3) In this same verse, Jesus blesses his followers just as Moses blesses those who built the sanctuary (Exod 39:43) and the Israelites at the end of his life (Deut 33:1). There is a closer verbal parallel to Lev 9:22, where Aaron gives a blessing, and then is joined by Moses (cf. Num 6:23). Moreover, Moses is said to have lifted his hands in the battle against the Amalekites (Exod 17:11) and in striking the rock at the waters of Meribah (Num 20:11).604 (4) The Ascension takes place on a mountain, which Luke 24:50 identifies as Bethany and Acts 1:12 identifies as Mt. Olives (Bethany is on the Mt. of Olives). Of course, Moses ascends a mountain also: Sinai/Horeb. The proximity to Jerusalem, in

601 The list compiled here is heavily dependent on the list compiled by VanderKam (“The Festival of Weeks,” 196–98). 602

The number itself also recalls the forty years spent wandering in the wilderness (Num 14:33–34).

603

Cf. Luke 9:31 and discussion of this verse above.

604

In both cases, the same verb is used in the © as is used in Luke: ejpaivrw.

228

place of Mt. Sinai, can be explained in terms of the Isaianic New Exodus motif which makes Zion the heir of Sinai, so to speak.605 (5) A cloud hides Jesus’ ascent (Acts 1:9, 11), which recalls Moses’ ascent of Mt. Sinai (Exod 19:3, 20; 24:1–2). During one of his many ascents, Yahweh tells Moses that he will appear to him in a thick cloud (Exod 19:9), which occurs three days later (Exod 19:16). After the theophany, Moses ascends into the cloud (Exod 24:15–18) to receive the law. It should be noted that Moses’ ascension of Mt. Sinai was sometimes considered a heavenly ascent in Jewish literature.606 Furthermore, it was often thought that Moses did not actually die, but was translated into heaven at the end of his life.607 (6) Jesus’ command for his disciples to wait in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4) recalls Moses command to the elders to wait for him and Joshua until they returned (Exod 24:14).608 (7) In Acts 1:6, the apostles ask Jesus, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” This may recall Yahweh’s words at Mt. Sinai: “you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5b–6a). This talk of kingdoms at Mt. Sinai denotes the fact that the twelve tribes of Israel will become a nation at Mt. Sinai,

605

On this theme in the Hebrew bible, see J. D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 187–217.

606

L.A.B. 11:15; 12:1; 32:9; Philo, QE 2.29; 2 Bar. 59:3–11.

607

Jos., Ant. 4.325; cf. Ant. 4.330, 326. Josephus specifically says that though Moses disappeared into a cloud, he really died, which implies that there was a tradition circulating that Moses had ascended into heaven at his death, that Josephus wished to refute by citing the biblical record of his death. Cf. also, the assumption of Moses’ soul in Philo: QG 1.86; Mos. 2.288, 291; Virt. 76. A. W. Zwiep (The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 66, 71) argues that in this literature, Moses’ final ascent is patterned on his ascent of Mt. Sinai, rather than vice versa. 608 Cf. also the fact that at the Transfiguration (which may be a preview of the ascension), he also has Peter, James and John (Luke 9:28) accompany him up the mountain, where they see Jesus’ glory, which parallels Moses’ ascent up Mt. Sinai with Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu (Exod 24:1, 9, plus the seventy elders) who behold God’s glory (Exod 24:10–11).

229

complete with a new constitution. Similarly, the twelve apostles and the other early believers will become the members of the first Christian church.609 (8) The Lukan chronology involving Jesus’ death just after Passover, resurrection, exaltation, ascension, and the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost also points to an allusion to Moses and Sinai. If the rabbinic formula (instead of the Jubilees formula) for determining the date of Pentecost is used, then the fifty-day span (cf. Lev 23:15–16; Deut 16:9–10) would cover the period beginning from just after Passover to the Festival of Weeks when Moses ascended Mt. Sinai.610 In the Lukan chronology, this corresponds to Jesus’ death just after Passover to the gift of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.611 Acts 1:3 is the only text in the New Testament that sets the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension at forty days.612 In fact, the post-resurrection narrative in the gospel of Luke leaves the reader with the impression that the Ascension took place on Easter Sunday itself. Later in Acts 13:31, the text is more vague about the length of this

609

Note that between the Ascension (Acts 1:1–11) and Pentecost (Acts 2:1–13) there is the narrative concerning the choosing of the twelfth apostle (Acts 1:12–26). As discussed earlier, this number is representative of the nation of Israel, with its twelve tribes. Note also, that originally 120 people were gathered for the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:15), which is also suggestive of the twelve tribes of Israel gathered about Mt. Sinai at the inauguration of the new nation of Israel (cf. Exod 24:4 where Moses sets up twelve pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel in connection with the covenant ceremony). 610

On the disputed date of the Festival of Weeks, see the discussion in chapter 2.

611

As VanderKam (“The Festival of Weeks,” 197) notes, however, the parallel is inexact since the one runs from Passover to ascent/covenant and the other runs from Passover to descent/gift of the Spirit. On a side note, it is interesting that there is a fifty day span from the time Moses and the Israelites camp at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and Moses returns from Mt. Sinai with the tablets of the law the first time. Three days are spent at the foot of Sinai preparing for and experiencing the theophany (Exod 19:10–11). On the fourth day, Moses performs the covenant ceremony (Exod 24:4) and ascends the mountain leaving behind the elders (Exod 24:12–14). When Moses ascends further up Sinai just outside of the cloud that has descended on the summit, he must wait for six days and enters only on the seventh (Exod 24:16). Then there is the notice that Moses spends forty days and forty nights on the mountain (Exod 24:18). When added up, this span equals fifty days, including a ten/forty split, as in the Ascension/Pentecost narrative (which is, of course, actually a forty/ten split). Of course, this only works if the seven days Moses spends waiting is not to be included in the 40 day total, which is not entirely clear. 612

There is a harmonizing textual variant in Acts 10:41.

230

period, using the imprecise phrase ejpi; hJmevra" pleivou" (“for many days”).613 Later Christian tradition about the precise date of the Ascension is quite fluid and diverse, assigning varying lengths of time to the post-Resurrection appearances.614 Interestingly, there is a Christian tradition that has Jesus ascending on the day of Pentecost, thus bringing the Ascension of Jesus on the day of Pentecost into close parallel with the ascension of Moses of Mt. Sinai on the Festival of Weeks, as in the book of Jubilees.615 While a Moses motif may indeed be present in this narrative, there are also alternative, non-Mosaic associations that are possible for each of these elements. The

613

As Zwiep (The Ascension of the Messiah, 98, 186–87) notes, strictly speaking, the notice in Acts 1:3 does not precisely date the Ascension to the fortieth day. He speculates that the forty days is a product of Lukan redaction. He notes the fact that it is a typological number, which suggests that a precise number is not really meant. Consider the fact that the 12 apostles in Acts 1 are in the company of a total of 120 (12 x 10) before the day of Pentecost and then swells to 3000 (120 x 25) after Peter’s sermon (Acts 2:41) and then to 5000 (Acts 4:4). In uncovering how Luke arrived at the number forty, Zwiep, following Lohfink (Die Himmelfahrt Jesu. Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas [StANT 26; München: Kösel, 1971], 176–86) argues that the number had to bring the Ascension close to the day of Pentecost to highlight the close chronological connection of Ascension and Pentecost. Furthermore, the number had to be a round, inexact number and a biblical number. Forty was the only number that satisfied all these factors. That the date of the Ascension was a fluid concept in early Christianity can be shown by the various dates that early Christians assigned to it (see discussion below). 614

Tertullian (Apol. 21) follows Acts 1:3 in attesting forty days. However, the Ethiopic Epistula Apostolorum 18 (29) identifies the Resurrection day itself as the day of Ascension (cf. Epistle of Barnabas 15:8; Aristides, Apology 2; Gospel of Peter 35–42). Irenaeus says that some Gnostic groups believed that Jesus talked with his followers for 18 months after his resurrection (Adv. haer. I 1.5; 28.7). Similarly, the Ethiopic version of the Ascension of Isaiah 9:16 has Jesus ascending 545 days (approximately 18 months) after his Resurrection, while the Apocryphon of James 2:19–24 has it as 550 days after the Resurrection. Finally, Pistis Sophia 1.1 has Jesus staying for eleven years after his resurrection before he ascends to heaven. 615

G. Kretschmar (“Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten,” ZKG 66 [1954]: 209–53) assembles the evidence. The Teaching of Addai appeared to link the two celebrations (pp. 209–10) and Eusebius (1st half of the fourth century A.D.) celebrated the Ascension 50 days after Easter (PG 24, col. 700 [p. 211]). In his commentary on Matthew 9:15, Jerome implies that the Montanists also celebrated the Ascension on Easter (PL 26, col. 58 [p. 211]). Kretschmar argued that this tradition was independent of that found in Acts and in fact antedated it. The fact that the Ascension and Pentecost were celebrated on the same day, probably reflected the fact that the Festival of Weeks was associated with the Sinai event. He also analyzed the evidence from Acts 2—noting that Peter’s speech in Acts 2:32–36 linked the Ascension with the giving of the Spirit—and Ephesians 4:7–11 as well as the evidence from rabbinic literature, Jubilees, and evidence from early Christian art (pp. 218–20). He concluded that a Moses-typology associated with the feast of Pentecost was very early, probably at least as early as the Maccabean period (Jubilees) if not earlier (cf. 2 Chr 15:10). See also J. van Goudoever (Biblical Calendars, 195–205) who also discusses various dates assigned to the Ascension and Pentecost by the early Church (much of it overlapping with Kretschmar’s discussion).

231

forty days not only recall Moses’ stay on Mt. Sinai, but also Elijah’s journey to Mt. Horeb (1 Kgs 19:8).616 Jesus’ blessing of his followers at the end of his earthly stay, not only recalls Moses’ final blessing, but also Jacob’s (Genesis 49) or the high priest Simon’s (Sirach 50:20–22).617 While the cloud does recall Moses’ encounter with God at Sinai, a cloud is also a regular feature of Hellenistic and Jewish assumption stories.618 Furthermore, some of the associated evidence is late and many of the motifs are vague enough that an allusion to Moses/Sinai may not have necessarily been meant.619 For instance, while the suggestive phrase ejxhvgagen de; aujtou" (“he led them out”) is used, it must be noted that those who are lead out soon afterwards return to the city.620 Moreover, many of these allusions are complex and vague, enough so that it is doubtful that a first century reader or hearer of the text could reasonably be expected to notice them.621 However, taken collectively, it is hard to imagine that some sort of allusion to Moses/Sinai is not intended by Luke, especially when one considers the wider theological background. The Isaianic New Exodus is a prominent theme in Luke-Acts, and the Pentecost narrative represents the restoration of the nation of Israel promised in Isaiah 40.

616

Elijah’s stay at Horeb, of course, is itself an allusion to Moses at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 3–4; 19–34), and establishes him as a prophet in the mold of Moses (cf. Deut 18:15–18). 617

As in the case of Lev 9:22, this also represents a very close verbal parallel to that in Luke 24:50.

618

1 Enoch 14:8; Jos., Ant. 4.326 (of Moses); Rev 11:12.

619

For instance, Jesus does not after all ascend from Mt. Sinai, but from the Mt. of Olives.

620

As noted by Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah, 87.

621 On the other hand, it is also not unreasonable to suppose that an author purposely included allusions that he did not necessarily expect most of his readers/hearers to pick up on, but included them for those precious few who had eyes to see or ears to hear. Compare the intricacy of Jubilees’ use of chronology: intricacy and nuance which would escape the vast majority of readers’ and hearers’ notice did not prevent the author from incorporating the most complex numerological scheme imaginable into his work. In short, authors do not necessarily restrict themselves to what they think an audience will pick up on.

232

Moreover, while these elements may be reminiscent of other biblical events, the confluence of all of them—as found in this text—is not associated with any other single event attested in the Hebrew Bible or elsewhere, which does not invoke the momentous events at Sinai. 3.3. Allusions to Moses/Sinai in the Pentecost Narrative (Acts 2:1–13) The Pentecost narrative (Acts 2:1–13) describes the giving of the Spirit in very dramatic terms: 1

Kai; ejn tw`/ sumplhrou`sqai th;n hJmevran th`" penthkosth`" h\san pavnte" oJmou` ejpi; to; aujtov. 2kai; ejgevneto a[fnw ejk tou` oujranou` h\co" w{sper feromevnh" pnoh`" biaiva" kai; ejplhvrwsen o{lon to;n oi\kon ou| h\san kaqhvmenoi 3kai; w[fqhsanaujtoi`" diamerizovmenai glw`ssai wJsei; puro;" kai; ejkavqisen ejf∆ e{na e{kaston aujtw`n, 4kai; ejplhvsqhsan pavnte" pneuvmato" aJgivou kai; h[rxanto lalei`n eJtevrai" glwvssai" kaqw;" to; pneu`ma ejdivdou ajpofqevggesqai aujtoi`". 1

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. The descent of the Spirit recalls the Sinai theophany account in Exod 19:16–20; 20:18, where Yahweh’s presence on the mountain is described: dr'jY‘ w< " daom] qz…j; rp;vo lqow“ rh;hA; l[' dbeK; ˜n:[w; “ µyqirb; W] tløqo yhiyw“ " rq,Bho ' tyúhB] i yviyliVh] ' µwYúb' yhiyw“ " 16 .rh;h; tyTij]tB' ] WbX]y"tY] wI " hn<jM} h' A' ˜mi µyhilaø h‘ ; tar'ql] i µ[;hA; ta, hv,mo axewYúw" 17 .hn<jM} B' ' rv,a} µ[;hA; lK; rBedy' “ hv,mo daom] qz´jw; “ Jlewho rp;wVoh' lwqo yhiyw“ " 19 vaeB; hw:hy“ wyl;[; dr'y: rv,a} ynEPm] i wLøKu ˜v'[; yn"ysi rh'w“ 18 Ala, yn"ysi rh'Al[' hw:hy“ dr,YwE " 20 .lwqob] WNn<[y} " µyhilaø h‘ ; daom] rh;hA; lK; dr'jY‘ w< " ˜v;b]Khi ' ˜v,[,K] wnúv;[} l['Yw" w" “ .hv,mo l['Yw" " rh;h; varoAla, hv,mol] hw:hy“ ar;qY] wI " rh;h; varo 16

On the morning of the third day there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast, so that all the people in the camp trembled. 17 Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they took their stand at the foot of the mountain. 18 Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke because Yahweh had descended on it in fire. The smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled greatly. 19 And as the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered in thunder. 20 Yahweh came down on Mount Sinai, to the top of the mountain. And Yahweh called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up. (Â Exod 19:16–20)

233

16

ejgevneto de; th`/ hJmevra/ th`/ trivth/ genhqevnto" pro;" o[rqron kai; ejgivnonto fwnai;kai; ajstrapai; kai; nefevlh gnofwvdh" ejp∆ o[rou" Sina, fwnh; th`" savlpiggo" h[cei mevga, kai; ejptohvqh pa`" oJ lao;" oJ ejn th`/ parembolh`./ 17 kai;exj hvgagen Mwush`" to;n lao;n eij" sunavnthsin tou` qeou` ejk th`" parembolh`",kai; parevsthsan uJpo; to; o[ro". 18 to; de; o[ro" to; Sina ejkapnivzeto o{lon dia; to; katabebhkevnai ejp∆ aujto; to;n qeo;n ejn puriv, kai; ajnevbainen oJ kapno;" wJ" kapno;" kamivnou, kai; ejxevsth pa`" oJ lao;" sfovdra. 19 ejgivnonto de; aiJ fwnai;th`" savlpiggo" probaivnousai ijscurovterai sfovdra, Mwush`" ejlavlei, oJ de; qeo;" ajpekrivnato aujtw`/ fwnh`./ 20 katevbh de;kuvrio" ejpi; to; o[ro" to; Sina ejpi; th;n korufh;n tou` o[rou", kai; ejkavlesen kuvrio" Mwush`n ejpi; th;n korufh;n tou` o[rou", kai; ajnevbh Mwush`". (© Exod 19:16– 20) Several correspondences can be noted:622 (1) Both events happened in the morning (Exod 19:16; Acts 2:15); (2) Fire (va = © puriv) appears in both accounts (cf. Exod 19:18; Acts 2:3); (3) Cognate terms h\co" (Acts 2:2) and h[cei (Exod 19:16) appear in relation to a great sound, though the former is connected to the sound of a rushing wind (note that it refers just to the sound, not that there was a rushing wind) and the latter is connected to the sound of trumpets (which is, nevertheless, a wind instrument); and (4) the word tlq (= © fwnaiv) also appears in both contexts (Exod 19:16; 20:18; cf. 19:19). This is, in fact, the key to the understanding of the link between the two passages. In the context of the Sinai theophany, it denotes “thunder” in the plural (or more specifically, the sound of thunder). More commonly, however, this term would denote “sounds” or “voices”. The “voices” which were heard, were taken by later interpreters to refer to God’s words, which he would utter in giving the ten commandments. In Exod 20:18, where the text resumes describing the theophany after the recitation of the ten commandments, the text says that the people “saw the voices”: dm][Y' w" " W[nUYw: " µ[;h; ar]Yw" " ˜ve[; rh;hA; ta,w“ rp;Vho ' lwqo taew“ µdiyPiLh' 'Ata,w“ tløwQohA' ta, µyairo µ[;hA; lk;w“ 18 .qjorm; We 18

Now when all the people saw the sounds and the lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood. (Â Exod 20:18)

622

On the following discussion, see VanderKam, “The Festival of Weeks,” 198–200.

234

18

Kai; pa`" oJ lao;" eJwrv a th;n fwnh;n kai; ta;" lampavda" kai; th;n fwnh;n th`" savlpiggo" kai; to; o[ro" to; kapnivzon, fobhqevnte" de; pa`" oJ lao;" e[sthsan makrovqen.

18

And when all the people saw the sound and the lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the smoking mountain, the people were afraid and stood afar off. (© Exod 20:18) In Psalm 29, a text that eventually became a lectionary reading for the Festival of Weeks, the voice of Yahweh is praised seven times. Verse 7 reads: vae twbohl} ' bxejo hw:hy“Alwq (Â Psa 29:7) fwnh; kurivou diakovptonto" flovga purov" (© Psa 28:7) The voice of the LORD flashes forth flames of fire Later interpreters took this and speculated that the Israelites at Mt. Sinai literally did see God’s voice. Philo (ca. 20 B.C.–50 A.D.) is a prime example. In a passage that contains many other parallels to Luke’s account, he writes: 33

I should suppose that God wrought on this occasion a miracle (qaumatourgh'sai) of a truly holy kind by bidding an invisible sound (h\con ajoraton) to be created in the air more marvelous than all instruments and fitted with perfect harmonies, not soulless, nor yet composed of body and soul full of clearness and distinctness, which giving shape and tension to the air and changing it to flaming fire, sounded forth like the breath (pneu'ma) through a trumpet an articulate voice (fwnh;n... e[narqron) so loud that it appeared to be equally audible to the farthest as well as the nearest…. 35 But the new miraculous voice (fwnhv) was set in action and kept in flame (ejzwpuvre) by the power of God which breathed upon it (ejpipnevousa qeou' duvnami") and spread it abroad on every side and made it more illuminating in its ending than in its beginning by creating in the souls of each and all another kind of hearing far superior to the hearing of the ears…. 44 It was natural that the place should be the scene of all that was wonderful, claps of thunder louder than the ears could hold, flashes of lightning of surpassing brightness, the sound of an invisible trumpet reaching to the greatest distance, the descent of a cloud which like a pillar stood with its foot planted on the earth, while the rest of its body extended to the height of the upper air, the rush of heaven-sent fire (puro;" oujranivou fora')/ which shrouded all around in dense smoke…. 46 Then from the midst of the fire that streamed from heaven (ajp∆ oujranou' purov") there sounded forth to their utter amazement a voice, for the flame became articulated speech in the language (flogo;" eij" diavlekton) familiar to the audience, and so clearly and distinctly were the words formed by it that they seemed to see rather than hear them. 47 What I say is vouched for by the law in which it is written, “All the people saw the voice,” a phrase fraught with much meaning, for it is the case that the voice of men is audible, but the voice of God truly visible. Why so? Because whatever 235

God says is not words but deeds, which are judged by the eyes rather than the ears. (Dec. 33, 35, 44, 46–47).623 In another account of the Sinai event at Spec. Leg. 2.189, he adds that the sound reached the ends of the earth: For then the sound of the trumpet pealed from heaven and reached, we may suppose, the ends of the universe, so that the event might strike terror even into those who were far from the spot and dwelling well nigh at the extremities of the earth (ejn ejscatiai'" katoikou'nta"), who would come to the natural conclusion that such mighty signs portended mighty consequences (ta; ou{tw" megavla megavlwn ajpotelesmavtwn ejsti; shmei'a). And indeed what could men receive mightier or more profitable than the general laws which came from the mouth of God, not like the particular laws, through an interpreter? The parallels between Philo’s accounts taken together and Luke’s are remarkable in their similarity, especially considering the fact that they are describing two different events. The following terminology is used by both Philo and Luke: h\con, pu'r, purov", pneu'ma, fwnhv, oujranou', diavlekton, katoikou'nta". The parallels have been summarized by Max Turner thusly: Both Philo and Luke (i) envisage a holy theophany before the assembled people of God; (ii) in each case we have to do with a redemptive-historical event on earth which is formative for that people of God, marking a real new beginning of some kind—a mighty “sign” of mightier consequences, as Philo puts it; (iii) in each this sign or wonder involves a miraculous sound, and a rush of something “like” fire from heaven descending to the people, and dividing to reach all, and (iv) in each case this results in a miraculous form of speech, spreading and so coming to be heard by a multiplicity (of Israel alone or of the far-away too?) in their own language, and destined to reach “the ends of the earth”…. (v) each involves an important “gift” given to God’s people and (vi) this gift comes to Israel as the consequence of Israel’s leader (both Philo and Luke would add “and King” [e.g., Mos. 2.1–7, etc.]) ascending to God!624

623

Text and translations of Philo are from F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Philo (10 vols. and 2 suppl. vols.; ed. R. Marcus; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962). The images of wind and fire are also associated with the word of God at Sinai in Targ. Ps.-J. on Exod 20:2: “The first word, as it came forth from the mouth of the Holy One, whose Name be blessed, was like storms, and lightnings, and flames of fire, with a burning light on His right hand and on His left. It winged its way through the air of the heavens, and was made manifest unto the camp of Israel, and returned, and was engraven on the tables of the covenant that were given by the hand of Mosheh” (J. W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch [New York: Ktav, 1968]). 624

Turner, Power from on High, 284–85.

236

Philo’s reference to the fact that “from the midst of the fire that streamed from heaven (ajp∆ oujranou' purov") there sounded forth to their utter amazement a voice, for the flame became articulated speech in the language (flogo;" eij" diavlekton) familiar to the audience (Dec. 46)” recalls (albeit imperfectly) the speaking in tongues recounted in Acts 2:5–11: 5

H \ san de; eij" Ij erousalh;m katoikou`nte" Ij oudai`oi, a[ndre" eujlabei`" ajpo;panto;" e[qnou" tw`n uJpo; to;n oujranovn. 6genomevnh" de; th`" fwnh`" tauvth" sunh`lqen to; plh`qo" kai; sunecuvqh, o{ti h[kouon ei|" e{kasto" th`/ ijdiva/ dialevktw/ lalouvntwn aujtw`n. 7ejxivstanto de; kai; ejqauvmazon levgonte": oujc ijdou; a{pante" ou|toi eijsin oiJ lalou`nte" Galilai`oi; 8kai; pw`" hJmei`" ajkouvomen e{kasto" th`/ ijdiva/ dialevktw/ hJmw`n ejn h|/ ejgennhvqhmen; 9Pavrqoi kai; Mh`doi kai; E j lami`tai kai; oiJ katoikou`nte" th;n Mesopotamivan, Ij oudaivante kai; Kappadokivan, Povnton kai; th;n A j sivan, 10Frugivan te kai; Pamfulivan, Ai[gupton kai; ta; mevrh th`" Libuvh" th`" kata; Kurhvnhn, kai; oiJ ejpidhmou`nte" R J wmai`oi, 11 Ij oudai`oi te kai; proshvlutoi, Krh`te" kai; A [ rabe", ajkouvomen lalouvntwn aujtw`n tai`" hJmetevrai" glwvssai" ta; megalei`a tou` qeou`. 12ejxivstanto de; pavnte" kai; dihpovroun, a[llo" pro;" a[llon levgonte": tiv qevlei tou`to ei\nai; 13e{teroi de; diacleuavzonte" e[legono{ti gleuvkou" memestwmevnoi eijsivn. 5

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.” In Philo’s account, it is God who speaks in flame which becomes articulate speech and it is the audience who hears it in a “familiar language”, whereas in Luke’s account it is the people who speak in languages familiar to the Jews of varying cultural backgrounds, albeit inspired by the “tongues of fire” descending from heaven. Closer parallels to the Acts account of the languages spoken on the day of Pentecost is provided by later rabbinic tradition. This rabbinic tradition combined two biblical passages in order to explain the “voices” of Exodus 19:16 and 20:18. Genesis 10 lists the seventy nations of the earth. If the “voices” were languages, then Psalm 68:11 237

[12] might explain what the purpose of all these languages was: “The Lord gives the word; the women who announce the news are a great host.”625 That is, the languages were meant to spread the news of the law to all the nations of the earth in their own language. Thus, the Babylonian Talmud records Rabbi Jochanan as saying: “Every single word that went forth from the Omnipotent was split up into seventy languages” (b. Šab. 88b).626 Similarly, Rabbi Ishmael is cited as saying: “Just as a hammer is divided into many sparks, so every single word that went forth from the Holy One, blessed be He, split up into seventy languages” (b. Šab. 88b).627 J. G. Davies argues that there are verbal and conceptual parallels between the Tower of Babel story (Gen 11:1–9) and Acts 2.628 He lists the following: fwnhv (Gen 11:1, 7; Acts 2:6); oujranov" (Gen 11:4; Acts 2:2); pu'r (Gen 11:3; Acts 2:3); glw'ssa (Gen 11:7; Acts 2:4); and sugcevw (Gen 11:7; Acts 2:6).629 The giving of the Spirit, resulting in the ability to communicate in different languages, Davies argues, represents the reversal of the curse from Babel.630 It should be noted that the crowds in both cases are confused (sugcevw) when they hear the different languages being spoken (Gen 11:7;

625

On the connection of Psalm 68 with Moses at Sinai in Jewish and Christian literature, see further

below. 626

I. Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud (35 vols.; London: Soncino, 1935–52), 2.420. In Exod. Rab. 28:6, Rabbi Jochanan is cited as saying the same thing in connection to the Sinai event. 627

Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Bahodesh 5 states that the Torah was offered to the nations of the world, implying that the Torah was communicated to them in their own language. 628

Davies, “Pentecost and Glossolalia,” JTS 3 (1952): 228–31.

629

Davies, “Pentecost and Glossolalia,” JTS 3 (1952): 228–31.

630 It may be overstating it to say that it is a reversal since there is no unification of the diverse languages into one common, universal language. Rather, it is an overcoming of the barrier of language instituted as a result of the Tower of Babel incident.

238

Acts 2:6).631 This background makes perfect sense in context, since the Babel story would have deep resonances with the scattering of the Jews due to the exile.632 Luke often fuses traditions together; here the symbolic reconstituting of the nation of Israel on the day of Pentecost draws on both Sinai and the Tower of Babel events, with the negative effects of the Tower of Babel event being symbolically reversed by the events at Sinai.633 It should be noted that Luke elsewhere mentions speaking in tongues (Acts 10:46; 19:6), but in no other instance does he mention the other theophanic elements of sound, wind or fire.634 Note also the instances in Acts where individuals are said to be filled with the Spirit (Acts 4:8, 31; 6:3; 7:55; 8:15–17; 9:17; 10:44–47; 11:15–16; 11:24; 13:9, 52; 15:8; 19:2–6). In none of these other instances are the theophanic elements present in association with the coming of the Spirit upon individuals. This strongly suggests that there is indeed something special about the first outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, that it is in some sense, inaugural or a beginning point. There is no better parallel to such a phenomenon than the original founding of the nation of Israel at the foot of Mt. Sinai. The makeup of the crowd that gathers around Peter is carefully defined, unlike the amorphous crowds that gather so often to listen to Jesus (Acts 2:5–11). The giving of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost occurred in the presence of Jews from “every nation under

631 H.-S. Kim, Die Geisttaufe des Messias: Eine kompositiongeschichtliche Untersuchung zu einem Leitmotiv des lukanischen Doppelwerks. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie und Intention des Lukes (Bern: Lang, 1993), 158–60. 632 After all, as a result of the Tower of Babel incident, Abraham ends up in “exile” in Ur of the Chaldees (i.e., Babylon). 633

On Luke fusing together Mosaic and Davidic traditions, see, for instance, the discussion of Turner, Power from on High, 286. 634

In later Judaism, fire is a widespread symbol for the Torah (see b. Ta’anith 7a; b. Bab. Bath. 78b; Sifre on Deut. Ber. 343).

239

heaven” (Acts 2:5).635 Peter, who stands as the representative of the twelve apostles, offers the gift of the Spirit to those Jews who are gathered from the Diaspora (Acts 2:38). The twelve apostles represent the core of the restored people of God, who number 120 (Acts 1:15), and will soon swell to 3000 (Acts 2:41), thanks to the conversion of many of those in the audience. This restoration is depicted in terms recalling the original constitution of the people of God at Mt. Sinai. Menzies analyzes these parallels and is unimpressed.636 He raises three main, overarching objections: (1) Along with the similarities are many distinctions which are often overlooked. With respect to the differences between the Lukan account and Philo, Menzies cites the following differences: (a) Luke associates the Spirit rather than God’s voice with the wind and fire imagery; (b) Luke does not associate these metaphors directly to the language miracle; (c) Philo does not refer to God’s voice being transformed into different languages as in the Pentecost account; (d) In Philo, the words are not heard so much as they are seen; (e) Lightning is entirely absent in the Lukan account, as is the trumpet blast; and (f) Philo connected the giving of the law with the Festival of Trumpets, not Pentecost.637 With regard to the differences between the language miracle of the rabbinic literature and Acts 2, Menzies notes the following differences: (a) In the rabbinic literature, the oracle is delivered by God, rather than Spirit-inspired disciples; (b) The rabbinic literature also speaks of individual words divided into different languages, which

635

See the discussion of Scott, Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity, 66–84.

636 Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 193–98. He cites the well-known cautions voiced by S. Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13, which are the theoretical basis for the objections he raises. See also, Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, 145–47. 637 Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 195. VanderKam (“The Festival of Weeks,” 205) adds the following difference: in Acts 2, the message offered to the Jewish people gathered in Jerusalem was accepted, whereas in the rabbinic literature, the Torah was rejected.

240

is completely different from Luke’s account; and (c) The number of languages (70) cited in the rabbinic texts differs markedly from the Lukan account.638 (2) The parallels adduced between Acts 2 and the texts from Philo and the rabbinic literature are not unique to Sinai traditions, but representative of a broader milieu. With respect to the terminology and imagery common to Acts 2 and Philo (and the rabbinic traditions), Menzies cites several texts as containing many of the same elements as found in these texts, all without an allusion to Sinai implied.639 To cite just one example, he points to 4 Ezra 13:1–10, where a divine figure likened to “wind” (ventus) and associated with “clouds from heaven” (nubibus caeli; 13:3), whose “voice” (vox) is compared to “fire” (ignem; 13:4), and from whose mouth comes “streams of fire” (fluctum ignis), and “flaming breath” (spiritum flammae), and from whose tongue (lingua) “a storm of sparks” (scintillas tempestatis; 13:10) issues forth.640 Menzies argues based on these other parallels, that the features of Acts 2 and other texts such as Philo are not specific to the Sinai traditions, but are the common currency of the theophanic traditions found in various texts. The first two general objections may be addressed together. In short, Menzies approach is wrong-headed. Certainly, he has shown that there is no direct literary dependence between Luke, Philo, and the rabbinic examples cited, but nobody argues for this. Luke, Philo, and the rabbinic midrash all give very different accounts, even when, in the case of Philo and the rabbinic literature, they are describing the same event: i.e., the theophany at Sinai. The problem for Menzies’ argument, however, is that Luke is not attempting to describe the Sinai event itself, but rather a much different event, the descent

638

Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 197.

639 In this connection, one should note that “fire” (pu'r) is commonly found in biblical theophanies (Gen 15:17; Exod 3:2; 13:21–22; 14:24; 19:18; 24:17; Deut 4:12, 24, 33, 36; 5:4; 10:4; 1 Kgs 19:12; 2 Kgs 2:11; © Psa 17:9. 640

He also cites 1 Enoch 14:8–25; 2 Sam 22:8–15; Isa 66:15–16.

241

of the Spirit, in terms that are only meant to recall Sinai. If Philo and the rabbis (and Josephus or anyone else for that matter) can differ in so many details in describing the same thing (i.e., the theophany at Sinai), it is highly unrealistic to demand that Luke’s account, which is describing an entirely different event (but nevertheless alluding to it), to match up in every single detail. One should not be surprised, then, that there are many great and small differences between the accounts. Rather, the real question, as Turner notes, is this: Would the account of Pentecost in Acts 2 remind a Jewish reader of the momentous events of Sinai, despite all the differences, or something else entirely?641 As will become clear, there are simply too many structural, thematic, conceptual and linguistic parallels to think that Sinai is not being evoked here. Furthermore, with respect to the non-Sinai parallels Menzies cites, they are not as impressive as it might seem at first blush. First, most of them, while containing some impressive linguistic parallels, are missing some important structural and conceptual parallels. Take 4 Ezra 13 for instance. The situation envisaged here is vastly different from that found in Exodus 19 (and the midrashic interpretations on it) and Acts 2. Unlike Exodus 19 or Acts 2, 4 Ezra 13 is a vision in heaven. Moreover, while a multitude is gathered, as at Sinai in Exodus 19 and on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, in the case of 4 Ezra 13, this multitude is gathered to wage war against the divine figure. Also, unlike in Acts 2 and in Exodus 19, there is no sense that there is a new beginning for a reconstituted nation (or in the case of Acts 2, the inauguration of the Christian community). In addition, while the voice of the divine figure is featured prominently, it is not a message to be heard by a multitude for their benefit, but a form of judgment, words as fire that destroys those who hear it. These key conceptual differences serve to underline how foreign this “parallel” is to Acts 2, and simultaneously underlines some of the key conceptual similarities between the account found in Acts 2 and the midrashic

641

Turner, Power from on High, 283.

242

interpretations of Exodus 19 and 20. Finally, there is the fact that in 4 Ezra 13:39, according to the interpretation of the vision given by the Most High, the fire which comes forth from the mouth of the divine figure represents the law, so it may be that somewhere in the background to this text, a Sinai allusion is nevertheless lurking.642 Despite Menzies’ alleged non-Sinai parallels to Acts 2, it remains a fact that the confluence of so many elements is found in connection to only one event: Moses and the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. (3) Finally, Menzies argues that using late rabbinic texts as “parallels” for New Testament writings is anachronistic, since there is no evidence that these rabbinic legends have any claim to have been around in the first-century A.D. He cites in particular, the absence of the seventy languages in Philo and Josephus as proof that this tradition was late, though he does allow that since Philo’s account emphasizes the universal dimension of the oracle, that Philo “represents a stage in the progressive development of the Sinai tradition which was a necessary antecedent to the tradition concerning the seventy languages.”643 While it is certainly true that the rabbinic literature is later (often much later) than the first century A.D., and that some of the more specific elements show great development, there is ample attestation for a more general connection between the Festival of Weeks and the Sinai event in the book of Jubilees and the Qumran Scrolls, and even hints in the Hebrew Bible (2 Chr 15:10). In other words, nothing depends solely on the rabbinic evidence. There is clear and ample evidence that a connection between

642

Many of the same objections can also be raised for Menzies’ other cited texts. 1 Enoch 14 also depicts a heavenly vision, unlike Exodus 19 and Acts 2. 2 Sam 22:8–16 incorporates reworked elements of the Sinai theophany in the context of God’s rescue of David. Isa 66:15–16 has only very minor parallels to Acts 2. 643

Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 197–98.

243

Sinai and the Festival of Weeks was at least possible far before the rabbinic period.644 Furthermore, while the rabbinic literature does greatly develop some of these midrashic elements, some of these elements are already present in Philo. Moreover, though different languages are not referred to in Philo’s account, he does mention something that is suggestive of this; i.e., that the audience heard the articulate speech in a “language familiar to the audience” (diavlekton... th;n sunhvqh toi'" ajkrowmevnoi"). Finally, there is also the likelihood, that this association did not just appear out of thin air in the rabbinic period, but must have had some antecedents from an earlier period. 3.4. Allusions to Moses/Sinai in Peter’s Pentecost Speech (Acts 2:14–42) 3.4.1. The Prophet Joel and the Fulfillment of Mosaic Expectation. Although they are not immediately obvious, Peter’s Pentecost sermon does contain two main allusions to Moses which are prominent conceptual features of his speech. Peter begins his sermon with a quote from the prophet Joel: 17

kai; e[stai ejn tai`" ejscavtai" hJmevrai", levgei oJ qeov", ejkcew` ajpo; tou` pneuvmato" mou ejpi; pa`san savrka, kai; profhteuvsousin oiJ uiJoi; uJmw`n kai; aiJ qugatevre" uJmw`n kai; oiJ neanivskoi uJmw`n oJravsei" o[yontai kai; oiJ presbuvteroi uJmw`n ejnupnivoi" ejnupniasqhvsontai: 18 kaiv ge ejpi; tou;" douvlou" mou kai; ejpi; ta;" douvla" mou ejn tai`" hJmevrai" ejkeivnai" ejkcew` ajpo; tou` pneuvmato" mou, kai; profhteuvsousin. 19 kai; dwvsw tevrata ejn tw`/ oujranw`/ a[nw kai; shmei`a ejpi; th`" gh`" kavtw, ai|ma kai; pu`r kai; ajtmivda kapnou`. 20 oJ h{lio" metastrafhvsetai eij" skovto" kai; hJ selhvnh eij" ai|ma, pri;n ejlqei`n hJmevran kurivou th;n megavlhn kai; ejpifanh`. 21 kai; e[stai pa`" o}" a]n ejpikalevshtai to; o[noma kurivou swqhvsetai.

644

This is true even if Luke had absolutely no knowledge of Jubilees or the Qumran Scrolls. Just the very fact that these texts made this association shows that such an association was possible in Luke’s time.

244

17

“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ (Acts 2:17–21; cf. Joel 2:28–32 [3:1–5]) This prophecy echoes the Mosaic longing found in Num 11:29: “Would that all Yahweh’s people were prophets, that Yahweh would put his Spirit on them!”645 In this biblical text, Yahweh descends in a theophany and transfers some of the Spirit from Moses to the seventy elders, who then proceed to prophesy (Num 11:25). Furthermore, the “signs” and “wonders” involving “fire” and “smoke” would evoke descriptions of Sinai (Exod 19:16–20). Moses, who performed signs and wonders before Pharaoh (Exod 4:8–9; Acts 7:36), is thus consciously set in parallel with Jesus who is also said to have performed signs and wonders immediately following the quote from Joel (Acts 2:22). Moreover, the beginning of this quote, where the phrase “in the last days” substitutes for “after these things”, may also be intended to invoke a Sinai allusion since this phrase (i.e., “in the last days” [ejn tai'" ejscavtai" hJmevrai"]) is found only in Isa 2:2

645

Midr. Ps. 14:6 also sees Joel 2:28–29 [3:1–2] as the fulfillment of the hope expressed in Num

11:29.

245

in the ©.646 Here the law is described as going forth from Mt. Zion (Isa 2:3), on the basis of which Yahweh will judge the nations.647 The unquoted portion of the Joel passage (© Joel 3:5b) contains the reason why this verse was cited: o{ti ejn tw`/ o[rei Siwn kai; ejn Ierousalhm e[stai ajnasw/zovmeno", kaqovti ei\pen kuvrio", kai; eujaggelizovmenoi, ou}" kuvrio" proskevklhtai. “For it will be in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem that there will be a remnant, just as the Lord said, and they will be evangelized, those whom the Lord calls.”648 The final phrase “those whom the Lord calls” is echoed by Peter in his final call to salvation (Acts 2:39): “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (o{sou" a]n proskalevshtai kuvrio" oJ qeo;" hJmw'n). The prophecy of Joel fits perfectly into the interpretation of Pentecost because it mentions not only the outpouring of the Spirit, but also the proclamation of the gospel to the gathered remnant of the people of God in Jerusalem.649 In the context of Joel’s prophecy, the outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh is a sign that Judah and Jerusalem’s fortunes will be restored by God (Joel 3). This was a traditional expectation associated with Israel’s restoration. Various texts in Isaiah (11:1– 9; 42:1; 61:1) indicate that a Spirit-endowed individual (Davidic Messiah, the Servant of Yahweh) will be associated with the restoration of Israel (cf. Luke 3:21–22). It was also a common expectation that the Spirit would be poured out on the whole nation (Isa 44:3;

646 Pao (Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, 156) notes that Isa 2:2–4 is a key text describing the going forth of the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem. Just as the Law of Moses went forth from Sinai, so the word of Yahweh will go forth from Mt. Zion. In the New Exodus, Zion has become the heir of Sinai. 647 For further discussion, see L. O’Reilly, Word and Sign in the Acts of the Apostles (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1987), 24–25. 648

The portion underlined differs from the Hebrew. For eujaggelizovmenoi, the Â reads µydyrc (“survivors”). 649

L. T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina 5; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), 60–61.

246

Ezek 36:26–27; 39:25–29). The Joel citation fits into this tradition. By citing Joel 2:28– 32, Peter was announcing that the restoration of Israel had been inaugurated by the outpouring of the Spirit. Most of the rest of Peter’s speech does not address the restoration of Israel or contain allusions to Moses and Sinai (but see discussion of Acts 2:33 below). Rather, Peter focuses on Jesus as the Davidic Messiah instead which might appear puzzling in light of the arguments advanced here, but this is easily explained. Clearly, in his speech, Peter is more concerned with dealing with the issue of who is the cause of the outpouring of the Spirit, rather than the issue of what the outpouring of the Spirit actually means or signifies (perhaps it was considered self-evident?). In this respect, Peter’s speech at the Temple (3:12–26), which comes shortly after the Pentecost event, comes closer to conceptually addressing the issue of the meaning of the events on Pentecost. Specifically, in the middle of his speech, Peter refers in Acts 3:20 to “times of refreshing” (kairoi; ajnayuvxew") and the “time for restoring all things” (crovnwn ajpokatastavsew" pavntwn). The first phrase appears to be based on Isa 32:15, where the term ajnavyuxi" occurs in Symmachus’ translation of the passage.650 Interestingly, in Symmachus’ translation, the outpouring of the Spirit appears to be understood as the advent of “refreshing”, since Symmachus reads ajnavyuxi" instead of pneu'ma as the other © manuscripts do. Furthermore, note the strong parallel between Acts 2:38 and 3:19–20a: metanohvsate, kai; baptisqhvtw e{kasto" uJmw`n ejpi; tw`/ ojnovmati Ij hsou` Cristou` eij" a[fesin tw`n aJmartiw`n uJmw`n kai; lhvmyesqe th;n dwrea;n tou` aJgivou pneuvmato". “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

650

In the ©, it only occurs in Exod 8:11, a context that has only the most general relevance to the context in Acts. Isa 32:15 is elsewhere alluded to in Luke 24:49.

247

19

metanohvsate ou\n kai; ejpistrevyate eij" to; ejxaleifqh`nai uJmw`n ta;" aJmartiva", 20o{pw" a]n e[lqwsin kairoi; ajnayuvxew" ajpo; proswvpou tou` kurivou “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. (Acts 3:19–20a) Here again, the parallel suggests a connection between the reception of the Spirit and the “times of refreshing”. The “times of refreshing”, then, quite clearly refers to the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (cf. Joel 2:28–32//Acts 2:17–21). The term “restoration” (ajpokatavstasi") in the phrase “time for restoring all things,” does not occur in the ©, but the cognate verb ajpokaqivsthmi is a technical term for the restoration of the people of God to their own land by God.651 Thus both phrases refer to the same overall event: the restoration of the people of God as inaugurated by the outpouring of the Spirit. Moreover, Peter declares that this restoration was predicted by the holy prophets and cites the fact that Moses, the prophet par excellence, predicted that a prophet like himself would arise to proclaim these things (Acts 3:21–24). 3.4.2. A Possible Allusion to Psalm 68:18 [19] in Acts 2:33. There is a possible veiled allusion to Moses near the end of Peter’s speech in Acts 2:33: 33

th`/ dexia`/ ou\n tou` qeou` uJywqeiv", thvn te ejpaggelivan tou` pneuvmato" tou` aJgivou labw;n para; tou` patrov", ejxevceen tou`to o} uJmei`" ªkai;º blevpete kai; ajkouvete.

33

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. The immediate context makes clear that this is primarily understood in terms of the Davidic covenant. However, it is possible that a Mosaic allusion forms a key part of the background to this verse.652

651

A. Oepke, “ajpokaqivsthmi, ajpokatavstasi",” TDNT 1 (1964): 388.

652

Especially in light of Luke’s Isaianic New Exodus motif, which fuses Mosaic and Davidic elements.

248

The logic of Peter’s argument in Acts 2:29–36 suggests that his heir is unlike David himself; i.e., a descendant of David was resurrected and ascended to God’s right hand, where he received a great gift which he subsequently gave to all. Peter’s point is that this descendant of David did not act in a Davidic manner at all, for if he did, then his argument would necessarily fall apart. Since there is no tradition in Judaism in which a Davidic Messiah ascends to heaven in order to receive a gift which he then gives to his people, this suggests an alternative background.653 The fact that Luke often fuses Mosaic and Davidic elements together, suggests another possibility.654 As mentioned above, Moses’ ascent of Mt. Sinai was sometimes considered a heavenly ascent.655 In this connection, it is often suggested that Psalm 68:18 [19] is the background for this verse.656 Here the relevant portion of the verse is cited in the Â and the ©: µd;aB; ; twnúTm; ' T;jq] l' ; ybiV, t;ybiv; µwroMl; ' t;yli[; 19 You ascended on high; you led captives captive; you received gifts among men (Â Psalm 68:19).

653

Contra O’Toole (“Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” 245–58) who argues that the argument in 2:22–36 is built on the Davidic promise alone. 654

Brawley, “Abrahamic Covenant Traditions,” 125; Turner, Power from on High, 286.

655

W. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 122–25; Harris, The Descent of Christ, 123–42; Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, 64–71. Turner (Power from on High, 286) cites Josephus (Ant. 3.77–78) as a close parallel to Acts 2:33. Here Josephus describes Moses’ ascent of Sinai and says that the people were “exulting in the thought that Moses would return from God’s presence with that promise of blessings (th'" ejpaggeliva" tw'n ajgaqw'n… para; tou' qeou') which he had led them to expect.” 656 W. L. Knox, The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), 85–86; Kretschmar, “Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten,” 211–21; C. F. D. Moule, “The Ascension—Acts i.9,” ExpTim 68 (1956–1957): 205–209; B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM, 1961), 42–59, 97–104; J. Dupont, “Ascension du Christ et don de l’Esprit d’après Actes 2:33,” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 219–28; Harris, The Descent of Christ, 96–104; Turner, Power from on High, 286–89.

249

19

ajnevbh" eij" u{yo", hj/cmalwvteusa" aijcmalwsivan, e[labe" dovmata ejn ajnqrwvpw/ (© Psalm 67:18)657

Since Sinai is mentioned in Psa 68:9, 17 [Â], rabbinic tradition associated Psalm 68:19 [Â] with Moses.658 In fact, after his comprehensive survey, Harris finds that “every time Ps 68:19 was mentioned in the rabbinic literature, it was (without exception) interpreted of Moses and his ascent to heaven to receive the Torah.”659 The issue is whether this association can be traced back to the first century A.D. Ephesians 4:7–10 may very well provide some evidence confirming that Psa 68:19 was associated with Moses and the Sinai event before the rabbinic period.660 Eph 4:8 contains the only clear citation of Psa 68:19 in the New Testament: 19

ajnevbh" eij" u{yo", hj/cmalwvteusa" aijcmalwsivan, e[labe" dovmata ejn ajnqrwvpw/ (© Psalm 67:18)

ajnaba;" eij" u{yo" hj/cmalwvteusen aijcmalwsivan, e[dwken dovmata toi'" ajnqrwvpoi". “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” (Eph 4:8) The quotation shows some minor differences with the ©, but there is in addition, one major difference: instead of “you received” (e[labe") as in the ©, Eph 4:8 reads “he gave” (e[dwken). The © reading reflects the Â, which also reads “you received” (tjql). Here the targum on Psalms 68:19 provides a remarkably similar reading to that found in Eph 4:8: açn ynbl ˜ntm ˜whl atbhy atyrwa ymgtyp atpla atyybç atybç ayybn hçm [yqrl atqyls

657

There are no major variations from the Â.

658 See Pesiqta Rabbati 47:4; Midrash Tehillim 22:19; 68:11; Soferim 16:10; Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 46. On the interpretation of Psalm 68 (especially verse 19) in rabbinic tradition, see Harris, The Descent of Christ, 64–95. 659

Harris, The Descent of Christ, 91.

660

Harris (The Descent of Christ, 104–11) shows that texts such as Testament of Dan 5:11; Testament of Zebulun 4:8; Jubilees 24:31–32 do not have Psa 68:19 in the background.

250

“You ascended to the firmament, prophet Moses; you led captivity captive; you taught the words of the Law; you gave gifts to the sons of men.”661 Here, the Targum reads “you gave” (atbhy) which is the 2nd person equivalent to Eph 4:8, “he gave” (e[dwken).662 However, this targum is very late, and displays other differences with the text form found in Eph 4:8. For instance, the 2nd person is used consistently in the targum, whereas Eph 4:8 uses a participle and the 3rd person.663 Rather than some kind of dependent relationship, it is possible, that one scribe somewhere simply misread the verb jql (“to receive”) for qlj (“to distribute”) and that the author of Ephesians (and later the targumist) simply capitalized on this variant reading. The citation of Psa 68:19 in Eph 4:8 occurs in a context, the interpretation of which is hotly disputed. This text has traditionally been interpreted as referring to a descensus ad inferos (“descent into hell”).664 More recently, however, it has been increasingly understood to refer to the incarnation.665 However, there is also a competing

661

Text is from P. de Lagarde, ed., Hagiographa chaldaice (Lipsiae: in Aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1873). Translation is my own. The underlined portions represent the equivalent of the base text of Psa 68:19. 662

The Syriac also preserves “you gave” (tBhY), but since it is uncertain whether this represents a

reading tradition independent of Eph 4:8, it would be unwise to rely on it. 663

See the discussion in Harris (The Descent of Christ, 66–75).

664

The descensus ad inferos was widely held from the time of the ancient church: Ignatius (Magn. 9:3), Polycarp (Phil. 1:2), Irenaeus (Haer. 4.27.2; 5.31.1, and 5.33.1), and Tertullian (An. 55.2), among others. Many of these church fathers saw Ephesians 4:7–11 as teaching Christ’s descent into hell: Tertullian (An. 55.2) and Chrysostom (Hom. Eph. 11.81–82) to cite just a couple of early examples. This is still the dominant position among biblical scholars (though the most recent studies have definitely trended away from this interpretation). Some of the more recent, notable works are the following: F. Büchsel, “katwvtero",” TDNT 3.641–42; J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM Press, 1980), 186–87; C. E. Arnold, Ephesians: Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 56–58; L. J. Kreitzer, “The Plutonium of Hierapolis and the Descent of Christ into the ‘Lowermost Parts of the Earth’ (Ephesians 4,9),” Biblica 79 (1998): 381–93. The latest, most substantial defense of this position, is that of A. T. Hanson (The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture [London: SPCK, 1980], 135–50). 665 The theory that Eph 4:7–10 refers to the Incarnation, also has some early attestation going back to Theodore of Mopsuestia in the 5th century B.C. (Harris, The Descent of Christ, 14–15) but is not nearly as commonly held as the decensus ad inferos throughout Christian history. It has won a number of modern adherents, however, including the following: R. Schnackenburg, “Christus, Geist und Gemeinde (Eph 4:1–

251

interpretation, in which more and more scholars are seeing an allusion to Pentecost in these verses.666 The dispute revolves around three key interpretive cruxes: (1) The decensus ad inferos assumes a three-story universe (of heavens, earth and Hades) but Ephesians seems to assume only a two-story universe (of heaven and earth). Other references in Ephesians to the evil powers picture them not below the earth, but in the air/heavens above the earth (or perhaps in an in-between region, between the heavens and the earth):667 ajnakefalaiwvsasqai ta; pavnta ejn tw'/ Cristw',/ ta; ejpi; toi'" oujranoi'" kai; ta; ejpi; th'" gh'" to unite all things in Christ, those in the heavens and those on the earth (Eph 1:10). ejn ai|" pote periepathvsate kata; to;n aijw`na tou` kovsmou touvtou, kata; to;n a[rconta th`" ejxousiva" tou` ajerv o", tou` pneuvmato" tou` nu`nejnergou`nto" ejn toi`" uiJoi`" th`" ajpeiqeiva": in which you once walked according to the age of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit which is now working in the sons of disobedience (Eph 2:2).

16),” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (ed. B. Lindars and S. Smalley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 287–96; idem, Ephesians: A Commentary (trans. H. Heron; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 169–80; M. Barth, Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4–6 (AB 34A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974), 432–34; E. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 373–88; P. T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 286–97. 666 Among the more substantial recent work taking this position: G. B. Caird, “The Descent of Christ,” 535–45; Kirby, Ephesians, Baptism and Pentecost, 145–46; C. H. Porter, “The Descent of Christ: An Exegetical Study of Ephesians 4:7–11,” in One Faith: Its Biblical, Historical, and Ecumenical Dimensions (Ed. R. L. Simpson; Enid, Okla.: Phillips University Press, 1966), 45–55; A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to his Eschatology (SNTSMS 43; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 155–63; idem, “The Use of the OT in Ephesians,” JSNT 14 (1982): 16–57; idem, Ephesians (WBC 42; Dallas: Word, 1990), 242–48. The most extensive recent defense of this position is undoubtedly that of Harris (The Descent of Christ). T. Moritz (A Profound Mystery: The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians [NovTSup LXXXV; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 56–86) sees the Jewish Pentecost as the background to this text but argues that the author of Ephesians is employing Eph 4:8–10 as a Christian polemic against identifying Moses and Torah with Psalm 68. 667 Cf. Plato’s daivmwne" (Symposium 202d–203a) who are intermediate beings between gods and men and who inhabit that space between heaven and earth. Even if this were the case, however, it would still make the earth, the lowest point in Ephesians’ cosmology.

252

i{na gnwrisqh`/ nu`n tai`" ajrcai`" kai; tai`" ejxousivai" ejn toi`" ejpouranivoi" dia; th`" ejkklhsiva" hJ polupoivkilo" sofiva tou` qeou`, that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10). o{ti oujk e[stin hJmi`n hJ pavlh pro;" ai|ma kai; savrka ajlla; pro;" ta;" ajrcav", pro;" ta;" ejxousiva", pro;" tou;" kosmokravtora" tou` skovtou"touvtou, pro;" ta; pneumatika; th`" ponhriva" ejn toi`" ejpouranivoi". For we are not wrestling with blood and flesh but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of iniquity in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12).668 As these passages attest, the realm of the powers and principalities is not in the depths of the earth as the descensus ad inferos interpretation would appear to require, but in the heavenly places, that is, the air. For this reason, most recent interpreters reject this interpretation. (2) Accordingly, many scholars take ta; katwvtera th'" gh'" as a genitive of apposition, which is fairly common in the book of Ephesians.669 Those who take ta; katwvtera th'" gh'" as referring to a descensus ad inferos take this phrase as a partitive or comparative genitive indicating a place lower than the earth and in stark contrast to uJperavnw which indicates the extreme uppermost of the heavens.670 They

668

Cf. also Eph 1:20–21.

669 Caird, “The Descent of Christ,” 539. He cites Eph 6:14–17 (to;n qwvraka th'" dikaiosuvnh" [“the breastplate of righteousness]; tou' eujaggel;iov u th'" eijrnhvnh" [“the gospel of peace”]; to;n Qureo;n th'" pivstew" [“the shield of faith”]; th;n perikefalaivan tou' swthrivou [“the helmet of salvation”]); 2:15 (to;n novmon tw'n ejntolw'n [“the law of the commandments”]); 2:14 (to; mesovtoicon tou' gragmou' [“the dividing wall of hostility”]); 2:20 (tw'/ qemelivw/ tw'n ajpostovlwn kai; profhtw'n [“the foundation of the apostles and the prophets”]). 670

Some manuscripts insert a mevrh after katwvtera. This does not make much difference in the sense of the phrase one way or the other, though it may affect the understanding of th'" gh'". On balance, the manuscript tradition favors the longer reading, since it is geographically widespread, early, and supported by a much larger number of witnesses. However, the internal evidence favors the shorter reading. The only plausible explanation for an original longer reading resulting in an omission is simple error. On the other hand, one could explain the longer reading from an original shorter reading by the scribal practice of inserting explanatory glosses. On balance the shorter reading is to be preferred, since it is harder to explain how it could have dropped out of such an early, important witness such as P46. For an excellent discussion of the issues, with a contrary conclusion, see Harris, The Descent of Christ, 40–45.

253

argue that the genitive of apposition is strange if a two story universe is assumed: why not just refer to the earth simply?671 However, the author could simply be contrasting the earth itself (rather than the underworld) with the uppermost parts (uJperavnw) of the heavens. This leaves, then, two interpretive possibilities: Incarnation or Pentecost. (3) To most scholars, it has seemed that the most natural and reasonable reading of Eph 4:7–10 implies that Christ first descended and then ascended, which would indicate a reference to the Incarnation and subsequent Ascension. However, there are good reasons for opting for the Pentecost interpretation, which would reverse the order to first an ascent and then subsequent descent, or Ascension and Pentecost. For one thing, the context clearly favors a reference to the giving of the Spirit, since the Spirit is explicitly mentioned in Eph 4:1–6 as the key element in the unity of the body. Though all are called to lead a life worthy of the calling, there is only one body and one Spirit. The section following Eph 4:7–10 (i.e., 4:11–16) delineates the types of calling that is typical in the church—i.e., in terms of the various types of ministry—which in all their diversity, nevertheless all work towards the unity referenced in 4:1–6 (in which the Spirit plays a key role). Thus, Eph 4:7–10 denotes the fact that Christ gave these gifts. However, if the author’s intention in quoting Psa 68:19 was to make the point that Christ, upon ascending, gave gifts (or gifted individuals) to the body of Christ, verses 9–10 are completely unnecessary, since the giving of gifts is asserted in verses 7–8. Verses 9–10 would then be completely parenthetical to the argument.672 Harris cogently argues, that formally, the point the author wishes to make is that Psa 68:19 implies a descent subsequent to the ascent (v. 9); i.e., that when the Psalm says

671

See, for example, Arnold, Ephesians, 57.

672

Harris notes that the UBSGNT 2nd and 3rd editions punctuated the text in this way; cf. the RSV.

254

“he ascended…” the part of the quote that says “… and he gave gifts…” implies a subsequent descent in order to distribute the gifts.673 Furthermore, the deeper point that the author of Ephesians wishes to make here is that the one who ascended is the same as the one who descended (v. 10).674 Such a statement, Harris argues, makes no sense in the context of the Incarnation, since it would be completely superfluous. However, since the Ascension involves Christ and the descent involves the gift of the Spirit, an insistence on the identity of the one who ascended (Christ) and the one who descended (the Spirit)—i.e., that (in some sense at least) Christ = the Spirit—makes perfect sense, if the author assumed that this was not a common understanding.675 An identity of Spirit and Christ is implied in various passages from Paul’s writings (1 Cor 6:17; 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17–18; cf. Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19).676 Therefore, in vv. 9–10, it is likely that the author wishes to stress the point that the ascended Christ has not abandoned his followers at his Ascension, but has actually returned in the person of the Spirit. Indeed, elsewhere in Ephesians, there are hints at the close relationship between Christ and Spirit in such passages as 1:13 (where the believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit in him [i.e., Christ]), 3:16–17 (where the Spirit strengthens the inner man and Christ dwells in the heart through faith), and 5:18 (where the formula ejn pneuvmati may correspond to the formula ejn Cristw')/ .677

673

Harris, The Descent of Christ, 177–80.

674

Harris, The Descent of Christ, 181–82.

675

Harris, The Descent of Christ, 172–82.

676 I do not assume Pauline authorship here. Even if Ephesians is deutero-Pauline, however, a disciple of Paul could be expected to depend on Pauline modes of thought and theology, or at least attempt to. 677

The latter suggestion is by Barth, Ephesians, 2.582, n.117.

255

Eph 4:7–10 does not explicitly mention the Festival of Weeks. However, if Harris’ interpretation is correct, then it is likely that Psa 68:19 was linked by the author of Ephesians to Moses’ ascent of Mt. Sinai (which, even without the evidence from the targum, is linked to Sinai in its original context in Psa 68:18) and the giving of the Spirit (even if Pentecost is not explicitly mentioned), and would suggest such a background if it is indeed the basis of Peter’s speech in Acts 2:33 (in a context in which Pentecost is explicitly mentioned [Acts 2:1]). J. Dupont argued that a Moses-typology did indeed lie behind Acts 2:33.678 He began from the recognition that the speeches in Acts are Lukan compositions, but that the scriptural quotations they contained pointed to the underlying traditions. He believed that when the redactional modifications and additions of Acts 2:33–34—based on the transfer of the passage from Moses to Jesus—could be properly identified and the original wording rediscovered, it would reveal that Psa 68:19 did indeed lie behind Acts 2:33: 19

ajnevbh" eij" u{yo", hj/cmalwvteusa" aijcmalwsivan, e[labe" dovmata ejnajnqrwv pw/ (© Psalm 67:19)

33

th`/ dexia`/ ou\n tou` qeou` uJywqeiv", thvn te ejpaggelivan tou` pneuvmato" tou` aJgivou labw;n para; tou` patrov", ejxevceen tou`to o} uJmei`" ªkai;º blevpete kai; ajkouvete. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (Acts 2:33) The phrase ajnaba;" eij" u{yo" finds its echo in the word uJywqeiv" and the expression e[labe" dovmata finds its echo in labwvn. The phrase “to the right hand of God” (th'/ dexia'./ .. tou' qeou') is an addition anticipating the quote from Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:35. “The promise of the Holy Spirit” (th;n ejpaggelivan tou' pneuvmato" tou' aJgivou) is a redactional change based on the fact that the “gifts” alluded to in Psa 67:19 could be

678 Dupont, “Ascension du Christ,” 219–28. He builds on the work of Cadbury (“The Speeches in Acts,” in The Beginnings of Christianity I.5 [ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake; London: MacMillan, 1933], 402–27.), Kretschmar (“Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten,” 211–21), and especially Lindars (New Testament Apologetic, 42–59, 97–104).

256

identified as the Holy Spirit in light of the quote from Joel 2:28–32 (cited in Acts 2:17– 21). The phrase “he has poured out what you see and hear” (ejxevceen tou'to o{ blevpete kai; ajkouvete) is a redactional modification based partly on the putatively original reading “he gave” (e[dwken [cf. Eph 4:8]), seen in light of the wording of the quote from Joel 2:28–32 (which begins “I will pour out” [ejkcew'] and refers to seeing visions and prophecies [which, as auditory phenomena, must implicitly be heard; cf. Acts 2:22]) in Acts 2:17–21.679 Finally, ajnevbh of Acts 2:34 represents Lukan redaction, now being applied negatively to David (“For David did not ascend to heaven”), instead of being applied to Moses (“You ascended on high”; cf. © Psa 67:19). In short, all the elements of Acts 2:33 could be accounted for in terms of Psa 68:19 as filtered through the context of the day of Pentecost as narrated in Acts 2. In sum, since there was no Davidic “ascent” tradition (a fact that Peter capitalizes on to prove Christ’s resurrection [cf. Acts 2:34]) as there was a Mosaic one, and since the audience would most certainly have known of a Mosaic ascent which resulted in the receiving of a gift which he then gave to the people of God, and furthermore, since Moses was the one biblical personage (other than Elijah) who transferred the Spirit to other Israelites and expressed the hope that the Spirit would be given to the whole nation (Num 11:26–30; cf. Joel 2:28–32), it is reasonable to conclude that Acts 2:33 does presuppose a Mosaic background.680 However, objections have been raised against such an interpretation by several scholars.681 Menzies and Bock both take issue with the specifics of Lindars’ and 679 Dupont also argued based on the parallel descriptions of Christ (Acts 5:31 [which may contain an allusion to Psa 68:19]) and Moses (Acts 7:25, 35) showed that the Moses-typology was clearly present in Acts and was also therefore likely present behind Acts 2:33. 680 Note that the sequence “received… poured out…” (labwvn... ejxevceen...) applied to Christ in Acts 2:33 is somewhat reminiscent of what Stephen says of Moses in Acts 7:38 “he received living oracles to give to us” (ejdevxato... dou'nai...). 681 Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern, 181–86; O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost”; Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 198–201.

257

Dupont’s proposed method of peeling back the redactional layers of Acts 2:33.682 While the proposal is undoubtedly speculative, there is nothing inherently improbable about it, as even Menzies concedes when he says that it is “ingenious” and “appears plausible at first sight”.683 Moreover, even when looking at the text as it is, it is clear that, as Peter himself points out, there is no precedent for a Davidic ascent to heaven, whereas there are precedents for a Mosaic one. Moreover, the reference to ascending and then pouring out the Spirit, recalls Moses’ ascent and giving of the law to the assembled people of God at Sinai. R. O’Toole argues that the covenant that underlies the Lukan Pentecost is not the Mosaic covenant but the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:12–16).684 In summing up his argument, he points out: Although the Sinai covenant appears in his Institution Narrative and in Acts 7:38, Luke has not worked this covenant into his theology. He also rejects the law as a means of salvation almost as vigorously as does Paul. Moreover, Luke almost always identifies “Moses” with the law. In the passages where he does not (cf. Luke 9:28–36; Acts 3:22–23; 7:20–44), no explicit mention of the Sinai covenant or the law occurs.685 First of all, O’Toole makes too sharp a dichotomy between the Mosaic and Davidic covenants in Luke-Acts. For him, the Lukan Pentecost is either Mosaic or it is Davidic. Since the promises to David are amply implied in Peter’s Pentecost speech (cf. vv. 25, 29, 34–35), and the Mosaic covenant is nowhere explicitly mentioned, he reasons that it is the Davidic covenant, and it alone, that lies behind the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2. This is based on a false assumption, however. In fact, both the Mosaic and the Davidic

682

Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 199–200; Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern, 182.

683

Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 199.

684 O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” 245–58; cf. also Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern, 182–83. 685

O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” 257.

258

covenants are alluded to here as the arguments above amply attest. The only interpretation that makes sense of all of the allusions in the text is that Jesus is the son of David who is also a prophet like Moses.686 Second, the fact that Moses or Sinai is not mentioned in the Pentecost narrative is no obstacle to this interpretation. First of all, as mentioned above, Peter’s speech focuses not on the meaning and significance of the events on the day of Pentecost, aside from the quotation of Joel 2:28–32, and this clearly recalls a Mosaic background, whatever else it recalls.687 Rather, his speech focuses on trying to prove that it is Jesus of Nazareth who is responsible for the Pentecost event, since he is raised and exalted at the right hand of God, and uses Davidic allusions to make his point. However, it is important to note, that the Davidic allusions do not serve to draw out the meaning and significance of the day of Pentecost as much as it draws out who is responsible for it. The meaning and significance of the day of Pentecost is tied to the New Exodus theme in Luke-Acts, which clearly recalls a Mosaic background, though not exclusively so. Furthermore, the allusions to Sinai are ample and clear. The New Exodus theme which can be traced throughout both parts of Luke-Acts has as its climax the reconstitution of the people of God. While the Davidic Messiah is the one who leads the way and makes this reconstitution possible, the very fact that the people of God are reconstituted, inescapably recalls the original formation of God’s people at the foot of Mt. Sinai. In other words, there is no need for Luke to be explicit about a connection to Moses or Sinai since such a connection would have been obvious: the Davidic messiah is the one who will accomplish the New Exodus, which inevitably points back to Sinai anyways. This makes the Davidic Messiah a new Moses of sorts, in both Isaiah (where

686

Turner, Power from on High, 289.

687

Note that Peter quotes Joel and then more or less draws no significance from it other than identifying Jesus as the one who accomplished what Joel was talking about.

259

the Servant has both Messianic and Mosaic characteristics) and Luke-Acts (where Jesus is both the Davidic Messiah and the Prophet like Moses). As for a reference to the law or covenant, the very point of the Lukan Pentecost is that Christian identity is now tied up with the Spirit, rather than the law or covenant.688 Therefore, the law and covenant are quite properly not mentioned in the context, but the implications of this are spelled out in the rest of Acts, where Jew and Gentile alike are marked by the Spirit, either at conversion or shortly thereafter, and the law is no longer the key determining factor in salvation or what it means to be a Christian (cf. Acts 13 and 15). On a final note, Peter’s closing exhortation to “Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (th'" genea'" th'" skolia'" tauvth" [Acts 2:40]) consciously alludes to the wayward wilderness generation which Moses condemns in Deut 32:5 (genea; skolia; kai; diestrammevnh [“crooked and twisted generation”]). Furthermore, it is likely that the three thousand who convert in Acts 2:41, are meant to stand in stark contrast with the three thousand who fell at the hands of the sons of Levi when Moses returns from Mt. Sinai and finds the Israelites worshipping the golden calf (Exod 32:28). Note the close verbal correspondence: kai; e[pesan ejk tou' laou' ejn ejkeivnh/ th'/ hJmevra/ eij" triscilivou" a[ndra". and that day three thousand men of the people fell (Exod 32:28). kai; prosetevqhsan ejn th'/ hJmevra ejkeivnh/ yucai; wJsei; triscivliai. and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)689

688 This is not to suggest that Jewish Christians will no longer observe the stipulations of the covenant, as S. G. Wilson (Luke and the Law [SNTS 50; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983]) points out. However, the fact nevertheless remains, that it is no longer the Law that will mark out who the people of God are, but rather the Spirit, a fact that is amply attested throughout the book of Acts where the Spirit consistently comes upon new believers, Jew and Gentile alike. See further below. 689

It is also possible that Jer 52:28 is being alluded to (though note that this particular passage is not found in the © of Jeremiah), since the text reports that 3023 people were deported in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. “about three thousand souls”), and all told, 4600 people by the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

260

3.5. Ideal Community in Luke-Acts The first wave of conversions on the day of Pentecost results in the formation of the first Christian community. The portrait of this community is highly idealized: 42

H \ san de; proskarterou`nte" th`/ didach`/ tw`n ajpostovlwn kai; th`/ koinwniva/ th`/ klavsei tou` a[rtou kai; tai`" proseucai`". 43ejgivneto de; pavsh/ yuch`/ fovbo", pollav te tevrata kai; shmei`a dia; tw`n ajpostovlwn ejgivneto. 44pavnte" de; oiJ pisteuvonte" h\san ejpi; to; aujto; kai; ei\con a{pantakoina; 45kai;ta; kthvmata kai;ta;" uJpavrxei" ejpivpraskon kai; diemevrizonaujta; pa`sin kaqovti a[n ti" creivan ei\cen: 46kaq∆ hJmevran te proskarterou`nte" oJmoqumado;n ejn tw`/ iJerw`,/ klw`nte" te kat∆ oi\kon a[rton, metelavmbanontrofh`" ejn ajgalliavsei kai; ajfelovthti kardiva" 47aijnou`nte" to;n qeo;n kai; e[conte" cavrin pro;" o{lon to;n laovn. oJ de; kuvrio" prosetivqei tou;" sw/zomevnou" kaq∆ hJmevran ejpi; to; aujtov. 42

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42–47) 32

Tou` de; plhvqou" tw`n pisteusavntwn h\n kardiva kai; yuch; miva, kai; oujde; ei|" ti tw`n uJparcovntwn aujtw`/ e[legen i[dion ei\nai ajll∆ h\n aujtoi`" a{panta koinav

32

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common…. (Acts 4:32; cf. vv. 33–37)690 As Johnson notes, Luke’s account of the early church borrows from Hellenistic philosophy concerning friendship.691 There was a common Greek proverb: “the things of friends will be in common” (Plato, Republic 449c; cf. Aristotle, Nic. Ethics 1168b; Philo,

690 Evidence for the sharing of possessions in early Christianity, at least in a limited sense, can be found in the NT (Gal 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8–9; Rom 15:25–31; Phil 4:15–20) and from other early Christian texts (Didache 4:5–8; Letter of Barnabas 19:8; cf. Lucian of Samosata, Passing of Peregrinus 13). See Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, 62. 691

Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, 62.

261

Abr. 235).692 It was common among Greek writers and thinkers to view the sharing of possessions as a key part of the ideal society.693 Ancient writers often considered the community gathered at the foot of Mt. Sinai to be an ideal community as well.694 Although according to the biblical account, the Israelites would quickly turn to idolatry in the absence of Moses (Exodus 32), there are indications that initially at least, the people of Israel were obedient and consecrated. They solemnly agreed to do all that Yahweh had commanded (Exod 19:7–8; 24:3) and, as instructed, the people consecrated themselves for three days, washing their garments and abstaining from sexual relations (Exod 19:10, 14–15). Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus saw the newly constituted nation of Israel in idealized terms as well. Philo reports that the Israelites at Sinai maintained the strictest purity, abstaining from sexual relations and performing ablutions and lustrations as well as washing their clothes, all elements taken from the biblical account. He adds, however, that the Israelites abstained from any pleasures not necessary for survival, and wore garments of the purest white (Dec. 45). Josephus says that the Israelites “partook of more sumptuous fare” and describes their clothing as “splendid attire” (Ant. 3.78). The description of the Essenes by Josephus and Philo are similar in some ways to their respective descriptions of the people of Israel at Sinai. Josephus says that the Essenes dressed in white (Jewish War 2.123). Philo and Josephus both state that the Essenes do not marry (Hypothetica 8.11, 14; Jewish War 2.120–21), though Josephus

692

Allan Bloom, The Republic of Plato: Translated, with Notes, an Interpretive Essay, and a New Introduction (2nd ed.; New York: Basic, 1991). 693

Plato, Critias 110c–d; Republic, 420c–422b; 462b–464a; Laws 679b–c; 684c–d; 744b–746c; 757a; Ovid, Metamorphoses 1:88–111; Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras 6:29–30; 20; cf. Aristotle, Politics 1261a– 1267b for a contrary view. See: P. van der Horst, “Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles,” JSNT 25 (1985): 59. 694

VanderKam, “The Festival of Weeks,” 201–203.

262

does state that some Essenes do (Jewish War 2.160–61).695 Other aspects of Philo and Josephus’ descriptions of the Essenes closely parallel the account found in Acts, especially references to their shared possessions (Every Good Man is Free 77, 79, 84–85; Jewish War 2.122–27).696 Moreover, as the Qumran scrolls attest, there are several parallels between the Qumran community and the early Christian community. The early Christian community was characterized by four key elements, according to Acts 2:42: (1) the Apostles’ teaching; (2) fellowship which included the sharing of goods; (3) a common meal; and (4) prayer. Each of these four main elements are further elaborated in the rest of the summary (Acts 2:43–47). The Qumran community was also characterized by an emphasis on these same four elements. Adherence to the teaching of the community is emphasized in such important documents as 1QS V, 2–12; VI, 4–8; 1QSa I, 1–5; 1QM X, 10; CD IV, 7–9. The Qumran community also shared possessions and lived in a closeknit community (1QS I, 11–13; V, 1–3; VI, 15–25) and ate a ritual meal together (1QS V, 8–12; 1QSa II, 17–22). Furthermore, prayer texts are amply attested at Qumran, and it is immediately evident that prayer was a key element in the spiritual life of the community (Daily Prayers [4Q503]; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice [4Q400–407, 11Q17]; Festival Prayers [4Q507–509]; Berakhot [4Q286–90]).

695 Some Qumran scrolls do refer to women and children (Damascus Document, 1Q28a, and others). However, the textual evidence is consistent with the idea that some Essenes were celibate and that others married and had children. Though the graves of women and children have been found in the cemetery, it appears that they are actually Bedouin and no more than a few centuries old. See the work of J. Zias (“The Cemeteries of Qumran and Celibacy: Confusion Laid to Rest?” DSD 7 (2000): 220–53). 696

For further discussion on how the Qumran community saw itself as an idealized covenant community see chapter 5. There are many rabbinic texts that also discuss the people of God at Sinai in idealized terms. Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 41 indicates that the Israelites were completely unified at Mt. Sinai, in contrast to the strife that marked their journey to that point. At 327, the text says that the entire generation was worthy to be like the angels and that death had no power over them. For further references, see VanderKam, “The Festival of Weeks,” 202–203.

263

Since the Qumran community and the early Church both understood themselves to be the eschatological people of God, they understood themselves in similar terms. The Qumran community, much like the early Church, believed itself to be the community that had renewed the covenant (cf. Luke 22:20), and as such, was the heirs to the promise, the true Israel, which was in stark contrast to the rest of Judaism.697 Furthermore, the selfunderstanding of the community as the renewed people of God is tied to the idea that the person’s entrance into the community is accompanied by the reception of the Spirit, by which the recipient is thereby cleansed (1QS III, 6–11; III, 13–IV, 26; IX, 2–6; 1QH XIV, 12b–13; XVI, 11b–12 cf. 1Q34 f3 II, 5–7).698 4. Conclusion The final issue relates to the significance of Pentecost. It has been seen that the Festival of Weeks was considered to be the occasion for the renewal of the covenant in some quarters of early Judaism (i.e., Jubilees, Qumran Scrolls). Since the Pentecost account in Acts 2 appears to incorporate Moses-Sinai allusions, there is the issue of how

697 4Q504–506; 1QS V, 7–24; IX, 3; CD III, 13–20; VII, 9–VIII, 2; 1QH XV, 15–19; Cf. S. Talmon, “The Community of the Renewed Covenant: Between Judaism and Christianity,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 3–24. 698

On the two spirits in 1QS III, 13–IV, 26 there is much discussion. The following see the concept primarily in terms of mood or disposition: P. Wernberg-Møller, “A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community,” RevQ 3 (1961): 413–41; M. Treves, “The Two Spirits of the Rule of Qumran,” RevQ 3 (1961): 449–52. For criticism of this position, see the following: A. E. Sekki, The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); H. G. May, “Cosmological Reference in the Qumran Doctrine of the Two Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery,” JBL 82 (1963): 1–14; J. H. Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13–4:26 and the Dualism Contained in the Gospel of John,” in John and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; London: Chapman, 1972), 76–106. It is a fact that in the Hebrew Bible, it is not always possible to make a clear distinction between the Spirit of God acting upon a person/people, and a person’s spirit being acted upon by God. There are certain indications in this passage and its near context (“spirit of true counsel” [1QS III, 6], “holy spirit of the community” [1QS III, 7], “spirit of uprightness and of humility” [1QS III, 8]) that the divine Spirit is at least being alluded to, even if a reference to a person’s inner disposition is also present. Since a person is clearly cleansed by God, not merely by his own inner disposition (1QS III, 7–11; IV, 20–22), some reference to the Spirit of God seems to be implied.

264

the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 2 relates to the covenant and the giving of the Law at Sinai in the third month (Exod 19:1). While there are those who object, the Spirit does appear to be a superior replacement for the Law.699 This is indicated in the parallel descriptions by Peter of Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit and pouring it out on his followers (Acts 2:33) and Stephen’s description of Moses receiving the “living oracles” to give to his people (Acts 7:38). Furthermore, in Luke-Acts, the Law is an identity marker for the Jews. This can be seen clearly in the opponents of Jesus and his Apostles and their consistent charge that Jesus and his followers have violated or abandoned the law (see Acts 7) and even by some Jewish Christians who insist that salvation is linked to observance of the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1–5). It becomes quite apparent, however, that for Luke the Spirit, not the Law, is the true identity marker for Christians. While the Law will continue to be followed by Jewish Christians (Acts 21), including people like Paul, it is the Spirit that decisively marks one out as a member of the restored people of God, not the Law. This can be seen by Peter’s appeal to the fact that the Spirit had fallen upon the Gentiles (Acts

699

Dupont, The Salvation of the Gentiles, 40; O’Reilly, Word and Sign, 21; Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 49. Jervell (The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984], 116–21) rejects the idea of the Spirit as a kind of New Law but supports the idea that the Spirit helps in obeying the Law. Turner (Power from on High, 353–56) argues that Luke is not really clear on the relationship between Spirit and Law. He bases this on three main arguments: (1) Luke does not portray Pentecost as the beginning of the New Age or Salvation for the disciples (his italics) because this conflicts with Luke’s view that this was initiated in Jesus’ ministry; (2) Luke does not use the contrasting old/new covenant in Acts at all, and only in Luke 22:20 in the gospel, which is a pre-Lukan idea simply taken over; (3) there is no adequate basis for arguing that the Spirit takes the place of the Law, since the community is committed to the Law until Acts 10, and only in part of the Church. These arguments are specious, however. While it is true that Pentecost is not the beginning of a New Age, it does represent a beginning of sorts, namely, the transfer of the Spirit (which resided uniquely on Jesus during his earthly ministry, according to Luke, since the Spirit is not depicted as resting on anyone else during this time) to his followers. The Spirit is poured out for the first time on the church. Surely this constitutes some kind of beginning! Furthermore, while there is little new covenant language in Luke-Acts, it does exist (Luke 22:20) and is dependent on Paul (1 Cor 11:25), who also viewed the Spirit as in some way replacing the Law (see, e.g., Romans 8). Finally, Turner’s claim that there is no adequate basis for the idea that the Spirit replaces the Law because the community remains committed to the Law until Acts 10, ignores the obvious fact that the community does not remain committed to the Law after Acts 15. Compare this with the fact that he argues that “the Gentiles, who receive the Spirit, do not keep the Mosaic Law, yet are admitted as ‘one people of God’ with messianic Israel” (p. 355). This is precisely the point he has not addressed. What unites the true Israel as the people of God? If it is not the Law, as Turner himself admits, then what is it? Clearly it is the Spirit.

265

10:45–47; cf. Paul in 11:15). Thus, in the Jerusalem council, Peter stands up and delivers the key speech: 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (Acts 15:7–11; italics added) Peter appeals to the fact that the Gentiles have received the Spirit to argue that the Law should no longer be a burden imposed on them, a burden that even the Jews have been unable to bear (cf. Acts 13:38–39). Clearly, the reception of the Spirit, not the observance of the Law, becomes the identity marker that truly counts.700 Moreover, since the Gentiles are not required to follow the Law, it is the reception of the Spirit that unites both Jewish and Gentile Christians as the restored people of God.

700 This is also reflected in the account of the Ephesians in Acts 19. Paul becomes concerned when they say they did not received the Spirit upon conversion, and rectifies the situation. It seems clear that Paul expects the reception of the Spirit to be the expected marker signifying genuine Christian conversion.

266

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION

Of the three main festivals in the Hebrew Bible, only the Festival of Weeks, or Pentecost, is not explicitly associated with an historical event. However, by the rabbinic period, the rabbis commonly associate the Festival of Weeks with the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai. This study attempts to trace the development of the association between the events at Sinai and the Festival of Weeks. The Festival of Weeks was originally a harvest festival that eventually acquired a historical significance. At first, the festival had no determinate date (Exod 23:16a; 34:22a), but gradually became associated with a date 50 days after the beginning of the barley harvest (Deut 16:9–10; Lev 23:15). Already in the Hebrew Bible, there are indications that the Festival of Weeks was associated with the Sinai event, covenant renewal in particular (2 Chr 15:10; cf. Exod 19:1), but this association is by no means unequivocal since there are also indications that covenant renewal was associated with the Festival of Booths (Nehemiah 8; cf. Deut 31:10–13). It is only with the book of Jubilees that there is an explicit connection between the Festival of Weeks and covenant renewal. In this book, which is so concerned with calendrical matters, the Festival of Weeks is precisely dated to the fifteenth day of the third month. The most notable feature of Jubilees’ covenant theology is that the Noachic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic covenants are all seen to be in continuity, in that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants are depicted as renewals of the original covenant with Noah.

267

With the publication of virtually the entire Qumran corpus, it is now clear that the Qumran covenanters, for whom the book of Jubilees was highly revered, also celebrated the Festival of Weeks as the day of covenant renewal on the fifteenth day of the third month. Detailed prescriptions for entrance into the community in 1QS I, 16–II, 25 appear to involve covenant renewal as its central feature. The Qumran covenanters also appear to have had procedures in place for expulsion of covenant violators on this same date (4QDa 11, 17–21//4QDe 7 II, 11–15). Moreover, many scholars have theorized that the Damascus Document was recited at an annual covenant ceremony because of the affinity it has to a covenant formulary. Finally, the account of Pentecost in Acts 2 reflects an association between the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost) and Sinai. Certainly this association was already made by the middle of the second century B.C. by the author of Jubilees. The fact that the Qumran covenanters revered the book sometimes obscures the fact that Jubilees had a wider readership than just this sectarian community. Furthermore, the rabbinic evidence (where the Festival of Weeks is typically connected to the giving of the Law), while late, certainly did not appear out of thin air. It therefore provides indirect evidence that the Festival of Weeks may have been associated with the events at Sinai at a much earlier period. Even those scholars who are not impressed with the evidence from the book of Jubilees and the Qumran scrolls acknowledge the likelihood that an association was made shortly after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. When Pentecost is understood in combination with Jesus’ Ascension (linked by the fact that Jesus commands his disciples to wait for the outpouring of the Spirit just before his ascent), the numerous allusions to Moses’ ascent and descent of Mt. Sinai become clear. Furthermore, this understanding fits into the wider context of the two volume work. Certainly, Luke’s portrait of Jesus as the prophet like Moses permeates the gospel of Luke and some of the speeches in Acts. Moreover, the association between Pentecost and Sinai makes perfect sense in light of the Isaianic New Exodus motif which 268

forms an overarching theme tying together the two works. For one thing, this illuminates the background behind Luke’s fusing of the Davidic and Mosaic traditions. It explains why, for instance, the Pentecost narrative is followed immediately by Peter’s speech which begins with a quotation alluding to Moses (Joel 2:28–32) but is focused on how the fact of Jesus’ resurrection follows from the fact that he is an heir of David. By means of these allusions in the Pentecost narrative, Luke depicts Jesus’ ascent and subsequent giving of the Spirit to his followers as the inauguration of a new community, which is marked not by the Law, but by the Spirit. This new community is depicted in idealistic terms, which finds parallels in the depiction of the original Israelites at Mt. Sinai by Philo and Josephus, and the Qumran community in the Qumran Scrolls.

269

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY701

Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 118–25 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Abegg, Martin G., Jr., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance: The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Albani, Matthias, and Uwe Glessmer. “Un instrument de mesures astronomiques à Qumran,” Revue biblique 104 (1997): 88–115. Albani, Matthias. Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube: Untersuchungen zum astronomischen Henochbuch. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 68. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994. Albright, William F. “The Gezer Calendar.” BASOR 82 (1943): 18–24. Alexander, Philip S. “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yahad: A Proposal.” Revue de Qumran 17 (1996): 437–57. Alexander, Philip S. and Geza Vermes. Qumran Cave 4.XIX: Serekh ha-Yahad and Two Related Texts. DJD XXVI. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Alexander, T. Desmond. “The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus xix 1–xxiv 11.” Vetus Testamentum 49 (1999): 2–20. Allegro, John. Qumran Cave 4. I (4Q158–4Q186). DJD V. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Allen, E. L. “Jesus and Moses in the New Testament.” Expository Times 67 (1956): 104– 106. Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993.

701 All abbreviations in this bibliography adhere to the format set out in Patrick H. Alexander, et al, eds. The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999).

270

Alt, Albrecht. “The Origins of Israelite Law.” Pages 79–132 in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Translated by R. A. Wilson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966. Anderson, B. W. “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah.” Pages 177–95 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper, 1962 Anderson, Gary A. “The Status of the Torah in the Pre-Sinaitic Period: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” Pages 1–23 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996. Edited by M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Anderson, Gary. “The Status of the Torah Before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees.” Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 1–29. Arichea, D. C. “The Ups and Downs of Moses: Locating Moses in Exodus 19–33.” BT 40 (1989): 244–46. Arnold, C. E. Ephesians: Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989. Attridge, Harold, Torleif Elgvin, Józef Milik, Saul Olyan, John Strugnell, Emanuel Tov, James C. VanderKam, and Sidnie White, in consultation with James C. VanderKam. Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XIII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Aune, David E. Revelation. WBC. 3 vols. Dallas: Word, 1997, 1998. Baethgen, Friedrich. Die Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904. Baillet, Maurice, ed. Qumrân Grotte 4, III (4Q482–4Q520). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert VII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Baillet, Maurice, Józef T. Milik, Roland de Vaux, eds. Les “petites grottes” de Qumran. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert III. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996. Barrett, Charles K. “The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Theological Studies 1 (1950): 1–15. Barrett, Charles K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994, 1999.

271

Barth, Markus. Ephesians. Anchor Bible 34 & 24A. New York: Doubleday, 1974, 1986. Barthélemy, D. “Notes en marge de publication récentes sur les manuscrits de Qumran.” Revue biblique 59 (1952): 187–218. Barthélemy, D. and Józef T. Milik. Qumran Cave 1. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert I. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “4Q Halakha 5, the Law of Hadash, and the Pentecontad Calendar.” Pages 131–44 in Studies in Qumran Law. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 24. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Baumgarten, Joseph. “4Q503 (Daily Prayers) and the Lunar Calendar.” Revue de Qumran 12 (1986): 399–407. Baumgarten, Joseph. Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XVIII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Beall, T. S. Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Beckwith, Roger T. “The Temple Scroll and its Calendar: Their Character and Purpose.” RevQ 18 (1997): 3–19. Beckwith, Roger T. Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental and Patristic Studies. AGJU XXXIII. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Best, Ernest. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Betz, Otto. “The Eschatological Interpretation of the Sinai-Tradition in Qumran and in the New Testament.” Revue de Qumran 6 (1967): 89–107. Beyerlin, W. Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Bickerman, Elias J. Chronology of the Ancient World. 2nd ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1980. Bickerman, Elias J. The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt. Leiden: Brill, 1979 [1937]. Bickerman, Elias J. The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 1–26, 299–309 in vol. 2 of Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Edited by E. P. Sanders, A. I. Baumgarten, and Alan Mendelson. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.

272

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative.” Pages 109– 25 in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats. Edited by Eugene E. Carpenter. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Blomberg, Craig L. “Midrash, Chiasmus, and the Outline of Luke’s Central Section.” Pages 217–59 in Gospel Perspectives III. Edited by R. T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. Bloom, Allan. The Republic of Plato: Translated, with Notes, an Interpretive Essay, and a New Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Basic, 1991. Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Boccaccini, Gabriele. “The Solar Calendars of Daniel and Enoch.” Pages 2.311–28 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint.VTSup 83.Leiden: Brill, 2001. Bock, Darrell L. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 12. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Boecker, Hans Jochen. Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East. Translated by Jeremy Moiser. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980. Borowski, Oded. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987. Bosman, H. L. “t/[buv; gjæ.” NIDOTTE 4:24–26. Bovon, F. Luke the Theologian: Thirty-Three Years of Research (1950–1983). Translated by K. McKinney. PTMS 12. Allison Park, Penn.: Pickwick, 1987. Brawley, R. L. “Abrahamic Covenant Traditions and the Characterization of God in Luke-Acts.” Pages 109–32 in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. BETL 142. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999.

273

Brooke, George J., John J. Collins, Peter W. Flint, Jonas Greenfield, E. Larson, Carol Newsom, Émile Puech, Lawrence H. Schiffman, Michael Stone, and Julio Trebolle Barrera, in consultation with James C. VanderKam, partially based on earlier transcriptions by Józef T. Milik and John Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Broshi, M., E. Eshel, Joseph Fitzmyer, E. Larson, Carol Newsom, Lawrence Schiffman, M. Smith, Michael Stone, John Strugnell, and Ada Yardeni, in consultation with James C. VanderKam. Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XIX. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Broyles, Craig C. Psalms. NIBC. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. Bruce, Frederick F. “The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles.” Interpretation 27 (1973): 166–83. Büchsel, F. “katwvtero",” TDNT 3.641–42 Bultmann, Rudolf. T’he History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by J. Marsh. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Burge, Gary M. The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Cadbury, H. J. “The Speeches in Acts.” Pages 402–27 in The Beginnings of Christianity I.5. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake. London: MacMillan, 1933. Caird, G. B. “The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:7–11.” Studia theologica 2 (1964): 535–45. Campbell, J. G. The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 228. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Cansdale, L. Qumran and the Essenes: A Re-Evaluation of the Evidence. Tübingen: Mohr, 1997. Caquot, A. “Remarques sur la fête de la ‘néoménie’ dans l’ancien Israël.” RHR 68 (1960): 1–18. Carmichael, Calum. The Laws of Deuteronomy. Ithaca, N.Y., 1974. Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Cartledge, Tony W. Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. JSOTSup 147. Sheffield: SAP, 1992. Cazelles, Henri. “Sur les origines du calendrier des Jubilés.” Biblica 43 (1962): 205–206.

274

Charlesworth, James H. “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13–4:26 and the Dualism Contained in the Gospel of John.” Pages 76–106 in John and Qumran. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. London: Chapman, 1972. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. PTSDSSP. Tübingen: Mohr, 1995. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents. PTSDSSP. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Chazon, E. G. “Liturgical Communion with the Angels at Qumran.” Pages 195–205 in Sapiential, Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran. Edited by D. K. Falk et al. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Chazon, E. G. “The Function of the Qumran Prayer Texts: An Analysis of the Daily Prayers (4Q503).” Pages in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Chazon, E. G., et al., ed. Qumran Cave 4, XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. DJD XXIX. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Cheyne, Thomas K. The Book of Psalms. Vol. 2. London, 1904. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Chilton, Bruce D. “Announcement in Nazara.” Pages 147–72 in Gospel Perspectives II. Edited by R. T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Christiansen, E. J. “The Consciousness of Belonging to God’s Covenant and What it Entails According to the Damascus Document and the Community Rule.” Pages 71–85 in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: SAP, 1998. Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. Cohen, M. E. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1993. Cohn, Leopold, and Paul Wendland, eds. Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. 7 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1896–1915. Collins, John J. and Gregory E. Sterling, eds. Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 13. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. 275

Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, Mich.: Dove, 2000. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Collins, John. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Crawford, S. W. The Temple Scroll and Related Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 2. Sheffield: SAP, 2000. Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Cross, Frank M. The Ancient Library of Qumran. 3rd ed. Sheffield: SAP, 1995. Dahl, Nils A. “The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts.” Pages 139–59 in Studies in LukeActs. Edited by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Davies, J. G. “Pentecost and Glossolalia.” JTS 3 (1952): 228–31. Davies, P. R. The Damascus Document: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document”. JSOTSup 25. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. Davila, James R. Liturgical Works. Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Davis, D. R. “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32–34.” WTJ 44 (1982): 71–87. De Vries, Simon J. “Festival Ideology in Chronicles.” Pages 104–24 in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. Edited by Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades, with James M. Robinson and Garth I. Moller. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Deasley, A. The Shape of Qumran Theology. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000. Delcor, M. “Das Bundesfest in Qumran und das Pfingsfest.” Pages 281–97 in Religion d’Israel et Proche Orient Ancien. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. New York: Scribner, 1965. Dillon, Richard J. From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. Dimant, Devorah. “The Library of Qumran: Its Content and Character.” Pages 170–76 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000 276

Dimant, Devorah. “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance.” Pages 23–36 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990. Edited by D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Dimant, Devorah. “The Scrolls and the Study of Early Judaism.” Pages 43–59 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings. Edited by R. A. Kugler and E. M. Schuller. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Doering, L. “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 179–205 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey, Armin Lange. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Dozeman, Thomas B. God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology, and Canon in Exodus 19–24. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Drury, J. Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel: A Study in Early Christian Historiography. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976 Duggan, Michael W. The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 164. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Duhm, Bernard. Die Psalmen. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr, 1922. Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Dupont, J. “Ascension du Christ et don de l’Esprit d’après Actes 2:33.” Pages 219–28 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Edited by B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Dupont, J. “The First Christian Pentecost.” Pages 35–59 in The Salvation of the Gentiles. Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist, 1979. Elgvin, Torleif. “The Qumran Covenant Festival in the Temple Scroll.” Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1985): 103–106. Endres, John. Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 18. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1987. Epstein, I., ed. Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. 20 vols. London: Soncino, 1972–1984. Eshel, E., H. Eshel, Carol Newsom, Bilhah Nitzan, Eilleen Schuller, and Ada Yardeni, in consultation with James C. VanderKam and Monica Brady. Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XI. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. 277

Etheridge, J. W. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch. New York: Ktav, 1968. Evans, C. F. “The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel.” Pages 37–53 in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Edited by D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955. Evans, Craig A. “Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel.” Pages 77–100 in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Falk, Daniel K. Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ XXVII. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Falk, Daniel. “4Q393: A Communal Confession.” Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994): 184–207. Falk, Daniel. “Qumran Prayer Texts and the Temple.” Pages 106–26 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998: Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. Edited byD. K. Falk, F. García Martínez; E. M. Schuller. STDJ XXXV. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible. Rev. ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Fitzmyer, Joseph. “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost.” Theological Studies 45 (1984): 409–40; Repr. pages 265–94 in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies, 2d ed. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans; Livonia: Dove, 1998. Fitzmyer, Joseph. “Tobit.” Pages 1–76 in Qumran Cave 4. XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XIX. Edited by Magen Broshi, et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ XLII. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Flint, Peter W., and James C. VanderKam, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998, 1999. Freedman, H. and Maurice Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah. 10 vols. London: Soncino, 1939.

278

Friedman, Richard E. “The Recession of Biblical Source Criticism.” Pages 81–101 in The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures. Edited by Richard E. Friedman and Hugh G. M. Williamson. SBL Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva S. “The Tribulations of Marduk: The So-called ‘Marduk Ordeal Text.” JAOS 103 (1983): 131–41. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude. Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11 (11Q2–18, 11Q20–30). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXIII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. García Martínez, Florentino. “The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 243– 60 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey, Armin Lange. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Gerhardsson, B. The Testing of God’s Son. Lund: Gleerup, 1966. Gerstenberger, Erhard. Leviticus: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Gibson, J. B. The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1967–1969. Glasson, T. F. Moses in the Fourth Gospel. Studies in Biblical Theology. First Series 40. London: SCM Press, 1963. Glessmer, Uwe. “Calendars in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 2.213–78 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Glessmer, Uwe. “Der 364-Tage Kalendar und die Sabbatstruktur seiner Schaltungen in ihrer Bedeutung für den Kult.” Pages in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by D. R. Daniels, U. Glessmer, and M. Rösel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. Glessmer, Uwe. “The Otot-Texts (4Q319) and the Problem of Intercalations in the Context of the 364-Day Calendar.” Pages in Qumranstudien: Voträge und Beiträge der Teilnehmer des Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen Treffen der Society of Biblical Literature, Münster, 25.–26. Juli 1993. Schriften des Institutem Judaicum Delitzschianum 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.

279

Goudoever, Jan van. “Time Indications in Daniel that Reflect the Usage of the Ancient Theoretical So-called Zadokite Calendar.” Pages 533–38 in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Edited by Adam S. van der Woude. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993. Goudoever, Jan van. Biblical Calendars. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Goulder, M. The Evangelist’s Calendar. London: SPCK, 1979. Graetz, Heinrich H. Kritischer Commentar zu den Psalmen. 2 vols. Breslau: Schottlaender, 1882–83. Grayson, A. “Akkadian Treaties of the Seventh Century B.C.” JCS 39 (1987): 127–60. Grossfeld, B. The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy. Aramaic Bible 9. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988. Grossman, M. L. Reading for History in the Damascus Document: A Methodological Study. STDJ XLV. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Gruen, E. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Gunkel, Hermann, and J. Begrich. Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies. Trans. J. D. Nogalski. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998 [1933]. Halperin, D. J. “Merkabah Midrash in the Septuagint.” JBL 101 (1982): 351–63. Halperin, D. J. The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. Halpern-Amaru, Betsy. Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature. Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1994. Hanson, A. T. The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture. London: SPCK, 1980. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Harris, W. Hall. The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4:7-11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 32. New York: Brill, 1996. Hartley, John. Leviticus. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1992. Hartman, Lars. Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5. Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series 12. Lund: Gleerup, 1979.

280

Hatina, T. R. “John 20.22 in Its Eschatological Context: Promise or Fulfillment?” Biblica 74 (1993): 196–219. Hauge, Martin R. The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19–40. JSOTSup 323. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Hempel, C. The Damascus Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1. Sheffield: SAP, 2000. Hempel, Charlotte. “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond.” Pages 187–96 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context. Edited by Timothy H. Lim. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000. Hempel, Charlotte. The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Traditions, and Redaction. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 29. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Hendel, Ronald S. “4Q252 and the Flood Chronology of Genesis 7–8: A Text-Critical Solution.” DSD 2 (1995): 76–79. Hendel, Ronald S. “Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The Ritual Symbolism of Exodus 24,3–8,” ZAW 101 (1989): 366–90. Hendel, Ronald S. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Hengel, Martin. “Judaism and Hellenism Revisited.” Pages 6–37 in Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Edited by John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 13. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Hengel, Martin. The “Hellenization” of Judaea in the First Century after Christ. In collaboration with Christoph Markschies. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989. Herkenne, Heinrich. Das Buch der Psalmen. Bonn: Hanstein, 1936. Herr, M. D. “The Calendar.” Pages 834–64 in The Jewish People in the First Century. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 1:2. Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Hillers, D. R. Covenant. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969. Hirschfeld, Y. Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004.

281

Holladay, William. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Hopkins, David C. The Highlands of Canaan: Agricultural Life in the Early Iron Age. SWBA 3. Sheffield: Almond, 1985. Horst, P. van der. “Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles,” JSNT 25 (1985): 49– 60. Isaac, E. “The Book of Enoch.” Pages 1.5–90 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983. Jacobson, Howard. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation. 2 vols. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 31. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Japhet, Sara. “Law and ‘The Law’ in Ezra-Nehemiah.” Pages 99–115 in The Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Edited by David Asaf. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985. Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. Jaubert, Annie. “Le calendrier des Jubilés et de la secte de Qumrân. Ses origines bibliques.” Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953): 250–64. Jaubert, Annie. “Le calendrier des Jubilés et les jours liturgiques de la semaine.” Vetus Testamentum 7 (1957): 35–61. Jaubert, Annie. La Notion d’Alliance dans le Judaïsme aux abords de l’Ère chrétienne. Patristica Sorbonensia 6. Paris: Seuil, 1963. Jaubert, Annie. The Date of the Last Supper. Translated by I. Rafferty. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1965. Jeremias, Jörg. Theophanie. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965. Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972. Jervell, Jacob. The Unknown Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984. Johnson, Luke T. Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1981. Johnson, Luke T. The Acts of the Apostles. Sacra Pagina 5. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992. Johnson, Luke T. The Gospel of Luke. Sacra Pagina 3. Wilmington: Glazier, 1991.

282

Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, and Louis H. Feldman. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Kahle, P. The Cairo Genizah. Oxford: Blackwell, 1959. Kaufmann, Y. The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Translated and abridged by M. Greenberg. New York, 1960. Kim, H.-S. Die Geisttaufe des Messias: Eine kompositiongeschichtliche Untersuchung zu einem Leitmotiv des lukanischen Doppelwerks. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie und Intention des Lukes. Bern: Lang, 1993. Kimball, C. A. Jesus’ Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Kirby, J. C. Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost: An Inquiry into the Structure and Purpose of the Epistle to the Ephesians. London: SPCK, 1968. Klein, Jacob. “Akitu.” ABD 1:138–40. Klein, Ralph W. “Archaic Chronologies and the Textual History of the Old Testament.” Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974): 255–63. Knibb, Michael A. The Qumran Community. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 B.C. to A.D. 200, 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Knox, W. L. The Acts of the Apostles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948. Kosmala, H. “The So-Called Ritual Decalogue.” ASTI 1 (1962): 31–61. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms: A Commentary. 2 vols. 5th ed. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1988, 1989 [1960, 1978]. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament. Richmond: John Knox, 1965. Kreitzer, L. J. “The Plutonium of Hierapolis and the Descent of Christ into the ‘Lowermost Parts of the Earth’ (Ephesians 4,9).” Biblica 79 (1998): 381–93. Kremer, J. Pfingstbericht und Pfingstgeschehen. Stuttgarter Bibel Studien 63/64. 1973.

283

Kretschmar, Georg. “Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 66 (1954–1955): 209–53. Kugel, James L. “Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7) in Its Exegetical Context.” Pages 206–18 in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by Craig A. Evans. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Kugel, James L. and Rowan Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Kugel, James L. In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts. San Francisco: Harper-Collins, 1990; 2d ed., Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994. Kugel, James L. The Bible As It Was. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998. Kuntz, J. Kenneth. The Self-Revelation of God. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. Lagarde, P. de., ed. Hagiographa chaldaice. Lipsiae: in Aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1873. Le Déaut, Roger. “Pentecôte et Tradition juive.” Spiritus 2 (1961): 127–44. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Levinson, Bernard M. “The Sinai Covenant: The Argument of Revelation.” Pages 23–27 in The Jewish Political Tradition: Authority. Edited by Michael Walzer et al. 4 projected volumes. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Lim, Timothy H., et al., eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Lincoln, Andrew T. “The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 14 (1982): 16–57. Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. Word Biblical Commentary 42. Dallas: Word, 1990. Lincoln, Andrew T. Paradise Now and Not Yet. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. London: SCM Press, 1961. 284

Lohfink, G. Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments 26. Munich: Kösel, 1971. Lohse, Eduard. “penthkosthv.” Pages 44–53 in vol. 6 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Mann, J. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue. Prolegomenon by Ben Zion Wacholder. New York: Ktav, 1971. Mann, Thomas W. Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1977. Marshall, I. Howard. “The Significance of Pentecost.” Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1977): 347–69. Marshall, J. W. Israel and the Book of the Covenant: An Anthropological Approach to Biblical Law. SBLDS 140. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. May, H. G. “Cosmological Reference in the Qumran Doctrine of the Two Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery.” JBL 82 (1963): 1–14 McCarthy, D. J. Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions. Growing Points in Theology. Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1972. Meeks, Wayne A. “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 44–72. Meeks, Wayne. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NovTSup 14. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Mendenhall, George E. “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law.” BA 17 (1954): 26–46. Mendenhall, George E. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” BA 17 (1954): 50–76. Mendenhall, George E. and Gary A. Herion. “Covenant.” ABD 1:1179. Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Presbyterian Board of Colportage, 1955; Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954): 26–46, 49–76. Menzies, Robert P. Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. Journal of Pentecostal Theology: Supplement Series 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

285

Metso, Sarianna. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Metzger, Bruce M. “The Meaning of Christ’s Ascension.” Pages 118–28 in Search the Scriptures: New Testament Studies in Honor of Raymond T. Stamm. Edited by J. M. Meyers et al. Gettysburg Theological Studies 3. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus. 3 vols. Anchor Bible 3, 3A, 3B. New York: Doubleday, 1991, 2000, 2001. Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Milik, Józef T. “Milkî-s≥edeq et Milkî-reša‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens.” Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972): 95–144. Milik, Józef T. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea. Translated by John Strugnell. London: SCM Press, 1959. Minear, Paul S. To Heal and To Reveal: The Prophetic Vocation According to Luke. New York: Seabury Press, 1976. Moberly, R. W. L. At the Mountain of God. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 22. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. Moessner, David P. Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Momigliano, Arnaldo. Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Morgenstern, Julius. “The Book of the Covenant.” HUCA 5 (1928): 1–151; 7 (1930): 19– 258; 8–9 (1931–32): 1–150; 33 (1962): 59–105. Morgenstern, Julius. “The Oldest Document of the Hexateuch.” HUCA 4 (1927): 1–138 Morgenstern, Julius. “The Three Calendars of Ancient Israel.” HUCA 1 (1924): 13–78; HUCA 3 (1926): 77–107; HUCA 10 (1935): 1–148. Moritz, T. A Profound Mystery: The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians. NovTSup 85. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Le Décalogue. 1927. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Biblical Seminar 14. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992 [1951]. Murphy, Catherine M. Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community. STDJ XL. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

286

Murphy, Frederick J. “The Eternal Covenant in Pseudo-Philo.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 3 (1988): 43–57. Najman, Hindy. “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and Its Authority Conferring Strategies.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 30 (1999): 379–410. Najman, Hindy. “Torah of Moses: Pseudonymous Attribution in Second Temple Writings.” Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 7 (2000): 202–16. Neirynck, F. “Minor Agreements: Matthew-Luke in the Transfiguration Story.” Pages 253–66 in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker: Festschrift Josef Schmid. Freiburg: Herder, 1973. Neudecker, Reinhard. “‘Das ganze Volk sah die Stimmen. . .’: Haggadische Auslegung und Pfingsbericht.” Biblica 78 (1997): 329–49. Newsom, C. “Merkabah Exegesis in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot.” JJS 38 (1987): 11–30. Newsom, Carol. “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran.” Pages 182–85 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Edited by W. H. Propp, et al. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Newsom, Carol. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. Harvard Semitic Studies 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Newsom, Carol. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Volume 4B: Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. PTSDSSP. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Nicholson, E. W. Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973. Nicholson, E. W. God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Nicholson, E. W. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Niehaus, Jeffrey J. God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Nitzan, B. “4QBerakhot (4Q286–290): A Preliminary Report.” Pages 53–71 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris, 1992. Edited by G. J. Brooke with F. García Martínez. STDJ XV. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Nitzan, B. “4QBerakhota–e (4Q286–290): A Covenantal Ceremony in the Light of Related Texts,” RevQ 16 (1995): 487–506.

287

Nitzan, Bilhah. “The Concept of the Covenant in Qumran Literature.” Pages 93–98 in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27– 31 January, 1999. Edited by D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick, & D. R. Schwartz. STDJ XXXVII. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Noack, Bent. “The Day of Pentecost in Jubilees, Qumran and Acts.” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 1 (1962): 73–95. Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by B. W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972 [1948]. Noth, Martin. Exodus. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. Noth, Martin. The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies. Translated by D. R. ApThomas. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966. O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. O’Reilly, L. Word and Sign in the Acts of the Apostles. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1987. O’Toole, Robert F. “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983): 245–58. Oepke, Albrecht. “ajpokaqivsthmi, ajpokatavstasi".” TDNT 1 (1964): 387–93. Olson, M. J. “Pentecost.” ABD 5:222–23. Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Parpola, S. “Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh.” JCS 39 (1987): 161–89. Patrick, Dale. “The Covenant Code Source,” VT 27 (1977): 145–57. Patrick, Dale. Old Testament Law. London: SCM Press, 1986. Paul, S. M. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Penney, John M. The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology. Journal of Pentecostal Theology: Supplement Series 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Perlitt, Leo. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 36. Neukirchen: Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969.

288

Petersen, Allan R. The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit? JSOTSup 259. Sheffield: SAP, 1998. Pfann, Stephen J. “The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony and the Baptism of Repentance.” Pages 337–52 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D. W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Pfann, Stephen J., ed. Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. DJD XXXVI. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Pfeiffer, R. H. “The Oldest Decalogue.” JBL 43 (1924): 294–310. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 10 vols. and 2 suppl. vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962. Porter, C. H. “The Descent of Christ: An Exegetical Study of Eph. 4:7–11.” Pages 45–55 in One Faith: Its Biblical, Historical, and Ecumenical Dimensions. Edited by R. L. Simpson. Oklahoma: Phillips University Press, 1966. Potin, Jean. La fête juive de la pentecôte: Études des textes liturgiques. 2 vols. Lectio Divina 65, 65a. Paris: Cerf, 1971. Qimron, Elisha, and John Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert X. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Rad, Gerhard von. “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch.” Pages 1–78 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966 [1938]. Ravens, David. Luke and the Restoration of Israel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 119. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Renaud, Bernard. La Théophanie du Sinaï: Ex. 19–24. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 30. Paris: Gabalda, 1991. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch. JSOTSup 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990 [1977]. Resseguie, J. L. “Interpretation of Luke’s Central Section (Luke 9:51–19:44) Since 1856.” Studia Biblica et Theologica 5/12 (1975): 3–36. Ringgren, H. Israelite Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966.

289

Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, John S. Kloppenborg, ed. The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Rose, Martin. Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke. ATANT 67. Zurich, 1981. Roth, S. J. The Blind, the Lame, and the Poor: Character Types in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: SAP, 1997. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods. BJS 302. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Rubinkiewicz, R. “PS LXVIII 19 (=EPH IV 8): Another Textual Tradition or Targum?” Novum Testamentum 17 (1975): 219–24. Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M. van. “The Interpretation of the Flood Story in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 68–78 in Interpretations of the Flood. Edited by Florentino García Martinez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Sachau, E. The Chronology of Ancient Nations. London, 1879. Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE. Philadelphia: TPI, 1992. Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. GBS. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Sanders, James A. From Sacred Story to Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Sanders, James A. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Schechter, S. Fragments of a Zadokite Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Schiffman, L. “The New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect.” BA 53 (1990): 64–73. Schiffman, L. “The Sadducean Origins of the Dead Sea Scroll Sect.” Pages 35–49 in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. H. Shanks. London: SPCK, 1993. Schiffman, Lawrence H. and James C. VanderKam. Oxford Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1994.

290

Schmid, Hans H. “In Search of New Approaches in Pentateuchal Research,” JSOT 3 (1977) 33-42. Schmid, Hans H. Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung. Zurich, 1976. Schmidt, Hans. Die Psalmen. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1, series 15. Tübingen: Mohr, 1934. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. “Christus, Geist und Gemeinde (Eph 4:1–16).” Pages 287–96 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Edited by B. Lindars and S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Ephesians: A Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Schreck, C. J. “The Nazareth Pericope: Luke 4:16–30 in Recent Study.” Pages 403–27 in The Gospel of Luke. Edited by F. Neirynck. BETL 32. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Schultz, Joseph P., and Lois Spatz. Sinai and Olympus: A Comparative Study. Lanham: University Press of America, 1995. Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai.” Pages 103–34 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox et al. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Scott, James M. “The Division of the Earth in Jubilees 8:11–9:15 and Early Christian Chronography.” Pages 295–323 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey, and Armin Lange. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Scott, James M. Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees. SNTSMS 113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Scott, James M., ed. Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. JSJSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Scott, James M., ed. Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. JSJSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Sekki, A. E. The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Shaver, Judson R. Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work. BJS 196. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Sievers, J. The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Skemp, V. T. M. The Vulgate of Tobit Compared with Other Ancient Witnesses. SBLDS 180. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.

291

Smith, Mark S. “Matters of Space and Time in Exodus and Numbers.” Pages 182–207 in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. Edited by Christopher Seitz and Kathryn Greene-McCreight. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Smith, Mark S. with contributions by Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith. The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus. JSOTSup 239. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Snaith, Norman H. The Jewish New Year Festival: Its Origin and Development. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1947. Sonnet, Jean-Pierre. The Book Within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy. Biblical Interpretation Series 14. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Sprinkle, Joe M. “The Book of the Covenant”: A Literary Approach. JSOTSup 174. Sheffield: SAP, 1994. Stamm, J. J., and M. E. Andrew. The Ten Commandments in Recent Research. SBT 2:2. Naperville: Allenson, 1967. Stegemann, H. “The Qumran Essenes—Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times.” Pages 83–166 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18– 21 March, 1991. Edited by J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11.1. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography. NovTSup LXIV. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Stern, S. “Qumran Calendars: Theory and Practice.” Pages 179–86 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context. Edited by Timothy H. Lim. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000. Strack, Hermann L., and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated and edited by Markus Bockmuehl. 2d printing with emendations and updates. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922–1961. Strauss, Leo. Natural Right and History: A Cogent Examination of One of the Most Significant Issues in Modern Political and Social Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Strauss, Mark L. The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Stuhlmueller, C. Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. 292

Swanson, D. D. The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT. STDJ XIV. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Swartley, Willard M. Israel’s Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels: Story Shaping Story. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Calendar Controversy in Ancient Judaism: The Case of the ‘Community of the Renewed Covenant.” Pages 379–95 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D. W. Parry & E. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judaean Desert.” Pages in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by C. Rabin and Yigael Yadin. Scripta hierosolymitana 4. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Community of the Renewed Covenant: Between Judaism and Christianity.” Pages 3–24 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Emergence of Institutionalized Prayer in Israel in Light of the Qumran Literature.” Pages 200–43 in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989. Talmon, Shemaryahu., et al, eds. Qumran Cave 4, XVI: Calendrical Texts. DJD XXI. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1959. Thackeray, H. St. J., The Septuagint and Jewish Worship. London: Oxford University Press, 1921. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Toorn, Karel van der. “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study.” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Treves, M. “The Two Spirits of the Rule of Qumran.” RevQ 3 (1961): 449–52. Tuckett, C. M. “Luke 4,16–30, Isaiah and Q.” Pages 343–53 in The Sayings of Jesus. Edited by J. Delobel. BETL 59. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Turner, Max. Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. Journal of Pentecostal Theology: Supplement Series 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. 293

Tyson, J. B. “The Gentile Mission and the Authority of Scripture in Acts.” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 619–31. Ulrich, Eugene and James C. VanderKam, eds. The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Ulrich, Eugene C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999. Van Seters, John. “Comparing Scripture with Scripture: Some Observations on the Sinai Pericope in Exodus 19–24.” Pages 111–30 in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. Edited by G. M. Tucker, D. L. Petersen, and R. R. Wilson. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Van Seters, John. “Cultic Laws in the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:22–23:33) and their Relationship to Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code” Pages 319–45 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Van Seters, John. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Van Seters, John. The Life of Moses. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994. VanderKam, James C. “2 Maccabees 6,7A and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem.” Pages 105–27 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “A Twenty-Eight-Day Month Tradition in the Book of Jubilees?” Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982): 504–506. VanderKam, James C. “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998): 382–402. VanderKam, James C. “Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees.” Pages 276–304 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “Calendrical Texts and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls Community.” Pages 371–86 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994.

294

VanderKam, James C. “Covenant and Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees 6.” Pages 92– 104 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery, Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and Other Second-Century Sources.” Pages 305–31 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 89–109 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. Leiden: Brill, 1998. VanderKam, James C. “Ezra-Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?” Pages 60–80 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “Genesis 1 in Jubilees 2.” Pages 500–521 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “Greek at Qumran.” Pages 175–81 in Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Edited by John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 13. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. VanderKam, James C. “Isaac’s Blessing of Levi and His Descendants in Jubilees 31.” Pages 497–519 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by D. W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. Leiden: Brill, 1999. VanderKam, James C. “Jubilees and Hebrew Texts of Genesis–Exodus.” Pages 448–61 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “Jubilees and the Priestly Messiah of Qumran.” Pages 462–75 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “Jubilees, Book of.” Pages 434–36 in vol. 1 of the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “Jubilees’ Exegetical Creation of Levi the Priest.” Pages 545–61 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSPSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

295

VanderKam, James C. “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 1–30 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “Shavu’ot.” Pages 871–72 in vol. 2 of the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “Sinai Revisited.” Pages 48–59 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by M. Henze. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. VanderKam, James C. “Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 522– 44 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000 [1995]. VanderKam, James C. “Studies on the Prologue and Jubilees 1.” Pages 266–79 in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “The Angel of the Presence in the Book of Jubilees.” Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000): 378–93. VanderKam, James C. “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 151–70 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997. Edited by E. G. Chazon and M. Stone. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. VanderKam, James C. “The Calendar, 4Q327, and 4Q394.” Pages 179–94 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. VanderKam, James C. “The Festival of Weeks and the Story of Pentecost in Acts 2.” Pages 185–205 in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by C. A. Evans. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. VanderKam, James C. “The Granddaughters and Grandsons of Noah.” Revue de Qumran 16 (1994): 457–461. VanderKam, James C. “The Judean Desert and the Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 159–71 in Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel. BZNW 97. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999.

296

VanderKam, James C. “The Origin, Character, and Early History of the 364-Day Calendar: A Reassessment of Jaubert’s Hypotheses.” Pages 81–104 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 3–24 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey, and Armin Lange. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. VanderKam, James C. “The Putative Author of the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 439–47 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000. VanderKam, James C. “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 211–36 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by G. J. Brooke. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. VanderKam, James C. “Weeks, Festival of.” Pages 895–97 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. VanderKam, James C. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. VanderKam, James C. and Józef T. Milik. “Jubilees.” Pages 1–185, plates I–XII in Qumran Cave 4.III: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold Attridge, et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XIII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. VanderKam, James C. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 16. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984.’ VanderKam, James C. Enoch: A Man for All Generations. Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1995. VanderKam, James C. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Harvard Semitic Monographs 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. 2 vols. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 510–11; Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. VanderKam, James C., and Peter Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus and Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961 [1958, 1960]. 297

Vaux, Roland de. The Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973. Vermes, Geza and Martin D. Goodman, eds. The Essenes According to the Classical Sources. Oxford Centre Textbooks 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “Jubilees as the Super Canon: Torah-Admonition versus TorahCommandment.” Pages 195–211 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “The Relationship Between 11Q Torah (the Temple Scroll) and the Book of Jubilees: One Single or Two Independent Compositions?” Pages 205–16 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1985. Society of Biblical Literature 24. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Watts, James W. Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. SBLSS 17. Atlanta: SBL, 2001. Watts, Rikki E. “Consolation or Confrontation? Isaiah 40–55 and the Delay of the New Exodus.” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990): 31–59. Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source.” JBL 100 (1981): 321–33. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Pentecost as the Festival of the Giving of the Law.” Immanuel 8 (1978): 7–18. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Angelic Song over the Luminaries in the Qumran texts.” Pages 131–57 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by the Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1989–1990. Edited by D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman. STDJ XVI. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue and Its Place in Jewish Tradition.” Pages 1–44 in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition. Edited by BenZion Segal and Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990 [1985]. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford, 1972. Weiser, A. The Psalms: A Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1962. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bücher des Alten Testament. 3rd ed. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1899.

298

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. New York: Meridian Books, 1957 [1883]. Wenk, Matthias. Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. Journal of Pentecostal Theology: Supplement Series 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Wernberg-Møller, P. “A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community.” RevQ 3 (1961): 413–41 Wernberg-Møller, P. The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 1. Leiden: Brill, 1957. Westermann, Claus. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by J. Scullion. 3 vols. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984, 1985, 1986. Wevers, John W. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Wevers, John W. Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTMS 53. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987, 13-131, 221-42. Wilson, Stephen G. Luke and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Woods, Edward J. The “Finger of God” and Pneumatology in Luke-Acts. JSNTSup 205. Sheffield: SAP, 2001. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. London: SPCK, 1992. Yadin, Yigael. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. York, J. O. The Last Shall Be First: The Rhetoric of Reversal in Luke. JSNTSup 46. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Zehnle, R. F. Peter’s Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter’s Speeches of Acts 2 and 3. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 15. New York: Abingdon, 1971. Zeitlin, Solomon. “The Book of Jubilees: Its Character and Its Significance.” JQR 30 (1939): 1–31. Zias, J. “The Cemeteries of Qumran and Celibacy: Confusion Laid to Rest?” Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000) 220–53. Zimmerli, Walter. Ezekiel 2. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Zwiep, Arie W. The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology. Novum Testamentum Supplements 87. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

299