Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446 9781575068770

Citation preview

Sacred Ritual

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements Editor

Richard S. Hess, Denver Seminary Associate Editor

Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary

Advisory Board Leslie C. Allen Fuller Theological Seminary Donald A. Carson Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary Karen H. Jobes Wheaton College

I. Howard Marshall University of Aberdeen Elmer A. Martens Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Bruce K. Waltke Knox Theological Seminary Edwin M. Yamauchi Miami University

 1. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, by Gerald A. Klingbeil  2. War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens  3. Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr.  4. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, by Knut Martin Heim  5. Divine Sabbath Work, by Michael H. Burer  6. The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation, by Ralph K. Hawkins  7. Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1–11: Reading Genesis 4:17–22 in Its Near Eastern Context, by Daniel DeWitt Lowery  8. Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18–20 and Its Echoes throughout the Tanak, by Joshua G. Mathews  9. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446, by Bryan C. Babcock

Sacred Ritual A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446

Bryan C. Babcock

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2014

© Copyright 2014 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Babcock, Bryan C. Sacred ritual : a study of the West Semitic ritual calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian text Emar 446 / Bryan C. Babcock.    pages  cm.—(Bulletin for biblical research supplements ; 9) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-826-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.  Fasts and feasts—Judaism—History.  2.  Fasts and feasts in the Bible.  3.  Bible. Leviticus, XXIII—Criticism, interpretation, etc.  4.  Assyro-Babylonian literature—Syria—Emar (Extinct city)—History and criticism.  I.  Title. BM690.B225 2014 222′.13067—dc23 2014005588 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ♾™

Contents List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Preface, Dedication, and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Symbols xi General xi Reference Works  xii

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1

Introduction 1 The Comparative Method  2 Sacred Aspect of Ritual  13 Research Objectives  18

2. Overview of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   20 Introduction 20 Overview of Ritual Development in the Ancient Near East  20 Overview of Leviticus 23 Research in Light of Related Biblical Texts  41 Critique of Jan Wagenaar  54 Summary 78

3. Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   79 Introduction to the Study of Leviticus 23  79 Original Translation and Text-Critical Notes of Leviticus 23  80 Structure, Outline, and Literary Features  89 Sacred Time  101 Sacred Space  121 Sacred Objects  125 Ritual Roles of Participants  131 Ritual Sound  134 Summary 137

4. Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Introduction to Emar  141 Translation and Commentary: Emar 446 (Msk. 74280a + 74291a)  151 v

vi

Contents Structure, Outline, and Literary Features  168 Sacred Time in Emar 446  180 The Emar Yearly Calendar and New Year  182 Sacred Space  185 Sacred Objects  194 Ritual Participants  198 Ritual Sound  208 Summary  208 Appendix  212

5. Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Introduction  214 Intrabiblical Findings  215 History of Transmission  216 Context, Purpose, and Analytical Genre  217 Structure and Literary Features  218 Sacred Time  225 Sacred Space  231 Sacred Objects  235 Ritual Roles of Participants  237 Ritual Sound  238 Connection between the Texts  238

6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  258 Index of Authors  258 Index of Scripture  261 Index of Other Ancient Sources  267 Index of Festivals  271

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24

Akītu Festival Rites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35 Wellhausen’s Festival Text Development . . . . . . . . . . . .   42 Noth’s Festival Text Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   46 Knohl’s Festival Text Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   48 Milgrom’s Festival Text Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51 Wagenaar’s Festival Text Development . . . . . . . . . . . . .   62 Features Distinguishing P from H in Leviticus 23 (according to Wagenaar) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   64 Shared Linguistic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   66 Leviticus 23 Verbal Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   92 References to Time in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   102 Relationship of Festival Dates to Lunar Phases in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  110 Rites Associated with Named Rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   113 Use of Space and Movement within Space in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   122 Uses of Sacred Objects in Ritual Activities Contained in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   127 Aspects of Sacred Offerings in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . .  128 Aspects of Ritual Sound in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . .   135 Responsibilities of and Payments to the Diviner in Emar 446 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   148 Allocation of Space to Rituals in Emar 446 . . . . . . . . . . .  174 Relationship of Festival Dates to Lunar Phases in Emar 446 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  179 Months of the Emarite Half-Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   183 Sacred Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   196 Introductory Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  219 Standard Date Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   220 Temporal Subdivision Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  222

vii

Preface, Dedication, and Acknowledgments This book is a revision of my 2011 dissertation and represents the support and guidance of many people. The idea for the project grew out of discussions with Richard S. Hess (Denver Seminary) as I was completing my training in Akkadian and exploring Ph.D. programs. I am thankful for his continuous encouragement and training, which helped to make this project a reality. In addition, I am obliged to him for acting as cosupervisor, spending numerous hours reviewing the material at various stages. Gordon Wenham (Trinity College, University of Bristol), who was also a cosupervisor, made observations that helped to move the writing from research to scholarship. I am grateful that he shared not only his vast knowledge but also his time, home, family, and gardens. I hope to emulate his gracious character with students in the future. My sincere desire is that all my future work will honor their training and guidance. I also want specifically to thank my examiners for their comments and suggestions. Knut M. Heim and John Bimson (Trinity College, University of Bristol), as internal examiners furnished an insightful review, emphasizing the need for a careful analysis of ritual aspects and intrabiblical context. Similarly, I appreciate Alan Millard (University of Liverpool) and Philip Jenson (Cambridge), who as external examiners assessed the Akkadian and mentored me on a host of research topics. Their comments and guidance were essential to the research that culminated in this book. I thank my wife, Betsy, and daughter, Lindsey, for believing in me without reservation. They sacrificed time, energy, money, and emotional support so I could pursue a lifelong dream. Because of their unselfishness, this book is ready for publication and is dedicated to them. My love and appreciation for them are beyond measure.

ix

Abbreviations Symbols [  ] ⸢ ⸣ ⟨  ⟩ ⟨⟨  ⟩⟩ ! X x . . . [(  )] ?

Completely lost Partially lost Omitted by scribe Pleonastically written by scribe Emended sign Illegible sign Lost sign Lost sign(s), number uncertain Reconstruction uncertain Reading uncertain

General A Tablets in the collections of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Akk. Akkadian AO Museum siglum, Louvre BLMJ Museum siglum of the Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem BM Tablets in the collections of the British Museum c common col(s). column(s) D Deuteronomist DT Tablets in the collections of the British Museum E Elohistic writer/source f feminine H Holiness Code HR H Redaction HS H Source Hoe and Plow Lit. comp. ms M. Civil ITT Inventaire des tablettes de Tello J Jahwistic writer/source Jos. Ant. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities jps Jewish Publication Society version of the Bible LXX Septuagint m masculine MB Middle Babylonian MNB Monuments of Nineveh and Babylon, Louvre Museum Msk. Tablet siglum of texts from Meskene MT Masoretic Text MVN Materiali per il vocabulario neosumerico neb New English Bible NV noun – verb order of sentence structure OAkk Old Akkadian p plural P Priestly writer/source PN Personal name PT Priestly Torah

xi

xii

Abbreviations

Pesh. Peshiṭta RS Field numbers of tablets excavated at Ras Shamra s singular VSO verb – subject – object order of sentence structure WS West Semitic YBC Tablets in the Babylonian Collection, Yale University Library

Reference Works AAAS AARSR AASOR AB ABD

Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary, Edited by D. N. Freedman et al. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 AbrN Abr-Nahrain AcS Acta Sumerologica AEPHER Annuaire. École pratique des hautes études: V e section—sciences religieuses AHw W. von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965–81 AIIL Ancient Israel and Its Literature AION Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli AnBib Analecta Biblica ANES Ancient Near Eastern Studies ANESSup Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplements ANET James B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 ANETS Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AoF Altorientalische Forschugen AOS American Oriental Series ARM Archives royales de Mari ARMT Archives royales de Mari Texts AS Assyriological Studies ATLA American Theological Library Association BaghM Baghdader Mitteilungen BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BBRSup Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bib Biblica BibOr Biblica et Orientalia BLH Biblical Languages: Hebrew BMes Bibliotheca mesopotamica BO Bibliotheca Orientalis BRLJ The Brill Reference Library of Judaism BS The Biblical Seminar BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956–2011 CahRB Cahiers de la Revue Biblique CM Cuneiform Monographs ConBOT Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series COS The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2003

Abbreviations

xiii

M. F. Allotte de la Fuÿe. Documents présargoniques. Paris: Leroux, 1908–20 The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by F. E. Gaebelein. 12 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976–91 ER The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by M. Eliade. 16 vols. New York: MacMillan, 1987 ErIsr Eretz-Israel FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FRLANT Forshungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GDNES Gorgias Dissertations: Near Eastern Studies GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910 HACL History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HE Historia Einzelschriften Holma-Salonen  H. Holma and A. Salonen. Some Cuneiform Tablets from the Time of the Third Ur Dynasty. Helsinki: Societas orientalis fennica, 1940 HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IOS Israel Oriental Studies JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JEOL Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JHS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures. www.jhsonline.org/jhs Joüon P. Joüon. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muroaka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/1–2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991 JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JRitSt Journal of Ritual Studies JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series KAR E. Ebeling, ed. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1919–23 KC Kamper Cahier KTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, eds. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. AOAT 24. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976. 2nd ed.: M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, eds. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995 KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi LAI Library in Ancient Israel LB Linguistica Biblica LLJC The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization Maarav Maarav MARI Mari annals de recherches interdiscplinaires NABU Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires NAC The New American Commentary NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDOTTE W. A. VanGemeren, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997 OBT S. Dalley, C. B. F. Walker, and J. D. Hawkins. Old Babylonian Texts from Tell al-Rimah. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1976 DP EBC

xiv OEANE

Abbreviations

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by E. M. Meyers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997 OEBB The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible. Edited by Michael Coogan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011 OLA Orientalia lovaniensia analecta OLZ Orientalische Literaturzeitung Or Orientalia, new series OTL Old Testament Library OTS Old Testament Studies OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale RB Revue Biblique RBL Review of Biblical Literature. www.bookreviews.org RE G. Wissowa, ed. Paulys Real-Enzyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: Druckenmuller, 1859–1931 RMA R. Thompson, ed. The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon in the British Museum. London: Luzac, 1900 SA C.-F. Jean. Šumer et Akkad: Contribution a l’histoire de la civilisation dans la Basse-Mésopotamie. Paris: Geuthner, 1923 Sauren NYPL  H. Sauren. Les Tablettes cunéiformes de l’époque d’Ur des collections de la New York Public Library. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1978 SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World SH Slavica Hiersosolymitana SHANE Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East SPRTS Scholars Press Reprints and Translations Series SR Studies in Religion STI Studies in Theological Interpretation SSSA Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology SubBi Subsidia biblica Syria Syria TCL Textes cunéiformes du Louvre. Paris: Geuthner, 1910– TCS Texts from Cuneiform Sources Tello A. Parrot. Tello, vingt campagnes de fouilles (1877–1933). Paris: Michel, 1948 TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by G. Krause and G. Müller. 37 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977– TSJTSA Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America TUAT O. Kaiser et al., eds. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1982–97 TWAT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testamen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970– UET Ur Excavations: Texts UF Ugarit-Forschungen VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WBC Word Biblical Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1

Introduction Introduction The Bible records several versions of the Israelite festival calendar in Exod 23; 34; Lev 23; Num 28–29; Deut 16; and Ezek 45. While the calendars are unique, in general they include: Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost/Harvest), the Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah), the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), and the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths/Ingathering). The festivals share many features; however, there are also differences. Some of the most often cited variations in the festival calendar texts concern the following: • The festival dates.  Some dates are fixed, while others vary according to agricultural conditions. • The festival locations.  Some festival calendars allude to offerings made at local or regional sanctuaries, while other texts point to offerings made at the Jerusalem temple. • The date of the New Year.  Some festival texts appear to show the New Year in the spring, and others place the New Year in the fall. Some allude to both. • The festival timing.  Many festivals are associated with the harvest, but some festivals seem to occur before the harvest is ripe. • The festival names.  Festivals are named in some texts and are unnamed in others. Scholars have explored these distinctions and concluded that different sources (authors/redactors) wrote the various calendars at different times in Israelite history. 1 Jan Wagenaar, in his 2005 work Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, examines the development of each festival calendar text and makes the case for a late date of authorship. Wagenaar develops an argument for the origin and redaction of the biblical festival texts. When studying the origin of Lev 23, he identifies parallels with the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival texts (a composite of four text fragments). Based on these findings, he concludes that a Priestly source wrote Lev 23 during the exile (when Israel was in Babylon), with a 1.  For a discussion of recent scholarship, see Jeffrey Stackert, “Leviticus,” OEBB 1: 573–81; T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 1–63.

1

2

Chapter 1

Priestly redactor adding portions after the exile. Four criteria are necessary to validate his argument: (1) Lev 23 and the Akītu Festival texts must share significant features (see discussion on the comparative method below); (2) he must establish which form of connection exists between Israelite and Babylonian cultures in the 1st millennium; (3) Lev 23 and the Akītu Festival must belong to the same analytical genre (see discussion under the comparative method); (4) no earlier Semitic festival calendar may exist with comparative similarities with Lev 23. Where Wagenaar compares Lev 23 and the Babylonian Akītu Festival texts, I explore the potential similarities and differences between Lev 23 and the 2nd-millennium multimonth festival calendar from Emar (Emar 446, written in Akkadian). If a comparative analysis finds a connection between Lev 23 and Emar 446, then Lev 23 may preserve an early West Semitic multimonth festival calendar tradition—bringing into question the late dating of Lev 23 and a direct connection with the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival. The selection of Lev 23 for comparison is rooted in Wagenaar’s choice to compare it with the Akītu Festival texts. A similar comparison could be conducted of Num 28–29 and Emar 446, or of Lev 23 and the Hittite and Ugaritic festival texts (see chap. 2). And, while such studies might yield interesting results, they are beyond the scope of this study. 2 Finally, I chose Emar 446 as the comparative text because it is the only ritual calendar that records the festivals held throughout a six-month period (something the Hittite and Ugaritic texts do not do).

The Comparative Method In 1902, Friedrich Delitzsch began the inaugural lecture for the German Oriental Society entitled “Babel und Bibel” with these words:   To what end this toil and trouble in distant, inhospitable, and danger-ridden lands? Why all this expense in ransacking to their utmost depth the rubbish heaps of forgotten centuries, where we know neither treasures of gold nor of silver exist? Why this zealous emulation on the part of the nations to secure the greatest possible number of mounds for excavation? And whence, too, that constantly increasing interest, that burning enthusiasm, born of generous sacrifice, now being bestowed on both sides of the Atlantic on the excavations of Babylonia and Assyria?   One answer echoes to all these questions,—one answer, which, if not absolutely adequate, is yet largely the reason and consummation of it all: the Bible. 3

2.  For instance, both Num 28–29 and Emar 446 contain verbs in the third person, while Lev 23 includes both the second and third person. Yitzhaq Feder gives insight into the possible role of blood in expiation rites in Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and Meaning (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). 3. Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel and Bible: Three Lectures on the Significance of Assyriological Research for Religion, Embodying the Most Important Criticisms and the Author’s Replies (trans. Thomas J. McCormack; Chicago: Open Court, 1906), 1.

Introduction

3

For the past century and a half, the disciplines of Assyriology, Egyptology, and biblical studies have struggled to determine their appropriate relationship. Is Assyriology an intrusion on biblical studies? Or should Assyriology be considered primary and any comparative study between the two a hazardous affair? 4 Is the biblical text of any use to the study of early Israelite history? 5 To conduct a comparative study between the ritual calendars in Lev 23 and Emar 446, or the Babylonian Akītu Festival texts, we must develop a methodology for analyzing ritual. In this section, I explore several comparative methods employed by scholars and outline the method I am adopting to compare Lev 23 with Emar 446. The first subsection provides an overview of four comparative models. The second subsection looks at the application of the comparative method by four scholars, including: William W. Hallo, Meir Malul, Gerald Klingbeil, and Kenton Sparks. The third subsection criticizes these applications, determining their strengths and weaknesses. Malul defines the goal of comparative studies as determining whether a historical connection exists between a certain biblical passage and its ancient Near Eastern parallel. 6 Hallo cautions that these studies cannot explain every event in the biblical text. Further, Hallo insists that the analysis of two texts should include an exploration of differences as well as similarities. For both Hallo and Malul, the goal is to determine the extent to which the cultural and literary traditions of Israel’s neighbors influenced the biblical text. 7 Malul highlights the importance of comparing texts whose cultures share a common historical connection, cultural heritage, or other textual relationship. 8 Some scholars have highlighted the presence of similarities without an equal analysis of differences between the texts. This practice can lead to overstated conclusions and the overemphasis of superficial conclusions. The extensive use of parallels with occasional overreaching comparisons led Samuel Sandmel to caution that biblical studies 4.  Karel van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985), 1–8. 5.  Several works exemplify this position, including: Niels P. Lemche, Prelude to Israel’s Past: Background and Beginnings of Israelite History and Identity (trans. E. F. Maniscalco; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998); John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975); Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (BZAW 133; New York: de Gruyter, 1974); idem, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel ( JSOTSup 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); idem, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (New York: Basic Books, 1999). 6. Meir Malul, The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (AOAT 227; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), v. 7.  William W. Hallo, “Compare and Contrast: The Contextual Approach to Biblical Literature,” in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III (ed. William W. Hallo, Bruce William Jones, and Gerald L. Mattingly; ANETS 8; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1990), 3. 8.  Malul, The Comparative Method, 13.

Chapter 1

4

risked “parallelomania.” 9 Sandmel’s caution led to the exploration of new comparative methodologies. I now turn to exploring a few of the recent scholars who have advanced the comparative method. Comparative Method: Four Applications 10 Hallo Hallo argues for the combination of William F. Albright’s comparative approach with the contrastive approach used by Yehezkel Kaufmann and Frank Cross—creating the contextual approach. 11 The contrastive approach explores discrepancies between two compared texts, giving attention to differences in content, culture, and various literary aspects. Hallo balances the two approaches with the goal of providing a deeper contextual awareness for the development of texts in the ancient Near East. He argues that the Bible results from a long developmental process and that several Akkadian and Mesopotamian canons underwent a similar development. Therefore, understanding the formation and content of ancient Near Eastern texts may provide a contextual understanding for the development of the biblical text. Hallo recommends the contextual method for multiple levels of analysis, including: linguistic (lexicographic, grammatical, and stylistic), graphic (writing system), literary, and genre. Malul Malul adopts most of Hallo’s contextual approach, while criticizing the method because it too often assumes a relationship between texts that has not been verified. Malul moves the discussion forward by proposing a connection axiom, which states that one must first determine if a connection exists between two texts. He separates the connections between related texts into two categories: nature and type. The nature of a connection may have been the direct borrowing by an author from an existing written or literary tradition. Alternatively, an author may have become aware of the cultural practices of another society and then later manifested this influence in his text. Malul 9. Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. 10.  Although this study summarizes the work of only four scholars, others have made significant contributions to the comparative methodology. 11.  William W. Hallo, “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case Study in the Contrastive Approach,” HUCA 48 (1977): 1–18; Hallo, “Biblical History,” 1–5. D. R. Hiller, “Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite Religion,” JQR 75 (1985): 256–69 discusses both Kaufmann and Cross when defining the contrastive approach. For a discussion on the contrastive approach see: Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960); Frank M. Cross, “The Epic Traditions of Early Israel: Epic Narrative and the Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions,” in The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (ed. Richard Elliot Friedman; HSS 26; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 13–39.

Introduction

5

argues that the biblical authors, as educated scribes, were probably aware of other Akkadian texts and thus may have drawn upon and been influenced by Mesopotamian literature and religious texts. The type of connection is one of four categories: direct, mediated, common source, or common tradition. A direct connection is the direct dependence of one text on another. This category of connection requires that the two cultures have contact during the period of the development of the later source. In addition, the text must demonstrate a flow of information from source A to source B. The mediated connection finds that the two texts are not directly linked. However, source A influenced an outside source (C) which, in turn, influenced source B. In this case, the outside source is usually not in evidence and is often hypothetical. The third category, common source, is the hypothetical reliance by two texts under study (texts A and B) on a third source C, which may not be in evidence. It is not necessary to show that the society of text A and the society of text B held a concurrent historical association. The common source categorization only requires that both texts held a relationship with the society of source C. The final category, common tradition, comes into play when two sources that exhibit similar traits, after careful scrutiny, are found to be connected by a common tradition: literary, religious, legal, historiographic, or any other. The common tradition type of connection resembles the common source type, but the difference between a common source and a common tradition is parallel to the distinction made above between connections of different natures. 12 A second enhancement by Malul over Hallo’s contextual approach is the inclusion of a test for coincidence versus uniqueness. According to Malul, identifying similarities between two sources is insufficient; the scholar must determine if the similarities are based on parallel or unique developments. J. Alberto Soggin also cautions that the mere presence of similarities does not ensure a connection between the sources. Rather, it establishes the possibility of a connection, which must be confirmed through additional argumentation. 13 According to both Soggin and Malul, a higher probability for a connection exists when two texts exhibit a unique or unexpected similarity. Malul, following Zeʾev Falk’s criticism, introduces a final methodological enhancement to the contextual approach—corroboration. 14 Corroboration requires the scholar to demonstrate a direct or indirect connection between the sources. The two factors for corroboration are time gap and place gap, 12.  Malul, The Comparative Method, 91. 13.  J. Alberto Soggin, “The History of Ancient Israel: A Study in Some Questions of Method,” ErIsr 14 (H. L. Ginsberg Volume; 1978): 45–46; idem, “Ancient Israel: An Attempt at a Social and Economic Analysis of the Available Data,” in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham (ed. W. Claassen; JSOTSup 48; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 201–8. 14.  Zeʾev W. Falk, “Review of Reuven Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna,” Bib 51 (1970): 130–33.

Chapter 1

6

which separate the biblical text from the text under study. Time gap is the distance in time between the writing of the two texts under study. Arguments regarding time gap explore the appropriateness for studying two texts that date to different eras. Place gap is the geographical distance between the two cultures. Arguments regarding place gap explore whether two texts that originate from different locations,are comparable. In response to the time and place gaps between Canaan and the cultures of Mesopotamia, Malul explores epigraphic and archaeological evidence inside Bronze Age Canaan, concluding: The best and safest solution to the problem of the time and place gap lies in the effort to find clear external evidence attesting to the actual cultural contacts between the ancient Near East and Canaan already in the Bronze Age. Such evidence exists in the form of archaeological and epigraphic finds from Israel and the vicinity which, though not rich, seem to be sufficient for unequivocally proving the existence of direct cultural contacts between Canaan and the surrounding states, especially the cultures of Mesopotamia, already in the early 2nd millennium b.c. We have in mind in particular the few cuneiform tablets unearthed in Israel, covering a wide range of written genres, from literary texts, such as the fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic discovered at Megiddo, through written clay liver models from the Old Babylonian Period discovered at Hazor, to letters from Aphek and Shechem, and an Old Babylonian legal document from Hazor. There are also lexical texts, some of which at least are from the Old Babylonian period, which clearly attest to the existence in Canaan—already at the early 2nd millennium—of the tradition of schools for training cuneiform scribes and scholars like the Mesopotamian models. A similar conclusion may be reached on the basis of the El-Amarna letters. . . . To this should be added the diverse internal biblical evidence, and the way is open to a judicious comparison of the Old Testament with 2ndmillennium evidence. The basic postulate of the contextual approach is, then, valid. 15

Malul cautions that the goal of corroboration is to demonstrate the possibility of a connection, not to prove a connection. Klingbeil Klingbeil builds on the prior work of Hallo and Malul by adopting what he names the “pragmatic approach.” Heeding the warning of S. Talmon regarding increased scrutiny of potential parallels, and acknowledging Frederick Greenspahn’s concern about objective evaluation and interpretive bias, Klingbeil focuses on the following six methodological features: 16 15.  Malul, The Comparative Method, 108–10. 16. S. Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Look,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (ed. Frank M. Cross and S. Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975); idem, “The Comparative Method in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems,” in Congress Volume: Gottingen 1977 (VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978). Frederick

Introduction

7

1. Research should carefully study each phenomenon in the context of the source. In addition, arguments should not make grand generalizations based on one or two minor similarities. 17 2. Following Ake Viberg and Robert Wilson, the most important point of reference is the biblical text, which includes an understanding of the intentions of the author(s) or editor(s). 18 3. Both the similarities and differences identified in the compared sources must be considered. 4. If one determines a connection (in time and place) between the two compared sources, then the form of connection should be argued following Malul’s connection axiom (see above). 19 In cases where the connection is either difficult or doubtful, Klingbeil argues for the adoption of a typological approach. 20 5. Following Malul, Klingbeil contends that one must determine whether the identified similarities in the text are attributable to coincidence or uniqueness. 6. Following Hallo, Kenneth Kitchen, and Malul, Klingbeil argues for corroborating the comparative evidence through both an internal and an external examination. 21

While Klingbeil does not propose a new methodology, he adopts Hallo’s use of both similarity and difference to analyze the text. In addition, he incorporates Malul’s focus on connection, corroboration, and testing for co­incidence versus uniqueness. Therefore, he advances a methodology incorporating the best of both prior methodologies. Sparks Sparks, in his work Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible, outlines an updated methodology for the comparison of ancient Near Eastern

E. Greenspahn, “Introduction,” in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn; New York: New York University Press, 1991), 1–14. 17. Gerald Klingbeil, A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as Found in Leviticus 8 and Emar 369: Ritual Times, Space, Objects and Action (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1998), 338. 18. Ake Viberg, Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (ConBOT 34; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992), 5–8; Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 16. 19.  Klingbeil argues that establishing a direct connection is often difficult, “in light of questions regarding the date, sources, and traditions of biblical (and also extra-biblical) textual material” (A Comparative Study, 340). 20.  Ibid., 339. 21.  William W. Hallo, “Problems in Sumerian Hermeneutics,” in Perspectives in Jewish Learning (ed. Byron L. Sherwin; 5 vols.; Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica, 1973), 5.4. Kenneth Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1966), 125. Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 340.

8

Chapter 1

texts. 22 While he adopts Hallo’s contextual approach, his comparative method finds expression through multiple perspectives, including: cultural, psychological, sociological, and historical. 23 Following Malul, Sparks identifies a key basis for similarity in cultural diffusion, arguing that information and practices are passed from one culture to another through both direct and indirect means. He adds that the researcher must provide an explanation for how the information transferred from one culture to another. Important questions include: how did one culture influence the other; when did the influence occur; and which culture influenced the other. 24 Sparks’s real advance in comparative methodology lies in his classification of texts under study. He argues that “classification is central to comparison because choices must be made about what should be included in, and excluded from, our comparative considerations. These choices are necessary because even the best minds cannot manage the practically infinite world of our experience without dissecting it into finite pieces and cross sections.” 25 The successful classification of the texts occurs through the use of modern generic theory and genre/form criticism. While he finds the exploration of genre and form criticism critical for the comparative method, he disagrees with Hermann Gunkel’s understanding of genre on two essential points. First, Sparks asserts that there may be many different ways to define a literary category. Second, he argues that Gunkel’s threefold criterion (mood, form, Sitz im Leben) is too restrictive, and other criteria may assist in classification. Despite these changes, the identification and classification of texts into genres is essential, because this classification establishes a framework for writers and audiences in creating and understanding literature. For Sparks, the classification of a genre is dynamic because the categories may be combined and used in new contexts. 26 To study genre and texts further, he outlines the distinction between three related terms: generic matrix, intrinsic genre, and analytical genre. He presumes that each text exhibits certain traits unique to both the author and the situation. The generic matrix comprises all the guidelines understood by the author when developing the text. The distinctive set of factors and pieces of evidence create the intrinsic genre that is characteristic of each text. While each text is unique, for the purpose of study, similar texts are grouped together. The grouping of similar texts for the purpose of study defines an analytical genre. 22.  Kenton L. Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 1–25. 23.  Ibid., 4. 24. Ibid. 25.  Ibid., 5. 26.  Ibid., 3–21.

Introduction

9

The formation of an analytical genre helps to provide a structure for the comparison of potentially similar texts. Sparks argues that the use of genre is valid because scribes from Israel were formally educated and culturally aware of Israel’s neighbors. This knowledge probably impacted the development of biblical texts. Therefore, to understand biblical literature, one must appreciate the social, linguistic, historical, and literary context of the contemporary literature. He adds that studying comparisons within the biblical text takes priority in the comparative analysis. 27 Sparks goes on to identify the following eight primary categories for comparative investigation that illuminate the analytical genre and provide a phenomenological understanding of the studied cultures: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Content and theme Language, including linguistic and stylistic features Context (Sitz im Leben) Function 28 Form and structure Material attributes of texts Mode of composition 29 and reception Genre and tradition

Method Employed in This Study We now turn our attention to the approach employed in this study. Using a comparative method with a systematic approach is essential for the production of sound arguments. The methodology employed in this book most closely follows Klingbeil’s “pragmatic approach,” combining aspects of Hallo’s contextual approach as implemented by Malul. 30 The following subsections highlight the more important aspects of the methodology used in this study. Intrabiblical before Extrabiblical Talmon argues that, to understand a biblical text best, one must conduct an intrabiblical investigation prior to an extrabiblical study. In addition, he maintains that the results of the intrabiblical investigation hold prior­ ity. 31 Richard Averbeck advances this argument, adding that the researcher 27.  Ibid., 12. 28.  Following Longman’s argument for taxonomies that recognize many functional categories: Tremper Longman III, “Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation,” in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (ed. Moises Silva; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996). 29.  Defined as “the controlling thoughts, purposes, and processes that regulate the text’s composition by the author and its reception by readers or hearers” (Sparks, Ancient Texts, 17). 30.  See discussion above. 31.  Talmon, “The ‘Comparative Method,’” 415.

Chapter 1

10

should judge both texts under study within their own literary, intracultural tradition before performing an extratextual analysis. In this book, I follow Talmon and Averbeck, examining the related intracultural (biblical and Emarite) textual evidence before conducting an intertextual study. Identification and Analysis of Similarities and Differences Hallo contends that the exploration of either similarities or differences—without the other—may lead to overstated conclusions. Scholars who look only to similarities are likely to overstate the relationship between the texts, while scholars using only the contrastive approach may overstate the unique aspects of the biblical text. John Walton adds that the presence of similarities requires a deeper investigation before one can conclude that the sources are connected. Walton contends that similarities between texts do not necessarily point to a textual relationship; nor do differences negate a potential relationship, because diverse cultures understand practices differ­ently. 32 Therefore, I explore both similarities and differences and contextualize them in order to understand their use in each culture better. Context Context in comparative methodology finds expression in two ways. First, we must examine the source/text within its own society. Second, we need to explore the original authors’ intentions for these texts. The first application of context, as argued by Talmon, calls for the review of related biblical material prior to the exploration of external sources (see above). 33 By reviewing related intrabiblical texts, scholars avoid the methodological error that Talmon labels the atomistic approach (seeking similarities isolated from the broader context). Averbeck, following the work of Mario Liverani, argues that the “holistic” methodology requires both a top-down and bottom-up investigation in addition to an internal-versusexternal study. Averbeck explains that scholars should begin by considering each text at the sentence level (including word studies), moving through ever-larger units (paragraph, section, and text). Once each text is analyzed, scholars should use a top-down comparative approach, exploring higherlevel analytical features. 34 A related contextual error occurs when scholars compare two texts that share neither purpose nor context. This category of error may lead to find32.  John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 23. 33.  Talmon, “The Comparative Method,” 415. 34.  Richard E. Averbeck, “Sumer, the Bible, and Comparative Method,” in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations (ed. Mark W. Chavals and K. Lawson Younger; JSOTSup 341; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 114–15; Mario Li­ verani, “Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Texts,” Or 42 (1973): 178–94; especially pp. 178–82.

Introduction

11

ing false or superficial similarities. Samuel Loewenstamm asserts that a methodological error occurs when one compares isolated details apart from the general context. Thus, a scholar may mistakenly conclude that there is a basic ideological difference between the societies when none exists. 35 Therefore, I explore the context of each text, using these controlling questions: 36 • Do the compared texts share a common role and “place in life” (Sitz im Leben) that will lead to similarities that reflect common cultural expression? • Or are the similarities in form only, which may lead to a superficial connection? Purpose and Audience A topic related to the question of context is the purpose and intent of the texts. Were the compared texts written for the same purpose? Were they intended to address a comparable audience and to produce analogous results? The answer to these questions will provide a deeper connection between the texts than a simple list of similarities or differences. Two texts with similarities in content but written for different purposes or for different audiences may manifest connections on a superficial level. A stronger connection is exhibited when two compared sources written for comparable audiences and related purposes depict similar characteristics. My goal is to explore these shared characteristics and to determine how the expression of content was intended within the culture. In addition, studying the differences may illuminate unique aspects of each culture’s religious practice. Analytical Genre Talmon criticizes the comparative method if scholars attempt to find a comparison or contrast between two sources that do not share a common “social function” (or genre). 37 Klingbeil identifies the same pitfall (especially when comparing religious writing with archival material) as “comparing incomparables.” 38 Sparks addresses the issue by arguing that we must first classify the texts under study and then compare texts only with a similar 35.  Discussed in Malul, The Comparative Method, 50–51; Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “The Law of Adultery and the Law of Murder in Biblical Law and in Mesopotamian Law,” in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literature (ed. Samuel E. Loewenstamm; AOAT 204; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980). 36.  For the importance of context in comparative studies, see: Alan R. Millard, “The Value and Limitations of the Bible and Archaeology for Understanding the History of Israel: Some Examples,” in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? (ed. Daniel I. Block; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008), 9–25; John M. Monson, “Contextual Criticism as a Framework for Biblical Interpretation,” in ibid., 25–55. 37.  Talmon, “The Comparative Method,” 381–92. 38.  Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 335.

Chapter 1

12

classification. The goal is to identify which features in the text are relevant and which are not relevant to the particular study. 39 This book compares texts exhibiting a similar analytical genre. When comparing similarities and differences between texts with the same analytical genre, we may find the similarities helpful to illuminate the characteristics and parameters of the genre in addition to the similarities in cultural expression. The differences may highlight the individual development and self-expression of each society. In either case, understanding the functional genre of each text assists in the comparative investigation. Cultural Diffusion: Common Tradition Following Malul and Sparks, I compare texts from the same “historic and cultural stream.” Malul asserts that, to minimize the possibility of basing comparative results on coincidence, the study should establish a connection between the two sources. In addition, we will discuss the types of connections possible between the texts and in what direction the information flowed. Tradition of Transmission Alan Millard, in his article “History and Legend in Early Babylonia,” explores the transmission of the accounts of early Babylonian kings (3rd millennium) into later 2nd- and 1st-millennium texts. Based on his conclusion that many ancient Near Eastern documents had a long period of reproduction and revision, he argues that the historical books of the biblical text may contain a similar history of transmission. 40 Following Millard’s methodology, I find it important to consider the possible history of transmission for the texts under study. The essential issue is that a text, while dated to one period, may exhibit earlier oral or written traditions that were preserved in the course of textual transmission. Form and Structure The form and structure of the compared sources may help to illustrate: the writing conventions within the time and place of the societies, the mode of composition, the analytical genre, and/or accepted structural patterns. I acknowledge that, in order to understand the relationship of the content best, it is essential to analyze the form and structure of each text. As with the genre analysis, similarities may point to a common understanding of writing systems (in time and place) between the two texts and cultures. And differences may illuminate the unique aspects of the societies or the unique development of form and structure from a common heritage. 39.  Sparks, Ancient Texts, 5. 40. Alan Millard, “History and Legend in Early Babylonia,” in Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel” (ed. V. Philips Long, David W. Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 103–10.

Introduction

13

Prescriptive versus Descriptive Function Baruch Levine differentiated the force of a ritual text (prescriptive or descriptive) when exploring Ugaritic ritual and biblical tabernacle texts. He contended that texts are distinguished through form-critical analysis, including a review of verb structure, textual development, formulas, and priest-versus-king orientation. He goes on to argue that descriptive biblical passages often preserve a prescriptive introduction and a compliance formula along with the descriptive ritual text. 41 That is, descriptive archival records, which were copied as descriptions of coherent rites, often became prescriptions and codes. 42 For Levine, descriptive ritual can hold a prescriptive function, but the form of the text maintains a descriptive tone. In this book, I explore both the form and function of the compared texts. I define descriptive texts as texts that merely explain the occurrence of religious activity or ritual events. Prescriptive texts are those that stipulate how, what, when, and where ritual activities should occur. If a scholar argues that two texts—one descriptive, the other prescriptive—are similar, the connections may be superficial, because the two texts do not share a common intent. Therefore, in this book I strive to determine and consider the descriptive or prescriptive nature of the texts under comparison before arguing for or against a connection. Aspects of Ritual Before comparing two potentially similar texts, one must conduct research on each text, using a standard exegetical model. Because the texts explored here are both ritual calendars, we will examine the following aspects of ritual: sacred time, sacred space and movement, sacred objects, ritual participants, and ritual sound.

Sacred Aspect of Ritual Comparing the sacred components of ritual in the festival calendars of Lev 23 and Emar 446 provides us with the necessary framework for exploring these texts. Before analyzing the ritual elements, we must first define the meaning of the term ritual. Over the past century, the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, and religious studies have attempted to understand various aspects of ritual better. 43 41. Baruch Levine, “The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch,” JAOS 85 (1965): 310; idem, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,” JCS 17 (1963): 105–11. 42. Baruch Levine, “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Features and Functional Features of the Genre,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 469. 43.  For a thorough modern discussion of the development of ritual studies, see Gerald A. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible (BBRSup 1; Winona

14

Chapter 1

Modern arguments find that action is central to ritual and that ideas are the key to religion. 44 Recent discussions include the work of Catherine Bell, David Parkin, Ronald Grimes, Jan Platvoet, and Gerald Klingbeil. According to Bell, ritual is action, without thought, that has been formalized into routine, habitual, obsessive, or mimetic action. Bell contends that ritual is secondary to religion (thought) and is merely the physical expression of prior ideas. Parkin emphasizes four aspects of ritual: identified space for ritual action, structured action, prescriptive nature (mandatory repetition), and a conscious participation of the community. 45 Grimes advances the discussion by stating that ritual includes animated (exaggerated) action and gestures during a meaningful time period. 46 Contra to Parkin, he argues that a ritual act is an unconscious endeavor, containing meaning. 47 Platvoet, following a more phenomenological position, adopts a secular social definition of ritual. 48 Klingbeil adopts Platvoet’s definition of ritual, adding useful distinctions between: morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. He goes on to outline nine elements of ritual semantics that should be studied: 49 • Required situation and context triggering the ritual • Structure of the ritual • Form, order, and sequence Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 27–29; Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 13–18. 44.  Ibid., 19. 45.  Parkin defines ritual as “a formulaic spatiality carried out by groups of people who are conscious of its imperative or compulsory nature and who may or may not further inform this spatiality with spoken words” (David Parkin, “Ritual as Spatial Direction and Bodily Division,” in Understanding Rituals [ed. Daniel de Coppet; London: Routledge, 1992], 18). 46.  Ronald L. Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies (3rd ed.; Waterloo, ON: Ritual Studies, 2010), 62. Animated behavior is also highlighted by Richard Schechner, who contends that “in ritual ordinary behavior is condensed, exaggerated, repeated, made into rhythms or pulses (often faster or slower than usual) or frozen into poses” (Richard Schechner, “The Future of Ritual,” JRitSt 1/1 [1987]: 5). 47.  Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies, 55. 48. Jan Platvoet, “Ritual in Plural and Pluralist Societies,” in Pluralism and Identity: Studies in Ritual Behavior (ed. Jan Platvoet and Karel van der Toorn; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 41. Like Grimes before him, Platvoet highlights the aspects of time, place, stylized behavior, and participants in ritual. Similar to Durkheim, the definition focuses on the social role of ritual and the general community’s awareness and acceptance of ritual activity—acknowledging that the ritual may hold special meaning for one group (i.e., the congregation) while not holding meaning for other groups. Finally, Platvoet mentions that a sequence of activities (structure) may be important to ritual and, by inference, to ritual prescriptive texts. Also discussed in Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 18. 49.  Ibid., 128.

Introduction • • • • • •

15

Ritual space Ritual time Involved objects Ritual actions Ritual participants and their roles Ritual sound and language

I am not proposing a new definition of ritual in this book but am opting instead to endorse the work of Bell, Grimes, and Platvoet. Because the scholar of ancient cultures is forced to examine only texts concerning ritual and is not able to view the “ritual in action,” in this book I propose to review the elements of ritual included in the definitions above. Following Klingbeil’s suggestion, I use these semantic elements, in addition to an intertextual analysis, and explore the ritual syntax and pragmatics (where possible) in a comparative framework. 50 Below, I provide a brief working definition for each ritual aspect. Form, Order, and Structure In reviewing form and structure, I adopt a bottom-up approach, exploring the smallest units of the text (beginning with the verbal forms, vocabulary, clauses, and sentence structures) before moving up to define text types, syntactical specifics, and genre. 51 I begin with a review of verbal- and clauselevel forms in order to identify the microstructures in the text. I then move to macrostructures, reviewing the overall literary structure. 52 Sacred Time Sacred time often provides a context for understanding reality. 53 Thus, sacred time is both circular (eternal and unchanging) and linear (ever 50.  For a full discussion of Klingbeil’s comparative framework, see his Bridging the Gap, 127–46. 51.  Based on the discussion in Alviero Niccacci, “On the Hebrew Verbal System,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (ed. Robert D. Bergen; Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994), 117–18. 52.  Klingbeil, relying on the work of Amit and Long, argues that “literary and syntactic design did not ‘just occur’ but that the author or editor employed well-considered patterns that provide clues for the interpretation of the relevant section. Thus literary and syntactic patterns help us to understand the performance of ritual texts” (Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 148); Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narrative: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (trans. Y. Lotan; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 1–21; V. Phillips Long, “Reading the Old Testament as Literature,” in Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis (ed. Craig C. Broyles; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 85–123; Ithamar Gruenwald, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (BRLJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 30. 53.  Barbara C. Sproul, “Sacred Time,” ER 12:535. Also quoted in Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 50.

16

Chapter 1

changing). In addition, ritual divides into absolute time and relative time. 54 Absolute time includes calendar-based rituals and rituals contingent on the annual cycle. These often include New Year’s festivals and rituals of planting or harvest. 55 Relative time is the time allotted for successfully performing the ritual (duration). 56 Sacred Space and Movement Mircea Eliade argues that, “for religious man, space is not homogeneous; he experiences interruptions, breaks in it; some parts of space are qualitatively different from others. . . . There is, then, a sacred space, and hence a strong, significant space; there are other spaces that are not sacred and so are without structure or consistency, amorphous.” 57 Klingbeil studies the interplay between movement and space. He identifies four primary elements of sacred space: sacred space is movable and relative, involves general orientation, includes explicit movement, and may connect to a state of liminality. 58 Mark George advances the discussion by segregating space into three components: physical space, mental space, and social space. 59 Based 54.  Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 168–69; Ronald L. Grimes, Research in Ritual Studies: A Programmatic Essay and Bibliography (ATLA Bibliography Series 14; London: Scarecrow, 1985), 46–48. 55.  Phillip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World ( JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT), 182. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 169 includes the Babylonian Akītu Festival and the Lev 23 firstfruit festival into this category. 56.  Klingbeil notes that the seven-day duration for rituals in Lev 23 would fit into this category. In addition, rituals involving a rite of passage are examples of relative time. Klingbeil summarizes the ritual use of sacred time stating that “time represents another important element of ritual, since it [time] measures it [ritual] or gives it [ritual] rhythm. Absolute time refers to clear time indicators . . . , while relative time refers to the time that passes during the execution of a ritual and is not necessarily indicated in the text. Inherent time indicators are sometimes dependent on other internal elements, which may be specific without being absolute: for example, ‘in the morning,’ ‘after dusk,’ or ‘before the sunset.’ Although no specific day is marked, the particular point during the day is indicated” (ibid., 173). 57. Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, 1987), 20. According to Eliade, sacred space is where the world becomes apprehensible and where mankind is closest to the god(s) (ibid., 20–65). 58.  Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 159–68. According to Klingbeil, sacred space is moveable and relative as depicted by the mobile nature of the tabernacle. The defining characteristic is that sacred space is any space with the divine presence of Yhwh. For a detailed discussion on the relationship between sacred space and liminality see: Turner, The Ritual Process, 95; idem, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphor (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), 52; Robert L. Cohn, The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies (AAR Studies in Religion 23; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 13. 59.  Mark K. George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space (AIIL 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 17–31. Also see the work of Henri Lefebvre for an analysis of the mental concepts of social space; Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space (trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith; Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 7–39.

Introduction

17

on the work of Eliade, Klingbeil, and George, scholars acknowledge that sacred space is both physical and conceptual. The goal for exploring sacred space is to understand better the role and function of the rites included in each text. The study of sacred space may also give a glimpse into the way that each text understands its deity and the interplay between ritual act and societal effect. Sacred Objects According to Klingbeil, an object used in ritual may have multiple aspects or orientations. Often ritual participants wear or carry sacred objects. In addition, some objects move during rites while others remain fixed. 60 This book divides the use of sacred objects into two categories: sacred objects and sacred offerings. Sacred objects are physical items mentioned in the texts that aid the ritual process. Sacred offerings are specific objects given to a deity during the course of the ritual. This category includes animals, raw harvest items, processed food items, liquids, items of value, and incense. In some rites, fire may consume the sacred offerings; in others, the offering is ceremonially consecrated to the deity and given to specified individuals. I explore and compare both the type of item and its process of disposition. The goal is to give insight into the context of ritual and the values expressed in both texts. Ritual Participants Frank Gorman identifies three primary roles for ritual participants: specialist, sponsor, and recipient. 61 The specialist, often a priest or diviner, is responsible for both the knowledge and administration of the ritual performance. The sponsor is the person whose situation has initiated the ritual. This may be the king, city leader(s), or a deity. The third category is the recipient: the person or group for whom the ritual is conducted. 62 A recipient may also participate in ritual action but is not charged with the responsibility of administering the rite. 63 In this book, I use Gorman’s categories as a framework to explore ritual. 60.  Klingbeil argues that “objects used in ritual generally cannot be interpreted at face value. Mysteriously, they become changed and take on different meanings. A rough rock suddenly becomes part of an altar (Exod 20:25; 24:4) or a memorial stele (Gen 28:18; 31:45–54; 35:14; Josh 4:5; 24:26). All of a sudden, this rock is more than just a particular chemical formula and is treated accordingly. While nothing physical changes the nature of the innate object, its integration into the ritual process gives it new dimensions, a changed status, and an altered perception” (Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 174). 61.  Frank H. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology ( JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 34–36. 62.  Also discussed in Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 51. 63.  Blenkinsopp, following Durkheim, understands the roles of ritual participants in the context of the society, arguing that “a role may be defined as a more or less

18

Chapter 1

The book divides ritual participants into two groups: humans and deities. We discuss the roles of human participants as they administer, sponsor, and participate in rites. And we identify and discuss the role of each deity as the recipient or the sponsor of rites. The goal is to illuminate the role that participants played in ritual for the cultic calendars at Emar and Israel. In addition, we endeavor to identify the potential relationship between the hierarchy and social structure for ritual participants in each society. Ritual Sound The aspects of ritual sound and speech acts occurring during the ritual process are often overlooked. When reviewing ritual sound and speech, Klingbeil concludes that: (1) sound is often poorly described in ritual texts; (2) despite the difficulty in determining the extent that sound was involved, it is apparent that sound played an important role; and (3) ritual speech acts varied depending on the type and context of the ritual; some were extemporaneous (free), others formulaic, while others were abbreviated. 64 Adopting the general methodology developed by Klingbeil in his review of Lev 8 and the ritual ordination text of Emar 369, I investigate each aspect of ritual independently within its immediate situation. I then analyze the evidence from each ritual aspect, creating a broad contextual understanding of each ritual text. Once each text is understood in its own context, I compare the two ritual calendars (using the methodology in the prior section) and determine whether the two texts share a common tradition. Through the exploration of context and intent, I attempt to move beyond the mere listing of superficial similarities and differences to a deeper contextual understanding of the compared rituals.

Research Objectives In this research project, I aim to explore West Semitic ritual through a comparative analysis of Lev 23 and Emar 446. To achieve this end, I criticize both Wagenaar’s comparative method of Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival, and his resulting conclusions. The book begins in chap. 2 with a brief review of scholarship on the ritual calendars of the ancient Near East from the 3rd through 1st millennia—including a summary of the 2nd-millennium and 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival observances. The chapter continues with a review of standardized social position corresponding to the expectations of the society, or a segment of society, in which the role player is situated. It therefore involves certain rights and obligations and calls for the kind of performance that the society in question has come to expect from the position in question and which to that extent can be considered normative and prescriptive.” ( Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel [LAI; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995], 3–4.) 64.  Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 202–3.

Introduction

19

scholarship for the dating of Lev 23 and related festival passages (Exod 23; 34; Num 28–29; Deut 16; Ezek 45). The chapter concludes with a detailed review of Wagenaar’s work Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar. Chapter 3 provides a linguistic, form, and structural examination of Lev 23, including a study of ritual attributes identified in the text. Chapter 4 conducts a similar examination of the 2nd-millennium Akkadian multimonth festival calendar at Emar: Emar 446. Next, in chap. 5, I argue what linguistic, form, and structural similarities and differences exist between Lev 23 and Emar 446. I aim to demonstrate that Lev 23 preserves an early (2nd-millennium) West Semitic ritual tradition. A secondary goal of my investigation is to explore the role that sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, and participants play in West Semitic ritual. In the process, I offer an example of a comparative analysis between ancient Near Eastern texts.

Chapter 2

Overview of Research Introduction The multimonth ritual calendars prescribed in Lev 23 and Emar 446 are each part of a broader cultural context. Leviticus 23, as a festival calendar, shares information with the festival texts in Exod 23; 34; Num 28–29; Deut 16; and Ezek 45. As mentioned in the comparative methodology section (see chap. 1), we will first attempt to understand Lev 23 through an intra­ biblical study before looking outside the Bible for comparison. Similarly, we will explore other ancient Near Eastern rituals before beginning a specific discussion of Emar 446. This chapter lays the contextual groundwork for the in-depth consideration of Lev 23 in chap. 3 and of Emar 446 in chap. 4 by first surveying previous research. Chapter 2 is divided into three major sections, beginning with an overview of ritual texts in the ancient Near East from the 3rd to the 1st millennium. The discussion of these rituals concludes with an evaluation of the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival text. The second major section provides a summary of research by notable scholars who have explored Lev 23 in the context of other biblical festival texts. The third major section evaluates Wagenaar’s Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, comparing Lev 23 with the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival texts.

Overview of Ritual Development in the Ancient Near East The goal of this section is to provide a contextual understanding of ritual in the ancient Near East. In addition to offering a general overview of ritual, I am interested in answering the following questions: • Which festivals were the primary rituals during the year, and when did they occur? • Were ritual activities linked to agriculture, deities, or both? • Which festivals or ritual activities were common across cultures? • Were festival activities common to certain months? If so, are reasons given in the text? • Did the rituals (especially agrarian festivals) occur on fixed dates? • Did the rites (especially agrarian festivals) have fixed central locations? 20

Overview of Research

21

Overview of Third- and Second-Millennium Ritual Texts Textual evidence for festival activity in the 3rd millennium has been found at Ebla, Adab, Lagaš, Nippur, and Ur, while textual evidence from the 2nd millennium has been identified at Sippar, Mari, and Ugarit. 1 This evidence demonstrates that ritual festivals throughout the 3rd and 2nd millennia shared three common themes: agriculture, ancestor worship, and care of the local deity and temple. Agricultural rituals generally included rites for plowing, seeding, rain, firstfruits, and harvest. 2 These festivals were held in months appropriate to the agricultural activity. For instance, firstfruit and harvest festivals (e.g., šekinku 3 and akītu) were usually observed in the 1st or 7th month and occasionally in the 2nd or 12th month (calendar in which the year began in the spring). 4 While associated with the harvest, the rituals were occasionally conducted at specified times of the month (new moon at Ur and the full moon at Nippur). 5 Another example is a festival for the harvest of grapes (reš yani) observed at Ugarit on set dates in the middle of the month. Similarly, the Akītu planting and harvesting festival at Ur, Nippur, Adab, and Uruk was held in both the 1st (spring) and the 7th months (fall). 6 Festivals involving the preparation of the soil were often observed between the 2nd and 5th months. For instance, the gusisu Festival at Ur and Nippur occurred from the 20th to the 22nd days of the 2nd month. 7 And Nippur’s šunumun 1. Mark Cohen provides a thorough survey of cultic calendars and festival activity in these cultures during the 3rd and 2nd millennia, in his work (Mark E. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East [Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993]). 2.  ITT 5280 describes a 7-day Festival of Malt and Barley during the Ur III period. For plowing rites, see the šunumun Festival at Nippur—preparing the fields for seeding in the middle of the 4th month (Hoe and Plow 23, manuscript Civil). Also see Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 96. 3.  This is the Barley Harvest Festival held in the middle of the 1st month of the year at Nippur, Umma, and later Drehem. 4.  Another example is the Festival of Baba, at Lagaš (during the Gudean period), in the 7th month (autumn), which constituted the “New Year.” 5.  Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 140–52 relies upon Sauren NY Public Library 374; UET 3 190; Dhorme, RA 9 (1912); SA 217; and Holma-Salonen Cuneiform Tablets, 27. Cohen argues that the descriptive evidence from disbursement texts points to the observance of a harvest festival in the middle of the 12th month (Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 119–24). The descriptive nature of the texts opens the possibility that the observance was dependent on the harvest’s occurring around the middle of the month and was not specifically tied to the full moon and the 14th day of the month. 6.  The festival at Ur was held on the 1st of the month. In Nippur and Adab, the festival was held in the 4th and 12th months (eight months apart) and held in the middle of the month around the full moon. 7.  TCL 2; AO 5501; MVN 15 146; M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 83–91.The gusisu festival, held in the later part of the 2d month for three days (20th–22nd), represented the beginning of the agricultural year. The second day of the festival recorded the highest level of offerings—with the greatest value received by Ninlil and the sacred mound.

22

Chapter 2

Festival was celebrated in the 4th month. Therefore, texts tend to aggregate the observance of these agricultural festivals in the first half of the year on specified dates. 8 The second type of festival concerned ancestor worship and the care, feeding, and honoring of the dead. The Nippur calendar preserves several festivals during the fall and winter (generally during months 5–10) that may have had a relationship to the cult of the dead. During the 5th month, the EZEN-ne-IZI-gar Festival, a mid-month festival, participants offered sheep and cattle for the Great Offering at the moon phase termed the “House of the 15th Day.” Samuel Kramer associates this festival with the cult of the dead based on a line from “The Death of Gilgameš”: “Let . . . , the child of the sun-god Utu, light up for him the netherworld. . . . Without him no light would be there during the month ne-IZI-gar, during the

The value of offerings appeared to be (from highest to lowest): ewe, lamb, goat. The festival marked the beginning of readying the fields for planting: clearing the fields, preparing the plow, and checking the irrigation system. Therefore, the festival was not about seeding but about preparing for the seeding that would occur in the autumn. One text from the Isin period (1934–1924 b.c.e.) called “Lipit-Ištar and the Plow” recounts how the deities ready the plow for planting as part of the festival. 8.  Fleming views the evidence of fixed dates for agricultural festivals as problematic. The use of a lunar year composed of 354 days requires the addition of an occasional intercalary month to maintain the alignment of the seasons. In addition, the ripening of the harvest is variable from year to year. These two factors combine to support a logical conclusion that the dates of agricultural festivals, which are dependent on the harvest, must have been flexible (and not fixed; D. E. Fleming, Time at Emar: Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive [Mesopotamian Civilizations 11; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000], 141, 211–21). Jacob Milgrom theorizes that the use of fixed dates for agricultural festivals was incorporated as the Priestly cult centralized its power ( Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 3B; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001], 1981–96, 2054–80). Support for this thesis comes from only one extant tablet, which is the case with many theories about ancient festivals and therefore raises the possibility that these texts are descriptive of only one occurrence of the festival and not prescriptive of an annual event. However, the evidence from the 3rd and 2nd millennia does not corroborate Milgrom’s argument that ritual activities (with variable dates based on the ripening of the harvest) began with the local farmer and evolved into centralized rituals (with fixed dates and locations). The reviewed cultures exhibit all the signs of a fully developed, centralized priesthood, and the offering texts usually record activities occurring on fixed dates at fixed locations (a centralized temple). Therefore, Milgrom’s theories for the first three stages of development are not supported but cannot be eliminated. His fourth stage— agricultural festivals in societies with a developed centralized Priestly cult that occurred on fixed dates and at fixed centralized locations—is supported by the textual evidence on the 3rd and 2nd millennia.

Overview of Research

23

festi[val of the gh]osts.” 9 In addition, scholars associate the EZEN-duku festival in the 7th month with offerings to the dead. The ab/pum festival occurred in the 5th month at Nippur, 10th month at Lagaš, and the 6th month at Ur. Stephen Langdon and Mark Cohen associate this festival with the cult of the dead because participants presented funerary offerings of meat, cheese, and physical items to the ancestors. Cohen theorizes that the rites included an offering at a sacred mound providing access to the netherworld. During the sacred time of the festival, the dead could gain access to the offering at the sacred space—probably a mound that covered the access point. 10 If this interpretation is correct, KAR 146 probably represents offerings made to the dead. KAR 146 rev. 1–2 reads, “[H]e will go and collect the blood in the apu, pour honey and oil into the apu. . . . (the king) presents food to the spirits of the dead, (the singer) removes (the meal from the table), places it in the apu, he pours honey, oil, beer, and wine over it, the singer fills the apu, the king puts his foot over the apu, kisses [the ground?].” 11 These are just two examples of festivals involving the care and feeding of the dead. Other examples include: the kinūnu Festival (with torches to light the way to and from the netherworld); kispum ritual (monthly offerings to the dead kings at Mari); Ḫubur/dIGI.KUR (perhaps associated with the Ḫubur River, with its ties to the netherworld); and EZEN-dNin-a-zu (associated with the god of the spring rains who “disappeared,” spending a portion of the year in the netherworld and a portion on the earth). The majority of these festivals occurred during the late fall or early winter—generally in months 5–10 (calendar in which the year began in the spring). The rites appear to have been connected with the winter season—when the grasses and crops are dormant. The third festival type encompasses the worship of local deities and the care of the local temple and priests. This category occurred throughout the year and occasionally shifted positions within the cultic calendar as the calendar adapted to regional changes in power and/or changes in the names of the month. Numerous examples of these rites exist and include offerings from each of the three categories (meat, nonmeat, and votive). In addition, the texts often depict a procession of the patron deity from its primary temple to a temporary location and then its triumphant return, accompanied by an exuberant celebration (e.g., akītu and dīrītu). Finally, the month names for these festivals often took on the name of the god or goddess recognized in the festival. Examples of this category of festival 9.  Samuel N. Kramer, “The Death of Gilgamesh,” BASOR 94 (1944): 7, 9. Kramer attributes to the month ab in his translation. 10.  Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 460 (translation is Cohen’s). 11.  Ibid., 159.

Chapter 2

24

include: EZEN-kin-dInanna (during the full moon of the 6th month), EZEN-dŠhul-gi (a festival added to several regional calendars in the 8th month following Shulgi’s 30th-year jubilee), dDa gan (8th month at Mari), and EZEN-maḫ-dNin-é-gal (Great Festival of the god Ninegal). Festival Cycles The festival texts of the 3rd and 2nd millennia share many attributes. One striking similarity is the prominence of cultic festivals in both the 1st and 7th months of the year. In some locations, the festivals during these months bore the same name (see discussion on the Akītu Festival below). The festivals of these months also often described activities as a “New Year’s celebration” for the area. This supports the proposal that at least some citystates in Mesopotamia viewed the larger year in terms of two six-month units—perhaps associated with the vernal and autumnal equi­noxes. 12 In addition, texts often link New Year’s celebrations with agricultural rites. The festivals of the 1st month celebrated the harvest and firstfruits (e.g., za gmu at Nippur and še-kin-ku-rá at Ur and Lagaš). The festivals of the 7th month represented the end of the fall harvest (grapes [reš yani Festival at Ugarit] and some late fruits) or the beginning of preparing the ground for planting (e.g, á-ki- ti-šu-numun at Ur). These festival texts, while agriculturally based, also occurred on fixed dates (usually centered on the new moon and full moon) and fixed locations (usually the temple for the lead regional deity). An early example is found at Lagaš, ITT 5280, where the 12.  The Near Eastern calendars of the 3rd and 2nd millennia were likely based on a luni-solar calendar. The beginning of the month, in each attested location except Egypt, was determined by the appearance of the moon. Verderame finds that the Enūma Anu Enlil celestial omen series is dependent on the appearance of the new-moon crescent and identifies “the first visibility of the moon” as the 1st day of the month (L. Verderame, “Enūma Anu Enlil Tablets 1–13,” in Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East [ed. J. M. Steele and A. Imhausen; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002], 447–57). The Old Babylonian Epic text Enūma Eliš also identifies the moon, and its phases, as the marker for the month (5:12–22): [Marduk] made Nannaru [the moon] appear, entrusted (to him) the night. He assigned to him the crown jewel of nighttime to mark the day (of the month): Every month, without ceasing, he exalted him with a crown. At the beginning of the month, waxing over the land, you shine with horns to mark six days, on the seventh day, the disk as [ha]lf. At the fifteenth day, you shall be in opposition, at the midpoint of each [month]. When the sun f[ac]es you from the horizon of heaven, wane at the same pace and form a reverse. At the day of di[sappeara]nce, approach the sun’s course, On the [. . .] of the thirtieth day, you shall be in conjunction with the sun a second time. (“Epic of Creation [Enūma Elish],” translated by Benjamin R. Foster, COS 1.111:399)

This text describes the month in terms of lunar phases. The first lunar crescent depicts the beginning of the month, moving through the 7th day (half-moon) and waxing to full on the 15th. The second half of the month receives less focus, only noting the moon waning until it disappears to begin a new month.

Overview of Research

25

Festival of Malt and Barley was held in the month of bur ux-maš (month 1) on specific dates over three specific locations. Festival durations differed from festival to festival and from location to location. In fact, even festivals by the same name might vary in duration at different city-states. Despite this contrast, some preliminary patterns emerge from the data. First, festivals tended to occur at the changes of the lunar cycle. Many festivals either began or climaxed on the 1st (new moon), 7th (first quarter-moon), 15th (full moon), or occasionally on the 21st (last quarter-moon) of each month. The most common festival dates revolved around the new moon (e.g., še-kin-ku-rá at Nippur and Ur, EZEN-dLi9si4 at Lagaš, za g-m u, reš yani Festival at Ugarit), and full moon (e.g., EZENne-IZI-gar at Nippur, Dīrītu Festival at Mari, reš yani Festival at Ugarit). 13 Occasionally, festivals associated with the cult of the dead occurred during off phases of the moon—at the end of the month when the moon is disappearing (e.g., ab/pu the EZEN-duku Festival at Nippur). Second, festival texts depict rites with various durations. Festivals most often occurred over one, two, three, or seven days. Generally, festivals held on the 1st of the month lasted only one day. For example, DP 44 depicts the one-day še-kin-ku Festival at the new moon with offerings of flour, sheep, and fish (Lagaš). The festivals that occurred at the quarter-moon (7th and 21st) tended to be one to three days in duration (e.g., the one-day ibʿlt Festival at Ugarit, the two-day EZEN-duku Festival at Nippur). Festivals celebrated at the middle of the month (full moon) were usually the longest—often seven days (e.g., Elūnu Festival of Šamaš at Sippar, the reš yani Festival at Ugarit). Third, multiday festivals occasionally began with or included,a second, named, one-day festival ceremony. One example is the za g-mu Festival at Ur, which held overlapping ceremonies with the Akītu Festival. Another example is the nabrû ceremony, which occurred during the kinūnu Festival at Tell Rimah (OBT 110). Combining the celebration of unrelated ritual festivals did not appear to concern the local priesthood. Common Festivals Ritual texts in the 3rd and 2nd millennia record the observance of similarly named festivals in multiple cultures. These festivals share the following characteristics: a long period of development, a common observance at the change in lunar cycles, and parallels in rites and purposes. And these sorts of resemblances support the conclusion that the knowledge of rites probably crossed cultural boundaries. In addition, different ancient Near Eastern cultures may have shared an understanding of ritual observance. In this context, three named festivals common in the ancient Near East 13.  References place this festival at the beginning of the month (for one day) and again at the middle of the month (for seven days).

Chapter 2

26

deserve a brief discussion: the Akītu Festival, the nabrû Festival, and the kinūnu Festival. Akītu Festival The cultic calendars for Ur’s 3rd and 2nd millennia outline rites for the biannual Akītu Festival. The festival held in the 1st month was á-ki- ti -šekin-ku5, “the Akītu of the harvest.” The Akītu of the 7th month was known by a different name, á-ki- ti-šu-numun, meaning “the Akītu of seeding.” The festival held in the 7th month was the more important ritual because this month carried the name of the festival. Each Akītu Festival may have marked the beginning of the “equinox year”—six months in duration. 14 The Mesopotamians assigned a date to each festival based on the lunar cycle. In addition to the regular offerings of the Akītu in the 1st month, a Great Offering occurred during the Akītu of the 7th month. One tablet from Drehem (Holma-Salonen Cuneiform Tablets 27) for the 7th-month Akītu Festival reads: 1 gu4-niga dNanna sízkur-gu-la šà Uríki-ma u4-8kam, “The 8th day: 1 grain fed ox (for) Nanna, the Great Offering in Ur.” 15 This text reveals that the agricultural Akītu Festival occurred on specific dates and included meat offerings associated with the city. While meat is the offering most frequently mentioned in the Akītu Festival texts at Ur, the festival includes non-meat offerings (UET 3 186) and votive offerings of cloth (UET 3 1504). In addition, two texts (YBC 16828 [AS 8]; MVN 8 221 [AS 8]) depict a royal banquet with the king in attendance. The festival in the 1st month began on the 1st day of the month (the new moon) with rites lasting at least five days and possibly as many as seven days. In the 7th month, the festival was longer, lasting from 10 to 12 days. Festival offerings were prescribed at three primary locations: (1) Gaʾeš temple; (2) Ekišnugal temple to Nanna; and (3) the primordial mound of Ur (du6úr). The offerings for each location took place several times during the day. Some occurred at midnight (á-gi6-sa9-a), others at sunrise, and still others during the day. This excerpt from text UET 3 193 is an example: 2 lambs for the d u6-ú r-mound and 1 ox, 2 lambs and 1 goat for the temple of Nanna. . . . in Ur. 1 sheep and 1 lamb as the midnight offering to Nanna; 2 lambs as the daybreak offering to Nanna; 1 two-year old cow, 1 sheep and 1 lamb from the. . . . building (?) and 1 reed-fed pig from the preserve as the nightly Great Offering for Nanna at the á- k i - ti. 16

Nanna, the moon god, is often symbolized as a boat—after the moon’s boat-like shape when it transitions from new moon to full moon. During the Akītu Festival, the moon, on his sacred boat, went in a procession from 14.  M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 400. 15.  Ibid., 151. 16.  (UET 3 193); translated by Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 151.

Overview of Research

27

the Ekišnugal temple to Nanna to the Gaʾeš temple (Akītu-house) complex outside Ur. A highlight of the festival was the triumphant procession of the sacred boat of Nanna returning to Ur on the 3rd day of the 1st month (on a later day in the 7th month) to take his rightful position in the Temple of Nanna. T. M. Sharlach argues that in the 7th month the king, to ensure a successful agricultural season, would plow the first field while Nanna made his journey. 17 Texts describe the Akītu Festival observances at Nippur, Adab, and Uruk—in addition to Ur. While the festival occurred at multiple locations, the timing and duration was unique to each. Uruk texts convey Akītu Festival rites in the 8th month, while Nippur and Uruk hold the festival at the full moon of the 4th and 12th months. The festival has pre-Sargonic textual evidence at both Ur and Nippur. However the mention of á-ki- ti Uríkima šà Nibr uki 18 in ITT 6756 and Tello 29 from Girsu suggests that Ur is the founding location for the festival. 19 Our discussion of the Akītu Festival only encompasses the adoption of the festival in cultures up to the middle of the 2nd millennium. The festival has a long history beyond this period including significant textual representation at Aššur in the Middle Assyrian period. In addition, BM 121206 and A 125, 126 outline the Akītu Festival to Marduk. We will discuss these 1stmillennium texts at the end of this chapter in conjunction with Wagenaar’s work. Nabrû Festival Texts from the 3rd millennium attest the nabrû Festival at Ur in the 8th month, 3rd-millennium Uruk in the 9th month, and 2nd-millennium Mari in an unnamed month (probably 9th month). ARMT 19 311 reads a-muwa- tim sá na-ab-ri-i, “omina for the nabrû (festival).” ARMT 19 324 mentions a meat offering: 1 UDU in na-ab-ri-i[m] PN [ta] mḫur, “PN received one sheep for the nabrû festival.” 20 References to the festival continue into the 2nd millennium at Mari, Kish, Sippar, Tell Rimah, Šaduppum, Šubat-Enlil, and Nērebtum—all observed in the late fall or winter months. Stephen Langdon links the festival with the winter solstice and the resurrection of the sun god. For Langdon, the root of nabrû is barû with the meaning “manifestation.” 21 While “manifestation” is within the range of meaning for barû, M. E. Cohen argues that a more likely translation, based 17.  T. M. Sharlach, “Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court,” JCS 57 (2005), 22. 18.  “The Akītu of Ur at Nippur.” 19.  M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 404–5. 20.  Ibid., 394. 21.  Stephen H. Langdon, Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendars (London: Oxford University Press, 1935), 30.

Chapter 2

28

on the context, is “to divine” (to observe omens). 22 The Mari text linking amuwatu with the nabrû Festival further supports this meaning. The primary nabrû Festival occurred in the early winter, perhaps with the reading of omens for the upcoming agricultural season. At several locations, it appears that some portions of the ritual were repeated in later months. M. E. Cohen postulates that the purpose of the repetition was to update the prior months’ predictions. 23 Kinūnu Festival Several locations attest the winter kinūnu Festival. The kinūnu, or brazier, was a ceremonial torch often used in temple-lighting ceremonies. The festival, by the same name, was held during the winter months (months 7–10). Rites may have been associated with the netherworld (lighting the way for ancestors) or the winter solstice, or may have marked the beginning of the use of torches and fires for heating in the winter. The kinūnu Festival is poorly documented in the 3rd millennium, with only a possible reference (Gi/Kí-nu-na) in the Ur III period and a possible month name at Ebla (NE.GAR). By the 2nd millennium, especially in the northern regions, the month name and festival are frequently identified. The 9th month at Nunzi and 7th month at Mari, Eshnunna, and Tell Rimah are all named kinūnu with references to the festival held in the month. Two occurrences of the festival include references to other ritual celebrations either before or during the kinūnu Festival. At Mari, ARM 3 72 records the festival beginning on the 8th of the month and continuing for several days. The same text records oil for the kinūnu Festival on the 12th. Dominique Charpin identifies a ritual on the 7th day of the 7th month (šibût šebîm). 24 This indicates that another named festival occurred the day before the kinūnu Festival. Similarly, OBT Tell Rimah 110, records the presence of the nabrû ritual during the kinūnu Festival: “On the 20+[x]th day of this month, for the occasion of the nabrû of the kinūnu (Festival).” This section demonstrates two points that may inform our understanding of Lev 23 (chap. 3) and Emar 446 (chap. 4). First, different cultures in the ancient Near East shared a ritual tradition in the 3rd and 2nd millennia. This is supported by the resemblances between the festivals: their names, rites, and times of celebration. And second, while the texts often illustrate similarities, each culture expressed these common traditions uniquely.

22.  M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 394. 23.  Ibid., 395. 24. Dominique Charpin, “Mari et le calendrier d’Ebla,” RA 76 (1982): 1–6.

Overview of Research

29

Leviticus 23 and Hittite Festivals David Stewart finds parallels between the Israelite festival calendar and festival rites contained in Hittite texts. 25 He notes that two Hittite festivals occur in the spring: EZEN AN.TAḪ.ŠUMSAR and EZEN purulliyaš; 26 while other texts attest two festivals in the fall: EZEN nuntarriyašḫaš and EZEN KI.LAM. 27 The occurrence of coincident spring and fall festivals is not sufficient, however, to conclude that there was a similarity. Stewart goes on to argue for three organizational components of the Hittite festivals that have an impact on the interpretation of the Israelite festivals. First, both contained a complex pattern of formation including multiday festivals with local rites adopted from other cultures. Second, both integrated multiple festivals into festival complexes with the procession of individuals through multiple locations. Third, both joined the spring and autumn by manipulating cereal grain. Stewart concludes that the extended length of the Hittite festivals explains the equally lengthy, 50-day period for the Festival of Weeks and the merging of maṣṣôt and pesaḥ into one festival complex. 28 After review, he identifies the following additional points of similarity: 29 • Great assemblies • Open-air cultic sites (some near mountains) 25.  David T. Stewart, “A Brief Comparison of the Israelite and Hittite Festival Calendars,” in Lev 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (ed. Jacob Milgrom; AB 3B; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 2076–80. 26.  For additional discussion of Hittite rites, see the following works: Moshe Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background,” in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, panel sessions: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language ( Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983), 95–129; Volkert Haas, Der Kult von Nerik: Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religions­ geschichte (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970); idem, Hethitische Berggotter und hurritische Steindämonen: Riten, Kulte und Mythen (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 10; Mainz: von Zabern, 1982); idem, “Betrachtungen zur Rekonstruction des hethithischen Frühjahrfestes,” ZA 78 (1988): 284–98; Galina Kellerman, “Towards the Fuller Interpretation of the Purulli-Festival,” SH 5–6 (1981): 35–46. 27.  H. G. Güterbock, “Religion and Kultus der Hethiter,” in Neuere Hethiterforschung (ed. G. Walser; Historia Einzelschriften 7; Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1964), 54–73; Vol­kert Haas, Der Kult von Nerik: Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religionsgeschichte (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970); S. Košak, “The Hittite Nuntarrijashas-Festival (CTH 626),” Linguistica 16 (1976): 55–64; Harry A. Hoffner, Alimenta Hethaeorum: Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor (AOS 55; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1974); Moshe Weinfeld, “Traces of Hittite Cult in Shilo, Bethel and in Jerusalem,” in Religionsgeschicht­ liche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrian und dem Alten Testament (ed. B. Janowski et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 455–72. 28.  Stewart, “A Brief Comparison,” 2077. 29.  Ibid., 2077–80.

Chapter 2

30

• Use of cult objects at procession sites • Use of tents • Celebrations as part of the cultic rites Many of these elements are shared with Emar 446 and, although they are beyond the scope of this book, they are worthy of future research. Ugaritic Festival Calendar Ugaritic ritual texts identify several festivals during the year. Rites are identified in ʾIbʿaltu (December–January), Ḫiyyāru ( January–February— winter solstice), Raʾšu yêni (August–September), and (Nql) (September– October—fall equinox). 30 The festivals in ʾIbʿaltu included two feasts—a one-day ritual on the 7th of the month and a multiday festival in the middle of the month (both present in KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266). On the first day of the multiday festival, the king performed a ritual cleansing (brr) followed by the sacrifice of oxen or cows for deities, including: Baʿalu, ʾIlu, Galmu, and GLMTM. The first day concluded with the lighting of a fire in the Temple of Baʿalu and the offering of a city-dove and a lamb for a ṯaʿû-sacrifice. 31 On the second day of the festival, the king performed several offerings, among them, an offering to Baʿalu with a flame-sacrifice at the Temple of ʾIlu and a temple presentation-offering. KTU 1.119 outlines offerings made primarily to Baʿalu and ends with a prayer that the “strong one” will be driven from the gates of Ugarit. Therefore, it is likely that Baʿalu is the central theme of the text. Scholars have argued that KTU 1.119 may depict rites occurring over two months and not one. If correct, the ritual schedule consists of three festivals: a one-day rite on the 7th of the month, another multiday festival in the middle of ʾIbʿaltu, and a week-long celebration during the beginning of Ḫiyyāru. 32 The text depicts the king as the central figure. He performed a ritual cleansing and a sacrifice at the Temple of ʿIlu and was only released from service when the sun set on the last day of each festival. Further, the 30.  The correlation between month names and calendar months follows Dennis Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (SBLWAW 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 25–26. 31. Following Pardee, ibid., 52. Wyatt reads, “house of sacrifice” (N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit [rev. ed.; Biblical Seminar 53; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002]); de Moor reads, “The house of the officiant shall sacrifice” ( J. C. de Moor, The Seasonal Patterns in the Ugaritic Myth of Baʿlu [AOAT 16; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1971], 61–62); 32.  The controversy arises due to a break in the text. Before the break, the text relates activities on the 17th–18th of the month. After the break, the text reads unspecified 4th, 5th, and 7th days. It is possible that the days refer to a continuation of the days of the festival, or they may refer to days of the following month. Discussed in Wyatt, Religious Texts, 420; Pardee, Ritual and Cult, 50.

Overview of Research

31

role of the priest is muffled (ambiguous), only mentioning a sacrifice at the home of a ṯāʿiyu-priest. The festivals begin and end with purification rituals for the king. Offerings are primarily meat offerings (oxen/cows, donkey, birds, and lamb). However, the text also mentions an offering of oil and a libation offering. The multiday festival incorporates shorter-named rites. These named rites include: a ṯaʿû-sacrifice, burnt offerings, libation offerings, peace offerings, a flame-sacrifice, and a presentation-offering—each with possible biblical correlations. In the month of Ḫiyyāru, KTU 1.105 (RS 24.249) presents offerings to Baʿalu that begin at the new moon. The text describes an unnamed festival on the 1st and 14th days of the month (lines 15–18): yrḫ . ḫyr. b ym ḥdṯ alp . w š . l bʿlt bhtm b arbʿt ʿšrt . bʿl ʿrkm

In the month of Ḫiyyāru, on the day of the new moon: a bull and a ram for Baʿlatu-Bahatīma. On the fourteenth day, for Baʿalu, offering from the ʿRK-taxes.  33

The text continues, describing the following activities on the 18th and 19th of the month: a ritual washing of the king, making payments of gold, fashioning silver into objects, and sacrificing two rams, two ewes, a bull, and three birds. The month of Raʾšu yêni included two cultic festivals. A one-day ritual began on the 1st day of the month with a cutting of the grapes and a peace offering to ʾIlu. The second festival, the Festival of Wine (riš yn), began in the middle of the month, with the full moon (KTU 1.41; 1.87 = RS 1.003; 056). Before the beginning of the festival, the king performed a ritual washing on the 13th, followed by a votive offering of “the best of the tribute” (riš argmn) on the 14th. 34 Multiple deities received offerings of meat, grain, oil, wine, perfumed oil, silver, and a recitation. The festival officially began with the king (or someone) entering the temple and pouring a liquid (wine?). In addition, he offered two ewes, a bull, and a city-dove offering for Ilu. 35 Johannes de Moor finds that people were able to drink until satisfied on the first day of the festival. 36 Offerings to multiple deities continued throughout the seven days. On the fifth day of the festival, the text notes a named ceremony within the larger festival. Lines 38b–41 (KTU 1.41) depict a dabḥu-

33.  Translation following Pardee, Ritual and Cult, 41–44. Also discussed in Loren R. Fischer, “A New Ritual Calendar from Ugarit,” HTR 63 (1970): 485–86. 34.  Pardee, Ritual and Cult, 63–64. 35. Following Pardee, ibid., 63. 36. De Moor, Seasonal Patterns, 59. De Moor notes, regarding the conversation between Hannah and Eli the priest, “[T]hus it becomes fully understandable why Eli took it for granted that Hannah was drunk at the festival (1 Sam 1:13)!”

32

Chapter 2

sacrifice taking place on the fifth day of the wine festival. 37 Levine interprets this ceremony as occurring on the 5th day of the month of Raʾšu yêni and not on the fifth day of the festival. If Levine is correct, then the festival text includes three named festivals on the following days of the month—Day 1; Days 5–7; and Days 13–14. The text does not clarify whether the terms fifth, sixth, and seventh are “days of the month” or “days of the festival.” Because lines 38b–48a directly follow the festival activities of the beginning of the month, and because the section begins with the purification of the king and ends (lines 47–48) with the king’s becoming profane, these three days are probably a continuation of the riš yn Festival—occurring over seven days. If this interpretation is correct, then ceremonies by unique names are attested as taking place within other festivals. The festival concludes at sundown on the seventh day, with the king leaving a state of holiness (KTU 1.41:47–48): “When the sun sets, the king will [be free (of cultic obligations)]” (ḥl mlk). A study of the riš yn festival reveals that Ugarit celebrated an agricultural festival during the fall. Offerings lasted for seven days, and the festival, although agricultural, happened on specific dates. As with the festival in the month of ʾIbʿaltu, there is minimal reference to Priestly involvement. Finally, the riš yn festival identifies rituals within the larger festival, including: a peace offering, a burnt offering, and the dabḥu-sacrifice. The text goes on to describe rites in the month after Raʾšu yêni. Although the text does not name the month, it presumably intends Nql (September– October, the month of the fall equinox and New Year). The text prescribes a one-day ritual occurring at the new moon. The king makes a sacrifice on the roof (KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003:50–51) b. gg ʾar[bʿ .] ʾarbʿ . mṯbt ʾazmr . bh, “on the roof, where there will be dwellings of branches, fo[ur] on one side, four on the other.” 38 The king offered a ram as a burnt offering and a bull and a ram as a peace offering seven times. The ritual concluded with the king speaking from his heart. After the setting of the sun, the king was again free of cultic obligation. 39 37. De Moor reads the kubādu ceremony, known at Emar (ibid.). In either case, a named rite is included within a larger festival complex (Pardee, Ritual and Cult, 64). 38.  Translation following Pardee, ibid., 54. Levine translates: “When the king offers sacrifice to PRGL.ṢQRN on the roof, there are f[our] and four stands bearing azmr fruit [placed] on it” (“Ugaritic Rites for the Vintage [KTU 1.41//1.87],” translated by Baruch A. Levine, Jean-Michel de Tarragon, and Anne Robertson, COS 1.95:301). 39. De Moor concludes that this is a clear allusion to the later Hebrew Festival of Sukkot. In linking the Hebrew Feast of Sukkot to riš yn, de Moor contends that Sukkot included the prognostication of rain for the coming year. De Moor states that [o]fficial Judaism celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles at this time of year. According to Zech. 14:17 it depended on the celebration of this Feast whether people might expect enough rain in the following agricultural year. Thus prayers for rain occupy a prominent place in the liturgy and the Mishna states the libations of water and wine should be poured on each day of the Feast (Sukka IV.9). Because this rite was designed to

Overview of Research

33

The evidence at Ugarit shows both similarities to and differences from the ritual texts from neighboring cultures. 40 Similar to other cultures, the Ugaritic year was likely based upon the lunar cycle. Month names are not fully understood, but the meanings appear to represent agricultural activities with no apparent theophoric connections. Major festivals were centered at the new moon and the full moon of the month. Festivals occurring at the new moon (1st of the month) typically lasted one day, while festivals in the middle of the month lasted seven days. In Ugaritic texts several multiday festivals included a number of shorternamed rites and sacrifices. This gives textual evidence that at least two named ritual events could have occurred within the same festival series of dates (forming a festival complex). The texts also demonstrate that an agricultural festival took place on a fixed date, at a fixed location, while not specifically tied to the harvest. KTU 1.41 and KTU 1.87 depict a festival of the grape harvest—riš yn meaning first of the wine. Clearly the actual harvest season would have fluctuated from year to year based upon the movement of the calendar and varying seasonal factors (rain and heat). Despite these fluctuations, the festival occurred on fixed dates and was linked to the grape harvest. While an in-depth analysis of Lev 23 in light of the festival calendar at Ugarit is outside the limits of this study, we should consider a few shared features. However, before listing similarities, a word of caution is needed. Ugaritic ritual texts may not be comparable to Lev 23 due to the differences between a prescriptive multimonth ritual calendar (Lev 23) and descriptive ritual texts (Ugarit). Therefore, any similarities will require further investigation prior to drawing formal conclusions. A better analysis might be the comparison of the Ugaritic ritual texts with Lev 16, relating the rites for the Day of Atonement. With this word of warning in mind, the similarities include: • Both texts combine named festivals into a larger festival complex. • Both texts hold festivals related to agriculture on fixed dates. promote rainfall, it may originally have been a rite of sympathetic magic. (de Moor, Seasonal, 59–99)

40.  Patrick D. Miller, Jr., “Aspects of the Religion of Ugarit,” in Ancient Israelite Reli­ gion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 61–62. Miller is referring to KTU 1.14 ii 20–32, “go up to the top of the tower, mount up to the summit of the wall. Lift up your hands to heaven, sacrifice to Bull your father El/Ilu. Serve Baal with your sacrifices, the Son of Dagan with your food. Then come down, Keret, from the roof, prepare food for the city, wheat for the house of Khabur; let bread of the 5th month(’s harvest) be cooked, food of the sixth month’s.” Translation from Wyatt, Religious, 188–89. The Keret text supports placing riš yn as the 7th month which follows the mention of the harvest of months 5 and 6.

34

Chapter 2 • Both texts muffle the role of the priesthood. • Both texts specify rituals ending in the evening.

In addition to similarities, the two texts depict several differences, including: • Leviticus 23 is a multimonth festival calendar, while the Ugaritic evidence includes ritual texts covering only one or possibly two months. • The king plays a prominent role at Ugarit but not in Lev 23. • The festivals at Ugarit include ritual cleansings not mentioned in Lev 23. 41 • The festivals at Ugarit include a rite of passage not found in Lev 23. Overview of the Akītu Festival in First-Millennium Babylon The 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival compilation is a fascinating and complex set of texts deserving much more space than is possible in this book. Julye Bidmead’s Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia offers a thorough modern treatment. 42 In addition, M. E. Cohen provides an analysis of the festival compilation text in The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Only a few central features of the text are outlined below, including: the annual observance of the text, purpose, key participants, role of the king (rite of passage), use of recitation (speech), role of figurines (sacred objects), emphasis on the night, lack of a role for the community, and political rejuvenation of the king. These features are used later in this chapter to evaluate Wagenaar’s argument that Lev 23 is substantially similar to the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu text compilation. The Babylonian New Year’s Festival is not described in one text from one point in time but in a compilation and transformation of multiple festival texts developed over at least two millennia in multiple ancient Near Eastern cultures (see the section above for a summary of the 3rd- and 2nd-millennia history of the festival). In addition, the festival compilation is not a festival calendar, covering multiple festivals over multiple months but a text (or set of texts) covering only one festival during one month. The first mention of an Akītu Festival appears in early Sumerian times (see above) and continues, almost continuously, until the 3rd century c.e. The 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Akītu Festival is the reconstructed compilation of four Seleucid-period texts: DT 15; 109; 114; MNB 1848. 43 While the Seleucid 41.  While not mentioned in Lev 23, a ritual bath is referred to in Lev 16. 42. Julye Bidmead, The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia (GDNES 2; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2002). 43.  For transliterations and translations, see F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens (Paris: Leroux, 1921), 127–54 (tablet sketch, transliteration, and translation [French]); Abraham J. Sachs, “Akkadian Rituals,” ANET 331–34 (translation); Galip Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals (Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham, 1976), 2–49 (transliteration and

Overview of Research

35

Table 1.  Akītu Festival Ritesa Day

Activities Festival Preparation

1

A priest opens the gate of the Esagil courtyard of the Temple of Marduk.

2

A priest offers prayers to Marduk for his blessing on the city and the people before the gate is opened for temple personnel.

3

Craftsmen create two figurines for the upcoming festival.

Festival Activities 4

The king goes to the Temple of Nabû and receives the scepter of kingship. Then, the king travels on to Borsippa (home of the god Nabû) and brings the god to Babylon in a procession. In the evening, the king reads Enūma Eliš.b

5

Purification of the Temple of Marduk;c the king appears before Marduk and is humbled before the god by being: (1) relieved of his crown and scepter; (2) slapped by the priest (as an accusation); (3) dragged to his knees by the priest’s pulling on his ear. The king then pleads his innocence to Marduk, who vows (through an oracle) to protect the king in the coming year. The priest then returns the king’s signs of office (crown and scepter) and again slaps the king. Tears of the king would confirm the oracle of Marduk.

6

The statue of Nabû processes to the Temple of Ninurta at Ehursagtila. The god then slays the two figurines that were made on Day 3. The figurines are decapitated and bound. They accompany Nabû to Esagil, where the god Nabû joins the gods of the surrounding cities—receiving a warm welcome.

7

No activities identified.

8

All the gods gather in the courtyard of Esagil and process to the Akītu-house outside the walls of Babylon. The gods split the offerings made by the king and questions could be asked about upcoming military campaigns. The gods remain in the Akītu-house until Day 11.

9

No activities identified.

10

No activities identified.

11

No activities identified.

12

All the gods return to their respective temples.

a.  The data for table 1 are taken from the compilation of DT 15, 114, 109; MNB 1848; as compiled by Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 127–54. b.  The reading of Enūma Eliš may have been a monthly occurrence and may not be unique to this New Year Festival; see discussion in van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 337. c.  The purification of the temple required the following steps: ritual bath of the priest in the river before sunrise, prayers, opening the doors of the temple, summoning the priests to conduct the ritual cleansing, sprinkling the water, smearing cedar tree resin on the doors of the temple, placing incense in the temple, slaughtering and decapitating a lamb, which is then dragged through the temple sanctuary, and removing the incense. The priests who conducted the ritual cleansing then discard the carcass of the offering in the river and remain outside the city until the 12th day of the festival (Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 127–54; Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 109–10).

36

Chapter 2

period postdates the Babylonian kings, scholars believethat “the liturgical texts must refer to the events of a much earlier celebration, probably during the Neo-Babylonian Empire when the Akītu observance was at its zenith. Under Seleucid domination, the priests of Marduk recorded the texts to preserve the last vestige of Babylonian culture.” 44 Table 1 outlines the activities of the 12-day festival. While the 3rd-millennium origins of the Akītu Festival clearly demonstrate a biannual festival, Bidmead asserts that the 1st-millennium ritual was probably an annual celebration. 45 Bidmead contends that the purpose of the festival was likely political— that is, designed to ensure the power of both the king and priesthood. 46 As such, the New Year’s Akītu Festival included a prominent role for the high priest (šešgallu). On the first five mornings of the festival, the high priest was obliged to rise before sunrise, take a ritual bath in water from both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, recite a prayer to Bēl, and open the doors of the temple. On each successive morning, the ritual bath occurred earlier, with the day 1 ritual occurring at 6 a.m. (dawn), and the ritual on the 5th day occurring at 2 a.m. (two double hours before dawn). In addition to the early morning cleansing ritual, the high priest conducted most of the rites. The priest was responsible for reciting prayers, reciting the literary texts, and conducting rituals with the king. The prominent role of the priest in translation); Walter Farber, “Kultische Rituale,” in TUAT, vol. 2: Orakel Rituale, Bau- und Votivinschriften, Lieder und Gebete, 212–22 (translation); M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 437–50 (translation). 44.  Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 107. 45.  Texts from Uruk continue to chronicle two Akītu Festivals in the 1st millennium (Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 86–111). Bidmead maintains that [t]he early Sumerian Akītu was celebrated according to the vegetation cycle at harvest and sowing seasons, both marking the start of the year. In Ur during the Ur III and the Isin-larsa periods, an Akītu Festival took place twice per year: in the seventh month, and in the first month. Eventually there was a change in the beginning of the calendar year from autumn to the spring, resulting in two Akītu Festivals: ‘Akītu of the spring (season)’ and the ‘Akītu of the harvest (season).’ Since both were celebrated at equinoctial times, when the days and nights were in perfect balance, they were also probably symbolically important to the ’perfect balance‘ of the sowing or harvest of the crop. It was always crucial to perform some sort of ritual as a request to the gods to ensure a healthy crop, or to thank the gods and celebrate the reaping of another successful harvest . . . The Akītu and New Year’s festival may have begun as separate events, but by the late first millennium the Babylonians celebrated one Akītu—the one at the beginning of Nisannu. It would appear, then, that the Akītu and the Babylonian New Year’s festival are one and the same. (Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 41–45)

This sentiment is echoed by Bidmead when she argues elsewhere that “the festival developed from a semiannual agricultural celebration to an annual Nisannu (spring) New Year’s national festival, celebrated in the capital city with the participation of the king and royal priesthood” (ibid., 1). 46. Ibid.

Overview of Research

37

the text led Bidmead to conclude that the priesthood held religious, socio­ economic, and political power. 47 Another key role in the Akītu Festival involved the king’s demonstrating divine support for his kingship by holding the hand of the god. On the eighth day of the festival, as the gods gathered in Esagil to accompany Marduk to the Akītu-chapel, the king took the hand of the image of Bēl. Karel van der Toorn asserts that the handholding was a significant feature of the tie between the cult and the monarchy. In taking the hand of the god, the king entered into an agreement with both the priesthood and people of Babylon, pledging to protect them and to uphold the duties of kingship. 48 F. Thureau-Dangin agrees, stating that Marduk symbolically passed authority to the king through the king’s gesture. 49 The Akītu Festival also included the public reading of an epic text. The high priest recited Enūma eliš (the Babylonian creation account) on the fourth day of the festival. This text recounts a struggle for power among the gods that resulted in the supremacy of Marduk, who then created both humans and the city of Babylon. Bidmead argues that the reading of this text on the 4th day of Nissanu 50 may have had both a theological and a political purpose. 51 Another component of the festival involved the creation and use of ritual figurines. On the morning of the third day, the high priest hired craftsmen (qurqurru) to create two figurines for use on the sixth day. The craftsmen constructed the two figurines—one out of cedar 52 and another out of tamarisk—each seven fingers high. The figurines were designed in different poses; however, both figurines had their right hands raised in prayer. In its 47.  48.  49.  50.  51. 

Ibid., 168. Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year,” 233. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 146. The text may have been read on the 4th day of each month. Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 67–68:

The Enūma eliš functions on at least two levels during the Akītu festival—the theological and the political. On a theological level, the Enūma eliš acts as a ‘sacred book,’ insomuch as it is recited during the New Year festival. The recounting of the creation epic functions within the rituals of the Akītu to reconnect the worshiper with primordial power while offering a religious interpretation for the creation and cosmic order of the world, the hierarchy of the deities, and the supremacy of Marduk and his chosen earthly representative. . . . the myth acted on a political level as yet another means of strengthening the social order—the supremacy of Babylon was affirmed and the monarchical and priestly order maintained for another year. As a text of political propaganda, the creation epic also reveals the elevation of Marduk to the top of the Babylonian pantheon and establishes Babylon as the city par excellence of ancient Mesopotamia.

52.  Cedar, when burned, makes a sweet smell and is used extensively throughout the ancient Near East in ritual fires. Likewise, tamarisk is a common wood used in rites (ibid., 56–68).

38

Chapter 2

left hand, one figurine held a scorpion; and in the left hand of the other was a snake. The two were dressed in red-brown garments adorned with precious stones and gold from the treasury of Marduk. While making the figurines, the craftsmen ate a portion of the daily ritual meal. When completed, the figurines were moved to the Temple of Madānu, the patron god of judges. Once Nabû arrived at the Eḫursagtila (on the sixth day) the figurines were struck (maḫāṣu) and burned before Nabû. 53 The purpose of the interaction between Nabû and the images is debated. Galip Çagirgan argues that the scorpion and snake represented evil intentions, which the god overcame by burning the figurines. 54 Although it’s possible, this solution ignores the clothing and the location of the statues in the temple of the judge. Bidmead agrees that the figurines symbolized evil, adding that the judge found them guilty, and they were then “purified” by the fire. 55 Andrew George advances the argument by adding that the clothing referred to the red clay that makes humans, and that the judge found humanity guilty of sin. The ritual then atoned for sins when the fire purified the images. 56 Van der Toorn sees the figurines as deities posing a danger to the Babylonian society. Their burning illustrated Nabû’s victory over the rival deities, ensuring his place as the god of Babylon. 57 Although the purpose for the figurines is uncertain, they were clearly important to the ritual observance. The Akītu Festival contained a procession that may have represented a rite of passage. The text records a meeting of the gods in the courtyard of Esagil on the 8th day of Nissanu. The gods traveled to hail Marduk as king of the gods and to present him gifts. After the meeting, the gods processed to the Akītu-house (at the edge of the city), where they remained until the 11th day of the month. On the 11th day, they returned to their respective temples. 58 Another key feature of the Akītu ritual was the focus on activities that occur during the night. The high priest began each morning by rising before sunrise and conducting a ritual purification bath (see table 1 above). Bid53.  Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 132. See lines 190–215. 54.  Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 209. 55.  Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 56–58. 56.  Andrew R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts (OLA 40; Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 413. 57.  Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year,” 335. 58.  Ibid., 338–39. Other scholars argue that the time at the Akītu-house represented the death and resurrection of Marduk (W. von Soden, “Gibt es ein Zeugnis dafür, dass die Babylonier an die Wiederauferstehung Marduks geglaubt haben?” ZA 51 [1955]: 130–66); a cosmic battle (Wilfred G. Lambert, “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious Year: The Conflict in the Akitu House,” Iraq 25 [1963]: 189–90); and heiros gamos (Edwin O. James, Seasonal Feasts and Festivals [New York: Barnes and Noble, 1962], 87). Bidmead and van der Toorn argue that scholars have rejected each theory (see Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 1–38; van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year,” 336–37).

Overview of Research

39

mead finds significance in these early morning hours before sunrise. “The murky period between midnight and early dawn has always been considered a liminal period. By rising when it is still dark, the šešgallu (high priest) can gain command of the rising sun and will have better control on the events of the day.” 59 The Akītu Festival preserved a minor role for the general population while the upper class maintained a central position in ritual activity. The general community functioned mainly as observers of the processions and occasionally as recipients of a portion of the ritual meal. Meanwhile, the role of the privileged class (the kidinnu) was emphasized on multiple occasions. On day two, line 32, the prayer appeals to Bēl to establish the protected citizens (lúṣâb kidinni šukun šubarrušunu). On the fifth day, amidst the negative confessions, the king confirmed that he had not struck the face of a kidinnu—meaning the king had not disrespected the political and economic well-being of the privileged class. The prominence of the kidinnu was further supported in prayers throughout the festival. This leads Bidmead to conclude that one function of the festival was to preserve class distinctions. 60 A final element of the Akītu Festival was the political rejuvenation of the king. The 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Festival included a ritual humiliation of the king, leading to a renewal of his power. During this ritual, the high priest removed the king’s trappings of office (mace, loop, and scepter) and dragged the king by his ears before Bēl. The king knelt on the ground and recited his negative confessions, saying that he had not: sinned before the god, neglected the god’s divinity, destroyed Babylon, forgotten rituals, or “struck the cheek” of the privileged class. After the king’s confession, the high priest recited a blessing from Bēl upon the king and restored the trappings of office. The ritual came to a close when the high priest slapped the king’s cheek. If tears flowed from the king’s eyes, then the blessing was confirmed. If the king did not have tears, then Bēl was angry, and the king would be overthrown. Van der Toorn maintains that the text illustrates the theme of renewal by describing the king’s undergoing several rites of passage. The king pledged his allegiance (to the god) through these rites and thus renewed his power. This renewal, unlike the renewal of seasons in agricultural festivals, celebrated the validation of the political, social, and religious order of the Babylonian community. 61 Bidmead adds that the confession was a promise to maintain the political and socio­economic order for the coming year. 62 59.  Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 110. 60.  Ibid., 5. 61.  Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 333; Karel van der Toorn, “Het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest,” Phoenix (1990): 16. 62.  Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 81–82.

Chapter 2

40 Summary

Rituals in the ancient Near East were often oriented around a six-month cycle, with major events occurring in the 1st and 7th months. These festivals shared three common themes: agriculture, ancestor worship, and care of the local deity and temple. Agricultural rites (harvesting or planting) were often held on specified dates at specified central locations. During these months, rituals were clustered around the 1st day of the month (New Year’s celebrations) for a short duration of one to three days and again around the full moon (14th or 15th of the month) for a longer period—often seven days. In addition, these celebrations sometimes incorporated a second, named ritual, either the day before or during the primary festival. Finally, while the festivals generally had names, occasionally they were anonymous (unnamed). Focusing specifically on the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival, we have highlighted the following aspects of the festival: • The 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Festival was annual. • The Akītu Festival text is a descriptive text discussing the events of one festival over one month of the year. • The purpose of the text is political with the high priest and king as the primary actors. • The Babylonian festival emphasized the role of the high priest and the priesthood. • The king used a handholding ritual with the god to promote politically the god’s support for both the king’s office and the current king. • The Babylonian festival included the public reading of an epic creation account for both theological and political reasons. • The Akītu text incorporated a procession and rite of passage during which the god had to prove its superiority. • Figurines were constructed to effect the renewal of the god’s protection of the people. • The high priest conducted rituals in the early hours before sunrise— perhaps to gain command of the rising sun in the Babylonian festival. • The role of the community and general population was confined to watching processions and eating the occasional festival meal. The privileged citizens, by contrast, played a central role and received prayers and oaths of support. • The Babylonian New Year’s Festival included a political rejuvenation ceremony during which the king was first humbled, and then his support was renewed by the god. We have reviewed ritual calendars in Mesopotamia and the northern Levant from the 3rd through 1st millennia to identify major trends in festival

Overview of Research

41

development and to highlight shared ritual experiences. We return to this material later to provide a context for the comparative study of Lev 23 and Emar 446. In addition, some of this evidence is used in a critique of Wagenaar’s comparative method at the end of this chapter.

Overview of Leviticus 23 Research in Light of Related Biblical Texts Introduction We now turn to exploring research conducted on Lev 23. As discussed in chap. 1, a thorough comparative study requires performing an intrabiblical analysis before conducting a comparative analysis between a biblical text and an extrabiblical text. Therefore, by providing a contextual background for the history of scholarship (and possibly for the history of transmission), I want in this section to provide the reader with a better understanding of the relationship between Lev 23 and the related festival passages. Leviticus 23 relates the rites for a multimonth festival calendar. The calendar includes festivals occurring on both fixed and relative dates. Some activities seem tied to agriculture, while others demonstrate no agricultural ties. In addition, several of the named festivals in Leviticus share details with festival calendars in Exod 23; 34; Num 28–29; Deut 16; and Ezek 45. While these calendars exhibit many similarities, there are also differences. These differences, considering the larger methodology of historical criticism, raise several questions: (1) Why do some festival calendars appear tied to the harvest, while others demonstrate fixed dates? (2) How can some festival calendars allude to offerings at local sanctuaries, while other texts specify a centralized offering at the Jerusalem temple? (3) How can some festival texts appear to show the New Year in the spring and others in the fall? (4) If many of the festivals were associated with the harvests, how could the observance of some festivals occur before the harvest was ripe? (5) Why are festivals named in some texts and unnamed in others? Similarly, (6) how could the Israelites hold a harvest festival at a central location on a fixed date, when the crops ripened at different times in the hills and valleys? Further, (7) how could a farmer who was busy with the harvest take seven days away from his fields to hold a celebration at the Temple of Yhwh? To answer these questions, scholars 63 have examined the vocabulary, syntax, structure, and grammar of Lev 23 in light of other passages in Leviticus, the broader Pentateuch, and extrabiblical texts. Over the past two 63.  Over the past 50 years, several scholars have contributed, in significant ways, to the discussion of Leviticus, the Holiness Code, and Lev 23. Due to space constraints, this overview of scholarship is limited to a short list; however, the work of Wenham, Hess, Hartley, Joosten, Rendtorff, Radner, Rooker, Childs, Gerstenberger, and Watts, among others, could easily have been included in this summary. Even though these authors are

Chapter 2

42

Order of Development

Table 2.  Wellhausen’s Festival Text Development

Text

Source

Comments

1

Exod 23:14–19; 34:18–26

J

The noun ‫( חג‬feast) is identified as a marker for J/D. The use of ‫( אסיף‬ingathering) is a marker for J. Local agricultural offerings are by the individual or clan.

2

Deut 16:1–17.

D

The noun ‫( חג‬feast) is identified as a marker for J/D. The process of centralization begins with D. However, most feast days are still local and agriculturally motivated (7th century b.c.e.).

3

Ezek 45:18–25

4

Lev 23:9–22, 39–44; Num 28–29

Forerunner of the Priestly legislator. P

Marked by ritualization. Movement toward historicalization as a motive and away from agricultural motives. Adds dates for centralized community dues and diminishes the role of individual offerings (late 5th century b.c.e.—exilic and postexilic).

centuries, these analyses led scholars to various conclusions about the following questions: • Who wrote Lev 23, or which sources or redactors were involved? • What features characterize each source? • What explains the unity of Lev 23, considering the diversity of sources? • Why was Lev 23 written? • When was Lev 23 written? Wagenaar, who offers some of the most recent scholarship, concludes that Lev 23 is the compilation of a Priestly author and a post-Priestly author. Both authors operated in the exilic or postexilic era expressing a festival calendar view: beginning in the spring; using fixed dates; and severing an earlier tie to an agrarian calendar. Before discussing Wagenaar’s arguments, however, I explore the flow of historical-critical scholarship (for a few select scholars) over the past 200 years. Wellhausen Julius Wellhausen built on the work of Baruch Spinoza to answer the question: How can we explain the unity of the Pentateuch—considering not summarized here, many of their advancements to the discussion are included in the discussion of Lev 23 in chap. 3.

Overview of Research

43

the diversity of sources? 64 Wellhausen advanced the earlier identification of sources, arguing a comprehensive plan for the development of the Pentateuch, called the Documentary Hypothesis. In this plan, he identified three authorial traditions in the development of the festival calendar texts: J, D, and P. Table 2 summarizes his theory of the development of the text. In Prolegomena, Wellhausen devotes a chapter to the discussion of Israel’s sacred feasts. He defines a sacred feast as “regularly recurring occasions for sacrifice.” 65 The earliest recorded rituals of the festival cycle are based in agriculture and include the feasts found in Exod 23 and 34. The use of the noun ‫( חג‬feast) and the autumn ingathering festival using the term ‫( אסיף‬ingathering) identify these early festivals, including unleavened bread (‫)מצות‬, harvest (‫)קציר‬, and ingathering (‫)אסיף‬. Wellhausen goes on to associate these festivals with the J source. He identifies ingathering (‫ )אסיף‬as the wording of J in place of ‫( סכות‬booths/tabernacles), which D uses for the same festival. 66 The festival cycle begins in the spring with Passover (‫ )פסח‬and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (‫)מצות‬. 67 Unlike the agricultural festivals, these are given a historical motive associated with the exodus. 68 The J version of the festival season (Exod 23; 34) depicts an as-yet unfixed festival season.The ‫ פסח‬and ‫ מצות‬are celebrated when the harvest of barley begins, ‫ קציר‬follows with the wheat harvest, and ‫ אסיף‬brings the festival cycle to completion with the harvest of the vineyards and olives. Wellhausen finds J’s temporal identification “rather vague and shifting.” 69 The D author centralizes festival activities and identifies fixed intervals for rites. The Deuteronomist does not call for one general offering by the community. Instead, individuals make private offerings. 70 Wellhausen goes on to argue that before the Hebrews entered the land they were nomadic

64. Baruch Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise (2nd ed.; trans. Samuel Shirley; Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001). 65. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (SPRTS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 83. 66.  The Festival of Booths, according to Wellhausen, finds its origin in the vineyard harvest, when the entire household relocated to the fields, living in improvised shelters, to complete the harvest (cf. Isa 1:8). Similarly, Wellhausen concludes that the harvest festival in J (‫ )קציר‬and the Feast of Weeks (‫ )שבעת‬in D refer to the same feast of the wheat reaping, occurring in the early summer. Wellhausen finds a natural agricultural origin for both of these harvest festivals. 67.  For both the J and D text. 68.  Wellhausen notes that the term “feast” (‫ )חג‬in the earliest references is only associated with ‫ מצות‬and only later becomes associated with ‫פסח‬. He concludes that the festival complex, known as the month of corn ears (‫)חדש האביב‬, begins with the barley harvest and ends with the wheat harvest. 69.  Ibid., 90. 70. Ibid. Wellhausen asserts that the D author, while adding a historical motive, focuses on the gift of the land and entry into Canaan.

44

Chapter 2

and had no need for agricultural feasts. 71 The unifying feature for each of these festivals is the “land.” The people give offerings to Yhwh in deference for the bounty he has provided 72 (i.e., Hos 2; 9). The Priestly Code (P) of Lev 23 and Num 28–29 shows a marked contrast to the local agrarian festivals focused on the land. Wellhausen maintains that the focus of these celebrations is now “ritualized” and place-centered. Prescribed offerings are the norm and individual voluntary offerings are of secondary importance. The only vestige of the earlier J and D familycentered feasts is the local celebration of the Passover meal. The firstfruits aspect of the festivals is played down in favor of ritualistic dues. 73 For Wellhausen, the feasts of the Priestly Code have lost the motive behind the process, leaving only a symbolic remnant of the old custom. 74 In both Lev 23 and Num 28–29 the ritualization of the process becomes fixed, while the connection to the land and offerings to Yhwh are silenced. As the festivals lost their connection to the land and became increasingly centralized—moving away from a local family observance—it became necessary to fix dates for the feasts. Wellhausen finds that the use of dates is unique to P and was first set for the autumn vintage festival at the full moon of the 7th month. The festivals during the first of the year were entirely dependent on the regional ripening of the wheat and barley (which ripens in different regions at different times). Therefore, these festivals were more difficult to convert to a fixed date. He contends that the Passover, as a lunarbased annual feast was the first to be fixed. The dates of the balance of the spring festivals were subsequently set following the Passover celebration. 75 The duration of the feasts was also refined when the festival rites were edited by Yahwistic author, then by the Deuteronomist, and ultimately by the author of the Priestly Code. In J, the duration of each feast is loosely defined. The Deuteronomist sets out a day for the Passover (‫ )פסח‬and a week for both the feasts of Ingathering (‫ )אסיף‬and Booths (‫)סכות‬. The Priestly author of Lev 23 and Num 28 further refines these time frames. As with D, 71.  Ibid., 93. While the Canaanites gave tribute to Baal for his bounty, the Israelites, as a profession of faith, similarly gave tribute to Yhwh for his provision. According to Wellhausen, the earliest example of Hebrew assimilation of Canaanite festal activities is evident in the autumn vintage celebrations at Shechem (i.e., Judg 9:27; 21:19; 1 Sam 1). 72.  Ibid., 97. 73.  Ibid., 100. 74. Ibid. 75.  Wellhausen asserts that, once the original agricultural linkage with the celebrations was severed, new meanings could be created according to the desires of the local leadership (ibid., 102). Similarly, the Passover Feast was no longer just a memorial to Yhwh for striking down the firstborn of Egypt but now represented the salvation of the firstborn of Israel. Wellhausen observes that some festival calendars emphasize the role of the individual and family, while others focus on the role of the priest. This point is central to the distinction between the festival calendars and will be discussed in the section on Lev 23.

Overview of Research

45

the ‫ פסח‬is set to the 14th of the 1st month (full moon). However, the Priestly Code clarifies that ‫ מצות‬begins on the next day (15th) and does not overlap with the Passover celebration—thus the two represent an eight-day celebration ending on the 21st day of the 1st month. Wellhausen asserts that this change creates an extraordinary feast day after the Passover. Similarly, the Priestly Codes of Leviticus and Numbers add an eighth day for the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. He concludes that “from all this it is indisputable that the Priestly Code has its nearest relations with Deuteronomy, but goes beyond it in the same direction as that in which Deuteronomy itself goes beyond the Jehovistic legislation.” 76 Wellhausen goes on to argue the exilic Priestly Code makes other alterations in the festival cycle. The festival cycle is extended and interrupted adding a New Year’s Festival on the 1st day and Day of Atonement on the 10th day of the 7th month. In addition, he finds two calendar year systems in P. The first, an ecclesiastical year, is autumnal—similar to that contained in D and J. This yearly cycle falls on the first new moon of autumn and is distinct from the civil New Year, which was transferred to spring in the exilic period. The transfer from a calendar that begins in the autumn to one that begins in the spring, according to Wellhausen, is initiated through a Babylonian influence during the exile. Noth Martin Noth builds upon the earlier work of Wellhausen adopting some arguments from Klostermann and von Rad. He advances the discussion by adding that the formation of the Pentateuch relied not on authors, but on the thematic confessions preserved through an oral tradition recited during cultic celebrations. 77 Table 3 shows Noth’s view of the development of the biblical festival texts below. Noth argues that Lev 17:1–26:46 constitutes a separate literary complex known as the Holiness Code. The code, originally proposed by August Klostermann, exhibits the shared belief that the holiness of Yhwh 76.  Ibid., 105. Wellhausen sees the contrast between the seven-day festival in 1 Kgs 8:66 and that in 2 Chr 7:9 (which holds a sacred assembly on the eighth day) as evidence of a shift between D (dated to the monarchy) and P (dated to the exile). 77. Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. with an introduction by Bernhard W. Anderson; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 2. Like von Rad, Noth finds that a study of these individual traditions is essential for understanding the development of the Pentateuch. Unlike von Rad, Noth argues against the conclusion that the initial work included six books (Hexateuch). Instead, Noth maintains that the Pentateuch included Genesis–Numbers with a highly abbreviated Deuteronomy. Noth concludes that “there was never a ‘Hexateuch’ in the customary sense, . . . . before it was united with the Deuteronomistic History, [the Pentateuch] comprised in its final form only the books from Genesis through Numbers, and in addition several passages within Deut 31–34” (ibid., 6).

Chapter 2

46

Order of Development

Table 3.  Noth’s Festival Text Developmenta

Text

Source

Comments

1

Exod 34:18, 22, 23

J

Recognizes a threefold group of feasts. Tied to the natural annual cycle of agriculture and harvest. Pre-Israelite cultic tradition. This text shows signs of later redaction with the use of newer feast names (Feast of Weeks for Feast of Ingathering) and reference to the wheat harvest as the most important aspect of the of the grain harvest.b Preserves an early oral tradition and was recorded in the monarchic period.

2

Exod 23:14–17

Book of the Covenant (RJE)

Apodictic in style and still associated with agriculture and local sanctuaries. Uses the oldest extant names for the three feasts. Book of the Covenant is identified as a self-contained book of law inserted into the pentateuchal narrative.c Predeuteronomic but after settlement in an agricultural land (Canaan).

3

Deut 16:1–17

D

Connects the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread.

4

Lev 23

H

Similar to Ezekiel in that both contain a twofold list of feasts. The dissimilarities between the two show that both date to an earlier cultic tradition. The similarity in dating scheme points to a writing no earlier than late preexilic times (more likely exilic); however, its material may be older.

5

Ezek 45:21–25

6

Num 28–29

RP

Postexilic expansion of P.

a.  The framework for the Pentateuch consists of the Priestly narrative. This narrative begins with Gen 1 and concludes in Deuteronomy with the death of Moses. The objective of P is illuminated by its focus on Sinai and not the later occupation on the land. b. Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (trans J. S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 264. c.  Ibid., 173.

requires the holiness of Israel. 78 While sections of H may be very old, Noth finds that the “Holiness Code might be placed in the period between the later days and end of the pre-exilic cultus and its new development in the 78. August Klostermann, Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem verständnis und seiner entste­hungschichte (Leipzig: Deichert, 1907), 368–419.

Overview of Research

47

postexilic Jerusalem sanctuary—a process taking place perhaps in several stages.” 79 Noth closely associates the festival calendar of Lev 23 with the feasts of Deut 16. He contends that the pericope does not exhibit a unity because the passages contain both first- and third-person references (vv. 2, 4). For Noth, this mixing of references points to the later addition of the Sabbath observance of v. 3. Furthermore, the concluding passage in vv. 37–38 followed by additional information about the Feast of Booths in vv. 39–43 disrupts the unity of the passage. He concludes that this apparent disruption in the flow of the passage is evidence of disunity and possible later redaction, dividing the whole into two primary sections. 80 The first contains short regulations outlining dates and activities for yearly rites (vv. 5–8, 23ff.). The second includes more-detailed ritual formulas for conducting festivals that are not specifically dated (vv. 9–21, 40ff.). He finds that these two distinct units indicate a nonliterary origin to the festival calendar that hinders the assignment of sources and redactors to the material. He goes on to discuss the conflicting two- and threefold rhythm of the festival cycle, finding the threefold cycle exhibited in the older Book of the Covenant (Exod 23), which is tied to the agricultural and harvest cycle. This agriculturally based threefold cycle was already present in the land—before the Hebrew occupation—and was adopted and devoted to Yhwh after the people settled in Canaan. The cultic celebrations developed, as evident in Deut 16 and Ezek 45, into a twofold cycle by the end of the exile, with Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread in the 1st month and “The Feast” in the 7th month. Noth contends that Lev 23 has knowledge of both traditions and endeavors to reconcile these twofold and threefold festival cycles. 81 Noth exemplifies how German scholars of the early and mid-20th century interpreted and elaborated on Wellhausen’s theories. While accepting 79. Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 128. In The Laws in the Pentateuch, Noth expresses the difficulty in dating H and presents a potentially earlier date for the formation of H. The dating of the Code of Holiness is a particularly difficult problem, since grounds may plausibly be adduced for a pre-exilic as well as an exilic or post-exilic, a pre-deuteronomic as well as a post-deuteronomic attribution. The probability seems to be that the Code of Holiness should be brought down to about the time of Deuteronomy, with which it shares the closest affinities in its basic ideas, except that these are given a special priestly slant. In the matter of the unity of cult centers alone does the Code of Holiness appear to contradict Deuteronomy. The earliest possible date for the Code of Holiness would be the very end of the Judean monarchy. (The Laws on the Pentateuch and Other Studies [London: SCM, 1984], 8 n. 11)

80.  I argue below that this style of adding information about a festival is attested in other ancient Near Eastern festival texts and does not necessarily indicate a later redaction of the text. 81.  Ibid., 167.

Chapter 2

48

Order of Development

Table 4.  Knohl’s Festival Text Development

Text

Source

Comments

1

Exod 23:14–19; 34:18–26

JE

Knohl only specifically mentions Exod 34 as a JE text.a

2

Num 28:1–2a, 3–5, 7–21, 24–29, 31b–29:4, 7–10, 12–15, 17–8, 20–21, 23–24, 26–27, 29–30, 32–33, 35–37, 39

PTb

PT dates to between the mid-10th and mid-8th centuries b.c.e.c

3

Lev 23:1–2a, 4–8, 26–8aα, 33–38

PT

PT holds faith as the primary consideration. The popular experience of faith is at a preliminary level, while the Priestly faith experience is viewed at a higher level.

4

Num 28:2b, 6, 22–23, 30–31a; 29:5–6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38

HS

The HS text is intended to correct three developments in Israelite society: the spread of idolatrous practices, including worship of other gods and divination; the polarization of social classes; and separation of ethical conduct from the practice of religion.d

5

Lev 23:2b–3, 9–25, 28aβ–32, 39–43

HS

HS incorporates the community’s experience and rejects PT’s bifurcation between Genesis and Moses.e

6

Deut 16:1–17

D

Dates to the 7th century b.c.e. under Josiah.f

7

Ezek 45:21–25

a. Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 16. b.  PT distinguishes between two expressions of faith: the first is the faith presented in Genesis, which is correlated with the rational moral aspects of the divinity; and the second is the faith of Moses. Ibid., 197. c.  Ibid., 220. d.  Ibid., 205. e.  Milgrom (Leviticus 23–27, 2056) argues against Knohl’s “priestly-popular” theory. Knohl argues that HS is influenced by popular tradition. As such, HS includes impersonal descriptions of God and his actions, along with anthropomorphic imagery and expressions of a direct and close relation between God and the people Israel. Therefore, HS expresses both the nation’s and individuals’ view of God’s work and blessing (Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 197–98). f.  Ibid., 207–8. Knohl goes on to argue that one of the significant changes in expression between HS and D is the different view of Josiah’s and Hezekiah’s reforms. HS highlights how Hezekiah removed the high places and the altars while allowing the cult places outside Jerusalem to retain their sanctuary. D emphasizes Josiah’s destruction of these cult sites.

that several sources compiled the Pentateuch (explaining the diversity in the text), Noth finds that those sources developed from older oral tradition

Overview of Research

49

(moving the origin of the text to a time earlier than the time determined by Wellhausen). Moreover, he expands these sources, adopting Klostermann’s H (Holiness Code) and identifying a common precursor to JE—which was G. H is separate from P and dates, perhaps, to the end of the Judean monarchy (resulting in G-JE-D-H-P). Knohl Israel Knohl views the formation of the Pentateuch as the compilation of various schools of theology (often overlapping in time). These schools developed over several hundred years and were compiled by a redactor (identified as HS) during the Babylonian Exile or during the Persian period after the return. Knohl advances the discussion by separating the Priestly corpus into two groups (PT [Priestly Torah] and HS [Holiness School]) and by usng a detailed literary and morphological methodology. His analysis concludes that the P source (PT) and the H source (HS) predate D, with HS active from the time of Ahaz and Hezekiah (8th century b.c.e.), through the exile and return. 82 Therefore, each of the major sources was active prior to the exile (contra Wellhausen). The fundamental distinction between PT and HS lies in the desire of the authors. Specifically, HS seeks the attainment of holiness for the nation. 83 HS is concerned with both the Priestly and popular (community) expression of faith, applying the call for holiness to both. Holiness is no longer limited to the narrow confines of the temple and the priesthood. Instead, it expands to all areas of social life, enveloping the entire nation. The author challenges the Israelites to accept a holy lifestyle in all areas of their lives (diet, family, friends, and work). 84 Knohl draws distinctions between the PT and the HS corpus (based on the diversity in vocabulary, morphology, and syntax), arguing that HS grew out of the PT narrative. 85 Leviticus 23 and Num 28–29 are examples of texts that originated with PT and were later augmented and redacted by HS to reflect HS’s theology. The early Priestly authors had two festival lists, Lev 23 and Num 28–29. While both PT texts used similar language, one text (Lev 23) included a list of “sacred occasions” and a summary of the obligations and themes. The other (Num 28–29) detailed the sacrificial activities at each

82.  Knohl argues that the core of PT was composed between the 10th and 8th centuries b.c.e.; however, he allows for the preservation of PT theology in later times. “The halakah of Qumran and the Sadducees. . . . preserve the hard core of the cultic conception prevalent in PT” (Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 224). In a final paragraph, Knohl postulates that the theology of HS may be a precursor to the Pharisees, while the theology of the Sadducees may find a connection with the theology of PT (ibid., 224). 83.  Ibid., 198. 84. Ibid. 85.  Ibid., 200.

50

Chapter 2

festival. 86 Knohl theorizes that the HS author, whose theology addressed the entire nation and included popular customs, chose to adapt Lev 23 because it dealt only with the general aspects of ritual. 87 During this process of adaptation to HS’s practices, the later author introduced the ritual of the wave offering of the sheaf, the wave offering of the two loaves, and the taking of the “Four Kinds” with the accompanying rejoicing before Yhwh. The HS information regarding the Feast of Tabernacles was appended to the end of the PT text, but the remaining editions required redaction of the PT text to allow for the addition of the new HS information. Generally, because HS augmented and usually agreed with PT, the core of the PT text was allowed to stand. Therefore, the PT phrase “[a]nd you shall bring an offering by fire to the Lord” was retained to point the reader to Num 28–29 for detailed offering protocols. HS only added detailed offerings to Lev 23 when the indicated offerings were not discussed in Num 28–29—i.e., the ritual of the day on which the wave offering of the sheaf was performed. Knohl advances the discussion of Lev 23 in several significant ways. First, he employs a detailed linguistic methodology to analyze the passage. Using linguistic words, phrases, and morphology, he breaks the Priestly writings into PT and HS (explaining the diversity). Second, he concludes that the HS corpus is much larger than maintained by earlier scholars. Third, he argues that PT is earlier than HS and that both are earlier than D—dating PT between the 10th and 8th centuries b.c.e. and HS beginning in the 8th century and active through the exile. At the same time Knohl was employing a linguistic method to analyze the text, another scholar ( Jacob Milgrom) was actively using a similar methodology to explore the Priestly writings. Milgrom While Knohl finds substantial evidence for H and H redactor (HR) across the Pentateuch, Milgrom limits his analysis to the Priestly text. 88 He, like 86.  Knohl’s conclusion will be supported by my analysis of the features shared by Emar 446 and Lev 23, which include a summary of obligations and themes for multiple cultic festivals. 87.  Ibid., 11. 88.  Consistent with prior scholars, Milgrom identifies the termini and extent of the H corpus as Lev 17–27. Chapter 17 exhibits similarities with both the H material in the latter chapters and the P material in chaps. 1–16. For this reason, he concludes that chap. 17 was likely an attempt by the H redactor to connect the two blocks of Levitical material. The second terminus for the corpus is set at chap. 27, which links to both chaps. 25 and 26 (linked by the law of jubilee to chap. 25 and the same votive context found in chap. 26) and chap. 1. While chap. 26 holds the traditional blessings and combinations that close the law corpora in Exodus and Deuteronomy, Milgrom argues that chap. 27 was placed at the end of the corpus by HR to supplement and revise the “relevant” P material in the first half of Leviticus (Leviticus 23–27, 1333). Milgrom agrees that the H redactor (HR) worked on material outside the Levitical H corpus (in Exodus and Numbers) but only in passages with established H criteria (formulas, style, vocabulary, and ideology)

Overview of Research

51

Order of Development

Table 5.  Milgrom’s Festival Text Development

Text

1

Exod 23:14–19; 34:18–26

JE

2

Num 28–29

P

3

Lev 23:1–2aα, 4–41

H

Eighth century b.c.e. (including older work and later redaction).

4

Deut 16:1aα, b, 3–4, 8

D

Seventh century b.c.e.

5

Exod 34:18–26

Ed

Milgrom follows Ginsberg’s conclusion that Exod 34 is a Deuteronomistic revision of Exod 23 (preexilic).a

6

Lev 23:2aβ–3, 42–43

HR

Composed during the Babylonian Exile.

Source

Comments

a.  Milgrom states that Ginsberg “convincingly demonstrates that the calendar of Exod 34 is a Deuteronomistic revision of the calendar of Exod 23. . . . Differing with its D prototype, Exod 34:22a restores the firstfruits offering of wheat (an indication that Ed is aware of Pre-H1)” (Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 1996). H. L. Ginsberg, “The Grain Harvest Laws of Lev. 9–22 and Num. 28:26–31,” PAAJR 46–47 (1979–80): 141–53; idem, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982).

Knohl, argues for the JE-P-H-D order of sources. However, he advances the discussion by: (1) consolidating Num 28–29 to P and moving the date of authorship earlier; (2) attributing a portion of Exodus to a Deuteronomistic redactor (maintaining a preexilic date); (3) generally reducing the scope of the work by the H redactor; and (4) assigning the majority of Lev 23 to H. In addition, he segments the H text into multiple traditions.

that served as transitions between P and non-P texts, which could be removed without disruption to the underlying P passages. Milgrom does address some of the corpus attributed to H by Knohl in Numbers, finding only Num 3:11–13 attributable to H. Contra Knohl, Milgrom assigns the balance (1:48–5:10; 6:22–10:28; chaps. 17–18) to P or P2 and not to H or HR. Other passages that Milgrom attributes to H (or HR) include: Exod 29:38–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; Lev 3:16b–17; 6:12–16; 7:22–27, 38b (?); 8:35; 9:17b (?); 10:10–11; 11:43–45; 12:8 (?); 14:34–53 (?), 54–57  (?); 15:31; 16:2bβ, 29–34a; Num 3:11–13; 8:1–4, 14, 15b–19; 15. Additional passages that he tentatively assigns to H are: Exod 6:2–8; 12:17–20, 43–50; Num 3:40–51; 5:1–3; 9:9–14; 10:10; 15; 19:10b–13; 28:2b; 29:39; 33:50–56; 35:1–36:13. Because HR passages tend to join P and non-P texts and because they occasionally bind JE and P material, Milgrom concludes that “there is a strong possibility that it [HR] is the redactor of Exodus and Numbers as well as Leviticus” (ibid., 1334–44).

52

Chapter 2

Milgrom divides the H corpus into four strata: Pre-H1, Pre-H2, H, and HR. Pre-H1 is pre-Hezekian and prescribes rites for the individual. Pre-H2 focuses on the local sanctuary and establishes the notion of ‫ שבת‬as a Sabbath week. Milgrom finds that Pre-H2 preserves a group of early pre-H1 glosses. 89 H comprises roughly 95 percent of the corpus and is a product of the 8th century b.c.e. 90 While Knohl identifies H as a “school,” Milgrom maintains that H was active over a short, finite period and was not a school but a generation of progressive priests who effected significant change. 91 The final stratum of the H corpus is in HR, who probably operated during the Babylonian Exile. HR was responsible for editing the P material and possibly for the redaction of P and JE in Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus. Because D is preexilic (7th century), Milgrom orders the source development broadly as JE, P (in its two strata—P1 and P2), H (first three strata— Pre-H1, Pre-H2, and H), D, and HR—with all but HR comprising preexilic material. The Priestly sources of P and H are differentiated by their literary structure, vocabulary, style, and theology. 92 Literary structures typical of H’s 89.  Ibid., 1345. 90.  Milgrom insists on the preexilic nature of H, giving 11 points of evidence and citing vocabulary, theological, liturgical, and historical references that are consistent with a preexilic composition (ibid., 1361–64). 91. Ibid. 92.  Milgrom asserts that the vocabulary found in H is often different from that of P. Building on Knohl’s findings, Milgrom suggests refinements in the vocabulary of H. First, H uses a distinctive terminology. This terminology is often found in a unique vocabulary. However, a distinction can also be identified in H’s nuance of meaning. Examples include P’s expression “that person will be cut off [in the Niphal] from his people” (Lev 7:20), which is nuanced in H to “I will cut him off from among his people” (using the Hiphil form of the verb; Lev 17:10). H’s alteration of P points to the shift from third person to first person in H’s writing of Yhwh’s direct speech. Another nuance is found in H’s metaphoric use of P’s terms. Both H and P use the term ‫טמא‬, which Milgrom contends means “ritual impurity” in P and “moral impurity” in H. He goes on to argue that H blurs the meaning of many of P’s words and expands their range of meaning. Examples of these expansions include ‫מעל‬ (“sanctum desecration” in P and any “rebellion or treachery” in H); ‫“( משכן‬inner curtains of the Tabernacle” in P expanded to include “divine presence” in H); in P ‫( חקה‬in the feminine) means “statute” and ‫( חק‬in the masculine) means “dues or assigned portion,” while in H the two are interchangeable. Finally, Milgrom states that H occasionally reverses the precision of P’s meaning. In Lev 23:10, 17, H identifies the raw barley offering of firstfruits as ‫ ראשית‬and the cooked loaves offering during the festival of first wheat as ‫בכורים‬. P uses the opposite meanings with ‫ בכורים‬referring to raw produce and ‫ ראשית‬to cooked or processed products. Milgrom goes on to give 12 examples of P’s terms that H either expands or conflates. In addition to structure and vocabulary, he offers 19 examples of ways in which H’s style differs from P’s. Building on Paran, Knohl, and Schwartz, Milgrom illuminates H’s propensity to redact and invert P’s prior work. In Lev 19:3, H inverts P’s order of father

Overview of Research

53

corpus include large chiasms, small chiasms, inclusions, and the use of the number seven. Structurally, H includes large chiasms (introversions) and parallel panels that identify key theological propositions at the chiastic center (X). I discuss these features further in chap. 3. Milgrom, contra Knohl, identifies Lev 23 as entirely the work of the various H authors and not partially the work of P that was then revised and elaborated upon by H. The focus of the chapter is not the priests, as in chap. 22, but the Israelites. 93 While Milgrom notes that the priests were inextricably involved in the rites, their role is minimized in the text, showing that Israel is responsible for maintaining the public cult. 94 As noted in table 5, different linguistic features break the chapter into component parts attributed to Pre-H1, Pre-H2, H, and HR. Milgrom argues that all but the final redactor are preexilic, and all four strands are post-P. The key to his assertion is the frequent phrase (vv. 25, 27, 36 [bis], 37) ‫“( והקרבתם אשה ליהוה‬you shall present the food gift to Yhwh”), which points to Num 28–29 (attributed to P) for specifics of the offering. That Lev 23 only specifies the components of the sacrifices where Num 28–29 is silent (the barley offerings of vv. 12–13) or where H chooses to change the offering (the wheat offerings of vv. 18–19) supports the argument that the author of Lev 23 depended on Num 28–29. 95 and mother in the Decalogue (similarly, in vv. 3–4, H inverts commandments 1, 2, 4, and 5). According to Milgrom, in 19:5–8 H simplifies and shortens P’s parallel passage. In the same way, 23:8 simplifies Num 28:18–25. Other stylistic hallmarks of H are altering word order for emphasis (Lev 19:9; 24:15), using verbal inclusions, increasing clause lengths, and employing ‫ אשר‬in laws (see chap. 3 for details). 93.  Ibid., 2054. 94.  Ibid., 1951. Milgrom points to Yhwh’s repeated address to Israel, ‫והקרבתם‬ ‫אשה ליהוה‬, “you will make an offering by fire to Yhwh” (vv. 8, 25, 27, 36) as key to the concept that Yhwh is urging the people of Israel to establish and maintain the public cult. 95.  Milgrom identifies each of the four strands of H as expressing a shift in the patterns and expectations of worship. Pre-H1 is identified as dating to the pre-Hezekian period and is characterized by worship at the local level. In this stratum, the individual farmer brings the firstfruit offerings from the field to the local sanctuary as the individual crops become ripe (vv. 10aβ–11, 14a). Fifty days later, the firstfruits of the wheat crop (two loaves and two lambs) are brought by the individual farmer to the local sanctuary for a well-being offering and priestly prebend. These offerings differ for each farmer as each agricultural field ripens at a different time in the region. Then, during the 7th month on the 15th day, all the famers of the nation gather to celebrate the completion of the harvest (Festival of Ingathering), to thank Yhwh for the year’s harvest, and to beseech Yhwh for appropriate rains to ensure the success of next year’s crop. The key to the Pre-H1 stratum is the local observance of the festival rites. The Pre-H2 stratum continues the local nature of the festivals, establishing “a Hag at each local sanctuary for its devotees by declaring that the barley offering be brought on the first Sunday after the harvesting has begun” (ibid., 2055). Because local regions experience the onset of harvest at roughly the same time, the festivals could begin to form a regionally observed pilgrimage festival by shifting all the offerings to a Sunday.

54

Chapter 2

Milgrom advances the discussion of Lev 23 through a literary, morphological, and syntactical analysis of the text. His study identifies several key factors in the traditional H corpus (Lev 17–27) and specifically in Lev  23. First, he divides the H corpus into four strata: Pre-H1, Pre-H2, H, and HR. He then orders the development of sources broadly into JE, P (in its two strata–P1 and P2), H (first three strata–Pre-H1, Pre-H2, and H), D, and HR with all but HR comprising preexilic material. Milgrom, continuing the established trend, maintains that these different sources account for the diversity between and within the festival texts. And he contends that, over time, the rituals evolved from local to centralized observances. This section on prior scholarship provides an overview of the major trends in the research on the festival calendar texts contained in Exod 23, 34; Lev 23; Num 28–29; Deut 16; and Ezek 45. I focused on the sources of the text and the literary markers for each source. Wellhausen argues that Lev 23 was recorded late (during the exile) and constituted the last stage of development for the festival calendar texts. Recent scholars (Knohl and Milgrom) attribute the development of Lev 23 to H, locating the text’s development in the 8th century b.c.e. (before the exile) and before D.

Critique of Jan Wagenaar Overview Wagenaar, in Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, asserts that, although Lev 23 preserves an earlier tradition, the documentation of the Pentateuch was much later than previously argued by Milgrom and Knohl. In addition, he uses a comparative analysis between Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival composite text as evidence for dating Lev 23 to the exilic or postexilic era. I begin this section by summarizing Wagenaar’s broad argument, giving special attention to his Furthermore, by adding the Sunday observance of festival rites, this stratum introduces the idea of ‫ שבת‬as the Sabbath week. The majority of the chapter consists of H, who introduces the worship of Yhwh at the Jerusalem temple. Priestly led rites at the central sanctuary replace the pilgrimage festivals observed at local sanctuaries. The farmer is freed from the need to travel to local or regional sanctuaries and may remain in the local area to tend to the harvest. During the 7th month, the individual farmer is encouraged to make a pilgrimage to the central Jerusalem sanctuary (living in booths), where thanks and supplication to Yhwh take place with a procession around the altar with specified branches. The last of the four strata, HR, redacted P and revised the earlier three H strata into the final document. Written during the Babylonian Exile, “its purpose [was] to salvage as much of the cultic calendar so that Israel might retain its ethnic and religious identity in the exile. . . . It focuses expressly on the Sabbath and the Festival of Booths. . . . The observance of Booths is now enjoined on all Israelites, and a rationale is supplied, rooting it in Israel’s exodus tradition” (ibid., 2055–56).

Overview of Research

55

contention that the composition of Lev 23 dates to the exilic period. At the end of the section, I critique his use of the comparative method and his conclusions. Wagenaar, relying on the work of David Clines, Ernst Kutsch, and Gustof Dalman, argues that the ancient Israelite cult (prior to a written text) held festivals three times per year based on the agricultural harvest of wheat, barley, and summer fruits. 96 The dates for the festival rites were based locally on the ripening of the crops and not on a specific date during any given month. This meant that a festival in the valley region occurred at a slightly different time from festivals held on the coastal plains or hillsides. 97 The ancient annual calendar was lunisolar, with the phases of the moon determining the months. 98 To maintain the seasons in their appropriate month, an intercalary month was probably added after the 6th or 12th month (though the exact mechanism for this is unattested in preexilic Israel). Wagenaar raises the possibility that Israel followed an Egyptian style calendar and contends the ancient calendar year begins in the fall (following 96.  Wagenaar’s analysis begins by identifying the dates and purpose for each of the three pilgrimage festivals. These festivals constitute an ancient Israelite cultic tradition that ties each festival to the agricultural seasons. The first ancient festival tradition, ‫מצות‬ (Exod 23:15; 34:18), during the time of the barley harvest, conveys the meaning unleavened barley bread (Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005], 8). Wagenaar argues for a relationship between the Hebrew ‫ מצות‬and Greek μαζα, stating that ‫“ מצות‬has no cognates in the Semitic languages, [and] may be derived from Greek μαζα, ‘barley dough’, ‘barley bread.’” While the two words may have a relationship, the priority of the Hebrew over the Greek is more likely based on the development of the text. The second festival tradition, ‫( שבעת‬Deut 16:9–10a), is held seven weeks after the beginning of the barley harvest and is linked to the wheat harvest (Exod 34:22a). Wagenaar finds that Exod 23:16a refers to a festival of the cereal harvest and “may have been the occasion on which the first fruits of the combined barley and wheat harvests were offered” (ibid.). He maintains that the article preceding “harvest” (‫ )הקציר‬is not the genitive attribute but an adverbial accusative. This interpretation renders the translation “(you shall observe) the festival of the cereal harvest when you offer the first fruits of your produce that you sow in the field”). The third ancient festival group includes two festivals, ‫( סכת‬Deut 16:13) and ‫( אסיף‬Exod 23:16b), which are related to the end of the grain and grape harvests, when the harvests had been stored after threshing. (Wagenaar notes that ‫ אסיף‬is always used to denote the harvest of grapes, olives, and summer fruits.) 97.  Wagenaar reasons that the Israelite cultic calendar begins with an ancient ritual tradition that is not preserved in writing and must be inferred from the extant text. This early practice depicts a cultic tradition steeped in agricultural rites. The early rituals included local and regional offerings held upon the ripening of the harvest. The early calendar was lunar, using the term ‫ירח‬, and added a 13th intercalary month when the lunar month became out of sync with the solar year (seasons). The indication for an intercalary month was probably the equinox, which prompted the “new year” at both the 1st and 7th months. 98.  Before the surviving written accounts.

56

Chapter 2

the Gezer calendar), with the 1st and 7th months marked by the autumnal and vernal equinoxes. 99 Deuteronomy 16, the earliest surviving written festival text, dates to the time of Josiah and was designed to centralize the ancient festival rituals at the Jerusalem temple. Wagenaar argues that the elimination of the portions of Deut 16 that reference ‫ מצות‬results in three passages—one for each festival—of approximately equal lengths (Deut 16:1aβ, 2, 5–6aβα, and 7 for ‫;פסח‬ 9b–11 for ‫ ;שבעת‬and 13–15 for ‫)סכת‬. He concludes that the original text (D) preserves a tripartite festival schedule including the feasts of ‫פסח‬, ‫שבעת‬, and ‫סכת‬. Wagenaar concludes that the portion of text presenting the ‫מצות‬ rites (Deut 16:1aα, b, 3–4, and 8) was a later redaction (DR). The Deuteronomist maintained the agricultural focus of the festivals but moved the celebrations to the Temple of Yhwh. 100 The first festival (‫)פסח‬ was a one-day ritual conducted at sunset on an unpreserved day. 101 The Fes99.  The festival calendar, in the ancient calendar tradition, is not merely oriented to the agricultural harvest but also to the “end of the year,” ‫( בצאת השנה‬Exod 23:16b) and ‫( תקופת השנה‬Exod 34:22b). Following Kutsch and de Moor, Wagenaar believes that ‫השנה‬ ‫ בצאת‬should be translated “the end of the year,” which implies the end of a calendrical cycle (Ernst Kutsch, “‘Am Ende des Jahres’: Zur Datierung des israelitischen Herbstfestes in Ex 23 16,” ZAW 83 [1971]: 15–21; Johannes C. de Moor, New Year with Canaanites and Israelites [KC 21–22; Kampen: Kok, 1972], 22). This conclusion is based on the range of meaning for ‫יצא‬, “to go out, set or end,” juxtaposed with ‫בוא‬, “to come in, rise or begin.” Wagenaar finds support in the Ugaritic yṣʾ/ʿrb and the Akkadian acû/erēbu parings with similar meaning. While “end of the year” is a possible translation, the range of meaning for ‫ יצא‬also includes to “pass by” or to “go by,” and the range of meaning for the Akkadian term aṣû includes “to come out” or “to rise”—especially in temporal relationships involving the sun or celestial bodies (CAD A 367, aṣû, definition 2.2′). Using the Akkadian meaning as a guide, the translation could be rendered either “coming” or “going,” with the basic meaning being “change.” A better translation of ‫ בצאת השנה‬is the “turn of the year” (not “end of the year”), which was associated with the vernal equinox. 100.  Wagenaar explains that the use of ‫ חדש האביב‬in Exod 23:15; 34:18; and Deut 16:1, which is usually translated “in the month of Abib,” does not indicate a month name but is an agricultural term for “season of fresh ears.” This allows Wagenaar to associate the festivals with seasons rather than fixed dates (Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 25–32). 101.  Wagenaar begins by exploring the origin of ‫פסח‬. While the precentralization history of ‫ פסח‬is obscured, Wagenaar argues (based on G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, vol. 7: Das haus, hühnerzucht, taubenzucht, bienenzucht (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1939], 160–66; G. Dahl and A. Hjort, Having Herds: Pastoral Herd Growth and Household Economy [SSSA 2; Stockholm: University of Stockholm, 1976], 33–37, 90–91, 142–53) that the origin of the festival is probably not associated with the firstborn of the flock (contra Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 84–85; and John Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code [New York: Oxford University Press, 2002], 167) because cattle, sheep, and goats do not deliver at just one time of the year (Wagenaar fails to consider that, while lambs and goats are born at multiple times throughout the year, they are normally weaned in the spring, allowing the lambs [born over the winter]

Overview of Research

57

tival of ‫ פסח‬was not a pilgrimage festival and finds its earliest origin as an apotropaic ritual conducted at the city-gate sanctuaries. The ‫ שבעת‬Festival was centralized and held for one day at the conclusion of the grain harvest. 102 During this period, the ‫ סכת‬Festival was consolidated to the temple and held for seven days after the conclusion of the harvest season. 103 The Yahwist revised the festival text of the Deuteronomist in Exod 23 and 34. These revisions replaced the one-day rite of ‫ פסח‬with the sevenday celebration of ‫מצות‬. The pilgrimage Festival of Unleavened Bread (‫ )חג המצות‬was an invention of J and added the pilgrimage festival (‫ )חג‬title to keep the celebration congruent with the other two pilgrimage festivals (‫חג הקציר‬, ‫)חג האסף‬. 104 To accommodate the time constraints of the harvest, the festival was held for six days at home and a seventh day at the Temple of Yhwh. For Wagenaar, the added exodus narrative provides the etiology for the festival, while the duration is determined to match the other two annual festivals, including a provision to bring gifts to Yhwh. Exodus 34 elaborates on Exod 23 by including the dedication of the firstborn son and the redemption of the firstborn animals, thus clarifying what the Israelites should bring to eat fresh grasses. In addition, as Dalman observed, the main lambing season extends from December through January, which supports a firstfruits celebration in the spring, when the season ends and the lambs are ready for weaning. Finally, ovines (and bovines) giving birth throughout the year does not preclude a firstfruits celebration at an agreedupon time. For these reasons, Wagenaar’s conclusion that the Pesach sacrifice cannot be linked to an animal firstfruits celebration is questionable. The possibility of a connection between the Pesach and an animal firstfruits celebration will be further addressed in the analysis of Lev 23 (chap. 3), and the possibility of a connection must remain open. 102. The ‫ שבעת‬pilgrimage festival originally represented the festival for the cereal harvest—including both wheat and barley. The ancient celebration was conducted at regional sanctuaries, and the Deuteronomist moved it to the temple in Jerusalem, where it was celebrated seven weeks after the beginning of the cereal harvest (Origin and Transformation, 60). Wagenaar contends that during the busy harvest season a single day was all farmers could spare from the fields and threshing floors. 103.  The observance of ‫סכת‬, another pilgrimage festival, celebrated the conclusion of the harvest season in the fall (following the harvest of grapes and olives). The festival lasted seven days and took place at the autumn equinox, which was probably the date of the Israelite New Year. Wagenaar finds the origin for ‫ סכת‬in the Ugaritic custom of building huts for the gods on the roofs of temples. While maintaining the name, D eliminates any association with Ugaritic ritual (ibid., 60–61). 104.  Wagenaar next explores the early origin of the ‫ מצות‬festival, finding that the festival reflects the agricultural circumstances of the barley harvest. (This is the traditional view. Wagenaar relies on J. Halbe, “Erwägungen zu Ursprung und Wesen des Massotfestes,” ZAW 87 [1975]: 325–26; John Van Seters, “The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Passover and Massot,” ZAW 95 [1983]: 171.) While upholding an agricultural connection, Wagenaar questions whether the festival was originally a harvest festival because: (1) large portions of the population could not stop for seven days at the beginning of the harvest; and (2) eating unleavened barley bread is “not really a feast.”

58

Chapter 2

as an offering when they appear before Yhwh (as left undefined in Exod 23). 105 The goal of the change was to distinguish Massot, observed at the beginning of the barley harvest, from Shabuot, which occurred at the conclusion of the wheat harvest. 106 During the late period of the monarchy, a Deuteronomistic redactor (DR) added text to Deut 16 in accordance with the J text. This editor added references to the exodus narrative, an obligation to appear three times before Yhwh, and a prohibition against appearing empty-handed. The editor also combined the ‫ פסח‬celebration with the ‫ מצות‬celebration, creating one festival. Wagenaar contends that Deut 16:1aα, b, 3–4, 8 were Deuteronomic redactions in response to the J calendar in Exod 23; 34. The ‫ פסח‬celebration is placed during the early barley harvest (“season of ears,” ‫)את־חדש האביב‬ and cannot be dated to an exact month or day (as compared to the later P text of Lev 23). In addition, the influence of J is shown through the references of “by night” (v. 1b) and “as soon as the sun sets, the time that you came out of Egypt” (v. 6bβ), which comply with the exodus narrative in Exod 12. The summary statement of the festival calendar (Deut 16:16–17) is attributed to the same editor. Wagenaar argues that this statement listing ‫מצות‬, ‫שבעת‬, and ‫ סכת‬and omitting ‫ פסח‬presupposes the conflation of ‫פסח‬ and ‫מצות‬, giving priority to ‫מצות‬. Wagenaar next turns to the festival texts in Ezek 45 and Lev 23, finding that they reflect an exilic point of view (tied to fixed dates) while preserving an earlier agricultural format. The texts follow the 1st-millennium Babylonian practice of clustering festivals in the 1st and 7th months. During the 1st month, ‫ פסח‬and ‫ מצות‬are celebrated on the 14th (‫ )פסח‬and the 15th–21st (‫)מצות‬. In the 7th month, the Festival of Horn Blowing is celebrated on the 1st day, the Day of Atonement on the 10th day, and ‫ סכת‬on the 15th through the 21st or 22nd. Wagenaar notes that the only festival not associated with a fixed date is the “unnamed” festival held seven Sabbaths after the presentation of the first ʿomer of the new harvest. This festival is similar to ‫ שבעת‬in Deut 16:9–10, a celebration held 50 days following the beginning of the harvest and based on agricultural conditions, not a fixed date. He finds several similarities to the 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Festival: (1) the purification of the Temple of Marduk probably influenced the rituals for the purification of the Temple of Yhwh; (2) the Israelite rituals and the Baby105.  The festival calendar in Exod 34:18–26 is argued to elaborate on the earlier calendar of Exod 23:14–19. (Wagenaar [contra Halbe, Otto, Schmitt] follows Kutsch, Blum, and Bar-On in arguing that the festival calendar in Exod 34:18–26 expands on Exod 23:14– 19 [Origin and Transformation, 69].) In addition, the title of the second festival (‫הקציר‬ ‫“ )חג‬Festival of the Cereal Harvest” in Exod 23:16a is replaced by (‫“ )חג שבעת‬Festival of Weeks” in Exod 34:22a to distinguish between the festivals (ibid., 71). Wagenaar argues that ‫חג האסף‬, the “Festival of Ingathering,” is maintained because the mystic origins of ‫ סכת‬may have led to the avoidance of the name (ibid., 72–73). 106.  Ibid., 71.

Overview of Research

59

lonian rituals both had agrarian origins; (3) both festivals held processions; (4) the return of the Ark, similar to the return of the image of Marduk, may have affirmed the kingship of Yhwh; and (5) the ritual performed by the king (in both texts) may have contributed to his religious confirmation. Wagenaar’s primary argument is that Ezek 45 and Lev 23 share similarities with the 1st-millennium Babylonian festival calendar, and these similarities are directly adopted by the biblical text. He then uses this direct connection to date Lev 23 to the exilic era. Wagenaar moves on to discuss postexilic revisions to the festival calendars. Through an assimilation of the Babylonian festival calendar, the Israelite exiles lost the meaning of Pesach-Massot, Shabuot, and Sukkot. These festivals lost their association with the agricultural seasons, adopting a New Year’s Festival with rites of political and religious renewal. Because the New Year’s celebrations were in the 1st and 7th months, the Shabuot Festival of the 2nd month was eliminated. Further, because the Babylonian New Year’s Festival names were not congruent with the earlier Israelite festival names, Ezek 45 deletes any reference to the festival names and adopts only a date as reference. 107 Wagenaar hypothesizes that “upon returning to Jerusalem the priestly circles who were responsible for the festival calendar in Exod 12:1–13*; Lev 23:4–8, 23–28a, 33–37abα had to contend with the people who stayed behind (in Israel). . . . who had remained faithful to the traditional tripartite festival calendar in Deut 16:1–17.” 108 Out of this power struggle, the post-Priestly editor reintroduced the Shabuot celebration with dating that was independent from the Pesach-Massot Festival. The Shabuot ritual took place seven 107.  Ibid., 129. The semiannual format of the festivals in Ezek 45 is then preserved in the postexilic Priestly calendar of Lev 23 (and Exod 12:1–13). Wagenaar argues that the Priestly calendar firmly adopts the vernal equinox as the marker for the 1st month of the year, using a lunar calendar for the month. In addition, he finds that Gen 6:5–9:17 preserves an older, 30-day month—365-day/year Egyptian civil calendar. The postexilic Priestly calendar of Gen 12 and Lev 23 revises the earlier Ezekiel text. First, the two New Year’s celebrations are reduced to one. Second, the semiannual purification of the people and the sanctuary (as in the Babylonian text) is replaced by a single purification rite held on the 10th day of the 7th month during the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:1–28; 23:27). Third, the purification rite is shifted from the 1st day of the month to the 10th day of the month. Wagenaar suggests that this shift may have been associated with the determination of adding a 13th intercalary month. Fourth, the Priestly Pesach Festival incorporates multiple alterations from prior versions: (a) an etiology for the festival is added, (b) the choice of sacrifice is restricted to a sheep or goat, and (c) the method of preparing the sacrifice is specified as roasting (contra Deut 16:7, which specifies boiling). Fifth, the unnamed festivals in Ezek 45 are reversed to reinstate the older festival names, Massot and Sukkot—with Sukkot extended by a full day to balance the eight-day celebration of Pesach-Massot. Sixth, while the linkage to agricultural activities is not restored, the named festivals lose their link to the Babylonian New Year’s Festival. 108.  Ibid., 134.

60

Chapter 2

weeks after the offering of the first ʿomer, representing a new addition to the calendar structure (which may find its origin in Deut 26:1–4). Wagenaar has determined that the firstfruits offering (which is unconnected to the Pesach-Massot festival) is a later addition because he believes that agrarianbased festivals and fixed-date festivals cannot coexist in original festival calendars. Furthermore, Wagenaar asserts that, because the Pesach-Massot festival lost its original agricultural ties, the post-Priestly editor required a new dating scheme to determine the new date for the Shabuot Festival. 109 The post-Priestly editor was also responsible for changing the recognition of a day from “sunrise to sunrise” to “sunset to sunset.” 110 Wagenaar maintains that Israel initially followed an Egyptian-styled “civil” calendar, in which the day begins at sunrise and the 12 months have 30 days each (with 5 epagomenal days). The early Israelite months may have followed the Gezer calendar, beginning in the fall with numbered months. 111 In the late preexilic era, the Israelites adopted the Babylonian calendar, the 1st month of which began near the vernal equinox. This shift from the Egyptian to the Babylonian calendar required moving festivals that occurred on the 1st of the month to the 10th to account for the “uncertainty” of the month 112 (this “uncertainty” arose because the 1st month of the year was not determined until approximately the 10th of that month). Wagenaar goes on to argue that at this time the day was changed to begin at sunset. 113 109. Jan Wagenaar, “The Priestly Festival Calendar and the Babylonian New Years Festivals: Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Year,” in The Old Testament in Its World (ed. R. P. Gordon and J. C. de Moor; OtSt 52; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 250. 110.  Idem, “Passover and the First Day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread in the Priestly Festival Calendar” VT 54 (2004): 262–66. 111. Idem, Origin and Transformation, 145. 112.  “The transition from the 365-day ‘civil’ year to a 354/5 day lunar year admittedly required the intercalation of an additional 13th month every two or three years and gave rise to the introduction of the observance of the ten ‘days of uncertainty’ in the priestly festival calendar” (ibid., 146). Wagenaar erroneously uses the flood story of Gen 6:5–9:17 as a basis for his conclusions—citing the use of a 30-day month. I contend that the flood narrative in Genesis depicts an “ideal” month, which was used extensively in the ancient Near East and does not require the adoption of a 30-day Egyptian civil calendar. 113.  Ibid., 143. Wagenaar summarizes his position by stating that the priestly and post-priestly festival legislation regarding (Pesach-)Massot and the Day of Atonement attest to a change in the way the beginning of the day was calculated. The priestly traditions which separate the nocturnal Pesach meal on the fourteenth day of the month from the beginning of Massot on the fifteenth still presuppose a day that lasts from sunrise to sunrise. The custom of eating unleavened bread with the Pesach meal on the night beginning the fifteenth day of the month in the post-priestly additions assumes a day stretching in accordance with later Jewish practice from sunset to sunset. . . . The change in the way the days were calculated may be an inevitable consequence of the adoption of the Babylonian custom of numbering the months from the vernal equinox a century or so earlier (605 b.c.e.). (Ibid., 144)

Overview of Research

61

He bases his conclusions on four assumptions. One, the festival text in Lev 23 preserves two traditions—one in which the day begins at sunrise (vv. 5–8, 23–25, 26–28aα, 33–36) and the other in which the day begins at sunset (v. 32). Two, the adoption of a Babylonian lunar calendar is inconsistent with a sunrise-to-sunrise daily schedule. Three, the Israelites adopted the Babylonian lunar calendar during the exile. And four, this shift led the postPriestly editor to alter the festival calendar to a calendar that was based on a sunset-to-sunset day. For Wagenaar, the final stage in the evolution of the Israelite calendar was the postexilic adoption of Num 28–29. The Numbers text presupposes Lev 23, adding and clarifying the text as necessary to reflect current ritual practices. He finds that both Num 28–29 and Lev 23 are so similar in form and content that one must revise the other. 114 He presents the following evidence to support his case that Numbers grew from the earlier, post-Priestly Lev 23 and thus requires a late dating: • Omission of first ʿomer offering of the new harvest from Lev 23 presupposes knowledge of Lev 23. 115 • Celebration of Pesach-Massot in the 1st month is taken for granted. • Numbers 28:26 references a “new” cereal offering, which presupposes an “old” cereal offering not mentioned in the text (presupposing Lev 23). • Numbers 28–29 provides festival lists for daily, weekly, and monthly offerings. • Numbers 28:3b–8 specifies two daily offerings (morning and evening), which reflects the postexilic rituals in Exod 29:38–42. This

However, there is no basis for arguing that the hosting of one festival from sunrise to sunrise and another from sunset to sunset necessitates a change in the accounting of days. The fourteenth-century b.c.e. Emar text depicts a day that runs from sundown to sundown and yet specifies offerings at different times of the day. For further biblical arguments against a 1st-millennium shift in the day from sunrise-sunrise to sunset-sunset (see Milgrom, Leviticus, 1966–70). 114.  Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 149. 115.  Wagenaar repeatedly uses a circular argument to conclude that Num 28–29 is later than Lev 23. Whenever the Numbers text has more information than Leviticus, it is evidence that Num 28–29 “elaborates upon” Lev 23. And whenever Num 28–29 omits information found in Lev 23, it is evidence that Num 28–29 “presupposes” Lev 23. Using this form of simplistic comparative analysis without a third point of comparison (either biblical or extrabiblical) is useless, because the opposite argument is equally true—that is, the Leviticus text’s having information in addition to the Numbers text is evidence that Lev 23 “elaborates upon” Num 28–29. And Lev 23’s omitting information found in Num 28–29 is evidence that Lev 23 “presupposes” Num 28–29. This circular argumentation is central to Wagenaar’s relocation of the dating of Num 28–29 (to follow Lev 23) and should be rejected.

Chapter 2

62

Order of Development

Table 6.  Wagenaar’s Festival Text Development

Text

Source

Comments

1

Deut 16:1aβ, 2, 5–6aβα, 7, 9b–11, 13–15a

D

  “Centralization act.”

2

Exod 23:14–19; 34:18–26

J—Revision of the D text

  Still based on the harvest and not dates.

3

Deut 16:1aα, b, 3–4, 8, 16–17

D redactor— DR

  Added references to the exodus narrative, an obligation to appear three times before Yhwh, and a prohibition against appearing empty-handed.  Combined ‫ פסח‬and ‫מצות‬, giving priority to ‫מצות‬

4

Ezek 45:18–20, 21a, 22–25

P—Exilic

  Following the Babylonian influence, clustered festivals in the first and 7th months.   Calendar now follows the Babylonian calendar, using dates for festivals.   Shabuot eliminated, creating a twodate (semiannual) calendar.

5

Lev 23:4–8, 23–25, 26–28aα, 33–37aβα

P—Exilic

  Names and historical traditions restored.   Preserves a compromise between the tripartite calendar in Deuteronomy and the semiannual calendar in Ezekiel— not an H text (Holiness Code).

6

Lev 23:2–3, 9–21, 39–43

Post-Priestly

  A post-Priestly redactor reinserted ‫( שבעת‬postexilic).   Follows the “Sabbath principle.”

7

Num 28–29

Postexilic

  Elaborates on Lev 23.

a.  Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 58.

replaces the preexilic single morning offering found in 2 Kgs 16:15 and the later practice in Ezek 46:13–15. 116 116. Contra Knohl and Milgrom, who believe that Exod 29:28–32 is based on Num 28:3b–8. Second Kings 16:15 does appear to specify a single morning burnt offering; however, the reference is not definitive of a preexilic or postexilic distinction for the burnt offering.

Overview of Research

63

• Numbers 28:9–10 provide details on the Sabbath offerings missing in Lev 23:2–3. Again this is a circular argument in which it is just as likely that Lev 23:2–3 presupposes Num 28:9–10. 117 • Numbers 28:11–15 refers to the new moon as ‫ראשי חדשיכם‬, where Ezek 46:6 identifies the new moon as ‫יום החדש‬. Wagenaar declares that the reference in Num 28 is postexilic because it is “the result of the change in the calculation of the beginning of the day and month which is reflected in the post-priestly revision of the Day of Atonement legislation in Lev 23:26–32.” 118 • Numbers 28:17–19a, 25 quote Lev 23:6–8; however, Num 28:19b-24 revise Ezek 45:23–24. 119 Based upon the above evidence and following Corinna Körting, Wagenaar concludes that “the list of festivals in Num 28–29 presents an elaboration of the festival calendar in Lev 23 and the list of festival sacrifices in Ezek 45:17– 46:15. Num 28–29 is the last comprehensive list of ancient Israelite festivals preserved in the Old Testament.” 120 Table 6 summarizes Wagenaar’s argument regarding the order of sources. 121 117.  Where Lev 23 and Ezek 46 agree against Num 28–29, Wagenaar reasons that Num 28–29 is a later revision because Num 28–29 “is a list of festival sacrifices in which the Sabbath offerings had to be supplemented” (faulty circular argument). 118.  Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 151. Wagenaar goes on to assert that in Ezek 46:6–7 the term ‫ חדש‬may have caused some confusion. In the pre-exilic era ‫ חדש‬referred to the days of obscuration following the disappearance of the old moon in the morning sky which consequently fell at the beginning of the month (see 1 Sam 20:24–27). Once the beginning of the month was calculated from the reappearance of the lunar crescent in the evening sky ‫ חדש‬gained a new meaning. The term ‫ראש חדש‬, ‘the beginning of the month,’ seems to have been chosen in order to avoid any misunderstanding with regard to the exact day the monthly sacrifices have to be offered.

The same evidence that he cites negates his own conclusion. First, the phrase ‫ יום החדש‬is used in both preexilic (1 Sam 20:24–27) and exilic (Ezek 46:6–7) texts. Second, the phrase ‫ ראשי חדשיכם‬cannot be dated against the use of ‫יום החדש‬, because the phrase is plural construct and includes the plural personal pronoun in Num 28, whereas the other two references depict a singular absolute. Exodus 12:2 records a similar use of ‫ ראש‬with ‫חדש‬, where ‫ חדש‬appears in the plural: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months.” 119.  While it is clear that Ezek 45:23–24 preserves distinctions, it is not possible to conclude that one is a revision of the other. 120. Unfortunately, Wagenaar overreaches his evidence. It is just as likely that Num 28–29 predates the festival rites in Lev 23 and Ezek 45–46 as it is likely that it presupposes them. We must conclude, given the stated evidence, that Num 28–29 and Lev 23 have similar contents and that each includes some information lacking in the other. Further, on several occasions, Ezek 45–46 agrees with Lev 23 against Num 28–29. This agreement supports the conclusion that: (1) Lev 23 revises Num 28–29; (2) Num 28–29 revises Ezek 45–46; or (3) the different purposes of Lev 23 and Num 28–29 require different information be included (which is a possible reason, as I argue below). 121.  Table 6 consists of my own compilation and formatting but is based on conclusions by Wagenaar that are contained in Origin and Transformation.

Chapter 2

64

Table 7.  Features Distinguishing P from H in Leviticus 23 (according to Wagenaar) Distinguishing Features Pesach (Lev 23:5), Massot (vv. 6–8), Horn Blowing (vv. 23–25), Day of Atonement (26–28a), Sukkot (vv. 33–36)

Nameless Festival of Shabuot (Lev 23:9–22), appendix about Sukkot (vv. 39–43)

Exact date

Flexible date dependent on agricultural conditions

Named festival

Unnamed

‫( מקרא־קדש‬holy convocation)

‫( שבתון‬Sabbath rest)

A general instruction to bring a gift to Yhwh

Detailed instruction for festival offerings

Prohibition on performing work

‫לדריכם עולם חקת בכל־מושבתיכם‬ (“an eternal statute in all your settlements throughout your generations”) Yhwh speaks in the first person

Wagenaar advances the discussion by reordering the source material— moving the sources to much later dates than Milgrom, Knohl, and Wellhausen. He accepts an early oral tradition but considers the Deuteronomist to be the first author of the written festival texts. The J text added information (Exod 23; 34) that a Deuteronomistic redactor then revised. And, during the exile, P further consolidated the information, added fixed dates, and modifies the text into a bipartite structure. Finally, after the exile, a P source modifies Lev 23, creating Num 28–29. The resulting order of sources for Wagenaar is D—J—DR—P—H/PR. Armed with a better understanding of Wagenaar’s overall theory, we now turn back to explore his argument on Lev 23 in detail. 122 Influence of the Babylonian Cultic New Year’s Calendar Wagenaar finds that the festivals discussed in Lev 23:4–44 reflect an exilic point of view (tied to fixed dates) while preserving an earlier agricultural format. The text follows the 1st-millennium Babylonian practice of clustering festivals in the 1st and 7th months. 123 During the 1st month, ‫ פסח‬and 122.  The lack of critical interaction with the arguments of either Milgrom or Knohl leads to a general weakness in Wagenaar’s argument. 123.  Wagenaar’s conclusions are discussed later in light of 2nd-millennium Mesopotamian texts. This study argues that the clustering of ritual activities in the 1st and 7th months is an early phenomenological feature of ritual in the ancient Near East and is evident at Emar in the fourteenth century b.c.e. In addition, the 1st-millennium Babylonian ritual may have only occurred once per year.

Overview of Research

65

‫ מצות‬are celebrated on the 14th (‫ )פסח‬and from the 15th through the 21st (‫ )מצות‬days of the month. In the 7th month, the Festival of Horn Blowing is celebrated on the 1st day, the Day of Atonement on the 10th day, and ‫סכת‬ on the 15th–21st or 22nd. He notes that the only festival not associated with a fixed date is the “unnamed” festival that is held seven Sabbaths after the presentation of the first ʿomer of the new harvest. This festival is similar to ‫ שבעת‬in Deut 16:9–10, the celebration held 50 days after the beginning of the harvest and based on agricultural conditions, not a fixed date. Wagenaar concludes that: As the priestly festival calendar counts months—in accordance with the Babylonian calendar—from the vernal equinox, the 7th month of the year equals the 1st month of the year after the autumnal equinox. The priestly festival calendar, therefore, envisages the celebration of Sukkot just as the pre-priestly festival calendars in the period following the grape harvest. . . . The same does not hold true for the date specified for Pesach-Massot . . . As the barley harvest did not start before the beginning of May, the pre-priestly festival calendars obviously date Pesach-Massot—in accordance with the Gezer calendar—to the 8th month of an autumnal year. The priestly festival calendar dates Pesach-Massot to the 1st month of the spring year . . . As the 8th month of an autumnal year equals the 2nd month of the spring year, the priestly festival calendar has fixed a particular date for the celebration of Pesach-Massot, but also severed the link between Pesach-Massot and the agricultural seasons. 124

Following Ernst Kutsch and Karl Elliger, Wagenaar finds that the festival rites contained in Lev 23:5–8, 23–28a, and 33–36 are from a different period from Lev 23:9–22, 39–43. 125 He argues that the passages exhibit their own form and phraseology, supporting the conclusion that one is a Priestly creation and the other a post-Priestly addition (see table 7). I demonstrated at the beginning of chap. 2 that ancient Near Eastern ritual texts from the 3rd and 2nd millennia reflect a number of variations; for instance: some festivals have fixed dates and others imply flexible dates; some rituals are unnamed while others are named; and some festivals texts describe ritual activities in detail while others only provide a general overview of gifts offered to the god. Therefore, while Wagenaar correctly reasons that the two sets of passages exhibit different forms and phraseology, his conclusion that these distinctions prove that the passages come from different times or that one must be a later redaction is incorrect.

124.  Ibid., 77. This position is fundamental to Wagenaar’s thesis that the Lev 23 festival calendar is both exilic and based upon the Neo-Babylonian festival calendar. We will examine this conclusion in chapters 3–5. 125.  Wagenaar does not account for vv. 28b-32. Kutsch, Erwägungen, 14–15; Elliger, Leviticus 304–23; Wagenaar, “Priestly Festival Calendar,” 233–38. This conclusion will be explored in chapters 3–5.

Chapter 2

66

Table 8.  Shared Linguistic Markers Festivals

Shared Linguistic Markers

Pesach (Lev 23:5), Massot (vv. 6–8), blowing of a horn (vv. 23–25), Day of Atonement (vv. 26–28aα), Sukkot (vv. 33–36)

‫“( מקרא־קדש‬holiday”); ‫“( מלאכת עבדה‬prohibit day-today work”); ‫“( אשה ליהוה‬gift to Yhwh”)

Anonymous Shabuot (vv. 9–21), appendix on Sukkot (vv. 39–43)

‫“( מקרא־קדש‬holiday”); ‫“( מלאכת עבדה‬prohibit day-today work”); ‫בכל־מושבתיכם לדריכם חקת עולם‬ (“an eternal statute in all your settlements throughout your generations” [v. 43 deletes “in all your settlements”]); and an aversion to calling the festival by name

Wagenaar then turns to analyzing the linguistic markers for each festival mentioned in Lev 23. He divides the festivals into two groups based on several linguistic phrases. 126 He argues that the phrase ‫בכל־מושבתיכם‬, “an eternal statute in all your settlements throughout your generations,” is found not only in the anonymous Shabuot Festival (vv. 9–21) and the appendix to Sukkot (vv. 39–43) but also in the prologue introducing the weekly Sabbath in v. 3 (given an exilic or postexilic date of authorship) and in v. 31 of the Day of Atonement rite. 127 He concludes that this phrase points to a postPriestly authorship for the Sabbath prologue, unnamed Shabuot Festival, appendix to the Sukkot Festival, and vv. 28aβ–32 of the Day of Atonement. While these sections are later additions (post-Priestly), vv. 9–21 (Shabuot legislation) and vv. 39–43 (Sukkot) may preserve an earlier oral tradition. 128 He continues, finding the hand of the post-Priestly editor in the phrase “on this same day,” which appears in vv. 28aβ, 29aβ, and 30aβ. Following Knohl, Körting, and Milgrom, Wagenaar concludes the term is a “stylistic flourish of H” and should be considered a late addition. 129 Focusing on the earlier Priestly festivals (Pesach, Massot, Horn Blowing, Day of Atonement, and Sukkot), he argues a link with the Priestly passage of the exodus in Exod 12:1–13. Without the exodus passage, the festival texts of the 1st month (Pesach-Massot) are much shorter in length than the festival texts of the 7th month. If one restores the Pesach text, then a balance of 126.  Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 79. 127.  Wagenaar finds support for this evidence in Knohl, Sanctuary, 46–55; K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1966), 310–11; C. Körting, Der Schall des Schofar: Israels Fests im Herbst (BZAW 285; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 101—who argue for a link between the phrase and a late Priestly or post-Priestly authorship. 128.  Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 88. 129.  Knohl, Sanctuary, 13; Korting, Schall des Schofar, 116; and Milgrom, Leviticus, 2024. This conclusion will be evaluated in chaps. 3–5 below.

Overview of Research

67

text length appears. 130 When taken together, the 1st and 7th months share activities on the 1st day of the month (New Year’s celebration [implied] versus blowing a horn), the 10th day of the month (select Passover lamb versus Day of Atonement), and the 15th–21st days of the month (Massot versus Sukkot). 131 He concludes that “the omission of the dates leading up to Pesach and the very concise instructions for its celebration in Lev 23:5 suggest that Exod 12:1–13 and Lev 23:4, 5–8, 23–25, 26–28aα, 33–36, 37aβα were from the outset intended as comprehensive parts of a single priestly festival calendar.” 132 This combined festival depiction follows a “Priestly” version of the exodus story: the Israelites postpone leaving after the plagues—staying in their houses until morning—and depart from Egypt the following morning. Wagenaar, relying on the work of van der Toorn, finds similarities between the Babylonian Akītu New Year Festival compilation text, Ezek 45, and Lev 23 and then concludes a direct relationship. 133 The New Year’s celebrations in the 1st and 7th months divide the Babylonian festival year into two six-month segments. In examining the Babylonian festival text, Wagenaar finds that it shares five significant similarities with the Israelite pre-Priestly activities of the 1st and 7th months. First, he concludes that the purification of the Temple of Marduk probably influenced the rituals for the purification of the Temple of Yhwh. The purification of both temples required blood, affecting the participants by making them “unclean.” And the ritual purification may have opened and concluded the festivals. 134 130.  Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 90. I will argue that the length and/or activities of festival texts do not require balance (cf. Emar 446). Therefore, a conclusion that Exod 12:1–13 is required to balance Lev 23:5–8 with Lev 23:23–25, 26–28aα, and 33–36 is unwarranted. 131.  Wagenaar does not identify a correlation on the 14th between the Pesach sacrifice and any festival activities during the 7th month. Despite this important omission, Wagenaar concludes that the two months convey an entirely parallel structure. 132.  Ibid., 91. 133.  Ibid., 108; van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year,” 340–43. 134.  Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 110. Wagenaar further argues that [t]he purification of the sanctuary by means of the blood of a bull smeared on the doorposts of the temple, the rim of the altar and the posts of the gate to the inner court, on the first day of the first and seventh months of the year in Ezek 45:18–20 may likewise be understood as part of the New Year ritual. The ritual seems to combine elements from the smearing of the cedar tree resin on the doors and the dragging of the bloody sheep’s carcass through the temple precinct. The sacrifices for the purification of the people offered in the course of Pesach and the anonymous seven-day festivals later in the first and seventh months seem to complement the purification rituals performed on the first day of the first and seventh months and may thus represent the conclusion of the two new year rituals. The list of festival sacrifices in Ezek 45:18–25 thus transforms Pesach-Massot and Sukkot into unnamed new year festivals celebrated exactly six months apart.

68

Chapter 2

Second, the Israelite rituals and the Babylonian New Year’s Festival both had agrarian origins. Wagenaar asserts that both the Israelite festival calendar and the Babylonian New Year’s rituals originated with an agrarian association and transformed into set-date New Year’s rituals. The Babylonian New Year’s Festival evolved from the Sumerian Akītu Festival. The early version of the festival is known to have occurred twice a year at Ur under the names “Akītu-festival of the barley harvest” (in the spring) and “Akītufestival of the sowing season” (in the fall). The two festivals were held six months apart—in the 6th and 12th months of the year before Šu-Sin, and in the 1st and 7th months of the year after Šu-Sin. This shift aligned the two festivals with the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. 135 According to Wagenaar, when the festival celebrations shifted from harvest time to the equinoxes, they gained a new role as New Year’s ceremonies. Throughout the ancient Near East, festival calendars attest these parallel major festivals that were celebrated in the 1st and 7th months. Therefore, each festival marked the beginning of a New Year; neither held priority, making both “mid-year” celebrations. 136 Wagenaar concludes that the Babylonian Akītu Festival was the impetus for the transformation of the Israelite calendar. 137 While he only mentions Ezek 45:18–25, the revisions to Lev 23 (according to Wagenaar) are also exilic and should be included. 138 135.  Ibid., 113. Following A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (rev. ed.; completed by Erica Reiner; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 41; and Robert McC. Adams, Land behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 13–20, Wagenaar (Origin and Transformation, 112) argues that the vernal equinox (March/April) was too early in the year for the barley harvest—which would have occurred in May (approximately the 2nd month of the year). 136.  Ibid., 118. 137.  Ibid., 119. 138.  Wagenaar’s observation that both the Babylonian and Israelite ritual calendars include festivals in the 1st and 7th months is accurate; however, he wrongly dates this event to the 1st millennium. He identifies the calendar shift regarding the Akītu Festival to Šin, which would have occurred early in the 2nd millennium—likely during the 20th century b.c.e. Second, the tendency to cluster festival activities in the 1st and 7th months is evident much earlier than the 1st millennium, as New Year’s festivals in the 1st and 7th months are already evident in the 2nd millennium (see the discussion above in this chapter). In some locations, the festivals during these months bear the same name (the akītu Festival). Third, the festivals of these months also often describe activities in terms of a “New Year” for the area. This supports the conclusion that many 2nd-millennium citystates in Mesopotamia and the Levant viewed the larger year in terms of two six-month units—perhaps, as discussed above, associated with the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. Fourth, in addition to being associated with the New Year, these festivals are most often associated with agricultural rites on fixed dates. The festivals of the 1st month celebrate the harvest and firstfruits (e.g., zag-mu at Nippur [M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 81] and še-kin-ku5-rá at Ur [ibid., 125–40] and Lagaš [DP 44]). The festivals of the 7th month represent the last of the fall harvest (grapes–reš yani Festival at Ugarit [KTU 1.119]–and some

Overview of Research

69

Third, Wagenaar argues that probably both the 1st-millennium Babylonian festival and the Israelite festivals included processions. 139 Further, he indicates that, while the processions were later removed from the text, processions from other parts of the biblical texts point to a vestige of processional activity.  140 Wagenaar raises an interesting point. The Babylonian Akītu Festival clearly included processions. And, at some early date, processional activity may have occurred in ancient Israel. However, its existence, without textual support, is pure speculation. Thus the inference that the Babylonian 1st-millennium New Year’s Festival texts had an impact on Israel’s practice is unfounded. Above in this chapter, we saw the ancient Near Eastern evidence from the 2nd millennium that demonstrated that this processional activity was an integral part of cultic festival rites—meaning that any link could be either early or late. We will explore the use of processions in our study of the 14th-century b.c.e. multimonth festival calendar at Emar (see chap. 4). Fourth, Wagenaar sees a connection between the return of the idol of Marduk and the return of the Ark (in the hypothetical Israelite procession). His conclusion is built on a faulty premise, however, because processions to affirm kingship are present in several 2nd-millennium texts (see above). Moreover, if a procession of Yhwh was part of the early Israelite cultic ritual, the affirmation of kingship was not the likely reason for celebrating upon the god’s return (discussed later in chap. 3). late fruits) or the beginning of preparing the ground for planting (e.g., á-ki-ti-šu-numun at Ur). In spite of the festivals’ origins as an agricultural celebration, the festival texts present fixed dates (usually centered on the new moon and the full moon) and fixed locations (usually the temple for the lead regional deity) for festival activities. Lagaš, ITT 5280, provides an early example: the Festival of Malt and Barley held in the month of burux-maš (month 1) on specific dates in three specific locations. Therefore, Wagenaar’s theory that the 1st-millennium New Year’s Festival “transformed” the Israelite festival calendar lacks corroboration. 139.  Wagenaar finds biblical support for processions in 2 Sam 6:12–19 and 1 Kgs 8:1–9 (Origin and Transformation, 111). 140.  A solemn procession is an important part of the story of the transfer of the Ark from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem by David in 2 Sam 6:12–19. The same holds true for the procession of the Ark during the dedication of the temple of Solomon in 1 Kgs 8:1–19. Admittedly, the accounts of the procession of the Ark in the course of the transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem and the dedication of the temple present the procession as a one-off event, but such processions may have been a regular part of the ancient Israelite cult in the late preexilic era. In any case, the story of the construction of the temple in 1 Kgs 6–8 seems to presuppose the cult centralization by King Josiah, as may be clear from the note that on three occasions a year Solomon offered sacrifices on the altar he had constructed (1 Kgs 9:25). The solemn processions of the Ark in 2 Sam 6:12–19 and 1 Kgs 8:1–9 may well have been modeled after contemporary processions (see also 2 Chr 35:3; ibid.).

70

Chapter 2

Fifth, Wagenaar maintains that the involvement of the king in the festival activities of both Israel and Babylon may have contributed to the king’s legitimization. Using 2 Sam 6:19; 1 Kgs 8:15–16, and 65 as evidence, he finds that the Israelite king legitimized his rule through performing and administering sacrifices, processions, and oracles, as well as providing and distributing offerings. Through these activities, the ritual participant validated the king’s reign. 141 According to Wagenaar, the desire to confirm the rule of the king may have played a role in Israel’s adopting the festival rites of the Babylonian festival. 142 If these five similarities are confirmed for the 7th month, Wagenaar argues, then the Pesach-Massot celebrations of the 1st month were altered (based on the Babylonian New Year’s Festival text) to become a New Year’s celebration held around the vernal equinox. This change necessitated severing the new festival complex from its earlier agricultural ties. 143 In addition, the new festival was moved forward by about a month. 144 Although he acknowledges the existence of 2nd- and 3rd-millennia Akītu celebrations in the 1st and 7th months of the year, he concludes that these festivals did not have an impact on the Israelite calendar until the time of the exile. 145 In this section, I summarized Wagenaar’s theory for the late dating of Lev 23 based on similarities with the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival composite text. In the next section, I evaluate his argument in light of

141. Ibid. 142.  This point fails for lack of evidence in the biblical record. Wagenaar cites 2 Sam 19, which does depict the king (David) as a form of priest who conducts the offering to Yhwh and shares the food with the people. Neither in 2 Samuel or 1 Kings does an understanding of the text support the notion that this participation legitimizes the role of king. In addition, the festival calendar of Lev 23 (given an exilic date by Wagenaar) does not emphasize the role of the king in ritual activities, thereby refuting Wagenaar’s own point. The lack of involvement by the king in Lev 23 will be discussed below. 143.  Wagenaar argues that the ancient Israelite agricultural year, like the agricultural year in Mesopotamia, began in October and November with field preparation, followed in November and December by the sowing of barley and wheat, and then in March and April by the planting of summer crops. The harvest season began in May with barley, followed in late May and June by wheat. Personnel hiring records provide confirmation for these dates, recording an increase in the number of field hands in the first half of May— from the normal 2–3 people per hectare to 14 people per hectare at the beginning of May and 25 people by the end of May. This higher number is maintained through the end of the harvest season (Adams, Land behind Baghdad, 16). Adams actually finds that the barley harvest begins in late April, which will be discussed here in chap. 3. 144.  Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 112. 145.  Ibid., 119–20; idem, “The Priestly Festival Calendar,” 247. Wagenaar incorrectly infers that the year was not divided into two six-month units until the 1st millennium. Textual evidence (discussed above and in chaps. 3 and 4) demonstrates that the dual sixmonth festival calendar was evident by the mid-2nd millennium. Therefore, a connection to the Babylonian calendar and a late date for Lev 23 is unnecessary.

Overview of Research

71

the comparative methodology outlined in chap. 1 and a discussion of 3rdand 2nd-millennia ancient Near Eastern festival texts. Analysis of Wagenaar’s Comparative Argument Wagenaar conducts an analysis of the similarities between the Babylonian festival calendar and Lev 23. However, he omits a discussion of the differences between the texts. In addition, he fails to show any correlation between the themes or ideology of the Babylonian tradition and the biblical texts. Comparative analysis requires more than just providing a laundry list of similarities and concluding a direct relationship. Effective comparative analysis must examine both the similarities and the differences in the texts, along with their themes and ideology (see the comparative methodology section in chap. 1). The evidence should then be interpreted to discover whether the information represents either “cultural diffusion” or “phenomenological similarity.” Wagenaar reviews the similarities between the biblical texts (Ezek 45 and Lev 23) and the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival texts and determines that they have a direct connection. While I concede that the two texts share some similarities, the significant textual differences and Wagenaar’s methodological errors call a direct connection into question. Several challenges to his list of similarities were discussed above and will not be duplicated in this section. Methodological Errors Wagenaar makes three significant methodological errors that, by themselves, call his entire argument for a direct connection between Lev 23 and the Babylonian Akītu Festival compilation text—and a late dating of Lev 23—into question. The three errors are: a circular argument, confused analytical genre, and failure to explore differences by using the contextual method. First, Wagenaar contends that Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival composite text are comparable because Lev 23 was probably written during the Babylonian Exile. He excludes various texts dating to the 2nd millennium (Ḫatti, Ebla, Mari, and Emar) from study because they were written much earlier than the Priestly text (time gap). 146 The exclusion of the analysis of comparative texts because they may be earlier than the dating of Lev 23 creates a circular argument—that is, Lev 23 is late because of its similarities to the 1st-millennium Akītu text, and any similarities to earlier texts are invalid because Lev 23 was written late. Conclusions from a comparative study (see chap. 1) must be based on an analysis of relevant texts. And thus Wagenaar’s decision to exclude the study of earlier texts creates a circular argument and, possibly, invalidates his 146.  Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 6 n. 24.

Chapter 2

72

conclusions. Therefore, in this book, I use a comparative method, exploring the 2nd-millennium multimonth festival calendar at Emar and its relationship to Lev 23 (including a discussion of other possibly related texts). Second, I asserted in chap. 1 that the comparative method works best when both texts share a similar analytical genre. The composite 1stmillennium Babylonian Akītu Festival text is not a festival calendar but a descriptive text about the activities of one festival held in one month. By contrast, Lev 23 is a prescriptive, multimonth festival calendar comprising the activities of many festivals that occurred over multiple months. Thus, one can see that Wagenaar conducts a comparative analysis on texts with different analytical genres—possibly invalidating his conclusions. 147 Third, as discussed above, Wagenaar’s analysis discovers a list of potential similarities between the 1st-millennium Akītu compilation text and Lev 23 and concludes a direct connection. The analysis does not discuss or evaluate differences between the texts, nor does it go beyond a laundry list of features to explore the deeper context and purpose of each text. In chap. 1 we discussed the need for combining the comparative and contrastive approaches to create the contextual approach. 148 This lack of a contextual approach may negate Wagenaar’s findings. Textual Differences A review of Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival composite text reveals nine significant differences. First, Wagenaar’s fundamental argument is that Ezek 45 and Lev 23 share similarities with the 1st-millennium festival calendar, and these similarities are a direct adaptation by the biblical text of the Babylonian ritual practice. One of his central points of comparison is that both the Israelite festival calendar and the Babylonian Akītu Festival calendar depict two six-month units revolving around the vernal and autumnal equinoxes (see discussion above). Unfortunately, he bases this first point of similarity on an analytical error. Wagenaar is arguing for a connection between the biblical festival calendar and the 2nd-millennium Mesopotamian Akītu tradition. As demonstrated earlier in this chapter, however, Bidmead argues that the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival occurred only once a year. Therefore, the evidence does not support Wagenaar’s conclusion of a direct connection between the biannual festival calendar structure in Lev 23 and the annual festival calendar 147.  Although it is difficult to prove that the ancients were aware of the same genre classifications as modern writers, I follow Sparks, who states that ancient Israelite scribes were formally educated and informally inculturated into the setting that produced the Hebrew Bible. As a result, they were implicitly or explicitly aware of how general literary and grammatical structures worked in their context, both in the composition of texts and in the reading of them. See chap. 1 for a detailed discussion of genre. 148.  Hallo, “New Moons and Sabbaths,” 1–18; idem, “Biblical History,” 1–5.

Overview of Research

73

structure of the 1st-millennium Babylonian text. Furthermore, even if Wagenaar could demonstrate a biannual structure for the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival, a compelling precedent exists in the 2nd millennium. Second, a direct correlation between two texts requires a shared purpose or intent (see comparative method in chap. 1). Wagenaar does not address this point directly, perhaps assuming that both texts are festival texts and thus would have sufficient grounds for a connection. However, the intents of the Levitical festival calendar and the 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year Festival texts are quite different. The purpose of the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival text is political—ensuring the power of both the king and the priesthood. However, the intent of the multimonth festival calendar in Lev 23 is the care of Yhwh. Leviticus 23 is a prescriptive speech between Yhwh and Moses, including the actions required of the general population. 149 In contrast, the Akītu Festival text is a descriptive list of activities for the king and high priest. In Lev 23, the political agenda of the priesthood or the monarchy is probably secondary to the care of Yhwh. Wagenaar maintains that the Babylonian festival text directly influenced revisions in Lev 23 and Ezek 45. If true, then these revisions should adopt the ideology of the Babylonian text. One would expect the text to uphold an ideological agenda promoting a prominent leadership role in ritual activities for both the priesthood and the king. Furthermore, the rituals should maintain an institutional prominence and descriptive tone—none of which are present in the biblical text. Therefore, based on a comparison of ideologies in the two texts, Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium New Year’s Festival do not exhibit a direct connection. Third, the two differ in the role of the high priest. The high priest (šešgallu) takes a prominent role in the New Year’s Akītu Festival, performing ritual baths, prayers, public readings, and conducting rituals with the king. But where the high priest is the primary actor in the Babylonian text, the people of Israel are the actors in Lev 23. In the Babylonian text, the high priest rises before sunrise, conducts a ritual cleansing, and reads prayers to the god. In Lev 23, the general population contributes offerings and typically abstains from work. While the priest is clearly in view, both he and the temple are in the background and are not the focus of the biblical text. Because the primary actors in the two texts are different, a direct correlation between the two texts is unwarranted. Fourth, the two differ in the connection between the king and the god. On the eighth day of the festival, as the gods gather in Esagil to accompany Marduk to the Akītu-chapel, the king takes the hand of the image of Bēl. Van der Toorn argues that the handholding is a significant feature of the 149.  Jenson notes that the Lev 23 is directed to the lay Israelites, while Numbers 28– 29 provides the priest with details about sacrifice ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 186).

74

Chapter 2

tie between the cult and the monarchy. In taking the hand of the god, the king enters into a legal contract with both the priesthood and the people of Babylon to care for and protect them. Leviticus 23 shows no sign that a direct correlation existed between the cult and the monarchy. In addition, it is unclear that the supplications of the general population create a covenant or legal contract of protection directly with Yhwh. Because Lev 23 lacks this ideological “handholding”—a significant aspect of the Babylonian ritual—the likelihood of a direct connection between the texts diminishes. Fifth, the two texts differ in the role of literary recitation. The high priest recites Enūma eliš (the Babylonian creation account) on the 4th day of the festival. As discussed above, Bidmead asserts that the reading of this text on the 4th day of Nissanu may have had both a theological and a political purpose. The biblical text records occasions when the priest or leader read publically to the community of Israel (Exod 24:7; Deut 31:11; Josh 8:35; Neh 8:3, 8, 18; 9:3; 13:1). However, there is no record in Lev 23 for such readings. Nehemiah 8 does specify that the festivals after the exile included public readings (similar to the contemporary Babylonian New Year’s text). However, this practice is not recorded in Lev 23. While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, if the 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s text directly affected Lev 23, then Lev 23 should show signs of this influence by mentioning the reading of texts. The absence of a specific account of reciting texts at the festival further reduces the likelihood of a direct connection between the texts. Sixth, the two texts differ regarding the inclusion of figurines and a rite of passage. As discussed above, van der Toorn argues that the Akītu Festival includes elements of a rite of passage for the god—consisting of a liminal stage, reemergence as the primary god, and the introduction of the New Year. The Israelite festival calendar of Lev 23 makes no mention of images; nor does it record any rite of passage in which Yhwh must overcome another god or cosmic force to maintain prominence among the Israelites. Yhwh never needs to prove himself worthy of being the God of Israel. The concept that a god must defeat other powers is a point of difference between the two texts and again reduces the likelihood of a direct correlation in the transmission of the 1st-millennium Babylonian text tradition to Lev 23. Seventh, the two texts view rites of the night in different ways. The high priest began each morning by rising before sunrise and conducting a ritual purification bath (see above). This preference for performing ritual activities during the early morning hours, before sunrise, is not present in Lev 23. The Israelite festival rites typically occurred between sunrise and sunset with a few festival meals taking place in the evening after sundown. There are no ritual activities specified in the early morning hours before sunrise.

Overview of Research

75

The two festival cultures differ in their preference for the timing of ritual activity, thereby lessening the possibility of a direct connection between the two texts. Eighth, the role of the community in ritual celebrations is expressed in different ways between the two texts. The general population did not play a primary role in the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival. The role for the general community was confined to observing processions and occasionally receiving portions of the ritual meal. Meanwhile, the text emphasizes the role of the privileged class (the kidinnu) on several occasions (see earlier discussion of the Akītu Festival). The ideology represented in the Akītu Festival is designed to segregate classes of the populations. However, the ideology of Lev 23 is designed to bring classes together. On multiple occasions, Yhwh instructs Moses to speak to the “Israelites” (‫ )בני ישראל‬and not to any special social group. In the festivals of Leviticus, all the people are mentioned, and no one is excluded. If a bias exists, it is created to protect the rights of the poor and needy (Lev 23:22) and not the privileged class. For these reasons, I argue that the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival and Lev 23 exhibit different ideologies, reducing the likelihood of a direct connection between the texts. Finally, ninth, the expression of a political rejuvenation ceremony is different in each text. The 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Festival includes a ritual humiliation of the king. Van der Toorn contends that the text supports the theme of renewal through a series of rites of passage during which the king must renew his power through the pledge of allegiance to the god. Leviticus 23 may preserve the renewal of the agricultural seasons; however, the theme of political renewal is absent. Leviticus 23 does not demonstrate core values based on politics or express the need to solidify power outside the religious community. No participants were stripped of their symbols of office, nor were “negative confessions” part of the festival rites. This lack of similar themes and core values raises the question of whether a direct connection may be concluded between the texts. Conclusion Wagenaar reviews the similarities between the biblical texts (Ezek 45 and Lev 23) and the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival composite text and finds that they display a direct connection. That is, he theorizes that the Babylonian festival rites directly influenced changes to the early biblical festival, resulting in the cultic rites in Lev 23. While the two texts show some similarities, the errors in methodology and the significant differences call a direct connection into question. The following points demonstrate that Lev 23 and the Babylonian New Year’s Festival texts exhibit considerable variations in theme and ideology:

76

Chapter 2 Major Arguments 150 • The 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Festival text is a descriptive text for an annual festival, while the festival calendar text in Lev 23 comprises a prescriptive, multimonth, multifestival calendar. This is not merely a difference between the texts; it may reveal a methodological error in the comparative method, negating Wagenaar’s findings. • Wagenaar fails to include a discussion of textual differences and context. • Wagenaar omits the analysis of earlier comparative texts, creating a circular argument for the late dating of Lev 23. • The purpose of the Babylonian text is political, with the high priest and king as the primary actors. The purpose of Lev 23 is theological, with the Israelites (community) as the primary actor. • The Babylonian festival emphasizes the role of the high priest and the priesthood, while the Levitical text minimizes the discussion of the role of the priesthood, emphasizing instead the role of the community of Israelites. • In the Babylonian text, the privileged citizens play a central role and receive prayers and oaths of support. By contrast, the central participants of the Israelite festival calendar in Lev 23 are the general population. In addition, the lower classes are given special protection. • The Babylonian New Year’s Festival includes a political rejuvenation ceremony during which the king is humbled, and his support by the god is subsequently renewed. The Israelite festival calendar of Lev 23 lacks the theme of political renewal. Minor Arguments • The king politically promotes divine support of both his office and himself by performing a handholding ritual with the god. In contrast, Lev 23 does not exhibit a concern for the administrative leadership of Israel. 151

150.  Three reviews of Wagenaar’s work were studied. Each was generally favorable to Wagenaar’s work, and none references any of the items discussed in this section (Thomas Hieke, “Review of Jan Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar,” RBL 9 (2006), www.bookreviews.org; William K. Gilders, “Review of Jan Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar,” JHS 6 (2006), www.jhsonline.org/jhs; E. Hayes, “Review of Jan Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar,” JSOT 31 (2007): 204. 151.  One exception is Yhwh’s support of Moses as conveyer of information.

Overview of Research

77

• The Babylonian festival includes the public reading of an epic creation account for both theological and political reasons. While later biblical texts mention public readings, Lev 23 does not. • Figurines are constructed during the Babylonian festival to effect the renewal of the god’s protection of the people, while no similar demonstration is made to Yhwh in Lev 23. • The high priest conducts rituals in the early hours before sunrise—perhaps in order to gain command of the rising sun in the Babylonian festival. Lev 23 records no ritual activities in the early morning. The 1st-millennium Babylonian composite Akītu New Year’s Festival text clearly shares a number of aspects with the biblical festival calendar and other biblical traditions. In addition to some features identified by Wagenaar, both texts describe ritual activity, include a New Year’s celebration, and appear to describe activities near an equinox. Even some of the features mentioned above as different from or missing in Lev 23 find parallels in other biblical passages. Being similar, however, does not in itself constitute a direct correlation. Wagenaar asserts that Israel came into direct contact with 1st-millennium Babylonian culture and incorporated aspects of the Babylonian New Year’s Festival into Lev 23—through a direct connection. He then uses this direct connection to date Lev 23 to the exilic and/or postexilic era. I argue that, for a direct connection to exist between the texts, the author(s) of Lev 23 must have understood and been affected by the themes and ideology present in the Babylonian texts. Because many of these themes are absent and others are directly refuted by the Levitical text, I find that a direct connection with the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival text is unlikely. A phenomenological (see definition above) connection unquestionably exists between the texts; however, this sort of connection is insufficient to date Lev 23 to the exile. Furthermore, the long history of the Akītu Festival in multiple Mesopotamian cultures from the 2nd millennium onward makes a particular point of contact with Israel difficult. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Wagenaar makes three methodological errors in his thesis that may have led to erroneous conclusions. First, he is comparing texts from different analytical genres, which, according to Sparks, negates the findings of a comparative study. Second, Wagenaar focuses on a list of similarities without exploring differences or the deeper purpose and intent of the texts—an error that Hallo and Malul contend can lead to overstated or faulty conclusions. Third, Wagenaar presents a circular argument: He begins by excluding the analysis of 2nd-millennium ancient Near Eastern festival calendars because Lev 23 was written in the 1st millennium. Then he declares that Lev 23 dates to the 1st millennium because it is similar to a 1st-millennium text—ignoring earlier texts that may also

78

Chapter 2

exhibit the same similarities. Therefore, I conclude that the differences in theme and ideology between Lev 23 and the Babylonian Akītu New Year’s Festival are significant enough to raise doubt concerning a direct connection between the texts.

Summary In this chapter, I laid the groundwork for an in-depth discussion of Lev 23 in chap. 3 and Emar 446 in chap. 4. I explored prior research into the relationship between Lev 23 and related passages (intratextual analysis). Moreover, I gave a brief summary of festival calendar texts throughout the 3rdand 2nd-millennium ancient Near East (providing a context for both Lev 23 and Emar 446). The analysis revealed that these texts often held a common view of ritual as evidenced by the sharing of: festival names, months of observance, purpose, and duration of celebrations. The discussion of these rituals concluded with an overview of the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival text. I also reviewed the research by notable scholars who have explored Lev 23 in the context of other biblical festival texts. I concluded with an overview and evaluation of Wagenaar’s comparative analysis, according to which Lev 23 was directly affected by the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival compilation text. The balance of this book (chaps. 3–6) conducts a comparative analysis of Lev 23 and the 2nd-millennium Akkadian multimonth festival calendar found at Emar (in Syria).

Chapter 3

Leviticus 23 Introduction to the Study of Leviticus 23 In chap. 2, we explored Wagenaar’s theory that the 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Akītu Festival texts directly influenced the exilic Israelite priests. According to Wagenaar, this relationship facilitated the changes to Lev 23, which occurred during the mid-1st millennium. In chap. 2, I questioned his conclusions primarily because of his faulty comparative methodology: comparing two texts from different analytical genres, failing to include an analysis of significant textual differences, ignoring earlier textual evidence (leading to a circular argument), and disregarding the Akītu Festival’s long history of development in the ancient Near East. I devote the balance of this work to implementing the comparative methodology outlined in chap. 1, comparing Lev 23 and Emar 446. As discussed in chap. 1, a successful comparative analysis should undertake the following: (1) perform an intratextual analysis prior to an extratextual analysis; (2) conduct an analysis of similarities and differences; (3) consider the broader context of the text by going beyond a list of similarities; (4) identify the purpose and audience of the text; (5) compare texts with similar analytical genres; (6) consider the texts’ history of transmission and textual tradition; (7) compare texts with a similar prescriptive or descriptive nature; and (8) compare the ritual aspects of ritual texts. Texts from different cultures show variation in the expression of ritual. However, if two texts share significant similarities across these broad categories, it is possible to argue for some type of connection (direct, mediated, common source, or common tradition). This chapter lays the groundwork for a comparative analysis by examining the multimonth ritual calendar in Lev 23. 1 In preparation for the comparative analysis in chap. 5, I begin investigating Lev 23 by creating a new translation with text-critical notes (addressing intrabiblical issues). We will study this information, determining the form, outline, and literary structures evident in the text. We will then analyze the text for the following ritual aspects: sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, ritual participants, 1.  When considering the methodological points above, I partially addressed the intratextual analysis of Lev 23 and related biblical passages in chap. 2. The discussion is expanded in this chapter. Similarly, a portion of the contextual analysis is found in chap. 2 in the section on festivals in the ancient Near East.

79

80

Chapter 3

and ritual sound. When possible, I provide insights to the text by illuminating the analytical genre, broader context, purpose, audience, and evidence of textual tradition. In chap. 5, I use these features to determine whether Lev 23 preserves an early West Semitic multimonth festival calendar tradition.

Original Translation and Text-Critical Notes of Leviticus 23 Understanding the text in its context requires translating the biblical text and demonstrating an awareness of the textual issues. Thus I present an original translation of Lev 23 with textual and exegetical notes. Leviticus 23 1Yhwh spoke again to Moses, saying: 2Speak to the Israelites and say to them: The appointed times of Yhwh, which you shall proclaim as sacred assemblies; these are my appointed times. 2 3(For) six days, work may be done, 2.  This study includes an analysis of the entire 23rd chap. of Leviticus. Verses 1–3 appear to review Sabbath law and not festival activity; therefore, the first verses may not be part of the multimonth festival calendar. Despite this possible lack of relationship, vv. 1 and 4 include a common introductory formula that warrants further investigation in this chapter. Yhwh spoke again to Moses, saying.  Formulaic phrase used as a major section divider. Compare with vv. 9, 23, 26, 33. times. Following Wenham, Jenson, and Milgrom, who note that the noun môʿēd is derived from the verb yʿd (2 Sam 20:5)—meaning “to appoint or fix” (Gordon Wenham, The Book of Leviticus [NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979], 300; Milgrom, Leviticus, 1955; Jenson, Graded Holiness, 186). Hartley translates this as “appointed feasts,” indicating that the set times (plural) hold a special significance and may be translated “feasts,” because those are the special times included in the passage ( John E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC; Dallas: Word, 1992], 375). Hartley notes that the genitive use “of Yhwh” may be either objective “appointed feasts/times of Yhwh” or subjective “feasts/times set by Yhwh” (ibid., 375). The noun is also associated in Lev 1:1 with the “Tent of Meeting.” as sacred assemblies.  The Cairo Genizah and targum read singular—“as a sacred assembly.” The noun miqrāʾ meaning “calling” or “assembly,” following NIDOTTE #7924 from the verb qrʾ, “to call” or “to proclaim,” is translated here following Rooker and Milgrom as “sacred assemblies.” The paired miqrāʾ qōdeš is found 19 times in the text, mostly in Lev23 (11 times) or Num 28–29 (6 times). The one exception, in the festival text of Exod 12:16 (2 times) refers to the first and seventh days of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Richard S. Hess, Leviticus [ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; EBC; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008], 783; Wenham, Leviticus, 301; Hartley, Leviticus, 365). In later biblical times, the term was associated with the public reading of Scripture (Neh 8:8). Wenham translates the term “holy conventions,” arguing, based on Num 10:2; Isa 1:13; and 4:5 that it includes elements of being summoned to a national gathering of public worship (Wenham, Leviticus, 301). Hartley notes that the term is variously translated as: “sacred day of celebration” (Noordtzij, 227), “sacred convocation” (neb), and “sacred occasion” (jps). Jenson renders it “holy proclamations” ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 187). these.  Hartley notes that ‫ הם‬functions as a copula (Hartley, Leviticus, 366).

Leviticus 23

81

but the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, a sacred assembly. Do no work; it is a Sabbath to Yhwh throughout your settlements. 3 4These are the appointed times of Yhwh, the sacred assemblies, which you shall proclaim at their fixed times. 4 5In the first month, on the fourteenth (day) of the month, at twilight, a Passover offering to Yhwh, 5 6and on the fifteenth day of that month, the Feast of Unleavened Bread to Yhwh. Seven days appointed times.  The intended audience for the chapter is the general population— “the Israelites.” Yhwh talks to Moses (as facilitator) in the second person and addresses the intended audience (broadly, the general population) in the third person. The combination of the phrases “appointed times” and “sacred assemblies” is used as an introductory formula in the chapter. 3.  six days.  Accusative of time (GKC §118i). may be done.  The MT reads Niphal imperfect 3fs. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads Niphal imperfect 3ms and the Septuagint reads a second-person “you may do”—harmonizing the verbs in the passage. Sabbath of complete rest.  Jenson notes the unique nature of the Sabbath week in the ancient Near East ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 12). Hartley and Wenham translate this “a Sabbath of solemn rest.” Hartley finds the phrase is used to stress that the day includes total rest in honor of Yhwh. Hess and Rooker translate this “Sabbath of rest.” Hess asserts that the expression is unusual, “as it designates the Sabbath at the end of the week. . . . it demands the absence of all work on such days, with the penalty of capital punishment for disobedience” (Hess, Leviticus, 783). The translation here follows Milgrom, who argues that šabbātôn is transformed from a noun to an adjective with the construct chain (šabbat šabbātôn) indicating a superlative literal meaning, “the most restful rest” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1959). The better English translation of “the most restful rest” becomes “complete rest.” sacred assembly.  The Septuagint adds “to the Lord.” Do no work.  The MT reads Qal imperfect 2mp, while the Septuagint reads singular. Loʾ + imperfect = negative imperative. to Yhwh.  The lamed may be understood as “of ” or “to” Yhwh. The translation here follows Wenham and Rooker, who translate this “to Yhwh,” following the translations of lamed in vv. 6, 41: ḥag la Yhwh, “a pilgrimage-festival to Yhwh.” Milgrom affirms the other option, “the Sabbath in priestly sources is part of God’s creation and the day on which he rested (Gen 2:2–3; cf. Exod 20:11; 31:17). Therefore, the Sabbath, by right of ownership, is ‘of Yhwh,’ the Lord’s” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1962). 4.  These.  The Samaritan Pentateuch and some manuscripts of the Septuagint read with a waw conjunctive: “and these.” sacred assemblies.  The Cairo Genizah and manuscripts of the targum read as a singular, “a sacred assembly,” similar to v. 2. which you shall proclaim at their fixed times.  A second introduction formula for the annual festivals. 5.  on the fourteenth.  The Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, and Vulgate add “day,” which is assumed in the MT (cf. v. 6 and Num 28:16). The form is the periphrastic genitive, which is used even when the form is not present (Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 158). at twilight.  The phrase ben hāʿarbāyim literally means “between the two evenings.” Milgrom observes that the rabbinic interpretation is “from the time that the sun sets (and) as long as the face of the east is red” (b. Šabb. 34b; Milgrom, Leviticus, 1969).

82

Chapter 3

you are to eat unleavened bread. 6 7On the first day shall be for you a sacred occasion: do no heavy labor. 7 8Thus, for seven days you shall offer food offerings to Yhwh. On the seventh day is a sacred assembly: you shall do no heavy labor. 8 9Yhwh spoke to Moses, saying: 10Speak to the Israelites and a Passover.  Levine proposes that the root ‫ פסח‬may relate to the Qal in 1 Kgs 18:21, meaning “straddle, hedge” (Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus [ JPS Torah Commentary; New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 159). Hess associates it with the verb in Exod 12:13, 23, 27; and Isa 31:5, meaning “to pass over” (Hess, Leviticus, 784). Milgrom insists that the origin of the word is “to protect,” which may find support in the notion that the Israelites find protection in Yhwh (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1970–71). offering to Yhwh.  Levine remarks that the Passover is a sacrifice and not a festival. The verse is written in the impersonal style (Hartley, Leviticus, 372). 6.  Feast.  The term ḥag, from the verb ḥāgag, means “to turn, twist, dance out of happiness.” The noun is translated “feast” here—following Wenham, Hess, and Hartley; however, the term may include the meaning “pilgrimage,” as shown in the meaning of the Arabic ḥaĝĝ. Hartley adds that the term implies a festival for a religious purpose (Hartley, Leviticus, 384). Unleavened Bread.  Milgrom maintains that the Feast of Unleavened Bread occurred on the 1st day of the festival in Lev 23; Exod 12; Num 28; and Deut 16. In Exod 13:6 (which Milgrom assigns to the earlier JE author), the pilgrimage was held on the last (seventh) day of the festival. The later exilic writers imply that the pilgrimage lasted for all seven days (Ezek 45:21; Ezra 6:22; 2 Chr 8:12–13; 30:13; 35:17). Milgrom continues: “Exod 13:6, the epic source ( JE), is the oldest. . . . There can be only one reason why the pilgrimage takes place on the seventh day: the pesaḥ is observed at home, in keeping with the regulations of Exod 12:1–13, 22–27a, 28—all probably P (cf. Bar-On 1995)—which reflects the evidence of local altars and regional sanctuaries.” According to Milgrom, the pesaḥ is offered at a local sanctuary and the blood brought home to spread on the entrance to the home. The shift of the pilgrimage to the first day may have occurred in Num 28 (P), which posits a regional sanctuary for the ritual in conjunction with the pesaḥ celebration. The shift to the 1st day was finalized with H, as was the centralization of the festival at the temple and the assimilation of both pesaḥ and maṣṣot into one unit (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1976; Shimon Bar-On, “Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Ex 12,21–27,” ZAW 107 [1995]: 107–31). Verse 6.  The Festival of Unleavened Bread occurs in the middle of the month. 7.  On.  Hartley notes that the Septuagint reads a conjunctive (και) “and,” omitting the bet preposition (Hartley, Leviticus, 367). no heavy labor.  Translated variously by different commentators. Here following Wenham, who translates this as “no heavy work,” remarking: “the adjective heavy is not applied to work forbidden on the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement” (Wenham, Leviticus, 303). Hartley offers the phrase “no unusual labor” (Hartley, Leviticus, 384). Milgrom translates “no laborious work,” reasoning that kol-mĕleʾket ʿabōdâ entails any activity requiring heavy labor—thus light work is not forbidden (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1978). 8.  for seven days.  Another example of the accusative of time. food offerings.  The MT reads “food offerings,” collective plural. The Septuagint reads “whole-burnt-offerings,” as in v. 12, and the Cairo Genizah reads ‫עולה‬, “a whole-burnt offering.” Wenham perceives that the term is probably intended to include “all the appropriate sacrifices” that are described in detail in Num 28–29. These would include meat (burnt offering), cereal, and drink offerings (Wenham, Leviticus, 303). Milgrom agrees with Wenham’s translation, reading “food gifts.” Hartley similarly translates the term

Leviticus 23

83

say to them: When you enter the land I am giving to you and you reap its harvest, you shall bring the first sheaf of your harvest to the priest. 9 11He shall elevate the sheaf before Yhwh. 10 For acceptance on your behalf from the day after the Sabbath, the priest shall elevate it. 11 12On the day that you elevate the sheaf, you shall sacrifice an unblemished male lamb in its first year as a burnt offering to Yhwh. 13Its accompanying grain offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a food offering to Yhwh, a pleasing aroma; and its drink offering shall be one-fourth of a hin of wine. 12 14Do not partake (from the new crop) of any bread or parched or fresh grain until the very day you bring the offering of your God, a law for “gifts.” Hess renders it “offerings by fire,” recognizing that the term is found 7 times in Lev 23 and 32 times in Leviticus (of the47 total occurrences; Hess, Leviticus, 784). On.  One Hebrew medieval manuscript, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the Syriac read with a waw, “and.” sacred assembly.  The Septuagint reads similarly to vv. 7, 21, 27, and 36, adding “you will have” (Hess, Leviticus, 784). 9.  first sheaf.  The Samaritan Pentateuch and TargumJ add a direct article. 10.  He shall elevate.  Following Milgrom, who translates this “elevate or lift.” He indicates that one of two factors leads to elevating an offering: (1) when the offering is in the owner’s possession just before being offered on the altar; or (2) when the mechanism of offering most sacred gifts differs from the norm, requiring additional sanctification. For a detailed discussion, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 461–73, 1984. 11.  for acceptance.  Hartley notes that “acceptance” means that the offering achieves the purpose for which it is presented (Hartley, Leviticus, 385). from the day after the Sabbath.  The use of ‫ממחרת השבת‬, “on the day after Sabbath,” in vv. 11b, 15a, 16a presents an interpretive challenge (Nahum M. Sarna, “The Interchange of the Prepositions Beth and Mem in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 78 [1959]: 310–16). Milgrom observes that the interpreters of this phrase are split into two general camps: those who identify ‫ שבת‬as meaning a weekly Sabbath, and those who find that ‫ שבת‬is a day of rest only associated with a day during the festival. The weekly Sabbath position is further subdivided into two positions: those who find the Sabbath during the week of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Karaites and Samaritans) and the Qumran texts that place the Sabbath after the festival (cf. Boethusians). Those who conclude that the term “Sabbath” does not mean a weekly date but merely a day of rest during the festival are also divided into two subgroups. The first group (Pharisees, LXX [v. 11], Jos. Ant. 3.250) contends that the day of rest is observed on the first day of the festival, while the second group (Pesh. E. S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 344) holds that the day of rest is observed on the day after the Sabbath—that is, the 1st day of the week (Sunday; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2059–61). The textual interpretation remains ambiguous, a point that I explore later, in chap. 4, during the study of Emar 446. 12.  two-tenths of an ephah.  Hartley notes that two-tenths of an ephah correlates to about 7 quarts or 7.28 liters, which is twice the normal offering mentioned in Num 28:13 (Hartley, Leviticus, 385). a pleasing aroma.  The Septuagint adds “to the Lord.” its drink offering.  The Kethiv reads “its drink offering,” while the Qere and Samaritan Pentateuch read “the drink offering with it.” Verse 13.  The verse is written in the impersonal style, similar to Emar 446 (Hartley, Leviticus, 372).

84

Chapter 3

all time, throughout your generations, in all your settlements. 13 15And from the day after the Sabbath, from the day on which you brought the elevation offering of the sheaf, you shall count for yourselves seven full weeks. 14 16You shall count until the day after the seventh Sabbath—fifty days. 15 Then you shall present a new grain offering to Yhwh. 16 17You shall bring from your settlements an elevation offering of two bread (loaves), comprising twotenths (of an ephah) of fine flour and baked after leavening, as a firstfruits for Yhwh. 17 18With the bread, you shall offer seven unblemished yearling lambs, one bull of the herd, and two rams; they shall be a burnt offering to Yhwh, and with their grain offerings and drink offerings, a food offering of pleasant aroma to Yhwh. 18 19You shall sacrifice one male goat as a purification offering and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of well-being. 19 20And the priest shall elevate them with the bread of firstfruits as an elevation 13.  Verse 14.  Similar to Emar 446, where there is a prohibition against an activity until the completion of the ritual ceremony. 14.  for yourselves.  Omitted in the Septuagint. seven full weeks.  Following Hartley and Wenham, the festival occurs “on a Sunday, seven weeks after the waving of the barley harvest and fifty days after the last day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread.” Milgrom translates this “seven full Sabbath-weeks. They must be complete,” translating šabbātôn as “Sabbath-weeks” and the balance of the sentence literally. Other possibilities for the translation exist. J. van Goudoever (Biblical Calendars [Leiden: Brill, 1959], 18–29), outlines four possibilities: (1) ‫ שבת‬means a solemn day of rest and not the 7th day of the week (15th of Nisan); (2) ‫ שבת‬is the Sabbath during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the Boethusians, the Samaritans, and the Karaites follow this interpretation); (3) the day after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, 22nd of Nisan); and (4) the Sabbath immediately following the Feast of Unleavened Bread (discussed in Hartley, Leviticus, 385–86). 15.  the day.  Hartley translates this word “morning.” fifty days.  The feast, unnamed here, probably refers to the Feast of Weeks found in Exod 34:22 and Deut 16:10. The practice of naming a feast in one text and leaving it unnamed in another will be explored further in chap. 4. Wenham finds that the Pentecost of Acts 2:1 is derived from the Greek word meaning “fiftieth” (pēntekostos). 16.  Verses 15–16a demonstrate an AXA′ chiasm. The inner structure of the chiasm yields AB[C]XB′A′; the C addition defines when the counting of the 50 days should begin. The word ‫ שבת‬unifies the entire structure, with ‫ שבע‬modifying ‫( שבת‬Milgrom, Leviticus, 1990–96). 17.  from your settlements.  The Vulgate reads “from all your settlements”—adding “all.” Wenham (Leviticus) translates this “homes.” Hess (Leviticus) renders it “wherever you live.” two bread.  The Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Syriac, and targums add “loaves.” comprising.  The Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate read with the preposition έκ δύο leading to the translation (adopted here), which is “comprising.” 18.  seven.  The Samaritan Pentateuch and Targum read the absolute form, while the MT reads construct. rams.  The Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint add “unblemished.” 19.  You shall sacrifice.  The Septuagint reads a third-person plural in place of the MT’s second-person plural.

Leviticus 23

85

offering to Yhwh with the two lambs; they shall be holy to Yhwh for the priest. 20 21On that day, you shall proclaim: It shall be for you a sacred occasion; do no heavy labor, a law for all time, in all your settlements, throughout your generations. 21 22And when you reap the harvest of your land, do not complete (it) to the edge of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and for the alien; I am Yhwh your God. 22 23Yhwh spoke to Moses, saying: 24Speak to the Israelites thus: In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe a rest, a sacred occasion, commemorated with trumpet blasts. 25Do no heavy labor; and you shall present a food offering to Yhwh. 23 26Yhwh spoke to Moses, saying: 24 27However, the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. It shall be a sacred occasion for you; you shall afflict yourselves, and you shall offer a food offering to Yhwh; 25 28do no work on that day. For it is the Day of Atonement, to effect atonement on your behalf before Yhwh your God. 29Indeed, any person who does not deny himself

purification offering.  The Cairo Genizah substitutes “to Yhwh” for the purification offering. a sacrifice of well-being.  The Samaritan Pentateuch uses the direct article, “the sacrifice of well-being.” The Septuagint adds “with the bread of the firstfruits,” mirroring v. 20. 20.  the two lambs.  The Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint add the direct article. for the priest.  The Septuagint adds “it is to be for him who presents them,” clarifying the payment to the priest. As with several verses above, the verse is written in the impersonal style and will be analyzed as a potential point of similarity with Emar 446 (Hartley, Leviticus, 372). 21.  On that day.  The Septuagint reads, “(You will call) this day a convocation.” it shall be for you.  The Syriac omits “it shall be for you.” do no heavy labor.  The Septuagint adds “on it.” 22.  when you reap.  Temporal clause with the bet + infinitive construct. gleanings.  Milgrom insists that the verse was “appended to the pericope on the firstfruits of the grain (vv. 9–21) in order to underline God’s sovereignty over the land: Israel may farm God’s land (25:23) only if it brings its firstfruits to Yhwh and provides these specified gifts to the poor” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2011; Moshe Greenberg, On the Bible and Judaism: A Collection of Writings [Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 1985], 115). of your harvest.  The Samaritan Pentateuch reads “to harvest” in place of “in/of your harvest.” 23.  food offering.  The Septuagint changes “food offering” to “whole burnt offering.” 24.  saying.  The Syriac adds, “Speak to the Israelites, saying to them” (similar to vv. 2, 10, 24, 34). 25.  the Day of Atonement.  The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint omit the direct article. Leviticus 23:27–32 adds a significant amount of text from Lev 16, fitting the text into an ABCDD′C′B′A′ introversion, where the DD′ center emphasizes abstention from work and the consequences for noncompliance. In addition to the center, the outer AA′ flank illuminates the idea that a ritual may be held from sundown on the ninth day until the evening of the tenth.

86

Chapter 3

on that day will be cut off from his kin; 26 30and any person who does any work on that day, I will cause that soul to perish among his people. 27 31Do no work; it is a law for all time, throughout your generations, in all your settlements. 28 32It shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you, and you shall afflict yourselves; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall observe your Sabbath. 29 33Yhwh spoke to Moses, saying: 34Say to the Israelites thus: On the fifteenth day of this seventh month, there shall be the Feast of Tabernacles, for seven days to Yhwh. 30 35The first day shall be a sacred occasion; do no heavy labor. 31 36Seven days you shall present food offerings to Yhwh. On the eighth day, you shall observe a sacred occasion and present a food offering to Yhwh. It is a solemn as­sembly; do no heavy labor. 32 37These are the appointed times of Yhwh, which you shall proclaim as sacred assemblies, to present food offerings to Yhwh: 26.  deny himself.  Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 423) find that the form conveys a reflexive meaning. Wenham translates this “afflict,” which would include “fasting and other penitential exercises” (Wenham, Leviticus, 305). Verse 29.  The verse is written in the impersonal style (Hartley, Leviticus, 372). 27.  I will cause.  The Septuagint reads the passive “(That soul) will perish” in place of the first person found in the MT: “I will. . . .” among his people.  The Samaritan Pentateuch reads a plural, as in v. 29. 28.  Do no work.  A few medieval Hebrew manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Syriac read with the waw, “And.” 29. “At evening” is omitted in some Hebrew medieval manuscripts, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate. you shall observe.  The MT reads a Qal, while the Samaritan Pentateuch reads a Hiphil. 30.  tabernacles.  The meaning of ‫ סכת‬and the role of “booths” are not clarified in the text. Hess indicates that the practice of living in huts had probably ended by the time of the writing of Lev 23. According to Hess, the meaning may be associated with the prior practice of living in huts in Egypt (the location of sukkot—meaning “tabernacles”) in Exod 12:37–13:20, or with the practice of living in huts near the sanctuary in Jerusalem during festivals (Hess, Leviticus, 790–91; also discussed in Daniel Fleming, “The Israelite Festival Calendar and Emar’s Ritual Archive,” RB 106 [1999]: 8–34). Verse 34.  The verse is written in the impersonal style (Hartley, Leviticus, 372). 31.  The first day shall be.  The Septuagint begins the clause with a waw. a sacred occasion.  One version of the Septuagint adds “it will be for you.” This reading is supported by the Syriac (cf. v. 27). 32.  Verse 36.  The Samaritan Pentateuch adds a waw, distinguishing the break in the clause. On the eighth day.  Leviticus 23 and Num 29 both refer to the eighth day of the Feast of Booths and identify it as the day on which participants will “not do any work.” The chronicler (2 Chr 7:9–10) supports this prescription, but the writer of 1 Kgs 8:66 contradicts it when he describes King Solomon’s sending home the festival participants on the eighth day. Several scholars (cf. Abraham Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch [trans. P. H. Wicksteed; London: Macmillan, 1886], 282; William R. Scott, The Booths of Ancient Israel’s Autumn Festival [Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1993], 110–11) use this seeming contradiction to argue that the

Leviticus 23

87

burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices, and drink offerings, as prescribed for each day 33—38apart from the Sabbath offerings of Yhwh, and apart from your offerings, and apart from your votive offerings, and apart from your freewill offerings that you give to Yhwh. 34 39However, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered the crops of the land, you shall celebrate the Feast of Yhwh seven days: on the first day, rest, and on the eighth day, rest. 35 40On the first day, you shall take for yourselves fruit of splendid trees: fronds of palms, branches of leafy trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before Yhwh your God seven days. 36 41You shall celebrate it as a Feast of Yhwh for seven days in the year prescription on the eighth day is a postexilic insertion. Milgrom states, contra Kuenen and Scott, that [a]ll of 1 Kgs 8 is a Deuteronomistic composition, which follows D’s prescription for a seven-day pilgrimage-festival (ḥag) in the autumn (Deut 16:13–15). Leviticus 23, however, incorporates the equally old tradition of P prescribing an ʿăṣeret on the eighth day. That Dtr may have had Lev 23 before it, including the supplement, vv. 39–43, is possibly demonstrated by its claim that Solomon celebrated the Festival of Booths (v. 39) as an additional period. . . . Scott stakes his claim for the lateness of the eighth day on his general assumption of the lateness of the priestly texts. He asks: If P (and H) preceded D, why didn’t the latter include the ʿăṣeret of the Festival of Booths, as it did for the ʿăṣeret of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Deut 16:8)? The answer. . . . [is that] the eighth day is not a Hag; hence D does not mention it, whereas D’s ʿăṣeret for the seventh day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread is its replacement for the ḥag of its source (Exod 13:6b [E]). (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2032)

33.  burnt offerings . . . drink offerings.  The Septuagint simplifies the list of offerings to “whole offerings and their sacrifices and their drink offerings.” as prescribed for each day.  Translation following Hartley with the literal meaning “each day’s matter on its day.” 34.  apart from your offerings.  The Samaritan Pentateuch adds “all.” 35.  On the first day, rest, and on the eighth day, rest.  The pericope, for Milgrom, points to a continuing development of the word ‫( חג‬festival). Milgrom insists that the early meaning of ‫ חג‬was a “communal pilgrimage to and celebration at a sanctuary,” which became generalized during the exile as any holiday (at home or at a sanctuary). In addition, he maintains that, in the preexilic festival, ‫ סכת‬was an incidental feature in connection with which some of the festival pilgrims erected shelters. In exilic times, the custom became a “divine imperative to all Israelites to construct them (booths) and dwell in them at home.” Milgrom concludes that this exilic imperative led Ezra to mandate (Neh 8:16) that all Israelites assemble booths whether they were at home or at the temple (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2037). 36.  splendid trees.  The referenced tree has been variously identified as: citron ( Jos. Ant. 13.372; targums; Peshiṭta; y. Sukkah 3.5); olive (Alexander Rofé, “Methodological Aspects of the Study of Biblical Law, in Jewish Law Association Studies [ed. B. S. Jackson; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 12, who bases the identification on Jer 11:16 and Hos 14:7); the dar tree (Shaul Tolkovsky, The Fruit of the Hadar Tree [ Jerusalem: Bialik Insititute, 1966] [Hebrew] argues for an identification with the Himalayan cedar called the divdar in Sanskrit—from Milgrom, Leviticus, 2041); the fruit of any majestic tree (K. Elliger, Leviticus [Tübingen: Mohr, 1966]; Hess, Leviticus, 972); or branches of majestic trees (Milgrom [Leviticus, 2042] contends that ‫פרי‬, in this instance, refers to branches—following Neh

88

Chapter 3

as a lasting ordinance, throughout your generations. You shall celebrate it in the seventh month. 37 42In booths, you shall live seven days; all citizens in 8:15, which does not mention “fruit”). See Milgrom, Leviticus, 2041–42, for a full discussion of the options. branches.  Translated here in the plural, reading the Hebrew as collective, and following the Samaritan Pentateuch. leafy trees.  Two interpretations are possible. The rabbinic interpretation is the “myrtle,” which grows in damp plains such as the Jordan River, Dan Valley (Golan and Upper Galilee), and Mt. Carmel (Sipra Emor 16:6; b. Sukkah 32b; Michael A. Zohary, Plants of the Bible [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982]; and discussed in Milgrom, Leviticus, 2041). A second option, which I’ve adopted here, is “leafy,” which is supported by Ezek 6:13 and adopted by Greenberg (Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 [AB 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983], 136) and Milgrom (Milgrom adds that “Nehemiah mentions both ʿălê hădās ‘myrtle leaves’ and ʿălē ʿēṣ ʿābōt ‘leaves of a leafy tree’ [Neh 8:15], which indicates the possibility that both interpretations were already current in the fifth century” [Milgrom, Leviticus, 2042]). willows of the brook.  Milgrom proposes a poplar tree, based on rabbinic texts. He identifies the poplar branch as being longer than palm fronds, quoting the rabbis: “[T]here was a place below Jerusalem called Motsa. They (the gatherers) went down thither and collected thence young willow-branches, and they came and set them upright along the sides of the altar with their tops bent over the top of the altar” (m. Sukkah 4:5; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2042). you shall rejoice.  Milgrom finds a special meaning in the phrase “you will rejoice before Yhwh your God.” First, he reasons that to rejoice (in this instance) implies a procession around the altar in the sanctuary with the branches of the festival. Citing m. Sukkah 4:5; 39, which discusses the activities of the priests during the Festival of Booths: “Each day they walked in procession (with the branches) round the altar and recited, ‘We beseech you, O Eternal, save we pray; we beseech you, O Eternal, send prosperity, we pray.’ But on that day (the seventh day) they walked in procession round the altar seven times” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2043). The branches would be elevated, following Ps 118, at “Praise the Lord” and “We beseech you, O Eternal, save us.” If this is correct, the festival included a procession in which the priests carried the branches and invoked blessings from Yhwh. Second, Milgrom suggests that the purpose of the celebration was supplication for rain. Relying on rabbinic texts, he argues that the water libation of the festival included “water brought from the Pool of Shiloah through the Water Gate ‘because through it the water pitcher was brought for the libation on the Festival of Booths’ (t. Sukkah 3:3)” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2044). This water “could be only for one purpose: ‘so that the rain would be blessed on its account’ (t. Sukkah 3:18)” (rabbinic support for this conclusion is also found in b. Roš Haš. 16a, “Why did the Torah enjoin on us to pour out water on the Booths Festival? The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said: Pour our water before me on the Booths Festival, so that your rains this year may be blessed”). Thus Milgrom infers that the Festival of Booths included a procession, waving of branches, and water offerings, all designed to supplicate Yhwh for successful rains during the coming agricultural season. 37.  Verse 41.  The Septuagint omits the phrase “You shall celebrate it as a Feast of Yhwh for seven days.” lasting ordinance.  Following Rooker, Wenham (Leviticus) translates this as “a permanent rule”; Hartley (Leviticus) renders it “perpetual decree”; Milgrom (Leviticus) reads “a law for all time.”

Leviticus 23

89

Israel shall live in booths, 38 43in order that your generations may know that I made the Israelites live in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt; I am Yhwh your God. 44Thus Moses declared the appointed times of Yhwh to the Israelites.

Structure, Outline, and Literary Features As discussed in chap. 1, a comparative analysis requires an understanding of the form, order, and structure of the text. Klingbeil, relying on the work of Yairah Amit and V. Phillips Long, argues that a text’s syntax and literary structures are the thoughtful, well-constructed work of an author or editor. As such, these patterns provide clues to the performance and purpose of ritual. 39 The literary analysis of the texts, according to Klingbeil, should at a minimum investigate the following aspects of structure: • Frequent words or phrases • Organizing phrases • Chiastic structures 38.  in booths.  Following GKC §126q, r. According to Hartley, using the direct article with the preposition denotes “a special type of booth constructed for the feast” (Hartley, Leviticus, 368). Various scholars have interpreted the function and date of the practice. J. Wellhausen (Prolegomena to the History of Israel [SPRTS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994], 91–105) argued that the booths referred to the temporary shelter constructed in the fields during the harvest. This is unlikely because the harvest was already completed (Deut 16:13), and the purpose of the festival was thanks for the completed harvest and supplication for the fall planting (Scott, The Booths, 23–25; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2049). Knohl maintains that the command to live in booths is “based on a hermeneutic etiology of the name of the first station of the Israelites in the exodus from Egypt” (Knohl, Sanctuary, 38–39). Milgrom responds that “post hoc historical etiologies and allegorical interpretations of customs and practices. . . . do not penetrate to their origins” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2049). A third option for the purpose of the “booths” comes from Milgrom, who believes that “the sukkâ refers to the shelter built by pilgrims to the Jerusalem Temple for one festival during which there were too many of them to be accommodated in the city” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2049; H. L. Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism [Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 24; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982], 60). all citizens of Israel shall live.  The plural verb confirms the use of the collective intention with the singular noun. Verse 42.  Hartley notes the ABCDB′A′ chiastic structure to the verse. The emphasis falls on the A portion of the structure—“in booths” (Hartley, Leviticus, 368). 39. G. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible (BBRSup 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 148; Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narrative: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (trans. Y. Lotan; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 1–21; V. Phillips Long, “Reading the Old Testament as Literature,” in Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis (ed. Craig C. Broyles; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 85–123.

Chapter 3

90

• Parallel language: word pairs • Disjunctive elements • Prescriptive or descriptive nature of the rituals Following the work of Klingbeil, Amit, and Long, I begin the analysis of Lev 23 with a “bottom-up” exploration of the text. The goal is to emphasize the organization of the text in order to understand the context, purpose, audience, genre, and descriptive or prescriptive nature of the text. Verbal Analysis Verbs are a fundamental unit within a text, organizing the participants and moving the action forward. An understanding of the type and function of different verbal structures may give the reader an insight into the purpose, prescriptive/descriptive nature, and intent of the author(s). This section explores the verbal choices made in the text and highlights how these choices may reveal a deeper understanding of Israelite ritual. Leviticus 23 depicts ritual instructions organized as direct speech by Yhwh through Moses to the people of Israel. The text overlays the direct discourse of the narrative backbone with the phrase “Yhwh spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelites thus. . . . ,” which occurs five times (vv. 1, 9, 23, 26, 33) and includes a third-person wayyqtl, infinitive construct, and imperative chain. The imperative is continued on each occasion by means of wqtl, “say to them. . . .” At first glance, the insertion of the narrative (way­ yqtl) markers appears to provide an outline for the speech. While this is often true, I show in the next section that temporal markers provide a better organizational tool than verbal markers in Lev 23. 40 Direct discourse relies on the wqtl (wāw + perfect) and imperfect verbal forms to move the dialogue forward. Robert Longacre argues that discourse used to depict instruction (prescriptive) is best described as “Procedural/ Instructional Discourse.” 41 In this form of discourse, the wqtl marks the mainline of the speech in a VSO clause, while the imperfect marks an action relative to a noun occurring only in NV clauses. According to Longacre, the discourse is goal oriented and not agent oriented. Therefore, prescriptive discourse uses the wāw-consecutive perfect and the noun + imperfect as the primary verbal markers. The author then uses participles, “be” clauses, and nominal clauses to relay background activities and setting. 42 His instructional discourse matches the verbal forms and organization of the material. 40.  A temporal marker is a word or phrase that denotes a period of time. These markers may include the following: day, month, on that day, on the same day, in the morning, in the evening, etc. This organizing principle of Lev 23 will be analyzed in relationship to the multimonth festival calendar at Emar. 41.  Robert E. Longacre, “Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (ed. Walter R. Bodine; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 183–86. 42.  Ibid., 183.

Leviticus 23

91

Table 9 outlines the verbal forms contained in the text. The aspect of the wqtl is identified using the classifications in A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 43 According to Paul Joüon, the forms of the wqtl (found in this text) are classified as: succession (future action subsequent to another action), consecution (result), continuation (continue a future indicative), volitive (adopting the mood of the prior imperative—usually with the idea of succession), and adoption (continuation of a participle or an infinitive construct—usually with the idea of succession and a future meaning). As shown in this verbal analysis, Lev 23 represents a direct speech from Yhwh through Moses to the people of Israel. Nearly half of the verbal forms are in the imperfect (45 percent), with one-quarter of the verbs in the wqtl (wāw + perfect). The text primarily exhibits verbs in the second person (Yhwh to Moses, with the people of Israel normally identified as the object) and occasionally in the third person (in vv. 7, 11, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 36, 42, 43; and in nominal clauses, i.e., v. 5). Rolf Rendtorff asserts that the language in Leviticus points to the existence of a ritual genre. The genre is characterized by short instructions (prescriptive) for the performance of offerings using impersonal perfect verbs with an introduction and concluding formula. 44 Klaus Koch modified Rendtorff ’s work noting the presence of the wāw + perfect verbal form (converted perfect) in addition to the imperfect (similar to Lev 23). 45 For both Koch and Rendtorff, the ritual genre is based in an oral liturgy because of the formulaic repetition and stylized language. 46 Their argument for the existence of a ritual genre has not gained support because it lacks evidence for an original setting. 47

43. Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Part Three: Syntax, Paradigms and Indices (SubBi 14/2; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2003), 396–406. See also Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Richard Hess; BLH 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 168–70; Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction, 519–42. 44. Rolf Rendtorff, Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift: Eine gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuch­ung (FRLANT 44; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 12–34. 45. Klaus Koch, Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16: Eine überlieferungs­ geschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung (FRLANT 53; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 46–76. 46.  This is similar to Levine’s conclusions in relation to a descriptive ritual genre when comparing Leviticus and Ugaritic ritual texts. Baruch A. Levine, “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Features and Functional Features of the Genre,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 467–75. 47.  James W. Watts, “The Rhetoric of Ritual Instruction,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 82; Elliger, Leviticus, 30–31.

Chapter 3

92

Table 9.  Leviticus 23 Verbal Analysis Verse

wayyqtl

1

‫וידבר‬

wqtl

wqtl Form

Imperfect

Perfect

Imperative

Participle

Infinitive Construct

Introductory Formula ‫לאמר‬ ‫ ואמרת‬Volitive

2

‫תקראו‬

‫דבר‬

Weekly Ritual of the Sabbath ‫תעשה‬ ‫תעשו‬a

3

Introductory Formula for the Multimonth Festival Calendar ‫תקראו‬

4

Festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread 5 6

‫תאכלו‬

7

‫יהיה‬ ‫תעשו‬ ‫ והקרבתם‬Consecution

8

‫תעשו‬

Festivals of the Firstfruits of the Harvest 9

‫וידבר‬

‫לאמר‬ ‫ ואמרת‬Volitive ‫ וקצרתם‬Succession ‫ והבאתם‬Succession

‫תבאו‬

11

‫ והניף‬Succession

‫יניפנו‬

12

‫ ועשיתם‬Consecution

10

‫נתן‬

‫הניפכם‬ b

‫בלולה‬

13 14 15

‫ וספרתם‬Succession

16

‫ והקרבתם‬Succession

‫תאכלו‬

‫הביאכם‬

‫תהיינה‬

‫הביאכם‬

‫תספרו‬ ‫’תביאו‬ ‫תהיינה תאפינה‬

17 18

‫ והקרבתם‬Continuation

19

‫ ועשיתם‬Continuation

20

‫ והניף‬Succession

21

‫ וקראתם‬Continuation

22

‫דבר‬

‫יהיו‬ ‫יהיו‬ ‫יהיה‬ ‫תעשו‬ ‫תכלה‬ ‫תלקט‬ ‫תעזב‬

a.  Loʾ + imperfect = a negative imperative. b.  Nominal and participial clauses giving background information.

‫ובקצרכם‬ ‫בקצרך‬

Leviticus 23

93

Table 9.  Leviticus 23 Verbal Analysis (cont.) Verse

wayyqtl

23

‫וידבר‬

wqtl

wqtl Form

Imperfect

Perfect

Imperative

Participle

Infinitive Construct

Festival of Trumpet Blasts ‫לאמר‬ ‫יהיה‬

24 ‫ והקרבתם‬Continuationc

25

‫דבר‬

‫לאמר‬

‫תעשו‬

Festival of the Day of Atonement 26

‫וידבר‬

‫לאמר‬ ‫יהיה‬

‫ ועניתם‬Continuation ‫ והקרבתם‬Continuation

27

‫תעשו‬

28 29

‫ ונכרתה‬Consecution

‫תענה‬

30

‫ והאבדתי‬Consecution

‫תעשה‬

‫לכפר‬

‫תעשו‬

31 ‫ ועניתם‬Continuation

32

‫תשבתו‬

Festival of Tabernacles 33

‫וידבר‬

‫לאמר‬ ‫דבר‬

34

‫לאמר‬

‫תעשו‬

35 ‫ והקרבתם‬Continuation

36

‫תקריבו‬ ‫יהיה‬ ‫תעשו‬

Festival Clarification 37

‫תקראו‬

38

‫תתנו‬

‫להקריב‬

Festival of Yhwh ‫תחנו‬

39 40

‫ ולקחתם‬Continuation ‫ ושמחתם‬Succession

41

‫ וחגתם‬Consecution

‫באספכם‬

‫תחגו‬

42

‫תשבו‬ ‫ישבו‬

43

‫ידעו‬

‫הושבתי‬

‫בהוציאי‬

Conclusion Statement 44

‫וידבר‬

Total

6

23

—

42

1

4

2

16

% of Total

6%

25%

—

45%

1%

4%

2%

17%

c.  With adversative force.

94

Chapter 3

In contrast to Rendtorff and Koch, John Hartley proposed that the mixture of second- and third-person verbs shows that Lev 23 includes an ancient calendar in the third person that was redacted over time to second-person speech. 48 Hartley attributes the following features to the ancient calendar: • Divided into five speeches (by the introductory formula in vv. 1, 9, 23, 26, 33) in order to place the regulations for each of the feasts in selfcontained speech units • Included the introduction and conclusion formula “these are the appointed times of Yhwh” (vv. 4, 37) • Characterized by short, crisp sentences in an impersonal legalistic style • Formulaic phrases may have included: ◦◦ Date, feast name, and the phrase “for Yhwh” ◦◦ “on the day is a sacred occasion” ◦◦ “Do no heavy labor” ◦◦ “and he will offer food gifts to Yhwh” 49 Based on these criteria for the ancient calendar, Hartley found that only vv. 5, 13, 20, 29, and 34 remained unaltered from the archaic, impersonal style. Redaction altered the text, formulating it as direct address. In addition to reformulating the text into a speech, the redactor added four supplements. Following Elliger and Noth, Hartley argued for the addition of the following sections: 50 • Instruction on observing the Sabbath • Special instructions for the Feast of Booths (Feast of Yhwh), vv. 39–43 • Extended treatment of the Feast of Weeks • The end of the Feast of Weeks, v. 22 Hartley attempts to reconcile the mix of verbal forms by constructing this redaction history for the text: an ancient calendar in the third person with texts added by an editor to form a second-person speech. James Watts argues that similar language in Lev 1–7 represents rhetorical ritual instruction. He maintains that the text’s framework repeatedly emphasizes that the speaker is Yhwh, who is claiming divine and royal authority for the ritual instructions (prescriptive). The text identifies all of Israel as the intended audience and makes the general population responsible for performing all the rituals. The frequent second-person forms of address 48.  Hartley, Leviticus, 371. 49.  Also discussed in Alfred Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie (AnBib 66; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976), 82–83. 50.  Elliger, Leviticus, 311; Noth, Leviticus, 168.

Leviticus 23

95

make clear the direct application to its intended audience. These features lead Watts to conclude that the texts in Leviticus were designed as an oral recitation, the reading of which was intended as a rhetorical device to emphasize the authority of the Torah in Israel. The text not only instructs the reader or hearer on the performance of rites but aims to persuade them that these instructions must be normative. 51 In chap. 1, Sparks was shown to have argued that compared texts must exhibit a similar analytical genre. An analytical genre is defined in this book as the grouping of similar texts serving a comparative purpose by helping to adjust generic expectations. These expectations are broadened or narrowed, depending on the situation. 52 Building on the work of Rendtorff and analysis of Hartley, I contend that the analytical genre for Lev 23 is a prescriptive multimonth ritual calendar. First, as discussed above, the verbal structure of the text points to a prescriptive nature. Second, the text (following Rendtorff ) holds ritual as the central purpose. Third, morphological markers (following Hartley) divide the text into multiple months that compose a larger ritual calendar. An exploration of the choice and frequency of verbs in Lev 23 finds that 6 of the 29 (21 percent) verbal roots comprise 57 percent of the identified verbal structures. The most frequently used verbs involve the following actions: to do (usually as a prohibition), to speak, to say, to be (always in the third person), to present an offering, and to bring.  53 If, as discussed above, the chapter represents a direct speech in the second person, then the actions identified in the perfect with the wāw consecutive should mark the primary actions involved in the rituals. Organization and Outline As noted in the methodology section in chap. 1, comparative studies should explore the organization of each text under study. In this section, therefore, I examine the underlying principle that best organizes the ritual text of Lev 23. In chap. 5, I compare the organization of Lev 23 with the organization of the ritual text found at Emar. The structure of Lev 23 is based on both morphology and temporal markers. By analyzing linguistic markers, we find that Lev 23 is divided by the phrase “Yhwh spoke t o Moses, saying.” This phr a se is r epeat ed five times (vv. 1, 9, 23, 26, 33), representing the major divisions in the text. Each of these verses and the final verse (v. 44) use the wayyqtl preterite Piel of 51.  Watts, “The Rhetoric,” 100. 52. Following Sparks, Ancient Texts, 10. 53.  Other, less frequent ritual actions in the passage are: to offer (twice); to perform an elevation offering (twice); to say (twice); to be humbled (twice); to harvest (once); to celebrate a pilgrimage feast (once); to bring (once); to proclaim (once); to count (once); to cut off (once); to perish (once); to take (once); to rejoice (once).

96

Chapter 3

‫ דבר‬in the third person, indicating a division in the narrative. The presence of these markers led Hartley to divide the text into five sections plus a sixth summary statement. 54 Wenham finds that the text is divided into two sections—a group of spring festivals (vv. 4–22) and a group of fall festivals (vv. 23–43)— by the phrase “I am Yhwh your God.” 55 Wenham continues, proposing subdivisions in the text marked by the phrase “a law for all time throughout your generations” (vv. 14, 21, 31, 41). 56 While there are clear linguistic markers in the text, a different organizational structure emerges when viewing temporal markers. These markers illuminate two opening summary statements—one in v. 2 and another in v. 4—and two closing summary statements—one in v. 37 and another in v. 44—each identified by the temporal marker “appointed times of Yhwh.” 57 In this way, the term is used as a temporal marker indicating a summary (opening and closing) formula for the text. The summary statement identifies the audience as the Israelites and the text as containing the appointed times of Yhwh. The verbal structure in three of the four (vv. 2, 4, 36) summary statements is the qal imperfect 2mp of the verb ‫ קרא‬meaning “to call” or “proclaim.” Moving to the body of the text—temporal markers are also useful in identifying divisions in the text. Major divisions in the text usually occur with the formula “in the x month on the x (day) of the month.” These major temporal divisions are found in v. 5 (Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread), v. 24 (Festival of Trumpet Blasts), v. 27 (Day of Atonement), v. 34 (Festival of Tabernacles), and v. 39 (Festival of Yhwh). The only annual festival not marked by this date formula is the Festival of Firstfruits, which is designated by the temporal marker “harvest (time).” 58 Henning Reventlow and Alfred Cholewiński each attribute the temporal formula to an ancient

54.  Hartley, Leviticus, 369–70. 55.  Wenham, Leviticus, 300. Adopted by Milgrom, Leviticus, 1950. 56.  Wenham, Leviticus, 300. Wenham notes other key phrases, including “Yhwh’s appointed seasons” (vv. 2, 4, 37, 44); “holy convocations” (vv. 2, 4, 7, 8, 21, 24, 27, 35, 37); and “you shall do no heavy work” (vv. 7, 8, 21, 25, 28, 30–31, 36). 57.  Hess notes that ‫ מועד‬is found in Gen 1:14 and describes “the annual and monthly ‘seasons’ marked by the sun and moon” (Hess, Leviticus, 783). 58.  Harvest (time) [‫ ]קציר‬is identified as pertaining to a specific time of the year on several occasions. In Gen 30:14, the temporal period when Reuben finds mandrakes is identified as “the days of the harvest”; in Josh 3:15, the temporal period when the Jordan overflows its banks is “all the days of the harvest”; in Judg 15:1, Samson visits his wife “at the time of the harvest”; in 2 Sam 21:9, the Gibeonites are avenged “at harvest time.” Each of these illustrations demonstrates that the temporal period of “the harvest” was understood as a temporal marker.

Leviticus 23

97

calendrical tradition. 59 Donn Morgan places this phrase in the genre he refers to as ‘calendrical fixation’. 60 Subdivisions in the text may also be identified through temporal markers including “x days” or “x day” (vv. 3, 5, 6, 31, 35, 36a, 36b, 39b, 40, 42); “harvest (time)” (vv. 10aβ, 22); “on the day” 61 (vv. 12, 14, 15, 21, 28, 29, 30). An outline based on these markers is presented below (p. 98). A second point that is evident from the outline is the variable number of words/verses given to each festival. Wagenaar argued (see chap. 2) that this variable length is a sign of later redaction. At this point, his argument stands unanswered. However, the evidence for a lack of symmetry is noted as a feature of Lev 23. Literary Structure Leviticus 23 is located in the Holiness Code—typically identified as chaps. 17–26. Milgrom distinguishes the Holiness Code of Leviticus from earlier chapters (1–16) by its literary structure, vocabulary, style, and theology.  62 Like other chapters in the Holiness Code, Lev 23 exhibits several literary features, including: large chiasms, small chiasms (parallelism), inclusio, and word repetition. The ultimate goal here is to determine whether these literary devices are expressed in both Lev 23 and Emar 446.  63 Large Chiasms The Holiness Code of Lev 17–27 is differentiated from the earlier chapters of Leviticus by the presence of introversions (large chiastic structures) that encompass several verses. Important for both their artistry and theology, these chiasms appear twice in Lev 23 (vv. 1–4 and vv. 27–32). Milgrom identifies vv. 1–4 as a large chiastic structure (A B C D E X E′ D′ C′ B′ A′) linking the Sabbath to the annual festival calendar. The chiasm’s center highlights the fact that each Sabbath is a sacred occasion, requiring complete rest, because it is the day of Yhwh. 64 The passage may be diagramed as on p. 99. A second large chiasm appears in vv. 27–32 in the form A B C D X D′ C′ B′ A′. Milgrom argues that these verses compose one 59.  H. G. Reventlow, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz: Formgeschichtlichuntersucht (WMANT 6; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961), 105; Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium, 82–83. 60.  Donn F. Morgan, The So-Called Cultic Calendars in the Pentateuch: A Morphological and Typological Study (Ph.D. diss., Claremont University, 1974), 67. 61.  Variants include “on that day” and “until the very day.” 62.  Milgrom, Leviticus, 1321–1443. 63.  Although they are important, we should not overplay the presence of these literary devices, because they are common literary structures throughout the ancient Near East. Therefore, although I explore this feature in relation to the multimonth ritual calendar at Emar, the presence or absence of these structures is considered a weak point of comparison. 64.  Ibid., 1320.

Chapter 3

98

Leviticus 23 Outline Topic (Temporal Division)

Verses 1–2

Introductory formula for the entire festival calendar: weekly and multimonth (appointed times of Yhwh)

3

Weekly ritual—The Sabbath (six days)

4

Introductory formula for the multimonth festival calendar (appointed times of Yhwh)

5–8

Festival during the first month: Passover and Unleavened Bread (first month on the fourteenth day of the month) 5

  The ritual offering of Passover (fourteenth day)

6–8

  The Festival of Unleavened Bread (fifteenth day)

9–22

Festivals for firstfruits of the harvest (harvest time) 9–10 aα

  Introductory formula (verbal marker and harvest time)

10aβ-14

  Festival for firstfruit of barley (harvest time) 10aβ-11

   Elevation offering (harvest time)

12–13

   Burnt, grain, and drink offerings (on the day)

14

   Prohibition against eating grain until the offering is   complete (until the very day)   Festival for firstfruit of wheat (the day after)

15–21

22 23–25

15–20

   Elevation offering burnt, grain, drink, purification, and    well-being offerings (the day after)

21

   Prohibition against work during ritual (on that day)   Provision to care for the poor (harvest time) Festival of Trumpet Blasts (seventh month on the first day of the month)

23–25 26–32

  Introductory formula, food offering, and prohibition from   work (verbal marker and seventh month) The Day of Atonement (tenth day of the seventh month)

26–27

  Introductory formula, self-denial, and food offering (verbal   marker and tenth day of the 7th month)

28

  Prohibition from work (on that day)

29

  Consequence for disobedience—denying oneself (on that  day)

30

  Consequence for disobedience–work (on that day)

31–32

  Restatement of the prohibition on work (ninth day)

33–36

Festival of Tabernacles (fifteenth day of the 7th month) 33–34

  Introductory formula (verbal marker and fifteenth day of the   seventh month)

35

Prohibition on work (the first day)

Leviticus 23

99

Leviticus 23 Outline (cont.) Topic (Temporal Division)

Verses 36a

  Food offerings for seven days (seven days)

36b

  Eighth day is a sacred occasion (on the eighth day)

37–38

Festival clarification (appointed times)

39–43

Festival of Yhwh (fifteenth day of the 7th month) 39a

  Introductory formula (fifteenth day of the 7th month)

39b

  Call for rest on the first and eighth days (first day)

40–41

  Ritual of the four species (first day)

42–43

  Living in booths (seven days)

44

Conclusion statement (appointed times)

Diagram of Large Chiasm (Lev 23:1–4) A the appointed times of Yhwh, which you shall proclaim B as sacred assemblies; C these are my appointed times D (For) six days E work may be done, X but the 7th day is a Sabbath of complete rest,   a sacred assembly. E′ Do no work; D′ it is a Sabbath to Yhwh throughout your settlements. C′ These are the appointed times of Yhwh, B′ the sacred assemblies, A′ which you shall proclaim at their fixed times.

unit around the central themes of self-denial and cessation of all work during the Festival of the Day of Atonement. 65 Small Chiasms In addition to large chiastic structures covering multiple verses, Lev 23 includes smaller parallel structures within a single verse. Milgrom identifies examples in vv. 11, 41, 42. The first example occurs in v. 11 which depicts a 65.  Ibid., 1320–21.

Chapter 3

100 A He shall elevate the sheaf B before Yhwh.

X For acceptance on your behalf from the day after the Sabbath, B′ the priest A′ shall elevate it.

chiasm written in an A B X B′ A′ structure with the thematic center “for you to be accepted.” 66 Another example of a small chiasm occurs in v. 42 surrounding the repeated instruction to live in booths (A A′). This A X A′ structure stresses that the statute applies to all native-born Israelites (X). 67 Inclusio An inclusio is the literary device that segregates material by using symmetrical language to “bracket” or “envelop” the text. The structure may be as small as a word or clause or as large as an entire chapter. Milgrom finds that the clause “these are the appointed times of Yhwh” in vv. 4 and 37a separates the original ancient festival calendar from the subsequent additions in vv. 1–3 and 39–43a. 68 A similar divider may occur with the phrase “speak/spoke to the Israelites” found in vv. 2, 10, 24, 34, 44. The analysis in this section noted the following features in the ritual calendar of Lev 23: • Leviticus 23 is instructional discourse (prescriptive). • The analytical genre (see discussion on Sparks in chap. 1) is a prescriptive multimonth ritual calendar. • The text is organized using temporal markers to segment summary and title statements, major divisions (months), and subdivisions (between different rites). ◦◦ A standard date formula is used to identify major divisions in the text. The general formula is “month x on the x day” (one major section uses a different temporal divider). ◦◦ Subdivisions within these larger sections are marked by phrases, including “on or for x day(s),” “on that day,” “the next day.” • The number of lines for each festival and month demonstrates a lack of symmetry. • The verbs are typically in the second person (direct speech) from Yhwh to Moses with the general population as the object of the action. 66.  Milgrom notes that “on the day after the Sabbath” must be removed to restore the original chiastic structure (ibid., 1322). 67. Ibid. 68.  Ibid., 1323.

Leviticus 23

101

• Occasionally verbs change to third-person narrative—still oriented toward the general population. • The text includes an introductory statement. • The audience is identified in the introduction as the general population (Israelites). In addition, while not emphasized, the priests are clearly involved. • The author uses large chiastic structures in the narrative. • The text exhibits parallel language and small chiastic structures. We will compare each of these features to those we find in a similar study of Emar 446 to determine whether the two texts share a common linguistic orientation to ritual.

Sacred Time As discussed in chap. 1, understanding sacred time as expressed in the performance of ritual can help us better comprehend the context of rit­ ual. 69 Sproul argues that sacred time is both circular (eternal and unchanging) and linear (ever changing). Klingbeil adds that linear time applies to prescriptive ritual calendars, while circular time or relative time applies to the ritual duration. 70 Grimes aids in the analysis of sacred time by providing some useful questions that we will use to explore Lev 23. Some of the key questions include: What time of day does the ritual occur—night, dawn, dusk, midday? On what date? In which season? Are lunar cycles significant for the timing of the ritual? How does ritual time coincide or conflict with ordinary times (stopping work or changing sleep cycles)? Does the rite commemorate historical eras or recall paradigmatic events? What is the duration of the rite? Does it have phases, interludes, breaks? What preparations are necessary? 71 These questions, among others, will guide our exploration of sacred time in Lev 23. Table 10 below outlines each time reference in Lev 23. As I discuss above, the use of temporal references provides an outline for the multimonth calendar. Therefore, the data may also act as a simplified outline of the text. Data A final note on sacred time involves the disruption of the daily cycle. Time references include the disruption of the work cycle calling for periods

69.  Jenson argues that, “in the Priestly system, the number and character of public sacrifices play an important role in ordering and grading days, particularly the Sabbath in the week, the New Moon in the month, and the festivals in the year” ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 209). 70.  Sproul, “Sacred Time,” 50; Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 157. 71.  Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies, 24–25.

Chapter 3

102

Table 10.  References to Time in Leviticus 23 V.

Temporal Phrase

Month

Day

Specification

Actions

3

“(For) six days”

Every

The allowance for working 6 days and the specification for rest on the 7th day may correspond to the four phases of the lunar cycle, which last for approximately 7 days each. Because the lunar cycle lasts 29–30 days, the 7-day cycle would not correspond to a specific day of the month but, rather, float through the months.

Work activity may be done for 6 days.

3

“but the seventh day”

Every

The verse includes a positive and a negative prohibition of work, including: a positive call for “complete rest” and the lōʾ + imperfect, “do no work” (ABCB′A′).

The 7th day is a day of complete rest and is considered a sacred assembly.

5

“In the first month, on the fourteenth (day) of the month, at twilight”

1

14

  The day of the full moon in the lunar calendar.   This verse uses formulaic language: “X month, on the x day of the month, at (morning/twilight).”a

A ritual meal occurring in the evening—the day before another named festival.

6

“On the fifteenth day of the month”

1

15

After a 1-day ritual on Day 14, the calendar identifies a named 7-day festival beginning in the middle of the month.

Begins the 7-day Feast of Unleavened Bread.

7

“On the first day”

1

15

8

“seven days”

1

15–21

Lasting from the full moon until the second quarter-moon.

Offering of food offerings for each day.

8

“seventh day”

1

21

Date of the second quarter-moon.

A sacred assembly on the last day of the festival, including a prohibition on work.

10

“harvest time”

?

?

Festival timed to the harvest of barley.

The first sheaf of barley is brought to the priest as an elevation offering.

11

“day after the Sabbath”

?

?

Specifies that the elevation offering is for acceptance.

Elevation offering.

12

“on that day”

?

Day of the elevation offering

Standard temporal division.b

  Sacrifice a one-year-old male lamb as a burnt offering, grain offering, food offering, and a drink offering.c   Prohibition on eating of the new grain until the offering.d

A sacred occasion with no work.

a.  I explore potential similarities with Emar 446 in chap. 4. b.  This division for significant ritual activities is explored further in chap. 4. c.  The potential similarity of these offerings to Emar 446 is discussed in the section on ritual objects (offerings) in chap. 4. d.  Both Emar 446 and Lev 23 record the prohibition against an action until the completion of the ritual offering. I discuss this similarity in chap. 5.

Leviticus 23

103

Table 10.  References to Time in Leviticus 23 (cont.) V.

Temporal Phrase

Month

Day

Specification

Actions

15

“seven Sabbaths”

?

?

Temporal divider heading

16

“The day after the seventh Sabbath, fifty days”

?

?

Specifies the time from the barley firstfruits offering until the ripening of the wheat

  New grain offering for Yhwh consisting of two loaves of wheat bread comprising two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour and baked with leavening—in an elevation offering.   The offering also includes seven yearling lambs, one bull, and two rams—all as a burnt offering.   The offering also includes a standard grain, drink, and food offering for Yhwh.   The purification offering is a male goat.   The sacrifice of well-being is two yearling lambs—in an elevation offering.

21

“on that day”

?

Day of the wheat firstfruits offering

Standard temporal division

Proclamation of a sacred occasion with a prohibition against work

22

“harvest time”

?

?

Temporal division

Prohibition against completely harvesting a field in order to leave the gleaning to the poor and aliens

24

“in the seventh month, on the first day of the month”

7

1

  The day of the new moon in the lunar calendar.   This verse uses formulaic language: “X month, on the x day of the month, at (morning/twilight).”

  Feast of Trumpet Blasts.   Positive and negative prohibitions on work.   Sacred occasion.   Food offerings to Yhwh.

27

Tenth day of the 7th month

7

10

Standard temporal division.

  Day of Atonement.   Sacred occasion.   Humble oneself before Yhwh.   Food offerings to Yhwh.   Negative prohibition against work.

29

“on that day”

7

10

Standard temporal division to highlight significant aspects of a ritual occurring on the same day as other ritual events.

Anyone not humbling himself will be cut off from his people.

Chapter 3

104

Table 10.  References to Time in Leviticus 23 (cont.) V.

Temporal Phrase

Month

Day

Specification

Actions

30

“on that day”

7

10

Standard temporal division to highlight significant aspects of a ritual occurring on the same day as other ritual events.

Anyone working on the Day of Atonement will perish.

32

“on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening”

7

9–10

  From evening on the 9th day to evening on the 10th day.   Used as a temporal divider and clarification about moving from the 10th day back to the 9th day.

  Sabbath of complete rest.   Humble oneself.

34

“on the fifteenth day of the seventh month”

7

15

The day of the full moon in the lunar calendar. Formulaic temporal language

Feast of Booths heading.

34

“for seven days”

7

15–21

The length of one lunar cycle— from full moon to second quartermoon.e

This festival lasts for 7 days and is dedicated to Yhwh.

35

“on the first day”

7

15

Standard temporal division.

A sacred occasion with a negative prohibition on work.

36

“seven days”

7

15–21

See v. 34 above.

Food offerings to Yhwh for each of 7 days.

36

“on eighth day”

7

22

Standard temporal division.

A sacred occasion with a food offering to Yhwh, a solemn assembly, and a negative prohibition on work.

39

On the fifteenth day of the seventh month”

7

15

  The day of the full moon in the lunar calendar.   Formulaic temporal language.

Feast of Yhwh heading.

39

“seven days”

7

15–21

See v. 34 above.

Temporal description of the duration of the festival without detail for activities.

39

“on the first day”

7

15

Standard temporal division.

Rest—perhaps a shortened form of the activities described in v. 35 above.

39

“on the eighth day”

7

22

Standard temporal division.

Rest—perhaps a shortened form of the activities described in v. 36 above.

40

“on the first day”

7

15

Standard temporal division.

Take fruit of splendid trees: fronds of palms, branches of leafy trees, and willows of the brook.

40

“seven days”

7

15–21

See v. 34 above.

Seven days of rejoicing.

41

“seven days”

7

15–21

See v. 34 above.

Feast duration.

42

“seven days”

7

15–21

See v. 34 above.

Live in booths.

e.  This is a potential point of similarity with the zukru Festival at Emar and is discussed in chap. 4.

Leviticus 23

105

of rest and complete rest—perhaps to focus on Yhwh. In addition, the twilight or evenings are considered important for some ritual activities. The Levitical Day and References to Time of Day To determine when the day began for Israel is difficult, due to conflicting evidence in the biblical text. Four traditional options exist for the beginning of a day, including: sunset, midnight, sunrise, and midday. The options midnight and midday find little support in the text. 72 However, seeming support for a day’s beginning at evening or morning is found in every segment of biblical literature, including the Pentateuch, Historical Books, Wisdom Literature, and the Prophets. The evidence for each beginning of the day is divided into three categories. First are direct statements in which the day begins or ends at a specified point (evening or morning). Second are statements of relative order in which morning follows evening on the same day, or evening follows morning on the same day. Third are relative expressions, including “the same day,” “tomorrow,” “yesterday,” “today,” and “the next day,” that we may use to deduce the relative position of the beginning of the day. 73 Based on these criteria, the biblical text provides evidence that the day may have begun either at sunset or sunrise. Evidence that the day began at sunset is found throughout the Old Testament. Exodus 12:18 relates that the Festival of Unleavened Bread begins at sundown on the 14th of Nisan and concludes at sundown on the 21st of Nisan. As shown above, Lev 23:32 indicates that the Day of Atonement lasts from evening to evening. Another illustration is the advent of the Sabbath, which begins and ends at sunset. Beckwith discovers evidence for the Sabbath’s beginning in the evening in the Prophets and in later Jewish and Christian texts. 74 The Mishnah also provides evidence that confirms that the 1st day of the month may have begun in the evening with the spotting of the new moon (m. Roš Haš. 3:1). 72.  Midnight is possibly eliminated by 1 Sam 19:11 and Jdt 6:21–7:1, where activities take place “all night” without a day change until the morning. 73.  Beckwith performs analyzes the relevant texts and finds four categories. In his analysis, the second category is split into two, with one category’s reflecting language “order in which ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ occur within the limits of the day,” and the other reflecting “the order in which ‘day’ and ‘night’ occur within the same limits.” For the purpose of this book, however, the two are combined into one “relative order” category (Roger T. Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental and Patristic Studies [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 3). 74.  According to Beckwith, “[T]he Old Testament seems to give a hint of it (evening beginning of the Sabbath) in Neh 13:19, and the New Testament gives clear indications of it in the references to the time of Jesus’ burial in Luke 23:54 and John 19:31, 42. Intertestamental evidence is supplied by 2 Macc 8:25f and Damascus, CD, 10:14ff, and Josephus evidence from the first two centuries a.d. is to be found in Josephus (War 4:9:12, or 4:582; Antiquities 16:6:2, or 16:163; Life 32, or 159–161) and in the tractate Sabbath of the Mishnah” (ibid., 4).

106

Chapter 3

Several texts give the relative order of evening before morning or night before day on the same day. Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31 recount the creation of the world with the phrase “and there was evening and there was morning, day x.” This example places evening before morning—all on day x. 75 Daniel 8:14 reads that a continual offering will be made for 2,300 “evenings and mornings” until the restoration of the Holy Place. A second relative example, Ps 55:17–18, presents the order as “evening, morning, and at noon,” when the psalmist will call on Yhwh. Deuteronomy 1:33 places the fire of God at night before the cloud of God during the day; 1 Sam 25:16 places night before day when discussing the protection of shepherds; and in 1 Kgs 8:29, Yhwh’s eyes are said to be open “night and day.” In addition to these references, Esth 4:16; Ps 91:5; Isa 27:3; 34:10; and Jer 14:17 all present the order of references to time as night before day. A final group of texts may imply that the day begins in the evening. In Leviticus, ceremonial uncleanness ends at evening/sunset. Leviticus 11:24– 25, 27–28, 31–32, 39–40; 14:46; 15:5–8, 10–11, 16–19, 21–23, 27; and 22:6 specify that anyone who becomes unclean will remain unclean and located outside the camp until evening—perhaps implying the beginning of a new day. Examples outside Leviticus include Num 19 and Deut 23:11, which echo the end of uncleanness at sunset. Each of these examples is used to support the conclusion that the Israelite day, at some point, was reckoned from evening to evening. Evidence also exists that the Israelite day began in the morning at sunrise. Evidence depicting day before night and sunrise before sunset significantly outweighs the alternative. A few examples referenced by Beckwith include: Gen 1:14, 16, 18; 8:22; 41:40; Num 14:14; 2 Sam 21:10; 1 Kgs 8:59; 1 Chr 9:33; Neh 1:6; 4:9; 9:12; Pss 22:2; 42:3, 8; 55:10; 74:16; 78:14; 88:1; 136:7– 9; Isa 28:19; 38:12; 60:11; 62:6; Jer 9:1; 16:13; 31:35; 33:20, 25; 36:30; Lam 2:18. These examples range from the Pentateuch, Historical Books, and Wisdom Literature to the Prophets, leading to a possible conclusion that the day began with the sunrise. Furthermore, we see relative time references (“the next day,” “tomorrow,” and “the same day”) combined with specific references—such as night, day, morning, and evening—that point to sunrise as the beginning of the day. One illustration, in Gen 19:34, concerns Lot’s daughters’ stating that “[T]he next day, the older daughter said to the younger, ‘Last night I lay with my father. . . .’” In this text, the combination of relative and absolute time references indicate that the day began in the morning. Leviticus 7:15 specifies that, on the day when an offering is to be eaten, it should not be held over 75.  This example is misleading because the sequence of events began earlier in the day, which concludes with evening, and “early” morning before a new day beginning perhaps at sunrise. Therefore, this example is perhaps evidence for a sunrise as the beginning of the day.

Leviticus 23

107

until morning (i.e., a new day). Leviticus 22:30 (a traditional H text similar to Lev 23) quotes Lev 7:15 by declaring that an offering “must be eaten that same day; leave none of it till morning.” Judges 19:9 clearly demonstrates an intent for the day to begin in the morning with the reading, “[T]he day is coming to an end; spend the night here that your heart may be merry. Then tomorrow you may arise early for your journey so that you may go home.” Additional references that combine relative and absolute time to support sunrise as the beginning of the day include: 1 Sam 19:11; 28:8, 19. A final example supporting sunrise as the beginning of the day is a passage by Josephus regarding the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Beckwith argues that: It is hardly conceivable that Josephus was ignorant of the fact that, according to the Pentateuch, the dividing line between the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread, and between the seven days of the latter, falls in the evening. Josephus is very clear that the Sabbath begins and ends in the evening, and, if the tractate Pesahim in the Mishnah is anything to judge by, Pharisaic tradition (which Josephus, as a self-confessed Pharisee, would have accepted) was equally clear that the same is true of the Passover. Yet when Josephus comes to record the law that the flesh of the Passover lamb is to be wholly consumed during the night, and none of it left till morning (Exod 12:8–10; 34:25; Deut 16:4), the way he puts it is that none is left “till the next day” (Jewish Antiquities 3:10:5, or 3:248). 76

Josephus points to the possibility that the day begins in the morning, even though the ritual spans a timeframe from evening to evening. Turning to Lev 23, two verses give specific references to a time of day— vv. 5 and 32. Verse 5 specifies that the Passover offering to Yhwh occurs in the evening at twilight. Similarly, v. 32 specifies that the Day of Atonement runs from evening to evening. Both these passages may imply that the day began in the evening. Levenson asserts, based on the evidence in Gen 1 and Lev 23, that the day began in the evening. 77 Wagenaar reviews the biblical evidence, finding that Israel’s early tradition reckons the day like the Egyptian day—sunrise to sunrise. The post-Priestly editor was responsible for changing the recognition of a day from “sunrise-sunrise” to “sunsetsunset.” 78 Milgrom argues that the reference identifies an exception and not the rule. 79 No scholarly consensus exists, and it is impossible to determine a definitive answer with the current textual evidence. While neither theory is conclusive, I tend to agree with Milgrom’s contention that the normal Israelite 76.  Ibid., 7. 77.  J. D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univeristy Press, 1994), 123. 78.  Wagenaar, “Passover and the First Day,” 262–66. 79.  Milgrom, Leviticus, 2026.

108

Chapter 3

day, as referenced in Lev 23, lasted from sunrise to sunrise. This normal day was occasionally interrupted for the calculation of various cultic rituals that occurred from evening to evening—that is, the Festival of Unleavened Bread, Day of Atonement, and Sabbath. Because these festivals represented a break in the normal calculation of the day, special care was taken by the scribe to identify the shift with specific reference to evening-evening. The Levitical Month and Ritual Activity Dates The month in ancient Israel was probably based on the lunar cycle, with an intercalary month to maintain congruence with the solar year. 80 Sacha Stern explores the calendar during the ancient and rabbinic periods in Israel and insists that its structure (month and year) was not necessarily a “timemeasuring scheme.” Instead, he believes the calendar’s purpose was to assist in organizing events and to determine the duration of activities and processes. 81 He goes on to argue that the calendar was not dependent on a “time-dimension” but, rather, used the moon and sun because they are universally known and have regular appearances. 82 If, as Stern suggests, the ancient calendar in Israel used the lunar and solar cycles as standard reference scales, then the phases of the lunar cycle may have played a role in the beginning and duration of festival activities. The lunar month began with the identification of the “new moon” or first lunar crescent. The moon then moved through the 7th day (half-moon) and waxed to full on the 15th. The second half of the month included two phases: the moon waned for 7 days until the second half-moon and then continued until it disappeared to begin a new month. The month was assumed to be 30 days long unless the new moon was spotted on the 30th day. This appearance of the new crescent moon shifted the date to the 1st of the next month. Evidence from the broader ancient Near East in the 3rd and 2nd millennia supports the association of festival activities with lunar phases (see discussion in chap. 2 for more details). First, festivals tend to occur at the changes of the lunar cycle. The four lunar phases are: (1) new moon (day 1); (2) first half-moon (Days 7–8); (3) full moon (Days 14–15); and (4) second half-moon (Days 21–22). Many festivals either begin or climax at the phase change of the moon. Second, although festivals vary in length, they most frequently last one, two, three, or seven days. Third, multiday festivals occasionally begin with or include a second, named, one-day festival ceremony. 80.  Jenson finds evidence for the use of a lunar month outside P, concluding that the Priestly calendar was based on the lunar month ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 184). 81. Sacha Stern, Time and Process in Ancient Judaism (LLJC; Portland: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2007), 59–60. 82.  Ibid., 60. See also Norbert Elias and Edmund Jephcott, Time: An Essay (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 10.

Leviticus 23

109

Similar to other ancient Near Eastern festival schedules, the festival calendar in Lev 23 follows a lunar month, with significant ritual activities occurring at the changes in the lunar cycle. Table 11 organizes the festival activities in Lev 23 with the lunar cycle. It demonstrates that five of the eight rituals (63 percent) contained in Lev 23 begin at a change in the lunar phase. One festival begins with the new moon of the 7th month (Trumpet Blasts) and four begin at the full moon: Pesach, Unleavened Bread, Tabernacles, and the Feast of Yhwh. Three rituals (the two firstfruit celebrations and the Day of Atonement) are seemingly unrelated to the lunar cycle. The majority of the named ritual activities occur during the full moon, including 80 percent (4 of 5) of the dated celebrations and 50 percent (4 of 8) of the total celebrations in the text. In addition, festivals occurring during the full moon last longer than those occurring at the new moon or at the harvest. Three of the 4 full-moon celebrations last for 7 days. 83 Rituals at other times of the month typically last for 1–2 days: Trumpet Blasts, Firstfruit of Wheat and Barley (1 day), and the Day of Atonement (perhaps 2 days). The Levitical Yearly Calendar and New Year According to the multimonth festival calendar of Lev 23, the Israelite year began in the spring, perhaps at the vernal equinox (see discussion in chap. 2), around the time of the barley harvest. 84 The mentioned festivals 83.  Jenson finds that the seven-day festivals occurred at “strategic points” in the festival year ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 189). 84.  The 2nd-millennium ANE ritual year was often divided into two six-month cultic units—the first beginning in the spring (harvest) and the second beginning in the autumn (seeding). The same time periods are marked by the appearance of the equinoxes—the vernal equinox usually occurring in month 1 (spring) and the autumnal equinox usually occurring in month 7 (fall). This raises the possibility that this six-month ritual/festival cycle was based on the ebb and flow of the amount of daylight and night over the land. An understanding of the Akītu Festival’s importance at Ur lies in the patron god of the city. Nanna, the moon-god, was the chief god at Ur, competing against the sun-god (Utu) for control of the celestial heavens. Throughout the year, their sovereignty shifted, reflected in the varying lengths of time that each celestial body appeared over the earth. At the spring equinox, the sun and moon held equal time over the earth. After the vernal (spring) equinox, the sun appeared for longer periods at the expense of the moon. Therefore, the vernal equinox—celebrated in the 1st month at the Akītu Festival—marked the transfer of dominance to the sun. In the 7th month, at the autumnal equinox, the sun and moon were again equal. The Akītu Festival in the 7th month was more important at Ur because the moon (as the patron god of Ur) regained dominance over the sun for the next six months, until the harvest. This interplay between Utu and Nanna and the two agriculturally based Akītu Festivals in the same months as the equinoxes points to the possibility of a connection between the vernal and autumnal equinoxes and the six-month cultic cycle The bond between months and the equinoxes is verifiable by the 1st millennium in the text RMA 16:5, which reads: itiŠE itiKIN SAG MU.AN.NA ki-i ša itiBÁR itiDU6, “(this year) the months Addaru and Ululu begin the equinox-year, what the months Nisannu

Chapter 3

110

Table 11.  Relationship of Festival Dates to Lunar Phases in Leviticus 23 Lunar Phases and Dates

Lev 23 Ritual Dates

New moon (1st and 2nd days of the month)

1st

First half-moon (7th and 8th days of the month)

None

Full Moon (14th and 15th days of the month)

Festival Name

Month

General Activities

Trumpet Blasts

7—fall

  Sacred occasion   Prohibition on work   Food offering to Yhwh

14th

Pesach

1— spring

  Unspecified in Lev 23 other than an evening ceremony/meal

15th—21st

Unleavened Bread

1— spring

  Eat unleavened bread for seven days (full lunar phase)   15th is a sacred occasion—with no work   Food offerings for seven days   21st (half-moon) is a sacred occasion with no work.

15th—22nd

Feast of Tabernacles

7—fall

  Live in booths for seven days (full lunar phase)   15th is a sacred occasion—with no work   Food offerings for seven days   22nd (half-moon) is a sacred occasion with no work and food offerings

15th—22nd

Feast of Yhwh

7—fall

  Live in booths for seven days   15th is a sacred occasion—with no work   15th, take four species of tree branches and rejoice before Yhwh   22nd (half-moon) is a sacred occasion with no work and food offerings

Last half-moon (21st and 22nd of the month)

None

Dates not directly associated with lunar phases

Barley harvest

Firstfruit of Unspecbarley ified

  Bring first sheaf of barley harvest to the priest   The priest will elevate the offering before Yhwh—for acceptance of the people   Sacrifice an unblemished yearling lamb as a burnt offering   Grain and drink offerings   Prohibition against eating the new harvest until the offering is complete

Leviticus 23 Lunar Phases and Dates

Lev 23 Ritual Dates

Festival Name

Month

111

General Activities

Wheat harvest—counted 50 days from the barley firstfruits offering

Firstfruit of Unspecwheat ified

  Bring two bread loaves, mixed with leavening to the priest   The priest will elevate the offering before Yhwh—for acceptance of the people   Sacrifice seven unblemished yearling lambs, one bull, and two rams as a burnt offerings   Grain and drink food offerings   One male goat as a purification offering   Two yearling lambs as a well-being sacrifice   It is a sacred occasion with no work

9th–10th

Day of Atonement

  Sacred occasion   Prohibition on work, with consequences   Prescription for self-denial, with consequences

7th

contain both harvest and nonharvest rites with varied dates during the month and with varied durations (this point is elaborated upon below, in this chapter). The text groups dated ritual activities in the 1st and 7th months with similar monthly ritual structures. 85 Following the analysis in chap. 2, and as highlighted in the work of M. E. Cohen 86 and Francesca Rochberg-Halton, 87 I understand the Israelite festival calendar to contain similarities to the 2nd-millennium Mesopotamian calendar (introduced by Samšuiluna ca. 1750 b.c.e.). The Samšuiluna calendar divided the year into two segments, with the 1st month beginning around the vernal equinox (during the spring—ummātu or umšu) and the 7th month beginning around the autumnal equinox (during the cold season— and Tasritu (normally) do” (M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 400). While the correlation between the months and the equinoxes is evident at Ur, expressions of a connection with the equinoxes also appear in writing throughout the region. In the 1st and 7th months in Lagaš (Barley and Malt Festival and the Festival of Baba) and the Tummal Temple New Year’s festivals at Nippur are examples of this expression in regional cultures. I explore this connection during the discussion about the Hebrew and Emar ritual calendars. 85.  Milgrom, Leviticus, 1964–65. 86.  M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 239–305. 87. Francesca Rochberg-Halton, “Calendars, Ancient Near East,” ABD 1.810–14.

112

Chapter 3

kuṣṣu). Milgrom interprets Exod 34:22 (‫ )תקופת השנה‬and 2 Sam 11:1 (‫לתשובת‬ ‫ )השנה‬as preserving an Israelite knowledge of the equinox division of the lunar year into two parts—beginning months 1 and 7. 88 The Israelite festival year was therefore divided into lunar months marked by môʿădîm. This conclusion is further supported by Ps 104:19 (‫)עשה ירח למועדים‬, “He made the moon to mark the fixed times” (see also Gen 1:14); and “[t]he moon, too, that marks the changing times, governing the seasons, their lasting sign, by which we know the feast days and fixed days” (Sir 43:6–7a). 89 The textual evidence from Lev 23 regarding the calendar year supports the conclusion that the ritual year (at a minimum) began in the spring around the time of the barley harvest. Further, the text appears to divide the year into two six-month segments, with the 1st and 7th months oriented to the time of the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. Finally, both the 1st and 7th months were primary months for ritual activities, with each being considered a “new year.” In chap. 2, I showed that these three points were common throughout the ancient Near East in the 2nd millennium. In chaps. 4 and 5, I will evaluate how each point compares to the 2nd-millennium multimonth ritual calendar at Emar (Emar 446). Named Rituals in the Lev 23 Calendar Leviticus 23 mentions some ritual ceremonies by name while leaving others unnamed (anonymous). In general, festival and ritual ceremonies in the 1st and 7th months are named, while the agricultural ceremonies in the spring (1st and 3rd months) are unnamed. The purpose of this practice is unclear. Moreover, some rituals named in Lev 23 are left unnamed in related biblical texts. The reason for identifying a text in one passage and leaving it unnamed in others is also unknown. Table 12 outlines the ritual activities contained in Lev 23, separating the activities into festivals, ceremonies, and rituals. Although the table is long and the footnotes complex, the information is essential to understanding the multimonth festival calendar of Lev 23 for a number of reasons. (Text continues on p. 120.) 88.  Milgrom continues, The priestly calendar clearly reflects this bipartite division of the year by its concentration of festivals in the first and seventh months that largely parallel one another. For example, both these two months contain a seven-day festival beginning on the fifteenth day of the month to which an additional day was added: the pesaḥ before the seven-day festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:5–8) and the eighth day after the seven-day festival of Booths (v. 36). This symmetry is accentuated in the Septuagint of Ezek 45:20: “You shall do the same (as the 1st day of the 1st month) in the 7th month.” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1965)

Milgrom postulates that the môʿēd (fixed time) may imply times fixed by humans, while Sabbath may mean times fixed by Yhwh (see also pp. 1953–55). 89.  Translation from ibid., 1965.

Leviticus 23

113

Table 12.  Rites Associated with Named Rituals Ritual

Named / Unnamed

Verse(s)

Described in Other Festival Passagesa

Involved Activities and Comments

Feastsb Feast of Unleavened Bread

Named

6

Named in: Exod 23:13; 34:18; Deut 16:16c

 Feast.   Eat unleavened bread for 7 days.   On the 1st and 7th days are sacred assemblies— with a prohibition against work.d

Harvest firstfruits (Festival of the Harvest / Feast of Weeks)

Unnamede

10–14, 15–22

  Named in: Exod 23:16 Feast of the Harvest (‫ ;)חג הקציר‬34:22 Feast of Weeks (‫שבעת‬ ‫ ;)חג‬Num 28:26–31 (Weeks).   The named feasts in Exod 23; 34; and Num 28 are unnamed in Lev 23.

  Two festivals: the first is presumably for the barley harvest occurring on the day after a Sabbath, and the second (50 days later) for the wheat harvest.   The “day after the Sabbath” (discussed above in this chapter) is somewhat ambiguous.f   For the first ritual: bring the first sheaf of the (barley) harvest to the priest; for the second ritual: a new grain (wheat) offering.   Priest will elevate the firstfruit offering (sheaf/ bread loaves) before Yhwh.   The first firstfruit celebration includes a prohibition on eating the new harvest until the ritual complex is completed.   Sacrifice an unblemished male yearling lamb as a burnt offering in the first ritual and 7 unblemished yearling lambs, 1 bull, and 2 rams as a burnt offering.   Includes a grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a food offering, and drink offering (one-quarter of a hin of wine).   The second firstfruits festival involves a male goat as a purification offering, a prohibition on work, and 2 yearling lambs as a well-being offering.   The second firstfruit festival is identified as a sacred occasion with a prohibition on work. The festival also includes an ethical call to leave the gleanings of the fields to the poor and the alien.

(‫)גח המצות‬

a.  Note that the discussion of passages external to Lev 23 is limited to other biblical festival calendars, including: Exod 23:10–19; 34:18–26; Num 28:16–29:40; Deut 16:1–17; Ezek 45:18–25. b.  Festival identified in Lev 23 or related festival calendar as a (‫ )חג‬feast. c.  The festival is referenced outside the festival calendars in Exod 12:17; 2 Chr 8:13; 30:13, 21; 35:17; Ezra 6:2. Wenham notes that Exod 12:14–17 ties the festival to the exodus, when the Israelites left Egypt without enough time to leaven the bread (Wenham, Leviticus, 303). d.  See discussion below on “sacred assemblies.” e.  This aspect may be a point of similarity with Emar 446, which names some festivals and leaves others unnamed (discussed in chap. 5). f.  Chapters 4 and 5 below explore the date ambiguity in relation to Emar 446. g.  Known as the Feast of Ingathering (‫ )חג האסיף‬in Exod 23:16; 34:22. h.  The unnamed festival in Num 29 gives additional information about the specific offerings for each day. Numbers 29 specifies that the festival includes the following rituals: Day 1: a burnt offering of 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 2: a burnt offering of 12 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 3: a burnt offering of 11 bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 4: a burnt offering of 10 bulls, 2 rams,

Chapter 3

114

Table 12.  Rites Associated with Named Rituals (cont.) Ritual Festival of Tabernacles (‫)הסכות חג‬

Named / Unnamed Named

Verse(s) 33–36

Described in Other Festival Passagesa Exod 23:16; 34:22;g Num 29:12–34;h Deut 16:13–15i

Involved Activities and Comments   Fifteenth day of the 7th month (full moon). Similar to the multiday zukru Festival in the middle of the fall at Emar.   The 1st day is a sacred occasion with a prohibition against work.   Present food offerings for seven days to Yhwh.   The 8th day is also a sacred occasion with food offerings, a prohibition against work, and a solemn assembly.j   The timing of the festival corresponds to the end of the grape harvest and the preparation for planting and the rainy season.

and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 5: a burnt offering of 9 bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 6: a burnt offering of 8 bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 7: a burnt offering of 7 bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 8: sacred assembly, no regular work, food offering, a burnt offering of 1 bull, 1 ram, and 7 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering. i. Deuteronomy 31:10–11 alludes to a public reading of the Law, when all Israel gathers for the Festival of Tabernacles. Second Chronicles 8:13 lists the Feast of Tabernacles as one of the three primary annual festivals. Zechariah 14:16–19 gives a penalty of drought to anyone not participating in the Feast of Tabernacles, raising the possibility that the purpose of the festival is, in part, the supplication of Yhwh to give sufficient rain for the coming agricultural season. j.  Milgrom argues that this celebration on the eighth day is best translated “solemn assembly” (see also Jer 9:1; 2 Kgs 10:21–22) and represents an assembly at the sanctuary (though Milgrom notes that Deut 16:8 attests that a celebration at home is possible) where all the Israelites prayed for a successful agricultural season in the coming year. He contends that, because the spring season was fraught with hazards for crops—unseasonable rainstorms, locust invasions, and the dreaded sirocco—prayer for the new season would probably have been the topic of the eighth day. “Let it be considered that on the last day before the Israelite landowner returns home (or while he is doing so), his thoughts and concerns would be focused on the prospects of his forthcoming plowing and sowing being blessed with an adequate supply of rain. Prayer would have been in his heart and verbalized communally at the ʿăṣeret ” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2031). k.  The festival may be intended in Neh 8. Hess notes that Exod 10:9 mentions ‫חג־יהוה‬ when Moses requests that Pharaoh allow the Israelites to go into the wilderness to celebrate. The term is also found in Judg 21:9 and Hos 9:5 with an unclear meaning (Hess, Leviticus, 792). Exodus 12:14; 13:6; 32:5; and Num 29:12 use the phrase “Feast of Yhwh” as a general term. l.  I analyze the overlap of two named festivals on the same days as a potential point of similarity with Emar 446 in chaps. 4 and 5. m.  Noth, Leviticus, 166; Hartley, Leviticus, 372–73; Wenham, Leviticus, 305; Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (trans. Douglas W. Stott; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 348; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2036. n.  Defined here as a one-day feast or ritual not identified by the term (‫“ )חג‬feast.” o.  The phrase is found in Exod 31:15; 35:2; Lev 16:31; 25:4. Hess finds that the references in Exodus designate the Sabbath at the end of the week; and that Lev 16:1 is associated with the Day of Atonement and Lev 25:4 with the Sabbatical Year. The association of the Sabbath in Lev 23:3 and the Sabbatical Year in Lev 25:4 leads Hess to conclude that the festival calendar is ordered by the “sequence of their appearance: the Sabbath that occurs every week (23:2–3),

Leviticus 23

115

Table 12.  Rites Associated with Named Rituals (cont.) Ritual Festival of Yhwh (‫)חג־יהוה‬

Named / Unnamed Named

Verse(s) 39–43

Described in Other Festival Passagesa Not identified in other related festival calendars.k

Involved Activities and Comments   Fifteenth to 21st days of the 7th month.l   First and 8th days are days of rest.   On the 1st day take branches of four kinds of trees and rejoice before Yhwh.   All native-born Israelites should live in booths for seven days (to remind the Israelites that they lived in booths when Yhwh brought them out of Egypt).   The festival is frequently identified as an addendum to the Festival of Tabernacles.m

Ceremoniesn Sabbath of complete rest (‫)שבתון שבת‬

Named

3, 32, Sabbath in 11, 15, 16

Not identified in other festival calendars.o

  Identified as a sacred assembly in 23:3.p   Complete rest.   Held every seven days.

Pesaḥ (‫)פסח‬

Named

5

Named in Num 28:16;q Deut 16:1–2.r

  Held at twilight on the 14th day (full moon) of the 1st month in the spring.s

the annual festivals (23:4–43), and those yearlong festivals that are celebrated in cycles of seven years (ch. 25)” (Hess, Leviticus, 783). p.  Milgrom maintains that the section is the product of both H and HR, who worked the verses into a large chiastic structure (ABCDEXE′D′C′B′A′) with v. 3b as the chiastic center. The redactor, HR, uses the repetition of ‫ מקראי קדש‬and ‫ שבת‬to strengthen the claim that the Sabbath is one of the sacred occasions in the cultic calendar. q.  Knohl notes that Lev 23:4–8 is very similar in style, language, and structure to Num 28:16–25. Knohl attributes the entirety to PT. HS expresses a tendency to “fuse” proximate festivals, where PT keeps proximate festivals distinct. In both the Numbers and the Leviticus pericopes, the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread are distinct, with the Passover on the 14th and the Feast of Unleavened Bread beginning on the 15th of the 1st month. Knohl points to Exod 12 as an example of HS’s fusing these festivals—here the phrase “evening to evening” is attributed to HS. In addition, Exod 12 displays the HS trademark of equality for foreigners and strangers. Another HS passage dealing with the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is Num 9:9–14. Knohl identifies other features that point to PT as the origin of this passage: only a brief mention of the Passover without a mention of rituals, a command to eat unleavened bread for seven days but no command not to eat leaven, no historicalization of either feast with the exodus. In the related HS passages (Exod 12; Num 9), the author stresses the historical dimension of the feasts, delineates the requirements, forbids leaven, and punishes disobedience by “cutting off ” the offending party from the community (Knohl, Sanctuary, 19–24). r.  Milgrom finds that pesaḥ and maṣṣôt are discrete in “early” sources, including: Exod 12:1– 28, 40–51; 13:3–10; Num 29:16–23; and are fused in “later” sources, including: Deut 16:1–7; Ezek 45:21; Ezra 6:20–22; 2 Chr 30:2, 5, 13, 15; 35:17–18 (he omits the mention in Num 9:10, 14). Based on this evidence, he argues that the two “originated as first-fruit festivals, the former observed by shepherds and the latter, by farmers, to ensure the fertility of their respective flocks and crops.” Thus the Israelite transhumant pastoralists combined their observance of the pesaḥ (cf. Exod 5:1; 10:9) and the maṣṣôt festivals after they had abandoned their wilderness wandering and had settled permanently in Canaan. While this is possible, I contend that a holding of two rituals on adjacent days does not necessitate a discrete development that was later fused—see chaps. 4 and 5 for a discussion of this point in relation to Emar 446. s.  Milgrom, following Ginsberg, concludes that D shifted the observance of the ḥag from E’s observance on the 7th day (Exod 13:6) to the 1st day—“thus allowing for the previous evening’s pesaḥ to be observed by the pilgrims at the central sanctuary” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2071).

Chapter 3

116

Table 12.  Rites Associated with Named Rituals (cont.) Ritual Trumpet Blasts (‫)תרועה‬

Named / Unnamed Named

Verse(s) 24–25t

Described in Other Festival Passagesa Num 29:1–6u

Involved Activities and Comments A remembrance celebrationv and a sacred occasion including a prohibition from work. Psalm 27:6 associates the ‫ תרועה‬with rejoicing during sacrifices in the “tent of Yhwh” celebrating the protection given by Yhwh. Held on the first day of the 7th month. Includes a food offering to Yhwh

t. Leviticus 25:9 reads the ‫ שופר‬with ‫ תרועה‬as being blown on the 10th day of the 7th month at the Day of Atonement. Psalm 27:6 depicts ‫ תרועה‬associated with sacrifices. Second Chronicles 13:12 combines the idea of an alarm for war with ritual, accusing the Israelites of declaring war on Yhwh. Second Chronicles 15:14 associates the ‫ תרועה‬with the making of an oath. The term translates as an “alarm blast” as part of a battle announcement in Num 10:5–6; 31:6; Josh 6:5, 20; Job 39:25; Ezek 21:22; Amos 1:14; 2:2; Jer 20:16; Zeph 1:16. The term (‫)תרועה‬ denotes a large noise in a ritual context in 1 Sam 4:5; 2 Sam 6:15; 1 Chr 15:28 (arrival of the Ark); Ezra 3:11–13 (foundation of the temple completed); Job 8:21; 33:26; Pss 33:3; 47:6; 150:5 (praising God); Ps 89:16 (the sound of Yhwh’s righteousness, justice, lovingkindness, and truth). u.  The Num 29:1–2 passage elaborates that the festival includes: a burnt offering of 1 bull, 1 ram, and 7 unblemished yearling lambs; a grain offering of flour mixed with oil (three-tenths of an ephah per bull, two-tenths ephah per ram, and one-tenth ephah per lamb); 1 male goat as a purification offering of atonement—all in addition to the regular new-moon burnt offering, grain offering, and drink offering. v. Leviticus 23 reads a qualifier, not found in Num 29, noting that the trumpet blast is a commemoration or reminder (‫)זכרון‬. w.  Jenson argues that the Day of Atonement was the most important day of the priestly year (although less important to the general population). While similar to other festivals, it possessed a unique character ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 198, 209). x.  We will explore rituals having names in one calendar and remaining unnamed in another in chaps. 4 and 5. The Day of Atonement is mentioned in Lev 25:9 as a marker in the sabbatical year with horn-blowing. y.  Hess notes that the practice of being “‘cut off from his people’ describes a divine punishment already required for various acts of uncleanness, consumption of blood, and practices associated with worship of other deities (Lev 7:20–27; 17:4, 9–14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3–6, 17–18; 22:3, 24). As elsewhere it implies the end of one’s name or remembrance among his people” (Hess, Leviticus, 790). z. This study defines this term as a named ritual component of another ceremony or festival. aa. Numbers 9:2, 3, 7, 13 consider the concept of an appointed time to be associated with the Pesach. Hess notes that in Gen 1:14 the term describes the “annual and monthly ‘seasons’ marked by the sun and the moon” (Hess, Leviticus, 783). The same form is found in Ezra 3:5; Ps 74:8; Ezek 44:24; 47:17. In Gen 18:14; 21:2; Exod 13:10; Num 15:3; 1 Sam 9:24; 13:8; 2 Sam 20:5; 24:15; Esth 9:27; Ps 102:13; Jer 46:17; Neh 10:33; Lam 1:15; Dan 8:19; 11:27, 29, 35; Hab 2:3, the term, usually found with ‫ל‬, refers to a specific point in history usually prescribed by Yhwh for a specific event. Milgrom argues that ‫ מועד‬applies to a time fixed by a human, while ‫ שבת‬refers to a time fixed by God. This conclusion may reach too far because several occurrences of ‫ מועד‬specifically reference an appointment by Yhwh, including Lev 23:2, 4, 37, 44 (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1965). ab.  May also be translated “sacred proclamations” because miqrāʾ is the cognate accusative of qārāʾ (ibid., 1957). ac. Numbers 28–29 record six sacred assemblies, changing the eighth day of the festival of Yhwh to a solemn assembly (‫ )עצרה‬in place of the sacred assembly. This distinction separates the H author of Lev 23 from the P author of Num 28–29 because “the sabbatical pattern (repeating a word seven times) is not as significant for P” (ibid., 1958). The term is also identified twice in Exod 12:16.

Leviticus 23

117

Table 12.  Rites Associated with Named Rituals (cont.) Ritual Day of Atonementw (‫)כפר יום‬

Named / Unnamed Named

Verse(s) 26–32

Described in Other Festival Passagesa Unnamed in Num 29:7–11.x

Involved Activities and Comments   From the evening on the 9th day to the evening on the 10th day of the 7th month.   A sacred occasion with a prohibition against work and a food offering to Yhwh.   Practice “self affliction” to effect atonement for the people.   Consequences for lack of obedience: lack of self-denial results in being cut off from one’s kin;y working results in the death penalty.

Rituals/Offeringsz Appointed times/festivals (‫)מועד‬

Named

2 (2×), 4, 37

Named in: Exod 23:15; 34:18; Num 28:2; 29:39.aa

  Referring to a specific time, usually prescribed by Yhwh, for a specific event. Some appointed times recur annually, and others (outside the festival texts) refer to one event (or possible event) in history.  Verse 37 supports the idea that several ritual offerings are combined to form the appointed festivals (which are sacred occasions). These offerings are composed of food offerings, burnt offerings, grain offerings, unnamed sacrifices, and drink offerings.

Sacred assembliesab (‫)מקרא־קדש‬

Named

2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 21, 24, 27, 35, 36

Named in: Num 28:18, 25, 26; 29:1, 7, 12.ac

  Seven days are described as sacred assemblies: first and seventh days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the day of the firstfruit elevation offering, 1st day of the 7th month, Day of Atonement, first and eighth days of Tabernacles.ad   The ritual assembly is characterized by a prohibition against work.ae

Food giftsaf (‫)אשה‬

Named

8, 13, 18, 25, 27, 36 (2×), 37ag

Named in: Num 28:6, 8, 13, 19, 24; 29:6, 13, 36.ah

Unspecified food gifts in Lev 23.ai

ad.  Wenham, Leviticus, 301. ae.  Hess, Leviticus, 782. Milgrom comments that work stops because the days are holy, and such holiness mandates this cessation (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1978). af.  Also translated “offerings by fire.” ag.  Hess notes that 32 of the 47 occurrences appear in Leviticus. Eight of these occurring in Lev 23 points to the importance of the “food gift” to festival rituals (Hess, Leviticus, 784). ah.  Milgrom argues that Lev 23 (H) condenses the material contained in Num 28–29 (P). Milgrom goes on to use the brevity in Lev 23 as evidence that Num 28–29 is older and that the H author relied on Num 28–29 when writing the festival calendar in Lev 23 (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1979). ai.  Wenham identifies the offering as “probably a shorthand for ‘all the appropriate sacrifices’” (Wenham, Leviticus, 303). aj.  Some of the references above use the verbal form and not the noun; however, the elevation offering is seemingly in view when the verb “to elevate” is used in the passage. Therefore, the references are included. ak.  The breast is associated with the elevation offering and is the property of the priests in Exod 29:26–27; Lev 7:30–34; 8:29; 9:21; 10:14; Num 6:20; 18:18. This point will be explored in relation to Emar 446 in chaps. 4 and 5.

Chapter 3

118

Table 12.  Rites Associated with Named Rituals (cont.) Ritual

Named / Unnamed

Verse(s)

Described in Other Festival Passagesa

Involved Activities and Comments

Elevation offering (‫)תנופה‬

Named

11 (2×), 12, 15, 17, 20 (2×)aj

Not mentioned in other festival calendars.ak

  Bring a sheaf (v. 11)/bread (v. 17) of the firstfruit to the priest.   Priest will elevate the firstfruit offering before Yhwh so that the people may be accepted.al   The firstfruit elevation offering is on the day after the Sabbath.am   The elevation offering, burnt offering, grain offering, food offering, and drink offering are performed on the same day and part of a larger ritual complex that makes a pleasant aroma to Yhwh.   The second firstfruit offering (wheat) includes 2 lambs as part of the elevation offering. In addition, the ritual complex includes a sin offering and a peace offering.

Burnt offering to Yhwh (‫)עלה‬

Named

12, 18, 37

Named in: Num 28:19, 23 (2×), 24, 27, 31; 29:2, 6 (2×), 8, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 36, 38, 39; Ezek 45:23, 25.

  The elevation offering, burnt offering, grain offering, food offering, and drink offering are performed on the same day (during the firstfruit ceremony) and seemingly part of a larger ritual complex that makes a pleasant aroma to Yhwh.an   Sacrifice an unblemished male yearling lamb.

al.  The location is unspecified in this passage. The offerings in Deut 26:1–11 may refer to a local sanctuary with an individual offering, while Deut 16:9–12 may point to a more central celebration. am.  In v. 15, only the elevation offering is used as a temporal reference when calculating the “seven Sabbaths,” while the other offerings are absent. Specifically mentioning the elevation offering and omitting any mention of other ritual offerings may denote a position of prominence for the elevation offering or may merely be a shortened reference. an.  Jenson notes that the number of bulls offered gradually decreases through the Festival of Booths and may indicate a gradual decrease of joy at the end of the year ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 191). ao.  The pairing of grain and drink offerings is common in the Pentateuch and Prophets with at least two references in the Historical Books (cf. Exod 29:40, 41; Num 6:15, 17; 15:4–5, 24; 28:8, 9; 29:6, 11, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39; 2 Kgs 16:13, 15 [with meal offering]; Ezra 7:17; Isa 57:6; Ezek 45:17; Joel 1:9, 13; 2:14). ap. Exodus 29:40; Num 15:5; 28:7 read a similar one-quarter hin of wine per lamb offering. The drink offering may vary as identified in Num 15:7 (one-third hin), 10 (one-half hin); 28:14 (one-half hin). Second Kings 16:13 depicts pouring some of the drink offering on the altar. Psalm 16:4 reads a “drink offering of blood” in place of wine. Jeremiah 7:18; 19:13; 32:29; 44:17–19, 25 acknowledges that drink offerings were an item offered to “other gods,” showing the potential commonality between Israelite and other ancient Near Eastern ritual practices. Jeremiah 52:19 mentions specific bowls used for drink offerings. aq. Leviticus 2:13 adds salt to the grain offering. Leviticus 2:1; Num 5:15; Neh 13:5 and 9 add frankincense. Leviticus 2:15; 6:15 adds incense to the offering. ar.  Reviewing the occurrences of units of measure and grain offerings—the conversion in Leviticus and Numbers may be: one-tenth of an ephah per lamb, two-tenths per ram, and threetenths of an ephah per bull—each in association with the corresponding burnt offering. Twotenths of an ephah is a common reference in the grain offering (Num 15:6; 28:9; 28:12, 20 [for each ram], 28 [for each ram]; 29:9 [ram], 14 [ram]); however, other amounts are identified with the grain offering: (three-tenths) Lev 14:10; Num 15:9; 28:12, 20 (for each bull), 28 (for each bull); 29:3 (bull), 9 (bull), 14 (bull); (one-tenth) Lev 14:21; Num 5:15; 15:4; 28:5, 13 (for a lamb). Ezekiel 45:24; 46:5, 7, 11 increases the grain offering to a full ephah for a ram or a bull plus a hin of oil; however, Ezek 46:14 may reduce the amount of a daily grain offering to one-sixth of an ephah.

Leviticus 23

119

Table 12.  Rites Associated with Named Rituals (cont.) Ritual

Named / Unnamed

Verse(s)

Described in Other Festival Passagesa

Involved Activities and Comments

Drink offering (‫)נסף‬

Named

13, 18, 37

Named in: Num 28:24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 18–19, 21–22, 24–25, 27–28, 30–31, 33–34, 37–39; Ezek 45:17.

  Paired with the grain offering in Lev 23:13, 18, 37.ao   In the Firstfruits Festival, the drink offering is one-fourth of a hin of wine.ap

Grain offering (‫)מנחה‬

Named

13, 16, 18, 37

Named in: Num 28:20, 26, 28, 31; 29:3, 6 (2×), 9, 11, 14, 16, 18–19, 21–22, 24–25, 27–28, 30–31, 33–34, 37–39; Ezek 45:24–25.

  In the first Firstfruit Festival complex, the grain offering is two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil. In the second firstfruits, the grain offering is baked with leaven into two loaves.   Two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour—mixed with oilaq in the first firstfruits ritual and baked into two leavened loaves in the second firstfruits ritual.ar   In v. 37, the grain offering is mentioned as part of each “appointed feast” (‫ )מועד‬and may be included, without mention, in other festivals.

New grain offering (‫)חדשה מנחה‬

Named

16

Num 28:26

  Associated with the beginning of the Feast of Weeks (Num 28:26) and the beginning of the second unnamed firstfruits celebration.   In Lev 23:16, the calendar omits specifics (including the day of the month).as   Includes two loaves of bread as an elevation offering made with two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour baked with leaven as a firstfruits offering to Yhwh.   The ritual is part of a larger complex including a burnt offering, drink offering, and food offering.  Numbers 28 reads this ritual as part of a sacred assembly and draws a distinction between the “new grain offering” and the “grain offering” that is mentioned separately in Num 28:28.

Purification offering (‫)חטאת‬

Named

19

Num 28:22; 29:5, 11 (2×), 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; Ezek 45:19, 22, 23, 25

  Part of the second firstfruits (wheat) ritual complex.at   One male goat.au

Fellowship offering (‫)שלמים זבח‬

Named

19

Num 29:39av

  Part of the second firstfruits (wheat) ritual complex.   Two male yearling lambs.aw

as.  Chapters 4 and 5 will explore this aspect in relation to Emar 446. at. Numbers 28:22; 29:5, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38 add a reference to a purification offering during the Pesach, Feast of Trumpet Blasts, Day of Atonement (for atonement). au. Numbers 28:22; 29:5, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38 agree with a goat as the purification offering. Outside the festival calendar, a goat (Lev 4:24; 5:6; 9:3, 15; 10:16; 16:5, 9, 15; Num 7:16, 22, 28, 34, 40, 46, 52, 58, 64, 70, 76, 82, 87; 15:24, 27; 28:15, 22; 29:5, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; 2 Chr 29:23; Ezra 6:17; Ezek 43:22, 25; 45:23) and other animals are referenced with the purification offering: (bull) Exod 29:14, 36; Lev 4:8, 14, 20; 8:14; 9:2; 16:3, 6, 11, 27; Num 8:8, 12; Ezek 43:19, 21; 45:22; (lamb) Lev 4:32; 5:6; Num 6:14; (birds) Lev 5:7; 12:6, 8; 14:22; Num 6:11; (flour) Lev 5:11; 6:17; (calf ) Lev 9:8; (multiple amounts and types) 2 Chr 29:21; Ezra 8:35. av.  Not mentioned in relation to a specific festival. aw.  The fellowship offering may be made with: lambs, bulls, or birds, depending on the occasion and economic status of the person offering the sacrifice (see Lev 3).

120

Chapter 3

• According to the methodology in chap. 1, it is important to explore intratextual relationships prior to extratextual relationships. Table 12 outlines valuable information for understanding the festivals and ritual components in Lev 23 and related biblical passages. • To conduct a comparative analysis between Lev 23 and Emar 446, the reader must understand the components of ritual activity contained in feasts, ceremonies, and offerings. Table 12 outlines what rites compose each category of ritual and which offerings are frequently expected. • The table outlines which named and unnamed occasions are combined to form larger festivals and ceremonies. In addition, the table demonstrates what may have constituted the “food offerings.” • Finally, chaps. 4 and 5 will compare the information in table 12 with the understanding of ritual at Emar as depicted in Emar 446. We will attempt to determine if the two texts demonstrate similarities or differences in their expression of ritual. This section explored the use and purpose of sacred time in Lev 23. The text offers clear evidence that time played a vital role in both Israelite ritual and the organization of this multimonth festival calendar. We will use some of the following key findings later as we compare Lev 23 and Emar 446: • The text is organized using temporal dividers. • The normal work schedule is interrupted for ritual activities— including a call for rest or complete rest on specific days. • According to the text, rituals often last seven days. • A one-day ritual meal is held the day before a primary festival with a yearling lamb as the ritual sacrifice (on one occasion). • Some ritual activities are tied to the agricultural calendar while other ritual activities are tied to the monthly fixed calendar in the same text. • The text is a multimonth ritual calendar. • Ritual activities seem clustered around the spring and fall equinoxes. • The calendar highlights activities on specific days while remaining silent about activities on other days. • The time of the offerings and activities that occur during the day are usually unspecified. • The text occasionally records an activity that occurs in the evening. • The text may depict a lunisolar calendar determining the month. • Ritual celebrations often begin at lunar-phase breaks (63 percent in Lev 23). • When a festival occurs at the new-moon phase of the month, the festival length is limited to one or two days. • The longer festivals begin on the full moon (15th of the month) and last for seven days (21st of the month).

Leviticus 23

121

• Festivals include both named and unnamed rituals (named festivals are occasionally unnamed in related texts; similarly, named festivals in related texts are occasionally unnamed in Lev 23). • Rites are often combined to form a ritual complex. • Drink offerings and grain offerings are typically paired. • Rites creating an aroma pleasant to Yhwh include the combination of burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings. • Sacred assemblies always include a prohibition on work. • While the role of the priest is usually “assumed,” it is rarely specified. • The group of people required to bring offerings is typically identified as “you” and assumed to be the general population.

Sacred Space Chapter 1 identified several aspects of ritual that aid in the understanding of ritual activity. One of these aspects of ritual is sacred space. Space plays a significant role in ritual, often acting as the structuring aspect. 90 Eliade analyzes sacred space and its role in ritual, finding that: For religious man, space is not homogeneous; he experiences interruptions, breaks in it; some parts of space are qualitatively different from others. “Do not come near here,” says the Lord to Moses; “remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground” [translation updated] (Exod 3:5). There is, then, a sacred space, and hence a strong, significant space; there are other spaces that are not sacred and so are without structure or consistency, amorphous. Nor is this all. For religious man, this special nonhomogeneity finds expression in the experience of an opposition between space that is sacred—the only real and real-ly existing space—and all other space, the formless expanse surrounding it. 91

As discussed in chap. 1, sacred space may represent a place of communication with the deity, a space from which the deity may act and derive power, and a place that orders reality. 92 In addition, Klingbeil argues that sacred space includes movement of people and objects (suggesting priority and sequence), general orientation (worshipers in relation objects), and processional movement. 93 Turner adds that sacred space may also include an aspect of liminality, where the affected person is “betwixt and between” two states. 94 As we examine sacred space in Lev 23, we will be guided by the following questions: Where does the ritual enactment occur? Are specified 90.  While not specifically addressing Lev 23, Jenson provides a thorough analysis of sacred space in the Priestly text, exploring the gradation of space, materials, and the senses ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 89–114). 91.  Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 20. 92.  Joel P. Brereton, “Sacred Space,” 528–32. 93.  Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 161–68. 94.  Turner, The Ritual Process, 95.

Chapter 3

122

Table 13.  Use of Space, and Movement within Space in Leviticus 23 Month

Day

Ritual/ Festival

Activity

Direction

Location

Every

7th

Sabbath

Sacred occasion with no work

In

Wherever the Israelites live

1

15th

Feast of Unleavened Bread

Sacred occasion with no work

None

Unspecified

1

15th— 21st

Feast of Unleavened Bread

Eat unleavened bread

Unspecified

Unspecified

1

15th— 21st

Feast of Unleavened Bread

Present food offerings to Yhwh

To

Unspecified

1

21st

Feast of Unleavened Bread

Sacred assembly with no work

None

Unspecified

Unspecified

Harvest

Firstfruits

Enter the land and reap its harvest

Into

The land

Unspecified

Harvest

Firstfruits

Bring the first sheaf of the harvest

To

The location of the priest—unspecified

Unspecified

Day after the Sabbath

Firstfruits

Priest will elevate the sheaf

Elevate before

Before Yhwh—unspecified

Unspecified

Day after the Sabbath

Firstfruits

Offer a male yearling lamb without defect

To

To Yhwh as a burnt offering at an unspecified location

Unspecified

Day after the Sabbath

Firstfruits

Prohibition against eating new grain from the harvest until completion of the offering

In

Wherever the Israelites live

Unspecified

+ 50 days

Second firstfruits

Bring from your settlements

From

From Israelite settlements to an unspecified location of Yhwh and the priest

Unspecified

+ 50 days

Second firstfruits

New grain offering including a burnt offering, grain offering, drink offering, food offering, sin offering, and peace offering

To

To Yhwh at an unspecified location

Unspecified

+ 50 days

Second firstfruits

Elevation offering of the offerings above

Elevate

To the priest who elevates the offerings before Yhwh—“they shall be holy to Yhwh for the priest.”

Leviticus 23

123

Table 13.  Use of Space, and Movement within Space in Leviticus 23 (cont.) Month

Day

Ritual/ Festival

Activity

Direction

Location

Unspecified

+ 50 days

Second firstfruits

Sacred occasion with no work

In

Wherever the Israelites live

7

1st

Trumpet Blasts

Sacred occasion with no work, trumpet blasts, food offering to Yhwh

Unspecified

Unspecified

7

10th

Day of Atonement

Sacred occasion with no work, afflict oneself, food offering to Yhwh

Before

Offering before Yhwh to effect atonement— location unspecified

7

10th

Day of Atonement

Consequence for noncompliance

Cut off

The guilty party will be cut off from the communitya

7

15th

Festival of Tabernacles

Feast with a sacred occasion with food offerings and no work

Unspecified

Unspecified

7

15th— 21st

Festival of Tabernacles

Present food offerings

To

Offerings to Yhwh at an unspecified location

7

21st

Festival of Tabernacles

Feast with a sacred occasion, with no work, and food offerings

Unspecified

Unspecified

Summary

Multiple Multiple

Verses 37–38 summarize offerings

To

Offerings to Yhwh at an unspecified location

7

15th and 21st

Festival of Yhwh

Feast with a sacred occasion, including no work, and food offerings

Unspecified

Unspecified

7

15th— 21st

Festival of Yhwh

Take branches of four types of tree and rejoice

Before

Rejoice before Yhwh at an unspecified location

7

15th— 21st

Festival of Yhwh

Live in booths—in order to remember that Yhwh made the Israelites live in booths when they came out of Egypt

Unspecified

Unspecified

a.  Being cut off from the community may imply removal from access to sacred space.

124

Chapter 3

locations fixed or temporary, high or low? What rites transition from sacred to profane space and back? What is the history of use for the space? What is the shape of the space? Is the shape of the space symbolic? How are boundaries and thresholds marked? This section reviews the references to space in Lev 23 and attempts to determine their intended significance within Israelite ritual. Table 13 outlines the use of space and movement within space in Lev 23. The multimonth festival calendar in Lev 23 offers more details about ritual actions than about the spaces in which these rituals occur. We should not necessarily conclude, however, that sacred space is less important: the space may simply be assumed to be common knowledge, or the text may rely on other texts with broader descriptions. Regardless of the reason, the lack of information concerning sacred space in Lev 23 is notable. The following specifics are omitted from the text: • The identity of the temple and/or the tabernacle • The specific locations for the various rituals, festivals, and ceremonies • Any mention of an altar, gate, or sacrificial area • The location of ritual meals • The location of any administrative areas or royal residence • The justification (except rarely) for offerings When sacred space is mentioned, it is in connection to Yhwh, the priest, and the offering itself. The focus of the text moves “from” the people— “to” Yhwh and the priest. Verse 17 reads that the people should “bring from your settlements an elevation offering. . . . as firstfruits to Yhwh.” The passage goes on to clarify that the priest acts as an intermediary (v. 20) taking the elevation offering from the people and consecrating the offering “to Yhwh for the priest” (v. 21). When the priest elevates this profane crop of the people in the presence of Yhwh, the state of the grain alters from profane to sacred. The implication may be that sacred space is any space proximate to the presence of Yhwh (as indicated in Exod 3:5). Therefore, the use of the word “from” may denote a profane space, with “to” representing a sacred space. A second use of the word “from” is found in vv. 29–30. These verses may also describe a profane location. Verse 29 reads, “Any person who does not deny himself on that day will be cut off from his kin.” Verse 30 continues, “Any person who does any work on that day, I will cause that person to perish from among his people.” In both cases, violation of the prohibition results in removal of the person from the group (family or loss of life). This may imply a movement from the sacred space of the community to the profane space outside the community.

Leviticus 23

125

A final use of the term “from” is found in v. 43. This verse presents the justification for living in booths during the Festival of Yhwh: “in order that your generations may know that I made the Israelites live in booths when I brought them out from the land of Egypt.” Cohn argues that being brought out from Egypt through the wilderness (i.e., living in booths) may point to a liminal state, where the Israelites are moving from a profane space (Egypt) to a sacred space (Israel). Cohn states that “wilderness. . . . is a typical metaphor for the liminal phase of rites of passage. Participants in initiation rituals are often actually or metaphorically in the wilderness, secluded from society.” 95 The idea that all Israel is in some way sacred space is echoed in vv. 1–3, 14, 17, 31, where the Israelites are commanded to perform various rites and festivals “in all your settlements.” 96 This may imply that anywhere that the Israelites settle is considered sacred space. This conclusion is based on the idea that wherever Yhwh dwells is sacred space. Therefore, if Yhwh dwells within the community of the Israelites, wherever the Israelites live is considered sacred space. It would then follow that a specific location for sacred space is “unspecified,” because Yhwh is present throughout the Israelite community. 97 This is true even of the weekly Sabbath that occurs throughout the land and is marked by a lack of work. In this section, I explored the references to sacred space in Lev 23 and noted that the text offers scant information about this particular ritual aspect. There are no descriptions or references to a temple, or specific locations for offerings, an altar, or gates. The text mentions no locations for ritual meals, sacrifices, or ceremonies. Furthermore, the distinction between sacred and profane space remains vague. I argue that any space proximate to Yhwh is sacred space. If this is correct, then the references “from” the people and “to” Yhwh may demonstrate the movement of an object from profane to sacred space. And finally, it is uncertain whether sacred space exists only near Yhwh or incorporates all of Israel.

Sacred Objects Chapter 1 discusses the importance of understanding the presence and role of sacred objects in ritual. The goal of this section is to identify and 95.  Cohn, Shape of Sacred Space, 13. Also referenced in Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 168. 96.  Variously translated “wherever you live.” 97.  Possible support may be found in Exod 25:8, where a sanctuary allows Yhwh to dwell with the people; Exod 25:9, “I will dwell among the Israelites”; and Exod 29:46, “dwell among them.” Numbers 5:3 distinguishes between Yhwh’s presence inside the camp and profane space outside the camp of the Israelites. Numbers 35:34 places Yhwh in the land of Israel. Deuteronomy 12:29 describes Yhwh as living in the entire land of  Israel.

126

Chapter 3

explore the ritual objects in Lev 23, and I analyze their significance within the greater ritual complex. Klingbeil believes that several points of interpretation are crucial to understanding the use of objects in ritual. First, even common elements such as bread and wine require a careful contextual interpretation. Past usage is not always the best indicator of present meaning, although it should be considered. Second, ritual objects are often employed in innovative ways to create new meaning. Third, careful attention needs to be given to the explanation(s) that are part of the texts describing the ritual. While these explanations may not always be complete or satisfactory to the modern reader, they must provide the point of departure for an understanding of the rituals. Fourth, combinations of objects may be relevant and may point beyond the sum of the meaning of the individual objects. 98

According to Klingbeil, attention to these elements related to the ritual objects will result in a deeper understanding of a ritual text. The objects identified in Lev 23 are divided into two primary categories: sacred items and sacred offerings. While not always addressed in the text, the controlling questions for this section (discussed in chap. 1) are: What and how many objects are associated with the rite? Is the size and shape important to the ritual process? Of what material are they made? Is the construction of the objects ritualized? Who is responsible for the care of the object? How are the objects stored or discarded? What uses would desecrate the object? How does the object become special? Does the object have a significant history? Does the object combine with other objects to create a stronger significance? Is the object inanimate or personified? What status accrues to the owner or keeper? Sacred Items The multimonth festival calendar in Lev 23 contains several objects— all related to agriculture. The objects identified in the spring (harvest and gleanings) provide a clear relationship to agriculture. As discussed above, these objects are possibly mentioned in the context that the land belongs to Yhwh, and Israel is Yhwh’s steward of the fruits of the land. The Israelites are responsible for providing the first sheaf of the harvest as thanks to Yhwh for his provision. In addition, they must provide for the less fortunate (poor and alien) through the gleanings of the field. This ethical admonition to care for the poor is unexpected and unusual in ancient Near Eastern texts. Sacred Offerings Offerings made by individuals for the deity—sacred offerings—are the second type of sacred object. In this category, important items to consider include: the type of offerings, who gives the offering, the absolute and relative 98.  Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 181.

Leviticus 23

127

Table 14.  Uses of Sacred Objects in Ritual Activities Contained in Leviticus 23 Verse

Hebrew

Translation

Context

10 (2×), 22 (2×)

‫קציר‬

Harvest

  Verse 10 mentions the first grain harvest of the year (barley).b The land belonged to Yhwh,c and the harvest was Yhwh’s provision for the Israelites—after they completed the firstfruit offering.d  Verse 22 involves the second grain harvest (wheat), adding an ethical provision for the poor and alien.

22

‫לקט‬

Gleanings

Defined by Milgrom as the items that fall during the harvest.e

24

‫תרועה זכרון‬

Remembrance of trumpet blasts

Milgrom asserts that the trumpet blasts are conducted on the shofar on the 1st, 10th, and 15th days of the 7th month. He goes on to argue that all three festivals of the 7th month—the terûʿâ call on the 1st day, the fast day on the 10th, and the circumambulation of the altar with waving fronds and other vegetation for 7 days, from the 15th through the 22nd—as well as the tradition of a water libation offered during these days combine into a single-minded goal: to beseech God for adequate rain in the forthcoming agricultural year.f

39

‫הארץ תבואת‬

Yield of the land

Synonym for harvest; however, noting that the source of the harvest is “the land,” which belongs to Yhwh.g

40

‫הדר עץ פרי‬

Fruit of splendid treesh

Following Hess, who defines this as the fruit of any splendid tree (see discussion in the translation section of this chapter).

40

‫תמרים כפת‬

Fronds of palms

Milgrom identifies the plural as one frond that has many branches.i

40

‫עץ־עבת ענף‬

40

‫ערבי־נחל‬

34, 42, 43

‫סכה‬

a

Branches of leafy trees Willows of the brook Booths

The context of the “booths” is a temporary shelter where the Israelites would reside for 7 days—from the 15th to the 21st of the 7th month. According to the text, this act is intended to remind the Israelites that Yhwh brought them out of Egypt, and they lived in booths during their desert wanderings.

a.  For a description, see Isa 17:5; Ps 129:7. b. Exodus 9:31–32; Ruth 1:22; 2:23; Jos. Ant. 3.250–51. c. Leviticus 25:23. d.  Greenberg, On the Bible and Judaism, 115. Milgrom, Leviticus, 2011. e.  Ibid., 1626. Based on m. Peʾah 4:10. See also Deut 24:19. Similar to Lev 19:9–10 with the omission of the vineyard harvest (fitting the context of a spring harvest; Wenham, Leviticus, 305; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2010). f.  Milgrom finds a procession in the phrase “you will rejoice before Yhwh your God” (Lev 23:40)—see discussion on processions above (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2016–18, 2043). The use of ritual offerings and activities to solicit a deity’s support for the agricultural year is discussed further in relation to Emar 446 in chaps. 4 and 5. Milgrom provides an outline of relevant arguments related to the “alarm blasts” (ibid., 2014–19). g.  A similar phrase, “yield of the field,” is found in 2 Kgs 8:6 and 2 Chr 31:35—both of which convey a ritual association between the harvest, the people, and the cult. h.  Milgrom translates “boughs of majestic trees” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2040). i.  “The leaves would have been thought of as branches because of their stiffness and sharpness. The rabbinic requirement to close and bind the leaves (b. Sukkah 32a) may stem from their prickly nature, rendered especially hazardous during festival processions” (ibid., 2042).

Chapter 3

128

Table 15.  Aspects of Sacred Offerings in Leviticus 23 Verse(s)

Hebrew

Translation

Context

6

‫ מצות‬Unleavened bread

Part of the spring feast by the same name. The Israelites are to eat unleavened bread for 7 days— from the 15th to the 21st of the 1st month of the year.

8, 13, 18, 25, 27, 36 (2×), 37

‫ אשה‬Food offerings

Milgrom and Hess maintain that “food gifts” represent a condensation of offerings contained in Num 28:19–24—arguing that the author of Lev 23 had access to Num 28.a

10, 11, 12, 15

‫ עמר‬Sheaf b (barley, wheat)

The term is identified in Lev 23 with: firstfruit, part of the elevation offering, payment to the priest, allowing for acceptance by Yhwh. The first ripened and processed fruit belonged to Yhwh (Exod 22:28; 23:19; 34:26; Deut 26:1–11), so “a blessing may rest on your home” (Ezek 44:30; cf. Lev 19:24–25). Note also Prov 3:9–10, “Honor Yhwh with your substance and with the firstfruits of all your produce; then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine.”c

13, 16, 18, 37

‫ מנחה‬Grain offering

See prior discussion on the “grain offering.” Flour mixed with oil as a food gift to Yhwh, including a soothing aroma.

12, 18, 19, 20

‫ כבש‬Male lamb

  Unblemished yearling as part of the burnt offering  Verse 18, including seven lambs as part of the burnt offering.  Verse 19, two lambs as part of the well-being sacrifice.  Verse 20, two lambs perhaps part of the elevation offering. Mentioned as holy to Yhwh for the priest.

13, 17

‫ סלת‬Flour

  Reviewing the occurrences of units of measure and grain offerings—the conversion in Leviticus and Numbers may be: one-tenth of an ephah per lamb, two-tenths of an ephah per ram, and threetenths of an ephah per bull—each in association with the corresponding burnt offering.  Verse 13 prescribes a double portion.

a.  Milgrom, Leviticus, 1979; Hess, Leviticus, 786. b.  The Septuagint reads “handful.” c.  Milgrom, Leviticus, 1984. d.  Ibid., 1988.

Leviticus 23

129

Table 15.  Aspects of Sacred Offerings in Leviticus 23 (cont.) Verse(s)

14, 17, 18, 20

14

Translation

‫ יין‬Wine

13

14

Hebrew

‫ שמן‬Oil

13

Context Mixed with the flour and baked into bread.   This is the singular reference to wine as part of the drink offering in Lev 23. The drink offering is usually one-fourth of a hin of wine per lamb offering; however, the other two references to the drink offering in Lev 23 do not reference the type of drink.   Milgrom notes that wine (drink offering) and grain (cereal offering) are found in tandem for the burnt and well-being offerings in Leviticus, Num 15:1–16; 2 Kgs 16:13, 15.d

‫ לחם‬Bread

  Unspecified amount in Lev 23:14.   Two loaves in v. 17—using two-tenths of an ephah with leavening (‫)חמץ‬.  Verse 20 is identified as part of the firstfruits elevation offering.   Referring to barley that has been milled into flour and baked.

‫ קלי‬Parched grain

Fresh grain.

‫ כרמל‬Fresh grain

Waxy and yellow in color. Milgrom notes that it is in the state between soft and dry and may be eaten fresh or made into porridge.e

16

‫ חדשה מנחה‬New grain

18

‫ בן־בקר פר‬Bull of the heard

One as part of the burnt offering.

18

‫ איל‬Ram

Two as part of the burnt offering.

19

‫ שעיר‬Male goat

An offering of wheat in comparison with the “old” cereal offering of barley.

One goat as a purification offering.

e.  Milgrom, Leviticus, 1989; Matt 12:1; Mark 2:23; y. Šabb. 1.2.

quantities of the offerings, who shares the offering with the deity, and which parts of the offering are shared. 99 A review of the sacred offerings in Lev 23 reveals that primary offerings fall into three classifications: meat, cereals, and liquid. The most frequently mentioned sacrificial offering is the male lamb 100 (three times). However, other meat sacrifices include the ram (male sheep), bull (male bovine), and 99.  Jenson contends that “the varying number of public sacrifices offered on different days constituted a sacrificial code which unified the festal system, as well as graded the festal days in importance” ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 188). 100.  The use of the male lamb in the sacrifice stands to reason because the male lambs are less valuable than females. Females would have been used to build the herd.

130

Chapter 3

male goat. The offerings of lambs are found in connection with the burnt offering, well-being offering, and elevation offering. A portion of the lamb is retained as payment for the priest. The remainder of the sacrificial meat offerings is identified with the burnt offering. The provider of the meat for the offerings is the impersonal “you,” which implies that the general population is responsible for providing the sacred offerings. Cereal offerings include unleavened bread, sheaves of barley and wheat, flour, bread, parched grain, fresh grain, new grain, and a grain offering. Cereal offerings are detailed in the festivals held in the spring and left unspecified or assumed in the festivals of the 7th month. These offerings include both barley and wheat in different phases of ripening and processing. In addition, the cereals used as offerings are unleavened, leavened, mixed with oil, mixed with fragrance, baked, unbaked, or left on the stalk. Once given to the priest, the cereals are elevated, baked, burned to Yhwh as a pleasing aroma, or given to the priest as payment. As mentioned above, the provider of the offerings is probably the general population. The final category of offering is a drink offering given to Yhwh. The drink offering is identified in vv. 13, 18, and 37, but the identification of the drink as wine is only made in the first mention (v. 13) of the text. Drink offerings and grain offerings are usually mentioned in tandem in this text (vv. 13, 18, 37) and the Pentateuch. In this section, I examine sacred items in the multimonth festival calendar of Lev 23. In evaluating their role in the text, I found that these objects form two categories: sacred items and sacred offerings. The following list summarizes the key aspects of these ritual objects: • Agricultural objects are used to petition Yhwh for a successful agricultural season. • The owner of the harvest is Yhwh. • Ritual objects are occasionally temporary (huts and branches) and associated with the remembrance of a significant event. • Meat offerings, cereal offerings, and drink offerings are often combined into a festival complex. • Sacrificial meat offerings include lamb, sheep, and cattle. • Grain offerings and drink offerings are found in tandem. • Ritual offerings are identified as both an offering to Yhwh and a payment to the priests who act as officiants. • The text includes an ethical prescription to aid the less fortunate in the society.

Only one ram is necessary to service a flock; therefore, male lambs were used for food. See also Jenson, Graded Holiness, 189.

Leviticus 23

131

Ritual Roles of Participants As mentioned in chap. 1, individuals are an essential part of ritual, participating through the performance of specific roles. Gorman identifies three primary roles for ritual participants: specialist, sponsor, and recipient. 101 The specialist, often a priest or diviner, is responsible for both the knowledge and the administration of the ritual performance. The sponsor is the person whose situation has initiated the ritual. This may be the king, city leaders, or a deity. And the third category is the recipient (the person or group), for whom the ritual is conducted. 102 Leviticus 23 frequently identifies ritual participants associated with the activities during each month of the festival calendar. We now explore these mentioned participants and analyze the potential significance of the participant within the festival structure and purpose. 103 The goal is to understand better the role played by identified participants in the multimonth festival calendar of Lev 23 and to answer the following questions: What roles and offices are operative in ritual? Do some figures have a larger, longer, or more important role than others? How—if at all—do participants and sacred space interact? And who participates actively, and who participates passively? Yhwh Yhwh is identified 37 times in Lev 23—once as God (v. 14), 4 times as “Yhwh your God” (22, 28, 40, 43), and 32 times as Yhwh. Five formulaic, third-person statements are used to divide the text into festival segments (see prior discussion). The balance of the text is written as first-person direct speech. Yhwh is seemingly behind the text, speaking to Moses. The text is written from the point of view of Moses, who is speaking to the Israelites (with “you” implying the Israelites). Occasionally, Yhwh speaks in first person directly to either Moses or the Israelites (v. 2, “My appointed times”; vv. 22, 43, “I am Yhwh your God”). The balance of the text is written as direct speech (from the point of view of Moses), and Yhwh is the recipient of the action or offerings. Moses (‫)משה‬ Moses is mentioned six times in Lev 23. Each mention is in a sectiondivision formula using Moses to convey information from Yhwh to the 101.  Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual Space, 34–36. 102.  Also discussed in Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 51. 103.  While not specifically addressing Lev 23, Jenson provides a thorough analysis of ritual participants in the Priestly text, exploring the gradation of ritual participants, including the priestly hierarchy, garments, and other participants. Jenson argues for a gradation of people based on their distance from the temple/tabernacle and their status ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 115–48).

132

Chapter 3

Israelites. 104 Moses neither adds nor interprets information but merely repeats the words as directed. Israelites (‫ )בני ישראל‬and Native-Born of Israel (‫)האזרח בישראל‬ The Israelites—not the priest—are the focus and intended audience of Lev 23. The text mentions the Israelites directly on six occasions—five times in formulaic statements and once in a purpose statement. A variant, “all citizens of Israel,” is found in the Festival of Yhwh, where all Israelites are commanded to live in booths for seven days. The majority of references to the Israelites are personal pronouns or the verbal subject “you,” occurring in the text 53 times. The general population is the primary subject of the text, thus demonstrating that the identified audience is not priestly. The identified audience of Lev 23 is the Israelites, who appear most often as the implied “you.” In the text, Yhwh speaks through Moses, conveying the appointed times when the Israelites are either to perform an action or offering or to abstain from work. While the role of the priest is present, the onus is clearly on the general population to provide offerings and participate in rites. Priest (‫)כהן‬ The priests are only identified on five occasions in the text—four times as a priest (vv. 10–11, 20 [2×]) and once as a third-person singular personal pronoun, “he” (v. 11). Each occurrence is connected with the elevation offering (i.e., the elevation offering is first consecrated to Yhwh and then given to the priest)—first, the firstfruits offering of the barley harvest and, second, the firstfruits offering of the wheat harvest. The text for the wheat harvest clarifies that the elevation offering is first consecrated to Yhwh and then given to the priest. Presumably the priest receives the offering as payment for conducting the offerings to Yhwh. In comparison with the Israelites, the priest plays a diminished role in the festival text. Poor (‫ )עני‬and Alien (‫)גר‬ References to poor and alien individuals are found once in the text as deserving the gleanings of the field after the harvest. While the inclusion of the “poor” and the “alien” is unexpected in a festival text, it may serve as a reminder of the ethical injunction in Lev 19:9–10 (rendered here by

104.  The role of Moses as intermediary between Yhwh and the people of Israel led Gerstenberger to conclude that Moses and the “Torah-office” represent a higher authority than the “priestly-office” (Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Das dritte Buch Mose Leviticus [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993], 103).

Leviticus 23

133

omitting reference to the grape harvest, which would not yet be completed in Lev 23:22). Hess observes that the command to care for the poor and alien reminds the Israelites that they do not work for themselves, but for God. God’s concern for the poor must be respected and his ability to provide for the farmers must be trusted, even though this may require missing a valuable day of work during the harvest season and refusing to take advantage of the whole harvest. For the Israelite farmers, this teaches the dangers of greed and extols the principle of a generous spirit—generous toward God and toward one’s needy fellows. 105

Greenberg argues that the passage emphasizes Yhwh’s sovereignty over the land. The Israelites may use the land (which belongs to Yhwh) only if they share the harvest with the less fortunate people of society. 106 Person (‫)נפש‬ The term ‫ נפש‬is found five times in Lev 23—each time in relationship to the Day of Atonement. The term is translated three times as “people” (vv. 29, 30 [2×]) and associated with the consequences of not following the ritual’s commands. In v. 29, “[A]ny person who does not deny himself will be cut off from his people.” Hess notes that the command to be “cut off ” from the community “describes a divine punishment already required for various acts of uncleanness, consumption of blood, and practices associated with worship of other deities (7:20–27; 17:4, 9–14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3–6, 17–18; 22:3, 24). As elsewhere it implies the end of one’s name or remembrance among the people of God.” 107 In v. 30, the punishment for any person who performs work on the Day of Atonement is that Yhwh will “cause that person to perish.” Milgrom notes that there is a slight difference between the two penalties. “I will cause that person to perish” “implies the Deity’s immediate intervention (Ibn Ezra), perhaps because working is a public violation, whereas not fasting (i.e., eating) is done in privacy of one’s home. This is another reason. . . . why the gēr may be liable for punishment only for working, but not for eating.” 108 Karl Weyde responds, It seems, however, to be more to the point to understand the form as expressing the severity of violating this law, which corresponds to the severity of the law itself: since the prohibition against working on the Day of Atonement is all-embracing, including every kind of work, the penalty for its violation is

105.  106.  107.  108. 

Hess, Leviticus, 788. Greenberg, On the Bible, 115. Hess, Leviticus, 790. Milgrom, Leviticus, 2025.

134

Chapter 3

most severe: Yhwh will react, and he will destroy, exterminate from the midst of the people anyone who works during that entire day. 109

The final two occurrences (vv. 27, 32) are translated “yourselves” in the context of Yhwh’s demand that the Israelites afflict themselves on the Day of Atonement. The idiom may mean both fasting and taking oaths, as Milgrom identifies it in Lev 16:29, 31; Num 30:13; Ps 35:13; Dan 10:12; Isa 58:3. 110 People (‫)עם‬ Similar to the discussion on the word “person,” the term for “people” (‫ )עם‬is identified twice (vv. 29, 30) in relationship to consequences for disobedience. In v. 29, “[A]ny person who does not deny himself will be cut off from his people.” In v. 30, the punishment (Yhwh will “cause that person to perish from among his people”) is for any person who performs work on the Day of Atonement. In both instances, the consequence is to remove the offending Israelite from the community—either by banishment or by death. Being removed from the community is also being removed from the presence of Yhwh. Generations (‫)דר‬ Israelites are identified as “your generations” five times in Lev 23. The group is found four times in the context of a “perpetual statute” (which of course applies throughout time, vv. 14, 21, 31, 41). The fifth reference (v. 43) involves the purpose clause for living in booths. The context of each reference is the Israelites throughout future time in a ritual setting. In this way, Yhwh’s command for ritual observance is everlasting for the Israelites. This section explored the role of ritual participants and concluded the following: • The role of the general population is prominent. • The involvement of the poor and alien is unexpected and emphasizes an ethical call to care for the less fortunate in society., • Portions of offerings are given as payment to priests. • The roles of the priests and king are less prominent.

Ritual Sound A less frequently discussed aspect of ritual is the use and role of sound. Interpreting ritual sound is difficult because biblical rituals are presented only in written form. Grimes proposes several questions for understanding better the sound component of ritual: Does the rite employ nonlinguistic sounds, such as animal calls, shouting, or moaning? Are these sounds inter109.  Karl W. Weyde, The Appointed Festivals of Yhwh: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the Sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts (FAT 2/4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 99. 110.  Milgrom, Leviticus, 2023.

Leviticus 23

135

Table 16.  Aspects of Ritual Sound in Leviticus 23 Month

Day

Verse

Sound

Offerings

Comment

Unspecified

Unspecified

2

Proclaim (‫)קרא‬

Sacred assembly

  The Israelites are to proclaim the beginning of the sacred assemblies as prescribed by Yhwh.   This reference is a general summary statement.

Unspecified

Unspecified

4

Proclaim (‫)קרא‬

Sacred assembly

Similar to v. 2 above.

Harvest

Beginning of the wheat harvest

21

Proclaim (‫)קרא‬

Sacred assembly

This passage clarifies that the sacred occasion includes a prohibition against work. This prohibition is incumbent upon the Israelites for all time, wherever they may live.

7

1st

24

Trumpet blasts (‫)תרועה‬

None

  A remembrance celebration and a sacred occasion, including a prohibition on work.   Psalm 27:6 associates the ‫תרועה‬ with rejoicing during sacrifices in the “Tent of Yhwh”

Unspecified

Unspecified

37

Proclaim (‫)קרא‬

Sacred assembly

  The Israelites are to proclaim the beginning of the sacred assemblies as prescribed by Yhwh.   This passage includes food offerings, burnt offerings, grain offerings, sacrifices, and drink offerings.

7

15th

40

Rejoice (‫)שמח‬ before Yhwh

None

After the harvest is complete, the Israelites celebrate the Feast of Yhwh, including days of rest, rejoicing with four species of leafy branches, and living in booths.

preted and, if so, by whom? Are instrumental and vocal sounds present? What musical sounds and instruments predominate? What moods do the sounds most often evoke? Is there a distinction between sacred and secular music? Does the rite include the recitation of literary texts? If so, does the reading describe reality or actually affect it? 111 Ritual sound is identified in three portions of Lev 23: the proclamation of sacred assemblies, the blowing of trumpets, and rejoicing. The first ritual sound occurs during the “proclamation” of sacred assemblies. Scholars

111.  Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies, 26.

136

Chapter 3

translate the term as “invite,” “set a time,” “single out,” “call together,” and “proclaim.” 112 Milgrom argues: The meaning “proclaim” fits the context best, particularly in view of its object miqrāʾ, as in qĕrōʾ miqrāʾ “proclaiming of solemnities” (Isa 1:13). When qārāʾ appears with the qdš, the meaning “proclaim” is particularly in evidence: qaddĕšû ʿăṣārâ labbaʿal wayyiqrāʾû “‘sanctify a solemn assembly to Baal’ and it was proclaimed” (2 Kgs 10:20); qaddĕšû-ṣôm qirʾû ʿăṣārâ “sanctify a fast, proclaim a solemn assembly” ( Joel 1:14). Perhaps it is no mere coincidence that the Hittite king was expected, through an “overseer” to officially “proclaim” the onset of a festival. 113

If Milgrom is correct, the priests were responsible for determining the date of the sacred assemblies and audibly announcing the beginning of the festival to the Israelites. The second mention of sound is in the context of the 7th month (fall) and involves the blowing of a trumpet as part of a remembrance celebration. For Finesinger, the object of the reminder is found in Num 10:10, “And on the day of your joyous occasions and on your appointed times, and on the new moon days, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be as a reminder to you before your God. I am Yhwh your God.” 114 Numbers 10 also indicates that the trumpet blast was not unique to the 1st day of the 7th month but was blown to commemorate each new moon celebration during the year. Milgrom notes that Num 10 specifies an instrument (‫)חצצרה‬, while Lev 23 does not. The verb for blowing in Num 10 is ‫( תקע‬blow/blast), which is also unrelated to the word ‫( תרועה‬shout or blast) found in Lev 23. He finds additional evidence in Ps 81:4, which specifies that the shofar was blown on the day of the new moon, reading, “[B]low the shofar on the new moon, on the full moon, on our feast day.” Relying on the Psalm text, references in Neh 8 to the joyous nature of the festival, and rabbinic analysis, he concludes that the blast of the trumpet (shofar) in Lev 23 is used to alert Yhwh of Israel’s pressing need for the winter rains to water the new crops. Milgrom summarizes his position: Thus the rabbis credit the shofar as an instrument of prayer, one that alerts God to Israel’s needs. . . . The twenty mishnayot that compose m. Taʿan. 1:1–3:3 deal with the sounding of the shofar at the assembly of a community engaged in a fast to implore God for rain. . . . [A]ll three festivals of the sev112.  Invite: Ramban, based on Num 1:6; 1 Sam 9:13. Set a time: Rashbam, based on Lam 1:15. Single out: Naphtali H. Wessely, Netivot Ha-Shalom, vol. 3: Leviticus (ed. M. Mendelssohn; Vienna: von Schmid and Busch, 1846), based on Exod 35:30. Call together: Elliger, Leviticus; based on Num 10:2. Proclaim: Milgrom, Leviticus, 1957; Tg. Onqelos. 113.  Milgrom, Leviticus, 1957. Milgrom relies, in part, on Volkert Haas, Der Kult von Nerik: Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religionsgeschichte (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970), 43–50. 114.  Finesinger, “The Shofar,” 193–228.

Leviticus 23

137

enth month—the terûʿâ call on the first day, the fast day on the tenth, and the circumambulation of the altar with waving fronds and other vegetation for seven days, from the fifteenth through the twenty-second—as well as the tradition of a water libation offered during these days combine into a singleminded goal: to beseech God for adequate and timely rain in the forthcoming agricultural year. 115

If he is correct, then the fall festival was an agricultural festival—with a fixed date—intended to solicit the deity’s support for the upcoming agricultural year. The third occurrence of ritual sound is in association with “rejoicing.” Milgrom finds a special meaning in the phrase “you will rejoice before Yhwh your God.” First, he notes that to rejoice (in this instance) implies a procession around the altar in the sanctuary with the branches of the festival (discussed above). If this is accurate, the festival included a procession in which the priests carried the branches and chanted invocations to Yhwh for blessing. Second, Milgrom identifies the purpose of the celebration as a supplication for rain. Again relying on rabbinic texts, he argues that the water libation of the festival included water brought from the Pool of Shiloah through the Water Gate. 116 Thus he reasons that the Festival of Yhwh included a procession, waving of branches, and water offerings—on a set date—all designed to supplicate Yhwh for successful rains during the coming agricultural season. Therefore, based on this investigation of sound’s ritual use and function in Lev 23, one may argue that sound played a role in Israelite festivals.

Summary This chapter set out to analyze Lev 23 by illuminating the role that literary structure and aspects of ritual play in its multimonth festival calendar. A few significant findings are highlighted below: Structure and Literary Form • Leviticus 23 is instructional discourse (prescriptive). • The analytical genre (see Sparks in chap. 1) is a prescriptive, multimonth ritual calendar. • The text is organized using temporal markers to segment summary and title statements, major divisions (months), and subdivisions (between different rites).

115.  Milgrom, Leviticus, 2018. 116.  Ibid., 2044. Rabbinic support for this conclusion is also found in b. Roš Haš. 16a: “Why did the Torah enjoin on us to pour out water on the Booths Festival? The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said: Pour out water before me on the Booths Festival, so that your rains this year may be blessed.”

Chapter 3

138

• • • • • • •

◦◦ A standard date formula is used to identify major divisions in the text. The general formula is “month x on the x day” (one major section uses a different temporal divider). ◦◦ Subdivisions within these larger sections are marked by phrases, including: on/for x day(s), on that day, the next day. The number of lines for each festival and month demonstrates a lack of symmetry. The verbs are typically in the second person (direct speech) from Yhwh to Moses, with the general population as the object of the action. Occasionally verbs change to third-person narrative—still oriented toward the general population. The text includes an introductory statement. The audience is identified in the introduction as the general population (Israelites). In addition, although they are not emphasized, the priests are clearly involved. The author uses large chiastic structures in the narrative. The text exhibits parallel language and small chiastic structures.

Sacred Time • The text is organized using temporal dividers. • The normal work schedule is interrupted for ritual activities— including a call for rest or complete rest on specific days. • The text often uses a seven-day ritual period. • A one-day ritual meal is held the day before a primary festival with a yearling lamb as the ritual sacrifice (on one occasion). • Within the same text, some ritual activities are tied to the agricultural calendar and others to the monthly fixed calendar. • The text is a multimonth ritual calendar. • Ritual activities seem clustered around the spring and fall equinoxes. • The calendar highlights activities on specific days while leaving activities on other days unmentioned. • The calendar offers little information on the time of the offerings and activities that occur during the day. • The text occasionally records an activity that occurs in the evening. • The text may depict a lunisolar calendar in determining the month. • Ritual celebrations often begin at lunar-phase breaks (63 percent in Lev 23). • When a festival occurs at the new-moon phase of the month, the festival is limited to one or two days. • The longer festivals begin on the full moon (15th of the month) and last for seven days (until the 21st).

Leviticus 23

139

• Festivals included both named and unnamed rituals (named festivals are occasionally unnamed in related texts; similarly, named festivals in related texts are occasionally unnamed in Lev 23). • Named rites are often combined to form a ritual complex. • Drink offerings and grain offerings are typically paired. • Rites creating an aroma pleasant to Yhwh include the combination of burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings. • Sacred assemblies always include a prohibition on work. • While the role of the priest is usually “assumed,” it is rarely specified. • The group of people required to bring offerings is typically identified as “you” and assumed to be the general population. Sacred Space • The text usually leaves the space for ritual activities unspecified. • The text specifies what is to be done more often than where it is to be done. • Sacred space seems to include the area near the deity with references “from” and “to” possibly indicating a shift from profane to sacred space. • The text does not mention the specifics of the sacred space (e.g., altar, sacrificial table, or offering protocols). Sacred Objects • Agricultural objects may have been used to petition Yhwh for a successful agricultural season. • The owner of the harvest is Yhwh. • Ritual objects were occasionally temporary (huts and branches) and tied to the remembrance of a significant event. • Meat offerings, cereal offerings, and drink offerings were combined into a festival complex. • Sacrificial meat offerings include lamb, sheep, and cattle. • Grain offerings and drink offerings are found in tandem. • Ritual offerings are identified as both an offering to Yhwh and a payment to the priests who act as officiants. • The text includes an ethical prescription to aid the less fortunate in the society. Ritual Participants • The role of the general population is prominent. • The involvement of the poor and alien is unexpected and emphasizes an ethical call to care for the less fortunate in society. • Portions of offerings are given as payment to priests. • The roles of the priests and king are muted.

140

Chapter 3

Ritual Sound and Smell • The beginning of the sacred assemblies is “proclaimed” as prescribed by Yhwh. • Ritual feasts are accompanied by noisy rejoicing. • A “pleasing aroma” may have indicated an accepted offering and supplication to Yhwh. Chapter 4 analyzes Emar 446, using the same ritual methodology we applied to the study of Lev 23. The information gleaned from the analysis of Lev 23 and Emar 446 is then analyzed and compared in chap. 5 to determine whether Lev 23 exhibits elements of a West Semitic festival tradition dating back to the 2nd millennium.

Chapter 4

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar Introduction to Emar In the chap. 3, we explored the ritual aspects of Lev 23, including: form, literary structure, sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, ritual participants, and ritual sound. In chap. 4, I begin with a brief review of the archaeological and geopolitical context for Emar in the 14th century b.c.e. After presenting a new transliteration, normalization, and translation of Emar 446, I assess the form, outline, and literary structures. Finally, I evaluate the aspects of sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, and participants involved in the rituals at Emar. Location Emar (modern Meskene) is located in Syria on the west bank of the great bend in the Euphrates River at a significant crossroad for economic trade routes across the land (east–west and north–south) and along the Euphrates River (northwest–southeast). 1 Documents from Ebla and Mari show that Emar existed from at least the 3rd millennium until its destruction in the 12th century b.c.e. This location between Babylon, Mari, Ḫatti, the Mediterranean Sea, and Egypt made Emar a vital economic center and exposed it and its citizens to the cultures of many civilizations. 2 In the early 1970s, the Syrian government developed the Tabqa Dam and created Lake Assad. This threatened to flood several potential archaeological sites. Jean-Claude Margueron (1972) conducted a preliminary survey of the location to salvage any relevant artifacts. The initial survey was so successful that he conducted five additional campaigns between 1972 and 1.  Barry J. Beitzel, “From Harran to Imar along the Old Babylonian Itinerary: The Evidence from the Archives royales de Mari,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor (ed. G. A. Tuttle; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 209–19; Daniel E. Fleming, “Emar: On the Road from Harran to Hebron,” in Mesopotamia and the Bible (ed. M. W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 222–50; W. W. Hallo, “The Road to Emar,” JCS 18 (1964): 57–88. 2. Gary Beckman, “Emar and Its Archives,” in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age (ed. Mark W. Chavalas; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996), 1–4.

141

142

Chapter 4

1978. 3 He concluded that the Emar he explored did not reveal the city discussed in the Ebla and Mari archive but was instead a newer city founded in the 14th century and thought to have been destroyed in the 12th century (1187 b.c.e.). 4 He hypothesized that the earlier (3rd and early 2nd millennium) site was located on a mound next to the Euphrates River several hundred yards from its current location. According to this theory, a possible change in the river’s course necessitated the relocation of the city. The original city disappeared into the river and a new city was built, with Hittite support, on the plateau overlooking the river valley. 5 Margueron argues that either the Hittite King Suppiluliuma (ca. 1380–1346 b.c.e.) or his son King Mursili II (1345–1315 b.c.e.) commissioned the new city as a vassal outpost to monitor activities in Babylon (to the south) and Assyria (to the northwest). In 1992, the Syrian Antiquities Department secured the location and renewed excavations under the leadership of Shawki Shaath and Farouk Ismail. Four years later, in 1996, the University of Tübingen formed a partnership with the Syrian Antiquities Department for five seasons under the direction of Uwe Finkbeiner. During these five years, the team identified, in addition to the Late Bronze Age remains, earlier occupation levels from the Middle and Early Bronze Ages. Clearly, based on the work of Finkbeiner and the joint Syrian-German excavations, the Late Bronze Age location of Emar was not a new city built by the Hittites but, rather, a location under continuous occupation from the later portion of the 3rd millennium on, and probably earlier. This means that the Emar mentioned in the archives at Ebla, Ugarit, Nuzi, and Mari is the location under study. It follows that the texts found at Emar may preserve information and religious traditions from, not only the Late Bronze Age, but also earlier periods of the Middle and Early Bronze Ages. 6 3.  Four additional years at Emar (1973–76) and one additional year at Tell Faqʾous on a bluff overlooking Emar ( Jean-Claude Margueron, “Emar,” ABD 2.488–89). 4. Daniel Arnaud, “Les texts d’Emar et la chronologie de la fin du Bronze Récent,” Syria 52 (1975): 88–89; Jean-Claude Margueron, “Quatre campagnes de fouilles a Emar (1972–1974),” Syria 52 (1975): 84–85; Beckman associates the destruction with the “invasion of the sea peoples” (“Emar and Its Archives,” 5). 5. Jean-Claude Margueron, “Rapport préliminaire sur les deux premières campagnes de fouille à Meskéné-Emar (1972–1973),” AAAS 25 (1975), 76–77; idem and Marcel Sigrist, “Emar,” OEANE 2.237; B. Geyer, “Une ville aujourd’hui engloutie—Emar: Contribution géomorphologique à la localization de la cité,” MARI 6 (1990): 107–19. 6. Uwe Finkbeiner, “Emar 1999: Bericht über die 3 Kampagne der syrischdeutschen Ausgrabungen mit Beiträgen von Hala Attoura, Betina Faist, Uta König, Ferhan Sakal und Frank Starke,” BaghM 32 (2001): 41–120; idem, “Emar 2001: Bericht über die 4 Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen—Mit Beiträgen von Hala Attoura und Wendy Eixler und unter Mitarbeit von Ferhan Sakal,” BaghM 33 (2002): 109–46; idem, “Emar 2002: Bericht über die 5 Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen,” BaghM 34 (2003): 9–117; idem, The Archaeological Park Emar-Bali (Aleppo, 2010).

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

143

Four temples are located at the site. Two of them sit side by side on a plateau at the highest point in Emar, making them visible from anywhere in the city. A path separating them leads to an open area. Textual evidence from these temples indicates that the northern one is the Temple of Aštarte and the southern one is the Temple of dBaʿal. These identifications come from three texts (Emar 42, 45, 52) discovered in the southern temple that reference the Temple of dBaʿal or dBaʿal himself. 7 The deity or deities associated with the third temple (M2), located in a central portion of the city (Area M), is/are unknown. 8 M2 appears to have a decorative design of ceramic cones or spikes on the front façade similar to those found in 2ndmillennium Nuzi and Elam. These indicate a possible eastern influence. 9 The central area of the city also accommodates the fourth temple (M1), which is dedicated to all the gods. Its archive, headed by a person called “the Diviner” (lúḫal), 10 provides significant information on the religion and rituals of the area. Margueron and Arnaud designate this fourth temple the “House of the Diviner.” All four temples exhibit the same general layout. Based on the megaron style, each temple had a rectangular sanctuary with a single door opening onto a two-columned porch. The sanctuary included a podium (for the image of the god), a raised offering table, and various seats and decorations. An elevated terrace and a second raised altar where additional sacrifices may have been conducted completed the temple complex. In his 2009 work The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age, Yoram Cohen argues that “Temple M1” is not a temple. Exploring the location and the archive, he finds that: (1) the site-plan resembles private houses more than communal gathering places; (2) the central hearth is common in private locations; (3) the wall thickness does not match other temples in the area; and (4) the central axis of the building is SW to NE, which does not match the more common, west–east alignment for temples.

7.  Wayne T. Pitard, “The Archaeology of Emar,” in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze Age (ed. M. W. Chavalas; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996), 18–19. 8.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 42 n. 103) raises the possibility that M2 may be identified as the Temple of dNIN.URTA and bīt tukli. While this association is tentative, Emar 373 and Emar 369 appear to place the House of the Diviner in proximity to the Temple of d NIN.URTA. This matches the archaeological evidence. 9.  Ibid., 21. 10.  Several texts found at M1 mention a city god named dNIN.URTA, which leads W. F. Leemans (“Aperçu sur les texts juridiques d’Emar,” JESHO 31 [1988]: 216) to identify M1 as the “Temple of dNIN.URTA.” Daniel E. Fleming (“The Riutals from Emar: Evolution of an Indigenous Tradition in Second-Millennium Syria,” in New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria [ed. Mark W. Chavalas and John Hayes; BMes 25; Malibu, CA: Undena, 1992], 53 n. 8) argues that texts mentioning dNIN.URTA are found in other excavated areas, and there is no “particular association” between M1 and dNIN.URTA.

144

Chapter 4

These discrepencies led Cohen to conclude that the location served as a scribal school (EDUBBA), library, and archive. 11 Archive Dates Much scholarly debate still surrounds the chronological range of the archive located in M1. Daniel Arnaud argues for the early consensus opinion that the terminus ad quem for the archive is ca. 1187 b.c.e. (cited in EMAR 26), the second regnal year of Melišihu of Babylon. The references to various Emarite kings are then dated back to ca. 1310 b.c.e., during the reign of the Hittite King Mursili II. 12 After a comprehensive study of the relevant evidence, Murray Adamthwaite modifies Arnaud’s dates for the occupation of Emar and concludes that Emar’s texts (and those of the Diviner) date exclusively to the 13th century b.c.e. He bases this conclusion on his finding that two major events—the weakening of the city through a coup d’état by the impoverished social class (the ḫupšu) followed by the destruction of the city by either the Hurrians or the Arameans—occurred in the late 13th, rather than the early 12th century b.c.e. 13 For the terminus a quo of the texts, Adamthwaite argues that the Emar site was a virgin location built by the Hittites in the 13th century, and thus the texts cannot date earlier. He then places the six identified kings of Emar into the conjectured 80-year period that fits this assumption. I accept Adamthwaite’s position for the terminus ad quem of the archive in the 13th century but reject the terminus a quo in favor of a 14th-century date. Adamthwaite establishes his position for the terminus a quo primarily on Arnaud’s and Margueron’s deduction that the Emar site dates exclusively to the 13th-century Hittite occupation. However, as mentioned above, Finkbeiner effectively overturned this argument with his discovery of Middle Bronze Age walls, Early Bronze Age ceramic vessels and rooms, and a 3rdmillennium residential quarter. Finkbeiner’s findings that Emar existed in this location from the 3rd millennium on support my conclusion that the archives at Emar probably date to at least the 14th century b.c.e. and continued until the city’s destruction in the later years of the 13th century. 14 If the dates of the material in the ar11. Yoram Cohen, The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age (HSS 59; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 54–56. 12.  Arnaud, “Les texts d’Emar,” 89–92. 13.  Murray R. Adamthwaite, Late Hittite Emar: The Chronology, Synchronisms, and Socio-Political Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town (ANESSup 8; Louvain: Peeters, 2001), 233–60. 14. The terminus a quo in the 14th century is supported in the recent studies by Yoram Cohen and Daniel Fleming; however, both scholars argue for a terminus ad quem ca. 1175 (Yoram Cohen and Lorenzo d’Alfonso, “The Duration of the Emar Archives and the Relative and Absolute Chronology of the City,” in The City of Emar among the Late Bronze

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

145

chive are correct, the festival rituals may represent traditions from the 13th or 14th century, or from earlier in the 2nd millennium. The Diviner and His Archive In the center of the city (Section M) is a building labeled M1, which resembles in structure the other three temples found at Emar (megaron design). 15 The entrance and sanctuary follow the main access of the rectangular building, and, along the western wall, a path leads behind the building to an open terrace and possible external offering area. The internal sanctuary and external terrace (offering area) validate the theory that this place functioned as a site for ritual ceremonies and offerings. 16 Moreover, the textual evidence found at M1 identifies a “Divine House” and refers to an É DINGIR-lī (“house of the gods,” plural) as the supplier of items for every major festival and offering. 17 The most likely deduction, therefore, is that M1 is this location. 18 If this conclusion is correct, then the structure served not just as a temple to one god but as the residence of the “Diviner of the gods” and the cultic temple for the pantheon of area deities. Because there Age Empires: History, Landscape, and Society—Proceedings of the Konstanz Emar Conference 25.–26.04.2006 (ed. Lorenzo d’Alfonso, Yoram Cohen, and Dietrich Sürenhagen; AOAT 349; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008), 3–25; Daniel Fleming, “Reading Emar’s Scribal Traditions against the Chronology of Late Bronze History,” in ibid., 27–43. 15. Peter Werner (Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nordysrien und Südostklein­ asien vom Neolithikum bis in das I. Jt. V. Chr. [Munich: Profil, 1994], 70–71) argues that M1 should be identified as a “house” and not a “temple” because the walls are thinner than the normal in antis temples (an in antis temple has an architectural style that includes a small, rectangular cella with a porch protruding in front of the cella). Werner finds that the three extra rooms adjacent to M1 and the floorplan more closely resemble religious houses at Ekalte, which include private altars and similar entryway locations. Y. Cohen (Scribes and Scholars, 10–12) also adopts this conclusion. Fleming (Time at Emar, 5) notes that M1 exhibits similarities to the in antis temples that are not found in houses at Ekalte, including: the long temple-like hall is in the in antis shape and includes a porch entrance; the entrance is centered with the porch on one axis; and the altar is in the standard location for a temple. 16.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 37 n. 80) discusses the likely Akkadian plural ī which is further supported by two duplicate texts (Emar 369:12): text A reads É DINGIR-lī, and text C reads É DINGIRmeš, confirming an intended plural. 17.  Multiple texts (Emar 369; 370; 371; 385; 387; 388) record offerings to some combination of dDagan, the storm-god (dBaʿal), dNIN.URTA, and a final category, “the gods.” Fleming postulates that “it makes sense that ‘the Diviner of the Gods’ would inhabit ‘the House of the Gods’” (ibid., 38). 18.  This conclusion is based on the structure’s having a cella and offering area similar to the in antis temple. In addition, like the other temples at Emar, the structure, located along a single axis, includes a main entrance flanked by two porches in the center of the short wall. Finally, several religious texts discovered in the structure appear to identify the location as a temple. The accumulation of this evidence outweighs the presence of three extra rooms and thinner walls.

146

Chapter 4

are no other examples of a temple’s also serving as an official’s residence, this conclusion remains tentative. The texts found at M1 are the Diviner’s archive and include over 1,000 pieces written in Sumerian, Hurrian, and Akkadian (both in the Syrian and the Syro-Hittite style). The texts show a remarkable breadth of interest, including legal-economic texts, letters, cult administration texts, rituals, lexical texts, divination guides, and incantations. 19 A second cache of texts was discovered in “room three” of the rooms adjacent to the temple cella. This room was probably a storage area for private documents and included the majority of the legal texts, approximately half the religious/ritual texts, and a few lexical and divination texts. Despite its small size, room three housed an important ritual archive including: 369—NIN.DINGIR installation; 370—mašʾartu installation; 373, 374, 376—zukru Festival; 395—kissu Festival; 20 and the text under study here—446. In order to fulfill the methodological goal for an intertextual study before an extratextual study, each of the ritual texts identified above was reviewed and compared with Emar 446. While I cannot afford space for a full exposition of the reviewed texts, the analysis below discusses the pertinent findings. Daniel Fleming notes that “the two religious interests [cultic care for the gods and divination] meet only in storage, because the archive includes no evidence for actual practice of Mesopotamian divination. There, identification of the collection as a diviner’s archive begins by noting the joint storage of these tablets.” 21

19.  These texts show that the religious cult may have operated with some independence from the monarchy. One text, Emar 268, is a direct correspondence between a religious official at Carchemish (Agal-Šimegi) and the Diviner (Zu-Baʿla) regarding the installation of a priest at Ninkur. Emar 268 reveals that religious communication channels were independent of the secular administration and pointed to a priestly hierarchy or, at a minimum, an alliance. In addition, several of the texts found in the house of the diviner depict the Diviner as an affluent member of the Emarite society who was involved in several major economic transactions, including loans, slave buying, and the sale of real estate. While the collapse of M1 has significantly scattered the texts, some trends are discernible in their locations. Two-thirds of the texts were found in the temple cella (Area III). This group of texts, found along the western portion of the temple cella, includes the bulk of the texts associated with correspondence, lexical texts, literature, and the scribal arts. In addition, over half of the ritual and cultic administration texts were found in this area. These texts may have originated in the temple cella or, more likely, were stored in a workspace above the cella, dropping to the cella when the floor collapsed. 20.  Gallagher provides a translation of the zukru and kissu texts from Emar with a full discussion of these rituals. Jan Gallagher, Emar: Study of a Crossroads City (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1998), 29–120, 151–86. Gallagher argues the zukru ritual is similar in form to a treaty celebration. 21.  Fleming, Time at Emar, 20–21.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

147

The texts of the M1 archive portray the Diviner as an individual or official connected to multiple facets of Emarite society. 22 The Diviner acted as a cultic functionary, an overseer of local temples, and a landowner. He participated in scribal education, legal activities, and sales transactions. 23 Texts divide the roles of a cultic functionary into two categories. The first category consisted of incantations, rituals, and divination acts detailed in texts that were often written in Sumerian and Hurrian in addition to Akkadian. This group includes the minority of the texts and seems to reveal a foreign influence. 24 Local rituals constituted the second category of cultic functionary duties, and we find these recorded in texts written in Akkadian. Fleming further separates these texts into four subdivisions: (1) festival (EZEN) texts; (2) calendar rituals; (3) offering lists; and (4) rites for the gods of Ḫatti. 25 Each of these texts identifies the Diviner as the primary administrator over a wide variety of public cultic rituals. The Diviner facilitates “consecrating” the gods and apportioning the payment of offering meats to various officials. The named officals include the king, the scribes, and himself in the ritual text Emar 394 and in the kissu Festival texts for Ea (Emar 386) and dDagan (Emar 385). In Emar 369, the Diviner conducts a part of the NIN.DINGIR priestess installation, receiving portions of the offering as 22.  The word Diviner is written lúḪAL or lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD, both normalized bārû. 23.  In the archive under study, the Diviner is often unnamed. However, the position appears in other texts associated with the PN Zū-Baʿla. The Diviner inherited his office, and texts show that the title passed to Zū-Baʿla’s son and grandson. The diviners did not call themselves scribes. However, numerous lexical and divination texts contain references to the diviner or diviner-in-training (Ì.ZU TUR TUR), attesting their ability to read and write. In addition to scribal activity, Zū-Baʿla’s family was active in the storing and writing of both administrative and legal texts. These texts depict the Diviner as a religious official with connections to the highest levels of Hittite society. Emar 201 and 202 express support for Zū-Baʿla by Ini-teššub (as witness) at the court of Carchemish in cases regarding land rights. These texts indicate that the Diviner held substantial political influence in the Hittite Empire. 24.  We find no direct evidence that the Diviners practiced divination. However, they undoubtedly understood the concept because diviners-in-training used several divination guides in writing practice. One text yielding indirect evidence of divination activity outlines a land grant given by Pilsu-Dagan to Mašruḫe as a reward for a successful divination. Astour translates the relevant portion as: “When the Hurrian troops surrounded the wall of Emar (i-nu-ma ERÍNmeš Ḫur-ri BÀD uruE-marki il-mi), and the divination of Mašruḫe, the diviner of the king of the city, was victorious (ù ba-ru-tu4-šu ik-šu-du4-ma), and Pilsu-Dagan the king gave him this field as a present” (Michael C. Astour, “Who Was the King of the Hurrian Troops at the Siege of Emar?” in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age [ed. Mark W. Chavalas; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996], 25–56). 25.  Daniel E. Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 200–201; idem, “Rituals from Emar,” 53.

Chapter 4

148

Table 17.  Responsibilities of and Payments to the Diviner in Emar 446 Diviner (lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD) Line

Month

Day

Deity Involved

Diviner’s Action

Itema

Comment

[26]

SAG.MU

15

d

NIN. URTA

Received by

Right breast

28

SAG.MU

15

d

NIN. URTA

Received by

Hide and   Part of the procession head complex festival meal.   The hide is a frequent payment to the Diviner, while Exod 29:14; Lev 4:11; 8:17; Num 19:5 include the hide as part of the burnt offering consumed in fire.

39

SAG.MU

15

d

Received by

Head

  Part of the procession complex festival meal.   Leviticus 9:13 specifies that the head is consumed in the burnt offerings. During the sin offering of Lev 4:11–12, the head is taken to a clean place outside the camp and burned.

44

SAG.MU

15

? damaged text

Received by

Hides of the offerings

Part of the procession complex.

51

SAG.MU

15

d

Throws down

Seed

The Diviner is an active participant, performing the seed ceremony.

Išḫara

Dagan / Baʿal

d

  Restored based on its presence in line 28.   Part of the procession complex festival meal.   The breast is identified in Lev 7:30, 31, 34; 10:14–15 as part of the wave offering and given to the priests as payment.

a.  Some of the items offered and paid to the Diviner are similar to Levitical offerings and payments to the priests (the hide, head, and seed are not mentioned in Levitical text).

a payment. In Emar 446, the Diviner appears as the chief administrator of the festivals, participating in such festival activities as the throwing of seed onto the ground. The Diviner often receives a portion of the offerings as compensation for his services. Table 17 details the responsibilities of and payments to the Diviner in Emar 446: Because the Diviner acts as the chief administrator of the festivals, he participates in rituals for five of the six months of the multimonth calendar. As payment for his services, he receives a portion of the bread offerings,

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

149

Table 17.  Responsibilities of and Payments to the Diviner in Emar 446 (cont.) Diviner (lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD) Line

Month

Day

Deity Involved

Diviner’s Action

Itema

Comment

53

SAG.MU

15

d

Dagan / d Baʿal

Received by

Bread, cups of drink, right breast

  Payment for conducting the seed ceremony.   Bread is given to the Levitical priests as part of the payment for conducting the peace offering (Lev 7:13) and wave offering (Lev 23:17)—discussed further in chap. 5.   Wine and “strong drink” (‫ )שכר‬are prohibited for Levitical priests when entering the Tent of Meeting (Lev 10:9) and for anyone taking a special vow (Num 6:2–4).

64– 65

d

NIN. KUR.RA

18

d

NIN. KUR.RA

[Received by]

? damaged

Part of the procession complex—probably identifies the hide and head belonging to the Diviner.

82

d

1?

d

Adammatera

Received by

Hides

Offerings to the official of the House of the Gods, the Temple of dDagan, and the town of Emar.

95

Marzaḫāni

17

d

Received by

Half of one sheep

Part of an offering at the Hurrian temple.

102

d

3

d

Received by

Hide

Part of the Day of Renewal of d Dagan.

116

d

9

d

Received by

Hides, intestines, fat

  Part of the procession complex.   The fat is burned in peace offering (Lev 3), sin offering (Lev 4), burnt offering (Lev 6), and the guilt offering (Lev 7). In fact, Lev 7:23–25 prohibits the eating of fat from an offering.

Anna

Ḫalma Ḫalma

Baʿal

Dagan Dagan

drink offerings, and meat offerings (including the right breast, the hide, and the head of sacrificial animals). While his payments likely depend on the ritual activity, the most frequent payment (six times) to the Diviner is for services performed as part of the festival complex and consists of the hides of the offered sheep and occasionally the head, right breast, intestines, and/

150

Chapter 4

or fat. A second category is a payment for conducting the ritual planting ceremony. For this service, the Diviner receives his largest compensation of bread offerings, drink offerings, and the right breast. A third payment category follows the offerings (or offering ceremony?) to the official of the House of the Gods, the Temple of dDagan, and the town. This payment includes the hides of the offered animals, indicating that the services may be similar to those involved in the procession complex. The Diviner receives a fourth type of payment (half of one sheep) for his role in the burnt offering ceremony at the Hurrian temple. And finally, the fifth payment category derives from the Diviner’s contribution to the Day of Renewal of dDagan, which, again, includes the hides.

Line Transliteration Column I (obverse) 26

 27 1 [ṭup-pu i pár-ṣ]i 28 ša URU.KI iti 2 [ SAG.MU i-na ] 29 U4.8 x [(4–5 signs)] 30 3 [(4–5 signs)] x 1 UDU [(4–5 signs) 31] 4 [(3–4 signs) iš(?)]-tu [(5–6 signs)] 5 [(2–4 signs) ú]-sa 32-x [(5–6 signs)]

26.  Line numbering generally follows Daniel Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Aštata: Emar VI, vol. 3: Textes sumériens et accadiens planches (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985), 420–22. However, Arnaud double-counts line 79, leaving the balance of the transliteration one line off-count. This error is corrected. In addition, neither Fleming nor Arnaud follows the line numbering of the original sketch in vol. 2. 27.  Arnaud reconstructs this as “[iti Zag.mu x ud]u. . . . ,” which does not fit the form of other Diviner festival texts. Fleming’s form is adopted here. 28.  In 446, the ṣi sign appears with one final vertical (lines 24, 86, 107) in place of the usual two. Lines 57, 59, and 102 read ṣi with the final vertical “pulled forward so that it would not be visible where this break occurs” (Fleming, Time at Emar, 276). The restoration is based on similar first lines of Diviner texts 369; 385; 392. 29.  For discussion of Fleming’s reconstruction of this phrase, see appendix (p. 212). 30.  Estimated missing signs are based on a column spacing that allows for approximately 1.06 signs per cm (2.67 signs per line inch). We calculated this number by averaging the number of signs present on the two undamaged lines (lines 38, 39) in the column and extrapolating line spacing for the column. Corrections to Fleming’s missing sign estimates are based on this calculation for column I. A similar methodology is used for each column. 31.  Fleming estimates five to six missing signs. 32.  Arnaud reads this as É.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

151

Translation and Commentary: Emar 446 (Msk. 74280a + 74291a) I am presenting here a new transliteration and translation of Emar 446. I include notes on translation choices that I hope will inform the reader not only about Emar 446 but also about the broader context of ritual texts. As mentioned above, Margueron discovered Emar 446 at Tell Meskene during the excavations conducted in the mid-1970s. The text was part of a cache discovered in “room three” of the three rooms adjacent to the temple cella (M1), which he and Arnaud identified as the House of the Diviner.

Normalization Translation [ṭuppu parṣ]ī ša äli [warḫu 34 SAG.MU ina] 35 ūmi 8 [. . .] [. . .t] x 1 immeru [. . .] [. . .] ištu [. . .] [. . . u]šax 39 [. . .]

Tablet of the rites of the city 33 Month of SAG.MU(?) 36 on the 8th day 37 [. . .] [. . .] one sheep [. . .] [. . .] from out of 38 [. . .] [. . .] they 40 [. . .]

33.  Uses an introductory formula to identify the cultic rituals. 34.  Meaning “new moon” or “month.” Conveys the concept of a month that is based on the lunar calendar. 35.  With the exception of the festival in the 3rd month, the month name is followed by i-na U4 or i-na U4-mi and the number of the day of the festival—lines 2, 58, 84, 87, 96 (this feature’s similarity to Lev 23 is noted by Richard S. Hess, “Multiple-Month Ritual Calendars in the West Semitic World: Emar 446 and Leviticus 23,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions [ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004], 237). 36.  SAG.MU is the month of “the head of the year” and is the logical first month for the multimonth festival calendar. Fleming reconstructs this as Zarati, which may be associated with zēru, “barley seed.” If this association is correct, the 1st month of the year has to do with the planting of the barley crop. 37.  After the introduction, the month name and date are given; this is the normal formula for beginning a festival text at Emar. Yoram Cohen (The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age [HSS 59; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009], 33) concludes that Emar 446 follows an early Syrian format, which “employed month-names matching the ones used in the Syrian documents of the ‘First Dynasty,’ thus suggesting that these compositions were older than the rest of the ritual materials.” The month name is the primary literary divider between festivals, with the use of the date and the phrase “on the very same day” (ina ūmi šuwatuma) as subsequent literary dividers. 38.  Translated here “from out of,” a preposition of space. Likely similar to line 52, where an item is taken “from out of (ištu) the House of the Gods.” Other options are a preposition of time (“since,” “after,” “as soon as”); duration (“from x until y”); or causal (“because,” “since”). 39.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 276) notes that the scribe uses sa in place of ša in verbal forms after an -a (cf. lines 17, 40, 92, 99, 101, 119). 40.  Translated as a third-person plural verbal form to agree with upaḫḫarū.

152

Chapter 4

6 [ú-pa(?)]-ḫa-ru AŠ ⸢U4⸣.[14(?) SILA4(?) i-na(?) dKUR(?)] 7 [(1–2 sings)] ⸢i-pa⸣ -a-du ga- 41[ma-ru (3–4 signs)] 8 AŠ U4.15 dKUR [ú-ṣi (3–4 signs)] 9 UDU ša nu-pu-ḫa-⸢nu⸣ 42 [(5–6 signs)] 10 i-na 43-din 44-nu LÚme[š (2–3 signs) i-ka-lu(?)] 11 i-na U4 šu-wa-[tu-ma dNIN.URTA (ša) KÁ] 12 a 45-mi-it ú-ṣi [(5–7 signs) ša(?)] 13 É DINGIR-lì i-na 46-d[in-nu (3–4 signs)] 14 UDU ša nu-pu-ḫa-ni [a-na pa-ni-šu(?) i-la-ak(?)] 15 ḫa-ṣí-in-nu š[a DINGIR EGIR-šu(?) i-la-ak(?)] 16 LÚmeš ga-ma-ru [(4–6 signs)] 41. Fleming reads this as ta and does not attempt a reconstruction. While ta is possible, Arnaud’s reconstruction is attractive because gamāru is found elsewhere in the text, meaning “entire.” 42. Arnaud reconstructs the partial sign as ni. 43. Arnaud corrects the sign to ša, which is not necessary. 44. Arnaud incorrectly reads this as ka4; Fleming’s reading is correct, fitting both the context and form of the text. 45. Arnaud corrects to ṣa, reading ṣa-mi-id. 46. Arnaud corrects the sign to ša, rendering i-ša-k[a-nu, so the reading would change to “le temple des dieux on pl[ace ].”

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

153

[upa]ḫarū ina ūmi [14 puḫāda ina dDagani] they gather. On the [14th] day 47 ipaʾʾadū ga[māru. . . .] they offer 48 [a lamb for dDagan]. 49 ina ūmi 15 dDagan u[ṣṣi. . . .] On the 15th day, dDagan goes [out in   procession. . . .] immeru ša nuppuḫannī 50 [. . .] nuppuḫannū

a sheep that the men give [. . .]

inaddinū 51 awilū [. . . ikkalū] the [. . .]-men [eat(?)]. ina ūmi šuwa[tuma dNIN.URTA (ša) bābi] On that [sa]me day, 52 [dNIN.URTA through   the] Amit [Gate] amit uṣṣi [. . .] goes out in procession [. . .] 53 bīt ilī inaddinū [. . .]‑ they give [. . . (to someone, some provision)   provided by (?)] the House of the Gods. immeru ša nuppuḫannī [ana pānišu(?) 54 [. . . (and)] a sheep provided by the nuppuḫannū   illak(?)]   men [precede him], ḫaṣṣinnu [ša ili warkišu(?) illak(?)] the [divine] axe 55 [follows him], and  56 awilū gamārū [. . .] the entire population [. . .] 47.  Notes: (1) The offering occurs on one day; (2) the third-person (s/p) verbal form is present throughout the ritual text; (3) the durative form is the dominant form used to move the narrative forward; (4) the third-person plural subject is rarely specified in the text. 48. Although Fleming translates this “set aside,” I translate it here as “offer,” following CAD P 1. Compare with Emar 373:9, 13, 38, 39. 49.  “A lamb for dDagan” from the restored line 6. This restoration adopts Arnaud’s translation of Emar 373:9, which follows the same formula. The text mentions no altar in connection with these offerings. This lack of an altar for the named sacrifices and the lack of priestly involvement in Emar 446 (despite Emar’s developed urbanized cult) along with the reference to lambs roasted on a fire have parallels in Lev 23 that I will address later. 50.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 276) notes that the expected final sign is nī (genitive plural in agreement with ša) and not nū (nominative plural). These men are probably cultic functionaries. If the word is related to the root napāḫu, “to blow” or “to hiss” (CAD N 1263–70), then the D-stem nuppuḫu, “to light fires,” may imply that the nuppuḫannū men were the “ones who light the fire” (Eugen J. Pentiuc, West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar [HSS 49; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001], 136) notes that the D infinitive and verbal adjective of the purrus-pattern is not found in agent nouns, making this translation less likely. Pentiuc associates the -ann- ending with a Hittite origin for the word. 51.  Arnaud reads the verb as šakānu, similar to lines 17 and 40; however, Fleming identifies it as nadānu. 52. Uses šuwatuma to denote action occurring on the same day as other action— lines 11, 18, 22, 106. This represents a literary divider. 53.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 276) notes that the end of the line should describe an offering. The procession begins with the offering animals, followed by the image of the god, followed by the divine axe, and finally any groups of people involved in the procession. 54.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 269) translates “precede him,” following CAD A/1 317, which notes that alāku in prepositional constructions with pani should be translated “to precede (in time)” + 3ms pronominal suffix. 55.  The divine axe may convey some kind of evil intent. The divine axe is present in processions in lines 15, 43, 88, and 103. In addition, the divine axe resides in the temple in line 101. 56.  Pentiuc (West Semitic, 95) reads awilū kamārū, “priests,” based on the Hebrew cog­ nate kōmer, “priest,” Postbiblical Hebrew kūmār, Aramaic kumrā. The translation “priests”

154

Chapter 4

17 i-sa-ka-nu i-[na(?) (3–5 signs) SILA4(?) 57] 18  58i-pa-a-du i-na U4 [šu-wa-tu-ma (1–3 signs)] 19 i-na KÁ.GAL É d[(4–5 signs)] 20 i-la-ak 2 UDU ⸢AŠ⸣ [É 59 (4–5 signs)] 21 NINDA! KAŠ iš-tu É [DINGIR-lì(?) (3–5 signs)] 22 i-ka-lu i-na u4-mi [šu-wa-tu-ma(?) SILA4(?) i-na(?)] 23 É dNIN.URTA i-pa-a-[du dNIN.URTA(?) i-na(?)] 24 KÁ.GAL ú-ṣi GUD [6 UDUḪI.A(?) 60 (1–2 signs)] 25 a-na pa-ni-šu i-la-[ku (4–5 signs)] 26 SAG uzuGAB a-na d(?)[(1–2 signs?) 27 i-la-qí KUŠ SAG(?) [(4–6 signs)] 28 GIBIL(?) 61 ša lúMÁS.⟨ŠU.⟩GÍD.G[ÍD (3–5 signs)] 29 LÚ GAL LÚmeš EDIN i-[ka-lu i-ša-tu(?)] 30 AŠ 62 É ⟨⟨É a-na É⟩⟩ das[(4–6 signs)] 31 GUD i-na-ka-su 63-ma [(3–4 signs) a-na(?)] 32 dNIN.URTA É dIš-ḫa-[ra (3–4 signs)] or “priestly attendants” is very attractive. However, the reading gamārū is equally supported, following CAD G 24–25’s meaning of “entire” or “complete,” used in reference to an entire population. Therefore, the translation by Fleming is supported here. 57.  I follow Fleming’s reconstruction. 58.  Fleming notes that, in other festival months, the activities here occur on the day after the paʾādu offering (i.e., the 16th of the month); however, the surviving text does not preserve the temporal change. 59.  Arnaud reconstructs this as “U4,” indicating a change in the day as opposed to a change in location. Either is a possible reconstruction. 60.  Reconstruction is based on line 11 of BLMJ 1137, which contains a similar offering formula (GUD 4 UDUḪI.A) ( Joan Goodnick Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem: The Emar Tablets [CM 13; Groningen: Styx, 2000], 76–77). 61.  Arnaud reads KA x NE. However, Fleming’s transliteration of GIBIL, despite the problem with the translation, matches the sign more closely. 62.  Arnaud reads this as AŠ. 63. Stefano Seminara (L’accadico di Emar [Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma, “La Sapienza,” 1998], 202) reads this as šux and not ŠU. I follow Fleming (Time at Emar, 277), who leaves “the representation of the sibilants with their known value, because we do not know what sound was actually pronounced.”

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

155

išakkanū i[na(?). . . . puḫāda 64(?)] they place [the. . . . lamb(?)] ipaʾʾadū ina ūmi [šuwatuma. . . .] On [(that day? . . .)], 65 they offer [a lamb(?)]. ina abulli bīti d[. . .] On [that] day, [. . .] proceeds 66 into the   primary gate of [(some god’s)] temple, illak 2 immerū ina bīti two sheep in the temple. [. . .] akala šikara ištu bīti [ilī. . . .] [(Some participants)] consume the bread and  beer 67 from out of the House [of the Gods]. ikkalū ina umi [šuwatuma(?) puḫāda(?) On the [that] day, 68   ina(?)] bīti dNIN.URTA ipaʾʾa[dū they offer[ a lamb(?) at] the Temple of d  NIN.URTA(?) ina(?)]   NIN.URTA. [dNIN.URTA] abullu uṣṣi alpu [6 immerū (?). . . .] goes out in procession 69 [to] the main gate.   An ox [and six sheep(?). . . .] ana pānišu illa[kū. . . .] precede him. [. . .] imitta šīra irta ana [. . . bāri] 70 [The Diviner] receives [. . . (and)] the right   breast for lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD(?)] [. . .] illaqi mašku rēšu(?) [. . .] the hide, the head(?), [(and). . . .] edēšu(?)ša bā[r]i[. . .] become new (?) belong to the Diviner. awilu rabû awilū ṣēri i[kkalū išattû(?)] The leader and the people of the country  side 71 eat [and drink] [(some food)] ina bīti [. . .] in the Temple of [(dNIN.URTA or dIšḫara).   . . .] alpa 72 inakkasūma 73[. . . ana(?)] They slaughter the ox, and [they give 74 (some   parts) to] d d NIN.URTA bīt dIšḫa[ra . . .] NIN.URTA of dIšḫara’s Temple. 64.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 276) notes that a puḫādu offering (lamb) occurs on the day before each procession. This is generally true; however, some processions use UDU in place of SILA4. 65.  A possible reading based on the text in line 17. Uses šuwatuma to denote action occurring on the same day as other action—lines 11, 18, 22, 106. This represents a literary divider. 66.  While the offering is made by a group of people (3mp), the movement (illak) is made by a single (3cs) person—the image of the god. 67.  Note that bread and beer are paired. 68. Uses šuwatuma to denote action occurring on the same day as other action— lines 11, 18, 22, 106. 69.  The procession begins with the offering animals, followed first by the image of the god, and then by the divine axe, and ends with the people and priests. 70.  The current reconstruction is based on similar language in lines 52–53. However, a similar line appears in BLMJ 1137, lines 12–14, that points to “the gods” ([a-n]a DINGIR.MEŠ) possibly receiving the breast meat. The lines read: “They place the [shoulders and] the breast before the gods” (Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions, 76–77). 71.  Everyone eats and drinks at the festival (‫ סכה‬in Deut 16:13–15 includes a call to be joyful at a celebration). 72.  Probably the ox (GUD) mentioned in line 24 that went out in procession; the sheep appear as the subject of the offerings in lines 33–34. 73.  Here, following Seminara (L’Accadico di Emar, 202), who renders the verb nakāsu and not nakāšu, “to set aside.” 74.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 277) reads nadānu as being likely in line 32.

156

Chapter 4

33 LAM(?)-TI 75 ú-na-qú UZU x [(2–3 signs) uzu(?)] 34 kab-bar-tu4 a-na LÚ GAL [UZU(?) (2–3 signs)] 35 a-na lúza-bi-ḫi i-na-an-din-[nu (2–3 signs)] 36 lú.mešaḫḫi.a ša É dUd-ḫa [(3–4 signs)] 37 i-la-qú-ú uzuGAB a-na pa-ni dIš-(ḫa) ⸢ra!⸣ 76 38 LÚmeš GAL LÚmeš ga-ma-ri Ì.KÚ SAG É 77 [DINGIR(?)] 39 lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD i-la-qí iš-bi-ṭa 40 i-sa-ka-nu ḫa-ṣí-in-nu ša DINGIR 41′ [ ]x 42′ [ ] ba/pá 78 lú 43′ [ MÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.]GÍD-a(?) 44′ [ ] x ḪI 45′ [ ] ITI 46′ [ i(?)-l]a(?)-qú 47′ [ ] LÚ(?) 48′ [ -n]a 49′ [ ]x d 50′ [ NIN(?).]⸢KUR⸣.RA 51′ [ ] ti-x 52′ [ ] EN 53′ [ ] x-ḫu(?) 41 ⟨⟨UDU⟩⟩ UDUḫi.a 79 an-nu-ti i-ṭa-ba-ḫu 75.  Arnaud reads this as (né)-qé-ti. Fleming suggests u-de-ti, LAM, or NIM, none of which fits the context. The sign most resembles the Babylonian rendering of LAM. 76.  Reconstruction follows Fleming. 77.  Arnaud reads this as MAR Ú, which would normalize marru, meaning a “spade” or “shovel.” Arnaud translates “les grands, les. . . . mangent.” 78.  Fleming reads this as xmeš; however, the sign appears to be a ba. 79. Following Fleming, ⟨⟨UDU⟩⟩ is read with line 89. Transliterated following Fleming as a ba, which matches the context. The form is different from the standard ba. However, this atypical form of the ba sign is consistently used by the scribe of Emar 446.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

157

(?) unaqqū šīra [. . .] They sacrifice a piece of meat [. . . ;] kabbartu 80 ana awili rabi [šīri. . . .] the [. . .]-meat and the hocks (are) for the   leader, and they gave [the. . . .-meat] ana zabbiḫi  81 inandi[nū. . . .] to the slaughterer. aḫū 82 ša bīt dUdḫa [. . .] The kinsmen of dUdḫa’s Temple [(and). . . .]   they receive [(some part)]. illaqqû šīru irtu ana pani dIšḫa⸢ra⸣ The leaders and the whole populace consume   the breast before dIšḫara. 83 awilū rabû awilī gamārī ikkalū rēšu bītū The House of the Gods(?) (and) the Diviner  [ilū]   receive the head. bāru illaqi išbiṭa 84 They inflict the strike; išakkanū ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili the divine axe [. . . ,]

immerī annûti iṭabbaḫū

(. . .) they slaughter 85 these sheep.

80.  Possibly from kabbartu, “part of the foot, leg, or ankle.” 81.  Taken from a personnel list in 275:1–4 that mentions the na lúza-bi-ḫu of dNIN. URTA (Fleming, Time at Emar, 154 n.45). 82.  Ibid., 277. Fleming reads this as “kinsman,” following Emar 156:8; 109:20. “It appears that the irregular plural ḪI.A is attracted to identification of kinsmen by -ḫ in the root, especially when doubled in the plural. Emar Akkadian already shows the tendency toward final frozen -a, which might reflect deterioration of the case system in the local dialect; compare dAn-na in 446:77; Il-li-la in 446:84; and dNIN.URTA KÁ A-mi-ta in 274:6.” Fleming goes on to distinguish between aḫ- (which refers to the wider clan) and ŠEŠ (which is used for the immediate family unit). John Huehnergard (“Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar,” RA 77 [1983]: 36) reads lú.mešŠEŠḫi.a (cf. Alalah Idrimi, line 75). 83.  This is the meal during which the entire population shares the offering in the proximity of the temple. 84.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 278) identifies the root as šbṭ in an ipris-formation noun form in the accusative case. According to Fleming, this form represents a “concrete expression of the verbal action to which it is related.” Relying on the Hebrew cognate, Fleming translates this “they place the staff.” While Fleming may be correct, I propose that the divine axe in line 40 fits well with the verbal root šbṭ–šabāṭu, meaning “to sweep away” or “to strike.” 85.  Uses a different verbal root for “slaughter.”

158

Chapter 4

42 ni 86-bi-šu-nu ⸢qà⸣-du GABmeš ú-na-q[í] 87 43 ḫa-ṣi-nu ša DINGIR EGIR-šu-nu i-la-ak 44 ù KUŠḫi.a ma-qí-ia-ti lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.[GÍD] 88 45 i-na U4.15 dḪAR ⸢a⸣-na É GUDmeš ú-še-ra-du-[u] 89 46 i-ṭa-(ba?)-ḫu I UDU a-na É ANŠE.KUR.RA i-ṭa 47 ba-ḫu i-na ITI šu-wa-tu-ma ⟨i-na⟩nu-ba-te

86.  Arnaud unnecessarily corrects to in. 87.  Arnaud reads this as qu, which changes the verb to the 3mp. 88.  Fleming recognizes the scribal error, reading the second GÍD, which is not present in Arnaud’s sketch of the text. 89.  Fleming reads this as ú-še-ra-du-u with a final u that is not present in Arnaud’s sketch of the text.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

159

nibīšunu 90 [qa]du irtū unaqqi He sacrifices 91 their portions. . . . , together   with the breast-meats. ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili warkišunu illak The divine axe follows them; 92 u maškū maqqiātī 93 bāri also, the hides of the offerings belong to the  Diviner. ina ūmi 15 ḫašu 94 ana bīt alpī ušerradū On the 15th day, they bring dŠaggar down to   the cattle barn and (perform) the  slaughter. 95 iṭabbaḫū 1 immera ana bīt wūti 96 iṭabbaḫū 97 they slaughter one sheep at the horse  stable. 98 ina warḫi šuwatuma nubātte During that month, 99 during the evening 100  ceremony, 101 90.  nību + 3mp pronoun = “their portion (amount).” Following CAD N 204–6, definition A1, which finds nību + personal pronouns meaning either “their name” or “their amount.” Contra Fleming, who translates after CAD definition B, “small piece,” which is not found elsewhere conjoined to a personal pronoun. 91.  Uses a different verbal root for “offer.” 92.  A repetition of line 15 with a 3mp versus 3cs personal pronoun. 93.  Likely a noun form associated with naqû, “to offer” or “to sacrifice.” Following Arnaud’s translation: “les peaux des offrandes (reviennent au) devin.” 94. Following Fleming, who translates dŠaggar. 95.  AB:A′B′ parallel structure. While lines 45–46 may tie the offerings to an agricultural intent (offerings to prepare the draft animals for plowing and planting), a specific date is identified for the offering. 96.  Normalized following R. Labat (Manuel d’Épigraphie Akkadienne [Paris: Geuthner, 1988]), ANŠE.KUR.RA wūtu jument, sign #208. 97.  Fleming identifies this duplicate as probably a scribal error. 98.  Scholars debate the use of horses as draft animals. The inclusion of horses as draft animals is based on a Hittite royal funerary text (KUB 39:14 i 12–16), in which horses and oxen are burned with a plow, denoting the possible intent that they may follow the deceased into the afterlife. “They dismantle a plow and burn it up on the same spot. The ashes an old woman takes up and dumps them out where the heads of the horses (ANŠE. KUR.RA) and the heads of the oxen have been burning.” Based on this text, Hoffner concludes: “[H]ere is an attempt to convert livestock and plow into a form in which they can follow the deceased into the after-life. In the same way as his body is transformed by burning, so also were his possessions” (Harry A. Hoffner, Alimenta Hethaeorum: Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor [AOS 55; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1974], 44–45). Additional support is found in KUB 28:88 ii 17–18, which hints that a horse may draw a plow. Following (Fleming, Time at Emar, 155 n. 56), who identifies these animals as “draft horses.” 99.  The text expresses an intentional ambiguity with regard to the date of the ritual. This feature will be further explored in chap. 5. Hess (“Multi-Month,” 243 n. 29) argues that “perhaps the waving of the sheaf is intentionally ambiguous to allow for a date as close as possible to the harvest. If so, this would parallel the ambiguity of the Emar text where, despite the custom of specific dating procedures for most feasts, at least one remains open.” 100.  Reference to activities occurring at a specific time of day—here in the “evening” or “at sunset.” 101.  CAD N 308 3 uses the same form to denote “the eve of a feast” or “evening ceremonies.”

160

Chapter 4

48 ú-še-ṣú I UDU i-na! lúnu-pu-ḫa-an-ni I-en 49 UDU a-na KIRI6 102 ša bi 103-ri-ki ša dIM 50 ⸢UDU⸣ a-⸢na⸣ dDa-gan be-el NUMUNmeš i-ṭi-⟨ba(?)⟩-ḫu 51 lúMÁS.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD NUMUNmeš i-na KI i-na-di nindax 52 iš-tu É ⸢DINGIR(?)⸣ ka4-sà-tu4 UZU SAG GAB 53 ša lúMÁS.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD i-na ša-ni U4 še- 104 54 er-tam-ma x (-x) x-AM a-na KUR i-ṭa-ba-ḫu-ma 55 ku-ba-di a-na ⸢ta(?)⸣-ma da-ri-ia u a-na da-na x 105-[(-x?)] 56 ú-ka-ba-du a-di ku-ba-di4 ú-ga-ma-ru 57 ma-am-ma e-ri-ši! ú-ul! 106 ú-ṣi 58 iti dNIN.KUR.RA i-na U4.17 SILA4 i-na dNIN.KUR 59 i-pa-a-du i-⸢na⸣ U4.18 dNIN.KUR.RA tu-ṣi

102. Following Fleming. 103.  Arnaud reads this as pi. 104.  Arnaud read this as KÁM = erēšu, “to desire” and begins line 54 with IR UD. Despite this reading, Arnaud translates lines 53 and 54 as “provenant du temple, les coupes (et) la droite de la poitrine reviennent au devin. Le jour suivant.” 105.  Arnaud reads a partial sign tu4 and reconstructs da-na-tu, translating it “forteresse.” 106. Following Fleming, who reads the GU sign as an error for the intended UL sign.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

161

ušeṣṣû 1 immera nupuḫaannī I-en they bring out (a procession). They slaughter   one sheep for the nuppuḫanū men, one immera ana kiri ša biriki 107 ša dBaʿali sheep for the garden of dBaʿal’s sacred  pool, 108 [immera] a[na] dDagani bēl zērī iṭibbaḫū 109 and a sheep for dDagan, Lord of the Seed. 110 bāru zērī ina erṣeti inaddi nindax The Diviner 111 throws seed onto the ground.   The. . . . bread (item) ištu bit [ilī] kāsātī šira imitta irta from the House of the Gods(?), cups (of  drink), and the meat of the right breast ša bāri ina šani ūmi belong to the Diviner. On the next day, 112 šērtamma. . . . ana šadi iṭabbaḫū In the morning. . . . they slaughter (a sacrifice)  for dDagan and 113 kubāti ana [ta(?)]ma daria u ana dana [. . .] perform an honorific ceremony by lasting   oath(?) and by. . . . ukabkatū adi kubāti ugammarū Until they finish the honorific ceremony, mamma eriši ul  114 uṣṣi no one may go out to plant. 115 warḫu dNIN.KUR.RA ina ūmi 17 The month of dNIN.KUR.RA: on the 17th d   puḫāda ina NIN.KUR  day, 116 they offer a lamb for dNIN.KUR. ipaʾʾadū ina ūmi dNIN.KUR.RA tuṣṣi On the 18th day, dNIN.KUR.RA goes out in  procession; 107. Following Durand (ARMT 21 34:3), who translates from a Mari text—“un lac sacré.” Pentiuc (West Semitic, 41) argues that all other references to “ponds” at Emar are feminine and associated with Ištar—casting this use into doubt. While Pentiuc makes a solid point, we cannot exclude “sacred pond” simply because its use is not yet attested in other documents. Huehnergard (AOS 1988) argues for the root b-r-q and a normalization birrīqu, translating “lightning”; although I have not adopted this reading here, the association between the storm-god and lightning is attractive. 108.  The location of dBaʿal’s Temple lacks sufficient space for a large pool or pond. However, a small sacred pool could have been located in front of the temple. 109.  Fleming identifies this duplicate as probably being a scribal error. 110.  Lines 50–57 show a clear association between agriculture and the festival of the 1st month. The subsequent festivals in each of the next five months do not show a similar agricultural association. Amultimonth ritual calendar including both agricultural and nonagricultural festivals is a point of similarity with Leviticus and demonstrates that agrarian and nonagrarian festivals coexisted in the 2nd millennium (contra Wagenaar). 111.  One of the few occasions where the subject of the action is specified—here, “the Diviner.” 112.  The temporal phrase ša bāru acts as a divider in the text. 113.  “On the next day, at dawn” is a possible reference to the day beginning in the morning and not in the evening. In addition, cultic sacrifices are held at sunrise and at sunset. 114.  Seminara (L’Accadio di Emar, 407–8) correctly identifies the prohibition in the statement, contra Fleming (Time at Emar, 279), who argues that the statement is grammatically descriptive. 115.  Festival rites consist of: (1) performing an honorific ceremony; (2) offering meat, drink, and grain to the god; and (3) prohibiting agricultural activity until the festival ends. 116.  The festival text begins with a formulaic “The month of x on x day they offer x animal for x god (usually the god associated with the month name).”

162

Chapter 4

60 I UDU SIG5 BABBAR ša n[u-pu]-ḫa-an-ni NINDA KAŠ ša ⟨⟨LÚ⟩⟩ 117 61 LÚ ša qí-da-š[i i-ka-lu i]-sa-tu 62 nindaḫu-ug-gu x [  . . .  ]-na Ì.NUN(?) 63 i-na nindaḫ[u(?)-ug(?)-gu(?) dD]a(?)-gan(?) 118 64 lúMÁS⟨.ŠU⟩.GÍ[D.GÍD  ] x [. . .  ] 65 lúMÁS. [ŠU.GÍD.GÍD  . . .  ] 66 SILA4 x [  . . .  i-na(?) U4(?)] 67 19 ⸢d⸣[  . . . ú-ṣi. . . .] 68 a-na pa-[ni-šu/-ši(?) i-la-ak/ku (?) —a-ṣí-(in-)nu ša DINGIR(?)] 69 EGI[R- ši i-[la-ak ]     69* 70 [  . . .  ] x [  . . .   ] 71 UDU a-na d[   ] 72 UDU a-na d[NIN(?)].[URTA/KUR(?)] 73 x bar(?)-ma(?) 119 x I(?) ⸢UDU⸣ ⸢a  ⸣ -[na  ] 74 [  ] x x [  ] x 77 [it]i dAn-na I UDU a-na dA-dadama-te-ri UDU 120 78 [NINDA(?)] KAŠ(?) lú.meš nu-pu-ḫa-an-ni it-ti ḫa-am-ša-i

117.  Arnaud (Recherches au pays d’Aštata, 420–22) corrects to 4 UDU, “four sheep,” which is not necessary but does match the context of the text and is therefore possible. Fleming (Time at Emar, 265–75) attributes the ⟨⟨LÚ⟩⟩ sign to duplication by the scribe. However, there appears to be the beginning of another sign after LÚ. Therefore, while I follow Fleming, there may be a missing word in the translation. 118.  My reconstruction follows Fleming. 119.  Fleming postulates ra. However, the vertical after the three horizontals makes that sign unlikely. 120. Following Fleming (Time at Emar, 272), who reads this sign with line 89 (Fleming, line 77)—contra Arnaud, who reads the sign on col. III, line 54.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

163

1 immeru damāqu pūsu ša nuppuḫannī akala one good quality white sheep (is) provided by   šikara ša ⟨⟨awilī ⟩⟩   the men. Bread and beer by awilū ša qidaš[i 121 i]kkalū(?)[i]šattû the men of the consecration-gift [. . .] eat and  drink akalu ḫūgu 122. . . . ḫimʾatu(?) 123 flat bread loaf [. . .] ghee ina akali ḫūgi. . . . dDagan(?) 124 in the flat bread loaf [. . .]dDagan (?) bā[ru] the Diviner [. . .] b[āru] the Diviner [. . .] puḫādu x[ ina ūmi(?)] a lamb [. . . on the] 19 ilu [. . . uṣṣi. . . .] 19th [day (some god goes out in procession?)   . . .] ana pā[niši(?) illak(?) ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili [. . .] precedes [her]. [The divine axe (?)] war[kiši illak] follows [her] . . . x. . . . immera ana ili. . . . immera ana [dNIN.URA (?). . . .] x bara(?) x 1 immera ana ili . . . x x. . . . x

[. . .] x [. . .] [. . .] a sheep to [(some god). . . .] 125 [. . . .] a sheep to (another god) [. . . .] [. . . .] one sheep to [. . . .] [. . . .] xx [. . . .]x.

warḫu dAnna 1 immeru ana The month of Anna: 126 One sheep is d  127   Adammateri immeru   provided for dAdammatera.  128 [akalu(?)] šikaru nuppuḫannū itti The nuppuḫannū men along with the ḫamšaʾū   ḫamšaʾū   ḫamšaʾū men give a sheep, [bread,] and beer 121.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 279) correctly notes that the text is ambiguous about whether the “men of the consecration-gift” are providing or receiving the offering. 122.  Following W. Mayer (“Eine Urkunde uber Grundstuckskaufe aus Ekalte/Tall Munbaqa,” UF 24 [1992]: 270), who contends that the form is found in Mari economic texts. Ran Zadok (“Notes on the West Semitic Material from Emar,” AION 51 [1991]: 114) proposes the cognate kukku, “type of bread or cake of characteristic shape.” Pentiuc (West Semitic, 75) argues for the West Semitic root ḫ-n-k because the “Emarite word might be considered a noun of qutl- formation (abstract meaning), showing both assimilation and nonassimilation of the medial -n-. The meaning ‘consecrated (bread),’ fits well with the cultic context, in which this form occurs.” While Pentiuc’s option is possible, Mayer’s argument fits the form of the noun and the context of the passage. There is no need to look for the “consecration” of the loaf of bread as the “men of consecration” make the offering. 123.  Ì.NUN (and its variants Ì.NUN.NUN, A.NUN.NUN) is the name of an intercalary month for the 6th month in early Semitic calendars and may mean “ghee” (M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 31). 124.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 279) notes that dDagan is unexpected because dNIN. KUR.RA should be the focus of her own festival. 125.  Lines 71–74 appear to be a list of sheep offerings to different deities or officials and are similar to the ending lines (78–80) of the festival. 126.  Following the pronunciation in Emar 369: B (31–36)a. 127.  Possibly associated with the Mesopotamian sky-god Anu. Does not follow the standard entry formula but does follow the standard offering formula “x sheep for god x.” 128.  Arnaud reads this as [gáb]-bi, but this idiom is not present elsewhere in the text. Fleming, whom I follow here, reads [akalu(?)] šikaru, which fits the context and agrees with prior festival rites.

164

Chapter 4

79 [i-n]a-din-nu I UDU a-na a-bi É DINGIR I UDU a-na 80 ⸢É(?)⸣ 129 dDa-gan UDU a-na URU.KI UDUmeš an 130-nu-tu4 81 [š]a nu-pu-ḫa-an-ni KUŠmeš a-nu-tu4 131 ša 132 82 [lú]MÁS⟨.ŠU⟩.GÍD.GÍD i-⟨la-⟩aq-qí 83 iti dA-dama i-na u4-mi 7 tù-ur-tu4 133 84 ša Il-li-la i-na U4.8 tù-ur-tu4 85 ⸢a⸣ -na DINGIRmeš ga-bu-ma 86 itiMar-za-ḫa-ni 134 i-na U4.14 bu-Ga-ra-tu4 87 ⸢i⸣ -na U4.16 Aš-tar-ṣa-ar-ba 135 ú-ṣi 136 88 UDU ša URU.KI ù ḫa-ṣí-nu ša DINGIR (erasure) 89 EGIR dAš! !-tar-ṣa-ar-⟨ba⟩ 137 i-la-ak i-na 90 ⟨U4⟩ šu-wa-tu-ma ṣa-du ša dIš8 138-tár i-na 91 U4.17 ṣa-du ša dIM I UDU ša nu-pu-ḫa-an-ni 92 É ḫu(?)-ri-ti  139 i-sa-ra-pu lú.meš 93 mar 140-za-ḫu ša mi-di nindana-ap-ta-na 94 i-na DINGIRmeš ú-ba-lu 141 mi-iš-li I UDU

129.  Arnaud reads this as [a-n]a. 130.  Fleming incorrectly reads a in place of an—possibly a typo. 131.  Lines 92 and 93 use the same word spelled in different ways. 132.  Sign is omitted by Fleming. 133.  Arnaud reads this incorrectly as tu in place of tu4. 134.  Arnaud reads a final nu sign. The -ān- suffix points to a gathering of a select group of individuals like the marzaḫū. Fleming notes that this could point to one group among several. 135.  Arnaud reads SILA.LÍM ar-ba, translating il “sort dans la rue.” SILA.LÍM may mean sūq erbetti (see Labat, Manuel, 47). 136.  The reading of Belmonte is adopted here, following Fleming ( J. A. Belmonte, “Zur Lesung und Deutung von ina sila.lím ar-ba in Emar-Texten,” NABU [1997], 82–83). 137.  As above, Arnaud reads SILA.LÍM ar-ba, translating the line “vont dans la rue derrière.” 138. Following Fleming. 139.  Arnaud corrects the reading to maš-ar-ti and translates it “on brûle ⟨dans⟩ la maison de la prêtresse-mašʾartu,” which is not necessary when the text reads well without correction. 140.  Arnaud corrects to NINDA, rendering NINDAza-ri. 141.  The text could also be translated “and 1 sheep” (u 1 immera).

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar inaddinū 1 immera ana abi bīt ilī 1   immera ana [bītu(?)] dDagan immeru ana āli ašri   immerū annûtū ša nuppuḫannū maškī annûtī ša bāru illaqi

165

one sheep for the abû shrine 142 of the gods,   one sheep for the Temple of dDagan, and a sheep for the   town—these sheep are provided by the nuppuḫannū men;

the Diviner receives these hides.

warḫu dAdamma ina ūmi 7 tūrtu 143 The month of dAdamma: the circuit ša Illila 144 ina ūmi 8 tūrtu of Illila 145 on the 7th day. The circuit ana ilī gabbīma for all the gods falls on the 8th day. warḫu Marzaḫāni ina ūmi 14 bugarātu 146 The month of Marzaḫāni: the Bugarātu is on   the 14th day. ina ūmi 16 Aštarṣaarba uṣṣi On the 16th day, Aštarṣarba goes out in  procession; immeru ša āli u ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili a sheep provided by the city and the divine  axe warki Aš !tarṣar⟨ba⟩ follow dAštarṣarba. d u šuwatuma ṣadu ša Ištar ina Aštart makes her rounds on that ⟨day⟩. d d ūmi 17 ṣadu ša Baʿali 1 immera ša Baʿal makes his rounds on the 17th day;   nuppuḫanni bīti ḫu(?)riti išarrapū awīlû they burn at the Hurrian(?) temple one sheep   from the nuppuḫannū men; marzaḫū ša midi 147 akala naptana 148 the marzaḫū wise men(?) ina ilī ubbalū mišli 1 immera carry a standard loaf to the gods. Half of the   one sheep 142.  Fleming leaves abu untranslated. CAD A 76 points to abu bīti ’s being the official of the temple. Although the form in the CAD-referenced text is a-bu and not a-bi, the form can be explained by considering the preposition ana to be converting the noun to the genitive case. I adopt the abû shrine of the gods here because the context for the three offerings is sacred space, not individuals. For a detailed argument about the translation of abu, see Fleming, Time at Emar, 184–89. 143.  CAD T 491: tūrtu meaning “circuit,” “return.” Arnaud translates in 373:205 “a circuit to (the shrines of?) all the gods.” If this is the case, then the “circuit” is a procession of the image or priest to a location and back again. Fleming translates this as a “returnceremony.” However, Fleming’s translation does not capture the idea of a procession with a return. 144.  Arnaud reads this as il-li-ka!. The reading here follows Fleming, who correctly identifies the sign as la and not the corrected ka. 145.  Likely represents Enlil. 146.  Unknown word. Fleming suggests a relationship to “lightning bolts” (bi-ri-qá-ti), following Zadok, “Notes,” 115; however, this would require a scribal error. A connection to the Hebrew cognate bāqār, “cattle,” which is attested at Mari (bu-GA-ru in ARM 2 131:39) provides a better solution. Fleming (Time at Emar, 165) identifies this with Bu-uKKu-ra-tu4 in Emar 406:5, which refers to a personal attendant of the prophetess of Išḫara. Although it is similar, the link to a named attendant is rejected here because: (1) the context of the 14th day is a festival or ceremony and not a person or class of people; and (2) a connection to the prophetess of Išḫara is not part of this text. 147.  The form midi is unattested, and therefore the meaning is uncertain. Translated here following CAD M/2 163, mudû, where the marzaḫū men were perhaps either wise men or “friends of the king,” as in OAkk texts. 148.  The standard allotment for one meal.

166

Chapter 4

95 lúMÁS⟨.ḪU⟩.GÍD.GÍD 96 iti dḪAL-ma 2 i-na U4 ku-ba-dì 97 i-na É dDa-gan ú-ka-ba-du 98 [i]-na nu-ba-ti KAŠ.GEŠTIN ta-še-ia-ti 99 [ú(?)]-ma-lu MUŠEN i-sa-ra-pu 100 ⸢i-na⸣ U4.3 ḫi-da-aš dKUR I UDU ša URU.KI 149 101 ḫa-ṣí-in-nu ša DINGIR a-na É ú-sa-ab 102 KUŠ UDU ša lúMÁS⟨.ŠU⟩.GÍD.GÍD i-na U4.8 103 dḪal-ma ú-ṣi ḫa-ṣí-in-nu ša DINGIR 104 EGIR-šu ⸢i⸣ -la-ak I UDU ša URU.KI 105 LÚmeš ša qí-⸢da⸣ -ši KÚ NINDA KAŠ ša LÚ GAL 150 106 i-na U4 šu-wa-tu-ma SILA4 i-na É 107 dIM i-pa-a-du i-na U4.9 151 dIM 108 ša ki-na-i 152 ú-ṣi GUD 6 UDU a-[na] 109 ⸢É⸣ -šu⸣ i-la-ak i-na ŠÀ-šu-nu I (DIŠ?) [  ] 110 ⸢É⸣ dDa-[g]an(?) 153 be-[el(?)]⟨(?)⟩ i-⟨la-⟩aq?!-qí [a(?)-na(?)] 111 lúka-wa(?)-ni(?) x x (x)-na-šu(?) 112 i-⟨la(?)-⟩aq 154-qí x [a(?)]-na ŠÀ-šu x x 113 [  ] x [     ] x 149.  Lines 100, 104, 112, and 116 all end in the phrase “I UDU ša URU.KI,” which may indicate a dividing mechanism in the text. 150.  Fleming and Arnaud read this as lúMÁS.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD. However, this reading would require a minimum of 3.5 cm and only 1.5 cm (at the maximum) is available. Therefore, the reading LÚ GAL or LÚmeš is more likely. Because the line assigns offerings to someone, LÚ GAL is adopted here. See also lines 29 and 34. 151.  Arnaud incorrectly reads this as 8. 152. Following Fleming, who argues that the form should be translated “Canaan”: “The writing ki-na-i is not known elsewhere but is appropriate in the Emar setting: a second -n- is frequently omitted, and Emar joins the most common practice at Ugarit, where ʿayin is frequently transcribed by Akkadian -ʾ- or with broken writing. The spelling ki-na-i represents a natural alternative to the spelling kurki-na-ḫi at Ugarit. Although the Emar reference lacks any topographical marker, one Amarna letter from Cyprus provides an appropriate comparison, both in setting and form: x-ḫa-ti ša ki-na-ḫi ” (Fleming, Time at Emar, 169–70). Richard S. Hess provides a thorough treatment of the uses of Canaan in West Semitic texts in “Occurrences of Canaan in Late Bronze Age Archives of the West Semitic World,” in Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East (ed. S. Izre'el, I. Singer, and R. Zadok; IOS 18; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 365–72. 153.  Arnaud reads the partial sign as IM (dBaʿal). 154.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 281) corrects the second sign from -aq- to -la-, which may reflect a West Semitic pronunciation resulting in the misspelling.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

167

bāri belongs to the Diviner. warḫu Ḫalma 2 ina ūmi kubāti The month of dḪalma: on the 2nd day, ina bit dDagani ukabkatū they perform the honorific ceremony at the   Temple of dDagan. ina nubātti šikarī karānī tašeiati (?) In the evening, 155 [u]mallū iṣṣuri išarrapū they fill a goblet with wine and burn 156 a bird.  157  158 d ina ūmi 3 ḫidaš  Dagani 1 immeru ša The Day of Renewal of dDagan falls on the   āli   3rd. One sheep is provided by the city; ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili ana bīti uššab the divine axe remains in the temple. mašku immeri ša bāri ina ūmi 8 The sheep’s hide belongs to the Diviner. On   the 8th day. d d Ḫalma uṣṣi ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili Ḫalma goes out in procession. The divine  axe warkišu illak 1 immeru ša āli follows him. One sheep is provided by the  city. awilū ša qi[da]ši akālu šikaru ša awili rabi The men of the consecration-gift (?) feast.   The bread and beer belong to the leader. ina ūmi šuwatuma puḫāda ina bīti On that day, they offer a lamb at the  temple 159 ili dBaʿali ipaʾʾadū ina ūmi 9 ilu dBaʿalu of dBaʿal. On the 9th day, dBaʿal ša kinani uṣṣi alpu 6 immerū ana of Canaan goes out in procession. An ox and   six sheep bītišu illak 160 ina libbišunu 1 (ginâ?) proceed to his temple. Among them [. . .  from(?)] bīt dDagan 161 bē[l] illaqi [ana] the Temple of dDagan (?) the Lord ⟨(of. . . . ?)⟩ kawanī he receives. For(?) the servers. . . . illaqi. . . . [a]na libbišu. . . . he receives. . . . into it(?). . . . . . . . . . x. . . . x 155.  Emar 463:4–10 describes the same events attributed to an unnamed month. During the evening of the 2nd day, the participants fill the goblets with wine and present a bird as a burnt offering. 156.  Tablet BLMJ 1137, line 10 uses this same verb (i-šar-ra-pu) to present a goat offering at the evening watch (similar to the “evening” offering depicted here; Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions, 76–77). 157.  Not transliterated by Arnaud. 158.  Pentiuc (West Semitic, 65) argues for “renewal”or “inauguration” (adopted here) based on a West Semitic origin. “The presence of initial ḫi-/ḫu- for /*ḥ/ points to a WS origin, since in Akk. initial /*ḥ/ dropped, accompanied by a change in the vowel register, a ⟩ e; note Akk. edēšu ‘to be new’ (AHw 186–87) comes from *ḥadāšu.” Fleming translates this as “New Moon (Celebration)” which is interesting; however, holding the celebration on the 3rd day of the month points to renewal (which may be a part of the new moon celebration) but not the official new moon celebration. 159.  Lines 106–19 discuss a festival to dBaʿal in which the offerings and the payment to the Diviner and king are the same as those given to dBaʿal during the NIN.DINGIR priestess installation. This similarity is noted by Hess, “Multi-Month,” 238. 160.  Fleming notes that a singular verb is used in Emar 446 with a plural noun. 161.  Fleming notes that the appearance of dDagan in a festival to dBaʿal is unexpected. In addition, the syllabic spelling of Da-gan is less frequent.

Chapter 4

168     113*   162[ ] a [  ] 114 [ LÚ ]meš na-di(?)-nu qí(?) x [  ]

115 [  ] KUŠ ŠÀ(?) uzuir(?)-[ri  ] 116 [ ] ša lúMÁS⟨.ŠU⟩.GÍD.[GÍD ] 117 [ ] uzugi5-iš-še [  . . . LUGAL.KUR] 118 [i(?)-n]a(?) ⸢U4⸣.18 ḫi-ia-rù ⸢ša⸣ dIM 119 GUD! 163 2 UDU i-⟨⟨na⟩⟩ ṭa-ba-ḫu LÚ ša qí-da-ši i-ka-lu i-sa-tu

162.  Fleming omits this line. 163.  Fleming corrects the reading to GUD to agree with earlier pairings of GUD and UDU in place of AMAR, which would be out of place in the reading. The correction assumes a third vertical wedge in place of the angled wedge in the text.

Structure, Outline, and Literary Features As discussed in chap. 1, a comparative analysis must explore the structure, outline, and literary features of the texts under review. These features provide insight into each ritual’s expression and author’s intent. Thus I now examine Emar 446’s verbal construction, organizing structures, prescriptive or descriptive nature, and analytical genre to lay the groundwork for comparing it with Lev 23 in the chap. 5 below. Structure and Outline Emar 446 has four columns, with significant damage in col. II and moderate damage to col. I. The translation contains 119 numbered and translated lines. However, the original (undamaged) text probably contained approximately 162 lines. Despite this damage, we see several signs of organization, including markings on the tablet and language designed to structure the content. Double lines drawn across col. IV create the first level of organization. These marks divide col. IV as follows:

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

169

. . . . . . a. . . . awilū nadinū(?) qi[daši](?) [. . . the men] who give(?) 164 the consecration   gift(?) [. . .] maškū libbū(?) šīrū errū(?). . . . the hides, the intestines, the fat [. . .] ša bār[i] belong to the Diviner. [. . .] šīrū giššū 165. . . . šarri šadi the hip [. . .] belongs to the king of the land. [in]a [ūmi] 18 ḫiyaru [ša] dBaʿali The ḫiyaru of dBaʿal is on the 18th day. alpa 2 immerī iṭabbaḫū awilū ša qidaši They slaughter an ox and two sheep. The   ikkalū išattû   men of the consecration-gift(?) eat and  drink. 164.  See line 105 for similar text. 165.  Fleming translates this as geššu based on his work in Installations, 153. This reading is not necessary because MB texts about literature, medicine, and omens all reference gilšu, “hip or flank,” as gi-iš-šu, a reading that is similar to uzugi5-iš-še.

The phrases below follow each double-lined divider (and the additional division at the top of col. IV): Line 77: [it]i dAn-na I UDU a-na dA-dadama-te-ri Line 83: iti dA-dama i-na u4-mi 7 Line 86: itiMar-za-ḫa-ni i-na U4.14 Line 96: iti dḪAL-ma 2 i-na U4

Clearly, the information following the double-line markers of col. IV indicates the scribe’s attempt to identify the divisions between the months in which festivals took place (using temporal markers). After each division, the first word in the next line designates the month name for the succeeding rites. In three of the four sections (lines 83, 86, 96) the reference after this month name is an identification of the day for the first rite: Days 7, 14, and 2, respectively. (We have no explanation for the author’s omitting the day of the month for the month of dAnna. One possibility is that the festival activities began on the 1st day of the month, which made the date reference unnecessary.) 166 Despite the absence of double-line dividers in the first three columns, the evidence from col. IV points to temporal markers as the basis of the entire text’s organization—specifically, the mention of month names and festival dates. Using this general principle, we can outline the order of the complete text as follows:

166.  Hess, “Multi-Month,” 239.

Chapter 4

170

Emar 446 Outline Lines

Topic

1

Heading

2–57

Festivals in the month of SAG.MU

2–5

General offerings—fragmented text (Day 8)

6–7

Offerings to dDagan (Day 14?)

8–10

d

11–18a

d

18b–22a

X god goes out in procession (That day)

22b–44

d

45–47a

d

47b–53a

The Diviner’s seed ceremony (for the garden of dBaʿal’s sacred pool and dDagan, Lord of the Seed) (That month)

53b–57

The Diviner performs an honorific (kubādu) ceremony (Day 16—“on the next day”)

58–76

Festivals in the month of dNIN.KU.RA

58

Offerings to dNIN.KU.RA (Day 17)

59–66

d

67–74

X god goes out in procession and general offerings (Day 19)

77–82

Festivals in the month of dAnna

77–82

Offerings to dAdammatera, “abû shrine of the House of the Gods,” Temple of dDagan, “the town,” and allotment to the Diviner

83–85

Festivals in the month of dAdamma

83–84a

The circuit of Illila (Day 7)

84b–85

The circuit for DINGIRmeš (Day 8)

86–95

Festivals in the month of Marzaḫāni

86

The Bugarātu Festival (Day 14)

87–90

Aštar-ṣarba goes out in procession (Day 16)

91–95

d

96–119

Festivals in the month of dḪalma

96–99

Perform the honorific ceremony at the Temple of dDagan (Day 2)

100–102a

The Day of Renewal of dDagan (Day 3)

102b–107a

d

107b–117

d

118–119

The ḫiyaru of dBaʿal (Day 18)

Dagan goes out in procession (Day 15) NIN.URTA(?) goes out in procession (That day) NIN.URTA goes out in procession (That day) Šaggar ceremony at the cattle barn and horse stable (Day 15)

NIN.KUR.RA goes out in procession (Day 18)

Baʿal goes out in procession (Day 17)

Ḫalma goes out in procession (Day 8) Baʿal goes out in procession (Day 9)

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

171

The outline shows agreement with the major divisions of Fleming’s outline. However, the use of temporal dividers alters his outline at various subdivision points—separating or combining some rites. 167 Form Emar 446 begins with an introductory heading similar to others in the Diviner’s archive—notably, Emar 369, which begins, “Tablet of the rites for the NIN.DINGIR of dIM of Emar.” The introductory formula in Emar 446 makes clear that the multimonth festival calendar is not attributed to one god or goddess or one temple but is a tablet for “the rites of the city.” This introductory phrase explains that the rituals broadly apply to all the residents of Emar and probably to the wider region controlled by Emar. The text comprises six primary sections. Each section consists of the rites in one month and begins with the mention of the month name. Most sections also begin with an introductory formula that reads, “x month, on the x day, at x time of day, x performs some primary activity on the first day of the festival.” The primary activity may include an offering (lines 3, 58, and 77), a procession (line 84), or a specific activity central to the festival (the Bugarātu in line 86 or the honorific ceremony in line 97). Temporal markers subdivide the sections by noting a change in the date of the activities. They further divide these subsections by describing an action continuing “on that day” (U4 šuwatuma), “in the morning” (šērtamma), “in the evening” (nubātte), “in that month” (ITI šuwatuma). Of these subdividers, U4 šuwatuma is the most common; it appears five times, mainly in the 1st month (three times). 168 Because the text includes sections with significant damage, it is difficult to identify a standard format for each festival. Acknowledging this limitation, I submit that the Bugarātu Festival in the month of Marzaḫāni in lines 86–95 provides an example of what is probably the standard format, including: the month, the day, and the time of day. 169 The first activity usually includes a procession ceremony of the primary god/goddess associated with 167.  We find one example in Fleming’s outline of lines 2–10, where he separates the activities of Day 8 in lines 2–7 from the rites of dDagan in lines 8–10 (as a subdivision of Day 15). I argue (based on temporal markers) that lines 2–10 are all part of the festivals of SAG.MU and are divided into three subsections: general offerings (2–5), offering to d Dagan (6–7), and procession of dDagan (8–10). In another example, Fleming breaks lines 22b–44 into three subsections based on his premise they may concern rites to three different gods. However, because these lines contain no evident temporal markers, I maintain that the entire section may be one ritual involving three gods. Unfortunately, even though using temporal markers seems to be the best method for determining the outline, the broken nature of the text makes a conclusive argument impossible (Fleming, Time at Emar, 148–49). 168.  We will explore the format for the introduction to festival activities and the use of temporal markers to subdivide sections in relation to Lev 23 in chap. 5. 169.  A point not previously explored.

172

Chapter 4

the festival (included in four of the six months). 170 In addition, the procession is the most frequent festival event; it occurs at least 12 times over the six months. These procession ceremonies are often preceded by an offering (cf. lines 7, 18, 23) but occasionally occur without a prior offering (cf. lines 11, 87). The text relates the order of the procession, including the offerings (identifying the giver of the offering), which always precede the image of the god, the divine axe (ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili), and the entire population (awilū gamārū). The text gives more detail about the processions in the 1st month. It is possible that the order and content given for processions in the 1st month are also standard for processions in the later months. Once the text identifies the normal process early in the text, only alterations to the normal pattern are presented later in the text. 171 The procession out of the temple is followed by a return ceremony, which includes offerings (presumably the offerings that preceded the god/goddess in the procession) and a festival meal consisting of meat, bread, and drink offerings. 172 The officant consecrates the offerings to the gods, and then the offering is consumed by a broader population (cf. lines 21, 29, 37, 61, 119). 173 The text identifies population segments as: the leader of the people (awilu rabû) and/or the general population (awilū ṣēri). Individuals who contribute the meat offering and sacrifices may or may not profit from the contribution. The procession sections conclude with the assignment of payments to the Diviner, who usually receives the right breast, hide, head, intestine, and fat, while the leader/king occasionally receives the hip, hocks, unspecified meat items, bread, and beer. Literary and Verbal Analysis We continue to explore the literary and structural features of ritual in Emar 446 by analyzing the use of the literary elements of chiasms, inclusio, and word pairs. In addition, I examine the use of verbs to convey the nature of the text. 170.  In four of the six months, a procession of the primary god/goddess is the first festival activity. In the remaining two festival months, an honorific ceremony and an offering without a procession are first. The 1st month appears to contain five different processions for different god/goddesses, and the information contained in those processions is combined to determine the “standard” order of events—the procession complex. 171.  On a few occasions (lines 12, 19, 23), the gate for the procession out of the temple/ city or return to the temple/city is identified (abullu, bābi Amit). No gates were identified by Margueron in his analysis of the site. When I visited the site in 2010, it was apparent that the extensive looting of Emar and the water level of the lake made it unlikely that any gates will be identified in the future. 172.  The consistency of offering types (meat, bread, alcohol) and the consecration to the gods/goddesses, with consumption by a broader population will be discussed as a similarity to Lev 23 in chap. 5 below. 173.  For the “consecration,” see line 44, which identifies the portion given to the Diviner as part of the “the offerings.”

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

173

Literary Structures Emar 446 is a ritual text primarily focused on the activities, offerings, and payments for services that occur in the six-month ritual calendar beginning in the fall and continuing until spring. Despite its focus on activities and lists, the text contains the following literary structures: organizational dividers, parallelism, word pairs, and symmetry. As mentioned above, temporal markers organize the text by dividing the calendar into months. And “continuation markers” (standard phrases such as “on that day,” “in that month,” “on the next day,” “in the evening,” and “in the morning”) further subdivide the text by day of the month. These phrases are intentional literary structures separating the rites associated with different deities. A second organizational divider is the heading at the beginning of the text that declares the text is a “tablet of the rites of the city”—indicating the audience is the general population. While Emar 446 is not intended to be a poetic text, the tablet contains three doublets that yield poetic parallelism. The first appears in lines 45–46, where the god Šaggar is brought to the cattle barn and horse stable to perform the ritual slaughter of one sheep (possibly meant to ritually prepare the plowing and planting draft animals for the upcoming planting season). 174 The two lines show an ellipsis through the duplicate use of vocabulary and word order. The lines read: ḫašu ana bītī alpī ušerradū iṭabbaḫū 1 immera ana biti wūti iṭabbaḫū They bring dŠaggar down to the cattle barn, and they perform the slaughter, they slaughter one sheep at the horse stable.

The form of the Akkadian yields an AB:A′B′ parallelism between the cattle barn (A) and horse stable (A′). Further, the repetition of the verb (iṭabbaḫū) constitutes B and B′. The use of an ellipsis may convey that the lamb in the second part of the doublet should be repeated in the first line so that one lamb is slaughtered at the cattle barn and a second at the horse stable. The poetic structure also allows for the duplication of “[t]hey bring Šaggar down” as the subject of the text without the need to duplicate the words. In this way, the use of poetic structures in a narrative text creates brevity of language yet conveys fullness of meaning. A second example of parallelism occurs in lines 60 and 61. In this section, a procession is completed for the god dNIN.KUR.RA in the month 174.  This point is debated. It is also possible that the ritual was intended to support the breeding season. However, the context of the ritual involves the planting of the fall crop and not the spring birthing season. For more information, see the discussion on lines 45–46 of the translation. For an argument against the use of horses in agriculture, see Deborah O’Daniel Cantrell, The Horsemen of Israel: Horses and Chariotry in Monarchic Israel (Ninth–Eighth Centuries b.c.e.) (HACL 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011).

Chapter 4

174

Table 18.  Allocation of Space to Rituals in Emar 446 Month Name

Number of Lines

SAG.MU

99a

iti

iti d

NIN.KUR.RA 48b

iti d

6

iti d

Adamma

3

iti

Marzaḫāni

10

Anna

iti d

Ḫalma

25

a.  While there are 69 numbered lines in the translation associated with this month, the tablet appears to contain 99 lines associated with the month of SAG.MU. b.  The numbered translation counts 18 lines. However, the tablet shows 48 possible lines associated with this month.

of dNIN.KUR.RA on Day 18. After the procession, a festival meal is consumed, consisting of the meat, bread, and beer provided by various constituents and consecrated to the god. The passage normalizes as follows: 1 immeru damāqu pūsu ša nuppuḫannī akala šikara ša awilū ša qidaši ikkalū išattû One good quality white sheep (is) provided by the nuppuḫannū men. They eat and drink the bread and beer from the men of the consecration-gift.

As above, this section of the text yields an AB:A′B′ parallel structure. The A and A′ portions of the parallelism represent the offering (one good-quality white sheep : bread and beer). The B and B′ sections pair two different classifications of religious constituents (nuppuḫannū men : men of the consecration-gift). Because the lines are parallel, we understand that the verbs apply to both the men of the consecration-gift and the nuppuḫannū men who eat and drink at the ritual meal. Lines 83–85 provide a third example of parallel language in the text. This section is the shortest text of the ritual calendar and comprises only three lines. The three lines, arranged as ABC:A′B′C′, describe the procession of two groups of deities: 175 i-na u4-mi 7 tù-ur-tu4 ša Il-li-la i-na U4.8 tù-ur-tu4 a-na DINGIRmeš ga-bu-ma On the 7th day is the circuit of Illila. On the 8th day is the circuit for all the gods. 175.  The three lines are organized as two lines for clarity.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

175

The structure begins with an A–A′ portion that includes the date of the actions, although the form of the date is different. The B–B′ section consists of the double use of “a circuit or a return” (tūrtu). The C–C′ section of the text identifies the two objects involved in the circuit: “Illila” and “all the gods.” This section is unique in that the parallel lines comprise the entirety of the rites in the month of dAdamma. 176 In addition to examples of parallel structure, one word pair is identified in the text. Every time the term “bread” (NINDA) appears in the text, it is paired with the term “beer” (KAŠ). The text mentions the word pair in three separate months: SAG.MU (line 21), dNIN.KUR.RA (line 60), and d Anna (line 78). Line 21 uses the word pair as part of a ritual meal consumed on the 15th day of the month by someone who is unnamed (due to damage in the text). In the festival calendar, this is the second day of the festival, which began on the 14th day of the month. Line 60 records the nuppuḫannū men and the men of the consecration-gift eating and drinking a festival meal on the 18th day of the month. Once again, this festival meal takes place on the second day of the festival, which began on the 17th of the month. Finally, line 78 records the word pair as part of an offering list provided by the nuppuḫannū men and ḫamšaʾū men on an undated festival in the month of dAnna (line 78 does not identify the word pair as part of a ritual meal). The three uses of the word pair show an explicit connection between bread and beer in the ritual context. In two of the three instances, this pairing is associated with the nuppuḫannū men. Because the only location (line 21) that does not associate the word pair with the nuppuḫannū men occurs in a broken text, the damaged text could be restored to read “the nuppuḫannū men consume the bread and beer from out of the House of the Gods.” In all three occurrences, bread and beer are sacred items given as offerings to the gods and shared with select ritual participants. We end our discussion of literary structure with a consideration of the scribe’s use of space in this text. Table 18 presents the number of lines devoted to each month in the ritual calendar. This table demonstrates the considerably different spaces that have been allotted to the rituals recorded in the various months. The month of itiSAG.MU probably contains 99 lines of text, while the rites in the month of iti.dAdamma only contain 3 lines of text. 177 Despite these differences, the Emarite multimonth ritual calendar shows no sign of redaction or space constraints. The varying numbers of lines, therefore, must be a consequence of the scribe’s literary decisions and not a basis for redaction analysis. Once the scribe fully articulated a rite, he 176.  We will explore the use of parallelism in ritual narrative in chap. 5 as a possible point of similarity with Lev 23. 177.  Arnaud argues that the ritual descriptions’ unequal lengths are the result of an inexperienced scribe whose poor planning led to insufficient space at the end of the tablet. However, there is no evidence of unnecessarily compressed material in the final months. In fact, the final two months contain a considerable amount of detail.

176

Chapter 4

probably omitted the information in later references unless he required it either for emphasis or to indicate a change in the standard procedure. Verb Analysis The point of view of the text is third person—both singular and plural. The text never discloses who the scribe is representing, and there are no first- or second-person verbal forms. Even though the activities and responsibilities of the Diviner are probably the focus of the text, all references to the Diviner are in the third person. The point of view is flat in that it merely presents a list of actions, offerings, responsibilities, and payments. The text may assume that the reader already understands the intent and purpose for the actions and only needs a reminder regarding the date of the action, numbers and types of offerings, location for the offerings and processions, and a list of deities involved. Emar 446 includes 65 discernible verbs (though damage possibly destroyed several verbal forms). Of these verbs, most are finite verbal forms; only 2 infinitives exist (lines 90 and 91), both for the verb ṣâdu, “to prowl” or “to make one’s rounds.” The dominant verbal form is the durative, occurring 55 times—46 times in the G durative, 7 times in the D durative, and 2 times in the Š durative. 178 The use of the durative form implies a continuing action (imperfective) pointing to a prescriptive force in the text. The verb leqû (“to take, accept, receive”) occurs 6 times, all in the N preterite. The verb nadānu (“to give”) occurs once as a participle and once as a G perfect. 179 Festival Names The multimonth ritual calendar at Emar, as mentioned above, organizes festival activities by month and date. While the festival details are specified, the text usually omits the festival names. In fact, the term EZEN, “festival,” is not found in the text. While the term “festival” is not found in the text, 178.  A review of other ritual texts from Emar supports the finding that the use of the third person, as well as the durative, is typical at Emar. For a systematic study of the verbal usage at Emar see Jun Ikeda, A Linguistic Analysis of the Akkadian Texts from Emar: The Administrative Texts (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, 1995). 179.  An analysis of the verb choices shows that the scribe may have had a preference for verbs representing an action. For instance, we find waṣû, “a procession” of a god, nine times, ṭabāḫu, “to slaughter,” six times, and paʾādu, “to offer” or “to sacrifice,” four times. Because Emar 446 probably depicts the work of one scribe rather than the evolution of a festival tradition, the scribe was not confined to choosing a single term for a given action. For instance, while waṣû is the dominant verb for a procession, the scribe uses ṣâdu twice in the text with the same meaning. (While the two are similar in meaning, the author may associate each with a different form of procession. The first [waṣû] may intend a procession complex while the second [ṣâdu] may imply the search for another god or goddess.) Similarly, the scribe uses both ṭabāḫu and nakāsu for “slaughter.” And finally, the scribe writes both paʾādu (five times) and naqû (two times) meaning “to sacrifice” or “to offer.” This diversity in verb choice does not represent a developmental process or redaction to the text but instead reveals an explicit choice by the author to vary the vocabulary.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

177

several ceremonies and festival names are identified. In the month of SAG. MU on the 15th day, line 47 mentions the nubāttu ceremony (evening ceremony). Other Emarite texts identify this ceremony as an evening feast. 180 A second named ceremony in Emar 446 is the kubādu ceremony, which occurs at the end of the festivals in the month of SAG.MU. This ceremony may be an honorific ceremony and may include the taking of an oath of fidelity to d Dagan in support of the upcoming agricultural year. The kubādu ceremony holds significance because no one may begin planting until the completion of the ceremony. The text mentions a second kubādu ceremony in conjunction with dDagan on the 2nd day of the month of dḪalma. A third named celebration is the ḫidaš ili Dagani, “Renewal of dDagan,” held on the 3rd day of dḪalma. This ceremony occurs at the Temple of dDagan and includes a sheep offering where the divine axe remains in the temple. The final example of a named celebration is the Bugarātu, which is held on the 14th day of Marzaḫāni. Little is known about the Bugarātu. However, the name may imply a connection with a cattle festival at the full moon of the month. An analysis of the festival activities presented in Emar 446 shows that some ceremonies/festivals are named while others are unnamed/anonymous. 181 Agrarian and Nonagrarian Festivals Emar 446 contains the cultic rituals conducted over a six-month period. On the 15th day (full moon) of the month of SAG.MU, the text specifies a planting ceremony, presumably to solicit the gods for a successful upcoming wheat and barley crop. This agricultural festival begins with a plowing rite that involves dŠaggar and offerings at the cattle barn (É GUDmeš) and horse stable (É ANŠE.KUR.RA). 182 These offerings are probably intended to prepare the draft animals for plowing and planting. The festival continues with an evening feast, a procession (including offerings to the nuppuḫanū men), offerings at the garden of dBaʿal’s sacred pool and dDagan, Lord of the Seed. The ceremony concludes with the Diviner’s throwing seed onto the ground in a ritual of planting. On the next day (16th of the month), there is an honorific ceremony and the taking of oaths. After the completion of the oaths, everyone may go out to plant. These agrarian-based rites are performed on set dates, despite the lunar calendar’s drift in its relationship to the solar year. 183 180.  CAD N 308. 181.  This mixing of named and anonymous ritual celebrations is a possible point of similarity with Lev 23 and will be discussed further in chap. 5. Contra Wagenaar, who argues for a direct connection between Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium Babylonian festival texts, I contend that the multimonth calendar at Emar demonstrates that this feature of named and nameless celebrations existed by the later 2nd millennium b.c.e. and should not be used to argue a late date for Lev 23 (Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 78–90). 182.  Scholars debate the agricultural use of horses (see prior discussion). 183.  Fleming argues that, while the text is prescriptive in nature, the set dates may refer to only one year. Fleming states that, “although the scribe has chosen verbal forms

178

Chapter 4

While the above activities on the 15th and 16th of SAG.MU are identified with agriculture, the remaining rites of the multimonth calendar contain nonagrarian offerings made to various gods. These festivals typically begin with the offering of a lamb at the temple, followed by a procession of other animals walking in front of the image of the deity. The sacred axe follows the god’s image and various groups of people bring up the rear of the procession. The festival concludes with the image of the god returning to the temple, where the animals are slaughtered and offered along with bread and alcoholic items to the god or goddess. In none of the rites over the five remaining months is there any specific correlation between the festival rites and the agrarian cycle. In this section, I analyzed the form, structure, and literary aspects exhibited in Emar 446 and discussed the following findings: • Temporal markers organize the text using several literary features, such as: ◦◦ a one-line introductory phrase, ◦◦ parallelism, ◦◦ word pairs, and ◦◦ a consistent third-person point of view. • The introduction points to an audience, which includes the general population. • The text includes: ◦◦ both agricultural and nonagricultural rites, 184 ◦◦ some agricultural rites that occur on fixed dates, ◦◦ both named and unnamed or anonymous rituals, and ◦◦ a lack of symmetry in the number of lines devoted to each month or ritual. • The durative represents a repetitive customary action with prescriptive force. • The analytical genre (see Sparks in chap. 1) is a prescriptive multimonth ritual calendar. 185 that imply that regular repetition of the ritual is to be expected, it is possible that the specific date applies only to one observance” (Fleming, Time at Emar, 141). I argue against Fleming for a fixed date because the occurrence fits the practice found in other ancient Near Eastern cultures of hosting rituals at the full-moon phase of the 1st and 7th months. If Fleming were correct, the rituals would not align closely to the changes of the moon but would occur on random dates. 184.  Both of these features are present in Lev 23 and will be discussed in chap. 5. Contra Wagenaar, who argues that this combination is a late development, I show that Emar 446 demonstrates the coexistence of dated agrarian and nonagrarian festivals in the same festival calendar (Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 78–90, 112–20). 185.  This book shows that the analytical genre for Emar 446 is a prescriptive multimonth ritual calendar because: (1) the verbal structure of the text points to a prescriptive nature; (2) the text holds ritual as a central purpose; and (3) temporal markers divide the text into multiple months that compose the larger ritual calendar.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

179

Table 19.  Relationship of Festival Dates to Lunar Phases in Emar 446 Lunar Phases and Dates

Emar Ritual Date

Month

General Activities

1?

d

This ritual is undated and may have occurred on the 1st of the month. Activities include the offering of multiple sheep to various deities.

2, 3

d

Ḫalma

 kubādu ceremony.   Burnt offering and wine offering.   Renewal of dDagan.

SAG.MU

Damaged text—contains an offering and probably a procession.

7, 8

d

Procession of Illila and “all the gods.”

8, 9

d

  Procession of dḪalma with a feast of bread, beer, and meat.   Procession of dBaʿal with ritual sacrifice of an ox and six sheep.

14, 15, 16a

SAG.MU

  Offering for dDagan.   Procession of dDagan, dNIN. URTA and festival offerings and meal.   Ritual sacrifice of sheep to d Šaggar at the cattle barn and horse stable. Evening seed ritual with sacrifice to dBaʿal and dDagan.  kubādu ceremony.

14, 16, 17

Marzaḫāni

 Bugarātu ceremony   Processions of Aštarṣarba and d Baʿal with burnt offerings and bread offerings.

Last quarter-moon (21st and 22nd of the month)

None

None

Dates not directly associated with lunar phases

17, 18, 19

d

18

d

New moon (1st and 2nd days of the month)

First quarter-moon 8 (7th and 8th days of the month)

Full moon (14th, 15th, and 16th days of the month)

Anna

Adamma Ḫalma

NIN.KUR.RA Processions, ritual sacrifice, and festival meals. Ḫalma

Ḫiyaru Festival of dBaʿal, including the ritual slaughter of an ox and two sheep plus a festival meal of food (presumably meat and bread) and drink.

a.  The missing text in col. II of the tablet probably outlines the remaining four days of the zukru Festival held in this month, and the mention of the “15th day” in col. III probably returns to a parallel festival discussion.

180

Chapter 4

Sacred Time in Emar 446 The Emar Day and References to Time of Day Emar 446 makes several references to distinct days of the month (i.e., “on the 15th day,” “on the 18th day,” etc.) and relative references to periods of the day (“in the morning” and “in the evening”). In addition, we find references to the continuation of time, including “on that day” and “on the next day.” An analysis of the combination of these time references indicates (contra Britton) that the calendar day at Emar begins in the morning. The first combination of these references occurs in lines 45–53, which describe the activities on the 15th day of the month of SAG.MU. At an unspecified time of the day, the god Šaggar is brought first to the cattle barn and then to the horse stable, and one sheep is ritually slaughtered at each place. Later that same day, during the evening ceremony, several ceremonial acts occur, including a procession, ritual slaughter of sheep, ceremonial seed-planting by the Diviner, and a festival meal including meat, drink, and bread offerings and payments. Lines 53–54 record a time marker reading: i-na ša-ni U4 še- er-tam-ma, “On the next day in the morning.” If the day begins at noon or in the evening, then there is no need for the time marker “on the next day,” because it would be a continuation of the same day. Therefore, the day should begin either at some point during the late night (i.e., midnight) or at dawn. Because no other ancient Near Eastern culture offers evidence to support a midnight shift in time, I conclude that the Emar day begins at dawn. Lines 96–100 lend further support to the argument that the day begins at sunrise. On the 2nd day of the month of dḪalma, an honorific ceremony (kubādu) is held at the Temple of dDagan—presumably during the day. Line 98 specifies that after the kubādu ceremony an evening drink offering and bird burnt offering occur. If the Emar day began in the evening, then the text should include a temporal break (“on the next day”) between the two rites—the kubādu ceremony and evening drink and burnt offerings. Line 100 further supports the evidence by describing the Day of Renewal of d Dagan, which falls on the 3rd day of the month. Presumably, the drink and burnt offerings on the evening of the 2nd day give way to the day change at dawn that begins the new Day of Renewal of dDagan. These two examples of combining specific and relative time references yield evidence that the day at Emar does not begin at noon or sundown. 186 In fact, these passages of the festival text support the conclusion that the day begins at dawn. 186.  Contra John P. Britton (“Calendars, Intercalations and Year-Lengths in Mesopotamian Astronomy,” in Calendars and Years: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East [ed. John M. Steele; Oxford: Oxbow, 2007], 115), who argues that the day in Mesopotamia began at sunset because the new month began with the sighting of a new moon, Emar 446 provides direct evidence showing that the day could not have begun at sunset.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

181

The Emar Month and Ritual Activity Dates The month at Emar was based on the lunar cycle, with a possible intercalary month maintaining congruence between the solar seasons. To understand the context of the lunisolar calendar at Emar, we need to understand the month in the broader ancient Near East during the 3rd and 2nd millennia. 187 Similar to other ancient Near Eastern calendars, Emar’s ritual calendar was probably based on a lunar month, with significant rites occurring at the changes in lunar phases. Table 19 shows how rites mentioned in Emar 446 correspond to lunar phases. Seven of the nine date groups found in Emar 446 begin at a change in the lunar phase. Two rituals begin with the new moon, three at the first quarter-moon, and two at the full moon. 188 There are no rites attested at the last quarter-moon. The text identifies two rituals as beginning just after the full moon, on the 17th or 18th of the month. Possibly these rituals are associated with the full-moon phase, and the dates shifted for some reason beyond the official full moon; or the dates may be unrelated to the lunar cycle. The rites associated with the full moon receive the most attention in the text, including at least 55 lines for the month of SAG.MU and 10 lines for the month of Marzaḫāni. This means that (at a minimum) the readable text devotes 54 percent of the lines to the discussion of rites during the full moon. In addition, the rituals held during the middle of the month occur for the longest periods of time. Full-moon festivals last between three and four days and usually begin with a ceremonial offering meal on the evening of the 14th of the month before the processional activities on the 15th. 189 In contrast, the cultic ceremonies occurring on the new moon and first quarter-moon usually last only one or two days. Despite this priority given to the rituals of the full moon, three rituals take place during the first quarter-moon, representing the highest frequency of ritual activity in the ritual calendar. 190 187.  See chap. 2 for a general discussion on the early ancient Near Eastern calendar. 188.  Fleming, quoting Nilsson, contends that “the new moon and the full moon are most often celebrated in cultures manifesting ‘primitive’ time reckoning and that religious festivals are often reserved for the full moon. This is due not only to the full light of the moon but also to the world-wide idea that everything which is to prosper belongs to the time of the waxing moon, and above all to the days when it has reached its complete phase” (Fleming, Time at Emar, 159; Martin P. Nilsson, Primitive Time-Reckoning [Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1920], 154–55). 189. The zukru Festival texts (Emar 373 and 375) attest a longer (seven-day) zukru Festival during the month of SAG.MU or Zurati, which may indicate that only portions of the actual festival rites are preserved in Emar 446. 190.  The propensity for beginning rites at the change of lunar phases is a hallmark of the Emar ritual calendar. We will discuss this feature in relation to the festival calendar in Lev 23 in chap. 5. In addition, as discussed in chap. 2, Wagenaar argues that the

182

Chapter 4

The Emar Yearly Calendar and New Year Fall Beginning In the ancient Near East, the calendar year usually began in the spring with the harvest season. In contrast, the Emar ritual calendar probably began in the fall. 191 This conclusion is based on the six-month festival calendar beginning in the fall with the month SAG.MU. Fleming argues that the six-month festival calendar represents only half a year, which is segmented into two six-month cycles, each beginning with a new year. Therefore, the calendar could represent either the first or the last half of the year. 192 The reconstructed first half of the Emar year is shown in table 20. 193 New Year Emar 446 includes the rites for the city over a six-month period, which supports the finding that ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed the annual calendar as two six-month units. The calendar begins at or near the time of an equinox (autumnal equinox), with a dominant agricultural festival held on a fixed date. Although it never refers to the term “New Year” or “Head of the Year” (which may be lost due to the severe damage to the first column), the text gives a prominent position to the rites conducted in the 1st month. In addition, the text contains cultic activities similar to those conducted in the 1st month of the spring six-month cycle (e.g., planting rituals and rites to dDagan, the dominant deity of the area, during the full moon). The sixmonth Emar ritual calendar ends with the Day of Renewal of dDagan in the spring. This ceremony alludes to both the renewal of the spring harvest season and the care-of-the-dead rituals held in the late winter or early spring in other Mesopotamian cultic calendars, indicating that Emar’s calendar shares a cultic orientation with the broader Mesopotamian culture. 194 Babylonian festival text, which may have mirrored festival activities in the 1st and 7th months, directly influenced the Israelite priests to alter Lev 23 to mirror activities in the 1st and 7th months (Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 35–37). This feature is already present at Emar, where festival activities in the fall (1st month)—hosting rites and processions at the first quarter-moon and full moon—are mirrored in the spring (6th month). 191.  M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 343. 192.  Fleming, Time at Emar, 213. The text identifies SAG.MU as the 1st month and, while never referring to it by month number, it is clearly the first of the six months that the text appears to mention in sequential order. 193.  Fleming provides an analysis of all calendar month references and the possible development of the month names at Emar; however, he argues for the 1st month name of Zarati (ibid., 196–211). 194.  This dual six-month ritual structure with rites (including agricultural and nonagricultural festivals on fixed dates) clustered around the equinoxes will be explored in relation to Lev 23 in chap. 5. Wagenaar maintains that the dual six-month structure of the Babylonian festival calendar and Lev 23 supports the late dating of Lev 23. However, I show that the dual six-month festival calendar is already present in the 2nd-millennium calendar at Emar, and thus I do not support Wagenaar’s thesis.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

183

Table 20.  Months of the Emarite Half-Year Month Number

Month Name

1

SAG.MU

2

d

3

d

4

d

5

Marzaḫāni

6

d

NIN.KUR.RA Anna Adamma Ḫalma

Named Festivals in the Calendar The Emar ritual text mentions some festivals by name yet leaves most festivals and ceremonies unnamed. (Although we have no explanation for the practice, festivals recorded without names in one calendar may be named in another text from the same period. For example, during the 1st month of the six-month cycle [SAG.MU], Emar 446 omits the name of the primary festival rite. However, the description of this anonymous ritual corresponds to the zukru Festival named in Emar 375.) 195 But, while most of its rites remain anonymous, Emar 446 does identify four: the kubādu ceremony, Bugarātu ceremony, Ḫiyaru Festival of dBaʿal, and the Day of Renewal of dDagan. Emar 446 mentions the kubādu ceremony three times. The first two occasions take place in the 1st month (SAG.MU), the morning after the Diviner’s seed-planting ritual. On the 16th day of the month, there is a sacrifice to dDagan during the ceremony and the taking of oaths. The rite includes a prohibition against planting until the completion of the ceremony. Because this kubādu ceremony is part of the zukru Festival complex (also happening over the middle of the 1st month), the reference to the kubādu ceremony demonstrates that a named ceremony (or named festival meal) can occur during a larger festival complex. We find the third reference to the kubādu ceremony in the 6th month and again in connection with the god dDagan at his temple on the 2nd day of the month. The ceremony, associated with the highest-ranking deity in the local pantheon, therefore, acts to both open and close the ritual calendar (in the 1st and 6th months). One Ugaritic text from the Late Bronze Age also identifies a kubādu ceremony. Lines 38b–41 of KTU 1.41 depict the kubādu ceremony’s taking place 195.  Hess notes that the zukru Festival is a memorial festival similar to the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread (Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007], 116–17).

184

Chapter 4

on the fifth day of the Wine Festival. Because lines 38b–48a directly follow the festival activities of the beginning of the month and because the section begins with the purification of the king and ends (lines 47–48) with the king’s becoming profane, I conclude that these three days should be viewed as a continuation of the Wine Festival—which thus occurred over seven days. If this interpretation is correct, it confirms that ceremonies with unique names occurred during other festivals. The festival concludes at sundown on the 7th day, with the king’s leaving a state of holiness (KTU 1.41:47): “At the setting of the sun, the king is profane” (ḥl mlk). The reading from KTU 1.41 supports the conclusion based on Emar 446 that a named festival ceremony can take place during a larger festival celebration. Little is known about the Bugarātu ceremony, which occurs as part of a larger four-day festival in the 5th month of the year (Marzaḫāni) and includes processions by dAštart and dBaʿal and offerings at the Hurrian temple. The Day of Renewal (ḫidaš) of dDagan is held on the 2nd and 3rd days of the 6th month (dḪalma). Eugen Pentiuc argues for “renewal, inauguration” (adopted here) based on a West Semitic (WS) origin. “The presence of initial ḫi-/ḫu- for /*ḥ/ points to a WS origin, since in Akk. initial /*ḥ/ dropped, accompanied by a change in the vowel register, a ⟩ e; note Akk. edēšu ‘to be new’ (AHw 186–87) comes from *ḥadāšu.” 196 Fleming translates this “New Moon (Celebration),” which is interesting. However, observing the festival on the 3rd day of the month points to renewal (which may be a part of the new moon celebration) but not the official new moon celebration. The Ḫiyaru Festival of dBaʿal occurs in the 6th month (dḪalma). Festival texts and month names throughout Mesopotamia attest this name. The autumn planting ceremony at Ugarit takes place in the 12th month (Ḫyr)— counting from the spring (holding the same position at Emar). Nuzi names the 2nd month of the year Ḫiyaru (spring—beginning of year). Durand finds evidence that the Ḫiyaru Festival celebrated multiple deities throughout the region, including: dAddu at Aleppo, dAddu at Ugarit, and dEštar at Alala. 197 At Ugarit, the Ḫiyaru Festival of dBaʿal is attested on the same day (18th). Fleming concludes that the presence of the Ḫiyaru Festival of dBaʿal at Emar confirms Emar’s participation in the cult traditions of the broader region. 198 196.  Pentiuc, West Semitic, 65. 197. Jean-Marie Durand and Michaël Guichard, “Les rituels de Mari,” in Florilegium marianum III (ed. Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand; Paris: SEPOA, 1997), 38. Jean-Marie Durand, Texts administratifs des salles 134 et 160 du palais de Mari (ARMT 21; Paris: Geuthner, 1983), 61–74. 198.  Fleming, Time at Emar, 173: The city-sponsored ritual of the text for six months is native in the sense that it is neither imposed recently by an outside power such as Ḫatti nor imported wholesale under local initiative. Such “native” religion proves its independence by its diversity. It takes form through accumulated influences from varied places and times according to the ebb and flow of populations and outside contacts. Novelties mingle with custom observed for centuries. The storm-god’s ḫiyaru was shared across a broad domain, both

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

185

We have explored the use and presence of sacred time in Emar 446 and have noted several aspects of sacred time, including the following: • The text uses temporal dividers for organization. • Emar 446 uses a temporal formula (x month, on x day of the month) as the header for rituals. However, the text includes variations of the standard formula. • The text includes the phrase “on that day” as a standard temporal division to highlight significant aspects of a ritual that occurs on the same day as other ritual events. • Primary festival activities are held at the full-moon phase of the lunar calendar. • A one-day ritual meal is occasionally held the day before a primary festival, with a yearling lamb as the ritual sacrifice. • Some rites are tied to the agricultural calendar and other rites to the monthly fixed calendar in the same text. • Some rituals are named and others unnamed in the same text. In addition, an unnamed ritual in Emar 446 is named in another text. • The calendar highlights activities on specific days while leaving activities on other days unspecified. • The longer festivals (7 days) begin on the full moon (15th of the month) and last until the 21st of the month. • The calendar depicts a day that begins in the morning with the sunrise. • The calendar primarily “assumes” the time of the offerings and activities that occur during the day. • The text occasionally specifies that an activity occurs in the evening. • The text depicts a lunisolar calendar with rites clustered around the spring and fall equinoxes. • Ritual celebrations begin at lunar-phase breaks—although this is not exclusively true. • When a festival occurs at the new-moon phase of the month, the festival length is limited to one or two days.

Sacred Space Chapters 1 and 3 discussed how an analysis of sacred space might provide insight into ritual activity, thus assisting in the comparative study of two texts. Here, we explore the use of sacred space in Emar 446. As we noted in chaps. 1 and 3, some of the guiding questions for sacred space include: Where does the ritual enactment occur? Are specified locations fixed or to the west and to the east. Celebration of the storm-god with a Canaanite title suggests western contacts, while Illila (if not Anna) appears to come from Mesopotamia to the east. All these cults in time came to be supported by the city, and all fell under the supervision of Emar’s diviner of the gods.

186

Chapter 4

temporary, high or low? What rites transition from sacred to profane space and back? What is the history of use for the space? What is the shape of the space? Is the shape of the space symbolic? How are boundaries and thresholds marked? These questions will remain in the background as we explore the use of sacred space in Emar 446. Space plays a significant role in ritual activity at Emar. Cultic activities are often only relevant when they are conducted in a specific place (e.g., altar, temple, gate, etc.). Klingbeil argues that “space in religious ritual action is sacred space and distinguished from other spaces. A sacred place focuses attention on the forms, objects, and actions in it and reveals them as bearers of religious meaning.” 199 Klingbeil goes on to identify three major functions of sacred space: 1. a place of communication with a deity, 2. a place of divine power—from which the deity is said to act, and 3. a place of symbolic recreation and the ordering of reality. Month of SAG.MU The first three columns of Emar 446 outline the rituals in the month of SAG.MU. Column II of the text is severely damaged, resulting in a disruption of the flow of the text from col. I to col. III. Lines 1–40 (col. I) focus on dDagan and dNIN.URTA and depict the ritual activities associated with the zukru Festival (detailed in Emar 375). Following the break in the text, lines 41–57 (col. III) recount rites related to agriculture and the fall planting. Rites during the month of SAG.MU take place at a range of specified locations around Emar and at several unspecified locations. The five primary deity locations are the Temple of dDagan, the Temple of dNIN. URTA, dNIN.URTA of dIšḫara’s Temple, dUdḫa’s Temple, and dBaʿal’s sacred pool. 200 In addition to these locations, the images of the deities visit two other sacred places: the Amit Gate and the Main Gate. A third category of sacred spaces include the specified locations where the participants associated with the location contribute meat, bread, or wine/beer for a rite but do not host the ritual activity. The House of the Gods is the only sponsoring sacred space named in the month of SAG.MU. 199.  Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 50–51. 200.  Fleming demonstrates that the pool was probably not part of dBaal’s Temple at the highpoint of the city of Emar (the space between the city wall and the temple is insufficient). Instead, the pool was probably part of a larger agricultural complex—similar to the apsû in Mesopotamian temples. Fleming, following Durand, concludes that “the storm god’s pool would not be located at his temple but at the site of his garden, probably outside the city” (Fleming, Time at Emar, 157). However, Beyer argues that the area between the city wall and the rear of Baal’s Temple could accommodate a ceremonial pool and garden (Dominique Beyer, “Jardins sacrés d’Emar au Bronze Récent,” in Nature et paysage dans la pensée et l’environnement des civilizations antiques [ed. Gérard Siebert; Paris: de Boccard, 1996], 11–19). Unfortunately, the lack of archaeological evidence precludes our reaching a definite conclusion about the location of Baal’s sacred pool.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

187

I find it significant that, although the text refers to several locations as sacred spaces, the author provides no details about these individual spaces. For example, during the month of SAG.MU, the text never mentions any location of importance inside the temples. Ritual slaughters are conducted and sacred meals consumed without the mention of an altar, sacrificial table, or any other place within the temple cella. In addition, in several instances, a slaughter ceremony or meal occurs for a deity, but the author does not mention the location. Lines 54–55 read, “In the morning. . . . they slaughter (a sacrifice) for dDagan and perform an honorific ceremony by lasting oath and by. . . .” These lines emphasize the rites of (1) a slaughter, (2) an honorific ceremony, and (3) a lasting oath. The subject of these rites is identified as d Dagan. However, the text assumes that either the reader knows the location or the location has little significance. Line 37 echoes this anonymous nature of sacred space: “[T]he leaders and the whole populace consume the breast before dIšḫ-ara.” As before, the text stresses (1) the rite (feast), (2) the participants (leaders and entire population), and (3) the deity (dIšḫara). The sacred space is once again either assumed or insignificant, as long as the deity’s image remains proximate to the ritual activity. 201 A sacred space, as depicted in Emar 446, is primarily determined by the location of the god. If the god is present at a location, then the location is a sacred space. In addition, when the deity’s image processes, the location of the image of the god and the proximate space become sacred space. It is unclear whether the temple for the deity is still a sacred space (or becomes profane) when the god leaves the location. Month of dNIN.KUR.RA The 2nd month of the ritual calendar outlines rites for the primary god, NIN.KUR.RA. The scribe uses at least 18 lines of text in col. III (lines 58–76) to describe the month, although the severe damage to the column hampers translations and limits the available analysis. Identified rites occur over a three-day period in the middle of the month just after the full moon. Cultic activities begin as they did in the previous month, with an offering of a lamb on the day prior to the primary festival (here on the 17th of the month). On the 18th of the month, the deity goes out in procession from an unspecified location to an unspecified location. After the procession, ritual participants share a festival meal including a “good quality white” sheep, beer, and bread. 202 d

201.  If the rites of this month relate to the zukru Festival, then the location of the activities regarding dDagan would have been held outside the city at the shrine of upright stones (see Emar 375:1–25). This would explain why the author does not mention the temple and corroborates the conclusion that sacred space is largely dependent on the presence of the god. 202.  Damage to the text prohibits a full interpretation of the meal contents and participants.

188

Chapter 4

On the 19th of the month, some god (damaged text) goes out in procession from an unspecified location to an unspecified location. The damage to the text detailing the activities on the 19th day makes further analysis impossible. 203 As with the discussion of rites in SAG.MU, the location of the beginning and end of the procession, the offerings, and the festival meals is obscured. The text concerns itself with proximity to the deity, not with a fixed location. Month of dAnna The IVth column of the text contains the final four months’ rituals. Double horizontal lines separate the rites for each month. The month of d Anna (lines 77–82) consists of activities during one unnumbered day. The lack of a number for the day, which is unique in the text, may mean that the activities are conducted on the 1st day of the month—at the new moon. 204 The text recording the festival day in dAnna concentrates primarily on ritual activities, mentioning the type of offering and the individuals involved. This month does specify that the abû shrine of the gods and the Temple of dDagan are sacred spaces worthy of an offering—unique thus far in the text. However, the text does not indicate who should conduct the offering, where to perform the offering in the temple (e.g., an altar), or how to make the offering. Similarly, the festival meal occurs at an unnamed location, although the text does identify the individuals who provide the meal and the festival meal’s contents. In this month the text gives more 203.  Fleming links the rites of dNIN.KUR.RA with the kissu Festival because both include the men of the consecration-gift (awilū ša qidaši) and the flat bread loaf (ḫūgu). d NIN.KUR.RA’s activities and those of the kissu Festival “are associated with further rites that suggest awareness of death: the setting of tables divided between heavenly and underworld deities and the wailing of a certain nugagtu” (Fleming, Time at Emar, 161). This connection also seems likely and matches the season of the year with the festival activities as well. The 2nd month of the year is a winter month (when the agricultural crop is dormant), a season associated elsewhere in the ancient Near East with festivals giving care and food to the dead. One example is the EZEN-duku Festival held at Nippur in the Tummal, late in the month (27th and 28th). These days had possible associations with the cult of the dead (“Their laments were [like] laments that Enlil’s ancestors perform in the awe-inspiring duku,” Curse of Akkad). This festival was celebrated in the 7th month of a spring calendar, which corresponds to the 2nd month of the Emar festival calendar. Another example, the kinūnu Brazier Festival from Mari was held in the 7th month of a spring calendar. The kinūnu Brazier Festival is a cold-weather festival (during the period when daylight is limited) using torches (ARM 3 72 records the festival as lasting from the 8th to the 18th of the month). 204.  Fleming argues, based on Sasson’s work at Mari, that the date may have been flexible, with rites celebrated on different dates during different years. Both theories are possible; however, Hess’s suggestion of the 1st day of the month seems more likely than a floating date, which would probably have been so identified in the text (Fleming, Time at Emar, 162; Hess, Leviticus, 785).

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

189

prominence to the sacred spaces than to the gods, perhaps because these rituals concern the cult of the dead and the mourning of ancestors in a sacred space. Month of dAdamma A double horizontal mark separates the rituals in the month of dAdam­ma from the other months and comprises only three lines of text (lines 83–85). The month’s events begin at the first quarter-moon (the 7th day of the month) with a circuit ceremony of Illila. The rite continues on the 8th day with a circuit ceremony to all the gods. As with prior months, the text does not specify the sacred space, supporting my conclusion that sacred space is proximate to the god or gods. Month of Marzaḫāni The month of Marzaḫāni is poorly attested in Emarite literature, with only one other possible mention (467:5). Marked before and after by double horizontal lines, this month’s rites comprise 10 lines (lines 86–95). The rituals of the 5th month begin at the full moon on the 14th day of the month with the Bugarātu ceremony and continue to at least the 17th of the month with the marzaḫū wise men. Little is known about the Bugarātu ceremony, which occurs as part of a larger, four-day festival. 205 Following the trend of earlier months, the ceremony entails an offering in the evening that serves to begin the multiday ritual. At a minimum, the rite serves as an example of a distinct, named ritual that occurs on one day and is also part of a larger, multiday ritual. On the 16th and 17th days of the month, there are ritual processions for Aštarṣarba, dAštart, and dBaʿal. The description of the first procession, for Aštarṣarba, follows the normal pattern: the scribe uses the verb uṣṣi, and the sheep offering begins the procession, followed by the image of the god and then the divine axe. In sharp contrast, the text concerning the rounds for the goddess dAštart and the god dBaʿal omits the usual discussion of a divine object or offering. In addition, a new verb describes the type of wandering: ṣadu. 206 The verb translates here as the equivalent of a procession in which the image of the god wanders through the streets of Emar. In one of the few clear references to a sacred space, the text next describes the offering of a sheep at the Hurrian temple (I UDU ša nu-pu-ḫaan-ni É ḫu(?)-ri-ti). 207 Perhaps the Hurrian concept of sacred space finds 205.  The text doesn’t describe the specific activities, participants, or sacred spaces associated with the Bugarātu ceremony. 206.  G infinitive of ṣadu, “to prowl,” “to make one’s rounds,” “to turn about.” 207.  Arnaud corrects the reading to maš-ar-ti and translates “on brûle ⟨dans⟩ la maison de la prêtresse-mašʾartu,” which is not necessary because the text reads well without correction.

190

Chapter 4

expression here, because the Emarite text records a burnt offering, not to any god present at the location, but to a sacred temple space. The final rite in the month of Marzaḫāni involves the marzaḫū wise men, who are probably connected to the month’s name. The marzaḫū are attested in Ugaritic literature (KTU 1.21–22), Phoenician inscriptions, Mari texts, 208 and in biblical texts (Amos 6:7, ‫ ;מרזח‬Jer 16:5, ‫)בית מרזח‬. Ugaritic administrative texts also used this term to refer to a group associated with land ownership and wealth. 209 The literary references, while not conclusive, point to a connection with the cult of the dead. 210 The noun is modified by the adjective ša mi-di (midi). The form midi is unattested and the meaning uncertain. I translate it here following CAD M/2 163, “mudû,” where the marzaḫū men were perhaps wise men or “friends of the king,” as in OAkk texts. This translation is preferred because it fits the affluence attributed to the marzaḫū in Ugaritic. If the term also preserves an association with the cult of the dead, then this early spring month and the marzaḫū were part of a cultic spring awakening, as found in similar rituals in the parallel month of Abî. 211 Despite the role and status of the marzaḫū, the text seems more concerned with detailing individual participants, contents of the offering, and recipients (gods) than the sacred space (which may be presupposed). Furthermore, while the text specifies the name of the offerer (marzaḫū wise men), it leaves the identity of the recipient vague, citing only “gods” and not any particular god or goddess. Month of dḪalma The 6th month in the Emar 446 festival calendar is the month of dḪalma, comprising 25 lines and completing the IVth column of the tablet. The rites 208.  From the 4th century b.c.e. (Hess, Israelite Religions, 292–93). 209.  John L. McLaughlin, “The marzēaḫ at Ugarit: A Textual and Contextual Study,” UF 23 (1991): 265–81; Karel van der Toorn, “Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugarit Texts and in the Bible,” BiO 48 (1991): 54; Marvin H. Pope, “The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit,” in Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic (ed. Gordon D. Young; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 176. 210.  Hess finds that the marzēaḥ was a banquet or feast. . . . celebrated to mark events in the course of life such as marrying and burying, but it could also take place for other reasons. Assuming the Septuagint of verse 7, then the “bread” is broken for the dead. Retaining the Masoretic Text, then the “bread” is for comfort. If the rites of this festival served an apotropaic purpose, then Jeremiah would have been forbidden to enter because such rites would not prevent the judgment God planned for Israel. (Hess, Israelite Religions, 262–63)

Johnston argues that associating marzēaḥ with more than funerary rite and mourning (as explicitly mentioned) may overreach the evidence (Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002], 184–85). 211. Ezen-ne-IZI-gar—a mid-month festival at Nippur offering sheep and cattle for the Great Offering at the moon phase termed the “House of the 15th day.” For further discussion, see chap. 2, p. 22.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

191

in this month are well preserved and provide an insight into sacred space. In fact, descriptions of this month’s rituals give more information about the concept of sacred space than do those of most other months. The text records rites celebrated at three phases of the month’s lunar cycle, identifying and elaborating on the sacred spaces involved in each. At the new moon, activities are identified on the 2nd and 3rd of the month. On both days, cultic rites are conducted for the god dDagan, who remains in his temple. The kubādu ceremony takes place on the 2nd day at the Temple of dDagan. The rites also include a renewal ceremony to dDagan with the divine axe staying in the temple. The dual mention of the Temple of dDagan is unusual for the multimonth calendar and supports my conclusion that sacred space is proximate to the god’s location—here staying in the temple. The second ritual of the month occurs at the first quarter-moon and involves rites for both dḪalma and dBaʿal. On the 8th day of the month, d Ḫalma (for whom the month is named) goes out in procession from an unnamed location. This formulaic and unspecified procession follows the expected pattern of the multimonth calendar. The same day, the men of the consecration-gift (qidāšu) offer a lamb and eat a meal at the Temple of d Baʿal. Based on prior rites, the offering of a lamb or sheep is common on the day before the primary god’s procession—which occurs on the 9th day of the month. (While the text identifies the offering, it usually refers to the sacred space for the offering and meal as simply “to [ana] dBaʿal” or “to [ana] d Dagan.”) On the 9th day, the procession of dBaʿal also returns to a specified location, where an ox and six sheep go into the Temple of dBaʿal; the text usually relates only the outbound portion of the procession. The third cultic ceremony, which includes the Ḫiyaru ceremony of dBaʿal and a festival meal attended by the men of the consecration-gift (qidāšu), occurs on the 18th day of the month. The text offers no details about the location of the ceremony or the meal, though they are probably located at the Temple of dBaʿal. In each of these three rituals, the sacred activities occur in a temple devoted to the god presiding over the rite and in a space proximate to the physical location of the god. As before, while the fixed location is important, the text places a higher priority on naming the ritual participants, sacred objects, and ritual offerings than on identifying the sacred space, which is often “assumed.” When discussing ritual participants, the text does not mention the presence or participation of priests or kingly figures during the month. The Procession Complex The most frequent (and perhaps the central) rite in the Emar multimonth calendar, occurring at least 12 times, is the procession complex honoring the god or goddess of the festival. Because each complex generally includes and omits various components, an authoritative pattern for the procession

192

Chapter 4

complex does not exist. However, by combining the descriptions recorded throughout the text, we may determine a “standard” order of ritual events: offerings the day before the procession, the procession, and a festival meal after the procession. A procession of the primary god or goddess is the first festival activity of the procession complex in four of the six months. 212 In the remaining two festival months (dAnna and dḪalma), an honorific ceremony and an offering without a procession are first. Five of the six months include at least one procession complex—only dAnna (month 3) excludes any mention of the complex. The 1st month (SAG.MU) appears to celebrate five distinct processions for different gods or goddesses, which is the largest number held in any month. 213 In researching the procession complex, I found that the scribe used three verbs to describe the movement of a god or goddess out of the temple. Only one of the verbs seems associated with the procession complex (waṣû), and the other two verbs (tūrtu and ṣadu) may represent another form of rite. 214 The complex identified with the verb waṣû has three primary rites. The first activity is a ritual slaughter and offering of one sheep to the god or goddess associated with the offering (see also lines 7, 18, 23). While the text does not identify the time of day, it is possible that the offering is held at sundown. On the next day (Day 2 of the complex), the god processes in a ceremony out of the temple and often to, or through, a notable gate of the city. The text indicates that the offerings (identifying the giver of the offering) go before the image of the god. The divine axe (ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili) and entire population (awilū gamārū) follow the image of the god. Because the text provides more details about the processions in the 1st month, the order and content of those processions may be standard for the later months. Perhaps once the text identifies the normal process early in the text, only alterations to this pattern are required later. The third rite in the processional complex is a return ceremony including offerings (presumably the offerings that preceded the god or goddess in the procession). The festival meal includes meat, bread, and drink offerings that are consecrated to the gods. These consecrated items are then consumed by a broader population (cf. lines 21, 29, 37, 61, 119), which is occasionally identified as the leader of the people (awilu rabû) and/or the general population (awilū ṣēri). The procession complex concludes with the assignment of payments to the Diviner, who usually receives the right breast, 212.  The four are: SAG.MU (month 1), dNIN.KU.RA (month 2), dAdamma (month 4), Marzaḫāni (month 5). 213.  The severe damage to this section of text may obscure additional information about the procession complex and may hide additional processions. 214.  Usually rendered uṣṣi—G durative 3cs of waṣû (“to go out, go forth, depart, leave”). The form could also be translated as a G preterite.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

193

hide, head, intestine, and fat, while the leader or king occasionally receives the hip, hocks, unspecified meat items, bread, and beer. As mentioned above, two additional verbs convey the notion of a procession (tūrtu and ṣadu). The verb tūrtu appears twice in the month of d Adamma (month 4) at the first quarter-moon. No rites are given, and the ceremony is said to apply to Illila on the 7th day of the month and to all the gods on the 8th day of the month. The verb ṣadu appears in the month of Marzaḫāni (month 5) at the full moon. The verb again appears twice (16th–17th days), when dAštart and dBaʿal make a procession around the city. Little detail is given in the text, and the reader is left wondering what activities are associated with the verb. While each of these two verbs implies a procession-like event, only waṣû appears associated with the larger procession complex. Role of Sacred Space in Rites As I mentioned at the opening of this section, sacred space plays an important role in Emarite rituals. By investigating this role, we can gain insights into Emar’s ritual activity, which in turn assists our comparative analysis of Emar 446 and Lev 23. Offerings occur in specific locations, and the text identifies gods within a ritual space (temple). During each month, sacred activities often take place in a temple devoted to the god who is presiding over the rite, frequently near the physical location of the god. When the god leaves the temple and goes out in a procession, the primary sacred space becomes a gate or set of standing stones (see Emar 375). The significance of the gates is unclear; however, the gods may perform a blessing of protection on the city by anointing the gates during the procession. The anointing occurs in the rituals of the 1st month of the calendar, supporting a blessing of protection, and may indicate a New Year renewal and blessing. A second possibility, predicated on the significance of the “upright stones” (KÁna4.mešsi-ka-na-ti) in the zukru text of Emar 375 and 373 and their similarity to maṣṣebot, is that the rites surrounding the gates and upright stones served the cult of the dead. That the specific mention of gates and stones only happens in the winter months lends support to this conclusion. Finally, although the fixed location is important, the scribe specifies the ritual participants, sacred objects, and ritual offerings while often presupposing the sacred space. In discussions of sacred space, references omitted by the scribe are as important as those he includes. The text mentions no details about the interiors of the temple spaces, nor does it mention any altars or sacrificial slaughtering tables connected to ritual activities. In addition, the sacred space associated with the ritual meals is assumed and not specified. Because the text lacks references to a royal residence or any administrative palace, I conclude that the king (noted only once) and the palace probably play a minimal role in the concept of sacred space at Emar.

194

Chapter 4

Sacred Objects Chapters 1 and 3 discussed the importance of sacred objects in ritual. The goal of this section is to identify ritual objects involved in Emar 446 and to explore their significance within the greater ritual complex. Through this exploration, we continue to lay the groundwork for our comparative analysis of Emar 446 and Lev 23 in chap. 5. As in chap. 3, the following questions guide the investigation: What and how many objects are associated with the rite? Is the size and shape important to the ritual process? Of what material are they made? Is the construction of the objects ritualized? Who is responsible for the object? How are the objects stored or discarded? What uses would defile the object? How does the object become special? Does the object have a significant history? Does the object combine with other objects to create a stronger significance? Is the object inanimate or personified? What status accrues to the owner or keeper? Emar 446 often associates ritual objects with the activities of particular months. We turn to exploring these objects and analyzing the potential significance of the objects to the cult of specific gods, specific months or festivals, and the general cult at Emar as found in Emar 446. I divide objects into two primary categories: sacred items and sacred offerings. Sacred Items The multimonth festival calendar identifies only two nonoffering objects: the divine axe and ritual seed. The divine axe is present when the god is present—usually in the processions and once in a ceremony that occurs at the Temple of dDagan. The axe appears to represent the power and presence of the god. The text reflects a cult that is uninterested in ceremonial artifacts or ritualistic clothing, because none are mentioned (beyond the divine axe). The scribe does not use space in the text to describe the clothing of the individuals involved in the rituals, the objects involved in transporting the image of the god during the procession, the trappings of the deity, or the objects associated with the ritual preparation and slaughter of the offerings. Furthermore, his exclusions hold as much significance as what he records. By presenting a much more abbreviated cultic representation than that associated with either the zukru Festival (Emar 373 and 375) or the installation of the priestess (Emar 369), the scribe provides greater insight into the tangible sacred objects involved in Emarite ritual. Sacred Offerings An analysis of the sacrificial offerings during the multimonth ritual calendar identifies the primary sacrificial offerings as the lamb, the sheep, and the ox.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

195

The lamb (SILA4) is usually identified with the processional complex that takes place the day before the procession. The most frequently occurring offering is the sheep, which is associated with the procession (walking before the image of the god), the festival meal after the procession, and the payment to specified ritual participants. The source of the sheep is often unspecified. However, when mentioned, the source is usually the nuppuḫannū men (the first five months of the calendar) or “the city” (the 6th month). The text mentions an ox on three occasions in conjunction with a multiple sheep offering in the 1st and 6th months of the year (see above). Sacred offerings occasionally include drink and bread offerings in addition to the specified meat offerings. The most frequent of these are bread and beer, which occur paired in this text and are read as collective nouns. The word pair is twice associated with the qidašu men (men of the consecration-gift), once as a gift from the House of the Gods, and once from the ḫamašaʾū men. Although consecrated to the gods, the bread, beer, and occasional wine offerings are intended to be part of the festival meal. 215 The final offering, made in the 6th month, during the evening, is a burnt offering of a bird in conjunction with a drink offering. While the text details the contents of the offerings and festival meals, it does not include the mechanics of the preparation and sacrifice (slaughter). Clearly, the multimonth calendar seems more concerned with what is given, by whom, and to whom than with providing an instruction manual for the ritual. The final category of sacred offerings is the payment made to festival participants. The text relates that different individuals and groups receive several portions of the meat offerings. In addition, portions of the meat offerings, drink offerings, and bread offerings are consumed during communal meals. This section explored the identification and role of sacred objects in Emar 446, separating the objects into two types: sacred items and sacred offerings (see table 21). The text identifies only two sacred items, the divine axe and the ritual seed. Sacred offerings consist mainly of meat, though the festival participants also present cereals, wine, and beer to various deities. Besides being consecrated to the gods, these offerings form the communal festival meal and are used as payments to certain individuals or groups taking part in the rituals. In chap. 5, we will compare the most significant aspects of sacred objects in Emar 446 with Lev 23 to determine whether the two texts share a common tradition. 215.  See also Emar 446:37–38: uzuGAB a-na pa-ni dIš-(ḫa) ⸢ra!⸣ LÚmeš GAL LÚmeš gama-ri Ì.KÚ, “The leaders and the whole populace consume the breast before Išḫara”; 446:60–61: I UDU SIG5 BABBAR ša n[u-pu]-ḫa-an-ni NINDA KAŠ ša ⟨⟨LÚ⟩⟩ LÚ ša qída-š[i i-ka-lu i]-sa-tu, “One good quality white sheep (is) provided by the nuppuḫannū men. Bread and beer by the men of the consecration-gift [. . .] eat and drink.”

Chapter 4

196

Table 21.  Sacred Offerings Lines

Transliteration/ Normalization

Translation

Context

3, 9, 14, [18,] 20, 41, 46, 48, 49, 50, 60, 71, 72, 73, 77 (2×), 79 (2×), 80 (2×), 88, 91, 94, 100, 104, 108, 119

1 UDU, 2 UDU (2×), 6 UDUḪI.A (once), 6 UDU (once), I UDU SIG5 BABBAR (once), UDUmeš (once), miiš-li I UDU (once) immeru immeru damāqu pūsu mišli 1 immeri

Sheep

  Sheep are used in two contexts. First, the procession of a god typically has a sheep-offering walk before the image of the god in the procession column. Second, the sheep is used as the primary offering after the procession, with portions of the sheep being consumed during the festival meal and portions paid to the Diviner, leader, king, and others as payment for services.   Sheep are said to be provided by several different groups, including: the nuppuḫannū men, the ḫamšaʾū men, and the city. The nuppuḫannū men are the most frequent provider.   The scribe writes 6 sheep once, using the collective 6 UDU, and once using the plural form (ḪI.A). This shows that the same meaning can be written in different ways and use different spellings at various points in the text without indicating a different scribe or textual tradition.

21, 60, 78, 105

NINDA akala

Bread

Bread and beer always occur paired in this text and are read as collective nouns. The word pair is twice associated with the qidašu men (men of the consecration-gift), once as a gift from the House of the Gods, and once from the ḫamašaʾū men.

21, 60, 78, 105 98

KAŠ šikara KAŠ.GEŠTIN šikarī karānī

Beer Wine

  See Bread (above) for more information.   KAŠ = šikaru- (beer, intoxicating liquid); GEŠTIN = karānu (grapes, vineyard, wine). When used together, these typically mean “wine.”

[6,] 17, [22,] 58, 66, 106

SILA4 puḫādu

Lamb

Fleming notes that a puḫādu offering (lamb) occurs on the day before each procession. This is generally true; however, one procession complex uses UDU in place of SILA4 (e.g., line 3).a It seems that the evening offering before the procession is usually a “lamb” and not a “sheep”— which is part of the procession and festival meal (cf. Num 28:4, which offers a lamb at sunrise and another at sunset).

24, 31, 108, 119

GUD alpu

Ox

The ox is mentioned in the context of three rituals, one to dNIN.URTA, one to dDagan, and one to Baʿal. The mention of an ox is twice associated with 6 sheep and once with 2 sheep. The rites are centered in the 1st and 6th months during a primary festival, which suggests that the ox signifies a dominant offering to a primary deity (an ox is mentioned in Lev 9:4, 18, 19 as part of a peace offering to Yhwh).

a.  Fleming, Time at Emar, 276.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

197

Table 21.  Sacred Offerings (cont.) Lines

Transliteration/ Normalization

Translation

Context

26, 37, 42, 52

SAG uzuGAB, uzu GAB, GABmeš UZU SAG GAB imitta šīra irta

The right breast, breast meat

This word is found in both the singular and plural and is associated with an offering, a festival meal, and the payment for services. All references to the breast meat appear in the 1st month of the year.

27, 44, 81, 102, 115

KUŠ, KUŠḫi.a, KUŠmeš KUŠ UDU Mašku

Hide

The hide is read in multiple months, always as a payment for services and always to the Diviner.

27, 38

SAG rēšu

Head

The head is read in 1st month, always as a payment for services and always to the Diviner.

33 (2×), [34]

UZU šīra

Piece of meat

The determinative UZU is found on one occasion and hypothesized on two others as a sacrifice and payment to the leader.

34

kab-bar-tu4 kabbartu

Foot/leg/ ankle

Read as a payment to the leader in the 1st month during a festival to dNIN.URTA.

42

ni-bi-šu-nu nibīšunu

Their portions/small piece

Nību + 3mp pronoun = “their portion (amount).” Following CAD N 204–6, definition A1. Fleming translates after definition B, “small piece.”

52

ka4-sà-tu4 kāsātī

Cups (of drink)

Given from the House of the Gods to the Diviner as payment for the seed ceremony.

62, 63

ninda

Flat bread loaf

  Following Mayer, who contends that the form is found in Mari economic texts.b Zadok argues for the cognate kukku, “type of bread or cake of characteristic shape.”c Pentiuc argues for the West Semitic root ḫ-n-k because the “Emarite word might be considered a noun of qutl-formation (abstract meaning), showing both assimilation and nonassimilation of the medial -n-. The meaning ‘consecrated (bread),’ fits well with the cultic context, in which this form occurs.”d While Pentiuc’s option is possible, Mayer’s translation fits the form of the noun and the context of the passage. There is no need to look for “consecration” of the loaf of bread since the “men of consecration” make the offering (cf. Lev 2:4–10, which discusses “unleavened cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil” as part of the grain offering, some of which is paid to the priests.)

akalu

ḫu-ug-gu ḫūgu

b.  Mayer, “Eine Urkunde uber Grundstuckskaufe,” 270. c.  Zadok, “Notes on the West Semitic Material,” 114. d.  Pentiuc, West Semitic, 75.

Chapter 4

198

Table 21.  Sacred Offerings (cont.) Lines

Transliteration/ Normalization

Translation

Context

62

Ì.NUN(?) ḫimʾatu

Ghee

Ì.NUN (and its variants Ì.NUN.NUN, A.NUN. NUN) is the name of an intercalary month after the 6th month in early Semitic calendars and may mean “ghee.”e

93

ninda

na-ap-ta-na naptana

Standard loaf

The standard allotment for one meal. The marzaḫū wise men carry this item to the gods (ina DINGIRmeš).

99

MUŠEN iṣṣurī

Bird

Accusative plural (direct object). MUŠEN = bird. Occurs as a burnt offering in the 6th month (cf. Lev 1:14–17, which discloses the burnt offering regulations for a bird [‫)]עוף‬.

115

ŠÀ (?) libbū

Intestines

Identified in the 6th month during a cultic ritual to dDagan and paid to the Diviner for services (cf. Lev 1:9, 13; 3:3, 9, 14; 4:8, 11; 7:3; 8:16, 21; 9:14, which present the “entrails” as part of the burnt offering and peace offering to be completely burned for Yhwh).

115

uzu

ir-ri(?) šīrū errū

Fat

Identified in the 6th month during a cultic ritual to dDagan and paid to the Diviner for services. (As discussed earlier, the fat is used as a burnt offering in Leviticus and prohibited from consumption by the priests.)

117

uzu

Hip

  Identified in the 6th month during a cultic ritual to dDagan and probably paid to the King of the Land (LUGAL.KUR). If this identification is correct, it is the only mention in the text of the king at Emar.   Fleming translates this as geššu based on his work in Installations, 153. This reading is not necessary because MB texts from literature, medicine, and omen texts reference gilšu, “hip or flank,” as gi-iš-šu (see examples in CAD G 73, definitions from literature in section a, from medicine in section b, and from omen texts in section c); a reading similar to uzugi5-iš-še.

gi5-iš-še šīrū giššū

e.  M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 31.

Ritual Participants As mentioned in chap. 1, individuals are an essential part of ritual, participating through the performance of specific roles. This section examines the role of ritual participants to prepare for a comparative analysis with Lev 23 in chap. 5 below. As with the analysis of Lev 23 in chap. 3, the controlling questions for this section include: What roles and offices are operative in

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

199

ritual? Do some figures have a larger, longer, or more important role than others? How—if at all—do participants and sacred space interact? Who participates actively, and who participates passively? The goal is to understand better the role played by identified participants in the multimonth ritual calendar of Emar 446. We will look at the ritual participants identified in Emar 446 and assesses their potential significance to the cultic rituals. The participants in the multimonth ritual calendar are divided into two primary groups: gods (and goddesses) and individuals. Gods and Goddesses The rituals at Emar typically center on the care and feeding of the gods associated with the region. These rituals occur in the procession complex, which consists of (1) an offering to the god; (2) a procession of the god out of the temple—often to a city gate or standing stones; and (3) a return ceremony at the temple with a sacrificial slaughter of meat offerings, a festival meal including bread and beer, and a payment of a portion of the offering to various individuals (see above, “Procession Complex,” p. 191). In addition to these procession complexes, the text relates one agricultural ritual involving a god and the Diviner and two additional unique processions. Below, we consider the gods and goddesses associated with these rites. However, due to tablet damage, several activities involving deities at Emar are lost, and so only the gods or goddesses that may be reasonably identified are discussed. d

Dagan

Because the text outlines more ritual offerings to dDagan than to any other deity in the Emar multimonth cultic calendar, dDagan unquestionably played a major role in the regional cult. The only other god identified in more than one month is dBaʿal, who is mentioned in months 1 and 6. The text identifies dDagan by both the name dDagan and the title dDagan, Lord of the Seed. Offerings to dDagan are most numerous in the 1st and 6th months of the year—at the time of planting and near the time of the harvest. References to dDagan in the 1st month associate him with: a procession complex, the kubādu ceremony, and the ceremony to bless the upcoming planting season. The god receives offerings over the winter months (2nd and 3rd months), which may have a relationship to the cult of the dead as elaborated in Emar 452:34–35. Lluís Feliu finds that, although dDagan is not directly identified as a deity of the dead, multiple Middle Euphrates cultures connect him with the abu Festival and consistently mention dDagan in cultic ancestor rituals. 216 dDagan is again mentioned in three ceremonies of the 6th month, beginning with another kubādu ceremony and followed 216. Lluís Feliu, The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria (trans. Wilifred G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 65–73, 305–6. See also M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 259–61; Wayne

200

Chapter 4

by the Renewal of dDagan—both at the new moon and again at the first quarter-moon. The god’s position of prominence at Emar in ancestor rituals, the cult of the dead, and perhaps in blessing the upcoming harvest led Fleming to conclude that: d

Dagan is god of the people themselves, it seems, where the people in turn identify themselves by their people, their ancestors. The living and the dead together define the community, with dDagan the divine point of reference. So far as the hypothesis succeeds, then dDagan was essential to the integration of household and public religion at Emar. dDagan bound the people as an organic whole consisting of household cells, these joined by the idea of a shared community of the living and the dead. 217 d

NIN.URTA

While dDagan enjoys the prominence of being the god mentioned most frequently in association with a ritual, dNIN.URTA receives the largest number of offerings in the 1st month of the year. Emar celebrates the god d NIN.URTA at this time with two processions on the same day and at least one festival meal. Fleming finds that dNIN.URTA is probably the patron god of Emar. 218 Arnaud proposes that dNIN.URTA may be the equivalent of Aštar, but Fleming discounts this possibility because of the reference to d NIN.URTA in the same list as dAštar MUL. 219 He suggests that a more likely connection for dNIN.URTA may be Išḫara, who is associated with d Dagan at Mari and Mesopotamia. 220 If Fleming is correct, dDagan and his consort Išḫara share the offerings of the 1st month. d

Šaggar

Emar 446 and other Mesopotamian texts associate the moon-god Šaggar with the New Year, agriculture, and the planting ritual on the 15th day of SAG.MU. Although the text does not specify the purpose of the offerings made at the cattle barn and horse stable, this portion of the text does describe an agricultural offering for planting. Thus we might conclude that the offerings to the god dŠaggar are intended to bring protection and blessing on the draft animals involved in preparing the soil and planting the wheat and barley crops that will be harvested the next spring. 221 d

Pitard, “Care of the Dead at Emar,” in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age (ed. Mark W. Chavalas; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996), 136. 217.  Daniel E. Fleming, “Household and Community Religion in Syria,” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity (ed. John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), 45. 218. Idem, Installation, 248–49. 219. Daniel Arnaud, “Religion assyro-babylonienne,” AEPHER 96 (1987–88): 175. 220.  Fleming, Installation, 249–51. 221.  Fleming (Time at Emar, 155–58) gives more context to the full moon–god dŠaggar throughout Mesopotamia.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

201

d

Baʿal

Ritual offerings to dBaʿal (dIM) occur in the 1st, 5th, and 6th months of the year—second only to dDagan in frequency. In addition, dBaʿal receives the highest number of offerings. Indeed, dBaʿal’s total offerings are twice the total of dDagan’s because dBaʿal receives a total of two oxen and ten sheep. The text identifies the storm-god at Emar simply as dIM. At no point does the text (or others at Emar) spell the name out syllabically, which led Manfried Dietrich to propose dAddu as the referenced storm god. 222 Fleming argues for an association with dBaʿal based on his analysis of personal names. 223 Fleming translates dIM as “Storm-God” (rather than dBaʿal), despite having found a connection between dIM and dBaʿal. I use the translation “dBaʿal,” following Finkbeiner and Y. Cohen, who assert that the temples located on the western promontory of the archaeological site are, in fact, the temples of dBaʿal and dAštart. 224 Finkbeiner supports this conclusion based on the following circumstantial evidence: (1) paired references to the wandering rituals of both dIM and dAštart, and (2) the paired location of the temples of dIM and dAštart. All the names commonly written as derivations of dBaʿal at Emar are found as dIM and not written syllabically. Therefore, I tentatively adopt the translation “dBaʿal.” d

NIN.KUR The 2nd month, dNIN.KU.RA, is named for dNIN.KUR, goddess of the ceremony on the 17th–18th of the month. The goddess participates in a standard processional complex: a lamb offering, procession, and a festival meal. The text associates dNIN.KUR.RA with the kissu Festival and the installation of the NIN.DINGIR priestess, both of which open and close with rites dedicated to dNIN.KUR.RA. The description of her activities assumes an awareness of death and a participation in the renewal of the throne. Fleming argues that the association with enthronement may shed light on the rites of this month: d

NIN.KUR is the most frequently attested month in the Emar legal documents, with the variant “dNIN.KUR of the throne.” The throne in the title may reflect the larger role of the goddess rather than her own or any single enthronement. In the rite that gives the month its name, dNIN.KUR perhaps was celebrated for her office, with its responsibility for the throne. 225

222. Manfried Dietrich, “Das Einsetzungsritual der Entu von Emar (Emar VI/3, 369),” UF 21 (1989): 47–100. 223.  Fleming, Installation, 21–25. 224.  Finkbeiner, “Emar 2002,” 9–117; “Emar 2001,” 109–46; Y. Cohen, Scribes and Scholars, 12. 225.  Fleming, Time at Emar, 162. See idem, Installation, 169–72 for a further discussion of the goddess.

202

Chapter 4

If Fleming is correct, then the processional complex in the 3rd month points to a renewal of the throne ceremony at Emar. d

Adammatera

The god dAdammatera receives one sheep offering in the 3rd month of the year, which is dAnna. The text leaves the date of the festival unspecified, which led Fleming to conclude that the rite may have been celebrated at various times during the month. Although this is possible, a better solution is that the festival occurred at the new moon of the month, because a celebration at the new moon could be assumed without being stated, but the text would probably record a floating day. 226 The name of the god is likely derived from dAdamma, which is the name of the next month. During the installation of Emar’s NIN.DINGIR priestess, Emar 369 identifies dAdammatera as a member of dBaʿal’s ritual circle. Fleming observes that an Eblaite text positions dAdamma as the consort of Rašap at Ebla, which may denote an association of the god or goddess with the cult of the dead. 227 d

Illila

The 4th month, dAdamma, contains only three lines of text, which refer to a “circuit” (tūrtu) conducted by an dIllila on the 7th day of the month and by “all the gods” on the 8th day (the text mentions no procession complexes, offerings, or distributions to any participants). Fleming translates the verb “to return” and determines that the ritual is a return ceremony. 228 d

Aštarṣarba

The 5th month, Marzaḫāni, includes a standard procession complex on the 16th day of the month involving the god dAštarṣarba. The text omits the normal lamb offering, which probably took place on the 15th of the month (a day that has been omitted in the text). A burgarātu ceremony precedes the procession complex, and the “rounds” of dBaʿal and dAštart follow it. d Aštarṣarba appears only here and in Emar 452, regarding the month of Abî. In both texts, the deity conducts a procession on the 16th, followed by the “rounds” of dAštart. For this reason, the two months may be synonymous. 229 d

Aštart

The goddess dAštart (dIš8-tár) appears on the 16th day of the 5th month, making her rounds (ṣadu) following the procession of dAštarṣarba. On the next day, the 17th, dBaʿal (her consort) makes his rounds. The dual use of 226. Following Hess, “Multi-Month,” 239. 227.  Fleming, Time at Emar, 163. 228.  Ibid., 164. 229.  Ibid., 166.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

203

the verb ṣadu suggests a link between the two rituals. dAštart and dBaʿal also share a geographical connection: at the archaeological site, the temples of d Baʿal and dAštart sit next to each other, facing the sunrise, on the western edge of a promontory overlooking the city. 230 d

Ḫalma

The god dḪalma is identified in a procession complex on the 8th day of the 6th month, which bears his name. Although the text omits the lamb offering (assumed to take place on the 7th), this sort of offering would be consistent with both the procession complex and a ritual beginning on the first quarter-moon. The expected sheep, which precedes the image of the god, and the divine axe, which follows, are both identified. References to the bread and beer provided by the qidašu men (men of the consecrationgift) and the payment to the leader indicate a festival meal. Individuals The multimonth ritual calendar (Emar 446) mentions 14 specific individuals or groups. A summary of their involvement follows. Nuppuḫannū Men The text frequently mentions the nuppuḫannū men in the context of ritual activity. The nuppuḫannū men are possibly cultic functionaries and are specifically mentioned in rites occurring in four of the six months. The damage to the text obscures other expected references, especially in the 1st month. The references depict the nuppuḫannū men as providers of the one sheep preceding the god in the procession. This sheep then becomes part of the ritual slaughter, festival meal, and ultimately the payment to other individuals. A second reference, in the month of SAG.MU, identifies the nuppuḫannū men as recipients of a sheep at an evening ceremony. The third reference to the nuppuḫannū men appears in the 3rd month (dAnna), when the nuppuḫannū men give three sheep for rites involving a sacred space or individuals instead of a sacred deity. In this month, the nuppuḫannū men give sheep for the official of the House of the Gods, the Temple of dDagan, and the town. Possibly this winter ritual forms part of the cult of the dead discussed above. Fleming notes that the expected final sign is nī (genitive plural in agreement with ša) and not nū (nominative plural). 231 If the word is related to the root napāḫu, “to blow” or “to hiss,” 232 then the D-stem nuppuḫu, “to light fires,” may imply that the nuppuḫannū men were the “ones who light the fire.” Pentiuc notes that the D infinitive and verbal adjective of the purrus-pattern 230.  Finkbeiner, The Archaeological Park, 1–16; “Emar 2002,” 9–117; “Emar 2001,” 109–46. 231.  Fleming, Time at Emar, 276. 232.  CAD N 1263–70.

204

Chapter 4

are not found in agent nouns, making this translation less likely. Pentiuc associates the -ann- ending with a Hittite origin to the word. 233 And, while he makes a strong case for a Hittite origin, the Semitic origin may explain the involvement of the nuppuḫannū men in the rituals of the month of dAnna. This reference from the 3rd month resembles the lighting of braziers at the kinūnu Festival (with torches to light the way to and from the netherworld) performed at Sippar in the 8th month (spring calendar) and at Mari in the 7th month (spring calendar). Groups of the Population (LÚmeš ga-ma-ru, LÚmeš EDIN) Emar 446 mentions several groups of the general population—the entire population (LÚmeš ga-ma-ru), the people of the countryside (LÚmeš EDIN), and the people of the city (LÚmeš GAL)—on three occasions, all in relation to the procession complex in the 1st month (SAG.MU). The text mentions the entire population twice. On the first occasion, it refers to a procession of dNIN.URTA in the 1st month (SAG.MU), when the entire population (awilū gamārū) follows behind the procession. Then, after the procession, the population participates in an offering. The second mention occurs in the description of a ritual meal after a second procession of dNIN.URTA. Pentiuc reads kamārū, “priests,” based on the Hebrew cognate kōmer, “priest,” Postbiblical Hebrew kūmār, and Aramaic kumrā. 234 The translation “priests” or “priestly attendants” is very attractive. However, Fleming argues that the Syrian Akkadian texts provide no evidence to substantiate Pentiuc’s translation. Further, lines 37–38 confirm the context for the term, supporting the identification with the leaders and populace of the town (LÚmeš GAL LÚmeš ga-ma-ri). 235 The third reference to the population is to the people of the countryside (LÚmeš EDIN), who participate in a festival meal to dNIN.URTA. Labat identifies EDIN as the Sumerian equivalent of ṣēru. 236 The CAD clarifies the meaning as hinterland, backcountry, open country, or steppeland—all of which support my translation here. 237 That all three references to the populace occur in the 1st month of the year (the New Year) and in connection to the god dNIN.URTA validates the identification of dNIN.URTA as the god of the people of Emar.

233.  Pentiuc, West Semitic, 136. 234.  Ibid., 95. Compare with Num 15, which pertains to offerings for both the nativeborn Israelite and the resident alien. 235.  Fleming, Time at Emar, 154. During this ceremony, all the people are called to a pilgrimage/procession—similar to the call for all the ‫ בני ישראל‬to take part in the festivals in Lev 23. 236.  Labat, Manuel d’Épigraphie, #168. 237.  CAD Ṣ 138–39.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

205

Diviner ( lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD) For a detailed discussion of the Diviner and his role, see previous section. Leader(s) (LÚmešGAL, LÚGAL) Emar 446 mentions the leaders of the city four times. They are identified three times in the 1st month and once in the 6th month. The identification in the first and last months of the calendar indicates a possible connection between the leaders and the change in seasons—in the 1st month with the fall planting and in the 6th month with the approaching harvest. The leaders appear twice in the singular (1st and 6th month) and twice in the plural. The plural attestations always accompany a reference to the entire population (once the rural population and once the general population) and always linked with a festival meal. The zukru text, Emar 375:35, also contains a reference to the people and the leader that reads LÚmeš ù GALḫi.a. The identity of the “leader” is uncertain, and the occurrence in both the singular and the plural eliminates the king as a possibility. Bunnens argues for the “great ones,” who are associated with the king. 238 Fleming insists on the “elders,” based on RE 34:14–15, which uses GAL in the context of elders. 239 Undoubtedly, the city elders are visible. However, their relationship to the king will remain unresolved until the discovery of additional texts. Slaughterer ( lúzabiḫi) On the 15th day of the 1st month, during an offering to dNIN.URTA of Išḫara’s Temple, an ox and six sheep are slaughtered in a ritual that includes a festival meal. At the end of the meal, the leader receives a portion of the meat and the hocks and another portion of meat is given to the lúzabiḫi. This name is poorly attested in the archive, occurring only in 275:1–4, where probably the intended meaning is “the one who performs the ritual slaughter of the sacrifice.” d

Kinsmen of dUdḫa’s Temple ( lú.mešaḫḫi.a ša É dUd-ḫa) The text makes only one reference to these kinsmen, in line 36, during rites of the 15th day of the 1st month. They appear in an offering to d NIN.URTA of dIšḫara’s Temple, when the kinsmen of dUdḫa’s Temple lú.meš ḫi.a ( aḫ ša É dUd-ḫa) receive a portion of the meat sacrifice. 240 The term “kinsmen” (lú.mešaḫḫi.a) probably denotes a very broad clan or group in place

238. Guy Bunnens, “Emar on the Euphrates in the 13th Century b.c.: Some Thoughts about Newly Published Cuneiform Texts,” AbrN 27 (1989): 31–32. 239.  Fleming, Time at Emar, 154. 240.  The type of meat is unreadable due to damage to the text.

206

Chapter 4

of the more selective ŠEŠ, which is not indicated here. 241 dUdḫa is a poorly attested minor deity in the local Emarite pantheon. Qidašu Men (Men of the Consecration Offering) (LÚ ša qí-da-ši) The text identifies the Qidašu men on three occasions (lines 61, 105, 119) with a possible fourth reference in line 114. Commonly cited in the Diviner’s archive, these individuals are the most frequently mentioned in the NIN. DINGIR installation (Emar 369). Fleming argues that: At Emar, the verb qādašu (D) means “to sanctify with offerings.” . . . Unlike the usual Akkadian quddušu, it has nothing to do with one-time purification as initiation into cultic service (i.e., “consecration”). Rather it seems to refer to offerings that prepare the gods or human personnel for participation in a single festival or rite. The noun qidašu has some association with the installation as a whole. We should look for a concrete referent especially with the verb nadānu; perhaps the qidašu is an offering—one that initiates festivals at Emar. . . . In sum, our ritual staff might be “the officials who give the sanctification-offering.” 242

The Qidašu men may be associated with the consecration offerings and responsible for the rites that provide for the sanctification of the god of the ritual. The three references in Emar 446 identify the individuals with the festival meal after the offering. In two attestations, the Qidašu men eat (ikkalū) and drink (išattû), and in the third it is implied that they feast. The partial reading and reconstruction of Qidašu men occurs in line 114 in relationship to nadānu, which would imply that the Qidašu men give or perform the consecration. This reference is similar to those in Emar 369, which confirm the reconstruction. Unlike the occurrences in Emar 369, the references in Emar 446 do not begin but, rather, end the ritual ceremony. Ḫamšaʾū Men (ḫa-am-ša-i) The ḫamšaʾū men are identified on line 78 in the month dAnna (3rd month) as giving a sheep, [bread], and beer in honor of dAdammatera. 243 The text does not date the offering, and I argued above that the rite might occur on the 1st day of the month at the new moon. 244 The ḫamšaʾū men are known nowhere outside of these three Emarite texts: Emar 369:13, 53– 54; 370:30, 45–68; and 371:16. These three texts associate the ḫamšaʾū men with the phrase “seven and seven.” In Emar 369:13, “[T]he ḫamšaʾū men, and seven [and seven] will eat and drink.” The text continues in line 53: “[T]he 7 241.  Arnaud incorrectly reads ŠEŠ; see note above, in the translation. See also Emar 156:10; 180:12. 242.  Fleming, Installation, 95–96. 243.  The meaning of ḫamšaʾū is debated. Arnaud translates it “qinquanteniers,” as does Dietrich. 244.  See discussion on line 78 of the translation and in the section above on the Month of dAnna ( begins on p. 188).

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

207

and 7 ḫamšaʾū men will eat and drink for two days.” 245 This association led Dietrich to translate the term as “50er” in conjunction with the meaning of ḫamšātu (unit of 50). 246 In Emar 371, the group is again linked with a sevenday feast. 247 Fleming maintains that in the context of Emar 369 and 371 the ḫamšaʾū men seem to be mourning the previous priests. 248 If this is correct, then the reference to the ḫamšaʾū men in the winter month of dAnna lends support to the hypothesis that the rituals of the 3rd month pertain to the cult of the dead. The Marzaḫū Wise Men The marzaḫū are attested in Ugaritic literature (KTU 1.21–22) and in the biblical text (Amos 6:7—‫ ;מרזח‬Jer 16:5—‫)בית מרזח‬. Ugaritic administrative texts also use this term for a group associated with land ownership and wealth. 249 The literary references, while not conclusive, point to a relationship with the cult of the dead. The noun is modified by the adjective ša mi-di (midi). The form midi is unattested, and therefore the meaning is uncertain. I translate it here following CAD M/2 163 as “mudû,” meaning that the marzaḫū men were perhaps either wise men or “friends of the king,” as in OAkk texts. This translation is preferred because it fits the affluence attributed to the marzaḫū in Ugaritic. If the term also preserves an association with the cult of the dead, then this early spring month and the marzaḫū were part of a cultic spring awakening found in similar rituals in the parallel month of Abî. 250 Servers ( lúkawanu) The lúkawani, “servers,” appear only once in Emar 446, on line 111, in the 6th month (dḪalma). On the 8th and 9th days of the month, a procession complex to dBaʿal takes place. During the festival meal on the second day of this complex, the servers receive some portion of the offering (the sacrificial offering remains unidentified because of damage to the text). Fleming, noting the term in Emar 369, determines that the lúkawanu are probably functionaries of the qidašu men and ḫussu men. 251 And thus the word “servers” is a job description rather than a category of individuals. Dietrich translates the word “Gäste,” finding that the category included 245.  Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 350–52. 246.  Dietrich, “Das Einsetzungsritual,” 83; CAD Ḫ 70. 247.  Emar 370 shows damage in these lines, and the ḫamšaʾū men are restored based on a partial reading in line 30 and the reference to “seven and seven” in line 55. 248.  Fleming, Installation, 105. 249.  McLaughlin, “The marzēaḫ at Ugarit,” 265–81; van der Toorn, “Funerary Rituals,” 54; Pope, “The Cult of the Dead,” 176. 250.  See the previous discussion of the marzēaḫ in the section on the month of Marzaḫāni (begins on p. 189). 251.  Fleming, Installation, 102.

208

Chapter 4

guests of the celebration. Klingbeil associates it with the Hebrew k-w-n, “to be established, ready, prepared.” If this connection is adopted, then the meaning lies in the service of preparing the festival meal. King of the Land (LUGAL KUR) The “king of the land” (LUGAL KUR) is restored on line 117 in the 6th month of dḪalma. If this restoration is correct, the king receives the hip of an offering as payment at the end of a procession complex involving dBaʿal and the Temple of dDagan. While the king’s receiving a portion of the offering comes as no surprise, what does surprise us is that the text has not previously mentioned the king (or priests). Apparently, from the Diviner’s perspective, the deities and mentioned groups of individuals, not the priests or the king, possess the power to administer the rites of the six-month calendar. The king’s minimal participation in ritual at Emar prompted Fleming to conclude that [t]his minor ritual role contrasts with the practice of various neighboring cultures. The king serves as the central human player in the cults at Ugarit, Hatti, and Assyria. Perhaps we should understand the absence of the king from Emar ritual activity to be a sign that Emar religion taps cultural sources outside the major urban areas. 252

Ritual Sound A less frequently discussed aspect of ritual is sound. Analyzing its purpose presents obvious difficulties in the study of ancient Near Eastern ritual, because only written evidence exists. Our assessment of this ceremonial element in Emar 446 is further hindered because the text lacks any reference to sound. However, we cannot conclude from this omission that sound had no purpose in the rites but only that the textual remains do not preserve any indication of this sort of activity.

Summary Discovered in room three of the House of the Diviner, Emar 446 dates to the 13th century b.c.e. and outlines the cultic activities during six months of the year—SAG.MU, dNIN.KUR.RA, dAnna, dAdamma, Marzaḫāni, and d Ḫalma—beginning in the fall during the planting season. In this chapter, we analyzed the multimonth ritual calendar, exploring the literary structure, sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, and ritual participants. The following list summarizes my conclusions.

252.  Ibid., 100.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

209

Literary Structure • Temporal markers organize the text by using several literary features, including: ◦◦ A one-line introductory phrase ◦◦ Parallelism ◦◦ Word pairs ◦◦ Consistent third-person point of view • The introduction identifies the general population as the audience. • The text includes: • Both agricultural and nonagricultural rites ◦◦ Some agricultural rites that occur on fixed dates ◦◦ Both named rituals and anonymous or unnamed rituals ◦◦ A lack of symmetry in the number of lines devoted to each month or ritual • The durative represents a repetitive customary action with prescriptive force. • The analytical genre (see Sparks in chap. 1) is a prescriptive, multimonth ritual calendar. Sacred Time • The text uses temporal dividers for organization. • Emar 446 uses a temporal formula (x month, on x day of the month) as the header for rituals; however, the text includes variations of the standard formula. • The text includes the phrase “on that day” as a standard temporal division to highlight significant aspects of a ritual occurring on the same day as other ritual events. • The calendar depicts a day that begins in the morning with the sunrise. • One text may name some rituals and leave others unnamed. In addition, an unnamed ritual in Emar 446 may be named in another text. • The calendar highlights activities on specific days while leaving activities on other days unspecified. • The calendar primarily “assumes” the time of the offerings and activities that occur during the day. • The text occasionally specifies that an activity occurs in the evening. • Some rites are tied to the agricultural calendar and other rites to the monthly fixed calendar in the same text. • The text depicts a lunisolar calendar with rites clustered around the spring and fall equinoxes. • Ritual celebrations usually begin at lunar-phase breaks.

210

Chapter 4

• Primary festival activities are held at the full-moon phase of the lunar calendar. • A one-day ritual meal is occasionally held the day before a primary festival, with a yearling lamb as the ritual sacrifice. • The longer festivals begin with the full moon (15th of the month) and last for seven days (until the 21st of the month). • Festivals occurring at the new-moon phase of the month are limited to one or two days. Sacred Space • Offerings are given in specific locations, and gods are usually identified within a ritual space (temple). • Sacred activities often occur in a temple devoted to the god presiding over the rite. • Rites occur in a space proximate to the physical location of the god. • The text does not mention an altar or sacrificial slaughtering tables in conjunction with any rite. • The text does not mention a royal residence or any administrative palace. • The text describes a “procession complex” that includes some or all of the following rites: ◦◦ On the evening before the procession, a lamb is ritually slaughtered. ◦◦ On the day of the procession, the god leaves the temple through a noted gate. The procession begins with the offerings, followed first by the image of the god, then the divine axe, and finally by the general population. ◦◦ The procession typically goes out to a gate or standing stones and returns to the temple. ◦◦ The procession complex is completed when all (leader, Diviner, and general population) have participated in a ritual meal. ◦◦ The discussion of the procession ends with the payment of a portion of the offering to the Diviner for his services. • When the image of the god leaves the temple and goes out to a gate or set of standing stones (see Emar 375), the gods may be performing a blessing of protection on the city. • The sacred space associated with the ritual meal is “assumed” and not specified. • More attention is paid to the rites and participants than to the sacred space. Sacred Objects and Offerings • The multimonth festival calendar identifies only two nonoffering objects: the divine axe and ritual seed.

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

211

• The divine axe, which may represent the power and presence of the god, is present when the god is present—usually in the processions and once at a ceremony occurring at the Temple of dDagan. • The scribe does not allocate space in the text for describing the clothing of those involved in the rituals, the objects involved in transporting the image of the god during the procession, the trappings of the deity, or the objects associated with the ritual preparation and slaughter of the offerings. • The ritual calendar presents a much more abbreviated cultic representation than the text associated with the zukru Festival (Emar 373 and 375) or the text of the installation of the priestess (Emar 369), which gives greater insight into the tangible sacred objects involved in Emarite ritual. • The primary sacrificial offerings are lambs, sheep, and oxen. ◦◦ The lamb (SILA4) is almost always identified with the procession complex occurring the day before the procession. ◦◦ The most frequently occurring offering is the sheep, which is associated with the procession (walking before the image of the god), the festival meal after the procession, and the payment to specified ritual participants. • The text often leaves the source of the sheep unidentified; however, when mentioned, the source is usually the nuppuḫannū men (first five months of the calendar) and “the city” (6th month). • On three occasions, the text mentions an ox in conjunction with a multiple sheep offering in the 1st and 6th months of the year. • Sacred offerings occasionally include drink and bread offerings. Bread and beer are the most frequent offerings and always occur paired in this text. The two are read as collective nouns. ◦◦ The word pair is twice associated with the qidašu men (men of the consecration-gift), once as a gift from the House of the Gods, and once from the ḫamašaʾū men. ◦◦ The bread, beer, and occasionally wine offerings are consecrated to the gods, and the stated role of these offerings is as part of the festival meal. • The final offering mentioned is the burnt offering of a bird in conjunction with a drink offering, made in the 6th month, in the evening. While the contents of the offerings and festival meals are specified, the mechanics of the preparation and sacrifice (slaughter) are not. The multimonth calendar is more concerned with what is given, by whom, and to whom than with providing an instruction manual for the ritual. • The text relates that different individuals and groups receive several portions of the meat offerings. In addition, portions of the meat

Chapter 4

212

offerings, drink offerings, and bread offerings are consumed during communal meals. Ritual Participants • The rituals at Emar are typically focused on the gods associated with the region. • The general population is involved in processions and rituals. • Ritual officials receive portions of offerings as payment. • The roles of priest and king are minimized. With an understanding of the ritual cult as described in Emar 446, we now turn our attention (in chap. 5) to the comparison of the multimonth festival calendar in Lev 23 and the multimonth festival calendar at Emar to understand the points of similarity and dissimilarity between the two texts.

Appendix iti

Fleming reconstructs Za-ra-ti i-na based on the festival’s similarity to the annual zukru Festival outlined in Emar 375. In Emar 375, on line 3 of variant C, the text identifies the zukru Festival as occurring in itiZa-ra-tì. In addition, Fleming observes that both Emar 375 and the first month of rituals in Emar 446 involve the god Šaggar and deal with planting. Fleming notes that these are the only two months that identify Šaggar as the subject of offerings on a central day of the ritual. Fleming concludes that “[t]he conjunction of dates, Šaggar, and the concern for planting suggest a time for these events in the same month, which the zukru tablet specifies as Zarati” (Fleming, Time, 103). Fleming provides a thorough argument. However, I think that SAG.MU is the unidentified month, based in part on the following challenges to his conclusions: (1) Fleming bases his argument on variant C, line 4, of Emar 375, which is a severely damaged fragment and does not always agree with variants A and B. Therefore, the month name identified in the variant cannot be used as a reliable indicator without other evidence. (2) Fleming assigns the sole mention of S̆aggar to the month of Zariti, which is inaccurate. Emar 373 assigns rites to S̆aggar in the month of SAG.MU on two occasions: the first in lines 38–44, which read, “During the month of SAG.MU. . . . on the next day, 15th S̆aggar day”; lines 186– 87 also refer to S̆aggar, reading, “in the month of SAG.MU. . . . the 15th day (of ) S̆aggar.” These two occurrences demonstrate an association between S̆aggar and the month SAG.MU, contrary to Fleming’s argument. (3) SAG.MU (as well as Zarati) is associated with the planting months. At Ur, the SAG.MU Festival is held in conjunction with the Akītu Festival in the 7th month (calendar beginning in the spring), when the associated agricultural activities involve planting. But simply calling Fleming’s findings into question cannot establish the association of this month with SAG.MU; we must also review the positive evidence. (1) One translation of SAG.MU is “the head of the year,” making it a logical 1st month for a multimonth festival calendar. (2) The Emar texts suggest SAG.MU as the probable 1st month of the year that begins in the fall. Emar 364

Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar

213

associates the month with the wine harvest, which occurs in the fall. Emar 373, discussed above, depicts SAG.MU in connection with the 1st month of the year. (3) Emar texts identify SAG.MU as a month for ritual activity. Emar 454 and 455 mention the month in relation to cultic offerings. Emar 373, as shown above, associates the zukru Festival and the 1st month of the year with SAG.MU. (4) itiSAG.MU i-na fits the available line space, which allows for a maximum of 5 signs (itiZa-ra-ti i-na probably requires too much space). (5) As discussed above, Emar 373 connects the god Šaggar with rites in the month of SAG.MU. For these reasons, I adopt SAG.MU in my translation as the 1st month of the ritual calendar in Emar 446. Arnaud agrees that SAG.MU is the 1st month of the ritual calendar in Emar 446; however, Arnaud incorrectly argues that the calendar represents a 12-month schedule with SAG.MU located in the spring (Daniel Arnaud, “Religion assyro-babylonienne,” Annuaire. École pratique des hautes études; Ve section—sciences religieuses 96 [1987–88]: 213–33). SAG.MU is identified with the 1st month of the year, but there is no mandate that the month must be located in the spring. Indeed, the agricultural references in the text indicate that the calendar begins in the fall.

Chapter 5

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446 Introduction As discussed in chap. 1, for us to prove a connection between two texts demands more than just the identification of a laundry list of similarities. As Hallo argues, scholars who use the comparative method must give sufficient attention to both similarities and differences. Malul and Klingbeil add that a textual comparison requires performing an intrabiblical analysis before an extrabiblical analysis as well as exploring the context, purpose, audience, time and place gaps, force (prescriptive or descriptive), verbal structure, literary construction, and the history of the text’s transmission. Sparks advances the methodology by adding that one should only compare texts from the same analytical genre. And if the compared works are ritual texts, Klingbeil and Grimes contend, we must also compare the ritual elements of sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, ritual participants, and ritual sound. Only by conducting these evaluations may the researcher complete a thorough comparative analysis. In chaps. 3–4, I established a base for a comparative study by exploring the critical characteristics of Lev 23 and Emar 446. 1 First, I outlined in each text the essential elements mentioned by Malul and Klingbeil. Next, because both texts concern ritual, I also considered the significant ritual features laid out by Klingbeil and Grimes. Finally, in chaps. 2 and 3, I conducted an intrabiblical study of Lev 23 in light of related biblical texts, including Exod 23 and 34, Num 28–29, Deut 16, and Ezek 45. This intra­ biblical analysis illuminated the context of Lev 23, the possible history of its transmission, and the lingering questions that remained unanswered after we reviewed the related biblical passages. These lingering questions are the focus of my analysis in chap. 5. I also observed in previous chapters that a comparative analysis should determine the nature and type of connection existing between two texts (for 1.  For a thorough recent discussion of these texts, see Richard S. Hess, “MultipleMonth Ritual Calendars in the West Semitic World: Emar 446 and Leviticus 23,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reasessing Methodologies and Assumptions (ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 233–53. Hess’s article inspired my current study, and I am greatly appreciative to him for his insightful guidance and support.

214

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

215

a more complete discussion of connection, see chap. 1). Malul reasons that nature may refer to borrowing from an existing written text or literary tradition. Nature may also indicate the influence of foreign cultural practices on an author. Type of connection consists of four categories: direct, mediated, common source, and common tradition. Using the comparative method described in chap. 1, I will judge in this chapter whether a connection exists between Lev 23 and Emar 446. If it does, what might the nature and type of connection be? As with other chapters above, I begin by discussing the structure and literary features of the texts and then examine sacred time, sacred space, ritual objects, ritual participants, and ritual sound. Before beginning this study of the specific similarities and differences between Emar 446 and Lev 23, I note again that both of these texts share similarities with several 3rd- and 2nd-millennium ancient Near Eastern texts discussed in chap. 2, a fact that lends support to the argument that these texts share a common tradition.

Intrabiblical Findings In this book, we explored the related intratextual evidence (biblical and Emarite) before conducting an extratextual appraisal. In chap. 2, we identified five biblical passages with information similar to Lev 23: Exod 23 and 34, Num 28–29, Deut 16, and Ezek 45. Our analysis of Lev 23, in light of these related texts, raises several questions about apparent discrepancies between the passages: Why do some texts describe festivals tied to the harvest, while others demonstrate fixed dates? Why do some texts allude to offerings at local sanctuaries, while others specify a centralized offering location? Why do some festival texts show a New Year in the spring and others in the fall? Why do some texts describe festivals held before the ripening of the harvest, creating a possible hardship on working farmers? Why do some texts name a festival, while others leave the same festival unnamed? Why do some harvest festivals seem to occur at a central location on a fixed date when the agricultural fields in Israel’s hills and valleys ripen at different times? And why, even though a farmer might be busy with his harvest, would the text require him to take seven days away from his fields to celebrate at the Temple of Yhwh? Jan Wagenaar, in a recent study, reconciles the seeming inconsistencies by reordering the source material. He accepts an early oral tradition but considers the first written text to have been in Deuteronomy; it was succeeded first by the J text and then by the writing of the Priestly authors and redactors during and after the exile. With regard to Lev 23, Wagenaar concludes that the text originated during the exile, when Babylonian ritual (specifically, the Akītu ritual) influenced the priesthood. To confirm his theory, however, one must determine whether the similarities that Wagenaar identifies between Lev 23 and the Akītu Festival occurred at any earlier

216

Chapter 5

time. If earlier texts with similar features exist, then Lev 23 may preserve a common West Semitic ritual tradition, not a direct connection to the 1stmillennium Akītu Festival. I set out to answer the questions about the apparent incongruities by making a thorough comparative study of Lev 23 and the 2nd-millennium multimonth West Semitic ritual calendar from Emar. Emar 446 was discovered at the temple identified as M1, in a small storage room (room three) filled with private documents, legal texts, and ritual texts. This ritual archive also contained several notable texts, including 369, the NIN.DINGIR installation; 370, the mašʾartu installation; 373, 374, 376, the zukru Festival; and 395, the kissu Festival. We reviewed and compared each of these texts with Emar 446 as a contextual study for this analysis, and where appropriate, we discussed the pertinent results in chap. 4.

History of Transmission Although scholars widely agree that the Pentateuch in general and Lev 23 in particular have a long history of transmission that culminated in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (as well as other versions), some view it as a history of multiple sources evolving over more than a thousand years, and others limit the sources and time frames. At a minimum, Lev 23’s history consists of some period of oral tradition, an initial writing, and later redaction. As we saw in chap. 2, scholars such as Wellhausen, Noth, Knohl, Milgrom, and Wagenaar argue for various dates, authors, and traditions involved in the construction of the final text. Moreover, they attribute to these elements the apparent discrepancies within the text. However, I disagree that many of the internal textual inconsistencies require multiple authors or late/exilic redaction. Many of the features that scholars use to establish a late dating of the text are already demonstrated in 2nd-millennium ritual and in the Emar 446 text. A few examples of these features that I am contesting in this book are the presence of named and unnamed festivals in the same text, the hosting of agricultural festivals on fixed dates, the combining of multiple named rituals into larger festivals, and variations in the section-divider formula. Wagenaar points to each of these examples as proof of redaction during the exilic period. But in this study, I insist that all these features were present in Emar during the 2nd millennium and therefore should not be used to corroborate a 1st-millennium redaction. That the archive at Emar contains no other versions of Emar 446 supports a claim for a limited transmission history. 2 However, because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the prescriptive multimonth ritual calendar at Emar may have experienced a revision similar to Lev 23’s. Based on remains excavated in the 1990s, we know that the Late Bronze 2.  Hess notes the stand-alone nature of Emar 446 (ibid., 240).

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

217

Age location of Emar was not a new city but was an area under continuous occupation from at least the latter portion of the 3rd millennium, and probably earlier. It follows that the texts found there may preserve information and religious traditions from, not only the Late Bronze Age, but also the earlier periods of the Middle and Early Bronze Ages. 3 Thus, the text may have had an oral foundation, initial writing, and then a later redaction as ritual practices changed. Emar 446 would thus preserve earlier customs with potential modifications up to the 13th century b.c.e. Currently, we have no evidence for or against this conclusion, so we must consider this theory speculative until further proof is found. Unfortunately, however, during my exploration of Emar in 2010, I realized how much the extensive looting of the site had diminished the potential for discovering any sizable archive in the near future; consequently, the question may remain open.

Context, Purpose, and Analytical Genre The context of a written text is difficult to specify, because one must assess each text within its own immediate cultural and literary milieu. To determine context necessitates our first studying each source or text within its own society, and then evaluating the original author’s intended purpose for each source. Thus, I first examined the form, structure, literary aspects, and verbal usage in both the Lev 23 and the Emar 446 text to ensure a holistic analysis of each one. This literary approach to the contextual analysis produced significant findings: both texts use verb tenses pointing to a prescriptive force, both texts are organized through temporal markers, both texts identify the general population as the audience, and both texts devote different amounts of space to different rituals. 4 In evaluating the original authors’ intentions, I concluded that Emar 446 and Lev 23 share a common purpose: both are prescriptive multimonth ritual calendars designed to guide the general population in community rites and offerings. 5 By contrast, the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival, according to Bidmead, was intended to support the power and authority of both the king and the priesthood. Clearly, as we noted in chap. 2, this shows that the Babylonian Akītu Festival and Lev 23 hold quite different purposes, a fact that diminishes Wagenaar’s findings. Therefore, any comparative analysis of Lev 23 and the Akītu Festival would need to account for this discrepancy (see chap. 2 for more discussion). Sparks addresses a related point when he insists on the need to compare texts within the same analytical genre (see chap. 1). He defines the analytical 3.  Finkbeiner, “Emar 1999”; idem, “Emar 2001”; idem, “Emar 2002”; idem, The Archaeological Park. 4.  Hess identifies many of these points in his “Multi-Month Ritual,” 233–53. 5.  Hess highlights the fact that the two texts differ: Emar 446 is developed for a polytheistic urban culture (ibid., 240).

218

Chapter 5

genre as the grouping of similar texts serving a comparable function. 6 In comparing texts from the same analytical genre, the similarities may help to highlight characteristics in cultural expression, and the differences may illuminate the individual development and self-expression of each society. In either case, understanding the functional genre of each text assists in the comparative investigation. This study maintains that both Lev 23 and Emar 446 share a similar analytical genre as prescriptive multimonth ritual calendars. One difference between them, which may reveal the possible individual development and self-expression of each society, is the central role of processions at Emar and their absence in Lev 23. Talmon, like Sparks, criticized scholars attempting to compare two sources that do not share a common “social function” (or genre). 7 Turning to Wagenaar’s analysis of Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival, we see this Babylonian festival text is a descriptive text chronicling ritual activities over a portion of one month. As such, the Babylonian Akītu text undeniably belongs to a different analytical genre than Lev 23. Klingbeil classified this type of study as “comparing incomparables.”  8 Averbeck agrees, arguing that two compared texts need to share a similar function in society. 9 Thus, because Wagenaar bases his analysis on “compared incomparables” he leaves his conclusions open to question.

Structure and Literary Features Verbal Analysis Comparing the verbal structure of Lev 23 and Emar 446 reveals several prominent features. Emar 446 is a narrative list of activities and offerings written in the third person, while Lev 23 is a direct speech written predominantly in the second person. 10 Leviticus 23 does, however, include portions of text that appear in third person. 11 And if Hartley is correct, 6.  Sparks, Ancient Texts, 10. 7.  Talmon, “The Comparative Method,” 381–92. 8.  Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 335. 9.  R. E. Averbeck, “Sumer, the Bible, and Comparative Method,” in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations ( JSOTSup 341; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 96. 10.  As I mentioned previously, Num 28–29 is written in the third person, and a study of the relationship between Num 28–29 and Emar 446 (although it is beyond the scope of this book) would probably yield interesting results. 11.  Hess observes that 17 of the 41 verses in Lev 23 preserve a third-person narrative. Hess observes that, if Lev 23 is addressed to the people of Israel, while Emar 446 has as its purpose a record for an official concerned with performing or supplying the sacrifices, then it is no surprise that there is a difference in person. Nevertheless, the strong presence of third person forms in Lev 23 demonstrates the importance of this means of recording West Semitic ritual calendars.” (Hess, “Multi-Month Ritual,” 241)

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

219

Table 22.  Introductory Formula Lev 23:2

Lev 23:4

Emar 446

Speak to the Israelites and say to them: The appointed feasts of Yhwh, which you shall proclaim as sacred assemblies; these are my appointed feasts.

These are the appointed feasts of Yhwh, the sacred assemblies, which you shall proclaim at their fixed times.

Tablet of the rites of the city

these portions of the text (in a format similar to Emar 446’s) preserve an ancient form of an Israelite festival calendar, which was redacted over time into a second-person direct dialogue. 12 Therefore, both Lev 23 and Emar 446 may preserve a common use of the third person and nominative clauses to convey ritual action, which is a point of similarity between the texts. At the same time, the second-person backbone of Lev 23 distinguishes it from Emar 446. A second point of comparison lies in a similar use of verb tenses. In Lev 23, the imperfect is the most frequent tense/aspect, representing a repetitive customary action. 13 This use of the Hebrew imperfect resembles the Akkadian durative, the dominant verb form in Emar 446, which also denotes a repetitive customary action. 14 These two points of similarity demonstrate that Lev 23 and Emar 446 share a similar verbal structure, representing a prescriptive ritual instruction. Organization and Outline Another significant parallel between the two texts is that both use summary statements and temporal markers for organization. Emar 446 employs an introductory statement similar to Lev 23, which is shown in table 22. Although the language of the introductory statements differs, we can see the following similarities: (1) both texts include an introductory statement; (2) both texts identify the audience in the introduction (Israelites and the city of Emar); (3) both texts specify a focus on ritual activity; (4) both texts address a similar audience, the general population. 15

12.  Hartley, Leviticus, 371. 13.  Joüon, A Grammar, 366–67. 14.  Huehnergard proposes that the “Durative describes action that takes place over a period of time (duration; thus, non-punctual or imperfective), or action that has not yet taken place. Thus, it may be translated by a wide range of tenses and nuances.” The translation of the durative may be categorized roughly as follows: (a) simple future, (b) present tense, (c) durative/circumstantial, (d) habitual/customary, and (e) modal. J. Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (HSS 45; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 98. 15.  Not just the priesthood or ruling class.

Chapter 5

220

Table 23.  Standard Date Formula Date Formula in Leviticus 23 Verse/Line

Translation

Comment

5

In the 1st month, on the 14th (day)

Begins the major section on the Passover offering and the Feast of Unleavened Bread

24

In the 7th month on the 1st day of the month

Begins the major section on the Festival of Trumpet Blasts

27

The 10th day of this 7th month

Begins the major section on the Day of Atonement

34

On the 15th day of this 7th month

Begins the major section on the Festival of Tabernacles

39

On the 15th day of the 7th month

Begins the major section on the Festival of Yhwh

Date Formula in Emar 446 2

Month of SAG.MU on the 8th day

Begins the major section for the festivals in the 1st month

58

Month of dNIN.KU.RA on the 17th day

Begins the major section for the festivals in the 2nd month

84

Month of dAdamma on the 7th day

Begins the major section for the festivals in the 4th month

87

Month of Marzaḫāni on the 14th day

Begins the major section for the festivals in the 5th month

96

Month of dḪalma on the 2nd day

Begins the major section for the festivals in the 6th month

In addition, Emar 446 and Lev 23 both use a standard date formula to identify major divisions in the text. 16 A comparison of this formula in the two texts is shown in table 23. The general formula is “month x on the y day,” although each calendar also exhibits variations on the general formula. In fact, in both texts, one major section uses an entirely different temporal divider. In the Emar text, the 3rd month in the calendar mentions the month name but does not give a date. In Lev 23, the second festival division is recorded without noting the date. Instead, the division is indicated by the ripening of the harvest. 17 Hess reasons that these deviations from the general theme at Emar demonstrate that variations in the formula should not be used to designate editorial layers. Hess argues that: 16.  Hess, “Multi-Month Ritual,” 243–44. Hess notes that both calendars “prefer a designation of the month as the primary means of identifying periods of time within the annual cycle.” 17. Ibid.

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

221

it seems unlikely that a single standard formula can be identified for introducing calendar festivals. Certainly, suggestions that each of the biblical calendar’s lead sentences originally began with the date, the feast’s name, the expression “for Yhwh,” and additional items do not find support in existing calendars, whether from the Bible or Emar. In all cases, the structure of leading sentences appears to vary within each calendar, although that for the first and last months appears consistent and dominant. The Emar calendar demonstrates that such variation by itself does not prove a later editorial innovation. 18

Finally, the texts from Emar and Lev 23 may both be further divided into subsections through the use of temporal markers, including: “on that day,” 19 “x day,” and “for x days.” The use of these markers is shown in table 24. The analysis in this section highlights the following points of organizational and structural similarity between Lev 23 and Emar: • Both texts use introductory statements. 20 • Both texts have similar audiences (general population), and neither text focuses on just the priesthood or upper class/rulers. • Both texts share a ritual orientation. • Both texts typically use the temporal formula “month x on the x day” to separate major sections. 21 However, both texts are inconsistent in the use of the formula—varying the wording or omitting some information. • Both texts use temporal language to subdivide the text, including “on that day,” “x day,” and “for x days.” 22 • Leviticus 23 uses both the second and third person, while Emar 446 is written in the third person alone. This feature may be either a point of similarity or a point of difference. Literary Structure Both Lev 23 and Emar 446 exhibit several similar literary features, including large chiasms, small chiasms (parallelism), and word repetition. Large Chiasms The presence of introversions (large chiastic structures) that encompass several verses differentiates the Holiness Code of Lev 17–27 from the earlier chapters of Leviticus. These chiasms are important for both their artistry 18.  Ibid., 244. 19.  “On that day” (‫ )בעצם היום הזה‬as a temporal divider may also be used in the Passover discussion in Exod 17:17, 41, 51; and in the circumcision of Abraham and Isaac in Gen 17:23, 26. 20.  Noted in Hess, “Multi-Month Ritual,” 237–38. 21.  Ibid., 237–38, 244. 22.  Hess observes that rites in all but the 3rd month in Emar 446 include activities on multiple days (ibid., 243).

Chapter 5

222

Table 24.  Temporal Subdivision Markers Temporal Subdivision Markers in Leviticus 23 Verse/ Line

Translation

Comment

5

On the 14th day

Subdivision for the Passover offering

6

On the 15th day

Subdivision for the Festival of Unleavened Bread

12

On the day

Subdivision for the wave offerings

14

Until the very day

Subdivision for the prohibition on eating grain until the offering is complete

15

From the day

Subdivision for the wheat wave offering

21

On that day

Subdivision for the prohibition on work during the ritual

27

10th day

Subdivision for the Day of Atonement

28

On that day

Subdivision for the prohibition of work on the Day of Atonement

29

On that day

Subdivision for the consequence of disobedience

30

On that day

Subdivision for the consequence of disobedience

32

On the 9th day

Subdivision for the prohibition on work

34

On the 15th day

Subdivision for the Festival of Tabernacles

35

The 1st day

Subdivision for the prohibition on work

36a

Seven days

Subdivision for the food offerings

36b

On the 8th day

Subdivision for a sacred occasion

39a

On the 15th day

Subdivision for the Festival of Yhwh

39b

On the 1st day. . . . on the 8th day

Subdivision for the call to rest

40

On the 1st day

Subdivision for the ritual of the four species

42

Seven days

Subdivision for living in booths

Temporal Subdivision Markers in Emar 446 Verse/ Line

Translation

Comment

2

On the 8th day

Subdivision for general offerings

6

On the 14th day

Subdivision for the offerings to Dagan

11

On that day

Subdivision for the procession

18b

On x day

Subdivision for the procession

22b

On that day

Subdivision for the procession of dNIN.URTA

45

On the 15th day

Subdivision for the dŠaggar ceremony

47b

On that day

Subdivision for the Diviner’s seed ceremony

53b

On the next day

Subdivision for the honorific ceremony

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

223

Table 24.  Temporal Subdivision Markers (cont.) Temporal Subdivision Markers in Emar 446 (cont.) Verse/ Line

Translation

Comment

58

On the 17th day

Subdivision for the offerings to dNIN.KU.RA

59

On the 18th day

Subdivision for the procession of dNIN.KU.RA

67

On the 19th day

Subdivision for the procession

84

On the 7th day

Subdivision for the circuit of Illila

84b

On the 8th day

Subdivision for the circuit of DINGERmeš

86

On the 14th day

Subdivision for the Bugarātu Festival

87

On the 16th day

Subdivision for the procession of dAštar-ṣarba

91

On the 17th day

Subdivision for the procession of dBaʿal

96

On the 2nd day

Subdivision for the honorific ceremony

100

On the 3rd day

Subdivision for the Renewal of dDagan

102b

On the 8th day

Subdivision for procession of dḪalma

107b

On the 9th day

Subdivision for the procession of dBaʿal

118

On the 18th day

Subdivision for the ḫiyaru of dBaʿal

and their theology. Leviticus 23 includes two examples, vv. 1–4 and 27–32, which were detailed in chap. 3. Verses 1–4 have a large chiastic structure (A B C D E X E′ D′ C′ B′ A′) linking the Sabbath to the annual festival calendar. The chiasm’s center highlights the Sabbath as a sacred occasion, requiring complete rest because it is the day of Yhwh. 23 A second large chiasm occurs in vv. 27–32 in the form A B C D X D′ C′ B′ A′ with a central theme of self-denial and a cessation from all work on the Day of Atonement. Emar 446 includes a similar form of a large, multiline chiasm in lines 54–57. This passage explains the agricultural ritual prior to planting, with the center featuring the lasting oath made to dDagan. The form of the chiasm is A B X B′ A′, as detailed below:  A  They slaughter (a sacrifice) for dDagan (ritual activity)     B  Perform an honorific ceremony     X  By lasting oath   B′  Until they finish the honorific ceremony   A′  No one may go out to plant (ritual activity)  

As shown in the lines above, the AA′ portions link activities with a ritual connection. In A, the sacrifice is made to dDagan for the A′ activity of planting. B and B′ are the honorific ceremony. The X center highlights the 23.  Milgrom, Leviticus, 1320.

224

Chapter 5

ritual activity of a lasting oath. The appearance of large chiastic structures in both Lev 23 and Emar 446 corroborates the use of chiasms in ritual texts by the 2nd millennium b.c.e. A study of other 2nd-millennium ancient Near Eastern ritual texts (chap. 2) reveals chiasms as a common literary device. Therefore, this similarity is considered a minor comparative point. Small Chiasms In addition to large chiasms covering multiple verses, Lev 23 includes smaller parallel structures that appear within a single verse. As discussed in chap. 3, these structures are identified in vv. 11, 41, 42. Similar to Lev 23, Emar 446 contains parallel structures and small chiasms. Lines 45–46 exhibit a small A B B′ A chiasm depicting cattle barns and horse stables written in parallelism (AA′). The text continues with the performance of the slaughter prescribed in the BB′ positions. Lines 60–61 reveal a second example, with AA′ referring to the offering (white sheep : bread and beer). The BB′ sections pair two different constituents of the festival rites into a parallel structure (nuppuḫannū men : men of the consecration-gift). A third example occurs in lines 83–85 with an A B C A′ B′ C′ structure. AA′ refers to the date (7th day : 8th day), BB′ repeats the word for circuit, and CC′ pairs two sets of gods (Illila : all the gods). This three-line parallel structure encompasses the entire ritual activity for the 4th month of the year (dAdamma). The analysis of Emar 446 supports the premise that both the Israelite (Lev 23) and the Emarite multimonth festival calendars exhibit parallel language and small chiastic structures within a ritual narrative format. While parallel language and small chiastic structures are a shared feature, their use is common in the ancient Near East, and their presence is unsurprising. Therefore, the similarity is considered minor. The presence of chiasms and parallel literary structures in Lev 23, Emar 446, and other 2nd-millennium ancient Near Eastern texts confirms the deduction that chiasms should not be used to support a late dating for Lev 23. Inclusios and Refrains While Lev 23 exhibits an inclusio in vv. 4 and 37 and a string of refrains in vv. 2, 10, 24, 34, and 44, Emar 446 does not contain any equivalent structures. The lack of inclusios or refrains in Emar 446 is a possible point of difference between the two texts. It is important to note that one of the four columns of Emar 446 is missing, and other parts of the text are broken, including lines at both the beginning and the end of the text. Therefore, a definite conclusion about the omission of these features is not possible. Diverse Lengths for Ritual Descriptions A final similarity in textual structure is the length of the ritual descriptions. Emar 446 allots vastly differing amounts of space to rituals in differ-

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

225

ent months. Ritual activities in the 1st month (SAG.MU) cover more than 99 lines, while activities in the 4th month (dAdamma) occupy only 3 lines. Likewise, 1 rite to NIN.URTA in the 1st month encompasses at least 19 lines, while a rite for Adamma comprises a single line. Leviticus 23 also devotes unequal space to various festivals. Hess notes that the text takes 12 verses to record the Feast of Weeks while devoting only 2 verses (19 total words) to the Feast of Trumpets. 24 Clearly, the length of ritual descriptions varied by the 2nd millennium in West Semitic ritual texts. Furthermore, Lev 23’s use of diverse amounts of space to describe rituals preserves an early West Semitic ritual tradition and should not be used as evidence of later redaction. 25 Based on the similarities in the verbal analysis, organization, and literary structures, I contend that Lev 23 preserves an early, 2nd-millennium, West Semitic festival tradition with regard to form and structure. While I acknowledge that the two texts vary in their use of second- and thirdperson point of view, I consider this difference to be less significant than their similarities and believe that it may point to a later redaction.

Sacred Time The discussion of ritual time is here divided into five sections: temporal orientation, the day, the month, the year, and named and unnamed activities. Chapters 3 and 4 explored the ritual aspects of sacred time, and we can now compare the texts with regard to these points. Temporal Orientation The texts’ most significant points of similarity in temporal orientation are their use of temporal dividers and their use of the phrase “on that day” as a standard temporal division (highlighting important aspects of a ritual occurring on the same day as other ritual events). 26 Both texts also use a similar general temporal formula (x month, on x day of the month) as a header for festivals. However, both texts alter this formula occasionally. The Day and References to Time of Day The Israelite day depicted in the festival calendar of Lev 23 and the Emarite day depicted in the festival calendar of Emar 446 portray the following comparable approaches to ritual time:

24.  Hess, “Multi-Month Ritual,” 246–47. 25.  The diversity in line length was noted by Wagenaar and Wellhausen in chap. 2 as justification for the redaction of Lev 23 in relation to similar biblical texts. 26.  Ibid., 243. Hess notes that while both texts generally use the month to identify time periods, Lev 23:15–16 references a relative time marker using an “earlier cultic time.”

226

Chapter 5

• Emar 446 depicts a day that begins in the morning with the sunrise. The beginning of the day in Lev 23 is undetermined. • Both calendars leave the time of the offerings and activities that occur during the day unspecified—resulting in a minor similarity between the texts. • Both texts occasionally identify an activity that takes place in the evening—when the ritual time calls for a deviation from the norm (e.g., Emar 446, lines 47 and 98). • Line 47 of Emar 446 records an evening ceremony in the middle of the 1st month of a calendar that begins in the fall. Similarly, Lev 23 calls for a special ceremony (Day of Atonement) in the middle of the 7th month of a calendar that begins in the spring (beginning in the evening). Thus, both cultures hold special evening ceremonies in the middle of a fall month (minor point of similarity). 27 • The Emar calendar specifies an honorific ceremony in the evening before a Festival to dDagan in the spring (line 98). Leviticus 23 specifies a Pesach ritual in the evening of the day before the Festival of Unleavened Bread in the spring. While these two spring months may not correlate exactly, both texts demonstrate the use of ritual celebrations specific to the “evening.” Further, these evening rituals were contiguous to separate, named festivals beginning the next morning. As discussed in chap. 2, Wagenaar argues that the reference to festivals that begin in both the evening and the morning supports the conclusion that Lev 23 exhibits a redactional history. According to Wagenaar, this history started when the Israelite day began in the morning and continued through an exilic time, when the day began in the evening. While some ritual activities in Lev 23 undoubtedly show a morning-to-morning orientation and others an evening-to-evening, I reasoned in chap. 3 that the evening-evening references constituted a break from the normal day and required a specific mention. Likewise, Emar 446, while exhibiting a morning-morning orientation, includes the specific mention of evening-beginning rituals on the 15th day of the 1st month and on the 2nd day of the month of Ḫalma. In addition, these evening-beginning rituals were often part of a festival complex— combining multiple named rituals into a larger ritual (similar to Pesach and the Festival of Unleavened Bread). The similarities between Lev 23 and Emar 446 counter Wagenaar’s claim, and thus, I argue that: (1) the mention of evening ritual activities and sacred time do not, in themselves, necessarily indicate a redaction to the text or a change in temporal accounting of the day from sunrise-sunrise to evening-evening; and (2) the temporal features found in Lev 23 were already present in other West Semitic cultures by the 27.  Ibid., n. 29. Hess discusses the indefinite dates used in the texts.

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

227

2nd millennium b.c.e. Therefore, dating Lev 23 to a 1st-millennium exilic period based on the temporal orientation is unwarranted. The Month and Ritual Activity Dates When one examines Lev 23 in the context of the 2nd-millennium Emarite multimonth festival calendar, the following similarities in festival time appear: • Both texts use a lunisolar calendar to determine the month. 28 • Both texts are multimonth ritual calendars—a significant finding, because no other extant multimonth ritual calendars cover more than two months. 29 • Both calendars tend to begin ritual celebrations at lunar-phase breaks (63 percent in Lev 23 and 78 percent in Emar 446), although this is not exclusively true in either calendar. 30 • Both texts hold their longest festivals during the full-moon phase of the month (middle of the month). • When a festival occurs at the new-moon phase of the month, both calendars tend to limit its length to one or two days. • Both texts occasionally record a one-day ritual meal on the day before a primary festival, with a yearling lamb as the ritual sacrifice. 31 • Both texts tie some ritual activities to the agricultural calendar and other ritual activities to the monthly fixed calendar within the same text. 32 • Both calendars hold agriculturally based rituals on fixed dates. 33 • Both calendars describe, in different locations in the text, major rites taking place on the same day. 34 With regard to an intratextual analysis of agriculturally based rites, Wagenaar asserts (as shown in chap. 2) that the hosting of agricultural activities on fixed dates points to the conclusion that Lev 23 experienced a history 28.  This is a common occurrence in ancient Near Eastern rites and should be considered a minor comparative point. 29.  The Ugaritic ritual text may be a second multimonth text (KTU 1.119). See our earlier discussion in chap. 2 (p. 30). 30.  This is a common feature of 2nd-millennium ritual texts in the ancient Near East and discussed in chap. 2. 31.  Hess agrees that Lev 23 and Emar 446 demonstrate adjoined rituals, which include elements tied to pastoral and settled cultures. Therefore, the presence of both meat (pastoral) and grain (settled) offerings in a settled culture does not necessitate an “evolutionary development for the biblical festival” (ibid., 249–50). 32.  Hess notes that both calendars include ritual activities that occur on fixed dates and on agriculturally dependent dates—within the same text (ibid., 243). 33.  Ibid., 248. 34.  Ibid., 245.

228

Chapter 5

of redaction. According to Wagenaar, the transformation began with a local harvest festival held when crops ripened. Because the ripening of crops occurred at different times in different areas, the community hosted these local rituals at harvesttime and not on specific dates. As the society became increasingly urbanized, the harvest connection diminished, and the ritual dates became fixed. Wagenaar concludes that Lev 23 preserves an exilicurbanized version of the ritual celebration in which the tie to agriculture was lost in favor of centralized locations and fixed dates (see chap. 2 for more information). The evidence in Emar 446 challenges Wagenaar’s assumption that celebrating agricultural rituals on fixed dates requires an exilic date (late). On the 15th day of the 1st month (fall) of the year, the text prescribes an agricultural ritual for dŠaggar and dDagan. The rites involved an offering for the draft animals and a planting ceremony that included throwing seed onto the ground. While this ritual maintains an association to agriculture, it occurs on a fixed date. Therefore, observing agricultural rites on fixed dates does not demand a later redaction to the text or an exilic origin. 35 Leviticus 23:34–36 and 39–43 relate rites beginning on the 15th day of the 7th month. The first festival is identified as the Feast of Booths and the second as the Feast of Yhwh. However, both include many of the same rites. That these festivals begin on the same day and yet are described in different locations in the text has led most scholars to conclude that vv. 39–43 are a later redaction to the original text. Emar 446 (lines 8 and 45) also describes simultaneous festivals. Celebrations that included similar rites took place on the 15th day of the same month for dDagan and dŠaggar. 36 These examples from Lev 23 and Emar 446 lead Hess to propose that “a second description of a ritual occurring on the same day or days as the first, and positioned soon after the first description in a text, does not by itself necessitate an editorial addition. Instead, this practice is now known and attested in more than one West Semitic ritual calendar.” 37 The Yearly Calendar and New Year The yearly calendars described in Emar 446 and Lev 23 share features with other 2nd-millennium ancient Near Eastern texts. Both Lev 23 and Emar 446 record the ritual activities of roughly a half-year period, supporting the finding that ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed the annual calendar as two six-month units. Both texts also begin at or near the time of an equinox (autumnal equinox for Emar and vernal equinox for Lev 23) with 35.  Hess comes to the same conclusion (ibid., 248). 36.  From Ugarit comes another example of rites described in various parts of the same text (though seemingly out of chronological order). KTU 1.41 relates activities on the 13th and 14th days of the month prior to a discussion of activities on the 6th day of the month. Also discussed by Hess (ibid., 245). 37.  Ibid., 246.

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

229

dominant agricultural festivals. 38 While Emar 446 does not use the term “New Year” or “Head of the Year” (which may be lost due to the severe damage to the first column of the text), the text gives prominent position to the rites conducted in the 1st month. Both calendars maintain a dual six-month ritual structure with rites, including agricultural and nonagricultural festivals on fixed dates, clustered around the equinoxes. Wagenaar argues that the dual six-month structure of the Babylonian festival calendar and Lev 23 substantiates the late dating of Lev 23. However I have shown that the dual six-month festival calendar was already present in the 2nd-millennium calendar at Emar. Thus its presence in Lev 23 supports a 2nd-millennium West Semitic ritual tradition and not a late dating. 39 Named and Unnamed Rituals The multimonth festival calendars of Lev 23 and Emar 446 refer to both named and unnamed rites, and we see resemblances in the texts’ treatment of these rituals as well as in the rituals themselves. These similarities, presented in chaps. 3–4 above, include the following: • Both texts include named and unnamed rituals and festivals. ◦◦ Some unnamed rituals in both texts appear named in other texts. ◦◦ Some named rituals in both texts appear unnamed in other texts. • Both texts preserve some ambiguity regarding dates. • Both texts record similar rites occurring on the same day of the same month (overlapping rituals). • Both texts depict named rituals combined into larger ceremonies or festival complexes. • Both texts note that some ceremonies pair grain and drink offerings into one rite. The first similarity between the depiction of rites in Emar 446 and Lev 23 is the naming of the festivals. Although many festivals, ceremonies, and rituals in Lev 23 are named, the agricultural festivals in the 1st and 3rd month remain unnamed. In the 1st month, the text records an anonymous agricultural firstfruit celebration for the barley harvest on “the day after the Sabbath-week” (v. 11). Exodus 23:16, however, identifies this first festival as the “Festival of the Harvest” (‫)חג הקציר‬. A second unnamed firstfruits festival 38.  Hess concludes, “[T]he important point for comparison is that the spring and autumn provide the beginning and ending points for both Emar and Israel” (MultiMonth Ritual,” 242). Hess also notes a similar practice in Hittite ritual texts (ibid., 237). The presence of the equinoctial orientation in other 2nd-millennium ancient Near Eastern texts may support a common ritual tradition for West Semitic texts. Furthermore, the link between Emar and the Hittites may support a direct connection and should be explored in later research. 39.  In addition, the Akītu Festival was probably annual only during the 1st millennium.

230

Chapter 5

is held seven weeks later for the wheat harvest. Again, Exodus (34:22) and Numbers (28:26–31) identify this festival by the name “Festival of Weeks” (‫)חג שבעת‬. The reverse practice is also apparent; Lev 23:26–32 names the Day of Atonement, but the same ritual is nameless in Num 29:7–11. The 2nd-millennium b.c.e. ritual text from Emar demonstrates a similar practice. In Emar 446, a festival beginning on the 15th of the 1st month is described but left unnamed. A contemporary text from Emar, Emar 375, describes the same festival with the name “Zukru Festival.” Thus we see that the naming of a festival in one text while leaving the festival anonymous in another preserves an early West Semitic practice and does not demonstrate later redaction or authorial traditions. A second point of similarity is that both texts preserve some aspect of ambiguity in festival dates. In Lev 23:10–14, the anonymous firstfruit festival of the barley harvest begins on the “day after the Sabbath-week.” Hess argues that Emar 446 also contains an ambiguity in the date for the rite of the 1st month. He concludes that in both Lev 23 and Emar 446 the ambiguity is related to the uncertainty of the time of the harvest. 40 In comparing the rites in the texts, we find a third point of congruence— the practice of overlapping similar rituals on the same day of the month. Lines 11–21 and 22–40 in Emar 446 relate a procession complex of rituals for d NIN.URTA on the 15th day of the 1st month that includes a lamb offering, a procession, a festival meal of bread and beer, the use of the divine axe, and the sacrifice of a sheep. Line 22 divides the two passages with the temporal marker “on that day.” The two Emar rituals on the 15th day are not identical: in the first, the entire population processes through the Amit gate and then reenters the temple through the “primary gate.” The second ritual has a procession, including an ox and six sheep (but not the general population), that moves through the “main gate.” There follows a feast for the leader of the people. The performance of similar rituals for the same god resembles Lev 23:33– 36, 39–43, where the Festival of Tabernacles and Festival of Yhwh both incorporate living in booths, rest, and honoring Yhwh. Just as in Emar 446, the festivals in Lev 23 differ slightly. The Festival of Yhwh gives a rationale for living in booths and a specific call for native Israelites to do so; and its participants rejoice with four species of leafy trees. The Festival of Tabernacles has a different name and includes a sacred assembly. Most scholars argue that the Festival of Tabernacles and the Festival of Yhwh are, in fact, the same festival. This conclusion derives from the notion that two festivals cannot occur over the same time frame for the same deity. Additionally, some scholars suggest that the description of overlapping festivals should not be recorded in different parts of the same text. The evidence from Emar refutes these points. First, Emar 446 includes two 40.  Hess, Leviticus, 785.

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

231

examples of festivals by different names occurring at the same time for the same deity. Second, Emar 446 narrates these overlapping festivals in different places in the text. Based on the inclusion of overlapping rites in both Lev 23 and Emar 446 and the internal differences between the Festival of Tabernacles and the Festival of Yhwh in Lev 23, Hess argues that the coincidence of these two rituals is not sufficient evidence (by itself ) to conclude that the Festival of Tabernacles and the Festival of Yhwh reveal a redactional process. 41 As a fourth point of similarity, both Lev 23 and Emar 446 depict named ritual activities that are combined into larger ceremonies or festival complexes. In Lev 23:6–8, the Festival of Unleavened Bread includes the named sacred assembly and food offerings. Leviticus 23:15–22 preserves the unnamed “Festival of Weeks” with its new grain offerings, wave offering, burnt offering, drink offering, food offering, purification offering, sacrifice of well-being, and sacred occasion. In Emar 446:47–57, the unnamed agricultural ritual includes a named evening ceremony, an honorific ceremony (kubādu), a grain offering, and a drink offering. Emar 446:86–94 describes the following named rituals in the month of Marzaḫāni: the Bugarātu ceremony, a procession, a burnt offering, and the carrying of loaves. We find a final example in Emar 446:96–119, during the month of dḪalma, detailing the following named rituals: an honorific ceremony (kubādu), a drink offering, a burnt offering, the Day of Renewal of dDagan, and a procession. The combining of named rituals into both named and unnamed festival complexes does not by itself necessarily indicate textual redaction and/or a late dating of the text—as Wagenaar maintains (see chap. 2 above). Therefore, I contend that, based on the similarity in both texts, the combining of named rituals into larger ceremonies and festivals represents an early West Semitic practice. The final similarity concerns the texts’ tendency to group grain and drink offerings into parallel phrases for ritual activities—a practice common in Lev 23 (vv. 13, 18, 37). Like Lev 23, Emar 446 pairs “bread and beer” as ritual gifts in lines 21, 60, and 78. The specified type of drink contained in the offering in the biblical text is usually wine, while the ritual gift at Emar is usually beer. Despite these variations, which all fall within the range of meanings for ‫שכר‬, the uses of grain and drink offerings are parallel in both cultures and may support the conclusion that the pairing of grain and drink offerings is an early West Semitic ritual practice.

Sacred Space A comparison of depictions of sacred space in Lev 23 and Emar 446 reveals that the two texts shared a similar attitude. In chaps. 3–4, I identified the following notable similarities: 41.  Hess, Leviticus, 792; idem., “Multi-Month Ritual,” 245–46.

232 • • • •

Chapter 5 Both texts often leave the location of ritual activities unspecified. Both texts emphasize ritual activities over space. In both texts, sacred space is proximate to the deity. Neither text mentions details about the sacred space, such as altars, sacrificial tables, or offering protocols.

One substantial difference concerns the stark contrast between the prominence of processions in Emar 446 and their absence from Lev 23. The first similarity regarding ritual space in Emar 446 and Lev 23 is that the texts rarely identify the sacred space. In Emar 446, on the 15th day of the 1st month the Diviner performs a ritual—throwing seed onto the ground—in a location left unidentified (446:51–3). On the morning of the next day, a complex of rituals is performed for dDagan that includes a ritual slaughter, a kubādu ceremony/oath, and meat and cups of drink given to the Diviner—all at an unnamed location (446:54–57). On the 8th day of the 2nd month, dNIN.KUR conducts a procession, including a ritual meal at an unnamed location (446:59–63). During the 3rd month, offerings of meat, bread, and beer are given to dAdammatera at an indeterminate location (446:77–78). On the 7th day of the 4th month, Illila conducts a procession at an unnamed place. On the next day, “all the gods” conduct a similar procession at an unspecified location (446:83–85). During the middle of the 5th month, processions for dBaʿal, dAštarcarba, and dAštart occur at undesignated areas. In addition, the Bugarātu ceremony occurs at an unspecified place (446:86–91). Finally, in the 6th month, the Day of Renewal of dDagan and the procession of dḪalma occur at undesignated locations (446:100, 104–5). As discussed in chap. 3, many ritual activities in Lev 23 also occur at unspecified locations. In the 1st month, the Feast of Unleavened Bread occurs in the presence of Yhwh and the priest at an undesignated location. The first and second firstfruit offerings are conducted at unidentified locations before Yhwh. In the 7th month, the Feast of Tabernacles is conducted at an area left unspecified. While this list is not exhaustive, it demonstrates that both these multimonth ritual texts frequently leave the location of ritual activities and the definition of sacred space unspecified. Wagenaar (chap. 2) contends that the absence of information in Lev 23 regarding sacred space supports the conclusion that Lev 23 is a late creation that relies on earlier festival texts. 42 The evidence from Emar, however, demonstrates that a 2nd-millennium, stand-alone text also exhibits these features. Therefore, the unspecified location of ritual activities should not be used, on its own, to argue for a late dating of Lev 23 or for its dependence on other festival or ritual texts.

42.  Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 90–100, 146–55.

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

233

A second point of similarity is that both texts allocate more space to relating ritual activities and offerings than to describing the location of sacred space (possibly because the early reader already knew the location). Although the texts share this practice, we should be cautious about arguing for a similarity based on a textual omission. Therefore, we must consider this a minor point of similarity and give it less comparative weight. A third point of similarity is that both texts may consider sacred any space that was proximate to the deity. Emar 446 depicts several ritual activities throughout the six-month ritual calendar, and all are conducted in a space near the image of the deity. This proximate sacred space often moves with the image of the deity during a processional complex. Additionally, the ritual activity occasionally occurs in the presence of the image of the deity in a temple. Finally, the activity may occur in an unspecified location but in the presence of the image of the deity. The common thread is that sacred space is any space near the image of the deity. Like Emar 446, Lev 23 may correlate the presence of Yhwh and sacred space. Verse 17 reads that the people should “bring from your settlements an elevation offering. . . . as firstfruits to Yhwh.” The passage goes on to clarify that the priest acts as intermediary (v. 20) taking the wave offering from the people and consecrating the offering “to Yhwh for the priest” (v. 21). This example may imply a movement from the profane to the sacred: when the priest waves the people’s profane crop in the presence of Yhwh, his action alters the state of the grain from profane to sacred. The author prioritizes the description of the action in these verses over the location. I propose that sacred space in Lev 23 is any space that is near the presence of Yhwh (as implied in Exod 3:5). We found an analogous concept of sacred space in Emar 446. Because this similarity is attested throughout the ancient Near East and is expected, it is given less analytical weight. One possible dissimilarity between Emar 446 and Lev 23 centers on the importance of processions in ritual complexes. The most frequent ritual activity in the Emar multimonth calendar (and perhaps the central ritual), occurring at least 12 times, is the procession complex for the god or goddess of the festival. A review (discussed in the preceding chapter) of processional activity reveals that in four of the six months the first festival activity is a procession complex of the primary god or goddess. In the remaining two festival months (dAnna and dḪalma), an honorific ceremony and an offering without a procession are first. Five of the six months include at least one procession complex; dAnna (month 3) is the only month that does not mention the complex. The 1st month (SAG.MU) appears to contain 5 processions for different gods or goddesses, the largest number of procession complexes in any month. Leviticus 23 does not mention a procession as a part of any festival activity. However, the text does include four references to pilgrimage festivals (‫)חג‬. In each description, the people of Israel conduct a pilgrimage to Yhwh

234

Chapter 5

(vv. 6, 34, 39, 41). The text identifies the pilgrimage festivals as the Feast of Unleavened Bread (v. 6), the Feast of Tabernacles (v. 34), and the Feast of Yhwh (vv. 39, 41). At the conclusion of each pilgrimage, the Israelites provide offerings and conduct sacred assemblies. Similar to the procession at Lagaš (see chap. 2), festivals in the 1st and 7th months of the year may have included a procession of the people to Yhwh in order to conduct ritual activities. Therefore, Lev 23 may indeed describe a procession, with the people moving to the festival location rather than the god’s moving from the temple to the people. A second possible reason for the omission of a procession in Lev 23 is the Israelite prohibition on making an image of Yhwh. A central aspect of the procession in Emar 446 is the movement of the god’s image. Possibly because the Israelites were commanded not to make an image of Yhwh (Exod 20:4), the concept of a procession that included an image of Yhwh was impractical. The omission of a procession in Lev 23 may well constitute a difference between the texts. While the possible dissimilarity regarding processions is troubling, it is insufficient in itself to prove a lack of connection between the two compared texts. Wagenaar argues that the recording of processions in the Babylonian festival calendar and Lev 23 supports a late dating of Lev 23. However, I argue, based on the appearance of processions at Emar, that the use of processions in the festival calendar already existed in the 2nd-millennium calendar and does not, by itself, support a late dating of Lev 23. In a discussion about sacred space, the omitted references are just as important as those that are included. The text at Emar does not specify any items within the temple space. No altar or sacrificial slaughtering tables are noted in conjunction with any ritual activity. In addition, the text assumes the reader’s knowledge of the sacred space associated with the ritual meals and leaves it unidentified. Hess finds it significant that neither text refers to an altar. As discussed in chap. 2, many commentators argue that the Passover celebration and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate rituals (with the Passover originating when Israel was a pastoral society and the Feast of Unleavened Bread originating with the settled society). Typically, scholars endorse this position because the lamb offering is burned by fire, with no indication of an altar. The evidence from Emar calls this conclusion into question. Emar 446, like Lev 23, observes the roasting of a lamb (446:6, 22, 66) and the offering of bread but makes no reference to an altar. Hess reasons that “the combination of these elements in a festival celebrated by a settled West Semitic people in the Late Bronze Age raises additional questions about the degree of certainty that can be ascribed to the posited evolutionary development of the biblical festival.” 43 43.  Hess, “Multi-Month Ritual,” 249–50.

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

235

Finally, the text mentions neither the royal residence nor any administrative palace. 44 Perhaps the king (appearing only once—Emar 446:117) and the palace play only minimal roles in the concept of sacred space at Emar. Leviticus 23 also mentions no altar, sacrificial slaughtering table, royal palace, administrative area, or specifics about any element contained within sacred space. This similarity between the texts may point to the relative lack of importance of such space or may assume that the reader already knew those details. In either case, the parallels in the texts show that a West Semitic multimonth calendar text about ritual activity existed by the 13th century b.c.e. that left many aspects of sacred space unspecified. 45

Sacred Objects The notable similarities between Lev 23 and Emar 446 that are identified in chaps. 3 and 4 include: • Both texts use agricultural objects to petition the gods/Yhwh for a successful agricultural season. 46 • Both texts include meat offerings, cereal offerings, and drink offerings—often combined into a festival complex. • In both texts, the sacrificial meat offerings include lamb, sheep, and cattle. • In both texts, grain offerings and drink offerings are presented in tandem. • Both texts use ritual offerings as an offering to the god/Yhwh and as a payment to festival officiants. Both Lev 23 and Emar 446 use agricultural objects to petition the gods/ Yhwh for a successful agricultural season. Milgrom asserts that ritual objects like the four species of tree branches and the first grain of the harvest are used to solicit Yhwh for adequate rain to support the upcoming agricultural season (in addition to offering thanks for the current season). In the Emar cult, using seed grain in a ritual may also have been intended to solicit support from dDagan for the upcoming agricultural year. 47 Hess finds that the use of grain (and other similar ritual offerings) and warnings about completing the ritual before proceeding to the next agricultural process are 44.  Mentioning these locations may or may not be a significant similarity. However, the absence is noted despite an advanced urban society at Emar at the time of composition. 45.  This is not true of other ritual texts from Emar or in Leviticus. 46.  Hess notes that, “while Emar’s focus on the period of sowing and planting may suggest concern for divine support in guaranteeing the crop of that particular season, Israel’s focus on the period of harvesting points in a different direction. It would suggest that Israel recognized the harvest as given by God and emphasized divine ownership of it” (ibid., 242). 47.  Hess notes that both cultures emphasize agriculture and grain in ritual activities (ibid.).

236

Chapter 5

significant. He concludes that this practice “betrays a common heritage related to the planting and harvesting of the basic food that formed the staple for the diet of West Semitic peoples.” 48 Another similarity is that both texts describe meat offerings, cereal offerings, and drink offerings—often combined into a festival complex. Leviticus 23 combines these offerings to form food offerings and burnt offerings. Verses 12–13 identify the burnt offering as comprising a grain offering and drink offering. Verse 18 also identifies the meat, cereal, and drink offerings as components of the burnt offering and food offering given to Yhwh. Similarly, the procession complexes in Emar 446 combine the three forms of offering (meat, cereal, and drink) into a larger festival complex. The procession complex for dNIN.URTA on the 15th day of the 1st month (fall) comprises the sacrifice of multiple sheep and a bovine in addition to both bread and drink (446:23–35). Another example, on the 8th day of the 7th month (spring) also includes meat sacrifices, bread, and drink (446:102– 5). The combination of these offerings highlights a common West Semitic orientation to ritual offerings shared by Israel and Emar. Because this similarity is attested throughout Mesopotamian ritual texts, the similarity is deemed minor. Both Emar 446 and Lev 23 identify the typical sacrificial meat offering as lamb (young sheep), adult sheep, and bovine. This similarity shows that Emar 446 and Lev 23 valued these meat species as a ritual standard. Although both texts most frequently mention lamb or sheep, we also see some divergence: Lev 23 refers to a goat in relation to a purification offering, while Emar 446 identifies a bird in conjunction with a burnt offering. Despite this variation, the two texts hold a similar cultural value and economic structure, reflected in the dominant use of sheep and lambs in ritual sacrifice. Because these types of sacrifice were customary throughout the ancient Near East, this point of similarity is considered minor. A fourth point of similarity is that both texts couple grain offerings and drink offerings. As detailed above, this practice is common in Lev 23 (vv. 13, 18, 37) and similar to Emar 446, which pairs “bread and beer” as ritual gifts in lines 21, 60, and 78 (see discussion above for more details; a point of difference is the wine in Lev 23 and beer in Emar 446). A final point of similarity is that both texts use ritual items as offerings to the god/Yhwh and as payments to festival officiants. Leviticus 23:20 describes the wave offering for the wheat firstfruits festival, stating that the bread and the sacrificial lambs will be “holy to Yhwh for the priest.” In this way, a portion of the offering is given to the priest (as officiant) for his services. Likewise, portions of the offerings described in Emar 446 are given to the Diviner as payment for his services as an officiant (cf. 446:26–28, 38, 44, 51–53, 64–65, 82, 95, 102, 105, 115–16). 48.  Ibid., 251.

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

237

Ritual Roles of Participants In considering the roles of deities and individuals in the multimonth festival calendars of both Lev 23 and Emar 446, we find the following points of similarity: • Both texts involve the general population in rituals and meals. • Both texts refer to portions of offerings to be given as payments to ritual officiants. • Both texts minimize the role of the priesthood and king. In both Lev 23 and the multimonth festival calendar at Emar, the general population provides offerings and conducts rites. Examples from Lev 23 include the pilgrimage procession for the three pilgrimage festivals (Festival of Unleavened Bread, Festival of Tabernacles, and Festival of Yhwh). In addition, the Israelites are required to provide offerings to the deity (vv. 8, 11–14, 16–17, 25, 36, 40). While numerous illustrations exist, a sampling of examples includes 23:12, where the Israelites supply a male lamb as a burnt offering to Yhwh, and 23:19, where the Israelites arrange for a goat as a purification offering. Finally, in 23:36, the Israelites prepare food offerings for Yhwh for seven days. Similarly, in Emar 446, portions of the general population are charged with furnishing offerings for ritual activities. In the 1st month (fall), the general population participates in the procession of d NIN.URTA, the ritual meal, and offerings (446:11–18). Emar 446:14 notes that the nuppuḫannū men present a sheep for the offering. In line 78, the nuppuḫannū men also contribute a sheep, bread, and beer as part of the ritual and festival meal. Both texts focus on the role of the general population and not the leadership or priesthood. A second point of similarity exists in that both Lev 23 and Emar 446 describe a portion of offerings given to the officiant as payment for his services. Emar 446:26, 28, 39, 44, 53, 64, 65, 82, 95, 102, and 116 depict the payment of ritual offerings to the Diviner. Ritual payments consist of meat, bread, and cups of drink. The meat offerings include the breast, hide, head, intestines, and fat. Similarly, Lev 23 mentions the priest’s receiving a portion of the ritual offerings consecrated to Yhwh. Leviticus 23:10, 11, 20 references the payment to the priest after he conducts the wave offering. Like Emar 446, Lev 23:10, 11 notes that the wave offering brought to the priest comprises meat, bread, and drink. Verse 20 further specifies that the meat and bread (at a minimum) are “for the priest.” While not identical, the two texts reflect, in their use of offerings in ritual sacrifice, a similar cultural value regarding the role and rights of the priesthood. A final point of comparison exists in that both texts downplay the roles of the city leaders and the king. Emar 446 does not describe a central role for either the leaders of the city or the king. Emar 446:29, 34, 38, 105 portrays the city leadership as eating a meal (lines 29 and 38) and receiving payments (lines 34, 105). But the text offers no illustrations of leaders’ participating

238

Chapter 5

in ritual activities or providing substantial sacrifices. Moreover, the text refers to the king only once, in connection with receiving a payment (line 117). Similarly, Lev 23 does not describe a role for the community leadership or the king. In fact, the text remains silent on any potential involvement of the leadership or the king and minimizes the described role of the priest.

Ritual Sound When comparing the roles of ritual sound in the multimonth festival calendars of Emar 466 and Lev 23, we find no significant points of similarity. Leviticus 23 preserves two components related to ritual sound (trumpet blasts and rejoicing) that occurred in the autumn. According to Milgrom (chap. 3), both were intended to petition Yhwh for support during the coming agricultural year. The reading of Emar 446, however, offers only one possible example: the reciting of an oath during a seed ceremony, prior to planting. As in the illustrations from Lev 23, the rite apparently functioned as an appeal to the deity for support in the upcoming agricultural year. These ritual elements reveal a point of difference between the two texts.

Connection between the Texts In chap. 1, Soggin was cited as showing that the presence of similarities between two texts does not “prove” a connection; it only raises the “possibility” of a connection between the two texts. Malul adds that, the more unique or unexpected the similarity between the texts, the greater the potential for a connection. In this study, I identify more than ten points of similarity between Lev 23 and Emar 446, raising the possibility of a connection. Of these points, the following nine are unexpected—thus demonstrating that a connection exists between the texts: • Purpose: both Emar 446 and Lev 23 are prescriptive multimonth ritual calendars. • Both texts identify the general population as the audience, and both minimize the role of the priesthood. • It is common for West Semitic texts to use temporal markers to divide the text into both major and minor sections. However, neither of our texts uses the formula consistently, and in both texts the expected formula is absent on one occasion. • Both texts name some rituals and leave others unnamed. In addition, some of the unnamed rituals are named in other texts. Similarly, some of the named rituals are unnamed in other texts. • Both texts attest to holding a one-day ritual meal in the evening before a major festival/ritual. • Both texts are oriented around a time period of less than a year, emphasizing rites in the first and last months.

Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446

239

• Both texts cluster activities around the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. • Both texts tend to have longer festivals in the middle of the month (full moon), with a seven-day duration being the most common. • Both calendars describe, in different locations within the text, major rites taking place on the same day. Although we identified many other similarities (and several differences), these nine points of comparison are significant because they are unexpected, and they represent aspects of ritual less frequently attested in other ancient Near Eastern texts that were reviewed in chap. 2. Based on the combined strength of these nine points and the substantive comparative analysis, I conclude that a connection exists between Emar 446 and Lev 23. The question then becomes, what is the nature of the connection? Again, I refer to chap. 1, in which I cited Malul as proposing that the nature of a connection can occur in two ways. First, the connection may be that the author of one source relied on an earlier tradition. In the second option, the author of a text is influenced by his awareness of another society’s cultural practices, and he subsequently incorporates this life experience into the later text. Because Emar was located along the Euphrates River (in modern Syria), it seems unlikely that an Israelite author would have had direct access to Emarite texts, which makes the second option more likely. 49 A related question arises with regard to the type of connection between the texts. Above, we examined Malul’s four possible types of connection: direct, mediated, common source, and common tradition (for a detailed definition of each, see chap. 1). Because the two cultures probably did not have direct contact with one another, we can eliminate a direct connection. Similarly, because we cannot identify a common text known to both cultures, we must also reject the common source type. This leaves a mediated connection or common tradition as being the most feasible types of connection. Because of a possible time gap between the two texts and because of several West Semitic textual similarities dating to the 2nd millennium, I reason that the texts probably share a common tradition—defined by Malul as “two sources exhibiting similar traits which, after careful scrutiny, could be attributed to a common tradition: literary, religious, legal, historiographic, or any other.” 50 49.  The distance between Jerusalem and Emar is approximately 375 miles. 50.  Malul, The Comparative Method, 91.

Chapter 6

Conclusion I set out to determine whether Lev 23 preserves an early West Semitic ritual tradition by using a comparative methodology to explore its potential relationship to Emar 446, a 2nd-millennium Akkadian text from Syria. In this book, I considered several biblical texts (Exod 23; 34; Lev 23; Num 28–29; Deut 16; and Ezek 45) that describe the Israelite festival calendar. The festivals depicted in these calendars share many features. However, there are also differences. Some of the most frequently cited contrasts in the Israelite festival calendars are fixed dates versus dates based on the harvest, local versus regional offering locations, and spring versus fall as the beginning of the year. In addition, some accounts record agricultural offerings prior to the ripening of the harvest; some texts mention two named rites combined into a larger ritual complex; some calendars refer to the celebration of simultaneous rites in different parts of the same text; and some texts name festivals that other texts leave unnamed. Some scholars explain these textual differences as emerging from the different sources (authors/redactors) that wrote the various calendars at different times in Israelite history. The multimonth festival calendar in Lev 23 prescribes the ritual activities for the general population during the first seven months of the Israelite spring calendar. Beyond the differences between biblical texts, Lev 23 contains several internal variations. For instance, even though the majority of the text is written as a second-person direct dialogue, portions of the text preserve third-person narrative. While the formula “x month on x day” generally organizes the text, occasionally the word order varies, and one example has no formula at all. And its literary structure allots varying amounts of space to its ritual descriptions. As with the differences between biblical texts, the internal tension in Lev 23 has led scholars to conclude that the text underwent a long period of development, culminating in late authorship. In this book, I critique a recent attempt by Wagenaar to resolve these points of tension. 1 Wagenaar argues that the biblical text, after a period of oral tradition, was first written down by the Deuteronomist. A period of transformation followed, resulting in the later Priestly writing and redaction of Lev 23 that was directly influenced, during the Israelites’ exile, by 1.  See chap. 2, pp. 55–78.

240

Conclusion

241

the 1st-millennium akītu Festival texts. I contest Wagenaar’s conclusion that Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium Babylonian akītu Festival texts are substantially similar. Although the two texts do share a few similarities, the purpose, ritual organization, and content exhibit multiple differences. Moreover, I contend that Wagenaar may have made methodological errors such as omitting the analysis of earlier comparative texts (thus creating a circular argument for the late dating of Lev 23), failing to include a discussion of textual differences and context, and comparing “incomparables.” This book begins with a contextual analysis of 3rd- and 2nd-millennium ritual texts (chap. 2). In my evaluation, I note that these early ritual calendars held festivals in the 1st and 7th months (around the equinoxes), supporting a two New Year’s Festivals. I found that these festivals most frequently began in the middle of the month (full moon) and lasted for seven days. And I observed the following characteristics, commonly mentioned in 2nd-millennium ritual texts: early rituals combined named festivals into larger festival complexes; festivals related to agriculture take place on both fixed and variable dates; calendars usually begin in the spring with the cereal harvest; and, though the time of day is often unspecified, the rites occasionally end in the evening. After reviewing the evidence from Lev 23 (chap. 3) and Emar 446 (chap. 4), I found multiple points of similarity (and several differences) between the texts with regard to structure and literary form as well as the roles of sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, ritual participants, and ritual sound. In chap. 5, I subdivide these points of similarity into major points and minor points. Major points are unexpected and therefore more significant in the comparative analysis. Minor points, while expected, aid in confirming that the features found in Lev 23 preserve an early West Semitic ritual tradition. But despite the similarities determined in this book, we must remember that two distinct cultures produced Emar 446 and Lev 23, and as a result, their rituals originate from unique contexts. Consequently, incongruities are not simply understandable but are to be expected. The two cultures understood deities in different ways—one monotheistically, the other polytheistically. Theologically, Emar used the image of the god in ritual, while Israel’s god, Yhwh, had no image. The two cultures practiced procession in different ways. Regardless of these specific contextual differences, essential aspects of both texts share concepts and praxis of form, structure, sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, and ritual participants. I have found that many of the points identified by scholars as internal discrepancies in Lev 23 and used as evidence of later redaction are actually evident in a 2nd-millennium ritual calendar at Emar. Therefore, I argue that Lev 23 preserves an early West Semitic ritual tradition from the Late Bronze Age. In addition to the primary argument, this book makes the following contributions:

242

Chapter 6

• The investigation of Lev 23 expands on Klingbeil’s ritual methodology, 2 incorporating the analysis of ritual aspects of sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, ritual participants, and ritual sound. • The study includes a refutation of Wagenaar’s thesis that Lev 23 was directly influenced by the 1st-millennium b.c.e. Babylonian akītu Festival texts and must be dated to the exilic period. 3 • The study adds support to the work of Richard Hess by demonstrating that similarities between Lev 23 and Emar 446 that indicate a Late Bronze Age West Semitic tradition may have influenced both cultures. 4 Before I conclude, I consider a few comments of self-reflection to be appropriate: • I asserted that Lev 23 preserves an early West Semitic ritual tradition but stopped short of arguing for a date of composition. The intent was to demonstrate that many elements used to determine a late dating are present in texts of the 2nd millennium b.c.e. and should not be used as evidence for a late date. • A potential weakness of this book is the incomplete examination of Hittite ritual texts. Due to space constraints, I did not fully explore the Hittite archives. During the 2nd millennium, Emar was a vassal of the Hittites. Exploring how Hittite ritual expression manifested itself in the cult at Emar and in Emar 446 may prove worthwhile. • Another possible weakness of the current study is comparing Emar 446 to Lev 23. As mentioned above, this choice was rooted in Wagenaar’s use of Lev 23 in his study of the 1st-millennium b.c.e. Babylonian New Year’s ritual. In the course of my study, it became clear to me that Emar 446 may also exhibit similarities to Num 28–29. • A final point of potential weakness is the focus on “texts” and not “culture.” While this book compared two texts from different cultures, the focus of the research was limited to the specific expression of ritual as demonstrated in the texts. Further study may be able to compare aspects of Emarite and Israelite culture and not merely texts. What lies ahead? First, I hope that this study continues Gerald Klingbeil’s work of exploring biblical ritual through the study of the aspects of ritual. Further, following Hess, Millard, Hallo, Averbeck, Klingbeil, and others, I sought to examine biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts through 2.  Gerald A. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 127–203. 3.  See chap. 2 above (pp. 55–78). 4.  Hess, “Multiple-Month Ritual Calendars,” 233–53.

Conclusion

243

a form of contextual comparison. With these two methodologies in mind, I offer the following questions for possible future research: • What aspects of ritual are contained elsewhere in the biblical text, and how might these aspects affect the interpretation of Lev 23? • How do the aspects of ritual in other ancient Near Eastern (Mesopotamian) texts of the 3rd and 2nd millennia b.c.e. compare with those found in Emar 446 and Lev 23? • Similarly, how was ritual expressed in Egyptian texts, and how does an understanding of ritual in the New Kingdom influence our understanding of Lev 23? • Finally, how might Num 28–29 compare with Emar 446? It is always important to remember that Israel did not exist in a vacuum but was a culture surrounded by other cultures. For Hallo, the purpose of comparative analysis “is not to find the key to every biblical phenomenon in some ancient Near Eastern precedent, but rather to silhouette the biblical text against its wider literary and cultural environment and thus to arrive at a proper assessment of the extent to which the biblical evidence reflects that environment or, on the contrary, is distinctive and innovative over against it.” 5 With this book, I have endeavored to silhouette Lev 23 against the backdrop of the ancient Near East. What is reflected, I believe, provides a deeper understanding and appreciation of both. 5.  Hallo, “Compare and Contrast,” 3.

Bibliography Adams, Robert McC. Land behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Adamthwaite, Murray R. Late Hittite Emar: The Chronology, Synchronisms, and SocioPolitical Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town. ANESSup 8. Louvain: Peeters, 2001. Amit, Yairah. Reading Biblical Narrative: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Translated by Y. Lotan. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Arnaud, Daniel. Recherches au pays d’Aštata: Emar VI. Textes sumériens et accadiens planches 2. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985. _______. “Religion assyro-babylonienne.” Annuaire: École pratique des hautes études; Ve section—sciences religieuses 96 (1987–88): 174–78. _______. “Les texts d’Emar et la chronologie de la fin du Bronze Récent.” Syria 52 (1975): 87–92. Astour, Michael C. “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu.” UF 11 (1979): 13–28. _______. “Who Was the King of the Hurrian Troops at the Siege of Emar?” Pages 25–56 in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996. Averbeck, Richard E. “Sumer, the Bible, and Comparative Method.” Pages 88–125 in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations. Edited by Mark W. Chavals and K. Lawson Younger. JSOTSup 341. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Bar-On, Shimon. “The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14–19 and XXXIV 18– 26.” VT 48 (1998): 161–95. _______. “Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Ex 12,21–27.” ZAW 107 (1995): 107–31. Beckman, Gary. “Emar and Its Archive.” Pages 1–12 in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze Age. Edited by M. W. Chavalas. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996. Beckwith, Roger T. Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Inter­ testamental and Patristic Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Beitzel, Barry J. “From Ḫarran to Imar along the Old Babylonian Itinerary: The Evidence from the Archives Royales de Mari.” Pages 209–19 in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor. Edited by G. A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. Bell, Catherine. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Belmonte, J. A. “Zur Lesung und Deutung von ina sila.lím ar-ba in Emar-Texten.” NABU (1997): 82–83. Berger, Klaus. Manna, Mehl und Sauerteig: Korn und Brot im Alltag der frühen Christen. Stuttgart: Evangelische Gesellschaft, 1999. Besters, A. “‘Israel’ et ‘Fils d’Israel’ dans les livres historiques (Genèse–II Rois),” RB 74 (1967): 5–23 Beyer, Dominique. “Jardins sacrés d’Emar au Bronze Récent.” Pages 11–19. in Nature et paysage dans la pensée et l’environnement des civilizations antiques. Edited by Gérard Siebert. Paris: de Boccard, 1996.

244

Bibliography

245

Bidmead, Julye. The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia. Gorgias Dissertations: Near Eastern Studies 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2002. Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992. _______. Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Block, Dan. “‘Israel’ – ‘Sons of Israel’: A Study in Hebrew Eponymic Usage.” SR 13 (1984): 301–26. Blum, E. “Das sog. ‘Privilegrecht’ in Exodus 34:11–26: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition des Exodusbuches?” Pages 347–66 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReception-Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Peeters, 1996. Brereton, Joel P. “Sacred Space.” Pp. 526–35 in vol. 12 of ER. Britton, John P. “Calendars, Intercalations and Year-Lengths in Mesopotamian Astronomy.” Pages 115–32 in Calendars and Years: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East. Edited by John M. Steele. Oxford: Oxbow, 2007. Bunnens, Guy. “Emar on the Euphrates in the 13th Century b.c.: Some Thoughts about Newly Published Cuneiform Texts.” AbrN 27 (1989): 23–36. Çagirgan, Galip. Babylonian Festivals. Ph.D. Dissertation. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, 1976. Campbell, Antony F., and Mark A. O’Brien. Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Cantrell, Deborah O’Daniel. The Horsemen of Israel: Horses and Chariotry in Monarchic Israel (Ninth–Eighth Centuries b.c.e.). HACL 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Charpin, Dominique. “Mari et le calendrier d’Ebla.” RA 76 (1982): 1–6. Chavalas, Mark W. “Ancient Syria: A Historical Sketch.” Pages 1–22 in New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria. Edited by Mark Chavalas and John Hayes. BMes 25. Malibu, CA: Undena, 1992. _______. “Assyriology and Biblical Studies: A Century and a Half of Tension.” Pages 21–67 in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Cholewiński, Alfred. Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Einevergleichende Studie. Analecta Biblica 66. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976. Clines, David J. A. “The Evidence for an Autumnal New Year in Pre-Exilic Israel Reconstructed.” JBL 93 (1974): 22–40. Cohen, Mark E. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993. Cohen, Yoram. The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age. HSS 59. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Cohen, Yoram, and Lorenzo d’Alfonso. “The Duration of the Emar Archives and the Relative and Absolute Chronology of the City.” Pages 3–25 in The City of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires: History, Landscape, and Society: Proceedings of the Konstanz Emar Conference 25.–26.04.2006. Edited by Lorenzo d’Alfonso, Yoram Cohen, and Dietrich Sürenhagen. AOAT 349. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008.

246

Bibliography

Cohn, Robert L. The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies. AARSR 23. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Cross, Frank M. “The Epic Traditions of Early Israel: Epic Narrative and the Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions.” Pages 13–39 in The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism. Edited by Richard Elliot Friedman. HSS 26. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Crüsemann, Frank. “Der Exodus als Heiligung: Zur rechtsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes.” Pages 117–29 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für R. Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. Dahl, Gudrun, and A. Hjort. Having Herds: Pastoral Herd Growth and Household Economy. Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology 2. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, 1976. Dalman, Gustof. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, vol. 7: Das haus, hühnerzucht, taubenzucht, bienenzucht. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1939. Daube, David. The Exodus Pattern in the Bible. All Souls Studies 2. London: Greenwood, 1979. Davies, Philip R. In Search of “Ancient Israel.” JSOTSup 148. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Delitzsch, Friedrich. Babel and Bible: Three Lectures on the Significance of Assyriological Research for Religion, Embodying the Most Important Criticisms and the Author’s Replies. Translated by Thomas J. McCormack. Chicago: Open Court, 1906. Dietrich, Manfried. “Das Einsetzungsritual der Entu von Emar (Emar VI/3, 369).” UF 21 (1989): 47–100. Durand, Jean-Marie. “Review of Daniel Arnaud, Emar VI: 1–3.” RA 83 (1989): 163–91. _______. Texts administratifs des salles 134 et 160 du palais de Mari. ARMT 21. Paris: Geuthner, 1983. Durand, Jean-Marie, and Michaël Guichard. “Les rituels de Mari.” Pages 19–78 in Florilegium marianum III. Edited by Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand. Paris: SEPOA, 1997. Durkheim, Émile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated by Carol Cosman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harvest, 1987. Elias, Norbert, and Edmund Jephcott. Time: An Essay. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. HAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr, 1966. Engnell, Ivan. A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays on the Old Testament. Translated and ed. J. T. Willis and H. Ringgren. Nashville: University of Vanderbilt Press, 1969. Evans, Carl D. “Judah’s Foreign Policy from Hezekiah to Josiah.” Pages 157–78 in Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method. Edited by Carl D. Evans, William W. Hallo, and John B. White. PTMS 34. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980. Falk, Zeʾev W. “Review of Reuven Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna.” Bib 51 (1970): 130– 33. Farber, Walter. “Kultische Rituale.” Pages 212–22 in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments: Orakel Rituale, Bau- und Votivinschriften, Lieder und Gebete. Edited by O. Kaiser et al. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1991. Feder, Yitzhaq. Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and Meaning. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.

Bibliography

247

Feliu, Lluís. The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria. Translated by Wilifred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Finesinger, Sol B. “The Shofar.” HUCA 8 (1931–2): 193–228. Finkbeiner, Uwe. The Archaeological Park Emar-Bali. Aleppo, 2010. _______. “Emar 1999: Bericht über die 3. Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen: Mit Beiträgen von Hala Attoura, Betina Faist, Uta König, Ferhan Sakal und Frank Starke.”BaghM 32 (2001): 41–120.  _______. “Emar 2001: Bericht über die 4. Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen: Mit Beiträgen von Hala Attoura und Wendy Eixler und unter Mitarbeit von Ferhan Sakal.” BaghM 33 (2002): 109–46.  _______. “Emar 2002: Bericht über die 5. Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen.” BaghM 34 (2003): 9–117.  Fischer, Loren R. “A New Ritual Calendar from Ugarit.” HTR 63 (1970): 485–86. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Fleming, Daniel E. “The Emar Festivals: City Unity and Syrian Identity.” Pages 81– 121 in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze Age. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996. _______. “Emar: On the Road from Harran to Hebron.” Pages 222–50 in Mesopotamia and the Bible. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002. _______. “Household and Community Religion in Syria.” Pages 37–59 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity. Edited by John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008. _______. The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. _______. “The Israelite Festival Calendar and Emar’s Ritual Archive.” RB 106 (1999): 8–34. _______. “Reading Emar’s Scribal Traditions against the Chronology of Late Bronze History.” Pages 27–43 in The City of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires: History, Landscape, and Society: Proceedings of the Konstanz Emar Conference 25.– 26.04.2006. Edited by Lorenzo d’Alfonso, Yoram Cohen, and Dietrich Sürenhagen. AOAT 349. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008. _______. “The Rituals from Emar: Evolution of an Indigenous Tradition in SecondMillennium Syria.” Pages 51–62 in New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas and John Hayes. BMes 25. Malibu, CA: Undena, 1992. _______. Time at Emar: Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive. Mesopotamian Civilizations 11. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Frazer, James. The Golden Bough. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1935. Gallagher, Jan. Emar: A Study of a Crossroads City. Ph.D. Dissertation. Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1998. Gennep, Arnold van. The Rites of Passage. Translated by M. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. George, Andrew R. Babylonian Topographical Texts. OLA 40. Leuven: Peeters, 1992. George, Mark K. Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Das dritte Buch Mose Leviticus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. _______. Leviticus: A Commentary. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996.

248

Bibliography

Geyer, B. “Une ville aujourd’hui engloutie: Emar. Contribution géomorphologique à la localization de la cite.” MARI 6 (1990): 107–19. Gilders, William K. “Review of Jan Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar.” JHS 6 (2006). www.jhsonline.org/jhs. Ginsberg, Harold L. “The Grain Harvest Laws of Lev. 9–22 and Num. 28:26–31.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 46–47 (1979–80): 141–53. _______. The Israelian Heritage of Judaism. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 24. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982. Gorman, Frank H. The Ideology of Ritual Space: Time and Status in the Priestly Theology. JSOTSup 91. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Götze, A., ed. Die Annalen des Muršiliš. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1933. Gray, John. The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament. VTSup 5. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Grayson, Albert Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1975. _______. “Chronicles and the Akitu Festival.” Pages 160–70 in Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Edited by André Finet. Hamsur-Heure: Comité belge de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. AB 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. _______. On the Bible and Judaism: A Collection of Writings. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 1985. [Hebrew] Greenspahn, Frederick E. “Introduction.” Pages 1–14 in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by F. E. Greenspahn. New York: New York University Press, 1991. Grimes, Ronald L. Beginnings in Ritual Studies. 3d ed. Waterloo, ON: Ritual Studies International, 2010. _______. Research in Ritual Studies: A Programmatic Essay and Bibliography. ATLA Bibliography Series 14 London: Scarecrow, 1985. Gruenwald, Ithamar. Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. BRL J 10. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Güterbock, Hans G. “The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son, Mursili II.” JCS 10 (1956): 41–68, 75–98, 107–30. _______. “Religion and Kultus der Hethiter.” Pages 54–73 in Neuere Hethiterfor­schung. Edited by G. Walser. Historia Einzelschriften 7. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1964. Haas, Volkert. “Betrachtungen zur Rekonstruction des hethithischen Frujahr­ festes.” ZA 78 (1988): 284–98. _______. Hethitische Berggotter und hurritische Steindämonen: Riten, Kulte und Mythen. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 10. Mainz: von Zabern, 1982. _______. Der Kult von Nerik: Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religionsgeschichte. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. Halbe, J. “Erwägungen zu Ursprung und Wesen des Massotfestes.” ZAW 87 (1975): 324–46. Hallo, William W. “Biblical History in its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach.” Pages 1–26 in Scripture in Context, vol. 1: Essays on the Comparative Method. Edited by Carl D. Evans, William W. Hallo, and John B. White. PTMS 34. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980. _______. “Compare and Contrast: the Contextual Approach to Biblical Literature.” Pages 1–29 in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context

Bibliography

249

III. Edited by William W. Hallo, Bruce William Jones, and Gerald L. Mattingly. ANETS 8. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1990. _______. COS, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill, 1997. _______. “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case Study in the Contrastive Approach,” HUCA 48 (1977): 1–18. _______. “Problems in Sumerian Hermeneutics.” Pages 1–12 in Perspectives in Jewish Learning 5. Edited by Byron L. Sherwin. Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica, 1973. _______. “The Road to Emar.” JCS 18 (1964): 57–88. Hanson, P. D. “Jewish Apocalyptic against Its Near Eastern Environment.” RB 78 (1971): 31–58. Hartley, John E. Leviticus. WBC 4. Dallas: Word, 1992. Hayes, E. “Review of Jan Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar.” JSOT 31 (2007): 204. Herrmann Siegfried. “Exodusmotiv: I Altes Testament.” Pp. 732–37 in vol. 10 of TRE. Hess, Richard S. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007. _______. Leviticus. Rev. ed. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. EBC 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. _______. “Multiple-Month Ritual Calendars in the West Semitic World: Emar 446 and Leviticus 23.” Pages 233–53 in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reasessing Methodologies and Assumptions. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. _______. “Occurences of Canaan in Late Bronze Age Archives of the West Semitic World.” Pages 365–372 in Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. Edited by S. Izre'el, I. Singer, and R. Zadok. IOS 18. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998. Hieke, Thomas. “Review of Jan Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar.” RBL 9 (2006). www.bookreviews.org. Hiller, D. R. “Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite Religion.” JQR 75 (1985): 256–69. Hoffmeier, James K. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Hoffner, Harry A. Alimenta Hethaeorum: Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor. AOS 55. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1974. Huehnergard, John. “Emar Texts.” Pages 239–40 in vol. 2 of OEANE. _______. “Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar.” RA 77 (1983): 11–43. _______. A Grammar of Akkadian. HSS 45. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. _______. “Northwest Semitic Vocabulary in Akkadian Texts from Emar.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Oriental Society, Chicago. March 1988. Hurvitz, Avi. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. CahRB 20. Paris: Gabalda, 1982. Ikeda, Jun. A Linguistic Analysis of the Akkadian Texts from Emar: The Administrative Texts. Ph.D. dissertation. Tel-Aviv University, 1995. Imparati, F. “‘Signori’ e ‘figli del re.’” Or 44 (1975): 80–95. James, Edwin O. Seasonal Feasts and Festivals. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1962. Jaubert, A. La date de la cène. Paris: Gabalda, 1957.

250

Bibliography

Jenson, Phillip Peter. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. JSOTSup 106. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Johnston, Philip S. Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. Jong, T. de, and W. H. van Soldt. “Redating an Early Solar Eclipse Record (KTU 1.78): Implications for the Ugaritic Calendar and for the Secular Accelerations of the Earth and Moon.” JEOL 30 (1987–88): 65–77. Joosten, Jan. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26. New York: Brill, 1996. Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Part Three: Syntax, Paradigms and Indices. SubBi 14/2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2003. Košak, S. “The Hittite Nuntarrijashas-Festival (CTH 626).” LB 16 (1976): 55–64. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginning to the Babylonian Exile. Translated by Moshe Greenberg. Jerusalem: Sefer veSefel, 2003. Kellerman, Galina. “Towards the Fuller Interpretation of the Purulli-Festival.” Slavica Hiersosolymitana 5–6 (1981): 35–46. Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1966. _______. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1962. Klengel, H. “Die Keilschrifttexte von Meskene und die Geschichte von Aštarte/ Emar.” OLZ 83 (1988): cols. 645–53. Klingbeil, Gerald A. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible. BBRSup 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. _______. A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as Found in Leviticus 8 and Emar 369: Ritual Times, Space, Objects and Action. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1998. Klostermann, August. Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entste­ hungschichte. Leipzig: Deichert, 1907. Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Koch, Klaus. Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16: Eine überlieferungs­ geschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung. FRLANT 53. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Körting, Corinna. Der Schall des Schofar: Israels Fests im Herbst. BZAW 285. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Kramer, Samuel N. “The Death of Gilgamesh.” BASOR 94 (1944): 2–12. Kuenen, Abraham. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch. Translated by P. H. Wicksteed. London: Macmillan, 1886. Kutsch, Ernst. “‘Am Ende des Jahres’: Zur Datierung des israelitischen Herbstfestes in Ex 23 16.” ZAW 83 (1971): 15–21. _______. “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Passafeier und des Massotfestes.” ZTK 55 (1958): 1–35. Labat, Rene. Manuel d’Épigraphie Akkadienne: Signs, Syllabaire, Idéogrammes. Paris: Geuthner, 1988. Lambert, Wilfred G. “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious Year: The Conflict in the Akitu House.” Iraq 25 (1963): 189–90. Langdon, Stephen H. Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendars. London: Oxford University Press, 1935. Leemans, W. F. “Aperçu sur les texts juridiques d’Emar.” JESHO 31 (1988): 207–42.

Bibliography

251

Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. Lemche, Niels P. The Israelites in History and Tradition. LAI. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. _______. Prelude to Israel’s Past: Background and Beginnings of Israelite History and Identity. Translated by E. F. Maniscalco. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. Levine, Baruch A. “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Features and Functional Features of the Genre.” Pages 467–75 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. _______. “The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch.” JAOS 85 (1965): 307–18. _______. Leviticus. The JPS Torah Commentary 3. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. _______. Numbers. AB 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2001. _______. “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals.” JCS 17 (1963): 105–11. Levine, Baruch A., Jean-Michel de Tarragon, and Anne Robertson. “Ugaritic Rites for the Vintage (KTU 1.41//1.87).” Pages 299–301 in Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, vol.1: The Context of Scripture. Edited by William H. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger. Boston: Brill, 1997. Liverani, Mario. “Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Texts.” Or 42 (1973): 178–94. Lohfink, N. Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5–11. AnBib 20. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. Long, V. Philips. “Introduction.” Pages 1–22 in Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel.” Edited by V. Philips Long, David W. Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. _______. “Reading the Old Testament as Literature.” Pages 85–123 in Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis. Edited by Craig C. Broyles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001. Longacre, Robert E. “Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb.” Pages 177–89 in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Longman, Tremper, III. “Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 91–192 in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation. Edited by Moises Silva. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Lowewenstamm, Samuel E. “The Law of Adultery and the Law of Murder in Biblical Law and in Mesopotamian Law.” Pages 146–53 in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literature. Edited by Samuel E. Lowewenstamm. AOAT 204. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980. [Originally published in Hebrew in Beth Mikra 13 (1962): 55–59.] Malul, Meir. The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies. AOAT 227. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. Mander, Pietro. “Los dioses y el culto de Ebla.” Pages 5–123 in Mitología y Religión del Oriente Antiguo, vol. 2/1: Semitas occidentales (Ebla, Mari). Edited by Jean-Marie Durand. Sabadell: AUSA, 1995. Margueron, Jean-Claude. “Emar.” Pages 488–90 in vol. 2 of ABD. _______. “Un ‘ḫilani’ à Emar.” AASOR 44 (1979): 153–76. _______. “Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Emar (1972–1974).” Syria 52 (1975): 53–85.

252

Bibliography

_______. “Rapport preliminaire sur les deux premières campagnes de fouille à Meskéné-Emar (1972–1973).” AAAS 25 (1975): 73–93. Margueron, Jean-Claude, and Marcel Sigrist. “Emar.” Pages 236–39 in vol 2 of OEANE. Mayer, W. “Eine Urkunde über Grundstuckskaufe aus Ekalte/Tall Munbaqa.” UF 24 (1992): 263–74. McClellan, Thomas L. “Houses and Households in North Syria during the Late Bronze Age.” Pages 29–59 in Les maisons dans la Syrie antique du IIIe millénaire aux débuts de l’Islam. Edited by Corinne Castel, Michel al-Maqdissi, and François Villeneuve. Beirut: Institut Français d’Archeologie du Proche-Orient, 1997. McLaughlin, John L. “The marzēaḫat Ugarit: A Textual and Contextual Study.” UF 23 (1991): 265–81. Merwe, Christo H. J. van der, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Richard Hess. Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Millard, Alan R. “History and Legend in Early Babylonia.” Pages 103–10 in Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel.” Edited by V. Philips Long, David W. Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. _______. “Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Texts.” Pages 43–58 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by Alan R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980. [Reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.] _______. “The Value and Limitations of the Bible and Archaeology for Understand ing the History of Israel: Some Examples.” Pages 9–25 in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? Edited by Daniel I. Block. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008. Miller, Patrick D., Jr. “Aspects of the Religion of Ugarit.” Pages 53–66 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Monson, John M. “Contextual Criticism as a Framework for Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 25–55 in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? Edited by Daniel I. Block. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008. Moor, Johannes C. de. New Year with Canaanites and Israelites. Kamper Cahier 21–22. Kampen: Kok, 1972. ________. The Seasonal Patterns in the Ugaritic Myth of Baʿlu according to the Verson of Ilimilku. AOAT 16. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1971. Morgan, Donn F. The So-Called Cultic Calendars in the Pentateuch: A Morphological and Typological Study. Ph.D. Dissertation. Claremont University, 1974. Morgenstern, Julian. “The Book of the Covenant.” HUCA 33 (1962): 59–105. Muntingh, L. M. “Second Thoughts on Ebla and the Old Testament.” Pages 157–75 in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham. Edited by W. Claassen. JSOTSup 48. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Niccacci, Alviero. “On the Hebrew Verbal System.” Pages 117–37 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994.

Bibliography

253

Nicholson, Ernest. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Nilsson, Martin P. Primitive Time-Reckoning. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1920. Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. _______. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated with an introduction by Bern­hard W. Anderson. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. _______. The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies. London: SCM, 1984. _______. Leviticus: A Commentary. Rev. ed. Translated by J. E. Anderson. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Rev. ed. by Erica Reiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational. Translated by John W. Harvey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958. Paran, Meir. Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989. Pardee, Dennis. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. SBLWAW 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Parker, Richard A. Calendars of Ancient Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. Parker, Simon B. “Some Methodological Principles in Ugaritic Philology.” Maarav 2 (1980): 7–41. Parkin, David. “Ritual as Spatial Direction and Bodily Division.” Pages 11–25 in Understanding Rituals. Edited by Daniel de Cooper. London: Routledge, 1992. Pentiuc, Eugen J. West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar. HSS 49. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Pitard, Wayne T. “The Archaeology of Emar.” Pages 13–23 in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze Age. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996. _______. “Care for the Dead at Emar.” Pages 123–40 in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze Age. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996. Platvoet, Jan. “Ritual in Plural and Pluralist Societies.” Pages 25–51 in Pluralism and Identity: Studies in Ritual Behavior. Edited by Jan Platvoet and Karel van der Toorn. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998. Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. “The Interplay of Military Strategy and Cultic Practice in Assyrian politics.” Pages 245–52 in Assyria 95: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Edited by Simo Parpola and Robert Whiting. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1997. Pope, Marvin H. “The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit.” Pages 159–79 in Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic. Edited by Gordon D. Young. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Rad, Gerhard von. “Verheiseneß Land und Jahwes Land im Hexateuch,” ZDPV 66 (1943): 191–204. Reed, S. A. “Bread.” Pages 777–80 in vol. 1 of ABD. Rendtorff, Rolf. Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift: Eine gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuch­ ung. FRLANT44. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954. Reventlow, Henning Graf. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz: Formgeschichtlichuntersucht. WMANT 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961.

254

Bibliography

Ringgren, Helmer. “Israel’s Place among the Religions of the Ancient Near East.” Pages 1–8 in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel. VTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Ancient Near Eastern Environment.” Pages 89–96 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Douglas Knight and Gene Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Rochberg-Halton, Francesca. “Calendars, Ancient Near East.” Pages 810–14 in vol. 1 of ABD. Rofé, Alexander. “Methodological Aspects of the Study of Biblical Law.” Pages 1–16 in Jewish Law Association Studies. Edited by B. S. Jackson. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Rooker, Mark F. Leviticus. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000. Sachs, Abraham J. “Akkadian Rituals.” Pages 331–45 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Edited by James B. Pritchard. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Sallaberger, W. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit: Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Sarna, Nahum M. “The Interchange of the Prepositions Beth and Mem in Biblical Hebrew.” JBL 78 (1959): 310–16. Sasson, Jack M. “The Calendar and Festivals of Mari during the Reign of Zimri Lim.” Pages 119–41 in Studies in Honor of Tom B. Jones. Edited by Makvin A. Powell Jr. and Ronald H. Sack. AOAT 203. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979. Schechner, Richard. “The Future of Ritual.” JRitSt 1/1 (1987): 5–33. Schmidt, Brian B. “The Gods and the Dead of the Domestic Cult at Emar.” Pages 141–63 in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze Age. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996. Schmitt, H. C. “Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex 34,10–28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch.” Pages 157–71 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte. BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Scott, William R. The Booths of Ancient Israel’s Autumn Festival. Ph.D. dissertation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Selman, Martin J. “Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age.” Pages 93–128 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by Alan R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: IVP, 1980. [Reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.] Seminara, Stefano. L’accadico di Emar. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma, “La Sapienza,” 1998. Sharlach, T. M. “Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court.” JCS 57 (2005): 17–30. Singer, Itamar. “Towards the Image of Dagon the God of the Philistines.” Syria 69 (1992): 431–50. Skaist, Aaron. “The Chronology of the Legal Texts from Emar.” ZA 88 (1998): 45–71. Smith, Morton. “East Mediterranean Law-Codes of the Early Iron Age.” ErIsr 14 (1978; Ginsberg Volume) 38–43. Smith, Robertson W. The Religion of the Semites. New York: Schocken, 1972. Soden, W. von. “Gibt es ein Zeugnis dafür, dass die Babylonier an die Wiederauferstehung Marduks geglaubt haben?” ZA 51 (1955): 130–66.

Bibliography

255

Soggin, J. A. “Ancient Israel: An Attempt at a Social and Economic Analysis of the Available Data.” Pages 201–8 in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham. Edited by W. Claassen. JSOTSup 48. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. _______. “The History of Ancient Israel: A Study in Some Questions of Method.” ErIsr 14 (1978; Ginsberg Volume) 44–55. Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Sproul, Barbara C. “Sacred Time.” Pages 535–44 in vol. 12 of ER. Stackert, Jeffrey. “Leviticus.” Pages 573–81 in vol. 1 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible. Edited by Michael Coogan. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Steele, John M. “The Length of the Month in Mesopotamian Calendars of the First Millennium bc.” Pages 133–48 in Calendars and Years: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East. Edited by John M. Steele. Oxford: Oxbow, 2007. Stern, Sacha. Time and Process in Ancient Judaism. LLJC. Portland: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2007. Stewart, David T. “A Brief Comparison of the Israelite and Hittite Festival Calendars.” Pages 2076–80 in Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, by Jacob Milgrom. AB 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Comparative Method in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems.” Pages 320–56 in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. _______. Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content—Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill, 1993. _______. “The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Look.” Pages 321–40 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Thompson, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources. SHANE 4. Leiden: Brill, 1992. _______. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives. BZAW 133. New York: de Gruy­ ter, 1974. _______. The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. New York: Basic Books, 1999. _______. The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. JSOTSup 55. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Thureau-Dangin, F. Ritual Accadiens. Paris: Leroux, 1921. Tolkovsky, Shaul. The Fruit of the Hadar Tree. Jerusalem: Bialik Insititute, 1966. [Hebrew] Toorn, Karel van der. “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study.” Pages 331–44 in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Boston: Brill, 1991. _______. “Het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest.” Phoenix 36 (1990): 10–29. _______. “Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugarit Texts and in the Bible.” BO 48 (1991): 40–66. _______. Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985. Tsukimoto, Akio. “Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collection (I).”AcS 12 (1990): 177–259.

256

Bibliography

Turner, Victor W. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974. _______. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1957. Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975. _______. “The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Passover and Massot.” ZAW 95 (1983): 167–82. _______. A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Verderame, L. “Enūma Anu Enlil Tablets 1–13.” Pages 447–57 in Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. M. Steele and A. Imhausen. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002. Viberg, Ake. Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament. ConBOT 34. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992. Wagenaar, Jan. Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005. _______. “Passover and the First Day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread in the Priestly Festival Calendar.” VT 54 (2004): 250–68. _______. “Post-Exilic Calendar Innovations: The First Month of the Year and the Date of Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread.” ZAW 115 (2003): 3–24. _______. “The Priestly Festival Calendar and the Babylonian New Years Festivals: Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Year.” Pages 218– 52 in The Old Testament in Its World. Edited by R. P. Gordon and J. C. de Moor. OtSt 52. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006. Watts, James W. “The Rhetoric of Ritual Instruction.” Pages 79–100 in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Scholars Press Reprints and Translations Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Weinfeld, Moshe. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. _______. “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background.” Pages 95–129 in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Session A: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983. _______. “Traces of Hittite Cult in Shilo, Bethel and in Jerusalem.” Pages 455–72 in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrian und dem Alten Testament. Edited by B. Janowski et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Wenham, Gordon. The Book of Leviticus. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979. _______. Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically. Studies in Theological Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012.

Bibliography

257

Werner, Peter. Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nordysrien und Südostkleinasien vom Neolithikum bis in das I. Jt. V. Chr. Munich: Profil, 1994. Wessely, Naphtali H. Netivot Ha-Shalom, vol. 3: Leviticus. Edited by M. Mendelssohn. Vienna: von Schmid and Busch, 1846. Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem: The Emar Tablets. CM 13. Groningen: Styx, 2000. Weyde, Karl W. The Appointed Festivals of Yhwh: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the Sukkot Festival in Other Biblical Texts. FAT 2/4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Wilson, Robert R. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Wright, David P. Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Wyatt, N. Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues. The Biblical Seminar 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Yamada, Masamichi. “Division of a Field and Ninurta’s Seal: An Aspect of the Hittite Administration in Emar.” UF 25 (1993): 453–60. Zadok, Ran. “Notes on the West Semitic Material from Emar.” AION 51 (1991): 113–37. Zohary, Michael A. Plants of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Zimmerli, Walther. “Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede des Ezekiel: Ein Beitrag zum Problem an Hand von Ex. 14: 1–11.” ZAW 66 (1954): 1–26.

Index of Authors Adams, R. McC.  68, 70 Adamthwaite, M. R.  144 Albright, W. F.  4 Alexander, T. D.  1 Amit, Y.  15, 89, 90 Arnaud, D.  142, 143, 144, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 175, 189, 200, 206, 213 Astour, M. C.  147 Averbeck, R. E.  9, 10, 218, 242 Bar-On, S.  58, 82 Beckman, G.  141, 142 Beckwith, R. T.  105, 106, 107 Beitzel, B. J.  141 Bell, C.  14, 15 Belmonte, J. A.  164 Beyer, D.  186 Bidmead, J.  34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 72, 74, 217 Blenkinsopp, J.  17, 18 Blum, E.  58 Brereton, J. P.  121 Bunnens, G.  205

Durand, J.-M.  161, 184, 186 Durkheim, É.  14, 17 Eliade, M.  16, 17, 121 Elias, N.  108 Elliger, K.  65, 66, 87, 91, 94, 136 Falk, Z.  5 Farber, W.  36 Feder, Y.  2 Feliu, L.  199 Finesinger, S. B.  136 Finkbeiner, U.  142, 144, 201, 203, 217 Fischer, L. R.  31 Fleming, D. E.  22, 86, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 177, 178, 181, 182, 184, 186, 188, 196, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 212 Gallagher, J.  146 George, A.  38 George, M. K.  16, 17 Gerstenberger, E. S.  41, 83, 114, 132 Geyer, B.  142 Gilders, W. K.  76 Ginsberg, H. L.  51, 89, 115 Gorman, F. H.  17, 131 Goudoever, J. van  84 Greenberg, M.  85, 88, 127, 133 Greenspahn, F.  6, 7 Grimes, R. L.  14, 15, 16, 101, 134, 135, 214 Gruenwald, I.  15 Guichard, M.  184 Güterbock, H. G.  29

Çagirgan, G.  34, 38 Cantrell, D. O.  173 Charpin, D.  28 Childs, B. S.  41 Cholewiński, A.  94, 96, 97 Clines, D.  55 Cohen, M. E.  21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 34, 36, 68, 111, 163, 182, 198, 199 Cohen, Y.  143, 144, 145, 151, 201 Cohn, R. L.  16, 125 Cross, F.  4 Dahl, G.  56 D’Alfonso, L.  144 Dalman, G.  55, 56, 57 Delitzsch, F.  2 Dietrich, M.  201, 206, 207

Haas, V.  29, 136 Halbe, J.  57, 58 Hallo, W. W.  3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 72, 77, 141, 214, 242, 243 258

Index of Authors Hartley, J. E.  41, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 94, 95, 96, 114, 218, 219 Hayes, E.  76 Hess, R. S.  41, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 96, 114, 115, 116, 117, 127, 128, 133, 151, 159, 166, 167, 169, 183, 188, 190, 202, 214, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 234, 235, 242 Hieke, T.  76 Hiller, D. R.  4 Hjort, A.  56 Hoffner, H. A.  29, 159 Huehnergard, J.  157, 161, 219 Ikeda, J.  176 James, E. O.  38 Jenson, P. P.  16, 73, 80, 81, 101, 108, 109, 116, 118, 121, 129, 130, 131 Jephcott, E.  108 Johnston, P. S.  190 Joosten, J.  41 Joüon, P.  91, 219 Kaufmann, Y.  4 Kellerman, G.  29 Kitchen, K.  7 Klingbeil, G.  3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 89, 90, 101, 121, 125, 126, 131, 186, 207, 208, 214, 218, 242 Klostermann, A.  45, 46, 49 Knohl, I.  47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, 63, 64, 66, 89, 115, 216 Koch, K.  91, 94 Körting, C.  63, 66 Košak, S.  29 Kramer, S. N.  22, 23 Kroeze, J. H.  91 Kuenen, A.  86, 87 Kutsch, E.  55, 56, 58, 65 Labat, R.  159, 164, 204 Lambert, W. G.  38 Langdon, S. H.  23, 27 Leemans, W. F.  143 Lefebvre, H.  16 Lemche, N. P.  3

259

Levenson, J. D.  107 Levine, B.  13, 32, 82, 91 Liverani, M.  10 Loewenstamm, S. E.  11 Long, V. P.  15, 89, 90 Longacre, R. E.  90 Longman, T., III  9 Malul, M.  3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 77, 214, 215, 238, 239 Margueron, J.-C.  141, 142, 143, 144, 151, 172 Mayer, W.  163, 197 McLaughlin, J. L.  190, 207 Merwe, C. H. J. van der  91 Milgrom, J.  22, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, 63, 64, 66, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 96, 97, 99, 100, 107, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 136, 137, 216, 223, 235, 238 Millard, A. R.  11, 12, 242 Miller, P. D., Jr.  33 Monson, J. M.  11 Moor, J. C. de  30, 31, 32, 33, 56 Morgan, D. F.  97 Muraoka, T.  91 Naudé, J. A.  91 Niccacci, A.  15 Noth, M.  45, 46, 47, 48, 94, 114, 216 O’Connor, M.  81, 86, 91 Oppenheim, A. L.  68 Otto, R.  58 Paran, M.  52 Pardee, D.  30, 31, 32 Parkin, D.  14 Pentiuc, E. J.  153, 161, 163, 167, 184, 197, 203, 204 Pitard, W. T.  143, 200 Platvoet, J.  14, 15 Pope, M. H.  190, 207 Rad, G. von  45 Radner, E.  41 Ramban, Rabbi Moses ben Nachman  136 Rashbam, Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir  136

260

Index of Authors

Rendtorff, R.  41, 91, 94, 95 Reventlow, H.  96, 97 Rochberg-Halton, F.  111 Rofé, A.  87 Rooker, M. F.  41, 80, 81, 88

Turner, V. W.  16, 121

Sachs, A. J.  34 Sandmel, S.  3, 4 Sarna, N. M.  83 Schechner, R.  14 Schmitt, H. C.  58 Schwartz, B. J.  52 Scott, W. R.  86, 87, 89 Seminara, S.  154, 155, 161 Sharlach, T. M.  27 Sigrist, M.  142 Soden, W. von  38 Soggin, J. A.  5, 238 Sparks, K.  3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 72, 77, 95, 100, 137, 178, 209, 214, 217, 218 Spinoza, B.  42, 43 Sproul, B. C.  15, 101 Stackert, J.  1 Stern, S.  108 Stewart, D. T.  29

Wagenaar, J.  1, 2, 18, 19, 20, 27, 34, 35, 41, 42, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 97, 107, 161, 177, 178, 181, 182, 215, 216, 217, 218, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 234, 240, 241, 242 Waltke, B. K.  81, 86, 91 Walton, J. H.  10 Watts, J. W.  41, 91, 94, 95 Weinfeld, M.  29 Wellhausen, J.  42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 54, 56, 63, 89, 216, 225 Wenham, G.  41, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 96, 113, 114, 117, 127 Werner, P.  145 Wessely, N. H.  136 Westenholz, J. G.  154, 155, 167 Weyde, K.  133, 134 Wilson, R.  7 Wyatt, N.  30, 33

Talmon, S.  6, 9, 10, 11, 218 Thompson, T. L.  3 Thureau-Dangin, F.  34, 35, 36, 37, 38 Tolkovsky, S.  87 Toorn, K. van der  3, 35, 37, 38, 39, 67, 73, 74, 75, 190, 207

Van Seters, J.  3, 56, 57 Verderame, L.  24 Viberg, A.  7

Zadok, R.  163, 165, 197 Zohary, M. A.  88

Index of Scripture Genesis 1:5  106 1:8  106 1:13  106 1:14  96, 106, 112, 116 1:16  106 1:18  106 1:19  106 1:23  106 1:31  106 2:2–3  81 6:5–9:17  59, 60 8:22  106 12  59 17:23  221 17:26  221 18:14  116 19:34  106 21:2  116 28:18  17 30:14  96 31:45–54  17 35:14  17 41:40  106 Exodus 3:5  121, 124, 233 5:1  115 6:2–8  51 9:31–32  127 10:9  114, 115 12  58, 82, 115 12:1–13  59, 66, 67, 82 12:1–28  115 12:2  63 12:8–10  107 12:13  82 12:14  114 12:14–17  113 12:16  80, 116 12:17  113 12:17–20  51

Exodus (cont.) 12:18  105 12:22–28  82 12:23  82 12:27  82 12:37–13:20  86 12:40–51  115 12:43–50  51 13:3–10  115 13:6  82, 87, 114, 115 13:10  116 17:17  221 17:41  221 17:51  221 20:4  234 20:11  81 20:25  17 22:28  128 23  1, 19, 20, 41, 43, 47, 51, 54, 57, 58, 63, 113, 214, 215, 240 23:10–19  113 23:13  113 23:14–19  58 23:15  55, 56, 117 23:16  55, 56, 58, 113, 114, 229 23:19  128 24:4  17 24:7  74 25:8  125 25:9  125 29:14  119 29:26–27  117 29:28–32  61 29:36  119 29:38–42  61 29:38–46  51 29:40  118 29:41  118 29:46  125 31:12–17  51 261

Exodus (cont.) 31:15  114 31:17  81 32:5  114 34  1, 19, 41, 43, 54, 57, 58, 63, 113, 214, 215, 240 34:18  55, 56, 113, 117 34:18–26  58, 113 34:22  51, 55, 56, 58, 84, 112, 113, 114, 229 34:25  107 34:26  128 35:1–3  51 35:2  114 35:30  136 Leviticus 1–7  94 1:1  80 2:1  118 2:13  118 2:15  118 3  119 3:16–17  51 4:8  119 4:14  119 4:20  119 4:24  119 4:32  119 5:6  119 5:7  119 5:11  119 6:12–16  51 6:15  118 6:17  119 7:15  106, 107 7:20  52 7:20–27  116, 133 7:22–27  51 7:30–34  117 7:38  51

262 Leviticus (cont.) 8  18 8:14  119 8:29  117 8:35  51 9:2  119 9:3  119 9:8  119 9:15  119 9:17  51 9:21  117 10:10–11  51 10:14  117 10:16  119 11:24–25  106 11:27–28  106 11:31–32  106 11:39–40  106 11:43–45  51 12:6  119 12:8  51, 119 14:10  118 14:21  118 14:22  119 14:34–53  51 14:46  106 14:54–57  51 15:5–8  106 15:10–11  106 15:16–19  106 15:21–23  106 15:27  106 15:31  51 16  33, 34, 85 16:1  114 16:1–28  59 16:2  51 16:3  119 16:5  119 16:6  119 16:9  119 16:11  119 16:15  119 16:27  119 16:29  134 16:29–34  51 16:31  114, 134 17–27  50, 54, 97, 221 17:1–26:46  45 17:4  116, 133

Index of Scripture Leviticus (cont.) 17:9–14  116, 133 17:10  52 18:29  116, 133 19:3  52 19:5–8  53 19:8  116, 133 19:9  53 19:9–10  132, 133 19:24–25  128 20:3–6  116, 133 20:17–18  116, 133 22:3  116, 133 22:6  106 22:24  116, 133 22:30  107 23  1–3, 13, 16, 18–20, 28–29, 33–34, 41–42, 44, 47, 49–51, 53–55, 57–59, 61–65, 67–68, 70–80, 82–83, 86–87, 90–95, 97–104, 107–110, 112–13, 116–17, 120–32, 134–37, 139–41, 151, 153, 168, 171–72, 175, 177–78, 181–82, 193–95, 198, 204, 212, 214–43 23:1–4  99 23:2  116, 117, 219 23:2–3  62, 114 23:3  114, 115, 117 23:4  116, 117, 219 23:4–8  59, 67, 115 23:4–43  115 23:4–44  64 23:5  67, 220, 222 23:5–8  65, 66, 112 23:6  113, 128, 222 23:6–8  63, 231 23:7  117 23:8  53, 117, 128 23:9–22  65 23:10  52, 127, 128 23:10–11  132, 237 23:10–14  113, 230

Leviticus (cont.) 23:11  115, 118, 128, 132 23:12  118, 128, 222, 237 23:13  117, 119, 128, 129 23:14  129, 222 23:15  115, 118, 128, 222 23:15–16  225 23:15–22  113, 231 23:16  115, 119, 128, 129 23:17  52, 118, 128, 129 23:18  117–19, 128–29 23:19  119, 128, 129, 237 23:20  118, 128, 129, 132, 236, 237 23:21  117, 222 23:22  75, 127, 133 23:23–28  59, 65, 66, 67 23:24  117, 127, 220 23:24–25  116 23:25  117, 128 23:26–32  63, 117, 230 23:27  59, 117, 128, 220, 222 23:27–32  85 23:28  222 23:29  133, 222 23:30  133, 222 23:32  105, 115, 222 23:33–36  65, 66, 114, 230 23:33–37  59, 67 23:34  127, 220 23:34–36  228 23:35  117, 222 23:36  112, 117, 128, 222, 237 23:37  116, 117, 118, 119, 128 23:39  127, 220, 222 23:39–43  65, 115, 228, 230 23:40  127, 222 23:42  127, 222 23:43  127 23:44  116 24:15  53 25  115 25:4  114 25:9  116 25:23  85, 127

Index of Scripture Numbers 1:6  136 1:48–5:10  51 3:11–13  51 3:40–51  51 5:1–3  51 5:3  125 5:15  118 6:11  119 6:14  119 6:15  118 6:17  118 6:20  117 6:22–10:28  51 7:16  119 7:22  119 7:28  119 7:34  119 7:40  119 7:46  119 7:52  119 7:58  119 7:64  119 7:70  119 7:76  119 7:82  119 7:87  119 8:1–19  51 8:8  119 8:12  119 9  115 9:2  116 9:3  116 9:7  116 9:9–14  51, 115 9:10  115 9:13  116 9:14  115 10  136 10:2  80, 136 10:5–6  116 10:10  51, 136 14:14  106 15  51, 204 15:1–16  129 15:3  116 15:4  118 15:4–5  118 15:5  118 15:6  118

Numbers (cont.) 15:7  118 15:9  118 15:10  118 15:24  118, 119 15:27  119 17–18  51 18:18  117 19  106 19:10–13  51 19:38  119 23:19  117 28  44, 63, 82, 113, 119, 128 28–29  1–2, 19–20, 41, 44, 49–51, 53–54, 61–64, 73, 80, 82, 116–17, 214–15, 218, 240, 242–43 28:2  51, 117 28:3–8  61 28:5  118 28:6  117 28:7  118 28:8  117, 118 28:9  118 28:9–10  62 28:11  118 28:11–15  63 28:12  118 28:13  83, 117, 118 28:14  118 28:15  119 28:16  81, 115, 118, 119 28:16–25  115 28:16–29:40  113 28:17–19  63 28:18  117 28:18–19  119 28:18–25  53 28:19–24  63, 128 28:20  118, 119 28:22  118, 119 28:23  118 28:24  117, 118, 119 28:25  63, 117, 118 28:26  61, 117, 119 28:26–31  113, 230 28:27  118 28:27–28  119

263 Numbers (cont.) 28:28  118, 119 28:31  118, 119 28:34  118 28:36  118 28:38  118 28:39  118 29  86, 113 29:1  117 29:1–2  116 29:1–6  116 29:2  118 29:3  118, 119 29:5  119 29:6  117, 118, 119 29:7  117 29:7–11  117, 230 29:9  118, 119 29:11  118, 119 29:12  114, 117 29:12–34  114 29:14  118, 119 29:16  118, 119 29:16–23  115 29:18  118 29:18–19  119 29:19  118, 119 29:21  118 29:21–22  119 29:22  118, 119 29:24  118 29:24–25  119 29:25  118, 119 29:27  118 29:27–28  119 29:28  118, 119 29:30  118 29:30–31  119 29:31  118, 119 29:33  118 29:33–34  119 29:34  118, 119 29:36  117 29:37  118 29:37–39  119 29:38  118, 119 29:39  51, 117, 118, 119 30:13  134 31:6  116 33:50–56  51

264

Index of Scripture

Numbers (cont.) 35:1–36:13  51 35:34  125

Ruth 1:22  127 2:23  127

1 Chronicles 9:33  106 15:28  116

Deuteronomy 1:33  106 12:29  125 16  1, 19, 20, 41, 47, 54, 56, 58, 82, 214, 215, 240 16:1  56, 58 16:1–2  56, 115 16:1–7  115 16:1–17  59, 113 16:3–4  56, 58 16:4  107 16:5–7  56 16:7  59 16:8  56, 58, 87, 114 16:9–10  55, 58, 65 16:9–11  56 16:9–12  118 16:10  84 16:13  55, 89 16:13–15  56, 87, 114, 155 16:16  113 16:16–17  58 23:11  106 24:19  127 26:1–4  60 26:1–11  118, 128 31–34  45 31:10–11  114 31:11  74

1 Samuel 1  44 1:13  31 4:5  116 9:13  136 9:24  116 13:8  116 19:11  105, 107 20:24–27  63 25:16  106 28:8  107 28:19  107

2 Chronicles 7:9  45 7:9–10  86 8:12–13  82 8:13  113, 114 13:12  116 15:14  116 29:21  119 29:23  119 30:2  115 30:5  115 30:13  82, 113, 115 30:15  115 30:21  113 31:35  127 35:3  69 35:17  82, 113 35:17–18  115

Joshua 3:15  96 4:5  17 6:5  116 6:20  116 8:35  74 24:26  17 Judges 9:27  44 15:1  96 19:9  107 21:9  114 21:19  44

2 Samuel 6:12–19  69 6:15  116 6:19  69 11:1  112 19  70 20:5  80, 116 21:9  96 21:10  106 24:15  116 1 Kings 6–8  69 8  87 8:1–9  69 8:1–19  69 8:15–16  69 8:29  106 8:59  106 8:65  69 8:66  45, 86 9:25  69 18:21  82 2 Kings 8:6  127 10:20  136 10:21–22  114 16:13  118, 129 16:15  61, 118, 129

Ezra 3:5  116 3:11–13  116 6:2  113 6:17  119 6:20–22  115 6:22  82 7:17  118 8:35  119 Nehemiah 1:6  106 4:9  106 8  74, 114, 136 8:3  74 8:8  74, 80 8:15  88 8:16  87 8:18  74 9:3  74 9:12  106 10:33  116 13:1  74 13:5  118 13:9  118 13:19  105

Index of Scripture Esther 4:16  106 9:27  116 Job 8:21  116 33:26  116 39:25  116 Psalms 16:4  118 22:2  106 27:6  116 33:3  116 35:13  134 42:3  106 42:8  106 47:6  116 55:10  106 55:17–18  106 74:8  116 74:16  106 78:14  106 81:4  136 88:1  106 89:16  116 91:5  106 102:13  116 104:19  112 118  88 129:7  127 136:7–9  106 150:5  116 Proverbs 3:9–10  128 Isaiah 1:8  43 1:13  80, 136 4:5  80 17:5  127 27:3  106 28:19  106 31:5  82 34:10  106 38:12  106 57:6  118 58:3  134 60:11  106

Isaiah (cont.) 62:6  106 Jeremiah 7:18  118 9:1  106, 114 11:16  87 14:17  106 16:5  190, 207 16:13  106 19:13  118 20:16  116 31:35  106 32:29  118 33:20  106 33:25  106 36:30  106 44:17–19  118 44:25  118 46:17  116 52:19  118 Lamentations 1:15 116, 136 2:18  106 Ezekiel 6:13  88 21:22  116 43:19  119 43:21  119 43:22  119 43:25  119 44:24  116 44:30  128 45  1, 19, 20, 41, 47, 54, 58, 59, 67, 71, 72, 73, 75, 214, 215, 240 45–46  63 45:17  118, 119 45:17–46:15  63 45:18–20  67 45:18–25  67, 68, 113 45:19  119 45:20  112 45:21  82, 115 45:22  119 45:23  118, 119

265 Ezekiel (cont.) 45:23–24  63 45:24  118 45:24–25  119 45:25  118, 119 46  62 46:5  118 46:6  63 46:6–7  63 46:7  118 46:11  118 46:13–15  61 46:14  118 47:17  116 Daniel 8:14  8:19  10:12  11:27  11:29  11:35 

106 116 134 116 116 116

Hosea 2  44 9  44 9:5  114 14:7  87 Joel 1:9  1:13  1:14  2:14 

118 118 136 118

Amos 1:14  116 2:2  116 6:7  190, 207 Habakkuk 2:3  116 Zephaniah 1:16  116 Zechariah 14:16–19  114 14:17  32

266

Index of Scripture

Deuterocanonical Books Judith 6:21–7:1  105

2 Maccabees 8:25  105

Sirach 43:6–7  112

New Testament Matthew 12:1  129

Luke 23:54  105

Mark 2:23  129

John 19:31  105 19:42  105

Acts 2:1  84

Index of Other Ancient Sources Cuneiform Sources A

125 27 126 27

AO 5501 21 ARM 3 72  28, 189 n. 203 ARMT 19 311  27 19 324  27 21 34:3  161 n. 107 BLMJ 1137:10  167 n. 156 1137:11  154 n. 60 1137:12–14  155 n. 70 BM 121206 27 DP 44  24, 25, 69 DT 15 35–36 109 35–36 114 35–36 Emar 42 143 45 143 52 143 109:20  157 n. 82 156:8  157 n. 82 156:10  205 n. 241 180:12  205 n. 241 201  147 n. 23

Emar (cont.) 202  147 n. 23 268  146 n. 19 274:6  157 n. 82 275:1–4 205 364 212 369  18, 143 n. 8, 145 n. 17, 146, 147, 150 n. 28, 171, 194, 202, 206, 207, 211, 216 369:12  145 n. 16 369:13 206 369:31–36  163 n. 125 369:53 206 369:53–54 206 370  145 n. 17, 146, 208 n. 247, 216 370:30  207, 208 n. 247 370:45–68 206 370:55  207 n. 247 371  145 n. 17, 208 371:16 206 373  143 n. 8, 146, 181 n. 189, 193–194, 211, 212, 216 373:9  153 n. 48, n. 49 373:13  153 n. 48 373:38  153 n. 48 373:38–44 212 373:39  153 n. 48 373:186–187 212 374  146, 216 375  181 n. 189, 183, 186, 193–194, 210, 211, 212, 230 375:1–25  187 n. 201 375:3 212 375:4 212 375:35 205 267

Emar (cont.) 376  146, 216 385  145 n. 17, 147, 150 n. 28 386 147 387  145 n. 17 388  145 n. 17 392  150 n. 28 394 147 395  146, 216 452:34–35 196 446  2, 3, 13, 18, 19, 20, 28, 41, 78, 79, 83 n. 11, n. 12, 84 n. 13, 101, 102, 114, 120, 127, 140, 141, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 168, 171, 173, 174, 176 n. 179, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 190, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243 446:1 170 446:1–40 186 446:2  151 n. 35, 220, 222 446:2–5 170 446:2–7  171 n. 167 446:2–10  171 n. 167 446:2–57 170

268 Emar (cont.) 446:3  171, 198 446:6  153 n. 49, 198, 222, 234 446:6–7  170, 171 n. 167 446:7  172, 192 446:8 228 446:8–10  170, 171 n. 167 446:9 198 446:11  153 n. 52, 172, 222 446:11–18 237 446:11–18a 170 446:11–21 230 446:12  172 n. 171 446:14  198, 237 446:15  153 n. 55 446:17  151 n. 39, 153 n. 51, 198 446:18  153 n. 52, 172, 192, 198 446:18b–22a  170, 222 446:19  172 n. 171 446:20 198 446:21  172, 175, 192, 198, 231, 236 446:22  153 n. 52, 198, 230, 234 446:22b 222 446:22–40 230 446:22b–44  170, 171 n. 167 446:23  172, n. 171, 192 446:23–35 236 446:24  150 n. 28, 198 446:26  148, 199, 237 446:26–28 236 446:27 199 446:28  148, 237 446:29  166 n. 150, 172, 192, 237 446:31 198 446:33 199 446:34  166 n. 150, 199, 237 446:36 205 446:37  172, 187, 192, 199, 237

Index of Other Ancient Sources Emar (cont.) 446:37–38  195 n. 215, 204 446:38  199, 236, 237 446:39  148, 237 446:40  151 n. 39, 153 n. 51 446:41 198 446:41–57 186 446:42 199 446:43  153 n. 55 446:44  148, 172 n. 173, 199, 236, 237 446:45  222, 228 446:45–46  173, 224 446:45–47a 170 446:45–53 180 446:46 198 446:47  177, 226 446:47b 222 446:47b–53a 170 446:47–57 231 446:48 198 446:49 198 446:50 198 446:51 148 446:51–53  232, 236 446:52  151 n. 38, 199 446:53  149, 237 44653b 222 446:53b–57 170 446:53–54 180 446:54–55 187 446:54–57  223, 232 446:57  150 n. 28 446:58  151 n. 35, 170, 171, 198, 220, 223 446:58–76  170, 187 446:59  150 n. 28, 223 446:59–63 232 446:59–66 170 446:60  175, 198, 231, 236 446:60–61 173–174, 195 n. 215, 223 446:61  172, 192, 206 446:62 199 446:63 199 446:64 237 446:64–65  149, 236

Emar (cont.) 446:65 237 446:66  198, 234 446:67 223 446:67–74 170 446:71 198 446:71–74  163 n. 125 446:72 198 446:73 198 446:77  157 n. 82, 169, 171, 198 446:77–78 232 446:77–82  168, 170, 188 446:78  175, 198, 206, 231, 236, 237 446:78–80  163 n. 125 446:79 198 446:80 198 446:81 199 446:82  149, 236, 237 446:83 169 446:83–85  168, 170, 174–175, 189, 223, 232 446:83–84a 170 446:84  151 n. 35, 157 n. 82, 171, 220, 223 446:84b–85 170 446:86  150 n. 28, 166, 170, 171, 223 446:86–91 232 446:86–94 231 446:86–95  168, 170, 171, 189 446:87  151 n. 35, 172, 220, 223 446:87–90 170 446:88  153 n. 55, 198 446:90 176 446:91  176, 198, 223 446:91–95 170 446:92  151 n. 39 446:93 199 446:94 198 446:95  149, 236, 237 446:96  151 n. 35, 166, 220, 223 446:96–99 170 446:96–100 180

Index of Other Ancient Sources Emar (cont.) 446:96–117 168 446:96–119  170, 231 446:97 171 446:98  180, 198, 226 446:99  151 n. 39, 199 446:100  166 n. 149, 180, 198, 223, 232 446:100–102a 170 446:101  151 n. 39, 153 n. 55 446:102  149, 150 n. 28, 199, 236, 237 446:102b 223 446:102–105 236 446:102b–107a 170 446:103  153 n. 55 446:104  166 n. 149, 198 446:104–105 232 446:105  169 n. 164, 198, 206. 236, 237 446:106  153 n. 52, 198 446:107  150 n. 28 446:107b 223 446:107b–117 170 446:108 198 446:111 208 446:112  166 n. 149 446:114 206 446:115 199 446:115–116 236 446:116  166 n. 149, 149, 237 446:117  199, 234, 237 446:109–19  167 n. 159 446:117 208 446:118 223

Emar (cont.) 446:118–119 170 446:119  151 n. 39, 172, 192, 198, 206 452 202 454 212 455 212 463:4–10  167 n. 155 467:5 189 ITT 5280  21, 24, 69 6756 27 KAR 146 23 146 rev. 1–2  23 KTU 1.14 ii:20–32  33 n. 40 1.21–22  190, 207 1.41  31, 32 n. 38, 33, 228 n. 36 1.41:38b–41 31, 183–184 1.41:38b–48a 32 1.41:47 184 1.41:47–48  32, 184 1.87  31, 32 n. 38, 33 1.105:15–18 31 1.119  30, 69, 227 n. 29 KUB 28:88 ii 17–18  159 n. 98 39:14 i 12–16  159 n. 98

269 MVN 8 221  26 15 146  21 OAkk  207 OBT Tell Rimah 110  25, 28 RE 34:14–15 205 RS 1.056 31 1.003 31 1.003:50–51 32 24.249 31 24.266 30 RMA 16:5  109 n. 84 TCL 2 21 Tello 29 27 UET 3 186  26 3 193  26 3 1504  26 YBC 16828 26

MNB 1848 35–36

Talmudic and Other Jewish Sources Babylonian Talmud b. Roš Haš. 16a 88 n. 36, 137 n. 116 b. Šabb. 34b  81 n. 5 b. Sukkah 32a  127 n. i 32b  88 n. 36

Josephus Jewish Antiquities (Ant.) 3.10.5 107 3.250–51  83 n.  11, 127 n. b 13.372  87 n. 36 16.6.2  105 n. 74

Jewish War (J.W.) 4.9.12  105 n. 74 Life 32  105 n. 74 Mishnah m. Peʾah 4:10  127 n. e m. Roš Haš. 3:1  105

270 Mishnah (cont.) m. Sukkah   4:5  88 n. 36   39  88 n. 36 m. Taʿan. 1:1–3:3 136

Index of Other Ancient Sources Sipra Emor 16:6  88 n. 36 Talmud Yerushalmi y. Šabb. 1.2  129 n. e y. Sukkah 3.5  87 n. 36

Tosepta t. Sukkah   3:3  88 n. 36   3:18  88 n. 36

Index of Festivals Named Emarite Festivals and Rites Bugarātu  165, 170, 171, 177, 179, 183, 184, 189, 189 n. 205, 231, 232 Diviner’s seed ceremony  148, 149, 170, 197, 222, 238 Festival of dBaʿal  179, 183, 184 Festival to dDagan 226 Ḫiyaru  169, 170, 179, 183, 184, 191, 223 Kissu  146, 146 n. 20, 147, 188, 188 n. 203, 201, 216 Kubādu  32 n. 37, 170, 177, 179, 180, 183, 191, 199

Mašʾartu  146, 164 n. 139, 189, 216 NIN.DINGIR  146, 147, 167 n. 159, 171, 201, 202, 206, 216 Nubāttu 177 Renewal of dDagan  149, 150, 167, 170, 177, 179, 180, 182, 183, 200, 223, 231, 232 Zukru  104 n. e, 114, 146, 146 n. 20, 181 n. 189, 183, 183 n. 195, 186, 187 n. 201, 193, 194, 205, 211, 212, 213

Other Ancient Near Eastern Festivals and Rites Ab/pum 23 apu  23 Akītu  1–3, 16 n. 55, 18, 20–21, 23–27, 34–40, 68, 70–75, 77–79, 109 n. 84, 212, 215–18, 229 n. 39 á - k i - t i - še- k i n- k u5 26 á - k i - t i- š u - n u m u n  24, 26, 69 n. 138 Dabḥu  31, 32 d Dagan  24, 145 n. 47, 147, 150, 153, 153 n. 49, 161, 163, 165, 167, 170, 171 n. 167, 177, 180, 182–83, 186–88, 191, 194, 199–200, 203, 208, 211, 223, 228, 232, 235 Dīrītu  23, 25 Elūnu 25 EZEN AN.TAḪ.ŠUMSAR 29 EZEN-du k u  23, 25, 188 n. 203 EZEN-ki n-dIna n n a  24 EZEN KI.LAM  29 EZEN-dL i9-si4 25 EZEN-ma ḫ-dNi n - é - g al  24 EZEN-ne-IZI-gar  22, 25, 190 n. 211 EZEN-dNi n- a -z u  23

271

EZEN nuntarriyašḫaš 29 EZEN purulliyaš 29 EZEN-dŠ h u l-g i 24 Festival of Malt and Barley  21 n. 2, 25, 29 n. 138 gusisu  20, 20 n. 7 Ḫubur 23 ibʿlt 25 d IGI.KUR 23 Kinūnu (Brazier Festival)  23, 25, 26, 28, 188 n. 203, 204 kispum 23 nabrû  25, 26, 27, 28 Nisannu  36 n. 45, 109 n. 84 Purulli  29 n. 26 reš yani (also riš yn)  21, 24, 25, 31, 32, 32 n. 9, 33, 33 n 40, 68 n. 138 riš argmn 31 šekinku 21 š e - k in - ku -rá  24, 25 šunumun  21, 21 n. 2 ṯaʿû  30, 31 z a g - m u  24, 25, 68 n. 138